Glendale City Council
June 14, 2022

EPA to adopt a 0.02 g/bhp-hr NOx engine exhaust emissions standard on a nationwide basis. If successful, this action will greatly assist the region in reaching ozone air quality standards. A natural gas engine has already been certified to the 0.02 g/bhp-hr California optional NOx exhaust emissions standard, and work is underway to develop, certify and commercialize additional engines of all sizes and fuel types at or near the 0.02 g/bhp-hr level. Air quality regulatory agencies have traditionally set policies and requirements that are performance-based, and thus technology- and fuel-neutral. This is a policy that the SCAQMD intends to continue.

All technologies and fuels should be able to compete on an equal footing to meet environmental needs.

This policy is consistent with the current priority on maximizing emission reductions utilizing zeroemission technologies in all applications that are shown to be cost-effective and feasible. In other applications, near-zero technologies remain essential to meet all attainment goals. In assessing these technologies for stationary sources, the SCAQMD will convene a workgroup to assess the in-basin lifecycle criteria pollutant emissions related to energy use from technologies and/or other applications such as efficiency improvements. This assessment, in part, will include future energy scenarios that are anticipated as more renewable resources are incorporated into the energy usage within the Basin. The assessments will consider emissions associated with energy time-of-use, impact of higher efficiencies, fuel switching, and future energy and regulatory markets. In addition, the assessments will consider lifecycle GHG emissions, potential toxic impacts or benefits, and utilize experts and materials from other government agencies and universities.

The SCAQMD staff believes that a combination of strong regulatory actions and incentives is the most effective means of achieving these emission reductions. In some cases, the incentive approach is the only way to address those sources currently without legal mandates to reduce emissions or not within SCAQMD authority. Other voluntary incentive programs, such as the Carl Moyer Program, provide a means to accelerate fleet turnover of outdated equipment to the cleanest commercially available equipment in a way that complements regulations. A majority of the on-road and off-road measures proposed are based on regulations combined with existing or expanded funding programs implemented by the SCAQMD or CARB. Developing, demonstrating, and deploying new technologies will require significant investments, public/private partnerships and regulatory actions.

The measures proposed in this section and further discussed in Appendices IV-A and IV-B are feasible steps that must commence in the near-term to hasten a broad transition to the technologies needed to attain federal air quality standards. Given the magnitude of needed emission reductions and the time remaining until attainment deadlines, it is important that progress and momentum to identify, and deploy needed technologies be accelerated.

Transitioning to cleaner transportation technologies will involve major costs, but also have significant public health and climate change benefits. Adopting a plan with sufficient measures to attain the ozone and PM2.5 air quality standards is not only required by federal law, but will also improve public health 4-9
770 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
and mitigate climate change. By transitioning to cleaner transportation technologies, NOx and PM2.5 emissions from transportation sources will be reduced, subsequently resulting in cleaner air quality, lower health risk across the region, and reductions in toxic risk and GHGs along goods-movement corridors.

Not meeting air quality standards would not only have negative public health consequences, but would also have adverse economic impacts on the region due to potential federal sanctions.

SCAQMD Proposed Stationary Source 8-Hour Ozone Measures The proposed stationary source ozone measures are designed to assist in the attainment of the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone standards (80 ppb and 75 ppb, respectively) via reductions in emissions from stationary sources of NOx and VOC. Since NOx and VOC are primary pollutants in forming ground-level ozone, the stationary source ozone measures are divided into stationary source measures for NOx and VOC. These measures target a number of source categories, including Energy and Climate Change Programs (ECC), Combustion Sources (CMB), Petroleum Operations and Fugitive VOC Emissions (FUG), Coatings and Solvents (CTS), Multiple Component Sources (MCS), Best Available Control Measures (BCM), and Compliance Flexibility Programs (FLX). Each control measure may rely on a number of control methods.

There are 15 stationary source ozone measures with the majority anticipated to be adopted in the next few years and implemented after 2016. Table 4-2 provides a list of the SCAQMD proposed ozone measures for stationary sources along with the anticipated adoption date, implementation period, and emission reductions. These control measures are further categorized by the type of the measures, for example, recognition of co-benefits or incentives. Some VOC measures recognize co-benefit VOC reductions from other NOx or PM2.5 measures. There are also limited, strategic VOC control measures proposed.

The “TBD” (to be determined) measures require further technical and feasibility evaluations to determine the emission reduction potential and thus, the attainment demonstration is not dependent on these measures. However, they are included in the AQMP as part of a comprehensive plan with all feasible measures. These measures will require further development after the approval of the Plan, but could be proposed for rule or program development at a later date. Emissions reductions achieved and quantified by these measures can be applied towards contingency requirements, make up for any shortfalls in reductions from other quantified measures, be credited towards rate-of-progress reporting, and/or be incorporated into future Plan revisions.
1-4-10
771 of 2287
Chapter 4: Control Strategy and Implementation
TABLE 4-2
SCAQMD Proposed Stationary Source 8-Hour Ozone Measures Number Title Adoption Implementation
Period
Implementing
Agency
Emission
Reductions
(tpd)
(2023/2031)
SCAQMD Stationary Source NOx Measures:

Stationary Source Regulatory Measures:

CMB-01 Transition to Zero and Near-Zero
Emission Technologies for Stationary
Sources [NOx, VOC]
N/A Ongoing SCAQMD 2.5 / 6
CMB-02 Emission Reductions from
Replacement with Zero or Near-Zero
NOx Appliances in Commercial and
Residential Applications [NOx]
2018 2020–2031 SCAQMD 1.1 / 2.8
CMB-03 Emission Reductions from NonRefinery Flares [NOx, VOC] 2018 2020 SCAQMD 1.4 / 1.5 CMB-04 Emission Reductions from
Restaurant Burners and Residential
Cooking [NOx]
2018 2022 SCAQMD 0.8 / 1.6
CMB-05 Further NOx Reductions from
RECLAIM Assessment [NOx]
2022 2025 SCAQMD 0 / 5 a
Recognition of Co-Benefits:

ECC-01 Co-Benefit Emission Reductions
from GHG Programs, Policies, and
Incentives [All Pollutants]
N/A Ongoing Various
Agencies
TBD b
ECC-02 Co-Benefits from Existing Residential
and Commercial Building Energy
Efficiency Measures [NOx, VOC]
N/A Ongoing SCAQMD 0.3 / 1.1
ECC-04 Reduced Ozone Formation and
Emission Reductions from Cool Roof
Technology [All Pollutants]
N/A Ongoing SCAQMD, CEC TBD b
4-11
772 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 4-2 (CONTINUED)
SCAQMD Proposed Stationary Source 8-Hour Ozone Measures Number Title Adoption Implementation
Period
Implementing
Agency
Emission
Reductions
(tpd)
(2023/2031)
SCAQMD Stationary Source NOx Measures (continued):

Incentive-Based Measure:

ECC-03 Additional Enhancements in
Reducing Existing Residential
Building Energy Use [NOx, VOC]
N/A Ongoing SCAQMD 1.2 / 2.1
Other Measures:

FLX-01 Improved Education and Public
Outreach [All Pollutants]
N/A Ongoing SCAQMD,
Other Parties
N/A c
MCS-01 Improved Breakdown Procedures
and Process Re-Design [All
Pollutants]
TBD TBD SCAQMD N/A c
MCS-02 Application of All Feasible Measures
[All Pollutants]
TBD TBD SCAQMD TBD b
SCAQMD Stationary Source VOC Measures:

Corresponding VOC Reductions from NOx and PM Measures:

ECC-02 Co-Benefits from Existing Residential
and Commercial Building Energy
Efficiency Measures [NOx, VOC]
N/A Ongoing SCAQMD 0.07 / 0.29 d
ECC-03 Additional Enhancements in
Reducing Existing Residential
Building Energy Use [NOx, VOC]
N/A Ongoing SCAQMD 0.2 / 0.3 d
CMB-01 Transition to Zero and Near-Zero
Emission Technologies for Stationary
Sources [NOx, VOC]
N/A Ongoing SCAQMD 1.2 / 2.8 d
CMB-03 Emission Reductions from NonRefinery Flares [NOx, VOC] 2018 2020 SCAQMD 0.4 / 0.4 d BCM-10 Emission Reductions from
Greenwaste Composting [VOC, NH3]
2019 2020 SCAQMD 1.5 / 1.8 d
1-4-12
773 of 2287
Chapter 4: Control Strategy and Implementation
TABLE 4-2 (CONCLUDED)
SCAQMD Proposed Stationary Source 8-Hour Ozone Measures Number Title Adoption Implementation
Period
Implementing
Agency
Emission
Reductions
(tpd)
(2023/2031)
SCAQMD Stationary Source VOC Measures (continued):

Limited, Strategic VOC Control:

FUG-01 Improved Leak Detection and Repair
[VOC]
2019 2022 SCAQMD 2 / 2
CTS-01 Further Emission Reductions from
Coatings, Solvents, Adhesives, and
Sealants [VOC]
2017/2021 2020–2031 SCAQMD 1 / 2
FLX-02 Stationary Source VOC Incentives
[VOC]
N/A Ongoing SCAQMD TBD b
a 5 tpd reduction by 2025
b TBD are reductions to be determined once the measure is further evaluated, the technical assessment is complete, and inventories and cost-effective control approaches are identified, and are not relied upon for attainment demonstration purposes c
N/A are reductions that cannot be quantified due to the nature of the measure (e.g., outreach) or if the measure is designed to ensure reductions that have been assumed to occur will in fact occur d Corresponding VOC reductions from other measures
The following provides a brief description of the proposed stationary source ozone measures. Detailed descriptions of the measures are provided in Appendix IV-A.

Stationary Source Regulatory Measures
There are five stationary source regulatory measures for NOx. The first measure is to reduce NOx emissions from traditional combustion sources, such as diesel back-up generators, by replacing older, high-emitting equipment with new, lower or zero-emitting equipment. The second measure seeks NOx emission reductions from unregulated commercial space heating furnaces and from regulations and incentives to replace existing older boilers, water heaters, and space heating furnaces and other natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) equipment with zero emitting or lower NOx technologies. The third measure seeks to reduce NOx and utilize excess gas from non-refinery flares, the fourth measure would seek reductions from commercial restaurant burners and residential cooking appliances, and the last measure would involve transitioning the RECLAIM program into a command and control regulatory structure.
4-13
774 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
CMB-01 – TRANSITION TO ZERO AND NEAR-ZERO EMISSION TECHNOLOGIES FOR STATIONARY SOURCES: This proposed control measure reduces emissions of NOx from traditional combustion sources through replacement of old equipment with zero and near-zero emission technologies including low NOx emitting equipment, electrification, battery storage, alternative process changes, efficiency measures, or fuel cells for CHP. Replacing older higher-emitting equipment with newer lower or zero-emitting equipment can apply to a single source or an entire facility. These sources include, but are not limited to, engines, turbines, microturbines, and boilers that generate power for electricity for distributed generation, facility power, process heating, and/or steam production. Another type of combustion source identified for equipment replacement includes ovens, kilns, and furnaces. New businesses can be required or incentivized to install and operate zero-emission equipment, control equipment, technology and processes beyond the current BACT requirements. Fuel cells are also an alternative to traditional combustion methods, resulting in a reduction of NOx emissions with the co-benefit of reducing other criteria air pollutants and GHGs. Incentives may be used towards alternative process changes, such as biogas cleanup. This would help modernize a facility towards zero and near-zero technologies.

This control measure would also seek energy storage systems and smart grid control technologies that provide a flexible and dispatchable resource with zero emissions. Grid based storage systems can replace the need for new peaking generation, be coupled with renewable energy generation, and reduce the need for additional energy infrastructure. Mechanisms will be explored to incentivize businesses to choose the cleanest technologies as they replace equipment and upgrade facilities, and to provide incentives to encourage businesses to move into these zero and near-zero emission technologies sooner.

Over the anticipated timeline of this Plan, as emerging technologies become more widely available and costs decline, the SCAQMD will undertake rulemaking to maximize emission reductions utilizing zero emission equipment where cost-effective and feasible and near-zero emission equipment in all other applications.

CMB-02 – EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM REPLACEMENT WITH ZERO OR NEAR-ZERO NOx APPLIANCES IN COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL APPLICATIONS: This control measure seeks annual average NOx emission reductions from unregulated commercial space heating furnaces through regulations and incentives that will replace existing older NOx appliances such as boilers, water heaters, and space heating furnaces and other natural gas or LPG equipment with zero emitting or lower NOx technologies. The measure calls for a priority on maximizing emission reductions utilizing zero-emission technologies in all applications that are shown to be cost-effective and feasible. In other applications, near-zero technologies will be incentivized to meet attainment goals. In assessing the cost-effectiveness of these technologies, full life-cycle in-Basin emissions related to energy and fuel production and transmission pathways will be considered, along with GHG emissions, toxic impacts, and anticipated future changes to the energy portfolio in the Basin. This control measure will apply to manufacturers, distributors, sellers, installers and purchasers of commercial and residential appliances and equipment. The control measure has two components. The first component is to continue to implement the Rule 1111 emission limit of NOx for residential space heaters which is 14 ng/J (20 ppm) starting in 2014. The second component is to incentivize the replacement of older boilers, water heaters and space heaters with newer and more efficient low NOx boilers, water heaters and space heaters, and/or “green technologies” such as solar heating or heat pumps. The SCAQMD will also consider potential future regulatory actions to support replacement of older space heating furnaces, water heaters and boilers with lower emissions and zero or near zero emission technologies. The new boilers and water heaters replaced through incentives would 1-4-14
775 of 2287
Chapter 4: Control Strategy and Implementation
comply with current SCAQMD rule emission limits and new space heaters would meet a specified emission limit. If required, the SCAQMD will consider amending Rules 1121 and 1111 to put in place a heat input based emission limit which will result in lower NOx emissions for high efficiency units compared with standard efficiency units. Because of the rules’ heat output based limits, high efficiency water heaters and furnaces emit the same amount of NOx per day as standard efficiency units. In addition, the SCAQMD will also consider developing a rule to limit NOx emissions from those commercial and residential heating furnaces which are currently unregulated.

CMB-03 – EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM NON-REFINERY FLARES: Flare NOx emissions are regulated through NSR and BACT, but there are currently no source-specific rules regulating NOx emissions from existing flares at non-refinery sources, such as organic liquid loading stations, tank farms, and oil and gas production, landfills and wastewater treatment facilities. This control measure proposes that, consistent with the all feasible control measures, all non-refinery flares meet current BACT for NOx emissions and thermal oxidation of VOCs. The preferred method of control would involve capturing the gas that would typically be flared and converting it into an energy source (e.g., transportation fuel, fuel cells, facility power generation). If gas recovery is not cost-effective or feasible, the installation of newer flares utilizing clean enclosed burner systems implementing BACT will be considered.

CMB-04 – EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM RESTAURANT BURNERS AND RESIDENTIAL COOKING: This control measure applies to retail restaurants and quick service establishments utilizing commercial cooking ovens, ranges and charbroilers by funding development of, promoting and incentivizing the use and installation of low-NOx burner technologies. In addition, the SCAQMD would consider developing a manufacturer based rule to establish emission limits for cooking appliances used by restaurants and residential applications. Finally, co-benefit reductions will be sought through existing or enhanced energy efficiency programs being implemented by other entities.

CMB-05 – FURTHER NOX REDUCTIONS FROM RECLAIM ASSESSMENT: The California Health and Safety Code requires the SCAQMD to implement Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) in the RECLAIM program as well as other stationary sources, and if BARCT advances, the SCAQMD is required to periodically re-assess the overall program caps, and reduce the RECLAIM Trading Credit (RTC) holdings to a level equivalent to command-and-control BARCT levels. The emission reductions resulting from the programmatic RTC reductions will help the Basin attain the NAAQS for ozone and PM2.5 as expeditiously as practicable. This control measure identifies a series of approaches, assessments, and analyses that can be explored to make the program more effective in ensuring equivalency with command and control regulations implementing BARCT, and to generate further NOx emission reductions at RECLAIM facilities.

This would be achieved in two ways: 1) the 5 tpd NOx emission reduction commitment as soon as feasible, and no later than 2025, and 2) a transition to a command and control regulatory structure requiring BARCT level controls as soon as practicable. As many of the program’s original advantages appear to be diminishing, an orderly sunset of the RECLAIM program may be the best way to maximize emissions reductions, create more regulatory certainty, and potentially reduce compliance burdens for RECLAIM facilities. A working group of stakeholders and experts will convene in the spring of 2017 to examine the future of the RECLAIM program and develop options and timing for the transition to a command-andcontrol regulatory structure. 4-15
776 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
Recognition of Co-Benefits
This category includes three proposed emission reduction measures that recognize emission reductions from energy and climate change related programs that consist of general GHG programs, existing residential and commercial building energy efficiency improvement, and cool roof technology.

ECC-01 – CO-BENEFIT EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM GHG PROGRAMS, POLICIES, AND INCENTIVES:

Combustion sources that emit GHGs are typically sources of criteria pollutants. Significant efforts are currently being planned and implemented to reduce GHG emissions under the State’s 2020, 2030 and 2050 targets. As these GHG reduction efforts continue across multiple sectors, the reductions of criteria pollutants should be considered along with any additional enhancements needed to achieve further criteria pollutant reductions under the GHG programs. Existing and further GHG emission reductions mechanisms, including market programs, renewable energy targets, incentive and rebate programs, and promoting implementation and development of new technologies, would be evaluated and refined to maximize criteria pollutant emission reductions.

ECC-02 – CO-BENEFITS FROM EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL BUILDING ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES: This control measure would seek to account for criteria pollutant co-benefits from the implementation of required energy efficiency mandates such as California’s Title 24 program and SB 350 (Clean Energy Pollution Reduction Act). The 2020 target for Title 24 will be to achieve zero net energy consumption from new residential buildings by utilizing new building materials and more efficient appliances. SB 350 doubles the additional achievable energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas energy uses in existing buildings and increases renewable energy sources as a share of a utility’s power sources from 33 to 50 percent by 2030. This control measure will take advantage of the co-benefit emission reductions from implementation of these state regulations.

ECC-04 – REDUCED OZONE FORMATION AND EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM COOL ROOF TECHNOLOGY:

Cool roofs reflect a higher fraction of incident sunlight than traditional roofing materials. Widespread adoption of cool roofs can mitigate the urban heat island effect and can lower daytime ambient temperatures, thus slowing the rate of ozone formation. In addition, buildings equipped with cool roofs require less electricity for cooling, leading to reductions in emissions from the power generation sector.

This control measure has the potential to reduce ambient ozone concentrations directly along with NOx, CO, PM, and CO2 emissions from the power generation sector. Evaporative VOC emissions will be reduced due to lower ambient temperatures in the urban areas of the Basin. However, ultra-violet solar energy can also be reflected, leading to increased ozone formation in the air column above the building.

Depending on the extent of this potential adverse impact, additional physical property requirements on cool roof materials may be necessary. Three possible aspects of cool roof technology, including solar reflectance, radiative properties, and roof replacements will be incorporated into a technical modeling analysis to quantify the impact of this control measure on air quality.

Incentive-Based Measure
The 2016 AQMP includes voluntary incentive measures that are part of the overall Plan to satisfy the CAA emission reduction requirements needed to achieve attainment of the federal ozone standards in 2023 and 2031. Prior AQMPs relied primarily on the adoption of rules to implement the measures provided in those AQMPs. Such regulations involve mandatory requirements and result in generally 1-4-16
777 of 2287
Chapter 4: Control Strategy and Implementation
straightforward and enforceable reductions. With the need for reliance on voluntary incentive measures in the near-term to achieve attainment of the federal air quality standards, the SCAQMD must design programs such that the emission reductions from these incentive measures are proven to be real, quantifiable, surplus, enforceable, and permanent in order for U.S. EPA to approve the emission reduction as part of the Plan.

There are key components required of a SIP submittal in order to rely on discretionary incentive programs to satisfy the CAA emission reduction requirements.

The components include a demonstration satisfying “integrity elements,” an enforceable commitment, technical support, funding, legal authority, public disclosure and provisions to track results in accordance with the U.S. EPA’s economic incentive programs (EIP) guidelines. 3 The following lists the necessary
elements that will be included in each of the incentive measures:
• Integrity Elements
• Commitment (Federal Enforceability)
• Technical Analyses
• Funding
• Resources
• Outreach and Public Disclosure
• Legal Authority
Details regarding each of these necessary elements can be found in Appendix IV-A.

This category includes one proposed incentive-based measure for additional enhancements in building energy use. This measure may exclusively rely on incentives to achieve NOx reductions from the corresponding emission sources.
3 References:
• “Guidance on Incorporating Voluntary Mobile Source Emission Reduction Programs in State Implementation Plans (SIPs),” October 24, 1997.
• “Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs,” January 2001. • “Guidance on SIP Credits for Emission Reductions from Electric-Sector Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Measures,” August 5, 2004.
• “Incorporating Emerging and Voluntary Measure in a State Implementation Plan (SIP),” October 4, 2004.
• “Guidance on Incorporating Bundled Measures in a State Implementation Plan,” August 16, 2005. • “Roadmap for Incorporating Energy Efficiency/Renewable Energy Policies and Programs into State and Tribal Implementation Plans,” July 2012.
• “Diesel Retrofits: Quantifying and Using Their Emission Benefits in SIPs and Conformity: Guidance for State and Local Air and Transportation Agencies,” February 2014. 4-17

778 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
ECC-03 – ADDITIONAL ENHANCEMENTS IN REDUCING EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ENERGY USE:

This control measure would seek to provide incentives to go beyond the goals within ECC-02 and CMB02. Incentive programs would be developed for existing residences that include weatherization, upgrading older appliances with highly efficient technologies and renewable energy sources to reduce energy use for water heating, lighting, cooking and other large residential energy sources. Incorporating newer, efficient appliance technologies, weatherization measures along with renewables such as solar thermal and solar photovoltaics can provide emission reductions within the residential sector above current SCAQMD and state regulations along with reduced energy costs. When implementing this measure the SCAQMD will collaborate with utilities, agencies, and other organizations to help leverage funding and coordinate incentives with similar existing programs. This measure will also track the requirements of the upcoming Title 24 Zero Net Energy for new residential energy building standards.

SCAQMD will begin to participate in this development process to advocate for criteria and GHG emission consideration in the new standards.

Other Measures
There are three proposed measures in this category. One measure seeks improved education and public outreach. The next measure proposes breakdown limitations to be consistent with federal requirements. The third measure involves implementation of all feasible measures for stationary sources consistent with State law.

FLX-01 – IMPROVED EDUCATION AND PUBLIC OUTREACH: This proposed control measure seeks to provide education, outreach, and incentives for consumers and businesses to contribute to clean air efforts. Examples include consumer choices such as the use of energy efficient products, new lighting technology, “super-compliant” coatings, tree planting, and the use of lighter colored roofing and paving materials, which reduce energy usage by lowering the ambient temperature. In addition, this proposed measure intends to increase the effectiveness of energy conservation programs through public education and awareness as to the environmental and economic benefits of conservation. Educational and incentive tools to be used include social comparison applications (comparing your personal environmental impacts with other individuals), social media, and public/private partnerships.

This control measure is a voluntary program that provides education and outreach to consumers, business owners, and residences regarding the benefits of making clean air choices in purchases, conducting efficiency upgrades, installing clean energy sources, and approaches to conservation. These efforts will be complemented with currently available incentive programs and developing additional incentive programs. Lastly, the SCAQMD staff may develop an EIP to offer technical and financial assistance to help implement efficiency measures and other low emission technologies.

MCS-01 – IMPROVED BREAKDOWN PROCEDURES AND PROCESS RE-DESIGN: SCAQMD Rule 430 applies to breakdowns that result in a violation of any rule or permit condition, with some exceptions. U.S. EPA’s May 2015 final action on startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions (SSM) stipulates that exemptions from emission limits during periods of breakdown are not allowed. This control measure would introduce breakdown limits and procedures and potential process re-designs that would apply to breakdowns from all emission sources, providing pollutant concentration or emission limits to comply with U.S. EPA’s SSM policy, as applicable.
1-4-18
779 of 2287
Chapter 4: Control Strategy and Implementation
MCS-02 – APPLICATION OF ALL FEASIBLE MEASURES: This control measure is to address the state law requirement for all feasible measures for ozone. Existing rules and regulations for pollutants such as VOC, NOx, SOx and PM reflect current BARCT. However, BARCT continually evolves as new technology becomes available that is feasible and cost-effective. The SCAQMD staff will continue to review new emission limits or controls introduced through federal, state or local regulations to determine if SCAQMD regulations remain equivalent or more stringent than rules in other regions. If not, a rulemaking process will be initiated to perform a BARCT analysis with potential rule amendments if deemed feasible. In addition, the SCAQMD will consider adopting and implementing new retrofit technology control standards, based on research and development and other information, that are feasible and costeffective.

Corresponding VOC Reductions from NOx and PM Measures
The following four measures recognize corresponding VOC reductions from other measures designed to achieve NOx and NH3 reductions.

ECC-02 – CO-BENEFITS FROM EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL BUILDING ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES: This control measure would seek to account for criteria pollutant co-benefits from the implementation of required energy efficiency mandates such as California’s Title 24 program and SB 350 (Clean Energy Pollution Reduction Act). The 2020 target for Title 24 will be to achieve Zero Net Energy from new residential buildings utilizing new building materials and more efficient appliances. SB 350 doubles the additional achievable energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas energy uses in existing buildings and increases renewable energy sources as a share of a utility’s power sources from 33 to 50 percent by 2030. This control measure will take advantage of the co-benefit VOC emission reductions from implementation of these state regulations.

ECC-03 – ADDITIONAL ENHANCEMENTS IN REDUCING EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ENERGY USE:

This control measure would seek to provide incentives to go beyond the goals within ECC-02 and CMB02. Incentive programs would be developed for existing residences that include weatherization, upgrading older appliances with highly efficient technologies and renewable energy sources to reduce energy use for water heating, lighting, cooking and other large residential energy sources. Incorporating newer, efficient appliance technologies, weatherization measures along with renewables such as solar thermal and solar photovoltaics can provide emission reductions within the residential sector above current SCAQMD and state regulations along with reduced energy costs. The SCAQMD will participate in the Title 24 residential Zero Net Energy rulemaking to advocate for criteria pollutant and GHG emissions consideration.

CMB-01 – TRANSITION TO ZERO AND NEAR-ZERO EMISSION TECHNOLOGIES FOR STATIONARY SOURCES: This proposed control measure would seek corresponding VOC reductions from NOx-focused measures addressing traditional combustion sources by replacement with zero and near-zero emission technologies including low NOx emitting equipment, electrification, battery storage, alternative process changes, efficiency measures, or fuel cells for CHP. Replacing older higher-emitting equipment with newer lower or zero-emitting equipment can apply to a single source or an entire facility. These sources include, but are not limited to, engines, turbines, microturbines, and boilers that generate power for electricity for distributed generation, facility power, process heating, and/or steam production. Another type of combustion source identified for equipment replacement includes ovens, kilns, and furnaces. 4-19
780 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
New businesses can be required or incentivized to install and operate zero-emission equipment, control equipment, technology and processes beyond the current BACT requirements. Fuel cells are also an alternative to traditional combustion methods, resulting in a reduction of NOx emissions with the cobenefit of reducing VOCs and GHGs. Incentives may be used towards alternative process changes, such as biogas cleanup. This would help modernize a facility towards zero and near-zero technologies. This control measure would also seek energy storage systems and smart grid control technologies that provide a flexible and dispatchable resource with zero emissions. Grid based storage systems can replace the need for new peaking generation, be coupled with renewable energy generation, and reduce need for additional energy infrastructure. Mechanisms will be explored to incentivize businesses to choose the cleanest technologies as they replace equipment and upgrade facilities, and to provide incentives to encourage businesses to move into these zero and near-zero emission technologies sooner. Over the anticipated timeline of this Plan, as emerging technologies become more widely available and costs decline, the SCAQMD will undergo rulemaking to require zero emission equipment be installed where economically feasible, and require near-zero emissions levels in all other applications.

CMB-03 – EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM NON-REFINERY FLARES: Flare NOx emissions are regulated through NSR and BACT, but there are currently no source-specific rules regulating NOx emissions from existing flares at non-refinery sources, such as organic liquid loading stations, tank farms, and oil and gas production, landfills and wastewater treatment facilities. This control measure proposes that, consistent with the all feasible control measures, all non-refinery flares meet current BACT for NOx emissions and thermal oxidation of VOCs. The preferred method of control would involve capturing the gas that would typically be flared and converting it into an energy source (e.g., transportation fuel, fuel cells, facility power generation). If gas recovery is not cost-effective or feasible, the installation of newer flares utilizing clean enclosed burner systems implementing BACT will be considered.

BCM-10 – EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM GREENWASTE COMPOSTING: VOCs and ammonia, which are PM precursor gases, are emitted from composting of organic waste materials including greenwaste and foodwaste and are currently regulated by existing SCAQMD Rule 1133.3. Although Rule 1133.3 covers foodwaste composting, the level of emissions from foodwaste composting has not been fully characterized, mainly due to the lack of related emissions test data. This control measure proposes potential emission minimization through emerging organic waste processing technology and potential emission reductions through restrictions on the direct land application of chipped and ground uncomposted greenwaste and through increased diversion to anaerobic digestion. This proposed control measure includes a 15-day pathogen reduction process of chipped and ground uncomposted greenwaste with composting best management practices (BMPs) to reduce potential VOC and ammonia emissions from land applied greenwaste.

Limited, Strategic VOC Control
This category seeks limited, strategic VOC controls that contribute to controlling ozone levels in the Basin.

The first measure utilizes more advanced, fugitive VOC leak detection systems. The second measure targets limited reductions of VOC emissions from VOC-containing products such as coatings, solvents, adhesives, and lubricants, or utilization of alternative products/equipment. The last measure proposes to incentivize efficient clean equipment purchases, efficiency projects, and conservation techniques that lead to VOC and other emission reductions.
1-4-20
781 of 2287
Chapter 4: Control Strategy and Implementation
FUG-01 – IMPROVED LEAK DETECTION AND REPAIR: This control measure seeks to reduce emissions from a variety of VOC emission sources including, but not limited to, oil and gas production facilities, petroleum refining and chemical products processing, storage and transfer facilities, marine terminals, and other sources, where VOC emissions occur from fugitive leaks in piping components, wastewater system components, and process and storage equipment leaks. Most of these facilities are required under SCAQMD and federal rules to maintain a leak detection and repair (LDAR) program that involves individual screening of all of their piping components and periodic inspection programs of equipment to control and minimize VOC emissions. This measure would utilize advanced remote sensing techniques (Smart LDAR), such as Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), Ultraviolet Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy (UV-DOAS), Solar Occultation Flux (SOF), and infrared cameras, that can identify, quantify, and locate VOC leaks in real time allowing for faster repair in a manner that is less time consuming and labor intensive than traditional LDAR.

This control measure would pursue two goals. The first is to upgrade a series of SCAQMD’s inspection/maintenance rules (Rules 462, 1142, 1148.1, 463, 1178, 1173, and 1176) to require, at a minimum, a self-inspection program, or utilization of an optical gas imaging-assisted LDAR program where feasible. The second is to explore the use of new technologies to detect and verify VOC fugitive emissions in order to supplement existing programs, explore opportunities where Smart LDAR might substitute for existing LDAR programs, and achieve additional emission reductions. Both goals will be pursued in a public process allowing interested stakeholders to participate in pilot projects and the rule development process.

For new detection technology this control measure will be implemented in two phases: Phase I will be a pilot LDAR program to demonstrate feasibility with the new technology and to establish implementation protocols. The completion of Phase I will result in the identification of facilities/industries currently subject to LDAR programs and identification of those where the new technology is not yet ready to be utilized. Based on the results of Phase I, fugitive VOC rules will be amended as appropriate under the subsequent phase (Phase II) to enhance their applicability and effectiveness, and to further achieve emission reductions.

CTS-01 – FURTHER EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM COATINGS, SOLVENTS, ADHESIVES, AND SEALANTS:

This control measure seeks limited VOC emission reductions by focusing on select coating, adhesive, solvent and sealant categories by further limiting the allowable VOC content in formulations or incentivizing the use of super-compliant technologies. Examples of the categories to be considered include, but are not limited to, coatings used in aerospace applications, adhesives used in a variety of sealing applications, and solvents for graffiti abatement activities. Reductions could be achieved by lowering the VOC content of a few categories within SCAQMD source-specific Rules 1106, 1106.1, 1107,, 1124, 1128, 1136, 1143, 1168, and 1171 where possible, especially where the majority of products already meet lower limits. For Rule 1113, where annual quantity and emissions reporting is required under Rule 314, SIP credit for market-driven reductions could be pursued in categories where many coatings are already formulated below current VOC limits. For solvents, reductions could be achieved by promoting the use of alternative low-VOC products or non-VOC product/equipment at industrial facilities.

Particular VOC reductions that lead to the increased use of chemicals that are known or suspected to be toxic should be avoided until it can be demonstrated that these replacement products do not lead to 4-21
782 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
increased toxic risk for workers or the general public. The tightening of regulatory exemptions can also lead to reduced emissions across multiple use categories.

FLX-02 – STATIONARY SOURCE VOC INCENTIVES: This control measure seeks to incentivize VOC emission reductions from various stationary sources through incentive programs for the use of clean, low VOC emission technologies. Facilities would be able to qualify for incentive funding if they utilize equipment or accept permit conditions which result in cost-effective emission reductions that are beyond existing requirements. The program would establish procedures for quantifying emission benefits from clean technology implementation and develop cost-effectiveness thresholds for funding eligibility.

Mechanisms will be explored to incentivize businesses to choose the cleanest technologies as they replace equipment and upgrade facilities, and to provide incentives to encourage businesses to move into these technologies sooner. For stationary sources, the SCAQMD staff has compiled an initial list of potential incentives to encourage businesses to use zero- or near-zero technologies or enhancements to the SCAQMD’s existing programs to reduce or eliminate barriers to implement state of the art technologies.

Potential incentive concepts include incentive funding, permitting and fee incentives and enhancements, New Source Review (NSR) incentives and enhancements, branding incentives, and recordkeeping and reporting incentives. The SCAQMD staff is committed to further investigating these concepts.

SCAQMD Proposed Mobile Source 8-Hour Ozone Measures
SCAQMD staff analyzed the need to accelerate the penetration of cleaner engine technologies and assist in implementing CARB’s proposed State SIP strategy. Specifically, there are several measures under the proposed State SIP strategy that are titled “Further Deployment of Cleaner Technologies” (see Appendix IV-B), which identifies the SCAQMD as an implementing agency along with CARB and U.S. EPA. CARB indicated that the implementation of the “Further Deployment” measures is based on a combination of incentive funding, development of regulations, and quantification of emission reduction benefits from operational efficiency actions and deployment of autonomous vehicles, connected vehicles, and intelligent transportation systems. The SCAQMD has proposed mobile source measures to help implement CARB’s “Further Development” measures. In addition, the SCAQMD is implementing several incentives funding programs that have resulted in early emission reductions (e.g., the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program, the Surplus Off-Road Opt-In for NOx (SOON) program, and Proposition 1B – Goods Movement Emissions Reduction Program). The emission reduction benefits of the funding programs are quantified and are proposed to be included as part of the overall emission reductions for attainment of the NAAQS.

The proposed SCAQMD mobile source measures are based on a variety of control technologies that are commercially available and/or technologically feasible to implement in the next several years. The focus of these measures includes accelerated retrofits or replacement of existing vehicles or equipment, acceleration of vehicle turnover through voluntary vehicle retirement programs, and greater use of cleaner fuels in the near-term. The measures will encourage greater deployment of zero-emission vehicle and equipment technologies such as plug-in hybrids, battery-electric, and fuel cells to the maximum extent feasible as such technologies are commercialized and near-zero emission technologies everywhere else. In the longer-term, there is a need to significantly increase the penetration and deployment of near-zero and zero-emission vehicles , greater use of cleaner, renewable fuels (either 1-4-22
783 of 2287
Chapter 4: Control Strategy and Implementation
alternative fuels or new formulations of gasoline and diesel fuels), and additional emission reductions from federal and international sources such as locomotives, ocean-going vessels, and aircraft.

In implementing the SCAQMD mobile source measures, the SCAQMD will focus on collaborative approaches to achieve additional emission reductions to help implement the proposed State SIP Strategy ”Further Deployment” measures. During the public process (which is for all intents and purposes, the SCAQMD process used to develop rules to implement the AQMP control measures), SCAQMD staff will assess the progress in identifying actions (voluntary and regulatory) that will result in additional emission reductions. SCAQMD staff will report to the Governing Board on progress on a routine basis, but no later than six months after the adoption of the Final 2016 AQMP. If progress is not made in identifying specific actions within one year of adoption of the Final 2016 AQMP, the SCAQMD staff will recommend to the Governing Board whether to consider proceeding with the development of rules within its existing legal authority or seek additional authority to adopt and implement measures. Such authority includes development of new or expanded clean vehicle fleet rules or indirect source regulations. Table 4-3 provides a schedule for the public process, which includes periodic progress reports to the SCAQMD Mobile Source Committee, convening working groups, and milestones to achieve during the one year period.

TABLE 4-3
Schedule and Milestones for the Mobile Source Measure Public Process Public Process Activity Time from Final Approval of the 2016 AQMP
Report to SCAQMD Mobile Source Committee on Process
to move forward
• Within One Month
Convene Working Groups for MOB-01 through MOB-05 and
EGM-01
• Within One Month
Working Group Meeting
• Define Objectives
• Seek initial input on the types of actions with potential criteria pollutant reductions
• Identify existing actions with potential emission
reductions
• Develop model quantification methodologies for
emission reductions associated with identified actions
• Identify future actions with potential emission
reductions
• Quantify potential emission reductions
• Develop mechanisms to ensure reductions are real,
surplus, and enforceable
• Ongoing on a Monthly Basis
Report to SCAQMD Mobile Source Committee on progress • Six Months 4-23
784 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 4-3 (concluded)
Schedule and Milestones for the Mobile Source Measure Public Process Public Process Activity Time from Final Approval of the 2016 AQMP
Report to SCAQMD Mobile Source Committee/Governing
Board on progress and whether to continue with process or recommend formal rule development
• 12 Months
A total of 15 measures are proposed as actions to reduce mobile source emissions. One measure is proposed to identify actions to help mitigate and potentially provide emission reductions due to new development and redevelopment projects. Four measures seek to identify actions that will result in additional emission reductions at commercial marine ports, rail yards and intermodal facilities, warehouse distribution centers, and commercial airports to help meet the emission reductions associated with the State SIP Strategy “Further Deployment” measures for on-road heavy-duty vehicles, off-road equipment, and federal and international sources. Five measures focus on on-road mobile sources and four measures focus on off-road mobile sources. Lastly, one measure seeks to recognize the criteria pollutant emission reduction benefits of existing incentives programs such as the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program and Proposition 1B – Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program.

The measures call for greater emission reductions through accelerated turnover of older vehicles to the cleanest vehicles and equipment currently available and increased penetration of commercially-available near-zero and zero-emission technologies through incentives programs in the near-term. In the longerterm, CARB will identify potential regulatory actions that will lead to additional emission reductions and greater deployment of zero-emission vehicle technologies everywhere feasible and cost-effective.

Partial-zero and zero-emission technologies are rapidly being introduced into the on-road light- and medium-duty vehicle categories in large part due to the CARB Advanced Clean Car Program, which includes the Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) and the Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Regulations. In addition, next-generation electric hybrid trucks are being commercialized for light-heavy and medium-heavy heavyduty on-road vehicles. However, additional research and demonstration are needed to commercialize zero- and near-zero emission technologies for the heavier heavy-duty vehicles (with gross vehicle weight ratings greater than 26,000 pounds).

For many of the off-road mobile sources such as cargo handling equipment, commercial harbor craft, and off-road equipment, some form of “all zero-emission range” or hybridization is being demonstrated and deployment of these technologies is expected to begin over the next few years. For other sectors such as locomotives, marine vessels and aircraft, the development of cleaner combustion technologies beyond existing emission standards will be needed as provided in the State SIP Strategy. The 2016 AQMP White Papers covering Passenger Transportation, Goods Movement, and Off-Road Equipment provide a general discussion on the need for new emission standards and development of cleaner combustion technologies.

In addition, CARB’s Technology Assessment documents provide in-depth evaluation of current emissions control technologies and the state of development/commercialization of zero- and near-zero advanced technologies. A summary of the 15 measures is provided in Table 4-4. 1-4-24
785 of 2287
Chapter 4: Control Strategy and Implementation
TABLE 4-4
SCAQMD Proposed Mobile Source 8-Hour Ozone Measures
Number Title Adoption Implementation
Period
Implementing
Agency
Emission
Reductions
(tpd)
(2023/2031)
Emission Growth Management Measure:

EGM-01 Emission Reductions from New
Development and Redevelopment
Projects [All Pollutants]
2018 2019–2031 SCAQMD TBD a
Facility-Based Mobile Source Measures:

MOB-01 Emission Reductions at Commercial
Marine Ports [NOx, SOx, PM]
2018 2019–2031 SCAQMD TBD b
MOB-02 Emission Reductions at Rail Yards
and Intermodal Facilities [NOx, PM]
2018 2019–2031 SCAQMD TBD
MOB-03 Emission Reductions at Warehouse
Distribution Centers [All Pollutants]
2018 2019–2031 SCAQMD TBD
MOB-04 Emission Reductions at Commercial
Airports [All Pollutants]
2018 2019–2031 SCAQMD TBD b
On-Road Mobile Source Measures:

MOB-05 Accelerated Penetration of Partial
Zero-Emission and Zero-Emission
Vehicles [VOC, NOx, CO]
N/A Ongoing CARB,
SCAQMD
TBD a
MOB-06 Accelerated Retirement of Older
Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
Vehicles [VOC, NOx, CO]
N/A Ongoing CARB, Bureau
of Automotive
Repair,
SCAQMD
TBD a
MOB-07 Accelerated Penetration of Partial
Zero-Emission and Zero-Emission
Light-Heavy- and Medium-HeavyDuty Vehicles [NOx, PM]
N/A Ongoing CARB,
SCAQMD
TBD a
MOB-08 Accelerated Retirement of Older
On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicles
[NOx, PM]
2018 2019–2031 CARB,
SCAQMD
TBD a
MOB-09 On-Road Mobile Source Emission
Reduction Credit Generation
Program [NOx, PM]
2018 2019–2027 CARB,
SCAQMD
TBD a
4-25
786 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 4-4 (CONCLUDED)
SCAQMD Proposed Mobile Source 8-Hour Ozone Measures
Number Title Adoption Implementation
Period
Implementing
Agency
Emission
Reductions
(tpd)
(2023/2031)
Off-Road Mobile Source Measures:

MOB-10 Extension of the SOON Provision
for Construction/Industrial
Equipment [NOx]
N/A Ongoing SCAQMD 2.0 / 2.0
MOB-11 Extended Exchange Program [VOC,
NOx, CO]
N/A Ongoing SCAQMD 2.9 / 1.0
[NOx]
MOB-12 Further Emission Reductions from
Passenger Locomotives [NOx, PM]
Ongoing Beginning
2017–2023
SoCal Regional
Rail Authority
TBD b
MOB-13 Off-Road Mobile Source Emission
Reduction Credit Generation
Program [NOx, SOx, PM]
2018 2019–2027 SCAQMD TBD a
Incentive Programs Measure:

MOB-14 Emission Reductions from Incentive
Programs [NOx, PM]
N/A 2016–2024 SCAQMD 11 / 7.8
[NOx]
a Emission reductions will be determined after projects are identified and implemented b
Submitted into the SIP as part of Rate-of-Progress reporting or in baseline inventories for future AQMP/SIP Revisions
The following text provides a brief description of the SCAQMD staff’s proposed mobile source control measures:

Emission Growth Management Measure
There is one proposed control measure within this category. The measure addresses emission reductions from new or redevelopment projects. The SCAQMD will encourage developers and local agencies to identify actions that will result in mitigation of new criteria pollutant emissions and potentially further reduce criteria pollutant emissions from affected projects.

EGM-01 – EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM NEW OR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS: Since San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rule 9510 has been approved by U.S. EPA to be included in the SIP for the San Joaquin Valley, the SCAQMD must consider Rule 9510 under the “all feasible measures” requirement of state law. As such, the applicability of Rule 9510 in the South Coast Air Basin and 1-4-26
787 of 2287
Chapter 4: Control Strategy and Implementation
Coachella Valley will be evaluated. The proposed measure seeks to capture emission reduction opportunities during the project development phase and opportunities to enable greater deployment of zero and near-zero emission technologies. The SCAQMD will reconvene the working group made up of stakeholders from industry, local governments, and community representatives as part of the rulemaking process. The working group will provide input and comments and help identify actions that potentially result in emission reductions to mitigate any new emissions or further reduce emissions. As part of the public process, the SCAQMD staff will evaluate the need to develop a rule or other enforceable mechanisms to ensure that the emission reductions are real, surplus, quantifiable, and enforceable as defined by U.S. EPA if the emission reductions are proposed to be included in the SIP.

Facility-Based Mobile Source Measures
With economic growth projected out to 2040 by SCAG, there may be a potential increase in emissions associated with mobile sources in the goods movement sector even with the deployment of newer, cleaner vehicles and equipment. As such, four facility-based mobile source control measures are proposed. The first measure focuses on commercial marine ports in the Basin. Port-related emission sources include on-road heavy-duty trucks, locomotives, ocean-going vessels, commercial harbor craft, and cargo handling equipment. The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach (Ports) have been implementing the San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP) since 2006. Implementation of strategies under the CAAP has led to early emission reductions as state, federal, and international regulations are developed. The Ports are in the process of updating the CAAP to implement long-term sustainable strategies that could potentially result in criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emission reductions, while improving operational efficiencies and reducing dependence on fossil-based fuels. To the extent that criteria pollutant emission reductions associated with such actions can be quantified, a mechanism will be developed that recognizes the actions and credits the associated emission reductions into the SIP.

The second measure focuses on mobile source related vehicles and equipment operating in rail yards and intermodal facilities in the Basin. Such vehicles and equipment include cargo handling equipment, locomotives, on-road heavy-duty trucks, and passenger cars. The third and fourth measures focus on warehouse distribution centers and commercial airports. An approach similar to the marine ports measure will be taken to quantify criteria pollutant emission reductions associated with activities occurring at these facilities.

As part of the public process in implementing the four measures, the SCAQMD staff will be assessing the progress in identifying and quantifying emission reductions that are anticipated to occur at the various facilities. As part of the public process, the SCAQMD staff will evaluate the need for rule development to achieve additional emission reductions and report to the SCAQMD Governing Board six months after the Plan adoption on the progress of implementing the four measures. If after one year (from the date of adoption of the Final 2016 AQMP), voluntary actions or from CARB (since these measures are to help implement CARB’s “Further Development” measures) or U.S. EPA are not identified to any significant extent or identified actions do not result in emission reductions in a timely manner to meet federal air quality standards, the SCAQMD staff will recommend that the SCAQMD Governing Board consider regulatory approaches or other enforceable mechanisms to achieve the emission reductions from the mobile source sectors associated with the various facilities. 4-27
788 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
MOB-01 – EMISSION REDUCTIONS AT COMMERCIAL MARINE PORTS: The Ports have been implementing the CAAP since 2006 and is currently in the process of updating the CAAP. The Ports have been successful for the most part in implementing the CAAP and have exceeded emission reduction goals set in the CAAP. The CAAP update has the potential to assist the region in attaining air quality standards in a timely manner. Many of the actions that have been implemented in the CAAP are voluntary in nature since these reductions are not committed in the SIP. Over time, these actions have been subsumed through regulatory actions by CARB, U.S. EPA, or international entities such as the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Regardless, the actions have led to early emission reductions. The Ports are in a unique position to work with their tenants (terminal and railroad operators) to develop strategies to further reduce emissions. This measure seeks to quantify the emission reductions realized from the CAAP and credit the reductions into the SIP to the extent that these actions are real and surplus to the existing SIP. Emission reductions that occurred through the identified actions as reported by the Ports on an annual basis will be incorporated in the revised baseline emissions as part of the SIP revision process (either as part of the Rate-of-Progress reporting requirements of the CAA or reflected in new baseline emissions inventory for future AQMP/SIP revisions). Since many of these actions are voluntary in nature, any emission reductions credited towards attainment of the federal air quality standards must contain an enforceable commitment that the emission reductions remain real and permanent (as defined by U.S.

EPA) if for some reason the emission reductions are not maintained after they are reported into the SIP.

As such, the enforceable commitment may be in the form of a regulation by the SCAQMD within its existing legal authority, or by the state or federal government, or other enforceable mechanisms.

Regardless, the types of enforceable commitments will be developed through a public process. The proposed measure will replace control measures MOB-03 in the 2007 AQMP and IND-01 in the 2012 AQMP since the emission reductions associated with these measures have been achieved either through regulations adopted by CARB or U.S. EPA. Relative to control measure IND-01 from the 2012 AQMP, the 24-hour PM2.5 air quality standard was not attained in 2014. However, the emission reduction targets provided in IND-01 have already been met.

MOB-02 – EMISSION REDUCTIONS AT RAIL YARD AND INTERMODAL FACILITIES: The goal of this measure is to assess and identify potential actions to further reduce emissions associated with mobile sources operating in and out of rail and intermodal yards. The SCAQMD staff will convene a stakeholder working group to discuss and identify actions or approaches to further reduce emissions at rail yards and intermodal facilities. The identified actions can be voluntary or regulatory or other enforceable mechanisms adopted by local, state, or federal governmental agencies. To the extent that these actions are voluntary in nature and are sustained over a long-term basis and the emission reduction levels are maintained, the emission reductions may be credited as surplus reductions (as defined by the U.S. EPA) into the SIP. If emission reductions are to be included in the SIP, enforceable commitments to ensure that the emissions are permanent will need to be made and may be in the form of a regulation adopted by the SCAQMD within its legal authority or by other enforceable mechanisms.

MOB-03 – EMISSION REDUCTIONS AT WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION CENTERS: The goal of this measure is to assess and identify potential actions to further reduce emissions associated with emission sources operating in and out of warehouse distribution centers. The SCAQMD is currently working with industry stakeholders on conducting in-use truck trip studies and obtaining emissions information from various warehouse distribution types. This information along with emissions occurring in and around individual warehouse distribution centers will serve as the basis for seeking opportunities to reduce emissions 1-4-28
789 of 2287
Chapter 4: Control Strategy and Implementation
beyond existing requirements. A stakeholder working group will be convened to discuss warehouse emissions related issues and provide input and comments on identifying actions that will result in further emission reductions. To the extent that these actions are voluntary in nature and are sustained over a long-term basis and the emission reduction levels are maintained, the emission reductions may be credited as surplus reductions (as defined by the U.S. EPA) into the SIP. If emission reductions are to be included in the SIP, enforceable commitments to ensure that the emissions are permanent will need to be made and may be in the form of a regulation adopted by the SCAQMD within its legal authority or by other enforceable mechanisms.

MOB-04 – EMISSION REDUCTIONS AT COMMERCIAL AIRPORTS: Due to projected increases in airline passenger transportation and expansion of operations at various commercial airports, potential increases in emissions may result unless the increased emissions are fully mitigated. Several airport authorities are implementing emissions mitigation measures, while other airports have initiated actions that can lead to additional emission reductions. This measure seeks to quantify such actions and identify additional actions that can lead to additional emission reductions to assist in attainment of federal air quality standards and reduce local exposure to air toxic emissions. Quantified emission reductions that are real, surplus, permanent, and enforceable will be reflected in future emissions inventories as part of the Rateof-Progress reporting requirements or in baseline emission inventories as part of future AQMP/SIP development. In addition, such emission reductions can be used for general conformity purposes. A working group will be convened with affected stakeholders to discuss airport emissions related issues and provide input to identify actions and develop mechanisms to implement this measure. To the extent that the identified actions are voluntary in nature and are sustained over a long-term basis and the emission reduction levels are maintained, the emission reductions may be credited as surplus reductions (as defined by the U.S. EPA) into the SIP. If emission reductions are to be included in the SIP, enforceable commitments to ensure that the emissions are permanent will need to be made and may be in the form of a regulation adopted by the SCAQMD within its legal authority or by other enforceable mechanisms.

This measure seeks to undertake a stakeholder process and draft for Governing Board consideration an indirect source rule for commercial airports within the South Coast Basin by February 1, 2019 to control emissions of NOx, PM2.5, lead, and diesel particulate matter from non-aircraft sources.

On-Road Mobile Source Measures
Five on-road mobile source control measures are proposed. The first two measures focus on on-road light- and medium-duty vehicles operating in the Basin. It is estimated that around 12 million registered vehicles will be operating in the Basin. The first measure would implement programs to accelerate the penetration and deployment of partial zero-emission and zero-emission vehicles in the light- and mediumduty vehicles categories. The second control measure would seek to accelerate retirement of older gasoline and diesel powered vehicles up to 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight (GVW). These vehicles include passenger cars, sports utility vehicles, vans, and light-duty pick-up trucks.

The remaining three measures focus on heavy-duty vehicles. The first of these measures seeks additional emission reductions from the early deployment of partial zero-emission and zero-emission light- and medium-heavy-duty vehicles with gross vehicle weights between 8,501 pounds to 26,000 pounds. The second control measure for heavy-duty vehicles seeks additional emission reductions from older, pre-2010 heavy-duty vehicles beyond the emission reductions targeted in CARB’s Truck and Bus 4-29
790 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
Regulation. Additional emission reductions beyond the compliance requirements of the Truck and Bus Regulation could be achieved as affected fleets purchase trucks with engines that meet an optional NOx emissions standard to replace their existing heavy-duty vehicles. In addition, fleets or trucks that are not subject to the Truck and Bus Regulation would be targeted through incentives or through regulatory actions that are within the SCAQMD’s legal authority such as the SCAQMD Rule 1190 series of clean fleet vehicle rules, to purchase trucks with engines meeting an optional NOx emissions standard. The third measure will seek to accelerate the introduction of zero- and near-zero emission on-road heavy-duty trucks through mobile source emission reduction credits generating programs. SCAQMD Rules 1612 and 1612.1 have been in place since 1995 and 2001, respectively. However, the current versions of the rules need to be updated to reflect heavy-duty vehicle technologies available today and in the near-future.

Mobile source emission reduction credits generated under these rules would only be available to help facilities affected by the facility-based measures (MOB-01 through MOB-04 and EGM-01). The credits are proposed to not be eligible for offset stationary source emissions.

MOB-05 – ACCELERATED PENETRATION OF PARTIAL ZERO-EMISSION AND ZERO-EMISSION VEHICLES:

This measure proposes to continue incentives for the purchase of zero-emission vehicles and hybrid vehicles with a portion of their operation in an “all-electric range” mode. The State Clean Vehicle Rebate Pilot (CVRP) program is proposed to continue from 2016 to 2030 with proposed funding up to $5,000 per vehicle and for low-income eligible residents, additional funding of up to $1,500 for a total of $6,500 per vehicle. The California State legislature has appropriated $133 million statewide for the CVRP for Fiscal Year 2016–17. The proposed measure seeks to provide funding rebates for at least 15,000 zero-emission or partial-zero emission vehicles per year.

MOB-06 – ACCELERATED RETIREMENT OF OLDER LIGHT-DUTY AND MEDIUM-DUTY VEHICLES: This proposed measure calls for promoting the permanent retirement of older eligible vehicles through financial incentives currently offered through local funding incentive programs, and AB 118 Enhanced Fleet Modernization Program (EFMP), and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (EFMP Plus-Up). The proposed measure seeks to retire up to 2,000 older light- and medium-duty vehicles (up to 8,500 pounds GVW) per year. Funding incentives of up to $4,500 per vehicle are available to low- and moderateincome residents for the scrapping of the vehicle, which includes a replacement voucher for a newer cleaner conventional powered vehicle, plug-in hybrid electric or dedicated zero-emission vehicle. For low- and moderate-income residents living in a disadvantaged community, additional funding of up to $5,000 is available for a fuel efficient conventional powered vehicle, plug-in hybrid electric vehicle or dedicated zero-emission vehicle. The proposed measure seeks to provide funding assistance for at least 2,000 replacement vehicles per year.

MOB-07 – ACCELERATED PENETRATION OF PARTIAL ZERO-EMISSION AND ZERO-EMISSION LIGHTHEAVY- AND MEDIUM-HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES: The objective of the proposed action is to accelerate the introduction of advanced hybrid and zero-emission technologies for Class 4 through 6 heavy-duty vehicles. The State is currently implementing a Hybrid Vehicle Incentives Project (HVIP) program to promote zero-emission and hybrid heavy-duty vehicles and CARB is proposing to allocate $18 million statewide to the program. The proposed measure seeks to continue the program from 2016 to 2030 to deploy up to 120 zero- and partial-zero emission vehicles per year with up to $50,000 funding assistance per vehicle based on the current allocated funding (funding levels vary depending on technology types).

Zero-emission vehicles and hybrid vehicles with a portion of their operation in an “all-electric range” mode 1-4-30
791 of 2287
Chapter 4: Control Strategy and Implementation
would be given the highest priority. In addition in 2016, the California state legislature appropriated $150 million from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to invest in zero and near-zero emission on-road heavy-duty vehicles and off-road equipment. The District staff will seek necessary legislative authority to authorize the SCAQMD to require the accelerated purchase and use of near-zero and zero-emission heavy-duty on-road vehicles for public fleets within the South Coast Basin. The District’s fleet rules will be amended to require accelerated purchase and use of near-zero and zero-emission heavy-duty on-road public vehicles within the South Coast Basin no later than two years after the SCAQMD obtains any necessary legislative authority to control emissions of NOx, PM2.5, and diesel particulate matter.

MOB-08 – ACCELERATED RETIREMENT OF OLDER ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES: This proposed measure seeks to replace up to 2,000 heavy-duty vehicles per year with newer or new vehicles that meet one of the optional NOx standards adopted by CARB. The funding assistance will be prorated to offer the most funding for heavy-duty engines meeting the optional NOx exhaust emissions standard of 0.02 g/bhp-hr or cleaner. Funding assistance of up to $25,000 per vehicle is proposed and the level of funding will depend upon the NOx emissions certification level of the replacement vehicle meeting one of the optional NOx emission standards. In addition, the SCAQMD may to the extent within its authority, adopt a regulation to require purchase of the cleanest commercially available engine, which may include a provision similar to the Surplus Off-Road Opt-In for NOx (SOON) provision of the Statewide In-Use OffRoad Fleet Vehicle Regulation or develop new or expanded clean fleet vehicle rules, to ensure that additional NOx emission reduction benefits are achieved. Other enforceable mechanisms may be considered providing that such mechanisms can be approved into the SIP. The District staff will seek necessary legislative authority to authorize the SCAQMD to require the accelerated purchase and use of near-zero and zero-emission heavy-duty on-road vehicles for public fleets within the South Coast Basin.

The District’s fleet rules will be amended to require accelerated purchase and use of near-zero and zeroemission heavy-duty on-road public vehicles within the South Coast Basin no later than two years after the SCAQMD obtains any necessary legislative authority to control emissions of NOx, PM2.5, and diesel particulate matter.

MOB-09 – ON-ROAD MOBILE SOURCE EMISSION REDUCTION CREDIT GENERATION PROGRAM: This proposed measure seeks to accelerate deployment of near-zero and zero-emission on-road heavy-duty trucks through the generation of mobile source emission reduction credits (MSERCs) that can be used for purposes of recognizing mobile source emission reductions at facilities affected by proposed AQMP measures MOB-01 through MOB-04, MOB-08, and EGM-01. The SCAQMD staff will develop amendments to SCAQMD Rules 1612 and 1612.1 to reflect the latest advanced near-zero and zeroemission technologies and revise the quantification methodologies in Rules 1612 and 1612.1. MSERCs generated will be discounted to provide additional benefits to the environment and to help meet air quality standards.

Off-Road Mobile Source Measures
Four control measures are proposed to seek further emission reductions from off-road mobile sources and industrial equipment. The first measure calls for the continuation of the SOON provision of the Statewide In-Use Off-Road Diesel Fleet Regulation beyond 2023. The SOON provision implemented todate has realized additional NOx reductions beyond the Statewide regulation. The second measure seeks to continue the successful lawnmower and leaf blower exchange programs and expand the 4-31
792 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
programs to include a greater variety of zero-emission equipment into the commercial lawn and garden maintenance activities. A significant portion of the NOx emissions from lawn and garden equipment are attributed to larger lawn and garden equipment operating on diesel fuel. The extended exchange program will focus on replacing these equipment with newer equipment. The third measure calls for additional emission reductions from passenger locomotives. The Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA or Metrolink), the region’s commuter rail service, is in the process of procuring 40 Tier 4 passenger locomotives. This measure will recognize these efforts and continue the purchase of Tier 4 cleaner locomotives. The fourth measure seeks to accelerate the introduction of zero- and near-zero emission off-road equipment through mobile source emission reduction credits generating programs.

SCAQMD Rule 1620 has been in place since 1995. However, the current version of the rule needs to be revised to reflect current off-road equipment technologies available today and the near-future. Mobile source emission reduction credits generated under a new amended Rule 1620 or other off-road mobile source emission reduction credit generation rule would only be available to help facilities affected by the facility-based measures (MOB-01 through MOB-04 and EGM-01). The credits are proposed to not be eligible for offset stationary source emissions.

MOB-10 – EXTENSION OF THE SOON PROVISION FOR CONSTRUCTION/INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT: To promote turnover (i.e., retire, replace, retrofit, or repower) of older in-use construction and industrial diesel engines, this proposed measure seeks to continue the SOON provision of the Statewide In-Use OffRoad Fleet Vehicle Regulation beyond 2023 through the 2031 timeframe. Historically, the SCAQMD Governing Board has allocated up to $30 million per year for the program. However, more recently, the Governing Board has allocated up to $10 million per year. This measure proposes to extend the current SOON Program beyond 2023 to 2031 with a minimum allocation of $10 million and potentially higher levels upon the Governing Board’s approval. In order to implement the SOON program in this timeframe, funding of up to $30 million per year would be sought to help fund the repower or replacement of older Tier 0 and Tier 1 equipment to Tier 4 or cleaner equipment, with approximately 2 tpd of NOx reductions.

MOB-11 – EXTENDED EXCHANGE PROGRAM: This measure seeks to continue the successful lawnmower and leaf blower exchange programs in order to increase the penetration of electric equipment or new low emission gasoline-powered equipment used in the region. The lawnmower exchange program has resulted in over 55,000 gasoline lawnmowers replaced with zero-emission lawnmowers and over 12,000 older, dirtier gasoline-powered commercial leaf blowers replaced with newer, cleaner leaf blowers. The SCAQMD is currently conducting a lawn and garden equipment loan program with various public entities to demonstrate the feasibility of zero-emission lawn and garden equipment in various public and commercial settings. Such demonstrations will provide valuable information to lawn and garden equipment manufacturers to produce zero-emission products for the commercial environment. A segment of the lawn and garden equipment population comprised of diesel powered equipment represents a significant fraction of the total NOx emissions associated with this category. As such, the proposed extended exchange program will focus on incentives to accelerate the replacement of older equipment with new Tier 4 or cleaner equipment or zero-emission equipment where applicable. In addition, other small off-road equipment (SORE) equipment may also be considered for exchange programs for accelerating the turnover of existing engines. 1-4-32
793 of 2287
Chapter 4: Control Strategy and Implementation
MOB-12 – FURTHER EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM PASSENGER LOCOMOTIVES: This measure recognizes recent actions by the SCRRA to replace their existing passenger locomotives with Tier 4 locomotives. The SCRRA is in the process of procuring 40 Tier 4 passenger locomotives to replace their older existing Tier 0 and Tier 2 passenger locomotives by 2020. The SCRRA Board has indicated a desire to work with the SCAQMD and other stakeholders to evaluate technologies that will further reduce NOx emissions beyond Tier 4 emissions level.

