Updated Transportation Conformity Budgets for the San Joaquin Valley Ozone, PM2.5, and PM10 State Implementation Plans

Release Date : September 21

, 2015

Scheduled for Consideration: October 22 , 2015This document has been reviewed by the staff of the California Air Resources Board and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily

reflect the views and policies of the Air Resources Board, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

Electronic copies of this document are available for download from the Air Resources

Board’s Internet site at : http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/planarea/sanjqnvllysip.htm

. In addition, written copies may be obtained from the Public Information Office, Air
Resources Board, 1001 I Street, 1 st Floor, Visitors and Environmental Services Center, Sacramento, California 95814, (916) 322

- 2990.

For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document is available in Braille, large print, audiocassette, or computer disk. Please contact ARB’s Disabili ty Coordinator at (916) 323

- 4916 by voice or through the California Relay Services at 711, to place your request for disability services. If you are a person with limited English and would like to request interpreter services, please contact ARB’s Bilingu al Manager at (916) 323

- 7053.Table of Contents

I. BACKGROUND

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 1

II. UPDATED CONFORMITY BUDGETS FOR THE OZONE , PM2.5 and PM10 PLANS

IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY

................................ ................................ ..................... 1

Updated Ozone Budgets

................................ ................................ ............................. 3

Consiste ncy with the Ozone Plan

................................ ................................ ................ 3

Updated PM2.5 Budgets

................................ ................................ .............................. 5

Consistency with the PM2.5 Plan

................................ ................................ ................ 5

Updated PM10 Budgets

................................ ................................ ............................... 6

Consiste ncy with the PM10 Plan

................................ ................................ ................. 7

III. EMISSIONS TRADING MECHANISM

................................ ................................ ... 8

IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION

................................ ................................ ............... 8

Attachment: Budget Detail for Updated Transportation Conformity Budgets for the San Joaquin Valley Ozone, PM2.5, and PM10 State Implementation Plans

.......................... 9List of Tables

Table 1. San Joaquin Valley Summer Ozone Conformity Budgets

................................ 3

Table 2. Nitrogen Oxide Emissions Comparison

– All Source Categories

..................... 3

Table 3. Reactive Organic Gas Emissions Comparison

– All Source Categories

.......... 4

Table 4. San Joaquin Valley Winter PM2.5 Conformity Budgets

................................ .... 5

Table 5. Nitrogen Oxide Emissions Comparison

– All Source Categories

..................... 5

Table 6 . PM2.5 Emissions Comparison

– All Source Categories

................................ ... 6

Table 7. San Joaquin Valley Annual PM10 Conformity Budgets

................................ .... 6

Table 8 . Nitrogen Oxide Emissions Reductions Comparison Existing vs. Current

Inv entories

– All Source Categories

................................ ................................ ................. 7

Table 9 . PM10 Emissions Reductions Comparison Existing vs. Current Inv entories

–
All Source Categories

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 7I. BACKGROUND

Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act (Act) establishes transportation conformity requirements which are intended to ensure that transportation activities do not interfere with air quality progress. The Act requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects that obtain federal funds or approvals conform to applicable State Implementation Plans (SIP) before being approved by a Metropolitan Planning Organization. Conformity to a SIP means that proposed activities must not:

• Cause or contribute to any new violation of any standard,

• Increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any standard in any

area, or

• Delay timely attainment of any standard or any required interim emission reductions or other milestones in any area.

On November 16, 2007 the Board submitted an air quality attainment plan for the 8

- hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS ) and a maintenance plan and

re

- designation request for the PM10 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley (Ozone Plan and PM10 Plan). On March 4, 2013 the Board submitted an attainment plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (PM2.5 Plan) for the Valley. The U.S. Environmen tal Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) approved the Ozone and PM10 Plans on March 1, 2012 and November 12, 2008 respectively . The U.S. EPA proposed approval of the PM2.5 Plan on January 13, 2015. The Ozone, PM10 and PM2.5 Plans all contain transportation

confo rmity budgets that used the most up to date emission rates and planning assumptions available at the t ime the plans were developed.

I I

. UPDATED CONFORMITY BUDGETS FOR THE OZONE , PM2.5 and PM10 PLANS

IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY

ARB staff has released a re vised emission rate program, EMFAC 2014, which updates the emission rates and planning assumptions used in conformity budgets. Staff has updated the conformity budgets in the Ozone, PM10 and PM2.5 Plans to use the latest

information.

