Improving Air Quality through Greenhouse Gas Control and Co-Benefits Measures in Mexico

Nairobi, Kenia

November, 2006

Content

IES-Mexico Projects

Co_control of Urban Air Pollutants and Greenhouse Gases in Mexico City (2002)

The Local Benefits of Global Air Pollution Control in Mexico City (2003)

Analysis of Mexico City’s Bus Rapid Transit System (2004-2005)

National Level Study of the Co-Benefits of Emissions Control Measures (2006-2007)

Other measures analyzed using the IES methodology

Low sulfur fuels

The Local Benefits of Global Air Pollution Control in Mexico City (2003)

Motivation

20 million inhabitants3.5 million vehicles35,000 IndustriesMexico City consumes more than 40 million liters of fuel each daySerious air quality problemsIn 2002 80% of the days of the year exceeded the ozone standardsIn 1998 Mexico City was ranked as the 13th largest GHG production nation.Mexico City emits approximately 13% of the national total.

Objectives

Estimate cost savings from health improvements related to air pollution reductions occurring simultaneously with GHG

Compare cost and benefits for the specific policy measures analyzed

Build capacity in Mexico for integrated, quantitative environmental and economic assessment

Develop a policy-relevant analysis tool with explicit treatment of uncertainty

Control Measures

Evaluation of five control measures 2003-2020:

Transportation1. Taxi fleet renovation2. Metro expansion3. Hybrid buses introduction

Industry4. Co-generation

Residential5. Home stoves LPG leaks

Framework

Costs

GHG EmissionsLocal Emissions

Concentrations, Exposures

Mortality and Morbidity

Monetary Benefits

Benefit/GHG Cost/Benefit Net Benefits

Air Quality

Health Impacts

Valuation

Cost and Emissions

Methodology

Analysis of Measures– Change in emissions and costs for 5 control measures– Annualized results for 2003-2020, 5% discount

Air Quality – Reduced-form models derived from field measurements

(PM) and photochemical models (Ozone)

Health Impacts– Concentration-response methodology for 19 impacts

Economic Valuation– Willingness to pay, cost of illness and productivity loss

Taxi Fleet Renovation

Approximately 115,680 taxis circulating in the MCMA– Fleet average age - 9 years old– 4% of the vehicle fleet– 11% of activity (200 km/day)– 11.5% of SO2, 10.7% of CO,

10.2% of NOx and 14% of VOCs

Measure80,000 vehicles replaced by 2010 Fuel efficiency increases: 6.7 to 9 km/lCompliance with Tier I standards

Metro Expansion

Over 200 km of metro lines in the cityPopulation growth and sprawl -> increased demand, especially in the northMetro accounts for roughly 14% of all trips

MeasureConstruction of 76 km– Extension of 4,5,7,8,9– Construction of 12 and 13

Metro ridership to replace micros35 million dollars/km

Hybrid Buses

Over 25,000 diesel buses in the MCMA– ~7% of trips– 15% of PM2.5 emissions

In PROAIRE – plan to replace diesel buses with natural gas buses

MeasureReplace over 1000 diesel buses with hybridsEmissions factors are for Orion-LMCS VI Hybrid buses for New York City

Results (1)

The combination of these 5 measures will substantially reduce emissions of local air pollutants, as well as GHGs.

1% reductions of annual exposure to PM10

3% reductions of annual exposure to O3

2% reduction of GHG emissions (400,000 ton C equivalent) per year

Monetized benefits are estimated to be $210 million USD per year

Total annualized cost is less than 30% of the estimated benefits ($50 million USD)

Results (2)

Public Health Benefits:$210 million USD/year

Cost of implementation:$50 Million USD/year

Net benefits:$160 Million USD/Year

Evaluation of five control measures 2003-2020

Implementation of Taxi Fleet Renovation Measure

Approximately 115,680 taxis circulating in the MCMA

Measure

80,000 vehicles replaced by 2010

Fuel efficiency increases: 6.7 to 9 km/l

Compliance with Tier I standards

Implementation Mechanism

Law that establishes the maximum age of 10 years for vehicles used as Taxi.

Local government gives an allowance of almost 1,500 USD to get a new unit

24,000 vehicles replaced (2002- 2005)

Responsible Institutions:

•Secretaría del Medio Ambientedel Gobierno del Distrito Federal

•Nacional Financiera

•Grupo Financiero Banorte

•Secretaría de DesarrolloEconómico

•Secretaría de Transporte y Vialidad

Analysis of Mexico City’s Bus Rapid Transit System

Emissions from mobile sources in MCMA, 2002Inventario de Emisiones de la ZMVM, 2002

Fuentes puntualesFuentes de áreaFuentes móvilesVegetación y suelos

71%

23%5%1%

Motivation:

Modal distribution of transport in the MCMA

CO2 emission by sector in the MCMA, 2005

Source: SMA-GDF, 2005

Analysis of Mexico City’s Bus Rapid Transit System

Problems with the current public transport system

Continuous stops – road chaos

Passengers pay the driver onboard –prolonged stops

Competition between microbuses

Low average speed (i.e.. 12km/h –Insurgentes)

Low efficiency buses

Poor maintenance of buses

High emissions

BRT System (Metrobus): An option for public transport at MCMA

A BRT system operates in a confined lane

Passengers pay prior to boarding at boarding stations

Predetermined stops

Higher average speed than traditional bus system

High capacity buses

Higher fuel efficiency buses

Metrobus Insurgentes

Metrobús began operations on Insurgentes avenue in Mexico City in July, 2005.This avenue has a transportation demand of 250,000 passengers per day

Corridor extension: 19.4 km. Includes 34 boarding stations.

