Health Impacts of Power-Exporting Plants in Northern Mexico

http://www.rff.org/Publications/Pages/PublicationDetails.aspx?PublicationID=21721

Abstract: In the past two decades, rapid population and economic growth on the U.S.–Mexico border has spurred a dramatic increase in electricity demand. In response, American energy multinationals have built power plants just south of the border that export most of their electricity to the United States. This development has stirred considerable controversy because these plants effectively skirt U.S. environmental air pollution regulations in a severely degraded international airshed. Yet to our knowledge, this concern has not been subjected to rigorous scrutiny. This paper uses a suite of air dispersion, health impacts, and valuation models to assess the human health damages in the United States and Mexico caused by air emissions from two power-exporting plants in Mexicali, Baja California. We find that these emissions have limited but nontrivial health impacts, mostly by exacerbating particulate pollution in the United States, and we value these damages at more than half a million dollars per year. These findings demonstrate that power-exporting plants can have cross-border health effects and bolster the case for systematically evaluating their environmental impacts.

The full paper is available free of charge at http://www.rff.org/RFF/Documents/RFF-DP-11-18-REV.pdf

Mean estimates of the annual value of health damages attributable  to Intergen emissions are $230,000 in the United States and $104,000 in Mexico. Mean estimates of annual damages attributable to Sempra emission are $160,000 in the United States and $72,000 in Mexico. The total value of annual health damages attributable to both plants is $566,000.

Health effects, concentration-response and valuation studies are summarized in Appendix tables. For Ozone costs of five separate health effects are estimated: 1) Respiratory Hospital Admissions, 2) Asthma Emergency Room Visits, 3) School Absence Days, 4) Minor Restricted Activity Days and 5) Short-term Mortality.  For particulates PM2.5  more effect costs are estimated including 1) Mortality, 2) Chronic Bronchitis, 3) Chronic bronchitis (CB) incidences are estimated annually for the age group 27 and over, 3) Nonfatal Heart Attacks, 4) Respiratory Hospital Admissions, 5) Cardiovascular Hospital Admissions, 6) Asthma Emergency Room Visits, 7) Acute Bronchitis in Children, 8) Upper Respiratory Symptoms in Children, 9) Lower Respiratory Symptoms in Children, 10) Asthma Exacerbations, 11) Work Loss Days, and 12) Minor Restricted Activity Days.

[The authors] use the VSL (value of a statistical life) estimate from Mrozek and Taylor (2002), which has a central value of $2.324 million. This estimate is quite conservative: it is at the low end of the values used in benefit-cost analysis. For example, 2009 U.S. EPA rules mandate that benefit-cost analyses use a VSL of $7.9 million, and 2009 U.S. Department of Transportation rules mandate a VSL of $6.0 million (Copeland 2010). Baseline incidence rates were obtained from the BenMap model used by U.S. EPA for regulatory analyses.

Chronic bronchitis (CB) incidences are estimated annually for the age group 27 and over. Baseline incidence and prevalence rates are from BenMap.  There are three valuation studies for chronic bronchitis. All three are from the BenMap model, and no specific studies are cited. The two cost-of- illness studies, one with a 3 percent discount rate and one with a 7 percent discount rate, are weighted by age within the 27-and-over age group. The other study is based on willingness to pay to avoid a case of pollution-related chronic bronchitis; this valuation does not vary within the 27-and-over age  group. Nonfatal heart attack (NFHA) incidences are estimated seasonally for the age group 18 and over. Baseline incidence rates are from BenMap. There are two NFHA valuation studies in TAF, both from BenMap with no specific study cited: one with a 3 percent discount rate, and one with a 7 percent discount rate. Both studies incorporate 10 years of medical costs and 5 years of wage costs.

by Allen Blackman, Santosh Chandru, Alberto Mendoza-Domínguez and Armistead G. Russell
Resources For the Future (RFF) www.RFF.org
RFF Discussion Paper 11-18; January, 2012

Clearing the Air? The Effects of Gasoline Content Regulation on Air Quality

http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.101.6.2687 
Abstract: This paper examines whether US gasoline content regulations, which impose substantial costs on consumers, have successfully reduced ozone pollution. We take advantage of spatial and temporal variation in the regulations' implementation to show that federal gasoline standards, which allow refiners flexibility in choosing a compliance mechanism, did not improve air quality. This outcome occurred because minimizing the cost of compliance does not reduce emissions of those compounds most prone to forming ozone. In California, however, we find that precisely targeted, inflexible regulations requiring the removal of particularly harmful compounds significantly improved air quality.

by Maximilian Auffhammer and Ryan Kellogg
American Economic Review via American Economic Association www.aeaweb.org
Volume 101, Number 6; October, 2011 DOI:10.1257/aer.101.6.2687

Air Quality and Exercise-Related Health Benefits from Reduced Car Travel in the Midwestern United States

http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1103440
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: Automobile exhaust contains precursors to ozone and fine particulate matter, posing health risks. Dependency on car commuting also reduces physical fitness opportunities.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify benefits from reducing automobile usage for short urban and suburban trips.