Section 93.124(e) of the federal conformity rule states that nonattainment areas with

more than one M etropolitan P lanning O rganization (MPO) may establish motor vehicle emission budgets for each MPO in the nonattainment area. T he Ozone, PM10 and

PM2.5 Pla ns establish county

- level emission budgets for each MPO in the San Joaquin Valley (Valley)

.

A ir Resources B oard (ARB or Board) staff developed the proposed budgets in consultation with the eight Valley MPOs, U.S. EPA

, and the San Joaquin Valley Air

Poll ution Control District. The transportation confor mity budgets in this u pdate use
travel activity project ions provided by the Valley MPOs consistent with the 2015 F ederal Transportation Improvement Plan (2015 FTIP ).

1The budgets have been constructed using emissions for the season consistent with the emissions inventory in the respective plans, i.e. summer for the Ozone Plan, winter for

the PM2.5 Plan and annual for the PM10 Plan, using the following method:

1) Sum the county

- by

- county emissions results from E MFAC 2014 to get a Valley

- wide total ; 2) Round the Valley

- wide totals up to:

a. the nearest whole ton for NOx and ROG ; b. the nearest tenth of a ton for PM2. 5 and PM10 ; 3) Reallocate the rounded total Valley

- wide emissions to each county proportional to each county’s contribution to the total; and 4) Calculate the budget by rounding each county’s emissions to the nearest

tenth ton (for all pollutants and precursors ) using conventional rounding.

The attachment to this u pdate provides more detailed calculations.

The following sections provide the proposed budget updates using EMFAC 2014 and discussion of their consistency with the demonstrations of progress and attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS in the respective plans. Following U.S. EPA guidance

, consistency is determined by comparing inventories of emissions in tons for plans that

model absolute concentrations, as in the Ozone and PM2.5 plans . Consistency is demonstrated by examining the relative reductions in emissions inventories f or plans

that use relative modeling, as in the PM10 maintenance plan

.

For each of the tables that follow , an increase in emissions in the current emissions inventory compared to the existing plan inventory is denoted by a negative number in the “Differences” columns on the right side of the tables, and a reduction in emissions in the current inventory is denoted by a positive number in the “Differences” column.

2

### Updated Ozone Budgets

Table 1 below details the updated ROG and NOx budget s for the San Joaquin Valley Ozone Plan by subarea.

Table 1

. San Joaquin Valley Summer Ozone Conformity Budgets

( Tons per summer day) *

County Subarea 2017 2020 2023

ROG NO x ROG NO x ROG NO x

Fresno 8. 7 29.9 6. 8 24.3 5. 6 14. 6
Kern (SJV) 6.9 26.8 5. 7 22. 4 4. 8 12. 9
Kings 1.4 5.5 1. 1 4.7 0.9 2.7

Madera 2.0 5.5 1.6 4.5 1.3 2.7

Merced 2. 7 10.3 2.1 8.5 1.7 5.1
San Joaquin 6. 4 14.1 5. 1 11.3 4. 3 7. 3

Stanislaus 4. 1 11.3 3. 2 9.2 2.7 5.8

Tulare 4. 0 10.3 3. 1 8.1 2.5 4.9

*Budgets are rounded up to the nearest tenth ton (0.1).



### C onsistency with the Ozone Plan

Table 2 and Table 3 below compare the emissions inventories for NOx and ROG

, respectively from the existing Ozone Plan and the most current inventory by major
source category

. These tables show net reductions of ROG and NOx emissions for the reasonable rate of progress (RFP) years of 2017 and 2020, and the attainment year of

2023. Note that the c urrent i nvento ry reflect s the proposed budgets detailed in Table 1.

Table 2

. Nitrogen Oxide Emissions Comparison

– All Source Categories

Inventory

Category Emissions in existing

2008 Ozone Plan* Current Emission

Inventory Differences By Year
(Existing

– Current (t ons

p er d ay ))

2017 2020 2023 2017 2020 2023 2017 2020 2023

Stationary 57.0 57.2 56.9 31.6 30.8 30.3 25.3 26.5 26.6

Area wide 8.8 8.8 8.8 4.8 4.9 4.9 4.0 3.9 3.9

On

- Road

Mobile 115.6 91.6 69.8 113.1 92.2 55.3 2.5

- 0.6 14.5

Other Mobile 89.1 80.4 72.7 89.4 81.6 70.2

- 0.3

- 1.2 2.5

TOTAL 270.6 238.1 208.2 238.9 209.5 160.7 31.6 28.6 47.5

* Includes 2011 Plan updates

3Table 3

. Reactive Organic Gas Emissions Comparison

– All Source Categories

Inventory

Category Emissions in existing

2008 Ozone Plan* Current Emission

Inventory Differences By Year
(Existing

– Current (tons
per day))

