## TITLE

2011 PM2.5 Mid-Course Review



# DRAFT – March 2011 

# 2008 PM2.5 Plan Progress ReportSan Joaquin Valley Unified Ai r Pollution Control District 1990 E. Gettysburg Avenue Fresno, California 93726

(559) 230-6100

www.valleyair.orgExecutive Summary iii 

## 2008 PM2.5 Plan Progress Report

Executive Summary

The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District) Governing Board adopted the 2008 PM2.5 Plan on April 30, 2008. This aggressi ve plan built upon the District’s public process, the comprehensive strategy adopted in the District’s 2007 Ozone Plan, and extensive science to bring the Valley into attain ment of the 1997 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM2.5 (parti culate matter that is 2.5 microns or less in diameter). This Progress Report documents the District’s and stakeholders’ efforts to implement the PM2.5 plan strategy and evaluates resu lting air quality improvements.

Since the plan was adopted, t he District has made significant progress implementing its multi-faceted control strategy, which affect s a wide range of sources. The District has implemented innovative new rules, such as the Employer Based Trip Reduction rule, and further strengthened existing rules, such as the Agricultural Open Burning rule. In aggregate, the District’s adopted control m easures surpass reduction commitments from the plan (see Section 2). These reductions come to fruition as a result of the significant investments made by Valley busine sses to comply with District rules. The general public has also played an important role in bringing continued air quality improvements to the Valley th rough compliance with the Dis trict’s wood burning rule and wood burning prohibitions, and by participat ing in the District’s Healthy Air Living outreach program, which empowers individuals and organizations to make air quality a priority in daily decision making.

The District’s voluntary incentive program s also play a critical role in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan’s multi-faceted strategy by accelera ting and achieving additional emissions reductions required for the Valley’s attainment. The District continues to actively pursue new funding sources and develop new incent ive programs, such as the expedited Voucher Incentive Program (VIP), the Te chnology Advancement Program (TAP), and other programs. Since inception, the District has awarded more than $300 million in incentives, resulting in more than 75,000 t ons of lifetime emissions reductions.

The District has evaluated resulting PM 2.5 concentrations through a variety of parameters to better understand ar eas of air quality improvement as well as issues that limited air quality improvement s. In the months imm ediately following PM2.5 plan adoption, in the summer and fall of 2008, wildfi res impacted much of California, burning over a million acres and causing unprecedent ed levels of PM2.5 and ozone throughout the state. The Valley’s annual average PM2. 5 concentration was elevated in 2008 as a result. However, due to the District’ s wood burning curtailm ents and the public’s compliance with these prohibitions, the Valley continues to experience cleaner winters, with more “Good” air quality index (AQI) days and fewer “Unhealthy” AQI days in each of the last three wood burni ng seasons. Wood burning prohibi tions reduce emissions of some of the most health-impac ting particles when and where these reductions are most needed. As a result, Valley residents ar e experiencing better air quality due to implementation of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and due to the involvement of the general public.iv 

### DRAFT SJVAPCD PM2.5 Progress Report Challenges still remain to bring the Valley into attainment of the 1997 NAAQS by 2015. Past successes like the wood burning rule give us confidence that future efforts will continue to be effective. There are more opportunities to impr ove the Valley’s PM2.5 levels, as the California Air Resources Boar d (ARB) implements recent rules and as the District and ARB continues laying the groundwork to develop the District’s 2012 PM2.5 Attainment Plan (for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, as descr ibed in Section 4). The progress documented in this report is to be continued.Table of Contents v 

## 2008 PM2.5 Plan Progress Report

Table of Contents

Section 1 - Introduct ion & Back ground ........................................................................1-1 1.1 PM2.5 in the San J oaquin Vall ey.......................................................................1-1 1.2 The 2008 PM2.5 Plan........................................................................................1-1

Section 2 - Distri ct Strategy ...........................................................................................2-1 2.1 A Summary of Adopted Distric t Control M easures ............................................2-1 2.2 Feasibility Studies .............................................................................................2-2 2.3 Incentiv es ..........................................................................................................2-3 2.4 Other Innovative Strat egies & Progr ams ...........................................................2-6 2.4.1 Healthy Air Living ..................................................................................2-7 2.4.2 Fast Track M easures ............................................................................2-7 2.4.3 Technology Advancement Program (TAP) ...........................................2-7

Section 3 - Air Qual ity Analysis.....................................................................................3-1 3.1 PM2.5 Tr ends....................................................................................................3-1 3.1.1 Winter PM2. 5 trends .............................................................................3-1 3.1.2 Daily PM2.5 Trends ..............................................................................3-2 3.1.3 Annual Tr ends ......................................................................................3-3 3.2 Design va lues....................................................................................................3-3 3.2.1 Wildfires................................................................................................3-5 3.3 Summary...........................................................................................................3-5

Section 4 - Ongoin g Challenge s....................................................................................4-1 4.1 Risk-based Strategy to Maximize Public Health Benefits..................................4-1

