Tracking and Evaluation of Benefits and Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Limits in Disadvantaged CommunitiesINITIAL REPORTF EBR UA RY 2017

OF F I CE OF EN VI RON M EN TAL H EA LT H H A ZA R D A S S ESS MENT

Governor’s Directive“I am directing that the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) prepare by December 1, 2016, a report analyzing the benefits and impacts of the greenhouse gas emissions limits adopted by the State Air Resources Board pursuant to Division 25.5 (commencing with Section 38500) of the Health and Safety Code within disadvantaged communities described in Health and Safety Code Section 39711. The report shall be made available to the public and the Legislature. OEHHA shall update the report at least every three years. The report, at a minimum, shall track and evaluate (a) greenhouse gas emissions, criteria air pollutants, toxic air

contaminants, short-lived climate pollutants, and other pollutant emission levels in disadvantaged communities; and

(b) public health and other environmental health exposure indicators related to air pollutants in disadvantaged communities.”

2

AB 32 Activities Large industry

Transportation

Electricity and Natural Gas Use

Water Production, Distribution, and Use

Green Buildings

Forestry

Oil and Gas Extraction, Distribution, and Refining

Recycling and Waste Management

Controls on High Global Warming Potential Gases

3

Initial Report Focus on Cap-and-Trade Program

Identify sources of data on emissions from covered facilities

Characterize relationships between greenhouse gas emissions and toxic and criteria air pollutants by facility

Case studies: examine trends in some emissions within two industrial sectors

Later potential projects…◦ Examine benefits and impacts related to transportation sector◦ Examine benefits and impacts from Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund investments

4

SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities• Communities

identified by CalEPA

• Based on results of the 2014 CalEnviroScreen Version 2.0

• Highest-scoring 25% of census tracts across the state

• A new version of CalEnviroScreen (3.0) has been recently finalized in January 2017.

5

Initial Focus on Cap-and-Trade Regulates about 85% of the state’s greenhouse gas

emissions

These facilities also commonly emit toxic air pollutants (co-pollutants).

Many of these facilities are located in low-income communities with high non-white populations.

Some data are available to describe emissions from these facilities.

6

Types of Cap-and-Trade Facilities Cement plants

Cogeneration facilities

Electricity generators

Hydrogen plants

Oil and gas production facilities

Refineries

Other combustion sources

7

GHG Facilities and SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities

More than half of these facilities are located in or near disadvantaged communities

8

Key Questions How do emissions of GHGs relate to emissions of toxic air

contaminants and criteria air pollutants from the same GHG facilities?

Are emissions disproportionately occurring in SB 535 disadvantaged communities? Do disadvantaged communities benefit from or are they negatively impacted by changes in emissions from GHG facilities subject to Cap-and-Trade?

Are the benefits and impacts due to the design of the Cap-and-Trade Program?

9

Challenges Diverse industries and facilities are covered. Variety of industrial processes, fuel types

Data availability is limited describing program-related activities, associated emissions, and health and other outcomes.

The program is flexible in how facilities may comply.

Confounding factors unrelated to the Cap-and-Trade Program can influence emissions. Economic conditions, drought

10

Sources of Data Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

(California)◦ Greenhouse gases

Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Emission Inventory (California)◦ Air toxics◦ Criteria air pollutants

Toxic Release Inventory (US EPA)◦ Air toxics

11

Limitations Emissions as a proxy for potential exposures

Uncertainties in reporting◦ Different regulatory programs◦ Different levels of data validation

12

Toxicity of Air Pollutants Greenhouse gases

◦ Carbon dioxide, methane, fluorinated gases, black carbon

Criteria air pollutants◦ Ozone, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon

monoxide, and lead

Air toxics◦ Numerous other chemicals◦ Represent a range of different toxicological properties and

potencies.

13

Characterization of Industrial Sectors Identify key processes contributing to emissions of GHGs

and air toxics Fuel combustion, production of hydrogen gas, cement production,

etc.

Identify most frequently reported emissions by sector Oil and gas production: benzene, formaldehyde, naphthalene,

toluene, xylenes, acetaldehyde, and others. Cement plants: nickel, naphthalene, lead, formaldehyde,

chromium, cadmium, beryllium, benzene, arsenic, and others.

14

Calculation of Toxicity-Weighted Air Emissions Method to screen facilities based on both amount of

chemical emitted and their relative toxicity.◦ Used 2014 California emissions data from Air Toxics “Hot Spots”

Program◦ Used or adapted US EPA toxicity factors to specific chemicals

Not an assessment of health risk, which would require consideration of factors such as stack height, weather, dispersion, and proximity of populations.