MOB-13 – OFF-ROAD MOBILE SOURCE EMISSION REDUCTION CREDIT GENERATION PROGRAM: This measure seeks to accelerate the early deployment of near-zero and zero-emission off-road equipment through the generation of MSERCs that can be used for purposes of recognizing mobile source emission reductions at facilities affected by proposed AQMP measures MOB-01 through MOB-04 and EGM-01.

The SCAQMD staff will develop amendments to SCAQMD Rule 1620 to reflect the latest advanced nearzero and zero-emission technologies and revise the quantification methodologies in Rule 1620. In addition to Rule 1620, the SCAQMD staff has been working on two additional off-road mobile source emission reduction credit generation rules to incentivize the early deployment of the cleanest oceangoing vessels that are not subject to the State Vessels At-Berth Regulation or vessel calls that are considered surplus to the Statewide regulation and locomotives that have lower NOx emissions than the current Tier 4 locomotive engine standards. The two rules will be further developed under this measure.

MSERCs generated may be discounted to provide additional benefits to the environment and to help meet air quality standards.

Incentive Programs Measure
A measure is proposed to recognize the emission benefits resulting from incentive funding programs such as the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program and Proposition 1B. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District adopted Rule 9610 to recognize the emission reduction benefits of incentive programs in their region. A similar action is proposed under the current measure.

The proposed measure describes the six general elements identified by U.S. EPA that will be needed in order for such benefits to be accounted in the SIP.

MOB-14 – EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM INCENTIVE PROGRAMS: This measure seeks to develop a rule similar to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rule 9610 to recognize emission reduction benefits associated with incentive programs. The proposed rule would recognize the emission benefits resulting from incentive funding programs such as the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program and Proposition 1B such that the emission reductions can be accounted for in the SIP. As previously mentioned, the U.S. EPA indicated that there are six general elements that need to be incorporated in a proposed rule in order for the reductions to be credited in the SIP. The six necessary elements are the minimal amount of information, documentation, or commitment needed for U.S. EPA to consider approval of emission reduction benefits associated with incentives programs. Additional elements may be identified during the implementation of this measure. 4-33
794 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
State and Federal Control Measures
In addition to SCAQMD and SCAG measures, the Draft 2016 AQMP includes additional control measures to reduce emissions from sources that are primarily under state and federal jurisdiction, including on-road and off-road mobile sources. These reductions are needed to achieve the remaining emission reductions necessary for ozone and PM2.5 attainment. The CARB released the Proposed 2016 State Strategy for the SIP (State SIP Strategy) on May 17, 2016. The new measures contained in the State SIP Strategy commitment reflect a combination of state actions, petitions for federal action, as well as actions that outline a pathway for achieving further deployment of the cleanest technologies in each sector.

These measures, in conjunction with the existing control program, identify all of the reductions needed to achieve a 70 percent reduction in NOx emissions from mobile sources in 2023, and an 80 percent reduction in 2031 in the South Coast. Current control programs will reduce NOx emissions from today’s levels by 209 tons per day by 2031. As part of the proposed State SIP Strategy, CARB will provide an enforceable commitment to achieve in aggregate an additional 107 tons per day of NOx reductions in 2023, and 97 tons per day in 2031. The State SIP Strategy will also provide 48 and 60 tons per day, respectively, of VOC reductions in 2023 and 2031 which provide supplemental benefits in reducing ozone in some portions of the Basin. Any additional commitments to address PM2.5 attainment needs in 2025 will be identified separately, if needed.

The NOx and VOC emission reductions from the proposed new State SIP Strategy measures in 2023 and 2031 are summarized in Table 4-5. CARB’s proposed State SIP Strategy for on-road vehicles, locomotives, ocean going vessels, and off-road equipment are briefly summarized in this section and details of these measures are provided in Appendix IV-B. 1-4-34
795 of 2287
Chapter 4: Control Strategy and Implementation
TABLE 4-5
South Coast Expected Emission Reductions (tpd) from State SIP Strategy Measures Proposed Measure
2023 2031
NOx VOC NOx VOC
On-Road Light-Duty:

Advanced Clean Cars 2 — — 0.6 0.4
Lower In-Use Emission Performance Assessment NYQ NYQ NYQ NYQ Further Deployment of Cleaner Technologies* 7 16 5 16
Total On-Road Light-Duty Reductions 7 16 6 16
On-Road Heavy-Duty:

Lower In-Use Emission Performance Level NYQ <0.1 NYQ <0.1 Low-NOx Engine Standard – California Action — — 5 —
Low-NOx Engine Standard – Federal Action* — — 7 —
Medium and Heavy-Duty GHG Phase 2 NYQ NYQ NYQ NYQ
Innovated Clean Transit <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1
Last Mile Delivery <0.1 <0.1 0.4 <0.1
Innovative Technology Certification Flexibility NYQ NYQ NYQ NYQ Zero-Emission Airport Shuttle Buses NYQ NYQ NYQ NYQ
Incentive Funding to Achieve Further Emission Reductions from On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicles 3 0.4 3 0.4
Further Deployment of Cleaner Technologies* 34 4 11 1
Total On-Road Heavy-Duty Reductions 37 4 27 2
Off-Road Federal and International Sources*:

Aircraft
Further Deployment of Cleaner Technologies* 9 NYQ 13 NYQ Locomotives
More Stringent National Locomotive Emission Standards* <0.1 <0.1 2 <0.1 Further Deployment of Cleaner Technologies* 7 0.3 3 0.3 Ocean-Going Vessels
Tier 4 Vessel Standards* — — NYQ NYQ
Incentivize Low Emission Efficient Ship Visits NYQ NYQ NYQ NYQ At-Berth Regulation Amendments 0.3 <0.1 1 <0.1
Further Deployment of Cleaner Technologies* 30 NYQ 38 NYQ Total Off-Road Federal and International Reductions 46 0.3 57 0.3 4-35
796 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 4-5 (CONCLUDED)
South Coast Expected Emission Reductions (tpd) from State SIP Measures Proposed Measure
2023 2031
NOx VOC NOx VOC
Off-Road Equipment:

Zero-Emission Off-Road Forklift Regulation Phase 1 — — 1 0.1 Zero-Emission Off-Road Emission Reduction Assessment NYQ NYQ NYQ NYQ Zero-Emission Off-Road Worksite Emission Reduction Assessment NYQ NYQ NYQ NYQ Zero-Emission Airport Ground Support Equipment <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Small Off-Road Engines 0.7 7 2 16
Transport Refrigeration Units Used for Cold Storage NYQ NYQ NYQ NYQ Low-Emission Diesel Requirement 0.3 NYQ 1 NYQ
Further Deployment of Cleaner Technologies* 21 21 18 20 Total Off-Road Equipment Reductions 22 28 22 36
Consumer Products:

Consumer Products Program — 1–2 — 4–5
Total Consumer Products Reductions — 1–2 — 4–5
Aggregate Emission Reductions 113 50–51 111 59–60
* Request U.S. EPA approval under the provisions of Section 182(e)(5) of the Clean Air Act “NYQ” denotes emission reductions are Not Yet Quantified “—“ denotes no anticipated reductions
On-Road Light-Duty Vehicles
ADVANCED CLEAN CARS 2: This proposed measure is designed to ensure that near-zero and zero-emission technology options continue to be commercially available, with electric driving range improvements to address consumer preferences for greater ease of use, and to maximize electric vehicle miles travelled (eVMT). The regulation may include lowering fleet emissions further beyond the super-ultra-low-emission vehicle standard for the entire light-duty fleet through at least the 2030 model year, and look at ways to improve real world emissions through implementation programs. Additionally, new standards would be considered to further increase the sales of zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) in 2026 (and later years) beyond the levels required in 2025.

LOWER IN-USE EMISSION PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT: This proposed measure is designed to ensure that in-use vehicles continue to operate at their cleanest possible level by evaluating California’s in-use performance-focused inspection procedures and, if necessary, make improvements to further the program’s effectiveness. Results from the assessment could be used to improve inspection test procedures, address program fraud, improve the effectiveness and durability of emission-related repair work, and to improve the regulations governing the design of in-use performance systems on motor vehicles to the extent necessary.

FURTHER DEPLOYMENT OF CLEANER TECHNOLOGY: ON-ROAD LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES: This proposed measure is designed to achieve further emission reductions for the Basin’s attainment needs through a 1-4-36
797 of 2287
Chapter 4: Control Strategy and Implementation
suite of additional actions, including greater penetration of near-zero and zero-emission technologies through incentive programs, and emission benefits associated with increased transportation efficiencies, as well as the potential for autonomous vehicles and advanced transportation systems. The emission reductions will be achieved through a combination of actions to be undertaken by both CARB and the SCAQMD.

On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicles
LOWER IN-USE EMISSION PERFORMANCE LEVEL FOR HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES: This proposed measure is designed to ensure that heavy-duty vehicles continue to operate at the cleanest possible level. CARB would develop new, supplemental actions, in the form of regulatory amendments or new regulations, to address in-use compliance and to decrease engine deterioration. This suite of actions includes:
amendments to CARB’s existing roadside and fleet inspection programs to revise the current opacity limit and make other program improvements to better reflect the capability of current technology; amendments to the warranty requirements and useful life provisions to better reflect the operation of these vehicles; amendments to the not to exceed (NTE) supplemental test procedures for heavy-duty diesel engines; amendments to the durability demonstration provisions within the certification requirements for heavy-duty engines; and adoption of a comprehensive inspection and maintenance program for heavy-duty trucks to test for excessive emissions of multiple pollutants.

LOW-NOx ENGINE STANDARD: This proposed measure is designed to introduce near-zero emission engine technologies that will substantially lower NOx emissions from on-road heavy-duty vehicles. CARB began development of new heavy-duty low-NOx emission standards in 2016, with CARB Board action expected in 2019. A California-only low-NOx standard would apply to all vehicles with new heavy-duty engines sold in California starting in 2023. In order to ensure that all trucks traveling within California would eventually be equipped with an engine meeting the lower NOx standard, CARB may also petition U.S. EPA to establish a new federal heavy-duty engine emission standard. If U.S. EPA fails to initiate the rule development process for a federal standard by the end of 2017, CARB would continue with its development and implementation efforts to establish a California-only low-NOx standard. If U.S. EPA begins the regulatory development process for new federal heavy-duty emission standards by 2017, CARB will coordinate its regulatory development efforts with the federal regulation as much as possible.

MEDIUM AND HEAVY-DUTY GHG PHASE 2: This proposed measure is designed to advance fuel efficiency improvements and achieve greater GHG emission reductions through the introduction of the next generation of integrated engine, powertrain, vehicle and trailer technologies designed to reduce climate emissions and fuel use. U.S. EPA finalized new federal Phase 2 standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles in August 2016. The new standards build upon the Phase 1 standards and will push technology improvements beyond what is currently in widespread commercial use. CARB staff plans to present a California Phase 2 proposal for the Board’s consideration in 2017. In addition to harmonizing with the federal Phase 2 standards where applicable, staff’s proposal may include some more stringent, California-only provisions that are necessary to meet California’s unique air quality challenges.

INNOVATED CLEAN TRANSIT: This measure is designed to continue the transition to a suite of cleaner transit options to support the goal of a modern, multi-modal, clean transit system. Access to public transit is especially important for people in disadvantaged communities who may have limited mobility 4-37
798 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
choices. The measure will consider a variety of mechanisms to support access to innovative transit and mobility options that together will achieve emission reduction or other benefits in disadvantaged communities, maintain or expand service, while deploying advanced clean technologies. CARB staff will develop and propose a variety of approaches and mechanisms to support the transition to a suite of innovative clean transit options. CARB staff have convened a technical workgroup and a transit agency subcommittee to inform key data collection and analysis, and to help develop and refine potential approaches, which may include: 1) securing binding commitments from the State’s transit providers for a long-term vision for transitioning to zero-emission buses and other technologies; 2) continuing to support to the maximum extent possible the near-term deployment of zero-emission buses into service where transit service can be maintained, expanded, or enhanced; and 3) working with zero-emission first and last-mile solutions .

LAST MILE DELIVERY: This measure is designed to increase the penetration of the first wave of zero-emission heavy-duty technology into applications that are well suited to its use. This proposed measure will result in the use of low-NOx engines and the development of increasing numbers of zero-emission trucks where best suited, primarily for class 3-7 last mile delivery trucks in California starting in 2020, with a small-scale deployment initially, and ramping up to a higher percentage of new vehicle sales. The initial ramp-up of zero-emission trucks will consider the ability of the new technology to meet the operational needs of the users. CARB staff is evaluating options for purchase requirements.

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY CERTIFICATION FLEXIBILITY: This proposed measure is designed to encourage early deployment of the next generation of truck and bus technologies through defined, near-term CARB certification and on-board diagnostic (OBD) compliance flexibility for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles.

This regulation is intended to balance the need to provide key, promising technologies with a predictable and practical CARB-certification pathway, while preserving CARB’s overarching objective of ensuring that the expected emission benefits of advanced truck and bus technologies are achieved in-use. This regulation would provide the greatest flexibility for potentially transformational engine and vehicle technologies, such as robust hybrids and heavy-duty engines meeting the optional low-NOx standard. In October 2016, CARB adopted the Innovative Technology Regulation (ITR).

ZERO-EMISSION AIRPORT SHUTTLE BUSES: This proposed measure is designed to achieve NOx and GHG emission reductions goals through advanced clean technology, and to increase the penetration of the first wave of zero-emission heavy-duty technology into applications that are well suited to its use. Like transit buses, the inclusion of zero-emission airport shuttles would serve as a stepping stone to encourage broader deployment of zero-emission technologies in the on-road sector. CARB staff would also consider the feasibility of including requirements for other heavy-duty airport vehicles, such as fixed route vehicles entering/exiting the airports and vehicles operating almost exclusively at the airport facility, such as airport owned operational and maintenance vehicles. CARB staff would develop and propose a regulation or other measures to deploy zero-emission airport shuttles in order to further support market development of zero-emission technologies in the heavy-duty sector.

INCENTIVE FUNDING TO ACHIEVE FURTHER EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES: This proposed measure would use existing CARB and SCAQMD incentive and other innovative funding programs for on-road, heavy-duty vehicles to increase the penetration of near-zero and zero1-4-38 799 of 2287
Chapter 4: Control Strategy and Implementation
emission vehicles and engines. Funding mechanisms would target technologies that meet CARB’s current optional low-NOx standard through 2023, consistent with the current round of Moyer Program funding.

FURTHER DEPLOYMENT OF CLEANER TECHNOLOGY: ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES: This proposed measure is designed to achieve further emission reductions for the Basin’s attainment needs through a suite of additional actions, including greater penetration of near-zero and zero-emission technologies through incentive programs, emission benefits associated with increased operational efficiency strategies, and the potential for new driver assist and intelligent transportation systems. The emission reductions will be achieved through a combination of actions to be undertaken by both CARB and the SCAQMD.

Off-Road Federal and International Sources
FURTHER DEPLOYMENT OF CLEANER TECHNOLOGIES: OFF-ROAD FEDERAL AND INTERNATIONAL SOURCES: This measure is designed to achieve further emission reductions for the Basin’s attainment needs through a suite of additional actions that would be taken at the State and local level to achieve further reductions among the three categories off-road federal and international sources: ocean-going vessels, aircraft, and locomotives. These actions are designed to increase the penetration of cleaner ocean-going vessels, aircraft, and locomotive technologies, and to promote efficiency improvements at the equipment, sector, and systems levels through: expanding and enhancing existing incentive and innovative funding programs to increase the deployment of cleaner technologies; incentivizing cleaner ships and aircraft to come to California; partnering with engine manufacturers to encourage production of cleaner, more efficient engines; continuing to support demonstration projects; and encouraging efficiency improvements. Achieving the magnitude of emission reductions necessary from this category will require strong action at the federal and international level, coupled with State and local advocacy and action to facilitate these efforts.

MORE STRINGENT NATIONAL LOCOMOTIVE EMISSION STANDARDS: This proposed measure is designed to reduce emissions from new and remanufactured locomotives. CARB would petition U.S. EPA for both new Tier 5 national emission standards for newly manufactured locomotives, and more stringent national requirements for remanufactured locomotives. CARB staff estimates that the U.S. EPA could require manufacturers to implement the new locomotive emission regulations as early as 2023 for remanufactured locomotives, and 2025 for newly manufactured locomotives. A new federal standard could also facilitate development and deployment of zero-emission track mile locomotives and zeroemission locomotives by building incentives for those technologies into the regulatory structure.

TIER 4 VESSEL STANDARDS: This measure is designed to reduce emissions from ocean going vessels.

CARB would advocate with U.S. EPA, the U.S. Coast Guard, and international partners for the IMO to adopt more stringent emission standards. Specifically, CARB would advocate for new Tier 4 NOx and PM standards, plus efficiency targets for existing vessels, and new vessel categories not covered by IMO efficiency standards.

INCENTIVIZE LOW EMISSION EFFICIENT SHIP VISITS: This measure is designed to achieve early implementation of clean vessel technologies (e.g., liquefied natural gas, Tier 3 standards or better), and to incentivize vessels with those technologies in California service. CARB staff would work with California seaports, ocean carriers, and other stakeholders to develop the criteria and to identify the best 4-39
800 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
way to incentivize introduction of Low Emission Efficient Ships into the existing fleet of vessels that visit California seaports.

AT-BERTH REGULATION AMENDMENTS: This measure is designed to further reduce emissions from ships that visit California ports. CARB would investigate expanding the current At-Berth Regulation to include smaller fleets, additional vessel types (including roll-on/roll-off vehicle carriers, bulk cargo carriers, and tankers), and additional operations.

Off-Road Equipment
ZERO-EMISSION OFF-ROAD FORKLIFT REGULATION PHASE 1: This measure is designed to increase penetration of ZEVs in off-road applications, advance ZEV commercialization, and to set a market signal to technology manufacturers and investors. CARB staff would develop and propose a regulation with specific focus on forklifts with lift capacities equal to or less than 8,000 pounds, for which zero-emission technologies have already gained appreciable customer acceptance and market penetration.

ZERO-EMISSION OFF-ROAD EMISSION REDUCTION ASSESSMENT: This measure is designed to expand the use of near-zero and zero-emission technology in non-freight, off-road applications. This assessment would be a follow-up to off-road measures implemented in the 2023+ timeframe, and through it CARB would identify opportunities to transfer near-zero and zero-emission technologies to heavier equipment, such as high lift-capacity forklifts or other equipment in the construction, industrial, and mining sectors with the intent of expanding their application as technology matures and infrastructure grows. Through this assessment, CARB would provide the Board with an informational update regarding the status of ZEVs in off-road applications once the Phase 1 forklift regulation is in place in 2025 or later, which would focus primarily on the scalability and transferability of zero-emission technologies to larger, higher power-demand equipment types, and would be used to inform the development of the Phase 2 regulation.

ZERO-EMISSION OFF-ROAD WORKSITE EMISSION REDUCTION ASSESSMENT: This measure is designed to foster the development of a robust worksite efficiency program and to facilitate the deployment of technologies and/or strategies that increase worksite efficiency, such as connected vehicles, automation, and fleet management technologies in off-road sectors. Through this assessment, CARB would identify opportunities to further expand the use of the aforementioned strategies and/or near-zero and zeroemission technologies, and would provide the Board with an informational update regarding the status of the aforementioned technologies and/or strategies, with a focus on business return on investment, scalability and sustainability of the system, and ancillary benefits such as improved safety and work consistency. There would also be potential testing comparing fuel efficiency, work productivity, and emission reductions. CARB would also encourage deployment via incentives or by providing credit in the off-road rule.

ZERO-EMISSION AIRPORT GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT: This measure is designed to increase the penetration of the first wave of zero-emission heavy-duty technology in applications that are well suited to its use, and to facilitate further technology development and infrastructure expansion. CARB would develop and propose a regulation to accelerate the transition of diesel and large spark ignition airport ground support equipment to zero-emission technology.
1-4-40
801 of 2287
Chapter 4: Control Strategy and Implementation
SMALL OFF-ROAD ENGINES: This measure is designed to reduce emissions from SORE, and to increase the penetration of zero-emission technology. SORE that are subject to CARB regulations are used in residential and commercial lawn and garden equipment, and other utility applications. CARB will promote increased use of zero-emission equipment, develop and propose tighter exhaust and evaporative emission standards, and enhance enforcement of current emission standards for SORE.

TRANSPORT REFRIGERATION UNITS USED FOR COLD STORAGE: This measure is designed to advance near-zero and zero-emission technology commercialization by increasing the early penetration of hybrid electric and electric standby equipped transport refrigeration units used for cold storage, and supporting the needed infrastructure developments. CARB would develop a regulation to phase-in limits to stationary operating times for internal combustion engines at certain California facilities. Facilities may be required to provide the necessary electric infrastructure to support this action. CARB is currently offering funding through the Proposition 1B Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program to support both purchase of TRUs that can plug in and the stationary electric infrastructure.

LOW-EMISSION DIESEL REQUIREMENT: This measure is designed to reduce emissions from the portion of the heavy-duty fleet that will continue to operate on internal combustion engines. The proposed measure would establish performance requirements for Low Emission Diesel, and would require that diesel fuel providers decrease criteria pollutant emissions from their diesel products until 2031. Due to the magnitude of needed NOx reductions in the Basin and the large volumes of Low-Emission Diesel needed for full statewide implementation, the proposed measure could be phased-in with a gradual implementation strategy that starts in the Basin, and subsequently expands Statewide.

FURTHER DEPLOYMENT OF CLEANER TECHNOLOGIES: OFF-ROAD EQUIPMENT: This measure is designed to achieve further emission reductions for the Basin’s attainment needs through a suite of additional actions, including greater penetration of near-zero and zero-emission technologies through incentive programs, and emission benefits associated with the potential for worksite integration and efficiency, as well as connected and autonomous vehicle technologies. These emission reductions will be achieved through a combination of actions to be undertaken by both CARB and the SCAQMD.

SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy and Transportation Control
Measures
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for Southern California, is mandated to comply with federal and State transportation and air quality regulations. Federal transportation law authorizes federal funding for highway, highway safety, transit, and other surface transportation programs. The federal CAA establishes air quality standards and planning requirements for various criteria air pollutants.

Transportation conformity is required under CAA Section 176(c) to ensure that federally supported highway and transit project activities “conform to” the purpose of the SIP. Conformity currently applies to areas that are designated nonattainment, and those re-designated to attainment after 1990 4-41
802 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
(“maintenance areas” with plans developed under CAA Section 175[A]) for the specific transportationrelated criteria pollutants. Conformity for the purpose of the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the relevant NAAQS. The transportation conformity regulation is found in 40 CFR Part 93.

Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 40460, SCAG has the responsibility of preparing and approving the portions of the AQMP relating to regional demographic projections and integrated regional land use, housing, employment, and transportation programs, measures, and strategies. The SCAQMD combines its portion of the Plan with those prepared by SCAG.

The Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) and Transportation Control Measures (TCMs), included as Appendix IV-C of the 2016 AQMP/SIP for the Basin, are based on SCAG’s Final 2016 RTP/SCS and consist of the following four sections.

Section I. Introduction
As required by federal and state law, SCAG is responsible for ensuring that the regional transportation plan, program, and projects are supportive of the goals and objectives of AQMPs/SIPs. SCAG is also required to develop demographic projections and a regional transportation strategy and control measures for the South Coast AQMP/SIP.

As an MPO, SCAG develops the RTP/SCS every four years. The RTP/SCS is a long-range regional transportation plan that provides for the development and integrated management and operation of transportation systems and facilities that will function as an intermodal transportation network for the SCAG region. The RTP/SCS also outlines certain land use growth strategies that provide for more integrated land use and transportation planning, and maximize transportation investments to achieve regional GHG reduction targets set by CARB pursuant to SB 375.

SCAG also develops the biennial Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP). The FTIP is a multimodal program of capital improvement projects to be implemented over a six year period. The FTIP implements the programs and projects in the RTP/SCS.

Section II. RTP/SCS and TCMs
The SCAG Region faces many critical challenges including demographics, transportation system preservation, transportation funding, goods movement, housing, air quality, climate change, and public health. Under the guidance of the goals and objectives adopted by SCAG’s Regional Council, the 2016 RTP/SCS was developed to provide a blueprint to integrate land use and transportation strategies to help achieve a coordinated and balanced regional transportation system. The Final 2016 RTP/SCS represents the culmination of more than three years of work involving dozens of public agencies, 197 local jurisdictions in the SCAG region, hundreds of local, county, regional and state officials, the business community, environmental groups, as well as various nonprofit organizations. The 2016 RTP/SCS was adopted by the SCAG Regional Council on April 7, 2016.

The Final 2016 RTP/SCS makes a concerted effort to integrate the region’s transportation network with land uses in order to achieve an even more sustainable region over the coming decades. Accordingly, 1-4-42
803 of 2287
Chapter 4: Control Strategy and Implementation
the Final 2016 RTP/SCS includes a host of regional strategies for addressing growth, land use and improving the region’s transportation system. These are listed below.

Land Use Strategies
• Focus New Growth around Transit/High Quality Transit Areas (HQTAs) • Plan for Growth around Livable Corridors
• Provide More Options for Short Trips/Neighborhood Mobility Areas • Support Zero Emission Vehicles & Expand Electric Vehicle Charging Stations • Support Local Sustainability Planning
• Protect Natural and Farm Lands
• Balance Growth Distribution between 500-Foot Buffer Areas and HQTAs Transportation Strategies
• Preserve Our Existing System
• Manage Congestion through Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Transportation System Management (TSM) including advanced ramp metering, and expansion and integration of the traffic signal synchronization network
• Expand Regional Transit System
• Expand Passenger Rail and Maintain High-Speed Rail Commitments • Promote Active Transportation
• Improve Highway and Arterial Capacity
• Strengthen Regional Transportation Network for Goods Movement • Improve Airport Ground Access
Included within these transportation system improvements are TCM projects that reduce vehicle use or improve traffic flow or congestion conditions. TCMs include the following three main categories of transportation improvement projects and programs:
• Transit, intermodal transfer, and active transportation measures; • High occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, and their pricing alternatives; and
• Information-based transportation strategies.

Attachment A of Appendix IV-C is a list of transportation control measure projects that are specifically identified and committed to in the Draft 2016 AQMP. Per the CAA, these committed TCMs are required to receive funding priority and be implemented timely. In the event that a committed TCM cannot be delivered or will be significantly delayed, the TCM must be substituted for. It is important to note that as the SCAG’s FTIP is updated every two years, new committed TCMs are added to the applicable SIP from the previous FTIP.

Section III. Reasonably Available Control Measure Analysis As required by the CAA, a reasonably available control measure (RACM) analysis must be included as part of the overall control strategy in the AQMP to ensure that all potential control measures are evaluated 4-43
804 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
for implementation and that justification is provided for those measures that are not implemented.

Appendix IV-C contains the RACM TCM component for the Basin’s ozone and PM2.5 control strategy. In accordance with U.S. EPA procedures, this analysis considers TCMs in the Final 2016 RTP/SCS, measures identified by the CAA, and relevant measures adopted in other ozone and PM2.5 nonattainment areas of the country. Based on this comprehensive review, it is determined that the TCMs being implemented in the Basin are inclusive of all TCM RACM.

Section IV. TCM Best Available Control Measure (BACM) Analysis for 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
The Basin has been reclassified as a “serious” nonattainment area under the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS effective February 12, 2016. As a result, the Basin is required to implement BACMs including TCMs for the control of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors from on-road mobile sources. This section serves as the TCM BACM component for the new South Coast 2006 PM2.5 standard SIP.

Following the applicable EPA guidance, the TCM BACM analysis consists of a review of on-going implementation of TCMs in the Basin, a review of TCM measures implemented in other “moderate” and “serious” PM2.5 nonattainment areas as well as “serious” PM10 nonattainment areas throughout the country, and a review of TCMs not implemented in the SCAG region. The analysis demonstrates that the TCM projects being implemented in the Basin constitute TCM BACM.

The emission benefits associated with the Final 2016 RTP/SCS are reflected in the 2016 AQMP projected baseline emissions. As shown in Tables 1-1 and 1-2 in Appendix IV-C, the amount of emission reductions from the RTP/SCS are significantly impacted by the change in vehicle fleet mix and vehicle emission factors. For example, assuming that the future EMFAC2014 vehicle fleet mix and emission factors remain the same as in 2012 (the 2016 RTP/SCS and 2016 AQMP base year), the 2016 RTP/SCS would yield a NOx emission reduction of 5.4 tons per day in 2021 and 9.8 tons per day in 2031 compared with the 2016 RTP/SCS baseline. However, if the future improvement in the fleet mix and emission factors as reflected in EFMAC2014 are factored in, the estimated NOx emission reduction from the 2016 RTP/SCS would drop to 2.8 tons per day in 2023 and 4.5 tons per day in 2031.

For a detailed discussion of the integrated regional land use and transportation strategies, the estimated emission reduction benefits, as well as the cost-benefit analysis, refer to Appendix IV-C: Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy and Transportation Control Measures.

SCAQMD Proposed PM2.5 Strategy
Despite the attainment demonstration in the 2012 AQMP, the Basin did not meet the 24-hour PM2.5 standard by 2015, mainly due to the drought conditions that persisted for the past several years. The preliminary 2015 data showed that the 24-hour PM2.5 design value was greater than the federal standard of 35 µg/m3
. U.S. EPA re-designated the Basin from a “moderate” nonattainment to a “serious” nonattainment area, effective February 12, 2016, which set 2019 as the new attainment deadline. The 2016 AQMP demonstrates that the 24-hour standard will be met by 2019 with no additional reductions beyond already adopted and implemented measures (See Chapter 5). 1-4-44
805 of 2287
Chapter 4: Control Strategy and Implementation
For the annual PM2.5 standard (12 µg/m3), the attainment target year is 2021 for a “moderate” nonattainment area and 2025 for a “serious” nonattainment are. Modeling projections show that the annual standard will not be met by 2021 if emission reductions beyond the already adopted control measures are not introduced. The aggressive NOx and VOC reductions proposed to meet the 1997 8- hour ozone standard also do not ensure attainment of the annual PM2.5 standard by 2021. An analysis of the feasibility of additional measures focused on direct PM2.5 and its other precursors did not identify a practical path towards annual PM2.5 attainment by 2021. Therefore, the SCAQMD is requesting a reclassification of the Basin as a “serious” nonattainment area with a new attainment deadline as “expeditiously as practicable,” but no later than 2025. While CAA Section 182(e)(5) measures cannot be relied on to show future attainment of PM standards, the NOx strategy to meet ozone standards will still ensure achieving the annual standard by 2025.

However, to further ensure attainment of the annual PM2.5 standards, a series of control measures specifically addressing PM2.5 are being proposed. The proposed PM2.5 control measures include 10 stationary source control measures including episodic controls and technology assessments. These PM2.5 control measures are proposed as needed to ensure or advance the attainment of federal PM2.5 NAAQS per the federal CAA requirements. Each PM2.5 control measure was evaluated to determine the potential emission reductions that could be achieved. In some cases, only a range of possible emission reductions could be determined, and for others, the magnitude of potential reductions cannot be determined at this time. As assessments and potential rule development progress, and feasible emission reductions are identified and quantified, the measures will be implemented to advance attainment if practicable
Each type of control measure relies on a number of control methods. Table 4-6 provides an example of the type of proposed PM2.5 control measures and typical corresponding control methods.

TABLE 4-6
SCAQMD Proposed PM2.5 Measure Control Methods
Source Category Control Method
Best Available Control Measures for
PM2.5 and Ammonia Sources
• Add-On Controls
• Best Management Practices
• Best Available Control Technology
• Best Available Retrofit Control Technology
• Process Improvement
• Targeted Controls
• Preventative Measures
• Seasonal or Episodic Controls
• Market Incentives
• Mandatory Curtailments
4-45
806 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
Table 4-7 provides a list of the proposed SCAQMD stationary source PM2.5 control measures along with the anticipated adoption/implementation period, implementing agency, and projected emission reductions. The measures cover a variety of source types for PM sources (BCM). 1-4-46
807 of 2287
Chapter 4: Control Strategy and Implementation
TABLE 4-7
SCAQMD Proposed Stationary Source PM2.5 Control Measures Number Title Adoption Implementation
Period
Implementing
Agency
Emission
Reductions
(tpd)
(2021/2025)
BCM-014 Further Emission Reductions from
Commercial Cooking [PM]
2018 2025 SCAQMD 0 / 3.3*
BCM-02 Emission Reductions from Cooling
Towers [PM]
TBD TBD SCAQMD TBD a
BCM-03 Further Emission Reductions from
Paved Road Dust Sources [PM]
TBD TBD SCAQMD TBD a
BCM-045 Emission Reductions from Manure
Management Strategies [NH3]
2019 2020 SCAQMD 0.26 / 0.2
[NH3]
BCM-05 Ammonia Emission Reductions
from NOx Controls [NH3]
TBD TBD SCAQMD TBD a
BCM-06 Emission Reductions from Abrasive
Blasting Operations [PM]
TBD TBD SCAQMD TBD a
BCM-07 Emission Reductions from Stone
Grinding, Cutting and Polishing
Operations [PM]
TBD TBD SCAQMD TBD a
BCM-08 Further Emission Reductions from
Agricultural, Prescribed and
Training Burning [PM]
TBD TBD SCAQMD TBD a
BCM-09 Further Emission Reductions from
Wood-Burning Fireplaces and
Wood Stoves [PM]
TBD TBD SCAQMD TBD a
BCM-10 Emission Reductions from
Greenwaste Composting [VOC,
NH3]
2019 2020 SCAQMD 0.1 / 0.1
[NH3]
* Contingency measure
a TBD are reductions to be determined once the measure is further evaluated, the technical assessment is complete, and inventory and cost-effective control approach are identified, and are not relied upon for attainment demonstration purposes
4 Formerly BCM-03 in the 2012 AQMP and BCM-05 in the 2007 AQMP. 5 Formerly BCM-04 in the 2012 AQMP. 4-47

808 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
The following provides a brief description of the SCAQMD proposed PM2.5 control measures. This category includes 10 control measures, including PM2.5 emission reductions from under-fired charbroilers, cooling towers and fugitive dust sources, abrasive blasting, stone cutting and finishing, agricultural and residential burning, composting, and ammonia emission reductions from livestock waste and NOx control equipment.

PM Measures
BCM-01 – FURTHER EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM COMMERCIAL COOKING: Commercial cooking activities are the largest source of directly emitted PM2.5 emissions in the Basin, and under-fired charbroilers are responsible for the majority of emissions from this source category. To date, a variety of control device technologies have been tested by CE-CERT at the University of California, Riverside, and SCAQMD staff and the inter-agency working group are reviewing draft test results. This control measure is a contingency control measure which would seek additional emission reductions if the annual average PM2.5 standard is not met by 2025. If necessary, the control program would seek to establish a tiered program targeting higher efficiency controls for under-fired charbroilers at large volume restaurants, with more affordable lower efficiency controls at smaller restaurants. As with existing Rule 1138 requirements, a potential future control program for under-fired charbroilers could establish control device efficiency requirements based on restaurant throughput. Efforts could also be taken to develop a control device registration program as an alternative to the SCAQMD permit process. Small business incentive programs funded by mitigation fees or other sources could also be explored to help offset initial purchase and installation costs for restaurants.

BCM-02 – EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM COOLING TOWERS: This control measure seeks reductions of PM emissions from industrial cooling towers through the use of the latest drift eliminator technologies.

This control measure will seek to phase-in the use of drift eliminators with 0.001 percent drift rate for existing cooling towers. This could be achieved by retrofitting older cooling towers with modification to the cooling fans to accompany the drift eliminators, which will also result in water conservation. Newly constructed cooling towers have demonstrated ultra-low drift rates down to 0.0005 percent. This drift rate has been achieved in practice and could be considered a BACT for new construction.

BCM-03 – FURTHER EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM PAVED ROAD DUST SOURCES: Although fugitive dust emissions from agriculture and construction are primarily in the coarse size fraction (PM10-2.5), entrained road dust is still one of the major direct PM2.5 sources due to the large number of roadways and high traffic volumes in the region. Existing SCAQMD Rules 1157 and 403 requirements to reduce track out from stationary sources are based on a list of options. Further emission reductions could be achieved by specifying the most effective track out prevention measures, such as use of a wheel washing system, for sites with high vehicular activity exiting the site, or those with repeated track-out violations. Existing SCAQMD Rule 1186 requires that certified equipment be used on public roads currently subject to routine street sweeping but does not specify frequency. Further paved road dust PM2.5 emission reductions could be sought through specifying the frequency of street sweeping. Street sweeping as part of routine roadway and highway maintenance may be included in a state, regional and/orlocal jurisdiction’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits as part of federal Clean Water Act provisions to reduce debris from entering the storm drain system. NPDES permits are governed by the U.S. EPA and issued and maintained by regional water quality control boards. SCAQMD will coordinate with NPDES 1-4-48
809 of 2287
Chapter 4: Control Strategy and Implementation
permittees and regional water quality control boards to ensure rules of this Plan or future Plans do not conflict with or otherwise compromise NPDES permit requirements. This review is not intended to be a part of the NPDES permit approval process or a reevaluation of existing NPDES permits, but is intended to determine current street sweeping or highway maintenance requirements and practices to ensure that any SCAQMD rulemaking would not be in conflict with existing NPDES permit requirements. As part of efforts to reduce paved road dust silt loadings and the corresponding PM emissions, an evaluation of existing SCAQMD fugitive dust rules will be conducted to determine if additional PM2.5 emissions can be achieved.

BCM-04 – EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM MANURE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES: This control measure seeks to use manure management systems to reduce ammonia, a PM precursor, from fresh manure.

Examples include acidifier application, dietary manipulation, feed additives, and other manure control strategies which can be applied on a year-around basis. To minimize costs, some control technologies can be seasonally or episodically applied during times when high ambient PM2.5 levels are of concern.

Dietary manipulation such as lowering the protein content and including high-fiber ingredients is an effective method to decrease ammonia emission from monogastric animals’ and ruminants’ manure.

Feed additives can be considered as a seasonal or episodic control strategy when ambient PM2.5 concentrations are highest. New approaches to reduce ammonia emissions from manure can be considered that include manure slurry injection, microbial manure additives, manure belt cleaning in laying hen houses, cage-free egg laying manure removal, and poultry manure thermal gasification.

Finally, this control measure will implement all feasible control measures and compliance with federal BACM requirements, including lowering the threshold for Large Confined animal facilities under Rule 223 – Emission Reduction Permits for Large Confined Animal Facilities.

BCM-05 – AMMONIA EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM NOx CONTROLS: This control measure seeks to reduce ammonia from NOx controls such as Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) and Selective NonCatalytic Reduction (SNCR). These systems are capable of reducing NOx emissions from combustion sources very effectively. However, the use of systems also results in potential emissions of ammonia that “slip” past the control equipment and into the atmosphere. Ammonia is a precursor gas for secondary PM formation. Recent advances in catalyst technology have resulted in the development of ammonia slip catalysts that selectively convert ammonia into nitrogen gas. These catalysts could be installed post-SCR and would result in less ammonia slip.

BCM-06 – EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM ABRASIVE BLASTING OPERATIONS: Existing SCAQMD Rule 1140 regulates opacity requirements for confined and unconfined abrasive blasting operations using various abrasives. The California Health and Safety Code prohibits local districts from requiring emission and performance standards more or less stringent than the State regulation. Rule 1140 has been developed with the ultimate goal of consistency. Rule 1140 establishes the emission and performance standards, including prohibition against visible emissions from confined or unconfined abrasive blasting operations, which is conforming to the California Code of Regulations Title 17, Subchapter 6 – Abrasive Blasting.

Current permit conditions for abrasive blasting require venting to a PM air pollution control (APC) equipment when in full use. Baghouses or dry filters are the most frequently used APC equipment.

This control measure proposes voluntary applications of a portable blasting enclosure/booth with a dust collection system by providing incentives, primarily focusing on dry abrasive blasting operations conducted in open areas using portable blasting equipment with or without a written SCAQMD permit. 4-49
810 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
BCM-07 – EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM STONE GRINDING, CUTTING AND POLISHING OPERATIONS:

Stone fabricating operations, including, but not limited to, grinding, cutting, and polishing generate airborne dust emissions containing PM10, some PM2.5, and silica particles that are known to cause lung diseases. Many of these operations are done at confined or unconfined worksites by construction workers, remodeling contractors and individuals, and may not be sufficiently controlled for dust emissions. This control measure seeks both wet and dry methods of control, local exhaust emissions control, no visible emissions requirements, and financial incentives as a regulatory alternative for exchanging existing wet or dry equipment with new equipment that includes integrated add-on controls.

BCM-08 – FURTHER EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM AGRICULTURAL, PRESCRIBED AND TRAINING BURNING: This control measure proposes to further reduce PM emissions from open burning sources.

Further PM emission reductions could be achieved through use of a fee schedule and/or an incentive program to limit agricultural burning and promote burning alternatives (e.g., chipping/grinding or composting). One approach to reduce emissions could involve establishing an administrative fee as part of the burn permit program based on acreage or amount of material burned for the purposes of processing and enforcing. Fees would not be charged to producers using burning alternatives.

Another approach could involve providing incentives to agricultural producers, especially in peak PM2.5 areas, to implement alternatives to burning. A demonstration project could also be established where a SCAQMD contractor could conduct chipping/grinding and removal activities in peak PM2.5 areas at no, or reduced, cost to producers.

BCM-09 – FURTHER EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM WOOD-BURNING FIREPLACES AND WOOD STOVES:

This control measure seeks additional emission reductions from residential wood burning activities.

Residential wood burning results in directly emitted PM2.5 and curtailment programs and emission reductions can be very cost-effective relative to other source categories. Based on a review of U.S.

EPA guidance documents and other air district wood smoke control programs, the existing SCAQMD curtailment program (Rule 445) threshold could be lowered. A lower curtailment criteria (e.g., 20 or 25 µg/m3
) could be established, which would increase the number of no burn days but not completely prohibit wood burning during the winter. Based on historical data (2013–2015) for the November through February winter season, it is estimated there would be 11 and 28 additional curtailment days, on average, at the 25 and 20 µg/m3 thresholds, respectively, above the estimate of 24 days at the current threshold. The Check Before You Burn program could also be extended to include the months of October and/or March as high PM2.5 levels can occur during these periods. All of these potential control options would increase the number of no burn days which could lower the contribution of wood smoke to ambient PM2.5 levels in the winter months. Although these episodic reductions are designed to address 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations, a consistent reduction in wintertime PM2.5 from reduced wood burning could have an impact on annual average PM2.5 concentrations. Further analysis will be conducted to determine the appropriate approach to achieve the emission reductions necessary to demonstrate attainment of both the 24-hour and annual average federal PM2.5 standards. The current SCAQMD program encourages households within high PM2.5 areas to upgrade wood-burning devices through SCAQMD incentives of up to $1,600 to offset purchase and installation costs. Although this program has been effective, additional reductions may be achieved through the use of higher incentives or expansion of the eligible geographic area. Experience has shown that education and outreach to targeted households is vital to ensure program participation, 1-4-50
811 of 2287
Chapter 4: Control Strategy and Implementation
and an additional element of this control measure would focus on expanding the awareness of the incentive programs.

BCM-10 – EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM GREENWASTE COMPOSTING: VOCs and ammonia, which are PM precursor gases, are emitted from composting of organic waste materials including greenwaste and foodwaste and are currently regulated by existing SCAQMD Rule 1133.3. Although Rule 1133.3 covers foodwaste composting, the level of emissions from foodwaste composting has not been fully characterized, mainly due to the lack of related emissions test data. This control measure proposes potential emission minimization through emerging organic waste processing technology and potential emission reductions through restrictions on the direct land application of chipped and ground uncomposted greenwaste and through increased diversion to anaerobic digestion. This proposed control measure could seek a 15-day pathogen reduction process of chipped and ground uncomposted greenwaste with composting BMPs to reduce potential VOC and ammonia emissions from land applied greenwaste.

SCAQMD Proposed Contingency Measures
Pursuant to federal CAA Section 172(c)(9), contingency measures are emission reduction measures that are to be automatically triggered and implemented if an area fails to attain the national ambient air quality standard by the applicable attainment date, or fails to make reasonable further progress (RFP) toward attainment.

Such plan shall provide for the implementation of specific measures to be undertaken if the area fails to make reasonable further progress, or to attain the national primary ambient air quality standard by the attainment date applicable under this part. Such measures shall be included in the plan revision as contingency measures to take effect in any such case without further action by the State or the Administrator. (CAA Section 172(c)(9))
U.S. EPA has issued guidance that the contingency measure requirement could be satisfied with already adopted control measures, provided that the controls are above and beyond what is needed to demonstrate attainment with the NAAQS (76 FR 57891).

U.S. EPA guidance provides that contingency measures may be implemented early, i.e., prior to the milestone or attainment date. Consistent with this policy, States are allowed to use excess reductions from already adopted measures to meet the CAA Sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) contingency measures requirement. This is because the purpose of contingency measures is to provide extra reductions that are not relied on for RFP or attainment, and that will provide a cushion while the plan is being revised to fully address the failure to meet the required milestone. Nothing in the CAA precludes a State from implementing such measures before they are triggered.

In August 2016, U.S. EPA issued the Final Rule of “Fine Particle Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements” (81 FR 58010) that provides a planning requirement framework for the 2012 and future PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to Subpart 4. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) is tracked with milestones and the new rule requires a SIP submittal in nine months after missing a 4-51
812 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
milestone to show the next milestone will be met along with contingency measures. The compliance with RFP contingency can be found in Appendix VI-C.

The 2012 base year design value for the 24-hour PM2.5 attainment demonstration is 36.6 µg/m3 and the 2019 attainment year design value must be less than 35.4 µg/m3 (see Chapter 5). Linear progress towards attainment over the seven year period yields one year’s worth of air quality improvements equal to approximately 0.2 µg/m3
. Thus, the contingency measures should provide for approximately 0.2 µg/m3 of air quality improvements to be automatically implemented in 2020 if the Basin fails to attain the 24-hour PM2.5 in 2019. Because the baseline concentrations in 2019 are anticipated to be 32.1 µg/m3 ,
there is linear progress of about 0.6 µg/m3 per year, with a resulting 3.3 µg/m3 of air quality improvement beyond what is required for attainment. The improvement is occurring due to adopted measures, such as on-road and off-road mobile source regulation, that are being implemented in the future generating these annual reductions. Therefore, excess emission reductions from already adopted measures lead to much more than one year’s worth of air quality improvements, and thus the contingency measure requirement for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is satisfied. In addition, SCAQMD Rule 445 (Wood Burning Devices) imposes a mandatory burning curtailment for a specific source receptor area whenever a PM2.5 level of greater than 30 µg/m3 is predicted, or for the entire South Coast Air Basin whenever a PM2.5 level of greater than 30 µg/m3 is predicted for a source receptor area containing a monitoring station that has recorded a violation of the federal 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (35 µg/m3 ) for either of the two previous threeyear periods. By definition, this adopted rule requirement is a contingency measure that is undertaken if the area fails to attain the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (35 µg/m3 ) and the timing to implement is immediate.

Similarly, the annual PM2.5 base year design value for the annual PM2.5 attainment demonstration is

14.9 µg/m3 and the 2025 attainment year design value must be less than 12 µg/m3 (see Chapter 5).

Linear progress towards attainment over the 13 year period yields one year’s worth of air quality improvements equal to approximately 0.2 µg/m3
. The NOx strategy will assist in meeting the annual
PM2.5 as “expeditiously as practicable” earlier than the attainment year of 2025. Contingency measure BCM-01 will reduce emissions in excess of the equivalent of the one year’s worth of reduction (0.2 µg/m3 )
(see Appendix VI).

To the extent the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone standards will still rely on CAA Section 182(e)(5) flexibility, contingency measures for ozone are not required until three years before the attainment date. Further detailed descriptions of contingency requirements can be found in Chapter 6 – Other Clean Air Act Requirements. As discussed in Chapter 6 and consistent with U.S. EPA guidance, the SCAQMD is proposing to use excess air quality improvements from existing measures supplemented with measures in the proposed control strategy to satisfy contingency measure requirements.

SIP Emission Reduction Commitment
The SIP emission reduction commitment in the 2016 AQMP from adopted rules and proposed measures are divided into commitments for the PM2.5 and ozone SIPs. Taken together, these reductions are relied upon to demonstrate expeditious progress and attainment of the federal air quality standards. The following sections first describe the methodology for SIP emission reduction calculations and the 1-4-52
813 of 2287
Chapter 4: Control Strategy and Implementation
creditable SIP reductions, then describe what procedures will be followed to ensure fulfillment of the commitment.

SIP Emission Reduction Tracking
For purposes of tracking progress in emission reductions, the baseline emissions for the year 2019 (24- hour average), 2021/2025 (annual average) and 2023/2031 (summer planning inventory) in the 2016 AQMP will be used, regardless of any subsequent new inventory information that reflects more recent knowledge. This is to ensure that the same “currency” is used in measuring progress as was used in designing the Plan. This will provide a fair and equitable measurement of progress. Therefore, it makes no difference whether progress is measured by emission reductions or remaining emissions for a source category. However, the most recent emission inventory information at the time of rule development will continue to be used for calculating reductions, and assessing cost-effectiveness and socioeconomic impacts of the proposed rule. Therefore, for future rulemaking activity, both the most recent and AQMP inventories will be reported.

Any emission reductions achieved beyond the existing SCAQMD regulations are creditable only if they are also SIP-enforceable. Therefore, in certain instances, the SCAQMD may have to adopt regulations to reflect the existing industry practices in order to claim SIP reduction credit, with the understanding that there may not be additional reductions beyond what has already occurred. Exceptions can be made where reductions are real, quantifiable, surplus to the Final 2016 AQMP baseline inventories, and enforceable through other state and/or federal regulations. Also, any emission inventory revisions, which have gone through a peer review and public review process, can also be SIP creditable.

Reductions from Adopted Rules
A number of control measures contained in the 2012 AQMP have been adopted as rules. These adopted rules and their projected emission reductions become assumptions in developing the AQMP future year inventories. Although they are not part of the control strategy in the 2016 AQMP, continued implementation of those rules is essential in achieving clean air goals and maintaining the attainment demonstration. Table 1-2 of Chapter 1 lists the rules adopted by the SCAQMD since the adoption of the 2012 AQMP and their expected emission reductions.

Reductions from SCAQMD Control Measures
For purposes of implementing an approved SIP, the SCAQMD is committed to adopt and implement control measures that will achieve, in aggregate, emission reductions specified in Tables 4-8 through 4-11 to demonstrate expeditious implementation of measures toward meeting the federal 2012 annual PM2.5, the 1979 1-hour ozone, the 1997 8-hour ozone, and the 2008 8-hour ozone standards, respectively.

Emission reductions achieved in excess of the amount committed to in a given year can be applied to the emission reduction commitments of subsequent years. The SCAQMD is committed to adopt the control measures in Tables 4-2, 4-4, and 4-7 unless these measures or a portion thereof are found infeasible and other substitute measures that can achieve equivalent reductions in the same adoption or implementation timeframes are adopted. Findings of infeasibility will be made at a regularly scheduled meeting of the SCAQMD Governing Board with proper public notification. For purposes of the SIP commitment, infeasibility means that the proposed control technology is not reasonably likely to be 4-53
814 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
available by the implementation date in question, or achievement of the emission reductions by that date is not cost-effective. It should be noted that the reductions in Tables 4-8 through 4-11 are committed only to the extent needed to achieve attainment by attainment deadlines (2025 for the 2012 annual PM2.5; 2023, 2024, and 2032 for the 1979 1-hr, 1997 8-hr, and 2008 8-hr ozone, respectively), and if any substitution is needed, the alternative measures will need to achieve the same emission reductions or air quality benefit. It should be also noted that Tables 4-8 through 4-11 not only include the aggregate emission reduction commitments, but also the anticipated specific control measures to meet that reduction commitment with the understanding that if there is a shortfall in the individual measures for a particular year, substitution to achieve the reduction could be generated from other control measures for the same or previous years. The SCAQMD acknowledges that this commitment is enforceable under Section 304(f) of the federal CAA. U.S. EPA will not credit SIP reductions unless the control measures are adopted and approved into the SIP at the time U.S. EPA takes action on the plan, except that U.S. EPA has in the past allowed about 10 percent of required reductions to be in the form of “enforceable commitments.”
Adoption and Implementation
As a partial response to concerns raised by the regulated community that costly controls may be required to meet the SIP obligations, previous AQMPs have established cost-effectiveness thresholds for additional tiered levels of analysis. The 2012 AQMP established $16,500 per ton of VOC and $22,500 per ton of NOx as the thresholds. The legal requirements for emission reductions to reach attainment remain, but the cost of achieving those reductions will increases as the most cost-effective controls have already been implemented. To reflect this reality, as well as inflation adjustments since the current thresholds were established, the 2016 AQMP proposes thresholds of $30,000 per ton of VOC and $50,000 per ton of NOx for tiered levels of analysis. Note, however, with the new focus on incentives and public funding, not all of this cost will necessarily be borne by industry. Specifically, proposed rules with an average costeffectiveness above these threshold will trigger a more rigorous average cost-effectiveness, incremental cost-effectiveness, and socioeconomic impact analysis. A public review and decision-making process will be instituted to seek lower, more cost-effective alternatives. In addition, the SCAQMD staff, with input from stakeholders, will attempt to develop viable control alternatives within the industry source categories that a rule is intended to regulate. If it is determined that control alternatives within the industry source category are not feasible, staff will perform an evaluation of the control measure as described in the next paragraph. Viable alternatives will be reviewed by the SCAQMD Governing Board at a public meeting no less than 90 days prior to rule adoption and direction can be given to staff for further analysis. During this review process, incremental cost-effectiveness scenarios and methodology will be specified, and industry-specific affordability issues will be identified as well as possible alternative control measures. The SCAQMD Governing Board may adopt the original or an alternative that is consistent with state and federal law. In addition, staff will include in all set hearing items a notification whether the proposed rules exceed the cost thresholds.

Alternative/Substitute Measures
Under the 2016 AQMP, the SCAQMD will be allowed to substitute SCAQMD source measures in Tables 4- 2, 4-4 and 4-7 with other measures, provided the overall equivalent emission reductions by the adoption and implementation dates in Tables 4-2, 4-4 and 4-7 are maintained and the applicable measure in Tables 1-4-54
815 of 2287
Chapter 4: Control Strategy and Implementation
4-2, 4-4 and 4-7 is deemed infeasible. In order to provide meaningful public participation, when new control concepts are introduced for rule development, the SCAQMD is committed to provide advanced public notification beyond its regulatory requirements (i.e., through its Rule Forecast Report). The SCAQMD will also report quantitatively on the AQMP’s implementation progress annually at its regularly scheduled Governing Board meetings. Included in the reports will be any control measures being proposed or measures, or portions thereof, that have been found to be infeasible and the basis of such findings. In addition, at the beginning of the year, any significant emission reduction related rules to be considered are listed in the Governing Board’s Rule Forecast Report. The annual report would also provide any finding of a new feasible control measure to substitute for a measure that has been deemed infeasible. The existing rule development outreach efforts such as public workshops, stakeholder working group meetings or public consultation meetings will continue to solicit public input. In addition, if additional technical analysis, including source testing, indicates that actual emissions are less than previously estimated, the reductions would then be creditable toward SIP commitments. In order for reductions from improved emission calculation methodologies to be SIP creditable, a public process and the Governing Board adoption hearing will also be instituted to solicit comments and make appropriate revisions, if necessary.

Reductions from CARB Control Measures
CARB’s overall commitment is to achieve the total emission reductions necessary to attain the federal air quality standards, reflecting the combined reductions from the existing control strategy and new measures. Therefore, if a particular measure does not get its expected emission reductions, the State is still committed to achieving the total aggregate emission reductions. If actual emission decreases occur that exceed the projections reflected in the current emission inventory and the State SIP Strategy, CARB will submit an updated emissions inventory to U.S. EPA as part of a SIP revision. The SIP revision would outline the changes that have occurred and provide appropriate tracking to demonstrate that aggregate emission reductions sufficient for attainment are being achieved through enforceable emission reduction measures.

The CARB proposed control measures presented in Table 4-5, combined with ongoing implementation of the current control program, will reduce mobile source NOx emissions 80 percent from the current levels in the Basin by 2031, as well as reduce VOC emissions by 55 percent. The remaining 20 percent will come from additional efforts to enhance the deployment of these cleaner technologies through new incentive funding, efficiency improvements in transportation and freight, and support for the use of advanced transportation technologies, such as intelligent transportation systems and autonomous vehicles. These actions will be implemented through proposed measures for each sector that are designed to provide further emission reductions from the deployment of cleaner technologies necessary to meet the Basin’s “extreme” ozone nonattainment area needs. Table 4-12 specifies emission reductions in NOx and VOC emissions committed to be achieved through the CARB regulatory and incentive programs.
4-55
816 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 4-8
Annual PM2.5 (12 µg/m3
) SIP Basin-wide Emission Reduction Commitment
to be Achieved by 2025 through SCAQMD Regulatory Programs (Annual Average Inventory, tons per day)
YEAR PM2.5 NOx**
Based on
Adoption
Date
Based on
Implementation
Datea
Based on
Adoption
Date
Based on
Implementation
Datea
2016
2017
MOB-10 (1.9)
MOB-11 (2.9)
MOB-14 (11)

15.8 2018 BCM-01 (3.3)
CMB-01 (2.5)
CMB-02 (1.1)
CMB-03 (1.4)
CMB-04 (0.8)
ECC-02 (0.3)
ECC-03 (1.2)

7.3 2019
BCM-04 (0.2)
Δ
BCM-10 (0.1)Δ
2020
BCM-04 (0.2)
Δ
BCM-10 (0.1)Δ
CMB-03 (1.4)
CMB-02 (1.1)

2.5 2021
2022 CMB-05 (5) CMB-04 (0.8)
2023
ECC-02 (0.3)
ECC-03 (1.2)
CMB-01 (2.5)
MOB-10 (1.9)
MOB-11 (2.9)
MOB-14 (11)

19.8 2024
2025 BCM-01 (3.3) CMB-05 (5)
TOTAL 3.3* 3.3* 28 28
a Represents the final, full implementation date; typically a rule contains multiple implementation dates
Δ NH3 measure as PM2.5 precursor
* For contingency measure purposes only
** Summer planning inventory
1-4-56
817 of 2287
Chapter 4: Control Strategy and Implementation
TABLE 4-9
1979 1-hour Ozone (120 ppb) SIP Emission Reduction Commitment to be Achieved by 2022 through SCAQMD Stationary and Mobile Source Regulatory Programs (Summer Planning Inventory, tons per day)
YEAR VOC NOx
Based on
Adoption Date
Based on
Implementation Datea
Based on
Adoption Date
Based on
Implementation Datea
2016
2017 CTS-01 (1) MOB-10 (1.9)
MOB-11 (2.9)
MOB-14 (11)

15.8 2018
CMB-01 (1.2)
CMB-03 (0.4)
ECC-02 (0.07)
ECC-03 (0.2)

1.9 CMB-01 (2.5)
CMB-02 (1.1)
CMB-03 (1.4)
CMB-04 (0.8)
ECC-02 (0.3)
ECC-03 (1.2)

7.3 2019
FUG-01( 2)
BCM-10 (1.5)

3.5 2020
BCM-10 (1.5)
CMB-03 (0.4)
CTS-01 (1)

2.9 CMB-02 (1.1)
CMB-03 (1.4)

2.5 2021
2022
FUG-01 (2)
ECC-02 (0.06)^
ECC-03 (0.17)^
CMB-01 (1.0)^

3.2 CMB-04 (0.8)
MOB-10 (1.9)
MOB-11 (2.5) ^
MOB-14 (9.5) ^
ECC-02 (0.26)^
ECC-03 (1.03)^
CMB-01 (2.15)^

18.1 TOTAL* 6.4 6.1 23 21
a Represents the final, full implementation date; typically a rule contains multiple implementation dates * All ozone strategy reductions are adopted by 2022. However, not all adoptions are implemented by 2022.