Appendix A Analysis of Ambient Air Quality Appendix B District and ARB Comment Letters on Proposed EPA Plan Disapproval Appendix C District Control Measuresvi 

### DRAFT SJVAPCD PM2.5 Progress Report 

## 2008 PM2.5 Plan Progress Report

List of Tables

Table 2-1 Regulatory Contro l Measure Commitments from the 2008 PM2.5 Plan ......2-2 Table 2-2 Reductions Achieved by Adopted 2008 PM2.5 Plan Rules.........................2-2
Table 2-3 2008 PM2.5 Plan Feasibi lity Studies, Revi sed Schedu le ............................2-3 Table 2-4 Incentive Progr am Totals, 1998 - 2010 .......................................................2-5
Table 2-5 Total Annual In centive Funding 1998 - 2010 ...............................................2-6 Table 4-1 Summary of PM2.5 N AAQS........................................................................4-1



## List of Figures

Figure 3-1 Valley Air Quality Improv ements during Wood Bu rning Seas on ................3-2 Figure 3-2 Average Annual PM2.5 Diurnal Prof iles by Year at Fresno-First Monitoring Site........................................................................................................................3-3 Figure 3-3 PM2.5 24-hour Design Val ue Comparison, 2002 (2000-2002 Average) and 2010 (2008-2010 Av erage) ...................................................................................3-4 Figure 3-4 Annual PM2.5 Design Value Comparison, 2002 (2000-2002 Average) and 2010 (2008-2010 Av erage) ...................................................................................3-4Introduction & Background 1-1 

### Section 1 - Introduction & Background

The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Cont rol District (District) prepared this 2008 PM2.5 Plan Progress Report (Progress Report) to demonstrate to EPA and to the public that the District has met its 2008 PM2.5 Plan commitments and that the San Joaquin Valley’s (Valley) air quality for PM2.5 (particu late matter that is 2.5 microns or less in diameter) is improving under pl an implementation. This Progress Report demonstrates that the District’s efforts, along with the Valley’s business and resident efforts, have reduced direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emissions. These reductions correspond to a continued downward trend of am bient PM2.5 concentrations.

This report is to be forwarded to the Californ ia Air Resources Board (ARB) for submittal to the United States Environm ental Protection Agency (EPA). In addition, in April 2011, ARB will update the state strategy, also to be submitted to EPA.

1.1 PM2.5 in the San Joaquin Valley Under current regulations, particulate matter (PM) is differentiated by particle size. PM2.5 can be inhaled deep into the lungs , where it can be absorbed into the bloodstream or remain embedde d for long periods of time without being exhaled. Numerous studies link PM2.5 to a variety of health effects, includi ng (but not limited to) aggravated asthma, coughing, decreased lung f unction in children, chronic bronchitis, and premature death. The chem ical species of PM2.5 can be a factor in the type and severity of health impacts. However, the U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency’s (EPA) health-based standards are currently mass-bas ed standards. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) fo r PM2.5, as set in 1997, are 65 μg/m3 for 24-hour average concentrations and 15 μg/m3 for an nual average concentrations. EPA designated the Valley as nonattainment of the 1997 PM2. 5 NAAQS in 2005.

PM2.5 can be emitted directly , or secondary PM2.5 can form in the atmosphere through the reactions of precursors, such as oxi des of nitrogen (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), and, in some areas, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and ammonia. The San Joaquin Valley’s topography and meteor ological conditions create an environment that naturally exacerbates the formation and re tention of PM2.5. The Valley’s popul ation growth and the District’s jurisdictional limits also add to the Valley’s PM2.5 challenges.

1.2 The 2008 PM2.5 Plan The District Governing Board adopted the 2008 PM2.5 Plan on April 30, 2008. This aggressive plan built on the far-reaching strat egy developed for the District’s 2007 Ozone Plan and is a continuation of the District’s comprehensive strategy to improve the air quality in the San Joaquin Valley. The 2008 PM2.5 Plan addressed directlyemitted PM2.5 as well as precursors f ound to significantly contribute to PM2.5 concentrations in the Valley. Due to the Valley’s wintertime ambient conditions and atmospheric chemistry, and because of the magnitude of the Valle y’s NOx inventory, NOx reductions are especially critical to the Valley’s PM2.5 attainment.1-2 

### DRAFT SJVAPCD PM2.5 Progress Report The California Regional Particulate Air Q uality Study (CRPAQS) provided the scientific foundation for 2008 PM2.5 Plan modeling and analysis. This $30 million study program has been an inter-agency effort with involvem ent from the California Air Resources Board (ARB), EPA, the District, other air dist ricts, research inst itutions, and independent researchers, and it has generated dozens of presentations, reports, and peer-reviewed papers. CRPAQS confi rmed that NOx and SO 2 are significant PM2.5 precursors in the Valley, while reductions in VOC and ammonia ar e not effective for significantly reducing the Valley’s PM2.5 concentrations. CR PAQS results incorporated into the 2008 PM2.5 Plan’s thorough weight-of-evidence analysis confi rmed the effectiveness of the District’s and ARB’s control strategy, which emphasizes NOx reductions while also achieving reductions of SO 2 and directly emitted PM2.5.