2017 2020 2023 2017 2020 2023 2017 2020 2023

Stationary 155.4 160.0 165.0 102.4 105.4 108.6 53.0 54.5 56.4

Area wide 124.9 129.3 133.8 152.8 157.9 163.0

- 27.9

- 28.6

- 29.1

On

- Road

Mobile 46.4 39.1 37.5 36.2 28.6 23.7 10.2 10.4 13.7

Other Mobile 57.1 56.5 57.1 37.9 35.1 32.1 19.1 21.4 25.0

TOTAL 383.8 384.9 393.4 329.4 327.0 327.4 54.5 57.9 66.0

* Includes 2011 Plan updates

Increases in area wide emissions of ROG are offset by greater reductions in s tationary

sources of ROG. The net emissions of NOx from stationary sources are reduced by over 25 tons per day in all years. In the RFP year of 2020 the prop osed budgets and the other mobile category represent a small increase in NOx from mobile sources. This is more than offset by net reductions in NOx from stationary and area wide sources

.

The current emissions inventory is the most recent inventory bein g developed for the 2016 ozone plan for the Valley. The changes between ex isting plan and current

inventories can be att ributed to changes in base year, updates to both the EMFAC on road and OFFROAD emissions models and updates to area wide estimation

met hodologies.

4

### Updated PM2.5 Budgets

Table 4 below details the updated PM2.5 and NOx budget s for the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Plan by subarea.

Table 4

. San Joaquin Valley Winter PM2.5 Conformity Budgets *

( Tons per winter day)

County Subarea 2017

PM2.5 NO x

Fresno 1.0 32.1 Kern (SJV) 0.8 28.8 Kings 0.2 5.9

Madera 0.2 6.0

Merced 0.3 11.0 San Joaquin 0.6 15.5

Stanislaus 0.4 12.3

Tulare 0.4 11.2

*Budgets are rounded up to the nearest tenth ton (0.1).



### Consistency with the PM2.5 Plan

Table 5 and Table 6 below compare the emissions inventories for NOx and PM2.5

, respectively from the existing PM2.5 Plan and the most current inventory by major
source category for the RFP year of 2017

. Note that the Current Inventory reflects the proposed budgets detailed in Table 4

Table 5

. Nitrogen Oxide Emissions Comparison

– All Source C ategories

Inventory

Category Emissions in

existing PM2.5

Plan * Current

Emission

Inv entory Differences By
Year (Existing

– Current (t ons p er

d ay ))

2017 2017 2017

Stationary 27.4 28.5

- 1.1

Area wide 15.6 11.7 3.9

On

- Road Mobile 125.6 122.3 3.3

Other Mobile 64.3 62.9 1.4

TOTAL 232.9 225.4 7.5

* 2012 P lan (v.1.03 ) including 2014 conformity budget updates.

5Table 6 . PM2.5 Emissions Comparison

– All Source Categories

Inventory

Category Emissions in

existing PM2.5

Plan * Current

Emission

Inventory Differences By
Year (Existing

– Current (t ons p er

d ay ))

2017 2017 2017

Stationary 8.9 8.7 0.2

Area wide 46.8 41. 2 5.6

On

- Road Mobile 4.2 3.7 0.5

Other Mobile 3.6 4.1

- 0. 5

TOTAL 63.6 57. 7 5.9

* 2012 Plan (v.1.03) including 2014 conformity budget updates.

The only category of emissions that shows an i ncrease between existing and current inventories is stationary NOx, and this small increase is offset by redu ctions in area wide, on road and other mobile source categories.

The current emissions inventory is the most recent inventory used in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan for the San Joaquin Valley. The changes between exiting plan and current

inventories can be attrib uted to changes in base year

, updates to both the EMFAC on road and OFFROAD emissions models and updates to area wide source estimation methodologies.



### Update d PM10 Budgets

Table 7 below details the updated PM10 and NOx budget s f or the San Joaquin Valley

PM10 Plan by subarea.

Table 7

. San Joaquin Valley Annual PM 10 Conformity Budgets *

( Tons per annual day)

County Subarea 2020

PM10 NO x

Fresno 7.0 25.4 Kern (SJV) 7. 4 23.3
Kings 1.8 4.8

Madera 2. 5 4.7

Merced 3. 8 8.9 San Joaquin 4. 6 11.9

Stanislaus 3. 7 9.6

Tulare 3. 4 8.4

*Budgets are rounded up to the nearest tenth ton (0.1).

