NRDC Statement on New Study of Ethanol (E85) Impact on Air Quality

Similar documents
Response to Mark Jacobson E85 Study 1

Impacts of New Mobile Source Regulations on Emission Reductions from VMT-Based Transportation Control Strategies: Key

From Science to Regulation-- California s Air Quality Program

Tier 3 Vehicle and Fuel Standards: Final Rule. March 2014

History and Control of Air Pollution in Los Angeles

Petroleum Reduction Technologies. Instructor s Manual. National Alternative Fuels Training Consortium

I. Overview. II. Background. Light-Duty Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards

Environmental Assessment of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles

The Road to a Cleaner Future

THE ROAD TO CLEAN AIR Public Health and Global Warming Benefits of Advanced Clean Car Standards

Alternative Fuels. August 23, EPA s Office of Transportation and Air Quality

What is California Cleaner-Burning Gasoline and Why is Flexibility Required in California?

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District. (Contact: Vijaya Jammalamadaka, )

Economic Analysis of Feebates to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Light Vehicles for California

An Overview of Air Pollution Issues

California Air Resources Board. ARB Overview. Cleaning the air for a healthier California

Emissions Reductions as a Result of Automobile Improvement

PENNSYLVANIA CLEAN VEHICLES PROGRAM. Comment/Response Document

Transport and the Environment

Overview of. Aviation Air Quality and Climate Impacts. Federal Aviation Administration

Chapter 7. Local, State, and Federal Controls PM2.5 Plan

Prof. Daniel Cohan Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering Rice University

Ethanol and Air Quality in Minnesota

Regulatory Announcement

AB 32 Status Report: California Hitting Clean Energy Targets

Ethanol: Energy Well Spent

AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY ANALYSIS of the 2015 CLRP Amendment and the FY TIP

Comparing the Benefits of Clean Car Regulations

Updates to ACEEE s Greenercars Rating System for Model Year 2016 American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy January 2016

The role of light duty vehicles in future air pollution: a case study of Sacramento

CLIMATE CHANGE EPA S ROLE IN PRESIDENT OBAMA S ACTION PLAN

AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF SCRAPPAGE ROBERT W. HAHN

Natural Gas Pathways: Towards a Clean and Renewable Energy Future for California

POINT SOURCES OF POLLUTION: LOCAL EFFECTS AND IT S CONTROL Vol. I - Regional Distribution of Vehicular Emissions - Lixin FU and Yang CHEN

2012 Air Quality Management Plan

Cap and Trade & Complementary Climate Policies in California: AB32 and Beyond

Lecture 4 Air Pollution: Particulates METR113/ENVS113 SPRING 2011 MARCH 15, 2011

Ethanol. America s Homegrown Fuel

Ethanol Activity Book

Pacific Northwest Pathways to Achieving an 80% reduction in economy-wide greenhouse gases by 2050

Fixing the Foul Play. Mitigating the Environmental and Public Health Damage Caused by the Volkswagen Emissions Scandal

Environmental Fact Sheet

The Implied Cost of Carbon Dioxide Under the Cash for Clunkers Program

Review of Solutions to Global Warming, Air Pollution, and Energy Security

California Climate Change Initiatives

Global Warming: A Threat Not to Be Ignored

Transportation emissions in Lebanon: Extent and mitigation

ECONOMIC IMPACT. In 2015, the ethanol industry contributed nearly $44 billion to the nation s GDP and added nearly $24 billion to household income.

The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program

Natural Gas Pathways: Towards a Clean and Renewable Energy Future for California

Biofuels: An Important Part of a Low-Carb Diet

Appendix D Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory for the San Diego Region and Projections

Appendix C: GHG Emissions Model

Going One Step Beyond in North Denver

CFIRE. Evaluation of Green House Gas Emissions Models. CFIRE November 2014

Barnett Shale Natural Gas Production and Air Quality

2017 Mobile Source Air Toxics Workshop

Fast Facts. U.S. Transportation Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions

San Pedro Bay Clean Air Action Plan Frequently Asked Questions

Effects of Ethanol (E85) Versus Gasoline Vehicles on Cancer and Mortality in the United States

California Climate Change Programs and Activities

Ozone Reduction Strategies

RENEWABLE GAS. Driving Emissions Reductions for California s Clean Energy Future. Innovation

Vista Canyon Transit Center - Air Quality Technical Memorandum

Climate Impacts on Airborne Particle Concentrations in California: Implications for Atmospheric Deposition

Transit Works. Improving the quality of life for all Californians.