NOx reductions in the Valley contribut e to both PM2.5 and ozone air quality improvements. However, mo re than 80% of the Valley’ s NOx emissions are generated by mobile sources, which are beyond the Distric t’s direct jurisdiction. The District’s NOx strategy has thus been a multi-facet ed approach coupling both regulatory and nonregulatory strategies. This approach maxi mizes emissions reductions to expedite attainment of health-based air qualit y standards for both PM2.5 and ozone.

With its extensive science and far-reaching control strategy, the 2008 PM2.5 Plan ensures continuous progress towards the EPA’s health-based air quality standards and expeditious attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by Apr il 5, 2015, based on 2012, 2013, and 2014 data.

On November 30, 2010 (75 Federal Register 74518-74543), EPA proposed a limited approval and limited disapproval of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan . The District and ARB submitted extensive documentation and co mments to EPA regarding the disapproval issues raised. The District believes that the collective comments from the District and the State of California (available in Appendix B) fully address the issues EPA identified in its proposed disapproval.

.District Strategy 2-1 

### Section 2 - District Strategy

The District has committed to one of the nati on’s the most aggressive rule development schedules to meet its 200 7 Ozone Plan and 2008 PM2.5 Plan attainment goals. The District’s four-faceted control strategy, as discussed in the 2007 Ozone Plan and 2008 PM2.5 Plan , includes:

• Regulatory control measures

• Incentive-based strategies

• Innovative Strategies and Programs

• Local, State, and Federal Sources/Partnerships

This section discusses the District’s pr ogress in implementing control measure commitments of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and shows that in aggregate, District control measures achieve more emissions reductions than were anticipated at the time of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan . This section also discusses the incentive-based strategies and other innovative programs that s upplement the District’s tradi tional regulatory efforts and generate more emissions reductions than coul d otherwise be reasonably obtained.

2.1 A Summary of Adopted District Control Measures

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan adopted by the District Governing Board was a robust and comprehensive attainment plan that included a combination of technologically feasible and technology forcing measures. Of the thirteen District regulat ory control measure commitments in the plan, the Distric t has adopted eleven to date (Table 2-1).

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan identifies control measures, ex pected emissions reductions, and a schedule for the implementation of such measures. During control measure development, District staff works closely with stakeholders, ARB, EPA, and other interested parties to discuss concerns, examine possible impacts, and uncover mitigation strategies that will protect bot h the health and economic strength of the Valley. During this process, the scope and st ructure of control measures can evolve from their original plan commi tments. Table 2-2 summarize s District rules adopted or amended consistent with the 2008 PM2.5 Plan along with corresponding emission reductions. Table 2-2 shows that the Distr ict’s adopted control measures achieve more PM2.5 equivalent reductions than committed to in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. More details on each control measure are available in Appendix C of this Progress Report.2-2 

### DRAFT SJVAPCD PM2.5 Progress Report Table 2-1 Regulatory Control Measure Commitments from the 2008 PM2.5 Plan

Control Measure # Control Measure Rule # Completion

Completed Rules S-COM-5 Stationary Gas Turbines 4703 2007 S-COM-1 Large Boilers 4306/4320 2008 S-COM-2 Medium Boilers 4307 2008 S-COM-7 Glass Melting Furnaces 4354 2008 S-COM-9 Residential Water Heaters 4902 2009 S-IND-9 Commercial Charbroiling 4692 2009 S-COM-11 Wood Burning Fireplaces and Heaters 4901 2009 S-COM-3 Small Boilers 4308 2009 M-TRAN-1 Employer-Based Trip Reduction 9410 2009 S-AGR-1 Open Burning 4103 2010 Remaining Rule Commitments

S-COM-6 Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 4702 2011

S-COM-10 Natural, gas-Fired, Fan-Type Residential Central Furnaces 4905 2014

Table 2-2 Reductions Achieved by Adopted 2008 PM2.5 Plan Rules

2008 PM2.5 Plan Projections (tons per day) Actual Reductions (tons per day) Control Measure Rule # PM2.5 NOx 1 SOx 2 PM2.5 Equivalent 1, 2 PM2.5 NOx 1 SOx 2 PM2.5 Equivalent 1, 2 Stationary Gas Turbines 470 3 0 2.21 0 0.25 0 2.20 0 0.24
Large Boilers 4306/ 4320 0.24 1.52 0.76 1.17 0.24 1.60 1.92 2.34

Medium Boilers 4307 0 0 0 0.00 0 1.29 0 0.14 Glass Melting Furnaces 4354 0 1.58 0 0.18 0 3.64 1.62 2.02 Residential Water Heaters 4902 0 0.40 0 0.04 0 0.50 0 0.06 Commercial Charbroiling 4692 2.28 0 0 2.28 0.87 0 0 0.87 Wood Burning Fireplaces and Heaters 4901 0.69 0.06 0.02 0. 72 1.08 0.12 0.02 1.11