6

### Consistency with the PM 10 Plan

Table 8 and Table 9 below compare the emissions reductions from 2005 to 2020 in the

inventories for NOx and PM 10 , respectively from the existing PM 10 Plan and the most current inventory by major source category

. Note that the c urrent i nventory reflects the proposed budgets detailed in Table 7

.

Table 8 . Nitrogen Oxide Emissions Reductions Comparison Existing vs. Current

Inventories

– All Source Categories *

Inventory

Category E xisting PM10

Plan * * Current Emission

Inventory

Stationary 2.2% 51.9%

Area wide 6.7% 8.7%

On

- Road Mobile 58.5% 73.5%

Other Mobile 45.8% 44.6%

TOTAL 44.1% 63.5%

* Reduction s in percent from 2005 to 2020

* * 2007 PM10 Plan v1.00 RF994

Table 9

. PM10 Emissions Reductions Comparison Existing vs. Current

Inventories

– All Source Categories*

Inventory

Category E xisting PM10

Plan * * Current Emission

Inventory

Stationary

- 12.3% 4.7%

Area wide

- 4.9% 0.5%

On

- Road Mobile 34.2% 54.4%

Other Mobile 36.5% 37.8%

TOTAL

- 2.0% 4.9%

* Reduction s in percent from 2005 to 2020

* * 2007 PM10 Plan v1.00 RF994

For NOx, the approved PM10 maintenance plan shows reductions of 44% while the updated inventory shows reductions of 63%. For PM10 emissions , the approved maintenance plan shows a slight increase of two percent whil e the current inventory shows a reduction of almost five percent. This demonstrates that reductions of PM10 and the precursor NOx in the updated inventory exceed those in the existing approved plan and are consistent with the maintenance demonstration in the approved plan.

7II I

. EMISSIONS TRADING MECHANISM

Section 93.124(b) of the federal conformity rule allows for a SIP to establish emissions trading mechanisms between budgets for pollutants or precursors, or among budgets

allocated to mobile and other sources. The approved PM10 maintenance plan and the PM2.5 Plan proposed for approval both contain emissions trading mechanisms allowing trading between budgets. These budget updates do not modify the already approved

and submitted emissions tradin g mechanisms.

I V

. STAFF RECOMMENDATION

ARB staff has reviewed the transportation conformity budgets in this update to the Ozone, PM2.5 and PM10 state implementation plans and has concluded that they meet the applicable Act requirements

. The transportation conformity budgets are consistent with the demonstrations of progress, attainment or maintenance in the respective plans.
Therefore, s taff recommend s that the Board approve th ese updates to the

tr ansportation conformity budgets in the Ozone, PM2.5 and SIPs for the San Joaquin Valley and direct staff to submit these updates as a revision to the California SIP.

8Attachment : Budget Detail for Updated Transportation Conformity Budgets for the San Joaqu in Valley Ozone, PM2.5, and PM10 State Implementation Plans

San Joaquin Valley Draft 24 hr PM2.5 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

2012 Plan for the 2006 24 hour NAAQS

(tons per winter average day)

2017 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

**2015 FSTIP MPO activity data**

County

PM2.5 NOx PM2.5 NOx PM2.5 NOx PM2.5 NOx PM2.5 NOx PM2.5 NOx PM2.5 NOx PM2.5 NOx PM2.5 NOx

EMFAC2014 0.94 31.97 0.80 28.67 0.15 5.88 0.18 5.97 0.29 10.98 0.60 15.44 0.39 12.25 0.37 11.15

Total 0.94 31.97 0.80 28.67 0.15 5.88 0.18 5.97 0.29 10.98 0.60 15.44 0.39 12.25 0.37 11.15 3.71 122.31

Air Basin Total 3.8 123

Disaggregated County Totals 0.961 32.146 0.814 28.836 0.151 5.912 0.185 6.008 0.292 11.038 0.618 15.527 0.403 12.319 0.376 11.213

Budget * 1.0 32.1 0.8 28.8 0.2 5.9 0.2 6.0 0.3 11.0 0.6 15.5 0.4 12.3 0.4 11.2 3.8 123.0 Stanislaus Tulare San Joaquin Valley Fresno Kern Kings Madera Merced San Joaquin

Air Basin

9Attachment

- continued

San Joaquin Valley Draft 8-Hour Ozone Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
2008/2011 Update Plan for the 1997 8-hour Ozone Standard

(tons per summer average day)

2017 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

**2015 FSTIP MPO activity data**

County

ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx

EMFAC2014 8.69 29.71 6.87 26.66 1.41 5.46 2.01 5.51 2.69 10.20 6.38 14.03 4.10 11.28 4.04 10.25

Total 8.69 29.71 6.87 26.66 1.41 5.46 2.01 5.51 2.69 10.20 6.38 14.03 4.10 11.28 4.04 10.25 36.19 113.08