80 articulated buses (160 passengers) with environmental certification equivalent to Euro-III standard.

If Metrobús is successful, city officials have indicated intentions to expand the Metrobús into a system of thirty-three corridors throughout the metropolitan area

Objective of this study

Conduct a detailed analysis of the health benefits and the cost of a bus rapid system in Mexico City for the period 2005-2015.

Decision toBuild

Metrobus

Costs Change inEmissions

Change inTravelTimes

Change inExposure

Change inPopulation

Health

Value ofHealthBenefits

Benefit-Cost

Comparison

Value ofTime Saved

Greenhouse Benefits

Analysis framework

Results

Emission reductions per year144 tons of THC690 tons of NOx2.8 tons of fine Particulate Matter1.3 tons of SO2

Avoided health impacts per year:6,100 work loss days660 restricted activity days12 new cases of chronic bronchitis3 premature deathsThese health benefits provide $3 million USD benefits per year

Travel time benefits per yearSave over 2 million hours during peak hour ($1.3 million USD)

Cost of the Metrobús (infrastructure, vehicles, etc) was over 44 million USD

Metrobus corridor expects to eliminate 280,000 tons of CO2 equivalent emissions

Net Present Benefits$12.3 Million USD

Future Work:National Level Study of the Co-benefits of Emission

Control Measures

Motivation:

Nearly 65 million Mexicans live in urban areas, of which 27 million live in cities with insufficient air quality.

Mexican environmental authorities have been developing emission control measures with local, regional or national impact but rarely estimate the potential impacts of these measures.

Analytical tools are needed at the national level to support the decision making process.

Metropolitan Area Inhabitants Days above Standard

Valle de México 17,942,172 316Guadalajara 3,677,531 106Monterrey 3,243,466 78Tijuana 1,274,240 9Juárez 1,187,275 27Toluca 1,151,651 77Mexicali 549,873 123TOTAL 26,564,693

Future Work:National Level Study of the Co-benefits of

Emission Control Measures

Objectives:

Stage IDevelop a modeling tool to evaluate the potential impacts of emission control standards on Mexican air quality, which includes both primary and secondary pollutants.Develop institutional capacity to apply air quality models.

Stage II

Evaluate the potential co-benefits of different emission control measures at the national level.

Other measures analyzed using the IES methodology:

Low Sulfur FuelsMotivation:

27 million Mexicans live in cities with insufficient air quality.

Mobile sources are the most significant emitters of air pollutants

Significant growth in the Mexican vehicular fleet is expected over the next 15 years

In 2005 the Official Standard “NOM-042-SEMARNAT-2003” which requires the adoption on Tier 2 Technology for new vehicles was published

In 2005, the fuel quality standard NOM-086-SEMARNAT-SENER-SCFI-2005 was under review

Due to the high costs and investment required to produce low sulfur fuels the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit as well as the Presidential Office of Public Policy requested that INE and PEMEX conduct a complete cost-benefit analysis of the standard

Sulfur in gasoline 80 ppm 300 ppm 1000 ppm

Tier 2 Tier 1 Tier 01.31 g/km0.03 g/km0.04 g/km

192,000 km

2.11 g/km0.16 g/km0.25 g/km

160,000 km

Emissions COHCNM

NOxDurability

2.11 g/km0.21 g/km0.63 g/km80,000 km

Other measures analyzed using the IES methodology:Low Sulfur Fuels

500 Max.15 Max.

30 Prom. / 80 Máxima

500 Max.

15 Max.

15 Max.

250 Prom. / 300 Max.

500 Max.

500 Máx.

2003

30 Prom. / 80 Max.

300 Prom. / 500 Max.

30 Prom. / 80 Max.1,000 Max.

201220112010200920082007200620052004

PremiumPremium

MagnaZM

MagnaZM

MagnaRP

MagnaRP

Diesel ZM

Diesel ZM

DieselRP

DieselRP

DieselZF

DieselZF

Octubre

Septiembre

Octubre

500 Max.15 Max.

30 Prom. / 80 Máxima

500 Max.

15 Max.

15 Max.

250 Prom. / 300 Max.

500 Max.

500 Máx.

2003

30 Prom. / 80 Max.

300 Prom. / 500 Max.

30 Prom. / 80 Max.1,000 Max.

201220112010200920082007200620052004

PremiumPremium

MagnaZM

MagnaZM

MagnaRP

MagnaRP

Diesel ZM

Diesel ZM

DieselRP

DieselRP

DieselZF

DieselZF

Octubre

Septiembre

Octubre

Benefits of Low Sulfur Fuels at the National Level (2006-2030)

Introduction of low sulfur fuels together with the best control emission technologies available (Tier II and EPA 2007/2010), would avoid:

56,000 premature death

166,000 new cases of chronic bronchitis

5.6 million work loss days

78.4 million restricted activity days

Monetized Benefits: 11,373 Million USD

Cost: 4,683 Million USD

Responsible: PEMEX

Calendar to Introduce Low Sulfur Fuels in Mexico

Source: NOM-086-SEMARNAT-SENER-SCFI-2005

For Further Information

Website:http://www.ine.gob.mx/dgicurg/cclimatico/co

beneficios.html

Email:lrojas@ine.gob.mxmzuk@ine.gob.mx

riniestr@ine.gob.mx