Evaluation of a revised emission inventory in the Metropolitan Area of Sao Paulo, Brazil, based on a photochemical model approach

Interconnections between Air Pollution, Climate Change and Health

Paper Bags Are Better Than Plastic, Right? The Answer Is "Abosulutely NO" (see the below evidence)

FUEL to BURN THE CLIMATE AND PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS OF OFF-ROAD VEHICLE POLLUTION IN CALIFORNIA A CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY REPORT

2. VEHICLE POLLUTION IN CALIFORNIA: TRENDS, ATTAINMENT, AND COSTS CURRENT VEHICLE POLLUTION POLICIES IN CALIFORNIA... 26

Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Transportation

Dallas-Fort Worth Air Quality Training Manual

Contributions to Ozone Formation in the Denver Area

Intermodal Facility Study

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT. Appendix B: Emissions Reduction Analysis for Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005

4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS INTRODUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING. Section 4.8 Greenhouse Gas

Delivering Sustainability: Transporting Goods in Urban Spaces

Cleaner Cars, Cleaner Air:

Air Emissions 101. What are Some Types of Emissions? Oil & Gas Emissions: In Context VOC

Estimated Impacts From Idling Locomotives in the Borough of Raritan, N.J. February 2008

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

CITY OF SAN DIMAS GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND TECHNICAL SUPPORTING DATA

Ocean Protection Council Meeting June 14, 2007 Public Comment. Date Name Affiliation Subject of Communication

The Economics of Climate Change C 175 Christian Traeger Part 3: Policy Instruments continued. Cap and Trade in application: US

DRAFT 2015 OZONE CONFORMITY ANALYSIS FOR THE 2019 FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND THE 2018 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Why the Northeast Should Limit Pollution from Transportation

The Globalization of Air Pollution:

7.1 BICYCLE RIDERSHIP Estimated Current and Increased Bike Ridership

New Strategies in Purchasing Transportation Services. Warren G. Lavey May 2015

Northeast Low Emission Vehicle Program Overview

A Smaller Carbon Footprint

Fast Facts. U.S. Transportation Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Global Warming. Science of global warming Greenhouse gases Other contributors Observed changes. The future

Chapter 7 RATE OF PROGRESS DEMONSTRATION

Freeway pollution travels farther than we thought. Here's how to protect yourself

Ozone Advance NOX Emission Reduction Strategy Menu 2012

The Opportunities for Emission Reduction of Methanol Fuel Made from Natural Gas

Environmental Policy: Kyoto, Carbon Trading, and California

Profile of California Air Quality

Transcription:

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL NRDC Statement on New Study of Ethanol (E85) Impact on Air Quality Roland Hwang Vehicles Policy Director April 26, 2007 NRDC believes there should be no rush to judgment on the impacts of ethanol used as high blends (E85, 85% ethanol, and 15% gasoline) on air quality based on a new study by Mark Z. Jacobson of Stanford University. We urge Dr. Jacobson to join with NRDC, air pollution regulators, and scientists to clear the air regarding his statement that concludes that E85, a high blend of ethanol poses an equal or greater risk to public health than gasoline. This conclusion is at odds with previous studies and emission data from modern vehicles running on E85, and even appears to be at odds with the conclusion from his own study. NRDC recommends the following to clarify the results of this paper and the air quality impacts of ethanol used as high blends: First, NRDC recommends that a team of leading vehicle emission experts review the existing data on emissions from E85. Based on this review, if the panel believes the emission scenarios in Dr. Jacobson s study are incorrect and/or additional sensitivity runs are necessary, air pollution regulators should re-run the air pollution model to develop a broader scientific consensus of the impacts on air quality. Second, based on the results from the above work, we urge the CARB, US EPA, automakers and the ethanol industry to commit to additional testing of E85 vehicles if warranted. If such testing results indicate a need, we call upon CARB and US EPA to immediately set tighter emission standards on E85 vehicles to protect public health. We look forward to working with Dr. Jacobson and vehicle emission experts to clarify and improve the quality of information being provided to policymakers and the public on this important issue of the pollution impacts of E85. www.nrdc.org 111 Sutter Street, 20 th Floor NEW YORK WASHINGTON, DC LOS ANGELES San Francisco, CA 94104 TEL 415 875-6100 FAX 415 875-6161