Therefore, totals are not equal
^ 86 percent of control measures’ 2023 reductions
4-57
818 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 4-10
1997 8-hour Ozone (80 ppb) SIP Emission Reduction Commitment to be Achieved by 2023 through SCAQMD Stationary and Mobile Source Regulatory Programs (Summer Planning Inventory, tons per day)
YEAR VOC NOx
Based on
Adoption Date
Based on
Implementation Datea
Based on
Adoption Date
Based on
Implementation Datea
2016
2017 CTS-01 (1)

1.0 MOB-10 (1.9)
MOB-11 (2.9)
MOB-14(11)

15.8 2018 CMB-01 (1.2)
CMB-03 (0.4)
ECC-02 (0.07)
ECC-03 (0.2)

1.9 CMB-01 (2.5)
CMB-02 (1.1)
CMB-03 (1.4)
CMB-04 (0.8)
ECC-02 (0.3)
ECC-03 (1.2)

7.3 2019 FUG-01 (2)
BCM-10 (1.5)

3.5 2020 BCM-10 (1.5)
CMB-03 (0.4)
CTS-01 (1)

2.9 CMB-02 (1.1)
CBM-03 (1.4)

2.5 2021
2022 FUG-01 (2) CMB-04 (0.8)
2023 ECC-02 (0.07)
ECC-03 (0.2)
CMB-01 (1.2)

1.5 ECC-02 (0.3)
ECC-03 (1.2)
CMB-01 (2.5)
MOB-10 (1.9)
MOB-11 (2.9)
MOB-14 (11)

19.8 TOTAL 6.4 6.4 23 23
a Represents the final, full implementation date; typically a rule contains multiple implementation dates 1-4-58
819 of 2287
Chapter 4: Control Strategy and Implementation
TABLE 4-11
2008 8-hour Ozone (75 ppb) SIP Emission Reduction Commitment to be Achieved by 2031 through SCAQMD Stationary and Mobile Source Regulatory Programs (Summer Planning Inventory, tons per day)
YEAR VOC NOx
Based on
Adoption Date
Based on
Implementation Datea
Based on
Adoption Date
Based on
Implementation Datea
2016
2017
MOB-10 (1.9)
MOB-11 (1.0)
MOB-14 (7.8)

10.7 2018
ECC-02 (0.3)
ECC-03 (0.3)
CMB-01 (2.8)
CMB-03 (0.4)

3.8 CMB-04 (1.6)
ECC-02 (1.1)
ECC-03 (2.1)
CMB-01 (6.0)
CMB-02 (2.8)
CMB-03 (1.5)

15.1 2019
FUG-01 (2)
BCM-10 (1.8)

3.8 2020 CMB-03 (0.4) CMB-03 (1.5)
2021 CTS-01 (2)
2022 FUG-01 (2) CMB-05 (5) CMB-04 (1.6)
2023 ECC-02 (0.3) ECC-02 (1.1)
2024
2025 CMB-05 (5)
2026–2030
2031 ECC-03 (0.3)
CMB-01 (2.8)
BCM-10 (1.8)
CTS-01 (2)

6.9 ECC-03 (2.1)
CMB-01 (6.0)
CMB-02 (2.8)
MOB-10 (1.9)
MOB-11 (1.0)
MOB-14 (7.8)

21.6 TOTAL 9.6 9.6 31.0 31.0
a Represents the final, full implementation date; typically a rule contains multiple implementation dates 4-59
820 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 4-12
Emission Reduction Commitment to be Achieved by 2031 through CARB Regulatory and Incentive Programs
(Summer Planning Inventory, tons per day)
YEAR NOx VOC
Based on
Adoption Date
Based on
Implementation
Datea
Based on
Adoption Date
Based on
Implementation
Datea
2016 5 3 0.5 0.4
2017 0.1 <0.2
2018 3.4 0.1 16 <0.2
2019 12
2020 2.6 0.4 0.5 <0.1
2021 4–5 4–5
2022 2 16
2023 88 10 37.3 0.4
2024 7
2025
2026 0.6 0.4
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031 88 37.3
TOTAL 111 111 59–60 59–60
a Represents the final, full implementation date; typically a rule contains multiple implementation dates Overall Emission Reductions
A summary of annual average emission inventory and reductions for the proposed control measures for the year 2023 and 2025 is provided in Table 4-13 and Table 4-14, respectively. A summary of summer planning emission inventory and reductions for the years 2023 and 2031 is also provided in Tables 4-15 and 4-16. These reductions reflect the emission reductions associated with implementation of control measures under local, state, and federal jurisdiction. Emission reductions represent the difference 1-4-60
821 of 2287
Chapter 4: Control Strategy and Implementation
between the projected baseline and the remaining emissions. The federal 2006 24-hr PM2.5 standard will be achieved with baseline emissions by 2019 (see Chapter 5).

Table 4-13 identifies projected reductions based on the annual average inventory for PM2.5 and its precursor gas (NOx) for basin-wide stationary and local mobile control measures to achieve the annual PM2.5 standard as “expeditiously as practicable.” These reductions lead to attainment of the federal 2012 annual PM2.5 standard if all reductions from the ozone strategy are creditable towards PM2.5 attainment. However, some measures may only be approvable under CAA Section 182(e)(5), and thus not applicable to PM2.5 attainment demonstrations. SCAQMD will continue to work with U.S. EPA on approvability of measures and reducing reliance on 182(e)(5) measures. Since the creditability of emission reductions and the feasibility of other PM2.5 measures is sufficiently uncertain to advance attainment to 2023, a 2025 attainment date is proposed. Table 4-14 identifies projected reductions based on the annual average inventory for PM2.5 and NOx to achieve the federal 2012 annual PM2.5 standard by 2025 as a “serious” nonattainment area.

Tables 4-15 and 4-16 identify projected reductions based on the summer planning inventory for NOx and VOC emissions to achieve the 1997 8-hour ozone standard by 2023 and 2008 8-hour ozone standard by 2031.

TABLE 4-13
Emission Reductions for 2023 Based on Annual Average Emissions Inventory (Tons per day)
SOURCES NOx PM2.5
Year 2023 Baseline1 257 64
Emission Reductions:

SCAQMD Stationary Sources 7 3 Δ
SCAQMD Mobile Sources 16 0
CARB Mobile Sources 113 0
TOTAL Reductions (all measures) 136 3 Δ
2023 Remaining Emissions* 121 61
1 Emission assumptions from SCAG’s 2016 RTP/SCS are already reflected in the AQMP baseline, including TCMs
Δ For contingency measure purposes only
* Numbers may not sum due to rounding
4-61
822 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 4-14
Emission Reductions for 2025 Based on Annual Average Emissions Inventory (Tons per day)
SOURCES NOx PM2.5 VOC
Year 2025 Baseline1 241 64 353
Emission Reductions:

SCAQMD Stationary Sources 12 3 Δ 6.4
SCAQMD Mobile Sources 16 0 0
CARB Mobile Sources 67 0 50–51*
Federal Measures 46 0 0.3
TOTAL Reductions (all measures) 141 3 Δ 57–58
2025 Remaining Emissions 100 61 295–296
1 Emission assumptions from SCAG’s 2016 RTP/SCS are already reflected in the AQMP baseline, including TCMs
* Includes Consumer Products
Δ For contingency measure purposes only
TABLE 4-15
Emission Reductions for 2023 Based on Summer Planning Inventory (Tons per day)
SOURCES VOC NOx
Year 2023 Baseline1 379 255
Emission Reductions:

SCAQMD Stationary Sources 6.4 7.3
SCAQMD Mobile Sources 0 15.8
CARB Mobile Sources 50–51* 67
Federal Measures 0.3 46
TOTAL Reductions (all measures) 57–58 136
2023 Remaining Emissions 321–322 119
1 Emission assumptions from SCAG’s 2016 RTP/SCS are already reflected in the AQMP baseline, including TCMs
* Includes Consumer Products
1-4-62
823 of 2287
Chapter 4: Control Strategy and Implementation
TABLE 4-16
Emission Reductions for 2031 Based on Summer Planning Inventory (Tons per day)
SOURCES VOC NOx
Year 2031 Baseline1 362 214
Emission Reductions:

SCAQMD Stationary Sources 9.6 20
SCAQMD Mobile Sources 0 10.7
CARB Mobile Sources 59–60* 54
Federal Measures 0.3 57
TOTAL Reductions (all measures) 69–70 142
2031 Remaining Emissions 292–293 72
1 Emission assumptions from SCAG’s 2016 RTP/SCS are already reflected in the AQMP baseline, including TCMs
* Includes Consumer Products
Implementation
Achieving clean air objectives requires the effective and timely implementation of the control measures.

Similar to approaches taken by previous AQMPs, the SIP commitment is to bring each control measure for regulatory consideration or program implementation in a specified time frame. The time frame is based on the ability to implement certain control strategies that will result in the reductions necessary to demonstrate attainment by the required attainment date. There is a commitment to achieve a total emission reduction target, with the ability to substitute for control measures deemed technologically, legally, economically, and/or environmentally not feasible, so long as equivalent reductions are met by other means. These measures are also designed to satisfy the federal CAA requirement of RACT [Section 172(c)], BACM, and the California CAA (CCAA) requirement of BARCT [California Health and Safety Code Section 40440(b)(1)].

The adoption and implementation schedule of the control measures proposed in the 2016 AQMP can be found in Tables 4-2, 4-4, and 4-7. Implementation of the mobile source measures in Table 4-4 rely on actions from many agencies. This section describes each agency’s area of responsibility.

4-63
824 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
Incentive Funding
Funding Needs for Mobile Source Emission Reductions
Given the significant NOx emission reductions needed to attain the federal ozone air quality standards by 2023 and 2031, a combination of public funding incentives along with regulatory actions are needed. In the near-term, there is a need to commercialize zero and near-zero on-road trucks and off-road equipment as early as possible. For national and international transportation sources, there is a need to accelerate deployment of the cleanest locomotives, ocean-going vessels, and aircraft as early as possible in the near-term and promulgation of cleaner exhaust emissions standard in the longer term.

The approach that the SCAQMD and CARB are proposing to achieve the emission reductions identified in the State SIP Strategy (Appendix IV-B) “Further Deployment of Cleaner Technologies” measures and the SCAQMD’s mobile source measures (Appendix IV-A) is predicated on securing the amount of funding needed to achieve a significant portion of the NOx emission reductions by 2023, followed with regulatory actions that will be implemented in the mid-2020s. A lower level of funding will be needed if significant NOx emission reductions occur by other measures prior to 2023.

To illustrate this approach, an analysis has been conducted to estimate the funding needed to achieve the emission reductions identified in the “Further Deployment of Clean Technologies” measures proposed in the State SIP Strategy (Appendix IV-B, 2016 AQMP). The analysis is not meant to be the only implementation approach to achieve the emission reductions associated with the “Further Deployment” measures, but meant to illustrate an upper limit of the most likely funding necessary if no other actions are taken to achieve the associated emission reductions. As discussed above, CARB described four implementation approaches for the “Further Deployment” measures, which includes incentives programs, regulations to be developed as zero and near-zero emission vehicles and equipment are commercialized, and the quantification of the emission reduction benefits from operational efficiency improvements and deployment of connected vehicles, autonomous vehicles, and intelligent transportation systems.

Five funding scenarios were analyzed to examine the range of funding needed. The five funding scenarios are summarized below.

Funding Scenario Based on Traditional Carl Moyer Cost-Effectiveness Criteria
This scenario assumes that funding on a per vehicle/equipment basis is based on the anticipated future Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment (Moyer) Program cost-effectiveness criteria of $30,000/ton and $50,000/ton to account for near-zero and zero emission technologies. The amount of funding is calculated using the formula from the Moyer Guidelines (Moyer Guidelines, Appendix C). The following assumptions were made:
• Capital Recovery Factor: Seven years until 2020 and then three years until 2024. Three years surplus is the Moyer program minimum lead time.

1-4-64
825 of 2287
Chapter 4: Control Strategy and Implementation
• For 2031, a 10 year project life is assumed for the early years, dropping to seven years in the later years.
• Cost-effectiveness assumption: At the current $18,262/ton cost effectiveness rate the grant amount may not be sufficient to incentivize turnover. CARB is considering increasing the costeffectiveness criteria as part of the next update of the Guidelines. For the purposes of this analysis a $30,000/ton cost-effectiveness criteria is assumed to estimate funding needs by 2023 and a $50,000/ton criteria is assumed after 2025 to 2031. If a federal ultra-low NOx exhaust emissions standard is established, the funding would be primarily for zero-emission technologies, which may have cost-effectiveness on the order of $50,000/ton or higher.

Based on the above assumptions, two scenarios are developed. The first scenario assumes that funding would be available to attain the 80 ppb federal ozone air quality standard in 2023. Funding at a lower level would continue at the level needed to meet the 75 ppb standard in 2031. Table 4-17 shows the results of this scenario.

TABLE 4-17
Funding Needed for Mobile Source Sector to Attain Ozone NAAQS (Based on Moyer Cost-Effectiveness and Assuming Funding Needed to Achieve 2023 Attainment, and Continuing to 2031)
Year Funding/Yr C-E = $30,000/ton
2023 t/d NOx
C-E = $30,000/ton
2031 t/d NOx
C-E = $50,000/ton
2031 t/d NOx
2017 $100,000,000 1.4
2018 $150,000,000 2.0
2019 $500,000,000 6.8
2020 $800,000,000 10.9
2021 $900,000,000 27.9
2022 $900,000,000 27.9
2023 $900,000,000 27.9
2024 $250,000,000 2.4
2025 $250,000,000 2.4
2026 $250,000,000 2.4
2027 $250,000,000 2.0
2028 $250,000,000 2.0
2029 $250,000,000 2.0
2030 $250,000,000 2.0
2031 $250,000,000 2.0
Total NOx Reductions (t/d) 104.8 7.2 10.0
Total Funding (by C-E) $4,250,000,000 $750,000,000 $1,250,000,000 Total Funding $4,250,000,000 $6,250,000,000
4-65
826 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
Under this scenario, funding of up to $4.25 billion will be needed to achieve around 105 tons/day of NOx emission reductions identified in the State Mobile Source Strategy (Appendix IV-B) by 2023. An additional $2 billion will be needed to attain the federal 8-hour ozone air quality standard by 2031.

The second scenario assumes funding is available to attain the 75 ppb ozone air quality standard in 2031, independent of attainment of the ozone air quality standard by 2023. Table 4-18 shows the results of this analysis.

TABLE 4-18
Funding Needed for Mobile Source Sector to Attain Ozone NAAQS (Based on Moyer Cost-Effectiveness and Assuming 2023 and 2031 Attainment Funding are Independent)
Year Funding/Yr
(A)
C-E = $30,000/ton
2031 t/d NOx
(B)
C-E = $50,000/ton
2031 t/d NOx
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021 $900,000,000 8.7
2022 $900,000,000 8.7
2023 $900,000,000 8.7
2024 $1,000,000,000 8.2
2025 $1,000,000,000 8.2
2026 $1,000,000,000 8.2
2027 $1,000,000,000 8.2
2028 $1,000,000,000 8.2
2029 $1,000,000,000 8.2
2030 $1,000,000,000 8.2
2031 $1,000,000,000 8.2
Total NOx Reductions (t/d) 26.1 65.6
Total Funding (by C-E) $2,700,000,000 $8,000,000,000
Total Funding $10,700,000,000
If funding is secured to achieve solely the federal ozone air quality standard by 2031, the total funding needed is $10.7 billion (Table 4-17, sum of Columns A and B). Based on these analyses, it is less costly to achieve the 80 ppb ozone air quality standard earlier (in 2023) and utilize subsequent funding to achieve the 75 ppb federal ozone air quality standard by 2031.
1-4-66
827 of 2287
Chapter 4: Control Strategy and Implementation
The two scenarios analyzed in Tables 4-17 and 4-18 provide an approximate range of $4 to $11 billion in funding over a 7 to 15 year period to achieve the projected NOx emissions reductions.

Funding Scenario Based on Per Vehicle Funding Incentive Historically, funding for clean air projects are based either on a cost-effectiveness criteria or on a per vehicle incentive basis. Funding under the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program is based on cost-effectiveness. However, funding under the Proposition 1B Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program is based on per vehicle incentive funding. For example, a typical goods movement heavy-duty truck replacement provides for up to $50,000 per truck for a new or newer replacement truck. At times, the SCAQMD has augmented the Proposition 1B funding with other funding such as the U.S. EPA Diesel Emission Reduction Act (DERA) funding to provide additional financial incentives to purchase alternative fuel trucks.

Two scenarios were analyzed based on “per vehicle” funding incentives. The assumptions for the two scenarios include:
• Funding needed is based on achieving a significant portion of the NOx emissions reduction needed in 2023 (~105 tons/day) and independently in 2031 (~66 tons/day) as provided in the State Mobile Source Strategy.
• Funding needed for NOx emissions reduction from national and international sources is based on Carl Moyer Program cost-effectiveness criteria.
• Funding needed to implement Control Measure MOB-11 – Extended Exchange Program for larger horsepower lawn and garden equipment such as riding lawnmowers. • Current and projected NOx emissions reduction from existing projects and future anticipated projects as provided in Control Measure MOB-14 (Appendix IV-A) account for the total NOx emissions reduction in 2023 and 2031.

Table 4-19 shows the analysis of the funding needed to achieve the projected NOx emissions reductions identified in the State Mobile Source Strategy (Appendix IV-B), using per vehicle/equipment incentive amounts and populations.
4-67
828 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 4-19
Funding Needed for Mobile Source Sector to Attain Ozone NAAQS (Based on per vehicle funding)
(a) Funding Needed to Attain in 2023
Vehicle/Equipment
Type/Sector
NOx Emission
Reduction
(tons/day)
Affected
Population
Funding per
Vehicle/
Equipment
Total Funding
LDV, LDT-1, LDT-2
(pre-1999) 7 356,825 $9,500 $3,389,837,500
Light and Medium
Heavy-Duty Trucks
(pre-2014)

11.8 118,590 $25,000 $2,964,750,000
Heavy Heavy-Duty
Trucks (pre-2014) 14 31,200 $50,000 $1,560,000,000
TRUs, Forklifts, GSE
… 8 61,000 $25,000 $1,525,000,000
Construction &
Industrial Equipment 7 6,200 $150,000 $930,000,000
Lawn & Garden 2 2,000,000 $200 $400,000,000
Lawn & Garden -
Larger
Diesel/Gasoline
Equipment

2.9 30,000 $2,000 $60,000,000
Passenger
Locomotives 2 12 $2,000,000 $24,000,000
Aircraft, OGV,
Freight Locos
(assumes federal
action)*
40 -- -- $2,940,000,000
Moyer, Prop 1B 9.5 -- --
Total 104.2 $13,793,587,500
* Assumes Moyer cost/ton at $30,000/ton + 7 year life. Total funding rounded for discussion purposes 1-4-68
829 of 2287
Chapter 4: Control Strategy and Implementation
TABLE 4-19 (CONCLUDED)
Funding Needed for Mobile Source Sector to Attain Ozone NAAQS (Based on per vehicle funding)
(b) Funding Needed to Attain in 2031
Vehicle/Equipment
Type/Sector
NOx Emission
Reduction (tons/day)
Affected
Population
Funding per
Vehicle/
Equipment
Total Funding
LDV, LDT-1, LDT-2
(pre-1999) 5 356,825 $9,500 $3,389,837,500
Light and Medium
Heavy-Duty Trucks
(pre-2013)
5 82,000 $35,000 $2,870,000,000
Heavy Heavy-Duty
Trucks (pre-2013) 15 47,700 $50,000 $2,385,000,000
TRUs, Forklifts, GSE… 8 50,000 $25,000 $1,250,000,000
Construction &
Industrial Equipment 7 20,000 $100,000 $2,000,000,000
Lawn & Garden -- -- -- --
Lawn & Garden -
Larger
Diesel/Gasoline
Equipment
1 30,000 $2,000 $60,000,000
Passenger
Locomotives -- -- -- --
Aircraft, OGV,
Freight Locos
(assumes federal
action)*
20 -- -- $1,470,000,000
Moyer, Prop 1B 5.6 -- --
Total 66.6 $13,424,837,500
* Assumes Moyer cost/ton at $30,000/ton + 7 year life. Total funding rounded for discussion purposes Table 4-19 shows the funding needed assuming each mobile source sector achieves the NOx emissions reduction provided in the State Mobile Source Strategy. The total funding needed ranges from $13 to $14 billion to achieve the NOx emission reductions associated with the State Mobile Source Strategy.

The analysis assumes every sector reduces its share of the NOx emissions needed for attainment, regardless of cost-effectiveness, and thus includes funding for a larger population of vehicles that individually have smaller emissions.
4-69
830 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
A more realistic second analysis was conducted with a focus on achieving more emission reductions from heavy-duty vehicles and off-road equipment that would provide a greater cost-effective use of funding.

Under this scenario, no significant additional funding is assumed (beyond existing funding) for light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks. Greater NOx emission reductions would occur from the on-road heavyduty truck sector. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 4-20. Under this analysis the total funding needed ranges from $9 to $11 billion.

TABLE 4-20
Funding Needed for Mobile Source Sector to Attain Ozone NAAQS (Based on per vehicle funding and focused on larger vehicles and equipment) (a) Funding Needed to Attain in 2023
Vehicle/Equipment
Type/Sector
NOx Emission
Reduction
(tons/day)
Affected
Population
Funding per
Vehicle/
Equipment
Total Funding
Light and Medium
Heavy-Duty Trucks
(pre-2016)

5.9 68,860 $15,000 $1,032,900,000
Heavy Heavy-Duty
Trucks (post-2011 @
near-zero)
25 78,000 $25,000 $1,950,000,000
TRUs, Forklifts, GSE … 8 61,000 $25,000 $1,525,000,000
Construction &
Industrial Equipment 7 6,200 $150,000 $930,000,000
Lawn & Garden 2 2,000,000 $200 $400,000,000
Lawn & Garden -
Larger Diesel/Gasoline
Equipment

2.9 30,000 $2,000 $60,000,000
Passenger Locomotives 2 12 $2,000,000 $24,000,000
Aircraft, OGV, Freight
Locomotives (assumes
federal action)*
40 -- -- $2,940,000,000
Moyer, Prop 1B 9.5 -- --
Total 102.3 $8,861,900,000
* Assumes Moyer cost/ton @$30,000/ton + 7 year life. Total funding rounded for discussion purposes 1-4-70
831 of 2287
Chapter 4: Control Strategy and Implementation
TABLE 4-20 (CONCLUDED)
Funding Needed for Mobile Source Sector to Attain Ozone NAAQS (Based on per vehicle funding and focused on larger vehicles and equipment) (b) Funding Needed to Attain in 2031
Vehicle/Equipment
Type/Sector
NOx Emission
Reduction
(tons/day)
Affected
Population
Funding per
Vehicle/
Equipment
Total Funding
Light and Medium
Heavy-Duty Trucks
(pre-2014)
5 82,000 $35,000 $2,870,000,000
Heavy Heavy-Duty
Trucks (post-2021) 15 47,700 $50,000 $2,385,000,000
TRUs, Forklifts, GSE
… 8 50,000 $25,000 $1,250,000,000
Construction &
Industrial Equipment 7 20,000 $100,000 $2,000,000,000
Lawn & Garden -- -- -- --
Lawn & Garden -
Larger
Diesel/Gasoline
Equipment
1 30,000 $2,000 $60,000,000
Passenger
Locomotives -- -- -- --
Aircraft, OGV,
Freight Locomotives
(assumes federal
action)*
25 -- -- $1,840,000,000
Moyer, Prop 1B 5.6
Total 66.6 $10,405,000,000
* Assumes Moyer cost/ton @$30,000/ton + 7 year life. Total funding rounded for discussion purposes For the socioeconomic impact analysis, an additional scenario was developed assuming that funding would be available to achieve a significant amount, but not all of the NOx emission reductions associated with the State SIP Strategy “Further Deployment” measures in 2023 and assuming that the remaining emissions after 2023 will need to be reduced further to achieve the overall 55 percent NOx emission reductions needed for attainment in 2031. The NOx emission reductions would be around 98 tons/day by 2023 and an additional 20.8 tons/day by 2031. The funding needed by emissions source category is provided in Tables 4-21(a) and 4-21(b). The funding needed for this scenario is around $12.7 billion over the period from 2017 to 2031.
4-71
832 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 4-21
Funding Needed for Mobile Source Sector to Attain Ozone NAAQS (Based on per vehicle funding)
(a) Funding Needed to Attain in 2023
Vehicle/Equipment
Type/Sector
NOx Emission
Reduction (tons/day)
Affected
Population
Funding per
Vehicle/
Equipment
Total Funding
Medium Heavy-Duty
Trucks
(pre-2017)

5.9 68,860 $15,000 $1,032,900,000
Heavy Heavy-Duty
Trucks (post-2011 @
near-zero)

27.4 82,300 $25,000 $2,057,500,000
TRUs, Forklifts, GSE … 9.7 90,000 $25,000 $2,250,000,000 Construction &
Industrial Equipment 9.6 10,100 $150,000 $1,515,000,000 Small Off-Road Engines 3.1 270,000 $500 $135,000,000
Passenger Locomotives 2.0 12 $2,000,000 $24,000,000
Aircraft, OGV, Freight
Locomotives
(assumes federal
action)**

40.3 -- -- $2,745,000,000
Total 98.0 $9,759,400,000
* Note that the total emission reductions under this scenario are not intended to achieve the full emission reductions provided in the State SIP Strategy “Further Deployment of Cleaner Technologies” measures
** Assumes Moyer cost/ton at $30,000/ton + 7 year life. Total funding rounded for discussion purposes
1-4-72
833 of 2287
Chapter 4: Control Strategy and Implementation
TABLE 4-21 (CONCLUDED)
Funding Needed for Mobile Source Sector to Attain Ozone NAAQS (Based on per vehicle funding)
(b) Funding Needed to Attain in 2031
Vehicle/Equipment
Type/Sector
NOx Emission
Reduction (tons/day)
Affected
Population
Funding per
Vehicle/
Equipment
Total Funding
Medium Heavy-Duty
Trucks (pre-2020) 1.7 35,100 $35,000 $1,228,500,000
Heavy Heavy-Duty
Trucks (pre-2028) 5.4 18,600 $50,000 $930,000,000
TRUs, Forklifts, GSE… 2.7 42,000 $25,000 $1,050,000,000 Construction &
Industrial Equipment 2.3 3,300 $155,000 $511,500,000
Small Off-Road
Engines 0.3 36,000 $500 $18,000,000
Aircraft, OGV,
Freight Locomotives
(assumes federal
action)**

8.4 -- -- $618,200,000
Total 20.8 $4,356,200,000
* Note that the total emission reductions under this scenario are not intended to achieve the full emission reductions provided in the State SIP Strategy “Further Deployment of Cleaner Technologies” measures
** Assumes Moyer cost/ton at $30,000/ton + 7 year life. Total funding rounded for discussion purposes
In summary, the funding needed to achieve the NOx emission reductions identified in the State Mobile Source Strategy ranges from $5 billion to as high as $14 billion depending on the types of funding programs implemented and which mobile source sectors will be more cost effective to reduce emissions.

The actual funding levels will most likely be on the order of $10 to $12 billion with a mix of different funding programs and technologies.
4-73
834 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
Funding Needs for Stationary Source Emission Reductions It is clear that the majority of NOx emissions reductions needed for attainment of the ozone standards will need to come from mobile sources. However, if equally or more cost-effective incentive funding opportunities are identified in the stationary source sector, funding could be diverted to help local stationary sources reduce their emissions. Several stationary source incentive funding approaches have been developed as part of the 2016 AQMP control strategy (ECC-03, CMB-01, CMB-02, etc.). Details on cost-effectiveness and incentive funding needs for each measure are provided in Appendix IV. A total of $1.1 to $1.6 billion of stationary source incentive funding programs are proposed with projected costeffectiveness levels in the same range as the mobile source incentives described above.

Future Funding Opportunities
Achieving the emissions reductions from 2016 AQMP incentive-based control measures for both mobile and stationary sources will likely require approximately $11 to 14 billion in total funding. Given this significant funding level needed to attain the federal ozone air quality standards over the next seven to fifteen years, an action plan will be developed as part of the AQMP public adoption process to identify the necessary actions by the District, the region, the state, the federal government, and other partnerships to ensure the requisite levels of funding are secured as early as possible and sustained out to 2031.

The District receives around $56 million per year in incentives funding to accelerate turnover of on- and off-road vehicles and equipment under SB 1107, a portion of the State’s Tire Fee, and AB 923. AB 923 will sunset in 2024. In addition, the District has received close to $550 million in Proposition 1B funding.

The last round of Proposition 1B will be ending in the next couple of years. The District has also received funding under the DERA program on a competitive basis. Regardless, the amount of funding needed to achieve a significant portion of the NOx emission reductions associated with the “Further Deployment” measures proposed in the State SIP Strategy and the 2016 AQMP will require on the order of $1 billion per year if funding is available beginning in 2017. The proposed actions are discussed below.

Actions at the National Level
• Creation of a National Clean Air Investment and Cleanup Fund – This action calls for Congress to create a national fund to assist serious or above nonattainment areas attain federal air quality standards. The concept is similar to the “superfund” programs administered by U.S. EPA to help cleanup soil and water contamination. Congress has appropriated on the order of $500 million to $1 billion per year to help fund programs to address water contamination under the Clean Water Act and clean up contaminated sites. However, a similar concept on this scale has not yet been developed for contaminated air. Such a fund could focus on reducing emissions from national and international sources for which state and local jurisdiction is limited. • Develop new partnerships with states and regions currently in nonattainment of existing federal air quality standards or may be in nonattainment of future air quality standards – Regional partnerships such as the West Coast Collaborative and Northeast Diesel Collaborative provide a valuable means of pooling and coordinating funding resources to help neighboring 1-4-74
835 of 2287
Chapter 4: Control Strategy and Implementation
states and regions focus on reducing emissions from mobile sources that operate across state boundaries.

Establishing new collaboratives on a national level among nonattainment areas can provide an approach to prioritize funding in a more coordinated manner. As an example, deployment of a greater number of Tier 4 locomotives operating in the Basin is critical for the region to meet air quality standards and reduce air toxic exposure to diesel particulate matter exhaust. The same Tier 4 locomotives haul freight to different parts of the U.S. where air quality may or may not be an issue. Current funding for Tier 4 locomotives can be provided only if there is a commitment that the locomotive operates in California. However, under a collaborative approach, funding for Tier 4 locomotive could be provided on a “national” level. The approach is similar to interdistrict funding in the Carl Moyer Program.

This proposed action will be coordinated among regional collaboratives through the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA). NACAA can provide the forum to initiate discussions on the creation of the Clean Air Investment and Cleanup Fund and other regional clean air projects that may benefit the South Coast Air Basin.

Actions at the State Level
• Prioritize existing funding programs to maximize the co-benefits of criteria pollutant and GHG emission reductions – California has several large programs to help fund the deployment of cleaner technologies including the Carl Moyer Program, Proposition 1B, Lower Emission School Bus Program, and the GHG Reduction Funds. As the California State Legislature appropriates funds for these programs, there is a need to recognize projects that provide the maximum benefits in reducing both criteria pollutant and GHG emissions without a greater emphasis on one over the other. This actions calls for greater outreach and education to state legislators and their staff on the benefits of funding for projects that achieve the goals of AB 32 and also maximize criteria pollutant emission reductions. A coordinated effort would be made by the District through CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association) and CARB to provide coordinated outreach and education to state lawmakers on the creation of new funding programs while providing information on the benefits of clean air programs. • Initiating new funding programs – Proposition 1B is a valuable funding program in helping cleanup thousands of on-road heavy-duty trucks and off-road goods movement related equipment. Proposition 1B is in its last year of funding. The District along with interested stakeholders will explore the opportunity to develop a new mechanisms similar to Proposition 1B to improve air quality and transportation infrastructure in the goods movement sector. 4-75
836 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
Actions at the Regional/Local Level
• Local Ballot Measures – Efforts are currently underway in bringing measures to the ballot to provide funding for transportation improvement and air quality improvement. Such measures can provide additional funding resources for the region to help attain federal air quality standards. • Identify potential new sources of funding opportunities at all levels of government – This action entails developing new innovative funding programs at all levels of government. The District working with interested stakeholders from the public and private sector will explore potential new funding opportunities. Identified opportunities may require legislative actions to implement.

A working group is proposed to be established to develop ideas for new funding programs that will be provided to the District Governing Board for consideration prior to proceeding. • Re-invigorate the District’s Strategic Alliance Initiative – In 2002, the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted the Strategic Alliance Initiative. The initiative contains eight specific actions to help the region address air quality issues. The eight actions have been implemented for the most part.

However, two of the initiatives: Initiative #4. Formation of a Multi-Regional Alliance for Clean Air and Initiative #7. Strategic Alliance on Clean Fuel Vehicle Funding have relevance to the 2016 AQMP. This action is to expand upon the efforts back in 2002 to implement the collaborative efforts identified above under “Actions at the National Level”.

Strategic Alliance Initiative #4 called for major metropolitan nonattainment areas, such as Houston, Texas; Atlanta, Georgia; New York City; and Boston, Massachusetts to work together through sharing of information and pooling technical and political resources to address common air pollution problems. This effort included seeking federal funding for the demonstration of advanced clean air strategies that may ultimately prove applicable to other non-attainment areas.

Strategic Alliance Initiative #7 proposed that the SCAQMD form new alliances with fleet operators, including local governments, to secure long-term funding for implementation of the District’s fleet vehicle program. This effort included seeking federal funding opportunities from Congress, the U.S. Department of Energy, and U.S. Department of Transportation, and other funding opportunities at the federal level.

Under this proposed action, the SCAQMD would expand Initiatives #4 and #7 to develop the partnerships and collaboratives identified under the “Actions at the Federal Level” discussed above.

Responsible Agencies
Implementation of the control strategies requires a cooperative partnership of governmental agencies at the federal, state, regional and local level.

At the federal level, the U.S. EPA and, sometimes other federal agencies, are charged with reducing emissions from federally controlled sources such as aircraft, trains, marine vessels, and other sources. 1-4-76
837 of 2287
Chapter 4: Control Strategy and Implementation
At the state level, CARB is primarily responsible for reducing emissions from motor vehicles and consumer products.

At the regional level, SCAG assists sub-regional and local governments in playing a formative role in the air quality elements of transportation planning. In addition, local governments serve an important role in developing and implementing the transportation control measures that are included in the 2016 AQMP.

SCAG is responsible for providing the socioeconomic forecast (e.g., population and growth forecasts) upon which the Plan is based. SCAG also provides assessments for conformity of regionally significant transportation projects with the overall Plan and is responsible for the adoption of the RTP and the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) which include growth assumptions and transportation improvement projects that could have significant air quality impacts, and transportation control measures as required by the CAA.

At the regional level, SCAQMD is responsible for the overall development and implementation of the AQMP. SCAQMD is specifically authorized to reduce the emissions from stationary, point, and some area sources such as coatings and industrial solvents. Emission reductions are also sought through funding programs designed to accelerate vehicle turnover and the purchase of cleaner vehicles. In addition, the SCAQMD has authority to regulate indirect sources under the California Health and Safety Code Sections 40716 (a)(1) and 40440(b)(3). As a means of achieving further emission reductions, the SCAQMD may seek additional authority to regulate sources that have not been completely under the SCAQMD’s jurisdiction in the past such as marine vessels, consumer products, and other on-road and offroad sources. The SCAQMD implements its responsibilities with participation from the regulated community and other stakeholders through an extensive rule development and implementation program.

This approach maximizes the input of those parties affected by the proposed rule through consultation meetings, public workshops, and ongoing working groups.

Table 4-22 list the responsibilities of the key agencies involved in the implementation of the 2016 AQMP. 4-77
838 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 4-22
Agencies Responsible for Implementation
of the 2016 AQMP for the South Coast Air Basin

AGENCY PRINCIPAL RESPONSIBILITIES
U.S. EPA • National mobile vehicle emission standards
• Airplanes, trains, and ships
• New off-road construction & farm equipment below 175 hp CARB • On-road/off-road vehicles (emission standards for in-state sales and inuse fleets as authorized under Section 209(e) of the Clean Air Act) • Motor vehicle fuels
• Consumer products
SCAG • Conformity assessments for Regional Transportation Plan and other transportation projects
• Regional Transportation Improvement Program
• Transportation Control Measures
Local
Government
• Transportation and local government actions (i.e., land use approvals & ports)
• Transportation facilities
SCAQMD • Stationary (e.g., industrial/commercial) and area sources • Indirect sources
• Certain mobile sources (e.g., fleet regulations, incentives for accelerated vehicle turnover, reduction in average vehicle ridership, etc.) 1-4-78
839 of 2287
hapter 1
ntroduction
Chapter
5 Future Air Quality
Air quality modeling is an integral part of demonstrating future attainment of the clean air standards, relating emission reductions to air quality improvements. The 2016 AQMP reflects an updated emission inventory, economic growth projections, enhanced air quality modeling techniques, and the impacts of the proposed control strategies. 840 of 2287 In This Chapter
 Introduction 5-1
The multiple air quality standards evaluated
 Background 5-1
Nonattainment designations, modeling platform,
and meteorology
 Ozone Modeling Approach 5-3
Ozone design values and relative response factors
 Future Ozone Air Quality 5-8
Ozone concentrations and projections
841 of 2287
 PM2.5 Modeling Approach 5-17
PM design values and relative response factors
 Future PM2.5 Air Quality 5-20
PM2.5 concentrations and projections
 Additional Modeling Analyses 5-27
First look at the 2015 8-hour ozone standard
 Summary and Conclusions 5-28
Attainment of federal and State air quality standards
842 of 2287
Chapter 5: Future Air Quality
Introduction
Air quality modeling to demonstrate future attainment of air quality standards is an integral part of the planning process to achieve clean air. Modeling provides the means to relate emission reductions from sources of pollution to the resulting air quality improvements. The attainment demonstrations provided in the 2016 AQMP reflect updated emissions estimates, new technical information, enhanced air quality modeling techniques, updated attainment demonstration methodology, and the control strategies provided in Chapter 4. While the primary target of the 2016 AQMP is to demonstrate progress toward the 2008 8-hour ozone standard of 75 ppb by 2031, efforts to meet other air quality standards and the corresponding analyses are included in the 2016 AQMP and presented in this chapter. Both the revoked 1997 8-hour standard (80 ppb) and the revoked 1979 1-hour standard (120 ppb) are included in the analysis with attainment years of 2023 and 2022, respectively. This chapter also demonstrates future attainment of the annual and 24-hour PM2.5 standards (12 and 35 µg/m3 ).

The District’s goal is to develop an attainment demonstration that: 1) ensures that ambient air quality standards for all criteria pollutants are met by the established deadlines in the federal CAA and 2) achieves an expeditious rate of progress towards attaining the air quality standards. The overall control strategy is designed such that efforts to achieve the standard for one criteria pollutant complements efforts to meet the standards for other pollutants.

Background
The South Coast Air Basin is classified as an “extreme” nonattainment area for ozone. The 2016 AQMP addresses three ozone standards: the 2008 8-hour standard of 75 ppb, the revoked 1997 8-hour standard of 80 ppb, and the revoked 1-hour standard of 120 ppb. The attainment deadline years are 2031, 2023 and 2022, respectively. The emissions inventory and meteorological conditions were developed for a 2012 base year.

The Basin is currently a “serious” nonattainment area for 24-hour PM2.5 and “moderate” nonattainment for annual PM2.5. The 2012 AQMP addressed attainment of the 2006 24-hour standard of 35 µg/m3 by 2014; however, the unforeseen drought that occurred in the 2011–2014 time period inhibited the projected progress towards attainment. The District requested a voluntary bump-up from “moderate” status to “serious” nonattainment status in the “Supplement to the 24-Hour PM2.5 State Implementation Plan for the South Coast Air Basin” submitted to U.S. EPA in 2015 and subsequently approved in 2016.

For “moderate” nonattainment areas, the attainment deadline was 2015 based on CAA Title 1, Part D, Subpart 4, Section 188(c)(l), which establishes that attainment must be reached by the end of the 6th calendar year after the effective date of designation. The year 2019 is the new attainment deadline for “serious” nonattainment areas for the 24-hour PM2.5 standard.

The Basin was designated a “moderate” nonattainment area for the 2012 annual PM2.5 standard of 12 µg/m3 on April 15, 2015. This designation sets an attainment deadline of December 31, 2021. Despite the recent drought, the Basin shows continued improvement in annual PM2.5 design values. The base 5-1
843 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
year annual PM2.5 design values at Mira Loma are lower than the previous 1997 standard of 15 µg/m3, but do not yet meet the new 2012 standard of 12 µg/m3 (Figure 5-11), indicating that additional reductions may be needed to meet the more stringent standard. Acknowledging the challenges in meeting the standard, including the feasibility of proposed measures, uncertainties in drought conditions, and the potential inability to credit all ozone strategy reductions towards PM2.5 attainment if approved under CAA Section 182(e)(5), SCAQMD will request a voluntary bump-up to the “serious” classification, with a new attainment date of 2025. Future year attainment was analyzed for 2021, the original target for “moderate” nonattainment, and 2025, the revised attainment date for the requested “serious” status.

This AQMP includes all the milestone years significant to future PM2.5 attainment status: 2019 (24-hour PM2.5 attainment date), 2021 (annual PM2.5 attainment date for “moderate” nonattainment status) and 2025 (annual PM2.5 attainment date for “serious” nonattainment status). In addition, 2023 was included in the analysis to evaluate co-benefits of the ozone strategy on PM attainment and to assess the practicability of an earlier PM2.5 attainment date.

During the development of the 2012 AQMP, the District implemented an air quality modeling platform that integrates meteorological modeling, emissions inventories and atmospheric chemistry simulations into a physically and chemically consistent framework. In the 2007 and earlier AQMPs, the modeling platforms for meteorology and chemical-transport were developed separately. In addition, ozone and PM2.5 used separate modeling approaches due to the limitations of computational capacity. Recent advancements in computational technology enabled the transition to a state-of-science one-atmosphere, multi-pollutant modeling platform.

For the 2016 AQMP, the updated modeling platform has continued to serve as the primary tool to demonstrate attainment after incorporating the latest datasets and chemical mechanisms. Since completion of the 2012 AQMP, the modeling platform has been updated with satellite-based input data, improved chemical gaseous and particulate mechanisms, improved computational resources and postprocessing utilities, enhanced spatial and temporal allocations of the emissions inventory, and a revised attainment demonstration methodology. Several other additional updates were also included.

The 2016 AQMP ozone and PM2.5 attainment demonstration has been developed using the U.S. EPAsupported Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) (version 5.0.2) modeling platform with Statewide Air Pollution Research Center (SAPRC) 07 chemistry, and the Weather Research and Forecasting Model (WRF) (version 3.6.1) meteorological fields. PM2.5 and ozone were modeled simultaneously using the one-atmosphere modeling platform. Ozone attainment demonstrations focused on the period from May through September, while PM2.5 was analyzed for the entire year. The simulations were conducted over an area with a western boundary over 100 miles west of the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The eastern boundary extends slightly beyond the Colorado River while the northern and southern boundaries of the domain extend to the San Joaquin Valley and the Northern portions of Mexico, respectively. CMAQ was simulated with a 4-kilometer grid resolution.

For the 2016 AQMP, WRF was updated with the most recent version (version 3.6.1) available at the time of protocol preparation and was evaluated with a set of input data, which includes land-use classification and sea-surface temperature initialization fields. The WRF simulations were initialized from National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) analyses and run for three-day increments with fourdimensional data assimilation (FDDA). -25-2
844 of 2287
Chapter 5: Future Air Quality
Day-specific point source emissions were extracted from the District’s stationary source and RECLAIM inventories. Mobile source emissions included day and hour real-time profiles based on the CALTRANS Performance Measurement System and weight-in-motion profiles, CARB’s EMFAC2014 emissions model, and vehicle population data and transportation analysis zone (TAZ) data provided by SCAG. The mobile source data and selected area source data were subjected to daily WRF-derived temperature corrections to account for enhanced evaporative emissions on warmer days. Gridded daily biogenic VOC emissions were provided by CARB using the MEGAN biogenic emissions model. The simulations benefited from enhancements made to the emissions inventory, such as day-specific adjustments in traffic volumes when generating on-road emissions and improvements in gridding surrogates for spatial allocations of area and off-road emissions.

Detailed information on the modeling approach, data retrieval, model development and enhancement, model application, emissions inventory development, and interpretation of results is presented in Appendix V. The following sections summarize the results of the 8-hour/1-hour ozone and annual/24- hour PM2.5 attainment demonstration modeling efforts and provide an update to the future projected ozone and PM2.5 levels given new emissions estimates, the latest air quality measurements, and modeling tools.

Ozone Modeling Approach
Design Values and Relative Response Factors (RRF)
To bridge the gap between air quality model predictions and measurements, U.S. EPA guidance has recommended the use of relative response factors (RRFs). In this approach, future year concentration predictions require two elements: base year design values and RRFs. The RRF is simply a ratio of the future year predicted air quality to the simulated air quality in the base year, representing the modelpredicted change in air quality in response to predicted emissions changes. The attainment demonstrations are pollutant and averaging period specific. Base-year design values for 2012 were obtained from measurements and correspond to the form of the NAAQS. Eight-hour design values are calculated from the 3-year average of the fourth highest daily ozone 8-hour average concentration in each year. The 1-hour ozone design value represents the fourth highest 1-hour ozone value in a three-year period. Base year design values for the attainment demonstration are calculated as a five-year weighted average (average of the three, 3-year design values centered at the base year, 2012). Future year concentrations are estimated by multiplying the non-dimensional RRF by the base year design value, thus applying the model-predicted change in air quality directly to the actual measured concentrations in the base year. Assuming any potential modeling biases are similar in the base and future years, the RRF approach acts to minimize their impact on predictions.

Design Value Selection
U.S. EPA guidance recommends the use of multiple year averages of design values, where appropriate, to dampen the effects of single year anomalies in the air quality trend due to factors such as adverse or favorable meteorology or radical changes in the local emissions profile. The trend of Basin ozone design values is presented in Figure 5-1. Both 8-hour and 1-hour ozone design values have decreased over the 5-3
845 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
14-year period. The most recent 8-hour design value (102 ppb) continues to exceed the 1997 8-hour ozone standard (80 ppb) by 28 percent and the 2008 ozone standard (75 ppb) by 36 percent. In addition, the most recent 1-hour design value of 135 ppb exceeds the 1979 1-hour ozone standard (120 ppb) by 13 percent.

FIGURE 5-1
SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN OZONE DESIGN VALUES. EACH 8-HOUR VALUE REPRESENTS THE 3-YEAR AVERAGE OF THE YEARLY FOURTH HIGHEST 8-HOUR AVERAGE OZONE CONCENTRATION. THE 1-HOUR VALUES REPRESENT THE FOURTH HIGHEST 1-HOUR OZONE OVER A 3-YEAR PERIOD
The 2016 AQMP attainment demonstrations rely on air quality measurements collected during the fiveyear period centered on 2012, which is the base year selected for the emissions inventory development, the WRF meteorological simulation, and the anchor year for the future year ozone and PM2.5 projections.

Ozone Representativeness
Past ozone attainment demonstrations, up to and including the 2007 AQMP, evaluated a set of meteorological conditions conducive for air pollutant build-up or evaluated episodes occurring during concurrent intensive field monitoring programs. These episodic periods were rated based on how representative they were in reference to the ozone standard being evaluated. The 2007 AQMP was the first plan to address the 8-hour ozone standard and use RRFs in the future year ozone projections. To -45-4
846 of 2287
Chapter 5: Future Air Quality
provide a robust characterization of the RRFs for use in the attainment demonstration, the analysis simulated a total of 36 days. The ozone modeling guidance used for the 2007 AQMP recommended that a minimum of five days of simulations meeting modeling acceptance criteria be used in a future year RRF calculation, but recommended incorporating as many days as possible to fully capture both the meteorological variations in the ozone season and the response of ozone formation for different daily emissions profiles.

The 2012 AQMP used a different approach. Instead of the episode-based simulation days, it included season-long (June through August) comprehensive CMAQ simulations. It analyzed 92 simulation days and chose the days that met the following selection criteria: the predicted daily max is within 20 percent of the site-specific design value, the unpaired daily maximum prediction error is less than 20 percent, and the prediction is higher than the federal standard of 75 ppb. The maximum modelled grid cell in the 3 by 3 grid centered at each station was retrieved from the base and future year simulations. The number of days used in the RRF calculation differed from station to station. Approximately 50 days met the criteria at Crestline, more than half of the entire simulation period.

The approach used in the current AQMP is similar to the approach used in the 2012 AQMP with the following changes per recent U.S. EPA guidance (U.S. EPA, 2014). 1 The ozone season was expanded from
May to September (153 simulation days) in order to capture exceedances that occurred in early and late summer. Only the top 10 days are used to calculate the RRF. Some stations have fewer than 10 days meeting the specified criteria with daily maximum 8-hr values exceeding 60 ppb and the unpaired dailymax prediction error less than 20 percent. These stations are included in the analysis as long as five or more days meet the selection criteria. The maximum modeled value in the 3 by 3 grid surrounding each station is compared to the corresponding grid position in the future year. A similar approach was implemented for the 1-hour ozone future year projections; details of the 1-hour ozone and 8-hour ozone analysis are presented in Appendix 5.

Basin-wide ozone air quality simulations were conducted for each hour in the 2012 ozone season (May 1st to September 30th). Figure 5-2 depicts the observed daily maximum 8-hour ozone levels Basin-wide and at Crestline and Redlands during the 2012 ozone season. Crestline was the design value site in the past, but Redlands showed the highest design value for the five-year period in the current analysis. During this period, several well-defined multi-day ozone episodes occurred in the Basin, with 107 total days having daily maximum concentrations of 75 ppb or higher. Stations located in San Bernardino and Riverside counties show similar levels of elevated ozone as Crestline and Redlands, exhibiting the influences of similar transport and chemistry patterns. 1 https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/Draft_O3-PM-RH_Modeling_Guidance-2014.pdf 5-5

847 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
FIGURE 5-2
OBSERVED BASIN, REDLANDS, AND CRESTLINE DAILY MAXIMUM 8-HOUR AVERAGE OZONE CONCENTRATIONS: MAY 1 THROUGH SEPT 30, 2012.

Table 5-1 lists the number of weekend and weekday days exceeding the 8-hour ozone standard during the 2012 ozone season for stations that meet the U.S. EPA’s data completeness requirement and have design values greater than 75 ppb. A “weekend effect,” typically experienced in urban areas, results from reduced NOx emissions on weekends leading to higher ozone and consequently more weekend days exceeding the standard. This indicates a benefit of VOC reductions from concurrent reductions from the NOx control strategy or stand-alone VOC controls such as the consumer products program—to minimize inadvertent ozone increases during the course of NOx reduction. -65-6
848 of 2287
Chapter 5: Future Air Quality
TABLE 5-1
Five-year Weighted Design Values and Number of Days Daily Maximum Concentrations Exceeded 75 ppb in 2012
Station* 2012 5-Year Weighted
Design Value (ppb)
Number Of Weekend
Days In 2012 With
Observed daily max 8-
hour Ozone > 75 ppb
Number Of Weekday
Days In 2012 With
Observed daily max 8-
hour Ozone > 75 ppb
Azusa 79.3 9 2
Banning 95.3 21 45
Crestline 103.0 30 59
Fontana 101.0 35 30
Glendora 92.7 29 18
Lake Elsinore 85.3 6 11
Mira Loma 92.7 24 29
Perris 91.0 17 32
Pomona 84.3 12 5
Redlands 104.7 35 50
Reseda 89.0 11 17
Rubidoux 96.3 24 29
San Bernardino 98.0 29 28
Santa Clarita 97.3 30 32
Upland 96.7 25 24
*Stations having design values greater than 75 ppb and meeting data completeness criteria Ozone Modeling Approach
The set of 153 days from May 1st through September 30th, 2012 were analyzed to determine the 8-hour maximum ozone for the base (2012) and future attainment years 2023 and 2031—the attainment years for the 1997 standard of 80 ppb and the 2008 standard of 75 ppb, respectively. Both baseline and controlled cases were simulated. The former represents the level of emissions with no additional reductions beyond existing measures, and the latter contains additional emission reductions proposed in the 2016 AQMP to reach attainment.

Finally, a set of simulations with incremental VOC and NOx emission reductions from 2023 and 2031 baseline emissions were generated to create ozone isopleths for each station in the Basin. The ozone isopleths provide guidance in developing control strategies by depicting ozone concentrations as a 5-7
849 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
function of both NOx and VOC reductions. They provide the basis for estimating the Basin carrying capacity, the maximum allowable emissions of NOx and VOC to reach attainment.

Future Ozone Air Quality
The 2016 AQMP baseline ozone simulations reflect the changes made to the 2023 and 2031 baseline inventories. The 2016 AQMP summer planning inventory for 2023 has a similar VOC/NOx emissions ratio (1.35 vs. 1.37) as the 2012 AQMP, although total tonnages of both precursor emissions are lower than those presented in the 2012 AQMP. Lower 2023 baseline VOC and NOx emissions in the 2016 AQMP relative to the 2012 AQMP reflect the impact of rules and regulations implemented after the 2012 AQMP as well as the recession occurring between 2008 and 2010. The 2012 AQMP relied on the 2012 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) to forecast future growth. To a certain degree, the 2012 RTP incorporated the impact of the economic recession that occurred during the 2008–2010 period. But, it is unlikely that this growth forecast reflected the full intensity of the recession. For example, the consumption of taxable gasoline consumption reached its minimum level in 2012, which is after the RTP was finalized in April 2012. Therefore, some discrepancies are expected between the projected emissions inventory for 2012 and the 2012 actual emissions data. The new 2016 AQMP inventory is revised to properly account for this impact.
8-Hour Ozone Attainment
The 2016 AQMP addresses both the revoked 1997 8-hour ozone standard of 80 ppb and the 2008 8-hour ozone standard of 75 ppb, for which attainment dates are 2023 and 2031, respectively. Table 5-2 summarizes the results of the updated ozone simulations. The 2023 ozone baseline and 2023 controlled ozone projections from the 2012 AQMP are included in the table for comparison. The 2012 AQMP concluded that NOx emissions must be reduced by 65 percent of baseline emissions to meet the 80 ppb standard by 2023.
-85-8
850 of 2287
Chapter 5: Future Air Quality
TABLE 5-2
Model-Predicted 8-Hour Ozone Concentrations (ppb)
Both 2023 and 2031 baseline scenarios that do not contain additional reductions beyond already adopted measures do not lead to attainment, indicating additional emission reductions are necessary to meet the standards. The carrying capacities, the maximum allowable NOx emissions to meet ozone standards, are estimated to be 141 TPD NOx in 2023, and 96 TPD NOx in 2031. These are equivalent to an additional 45 percent and 55 percent of NOx reductions, respectively, from the 2023 and 2031 baseline emission levels. These reductions will ensure attainment of the federal 8-hour standard by 2023 and the 2008 standard by 2031 at all stations.

Station
Final 2012 AQMP 2016 AQMP
2023
Baseline
2023
Controlled
2023
Baseline
2023
Controlled
2031
Baseline
2031
Controlled
Azusa 95 77 77 70 75 62
Banning 94 73 89 78 85 71
Crestline 107 81 93 81 89 72
Fontana 104 81 96 84 92 75
Glendora 107 84 93 83 90 74
Lake Elsinore 85 66 74 65 70 58
Perris 88 66 80 70 76 62
Pomona 100 80 83 75 81 67
Redlands 103 77 95 82 90 73
Reseda 90 73 79 71 75 64
Riverside 100 77 89 78 86 69
San Bernardino 108 83 90 78 86 70
Santa Clarita 94 73 84 76 80 68
Upland 106 83 92 82 89 73
5-9
851 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
The proposed needed reductions are significantly less than the estimates presented in the 2007 and 2012 AQMPs. Several factors contributed to this change. First, the 2012 base year design values are lower than the 2005 and 2008 base year design values used in the 2007 AQMP and the 2012 AQMP, respectively, due to the improvements in air quality with time, indicating greater than expected efficacy of control strategies implemented in the Basin. Secondly, improvements introduced to the emissions inventory led to better estimates of 2023 emissions. 2023 baseline emissions were revised significantly in the 2012 AQMP from the 2007 AQMP due to emission changes in the on-road truck and off-road equipment categories resulting from CARB rulemaking. The 2023 baseline emission projections were further revised in the 2016 AQMP. The revised 2023 baseline shows 255 TPD of total NOx emissions compared to the 319 TPD projected in the 2012 AQMP and the 506 TPD projected in the 2007 AQMP. The lower baseline emissions reflect the impact of rules and regulations implemented after the release of the previous AQMPs. Also, while the recession that occurred during the 2008 to 2010 period was incorporated in the 2012 AQMP inventory, its impact was further refined in the 2016 AQMP, resulting in lower 2023 emissions than what was originally predicted in the 2012 AQMP. Methodological updates to emissions estimates contributed to the changes as well. For example, the allocation of LPG consumption data for the Basin compared to the State was reduced by approximately 50 percent based on the most recent data from the State’s GHG reporting system. The lower NOx emissions baseline leads to a lower percentage of needed reductions. Thirdly, the new attainment demonstration focuses only on top 10 concentration days, as discussed previously. The RRF approach used in the 2012 AQMP, based on U.S. EPA guidance available at the time, included more than 60 days, approximately two thirds of the total simulation days. According to U.S. EPA, the approach using the top 10 days yields a slightly better estimate of the actual observed ozone change than the previous approach of focusing on the days most likely to exceed the standard.

Spatial Projections of 8-Hour Ozone Design Values
The spatial distribution of ozone design values for the 2012 base year is shown in Figure 5-3. Projected 8-hour ozone design values for 2023 and 2031 with and without implementation of all proposed control measures are presented in Figures 5-4 through 5-7. The predicted ozone concentrations will be significantly reduced in future years in all parts of the Basin with the control measures proposed in the 2016 AQMP. Future design values are predicted from modeled RRFs and base-year design values.

Future design values are then interpolated to cover the areas between monitoring stations using a natural neighbor interpolation, the interpolation scheme that best represents the Basin. Refer to Appendix V for details.

Appendix V also provides base year model performance statistics and grid-level CMAQ predictions for the base and future milestone years as well as a weight of evidence discussion to support the modeling attainment demonstration.
-105-10
852 of 2287
Chapter 5: Future Air Quality
FIGURE 5-3
INTERPOLATED 5-YEAR WEIGHTED 8-HOUR OZONE DESIGN VALUES (ppb) FOR 2012. VALUES ARE COLOR-CODED TO CORRESPOND TO THE 2008 75 ppb AIR QUALITY INDEX
FIGURE 5-4
INTERPOLATED 2023 BASELINE 8-HOUR OZONE CONCENTRATIONS (ppb). VALUES ARE COLOR-CODED TO CORRESPOND TO THE 2008 75 ppb AIR QUALITY INDEX
5-11
853 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
FIGURE 5-5
INTERPOLATED 2023 CONTROLLED 8-HOUR OZONE CONCENTRATIONS (ppb). VALUES ARE COLOR-CODED TO CORRESPOND TO THE 2008 75 ppb AIR QUALITY INDEX
FIGURE 5-6
INTERPOLATED 2031 BASELINE 8-HOUR OZONE CONCENTRATIONS (ppb). VALUES ARE COLOR-CODED TO CORRESPOND TO THE 2008 75 ppb AIR QUALITY INDEX
-125-12
854 of 2287
Chapter 5: Future Air Quality
FIGURE 5-7
INTERPOLATED 2031 CONTROLLED 8-HOUR OZONE CONCENTRATIONS (ppb). VALUES ARE COLOR-CODED TO CORRESPOND TO THE 2008 75 ppb AIR QUALITY INDEX
1-Hour Ozone Attainment
The 2016 AQMP also addresses the 1979 1-hour ozone standard of 120 ppb with an attainment date of 2022. Table 5-3 summarizes the results of the updated ozone simulations. The 2012 AQMP projected baseline and controlled design values using a RRF analysis are also included for comparison. The 2022 baseline scenario with no additional reductions beyond already adopted measures does not lead to attainment, indicating that additional emission reductions are necessary to meet the standards. The carrying capacity to attain the 1-hour standard is approximately 245 TPD of NOx, indicating the need to reduce NOx emission by approximately 50 TPD. However, unlike 8-hour ozone which responds to NOx reductions much more than VOC reductions, 1-hour ozone responds to VOC reductions as sensitively as NOx reductions. Therefore, VOC reductions are as effective as NOx reduction in attaining the 1-hour standard. Consequently, the 1-hour ozone standard can be attained with a combined approximate 50 TPD reduction of either NOx or VOC emissions. The attainment scenario presented in the following table and figures were conducted with 33 TPD of NOx emissions reduction and 16 TPD of concurrent VOC reductions that are expected to occur from the NOx strategy. Note that the emission reductions for the 1-hour ozone strategy are a part of the 8-hour ozone strategy, but were identified to be feasible for early implementation. The control strategies to meet the 80 ppb 8-hour standard in 2023 are expected to achieve reductions necessary to meet the 1-hour standard in 2022. 5-13
855 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 5-3
Base-year Design Values and Model-Predicted 1-Hour Ozone Design Values (ppb) Station
2012 5-Year
Weighted
Design Value
Final 2012 AQMP 2016 AQMP
2022
Baseline
2022
Controlled
2022
Baseline
2022
Controlled
Azusa 112 139 131 104 101
Banning - 119 102 -- --
Burbank - 123 111 -- --
Crestline 132 134 116 120 118
Fontana 138 128 110 125 122
Glendora 132 143 133 121 119
Lake Elsinore 108 108 90 93 91
Pasadena - 141 134 -- --
Perris 114 111 94 108 106
Pomona 117 124 108 103 101
Redlands 133 127 109 120 118
Reseda 125 112 101 105 103
Riverside 124 116 103 109 106
San Bernardino 123 127 110 107 104
Santa Clarita 132 119 105 110 108
Upland 135 135 121 122 119
NOTE: Burbank, Pasadena, and Banning do not have 5-year weighted 2012 base-year design values due to incomplete measurement data, and therefore, it was not possible to calculate 2022 design values at these stations. Burbank does not meet U.S. EPA data completeness requirements in 2014, Pasadena does not meet U.S. EPA data completeness requirements in 2013, and Banning does not meet U.S. EPA data completeness requirements in 2013.

With proposed controls in place, the analysis demonstrates that all stations in the Basin will meet the 1979 federal 1-hour ozone standard by 2022. The proposed reduction percentage and the carrying -145-14
856 of 2287
Chapter 5: Future Air Quality
capacity are lower than the estimates presented in the 2012 AQMP due to the same reasons discussed previously for the 8-hour ozone modeling.

Spatial Projections of 1-Hour Ozone Design Values
The spatial distribution of 1-Hour ozone design values for the 2012 base year is shown in Figure 5-8.

Future year ozone air quality projections for 2022 with and without implementation of all proposed control measures are presented in Figures 5-9 through 5-10. The predicted ozone concentrations will be significantly reduced in the future years in all parts of the Basin with the control measures proposed in the 2016 AQMP. Future design values are predicted from modeled RRFs and measured base-year design values. Future design values are then interpolated using a natural neighbor interpolation to generate the interpolated fields.

FIGURE 5-8
2012 OBSERVED 5-YEAR WEIGHTED 1-HOUR OZONE DESIGN VALUES (ppb) 5-15
857 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
FIGURE 5-9
MODEL-PREDICTED 2022 BASELINE 1-HOUR OZONE CONCENTRATIONS (ppb) FIGURE 5-10
MODEL-PREDICTED 2022 CONTROLLED 1-HOUR OZONE CONCENTRATIONS (ppb) -165-16
858 of 2287
Chapter 5: Future Air Quality
Weight of Evidence
Ozone modeling guidance strongly recommends the use of corroborating evidence to support the future year attainment demonstration. The weight of evidence demonstration for the 2016 AQMP includes a model performance evaluation on the temporal profile of on-road mobile source emissions and spatial surrogate profiles of area source emissions. Detailed discussions of all model results and the weight of evidence discussion are provided in Appendix V.

PM2.5 Modeling Approach
Simulations for the PM2.5 concentrations were conducted for 2012 (base year), 2019 (24-hour PM2.5 attainment date), and 2025 (annual PM2.5 attainment date for “serious” nonattainment status). In addition, 2023 was included in the analysis to evaluate the co-benefits from the ozone control strategy.

Design Values and Relative Response Factors (RRF)
The 24-hour PM2.5 design value is determined from the three-year average of the 98th percentile of all 24-hour concentrations sampled at a monitoring site. The annual PM2.5 design value is based on the four quarterly average PM2.5 concentrations, averaged by year, for a three-year period.

Design Value Selection
U.S. EPA guidance recommends the use of multiple year averages of design values, where appropriate, to dampen the effects of single year anomalies to the air quality trend due to factors such as adverse or favorable meteorology or radical changes in the local emissions profile. The trend in the Basin 24-hour PM2.5 design values, determined from routine Federal Reference Method (FRM) samples from 1999 through 2014 (Figure 5-11), depicts large reductions in concentrations over the period. However, the rate of decrease in both annual and 24-hour design values has slowed or reversed in recent years. The 24-hour PM2.5 design value for 2001 was 76 μg/m3 while the 2014 design value (based on data from 2012, 2013 and 2014) was 38 μg/m3
. The annual PM2.5 design value has demonstrated a reduction of 15.2 μg/m3 over the period from 2001 through 2014. The slowing or reversal in the rate of PM2.5 reduction in recent years is largely due to the reduced atmospheric cleansing and mixing from the multi-year drought affecting the region. In the absence of this severe drought, it is anticipated that the Basin would be even closer to attaining both the annual and 24-hour PM2.5 standards, as projected in the previous AQMPs.