Small Boilers 4308 0 0. 55 0 0.06 0 1.45 0 0.16 Employer-Based Trip Reduction 9410 0 0 0 0.00 0.03 0.33 0 0.07 Open Burning 4103 3.49 2.65 0.14 3.92 2.91 1.87 0.05 3.17 Totals as PM2.5 equivalent --- 8.62 --- 10.18 PM2.5 equivalent reductions achieved beyond Plan commitment 1.57 tons per day

1 9.0 tons of NOx per ton of PM2.5. Based on the worst-case annual average in terpollutant ratio provided by ARB. The ratios used for permitting acts can be lower during PM2.5 season when NOx predominantly acts as a PM2.5 precursor.
2 1.0 ton of SOx per ton of PM2.5

2.2 Feasibility Studies

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan included commitments to conduct several Feasibility Studies in cases where there was insufficient information available to determine the feasibility or effectiveness the potential control measures at the time of plan adopt ion. The goal of a Feasibility Study is to determi ne whether an emissions source is significant enough toDistrict Strategy 2-3 warrant a control measure and whether there are technically and economically sound control technologies or practices available. The Feasibility Study will help determine whether a regulation, inc entive program, or new advocacy program would reduce pollutant emissions and contribu te towards attainment.

The District has completed many of the Feasibility Studies committed to in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan . The District is continuing work on a few of the studies to allow for more information gathering and analysis. Studies t hat point toward possible emission reduction opportunities will be included in future attainment plans with specific development schedules and emission reduction commitments. Prior to implementation of any of the preliminary recommendations, the District wil l undertake a public process, solicit stakeholder input, and take the implem entation recommendations to the District’s Governing Board in a public meeting fo r consideration and approval. Table 2-3 summarizes completed Feasibility Studies as well as continuing studies for which the District is establishing a revised completion dat e. Summaries of ea ch Feasibility Study effort follow.

Table 2-3 2008 PM2.5 Plan Feasibili ty Studies, Revised Schedule

Control Measure Number Control Measure Name

Completed Feasibility Studies S-COM-6A Small Spark-Ignited Engines & Agricultural Spark Ignited Engines

S-GOV-6 Prescribed Burning S-COM-4 Solid Fuel Boilers Steam Generators, Process Heaters M-OTH-8 Indirect Source Review (ISR) Enhancement S-COM-8 Lime Kilns
Continuing Feasibility Studies Projected Completion Date S-IND-4 Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions (Regulation VIII) 2011 S-AGR-2 Conservation Management Practices 2011 S-COM-11 Dryers 2011

S-IND-8 Cotton Gins 2012 M-OTH-10 Fireworks 2012

2.3 Incentives The District’s highly successful incentive program expedites emissions reductions and helps the District achieve emissions reduc tions from sources that may be beyond the District’s regulatory contro l. Since adoption of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan , the District has expanded its incentive opportuni ties even further. New inc entive programs include: the California Proposition 1B Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program (Prop 1B); the Lower-Emission School Bus Program; the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) National Clean Diesel School Bus Repl acement Program; the Technology Advancement Program (TAP); and the Charbroiler Incentive Program. In 2008 through 2010, the District secured more than $117 m illion to support the implementation of these programs.2-4 

### DRAFT SJVAPCD PM2.5 Progress Report Table 2-4 identifies the Distr ict-administered incentive pr ograms, including the total funding amount for each program, the number of projects and vehicles or engines that were funded for each progr am, and the applicable NOx, PM, and VOC emissions reductions attributable to each program. Tabl e 2-5 itemizes the total funding received each year from 1998 through 2010 and the a ssociated surplus emissions reductions each year.

In addition to applying for various funding sour ces, the District is working with ARB to make the Carl Moyer and the Prop 1B Program s more flexible and streamlined to attract a greater pool of potential proj ects to fund. Over the la st few years, ARB has adopted new rules and regulations that claim emissi on reductions from sources that participate in the District’s incentive programs. As these sources approach compliance deadlines, the opportunities for awarding incentive funds for these projects are reduced. The District and ARB are committed to working withi n the framework of these regulations to identify opportunities for cont inued funding. In addition, t he District is working with ARB staff to identify new sources and proj ect types for funding consideration.

The District relies on a combination of f unding sources to support its comprehensive incentive program. The annual amount of funding available to the District is currently more than $112 million for t he 2010-2011 fiscal year. The primary sources of these funds includes expected revenue from the Di strict’s Indirect Source Review Rule, voluntary development mitigat ion agreements, local DMV su rcharge fees, the state’s Carl Moyer Program, Prop 1B, and va rious federal funding sources.