NRDC Comments on Mark Z. Jacobson s Effect of Ethanol (E85) Versus Gasoline Vehicles on Cancer and Mortality in the United States, J. Air & Waste Management Assoc., Revised Feb 19, 2007 Study Overstates Potential Air Pollution Impact of Ethanol (E85) For E85 ethanol to pose a greater risk to pubic health than gasoline a series of puzzling assumptions have to be true that either are or appear to be contrary to conclusions reached by other scientists, air regulators, and emission experts. Considering the uncertainty in these assumptions, the study does not demonstrate a conclusive difference in the public health impacts between E85 and gasoline. Study finding conflicts with findings by US EPA, US DOE and NREL that found that E85 can reduce emissions of smog-forming chemicals. Dr. Jacobson fails to explain why his results differ from the published conclusions by scientists at US EPA, US DOE, and NREL. In a study published in the Journal of Air & Waste Management Association, researchers at the US EPA and US DOE found that a flex fuel vehicle running on E85 lowers the smog-forming potential of its emissions. 1 Scientists at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) reached the same conclusion. 2 These studies were based on testing of actual vehicles. Study s assumption that E85 emissions are substantially different is incorrect. There are three key reasons that the study s emission rate assumptions are incorrect: First, the law requires vehicles that can run on E85, called flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs), meet the same pollution standards for smog and soot-forming pollutants as gasoline cars. Despite this fact, the study assumes dramatic changes in emission levels from the use of E85, a 30% decrease in NOx and a 22% increase in hydrocarbons. 3 Certification data from modern FFVs show that these vehicles meet the same pollution standards regardless of what fuel they run on. 4 Second, the study greatly exaggerates emission impacts by assuming that 100% use of E85 is possible by 2020, a virtual impossibility. It is physically impossible for that much ethanol to be available or for all of the vehicles to transform into FFVs by 2020. Currently ethanol displaces less than 5% of our gasoline fuel supply. To achieve 100% displacement would require well over 200 billion gallons of ethanol compared to today s roughly 5 billion. Under a 1 Black, Tejad and Gurevich, Alternative Fuel Motor Vehicle Tailpipe and Evaporative Emissions Composition and Ozone Potential, J. Air & Waste Management Assoc., 48: 578-591. 2 Kelly et al., Federal Test Procedure Emission Results from Ethanol Variable-Fuel Vehicle Chevrolet Luminas, Society of Automotive Engineers, International Spring Fuels and Lubricants Meeting, Dearborn, MI, May 6-8, 1996. 3 Measured as total organic gases (TOG). 4 See CARB website at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/cert/cert.php for complete set of emission certification data for FFVs and conventional gasoline cars. Certification data can be found under Executive Order Listings on this page. 2

more likely penetration scenario, E85 would displace about 10% of the gasoline supply by 2020. Third, the study further magnifies small differences by ignoring the fact that most emission from cars is due to older vehicles that would be incapable of running on E85. By 2020, CARB estimates that less than 25% of the on-road passenger vehicle NOx and hydrocarbons emissions are from cars 16 years and newer (see Figure 1). 5 This mistake alone exaggerates the emission impacts by a factor of about four. Figure 1. Emissions from older vehicles that would not be able to run on E85 dominate the 2020 emissions inventory. Study exaggerates emission changes by applying emission reductions to the emissions from a fleet of older cars that cannot be run on E85 and are certified to meet older, dirtier emission standards. Cars starting in model year 2004 must meet the stricter LEV II pollution standards. Source: EMFAC2002 V2.2 2020 South Coast Air Basin Inventory for Cars and Light Trucks 120 100 20 tons per day 80 60 40 89 16 67 "LEV II" Model Years 2004-2020 All Vehicles 20 0 ROG NOx Study s findings are primarily driven by assumed decrease in NOx. Sensitivity runs by the author make it clear that the changes in the Los Angeles region smog levels are almost entirely driven by his assumption of a 30% NOx decrease (see Figure 2). The small changes in ozone levels appear to be primarily driven by assumption of large changes in NOx. Simple extrapolation of the fairly linear trend shows that there would likely be no change in ozone levels if the author assumed a less than 10% reduction in NOx emissions, a scenario which was not included in the paper. For the primary scenario, the author assumed a very large 30% decrease in NOx. 5 Starting in model year 2004, new cars are certified to the more stringent LEV II standards. According to CARB, LEV II vehicles are approximately 80% cleaner than an average 1998 car. http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/levprog/levii/factsht.htm 3