Consistent with U.S. EPA guidance, the 2016 AQMP relies on a five-year weighted annual average centered on 2012, the base year selected for the emissions inventory development, WRF simulations and the anchor year for the future year ozone and PM2.5 projections.

Table 5-4 provides the five-year weighted 2012 annual and 24-hour average PM2.5 design values for four Speciation Air Sampling System (SASS) sites – Anaheim, Fontana, Los Angeles and Riverside, as well as Mira Loma, the station with the highest PM2.5 design value in the Basin and the only station currently exceeding the 24-hour PM2.5 standard.
5-17
859 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
FIGURE 5-11
SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN ANNUAL PM2.5 AND 24-HOUR AVERAGE DESIGN VALUES.

TABLE 5-4
2012 Five-year Weighted PM2.5 Design Values (DV) (µg/m3 )
Monitoring Site Annual DV 24-Hour DV
Anaheim 10.57 26.0
Fontana 12.60 32.7
Los Angeles 12.43 31.0
Mira Loma 14.87 36.7
Riverside Rubidoux 13.13 33.0
Calculated based on quarterly observed data between 2010 and 2014 PM2.5 Modeling
PM2.5 is either directly emitted into the atmosphere (primary particles), or formed through atmospheric chemical reactions from precursor gases (secondary particles). Primary PM2.5 includes road dust, diesel -185-18
860 of 2287
Chapter 5: Future Air Quality
soot, combustion products, and other sources of fine particles. Secondary products, such as sulfates, nitrates, and complex organic carbon compounds are formed from reactions with oxides of sulfur, oxides of nitrogen, VOCs, and ammonia.

PM2.5 speciation data measured at four SASS sites during 2012 provided the chemical characterization for evaluation and validation of the CMAQ model predictions. With one site in each county, the four SASS sites are strategically located to represent aerosol characteristics in the four counties in the Basin.

Riverside-Rubidoux was traditionally the Basin maximum location. Fontana and Anaheim experience high concentrations within their respective counties, and the Central Los Angeles site was intended to capture the characteristics of an emission source area. The close proximity of Mira Loma to Rubidoux and the common in-Basin air flow and transport patterns enable the use of the Rubidoux speciated data as representative of the particulate speciation at Mira Loma. Both sites are directly downwind of the dairy production areas in Chino and the warehouse distribution centers located in the northwestern corner of Riverside County. Speciated data monitored at the selected sites for MATES IV, which were conducted for the period of June 2012 to June 2013, were analyzed to corroborate the applicability of using the 2012 chemical profiles.

Model performance was evaluated against concentrations of ammonium, nitrates, sulfates, secondary organic matter, elemental carbon, primary and total mass of PM2.5 measured at the four monitoring sites (Rubidoux, Central Los Angeles, Anaheim, and Fontana).

The following section summarizes the PM2.5 modeling approach conducted in preparation for this Plan.

Details of the PM2.5 modeling are presented in Appendix V.

Annual PM2.5 Modeling Approach
The 2016 AQMP annual PM2.5 modeling employs the same approach in estimating the future year annual PM2.5 levels as was described in the 2012 AQMP attainment demonstrations except for updates in the modeling platform, input databases and emissions inventory. Future year PM2.5 annual average air quality is determined using site- and species-specific quarterly-averaged RRFs applied to the weighted quarterly average 2012 PM2.5 design values per U.S. EPA guidance (U.S. EPA, 20142 ).

CMAQ simulations were conducted for 366 days from January 1 to December 31 of 2012. The simulations included 8,784 consecutive hours from which daily 24-hour average PM2.5 concentrations were calculated. A set of RRFs were generated for each future year simulation. RRFs were generated for ammonium (NH4), nitrate (NO3), sulfate (SO4), organic carbon (OC), elemental carbon (EC), sea salts (Salt) and a combined grouping of crustal compounds and metals (Others). For each species, a total of 16 RRFs were generated for each future year simulation (fourseasons and four monitoring sites). Future year design values were calculated by multiplying the species- and site-specific RRFs by the corresponding quarterly mean component concentration. The quarterly mean components were summed to get 2 https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/Draft_O3-PM-RH_Modeling_Guidance-2014.pdf 5-19

861 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
quarterly mean PM2.5 levels, which were then averaged to determine the annual design values (Table 5- 5).
24-Hour PM2.5 Modeling Approach
The RRF approach requires two components: base year design values from measurement data and RRFs from model predictions per U.S. EPA guidance. The base year design value is established using the top 8 days in each quarter per year for the five-year period used in the weighted average (2010–2014).

Details on the RRF approach for the 24-hour PM2.5 attainment demonstration are provided in Appendix V. Future year PM2.5 24-hour average concentrations are presented for the 2019 24-hour PM2.5 attainment deadline. The projection suggests that the 2019 baseline with no further controls will attain the standard, which is consistent with the results presented in the 2012 AQMP. In addition, Appendix V includes discussions for chemical speciation, an unmonitored area analysis, and an analyses of the potential impact of future drought conditions.

Future PM2.5 Air Quality
Annual PM2.5
Annual PM2.5 concentrations were simulated for the base year (2012) and future milestone years (2021 and 2025). For the future years, both baseline and control scenarios were included in the analysis. The results are presented in Table 5-5 and Figure 5-12. Mira Loma, the design site for the base year, has a five-year weighted design value of 14.9 µg/m3 in 2012, in attainment of the previous 1997 standard (15 µg/m3
), but not the 2008 standard. Mira Loma is projected to remain as the highest PM2.5 site in 2025.

The baseline cases, which do not include additional controls beyond already adopted measures, project future design values close to 12.3 µg/m3 but are not low enough to meet the standard. Still, the future year concentrations are expected to be well below the previous 1997 standard. The control scenarios capturing SCAQMD stationary source PM2.5 measures in the 2016 AQMP were evaluated as well.

However, it is practically challenging to implement the directly emitted PM reductions from the SCAQMD PM control measures by 2021 and, even if so, the emission reductions from those measures are not enough to achieve attainment in 2021.

Annual PM2.5 concentrations were further evaluated using emission reduction co-benefits from the ozone strategy for 2023. When all the NOx and VOC reductions proposed to attain the 80 ppb ozone standard are implemented in 2023, the PM2.5 annual design value for 2023 is expected to be 11.1 µg/m3 ,
demonstrating attainment of the annual standard two years in advance of the 2025 “serious” area deadline. However, the ozone strategy may include CAA Section 182(e)(5) measures that are allowed in the SIP for ozone “extreme” nonattainment areas, but not for PM2.5. Therefore, an attainment scenario using only the control measures anticipated to be approved without 182(e)(5) flexibility was developed for 2025. This scenario showed an annual PM2.5 design value of 12.0 µg/m3 at the Mira Loma site, indicating that the annual PM2.5 standard is expected to be met by 2025 without additional measures directed specifically at PM reductions.
-205-20
862 of 2287
Chapter 5: Future Air Quality
TABLE 5-5
Annual Average PM2.5 Design Concentrations (µg/m3)
Station 2012 2025 Baseline 2025 Control
2023 O3
Attainment
Scenario
Anaheim 10.6 9.3 9.1 8.7
Fontana 12.6 10.5 10.3 9.7
Los Angeles 12.4 10.8 10.4 9.7
Mira Loma 14.9 12.3 11.8 11.1
Rubidoux 13.2 10.9 10.6 9.9
FIGURE 5-12
ANNUAL AVERAGE PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS. FEDERAL STANDARD IS DENOTED WITH A HORIZONTAL GREY LINE
5-21
863 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
Spatial Projections of Annual PM2.5 Design Values
Figure 5-13 provides a perspective of the Basin-wide spatial extent of annual PM2.5 design values in the base year, 2012. Figure 5-14 shows the projected PM2.5 concentrations in 2023 with the full implementation of the ozone control strategy, but no additional control on directly emitted PM. The 2025 baseline case does not lead to attainment of the standard (Figure 5-15), but NOx and VOC reductions from non-182(e)(5) control measures are expected to lead to attainment as all the monitoring stations within the Basin exhibit annual PM2.5 levels below the federal standard of 12 µg/m3 (Figure 5-16).

FIGURE 5-13
5-YEAR WEIGHTED ANNUAL PM2.5 DESIGN VALUES (µg/m3) for 2012 -225-22
864 of 2287
Chapter 5: Future Air Quality
FIGURE 5-14
ANNUAL PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS (µg/m3) WITH 2023 8-HOUR OZONE ATTAINMENT SCENARIO FIGURE 5-15
ANNUAL PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS (µg/m3) WITH 2025 BASELINE EMISSIONS 5-23
865 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
FIGURE 5-16
ANNUAL PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS (µg/m3) for 2025 ATTAINMENT SCENARIO 24-Hour PM2.5
A numerical simulation with 2019 baseline emissions was conducted to assess 24-hour PM2.5 attainment status in the Basin. Simulation of the 2019 baseline emissions indicates that the Basin will attain the federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard in 2019 without additional controls(See Table 5-6 and Figure 5-17). This is consistent with the findings of the 2012 AQMP, which demonstrated attainment in 2019 without any additional controls. The projected 2019 design value is 32.1 μg/m3 at Mira Loma.

The level of 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations projected for 2019 is significantly lower than the standard (35 µg/m3
). While the District is committed to attain as expeditiously as practicable, unforeseen meteorological conditions such as drought or severe wild fire events would hinder the projected attainment. For example, the severe drought that prevailed from 2011 to 2015 delayed the attainment projected in the 2012 AQMP and the subsequent Supplement to the 2012 AQMP. However, the lower projected design value will help to ensure attainment even in the presence of unforeseen meteorological events. Detailed discussions of the impacts of the drought on PM2.5 are included in Appendix V. -245-24
866 of 2287
Chapter 5: Future Air Quality
TABLE 5-6
24-Hour Average 5-Year Weighted PM2.5 Concentrations (µg/m3) Station
2012
Base Year
2019
Baseline
Anaheim 25.8 23.5
Fontana 32.7 28.0
Los Angeles 30.5 27.6
Mira Loma 36.5 31.4
Rubidoux 33.2 28.3
FIGURE 5-17
MAXIMUM 24-HOUR AVERAGE PM2.5 DESIGNCONCENTRATIONS: 2012 BASELINE AND 2019 BASELINE (NO ADDITIONAL CONTROLS).
5-25
867 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
Spatial Projections of 24-Hour PM2.5 Design Values
Figure 5-18 provides the Basin-wide spatial extent of 24-hour PM2.5 levels in the base year resulting from the interpolation of design values at the four speciation stations and Mira Loma. Several areas around the northwestern portion of Riverside and southwestern portion of San Bernardino Counties depict grid cells with weighted PM2.5 24-hour design values exceeding 35 µg/m3 in 2012. Figure 5-19 shows an interpolated spatial representation of future model-predicted 24-hour design values in 2019. By 2019, Mira Loma, the PM2.5 24-hour design station, will attain the federal standard. The design values in other areas, determined by interpolation of the five stations, will also attain the federal standard.

FIGURE 5-18
2012 BASELINE 24-HOUR PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS (µg/m3). COLORS CORRESPOND TO THE AIR

QUALITY INDEX
-265-26
868 of 2287
Chapter 5: Future Air Quality
FIGURE 5-19
2019 24-HOUR PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS (µg/m3). COLORS CORRESPOND TO THE AIR QUALITY INDEX Additional Modeling Analyses
A First Look at Attaining the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard In 2015, the U.S. EPA lowered the federal 8-hour ozone standard to 70 ppb. Recent 8-hour ozone rule implementation guidance requires that a SIP revision with an updated attainment demonstration and control strategy be submitted to U.S. EPA no later than four years after designation. The Basin will likely be designated as an “extreme” nonattainment area for the new standard in 2017, consistent with the classification of the 75 ppb standard. Thus, the deadline for attainment of the 70 ppb standard is 20 years after designation (likely 2037), six years after the attainment deadline for the 75 ppb federal standard. It is critical to conduct preliminary analyses to assess the need for potential adjustments to the overall control strategy when considering this new standard and deadline.

The preliminary projections, based upon ozone “isopleths” developed for the 2031 emission scenarios indicate that 2037 Basin NOx carrying capacity to meet the 70 ppb standard could be as low as 75 TPD.

This is additional 62 percent NOx reduction beyond the projected 2037 baseline and 25 TPD of additional NOx emission reductions between 2031 and 2037. Further discussion of the Basin’s status relative to the new 2015 8-hour ozone standard is presented in Chapter 8. 5-27
869 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
Summary and Conclusions
Figure 5-20 shows the Basin-wide maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations in the base year (2012) along with projected design values for the attainment deadline of the 1997 standard of 80 ppb (2023) and for the 2008 standard of 75 ppb (2031). Figure 5-21 shows the same projected design values relative to the California standards. With the controls proposed in the 2016 AQMP, the future year ozone concentrations are expected to meet the federal standards. NOx reductions of approximately 45 percent and 55 percent from the baseline levels are needed in 2023 and 2031, respectively (Figure 5-22).

Approximately 50 TPD of NOx and VOC combined reductions from the 2022 baseline are needed to meet the 1-hour ozone standard in 2022, confirming that the 8-hour standard is a more stringent form than the 1-hour standard. The strategies developed for attainment of the 2023 and 2031 8-hour standards will ensure attainment of the 1-hour standard in 2022 (Table 5-7).

The California standard for 8-hour ozone is 70 ppb, the same level as the 2015 revised federal standard.

This state standard will not be achieved by 2031. Preliminary analysis suggests additional emission reductions beyond the level required in 2031 are needed to meet the 70 ppb standard. Challenges in achieving the 70 ppb standard are discussed in Chapter 8.

FIGURE 5-20
PROJECTION OF FUTURE 8-HOUR OZONE AIR QUALITY IN THE BASIN IN COMPARISON TO FEDERAL

STANDARDS
-285-28
870 of 2287
Chapter 5: Future Air Quality
FIGURE 5-21
PROJECTION OF FUTURE 8-HOUR OZONE AIR QUALITY IN THE BASIN IN COMPARISON TO CALIFORNIA

STANDARDS
TABLE 5-7
Basin NOx Carrying Capacity for Ozone Attainment
Attainment Year 2022 2023 2031
Federal Standard 1-hr Ozone
(120 ppb)
8-hr Ozone
(80 ppb)
8-hr Ozone
(75 ppb)
NOx
Carrying Capacity
(TPD)
245* 141 96
*The reductions needed to attain the 1-hour standard can be achieved from either NOx or VOC emissions.
5-29
871 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
FIGURE 5-22

SUMMER PLANNING BASELINE EMISSIONS AND OZONE CARRYING CAPACITY Figure 5-23 shows the 2012 observed base-year design value along with the2023 and 2025 modelpredicted future design values of annual PM2.5. The federal annual PM2.5 standards are predicted to be achieved in 2023 with implementation of the proposed ozone strategy. However, the federal CAA does not allow 182(e)(5) measures in the attainment demonstration of PM2.5; therefore, an additional scenario using only non-182(e)(5) measures was developed for 2025 to comply with the CAA requirements. With only the non-182(e)(5) measure reductions, the annual PM2.5 standard is expected to be met in 2025.

Table 5-8 presents the future Basin annual PM2.5 design values under each control scenario. Table 5-8 also contains the predicted 2025 design value resulting from the ozone control strategy in the absence of 182(e)(5) measures. Attainment is achieved in 2025 under this scenario. 0 100
200
300
400
500
600
Ton Per Day
Basin Total NOx Emissions
Baseline Carrying Capacity
45%
Reduction 55%
Reduction
-305-30
872 of 2287
Chapter 5: Future Air Quality
FIGURE 5-23
PROJECTION OF FUTURE ANNUAL PM2.5 AIR QUALITY IN THE BASIN IN COMPARISON WITH FEDERAL

STANDARDS
*INCLUDES 182(E)(5) MEASURES
**DOES NOT INCLUDE 182(E)(5) MEASURES
5-31
873 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 5-8
Future Design Values of Annual Average PM2.5 at Mira Loma in µg/m3 Station Baseline Controlled Control Strategy
2023 12.1 11.1 Ozone co-benefit including 182(e)(5) measures 2025 12.3 11.8 Ozone co-benefit without 182(e)(5) measures -325-32
874 of 2287
Introduction
Chapter 1 Chapter
6 Federal and State Clean Air
Act Requirements
The environmentally historic federal Clean Air Act (CAA) was amended in 1990 to require planning provisions for those areas in the nation not currently meeting the national ambient air quality standards. As such, the AQMP is required to include a series of elements and demonstrations to comply with federal CAA requirements. 875 of 2287 In This Chapter
 Introduction 6-1
Clean Air Act provisions for nonattainment areas
 Federal Air Quality Standards for Fine
Particulates 6-2
Annual and 24-hour PM2.5 standards, milestones, and
implementation
 Federal Air Quality Standards
for Ozone 6-5
1-hour and 8-hour ozone standards, milestones, and
implementation
876 of 2287
 Federal Clean Air Act Requirements for
Nonattainment Areas 6-8
Requirements applicable to 8-hour ozone, annual PM2.5
and 24-hour PM2.5 standards addressed in the 2016 AQMP
 California Clean Air Act Requirements 6-19
Plan effectiveness, rate of reduction, population
exposure reduction and cost-effectiveness rankings
 Conclusion 6-26
All federal CAA requirements are satisfied
877 of 2287
Chapter 6: Federal and State Clean Air Act Requirements Introduction
The 2016 AQMP is designed to satisfy the SIP submittal requirements of the federal CAA to demonstrate attainment of the 2006 24-hour and 2012 annual PM2.5, and the 2008 8-hour ozone ambient air quality standards, the CCAA triennial update requirements, and the SCAQMD’s requirement to update transportation emissions budgets based on the latest approved motor vehicle emissions model and planning assumptions. Specific information related to the air quality and planning requirements for portions of the SSAB under the SCAQMD’s jurisdiction are included in Chapter 7. The Final 2016 AQMP will be submitted to U.S. EPA as a SIP revision upon approval by the SCAQMD Governing Board and CARB.

In November 1990, Congress enacted a series of amendments to the CAA intended to intensify air pollution control efforts across the nation. One of the primary goals of the 1990 CAA amendments was to overhaul the planning provisions for those areas not currently meeting the NAAQS. The CAA identifies specific emission reduction goals, requires both a demonstration of reasonable further progress and attainment, and incorporates more stringent sanctions for failure to attain or to meet interim milestones. Title I (Air Pollution Prevention and Control) of the CAA contains four parts (Part A through Part D) that provide provisions for air pollution prevention and control. Specifically, Part D describes the Plan requirements for nonattainment areas within six subparts as outlined in Figure 6-1. Subpart 1 describes the general provisions that apply to all applicable criteria pollutants unless superseded by pollutant-specific requirements in Subparts 2 through 5.

There are several sets of general planning requirements in the CAA, both for nonattainment areas [Section 172(c)] and for SIPs in general [Section 110(a)(2)]. These requirements are listed and briefly described in Chapter 1. This chapter presents the CAA requirements for the PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS, and demonstrates how the 2016 AQMP satisfies these requirements.

There are both primary and secondary air quality standards. Primary standards are designed to protect public health including the health of "sensitive" populations including asthmatics, children, and the elderly.

Secondary standards protect public welfare and includes the protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings.
6-1
878 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
FIGURE 6-1
CLEAN AIR ACT, TITLE I, PART D – PLAN REQUIREMENTS FOR NONATTAINMENT AREAS Federal Air Quality Standards for Fine Particulates
The U.S. EPA first promulgated the NAAQS for Fine Particles (PM2.5) in July 1997. Following legal challenges, the standards were eventually upheld in March 2002. The annual standard was set at a level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3
), based on the three-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations. The 24-hour standard was set at a level of 65 μg/m3 based on the three-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. The U.S. EPA issued nonattainment designations in December 2004, which became effective on April 5, 2005.

In January 2006, the U.S. EPA proposed a more stringent 24-hour PM2.5 standard. Before promulgating new standards, the U.S. EPA follows an extensive review process. That process led U.S. EPA to the conclusion that the existing standards for particulates were not adequate to protect public health. The studies indicated that short-term exposures at levels below the 24-hour standard of 65 μg/m3 caused acute health 1-2 6-2
879 of 2287
Chapter 6: Federal and State Clean Air Act Requirements effects, including asthma attacks and respiratory problems. As a result, in 2006 the U.S. EPA established a new, lower 24-hour average standard for PM2.5 at 35 μg/m3 . No changes were made to the annual PM2.5
standard which remained at 15 μg/m3 at that time. For the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard, the form of the standard continues to be based on the 98th percentile of 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations measured in a year (averaged over three years) at the monitoring site with the highest measured values in an area. This form of the standard was determined to be health protective while providing a more stable metric (percentile form) to facilitate effective control programs. Effective December 14, 2009, the U.S. EPA designated the Basin as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

On June 14, 2012, the U.S. EPA proposed revisions to strengthen the primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The annual component of the standard provides protection against typical day-to-day exposures as well as longer-term exposures, while the daily standard protects against higher short-term events. On December 14, 2012, U.S. EPA strengthened the primary annual PM2.5 standard to 12 µg/m3 and issued final designations on December 18, 2014, designating the Basin as nonattainment. U.S. EPA retained the secondary annual PM2.5 standard of 15 μg/m3 and the 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 35 μg/m3 . Monitoring
data indicates that the former 1997 primary annual PM2.5 standard of 15 μg/m3 was attained in the Basin in 2015, but U.S. EPA has not yet formally acted on this finding. Figure 6-2 summarizes the U.S. EPA’s PM2.5 standards to date.

FIGURE 6-2
U.S. EPA’S PM2.5 STANDARDS
2012
Annual (12 μg/m3)
arithmetic mean, averaged over 3 years
24-Hour (35 μg/m3)
98th percentile, averaged over 3 years
2006
Annual (15 μg/m3)
arithmetic mean, averaged over 3 years
24-Hour (35 μg/m3)
98th percentile, averaged over 3 years
1997 STANDARDS
Annual (15 μg/m3)
arithmetic mean, averaged over 3 years
24-Hour (65 μg/m3)
98th percentile, averaged over 3 years
6-3
880 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
For the 2006 24-hourstandards, the U.S. EPA required the SIP to be submitted no later than three years after the designation, hence December 14, 2012. The 2012 AQMP projected attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by 2014; however, due to the effects of the region’s several-year drought on air quality, attainment by 2014 was deemed not possible.

In January 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, ruled that the U.S. EPA erred in implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant solely to the general implementation provisions of Subpart 1, without considering the particulate matter specific provisions of Subpart 4. Although Subpart 4 relates to PM10, the Court reasoned that the plain meaning of the CAA requires implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 standards under Subpart 4 because PM2.5 particles fall within the statutory definition of PM10 and are thus subject to the same statutory requirements as PM10. Subpart 4 is more specific about what states must do to bring areas into attainment through the establishment of a two-tier classification system for nonattainment areas (“moderate” or “serious”). Subpart 4 also has specific provisions regarding regulation of precursors of PM emissions that are not present in Subpart 1. On June 2, 2014, U.S. EPA classified the Basin as “moderate” nonattainment under Subpart 4. In March 2015, U.S. EPA issued “Proposed Rule for Implementing the National Air Quality Standards for Fine Particles” that provides the proposed planning requirements framework for the 2012 and future PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to Subpart 4, in addition to the Subpart 1 provisions. On August 24, 2016, the implementation rule was finalized (81 FR 58010), establishing nonattainment SIP requirements for areas that do not meet the NAAQS for fine particle pollution.

Consistent with Subpart 4, states have until 2021 to meet the 2012 annual PM2.5 standard for “moderate” nonattainment areas, and if necessary, up to four additional years (2025) if the area is re-classified as “serious” nonattainment. Annual PM2.5 emissions in the Basin have experienced a steady decline over the last decade with monitoring data showing attainment of the previous annual PM2.5 standard (15.0 µg/m3 ).

The 2016 AQMP demonstrates how the region will achieve the 2012 annual PM2.5 standard (12.0 µg/m3 ) as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the statutory attainment deadline.

Under Subpart 4, the attainment date for a “moderate” nonattainment area is the end of the 6th calendar year after the effective date of designation, and for a “serious” area, the attainment date is the end of the 10th calendar year after effective date of designation. Therefore, the “moderate” area attainment dates for the Basin are December 31, 2021 for the 2012 annual PM2.5 standard and December 31, 2015 for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard. In July 2015, SCAQMD submitted a formal request to the U.S. EPA to reclassify the Basin as a “serious” nonattainment area for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based on the monitoring data, which indicated that attainment is not practicable by December 31, 2015.

On October 20, 2015, U.S. EPA issued a proposed rule to partially approve the PM2.5 portion of the 2012 AQMP and the 2015 AQMP Supplement for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Approved commitments in the Plan and Supplement included carrying out technology assessments on under-fired charbroilers (by 2017) and livestock waste (by 2016), and NOx RECLAIM reductions by 2015. The attainment demonstration was not approved as it was deemed impractical to attain by 2015 and the region was reclassified as “serious” nonattainment for 24-hour PM2.5, consistent with Subpart 4.

As a result, the 2006 24-hour standard has an attainment date as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than December 31, 2019. A “serious” area attainment plan needs to be submitted no later than 18 months after the effective date, hence, by August 12, 2017. More stringent “serious” nonattainment area requirements apply including implementation of Best Available Control Measures / Best Available Control 1-4 6-4
881 of 2287
Chapter 6: Federal and State Clean Air Act Requirements Technology (BACM/BACT), a lower major source emissions threshold (from 100 tons per year to 70 tons per year), and an update to the reasonable further progress (RFP) analysis given the longer attainment time frame. Figure 6-3 provides a general timeline for the implementation of the PM2.5 standards in the Basin.

FIGURE 6-3
TIMELINE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PM2.5 NAAQS IN THE BASIN Federal Air Quality Standards for Ozone
Background
In 1979, U.S. EPA established a primary health-based NAAQS for ozone at 120 ppb averaged over a 1-hour period. Pursuant to the 1990 CAA amendments, U.S. EPA later classified nonattainment areas on a scale from “marginal” to “extreme,” based on the severity of the ozone problem. “Extreme” areas were provided the most time to attain the standard, until November 15, 2010, but with more stringent requirements. The Basin was classified as “extreme” nonattainment on November 6, 1991 and a 1-hour ozone SIP was submitted in 1994 by the SCAQMD and CARB. U.S. EPA approved the 1-hour ozone SIP for the South Coast in 1997 as well as the CARB revisions to the SIP in 2000. Subsequently, revisions to the 1- hour ozone SIP in 2003 included updated emissions inventories along with new commitments to achieve VOC and NOx reductions. In 2009, U.S. EPA approved certain elements of the 2003 SIP but disapproved the attainment demonstration, largely because CARB withdrew emission reduction commitments in 2008 rendering the plan insufficient to demonstrate attainment. U.S. EPA concluded that consequences1 for a disapproved plan were initially not triggered because U.S. EPA determined that the approved SIP already contained an approved 1-hour attainment demonstration meeting CAA requirements, which was all that was necessary regarding the now revoked 1-hour standard.
2 Litigation on this issue resulted in the Court stating 1 Consequences include highways sanctions, increased offset ratio (NSR), and a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) (CAA, Title I, Part D, Subpart 1, Section 179). 2 In 1997, U.S. EPA promulgated a new more stringent 8-hour ozone standard of 80 ppb to replace the 1- hour standard. 62 Fed. Reg. 38856 (July 18, 1997).
2005
U.S. EPA finalized
attainment
designations;
Basin designated
as nonattainment for
the 1997 PM2.5
standards
2009
U.S. EPA
designated the
Basin as nonattainment for
2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standard
2013
U.S. Court of
Appeals, D.C.

Circuit, ruled U.S.

EPA erred by not
using Subpart 4 in
the PM2.5
Implementation
Rule
2016
U.S. EPA granted
request to
reclassify SCAB as
“serious”
nonattainment
for 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standard
6-5

882 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
in 2012 that “U.S. EPA should have ordered California to submit a revised attainment plan for the South Coast after it disapproved the 2003 Attainment Plan.”
In response to a U.S. EPA “SIP call” that same year, a plan containing a demonstration of attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS was included as part of the 2012 AQMP and approved by U.S. EPA effective October 3, 2014. U.S. EPA’s approval of this plan is in litigation. The Basin has not achieved the current or previous 8-hour or 1-hour NAAQS to date. The 2016 AQMP provides an updated attainment demonstration with the latest NOx and VOC reduction commitments to ensure the 1-hour ozone NAAQS is met by December 31, 2022.

In July 1997, U.S. EPA replaced the 1-hour ozone standard with an 8-hour standard. The 8-hour ozone standard established by U.S. EPA was challenged, and eventually upheld in March 2002. The 1997 8-hour ozone standard was set at 0.08 ppm, calculated as the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hr concentration, averaged over three years. The U.S. EPA finalized Phase 1 of the ozone implementation rule in April 2004. This rule set forth the classifications for nonattainment areas and continued obligations with respect to the existing 1-hour ozone requirements. As described by the Phase 1 rule, the Basin was classified as “severe-17” with an attainment date of June 2021, while the portion of the SSAB under the District’s jurisdiction (Coachella Valley Planning Area) was classified as “serious”, with an attainment date of June 2013. In May 2010, the U.S. EPA granted the State’s request to (1) reclassify the Basin as an “extreme” nonattainment area with an attainment date of 2024 for ozone and (2) designate the Coachella Valley as “severe-15” with an attainment date of 2019. The federal 1-hour ozone standard was revoked, effective June 15, 2005, but “anti-backsliding” measures, including implementation of an approved attainment plan, remain in effect for areas that have not yet attained these standards.

On March 12, 2008, U.S. EPA lowered the NAAQS for ground-level ozone to a level of 75 ppb from the previous standard of 80 ppb, set in 1997. U.S. EPA designated the Basin as “extreme” nonattainment effective July 20, 2012, and pursuant to the CAA Section 181(a)(1), the U.S. EPA requires that all areas with an “extreme” classification meet the 2008 8-hour ozone standard as expeditiously as practicable but no later than 20 years from the effective date of designation, or July 20, 2032. It should be noted that since the attainment deadline falls mid-year, emission reductions need to be in place by January 1, 2031, so that they are realized in the full previous calendar of 2031. The 1997 ozone standard was subsequently revoked effective July 20, 2013, but areas are still subject to anti-backsliding provisions.

In March 2015, U.S. EPA finalized the “Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements.” This final rule addresses a range of nonattainment area SIP requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and serves as a guideline for the development of the 2016 AQMP. In addition, the new 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS highlights the continuing work needed to meet the new standard. Figure 6-4 summarizes the U.S. EPA’s ozone standards to date. Figure 6-5 provides a timeline for the implementation of the ozone standards. 1-6 6-6
883 of 2287
Chapter 6: Federal and State Clean Air Act Requirements FIGURE 6-4
U.S. EPA’S OZONE STANDARDS
FIGURE 6-5

TIMELINE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF OZONE NAAQS IN THE BASIN 2015
8-hour Ozone 1997 standard revoked
2015
8-hour Ozone 0.070 ppm (4th highest concentration)
2008
8-hour Ozone 0.075 ppm (4th highest concentration)
2005
1-hour Ozone 1979 standard revoked
1997
8-hour Ozone 0.08 ppm (4th highest concentration)
1979
1-hour Ozone 0.12 ppm (maximum concentration)
1991
SCAB designated
as "extreme"
nonattainment
for 1979
1-hr ozone
standard
2004
SCAB classified as
"severe-17" for
1997
8-hr ozone
standard
2010
U.S. EPA grants
reclassification of
SCAB to
"extreme"
nonattainment
area for 1997
8-hr standard
2012
SCAB designated
as "extreme"
nonattainment
for 2008
8-hr ozone
standard
6-7
884 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
Federal Clean Air Act Requirements for Nonattainment
Areas
For areas such as the Basin that are classified nonattainment for the PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS, Section 172 of Subpart 1 of the CAA applies. Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA requires nonattainment areas to provide for implementation of all Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) as expeditiously as possible, including the adoption of reasonably available control technology (RACT). Section 172(c)(2) requires that nonattainment areas demonstrate RFP. A comprehensive emission inventory is required under Section 172(c)(3). Nonattainment area SIPs must include control strategies (Section 172(c)(6)), contingency measures (Section 172(c)(9)), and provisions for making demonstrations of conformity (Section 176(c)). However, U.S. EPA’s March 2015 ozone implementation rule provides that “extreme” areas with approved Section 182(e)(5) commitments only had to submit contingency measures under three years before the attainment date, and not the general CAA contingency measures. Section 172(c)(5) requires the implementation of a new source review program including the use of “lowest achievable emission rate” for major sources referred to under state law as “Best Available Control Technology” (BACT) for contributors to PM2.5 and precursor emissions (i.e., precursors of secondary particulates).

Subpart 2
Subpart 2 provides additional provisions for ozone nonattainment areas. An attainment demonstration is required under Section 182(c)(2)(A) for areas classified as “serious” or above. Areas classified as “severe” or “extreme” nonattainment are required to demonstrate that sufficient transportation control strategies and transportation control measures have been identified to offset growth in emissions due to growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) under Section 182(d)(1)(A). Section 182(g) requires that each nonattainment area (other than an area classified as ”marginal” or “moderate”) achieve specific emission reduction targets in the applicable milestone years.

Emissions Statements
Subpart 2 Section 182(a)(3)(B)(i) requires “the SIP to require that the owner or operator of each stationary source of oxides of nitrogen or volatile organic compounds provide the State with a statement for classes or categories of sources, showing the actual emissions of oxides of nitrogen and volatile organic compounds from that source.” Section 182(a)(3)(B)(ii) waives the requirement if the stationary source emits less than 25 tons per year of VOC or NOx. SCAQMD satisfies this requirement through the approved SCAQMD Rule 3013 paragraph (e)(2) that requires emission reporting from all sources emitting 4 tons per year or more of VOC/NOx and paying a fee “for all actual source emissions including but not limited to permitted, unpermitted, unregulated and fugitive emissions.” Each facility with total emissions greater than or equal to 4 tons per year from each air contaminant (e.g., specific organic gases, oxides of nitrogen, total particulate matter) shall report all emissions and incur emission fees. Thus, Rule 301 requires more stringent reporting 3 http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-iii/rule-301.pdf?sfvrsn=4. 1-8 6-8

885 of 2287
Chapter 6: Federal and State Clean Air Act Requirements from VOC and NOx stationary source emissions than is required under the CAA Section 182(a)(3)(B), thus satisfying the Emissions Statements clause.

Subpart 4
Additional provisions for PM nonattainment areas are listed in Subpart 4. Section 189 requires states with nonattainment areas to submit an attainment demonstration. Section 189(c) requires the submission of quantitative milestones every three years until the attainment date. Under Section 189(e), control requirements that apply to PM2.5 are also applicable to the precursors of PM, namely NOx, SO2, VOC and ammonia. Best Available Control Measures (BACM) are required for “serious” nonattainment areas under Section 189(b)(1)(B).

Table 6-1 summarizes the federal CAA requirements for the 2006 and 2012 PM NAAQS and the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, and outlines the 2016 AQMP chapters and appendices that fulfill the statutory requirements; for Coachella Valley, part of these plan provisions, such as attachment status, RFP and milestones, and VMT offset, are presented in Chapter 7.

While U.S. EPA revoked the 1979 1-hour ozone standard in 2005, the U.S. EPA’s published “SIP call” proposal on September 19, 2012 found the then-approved 1-hour ozone SIP substantially inadequate to provide for attainment of the revoked 1-hour ozone standard by the applicable attainment date of November 15, 2010.

U.S. EPA’s proposed SIP call was in response to the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Association of Irritated Residents v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 686 F. 3d 668 (Amended January 12, 2012). As a result, the 2012 AQMP included an attainment demonstration for the 1-hour ozone standard and included demonstrations to address the VMT emissions offset requirements of CAA Section 182(d)(1)(A). Approval of this plan is under litigation. As U.S. EPA replaced the 1997 8-hour ozone standard with a more health-protective 2008 8-hour ozone standard, the 1997 ozone standard was revoked in April 2015. With respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, the SCAQMD indicated that, while the 2012 AQMP updated the approved 1997 8-hour ozone control strategy with new measures for VOC and NOx reductions, it was not intended as an update to other elements of the approved 8-hour ozone control plan.

In August 2014, U.S. EPA approved “South Coast Extreme 1-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration and 1- Hour and 8-Hour VMT Offset Demonstrations” of the 2012 AQMP. 6-9
886 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 6-1
Federal Clean Air Act Requirements
Requirement Federal CAA Section
Applicability
2008 2016 AQMP
8-hr
Ozone
(Extreme)
2012
Annual
PM2.5
(Moderate)
2012
Annual
PM2.5
(Serious)
2006
24-hr
PM2.5
(Serious)
Emission Inventory Subpart 1 §172(c)(3)
Ozone - Subpart 2
182(a)(1)
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Chapter 3 &
Appendix III
Reasonably
Available Control
Measures (RACM)
Subpart 1 §172(c)(1)
Ozone – Subpart 2
182(b)(2)
✓ ✓ Appendix VI-A
Best Available
Control Measures
(BACM)
Subpart 4 §189(b)(1)(B) ✓ ✓ Appendix VI-A
Control Strategy &
Other Measures
Subpart 1 §172(c)(6) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Chapter 4,
Appendix IV &
Appendix VI-C
Attainment
Demonstration
Ozone - Subpart 2
§182(c)(2)(A) & 182(e)
PM - Subpart 4
§189(a)(1)(B) &
§189(b)(1)(A)
✓ ✓ ✓ Chapter 5,
Chapter 7 &
Appendix V
Impracticability
Demonstration
PM - Subpart 4
§189(a)(1)(B)
✓ Appendix VI-B
Reasonable Further
Progress (RFP) &
Milestones
Subpart 1 §172(c)(2)
Ozone - Subpart 2
§182(c)(2)(B) & §182(g)
PM - Subpart 4 §189(c)
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Appendix VI-C
Contingency
Measures
Subpart 1 §172(c)(9) ✓ ✓ ✓ Chapter 4 &
Appendix IV
General
Conformity
Subpart 1 §176(c) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Appendix VI-D
Transportation
Conformity
Subpart 1 §176(c) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Appendix VI-D
Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT)
Offset
Subpart 2 §182(d)(1)(A) ✓ n/a* Appendix VI-E
PM Precursors Subpart 4 §189(e) ✓ ✓ ✓ Appendix VI-F
New Source
Review (NSR)
Subpart 1 §172(c)(5) &
§173; §182(e)(1&2)
PM - Subpart 4 §189(b)(3)
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Appendix VI-G
1-10 6-10
887 of 2287
Chapter 6: Federal and State Clean Air Act Requirements TABLE 6-1 (CONCLUDED)
Federal Clean Air Act Requirements
Requirement Federal CAA Section
Applicability
2008 2016 AQMP
8-hr
Ozone
(Extreme)
2012
Annual
PM2.5
(Moderate)
2012
Annual
PM2.5
(Serious)
2006
24-hr
PM2.5
(Serious)
Emissions
Statements
Subpart 2
§182(a)(3)(B)
✓ n/a* Chapter 6
Vehicle
Inspection/Mainten
ance (I/M) Programs
Subpart 2 §182(b)(4)
& Subpart 2
§182(c)(3)
✓ n/a* Appendix IV-B
Clean Fuels Fleet
Program
Subpart 2 §182(c)(4) ✓ n/a* CARB motor
vehicle program
from prior SIP
submittals
Clean Fuels for
Boilers
Subpart 2 §182(e)(3) ✓ n/a* SCAQMD Rule
2002 and Rule
1146
Transportation
Control Measures
during Heavy Traffic
Hours
Subpart 2 §182(e)(4) ✓ n/a* Appendix IV-C
Enhanced (Ambient)
Monitoring
Subpart 2 §182(c)(1) ✓ n/a* 2016 Annual Air
Quality
Monitoring
Network Plan,
Chapter 2 &
Appendix II
Transportation
Controls
Subpart 2 §182(c)(5) ✓ n/a* Appendix IV-B,
Appendix IV-C &
Appendix VI
NOx Requirements Subpart 2 §182(f) ✓ n/a* Appendix III, Appendix IV &
Appendix VI
Penalty Fee
Program
Requirements
Subpart 2 §185 TBD n/a* -
Contingency
Measures
Associated with
Areas Utilizing CAA
§182(e)(5)
Subpart 2 §182(e)(5) ✓ n/a* Chapter 4 and
Appendix VI-C
* §182 or §185 requirements not applicable to PM
6-11
888 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
Table 6-2 provides the explanation of the different requirements and conclusions as to how the requirements are satisfied.

TABLE 6-2
Requirements and Compliance Conclusions
Requirement Clean Air Act Title I Part D
Definition Analysis
Emission Inventory A comprehensive, accurate, current
inventory of actual emissions from
all sources of the relevant
pollutants in such area.

Annual average and summer planning
emissions from all criteria pollutants from
point, area, and mobile sources are provided
in Chapter 3 and Appendix III for base year
(2012) and attainment years for the ozone
and PM standards.

Reasonably
Available Control
Measures (RACM)
Lowest emissions met with
reasonably available (technical and
economic feasibility) technology for
mobile, area, and point sources,
that can collectively advance the
attainment date by at least one
year. Does not include
unenforceable or impractical
measures.

Appendix VI-A contains analyses of all
potential control measures for emission
reduction opportunities, as well as economic
and technological feasibility. The analyses
concluded that the SCAQMD’s rules and
regulations were in general equivalent to, or
more stringent than other districts’ rules
and regulations. For areas where
improvements are possible, they are
included as plan commitments or have been
targeted for further evaluation.
1-12 6-12
889 of 2287
Chapter 6: Federal and State Clean Air Act Requirements TABLE 6-2 (CONTINUED)
Requirements and Compliance Conclusions
Requirement Clean Air Act Title I Part D
Definition Analysis
Best Available
Control Measures
(BACM)
The maximum degree of emission
reductions achievable from a
source or source category,
considering energy, economic, and
environmental impacts. They also
need to advance the attainment
date by at least one year. BACM
is more stringent than RACM.

Appendix VI-A contains analyses of all
potential control measures for emission
reduction opportunities, as well as economic
and technological feasibility. The analyses
concluded that the SCAQMD’s rules and
regulations were in general equivalent to, or
more stringent than other districts’ rules
and regulations. For areas where
improvements are possible, they are
included as plan commitments or have been
targeted for further evaluation.

Control Strategy &
Other Measures
Further emission reductions
achieved from actions such as
requiring air pollution control
technologies and emission
reduction programs.

Chapter 4 and Appendix IV provide the
comprehensive control strategy that
includes SCAQMD stationary and mobile
measures, CARB mobile source and
consumer product emission reductions, and
federal actions.

Attainment
Demonstration
Apply the proposed control
strategy implemented as
“expeditiously as practicable” to
demonstrate attainment of
standards based on photochemical
grid modeling pursuant to U.S. EPA
guidance.

Chapter 5 and Appendix V provide the
attainment demonstration of the ozone
standards by the statutory deadlines with
the implementation of the control strategy.
24-hr PM2.5 levels will attain the standard
with baseline emissions, and annual PM2.5
levels will meet the “serious” nonattainment
deadline with implementation of the ozone
control strategy
6-13
890 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 6-2 (CONTINUED)
Requirements and Compliance Conclusions
Requirement Clean Air Act Title I Part D
Definition Analysis
Impracticability
Demonstration
If “moderate” area PM attainment
is demonstrated as impracticable,
an area can request a
reclassification to “serious”
nonattainment, thus providing
more time to comply, along with
stricter requirements such as a
BACM.

Appendix VI-B determines it is impracticable
for the region meet the annual PM2.5 by the
“moderate” nonattainment area deadline of
2021, even after implementing all feasible
measures as expeditiously as practicable.

Reasonable Further
Progress (RFP) &
Milestones
Annual incremental reductions in
emissions of relevant air
pollutant(s) generally linear to the
attainment year.

As shown in Appendix VI-C, baseline VOC
emissions result in a shortfall of RFP, but
substitution of baseline NOx reductions
make up the shortfall. Baseline PM2.5
emissions project no shortfall for PM2.5 or
precursors for each milestone year through
the attainment year.

Contingency
Measures
Additional measure to be
implemented if area fails to meet
RFP milestones or attainment date
based on one-year’s worth of
reductions. Must be fully adopted
and ready to implement.

Adequate contingency measures have been
provided and are discussed in Chapter 4 and
Appendix IV-A.

General Conformity SIP must account for any federal
action to determine if emissions
increases are less than the de
minimis thresholds for the relevant
pollutants or precursors. If
greater, then a positive conformity
determination is needed.

General conformity budgets have been
established in a set-aside account, along
with a tracking system for federal actions to
ensure conformity is being met. More
details can be found in Appendix VI-D.

Transportation
Conformity
Transportation plans and programs
should not cause or contribute to
any new violation of a standard,
increase the frequency or severity
of any existing violation, or delay
the timely attainment of the air
quality standards.

Motor vehicle emissions budgets have been
established for the purpose of ensuring the
conformity of transportation plans and
programs. The budgets can be found in
Appendix VI-D.
1-14 6-14
891 of 2287
Chapter 6: Federal and State Clean Air Act Requirements TABLE 6-2 (CONTINUED)
Requirements and Compliance Conclusions
Requirement Clean Air Act Title I Part D
Definition Analysis
Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT)
Offset
Requires offset of emission
increases due to VMT. U.S. EPA
allows vehicle technology
improvements, motor vehicle fuels,
and other transportation- related
strategies to offset VMT.

Appendix VI-E demonstrates that emission
increases from VMT growth is adequately
offset by technology improvements and
transportation strategies.

PM Precursors Subpart 4 states control
requirements for major stationary
sources of PM also apply to major
stationary sources of the
precursors of PM unless the
precursors do not significantly
contribute to PM levels (CAA
§189(e)).

As presented in Appendix VI-F, all four
PM2.5 precursors, namely ammonia, NOx,
SOx, and VOC, are considered in the
evaluation of control measures. Data and
analyses of the four PM2.5 precursors are
included in various elements of the 2016
AQMP.

New Source Review
(NSR)
A permitting requirement for new
and modified major stationary
sources.

SCAQMD’s NSR program complies with
ozone non-attainment requirements. Rule
1325 is currently being amended to include
VOC and ammonia as PM2.5 precursors and
to incorporate changes to the major source
threshold for “serious” non-attainment
areas.

Emissions
Statements
Owner or operator of each
stationary source of NOx or VOC
provides statement for classes or
categories of sources, showing the
actual emissions of NOx and VOC
from that source.

The SCAQMD satisfies this requirement
through the approved SCAQMD Rule 301
paragraph (e)(2) that requires emission
reporting from all major stationary sources
of NOx and VOC greater than or equal to
four tons per year.
6-15
892 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 6-2 (CONTINUED)
Requirements and Compliance Conclusions
Requirement Clean Air Act Title I Part D
Definition Analysis
Vehicle I/M
Program
The I/M regulations establish
minimum performance standards
for “basic” and “enhanced” I/M
programs as well as various testing
requirements.

Under California law, the Bureau of
Automotive Repair (BAR) is responsible for
developing and implementing the smog
check program. On July 1, 2010, EPA
approved California’s inspection and
maintenance program as meeting the
requirements of the CAA (75 FR 38023).

Details about proposed control measure of
the smog check program can be found in
Appendix IV-B.

Clean Fuels Fleet
Program
Under Clean-Fuel Fleet (CFF)
program, a specified percentage of
vehicles purchased by fleet
operators for covered fleets shall
be clean-fuel vehicles and shall use
clean alternative fuels when
operating in the covered area.

CARB submitted its Low Emission Vehicle
(LEV) program with enhancements as part of
its 1994 ozone SIP on November 15, 1994.

EPA approved the substitution of the LEV
program for a Clean Fuel Fleet program into
the California SIP on August 27, 1999 (64 FR
46849).

Clean Fuels for
Boilers
Each new, modified, and existing
electric utility and industrial and
commercial boiler that emits more
than 25 tons per year (tpy) of NOX
to either burn as its primary fuel
natural gas, methanol, or ethanol
(or a comparably low polluting
fuel), or use advanced control
technology (such as catalytic
control technology or other
comparably effective control
methods).

SCAQMD Rule 1146 and SCAQMD NOx
RECLAIM program (Rule 2002) satisfy the
requirements of CAA section 182(e)(3).

Under SCAQMD Rule 1303, new or modified
boiler emitting at least 10 tpy of NOx or VOC
is required to employ Best Available Control
Technology, which must be at least as
stringent as the Lowest Achievable
Emissions Rate (LAER) as defined in CAA
section 171(3).

Transportation
Control Measures
during Heavy Traffic
Hours
Provisions establishing traffic
control measures applicable during
heavy traffic hours to reduce the
use of high polluting vehicles or
heavy-duty vehicles
This is an optional requirement. Control
measures regarding transportation control
measure can be found in Appendix IV-C
1-16 6-16
893 of 2287
Chapter 6: Federal and State Clean Air Act Requirements TABLE 6-2 (CONCLUDED)
Requirements and Compliance Conclusions
Requirement Clean Air Act Title I Part D
Definition Analysis
Transportation
Controls
Submit a demonstration as to
whether current aggregate vehicle
mileage, aggregate vehicle
emissions, congestion levels, and
other relevant parameters are
consistent with those used for the
area's demonstration of attainment
Transportation controls for this AQMP can
be found in Appendix IV-B and Appendix IVC. Transportation conformity and VMT offset analysis can be found in Appendix VID and Appendix VI-E, respectively.

Enhanced (Ambient)
Monitoring
Enhanced monitoring of ozone,
oxides of nitrogen, and volatile
organic compounds.

The SCAQMD’s 2016 Annual Air Quality
Monitoring Network Plan describes the
steps taken to address the requirements of
section 182(c)(1). It includes descriptions of
the Photochemical Assessment Monitoring
stations (PAMS) program. Monitoring data
used for attainment demonstration and air
quality modeling can be found in Chapter 2
and Appendix II.

NOx Requirements Major stationary sources of NOx
are subject to the provisions in
Subpart 2 §182 (c), (d) & (e).

Emission inventory and control strategy for
major stationary sources of NOx can be
found in Appendix III and Appendix IV,
respectively. Other requirements such as
RACM/BACM demonstration and NSR can be
found in Appendix VI.

Penalty Fee
Program
Requirements
Section 185 requires each major
stationary source of VOC and NOx
to pay an annual fee for emissions
in excess of 80 percent of the
emissions baseline if an area fails to
attain the ozone standards by its
applicable attainment date.

TBD
Contingency
Measures
Associated with
Areas Utilizing CAA
§182(e)(5)
Commitments to develop and
adopt contingency measures to be
implemented if the anticipated
technologies as described in
§182(e)(5) do not achieve planned
reductions.

Contingency measures can be found in
Chapter 4. Appendix VI-C describes the 3%
emission reduction for contingency for the
2008 8-hour ozone standard.
6-17
894 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
As measures from the more recent ozone and PM standards continue to be implemented, the District anticipates that the revoked 1979 and 1997 ozone standards will be attained. While the 2016 AQMP strengthens its control strategies to address the 2008 8-hr ozone NAAQS, it also provides updated control strategies with new measures for NOx and VOC reductions, and attainment demonstrations for the revoked ozone standards. Chapter 5 demonstrates that the District will attain the revoked 1-hour ozone standard in 2022, and the revoked 1997 8-hour ozone standard in 2023, with implementation of the already adopted and proposed measures. More details on the attainment demonstration for the revoked 1979 1-hr ozone standard and the revoked 1997 8-hr ozone standard can be found in Appendix V. Table 6-3 summarizes the anti-backsliding provisions for the revoked ozone standards and the applicable documents that demonstrate that the District fulfilled such requirements.

TABLE 6-3
Anti-backsliding Requirements for Revoked Ozone Standards Compliance Demonstration
Applicable Requirements (40 CFR, Subpart X, §51.1100) 1-hour Standard 1997 8-hour Standard
1) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
(CAA §172(c)(1), §182(b)(2))
Appendix VII,
2012 AQMP
Appendix VI,
2007 AQMP
2) Vehicle Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) programs
(CAA §182(b)(4), §182(c)(3))
Appendix VII,
2012 AQMP
Chapter 4/ Appendix
IV-B, 2007 AQMP
3) Major source applicability cutoffs for purpose of
RACT (CAA §172(c)(2), §182(b)(2), §182(b)(1)(A)(ii),
§182(c), §182(d), §182(e), §182(f))
RACT Rules go below Major Source thresholds
4) Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)/ Rate of
Progress (ROP) reductions (CAA §172(c)(2),
§182(b)(1)(A), §182(c)(2)(B))
2003 AQMP Chapter 6,
2007 AQMP
5) Stage II vapor recovery4 2003 AQMP n/a
6) Clean fuels fleet program (CAA §182(c)(4)) 2003 AQMP 2007 AQMP 7) Clean fuels for boilers (CAA §182(e)(3)) 2003 AQMP 2007 AQMP 8) Transportation control measures (TCMs) during
heavy traffic hours (CAA §182(e)(4))
Appendix VII,
2012 AQMP
Chapter 4/ Appendix
IV-C, 2007 AQMP
9) Enhanced (ambient) monitoring (CAA §182(c)(1)) Appendix VII, 2012 AQMP
Appendix V,
2007 AQMP
10) Transportation controls (CAA §182(c)(5)) Appendix VII, 2012 AQMP
Chapter 4/ Appendix
IV-C, 2007 AQMP
11) Vehicle miles traveled provisions (CAA
§182(d)(1)(A))
Appendix VIII,
2012 AQMP
Appendix VIII,
2012 AQMP
12) NOx requirements (CAA §182(f)) 2003 AQMP 2007 AQMP
4 Listed in 40 CFR, Subpart X, §51.900 but not in §51.1100. 1-18 6-18

895 of 2287
Chapter 6: Federal and State Clean Air Act Requirements TABLE 6-3 (CONCLUDED)
Anti-backsliding Requirements for Revoked Ozone Standards Compliance Demonstration
Applicable Requirements (40 CFR, Subpart X, §51.1100 ) 1-hour Standard 1997 8-hour Standard
13) Attainment demonstrations (CAA §182(c)(2)(A),
§189(a)(1)(B), §189(b)(1)(A))
Appendix VII,
2012 AQMP
Chapter 5/ Appendix
V, 2007 AQMP
14) Nonattainment contingency measures (CAA
§172(c)(9); §182(e)(5)) for failure to attain NAAQS
or make RFP toward attainment
Appendix VII,
2012 AQMP
Chapter 9,
2007 AQMP
15) Nonattainment new source review (NSR) major
source threshold and offset ratios (CAA §172(c)(5),
§182(e)(3), §189(b)(3)) (“serious” PM)
SCAQMD
Reg. XIII
Rule 1325
SCAQMD
Reg. XIII
Rule 1325
16) Penalty fee program requirements for “severe”
and “extreme” areas (CAA §185)
SCAQMD
Rule 317 TBD
17) Contingency measures associated with areas
utilizing CAA §182(e)(5)
Appendix VII,
2012 AQMP
Chapter 9,
2007 AQMP
18) Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM)
(CAA §172(c)(1), 189(a)(1)(C))
1 Appendix VII,
2012 AQMP
Appendix VI,
2007 AQMP
California Clean Air Act Requirements
The Basin is designated as nonattainment with the state ambient air quality standards for PM10, PM2.5 and ozone. The CCAA requires that a plan for attaining the ozone standard be reviewed, and revised as necessary, every three years (Health & Safety Code § 40925). The Final 2016 AQMP satisfies this triennial update requirement. The CCAA established a number of legal mandates to facilitate achieving health-based state air quality standards at the earliest practicable date. The following CCAA requirements do not directly apply to particulate matter plans but are directed at ozone as described in the remainder of this chapter:
(1) Demonstrate attainment by the earliest practicable date (Health & Safety Code § 40913); (2) Reduce nonattainment pollutants at a rate of 5 percent per year, or include all feasible measures and an expeditious adoption schedule (Health & Safety Code § 40914); (3) Reduce population exposure to “severe” nonattainment pollutants according to a prescribed schedule (Health & Safety Code § 40920(c)); and
(4) Rank control measures by cost-effectiveness (Health & Safety Code § 40922). 6-19
896 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
Plan Effectiveness
The CCAA requires, beginning on December 31, 1994 and every three years thereafter, that the District assess its progress toward attainment of the State ambient air quality standards [Health & Safety Code § 40924(b)] and that this assessment be incorporated into the District’s triennial plan revision. To demonstrate the effectiveness of the District’s program, air quality trends since 1990 depicting maximum pollutant concentrations are provided in Figure 6-6. While this statute does not apply to particulate matter, it is useful to discuss progress towards attainment of the PM10 and PM2.5 standards. Basin annual average PM10 concentrations have decreased continuously since 1990 from a high of nearly 80 μg/m3 to a 2015 level of 48.8 μg/m3
. PM2.5 annual concentrations have decreased by more than 50 percent since 1999 to a 2015 level of 13.3 μg/m3
. The State annual standards are 20 μg/m3 and 12 μg/m3 for PM10 and PM2.5, respectively.

One-hour ozone concentrations have decreased by more than 50 percent since 1990 to a 2015 level of 0.144 ppm. Eight-hour ozone concentrations have also decreased continuously from 1990 levels of 0.194 ppm to 2015 levels of 0.127 ppm. The State annual standards are 0.09 ppm and 0.07 ppm for 1-hour ozone and 8- hour ozone, respectively.

FIGURE 6-6
OZONE, PM10, AND PM2.5 TRENDS SINCE 1990
NO2 and CO air quality have also improved substantially since 1990. NO2 and CO metrics are not shown here since the Basin currently meets all State and federal NO2 and CO standards. A comprehensive discussion of air quality trends was discussed in Chapter 2 and also can be found in Appendix II – Current Air Quality.
0 0.05

0.1 0.15

0.2 0.25

0.3 0.35

0.4 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014
PM Concentration (µg/m3)
Ozone Concentration (ppm)
Basin Air Quality Trends
PM10 AAM PM2.5 AAM 8-Hour Ozone 1-Hour Ozone
1-20 6-20
897 of 2287
Chapter 6: Federal and State Clean Air Act Requirements Emission Reductions
The CCAA requires that each district plan be designed to achieve a reduction in district-wide emissions of 5 percent or more per year for each covered nonattainment pollutant or its precursors, averaged every consecutive three-year period (Health & Safety Code § 40914). This requirement does not apply to PM. If this cannot be achieved, a plan may instead show that it has implemented all feasible measures as expeditiously as possible (Health & Safety Code § 40914(b)). Nevertheless, all feasible measures should be implemented for particulate matter in order to assure attainment as expeditiously as practicable.

The baseline NOx emissions meet the five percent averaged every consecutive three-year average reductions up to 2026 (see Appendix III for emission inventory values). As the NOx reduction strategy is being implemented, corresponding VOC and PM2.5 emissions are also expected to be reduced. As discussed in the RACM / RACT and BACM / BACT analysis in Appendix VI, this Plan implements all available feasible measures as expeditiously as possible.

Population Exposure
The CCAA also requires a reduction in overall population exposure to criteria pollutants. Reductions are to be calculated based on per-capita exposure and the severity of the exceedances. For the Basin, this provision is applicable to ozone [Health & Safety Code § 40920(c)]. The definition of exposure is the number of persons exposed to a specific pollutant concentration level above the State standard times the number of hours exposed. The per-capita exposure is the population exposure (units of parts per hundred million (pphm)-person-hours) divided by the total population. This requirement for the specific milestone years listed in the CCAA has been shown to have already been satisfied in previous AQMPs.

Cost-Effectiveness Ranking
The CCAA requires that each plan revision include an assessment of the cost-effectiveness of available and proposed control measures and contain a list which ranks the control measures from the most cost-effective to the least cost-effective (Health & Safety Code § 40922). Table 6-4 provides a list of stationary source control measures for the annual PM2.5 standard ranked by cost-effectiveness. Tables 6-5 and 6-6 provide lists of SCAQMD stationary and mobile source control measures, respectively, for ozone ranked by costeffectiveness, and Table 6-7 ranks the CARB strategy measures.