In light of past successes and the ongoing need for additional emissions reductions, the District continues to develop new avenues for incentive funding opportunities.District Strategy 2-5 Table 2-4 Incentive Pr ogram Totals, 1998 - 2010

Program # of Projects # of V ehicles/ Engines NOx (tons) VOC (tons) PM (tons) District Grant Amount Agricultural Engine 2,563 5, 954 46,436 2,130 1,719 $100,349,917 Agricultural Utility Terrain Vehicle 20 20 NC NC NC $46,681 Alternative Fuel/Hybrid Vehicle Rebate 3 3 NC NC NC $23,665 Bicycle Infrastructure 14 16 11 17 5 $761,433 Car Crushing 203 593 24 37 0 $2,384,022 Commuter Subsidy 186 198 34 41 112 $1,619,630 E-Mobility 9 9 5 5 1 $606,412 Electric Forklift 7 35 30 2 1 $323,213 Infrastructure 15 15 NC NC NC $2,931,913 Lawn Mower 1,338 1,338 NC NC NC $334,500 Light and Medium Duty 38 206 58 102 NC $421,275 Locomotive 5 29 1,151 64 24 $13,093,912 Off-Road Heavy Duty 651 1,239 8,232 407 263 $43,013,552 Off-Road Forklift 1 5 13 NC NC $32,625 On-Road Heavy Duty 247 1,430 5,213 6 473 $33,147,000 On-Road Heavy Duty Prop1B 356 926 8,071 NC 376 $44,765,902 On-Road Heavy Duty VIP 46 46 NC NC NC $1,655,000 School Bus Program 237 1,487 26 NC NC $53,563,503 Truck Electrification 1 202 2,634 NC 6 $1,795,000 Wood Stove Change Out 1,164 1,168 NC NC 276 $735,350

Totals 7,104 14,919 71,939 2,810 3,258 $301,604,505

*NC – not calculated2-6 

### DRAFT SJVAPCD PM2.5 Progress Report Table 2-5 Total Annual Incentive Funding 1998 - 2010

Year # of Projects # of Vehicles/ Engines NOx (tons) VOC (tons) PM (tons) Total District Grant Amount 1998 25 126 722 NC NC $3,552,537 1999 95 373 3,198 NC NC $4,606,091 2000 159 377 3,427 NC NC $4,869,698 2001 447 1,099 7,148 NC 682 $13,926,978 2002 398 827 4,656 NC 321 $12,813,174 2003 309 675 5,769 NC 322 $10,018,459 2004 284 913 8,189 NC 282 $11,718,105 2005 286 601 5,171 57 189 $13,096,278 2006 467 1,400 6,643 559 230 $43,377,859 2007 340 1,552 5,914 617 179 $35,154,933 2008 460 1,143 5,035 770 203 $30,536,239 2009 708 1,188 6,245 471 169 $31,824,151 2010 3,126 4,645 9,824 334 683 $86,110,003
Totals 7,104 14,919 71,939 2,810 3,259 $301,604,505
*NC – Not calculated

2.4 Other Innovative Strategies & Programs Past attainment plans primar ily relied on regulatory controls , but new regulatory controls have become increasingly unavailable or cost-pr ohibitive. The District’s need for further reductions must be balanced with the economic sustainability of the Valley. Reaching beyond traditional regulations an d incentive programs, the District has been developing innovative strategies and programs to expedite the Valley’s air quality improvements and achieve potential “black box” reductions for 8-hour ozone attainment. These innovative strategies are designed to enlist the public, local governments, businesses, and industry as willing contributors to a succ essful clean air strategy. In many instances, such as reducing energy use and reducing vehicle miles traveled, Valley businesses and residents can also reduce thei r costs – a “win-win” for the District and the Valley.

Most of the innovative strategi es are not yet creditable in the State Implem entation Plan (SIP) because they rely on voluntary parti cipation. The implementation of such innovative strategies has led to increased public awareness of air quality issues, increased public participation to wards air pollution solutions, and improvement in Valley air quality. This broad spectrum of involvem ent will be critical in helping the District reach attainment of current and future air quality standards, includi ng attainment of the current 8-hour ozone standard by 2024.District Strategy 2-7 2.4.1 Healthy Air Living Healthy Air Living is a comprehensive, year-round outreach initiative that prov ides tools to help individuals and businesses make air quality a priority in their day-today choices. Healthy Air Livi ng aims to reduce emissions through a variety of individ ual and organizational levels: reducing the number of vehicl e miles traveled each day through the Valley; reducing emissions dur ing peak smog episodes; reducing emissions created by equipment and proc esses; and encouraging higher energy efficiency and the development of cleaner energy sources. H ealthy Air Living has produced several highprofile, high-participation campaigns, incl uding the Kids for Clean Air pledge card contest and an annual hybrid vehicle giveaway.

2.4.2 Fast Track Measures

The District’s 2007 Fast Track Action Plan ident ified several Fast Track Measures to accelerate the Valley’s attainment. These Fast Track Measures include:

• Advanced Emission Reduction Options (AERO)

• Alternative Energy

• Energy Conservation

• Episodic & Regionally-Focused Controls

• Green Contracting

• Green Fleets

• Heat Island Mitigation

• High Speed Rail

• Inland Ports and Short Sea Shipping

• Truck Replacement and Retrofit

See Appendix C for summa ries of Fast Track Measure development and implementation.