METHODS: We simulated census-tract level changes in hourly pollutant concentrations from the elimination of automobile round trips ≤ 8 kilometers in 11 metropolitan areas in the Upper Midwestern U.S. using the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) Model. Next, we estimated annual changes in health outcomes and monetary costs expected from pollution changes using EPA’s Benefits Mapping Analysis Program (BenMAP). In addition, we used WHO's Health Economic Assessment Tool (HEAT) to calculate benefits of increased physical activity if 50% of short trips were made by bicycle. 

RESULTS: We estimate that annual average urban PM2.5 would decline by 0.1 µg/m3 and that summer O3 would increase slightly in cities but decline regionally, resulting in net health benefits of $3.5 billion/year (95% CI: $0.4–$9.8 billion), with 25% of PM2.5 and most O3 benefits to populations outside metropolitan areas. Across the study region of approximately 31.3 million people and 37,000 total square miles, mortality would decline by approximately 1,100 deaths/year (95% CI: 856 – 1,346) due to improved air quality and increased exercise. Making 50% of short trips by bicycle would yield savings of approximately $3.8 billion/year from avoided mortality and reduced health care costs (95% CI: $2.7 – $5.0 billion). We estimate that the combined benefits of improved air quality and physical fitness would exceed $7 billion/year. 

CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that significant health and economic benefits are possible if bicycling replaces short car trips. Less auto dependence in urban areas would also improve health in downwind rural settings.

by Maggie L. Grabow, Scott N. Spak, Tracey Holloway, Brian Stone Jr., Adam C. Mednick, Jonathan A. Patz Environmental Health Perspectives http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov
Received: 12 January 2011; Accepted: 05 October 2011; Online: 02 November 2011
via/hat tip National Public Radio (NPR) http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/11/02/141937325/secret-to-a-long-healthy-life-bike-to-the-store

Report Projects Health Impacts and Costs from Worsening Ozone Pollution in a Warming World

http://tiny.cc/i24xm
Ozone Pollution Could Cost Americans More Than $5 Billion in 2020
Unchecked global warming could threaten public health and increase health costs by exacerbating ground-level ozone, according to a peer-reviewed report released June 2, 2011 by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).

The report, “Climate Change and Your Health: Rising Temperatures, Worsening Ozone Pollution,” found climate change-induced ozone increases could result in 2.8 million additional serious respiratory illnesses, 5,100 additional infants and seniors hospitalized with serious breathing problems, and 944,000 additional missed school days in the United States in 2020.

All told, these and other health-related impacts could cost approximately $5.4 billion. And if global warming pollution continues unabated, these impacts and costs could be significantly higher.

“Even a small increase in ozone due to a warmer climate would have a significant impact on public health,” said UCS public health expert Liz Perera, a report co-author. “It would mean more asthma attacks, respiratory illnesses, emergency room trips, and premature deaths.”

Ground-level ozone, the primary component of smog, is generated by chemical reactions between nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) triggered by heat and sunlight. Warmer average temperatures from a changing climate may elevate ozone concentrations in many parts of the country, especially in and around urban areas.

Warmer temperatures also are associated with stagnant air conditions that can cause ozone pollution to settle over an area and remain for extended periods of time.

The UCS analysis, which used the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Environmental Benefits Mapping model, calculated national impacts and ranked the 10 states most likely to experience the worst health impacts and highest costs in 2020.

In terms of costs, it found that California would be hit hardest, followed by Texas, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey and Virginia. These states are most vulnerable because they have a combination of the largest number of residents living in urban areas, large numbers of children and seniors, and high levels of nitrogen oxides and VOC emissions from vehicles and power plants.

Overall, the report estimated increased climate change-induced ozone levels in 40 states and the District of Columbia. Studies on climate change and ozone in the Southeast and Northwest are either inconclusive or show no effect, so UCS excluded states in those regions from its analysis. Hawaii and Alaska also were excluded due to model limitations.

Clean Air Act standards have reduced ozone-forming pollutants nationally, but many counties and states are still are unable to meet the federal ozone standard. In the coming months, the EPA is expected to strengthen this standard, which, in a warming world, will be even more important to safeguard public health and improve air quality.

Average U.S. temperatures have increased more than 2º Fahrenheit (F) during the past century. If global warming emissions continue to increase, average U.S. temperatures could rise 3º to 5.5º F by 2050. These temperature increases could result in approximately 11.8 million additional serious respiratory illnesses, 29,600 more infant and senior hospitalizations, and 4.1 million additional lost school days in 2050, according to UCS’s analysis.

Conversely, if global warming emissions decline and average U.S. temperatures increase only 2º to 4º F by 2050, the health impacts associated with climate change-induced ozone could be reduced by approximately 70 percent compared with the higher emissions scenario. Of course, nitrogen oxides and VOC emissions will continue to play a dominant role in ozone formation and must be reduced significantly to mitigate ozone pollution’s threat to public health.

“The good news is we can address both ozone pollution and climate change by cutting fossil fuel emissions,” said Todd Sanford, a UCS climate scientist and report co-author. “Doing that would protect public health, the environment, and the economy.”

The report is available free of charge at http://www.ucsusa.org/climateandozonepollution

Union of Concerned Scientists www.ucsusa.org
Press Release dated June 2, 2011