In developing an adoption and implementation schedule for a specific control measure, a district shall consider the relative cost-effectiveness of the measure as well as other factors including, but not limited to, technological feasibility, total emission reduction potential, the rate of reduction, public acceptability, and enforceability (Health & Safety Code § 40922). These requirements do not apply to particulate matter, but provide a useful framework for evaluation. The PM2.5/ozone control strategy and implementation schedule is provided in Chapter 4.
6-21
898 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 6-4
Cost-Effectiveness Ranking of District’s Stationary Source Control Measures for PM2.5 a,b

MEASURE
NUMBER
DESCRIPTION DOLLARS/TONc RANKING BYCOSTEFFECTIVENESS
BCM-01 Further Emission Reductions from Commercial
Cooking [PM]
$15,000–
$18,000/ton
1 BCM-04 Emission Reductions from Manure Management
Strategies [NH3]
$15,000/ton 2
BCM-10 Emission Reductions from Greenwaste Composting
[VOC, NH3]
$61,500/ton 3
BCM-08 Further Emission Reductions from Agricultural,
Prescribed, and Training Burning [PM]
TBD - Minimal 4
BCM-09 Further Emission Reductions from Wood-Burning
Fireplaces and Wood Stoves [PM]
TBD - Minimal 4
BCM-02 Emission Reductions from Cooling Towers [PM] TBDd 6 BCM-03 Further Emission Reductions from Paved Road Dust Sources [PM]
TBDd 6
BCM-05 Ammonia Emission Reductions from NOx Controls
[NH3]
TBDd 6
BCM-06 Emission Reductions from Abrasive Blasting
Operations [PM]
TBDd 6
BCM-07 Emission Reductions from Stone Grinding, Cutting and Polishing Operations [PM]
TBDd 6
a The cost-effectiveness values of these measures are based on the Discount Cash Flow methodology and 4 percent real interest rate
b Where a range exists, the ranking was done based on the low end of the range c Preliminary estimate, actual cost-effectiveness will be determined by the Phase I technology assessment d TBD – emission reductions and costs to be determined once the inventory and control approach are identified 1-22 6-22
899 of 2287
Chapter 6: Federal and State Clean Air Act Requirements TABLE 6-5
Cost-Effectiveness Ranking of Stationary Source Control Measures for Ozone a,b

MEASURE
NUMBER
DESCRIPTION DOLLARS/TONc RANKING BYCOSTEFFECTIVENESS
ECC-01 Co-Benefit Emission Reductions from GHG Programs, Policies, and Incentives [All Pollutants]
Marginal 1
ECC-02 Co-Benefits from Existing Residential and Commercial Building Energy Efficiency Measures [NOx, VOC]
Marginal; short
payback period
1 BCM-10 Emission Reductions from Greenwaste Composting [VOC, NH3]
$3,400/ton 3
FUG-01 Improved Leak Detection and Repair [VOC] $4,000– $5,000/ton
4 CTS-01 Further Emission Reductions from Coating, Solvents, Adhesives, and Sealants [VOC]
$8,000–
$12,000/ton
5 CMB-05 Further NOx Reductions from RECLAIM Assessment [NOx] $13,500– $21,000/ton
6 CMB-04 Emission Reductions from Restaurant Burners and Residential Cooking [NOx]
$15,000–
$30,000/ton
7 CMB-02 Emission Reductions from Replacement with Zero or NearZero NOx Applications in Commercial and Residential Applications [NOx]
$15,000–
$30,000/ton
7 CMB-03 Emission Reductions from Non-Refinery Flares [NOx, VOC] < $20,000/ton 9 ECC-03 Additional Enhancements in Reducing Existing Residential Building Energy Use [NOx, VOC]
$45,000–
$50,000/ton
10 CMB-01 Transition to Zero and Near-Zero Emission Technologies for Stationary Sources [NOx, VOC]
$53,000/ton 11
ECC-04 Reduced Ozone Formation and Emission Reductions from Cool Roof Technology [All Pollutants]
TBDc - Marginal 12
MCS-02 Application of All Feasible Measures [All Pollutants] TBDc 13 FLX-01 Improved Education and Public Outreach [All Pollutants] N/Ad 14 FLX-02 Stationary Source VOC Incentives [VOC] N/Ad 14
MCS-01 Improved Breakdown Procedures and Process Re-Design [All Pollutants]
N/Ad 14
a The cost-effectiveness values of these measures are based on the Discount Cash Flow methodology and 4 percent real interest rate b Where a range exists, the ranking was done based on the low end of the range c TBD – emission reductions and costs to be determined once the inventory and control approach are identified d N/A – emission reductions and costs cannot be quantified due to the nature of the measure (e.g., outreach) or the early stage in development
6-23
900 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 6-6
Cost-Effectiveness Ranking of Mobile Source Control Measures for Ozone

MEASURE
NUMBER
DESCRIPTION DOLLARS/TONa

RANKING BY
COSTEFFECTIVENESS
MOB-11 Extended Exchange Program [VOC, NOx, CO] $800–
$10,000/ton
1 MOB-10 Extension of the SOON Provision for
Construction/Industrial Equipment [NOx]
$11,300/ton 2
MOB-12 Further Emission Reductions from Passenger
Locomotives [NOx, PM]
$15,000/ton 3
MOB-14 Emission Reductions from Incentive Programs [NOx, PM]
$18,262/ton 4
EGM-01 Emission Reductions from New Development and
Redevelopment Projects [All Pollutants]
TBDa 5
MOB-01 Emission Reductions at Commercial Marine Ports
[NOx, SOx, PM]
TBDa 5
MOB-02 Emission Reductions at Rail Yards and Intermodal Facilities [NOx, PM]
TBDa 5
MOB-03 Emission Reductions at Warehouse Distribution
Centers [All Pollutants]
TBDa 5
MOB-04 Emission Reductions at Commercial Airports [All
Pollutants]
TBDa 5
MOB-05 Accelerated Penetration of Partial Zero-Emission and Zero-Emission Vehicles [VOC, NOx, CO]
TBDa 5
MOB-06 Accelerated Retirement of Older Light-Duty and
Medium-Duty Vehicles [VOC, NOx, CO]
TBDa 5
MOB-07 Accelerated Penetration of Partial Zero-Mission and Zero-Emission Light-Heavy- and Medium-Heavy-Duty
Vehicles [NOx, PM]
TBDa 5
MOB-08 Accelerated Retirement of Older On-Road HeavyDuty Vehicles [NOx, PM]TBDa 5 MOB-09 On-Road Mobile Source Emission Reduction Credit
Generation Program [NOx, PM]
TBDa 5
MOB-13 Off-Road Mobile Source Emission Reduction Credit Generation Program [NOx, SOx, PM]
TBDa 5
a Emission reductions and costs will be determined after projects are identified and implemented. See Appendix IV-A for cost information for specific measures
1-24 6-24
901 of 2287
Chapter 6: Federal and State Clean Air Act Requirements TABLE 6-7
Cost-Effectiveness Ranking of CARB Mobile Source Control Measures for Ozone a CARB’s MEASURE DESCRIPTION DOLLARS/TONa,b RANKING BYCOSTEFFECTIVENESS Advanced Clean Cars 2 TBDa N/A
Lower In-Use Emission Performance Assessment TBDa N/A
Further Deployment of Cleaner Technologies TBDa N/A
Lower In-Use Emission Performance Level TBDa N/A
Low-NOx Engine Standard – California Action TBDa N/A
Low-NOx Engine Standard – Federal Action TBDa N/A
Medium and Heavy-Duty GHG Phase 2 TBDa N/A
Innovative Clean Transit TBDa N/A
Last Mile Delivery TBDa N/A
Lower In-Use Emission Performance Level TBDa N/A
Low-NOx Engine Standard – California Action TBDa N/A
Low-NOx Engine Standard – Federal Action TBDa N/A
Medium and Heavy-Duty GHG Phase 2 TBDa N/A
Further Deployment of Cleaner Technologies TBDa N/A
More Stringent National Locomotive Emission Standards TBDa N/A Further Deployment of Cleaner Technologies TBDa N/A
Tier 4 Vessel Standards TBDa N/A
Incentivize Low Emission Efficient Ship Visits TBDa N/A At-Berth Regulation Amendments TBDa N/A
Further Deployment of Cleaner Technologies TBDa N/A
Zero-Emission Off-Road Forklift Regulation Phase 1 TBDa N/A Zero-Emission Off-Road Emission Reduction Assessment TBDa N/A Zero-Emission Off-Road Worksite Emission Reduction
Assessment
TBDa N/A
Zero-Emission Airport Ground Support Equipment TBDa N/A Small Off-Road Engines TBDa N/A
Transport Refrigeration Units Used for Cold Storage TBDa N/A Low-Emission Diesel Requirement TBDa N/A
Further Deployment of Cleaner Technologies TBDa N/A
Consumer Products Program TBDa N/A
a Emission reductions and costs will be determined after projects are identified and implemented b Where a range exists, the ranking was done based on the low end of the range 6-25
902 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
Conclusion
As provided in Table 6-2, all federal CAA requirements are satisfied and demonstrated in the 2016 AQMP.

Many of the details showing compliance are provided in Appendix VI of this Plan and are listed in both Tables 6-1 and 6-2. Compliance with anti-backsliding requirements for the revoked standards are listed in Table 6-3. While the requirements have been satisfied in existing rules, regulations and previous AQMPs, some analyses have been updated in the 2016 AQMP. For example, a new attainment demonstration performed for the revoked 1-hour ozone standard was adopted in 2012 to respond to a U.S. EPA SIP call and is being updated in the 2016 AQMP to reflect new information and the new control strategy developed to meet the 8-hour ozone standards.
1-26 6-26
903 of 2287
hapter 1
ntroduction
Chapter
7 Current and Future Air Quality
– Desert
Nonattainment Areas SIP
The Coachella Valley is under the SCAQMD’s jurisdiction, however it is located in another air basin where the air quality challenges differ. The 2016 AQMP addresses the Clean Air Act requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone federal standard in the SCAQMD desert region. 904 of 2287
In This Chapter
 Introduction 7-1
The SCAQMD desert region
 Air Quality Setting 7-3
Air quality, pollution transport, and attainment status 905 of 2287
 Future Air Quality 7-25
Emissions, reasonable further progress, and ozone
attainment demonstration
 Conclusions 7-40
Attainment dates and next steps
906 of 2287
Chapter 7: Current & Future Air Quality – Desert Nonattainment Areas SIP Introduction
The Coachella Valley Planning Area is defined, for the purposes of this discussion, as the desert portion of Riverside County in the SSAB, and is part of the SCAQMD, which also includes the Basin. The Coachella Valley is the most populated area in this desert region, which encompasses several communities, including Palm Springs, Desert Hot Springs, Cathedral City, Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, Indian Wells, La Quinta, Indio, Coachella, Thermal, and Mecca. Figure 7-1 provides a map of the area and the surrounding topography.

The Coachella Valley is designated by U.S. EPA as a nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.075 ppm, and for the former 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08 ppm. For both 8-hour ozone federal standards, the Coachella Valley is classified as a “severe-15” ozone nonattainment area, indicating that the area has 15 years from the nonattainment designation date to attain the NAAQS. The Coachella Valley is also still designated as a nonattainment area for PM10, due to windblown dust events that recur in the area, with a classification of “serious.” The Coachella Valley is in attainment of the current federal standards for NO2, CO, lead, and SO2.

On October 1, 2015, U.S. EPA finalized the new 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS at 0.070 ppm, retaining the same form as the previous 8-hour standards. This standard became effective on December 28, 2015.

Attainment/nonattainment designations will be finalized for the new standard by October 1, 2017, likely based upon 2014–2016 air quality data. It is expected that the Basin and the Coachella Valley, as well as a significant portion of California, will be designated nonattainment. SIP submittals to demonstrate attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS will likely be due in the 2020–2021 time frame, with attainment dates between 2020 and 2037, depending on the severity of the ozone problem. 7-1
907 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
FIGURE 7-1

LOCATION AND TOPOGRAPHY OF THE COACHELLA VALLEY PLANNING AREA [THE SAN GORGONIO PASS (AKA BANNING PASS) IS THE WEST-EAST PASS BETWEEN THE MOUNTAINS NEAR THE BANNING AIRPORT AIR MONITORING STATION THAT LEADS FROM THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN INTO THE COACHELLA VALLEY;

SCAQMD AIR MONITORING STATIONS AT PALM SPRINGS, INDIO, AND MECCA ARE SHOWN WITHIN THE COACHELLA VALLEY BOUNDARIES]
While the 2007 AQMP adequately addressed and satisfied the CAA planning requirements for the Coachella Valley regarding the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the 2016 AQMP specifically addresses CAA planning requirements for 2008 ozone NAAQS. This chapter and associated appendices constitute the ozone SIP for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, which addresses the current status of ozone air quality and provides the strategy toward future attainment of the federal 8-hour ozone standards in the Coachella Valley, presenting the projections of future ozone levels based on the base year 2012 emissions inventories, growth projections, and control strategies within and outside the Coachella Valley.

Effective May 15, 2015, U.S. EPA finalized a clean data determination (indicating measurements in the area have reached attainment levels) for the revoked 1-hour ozone NAAQS (0.12 ppm) for the former Southeast Desert Modified Air Quality Management Area nonattainment area, including the Coachella Valley. This action was based on 2011–2013 final data and preliminary 2014 data.

On April 18, 2003, U.S. EPA approved the Coachella Valley State Implementation Plan (2003 CVSIP), which addressed future-year attainment of the annual average PM10 NAAQS with a 2006 attainment deadline.

This federal standard was revoked, effective December 15, 2006. Since 2007, annual average PM10 7-2
908 of 2287
Chapter 7: Current & Future Air Quality – Desert Nonattainment Areas SIP concentrations have met the revoked federal annual standard (50 µg/m3). The 2003 CVSIP also addressed continued attainment of the 24-hour PM10 federal standard, except for uncontrollable natural events. The 2016 AQMP does not include new modeling efforts for PM10. Since the mid-1990s, peak 24-hour average PM10 concentrations have not exceeded the current federal standard (150 µg/m3 ) other
than on days with windblown dust from natural events, which can be excluded upon U.S. EPA concurrence consistent with the Exceptional Event Rules and prior policies. The PM10 data from the Coachella Valley monitors shows attainment of the PM10 24-hour NAAQS after the removal of the flagged high-wind exceptional events, for which SCAQMD supporting documentation will be submitted and subsequent U.S.

EPA approval will be required. However, U.S. EPA has requested that SCAQMD conduct additional ambient monitoring in the southeastern portion of the Coachella Valley before the re-designation can be considered. This new station has been in operation since 2013 in the community of Mecca, and redesignation will be revisited upon analysis of the required three full years of data.

Like the Basin, the Coachella Valley is a growing area, as shown by the historic and projected populations presented in Table 7-1. By 2030, the population in the Coachella Valley is projected to increase by 39 percent over the 2010 level. On a percentage basis, the Coachella Valley growth is expected to exceed that of the Basin for that time period. This population growth is taken into account in the emission projections for future years, which are used to demonstrate attainment of the air quality standards.

TABLE 7-1
Historic and Projected Population for Basin and Coachella Valley AREA
Historic Population Projected Population
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2031 2040
South Coast Air Basin 10,500,000 13,083,594 14,640,692 15,735,186 16,764,932 17,940,418 18,822,083 Coachella Valley 139,000 244,070 325,937 425,404 497,257 596,386 673,425 Source: Historic populations from Southern California Association of Governments, January 2016 CARB 2013 Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality, 2013 Edition, Appendix C [http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/almanac/almanac13/almanac13.htm]; Population projections from Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) [January 2016 update] Air Quality Setting
Air Quality Summary
In 2015, the SCAQMD monitored air quality at four permanent locations in the Coachella Valley, including the two long-term stations at Indio and Palms Springs and recently added stations at Mecca and the north shore of the Salton Sea. The Palm Springs air monitoring station is located closer to the San Gorgonio Pass (also known as the Banning Pass), predominantly downwind of the densely populated Basin. The Indio station is located further east in the Coachella Valley, on the predominant downwind side of the 7-3
909 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
main population areas of the Coachella Valley. Both of these sites routinely measure ozone, PM10, PM2.5 and sulfates (from PM10). The Palm Springs station also measures CO, and NO2.

A new station was established in 2013 in the community of Mecca, closer to the Salton Sea in the southeastern portion of the Coachella Valley. It is measuring PM10 continuously, as well as hydrogen sulfide (H2S), a gas emitted naturally from the Salton Sea that can occasionally cause strong odors. An additional station was also established in 2013 near the shore of the Salton Sea, measuring only H2S.

Recent and historic air pollution data collected in the Coachella Valley is summarized in this chapter, and is also presented in Chapter 2: Air Quality and Health Effects, along with that of the Basin. Additional details can be found in Appendix II – Current Air Quality. Information on the health effects associated with criteria air pollutants are summarized in Chapter 2 and detailed in Appendix I – Health Effects.

Attainment Status
The Coachella Valley remains a nonattainment area for the revoked 1997 and revised 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, as well as for the new 2015 ozone NAAQS. The Coachella Valley is now in attainment of the former (1979) 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The Coachella Valley is also a nonattainment area for the state 1- hour and 8-hour ozone standards.

Since the mid-1990s, the days that have exceeded the 24-hour PM10 federal standard at the SCAQMD Coachella Valley monitoring stations at Indio and Palm Springs have been associated with high-wind natural events. Much of this data has been flagged in the U.S. EPA Air Quality System (AQS) database to be excluded for comparison to the NAAQS, as allowed by the U.S. EPA Exceptional Events Rule and its predecessor, the Natural Events Policy. As a result, the District will continue to seek a re-designation by U.S. EPA for the Coachella Valley to attainment for the PM10 NAAQS, once sufficient data from PM10 monitors in Palm Springs, Indio, and the new Mecca station can be finalized and fully evaluated for exceptional events, contingent upon U.S. EPA concurrence. The Coachella Valley remains a nonattainment area for the PM10 CAAQS.

The current federal NAAQS attainment designations for the Coachella Valley are presented in Table 7-2.

The state CAAQS attainment designations are presented in Table 7-3. 7-4
910 of 2287
Chapter 7: Current & Future Air Quality – Desert Nonattainment Areas SIP TABLE 7-2
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Attainment Status Coachella Valley Portion of the Salton Sea Air Basin
Criteria
Pollutant
Averaging Time Designationa Attainment
Dateb
Ozone (O3)
(1979) 1-Hour (0.12 ppm)c Attainment 11/15/2007
(attained 12/31/2013)
(2015) 8-Hour (0.070 ppm)d Pending – Expect
Nonattainment (Severe) Pending
(2008) 8-Hour (0.075 ppm)d Nonattainment (Severe-15) 7/20/2027 (1997) 8-Hour (0.08 ppm)d Nonattainment (Severe-15) 6/15/2019 PM2.5e
(2006) 24-Hour (35 µg/m3) Unclassifiable/Attainment N/A (attained) (2012) Annual (12.0 µg/m3) Unclassifiable/Attainment N/A (attained) (1997) Annual (15.0 µg/m3) Unclassifiable/Attainment N/A (attained) PM10f (1987) 24-hour (150 µg/m3
) Nonattainment (Serious) 12/31/2006
Lead (Pb) (2008) 3-Months Rolling
(0.15 µg/m3) Unclassifiable/Attainment Unclassifiable/
Attainment
CO
(1971) 1-Hour (35 ppm) Unclassifiable/Attainment N/A (attained) (1971) 8-Hour (9 ppm) Unclassifiable/Attainment N/A (attained) NO2
g
(2010) 1-Hour (100 ppb) Unclassifiable/Attainment N/A (attained) (1971) Annual (0.053 ppm) Unclassifiable/Attainment N/A (attained) SO2
h
(2010) 1-Hour (75 ppb) Designations Pending N/A
(1971) 24-Hour (0.14 ppm)
(1971) Annual (0.03 ppm) Unclassifiable/Attainment Unclassifiable/ Attainment
a) U.S. EPA often only declares Nonattainment areas; everywhere else is listed as Unclassifiable/Attainment or Unclassifiable b) A design value below the NAAQS for data through the full year or smog season prior to the attainment date is typically required for an attainment demonstration
c) The 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS (0.12 ppm) was revoked, effective 6/15/05; the Southeast Desert Modified Air Quality Management Area, including the Coachella Valley, had not timely attained this standard by the 11/15/07 “severe-17” deadline, based on 2005-2007 data; on 8/25/14, U.S. EPA proposed a clean data finding based on 2011-2013 data and a determination of attainment for the former 1-hour ozone NAAQS for the Southeast Desert nonattainment area; this rule was finalized by U.S. EPA on 4/15/15, effective 5/15/15, and included preliminary 2014 data d) The 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (0.075 ppm) was revised to 0.070 ppm, effective 12/28/15 with classifications and implementation goals to be finalized by 10/1/17; the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (0.08 ppm) was revoked in the 2008 ozone NAAQS implementation rule, effective 4/6/15; there are continuing obligations under the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS until they are attained
e) The annual PM2.5 standard was revised on 1/15/13, effective 3/18/13, from 15 to 12 µg/m3 f) The annual PM10 standard was revoked, effective 12/18/06; the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS attainment deadline was 12/31/2006; the Coachella Valley Attainment Re-designation Request and PM10 Maintenance Plan was postponed by U.S.

EPA pending additional monitoring and analysis in the southeastern Coachella Valley g) New 1-hour NO2 NAAQS became effective 8/2/10; attainment designations 1/20/12; annual NO2 NAAQS retained h) The 1971 Annual and 24-hour SO2 NAAQS were revoked, effective 8/23/10; however, these 1971 standards will remain in effect until one year after U.S. EPA promulgates area designations for the 2010 SO2 1-hour standard; final area designations expected by 12/31/2020 with SSAB expected to be designated Unclassifiable/Attainment 7-5
911 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 7-3
California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) Attainment Status Coachella Valley portion of Salton Sea Air Basin
Pollutant Averaging Time
and Levelb
Designationa
Coachella Valley
Ozone (O3) 1-Hour (0.09 ppm)c Nonattainment
8-Hour (0.070 ppm)d Nonattainment
PM2.5 Annual (12.0 µg/m3
) Attainment
PM10 24-Hour (50 µg/m3
) Nonattainment
Annual (20 µg/m3) Nonattainment
Lead (Pb) 30-Day Average
(1.5 µg/m3)
Attainment
CO 1-Hour (20 ppm) Attainment
8-Hour (9.0 ppm) Attainment
NO2 1-Hour (0.18 ppm) Attainment
Annual (0.030 ppm) Attainment
SO2 1-Hour (0.25 ppm) Attainment
24-Hour (0.04 ppm) Attainment
Sulfates 24-Hour (25 µg/m3
) Attainment
H2Sc 1-Hour (0.03 ppm) Unclassified c
a) State designations shown were updated by CARB on January 5, 2016, based on the 2012-2014 3-year period; stated designations are based on a 3-year data period after consideration of outliers and exceptional events Source: http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/statedesig.htm#current b) State standards, or CAAQS, for ozone, CO, SO2, NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 are values not to be exceeded; lead, sulfates, and H2S standards are values not to be equaled or exceeded; CAAQS are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations
c) SCAQMD began monitoring H2S in the southeastern Coachella Valley in November 2013 due to odor events related to the Salton Sea; three full years of data are not yet available for a designation, but nonattainment is anticipated for the H2S CAAQS in at least part of the Coachella Valley
The maximum concentrations of ozone, PM2.5, PM10, NO2, and CO recorded at the Coachella Valley monitoring locations in 2015 are shown in Figure 7-2, as percentages of the state and federal standards.

The federal standard levels shown are only exceeded for 8-hour ozone. While PM10 concentrations also exceed the federal standards, the PM10 data flagged for exclusion due to high-wind exceptional events have been excluded from the figure although supporting documentation submittal and U.S. EPA concurrence will still be required. The stricter state standard levels are exceeded for both 1-hour and 8- hour ozone and also for PM10. While the maximum concentrations do not necessarily indicate a violation of the federal design value or state designation value form of the standards, they are a useful metric for progress toward attaining those standards.
7-6
912 of 2287
Chapter 7: Current & Future Air Quality – Desert Nonattainment Areas SIP FIGURE 7-2
COACHELLA VALLEY 2015 MAXIMUM POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS AS PERCENT OF STATE AND FEDERAL STANDARDS (THE 2008 8-HOUR FEDERAL OZONE STANDARD IS SHOWN – NOTE THAT THE BAR FOR THE STATE 8-HOUR OZONE STANDARD IS THE NEARLY THE SAME AS FOR THE NEW 2015 8-HOUR FEDERAL OZONE STANDARD, WHICH IS NOT SHOWN; FOR PM10, FLAGGED EXCEPTIONAL EVENTS ARE EXCLUDED, PENDING EVENT DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS AND U.S. EPA APPROVAL) Figure 7-3 shows the Coachella Valley design values1 for ozone, PM2.5, and PM10, for the three-year period 2013–2015, as percentages of the current and revoked federal standards, as compared to the Basin. The Basin is predominantly upwind of the Coachella Valley and is the main source area for transported ozone and ozone precursor emissions.
1 A design value is a statistic that describes the air quality status of a given area relative to the level and form of the NAAQS. For most criteria pollutants, the design value is a 3-year average and takes into account the form of the short-term standard (e.g., 98th percentile, fourth highest value, etc.). Design values can also be calculated for standards that are exceedance-based (e.g., 1-hour ozone and 24-hour PM10) so that they can be expressed as a concentration instead of an exceedance count, in order to allow a direct comparison to the level of the standard.

Note that the modeling design values used for the AQMP attainment demonstration are based on a 5-year period, weighted toward the center year, as specified in U.S. EPA modeling guidelines. 0 50
100
150
200
250
300
Ozone
(1-Hour)
Ozone
(8-Hour)
PM2.5
(24-Hour)
PM2.5
(Annual)
PM10
(24-Hour)
Nitrogen
Dioxide
(1-Hour)
Carbon
Monoxide
(8-Hour)
Max. Concentration, as Percent of Standard
State Standard
Federal Standard
Level of Standard
7-7

913 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
FIGURE 7-3
SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN AND COACHELLA VALLEY 2013–2015 3-YEAR DESIGN VALUES (PERCENTAGE OF FEDERAL STANDARDS, BY CRITERIA POLLUTANT; FLAGGED PM10 EXCEPTIONAL EVENTS ARE EXCLUDED BUT SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION AND U.S EPA CONCURRENCE IS STILL NEEDED; NOTE THAT 100 PERCENT OF THE FEDERAL STANDARD IS NOT VIOLATING THAT STANDARD; DARKER COLORS INDICATE THE CURRENT, MOST STRINGENT STANDARD) Figure 7-4 shows the trend of 3-year design values in the Coachella Valley since 1990, including 1-hour and 8-hour ozone and 24-hour and annual PM2.5, as a percentage of the federal standards (including the former 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the 1997, 2008 and 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS). While recent 8-hour ozone concentrations remain above the NAAQS, the trend shows continued improvement. The PM2.5 design values have remained below the federal standards since the start of these measurements in the Coachella Valley. 146%
136%
120%
108%
116% 117%
94%
87%
104%
126%
117%
104%
83%
48%
66%
53%
100%
74%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
125%
150%
2015
8-Hour
Ozone
2008
8-Hour
Ozone
(Revised)
1997
8-Hour
Ozone
(Revoked)
1979
1-Hour
Ozone
(Revoked)
2006
24-Hour
PM2.5
2012
Annual
PM2.5
1997
Annual
PM2.5
(Revised)
1987
24-Hour
PM10
1987
Annual
PM10
(Revoked)
South Coast Air Basin Coachella Valley
Design Value, as Percent of Standard
Federal Standard
7-8
914 of 2287
Chapter 7: Current & Future Air Quality – Desert Nonattainment Areas SIP FIGURE 7-4
COACHELLA VALLEY 3-YEAR DESIGN VALUE TRENDS OF OZONE AND PM2.5 AS PERCENT OF THE MOST RECENT FEDERAL STANDARDS, 1990–2015
(PM2.5 MONITORING STARTED IN 1999; THE YEAR PLOTTED IS THE END YEAR OF THE 3-YEAR DESIGN VALUE) Ozone (O3)
Atmospheric ozone in the Riverside county portion of the SSAB is both directly transported from the Basin and formed photochemically from precursors emitted upwind. The precursors are emitted in greatest quantity in the coastal and central Los Angeles County areas of the Basin. The Basin’s prevailing sea breeze causes polluted air to be transported inland. As the air is being transported inland, ozone is formed, with peak concentrations occurring in the inland valleys of the Basin, extending from eastern San Fernando Valley through the San Gabriel Valley into the Riverside-San Bernardino area and the adjacent mountains. As the air is transported still further inland into the Coachella Valley through the San Gorgonio Pass, ozone concentrations typically decrease due to dilution, although ozone standards can still be exceeded.

Ozone is measured continuously at two locations in the Coachella Valley at the Palm Springs and Indio air monitoring stations. In 2015, the new 8-hour ozone federal standard (0.070 ppm) was exceeded in the Coachella Valley on 47 days (13 percent of the year), while the previous 2008 (0.075 ppm) and 1997 (0.08 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
160%
180%
200%
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Design Value (Percent of Standard)
2015 8-Hour Ozone 2008 8-Hour Ozone 1997 8-Hour Ozone
1979 1-Hour Ozone PM2.5 24-Hour PM2.5 Annual
Federal Standard
7-9
915 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
ppm) 8-hour standards were exceeded on 26 and 5 days, respectively. The maximum 8-hour ozone concentration was 0.092 ppm (131, 123 and 109 percent of the level of the 2015, 2008 and 1997 ozone standards, respectively). The former 1979 1-hour federal ozone standard level (0.12 ppm) was not exceeded in the Coachella Valley in 2014, with a maximum 1-hour concentration of 0.102 ppm. Ozone concentrations in the Coachella Valley, and the number of days exceeding the federal ozone standards, are greatest in the late spring and summer months, with no exceedances during the winter.

The 8-hour ozone design value for the Coachella Valley for the three-year 2013–2015 period was 0.088 ppm (126, 117, and 104 percent of the 2015, 2008 and 1997 ozone NAAQS, respectively). The 1-hour ozone design value was 0.104 ppm, which is 83 percent of the former 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS. While the Coachella Valley remains in attainment of the former 1-hour federal standard, the 8-hour NAAQS are still exceeded. The Palm Springs station had higher ozone design values and significantly more days above the standards than the Indio station.

The 1-hour and 8-hour state ozone standards were exceeded on three days and 51 days, respectively, in the Coachella Valley in 2015. The 1-hour ozone health advisory level (≥ 0.15 ppm) has not been reached in the Coachella Valley area since 1998. No 1-hour Stage 1 episode levels (≥ 0.20 ppm) have been recorded in the Coachella Valley area since 1988.

Figure 7-5 shows the trend of the annual peak ozone concentrations (1-hour and 8-hour averages) measured in the Coachella Valley between 1990 and 2015. Figure 7-6 shows the trend of the annual number of days exceeding federal and state ozone standards at Coachella Valley monitoring sites for the years 1990–2015. Figure 7-7 shows the 3-year ozone design value trends from 1990 through 2015 (labeled as the end year of each 3-year design value period). As is illustrated, the Coachella Valley has experienced a trend of steady ozone improvements over the years. However, additional gains are needed to achieve the new and previous 8-hour ozone standards. 7-10
916 of 2287
Chapter 7: Current & Future Air Quality – Desert Nonattainment Areas SIP FIGURE 7-5
TRENDS OF COACHELLA VALLEY MAXIMUM 1-HOUR AND 8-HOUR OZONE CONCENTRATIONS, 1990–2015 (DASHED LINES DEPICT THE NEW 2015 8-HOUR AND THE PREVIOUS 2008 AND 1997 8-HOUR AND 1979 1-HOUR FEDERAL OZONE STANDARDS)

0.000

0.025

0.050

0.075

0.100

0.125

0.150

0.175

0.200
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Max Ozone Concentration (ppm)
8-Hour Ozone 1-Hour Ozone
2015 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 1979 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS
7-11
917 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
FIGURE 7-6
COACHELLA VALLEY NUMBER OF DAYS EXCEEDING FEDERAL AND STATE OZONE STANDARDS, 1990–2015 (THE NEW 2015 AND 2008 8-HOUR FEDERAL STANDARDS ARE NOW THE CURRENT OZONE NAAQS, BUT COMMITMENTS REMAIN TOWARD TIMELY ATTAINMENT OF THE FORMER FEDERAL STANDARDS; THE COACHELLA VALLEY HAS ATTAINED THE FORMER 1979 FEDERAL 1-HOUR OZONE STANDARD)
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
110
120
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Days Exceeding Ozone Standard
2015 8-Hour Federal Standard 2008 8-Hour Federal Standard 1997 8-Hour Federal Standard 1979 1-Hour Federal Standard 8-Hour State Standard 1-Hour State Standard
7-12
918 of 2287
Chapter 7: Current & Future Air Quality – Desert Nonattainment Areas SIP FIGURE 7-7
COACHELLA VALLEY FEDERAL 8-HOUR AND 1-HOUR OZONE 3-YEAR DESIGN VALUE TRENDS, 1990–2015 [DASHED LINES INDICATE THE CURRENT 2015 (NEW), 2008 AND REVOKED 1997 8-HOUR FEDERAL OZONE STANDARDS AND THE REVOKED 1979 1-HOUR OZONE STANDARD (ATTAINED); YEAR PLOTTED IS THE END YEAR OF THE 3-YEAR DESIGN VALUE PERIOD]
PM10
PM10 is measured daily at both Indio and Palm Springs by supplementing the (primary) 1-in-3-day Federal Reference Method (FRM) filter sampling at Indio and the 1-in-6-day FRM sampling at Palm Springs with (secondary) continuous hourly FEM measurements at both stations. In addition, a third station has been operational in the community of Mecca in the southeastern Coachella Valley since 2013, measuring PM10 with a real-time FEM sampler. This monitoring was started at the request of U.S. EPA Region IX to help evaluate windblown dust in that portion of the Coachella Valley, which is potentially impacted by highwind natural events, agricultural activities, and fugitive dust from the exposed shoreline of the receding Salton Sea.

Although exceedances of the ozone standard in the Coachella Valley area are primarily due to the transport of ozone and its precursors from the densely populated areas of the upwind Basin to the west, PM10 in the Coachella Valley is largely due to locally generated sources of fugitive dust (e.g., construction

0.000

0.025

0.050

0.075

0.100

0.125

0.150

0.175

0.200
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Ozone Design Value (ppm)
8-Hour Ozone 1-Hour Ozone 2015 8-HourO3 NAAQS
2008 8-Hour O3 NAAQS 1997 8-Hour O3 NAAQS 1979 1-Hour O3 NAAQS 7-13
919 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
activities, re-entrained dust from paved and unpaved road travel, and natural wind-blown sources). The Coachella Valley is subject to frequent high winds that generate wind-blown sand and dust, leading to high episodic PM10 concentrations, especially from disturbed soil and natural desert blow sand areas.

PM10 is the only pollutant which often reaches higher concentrations in the SSAB than in the Basin. On some of the high days, long-range transport of wind-generated dust and sand occurs with relatively light winds in the Coachella Valley, when entrained dust from desert thunderstorm outflows travels to the Coachella Valley from the desert areas of southeastern California, Arizona, Nevada or northern Mexico.

All days in recent years that exceeded the 24-hour federal PM10 NAAQS at Indio, Palm Springs, and Mecca would not have exceeded that standard except for the contribution of windblown dust and sand due to strong winds in the upwind source area (high-wind natural events).

In 2014, high-wind natural events occurred on eight days that caused high 24-hour PM10 concentrations over the federal standard at the monitors at Indio, Palm Springs, or Mecca. 2 An additional eight days
with high PM10 concentrations in 2015 were also flagged as exceptional events due to high winds. These days are summarized in Table 7-4. For 2014, the initial analysis shows that seven of the high-wind events were associated with strong onshore winds from the Basin through the San Gorgonio Pass and down the Coachella Valley. Two days in 2014 had high PM10 due to strong outflows from thunderstorms over Arizona and northern Mexico that entrained dust and sand that was transported into the Coachella Valley by southeasterly monsoonal flows. In 2015, four of the high-wind events were associated with strong winds through the San Gorgonio Pass and the remaining four were associated with summertime thunderstorm activity over the deserts of the southwestern U.S. and northern Mexico. One of the 2014 monsoonal flow days, July 17, 2015, had the highest PM10 concentration measured in the Coachella Valley in 2014 or 2015 – 337 µg/m3 at Indio. As was done for similar high-wind events in prior years, the 2014 and 2015 events have been flagged upon submittal to the U.S. EPA AQS database as high-wind exceptional events, in accordance with the U.S. EPA Exceptional Events Rule, with further documentation and U.S.

EPA concurrence pending.
2 The FEM PM10 sampler in Mecca was treated as a special purpose monitor for evaluation purposes through 2014; the 2015 data has been submitted to the U.S. EPA AQS database along with flagging for exceptional events. 7-14

920 of 2287
Chapter 7: Current & Future Air Quality – Desert Nonattainment Areas SIP TABLE 7-4
High-Wind Exceptional Event Days in the Coachella Valley in 2014 and 2015 Date
Palm Springs
PM10
(µg/m3)
Indio
PM10
(µg/m3)
Mecca
PM10
(µg/m3)
#
Event Description
03/26/2014 113* 168 123* high winds
04/12/2014 57* 243 183* high winds
04/13/2014 32* 168 132* high winds
04/25/2014 49* 52 183* high winds
05/10/2014 73* 215 226* high winds
06/13/2014 29* 101 183* high winds
06/27/2014 38* 165 130* high winds
07/27/2014** 106* 152 152* high winds – monsoonal thunderstorms 08/18/2014 313* 298 237* high winds – monsoonal thunderstorms 05/07/2015 15* ND 209* high winds
07/08/2015 23* 174 180* high winds – monsoonal thunderstorms 07/17/2015 161 337 306* high winds – monsoonal thunderstorms 08/19/2015 48* 181 147* high winds – monsoonal thunderstorms 09/09/2015 187 176 128* high winds – monsoonal thunderstorms 11/02/2015 ND 182 87* high winds
12/14/2015 11* 55 203* high winds
12/26/2015 13* 100 300* high winds
ND = No Data
Bold text indicates concentrations in excess of the PM10 NAAQS # 2014 Mecca PM10 data is considered preliminary, subject to change in validation (not submitted or flagged in U.S. EPA AQS database) * Indicates measurement with continuous FEM (TEOM) instrument; FRM filter is primary measurement when available ** Peak measured concentrations on 7/27/14 did not technically exceed the federal PM10 standard, which requires a 24-hour average of 155 µg/m3
, or above, to exceed
After excluding days flagged due to high-wind natural events, the federal 24-hour PM10 standard and the revoked federal annual PM10 standard, were not exceeded at these stations in either 2014 or 2015.

Therefore, the maximum 2015 24-hour PM10 concentration (152 µg/m3 ) and annual average (38.6 µg/m3)
7-15
921 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
were 98 and 71 percent of the current 24-hour federal PM10 standard and the revoked annual federal standard (50 µg/m3
), respectively.
3 When considering the form of the federal PM10 standards, after excluding the flagged high-wind exceptional events, the 3-year (2013–2015) design values for the Coachella Valley are 152 µg/m3 for the 24-hour average and 38 µg/m3 for the annual average (former standard). These are 98 and 70 percent of the 24-hour and former annual PM10 federal standards, respectively, and 304 and 190 percent of the state 24-hour (50 µg/m3
) and annual average (20 µg/m3) PM10 standards. Figure 7-8 shows the trend of the annual average PM10 concentrations in the Coachella Valley for the station showing the highest PM10 measurements from 1990 through 2015, along with the annual PM2.5 trend. 3 Technically, a 24-hour PM10 concentration ≥ 155 µg/m3 is required to exceed the federal standard, due to rounding requirements and the form of the standard. While Coachella Valley concentrations near, but below 155 µg/m3
, are also influenced by high winds, exceptional event flagging only applies to data that violates a NAAQS.

The revoked federal annual PM10 standard required an annual PM10 concentration ≥ 50.05 µg/m3 to exceed that standard, which rounds to 50.1 µg/m3
.
7-16

922 of 2287
Chapter 7: Current & Future Air Quality – Desert Nonattainment Areas SIP FIGURE 7-8
COACHELLA VALLEY TREND OF ANNUAL AVERAGE PM10 AND PM2.5, 1990–2015 PM2.5
SCAQMD began PM2.5 monitoring in both the Coachella Valley and the Basin in 1999. Two routine stations (Palm Springs and Indio) measure PM2.5 every third day with 24-hour filter-based FRM measurements, as required by U.S. EPA monitoring regulations. PM2.5 has remained relatively low, especially when compared to the Basin, due to fewer combustion-related emissions sources and less secondary aerosol formation in the atmosphere. There is also typically increased vertical mixing and horizontal dispersion in the desert areas. When looking at the 3-year design value for the 2013–2015 period, the Coachella Valley PM2.5 24-hour design value (17 µg/m3 ) is 48 percent of the 24-hour NAAQS
(35 µg/m3
) and the annual average design value (8.0 µg/m3) is 66 percent of the current 2012 annual NAAQS (12.0 µg/m3
).

Figure 7-9 shows the trend of 3-year design values for annual average and 24-hour PM2.5 from 2001 through 2015. The stations in the Coachella Valley have not exceeded the 3-year design value form of the current standards since monitoring began. The annual average for the first year of measurements (1999) was just slightly above the level of the standard as can be seen in the trend of the annual average PM2.5 concentrations, shown in Figure 7-8 (above). As was seen elsewhere in California, the slight 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 PM Concentration (µg/m3)
PM10 Annual PM2.5 Annual
Revoked PM10 Annual Federal Standard
PM2.5 Annual Federal Standard
7-17
923 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
increasing trend in the 24-hour design values in the Coachella Valley after 2012 is likely due, at least in part, to the ongoing drought conditions (see the PM2.5 section in Chapter 2 for additional drought discussion).

There are occasionally some individual days that exceeded the level of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard in the Coachella Valley, due to the PM2.5 fine particulate portion of windblown dust during very high PM10 events caused by high winds. Even though the PM2.5 standard can be exceeded during these exceptional events, the PM2.5 mass is a very small fraction of the total PM10 mass. These events are “extreme” and can be flagged as exceptional events, but they have not occurred frequently enough to exceed the 98th percentile form of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard.

The 2015 Coachella Valley maximum 24-hour average and the highest annual average concentrations (24.6 µg/m3 and 7.5 µg/m3
, respectively, both at Indio) were 69 percent and 62 percent of the current federal 24-hour and annual standards. The annual PM2.5 state standard (12.0 µg/m3 ), which is the same
level as the federal annual standard, but with different rounding requirements, is also not exceeded in the Coachella Valley.
7-18
924 of 2287
Chapter 7: Current & Future Air Quality – Desert Nonattainment Areas SIP FIGURE 7-9
COACHELLA VALLEY TREND OF 24-HOUR AND ANNUAL AVERAGE PM2.5 3-YEAR DESIGN VALUES, 2001–2015 Desert Hot Springs PM2.5 Monitoring
In addition to the routine PM2.5 measurements, SCAQMD has been measuring PM2.5 since May 2014 with a continuous FEM instrument in Desert Hot Springs. This station is in the predominantly downwind direction of the 800 megawatt CPV Sentinel natural gas-powered electric generation facility. 4 Through
the end of 2015, only a single day, June 19, 2015, exceeded the level of the 24-hour federal standard, with a concentration of 52.3 µg/m3
. That high day was associated with a strong windblown dust event that also had very high PM10 concentrations, due to outflows from thunderstorm activity over the desert southwest. Therefore, this day would qualify for flagging as a high-wind exceptional event and the high PM2.5 concentration was not correlated to power plant activity. In addition, such occasional single high 4 Current and historic preliminary data from the Desert Hot Springs temporary special purpose monitor near CPV Sentinel can be found on the SCAQMD website at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/air-quality-data-studies/special-monitoring/cpv-sentinel-monitoring. 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 PM2.5 Design Value (µg/m3)
24-Hour PM2.5 Design Value Annual PM2.5 Design Value
Annual Federal Standard
24-Hour Federal Standard
7-19

925 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
values over the level of the standard have not caused a violation of the 98th percentile, 3-year design value form of the PM2.5 NAAQS.

The preliminary Desert Hot Springs PM2.5 annual average for 2015, the first full year of measurements, was 6.66 µg/m3
, well below the 12.0 µg/m3 annual federal standard in this northern Coachella Valley location. While the concentrations from the continuous PM2.5 instruments, such as that used at the Desert Hot Springs station, are typically biased higher than the filter-based FRM PM2.5 measurements, the annual average concentration of 6.7 µg/m3 is close to the 2014 FRM PM2.5 annual average measured at Palm Springs (6.4 µg/m3
) and below that measured at Indio (8.3 µg/m3).

Other Criteria Pollutants
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
CO was measured at one Coachella Valley air monitoring station (Palm Springs) in 2015. Neither the federal nor state standards were exceeded. The maximum 8-hour average CO concentration recorded in 2015 (0.7 ppm) was less than 8 percent of both the federal (9 ppm) and state (9.0 ppm) 8-hour standards. The maximum 1-hour CO concentration (2.0 ppm) was 6 percent of the federal (35 ppm) and 10 percent of the State (20 ppm) 1-hour CO standards. Historical carbon monoxide air quality data show that the Coachella Valley area has not exceeded the federal CO standards in nearly three decades.

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
NO2 was measured at one station (Palm Springs) in the Coachella Valley in 2015. The maximum annual average NO2 concentration of 0.0062 ppm was approximately 12 percent of the federal annual standard (0.0534 ppm) and 21 percent of the state annual standard (0.030 ppm). The maximum 1-hour average concentration of 41.5 ppb was 42 percent of the 2010 federal (100 ppb) and 23 percent of the state 1- hour standard (180 ppb).

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
SO2 concentrations were not measured in the Coachella Valley in 2015. Historic analyses have shown SO2 concentrations to be well below the state and federal standards and there are no significant emissions sources in the Coachella Valley.

Sulfates (SO42-)
Sulfate, from FRM PM10 filters, was measured at two stations (Palm Springs and Indio) in the Coachella Valley in 2015. The 2015 maximum 24-hour average sulfate concentration was 4.6 µg/m3 (18 percent of the 25 µg/m3 State sulfate standard) and the 3-year maximum State designation value was 2.6 µg/m3 (10
percent of the 25 µg/m3 State sulfate standard). While still well below the State standard, the 4.6 µg/m3 peak value may not be the State designation value, since it was associated with a high-wind exceptional event that caused exceedances of the PM10 NAAQS at Indio at both the Palm Springs and Indio air monitoring stations. There is no federal sulfate standard.

Lead (Pb)
Lead was not measured in the Coachella Valley in 2015. Historic analyses have shown concentrations to be less than the state and federal standards as no significant sources of lead emissions are located in the Coachella Valley.
7-20
926 of 2287
Chapter 7: Current & Future Air Quality – Desert Nonattainment Areas SIP Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)
SCAQMD started measuring H2S near the Salton Sea at two locations in November 2013 in order to better understand odor events related to the Salton Sea and to better communicate these events to the community. One of the H2S monitoring stations is located on Torres-Martinez tribal land that is close to the shore, in a sparsely populated area. The second monitor is located at the SCAQMD Mecca air monitoring station site (Saul Martinez Elementary School), a more populated community approximately four miles north of the Salton Sea.

A significant H2S odor event occurred in September 2012, bringing sulfur or rotten-egg odors and widespread attention to the issue of H2S odors from the Salton Sea. This event affected people in communities throughout the Coachella Valley, across many areas of the Basin, and into portions of the Mojave Desert Air Basin to the north. Over 235 odor complaints were registered with SCAQMD during this event, from as far west as the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles County.

H2S is a product of anaerobic organic decay in the Salton Sea that is particularly active in the summer months, especially at the bottom of the shallow Sea with the abundant desert sunlight and heat. The 2012 event occurred during a period of moist southeasterly “monsoonal” flows in desert areas of southeastern California, along with desert thunderstorms. Strong outflow winds from thunderstorms to the south crossed the Salton Sea, causing mixing in the water layers that released and transported significant amounts of H2S gas and the associated odors.

While strong events like that of September 2012 are uncommon, less extreme releases of H2S can cause odors in areas close to the Salton Sea relatively frequently. These events are more prevalent during the hot summer months, especially when the southeasterly “monsoonal” flow events occur, but they sometimes occur at other times of the year. Elevated H2S is typically measured in the Coachella Valley during wind shifts that bring flows from the south or east directions. These shifts occur most often in the early morning or the late afternoon/early evening hours in this area. The Salton Sea’s receding shorelines and shallower waters may affect the number or severity of these odor events in the future.

While there is no federal standard for H2S, California has set a standard of 30 parts per billion (ppb), averaged over one hour as a level not to be reached or exceeded. The state standard was adopted in 1969, based on the thresholds for annoyance and unpleasant odors, with the purpose of decreasing odor annoyances. 5 Humans can detect H2S odors at extremely low concentrations, down to a few ppb.

Above the state standard, most individuals can smell the offensive odor and many may experience temporary symptoms such as headaches and nausea due to unpleasant odors. The CAAQS for H2S was reviewed in 1984 and retained.

In 2014 and 2015, 24 and 27 days, respectively, had exceedances of the 1-hour state H2S standard at the sparsely populated Torres-Martinez monitoring site at the Salton Sea. Of these, five days in 2014 and 12 12 days in 2015 had H2S exceedances that lasted longer than one hour. The highest number of hourly exceedances in a day was 20, on September 9, 2015, while the next highest number of hours exceeding in a single day was six. The exceedances at this station occurred between the beginning of April and the 5 Collins, J., and D. Lewis. (2000). Hydrogen Sulfide: Evaluation of Current California Air Quality Standards with Respect to Children. California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment document prepared for CARB. http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/ceh/001207/h2s_oehha.PDF. 7-21

927 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
end of October, with most occurring in August and September. The highest 1-hour concentration measured at the Torres-Martinez station in 2014 and 2015 was 183 ppb, on September 9, 2015.

Further north from the Salton Sea in Mecca, the state H2S standard was exceeded on three days in 2014 and six days in 2015, with a peak concentration of 129 ppb on September 3, 2015. The most hours in a day to exceed the standard at Mecca was six, on September 9, 2014. Most of the daily exceedances only lasted one or two hours. All the 2014 and 2015 Mecca exceedances occurred in the months of August and September. Figure 7-10 shows the 2014 and 2015 monthly number of days by station exceeding the state H2S standard in the Coachella Valley.

FIGURE 7-10
NUMBER OF DAYS IN EACH MONTH WITH 1-HOUR HYDROGEN SULFIDE (H2S) OVER THE STATE STANDARD IN 2014 AND 2015 FOR COACHELLA VALLEY MONITORING STATIONS
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 Number of Days Over Standard
Coachella Valley Station Days over State H2S Standard by Month Torres-Martinez Station Mecca Station
2014 Totals:

Torres-Martinez: 24 days
Mecca: 3 days
2015 Totals:

Torres-Martinez: 27 days
Mecca: 6 days
7-22
928 of 2287
Chapter 7: Current & Future Air Quality – Desert Nonattainment Areas SIP Pollutant Transport
Pollutant transport from the Basin to the SSAB occursthrough the San Gorgonio Pass (sometimes referred to as the Banning Pass) to the Coachella Valley.6
The transport pathway to the Coachella Valley has been
well documented and studied in the past. An experiment in the early 1970s concluded that the South Coast Air Basin was the source of the observed high ozone levels in the Coachella Valley.7 Transport
from Anaheim to Palm Springs was directly identified with an inert sulfur hexafluoride tracer release.8 A
comprehensive study of transport from the Basin to the SSAB also confirmed the ozone transport pathway to the Coachella Valley.9
Ozone pollutant transport to the Coachella Valley can be demonstrated by examining averaged ozone concentrations by time of day for various stations along the transport corridor from Los Angeles County into Riverside County and into the Coachella Valley. Figure 7-11 shows the diurnal distribution of averaged 1-hour ozone concentrations for the May–October smog season, by hour, for the 2012–2014 period. The Coachella Valley transport route is represented, starting at Central Los Angeles as the main emissions source region and passing through Riverside-Rubidoux and Banning and finally through the San Gorgonio Pass to Palm Springs in the Coachella Valley. Near the source regions, ozone peaks occur just after mid-day (1 to 2 p.m. Pacific Standard Time (PST)), on average, during the peak of incoming solar radiation and therefore the peak of ozone production. Ozone peaks near the emissions source region are not as high as those further downwind, due to the photochemical reaction time needed for ozone to form from precursor gases. Downwind of the source region, ozone peaks occur later in the day and at generally higher concentrations as ozone and ozone precursors are transported downwind and photochemical reactions continue. At Palm Springs, ozone concentration peaks occur between 4 and 6 p.m. PST. If this peak were locally generated, it would be occurring closer to near mid-day, as is seen in the major source areas of the Basin, and not in the late afternoon or early evening, as is seen at Palm Springs.
6 Keith, R.W. (1980). A Climatological Air Quality Profile: California’s South Coast Air Basin. Staff Report, South Coast Air Quality Management District. 7 Kauper, E.K. (1971). Coachella Valley Air Quality Study. Final Report, Pollution Res. & Control Corp., Riverside County Contract & U.S. Public Health Service Grant No. 69-A-0610 RI. 8 Drivas, P.J., and F.H. Shair. (1974). A Tracer Study of Pollutant Transport in the Los Angeles Area. Atmos.

Environ. 8, 1155-1163. 9 Smith, T.B., et al. (1983). The Impact of Transport from the South Coast Air Basin on Ozone Levels in the Southeast Desert Air Basin. CARB Research Library Report No. ARB-R-83-183. CARB Contract to MRI/Caltech. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/single-project.php?row_id=64953. 7-23

929 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
FIGURE 7-11
DIURNAL PROFILE OF 3-YEAR (2012–2014) HOURLY OZONE CONCENTRATIONS ALONG THE TRANSPORT ROUTE INTO THE

COACHELLA VALLEY
(HOURS IN PACIFIC STANDARD TIME (PST), AVERAGED FOR THE MAY–OCTOBER OZONE SEASON BY HOUR) Palm Springs also exhibits higher morning ozone concentrations, when compared to the concentrations in the morning in the Basin closer to the main emissions source areas (i.e., Los Angeles and Rubidoux).

The stations in the Basin have more local NOx emissions (mostly from mobile sources) that help scavenge10 the ozone after dark when ozone photochemistry ceases. The Coachella Valley has limited local NOx emissions to help scavenge the ozone at night. This elevated overnight ozone contributes to an early morning start to the daily ozone increase in Coachella Valley, starting after sunrise (5–6 a.m. PST), with the ample sunlight and strong overnight temperature inversions in the desert. Ozone concentrations observed on high ozone days in the Coachella Valley can reach an initial peak before noon and then drop slightly with increased mixing in the early afternoon, before climbing to the daily peak, typically between 4 and 6 p.m., as the typical onshore flow reaches the Coachella Valley through the San Gorgonio Pass, transporting new ozone from the Basin.
10 Freshly emitted NOx includes NO, which destroys ozone through a fast reaction colloquially termed ‘scavenging.’
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Ozone Concentration (ppb)

HOUR (PST)
Los Angeles Rubidoux Banning Palm Springs
7-24

930 of 2287
Chapter 7: Current & Future Air Quality – Desert Nonattainment Areas SIP Future Air Quality
Emissions Inventories
For illustrative purposes, Table 7-5 shows base year (2012) and future-year emission inventories for the Coachella Valley, based on the AQMP inventory methodology as described in Appendix III – Base and Future Year Emission Inventory. Emissions, in tons per day, of VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, PM2.5, and NH3 are shown. The corresponding inventories for the Basin are shown for comparison in Table 7-6.

The Basin emissions, typically upwind of the Coachella Valley, overwhelm the locally-generated emissions.

Depending on the pollutant, emissions in the Basin are 10 to over 350 times greater than emissions in the Coachella Valley. Future increases in some of the pollutant emissions within the Coachella Valley are largely due to projected increases in population, VMT, and construction activity. It is clear that improved air quality in the Coachella Valley depends on reduced emissions in the Basin. This is further illustrated by the positive trends in ozone air quality in both areas, as described earlier.

TABLE 7-5
Coachella Valley Annual Average Emissions for Base Year (2012) and Future Years, without Further Controls
COACHELLA VALLEY EMISSIONS (Tons/Day)
YEAR VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 NH3
2012 14.1 27.1 59.7 0.2 15.2 3.4 2.4
2019 12.6 16.8 45.3 0.2 21.7 3.7 2.3
2021 12.6 14.7 43.6 0.2 23.3 3.9 2.3
2022 12.6 13.7 43.2 0.2 23.7 3.9 2.3
2023 12.6 11.2 43.0 0.2 24.3 4.0 2.3
2025 12.7 10.5 42.8 0.2 25.3 4.1 2.4
2026 12.8 10.3 43.1 0.2 25.8 4.2 2.4
2031 13.5 9.4 45.7 0.2 28.6 4.6 2.5
7-25
931 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 7-6
South Coast Air Basin Annual Average Emissions for Base Year (2012) and Future Years, without Further Controls
SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN EMISSIONS (Tons/Day)
Year VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 NH3
2012 470.1 539.9 2123.1 18.4 152.5 66.4 81.1
2019 375.6 353.1 1447.3 16.6 158.8 63.9 74.0
2021 365.4 309.1 1357.3 16.8 160.7 63.8 72.9
2022 362.3 290.5 1324.7 17.0 161.9 64.1 72.6
2023 358.8 256.7 1298.1 17.1 162.7 64.2 72.3
2025 353.5 240.6 1246.8 17.4 163.8 64.3 72.3
2026 351.8 234.2 1231.8 17.5 164.4 64.4 72.4
2031 345.0 213.8 1187.8 18.2 167.9 65.3 73.1
Reasonable Further Progress
The federal CAA requires SIPs for most nonattainment areas to demonstrate RFP toward attainment through emission reductions phased in from the time of the SIP submission until the attainment date time frame. The RFP requirements in the CAA are intended to ensure that ozone nonattainment areas provide for sufficient progress towards ozone precursor emission reductions to attain the ozone NAAQS.

Per CAA Section 171(1), RFP is defined as “such annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part or may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable national ambient air quality standard by the applicable date.” As stated in subsequent federal regulation, the goal of the RFP requirements is for areas to achieve generally linear progress toward attainment. To determine RFP for the attainment date, U.S.

EPA has determined that the plan should rely only on emission reductions achieved from sources within the nonattainment area.

Subpart 2 sections 182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2)(B) contain specific emission reduction targets to ensure that ozone nonattainment areas provide for sufficient precursor emission reductions to attain the ozone national ambient air quality standard. Section 182(b)(1)(A) requires that “moderate” or above areas provide for VOC reductions of at least 15 percent from baseline emissions within six years after November 15, 1990. The U.S. EPA final rule of “Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements” (80 FR 12263) states that if an area has already met the 15 percent requirement for VOC under either the 1-hour ozone NAAQS or the 1997 8-hour ozone 7-26
932 of 2287
Chapter 7: Current & Future Air Quality – Desert Nonattainment Areas SIP NAAQS, such requirement under 182(b)(1) would not have to be fulfilled again. Instead, such areas would need to meet the CAA requirements under Section 182(c)(2)(B), which requires that “serious” and above areas provide VOC and/or NOx reductions (CAA, Section 182(c)(2)(C)) of 18 percent over the first six years after the baseline year for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and an additional 3 percent per year averaged over each consecutive three-year period until the attainment date.

As mentioned a number of times in this chapter, poor ozone air quality in the Coachella Valley is primarily due to transport of ozone and its precursors from the upwind source region of the Basin and attainment in Coachella Valley is only possible with substantial emission reductions in the Basin. With this in mind, the proposed control strategy consists of two components: 1) an aggressive control strategy for NOx emission sources in the Basin; and 2) control of locally generated emissions via proposed state-wide or nationally applied control measures implemented by state and federal actions.

Tables 7-7 and 7-8 summarize the RFP calculations. Figure 7-12 depicts the target level and projected baseline RFP demonstration for VOC. For each of the milestone years, the District is able to show that the required progress is met on the basis of reductions from the existing control program using a combination of VOC and NOx reductions within the Coachella Valley portion of the SSAB alone. No additional reductions from the proposed control measures in the Plan are needed for progress purposes.

Projected VOC baseline emissions are not sufficient to meet the CAA requirements as the baseline VOC emission levels are above the target levels of each milestone year. Therefore, projected NOx baseline emission reductions are needed to show compliance with the targeted RFP levels. The CAA Section 182(c)(2)(C) provides for NOx reductions to substitute for RFP reductions not achieved for VOC emissions.

The demonstration in Tables 7-7 and 7-8 show compliance with RFP requirements as well as CAA contingency requirements. Contingency measures for attainment in Coachella Valley will be specified in CARB’s staff report on the South Coast Plan.
7-27
933 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 7-7
Summary of Reasonable Further Progress Calculations – VOC ROW CALCULATION STEP a 2012b 2018 2021 2024 2026
1 Baseline VOC Emissions
(tpd) 16.50 14.89 14.61 14.88 15.10
2 Required Percent Change
Since Previous Milestone
Year (%) 18.0 9.0 9.0 6.0
3 Target VOC Level (tpd) 13.53 12.31 11.20 10.53
4 Cumulative Milestone
Year Shortfall (tpd) 1.36 2.30 3.68 4.57
5 Cumulative Shortfall in
VOC (%) 8.2 13.9 22.3 27.7
6 Incremental Milestone
Year Shortfall (%) 8.2 5.7 8.4 5.4
a Units are in tons per day (tpd), based on the summer planning inventory unless otherwise noted b Base Year (2012)
Row Description:

ROW 1: Projected baseline emissions from Appendix III – Baseline and Future Emission Inventory taking into account existing rules and projected growth
ROW 2: Required 18% reduction 6 years after Base Year; future milestone years are every 3 years until attainment year; and required reductions are 3% per year for each milestone year (e.g., for every 3 years, required 9% reduction) ROW 3: [(1-Row 2/100) x Row 1 or Row 3] – Base Year Row 1 for first milestone year, and previous milestone year’s target level (Row 3) for remaining milestone years
ROW 4: [(Row 1) – (Row 3)] or (Baseline – Target) – negative number meets target level and positive number is shortfall of target level
ROW 5: [(Row 4) / (Base Year Row 1) x 100]
ROW 6: Negative (Row 5) is zero shortfall; positive number is a shortfall. Incremental milestone year shortfall is determined by subtracting the previous year’s shortfall from the cumulative (e.g., for 2024, cumulative shortfall of 22.3% – previous 2021 shortfall of 13.9% = 8.4%)
7-28
934 of 2287
Chapter 7: Current & Future Air Quality – Desert Nonattainment Areas SIP FIGURE 7-12
REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS – VOC
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
2012 Base Year 2018 2021 2024 2026
Emissions (tpd)
Milestone Year
Projected Baseline Target Level
7-29
935 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 7-8
Summary of Reasonable Further Progress Calculations – NOx a Units are in tons per day (tpd), based on the summer planning inventory unless otherwise noted b Base Year (2012)
Row Description:

ROW 1: Projected baseline emissions from Appendix III – Baseline and Future Emission Inventory taking into account existing rules and projected growth
ROW 2: Reductions achieved in Baseline: [(Row 1 Base Year) – (Row 1 Milestone Year)]; e.g., for 2018: 26.53 tpd – 16.60 tpd = 9.93 tpd
ROW 3: % Reductions achieved since Base Year: [(Row 2) / (Row 1 Base Year)] x 100; e.g., for 2018: (9.63/26.53) x 100 =

37.4%
ROW 4: Reserves 3% (1 year worth of CAA RFP reductions) for contingency measure implementation plus the previous year(s)’s incremental milestone year VOC shortfall from Table 7-7 ROW 5: [(Row 3) – (Row 4)]
ROW 6: Incremental milestone year VOC shortfall from Table 7-7 ROW 7: Surplus reductions achieved [(Row 5) – (Row 6)]
ROW 8: Positive number in Row 7 is percent surplus for each milestone year, thus meeting RFP target levels ROW 9: Surplus includes 3% contingency carryover and VOC shortfall, and still meets RFP target levels ROW CALCULATION STEP a 2012b 2018 2021 2024 2026
1 Baseline NOx Emissions (tpd) 26.53 16.60 13.44 9.65 8.92 2 Reductions in NOx Emissions since Base
Year (tpd) 9.93 13.09 16.88 17.61
3 Percent Reductions in NOx Emissions since
Base Year (%) 37.4 49.3 63.6 66.4
4 Contingency plus VOC Shortfall (%) 3.0 11.2 16.9 25.3 5 Percent Available for NOx Substitution (%) 34.4 38.1 46.7 41.1 6 Incremental Milestone Year VOC Shortfall
(%) 8.2 5.7 8.4 5.4
7 Percent Surplus Reduction (%) 26.2 32.4 38.3 35.7
8 RFP Compliance Yes Yes Yes Yes
9 Contingency Compliance Yes Yes Yes Yes
7-30
936 of 2287
Chapter 7: Current & Future Air Quality – Desert Nonattainment Areas SIP VMT Offset Demonstration for the 2008 Ozone Standard
In 1979, U.S. EPA established a primary health-based NAAQS for ozone at 0.12 ppm averaged over a 1- hour period [See 44 Fed. Reg. 8220 (February 9, 1979)]. The CAA, as amended in 1990, classified areas that had not yet attained that standard based on the severity of their ozone problem, ranging from “marginal” to “extreme.” “Extreme” areas were provided the most time to attain, until November 15, 2010, but were also subject to the most stringent requirements. In particular, “severe” and “extreme” areas were subject to CAA Section 182(d)(1)(A), which requires SIPs to adopt “specific enforceable transportation control strategies and transportation control measures to offset any growth in vehicle miles traveled or numbers of vehicle trips in such area….” U.S. EPA designated the Coachella Valley, then as part of the Southeast Desert Modified Air Quality Management area, as “Severe-17” on November 6, 1991 (56 Fed. Reg. 56694), and thus the Coachella Valley was subject to this requirement. The U.S. EPA has historically interpreted this provision of the CAA (now called “VMT emissions offset requirement”) to allow areas to meet the requirement by demonstrating that emissions from motor vehicles decline each year through the attainment year [see 57 Fed. Reg. 13498, at 13521–13523 (April 16, 1992)].