2.4.3 Technology Advancement Program (TAP)
On March 18, 2010, the District’s Go verning Board approved the Technology Advancement Program to identify, solic it, and support opportunities to advance and accelerate the deployment of innovative clean air technologies. The District has implemented TAP through a coordinated and collaborative process to engage technology developers and potential end-users.
The District initially allocated $900,000 fo r the first competitive TAP request for proposals (RFP), then allocated an additional $300,000 to make $1.2 million available. From the proposals submitted, the District selected six projects to demonstrate and accelerate deployment of technologies to reduce directly emitted PM and/or NO X . The projects funded by t he program include:

• Solar thermal energy storage technolog y to enable zero emission agricultural pumps in remote locations unserved by electrical infrastructure;2-8 

### DRAFT SJVAPCD PM2.5 Progress Report • Retrofit drive train systems to upgrade exis ting refuse trucks to hydraulic hybrid technology;

• Plug-in electric hybr id off-road equipment;

• NOx-reducing catalyst utilizing an 85 per cent renewable ethanol blend (E85) as reductant for off-road engines allowing for wider adoption of the technology without diesel emission fluid [urea] infrastructure;

• Advanced selective catalytic reduction system for use on dairy biogas; and

• Innovative gas turbine system with high tolerance for low quality gas, enabling the use of mildly treat ed landfill gas and biogas.

The District has been working to identify additional funding for technology advancement through available grant and partnership op portunities. The District has been working closely with EPA in developing the Clean Ai r Technology Initiative, an interagency partnership focused on the development of advanced emission reduction technologies. This partnership has resulted in an addi tional $400,000 of EPA funding opportunity for of technology advancement. The District has a llocated an additional $1 million of local funds in the 2010-11 Budget that may be us ed for technology advancement projects.

With these funds, the District plans to open a second competitive RFP for new projects in early 2011. Successful outr each during the past year in the course of launching the TAP has considerably expan ded awareness of the program with potential technology partners and other agencies. This upcoming funding opportunity is expected to attract significant interest fr om potential partners.

Through TAP, the District is also active in establishing partnerships and collaborations to leverage the experience and resources of t he District into regional technology efforts. The District is collaborating in the Clean Air Technology Initiative, a partnership with the ARB, EPA Region 9, and the South Coast AQ MD, to identify technology advancement opportunities and goals. The District is acti vely forming partnerships with regional universities to build and expand local capacity for research and development in the San Joaquin Valley. The District has also worked in collaboration with South Coast AQMD to co-fund projects to develop pr ototype natural gas-f ired, fan-type cent ral furnaces with reduced NO X emissions.Air Quality Analysis 3-1 

### Section 3 - Air Quality Analysis

This Progress Report evaluates the Valley’s ambient PM2.5 concentrations since the adoption of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan . Under many metrics, Valley PM2.5 data has shown significant improvements. The District conducted extens ive analysis of ambient air quality data to better underst and the nature of observed im provements and to better understand areas within the data set that have been more resistant to improvement.

The Valley’s ambient PM2.5 concentrations are influenced by a number of factors, including pollutant emissions, natural or exceptional events, and meteorology. The Valley’s direct PM2.5 and NO x emissions have decreased significantly since PM2.5 monitoring began in 1999. Many more emis sions reductions will be achieved between 2011 and 2015. Emissions decreases achieved thus far are contributing to lower 24- hour and annual average ambient PM2.5 c oncentrations, indicating general improvement in air quality. The degr ee of improvement in ambient PM2.5 concentrations varies by site, year, time of year, and time of day. This section is a summary of the District’s thorough analysis, wh ich is presented in Appendix A.

3.1 PM2.5 Trends

3.1.1 Winter PM2.5 trends The Valley’s PM2.5 concentrations vary thr oughout the year. PM2.5 levels are typically highest during the winter months as a result of low-level inversion layers that trap pollution in the atmosphere and increased PM2.5 emissions fr om residential wood burning and other sources. However, since the 2008 PM2.5 Plan was adopted, the Valley has experienced some of the cleanest winters on record, thanks in part to District Rule 4901 (Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters) and associated residential wood burning curtailment days between November 1 and February 28. Under these wood burning prohibitions, and wit h the public’s compliance with these prohibitions, the Valley continues to exper ience more “Good” air quality index (AQI) days and fewer “Unhealthy” AQI days in the No vember to February time period (Figure 3-1). Wood burning prohibitions reduce emissions of some of the most health-impacting particles when and where these reductions are most needed. As a result, Valley residents are experiencing better air qua lity due to implementation of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and due to the involvement of the general public.3-2 