Figure 2. Small changes in ozone levels are driven by assumption of large changes in NOx. Simple extrapolation of the fairly linear trend shows that there would likely be no change in ozone levels if the author assumed a less than 10% reduction in NOx emissions, a scenario which apparently was not run. For the primary scenario, the author assumed a very large 30% decrease in NOx. Source: Table 5 of ES&T journal article. 2.5 change in ozone, ppbv 2 1.5 1 0.5 0-50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% change in NOx >0 ppbv >35 ppbv >50 ppbv The study fails to acknowledge that, despite the potential for ozone to increase under certain conditions of NOx decreases, under most circumstances reducing NOx will reduce smog and that the California strategy for the last 25 years to meet ozone and soot (PM2.5) ambient air quality standards has been built around reducing both NOx and hydrocarbons concurrently. Though undesirable, this effect (sometimes known as the weekend effect ) is well known and has been well studied by CARB. 6 However since it s impossible to meet clean air standards with hydrocarbons reductions alone, air quality regulators have adopted a strategy to reduce both at the same time. According to CARB: A strategy of concurrent reductions of the major precursors of ozone, VOCs and NOX, has been used for more than twenty-five years to reduce ozone levels in California s ambient air. Concurrent reductions of VOCs and NOX have been very successful at reducing the high ozone levels in southern California. From the mid-1970s into the 21st century, the ozone control strategy implemented in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) included reductions of both VOC emissions and NOX emissions. Early NOX reductions were achieved by statewide controls on emissions from motor vehicles combined with local controls on emissions from industrial sources, such as power plants and cement kilns. 7 Even if reducing NOx was a bad idea, emissions data from modern FFVs clearly shows that there is no discernible pattern of differences in NOx emissions when an FFV is running on E85 versus gasoline (see Figure 3). 6 See http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/weekendeffect/weekendeffect.htm. 7 CARB, The Ozone Weekend Effect in California, staff report, June 30, 2003. http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/weekendeffect/we_sr-final.htm 4

Figure 3. Data from the California Air Resources Board demonstrates that there is no consistent pattern in whether a FFV emits more or less when fueled on E85 versus gasoline. It should be noted that even if there is a difference in these test results, the manufacturer is legally liable for ensuring that the emissions remain under the emission standards for 120,000 miles. Source: CARB certification database, http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/cert/cert.php 0.14 Emissions of NOx when fueled by gasoline (g/mi) 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 Gasoline NOx emissions > E85 NOx emissions 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 1:1 E85 NOx emissions > Gasoline NOx Emissions of NOx when fueledby E85 (g/mi) Study ignores the potential global warming pollution reductions from E85 and the smog impact of rising temperatures caused by global warming. Dr. Jacobson dismisses the substantial potential for E85 to reduce global warming pollution, despite the fact that most researchers agree that when produced from cellulosic feedstocks (e.g., switchgrass, agricultural waste, etc.) ethanol has the potential to dramatically cut global warming pollution. According to a study published in Science magazine by Professors Farrell and Kammen at UC Berkeley, cellulosic ethanol can reduce greenhouse gases by up to 90% compared to gasoline. 8 Dr. Jacobson fails to account for the fact that rising temperatures due to global warming are predicted to increase smog levels in the US, including California. According to the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report by the world s leading experts on global warming, the US can expect increased frequency of cardio-respiratory diseases due to higher concentrations of ground level ozone related to climate change. 9 Conclusion The author s comments surrounding the release of his study overstate what the study actually shows. An accurate summary would be that this study shows that use of high blend ethanol is unlikely to significantly improve air quality compared to use of gasoline. 8 Farrell et al, Ethanol Can Contribute to Climate and Energy Goals, Science, 2006. http://rael.berkeley.edu/ebamm/farrellethanolscience012706.pdf 9 See IPCC, Fourth Assessment Report: Summary for Policymakers, 2006. http://www.net.org/documents/ipcc_spm6avr07.pdf 5