In 1997, U.S. EPA replaced the 1-hour ozone standard with an 8-hour standard of 0.08 ppm [62 Fed. Reg. 38856 (July 18, 1997)]. The U.S. EPA promulgated rules implementing this standard with the “Phase 1” rule issued on April 30, 2004 (69 Fed. Reg. 23951), and the Phase 2 rule issued on November 29, 2005 (70 Fed. Reg. 71612). These implementation rules required that areas classified as “severe” or “extreme” under the 1997 8-hour standard would also be subject to the VMT offset requirement.

In 2008, U.S. EPA revised the 8-hour ozone NAAQS to a level of 0.075 ppm (73 Fed. Reg. 16436, March 27, 2008). The Coachella Valley was subsequently designated nonattainment for the 2008 standard on May 21, 2012 and classified as a “severe-15” nonattainment area (77 Fed. Reg. 30087), making the Coachella Valley subject to the requirements of CAA Section 182(d)(1)(A) for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

In August 2012, U.S. EPA issued guidance titled “Implementing Clean Air Act Section 182(d)(1)(A):

Transportation Control Measures and Transportation Control Strategies to Offset Growth in Emissions Due to Growth in Vehicle Miles Traveled”. Among other things, U.S. EPA’s guidance points out that subsequent court decisions regarding previous VMT offset demonstrations omitted any reference to “transportation control strategies” (TCS). TCSs, which are not defined in the CAA or U.S. EPA regulation, are eligible to offset growth in emissions due to growth in VMT. The U.S. EPA’s new guidance indicates that technology improvements such as vehicle technology improvements, motor vehicle fuels, and other control strategies that are transportation-related could be used to offset increases in emissions due to VMT growth. U.S. EPA’s revised guidance sets forth a method of calculating the actual growth in emissions due to growth in VMT. Essentially, the area compares projected attainment year emissions assuming no new control measures and no VMT growth with projected actual attainment year emissions (including new control measures and VMT growth). If the latter number is smaller than the former, no additional transportation control measures or strategies would be required. If additional transportation control measures and transportation control strategies are required, they should be clearly identified and distinguished from the measures included in the initial calculations for the base year and the three scenarios identified for the attainment year.

In addition, the guidance recommends that the base year used in the demonstration be the base year used in the attainment demonstration for the ozone standard. To address U.S. EPA’s guidance, 2012 is 7-31
937 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
used in this demonstration as the base year for the 2008 8-hour standard. Consistent with U.S. EPA guidance, emissions of VOC are used to determine compliance with the VMT offset requirement.

Transportation Control Strategies and Transportation Control Measures By listing them separately, the Clean Air Act [CAA §182(d)(1)(A)] differentiates between TCS and transportation control measures (TCM), and thus provides for a wide range of strategies and measures as options to offset growth in emissions from vehicle miles traveled (VMT) growth. In addition, the example TCMs listed in Section 108(f)(1)(A) of the CAA include measures that reduce emissions by reducing VMT, reducing tailpipe emissions, and removing dirtier vehicles from the fleet. California’s motor vehicle control program includes a variety of strategies and measures including new engine standards and in-use programs (e.g., smog check, vehicle scrap, fleet rules, and idling restrictions). TCMs developed by SCAG provide additional reductions. In addition, SCAG prepares a report every two years that reports on the status of implementation of TCMs.

Based on the provisions in Section 182(d)(1)(A) and the clarifications provided in the U.S. EPA guidance, any combination of TCSs and TCMs may be used to meet the requirement to offset growth in emissions resulting from VMT growth. Since 1990 when this requirement was established, California has adopted more than sufficient enforceable transportation control strategies and measures to meet the requirement to offset the growth in emissions from VMT growth.

Emissions Due to VMT Growth
The U.S. EPA guidance provides a recommended calculation methodology to determine if sufficient transportation control strategies and TCMs have been adopted and implemented to offset the growth in emissions due solely to growth in VMT. As such, any increase in emissions solely from VMT increases in the future attainment year from the base year (assuming that there are no further motor vehicle control programs implemented after the base year) would need to be offset. In addition, a calculation is needed to show the emissions levels if VMT had remained constant from the base year to the future attainment year. A comparison of the projected attainment year emissions assuming no new control measures and no VMT growth with projected actual attainment year emissions (including new control measures and VMT growth) can be made. If the latter number is smaller than the former, no additional transportation control measures or strategies would be required.

VMT Offset Demonstration Summary
For the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS offset demonstration, 2012 controls are used as the base case control level since 2012 is the base year of the SIP. 2026 is the Coachella Valley’s attainment demonstration attainment year for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The following calculations are based on the recommended calculation methodology provided in U.S. EPA guidance. Additional details on the analysis methodology is provided in Appendix VI-E – Compliance with other Clean Air Act Requirements.

Table 7-9 summarizes the vehicle miles traveled (VMT), vehicle starts, vehicle population, and VOC emissions for the Coachella Valley in the 2012 base year from the EMFAC2014 model. Table 7-10 summarizes the vehicle parameter and VOC emissions as projected for the Coachella Valley in the attainment year (2026), as calculated with three emissions scenarios:
7-32
938 of 2287
Chapter 7: Current & Future Air Quality – Desert Nonattainment Areas SIP

1. 2026 VOC emissions calculated with the motor vehicle control program frozen at 2012 levels and with projected VMT, starts, and vehicle population for the attainment year. This represents what the emissions in the attainment year would have been if transportation control strategies and transportation control measures had not been implemented after 2012. To perform this calculation, California Air Resources Board (CARB) staff identified the on-road motor vehicle control programs adopted since 2012 and adjusted EMFAC2014 to reflect the VOC emissions levels in 2026 without the benefits of the post-2012 control programs. The projected VOC emissions are 3.1 tons/day.

2. 2026 VOC emissions calculated with the motor vehicle control program frozen at 2012 levels and assuming VMT, starts, and vehicle population do not increase from 2012 levels. In this calculation, the VOC emission levels in calendar year 2026 without benefit of the post 2012 control program are calculated. EMFAC2014 allows a user to input different VMT, starts, and vehicle population than default. For this calculation, EMFAC2014 was run without the benefit of the post 2012 control program for calendar year 2026 with the 2012 level of VMT of 11,402,997 miles per day, the 2012 level of starts at 2,006,983 per day, and the 2012 level of population at 319,781 vehicles. The VOC emissions associated with 2012 VMT, starts, and vehicle population in calendar year 2026 are 2.5 tons/day.

3. 2016 VOC emissions that represent emissions with full implementation of all transportation control strategies and transportation control measures since 2012 and which represents the projected future year baseline emissions inventory using the VMT, starts, and vehicle population for the attainment year. The VOC emission levels for 2026 assuming the benefits of the post2012 motor vehicle control program and the projected VMT, starts, and vehicle population in 2026 are calculated using EMFAC2014. The projected VOC emissions level is 2.0 tons/day.

TABLE 7-9
Summary of 2012 Coachella Valley Base Year VMT Factors and VOC Emissions VMT
(thousand miles/day)
Starts
(thousands/day)
Vehicle
Population
(thousands)
VOC
Emissions*
(tons/day)
2012 Base Year 11,403 2,007 320 4.8
* Does not include diurnal or resting loss emissions
7-33
939 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 7-10
Summary of 2026 Coachella 2026 Attainment Demonstration Year VMT Factors and VOC Emissions
* CY 2026 VMT based on the SCAG 2016 RTP ** Does not include diurnal or resting loss emissions As provided in the U.S. EPA guidance, to determine compliance with the provisions of Section 182(d)(1)(A) of the CAA, the emissions levels calculated in Calculation 3 should be less than the emissions levels in Calculation 2 in Table 7-10. The 2026 VOC emissions with full motor vehicle control program are 2.0 tons/day, which is less than 2.5 tons/day and, therefore, this requirement is met. Figure 7-13 shows graphically that the VMT offset requirement is met due to the emissions benefits of the motor vehicle control programs in offsetting VOC emissions due to increased VMT, starts, and vehicle population in the Coachella Valley for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard with the 2012 base year. The left bar (in purple) shows the emissions in the base year with base year controls. The three bars on the right in each figure show the emissions levels in the attainment year for the three calculations identified above: (1) the red bar shows attainment year emissions with base year controls and attainment year VMT, starts, and vehicle population; (2) the green bar shows attainment year emissions with base year controls, VMT, starts, and vehicle population; and (3) the blue bar shows attainment year emissions with attainment year controls, VMT, starts, and vehicle population. Based on the U.S. EPA guidance, since the blue bar is lower than the green bar, the identified transportation control strategies and TCMs are sufficient to offset the growth in emissions.

Description
VMT*
(miles/day,
thousands)
Starts
(thousands/day)
Vehicle
Population
(thousands)
VOC
Emissions**
(tons/day)
(1)
Emissions with Motor Vehicle
Control Program Frozen at 2012
Levels
(VMT, starts and vehicle
population at 2026 levels.)
14,977 2,738 446 3.1
(2)
Emissions with Motor Vehicle
Control Program Frozen at 2012
Levels
(VMT, starts, and vehicle
population at 2012 levels)
11,403 2,007 320 2.5
(3)
Emissions with Full Motor Vehicle
Control Program in Place
(VMT, starts and vehicle
population at 2026 levels)
14,977 2,738 446 2.0
7-34
940 of 2287
Chapter 7: Current & Future Air Quality – Desert Nonattainment Areas SIP FIGURE 7-13
REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS – VOC
(VOC EMISSIONS FROM ON-ROAD MOBILE SOURCES IN THE COACHELLA VALLEY; 2012 BASE YEAR AND 2026 ATTAINMENT YEAR; DOES NOT INCLUDE RESTING OR DIURNAL LOSS EMISSIONS) Ozone Attainment Demonstration and Projections
This section presents an overview of the new ozone SIP attainment demonstration for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Coachella Valley. It also evaluates the progress toward attainment of the 1997 8- hour ozone NAAQS, although it is not an update to the previously submitted ozone SIP attainment demonstration for that revoked standard. In addition, this section provides an initial look at future attainment of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS (0.070 ppm), which is also not part of this SIP. 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Attainment Demonstration
In the 2007 AQMP and the subsequent SIP submittal, SCAQMD requested that U.S. EPA reclassify the Riverside County portion of the Salton Sea Air Basin from “serious” nonattainment to “severe-15” and extend the attainment date for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (0.08 ppm) to June 15, 2019. This voluntary nonattainment reclassification was approved by U.S. EPA on May 5, 2010. The “severe-15” 7-35
941 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
nonattainment designation was subsequently applied to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (0.075 ppm) in the Coachella Valley, for a new attainment date of July 20, 2027 for that revised standard.

The CAA requires that ozone nonattainment areas designated as “serious” and above use a regional photochemical model to demonstrate attainment. To meet this requirement, the CMAQ modeling system is used in this analysis for the Coachella Valley, as well as the Basin. The complete SCAQMD modeling system and its application is described in Chapter 5 and Appendix V – Modeling and Attainment Demonstration, along with base and future year results, sensitivity analyses and performance evaluations.

Future projected air quality for the Coachella Valley was developed using CMAQ simulations and relative response factors (RRFs, ratios of CMAQ predictions for future year over base year predictions), focusing on the 10 highest ozone episode days for the Coachella Valley stations during the five-month period encompassing the peak of the ozone season (May through September of 2012; 153 days). Of the fivemonth period in 2012, the 2008 8-hour federal ozone standard (0.075 ppm) was exceeded on 83 days in the Basin and 31 days in the Coachella Valley. The 1997 8-hour federal standard (0.08 ppm) was exceeded on 51 days in the Basin and 7 days in the Coachella Valley during the five-month period. For reference, the new 2015 8-hour federal ozone standard (0.070 ppm) was exceeded on 113 days in the Basin and 50 days in the Coachella Valley from May through September of 2012.

The Coachella Valley is currently a nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (0.075 ppm).

With an attainment due date of July 20, 2027, emission reductions required to meet the standard need to be in place by the end of 2026 and the modeling demonstration must show attainment in 2026.

Therefore, air quality in 2026 was simulated using CMAQ to evaluate future attainment in the Coachella Valley. The 2026 baseline future projection design values, with no additional emissions controls beyond rules and regulations already adopted, still exceed the 2008 standard at Palm Springs (0.079 ppm), but not at Indio (0.075 ppm). However, further control measures applied to upwind Basin emission reductions will be in place by 2023, as described in Chapter 4, in order for the Basin to meet the 1997 ozone NAAQS (0.08 ppm). With successful implementation of these additional Basin reductions including benefits from deployment of new cleaner technologies, the Coachella Valley is projected to no longer exceed the 2008 NAAQS as early as 2023, but no later than the 2026 attainment deadline with the Coachella Valley design value predicted to be 0.075 ppm at Palm Springs and 0.073 ppm at Indio in 2023. Thus, attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Coachella Valley is ensured by the anticipated NOx reductions from the Basin’s control strategy designed to meet the 1997 ozone standard in the Basin by the 2026 statutory attainment deadline. As can be seen, progress toward ozone NAAQS attainment in the Basin is crucial for timely attainment in the Coachella Valley. 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Attainment Progress
Attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (0.08 ppm) was demonstrated in the 2007 AQMP that was submitted to U.S. EPA as a SIP revision on November 28, 2007. U.S.EPA approved the reclassification of the Coachella Valley to “severe-15,” as requested in the 2007 AQMP. A subsequent SIP update for the Coachella Valley and the Western Mojave Desert 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas was prepared and 7-36
942 of 2287
Chapter 7: Current & Future Air Quality – Desert Nonattainment Areas SIP submitted to U.S EPA by CARB on November 6, 2014. 11 The 2014 Update provided additional information to support the 2007 Coachella Valley Plan, including updates to the emission inventory, the attainment demonstration, the reasonable further progress demonstration, and the transportation conformity budget; along with an ozone vehicle miles traveled offset demonstration.

While no further submittals for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS are required at this time, the Coachella Valley has seen significant progress toward attainment in recent years. The trends of both 8-hour ozone design values and the number of days exceeding the level of the 1997 8-hour ozone standards show significant improvement. The 8-hour ozone standards are based on the annual fourth highest measured 8-hour average concentration at each station. For NAAQS attainment determinations, the 3-year average of the annual fourth highest 8-hour average concentrations cannot exceed the 0.08 ppm (due to rounding it must be less than 0.085 ppm or 85 ppb). This means that exceeding the 8-hour ozone concentration does not necessarily result in nonattainment status, since the standard could be exceeded three times at any individual station, on average over the 3-year design value period.

Figure 7-13 shows the trend of annual number of days exceeding the 1997 8-hour ozone standard at the highest Coachella Valley station (Palm Springs) for 1990 through 2015. The number of days exceeding the 1997 standard shows a progressive improvement, from 18 days in the 2012 base year to only five days in 2015. Figure 7-14 shows the trend of the annual 8-hour ozone 3-year design values, showing continuing gradual improvement. These historical observations provide evidence that Coachella Valley is still expected to be in attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS by the end of 2018, corroborating the ozone SIP attainment modeling demonstration in the 2007 AQMP and the CARB 2014 Update. 11 December 12, 2014 letter from Jonathan P. Taylor, California Air Resources Board, to Matt Lakin, U.S. EPA Region IX: http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/planarea/updatessubltr.pdf, with CARB Staff Report, Proposed Updates to the 1997 8-hour Ozone Standard State Implementation Plans: Coachella Valley and Western Mojave Desert 8-hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/planarea/antaqmp/2014update0922.pdf. 7-37

943 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
FIGURE 7-13
TREND OF ANNUAL COACHELLA VALLEY NUMBER OF DAYS EXCEEDING THE 1997 8-HOUR OZONE STANDARD, 1990– 2015
(THE 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS IS BASED ON THE FOURTH HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IN EACH YEAR, ALLOWING THREE

DAYS TO EXCEED THE STANDARD)
56 62
66 64
39 34
52 26
31 23
30 43
50 46
37 39
26 23
19 25
16 17 18
15 7
5 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Days Exceeding Ozone Standard
Allowable Exceedance Days
7-38
944 of 2287
Chapter 7: Current & Future Air Quality – Desert Nonattainment Areas SIP FIGURE 7-14
TREND OF COACHELLA VALLEY 8-HOUR OZONE 3-YEAR DESIGN VALUES, 1990–2015 (UPPER DOTTED LINE IS THE 1997 8-HOUR FEDERAL STANDARD AS REQUIRED TO BE ATTAINED IN 2018) 2015 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Attainment Projection
Although it is not being addressed as part of this SIP submittal, the AQMP modeling effort provides an initial look at the potential for future attainment of the new 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS (0.070 ppm). The designations for the new standard are anticipated by October 1, 2017. If the new attainment designation for the Coachella Valley continues to have a “severe-15” classification, the new attainment date will likely be 2032 with all control measures required to be in place for a 2031 model year demonstration date. This date would be five years later (2037) with an “extreme” nonattainment classification, which may be need to be considered due to the reliance of Coachella Valley ozone improvement on the Basin’s progress in achieving emission reductions. CMAQ simulations of the future year ozone levels using the baseline (no additional controls) regional emissions indicate that the new standard will not be attained in the Coachella Valley by the “severe-15” attainment deadline of 2031, with a predicted design value over the 2015 ozone NAAQS. This scenario does not include control measures proposed in the 2016 AQMP. The emission reductions that will be in place by 2031 for the Basin to attain the 2008 NAAQS (0.075 ppm) are predicted to bring the Coachella Valley to attainment of the 2015 ozone

0.000

0.025

0.050

0.075

0.100

0.125

0.150
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Ozone Design Value (ppm)
8-Hour Ozone 1997 8-Hour O3 NAAQS
7-39
945 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
standard in 2031, with a peak predicted design value of 0.070 ppm. The additional emission reductions that will likely be required to attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS in the Basin by 2037 will also ensure attainment of the new standard in the Coachella Valley. A full attainment and control strategy analysis of the new 0.070 ppm ozone standard for both the Basin and Coachella Valley, including the potential need for reclassification, will be the subject of the next AQMP due in the 2020–2021 time frame. Further details of all the future-year air quality projections for the Basin and the Coachella Valley are presented in Chapter 5 and Appendix V – Modeling and Attainment Demonstrations.

Conclusions
The “severe-15” attainment date for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 2027 is the primary focus of the 2016 AQMP modeling demonstration for the Coachella Valley. With the future emission controls in place in the Basin by 2023 in order for the Basin to meet the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the 2008 ozone NAAQS will be met in the Coachella Valley in 2023. This is three years in advance of the 2026 attainment year for the 2008 NAAQS in the Coachella Valley “severe-15” nonattainment area.

With the “severe-15” ozone nonattainment designation, the Coachella Valley attainment demonstration year for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS is 2018. Based on the improving trends of both the 8-hour ozone design values and the number of exceedance days, it appears that the 1997 ozone standard will be attained in the Coachella Valley by the end of 2018 with no additional emission controls needed beyond already adopted rules and regulations. This evidence supports for the modeling simulations for Coachella Valley in the 2007 AQMP.

The future emission reductions implemented in the Basin will not only ensure timely attainment of the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone standards in Coachella Valley, they will also help ensure progress towards the more stringent 2015 8-hour ozone standard. The classification, and thus the attainment deadlines, for this new ozone standard are pending from U.S. EPA. The full strategy for attainment of the 2015 NAAQS in the Coachella Valley will be determined based on the analysis in the next AQMP. 7-40
946 of 2287
hapter 1
ntroduction
Chapter 8Looking Beyond Current Requirements
U.S. EPA periodically reviews existing air quality standards in light of emerging epidemiological and toxicology studies. More stringent standards with new attainment deadlines present additional challenges for the Basin that need to be considered in the planning process. 947 of 2287
In This Chapter
 Introduction 8-1
Context for future air quality planning
 Criteria Pollutant NAAQS Review 8-1
Periodic review of the existing air quality standards
 Changes in the Federal Ozone
Standard 8-3
Latest strengthening of the 8-hour ozone standard
948 of 2287
 Implications of a New Ozone Standard
for the Basin 8-5
Estimated reductions necessary to meet the new
8-hour ozone standard
 Review of Federal PM Standards 8-6
Current review of the primary and secondary PM standards  World Health Organization Air Quality
Standards 8-8
Global public health air quality standards
949 of 2287
Chapter 8: Looking Beyond Current Requirements
Introduction
This chapter presents additional analyses which are not legally required, but are presented here for informational purposes to initiate stakeholder discussion on future air quality planning. The content will also help place the 2016 AQMP in context with the long-range transformation needed for this region to meet more recently promulgated health-based air quality standards.

Criteria Pollutant NAAQS Review
CAA Section 109(d) requires U.S. EPA to periodically review the existing air quality standards in light of findings of new and emerging epidemiological and health studies. If appropriate, such review may consider revision of existing air quality standardsto reflect advances in scientific knowledge on the effects of the pollutant on public health and welfare. U.S. EPA reviews the scientific basis for these standards by preparing an Integrated Science Assessment (ISA), formerly called an Air Quality Criteria Document (AQCD). The evidence and conclusions presented in the ISA directly inform the technical and policy assessments conducted by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS). Collectively, these documents form the scientific and technical bases for the U.S. EPA’s decisions on the adequacy of existing NAAQS and the appropriateness of new or revised standards. This process is a five-year review cycle that considers the following:

U.S. EPA
Decision
Most recent
scientific
information
(ozone
exposure and
health effects)
Air quality
information
Quantitative
risk
information
(e.g., size of atrisk groups
affected)
Uncertainties/
limitations of
evidence
Conclusions
from EPA
experts
Advice from
CASAC
950 of 2287 8-1
Final 2016 AQMP
Established in 1977 under the CAA Amendments of 1977 (42 U.S.C. § 7409(d)(2)) and part of U.S. EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB), the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) provides independent advice to the U.S. EPA Administrator on the technical basis for the NAAQS, as well as addresses research related to air quality, sources of air pollution, the strategies to attain and maintain air quality standards, and to prevent significant deterioration of air quality. More specifically, CASAC is charged with independent expert scientific review of U.S. EPA’s draft ISAs and other technical and policy assessments.

CASAC provides advice to the U.S. EPA Administrator on the technical foundation for the NAAQS based on a peer review of extensive scientific information. The advice provided by CASAC assists the U.S. EPA in deciding whether the existing primary standard1 is “requisite to protect public health with adequate margin of safety.” A secondary standard2 must “specify a level of air quality the attainment and maintenance of which is requisite to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects associated with the presence of such air pollutant in the ambient air.” Primary standards are designed to protect public health, such as the health of "sensitive" populations, including persons with asthma, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards protect public welfare, such as protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. Figure 8-1 provides an overview of the U.S. EPA process in establishing, approving, and re-evaluating a NAAQS for a particular pollutant.

FIGURE 8-1

OVERVIEW
OF THE U.S.

EPA
NAAQS
REVIEW

PROCESS
1 CAA § 109 (b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 7409. 2 CAA § 109 (b)(2), 42 U.S.C. 7409. 1-2 8-2

951 of 2287
Chapter 8: Looking Beyond Current Requirements
Changes in the Federal Ozone Standard
Background
Since the adoption of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.075 ppm, the U.S. EPA carefully evaluated the latest available scientific literature on the health and welfare effects (primary and secondary standards, respectively) of ozone, focusing particularly on the new literature available since the conclusion of the previous review in 2008. In January 2010, U.S. EPA proposed to revise the 8-hr ozone NAAQS in the range of 0.060 ppm to 0.070 ppm. In September 2011, consistent with the direction of President Obama, the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget (OMB), returned the draft final rule to U.S. EPA for further consideration.

Between 2008 and 2014, U.S. EPA prepared draft and final versions of the Integrated Review Plan (IRP), Integrated Science Assessment (ISA, the Health and Welfare Risk and Exposure Assessment (REA), and the Policy Assessment (PA). Multiple drafts of these documents were available for public review and comment and were peer-reviewed by CASAC. The final documents reflect U.S. EPA staff’s consideration of the comments and recommendations made by CASAC and the public on draft versions of these documents.

In April 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a ruling ordering U.S. EPA to propose a rule based on latest ozone NAAQS review by December 1, 2014 and finalize by October 1, 2015.

Figure 8-2 displays the timeline involved in the recent development and approval of the 8-hour ozone standard.

FIGURE 8-2
RECENT DEVELOPMENT AND APPROVAL OF 8-HOUR OZONE STANDARD •US EPA
Final: 75
ppb
2008
•CASAC recommendation:
60-70 ppb
2010 •Returned to
US EPA for
further
consideration
2011
•Final ISA
2013 •Final REA
and PA
•US EPA
proposal:
65-70 ppb
2014
•US EPA
Final: 70
ppb
2015
952 of 2287 8-3
Final 2016 AQMP
On December 17, 2014, U.S. EPA concluded that the primary ozone standard of 0.075 ppm is not requisite to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety, and that it should be revised to provide increased public health protection. Specifically, U.S. EPA proposed to retain the indicator, averaging time (8-hour) and form (annual fourth-highest daily maximum, averaged over three years) of the existing primary ozone standard and proposed to revise the level of that standard to within a range of 0.065 ppm to 0.070 ppm. U.S. EPA proposed this revision to increase public health protection, including for ‘‘atrisk’’ populations such as children, older adults, and people with asthma or other lung diseases, against an array of ozone-related adverse health effects. For short-term ozone exposures, these effects include decreased lung function, increased respiratory symptoms and pulmonary inflammation, effects that result in serious indicators of respiratory morbidity such as emergency department visits and hospital admissions, and all-cause (total non-accidental) mortality. For long-term ozone exposures, these health effects include a variety of respiratory morbidity effects and respiratory mortality.

Recognizing that CASAC recommended a range of levels from 0.060 ppm to 0.070 ppm in 2010, and that levels as low as 0.060 ppm could potentially be supported, the U.S. EPA Administrator solicited comments on alternative standard levels below 0.065 ppm, and as low as 0.060 ppm. However, the U.S. EPA Administrator noted that setting a standard below 0.065 ppm, down to 0.060 ppm, would inappropriately place very little weight on the uncertainties in the health effects evidence and exposure/risk information.

The secondary standard was also proposed to be revised within the range of 0.065 to 0.070 ppm.

On October 26, 2015, U.S. EPA revised the primary and secondary ozone NAAQS (effective December 28, 2015) to a level of 0.070 ppm (or 70 ppb) retaining their indicators, forms, and averaging times. U.S. EPA also made corresponding revisions in data handling conventions for ozone and changes to the Air Quality Index (AQI), revised regulations for the PSD program to add a transition provision for certain applications, established exceptional events schedules, and provided information related to implementing the revised standards. Figure 8-3 displays the anticipated milestones for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

FIGURE 8-3
ANTICIPATED MILESTONES FOR 2015 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS
Final 70
ppb
NAAQS
2015 Attainment
Designations 2017
SIP
Submittal
Due
2021
Latest
Attaiment
Deadline
("Extreme"
Area)
2037
1-4 953 of 2287 8-4
Chapter 8: Looking Beyond Current Requirements
Next Steps
After U.S. EPA establishes new or revised NAAQS, the CAA directs U.S. EPA and states to ensure the new or revised NAAQS are met. Areas of the country are identified as either in attainment of the new or revised NAAQS or not in attainment. Upon designation of nonattainment areas, certain states are required to develop SIPs taking into account projected emission reductions from existing federal, state, and local regulations already adopted at the time of the SIP submittal as well as additional measures as may be needed to attain the standards, including specific CAA requirements. Nonattainment designations for the 2015 ozone standard are expected to be identified in 2017 triggering the four-year deadline3 to submit a Plan by 2021. If the region is determined to be in “extreme” nonattainment, the latest statutory deadline to demonstrate attainment would be approximately 2037 (20 years from the effective date of designation).

Implications of a New Ozone Standard for the Basin
Based on the modeling results presented in Chapter 5 and Appendix V (Modeling and Attainment Demonstration), the Basin can demonstrate attainment with the existing federal 8-hour ozone standards by the corresponding attainment deadlines (2023 and 2032). In order to meet the 80 ppb ozone level in 2023 and 75 ppb in 2031, an approximate additional 45 percent and 55 percent reduction, respectively, in NOx emissions will be necessary beyond already adopted measures. In some areas, VOC reductions are not as effective as NOx reductions, but certain concurrent VOC reductions would reduce some of the needed NOx reductions. A full discussion of the emission reductions needed to meet current ozone standards is included in Chapter 5 and Appendix V.

As stated above, the 8-hour ozone standard has been lowered to a level of 70 ppb in 2015. Therefore, in order to demonstrate attainment in the 2037 time frame, an additional 62 percent NOx emission reduction is anticipated to be needed from the 2037 baseline. Assuming the 75 ppb standard is met in 2031 with a 96 TPD NOx carrying capacity helps to illustrate the significant reductions needed to meet a new 70 ppb 8-hour ozone standard. A 70 ppb standard represents an approximately 25 TPD additional NOx reduction between 2031 and 2037. NOx emission reductions continue to be the most effective strategy to lower ozone levels.
3 Based on CAA, Title I, Part D, Subpart 2, §182 and Final Ozone Implementation Rule (March 2015) for ozone attainment demonstration four years after effective date of designation. 8-5

954 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
Review of Federal PM Standards
On December 3, 2014, the U.S. EPA’s Office of Research and Development’s National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) announced that it is preparing an ISA as part of the review of the primary and secondary NAAQS for PM. This ISA is intended to update the scientific assessment presented in the “ISA for Particulate Matter” published in December 2009. The public and interested parties were invited to assist U.S. EPA in developing and refining the scientific information base for the review of the PM NAAQS by submitting research studies that have been published, accepted for publication, or presented at a public scientific meeting. Figure 8-5 provides some of the studies that U.S.

EPA is seeking to acquire during the process in considering the PM NAAQS.

FIGURE 8-5
INFORMATION U.S. EPA IS SEEKING IN THE REVIEW OF THE PM NAAQS For the review of the PM NAAQS, U.S. EPA is interested in obtaining additional new information concerning:
(a) toxicological studies of effects of controlled exposure to PM on laboratory animals and humans; (b) epidemiologic (observational) studies of health effects associated with ambient exposures of human populations to PM;
(c) quantification of light extinction (loss of visibility) in urban and non-urban areas, such as new studies regarding visibility preferences, including studies in additional urban and non-urban areas that disentangle visibility preferences from health preferences, the sensitivity of visibility preferences to survey methods, and/or preferences regarding intensity versus frequency of visibility impairment;
(d) climate impacts from PM-related aerosols, particularly regarding the quantification of anthropogenic aerosol effects on radiative forcing; and Toxicological
studies
Epidemiologic
studies
Visibility
preferences
Aerosol
climate impact
Ecological
studies
1-6 955 of 2287 8-6
Chapter 8: Looking Beyond Current Requirements
(e) ecological studies that examine the effects on agricultural crops and natural terrestrial and/or aquatic ecosystems from ambient exposures to PM, including information regarding interactions with other ecosystem stressors and co-occurring pollutants.

U.S. EPA is also seeking recent information in other areas of PM research such as chemistry and physics, sources and emissions, analytical methodology, transport and transformation in the environment, and ambient concentrations. Selected literature relevant to a review of the NAAQS for PM will be assessed in the forthcoming PM ISA. U.S. EPA has also held recent workshops on ultrafine particles and has indicated that a review of the relevant scientific information could be addressed in this review. The evaluation of PM and ecological effects will not include studies that examine effects due to the deposition of NOx or SOx in the particulate form (e.g., ammonium sulfate), that will be covered in the ongoing review of the NOx/SOx secondary standard.

The review and research process will provide an opportunity for experts to highlight significant new and emerging PM research, and to make recommendations to U.S. EPA regarding the design and scope of the review for the primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) PM standards. This will ensure that the review addresses key policy-relevant issues, and considers the new and emerging science that is relevant to informing U.S. EPA’s understanding of these issues.

As a result of this process, U.S. EPA developed a draft Integrated Review Plan (IRP) for the PM NAAQS that was released for public review and comments on April 19, 2016. The draft IRP outlines the schedule, process, and approaches for evaluating the relevant scientific information and addresses the key policyrelevant issues to be considered in this review. CASAC is reviewing the draft IRP and held a teleconference on May 23, 2016. The public had the opportunity to comment on the draft IRP until June 23, 2016. The final IRP, prepared in consideration of CASAC and public comments, will outline the process and schedule for conducting the review and the planned scope of the assessment documents (e.g., an ISA, an REA, and a PA) as well as the key relevant policy issues/questions that will guide the review.

The federal PM standards were reviewed in 2006 when U.S. EPA proposed to revise the level of the primary 24-hour PM2.5 standard from 65 to 35 µg/m3 and retain the primary (“health-based”) annual PM2.5 standard. The primary 24-hour PM10 standard would also be retained but the annual PM10 standard would be revoked. Finally, the secondary (“welfare-based”) standards would be identical to the primary standards. Subsequent litigation concluded that U.S. EPA needed to explain why the secondary standard, identical to the primary standard, would provide the required protection from PMrelated visibility impairment. This review took place between 2007 and 2011 with the preparation of the ISA, REA and PA documents that were peer reviewed by CASAC. In December 2012, U.S. EPA proposed to revise the annual PM2.5 standard by lowering the level from 15 µg/m3 to 12 µg/m3 . With
regard to the secondary standards, U.S. EPA proposed to retain the secondary standard because the visibility analysis conducted concluded that protection from visibility would not change with the adoption of a distinct visibility index. The final rule became effective on March 18, 2013.

The current review of the PM air quality criteria and standards is anticipated to involve finalizing the draft IRP by the end of 2016, the release and review of the ISA and REA from 2017 to 2019, the PA release and review taking place from 2018 to 2019, initial rulemaking in 2020, and finalizing a standard in 2021. 956 of 2287 8-7
Final 2016 AQMP
World Health Organization Air Quality Standards
The World Health Organization (WHO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations (UN) that is tasked with addressing international public health by mitigating communicable and non-communicable diseases, establishing policies to enhance health equity, promoting a healthier environment, and educating the public on nutrition, occupational health, and substance abuse. In reference to air quality, the WHO recognizes that “lower levels of air pollution generate better cardiovascular and respiratory health of the population long- and short-term.4
” The WHO published air quality guidelines offering global guidance on thresholds and limits for key air pollutants that pose health risks. The WHO guidelines are not regulatory limits but provide a basis for protecting public health from adverse effects of air pollutants (outdoor and indoor), to eliminate or reduce exposure to hazardous air pollutants, and to guide national and local authorities in their risk management decisions.

There are a number of considerations when establishing outdoor air quality guidelines, such as background levels of pollution, mainly of anthropogenic origin, the location of the pollution (urban vs. rural, developed vs. developing countries), effects on children and the elderly compared to healthy adults.

For example, WHO’s Air Quality Guidelines for Europe5 recommend a level for ambient ozone of 100 µg/m3 (50 ppb) for a daily maximum 8-hour average that “will provide adequate protection of public health,” which is lower than the recently U.S. EPA-approved 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS at 70 ppb. It should be noted the same guidelines provide an interim target level at 160 μg/m3 (80 ppb) for 8-hour ozone, at which “measurable (though transient) changes in lung function and lung inflammation among healthy young adults have been demonstrated during intermittent exercise in controlled chamber tests.” Health effects from PM2.5 concentrations are measured, similar to the U.S. EPA NAAQS, on a short-term (24-hour) and long-term (annual) basis. The WHO guidelines6 recommend 10 µg/m3 for PM2.5 on an annual basis, which is lower than the current U.S. EPA annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 12 µg/m3 . However, the
WHO guidelines suggest interim targets higher than the U.S. EPA annual PM2.5 NAAQS ranging from 35 µg/m3 to 15 µg/m3 lower the risk of premature mortality as the target concentrations are decreased.

For 24-hour PM2.5 concentration, the WHO guidelines recommend a daily level of 25 µg/m3 , which is
lower than the current 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 µg/m3
, but suggests interim targets that are higher
than the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS ranging from 75 µg/m3 to 37.5 µg/m3 lower the short-term mortality as the target concentrations are decreased. See Table 8-1 for a comparison of the air quality standards.

Protecting public health is based on a number of public policies and scientific documentation supporting those policies and decisions. Both U.S. EPA and WHO have set out to establish an effective public health policy with air quality standards that evolve over time as new scientific studies are conducted and new information is discovered. While the current U.S. EPA NAAQS seek to protect the nation from harmful 4 http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs313/en/. 5 World Health Organization, Air Quality Guidelines (2005) pp. 324-326 http://www.who.int/phe/health_topics/outdoorair/outdoorair_aqg/en/. 6 World Health Organization, Air Quality Guidelines (2005) pp. 278-279 http://www.who.int/phe/health_topics/outdoorair/outdoorair_aqg/en/. 1-8 8-8

957 of 2287
Chapter 8: Looking Beyond Current Requirements
adverse air pollution levels, other global health organizations working in parallel may provide additional insight on how to move forward and make progress in achieving public health goals.

TABLE 8-1
WHO Guidelines Standards Compared to U.S. EPA Standards Pollutant WHO Recommendation Latest U.S. EPA-Approved NAAQS 8-hour Ozone 50 ppb 70 ppb
8-hour Ozone Interim Target 80 ppb n/a
Annual PM2.5 10 µg/m3 12 µg/m3
Annual PM2.5 Interim Targets 15–35 µg/m3 n/a
24-hour PM2.5 25 µg/m3 35 µg/m3
24-hour PM2.5 Interim Targets 37.5–75 µg/m3 n/a
n/a = not applicable
958 of 2287 8-9
hapter 1
ntroduction
Chapter 9Air Toxics Control Strategy
There has been substantial progress in reducing air toxic exposure in the Basin.

However, risks are still unacceptably high and risk reduction efforts continue. This chapter discusses the future SCAQMD control strategy for air toxic emissions. 959 of 2287
Chapter 9: Air Toxics Control Strategy
In This Chapter
 Background 9-1
Background information about the SCAQMD’s air toxics
programs
 Recent Air Toxics Findings 9-8
Recent findings regarding fugitive toxic metal emissions  Relationship of Air Toxics Control
Strategy to the 2016 AQMP 9-8
Concurrent air toxic reductions and criteria pollutant
reductions from AQMP control strategies
960 of 2287
 Air Toxics Control Strategy 9-10
Overview of 2016 Mobile Source Strategies and
concurrent toxic emission reductions and Stationary
Source Air Toxics Control Strategies to reduce air toxics  Conclusion 9-23
961 of 2287
Chapter 9: Air Toxics Control Strategy
Background
Since 2000, the SCAQMD has prepared Air Toxics Control Plans to outline the overall strategy for the SCAQMD’s air toxics control program. The first Air Toxics Control Plan was approved by the SCAQMD Governing Board in 2000 with an Addendum in 2004. The 2000 Air Toxics Control Plan was an outgrowth of Environmental Justice Initiatives (Initiatives) adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board in October 1997. The Initiatives included a call to conduct enhanced air toxics monitoring and analysis, and to commence air toxics rulemaking for new and existing sources. These efforts highlighted the need for a more systematic approach to reducing airborne toxics emissions, culminating in the 2000 plan – the first local district air toxics control plan in the nation. As a continued outgrowth of the Initiatives, the SCAQMD Governing Board directed staff to report back on the feasibility of rulemaking to address the cumulative impacts of air toxics. In September 2003, the SCAQMD Governing Board approved a White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution. The white paper included 25 cumulative impact reduction strategies including rules, policies, funding, education, and coordination with other agencies.

In 2010, the SCAQMD staff expanded the existing Air Toxics Control Plan into a “Clean Communities Plan” (CCP), which put greater emphasis on the cumulative effects of air toxics on neighborhoods and communities, and included 23 measures that utilized traditional source-specific measures and a variety of different implementation approaches such as community participation, increased outreach and communication, additional agency coordination, and enhanced monitoring and compliance programs. The CCP is the continuing effort and update to both the Air Toxics Control Plan and its Addendum. Figure 9-1 is a timeline of the agency’s evolving policy and scientific efforts to date in addressing air toxics, including the umbrella rules and the Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Studies (MATES) discussed later in this chapter.

Previous Air Toxic Control Plans,
including the CCP, focused on
developing a broad policy document
for reducing air toxics. This
consisted of developing potential
control concepts and programs that
went beyond current ongoing
programs and efforts to implement
the existing AQMP. This chapter
presents areas of focus for the
SCAQMD’s air toxics control strategy
over the next several years and its
relationship to the 2016 AQMP.

FIGURE 9-1
SCAQMD’S AIR TOXICS PROGRAM TIMELINE
9-1
962 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
Current Air Toxics Regulatory Program for Stationary Sources The SCAQMD has a robust, multifaceted, and
comprehensive air toxics regulatory program
consisting of rules to address new and modified toxic
sources through permitting, the AB2588 program
(existing toxic sources), and source-specific toxics
rules. The SCAQMD has three air toxics “umbrella”
rules addressing new and modified, and existing
sources with air toxic emissions. Rule 1401 sets
health risk thresholds for air toxic emissions from
new, modified, and relocated sources. Rule 1401
lists toxic air contaminants (TACs) that are evaluated
during the SCAQMD’s permitting process for new, modified or relocated sources. Rule 1401.1 sets more stringent risk thresholds than Rule 1401 for new and relocated facilities that are located near schools.

The requirements are more stringent than Rule 1401 in order to provide additional protection to school children. The third umbrella rule is Rule 1402 which implements the Air Toxics Hot Spots (AB2588) program and establishes health risk thresholds for existing facilities. These umbrella rules include evaluation of nearly 300 TACs for existing, new, modified, or relocated sources. During the past decade, more than 80 TACs have been added or had risk values amended.

In addition to the above described umbrella toxics rules, the SCAQMD’s regulatory program includes over fifteen source-specific toxics rules regulating specific equipment or industry categories such as chrome plating, asbestos remediation, lead-acid battery recycling, perchloroethylene dry cleaners, metal melting facilities, and diesel internal combustion engines. The SCAQMD’s air toxics regulatory program for source-specific categories is as stringent as, or more stringent than, state Air Toxic Control Measures (ATCMs) and federal National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs). Many of the SCAQMD toxics rules incorporate requirements from state ATCMs and federal NESHAPs, and in some cases the state and federal programs have incorporated the more stringent requirements already established in SCAQMD toxic rules. Table 9-1 lists source-specific toxic rules that have been adopted or amended in the last several years, the number of affected sources, and emission reductions, if quantified.

Permitting
AB 2588
Source-Specific
Rules
FIGURE 9-2
SCAQMD’S AIR TOXICS PROGRAM IS MULTI9-2
963 of 2287
Chapter 9: Air Toxics Control Strategy
TABLE 9-1
SCAQMD Air Toxic Rules Recently Amended or Adopted
Rule
Source
Category
Key
Adoption/
Amendment
Dates TAC
Number
of
Facilities
Estimated
Emission
Reductions
Final
Emission
Limit
Final
Ambient
Limit
1156
Cement
Manufacturing
3/6/2009
(amended)
11/6/2015
(amended)
Hexavalent
Chromium 2 32 lbs/yr (Cr+6) N/A 0.2 ng/m3 (Cr+6)
1401
New Source
Review of Toxic
Air
Contaminants
6/5/2015
(amended) Multiple TACs
All
permitted
facilities

N/A N/A N/A
1401.1
Requirements
for New and
Relocated
Facilities Near
Schools
6/5/2015
(amended) Multiple TACs
All
permitted
facilities

N/A N/A N/A
1402
Control of Toxic
Air
Contaminants
from Existing
Sources
6/5/2015
(amended) Multiple TACs
All
permitted
facilities

N/A N/A N/A
1420.1
Lead-acid
Battery
Recycling
11/5/2010
(adopted)
1/10/2014
(amended)
3/6/2015
(amended)
9/4/2015
(amended)
Lead
Arsenic
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
2 31 lbs/yr
(Arsenic)
3,673 lbs/yr
(Benzene)
485 lbs/yr (1,3-
Butadiene)

0.00114
lb/hr (Arsenic)

0.003 lb/hr
(Lead)

10.0 ng/m3
(Arsenic)

0.100 µg/m3
(Lead)
1420.2 Metal Melting
Facilities
10/2/2015
(adopted)
Lead 13 N/A
99% control
efficiency
or

0.0003
lb/hr (Lead)

0.100 µg/m3
(Lead)
1470*
Stationary
Diesel-Fueled
Engines*
5/4/2012
(amended)
Diesel PM ~4900 N/A

0.01 to 0.15
g/bhp-hr for
new engines
near a sensitive
receptor
N/A
*Implements ATCM for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines Current Air Toxics Regulatory Approach for Mobile Sources Mobile sources include both on- and off-road sources such as passenger cars, motorcycles, trucks, busses, heavy-duty construction equipment, recreational vehicles, marine vessels, lawn and garden equipment, and small utility engines. The existing control program for mobile sources is primarily under the jurisdiction of CARB. CARB’s current mobile source control program consists of new on-road and off9-3 964 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
road vehicle and equipment emission standards, in-use fleet wide emission reduction regulations, and mobile source incentive programs.

The on-road new vehicle emission standards began in 1970 when CARB required new light-duty vehicles to meet NOx and reactive organic gases (ROG) standards to reduce ozone. CARB gradually lowered the standards over the years such that new light-duty vehicles are now over 90 percent cleaner than vehicles produced in the 1970’s. For the on-road heavy-duty sector, CARB has adopted increasingly tighter new engine emission standards affecting NOx, non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC), and, most relevant to air toxic risk, PM emission reductions. These standards and their accompanying inspection, monitoring , and low sulfur fuel program effectively reduce NOx, PM, and sulfur emissions, including diesel particulate matter (DPM) which is responsible for over 70 percent of the associated air emission cancer risk in the Basin.

The very first emission standards for new off-road diesel engines were adopted for 1995 and later small off-road engines less than 19 kW. In 1992, CARB approved standards for off-road diesel engines 130 kW and greater. These standards, which were implemented beginning in 1996, targeted NOx emission reductions without an increase in NMHC or PM emissions. More stringent Tier 4 emission standards were added to the existing regulation in 2004 while also being harmonized with the new non-road federal emission standards. These engine standards for off-road diesel engines had toxic pollutant co-benefits in further reducing DPM emissions in the Basin.

Beginning in 2007, CARB also developed in-use fleet regulations for compression ignited engines powering on-road and off-road vehicles, and portable and mobile equipment that reduce DPM and NOx emissions.

These off-road in-use fleet regulations require existing fleets to reduce their emissions by retiring, replacing, or repowering older engines. The off-road categories subject to in-use fleet regulations include off-road construction vehicles, portable equipment and engines, cargo handling equipment, commercial harbor craft, and fishing vessels. In addition to the off-road fleet regulations, regulations targeting at-berth emissions from marine vessels, truck and off-road and marine low-sulfur fuel, and offroad vehicle idling were also adopted.

The SCAQMD also has a mobile source program that is designed to reduce both toxic and smog-forming air pollutants. Beginning in 2000, the SCAQMD adopted seven rules that gradually shifted public agencies and certain private entities under contract or exclusive franchise to public entities to use lower emitting and alternative fuel vehicles whenever a fleet operator with 15 or more vehicles replaced or purchased new vehicles. All seven fleet rules are now in effect and include fleet rules for sweepers, light and medium-duty public fleet vehicles, transit buses, refuse vehicles, airport ground access vehicles, school buses, and heavy-duty public fleet vehicles. Together, they have helped reduce the impacts to local communities from DPM and other air toxic emissions from motor vehicles.

The existing mobile source control strategy also includes a number of incentive programs which are designed to incentivize the turnover of equipment and fleets to cleaner technologies either through the introduction of compliant vehicles and equipment earlier than would be required by regulation or through the introduction of zero-, near- zero, or ultra-low emission technologies that go beyond the existing regulatory control programs. Incentive programs include such statewide programs as the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program, Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program (Prop 1B), and On-Road Voucher Incentive Program (VIP), which are funded through the State of California 9-4
965 of 2287
Chapter 9: Air Toxics Control Strategy
and SCAQMD programs such as, the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee (MSRC) and special SCAQMD grant funding initiatives.
2015 OEHHA Revised Health Risk Assessment Guidelines
The SCAQMD relies on the Health Risk Assessment Guidelines developed by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) in various aspects of its toxics regulatory program including the permitting program, the AB2588 Hot Spots Program as required by statute, and existing regulatory programs. In 2003, OEHHA developed and approved its Health Risk Assessment Guidance document (2003 OEHHA Guidelines) and prepared a series of Technical Support Documents, reviewed and approved by the Scientific Review Panel (SRP), that provided new scientific information showing that early-life exposures to air toxics contribute to an increased estimated lifetime risk of developing cancer and other adverse health effects, compared to exposures that occur in adulthood. As a result, OEHHA developed the Revised OEHHA Guidelines in March 2015 which incorporated this new scientific information. The new method utilizes higher estimates of cancer potency during early life exposures. There are also differences in the assumptions on breathing rates and length of residential exposures. When these revisions are combined, estimated cancer risks for the same inhalation exposure level are about 2.3 times higher using the proposed updated methods, and approximately up to six times higher for toxic air contaminants with multi-pathway exposures.

Since some source-specific toxics rules are based on health risk estimates, the SCAQMD has and will continue to re-evaluate these rules to determine whether amendments are necessary to provide consistency with the Revised OEHHA Guidelines and/or if new requirements are needed to provide adequate protection to public health in light of the higher health risk estimates. In addition, during amendments to Rule 1402 to incorporate the Revised OEHHA Guidelines in 2015, some industry representatives had requested that the SCAQMD incorporate a program to allow early risk reductions in lieu of traditional public noticing. SCAQMD staff is working on proposed amendments to Rule 1402 to incorporate a Voluntary Early Risk Reduction Program and streamline Rule 1402.

Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES)
In 1986, the SCAQMD conducted the first Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Studies (MATES) study to determine the Basin-wide risks associated with major airborne carcinogens. Since then, the SCAQMD has conducted three further MATES studies, each of enhanced scope. Results of the MATES studies have helped guide the SCAQMD’s air toxics regulatory program. In 1998, MATES II was conducted and represented one of the most comprehensive air toxics measurement programs conducted in an urban environment. MATES II included a monitoring program of 40 known air toxic compounds, an updated emissions inventory of toxic air contaminants, and a modeling effort to characterize health risks from hazardous air pollutants. MATES III was conducted between 2004 and 2006 and consisted of a two-year monitoring program as well as updates to the air toxics emissions inventory and a regional modeling analysis of exposures to air toxics in the Basin. In May 2015, the SCAQMD released the final report for MATES IV which was conducted as a one-year study between June 2012 and June 2013. This study consisted of a monitoring program at 10 fixed sites, an updated emissions inventory of TACs, and a modeling effort to characterize risk across the Basin.
9-5
966 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
Results of MATES IV showed a dramatic 70 percent
reduction in the average level of diesel particulate
emissions compared to MATES III. Additionally, the
population weighted carcinogenic risk from air toxics in the Basin, based on the average concentrations
monitored, was nearly 60 percent lower as compared
to carcinogenic risk determined in MATES III. It
should be noted that a majority of the risk was
attributed to emissions associated with mobile
sources, with the remainder attributed to toxics
emitted from stationary sources, which include large
industrial operations such as refineries and metal
processing facilities, as well as smaller businesses such as gas stations and chrome platers. Although the
Revised OEHHA Guidelines change the estimated cancer risk values in Figure 9-4, this does not change the fact that estimated cancer risks have been significantly reduced, between 75 to 86 percent over the last couple decades, depending on the location within the Basin.

Although the results of MATES IV have shown a significant regional reduction in exposure to key TACs and reduced cancer risk throughout the Basin, more needs to be done to reduce cancer risk levels regionally.

Applying the revised OEHHA
methodology to the modeled air
toxics levels, the MATES IV
estimated population weighted
cancer risk is 897 per million.

Additional toxics measures are
necessary in order to further
reduce toxic emissions and
associated regional health risk
levels.

Localized Air Toxics
(Hot Spots)
Even with regional reductions in air toxics, there are areas throughout the Basin where communities are in close proximity to toxic emitting sources, resulting in an elevated health risk. Air toxics are often referred to as having “localized impacts,” as the health risk is highest where the toxic emitting source is close to those communities and decreases substantially further out from the facility. Modeling data has shown that health risks generally decrease about 90 percent at 1,500 feet from the source. As such, the calculated local health risks at a residences in close proximity to a toxic emitting facility is expected to be elevated compared to the overall health risk for an entire community. The SCAQMD’s regulatory program relies on source-specific rules to reduce localized health risks from toxic emitting stationary source facilities combined with facility-specific requirements to reduce facility-wide toxic emissions that are required through implementation of the Hot Spots Act and Rule 1402.

FIGURE 9-4

MATES IV MODELED AIR TOXICS RISKS ESTIMATES
USING REVISED OEHHA HEALTH RISK GUIDELINES MATES • 1986 • Basin-wide risks
associated with
major airborne
carcinogens
• 20 TACs
measured
MATES II • 1998
• Monitoried 40
known air toxics
• Updated toxics
inventory
• Basin-wide risks
estimated
• 34 TACs
measured
MATES III • 2004-2006
• Updated toxic
inventory
• Regional
modeling
analysis of
exposures
• 33 TACs
measured
MATES IV • 2012-2013
• Updated toxic
inventory
• Monitoring
program at 10
fixed sites
• Regional
modeling
analysis of
exposures
• 34 TACs
measured
FIGURE 9-5

SUMMARY MATES STUDIES
9-6
967 of 2287
Chapter 9: Air Toxics Control Strategy
Within the past five years, the SCAQMD staff has become more aware of stationary source facilities that have posed elevated health risks to neighboring communities, highlighting the importance of rules and regulations that can address these elevated health risks. Additionally, recent ambient air monitoring in communities surrounding air toxic sources indicate that toxic emissions in the form of fugitive emissions have the potential to migrate out of some facilities and into nearby neighborhoods (see section below – Recent Air Toxic Findings). Any health risk impacts resulting from these types of fugitive emission issues will be localized and are unlikely to be revealed by regional modeling or monitoring.

Environmental Justice
The 2016 AQMP has identified the need for nitrogen oxide (NOx) emission reductions as the most significant air quality challenge in meeting the upcoming ozone standard deadlines. Total Basin emissions of NOx must be reduced an additional 45 percent by 2023, and an additional 55 percent by 2031. While the Basin’s challenges for criteria pollutant reductions such as NOx emission reductions are significant, the Basin also contains numerous communities experiencing disproportionate environmental impacts from toxic air contaminants.

Since 1997, the SCAQMD has focused on Environmental Justice and methods to improve the air quality in specific communities. The purpose of SCAQMD's Environmental Justice program is to ensure that everyone has the right to equal protection from air pollution and fair access to the decision-making process that works to improve the quality of air within their communities. Environmental Justice, has been defined by SCAQMD as: “equitable environmental policymaking and enforcement to protect the health of all residents, regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, race, socioeconomic status, or geographic location, from the health effects of air pollution.” SCAQMD's Environmental Justice program began in 1997. The programs and initiatives have been continually reviewed to keep the Environmental Justice programs current and moving forward. One important component of that review process is the Environmental Justice Advisory Group (EJAG), which serves as an advisory group to the SCAQMD Governing Board. The mission of EJAG is to advise and assist SCAQMD in protecting and improving public health in SCAQMD's most impacted communities through the reduction and prevention of air pollution.

It is anticipated that the EJAG will continue to provide input prioritizing strategies, regulations, and investments during the implementation period of the 2016 AQMP.

The 2016 AQMP control measures, including mobile source measures to reduce emissions from goodsmovement vehicles and facilities, as well as the defined air toxic control measures described in this chapter, will help these communities by accelerating clean air efforts in Environmental Justice areas because many of the facilities targeted by the proposed control measures are located in disproportionately impacted communities. In addition to the toxic control measure defined in this chapter, the 2016 AQMP contains many incentive measures which will also help residences and organizations that may be more economically challenged by offsetting some of the costs of pollution reduction strategies while also promoting more livable neighborhoods and helping local businesses incorporate newer equipment and technologies.

In addition, the 2016 AQMP Socioeconomic Report will contain an enhanced impact analyses on Environmental Justice communities as a way to determine the impacts of the 2016 AQMP control strategy on Environmental Justice communities.
9-7
968 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
Recent Air Toxics Findings
Since the adoption of the 2010 CCP, more information has become available regarding fugitive toxic particulate emissions, indicating that more controls are needed for certain source categories. Ambient monitoring at a chrome plating facility, a metal forging facility with a metal grinding operation, a steel mini mill, and at two large lead-acid battery recycling facilities have shown that additional controls are needed to address fugitive toxic particulate emissions, particularly metal particulates. Heavy metals, such as arsenic, nickel, cadmium, and hexavalent chrome have high relative risks compared to other toxics. In addition to risks from inhalation, toxic metals can create health problems from ingestion, dermal exposure, and through consumption of breastmilk.

Traditionally, source-specific control strategies have focused on reducing stack emissions. Many of the SCAQMD source-specific rules reduce stack emissions by over 98 percent. In addition, some existing rules include housekeeping provisions to minimize fugitive toxic emissions. However, staff has become increasingly aware based on data from ambient monitors that certain operations with fugitive toxic dust may require an enclosure and more robust housekeeping provisions to contain fugitive emissions and minimize the release of metal particulate emissions into the air.

Fugitive metal particulate emissions can be difficult to quantify. The primary method to quantify fugitive metal particulate is using ambient monitors, which can measure both fugitive and point (or stack) emissions from a facility. The SCAQMD currently has very few rules that require ambient monitoring.

Recent ambient monitoring in communities surrounding metal melting and metal finishing facilities indicate that fugitive toxic metals have the potential to migrate out of the facilities and into neighborhoods. At one large lead-acid battery recycling facility, nearly 98 percent of emissions found on ambient monitors were attributable to fugitive emissions rather than stack emissions. Air monitoring conducted by the SCAQMD staff at a chrome plating facility has shown high levels of hexavalent chromium in the ambient air due to cross-draft conditions affecting the emission collection potential of control equipment. Results of sampling data collected by SCAQMD staff at multiple forging facilities have shown that fugitive metallic dust generated from grinding activities includes TACs such as cadmium, chromium, cobalt, and nickel. The health impacts of many of these toxic metal particulate emissions warrant developing control measures to minimize exposure. Better control of fugitive emissions and improvements to housekeeping and maintenance are necessary to reduce potential impacts in surrounding communities.

Relationship of Air Toxics Control Strategy to the 2016 AQMP
Reducing air toxics in the region has been a long-term goal of the SCAQMD and has resulted in significant reduction of local risk from toxic air pollutants throughout the Basin. To the extent feasible, the 2016 AQMP is capturing co-benefit opportunities in achieving multi-pollutant reductions to meet ambient air quality standards having multiple deadlines. Some criteria pollutant control measures will concurrently reduce air toxics and some air toxics control measures will reduce criteria pollutants. The following 9-8
969 of 2287
Chapter 9: Air Toxics Control Strategy
sections discuss the emission reductions targeted from air toxic control strategies and concurrent criteria pollutant emission reductions.

Concurrent PM Reductions
Efforts to reduce PM2.5 and its precursors will reduce particulate emissions that are toxic air contaminants, such as DPM, in the region. There have been significant decreases in air toxics exposure over the past couple of decades, primarily due to the reduction in DPM from mobile sources and stationary sources.

Concurrent reductions in particulate emissions (the majority of which is DPM) have occurred from implementation of Rule 1470 – Requirements for Stationary Diesel-Fueled Internal Combustion and Other Compression Ignition Engines, and Rule 1472 – Requirements for Facilities with Multiple Stationary Emergency Standby Diesel-Fueled Internal Combustion Engines. As a result of CARB’s Diesel Risk Reduction Plan, a significant number of mobile source regulations were adopted for a variety of diesel sources including: Cargo Handling Equipment; Commercial and Charter Fishing Vessels; Commercial Harbor Craft; School Buses; Port (Drayage) Trucks; Stationary Engines and Portable Equipment; Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU) and TRU Generators. Reduction in PM emissions and DPM will continue with the turnover of existing stationary diesel engines and mobile sources.

As warranted by data and analysis, SCAQMD staff will add and strengthen requirements to reduce toxic metal emissions and exposure from various metal industry sources. These measures, although not developed for SIP attainment purposes, will achieve concurrent reductions in directly emitted PM2.5 and may be quantified and credited toward needed SIP reductions. A control strategy that reduces particulate emissions from metal grinding operations, for example, provides a means of achieving concurrent particulate and air toxic emission reductions.

Concurrent VOC Reductions
Additional VOC controls are helpful for attainment of air quality standards and one 2016 AQMP approach is to prioritize controls that will focus on VOC that are most reactive in ozone and/or PM2.5 formation.

In addition to contributing to the formation of PM2.5 and ozone, many VOCs, such as benzene, are also considered air toxics.

In the past, the SCAQMD has developed source-specific controls under Regulation XI – Source Specific Rules, to reduce or eliminate the use of coatings and solvents that contain air toxics. This includes rules that require the phase-out of air toxics where alternatives exist, such as Rule 1168 – Adhesive and Sealant Applications, which required the elimination of emissions of methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, ethylene dichloride, and trichloroethylene from the application of adhesives, adhesive bonding primers, sealants, sealant primers, or any other primers. Another example is Rule 1124 - Aerospace Assembly and Component Manufacturing Operations where facilities decreased toxicity-weighted emissions of methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, and trichloroethylene when Rule 1402 levels were exceeded. A third example is the prohibition of the use of perchloroethylene in operations subject to Rule 1171 - Solvent Cleaning Operations.
9-9
970 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
Potential Tradeoffs
Unlike with PM, reducing organic air toxic emissions will not necessarily result in concurrent VOC emission reductions. A tradeoff can occur when the resulting alternative to the toxic solvent or coating is replaced with a VOC-containing compound. An example of this is Rule 1421 – Control of Perchloroethylene Emissions from Dry Cleaning Systems. The goal of Rule 1421 was to reduce perchloroethylene, a carcinogen, from dry cleaning operations through a gradual transition to non-perchloroethylene alternatives. One of the primary non-perchloroethylene alternatives included the use of halogenated solvents, some of which are classified as VOCs.