### DRAFT SJVAPCD PM2.5 Progress Report Figure 3-1 Valley Air Quality Impr ovements during Wood Burning Season

Wood Burning Season (Nov 1 - Feb. 28) AQI



### Good AQI

Unhealthy AQI

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011Total days in each AQI category in each county

3.1.2 Daily PM2.5 Trends Many of the Valley’s air monitoring sites use real-time PM2.5 monitors, which produce hourly PM2.5 measurement s. The District uses this data every day to produce daily air quality forecasting, wood burni ng prohibitions, public health not ifications, and Real-time Air Advisory Network (RAAN) notifications for schools. For this Progress Report, the District compiled long-term di urnal profiles to analyze how PM2.5 concentrations vary throughout the day at each Valley monitori ng site. The District found that PM2.5 concentrations generally peak in the early morning and late evening, with lower concentrations during the middle of the day. Fr om year to year, th is general pattern has remained consistent for most sites, but the magnitude of peaks have generally decreased to lower PM2.5 concentrations overall.

Two notable exceptions to this typical patte rn are sites in Fresno and Corcoran. Data from the Fresno 1 st Street site, as shown in Figure 3-2, shows more evening improvement, “flattening” the evening peak. Rule 4901 wood burning prohibitions are most likely generating this progress in evening PM2.5 levels in Fresno.

The profile of measurements from Corcor an, on the other hand, shows the development of a mid-day peak, which is higher than t he evening peak in 2009 (see Appendix A). The District will continue to analyze this finding as more data becomes available to determine if there could be new source ac tivity that may be impacting these daily patterns.District Strategy 3-3 Figure 3-2 Average Annual PM2.5 Diur nal Profiles by Year at Fresno-First Monitoring Site



## Fresno-First

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

HourAnnual Avg Hourly Concentration (μg/m3)

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2010 data is preliminary and has not yet been fully reviewed for quality assurance and control.

3.1.3 Annual Trends The District evaluated single-year annual aver age trends to assess PM2.5 progress and potential issues. Overall, despite some y ear-to-year variation, the Valley’s annual average PM2.5 concentrations are decreasing. In 2010, only two Valley monitoring sites had annual average PM2.5 concentrations above the level of the annual NAAQS of 15 μg/m3. In contrast, in 2005, eight Valley monitoring sites had annual average PM2.5 concentrations above the NAAQS, and in 2000, all Valley monitoring sites had annual averages PM2.5 concentrations above t he NAAQS. See Appendix A for more information on annual averages.

3.2 Design values Design values are one metric for assessing air quality improvements. Design value calculations are three-year averages that follow EPA protocols for rounding, averaging conventions, determining sufficiency in the number of samples, etc. The results provide consistency and transparency to determine bas in-wide attainment for both components of the federal PM2. 5 NAAQS: the 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 65 μg/m3, and the annual PM2.5 standard of 15 μg/m3.

Figures 3-3 and 3-4 show improvement in Va lley design values. These figures also demonstrate that average ambient PM2.5 concent rations vary by monitoring site within the Valley. In general, monitoring sites in the northern part of the Valley continue to record the lowest ambient PM2.5 concentrations.3-4 

### DRAFT SJVAPCD PM2.5 Progress Report Figure 3-3 PM2.5 24-hour Design Valu e Comparison, 2002 (2000-2002 Average) and 2010 (2008-2010 Average)

Figure 3-4 Annual PM2.5 Design Valu e Comparison, 2002 (2000-2002 Average) and 2010 (2008-2010 Average)District Strategy 3-5 Some recent design values do not reflec t the expected PM2.5 progress, but design values alone do not necessarily provide for the best or most complete understanding of air quality trends. Analysis shows that a fe w unusual issues overwh elmed the Valley’s significant emissions reductions to impact ce rtain design values. The purpose of this analysis is not to excuse the Valley from additional work to improve air quality, but to better inform the District on what types of additional work will be most effective.

3.2.1 Wildfires In the summer of 2008, just months after adoption of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan , California experienced a record number of wildfires, with 5,812 fires burning 1,339,839 acres. The resulting emissions, most from outside the Valley, caused se rious public health impacts and unprecedented levels of PM2.5 and ozone in the Valley and throughout the state. These wildfires were natural events, not reas onably preventable or controllable, so it is inappropriate to use 2008 data without recogniti on of these circumstances. These fires might ordinarily be excluded from official ca lculations per EPA’s Exceptional Events policy, with proper documentation. The District and ARB limit the submittal of documentation for these events, and EPA genera lly reviews only those requests that will directly affect an ar ea’s attainment status.

In its effort to more accu rately characterize ambient PM2.5 concentrations for this Progress Report, the District evaluated t he Valley’s PM2.5 data with careful consideration of exceptional events, includi ng those not formally submitted to EPA. Official design value calculat ions otherwise include measurem ents from these events. In annual averages, data influenced by wildfi res can mask improvements in PM2.5 concentrations during other times of the year.