15

Toxicity-Weighted Emissions from GHG Facilities

Facility Name and Approximate Location Sector Tox-Weighted Air EmissionsCalPortland Company, Mojave Plant, Mojave Cement Plant 11,128,486,856California Resources Elk Hills, LLC, 35R Gas Plant, Tupman Oil & Gas Production, Supplier of NG/ NGL/ LPG 8,019,256,117Riverside Cement Company, Oro Grande Cement Plant 4,773,322,002Cemex Construction Materials Pacific LLC, Victorville Plant Cement Plant 3,981,635,547Lake Shore Mojave, LLC (Shutdown), Boron Cogeneration 3,154,251,353U.S. Borax, 93516, Boron Other Combustion Source 3,154,251,353PG&E Hinkley Compressor Station, Hinkley Oil & Gas Production 2,695,090,703Lehigh Southwest Cement Co., Tehachapi Cement Plant 2,565,789,410Mitsubishi Cement 2000, Lucerne Valley Cement Plant 2,073,213,791Shell Oil Products US, Martinez Refinery, Hydrogen Plant 1,916,625,223PG&E Topock Compressor Station, Needles Oil & Gas Production 1,576,205,185ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, Torrance Refinery Torrance Refinery, Hydrogen Plant, CO2 Supplier 1,531,495,371Searles Valley Minerals Inc., Trona Other Combustion Source 1,487,264,625Southern California Gas Co., South Needles Facility, Needles Oil & Gas Production 1,401,623,408Coso Power Developers (Navy II), Geothermal, Little Lake In-State Electricity Generation 1,280,562,586National Cement Company, Lebec Cement Plant 1,151,169,990Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC, SJV Basin Facility, Fellows Oil & Gas Production 1,090,450,784Imerys Minerals California, Inc., Lompoc Other Combustion Source 1,047,824,807Grayson Power Plant, Glendale In-State Electricity Generation 873,364,347Valero Refining Company, Refinery and Asphalt Plant, Benicia Refinery, Hydrogen Plant, CO2 Supplier 830,573,455Tesoro Refining and Marketing Co., Martinez Refinery, Hydrogen Plant, CO2 Supplier 786,966,781Southern California Gas Co - Aliso Canyon Facility, Northridge Oil & Gas Production 716,224,953Spreckels Sugar Company, Inc., Brawley Other Combustion Source 708,360,193Chevron Products Company, El Segundo Refinery, Hydrogen Plant, CO2 Supplier 697,864,142Phillips 66 Company, Los Angeles Refinery, Wilmington Refinery, Hydrogen Plant, CO2 Supplier 673,822,489*Top 25 of the 297 facilities for which scores could be calculated using 2014 emissions data. 16

Toxicity-weighted air emissions vs. Emitter-covered GHG emissions

[n=201 facilities]

17

Toxicity-weighted air vs. GHG emissionsby sector

Highest significant correlations for:

• Cement plants

• Refineries

• Oil and gas production facilities

18

Correlation for GHG Emissions vs. Toxicity-Weighted Air Toxics Emissions for Cap-and-Trade Facilities by Sector

Sector No.Pearson (r-value)

Stat. Sig. (p-value)

Spearman(r-value)

Stat. Sig. (p-value)

Cement Plants 9 0.474 0.198 0.733 0.025

Cogeneration 45 -0.004 0.979 0.243 0.108

Hydrogen Plants 7 0.481 0.274 0.714 0.071

Oil & Gas Production 41 0.555 0.0002 0.100 0.533

Electricity Generation 83 0.173 0.119 0.282 0.0098

Refineries 16 0.818 0.0001 0.862 <0.0001

19

2014 Emissions Data; Shaded r-Values Represent Statistically Significant Results, p<0.05

Criteria Air Pollutants Ozone

Particulate Matter (PM 2.5)

Sulfur dioxide

Nitrogen Dioxide

Carbon Monoxide

Lead

20

Correlation for GHG Emissions vs. Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions for Cap-and-Trade Facilities by Sector (2014 Data)

21

PM 2.5

PollutantCorrelation (r-value)*

Pearson SpearmanCO 0.451 0.394

NOx 0.515 0.508SOx 0.460 0.564PM 0.467 0.455

PM10 0.617 0.499PM2.5 0.718 0.554

ROG 0.642 0.246TOG 0.693 0.389

VOCs 0.652 0.246

* All correlation r-values for both tests were statistically significant (p<0.0001).

Case Study: Cement Plants

• Several have among the highest toxicity-weighted emissions

• Multi-year GHG emissions data and air toxics data are available (2011-2014)

• Different source of air toxics data: US EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory

22

Cement Plants: Trends in GHG, Air Toxics, and PM2.5 Emissions

23

GHG

sAi

r Tox

ics

PM2.

5

Case Study:Refineries

• Several have among the highest toxicity-weighted emissions

• Multi-year GHG emissions data and air toxics data are available (2011-2014)

• Different source of air toxics data: US EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory

24

25

GHG

sAi

r Tox

ics

PM2.

5

Conclusions A large fraction number of facilities subject to the Cap-and-Trade

Program are located in or near SB 535 disadvantaged communities.

There are moderate correlations between GHG emissions and emissions of criteria air pollutants, especially particulate pollution (PM2.5), and other air toxics.◦ Some sectors showed stronger correlations (for example, refineries).

Case studies of cement plants and refineries showed mixed results.

Relationships between GHGs and other pollutant emissions is complex.

Overall reductions in GHGs are likely to result in lower emissions of pollutants.

26

Next Steps Expand investigation of year-over-year data across larger

set of facilities.◦ Pre-2014 emissions

Investigate likely mechanisms for facilities to comply with the Program’s requirements and how they related to emissions of GHGs and other pollutants.

Identify opportunities to analyze benefits and impacts of other AB 32 programs.◦ Transportation Sector◦ Indirect benefits from Climate Investments

27