In addition, in an effort to meet more stringent federal ozone standards, the SCAQMD continues to seek further VOC emission reductions from stationary and area sources in the Basin. Manufacturers of coatings, solvents, adhesives, sealants, lubricants, ink, and other VOC-containing products often respond by reformulating their products using solvents that are exempt from the definition of VOC. Exemptions are based primarily on evidence that the solvent negligibly contributes to ozone formation, but may also consider other factors such as toxicity. Exempting VOCs has the potential to create unforeseen health impacts by increasing the use of the exempt substances that may have toxic characteristics. The SCAQMD staff is continually encouraging the use of materials that are low in reactivity (and not considered a VOC) and not considered toxic.

Air Toxics Control Strategy
The 2016 AQMP air toxics control strategy is composed of two components. The first consists of the mobile source control strategies that are designed to reduce NOx, ROG, and PM emissions in order to meet the SIP commitments in the 2016 AQMP, while also producing co-benefits for a variety of TACs.

The second component includes those stationary source control strategies that are implemented by the SCAQMD in order to primarily reduce TACs that can create localized impacts to nearby communities. The second component will not be submitted as part of the SIP.

Table 9-2 shows the baseline and projected key TAC emissions from the 2016 mobile source control strategies and estimated baseline and projected TAC emissions with the control strategies in place. In addition to reductions in criteria pollutant emissions, implementation of mobile source strategies will result in significant reductions in TACs. From the 2012 baseline, implementation of mobile source control strategies is expected to reduce seven key mobile source related TACs by more than 70 percent by 2031.
9-10
971 of 2287
Chapter 9: Air Toxics Control Strategy
TABLE 9-2
Key Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions from 2016 AQMP Mobile Source Control Measures; Baseline and Projected Annual Average Day Emissions (pounds/day) Toxic Air Contaminant
2012
Baseline
2023
Baseline
2023
Controlled
2031
Baseline
2031
Controlled
Naphthalene 547 305 167 264 131
Benzene 13,403 6,995 3,994 5,792 3,130
1,3-Butadiene 2,122 1,209 588 1,081 508
MTBE 311 126 102 80 62
Formaldehyde 16,120 9,315 4090 8,793 3,640
Acetaldehyde 7,113 3,969 1747 3722 1,532
Diesel particulate 20,750 6,864 6,428 5,873 5,708
Mobile Source Control Strategies
Mobile sources are responsible for approximately 90 percent of DPM emissions in the Basin, as well as other toxic air contaminants related to fuel combustion and evaporation. The 2016 AQMP mobile source component contains strategies which will reduce DPM and other TACs by deploying both zeroemission and cleaner combustion technologies. Zero-emission technologies are critical to reducing near-source exposure to air toxics, especially around freight hubs and networks such as ports, rail yards, and distribution centers. The 2016 AQMP mobile source control strategies include actions to deploy zero-emission technologies across a broad spectrum of sources, including passenger vehicles, truck and bus applications, forklifts, transport refrigeration units, and airport ground support equipment. The mobile source control strategies call for internal combustion engine technology that is effectively 90 percent cleaner than today’s current standards. The introduction of zero-emission technologies in heavy-duty applications will be critical to the overall effort. Actions to promote ZEVs in these heavyduty applications are underway and are important to further reduce regional and near-source toxics exposure, especially as it relates to reducing risk from DPM. In the off-road sector, the 2016 AQMP mobile source control strategies stress the need to reflect this same type of transformation to a mix of zero and near-zero technologies operating on renewable fuels. A summary list of CARB mobile source strategies is shown in Table 9-3.
9-11
972 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 9-3
2016 AQMP CARB Mobile Source Control Measures
and Concurrent Key Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) Reduced On-Road Light-Duty Key TACs Reduced
More stringent engine performance standards and increased fuel efficiency Naphthalene, Benzene,
1,3-Butadiene, MTBE,
Formaldehyde,
Acetaldehyde
Requirements to ensure durability of passenger vehicle technologies Incentive funding to achieve further ZEV deployment beyond vehicle regulations Electricity grid representing 50 percent renewable energy generation Increased use of renewable fuels
Reductions from passenger vehicle miles traveled and intelligent transportation systems On-Road Heavy-Duty Key TACs Reduced
More stringent engine performance standards reflecting technology that is 90 percent cleaner than today’s standards and increased fuel efficiency Benzene, Formaldehyde,
Acetaldehyde, Diesel
Particulate Matter
Deployment of near-zero and zero-emission technologies into focused heavy-duty applications such as transit buses and last mile delivery Requirements to ensure durability of heavy-duty vehicle technologies Incentive funding to achieve further deployment of cleanest engine technologies Increased freight transport system efficiencies and use of intelligent transportation systems
Increased use of renewable fuels
Off-Road Federal and Intermodal Sources
Call for federal and international action to set more stringent standards for ocean going vessels, locomotives, and aircraft, as well as cleaner technologies for older locomotives Naphthalene, Benzene, Formaldehyde,
Acetaldehyde, 1,3-
Butadiene, Diesel
Particulate Matter
Decreased emissions from ocean going vessels at berth
Increased freight transport system efficiencies
Incentive funding to achieve further deployment of cleanest engine technologies Increased use of renewable fuels
Off-Road Equipment Sources
Deployment of ZEV technologies into targeted equipment categories such as forklifts and airport ground support equipment Naphthalene, Benzene,
Formaldehyde,
Acetaldehyde, 1,3-
Butadiene, Diesel
Particulate Matter
Cleaner engine technology transfer from on-road to off-road applications Incentive funding to achieve further deployment of cleanest engine technologies Increased worksite efficiencies
Increased use of renewable fuels
Stationary Source Toxics PM Control Strategies
The 2016 stationary source air toxic control strategy represents the overarching direction for the SCAQMD’s air toxics control program. The stationary source air toxic control strategy is not required by state or federal law, and thus will not represent a commitment under the SIP. However, the stationary source air toxic control strategy are considered strategies for future agency action. As with all of SCAQMD’s pollution control efforts, development and implementation of air toxics control strategies 9-12
973 of 2287
Chapter 9: Air Toxics Control Strategy
involve partnerships with other agencies, the regulated community, environmental groups, and the public, along with the systematic assessment of potential socioeconomic impacts.

Control strategies include the reduction of air toxic metal emissions from a variety of sources including metal grinding and metal melting operations; chrome plating and spraying; nickel, cadmium and other metal plating operations; lead facilities (other than facilities subject to Rules 1420.1 and 1420.2); soil containing toxic metal that is undergoing remediation; DPM from stationary engines, and non-vehicular lead sources (Rule 1420). Table 9-4 summarizes the control measures targeting stationary source TACs. 9-13
974 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 9-4
Summary of Stationary Source Measures to Reduce Toxic Air Contaminants Source Objective Potential Toxic Air
Contaminants and
Co-Benefits
Control Approaches
Control of Metal
Particulate from Metal
Grinding Operations (TXM01)
Reduce metal
particulate emissions
from metal grinding
activities at forging
facilities, metal
foundries, and plating
operations
• Cadmium
• Hexavalent
Chromium
• Cobalt
• Nickel
• Particulate (metal)
• Enclosures
• Pollution controls
• Housekeeping measures
Control of Toxic Metal
Particulate Emissions from
Plating and Anodizing
Operations (TXM-02)
Further reduce fugitive
metal particulate
emissions from
electroplating and
chromic acid anodizing
processes
• Hexavalent
Chromium
• Nickel
• Cadmium
• Copper
• Arsenic
• Lead
• Particulate (metal)
• Enclosures
• Pollution controls
• Enhanced housekeeping measures
• Physical modifications to increase
capture efficiency and reduce fugitive
emissions
Control of Hexavalent
Chromium from Chrome
Spraying Operations (TXM03)
Further control
hexavalent chromium
emissions from
spraying of paints and
coatings containing
hexavalent chromium
• Hexavalent
chromium
• Particulate (metal)
• Increased housekeeping and best
management practices
Control of Toxic Metal
Particulate Emissions from
Contaminated Soil (TXM04)
Control toxic metal
particulates during soil
cleanup/remediation
activities
• Lead
• Hexavalent
chromium
• Cadmium
• Nickel
• Arsenic
• Possibly other
metal TACs
• Particulate (metal)
• Soil covering
• Chemical treatment
• Barriers
• Wheel knockout and cleaning stations
• Other dust suppression techniques
Control of Toxic Metal
Particulate Emissions from
Laser and Plasma Cutting
(TXM-05)
Control toxic metal
particulates from Laser
and Plasma Cutting
• Nickel
• Cadmium
• Hexavalent
chromium, and
possibly other
metal TACs
• Filter technology including HEPA
filters
• Alternative technologies such as
flame and water jet cutting
Control of Toxic Emissions
from Metal Melting
Facilities (TXM-06)
Further reduce metal
toxic emissions from
melting, pouring,
casting, degating, heat
treating, surface
cleaning, and finishing
operations at foundries
• Arsenic
• Cadmium
• Nickel
• Other toxic metals
• Particulate (metal)
• Particulate filter technologies for
furnaces
• Enclosures
• Increased housekeeping and best
management practices
• Possibly ambient air monitoring
9-14
975 of 2287
Chapter 9: Air Toxics Control Strategy
TABLE 9-4 (CONCLUDED)
Summary of Stationary Source Measures to Reduce Toxic Air Contaminants Source Objective Potential Toxic Air
Contaminants and
Co-Benefits
Control Approaches
Control of Lead Emissions
from Stationary Sources
(TXM-07)
Further control lead
emissions from nonvehicular sources
• Lead
• Particulate (Metal)
• Reduce ambient lead concentration
• Increased housekeeping and best
management practices
Control of Emissions from
Chemical Stripping of
Cured Coatings (TXM-08)
Reduce methylene
chloride emissions
from chemical
stripping operations
• Methylene Chloride • Reformulation
• Activated carbon
• Point of sale restrictions
Control of Emissions from
Oil and Gas Well Activities
(TXM-09)
Reduce toxic emissions
during well drilling,
maintenance, and
stimulation activities at
oil and gas production
sites
• Benzene
• Toluene
• Ethylbenzene
• Xylene
• Diesel Particulate
Matter
• Particulate Matter
• Pollution control and best
management practices to minimize
BTEX emissions from portable storage
tanks, circulation tanks, and portable
totes with particulates
• Use of the cleanest diesel equipment
available for off-road engines
• Housekeeping provisions
The following sections provide additional detail on the individual control strategies that are planned to be developed to reduce exposure and impacts from air toxics. Each individual section includes a:
• General background and description of the source;
• Control objective and specifics about the source category’s potential air toxic emissions; • General control approach; and
• Implementation approach
Control of Metal Particulate from Metal Grinding Operations (TXM-01) Background: The objective of this control measure is to control fugitive toxic metal particulate emissions at forging facilities, metal foundries, and plating operations. In general, there are no current SCAQMD regulatory requirements for metal grinding operations, and this activity is exempt from permitting. Metal grinding is a material removal and surface preparation process used to shape and finish metal parts. Grinding employs an abrasive product, usually a rotating wheel brought into controlled contact with the metal surface that removes tiny pieces of metal from the part generating metallic chips and dust.

This activity is common in both heavy and light industrial processes such as metal foundries and forging and plating operations that commonly produce parts for the aerospace, automotive, and oil and gas industry. 9-15
976 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
Potential TACs: Results of sampling data collected by SCAQMD staff at multiple forging facilities have shown that fugitive metallic dust generated from metal grinding activities include TACs such as cadmium, hexavalent chromium, cobalt, and nickel.

Additionally, extensive ambient air monitoring conducted at one forging facility has confirmed elevated concentrations of nickel in the ambient air due to metal grinding activities.

Affected Facilities: The SCAQMD has identified at least 24 forging facilities in the Basin that conduct metal grinding operations. SCAQMD staff is assessing metal grinding
operations and foundries and other metal working facilities to identify the need for pollution controls and other requirements to contain metal TACs from those operations.

Control Approach: Potential metal particulate emission
control approaches include conducting grinding within
permanent enclosures, capture and control through add-on controls, and housekeeping measures. Examples of add-on controls include, cyclones, baghouses, scrubbers, and HEPA filters. Effective housekeeping measures may include routine wet washing or vacuuming, proper material storage and disposal, and routine maintenance of emission control devices.

Implementation Approach: This measure will be implemented as individual source-specific rules are adopted or amended. SCAQMD staff is working on a proposed metal grinding rule for forging facilities.

Staff will be also be developing a proposed source-specific rule for foundries and amending existing rules for plating operations. During those rule development efforts, staff will establish requirements to address metal particulates from grinding operations, if needed.

Control of Toxic Metal Particulate Emissions from Plating and Anodizing Operations (TXM-02)
Background: The purpose of this control measure is to further control metal (hexavalent chrome, nickel, cadmium, copper, arsenic, and lead) emissions from plating operations. Hexavalent chromium electroplating and chromic acid anodizing are processes currently regulated under Rule 1469 – Hexavalent Chromium Emissions from Chromium Electroplating and Chromic Acid and Anodizing Operations. Other non-hexavalent chromium plating operations are regulated under Rule 1426 – Emissions from Metal Finishing Operations. Electroplating processes involve the creation of desired metal surfaces or substrates. Both nickel and copper plating are commonly performed prior to chrome plating in order to provide a substrate for the chrome to adhere to or to add additional properties such as strength. In many cases, nickel plating is performed as the only or final stage of plating where appearance is the primary desired quality of the end product. Other sources of fugitives can come from air sparging, openings or cross-draft conditions within buildings or enclosures, poor housekeeping, improper handling of waste, and improper handling of raw products.

Objective:

Reduce metal particulate
emissions from metal
grinding activities at forging
facilities, metal foundries,
and plating operations
Potential TACs:
• Cadmium
• Hexavalent Chromium
• Cobalt
• Nickel
• Particulate (Metal)
Control Approaches:
• Enclosures
• Pollution controls
Control of Metal Particulate
from Metal Grinding
Operations (TXM-01)
9-16
977 of 2287
Chapter 9: Air Toxics Control Strategy
Potential TACs: Point and fugitive source emissions of
hexavalent chromium, nickel, cadmium, copper, arsenic, and lead can be generated from electroplating or anodizing processes.

Affected Facilities: Hexavalent chromium electroplating and chromic acid anodizing processes are used in various industries including aerospace, automotive, computer electronics,
machinery, and industrial equipment. There are 34 hard chrome plating facilities, 50 decorative chrome plating facilities, and 32 anodizing facilities for a total of 116 facilities in the Basin. These facilities may also do non-hexavalent chromium metal plating.

Additionally, there are approximately 200 more facilities in the Basin that do metal plating other types of metal plating or anodizing.

Control Approach: Current point source control approaches include chemical or mechanical methods to control surface tension of the baths in the tank, or capture of emissions using addon air pollution controls such as scrubbers, mesh pads, and HEPA filters. Fume suppressants are extremely effective at minimizing process fugitive emissions from the tank, especially in situations where facilities have cross draft conditions in buildings where tanks are located, or conduct operations around tanks that may affect the release or behavior of the emissions. When used in combination with add-on air pollution control equipment, fume suppressants serve as the primary control of both point source and fugitive emissions prior to collection by the control device, and optimizes the overall emission reduction potential of the system. Facilities also can utilize best housekeeping and best management practices to mitigate fugitive emissions. In some cases, facilities may use alternative materials or plating
processes. Additionally, alternative methods of
applying a metal coating may be used such as aluminum
ion vapor deposition, physical vapor deposition, or metal spray coating.

Implementation Approach: This measure would be
implemented through amendments to Rules 1426 and
1469.

Control of Hexavalent Chromium from Chrome Spraying Operations (TXM-03)
Background: The objective of this control measure is to further control hexavalent chromium emissions from spraying of paints and coatings. Spraying of paints and coatings containing chromium or hexavalent chromium is currently regulated under Rule 1469.1 – Spraying Operations Using Coatings Containing Chromium. During the uncontrolled application of coatings, hexavalent chromium emissions Objective:

Further reduce fugitive
metal particulate emissions
from electroplating and acid
anodizing processes
Potential TACs:

Hexavalent Chromium,
Nickel, Cadmium, Copper,
Arsenic, Lead
Control Approaches:
• Enclosures
• Pollution controls
• Enhanced housekeeping
measures
• Physical modifications to
increase capture efficiency
and reduce fugitive
emissions
Control of Toxic Metal
Particulate Emissions from
Plating and Anodizing
Operations (TXM-02)
9-17
978 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
are generated by the inefficient transfer of paint to the part or from overspray. Emissions from spraying operations are
typically conducted within a paint spray booth and exhaust through a wall of filter media or stack, assuming the facility has a properly designed booth and ventilation system. However, there is also a potential for fugitive emissions to occur from an open booth face, if capture into the ventilation system is not complete. Additionally, fugitive hexavalent chromium
emissions can be generated by poor housekeeping, improper use of control equipment, and improper handling of waste or painted products. Rule 1469.1 currently includes
requirements for spray enclosures, transfer efficiency, and housekeeping practices within spray enclosures.

Potential TACs: The source of air toxics from these facilities is hexavalent chromium, which is present in paint particles.

Affected Facilities: Paints and coatings containing
hexavalent chromium occurs in a variety of industries including aerospace, electroplating, and coating facilities. There are approximately 70 facilities identified in the Basin that perform chrome spraying operations.

Control Approach: Current housekeeping requirements of Rule 1469.1 include general measures and best management practices for the clean-up, handling, storage, and disposal of waste generated within spray booth enclosures. The existing provisions for enclosures can be enhanced by requiring routine and periodic housekeeping inspections, in addition to new housekeeping and work practice requirements outside of spray enclosures in order to comprehensively reduce fugitive emissions from the facility.

Implementation Approach: This measure would be implemented through amendments to Rule 1469.1.

Control of Toxic Metal Particulate Emissions from Contaminated Soil (TXM-04)
Background: Currently the SCAQMD has a rule regulating VOC emissions from contaminated soil that establishes requirements to ensure the release of VOC emissions are minimized. There is currently no rule to address metal particulate emissions that can become airborne during the handling and disturbance of soils contaminated with toxic metals. Examples of metal toxic air contaminants that can be in contaminated soil include, but are not limited to, hexavalent chromium, lead, nickel, cadmium, and arsenic. This control strategy would establish specific requirements to ensure that fugitive toxic air contaminant emissions from soils contaminated with toxic metals are minimized during the excavation, storage, and/or transportation.

Potential TACs: Potential fugitive toxic metals include, but are not limited, to hexavalent chromium, lead, nickel, cadmium, and arsenic.

Objective:

Further control hexavalent
chromium emissions from
spraying of paints and
coatings
Potential TACs:

Hexavalent chromium
Control Approaches:
• Increased housekeeping
and best management
practices
Control of Hexavalent
Chromium from Chrome
Spraying Operations (TXM03)
9-18
979 of 2287
Chapter 9: Air Toxics Control Strategy
Affected Facilities: Currently, the number of expected
sources cannot be estimated since the activities are
intermittent in nature.

Control Approach: Possible control approaches include soil covering, watering, chemical treatment, barriers, tire and wheel knockout and cleaning stations, and other dust
suppression techniques. Air monitoring of the site may also be a part of the control strategy.

Implementation Approach: This measure will be
implemented through a new SCAQMD rule.

Control of Toxic Metal Particulate
Emissions from Laser and Plasma Cutting
(TXM-05)
Background: The control measure would control metal
particulate emissions from laser and plasma cutting
operations. New or modified laser plasma cutting operations are currently permitted by the SCAQMD and are subject to Rule 1401 which establishes risk thresholds for permitted sources.

Laser and plasma cutting technologies are used for cutting and fabricating large sheets of metal goods. Laser cutting directs a laser onto most metals (except reflective metals including aluminum, brass and copper) which melts or vaporizes the metal. Plasma cutting uses electrically conductive gas to transfer energy from an electrical power source through the plasma to the metal being cut. The high temperature of the plasma melts the metal. The intense energy of both the laser and plasma cutting process creates fumes and smoke from vaporizing the molten material from the
bottom of the cut (kerf). Uncontrolled
vaporized metals such as cadmium and
nickel present environmental and health
concerns. Additionally, high energy
processes, such as laser and plasma
cutting, can oxidize the elemental chrome in stainless steel into hexavalent chrome.

Potential TACS: Potential TACs from laser and plasma cutting include nickel, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, and possibly other metals.

Affected Facilities: Approximately 150 to 200 facilities utilize laser or plasma cutting equipment on metal substrates.

Objective:

Reduce fugitive emissions
from soils contaminated
with toxic metals
Potential TACs:

Lead, hexavalent chromium,
cadmium, nickel, arsenic,
and possibly other metal
TACs
Control Approaches:
• Soil covering
• Chemical treatment
• Barriers
• Wheel knockout and
cleaning stations
• Other dust suppression
techniques
Control of Toxic Metal
Particulate Emissions from
Contaminated Soil (TXM04)
Objective:

Control toxic metal
particulates from laser and
plasma cutting operations
Potential TACs:

Nickel, cadmium, hexavalent
chromium, and possibly
other metal TACs
Control Approaches:
• Filter technologies such as
HEPA filters
• Alternative processes
Control of Toxic Metal
Particulate Emissions from
Laser and Plasma Cutting
(TXM-05)
9-19
980 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
Control Approaches: Filter technologies such as high efficiency particulate arrestors (HEPA) filters or possibly other pollution controls could be used to reduce emissions. Staff will investigate alternative approaches that may result in less fugitive metal particulate emissions. Some alternative approaches include: flame cutting, water jet cutting, welding, and conventional machining.

Implementation Approach: Implementation would be through development of a proposed sourcespecific rule for laser and plasma cutting operations to control fugitive toxic metal emissions.

Control of Toxic Emissions from Metal Melting Facilities (TXM-06) Background: This control measure seeks to further reduce metal toxic emissions such as arsenic, cadmium, and nickel from foundries and other metal melting facilities. Other metal melting operations include smelting, tinning, galvanizing, and other miscellaneous processes where metals are processed in molten form. Metal foundries are facilities which produce metal castings. The process involves melting metal into a liquid, pouring the liquid metal into a mold or casting, allowing the metal to cool and solidify, removing
the mold or casting, degating, heat
treating, surface cleaning, and
finishing. Possible emission
sources from such operations
include, but are not limited to, fume,
particulate, or dust from the
melting, pouring, casting, degating,
heat treating, coating, brazing,
finishing, or surface cleaning
processes, leftover metal or slag, and poor housekeeping.

Potential TACs: The proposal is anticipated to further reduce toxic and particulate emissions from metal melting facilities.

Affected Sources: Within the Basin, there are approximately 200 foundries serving industries such as aerospace, aircraft, automotive, industrial gas turbine, medical, and military.

There are approximately another 50 other metal melting
facilities that would be subject to this control measure.

Control Approaches: Emissions can potentially be reduced through venting operations to an emission collection system or improvements to existing collection systems, such as the addition of high efficiency filters. Fugitive emissions can be reduced through housekeeping measures which may include, but are not limited to, sweeping, mopping or filtered vacuuming, and enclosed material storage. Equipment may require new or updated source testing and potentially new or updated permits. Additionally, an ambient air monitoring requirement is under consideration.

Implementation Approach: This measure would be implemented through amendments to Rule 1407 and possibly through a new SCAQMD rule.

Objective:

Further reductions of toxic
emissions from foundries
and other metal melting
facilities
Potential TACs:

Arsenic, cadmium, nickel,
cadmium, and possibly other
toxic metals
Control Approaches:
• Filter technologies such as
HEPA filters
• Increased housekeeping
and best management
practices
• Ambient air monitoring
Control of Toxic Emissions
from Metal Melting
Facilities
(TXM-06)
9-20
981 of 2287
Chapter 9: Air Toxics Control Strategy
Control of Lead Emissions from Stationary Sources (TXM-07) Background: The objective of this control measure is to further control lead emissions from nonvehicular sources. Lead and arsenic emissions from large lead-acid battery recycling facilities are regulated by Rule 1420.1. Emissions of lead from large (>100 ton per year) metal melting facilities are regulated by Rule 1420.2. All other non-vehicular sources of lead are regulated by Rule 1420. Lead is found in metals and aggregate processed either as an alloy or as a contaminant.

Facilities process lead in aggregate processing, metal melting, metal finishing, metal machining operations, and also use lead solder for electronic circuit boards. Possible emission sources from such operations include, but are not limited to, fume, particulate, or dust from the mining, melting, finishing, or surface cleaning processes, leftover metal or slag, and poor housekeeping. Control of lead emissions often occurs
concurrently with the control of other toxic metals.

Potential TACs: Lead is the primary metal of concern. Other toxic metals can be concurrently reduced such as hexavalent chromium, nickel, cadmium, and arsenic.

Affected Facilities: Within the Basin, there are approximately 500 stationary sources such as aerospace, computer, metal melting, mining, and roofing that process lead-containing materials.

Control Approach: Reduce the ambient lead concentration limit to be consistent with the federal lead NAAQS. Further reductions in the ambient lead concentration limit will also be considered. In addition, improved housekeeping requirements and best management practices similar to those included in Rule 1420.1, including provisions for general cleaning, rooftop cleaning, and handling, storage, and disposal of waste generated to comprehensively reduce fugitive lead emissions.

Implementation Approach: This measure would be implemented through amendments to Rule 1420.

Toxic VOCs
Control strategies focusing on VOCs will include the reduction of air toxic VOC emissions from a variety of sources including furniture stripping, oil and gas well maintenance and stimulation activities, and solvent and coating sources using recently delisted non-VOC containing materials. Each source and control strategy is discussed in the following sections.

Objective:

Further control lead
emissions from nonvehicular sources
Potential TACs:

Lead
Control Approaches:
• Reduce ambient lead
concentration
• Increased housekeeping
and best management
practices
Control of Lead Emissions
from Stationary Sources
(TXM-07)
9-21
982 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
Control of Emissions from Chemical Stripping of Cured Coatings (TXM-08) Background: The proposed control measure would
restrict the use of methylene chloride during chemical
stripping operations. Methylene chloride is a suspected carcinogen and is classified as a Hazardous Air Pollutant by U.S. EPA and as a Toxic Air Contaminant by the State of California. A typical chemical stripping product contains between 70 and 85 percent methylene chloride by weight.

Methylene chloride is the active ingredient that penetrates the coating film and lifts the coating off the surface. Most chemical stripper usage is done without any equipment or controls. The chemical stripper is applied by brush and then rinsed off afterwards.

Larger users of chemical
strippers are usually furniture
stripping shops which
sometimes utilize tanks and
flow trays to use the chemical
stripper. Other uses include
automobile rim coating
operations and residential
furniture restoration.

Potential TACs: The proposal would reduce methylene chloride emissions from chemical stripping operations.

Affected Sources: There are approximately 40 facilities in the Basin that would be considered larger users.

Control Approaches: Reformulation is the preferred method for reducing methylene chloride emissions.

The use of control equipment may also be a consideration. The control measure would potentially address both the commercial users of chemical strippers and the methylene chloride strippers sold at retail stores for home restoration projects.

Implementation Approach: This measure will be implemented through a new SCAQMD rule restricting the uncontrolled use of methylene chloride in commercial and residential chemical stripping applications.

Control of Emissions from Oil and Gas Well Activities (TXM-09) Background: Existing oil and gas field production facilities are required to notify the SCAQMD of a planned well maintenance or stimulation event under Rule 1148.2 – Notification and Reporting Requirements for Oil and Gas wells and Chemical Suppliers. In addition to the notification requirements, Rule 1148.2 also requires operators to report chemical usage during each operation, although trade secret chemicals are not revealed to the public. Oil and gas field production well maintenance and stimulation activities release emissions such as DPM, fugitive dust, and other air toxic emissions such as BTEX Objective:

Restrict uncontrolled
methylene chloride usage in
chemical stripping operations
Potential TACs:

Methylene chloride
Control Approaches:
• Reformulation
• Air pollution control
equipment (i.e., carbon
Adsorbers)
• Point of sale restrictions
Control of Emissions from
Chemical Stripping of Cured
Coatings (TXM-08)
9-22
983 of 2287
Chapter 9: Air Toxics Control Strategy
compounds. This control measure seeks to develop a series of Best Management Practices (BMP) to reduce the emission impact from the well maintenance and stimulation activities.

The implementation of the BMPs specified may be contingent upon the proximity to sensitive receptors.

Potential TACs: The proposal would reduce DPM and
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene emissions from well maintenance and stimulation activities such as well drilling, redrilling, maintenance acidizing, matrix acidizing, gravel packing, and hydraulic fracturing.

Affected Sources: There are 242 facilities operating
approximately 4,320 onshore oil and gas wells in the District.

An analysis of data collected in 2015 under Rule 1148.2, showed that there were 275 unique well events occurring in 2015.

Control Approaches: This control measure seeks to develop a series of BMPs to reduce the emission impact from the well maintenance and stimulation activities. The BMPs may
include: (1) reduction of BTEX
compounds from return fluids during gravel packing and hydraulic fracturing events by using carbon absorbers to control emissions venting from portable storage tanks, covering circulation tanks, and closing access hatches on portable storage tanks; (2) reduction of BTEX compounds from drilling mud return processing equipment by covering areas open to atmosphere; (3) reduction of fugitive silica dust from the use of portable plastic totes (known as Rigid Intermediate Bulk Containers (RIBC)) in lieu of canvas or cloth bags (known as Flexible Intermediate Bulk Containers (FIBC)); (4) reduction of DPM from the use of Tier 3 and 4 off-road engines, or engines equipped with a CARB certified Level 3 diesel particulate filter (DPF); and (5) work area plastic ground coverings to collect spills and reduce fugitive dust.

Implementation Approach: This measure will be implemented through a rule making process in one of the Rule 1148-series rules.

Conclusion
Implementation of the 2016 AQMP Mobile Source strategies is expected to concurrently reduce air toxics by more than 70 percent depending on the toxic air contaminant. Over the next five years, the SCAQMD is planning to propose a suite of air toxics rules that will specifically address fugitive metal particulates that will also concurrently reduce particulate emissions. Implementation of these measures will help the Basin achieve and maintain regional air quality goals while also having significant benefits to local communities that live and work near these sources.

Objective:

Reduce emission impacts
from well maintenance and
stimulation activities
Potential TACs:

Diesel particulate matter,
benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene and xylene
compounds
Control Approaches:
• Best Management Practices
• Minimize fugitive dust
• Use of cleaner diesel engine
Control of Emissions from Oil
and Gas Well Activities (TXM09)
9-23
984 of 2287
hapter 1
ntroduction
Chapter 1
0 Climate and Energy
Significant reductions in greenhouse gases are needed to achieve California’s climate targets, presenting challenges for the State’s energy and transportation infrastructure.

Climate, energy, and transportation strategies have direct impacts on air quality, and the 2016 AQMP control strategy will affect these other objectives. Therefore, understanding the connections and coordination with other agencies is essential. A large majority of criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions result from our transportation and energy choices.
985 of 2287
In This Chapter
 Introduction 10-1
Overview of climate change and energy issues
 South Coast Basin Energy Consumption,
Emissions, and Projections 10-7
Regional energy and fuel information
 Challenges and Opportunities
in Moving Towards 100 Percent
Renewable Power 10-14
Grid collaboration, renewable generation, demand response, energy efficiency and energy storage
986 of 2287
 Southern California’s Energy
and Air Quality Future 10-28
Infrastructure and transformation of the energy sector
 References 10-33
987 of 2287
Chapter 10: Climate and Energy
Introduction
In September 2011,
the SCAQMD
Governing Board
adopted the
SCAQMD Air
Quality-Related
Energy Policy. This
policy integrates
energy, air quality,
and climate change
by explaining how
our dependence
upon fossil fuels for
energy generation
and consumption
within the Basin
results in the
emission of criteria
pollutants, toxic pollutants, and greenhouse gases. The Air Quality-Related Energy Policy also articulates ten Policies and ten Actions to ensure clean air by promoting the development of reliable, safe, cost effective, and clean energy. For example, Policy 1 asserts the promotion of zero and near-zero emission technologies through ultra clean energy strategies to meet air quality, energy security and climate change objectives. Action 10 requires that an update of energy usage within the District is provided in each AQMP (SCAQMD, 2011). In addition, during the December 4, 2015 Governing Board hearing, the SCAQMD Governing Board requested a review of technologies and programs that can help reduce energy use, increase availability of renewable energy sources, reduce the need for new fossil fuel-based power generation in the Basin, and incorporate alternatively powered transportation.

The energy projections, technologies, and programs presented here reflect existing District policies and planning efforts. However, many newly adopted programs, as well as those under development and within the proposed 2016 AQMP control measures, will have impacts on future energy usage in California that are not yet fully accounted for in future energy use projections. In addition, ten white papers that preceded the development of the 2016 AQMP, covered an array of sectors and topics, including a survey of technologies and policies that can help achieve a zero and near-zero emission future, were integral to the development of this chapter as well as the 2016 AQMP (SCAQMD Energy Outlook White Paper). Two of the white papers were focused on energy usage in the Basin and highlighted the importance of energy and climate change objectives from other agencies in helping reduce air pollution, showing the importance of collaborative planning efforts. The Residential and Commercial Energy white paper provided an assessment of the energy usage, age of buildings, review of existing efficiency programs, and future energy usage scenarios within the Basin’s commercial and residential sectors. The Energy Outlook white paper reviewed the types of energy use, focused on different end use sectors, reviewed FIGURE 10-1
GLOBAL TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES IN 2015 (NOAA, 2016)
10-1
988 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
new technologies and the changing energy environment, and provided future emissions scenario analysis as future energy and climate change targets are achieved.

In the U.S., “criteria air pollutants,” are those with health based air quality standards that set allowable concentrations of six substances in ambient air, and are regulated under the federal Clean Air Act as well as California State law. They include ozone, particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO), lead, nitrogen dioxide (NOx), and sulfur dioxide (SOx). Volatile organic compounds (VOCs), ammonia, and NOx are also regulated as ozone and PM precursors. Control strategies in this AQMP rely on a combination of available and advanced technologies along with efficiency improvements to attain the ambient air quality standards. Additionally, many of the control measures combine planning efforts for climate change, transportation, and the energy sector to achieve multiple co-benefits. As later shown, the primary sources of criteria and greenhouse gas emissions are direct and indirect energy use within the Basin.

Criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases (GHGs) are often treated separately by different regulations.

However, certain air pollutants are both climate forcers and criteria pollutants. Additionally, there are interactions between climate and criteria pollutants within the atmosphere. These interactions often worsen the impacts from greenhouse gases and increase background levels of criteria pollutants. An example of this interaction is the atmospheric fate of the GHG methane. While methane persists in the atmosphere for 10 to 14 years, its atmospheric lifetime is impacted by criteria pollutants (Prather, 2007).

As methane reacts within the atmosphere, it acts like a VOC and increases background tropospheric ozone levels. Over the past 12 years, global methane emissions have increased over 30 percent, which also increased background levels of tropospheric ozone (Turner, 2016). Increasing background tropospheric ozone makes achieving air quality standards more difficult. Lastly, tropospheric ozone is also one of the strongest and significant short lived climate pollutants (Intergovernmenal Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] AR5, 2013).

Climate Change
The earth’s atmospheric greenhouse effect is
essential for life on this planet. Greenhouse
gases in the earth’s atmosphere absorb outgoing
infrared radiation, keeping us at a comfortable
average global temperature of 60 °F. An
absence of GHGs in earth’s atmosphere would
result in an average surface temperature of 0 °F.

The earth’s natural carbon cycle balances GHGs in
the atmosphere to stable concentrations over
thousands of years. However, this balance has
been disrupted over the past 150 years due to
mankind’s rapid increase in consumption of
fossil fuels for energy, as well as a decline in
natural carbon sinks due to human land-use
Revolution, fossil fuels previously
FIGURE 10-2

ICE CORE RECORD ALONG WITH ATMOSPHERIC MEASUREMENTS

OF METHANE, CARBON DIOXIDE, AND NITROUS OXIDE
(Thomas Karl, 2009)
10-2
989 of 2287
Chapter 10: Climate and Energy
sequestered underground have been extracted and burned largely for their energy content, releasing greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) into the atmosphere at an escalating rate. During the same period, synthetic gases with extremely high global warming potentials, such as chlorofluorocarbon and hydrofluorocarbon refrigerants, were developed and released into the atmosphere. In addition, human activity has led to a decline in natural carbon sinks such as forests and wetlands, which have been removed so the land could be used for agriculture, mining and, and the growth of cities and towns.

The rapid expansion of fossil fuel-based energy, the emission of synthetic gases, and the depletion of our natural carbon sinks have drastically increased the level of GHGs in the earth’s atmosphere and depleted stratospheric ozone. This results in changing global weather patterns, such as more extreme storms, higher average temperatures, and more prolonged periods of drought. In addition, half of the additional CO2 emitted into the atmosphere over this time was absorbed by the earth’s oceans, leading to an increase in ocean acidity. These changes, along with other human-caused environmental impacts, have some ecologists and geologists terming the geologic epoch in which we live, “the Anthropocene Period”, in which human activities have started to significantly impact global ecology and ecosystems (University of California, 2015).

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, GHG concentrations in the atmosphere have increased exponentially (see Figure 10-2). As shown in Figure 10-3, average global temperatures have been increasing with some variation since the 1950’s. The highest yearly average global temperature, since instrumental temperature record keeping began in 1880, was observed in 2015 (NOAA, 2016). The 2015 record average temperature broke the previous average record temperature by 0.23 °F, the widest margin documented. NOAA’s recent temperature data also confirmed that July 2016 was not only the record warmest July ever, but the hottest month ever on record, in agreement with NASA data (NASA Earth Observatory, 2016).
10-3
990 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
Even if GHG emissions were significantly curtailed today, there would continue to be climate change impacts for decades to come due to the past accumulation and slow removal processes of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere. The projected impacts include extreme weather variability, rising ground-level temperatures, sea level rise, and depleted water resources. In addition, future projections of increased extreme heat events in Southern California could result in more days exceeding the groundlevel ozone standard. Ground-level ozone in the Basin forms through a chemical reaction between NOx and VOCs in the presence of sunlight. The correlation of the peak hourly temperature and peak hourly ozone measurements is shown in Figure 10-4 for the SCAQMD San Bernardino monitoring station. This increase of ozone with temperature is often referred to as the “climate penalty.” Additionally, increased emissions of criteria pollutants from developing countries along with higher atmospheric levels of methane have resulted in increasing levels of global background ozone, which makes it more difficult to achieve ozone standards in urban areas (Cooper, 2011) (IPCC, 2013). -1.5
-1
-0.5
0 0.5
1 1.5
2 2.5
3 1880188518901895190019051910191519201925193019351940194519501955196019651970197519801985199019952000200520102015 Global Land Temperature Anomalies (oF)
FIGURE 10-3
GLOBAL TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES (I.E. DEPARTURE FROM REFERENCE VALUE OR LONG-TERM AVERAGE) FOR LAND WITH RESPECT TO 20TH CENTURY TEMPERATURE AVERAGE (NOAA, n.d.) 10-4
991 of 2287
Chapter 10: Climate and Energy
Many GHGs undergo slow atmospheric reactions and/or uptake through biological processes or other removal mechanisms. To minimize these predicted greater future impacts of climate change and associated catastrophic weather events, the world must quickly limit its collective GHG emissions.

Following a “business as usual” path without future GHG mitigation efforts could lead to increased average warming that ranges from 2.5 °C to 7.8 °C (4.5 °F to 14 °F ) by the end of the century (University of California, 2015). The range of projected temperatures reflects the significant uncertainties associated with predicting future global temperatures, impacts from climate feedback mechanisms, and varying global emission levels. The consequences for each degree of increased temperature include:
significant public health impacts, ecological disturbances, and sea level rise, coupled with a declining ability to adapt to these changes. In addition, as temperatures increase so does the intensity of positive feedback mechanisms, such as decreasing surface albedo from melting ice, and increased methane emissions from the thawing of permafrost. If higher levels of warming continue to occur, areas of the earth will become uninhabitable due to heat stress, lack of potable water, vector-borne transmission of disease, and sea level rise inundating coastal lands (Sherwood, 2010) (Pal, 2015). Many ecological consequences are already occurring, such as ocean acidification, species migration, and sea level rise due to ocean warming and associated thermal expansion.

FIGURE 10-4

CORRELATION OF ONE-HOUR OZONE MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION WITH ONE-HOUR MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE DURING SUMMER MONTHS FROM YEARS 2004 TO 2015 MEASURED AT SCAQMD SAN BERNARDINO MONITORING SITE 10-5
992 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
The California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32 and SB 32), and related Executive Orders mandate that California reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050. The 2050 target was based on the need to limit global warming to below 2 °C. The 2 °C limit was formally codified in the Copenhagen Accord in 2009 as a global benchmark by which nations have agreed to measure collective success in limiting global warming. The recent 21st Council of Parties (COP-21) in Paris retained the commitment of the world’s nations to reduce GHG emissions to the 2 °C threshold, while also recognizing the desirability of pursuing an even lower target. As GHGs accumulate in the atmosphere, climate change impacts become more acute and mitigation of these impacts becomes more intractable, complex, and expensive. For example, future economic costs arising from the impacts of climate change are non-linear with increasing temperatures because these costs recur year-after-year (White House, 2014). Therefore, it is critical that decisions are made expeditiously to develop and implement technologies to reduce GHG emissions alongside reductions of criteria and toxic pollutants. Every year of delay allows increased accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere, negative health impacts, and, consequently, the need for more aggressive reductions in the future. Within the Basin, use of fossil fuel based energy resources contribute the majority of criteria pollutants, air toxics, and GHG emissions. Efforts to clean the air and meet mandated air quality standards, focused on the adoption of cleaner energy sources, also achieve the co-benefit of reducing GHG emissions, thus helping to meet State and global climate goals. These efforts also provide economic benefits from the new technologies and markets associated with clean low emission technologies.

Energy
The use of energy is a necessity of modern life in Southern California. It powers our economy, our mobility, and our personal comfort, and well-being. In 2012, total energy costs in the Basin were estimated to be over $57 billion. Currently, energy use for both in-Basin mobile sources and electricity
generation for stationary sources is dominated by the
combustion of fossil fuels. The combustion of fossil
fuels results in the emission of criteria pollutants, air toxics, and greenhouse gases. This results in short-term air quality impacts on health and longer-term climate
change impacts from the accumulation of greenhouse
gases in the earth’s atmosphere.

Beginning in late 2014, global fossil fuel based energy prices dropped sharply and continued to fall. In the
past, declining fossil fuel prices have hindered the growth of renewable energy resources. However, over the past two years, renewable energy technologies have also significantly declined in price, making them increasingly cost competitive with traditional fossil fuel-based energy resources (Bloomberg New Energy Finance , 2016).

The declining costs of renewable energy technologies are opening pathways for decarbonizing multiple energy sectors, thus reducing criteria and air toxic pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions, and helping achieve cleaner air and climate stability. However, at this time, most renewable energy technologies are not a direct replacement for traditional fossil fuel based resources for power generation. This is due to the intermittency of many renewable energy resources, outdated regulations and policies governing FIGURE 10-5
(Bloomberg New Energy Finance , 2016)
10-6
993 of 2287
Chapter 10: Climate and Energy
energy generation, and necessary upgrades to grid and transmission infrastructure. A key to overcoming these roadblocks is the adoption of integrated energy strategies that achieve GHG emission reductions and commensurate reductions of criteria pollutants and toxic air emissions.

California is already transitioning towards generating power from a higher percentage of cleaner renewable energy sources as later shown in Figures 10-14 and 10-15. This is resulting in improved air and water quality, as well as greater resilience to large price fluctuations of traditional fossil fuel-based energy resources. The emission reduction efforts in California and the Basin have charted a path for the nation and other countries to follow as they also begin to develop new technologies and programs to tackle air pollution and curb GHG emissions while growing a vibrant and resilient economy.

South Coast Basin Energy Consumption, Emissions,
and Projections
Energy projections, technologies, and programs presented in this section reflect information derived from many existing policies and other agencies’ planning documents. However, many newly adopted programs and those still in development will also have impacts on future energy usage in California and are not yet fully represented in the future energy use projections below.

Energy Consumption Inventory and Projections
In 2012, the end use energy needs of the Basin were 2.1 quads (1 quad = one quadrillion [1015] British Thermal Units). This is equivalent to over 2 percent of the energy consumption within the United States (U.S.) for approximately 5 percent of the U.S. population (EIA Consumption & Efficiency, n.d.). As shown in Figure 10-6, in 2012, the Basin consumed 0.96 quads of gasoline, over 45 percent of the total Basin energy consumed. End-use electricity and natural gas consumption account for the second and third largest categories of energy consumption in the Basin, principally the result of commercial and residential building usage.
10-7
994 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
Note: Does not include consumption of natural gas for electricity generation to avoid double counting with electricity end use. Does not include fuel oil and diesel past the 24 nautical mile buffer zone.

FIGURE 10-6
TOTAL END USE ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN QUADS FOR THE BASIN BY FUEL TYPE IN 2012 AND FORECASTED GROWTH The largest share of energy use in the Basin is devoted to transportation purposes as shown in Figure 10-

7. This is the result of several factors related to the region’s dense urban population, development structure, and economy. Southern California has two of the largest maritime ports in the nation.

Together, the San Pedro Bay ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach account for nearly 40 percent of all U.S. container imports (on a per twenty-foot equivalent unit (TEU) basis) (U.S. Maritime Administration, 2016).

The in-Basin goods movement system includes local distribution networks based on extensive fleets of diesel powered trucks and trains transporting many millions of shipping containers to and through the area. The Basin also has three large airports that include both air and ground transportation. Most importantly, the Basin is home to more than 16 million residents who primarily rely on freeway and road infrastructure for mobility. As a result, the largest end energy use is vehicular gasoline consumption.

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5
2012
2023
2031
Quads
Natural Gas Gasoline Diesel Fuel Oil Jet Fuel Electricity LPG 10-8
995 of 2287
Chapter 10: Climate and Energy
FIGURE 10-7

SHARE OF ENERGY USE IN THE BASIN
In 2012 over $57 billion was spent on energy costs within the Basin. As shown in Figure 10-8, the cost of energy is expected to decrease in 2023 to $50 billion and then increase slightly in 2031 to $53 billion.

This trend is consistent with the projected energy prices of the EIA Annual Energy Outlook. As shown in Figure 10-6, the Basin energy usage is projected to decrease slowly from 2.1 to 1.9 quads largely because of improved efficiency in 2031 (i.e., a 0.2 quad decrease between 2012 and 2031) within mobile and stationary sources. Similar to the energy consumption pattern, associated GHG emissions decrease from 127 MMT (million metric tons) CO2 in 2012 to 105 MMT CO2 in2031. This projected decline of GHG emissions by 2030 currently falls short of the statewide target of reducing GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. State, federal, and local mandates regarding energy efficiency standards, renewable energy portfolio standards, and the cap-and-trade program will all help to reduce both energy consumption and emissions.

Transportation
59%
Residential
17%
Commercial
12%
Industrial
10%
Other
3%
Transportation Residential Commercial Industrial Other
10-9
996 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
Note: Does not include cost of natural gas for electricity generation to avoid double counting with electricity end use. Prices based on EIA Energy Outlook 2011 reference case for the Pacific except electricity (EIA AEO, 2015).

FIGURE 10-8
DOLLARS SPENT AND PROJECTED ON ENERGY END USE IN 2012 AND FUTURE YEARS IN THE BASIN Emissions
Transportation sources account for over 50 percent of in-Basin energy use. These sources are also the main contributor to NOx emissions (Figure 10-9). Within the transportation sector, diesel-powered sources emit the majority of NOx. This is largely the outcome of years of effective stationary source and light-duty vehicle controls, the large numbers of diesel vehicles, and the slow rate of fleet turnover for diesel-powered vehicles. Increased fleet turnover, fuel economy standards, diesel repowering and other State regulations are projected to lower NOx emissions. However, these reductions are not sufficient to achieve the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) ozone standards. Figure 10-10 provides the corresponding data for direct PM2.5 emissions by fuel type. Similarly, the majority of PM2.5 emissions are attributable to transportation sources.
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
2012 2023 2031
Dollars in Billions
Electricity Gasoline Diesel Jet Fuel Fuel Oil Natural Gas LPG 10-10
997 of 2287
Chapter 10: Climate and Energy
Note: Other includes Biomass, Landfill Gas, Incinerators, LPG and RECLAIM Other.

FIGURE 10-9

NOX EMISSIONS IN TONS PER DAY BY FUEL TYPE
Note: Other includes Biomass, LPG, Incinerator and Landfill Gas FIGURE 10-10
PM 2.5 EMISSIONS IN TONS PER DAY BY FUEL TYPE
0 10
20 30
40 2012 2023 2031
Tons PM 2.5 per Day
Diesel Gasoline Fuel Oil Jet Fuel Natural Gas Other
10-11
998 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
In 2012, the CO2 emissions from direct fuel use in the Basin were 127 MMT (see Figure 10-9). These emissions account for 28 percent of the total 459 MMT CO2 released in California in 2013 (California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory - 2015 Edition, n.d.). Transportation fuels dominate the CO2 emissions in Southern California. CO2 emissions, shown in Figure 10-9, were developed from recent fuel consumption data and future projections.

FIGURE 10-11

CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS BY FUEL TYPE
Electricity Sources
In 2012, electricity end use in the Basin accounted for 120,210 gigawatt hours (GWh) of energy usage and 37 percent of the energy end use costs. Electricity generated within the Basin accounted for 45,000 GWh or 37 percent of the total electricity consumed in the Basin (CEC Energy Almanac - QFER and SB 1305 Reporting, n.d.). As of 2012, natural gas-fueled power plants produced the majority of the electricity in the Basin (Figure 10-12) as is the case for most of California; in contrast, the majority of electricity produced in the U.S. is from coal-fired power plants. Figure 10-12 also shows the percentage breakdown of the generation mix for electricity supplied to the Basin from Southern California Edison (SCE) and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP). From 2010 to 2014, the percentage of power used by SCE from coal has been reduced from 7 percent to 0 percent (CEC Utility Annual Power Content Labels for 2014, n.d.). LADWP energy supply from coal has recently reduced from 40 percent to between 28 and 30 percent since the start of divestiture of the Navajo Generating Station in July 2016 (LADWP Comments on Draft 2016 AQMP, 2016).

SB 1368 (CEC SB 1368 Emission Performance Standards, n.d.), and its implementing regulations promulgated by the California Energy Commission (CEC) and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), have explicit constraints on utilities regarding the development of new coal-powered facilities or contracts for coal-powered generation. Due to this legislation, and as the State’s renewable portfolio 0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
2012
2023
2031
MMT CO2
Gasoline Diesel Jet Fuel Fuel Oil Natural Gas LPG
10-12
999 of 2287
Chapter 10: Climate and Energy
standard and cap-and-trade program are implemented, power procurement from coal resources will continue to decline over time.

Note: The SCE and LADWP generation do not represent the total Basin generation and generation outside of the Basin is not subject to SCAQMD regulatory authority. These figures represent purchases of electricity products by California retail suppliers and do not correspond to utility requirements under the California Renewables Portfolio Standard. The “Other” category accounts for unspecified electricity sources.

FIGURE 10-12
ELECTRICITY GENERATING MIX BY TYPE IN 2012
In-Basin Electricity Consumption
As stated above, total electricity end use consumption within the Basin was 120,210 GWh in 2012 and expected to grow to an estimated 144,369 GWh by 2031. This is derived from the net energy loads for L.A. Basin, SCE and LADWP service territories within the CEC California Energy Demand Forecast 2010– 2020, and retail supplier power content percentages (QFER CEC-1304 Reporting Database, n.d.) (CEC Utility Annual Power Content Labels, n.d.). The CEC-1304 reporting form collects data from power plants with a total nameplate capacity of 1 megawatt (MW) or more. Electricity consumption is continuing to recover from a decline experienced during the last economic recession. The projected electricity use within the Basin is estimated to grow approximately 20 percent from 2012 to 2031 (an average of 1.1 percent per year). In 2012, an estimated $15.8 billion was spent on end-use electricity deliveries within the Basin. Based on EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2015 projections, an estimated $19.7 billion is projected to be spent on electricity in the Basin in 2031.
10-13
1000 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
Challenges and Opportunities in Moving Towards 100
Percent Renewable Power
Worldwide energy consumption accounts for two-thirds of global GHG emissions (International Energy Agency, 2015). Additionally, as shown previously in Figure 10-9, energy consumption accounts for all inBasin NOx emissions, along with the majority of VOC and air toxics emissions (SCAQMD, 2015). Over the past century, the energy used by different sectors in the Basin primarily stems from specific fossil fuels:
e.g., liquid fuels gasoline and diesel are used in the transportation sector, and natural gas is primarily used for electrical power generation and heating (SCAQMD Energy Outlook White Paper). Currently, California is undergoing a widespread shift in power generation and electrical infrastructure with the advent and adoption of renewable energy technologies. Renewable generation technologies such as solar photovoltaics, wind turbines, and hydrogen fuel cells are becoming more efficient and declining in cost. Solar photovoltaic technologies using crystalline silicon and other established renewable energy technologies do not need significant technological advances to achieve terawatt-scale deployment by 2050 (MIT, 2015). It is also feasible with new technology development, continued price declines, and widespread implementation to have renewable energy sources provide the majority of transportation and stationary energy needs (Jacobson, 2014). Installed costs for solar panels have been declining rapidly as shown in Figure 10-13, and wind energy capacity costs have decreased 75 percent in the past three decades (Trancik, 2015). Renewable energy generation technologies have thus become cost competitive with fossil fuel generation technologies in most locations. However, as discussed above, the renewable generation technologies, must currently still be supplemented by fossil fuel generation due to intermittency, periods of over-generation, along with lack of manageable loads and energy storage (MacDonald, 2016) (Trancik, 2015). The reliance on fossil generation to support renewables is expected to decline as more auxiliary resources are integrated onto the grid.

FIGURE 10-13
MEDIAN INSTALLED SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC PRICES (DOE and LBNL, 2015) Declining costs in solar and wind resources have made them attractive technologies to increase the amount of renewable power generation globally (Bloomberg, 2016). In California, the majority of new renewable generation has been from solar and wind resources, as shown in Figure 10-14. 10-14
1001 of 2287
Chapter 10: Climate and Energy
FIGURE 10-14

IN STATE RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY GENERATION BY FUEL TYPE
This shift has been in response to regulatory and policy mandates, as well as technology advancement in energy efficiency and renewable energy. The consumption of electricity is expected to increase through mid-century as alternatively powered vehicles become more reliant upon the electrical grid.

The increase in electricity consumption coincides with increasing requirements to power the grid with renewable power. As the grid shifts to operating with a higher percentage of renewable power, matching generation with demand on short-time scales becomes more complex as a result of intermittency from the renewable resources. Grid balance has historically been maintained by controllable conventional power generating resources. Currently, fossil fuel energy resources such as natural gas are able to ramp quickly to meet spikes in demand and support renewable power intermittency. With the move towards 50 percent of grid power coming from renewable energy resources, the reliance on conventional generating resources will decrease. However, intermittency and demand spikes will need to be met through additional resources that include enhanced regional grid collaboration, a diverse mix of renewable power resources, adjusting electricity loads through demandside management, stored power, and grid integration of alternatively powered transportation. This will require policy and regulation changes to allow for new power markets, the expansion of efficiency programs and requirements to reduce the need for generation, the development of new energy storage technologies, and utilization of alternatively powered transportation for grid stability. 0 5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Installed In-State Capacity (MW)
Biomass Geothermal Large Hydro Small Hydro Solar PV Solar Thermal Wind 10-15
1002 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
Increasing Grid Flexibility through Enhanced Regional Grid Collaboration and Increasing Renewable Generation Resource Diversity
California was one of the first states to implement a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) that required investor owned utilities (IOUs) to procure 20 percent of their electricity from renewable resources by 2010. In 2011, Governor Brown mandated a new RPS requiring that 33 percent of the State’s electricity come from renewable resources by 2020. In the summer of 2015, the passage of SB 350 put in place a new RPS mandate to achieve 50 percent renewable energy generation by 2030, with a requirement for longer-term discussions regarding the potential for 100 percent renewable power generation (Crawford, 2015). While these California targets are ambitious, Hawaii is the first state to adopt a 100 percent renewable power target by 2045.

FIGURE 10-15

INCREASINGLY STRINGENT RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO MANDATES FOR CALIFORNIA AND THE LATEST PERCENTAGE OF

RENEWABLES AT THE THREE LARGEST INVESTOR OWNED UTILITIES AND ONE PUBLICLY OWNED UTILITY PROCURED TO MEET THE RENEWABLE MANDATES (SOURCE: CPUC BIENNIAL RPS UPDATE JAN. 2016) (SOURCE: CEC UTILITY ANNUAL

POWER CONTENT LABELS)
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Percent Renewables
California RPS Targets PG&E SCE SDG&E LADWP
10-16
1003 of 2287
Chapter 10: Climate and Energy
As higher levels of renewable resources power the electrical grid, flexible grid resources, such as energy storage, must be integrated to accommodate the inherent intermittency and over-generation issues. It is anticipated that California will
meet the majority of its 33
percent and 50 percent RPS
requirements with additional
solar and wind resources. The
addition of large amounts of
solar is predicted to result in
over-generation during periods
of peak sunlight, as shown in
Figure 10-16, primarily in the fall
and spring.

A reliable grid must match load
demand with generation supply
on a second-by-second basis.

Over-generation and the
intermittency of renewable
power resources create
challenges for maintaining this
stability. Therefore, the
California Independent Operator
(CAISO) is initiating procedures
to accommodate increasing
amounts of solar generation and
other renewable power.

Figure 10-17 shows the net load
profile (net load = total grid load
– renewable generation) that
traditional generation resources
must provide in future years as
more solar and wind energy
resources are added. Referred
to as the “Duck Curve” due to its shape, this illustration of net load shows that adding more solar generation to the grid requires generation from other energy sources to significantly decline or idle during peak daylight hours. However, these conventional generating resources must be able to quickly ramp up to balance renewable power generation intermittency and provide power demand ramping rates as solar resources decline at day’s end. Currently, gas turbine power plants and synchronous condensers are used to meet the supply interruptions associated with renewable power generation. The reliance on these fossil fuel resources to bridge these interruptions negates some of the GHG and criteria emissions benefits achieved from using clean renewable power resources.

FIGURE 10-16
GRID LOAD RELATIVE TO GENERATION RESOURCES. POWER OVERGENERATION OCCURS WITH HIGHER PERCENTAGES OF RENEWABLES FROM SOLAR AND WIND.

THE 50% RPS LEVEL ASSUMES 25% SOLAR AND 15% WIND. (Energy and Environmental Economics, 2015)
10-17
1004 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
FIGURE 10-17
"DUCK CURVE" REPRESENTS THE NET LOAD FROM FLEXIBLE GENERATION SOURCES THAT CAISO MUST BALANCE ON A TYPICAL SPRING DAY. THE NET LOAD SUBTRACTS THE VARIABLE RENEWABLE GENERATION FROM THE END USER DEMAND. (CAISO, 2016)
10-18
1005 of 2287
Chapter 10: Climate and Energy
Enhanced Regional Collaboration
Linking the electrical grids operated by CAISO with the electrical grids managed by neighboring states’ grid balancing authorities can utilize larger amounts of renewable resources while providing greater reliability and lower energy costs (Energy and Environmental Economics, 2015).

In 2014, CAISO developed a platform for an Energy Imbalance Market (EIM). Initially, the EIM was a collaboration with CAISO and grid operator PacifiCorp. The EIM was developed to increase grid operational efficiencies by (1) providing coordinated planning efforts and renewable resource
development; and (2) providing a mechanism to export excess renewable power and import renewable power during periods of over-generation or high load needs. However, CAISO was not allowed to fully participate in the EIM until the passage of SB 350, which permitted CAISO to operate as a regional
organization with authority outside of California.

The EIM is facilitating the utilization of renewable resources available in each territory by the other territories. Because these renewable resources vary based on local and sub-regional weather patterns and generation technologies, the overgeneration from these resources in their “home territory” can be used to supplement and balance electrical loads in the other territories (see Figure 10-18). For example, the Pacific Northwest has large amounts of wind and hydropower
resources. These resources can be used to balance the
intermittency of solar power generation in California along with providing renewable resources for peak evening electrical loads.

Because grid load profiles vary throughout the day and the grid operators are located in different time zones, the exchange of power resources within the EIM helps to accommodate these load profile variations. Finally, the ability to tap into the more abundant EIM system resources can support the high ramp rates shown in Figure 10-
17 and Figure 10-19. Other
grid balancing authorities in
the western United States
have joined the EIM and more
are planning to join (Energy
and Environmental
Economics, 2015). While the
EIM market is still relatively
new, CAISO will need to avoid
the import of coal and other
fossil fuel energy resources
FIGURE 10-18

ENERGY IMBALANCE MARKET (EIM)
PARTICIPATION (CAISO, 2016)
FIGURE 10-19

GRID LOAD WITH AND WITHOUT ENHANCED REGIONAL COORDINATION (ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS, INC, 2014)
10-19
1006 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
utilized by some participating authorities in order to avoid jeopardizing the RPS targets for California.

Increasing Grid Flexibility through Advanced Demand Response and Energy Efficiency Measures
The two most cost-effective ways to avoid the expense of adding power generation and new infrastructure are to increase energy efficiency and to improve grid load management (Rosenfeld, 2009).

The avoided use of energy through efficiency measures has been termed “negawatts” by Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute (Economist, 2014).

Two of the greatest advantages of implementing
energy efficiency measures are that benefits are
cumulative and long-lasting.

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and the California Energy Commission (CEC) have established building efficiency and appliance efficiency standards that became progressively more stringent. California Code of Regulations, Title 24 building efficiency standards, have increasingly strengthened efficiency requirements for new buildings since their adoption in the late 1970’s. The target for new Title 24 standards is zero net energy consumption for new residential construction by 2020 and zero net energy consumption for newly constructed commercial buildings by 2030. The Title 24 building energy standards coupled with State and national appliance energy standards have helped keep per capita energy consumption in California stable and well below national levels since the late 1970’s, (shown in Figure 10-20) along with reducing the need for 12,000 MW of new power generation (Rosenfeld, 2009).

FIGURE 10-20

PER CAPITA ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION OVER TIME FOR CALIFORNIA AND THE UNITED STATES 10-20
1007 of 2287
Chapter 10: Climate and Energy
Improving the energy efficiency of existing buildings is a huge opportunity to realize additional energy reductions. In Southern California, 64 percent of residential homes were built prior to the adoption of the first Title 24 energy standards (SCAQMD, 2015). Ratepayer programs administered through the CPUC provide rebates for efficiency improvements in existing buildings. While these improvements drive down energy demand, the incentives to perform these retrofits are often not utilized. This is due to barriers to performing efficiency retrofits such as expensive upfront capital costs; lack of awareness of the incentives; the complexity of the retrofit projects; and, the split incentive issue associated with rented buildings whereby retrofit costs are borne by building owners but the benefit of lower energy bills is realized by tenants. The U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, has compiled key resources to help overcome some of these obstacles. In addition, California established a target to double the energy efficiency of existing buildings by 2030 with the adoption of the Clean Energy and Pollution Act of 2015 (SB 350) targets. This will help spur energy efficiency retrofits, as well.

The highest electrical loads generally occur during hot summer days when air conditioner usage spikes.