Air Basin Total 36.2 114

Disaggregated County Totals 8.690 29.948 6.868 26.807 1.407 5.488 2.012 5.537 2.694 10.258 6.379 14.105 4.103 11.343 4.046 10.308

Budget * 8.7 29.9 6.9 26.8 1.4 5.5 2.0 5.5 2.7 10.3 6.4 14.1 4.1 11.3 4.0 10.3 36.2 113.8

2020 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

**2015 FSTIP MPO activity data**

County

ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx

EMFAC2014 6.77 24.15 5.67 22.21 1.14 4.62 1.57 4.43 2.10 8.47 5.11 11.25 3.21 9.10 3.09 8.01

Total 6.77 24.15 5.67 22.21 1.14 4.62 1.57 4.43 2.10 8.47 5.11 11.25 3.21 9.10 3.09 8.01 28.65 92.24

Air Basin Total 28.7 93

Disaggregated County Totals 6.776 24.348 5.682 22.396 1.144 4.654 1.568 4.468 2.102 8.543 5.118 11.339 3.218 9.179 3.094 8.072

Budget * 6.8 24.3 5.7 22.4 1.1 4.7 1.6 4.5 2.1 8.5 5.1 11.3 3.2 9.2 3.1 8.1 28.7 93.0

2023 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

**2015 FSTIP MPO activity data**

County

ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx

EMFAC2014 5.56 14.40 4.82 12.71 0.94 2.68 1.27 2.66 1.71 5.07 4.29 7.18 2.65 5.78 2.48 4.87

Total 5.56 14.40 4.82 12.71 0.94 2.68 1.27 2.66 1.71 5.07 4.29 7.18 2.65 5.78 2.48 4.87 23.71 55.34

Air Basin Total 23.8 56

Disaggregated County Totals 5.583 14.570 4.837 12.858 0.942 2.714 1.270 2.690 1.712 5.132 4.302 7.261 2.660 5.845 2.493 4.930

Budget * 5.6 14.6 4.8 12.9 0.9 2.7 1.3 2.7 1.7 5.1 4.3 7.3 2.7 5.8 2.5 4.9 23.8 56.0 Fresno Kern Kings Madera Merced San Joaquin Stanislaus Tulare San Joaquin Valley

Air Basin

Stanislaus Tulare San Joaquin Valley San Joaquin Fresno Kern Kings Madera Merced

Air Basin

Fresno Kern Kings Madera Merced San Joaquin Stanislaus Tulare San Joaquin Valley

Air Basin

10Attachment

– continued

San Joaquin Valley Draft PM-10 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

2008 Maintenance Plan for the 1987 PM-10 Standard

(tons per annual average day)

2020 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

**2015 FSTIP MPO activity data**

County

PM10 NOx PM10 NOx PM10 NOx PM10 NOx PM10 NOx PM10 NOx PM10 NOx PM10 NOx PM10 NOx

EMFAC2014 1.86 25.30 1.63 23.30 0.31 4.82 0.38 4.65 0.58 8.85 1.31 11.90 0.80 9.57 0.74 8.41 7.61 96.80

Paved Road Dust 4.24 4.57 0.96 1.57 1.40 2.99 1.31 1.70
Unpaved Road Dust 0.60 0.34 0.42 0.51 1.27 0.11 0.27 0.76

Road Construction Dust 0.34 0.85 0.07 0.08 0.55 0.16 1.36 0.22

Total 7.04 25.30 7.39 23.30 1.76 4.82 2.53 4.65 3.81 8.85 4.58 11.90 3.75 9.57 3.42 8.41 34.27 96.80

Air Basin Total 34.3 97

Disaggregated County Totals 7.045 25.352 7.398 23.348 1.761 4.830 2.536 4.660 3.808 8.868 4.579 11.925 3.748 9.590 3.425 8.427

Budget * 7.0 25.4 7.4 23.3 1.8 4.8 2.5 4.7 3.8 8.9 4.6 11.9 3.7 9.6 3.4 8.4 34.3 97.0 San Joaquin

Air Basin Stanislaus Tulare San Joaquin Valley Fresno Kern Kings Madera Merced

11S: \ TRANSPORTATION \ CONFORMITY \ SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY \ 2015 LIMITED APPROVALS BUDGETS \ DRAFT SJV

OCTOBER 2015 BUDGETS UPDATE STAFF REPORT.DOCX

12