3.3 Summary Design values summarize a site’s large amount s of data with just tw o concentrations: an annual average, and a value representing 24 -hour peaks. Thes e parameters are important for attainment determinations, but alone will not reveal all relevant PM2.5 trends. Appendix A to this Progress Repor t presents the District's analysis of the Valley’s ambient PM2.5 dat a in greater detail.3-6 

### DRAFT SJVAPCD PM2.5 Progress Report This Page Intentionally BlankOngoing Challenges 4-1 

### Section 4 - Ongoing Challenges

This Progress Report documents the District’s significant progress in implementing the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and its control strategies. The Dis trict’s efforts and the efforts of Valley businesses and residences are reducing emissions of directly emitted PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors, and this corresponds to improvements in ambient PM2.5 concentrations. These past successes give us confidence that future efforts will continue to be effective. However, PM2. 5 challenges remain. EPA revised the PM2.5 NAAQS in 2006 while retaining the 1997 NAAQS and its requirements. The 2008 PM2.5 Plan strategy is contributing to the Valle y’s progress towards both standards by their respective attainment dates. EPA is expected to issue another revised PM2.5 NAAQS in 2011. These para llel PM2.5 NAAQS are summarized in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1 Summary of PM2.5 NAAQS

NAAQS thresholds PM2.5 NAAQS 24-hour Annual Attainment Plan to EPA Latest Attainment Date

1997 NAAQS 65 μg/m3 15 μg/m3 2008 2015

2006 NAAQS 35 μg/m3 15 μg/m3 2012 2019

2011 NAAQS EPA anticipates proposing a revised PM2.5 NAAQS in 2011.

4.1 Risk-based Strategy to Maxi mize Public Health Benefits The District has already implemented se veral generations of emissions control measures on stationary sources, and there are not many available or foreseeable opportunities remaining for new control m easure commitments. Health-based NAAQS are becoming increasingly stringent, yet re main as mass-based standards that do not account for particle speciation, even though PM health effects vary by species. Taking these factors into account, the District is now pursuing a risk-based strategy to maximize public health benefits while concurr ently contributing to the Valley’s progress towards the mass-based standards.

Through a risk-based strategy, the District can prioritize control measures and programs that reduce the most health-impacting PM 2.5 species while reducing overall PM2.5 concentrations. For example, the Valle y's ambient PM2.5 concentrations are predominately secondary ammonium nitrate, which does not impact public health as much as other types of PM2.5. In contra st, directly emitted PM associated with urban areas and roadways seem to be the most health-impacting.

As the risk-based approach is implemented, the Dis trict will continue to review existing health studies and support new studies to identify the most health-impacting PM species. The District will be increasin gly better equipped to develop regulatory and incentives strategies that pl ace higher priority on reducing pollutant species that most4-2 

### DRAFT SJVAPCD PM2.5 Progress Report impact public health. The District may also be able to dedicate Technology Advancement Program (see Sect ion 2.5.3) funds toward efforts that will decrease the most health-impacting emissions.

Several of the District’s rules already r educe emissions reductions from more healthimpacting pollutant sources. As discussed in Section 3 and Appendi x C of this Progress Report, District Rule 4901, Wood Burning Fir eplaces and Wood Burning Heaters, has been reducing harmful species of PM2.5 w hen and where those reductions are most needed: in urbanized areas when air quality is fo recast to limit PM dispersion. District Rule 9310, School Bus Fleets, is decreas ing emissions from older school buses, reducing children’s exposure to these particles and reducing PM concentrations in urban areas.

District incentive programs also contribut e to a risk-based approach. The Fireplace Change-out Program and the School Bus Grant Progr am have accelerated or supplemented emissions reductions associated wit h their respective rules. Through the District’s popular Clean Green Yard Machine gr ant program, the District has replaced over 2,000 high-polluting gas-powered lawn mowers with cleaner electric mowers, decreasing the localized health risks associat ed with the use of gas-powered lawn and garden equipment, particularly in urban areas wher e use of this equipment is pervasive.

The District’s information and educational progr ams also contribute to the risk-based strategy. The Air Quality Flag Program provides daily county-by-county air quality notification to participating schools thr oughout the Valley. In 2010, the District developed the Real-Time Air Quality Adviso ry Network (RAAN) as an innovative new tool to provide hourly air-qua lity information to Valley schools. RAAN alerts subscribing school staff, parents, and other interested parti es via email when the hourly ozone or PM levels increase or decreas e significantly, based on monitors closest to their school, enabling schools to modify sports and physical ac tivities in light of current local air quality as appropriate.

As PM2.5 standards become increasingly stri ngent, the District’s multi-faceted, riskbased approach can help the Valley maximize health benefits while assuring expeditious attainment. This Progress Repor t shows that the Valley continues to make progress towards EPA’s health-based air qualit y standards for PM2.5. There are more opportunities to improve the Va lley’s PM2.5 levels, as AR B and the District implement recent control measures and continue laying the groundwork to develop the District’s 2012 PM2.5 Attainment Plan (for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS). The progress documented in this report is to be continued.