The additional demand is largely met with the power produced by peaking fossil fuel generation units (“peaker plants”). These generation units typically operate with 10 percent utilization rates; therefore, have lower generation efficiencies to help lower capital costs. Since peaker plants operate infrequently, these generating resources often do not utilize the most fuel efficient generating technologies such as incorporating heat recovery steam generators.

To help limit the use and need for additional peaker plants, electrical utility pricing structures help reduce usage during peak periods by employing time-of-use rates. Time-of-use rates increase during peak demand periods, and thus act as a monetary incentive to curtail demand during peak periods. Rather than match grid load demand with additional generation, decreasing end use demand through demand response programs can help change load profiles. Demand response programs incentivize end-use customers to reduce or shift their electricity usage during peak usage demand periods. New technologies such as Wi-Fi enabled thermostats, controllable electric water heaters which can also pull power from the grid to be used as energy storage, and smart phone app-based products, are making load management easier to implement for both utilities and consumers.

As electric vehicles (EVs) become more prevalent, vehicle charging will become an important grid management tool. Intelligently integrating electric transportation charging technologies with the electrical grid is an effective way to provide grid resources. Many EV charging site hosts already have the ability to manage power flows based, in part, on electricity pricing and demand response, allowing the utility to send a signal to customers to cut back on loads during high peak grid demand. Future grid services tied to EV charging are anticipated to include bi-directional power flows, frequency response, and voltage support to enhance grid stability and storage capacity.

Increasing Grid Flexibility through Energy Storage Technologies The energy landscape is rapidly evolving due to declining costs for generation equipment and the development of new technologies that provide grid and behind-the-meter support services, including energy storage systems.
10-21
1008 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
As discussed above, renewable generation technologies are now well established and cost-effective; however, the technologies that provide ancillary services and grid support to fully integrate renewable power into the grid are still evolving. Renewable power resources are variable. This means that renewable resources may generate more power than is immediately necessary to meet demand, resulting in the need to block and thus lose the excess power from reaching the electrical grid. Another option is to store the additional energy supply. Energy storage technologies help to balance over-generation by storing excess power for later use (Figure 10-21), and by storing energy generated during weak demand periods so that it can be used during peak periods (Figure 10-22). Using energy storage technologies in large grid-scale applications along with smaller behind-the-meter energy storage systems provide flexible resources that reduce reliance on fossil-based generation plants.

FIGURE 10-21

USE OF STORAGE TO MATCH TO RENEWABLE GENERATION AND

STORE THE EXCESS SOLAR POWER FOR LATER PERIODS (SBC
Energy Institute, 2013)
Energy storage systems can utilize different physical processes including thermal, mechanical, electrochemical, and chemical technologies, as shown in Table 10-1. Each storage technology has properties that can provide different types of support services based on their energy storage capacities, discharge rates, and ability to perform other ancillary services such as frequency regulation and voltage support.

FIGURE 10-22

EXAMPLE USING STORAGE TO HELP BALANCE ELECTRICAL LOADS
FOR END USE ELECTRICITY CUSTOMERS. ELECTRICITY IS STORED

DURING LOWER DEMAND PERIODS AND DISCHARGED DURING
PEAK USAGE PERIODS. USING STORAGE IN THIS MANNER TAKES

ADVANTAGE OF LOWER ELECTRICITY RATES TO PROVIDE POWER
AT HIGHER RATE PERIODS. (SBC Energy Institute, 2013)
10-22
1009 of 2287
Chapter 10: Climate and Energy
TABLE 10-1

STORAGE TECHNOLOGIES GROUPED BY PHYSICAL PRINCIPLES
Each storage technology has advantages and disadvantages with applications for transmission, distribution, and behind-the-meter power needs. Disadvantages of different storage technologies include costs, discharge rates, ease of installation, and maturity of the technology. Different storage types provide options for different applications, such as long term storage, reactive power, and peak shaving.
10-23
1010 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
FIGURE 10-23
PAST ENERGY STORAGE DEPLOYMENTS IN U.S BY SECTOR UP TO 2014 AND FUTURE MARKET ESTIMATES TO 2019.

FROM 2014 TO 2015 THE MARKET IS ESTIMATED TO HAVE INCREASED BY 185 PERCENT. (SOURCE GREEN TECH MEDIA

RESEARCH)
Electricity pricing structures that promote load balancing and State mandates to increase the amount of renewable energy generation are driving the market for energy storage systems, a market that is projected to grow to $50 billion by 2020. Many energy storage technologies, such as compressed air and power-to-gas technologies, are still under development. However, other energy storage systems, such as lithium batteries, are currently being marketed for behind-the-meter commercial and residential applications as well as large grid applications. Energy storage can be used to lower peak consumption, which reduces load demand charges. Currently the North America cost break-even point for adding battery storage systems for customers paying demand charges is around $9 per kilowatt and is expected to drop to $4–5 per kilowatt by 2020 as battery prices continue to drop (McKinsey&Company, 2016).

Grid-level Energy Storage
Grid-level storage systems are the largest energy storage systems. They typically must be at least 1 MW in order to provide useful service at a grid scale, as shown in Figure 10-22. These systems can replace certain peak generating resources (Figure 10-23). This is important from an efficiency standpoint; peak generating resources typically have low utilization rates with flexible generating ranges that are less than total capacity due to idling requirements. In addition, peaker plants are only brought online to meet high peak demand; they sit dormant for most of the year. Battery storage systems would provide numerous valuable grid resources beyond periods of peak demand.

Cost has been a limiting factor in considering a grid storage system over natural gas peaking generation; however, prices for battery storage systems are dropping rapidly with declining battery prices (GTM Research, 2016). In addition, the system controls for grid energy storage are more dynamic than for peak generating resources. In order to ensure the energy stored can meet anticipated demand, the amount of energy storage within the system, discharge rates, and length of discharge, requires a different level of monitoring than peak generating resources. However, more widespread utilization of grid 10-24
1011 of 2287
Chapter 10: Climate and Energy
energy storage systems will soon take place because of new regulations. Under the AB 2514 energy storage mandate, utilities are required to install 1.3 GW of storage within their electrical grids in California.

Many of the large power generating companies have already embraced grid-level storage systems, and thus are beginning to help local utilities meet their AB 2514 requirement.

Grid storage technologies include molten salt
thermal storage coupled with large solar
thermal generating plants and large lithium
battery container installations, as shown in
Figure 10-22. An emerging grid storage
technology is vanadium-redox-flow
batteries; this system has large storage
capacities, a long lifetime, and lower costs
but must operate at high temperatures.

Another emerging technology for longerterm storage is “power-to-gas” which consists of energy storage by converting
electrical energy to chemical energy in the
form of hydrogen. As previously
mentioned, the integration of increasingly
higher percentages of solar renewable energy into the grid will result in periods of electricity overgeneration. Hydrogen gas can be generated during those periods of excess power through electrolysis of water, addressing renewable intermittency and excess electricity generation. This hydrogen can be used to produce natural gas and liquid fuels, can be converted back to electricity through clean combustion and fuel cells, or used for transportation by vehicles and by fossil fuel-powered electrical generation plants. Additionally, the hydrogen produced renewably through this process may eventually be blended with natural gas and added into the existing distribution pipeline infrastructure. Today, within California, hydrogen is mainly produced through steam reformation of hydrocarbons, primarily methane. However, the reformation process emits CO2 as a byproduct. The use of electrolysis coupled with solar renewable energy provides a zero-emission hydrogen production solution. Other renewable sources would include steam-reformed biogas and biomass. Together with avoiding renewable energy curtailment, power-to-gas systems can help provide grid stabilization with renewable resources along with long term energy storage.

Hydrogen can be converted back to electricity using stationary fuel cells which have different characteristics compared to conventional power plants, allowing them to better complement the integration of renewable resources and the need to balance variability. The efficiency of conventional thermal power plants decreases when plants are operated at less than design output, thus increasing emissions. In contrast, stationary fuel cells can be operated at lower generation outputs with further increases in efficiency. Moreover, stationary fuel cells, contrary to conventional fossil based plants, have high efficiencies even at small scales. This characteristic makes for a more interesting option to support distributed power generation.

FIGURE 10-24
5 MW GRID LEVEL BATTERY STORAGE USED ON UC SAN DIEGO

MICROGRID
10-25
1012 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
FIGURE 10-25
COMPARISON OF USING GRID STORAGE IN PLACE OF PEAKING GENERATION UNITS (Adapted from Greentech Media, 2016)
Residential and Commercial Storage
Residential and commercial energy storage systems installed “behind the meter” (i.e., on the building owner’s side of the meter) are becoming popular because they can decrease peak demand electrical utility costs, provide backup power, and be used as off-grid systems.

A portion of the utility rates for large commercial sites are typically set during the highest 15-minute peak power consumption during a billing cycle. In addition, many utility charges are adjusted seasonally during peak electrical demand periods. These so-called “high demand charges” have prompted the use of energy storage systems to reduce the highest peak power loads. This is known as “peak shaving” (see Figure 10-20). Under this application, electricity is pulled from the grid during low demand periods, when rates are also typically lower. The energy is stored so that it can later be used during the highest rate periods. Many commercial energy storage companies are installing systems at no cost to facilities that are subject to high demand rates. Under these installations, the electrical cost savings are shared with the storage owner/installer and the site. These arrangements are often referred to as Power Efficiency Agreements (PEAs), and are similar to the Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) offered by many solar installers. Residential energy storage systems are being used in a similar manner because many California residences are subject to time-of-use rates that vary with peak electrical loads.

Although the market for residential and commercial energy storage systems is still in its infancy, as shown in Figure 10-21, the development of storage technologies for residential and commercial applications is beginning to grow quickly. Increases in electricity rates, coupled with declines in energy storage and 10-26
1013 of 2287
Chapter 10: Climate and Energy
solar power prices, are creating an economic driver for new energy storage system installations.

Another reason is the ease with which residential storage systems can be installed, e.g., by simply plugging into an existing wall outlet.

To meet this nascent demand, both established companies and startups are starting to offer energy storage products. Many of the startup companies are focusing on how these storage systems, when coupled with distributed power generation from solar, give the consumer the ability to manage their own energy system. In the near future, combining an energy storage system with on-site solar generation could make tying in to the electrical grid optional for some consumers (Rocky Mountain Institute, 2014).

Whether many residences and commercial sites decide to unplug from traditional utility service will likely depend on how the utilities rates are structured and the cost to keep grid connections for unforeseen circumstances.

Biogas
As long as traditional power generation plants remain operational and utilize fossil fuels as source energy, the natural gas they use should come from renewable resources, when possible. In the Basin, the waste streams from wastewater treatment plants, dairies, and landfills can be utilized to generate renewable biogas. Generating biogas from these waste streams can, in some instances, reduce emissions from these facilities. Additionally, the biogas can be used by conventional power generating plants, by the transportation sector, and by commercial and residential end users while counting toward renewable mandates. Sourcing biogas from within the Basin can provide new fuel supplies that decrease reliance on existing infrastructure. There is a high potential for biogas production in the Basin, with the four county region representing slightly over 50 percent of the State’s biogas availability from landfill gas and waste water treatment plants (CEC PIER Program, UC Davis, 2015). If the energy potential from biogas is developed the resulting natural gas could supply an estimated 7 percent of the Basin’s natural gas consumption in 2012 and 8.5 percent of the consumption in 2023.

Policy and Regulation Changes Along with Developing New Power Markets
The electrical power industry is undergoing the most rapid change in a century since the invention and development of electrical utility grids by Thomas Edison and Nicola Tesla. As shown previously in Figure 10-11, the price of solar panels has dropped significantly over time and is expected to continue. As distributed renewable energy becomes more widely available and less costly, the electrical utilities, CAISO, and regulatory agencies will need to develop regulatory mechanisms to incentivize and integrate these resources into the grid and allow the delivery of multiple grid services, such as energy generation, energy storage and voltage support (Solar City Grid Engineering, 2016). To accommodate larger amounts of distributed renewable energy on the grid, many of the rules governing utility markets will need to be amended to allow for additional storage, EV integration, and other flexible resources. Using distributed renewable energy as an infrastructure resource by the utilities will enable a more dynamic and flexible power system than the traditional centralized energy generation system of the past.

FIGURE 10-26

TESLA 'POWERWALL' HOME BATTERY
10-27
1014 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
To allow for the participation of distributed renewable energy resources in the wholesale energy market, CAISO is developing the Distributed Energy Resource Provider (DERP) market. The DERP market would allow multiple smaller energy resources to be aggregated, and then participate as a single entity in the wholesale power market. The DERP market could provide opportunities for large microgrids, such as those run by universities, to sell power back to an investor-owned utility (IOU). In addition, large buildings such as warehouses could be aggregated together, thus becoming a significant source of power generation.

As a larger percentage of distributed renewable resources power the grid, the need increases for ancillary services such as energy storage and voltage support. For example, the shutdown of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) created a significant need for voltage support and reactive power (VAR) in South Orange County. Renewable energy resources typically have smart inverters giving them the ability to provide ancillary services. However, these ancillary services are currently prohibited under CPUC Rule 21. Amending Rule 21 to allow smart inverters to provide ancillary services is currently under review. This opens up the possibility of additional grid ancillary service markets for energy storage; EV charging and storage; and distributed generation.

These changes in energy management could allow further penetration of distributed renewable resources into the energy market without the need for large centralized generation facilities. Some utilities are looking to utilize distributed renewable energy as infrastructure resources in their infrastructure planning needs assessments. For example, SCE perceives distributed renewable resources as large-scale infrastructure solutions within their Preferred Pilot Resources program (Southern California Edison, n.d.).

Southern California’s Energy and Air Quality Future
Southern California’s energy market has undergone three transformative events within the last two decades: the California Energy Crisis in 2000; the shutdown of the SONGS in 2012; and, the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage leak in 2015 and 2016. While the energy infrastructure in the Basin has proven resilient enough to continue providing power to millions of end-users, these unplanned events have demonstrated the vulnerabilities of traditional centralized generation in an urban region. Encouraged by technical innovation and the declining costs of renewable resources, current planning efforts are now putting a greater focus on the development of distributed renewable energy resources and their essential supporting technologies, along with the continued implementation of efficiency measures.

The development and implementation of distributed energy resources and new technologies, along with heightened energy-efficiency efforts, provide multiple benefits in the Basin. These benefits include criteria and toxic emission reductions, GHG reductions, a resilient energy infrastructure, and significant economic benefits. These economic benefits are achieved, in part, through increased energy diversity; reduced energy costs; jobs for system installation and retrofits; and the creation of new businesses focused on clean technology innovation and production.

In addition to developing a more resilient energy infrastructure and becoming increasingly reliant on renewable resources to power the electrical grid, the transportation sector must also be transformed in order to attain healthful air quality levels standards in the Basin. Transportation and goods movement are the largest energy-consuming sectors in the Basin and employ many of the oldest technologies.

Internal combustion engines utilize only 20 percent to 30 percent of the energy content in gasoline or 10-28
1015 of 2287
Chapter 10: Climate and Energy
diesel for mobility; the remaining energy is lost primarily to waste heat. Increased efficiency within the transportation sector would provide a multitude of benefits.

The light-duty transportation sector is subject to several efficiency regulations that dictate fleet fuel efficiency requirements. These regulations include federal fuel-efficiency mandates, Pavley standards, and a State of California Executive Order target to have 1.5 million electric cars on the road by 2025. The technology transition to efficient light-duty vehicles such as hybrids, plug in hybrids, EVs, and fuel cell vehicles is well underway. Incentives available from
California and the federal government have resulted in the purchase of 196,500 plug-in hybrids, 106,000 EVs and 635 fuel cell vehicles in the State since 2011 (Plug-in Electric Vehicle Collaborative, n.d.) (Hybrid Cars, n.d.) (California Air Resources Board, 2016); one of the top selling vehicles in California is
the Toyota
Prius hybrid.

While these
numbers are relatively small compared to overall vehicle sales, some industry analysts are predicting that the
adoption of these vehicles may follow an “S” curve adoption rate much like cell phones and computers, as illustrated in Figure 10-29. Supporting these sales projections are
declining battery prices, increased range, and less frequent maintenance requirements (Randall, 2016). An indication that EVs may start to show significant sales volumes and follow the “S” curve adoption rate is the 400,000+ (as of April 28, 2016) reservations for the Tesla Model 3 immediately following its recent announcement on March 31, 2016. If sales are completed, this model alone would quadruple the number of pure EVs on the road in the next 18 months.

FIGURE 10-29
FORECASTED ADDRESSABLE (AVAILABLE) MARKET FOR BATTERY EV'S WITH 200-MILE RANGE IN RELATION TO BATTERY EV PRICE DECLINES (BATTERY EV PRICES IN THOUSANDS $) (SOURCE: BLOOMBERG NEW ENERGY FINANCE) The source energy used by the transportation sector (e.g. gasoline, diesel) has historically differed from the source energy used by stationary sources (e.g. natural gas, electricity). Therefore, the transportation FIGURE 10-28
TESLA MODEL 3 (Tesla Motors, 2016)
FIGURE 10-27
TOYOTA MIRAI (Toyota, 2016)
10-29
1016 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
fueling infrastructure has operated largely independent of the electrical grid. With anticipated widespread adoption of EVs, a large part of the transportation sector will tap into the electrical grid to supply its energy needs. In order to accommodate the acceleration of EV sales and the resultant vehicle charging requirements, the electrical grid must become more dynamic. As the grid adapts to accommodate additional power needs, there is an opportunity to strengthen its resiliency by utilizing EV battery storage. As discussed above, EVs can help control grid loads with strategic charging. When renewable resource over-generation occurs, EVs can pull power from the grid and store this energy in their batteries. Using EV charging as a grid service could be more widely implemented to take advantage of the many potential benefits.

As of July 2016 California had 20 retail hydrogen fueling stations with 14 of those stations located in the Basin, including one at the SCAQMD headquarters in Diamond Bar. Additional infrastructure will have to become available to keep up with anticipated demand and to have a robust network of fueling stations.

A complete network of fueling stations will boost vehicle manufacturing, reduce industry risk while lowering cost with economies of scale, and encourage the commercialization of fuel cell vehicles such as the Toyota Mirai, Honda Clarity, and the Hyundai Tucson. The emissions associated with the production of hydrogen for transportation could be mitigated by using renewables such as solar or even steamreformed biogasinstead of the currently used steam reformation of hydrocarbons. SB 1505 (Lowenthal, 2006) mandates that once annual throughput reaches 3,500 metric tons, no less than 33.3 percent of the hydrogen produced or dispensed in California must be from renewable energy resources. Compliance with this mandate will enhance the emissions benefits of fuel cell vehicles. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory 2014 study identified both Los Angeles and Orange Counties as some of the top 5 areas in the U.S. with net availability and potential for hydrogen from waste water treatment plants and landfills.

Transformation of the Energy Sector
The path forward to achieving cleaner air and mitigating climate change requires the continued transformation of the energy sector. The past model of simply adding centralized power generation to accommodate electrical loads is becoming less cost-effective and potentially obsolete. This transformation will include integrating additional renewable resources into the electrical grid; the widespread adoption of zero emission vehicle technologies; the development and implementation of energy storage technologies; increased energy efficiency measures; the use of alternative low-emission fuels; and, the launch of new energy markets to ensure these new technologies flourish. To encourage this transformation and maximize its co-benefits, SCAQMD will engage in the following activities:
• Coordinate planning, technology demonstration, and incentive program efforts – Agencies such as CEC, CPUC, U.S. EPA, CARB, SCAG, SCAQMD, CAISO, and local agencies leverage their efforts by working together on planning and regulatory efforts. Regulation and action by one agency can potentially conflict with the planning, regulatory and incentive efforts of other agencies. In addition, agencies working in collaboration with the local ports, utilities, and Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) can identify and undertake technology demonstration projects prior to widespread implementation. Working together can better identify and implement incentive-funding programs that help the transition to newer technologies. 10-30
1017 of 2287
Chapter 10: Climate and Energy
• Establish Workgroup to Assess Life-Cycle Emissions – In assessing technologies for stationary sources, the SCAQMD will convene a workgroup to assess the in-basin life-cycle criteria pollutant emissions related to energy use from technologies and/or other activities such as efficiency improvements. This assessment, in part, will include future energy scenarios that are anticipated as more renewable resources are incorporated into the energy usage within the Basin.

The assessments will consider emissions associated with energy time-of-use, impact of higher efficiencies, fuel switching, and future energy and regulatory markets. In addition, the assessments will consider life-cycle GHG emissions, potential toxic impacts or benefits, and utilize experts and materials from other government agencies and universities. • Provide technical and project assistance – The SCAQMD in collaboration with other agencies, utilities, OEMs, and stakeholders are able to provide technical assistance to those wishing to implement distributed energy resources, efficiency measures, or new transportation technologies and infrastructure. In addition to providing technical assistance, SCAQMD can help make available incentive programs, tax credits, rebates, credit markets and other financial tools to help project managers leverage funds from multiple sources to assist with infrastructure costs. • Schedule for infrastructure and technology needs – Implementing more efficient mobile source technologies will require that the supporting energy infrastructure can accommodate their use. SCAQMD must continue to coordinate with other agencies and utilities on the implementation of transportation infrastructure that accommodates mobile source technologies. • Collaborate and participate in national and international partnerships – Working collaboratively with other state, national, and international entities on air pollution reduction efforts, including the development of new technologies to assist in this effort, will leverage information and programs, and transfer knowledge on successes and lessons learned. • Evaluate biogas – The technologies to produce biogas from waste streams within the Basin should continue to be further reviewed and coordinated with State agencies that are implementing measures to achieve renewable and waste stream diversion mandates. • Study the “climate penalty” – Future climate impacts on air quality must be further studied, taking into account scenarios regarding future projected temperatures, local and global emissions, and weather extremes. The SCAQMD should continue to work with other agencies and researchers to further understand and monitor climate change impacts on air quality. • Integrate a variety of implementation approaches in collaboration with other agencies with focus on the air quality benefits from GHG reduction measures such as renewable energy, smart grid technologies, and efficiency – This AQMP is incorporating several control measures to account for criteria pollutant co-benefits from federal, State and local mandates and programs to reduce GHG emissions, increase energy efficiency, along with renewable power sources. These control measures include ECC-01 and ECC-02 which account for co-benefits of greenhouse gas, efficiency, and renewable energy mandates such as AB 32, SB 32, SB 350 and Title 24. Furthermore, control measure ECC-03 will pursue incentive programs to accelerate the 10-31
1018 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
implementation of onsite renewable energy, solar thermal, efficiency measures, along with smart grid applications.
10-32
1019 of 2287
Chapter 10: Climate and Energy
References
Adapted from Greentech Media. (2016, March 6). AES Launches Modular Grid Battery Alternative to Peaker Plants. Retrieved from http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/AES-LaunchesModular-Grid-Battery-Alternative-to-Peaker-Plants Bloomberg. (2016, April 6). Wind and Solar are Crushing Fossil Fuels: Record Clean Energy Investment Outpaces Gas and Coal 2 to 1. Retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016- 04-06/wind-and-solar-are-crushing-fossil-fuels
Bloomberg New Energy Finance . (2016, January 14). Clean Energy Defies Fossil Fuel Price Crash to Atract Record $329 Billion Gloval Investments in 2015. Retrieved from www.BNEF.com CAISO. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.caiso.com/informed/Pages/EIMOverview/Default.aspx CAISO. (2016). Retrieved from
http://www.caiso.com/Documents/FlexibleResourcesHelpRenewables_FastFacts.pdf California Air Resources Board. (2016). 2016 Annual Evaluation of Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Deployment and Hydrogen Fuel Station Network Development. Sacramento. Retrieved from http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/hydrogen/hydrogen.htm California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory - 2015 Edition. (n.d.). Retrieved from California Air Resources Board: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm CEC Energy Almanac - QFER and SB 1305 Reporting. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/total_system_power.html CEC PIER Program, UC Davis. (2015). An Assessment of Biomass Resrouces in California, 2013. Retrieved September 2016, from http://biomass.ucdavis.edu/publications/ CEC SB 1368 Emission Performance Standards. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.energy.ca.gov/emission_standards/
CEC Utility Annual Power Content Labels. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.energy.ca.gov/sb1305/labels
CEC Utility Annual Power Content Labels for 2014. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.energy.ca.gov/sb1305/labels/index.html
Cooper, O. S.-S. (2011, November 18). Measurment of wester U.S. baseline ozone from the surface to the tropopause and assesment of downwind impact regions. Journal of Geophysical Research,

22. Crawford, C. M. (2015, April 14). Calofornia Power Grid Seen Able to Handle 100% Renewables.

Bloomberg.

DOE and LBNL. (2015). Tracking the Sun VIII: The Installed Price of Residential and Non-Residential Photovoltaic Systems in the United States. Retrieved from https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/lbnl-188238_1.pdf
10-33
1020 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
Economist. (2014, March 1). Negawatt Hour. Economist. Retrieved from www.economist.com/news/business/21597922-energy-conservation-business-boomingnegawatt-hour EIA Consumption & Efficiency. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.eia.gov/consumption/ Energy and Environmental Economics. (2015). Regional Coordination in the West: Benefits of PacificCorp and California ISO Integration. Retrieved from
https://www.caiso.com/Documents/StudyBenefits-PacifiCorp-ISOIntegration.pdf GTM Research. (2016). Grid Scale Energy Storage Balance of System Costs Will Decline 41% by 2020.

Retrieved from http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/grid-scale-energy-storagebalance-of-systems-costs-will-decline-41-by-2020 Hybrid Cars. (n.d.). Retrieved from Car Sales Dashboard: http://www.hybridcars.com/ Intergovernmenal Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] AR5. (2013). Climate Change - Physical Science Basis Chapter 8. Retrieved from http://ipcc.ch/report/ar5/
International Energy Agency. (2015). Energy and Climate Change: World Energy Outlook Special Report.

IEA. Retrieved from www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/weo-2015-specialreport-energy-climate-change.html IPCC. (2013). Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) - Chapter 8.Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing.

Cambridge U.K. and New York NY USA: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
Jacobson, M. (2014, August). A roadmap for repowering California for all purposes with wind, water, and sunlight. Energy The International Journal, Volume 73, 14 August 2014, Pages 875–889.

Retrieved from www.elsevier.com/locate/energy
LADWP Comments on Draft 2016 AQMP. (2016, August 19). Los Angeles Department of Water & Power's Comments on Draft 2016 Air Quality Mangement Plan.

MacDonald, A. e. (2016, January 25). Future cost-competitive electricity systems and their impact on US CO2 emissions. Nature Climate Change.

McKinsey&Company. (2016, August). The New Economics of Energy Storage. Retrieved from http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability-and-resource-productivity/ourinsights/the-new-economics-of-energy-storage MIT. (2015). The Future of Solar Energy: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study. MIT. Retrieved from www.mitei.mit.edu/futureofsolar
NASA Earth Observatory. (2016, August 21). July 2016 Was the Hottest Month on Record. Retrieved from http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=88607 NOAA. (2016, January). Global Highlights: Calendar Year 2015. Retrieved from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513
10-34
1021 of 2287
Chapter 10: Climate and Energy
NOAA. (n.d.). Climate at a Glance. Retrieved from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/timeseries/global/globe/land/ytd/12/1880- 2015?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=1880&lasttrendyear=2015 NREL. (n.d.). Methane potential from biogas sources. Retrieved from http://www.nrel.gov/gis/biomass.html
Pal, J. a. (2015, October 26). Future Temperature in Southwest Asia Projected to Exceed a Threshold for Human Adaptability. Nature Climate Change. Retrieved from www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2833.html Plug-in Electric Vehicle Collaborative. (n.d.). Retrieved from PEV Sales Dashboard:
http://www.pevcollaborative.org/pev-sales-dashboard
Prather, M. (2007). Lifetimes and Timescales in Atmospheric Chemistry. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. A, 1705- 1726.

QFER CEC-1304 Reporting Database. (n.d.). Retrieved from California Energy Commission Energy Almanac: http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/web_qfer/ Randall, T. (2016, February 25). Here's How Electric Cars Will Cause the Next Oil Crisis: A Shift is Under Way that will Lead to Widespread Adoption of EVs in the Next Decade. Bloomberg. Retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-ev-oil-crisis/ Rocky Mountain Institute. (2014). The Economics of Grid Defection. Retrieved from http://www.rmi.org/electricity_grid_defection
Rosenfeld, P. a. (2009). A Graph Is Worth a Thousand Gigawatt-Hours How California Came to Lead the United States in Energy Efficiency. Innovations.

SBC Energy Institute. (2013). Leading the Energy Transition: Electricity Storage. Retrieved from https://www.sbc.slb.com/mwg-internal/de5fs23hu73ds/progress?id=7InAJjntVsLAKnfVrvhFS__K6nhbRP7xOSfGtdtMK8,&dl SCAQMD. (2011). Air Quality Related Energy Policy. SCAQMD. Retrieved from www.aqmd.gov/home/about/policies/aqmd-air-quality-related-energy-policy SCAQMD. (2015). Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES-IV). Diamond Bar: SCAQMD. Retrieved from http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/air-quality-data-studies/health-studies/mates-iv SCAQMD. (2015). Residential anc Commercial White Paper. SCAQMD.

SCAQMD. (n.d.). 2016 AQMP White Papers. Retrieved from http://www.aqmd.gov/home/about/groupscommittees/aqmp-advisory-group/2016-aqmp-white-papers SCAQMD Energy Outlook White Paper. (n.d.). AQMP White Papers. Retrieved from http://www.aqmd.gov/home/about/groups-committees/aqmp-advisory-group/2016-aqmpwhite-papers 10-35
1022 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
Sherwood, S. a. (2010, May 25). An Adaptability Limit to Clmate Change due to Heat Stress. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(27). Retrieved from www.pnas.org/content/107/21/9552.full.pdf
Solar City Grid Engineering. (2016). White Paper: A Pathway to the Distributed Grid: Evaluating the Economics of Distributed Energy Resources and Outlining a Pathway to Capturing their Potential Value. Retrieved from www.solarcity.com/gridx
Southern California Edison. (n.d.). Preferred Resources Pilot. Retrieved from http://www.edison.com/home/innovation/preferred-resources-pilot.html Tesla Motors. (2016). Model 3. Retrieved from https://www.tesla.com/model3 Thomas Karl. (2009). IPCC WG1-2007 "The Physical Science Basis" Report. Retrieved from http://www.enr.gov.nt.ca/state-environment/11-trends-global-greenhouse-gas-concentrations Toyota. (2016, August). Mirai Fuel Vell Vehicle. Retrieved from https://ssl.toyota.com/mirai/ Trancik, J. e. (2015). Technology Improvement and Emissions Reductions as Mutually Reinforcing Efforts:

Observations from the Global Development fo Solar and Wind Energy. MIT. Retrieved from www.mitei.mit.edu/news/report-technology-improvement-and-emissions-reductions-mutuallyreinforcing-efforts Turner, A. D. (2016). A large increase in U.S. methane emissions over the past decade inferred from satellite data and surface observations. Geophysical Research Letters, 43. doi:10.1002/2016GL067987
U.S. Maritime Administration. (2016, April 8). MARAD Open Data Portal Data & Statistics. Retrieved from U.S. Waterborne Foreign Trade by U.S. Customs Ports 2000 – 2015:
http://www.marad.dot.gov/resources/data-statistics/
University of California. (2015). Bending the Curve: Ten Scalable Solutions for Carbon Neutrality and Climate Stability (Executive Summary). University of California. Retrieved from www.uccarbonneutralitysummit2015.ucsd.edu/_files/Bending-the-Curve.pdf White House. (2014, July). The Cost of Delaying Action to Stem Climate Change. Retrieved from www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/the_cost_of_delaying_action_to_stem_climate_c hange.pdf
10-36
1023 of 2287
hapter 1
ntroduction
Chapter
1 1
Public Process and Participation
The participation of stakeholders and the general public during the development of the 2016 AQMP provided critical feedback and guidance in the development of the control strategy.
1024 of 2287
In This Chapter
 Introduction 11-1
Overview of the public process for the development
of the 2016 AQMP
 Outreach Program 11-2
The various avenues for communication and
public outreach
1025 of 2287
 Outreach Activities 11-6
Specific 2016 AQMP outreach activities
1026 of 2287
Chapter 11: Public Process and Participation
Introduction
The development of the 2016 AQMP has been a regional multi-agency effort including the SCAQMD, CARB, SCAG, U.S. EPA, and other entities. The Plan includes control strategies to demonstrate attainment with various ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS by specified deadlines; it incorporates the latest scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including SCAG’s 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy and updated emission inventories and modeling methods.

A 2016 AQMP Advisory Group was formed to provide feedback and recommendations on the development of the plan, including development of policy and control strategies. The Advisory Group represents a diverse cross section of stakeholders, such as large and small businesses, government agencies, environmental and community groups, and academia. In addition, a Scientific, Technical, and Modeling Peer Review (STMPR) Advisory Group convened to make recommendations on air quality modeling, emissions inventory, and socioeconomic modeling and analysis. Both Advisory Groups met periodically, sometimes monthly, throughout the AQMP development process and those meetings have been open to the public. There has also been ongoing close coordination between U.S. EPA, CARB, SCAG and SCAQMD staff on all elements of AQMP development.

Leading up to the
development of the
2016 AQMP,
SCAQMD staff in
conjunction with
stakeholders
prepared 10 white
papers on key topics
to provide technical
background, a policy
framework for the
AQMP, and better
integration of major
planning issues such
as air quality,
transportation,
climate, energy, and
business considerations.

These white papers were intended to assist the public, stakeholders and the SCAQMD staff to better understand key facts and policy issues related to the development of the 2016 AQMP. Each White Paper had an associated Working Group that generally met monthly until the White Paper was completed. All working group meetings were open to the public. The 2016 AQMP Advisory Group members and recommended technical experts voluntarily participated in White Paper Working Group meetings.

Many of the findings, recommendations, and conclusions in the white papers have been integrated into the 2016 AQMP. Final versions of all 10 white papers are available online at FIGURE 11-1
2016 AQMP WHITE PAPERS
11-1
1027 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/about/groups-committees/aqmp-advisory-group/2016-aqmp-whitepapers.

Outreach Program
The 2016 AQMP Outreach Program is
designed to go beyond traditional
Advisory Group meetings, public
workshop, and public hearing
opportunities in order to more broadly
disseminate information and engage a
wider range of stakeholders. The
approach aims to achieve multiple goals
including ensuring greater transparency in
the process, reaching a broader and more
diverse audience, facilitating greater
participation and engagement, and
developing partnerships with stakeholder
groups.

The outreach approach has been designed to inform the policy discussion by helping to ensure that all stakeholders have access to a common set of facts, are aware of the State and federal requirements, and have appropriate background information to engage in meaningful dialogue on the AQMP.

The clean air goals in the 2016 AQMP will not be achieved solely by the actions of the SCAQMD. The proposed control strategy will require participation from affected businesses, local communities, and multiple government agencies. Achieving the mutual goals of protecting public health, providing environmental equity and promoting robust and sustainable economic development can only be accomplished through strong partnerships. Thus, it is critical to inform and engage a wide range of stakeholders on the goals, requirements, approach, and potential impacts of the 2016 AQMP.

Stakeholders for the 2016 AQMP include community members, businesses, trade associations, environmental organizations, health advocates, academia and local, regional, state and federal government entities. Table 11-1 lists specific stakeholder groups participating in the AQMP process. The stakeholders were notified of all Advisory Group meetings, working group meetings, workshops and hearings, and were invited to participate in various activities designed to assist in enhancing communication and development of the 2016 AQMP.

A variety of formats and communication outreach methods were utilized as part of the Outreach Program.

The formats used for specific activities were tailored to the particular audience or venue where information was being presented and discussed. Figure 11-2 provides an overview the variety of formats and outreach methods used by the SCAQMD during the development of the 2016 AQMP including Advisory Group and Committee meetings, working groups, printed material, conference calls, stakeholder meetings, and social media.

Ensure greater
transparency
in the process
Reach a
broader and
more diverse
audience
Facilitate
greater
participation
and
engagement
Develop
partnerships
with
stakeholder
groups
11-2
1028 of 2287
Chapter 11: Public Process and Participation
TABLE 11-1
Stakeholders Participating in Outreach Efforts
Stakeholder Category Stakeholders
Public Agencies • CARB
• California Energy Commission
• California Public Utilities Commission
• California ISO
• CalRecycle
• U.S. EPA
• U.S. Department of Transportation
• U.S. Department of Energy
Local/Regional
Government
• Councils of Governments/Associated Governments
• SCAG
• Transportation Commissions
• Local Planning Departments
• Building and Fire Departments
• Tribal Governments
Special Districts • School Districts
• Sanitation Districts
• Water/Power Districts
Health Advocates • Medical Practitioners
• Health Researchers
• Health Providers
Community/Health/
Environmental Groups
• Public Health Departments/Associations
• Environmental Justice Organizations
• Environmental Advocacy Groups
• Faith-based Organizations
• Labor Organizations
Academia • Universities
• National Laboratories
General Public • Residents
• Students
• Interested Parties
11-3
1029 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 11-1 (CONCLUDED)
Stakeholders Participating in Outreach Efforts
Stakeholder Category Stakeholders
Business • Energy Industry (Electricity, Petroleum Production and Refining, Natural Gas, Biofuels, Renewables, etc.)
• Green Technologies
• Goods Movement and Logistics (Warehousing, Trucking,
Railroads, Ports/Shipping/Freight)
• Dairy Operations
• Printing/Coating Industry
• Airport/Airline Operations
• Engine Manufacturers
• After-treatment Technologies
• Building and Construction Industry/Realtors
• Chambers of Commerce/ Business Councils
• Trade Associations
• Small Businesses
SCAQMD
Advisory Groups
and Committee
meetings
Public
Workshops
Working Group
meetings
Air Quality
Institutes
Open houses and
community
meetings
Panel discussions
Conference calls
Conferences,
seminars,
board/council
meetings, etc.

Printed materials -
SCAQMD Advisor
newsletter and
collaterals
Stakeholder
newsletters,
websites and other
tools
“Clean Air
Choices” email
blasts
Distribution at
the SCAQMD
Public Information
Center
SCAQMD website -
Postings and links
from partner
organizations
Social media Telephone “hold”
message
Radio telephone
operators
FIGURE 11-2
FORMATS AND COMMUNICATION OUTREACH METHODS USED FOR THE 2016 AQMP 11-4
1030 of 2287
Chapter 11: Public Process and Participation
Public Workshops
As in previous AQMPs, multiple public workshops
are being held throughout the SCAQMD
jurisdiction. Public hearings will also be held, in
fulfillment of legal requirements. Regular
informational updates to the SCAQMD Governing
Board and its Committees and Advisory Groups
provide another forum for public input. In
addition to these hearings and workshops, the
following describes specific activities designed to
fulfill the goals of the Outreach Program.

Stakeholders and interested parties were
encouraged to participate and meet with
SCAQMD staff to discuss emission reductions
ideas, constituent concerns, and implementation
suggestions.

Key Agency Coordination
Meetings
Throughout the 2016 AQMP development process, staff has and continues to hold frequent coordination meetings with the key AQMP partner agencies (CARB, U.S. EPA and SCAG). Meetings occur several times per month to discuss technical, legal, policy, and control strategy topics.

Stakeholder Meetings, Topical Workshops, and Focus Groups Meetings with specific stakeholder groups have been and will continue to be held to communicate the purpose and scope of the 2016 AQMP, discuss the concerns of the representatives, solicit recommendations for inclusion in the Plan, and gather further outreach suggestions. Stakeholders include all those listed in Table 11-1, such as regional councils of government (COGs); transportation commissions; Chambers of Commerce; business councils; trade groups and associations; environmental and health advocates; and community groups. Outreach methods include agendized SCAQMD presentations at COGs, participation at conferences and seminars, and face-to-face meetings as requested. In addition to meetings with specific stakeholders, topical workshops and focus groups on specific topics have been and will be held to focus on specific AQMP-related topics such as economics, incentives, white papers, energy, employment impacts, health benefits, modeling issues, climate/energy, transportation, environmental justice, specific control measures, and goods movement. For the preparation of the 10 2016 AQMP White Papers, working groups were formed to address specific topics addressed in each of the policy documents. The focus groups were comprised of experts for the particular subject, the inventory, the trends and/or control technology being evaluated, including equipment manufacturers and suppliers. The focus groups met as often as necessary to provide recommendations. These meetings provided a forum where different opinions on specific topics could be shared and discussed.

Outreach
Activities
Key agency
coordination
meetings
(CARB, U.S.

EPA, SCAG) Local
stakeholder
meetings
Topical
workshops
Public
agency
engagement
Focus
groups
Peer review
General
public
outreach
Public
Workshops
11-5
1031 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
Peer Review
In addition to the feedback provided by the 2016 AQMP Advisory Group and the STMPR Advisory Group, additional expert peer review of specific 2016 AQMP components was sought. One specific example is a focused peer review of the socioeconomic/health impacts and a cost-benefit analysis of the 2016 AQMP and associated control strategy. Another review is focused on modeling methods and assumptions, including growth and emissions projections. Expert reviewers were from a diverse range of institutions and perspectives. All results of the peer reviews have been, and will be made public to ensure full transparency and open discussion of any issues raised. One such example of peer review is Appendix I (Health Effects) of the 2016 AQMP in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 40471(b) that requires the SCAQMD to prepare a report on health impacts of particulate matter air pollution in the Basin in conjunction with public health agencies. An advisory council appointed by the SCAQMD Governing Board and Board Advisory Groups has been formed to undertake peer review of the report prior to its final inclusion in the Plan.

General Public Outreach
The 2016 AQMP was included in the SCAQMD’s extensive community outreach activities – including, but not limited to, events, community forums, and other meetings – to promote greater public awareness of its purpose and significance. Non-technical brochures were created and distributed at public events.

Web-based and social media communication tools have been utilized to distribute AQMP information and provide an opportunity for interactive feedback.

Outreach Activities
Table 11-2 provides the specific efforts conducted to implement the Outreach Program for the 2016 AQMP since the Advisory Group convened in 2014 until the release of the Draft Plan. The table provides the date the activity took place, with what organization(s), and the audience (particular stakeholders or open to the public). In addition, over one hundred meetings and teleconferences with key agencies were conducted with SCAG, CARB, and/or U.S. EPA.

In addition to meeting and providing invited presentations, SCAQMD staff also attended a number of meetings conducted by other organizations (e.g., cities, councils of government, chambers, etc.) which included a brief announcement regarding the 2016 AQMP. These types of announcements identified the date, time and location of AQMP Advisory meetings, white paper working group meetings, or the latest status in the development and release of the 2016 AQMP. 11-6
1032 of 2287
Chapter 11: Public Process and Participation
TABLE 11-2
Outreach Activities for the 2016 AQMP

DATE ORGANIZATION AUDIENCE
4/10/2014 SCAQMD AQMP Advisory Group
Meeting Open to Public
4/29/2014
Southern California Alliance of
Publicly-Owned (SCAP) Treatment
Works
Public Agencies
5/9/2014 SCAQMD Local Government and Small
Business Assistance Advisory Group Open to Public
5/29/2014 SCAQMD AQMP Advisory Group
Meeting Open to Public
6/11/2014 SCAQMD Student Interns Government/Education
6/24/2014 Blueprint for Clean Air White Paper
Working Group Open to Public
6/25/2014 VOC Controls White Paper Working
Group Open to Public
6/25/2014 SCAQMD Student Interns Government/Education
6/26/2014 Residential and Commercial Energy
White Paper Working Group Open to Public
6/26/2014
A Business Case for Clean Air
Strategies White Paper Working
Group
Open to Public
7/8/2014 Passenger Transportation White Paper
Working Group Open to Public
7/8/2014 Goods Movement White Paper
Working Group Open to Public
7/18/2014 PM Controls White Paper Working
Group Open to Public
7/23/2014 Energy Outlook White Paper Working
Group Open to Public
8/5/2014 Passenger Transportation White Paper
Working Group Open to Public
8/5/2014 Goods Movement White Paper
Working Group Open to Public
11-7
1033 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 11-2 (CONTINUED)
Outreach Activities for the 2016 AQMP

DATE ORGANIZATION AUDIENCE
8/13/2014 Blueprint for Clean Air White Paper
Working Group Open to Public
8/13/2014 Industrial Facility Modernization White
Paper Working Group Open to Public
8/13/2014 A Business Case for Clean Air
Strategies White Paper Working Group Open to Public
8/19/2014 VOC Controls White Paper Working
Group Open to Public
9/4/2014 Valley Industry & Commerce
Association (VICA)
Environment, Energy
& Utilities Committee
9/4/2014 Passenger Transportation White Paper
Working Group Open to Public
9/4/2014 Goods Movement White Paper
Working Group Open to Public
9/10/2014 Residential and Commercial Energy
White Paper Working Group Open to Public
9/24/2014 PM Controls White Paper Working
Group Open to Public
9/30/2014 A Business Case for Clean Air
Strategies White Paper Working Group Open to Public
10/15/2014 VOC Controls White Paper Working
Group Open to Public
10/28/2014 SCAQMD AQMP Advisory Group
Meeting Open to Public
10/31/2014 A Business Case for Clean Air
Strategies White Paper Working Group Open to Public
1/13/2015 L.A. County Bar Association
Environmental
Lawyers
1/23/2015 SCAQMD Mobile Source Committee Open to Public 2/4/2015 Passenger Transportation White Paper
Working Group Open to Public
11-8
1034 of 2287
Chapter 11: Public Process and Participation
TABLE 11-2 (CONTINUED)
Outreach Activities for the 2016 AQMP

DATE ORGANIZATION AUDIENCE
2/4/2015 Goods Movement White Paper Working
Group Open to Public
2/20/2015 SCAQMD Mobile Source Committee Open to Public 2/24/2015 Off-Road Equipment White Paper
Working Group Open to Public
3/11/2015 A Business Case for Clean Air Strategies
White Paper Working Group Open to Public
3/19/2015 SCAQMD AQMP Advisory Group
Meeting Open to Public
4/1/2015 Off-Road Equipment White Paper
Working Group Open to Public
4/14/2015 VOC Controls White Paper Working
Group Open to Public
4/15/2015 Blueprint for Clean Air White Paper
Working Group Open to Public
4/15/2015 Energy Outlook White Paper Working
Group Open to Public
4/16/2015 PM Controls White Paper Working
Group Open to Public
4/17/2015 SCAQMD Mobile Source Committee Open to Public 4/29/2015 Off-Road Equipment White Paper
Working Group Open to Public
5/20/2015 SCAQMD AQMP Advisory Group
Meeting Open to Public
6/4/2015 SCAG Energy and Environment
Committee Open to Public
6/5/2015 SCAQMD Governing Board Meeting Open to Public
6/9/2015 SCAQMD Student Interns Government/Education
6/10–6/11/
2015
2016 AQMP Control Strategy
Symposium Open to Public
6/23/2015 A Business Case for Clean Air Strategies
White Paper Working Group Open to Public
11-9
1035 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 11-2 (CONTINUED)
Outreach Activities for the 2016 AQMP

DATE ORGANIZATION AUDIENCE
6/23/2015 SCAQMD Student Interns Government/Education
6/25/2015 Residential and Commercial Energy
White Paper Working Group Open to Public
6/26/2015 Off-Road Equipment White Paper
Working Group Open to Public
6/26/2015
L.A. Chamber of Commerce
(Energy, Water & Environmental
Sustainability; Transportation &
Goods Movement Councils)
Joint Council meeting
7/1/2015 Goods Movement White Paper
Working Group Open to Public
7/1/2015 Gateway Cities Council of
Governments
Board of Directors
7/10/2015 SCAQMD Governing Board Meeting Open to Public 7/13/2015 California Council for Environmental
& Economic Balance (CCEEB)
Business Representatives
7/21/2015 SCAQMD AQMP Advisory Group
Meeting
Open to Public
7/24/2015 SCAQMD Mobile Source Committee Open to Public 8/21/2015 China EPA Public Agency
8/26/2015 SCAQMD AQMP Advisory Group
Meeting
Open to Public
8/27/2015 SCAQMD Board Assistant Briefing Open to Public 8/28/2015 China EPA Public Agency
9/4/2015 SCAQMD Governing Board Meeting Open to Public
9/9/2015 BizFed Business
Representatives
9/11/2015 Local Government & Small Business
Assistance Advisory Group Open to Public
11-10
1036 of 2287
Chapter 11: Public Process and Participation
TABLE 11-2 (CONTINUED)
Outreach Activities for the 2016 AQMP

DATE ORGANIZATION AUDIENCE
9/15/2015 Energy Outlook White Paper Working
Group Open to Public
9/18/2015 SCAQMD Mobile Source Committee Open to Public 9/23/2015 Industrial Facility Modernization White
Paper Working Group Open to Public
9/30/2015 A Business Case for Clean Air
Strategies White Paper Working Group Open to Public
10/2/2015 SCAQMD Governing Board Meeting Open to Public 10/7/2015 San Bernardino Association of
Government
Board of Directors
10/9/2015 SoCal Gas Business
10/12/2015 Future Ports Open to Public
10/13/2015
L.A. Chamber of Commerce
(Transportation & Goods Movement
Council)
Business Representatives
10/15/2015 Air & Waste Management Association Annual Meeting 10/15/2015 San Gabriel Valley Council of
Government Governing Board
10/16/2015 SCAQMD Stationary Source Committee Open to Public 10/22/2015 Orange County Council of Government Executive Council 10/28/2015 Enviros Conference Call Meeting Environmental 10/28/2015 SCAQMD AQMP Advisory Group
Meeting
Open to Public
11/6/2015 SCAQMD Governing Board Meeting Open to Public 11/20/2015 SCAQMD Mobile Source Committee Open to Public 12/2/2015 Beijing Environmental Protection
Bureau
Public Agency
11-11
1037 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 11-2 (CONTINUED)
Outreach Activities for the 2016 AQMP

DATE ORGANIZATION AUDIENCE
12/17/2015 SCAG Technical Working Group Open to Public
1/20/2016 Mayor Garcetti's Office of
Sustainability, City of Los Angeles
Government
1/21/2016 Industrial Environmental Coalition
of Orange County
Business Representatives
County Program
1/22/2016 SCAQMD Mobile Source Committee Open to Public 1/27/2016 Enviros Conference Call Meeting Environmental Groups 1/29/2016 SCAQMD Environmental Justice
Advisory Group (EJAG) Open to Public
2/24/2016 Enviros Conference Call Meeting Environmental Groups 2/10/2016
The Inland Empire Air Quality
Committee (American Lung
Association)
Air Quality Committee
3/9/2016 Beijing Environmental Protection
Bureau Public Agency
3/18/2016 SCAQMD Mobile Source Committee Open to Public 3/23/2016 Enviros Conference Call Meeting Environmental Groups 3/25/2016 SoCal Gas Business
4/1/2016 SCAQMD Governing Board Meeting Open to Public
4/8/2016 UCLA Law School Academia
4/13/2016 SCAQMD AQMP Advisory Group
Meeting Open to Public
4/13/2016 Physicians for Social Responsibility -
LA Environmental Group
4/15/2016 SCAQMD Mobile Source Committee Open to Public 11-12
1038 of 2287
Chapter 11: Public Process and Participation
TABLE 11-2 (CONTINUED)
Outreach Activities for the 2016 AQMP

DATE ORGANIZATION AUDIENCE
4/15/2016 SCAQMD Stationary Source
Committee Open to Public
4/26/2016
Southern California Alliance of
Publicly Owned (SCAP) Treatment Public Agency
4/27/2016 Enviros Conference Call Meeting Environmental Groups 5/3/2016 SoCal Gas Company Business
5/12/2016 SoCal Gas Company Business
5/13/2016 Local Government & Small Business
Assistance Advisory Group Open to Public
5/17/2016 Building Industry Association of
Southern California Business Representatives
5/18/2016 Western States Petroleum
Association Business Representatives
5/20/2016 SCAQMD Mobile Source Committee Open to Public 5/25/2016 Enviros Conference Call Meeting Environmental Groups 6/1/2016 SoCal Gas Company - Downey Business
6/7/2016 SoCal Gas Company Business
6/9/2016 Building Industry Association of
Southern California Business Representatives
6/15/2016 SCAQMD AQMP Advisory Group
Meeting Open to Public
6/17/2016 SCAQMD Mobile Source Committee Open to Public 6/17/2016 Goods Movement Industry Business/Port
Representatives
6/22/16 Enviros Conference Call Meeting Environmental Groups 6/23/2016 Orange County Council of
Governments Open to Public
11-13
1039 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 11-2 (CONTINUED)
Outreach Activities for the 2016 AQMP

DATE ORGANIZATION AUDIENCE
6/27/2016 Realtors Committee on Air Quality Business Representatives 7/7/2016 SCAG Energy and Environment
Committee Open to Public
7/7/2016 Architectural Coatings Association Business Representatives 7/12/2016 Diesel 2 Gas Business Representatives
7/14/2016 Public Workshop (Coachella Valley) Open to Public 7/14/2016 Public Workshop (SCAQMD,
Diamond Bar) Open to Public
7/19/2016 BizFed Business Representatives
7/20/2016 Public Workshop (Buena Park,
Orange County) Open to Public
7/20/2016 Public Workshop (Carson, Los
Angeles County) Open to Public
7/20/2016 Home Rule Advisory Group Meeting Open to Public 7/21/2016 Public Workshop (San Bernardino
County) Open to Public
7/21/2016 Public Workshop (Riverside County) Open to Public 7/22/2016 SCAQMD Mobile Source Committee Open to Public 7/26/2016 University of Southern California Academia
7/27/2016
Clean Cities Coalition - Western
Riverside Council of Governments Open to Public
7/29/2016 SCAQMD Environmental Justice
Advisory Group Open to Public
8/2/2016 Los Angeles County Board of
Supervisors Open to Public
8/3/2016 Pasadena Sierra Club Environmental Interest
11-14
1040 of 2287
Chapter 11: Public Process and Participation
TABLE 11-2 (CONTINUED)
Outreach Activities for the 2016 AQMP

DATE ORGANIZATION AUDIENCE
8/4/2016 SoCal Gas/Cooking Industry Business Representatives 8/4/2016 ClearSign Low NOx Burner
Technologies Business Interest
8/16/2016 SCAQMD AQMP Advisory Group
Meeting Open to Public
8/31/2016 Association of Environmental
Professionals
Environmental
Consultants
9/1/2016
Valley Industry and Commerce
Association - Energy, Environment &
Utilities Committee
Business Representatives
9/6/2016 SoCal Gas Company Business Representatives
9/7/2016 San Bernardino Associated
Governments – Board Meeting Open to Public
9/9/2016 SoCal Gas Company Business Representatives
9/13/2016 Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles
County - Industry Advisory Council Business Representatives 9/16/2016 SCAQMD Mobile Source Committee
Meeting Open to Public
9/22/2016 South Bay Cities Council of
Governments Open to Public
9/27/2015 Inland Action - Board of Directors Business Representatives 9/28/2016 SCAQMD AQMP Advisory Group
Meeting Open to Public
9/29/2016 SCAG Regional Council Open to Public
10/3/2016 Western Riverside Council of
Governments Open to Public
10/5/2016 Industrial Environmental Association
/CMTA Symposium and Conference Open to Participants
11-15
1041 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 11-2 (CONTINUED)
Outreach Activities for the 2016 AQMP

DATE ORGANIZATION AUDIENCE
10/12/2016 U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Environmental Policy
10/13/2016 American Automobile Association Business Interest 10/14/2016
SCAQMD Local Government and
Small Business Assistance Advisory
Group Meeting
Open to Public
10/21/2016 SCAQMD Mobile Source Committee Open to Public 10/21/2016 Japan Automakers Association
(JAMA) Business Interest
10/25/2016
Inland Empire Economic Partnership
– Logistical Council Business Representatives
10/25/2016 City of Los Angeles Environmental Policy
10/27/2016 SCAQMD AQMP Advisory Group
Meeting Open to Public
10/28/2016 SCAQMD Environmental Justice
Advisory Group Open to Public
11/2/2016 Air & Waste Management
Association
Environmental
Consultants
11/15/2016 Public Hearing – Buena Park (Orange
County) Open to Public
11/15/2016 Public Hearing – Carson (Los Angeles
County) Open to Public
11/17/2016 Public Hearing – San Bernardino (San
Bernardino County) Open to Public
11/17/2016 Public Hearing – Riverside (Riverside
County) Open to Public
12/2/2016 SCAQMD Governing Board Meeting
– Set Hearing Open to Public
11-16
1042 of 2287
Chapter 11: Public Process and Participation
TABLE 11-2 (CONCLUDED)
Outreach Activities for the 2016 AQMP

DATE ORGANIZATION AUDIENCE
1/9/2017 SCAG’s Global Land Use & Economic
(GLUE) Council Business Representatives
1/18/2017 Southern California Gas Company Business Representatives 1/18/2017
Sierra Club, EARTHJUSTICE, Center
for Community Action and
Environmental Justice
Environmental Interest
1/19/2017 Industrial Environmental Coalition of
Orange County
Environmental Interest
1/19/2017 Realtors Committee on Air Quality Business Representatives 1/19/2017 Public Solar Power Coalition Environmental Interest 1/20/2017 SCAQMD Mobile Source Committee Open to Public 1/20/2017 Public Solar Power Coalition Environmental Interest 1/26/2017 Orange County Council of
Governments Open to Public
1/26/2017 Watts & South L.A. Clean Air
Community Forum Open to Public
2/3/2017 SCAQMD Governing Board Meeting
– Public Hearing Open to Public
3/3/2017 SCAQMD Governing Board Meeting
– Public Hearing Open to Public
11-17
1043 of 2287
Glossary
Glossary
AAQS (Ambient Air Quality Standards): Health and welfare based standards for clean outdoor air that identify the maximum acceptable average concentrations of air pollutants during a specified period of time. (See NAAQS.)
Acute Health Effect: An adverse health effect that occurs over a relatively short period of time (e.g., minutes or hours).

Aerosol: Particles of solid or liquid matter that can remain suspended in air for long periods of time because of their small size and light weight.

Air Pollutants: Amounts of foreign and/or natural substances occurring in the atmosphere that may result in adverse effects on humans, animals, vegetation, and/or materials.

Air Quality Simulation Model: A computer program that simulates the transport, dispersion, and transformation of compounds emitted into the air and can project the relationship between emissions and air quality.

Air Toxics: A generic term referring to a harmful chemical or group of chemicals in the air. Typically, substances that are especially harmful to health, such as those considered under U.S. EPA's hazardous air pollutant program or California's AB 1807 toxic air contaminant program, are considered to be air toxics. Technically, any compound that is in the air and has the potential to produce adverse health effects is an air toxic.

ATCM (Airborne Toxic Control Measure): A type of control measure, adopted by the CARB (Health and Safety Code Section 39666 et seq.), which reduces emissions of toxic air contaminants from nonvehicular sources.

Alternative Fuels: Fuels such as methanol, ethanol, hydrogen, natural gas, and liquid propane gas that are cleaner burning and help to meet mobile and stationary emission standards.

Ambient Air: The air occurring at a particular time and place outside of structures. Often used interchangeably with "outdoor" air.

APCD (Air Pollution Control District): A county agency with authority to regulate stationary, indirect, and area sources of air pollution (e.g., power plants, highway construction, and housing developments) within a given county, and governed by a district air pollution control board composed of the elected county supervisors and in most cases, representatives of cities within the district.

G-1
1044 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
AQMD (Air Quality Management District): A group or portions of counties, or an individual county specified in law with authority to regulate stationary, indirect, and area sources of air pollution within the region and governed by a regional air pollution control board comprised mostly of elected officials from within the region.

AQMP (Air Quality Management Plan): A Plan prepared by an APCD/AQMD, for a county or region designated as a nonattainment area, for the purpose of bringing the area into compliance with the requirements of the national and/or California Ambient Air Quality Standards. AQMPs designed to attain national ambient air quality standards are incorporated into the SIP.

Area-wide Sources (also known as "area" sources): Smaller sources of pollution, including permitted sources smaller than the districts’s emission reporting threshold and those that do not receive permits (e.g., water heaters, gas furnace, fireplaces, woodstoves, architectural coatings) that often are typically associated with homes and non-industrial sources. The California Clean Air Act requires districts to include area sources in the development and implementation of the AQMPs.

Atmosphere: The gaseous mass or envelope surrounding the earth.

Attainment Area: A geographic area which is in compliance with the National and/or California Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS OR CAAQS).

Attainment Plan: In general, a plan that details the emission reducing control measures and their implementation schedule necessary to attain air quality standards. In particular, the federal Clean Air Act requires attainment plans for nonattainment areas; these plans must meet several requirements, including requirements related to enforceability and adoption deadlines.

BACT (Best Available Control Technology): The most up-to-date methods, systems, techniques, and production processes available to achieve the greatest feasible emission reductions for given regulated air pollutants and processes. BACT is a requirement of NSR (New Source Review) and PSD (Prevention of Significant Deterioration). BACT as used in federal law under PSD applies to permits for sources of attainment pollutants and other regulated pollutants is defined as an emission limitation based on the maximum degree of emissions reductions allowable taking into account energy, environmental & economic impacts and other costs. [(CAA Section 169(3)]. The term BACT as used in state law means an emission limitation that will achieve the lowest achievable emission rates, which means the most stringent of either the most stringent emission limits contained in the SIP for the class or category of source, (unless it is demonstrated that the limitation is not achievable) or the most stringent emission limit achieved in practice by that class in category of source. “BACT” under state law is more stringent than federal BACT and is equivalent to federal LAER (lowest achievable emission rate) which applies to nonattainment NSR permit actions.

G-2
1045 of 2287
Glossary
BAR (Bureau of Automotive Repair): An agency of the California Department of Consumer Affairs that manages the implementation of the motor vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program.

Basin (South Coast Air Basin): Area bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east. It includes all of Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties.

Carrying Capacity: Amount of allowable regional emissions that would still meet health-based air quality standards.

CAA (Federal Clean Air Act): A federal law passed in 1970 and amended in 1977 and 1990 which forms the basis for the national air pollution control effort. Basic elements of the Act include national ambient air quality standards for major air pollutants, air toxics standards, acid rain control measures, and enforcement provisions.

CAAQS (California Ambient Air Quality Standards): Standards set by the State of California for the maximum levels of air pollutants which can exist in the outdoor air without unacceptable effects on human health or the public welfare. These are more stringent than NAAQS.

CARB (California Air Resources Board): The State's lead air quality agency, consisting of a ninemember Governor-appointed board. It is responsible for attainment and maintenance of the State and federal air quality standards, and is primarily responsible for motor vehicle pollution control. It oversees county and regional air pollution management programs.

CCAA (California Clean Air Act): A California law passed in 1988 which provides the basis for air quality planning and regulation independent of federal regulations. A major element of the Act is the requirement that local APCDs/AQMDs in violation of state ambient air quality standards must prepare attainment plans which identify air quality problems, causes, trends, and actions to be taken to attain and maintain California's air quality standards by the earliest practicable date.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act): A California law which sets forth a process for public agencies to make informed decisions on discretionary project approvals. The process aids decision makers to determine whether any environmental impacts are associated with a proposed project. It requires significant environmental impacts associated with a proposed project to be identified, disclosed, and mitigated to the maximum extent feasible.