Final report: cost, supply, and emissions impacts of adopting the California Phase 3 gasoline standard for Arizona's Cleaner Burning Gasoline Program

              MathPro Inc. P.O. Box 34404 West Bethesda, MD 20827-0404















Tel: 301 951 9006 Fax: 301 652 7530 E-mail: mathpro@erols.com















Meszler Engineering Services Tel: 410 569 0599 906 Hamburg Drive Fax: 410 569 0730 Abingdon, MD E-mail: dan@meszler.com 21009















Final Report Cost, Supply, and Emissions Impacts of Adopting the California Phase 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona's Cleaner Burning Gasoline Program A Technical and Economic Analysis of Cleaner Burning Gasoline Supply Under HB 2207







Prepared for















Arizona Department of Environmental Quality







Under















ADEQ Contract EV03-0021AZ, Task Assignment EV05-0056















December 1, 2005















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















TABLE OF CONTENTS







Executive Summary ES.1 Objective and Scope ES.2 Primary Findings ES.3 Specific Results and Findings of the Analysis 1. Introduction 1.1 Objective and Scope of the Analysis 1.2 Overview of the Report 2. Overview of Applicable Gasoline Standards 2.1 Arizona CBG Standard 2.2 Arizona Ban on MTBE in Gasoline 2.3 Federal Regulatory Programs 2.4 Overview of the CARB 3 Standard 2.5 Arizona CBG as a Boutique Gasoline 2.6 The Energy Policy Act of 2005 2.7 Note on Terminology 3. Baseline Gasoline Properties 3.1 Definition of Baseline Properties 3.2 Technical Approach for Estimating Baseline Properties 3.3 Baseline Gasoline Properties: 2006 3.4 Back-Up Data and Calculations 4. Screening Analysis of the Gasoline Options 4.1 Overview 4.2 Specified Gasoline Options 4.3 Estimated Average Properties of the Gasoline Options 4.4 Screening Evaluation of the Gasoline Options 5. Gasoline Supply to the CBG Covered Area 5.1 Pipeline System Supplying the CBG Area and Environs 5.2 Pipeline and Other Tariffs 5.3 CBG Volume in 2004 5.4 West and East Line Capacity Utilization and Planned Expansion 5.5 Sourcing of CBG Supplies 5.6 Registered Suppliers of Arizona CBG 5.7 Local Storage Capacity and Stocks of Arizona CBG 5.8 Arizona CBG Classes and Fungibility







December 1, 2005 I















IX IX XI XI 1 1 3 4 4 6 6 7 8 9 9 10 10 11 14 15 20 20 20 22 26 33 33 34 35 36 37 37 38 40















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S (Cont'd.)







6. Technical and Economic Assessment of the Supply of CBG Options 6.1 Terminology 6.2 Specified CBG Options 6.3 Factors Shaping the Technical and Economic Analysis of CBG Production 6.4 Assumed East and West Volume Shares of Future CBG Supply 6.5 CBG Production Cases Analyzed 6.6 Methodology for Refining Analysis of the Specified CBG Options 6.7 Results of the Refining Analysis 7. Baseline Emissions Inventories 8. Emissions Analysis of CBG Options 8.1 Fuel Formulations Subjected to Detailed Emissions Analysis 8.2 Emissions Modeling Methodology 8.3 Emission Impact Estimates for Criteria Pollutants 8.4 Emission Impact Estimates for Toxic Emission Species 8.5 Emission Impact Summary 9. Discussion of Results and Findings 9.1 Cost of CBG and the Type of CBG Likely to be Supplied 9.2 Prospects for Increasing Supply of CBG 10. References Appendix A: Appendix B: Scope of Work Detailed Emissions Analysis Tables 41 41 41 42 45 46 47 54 61 82 82 83 91 107 112 114 114 115 117 A-1 B-1















December 1, 2005















II















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















LIST OF TABLES







Table 2.1: Table 3.1: Table 3.2: Table 3.3: Table 3.4: Table 3.5: Table 3.6: Table 3.7: Table 4.1: The California Reformulated Gasoline Phase 2 and Phase 3 Standards Baseline Gasoline Property Set Samples Reported in Station Compliance Reports for Area A Baseline Gasoline Properties: Summer and Winter Complex Model Emissions of Baseline Gasoline: Summer and Winter Estimated Average Properties and Complex Model Emission Reductions for CBG, by Season, Data Source, and Period Estimated Average Properties of CBG in 2004, From Batch Reports Submitted By Suppliers Average Properties of CBG Sampled at Retail in 2004, Area A 7 10 12 14 14 17 18 19 23 24 25 27 27 27 30 30 30 35 35 38 40 43 46 50 51 52 56 56 58 58 60















Estimated Average Properties and Emissions Performance of CBG and Alternative Gasoline Options Table 4.2: Average Properties of Gasoline Sampled at Retail in 2004, Area B Table 4.3: Estimated Average Properties of Ethanol-Blended Winter RFG Table 4.4: Target Emissions Reductions: Summer and Winter Table 4.5a: Estimated Emissions Performance of AZ CBG and Gasoline Options: Summer 2006 Complex Model Emissions Reductions Table 4.5b: Estimated Emissions Performance of AZ CBG and Gasoline Options: Winter 2006 Complex Model Emissions Reductions Table 4.6: Screening Analysis ? Average 2005/2010 Change in Gasoline Emissions Table 4.7: Screening Analysis ? Average 2005/2010 Change in Manmade Emissions Table 4.8: Screening Analysis ? Average 2005/2010 Change in Total Emissions Table 5.1: Table 5.2: Table 5.3: Table 5.4: Table 6.1: Table 6.2: Table 6.3: Table 6.4: Table 6.5: Table 6.6a: Table 6.6b: Table 6.7a: Table 6.7b: Table 6.8: Pipeline Tariffs Deliveries of Gasoline to Phoenix Terminals via KMP Pipeline System Estimated Storage Capacity and Stocks in Phoenix Terminals U.S. Gasoline Stocks, Gasoline Demand, and Supply-Day Measures Average Daily Gasoline Production in the California Refining Sector: 1996-2004 CBG Options Represented in the Refining Analysis Projected Growth in Refined Product Consumption and Supply, by Area and Refining Center: 2004 to 2010 Refined Product Out-Turns of East and West Refining Centers: Estimated for 2004 and Projected for 2010, by Season Prices of Key Refinery Inputs and Outputs: Estimated for 2004 and Projected for 2010 Estimated Refining Economics of CBG Options: Summer 2010 Estimated Refining Economics of CBG Options: Winter 2010 Average CBG Properties: Estimated Summer 2004 and Projected Summer 2010 Average CBG Properties: Estimated Winter 2004 and Projected Winter 2010 Capacity Profiles of East and West Refining Centers: Estimated for 2004 and Projected for 2010















December 1, 2005















III















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















L I S T O F T A B L E S (Cont'd.)







Table 7.1: Table 7.2: Table 7.3: Table 7.4: Baseline Emission Inventories for 1999 (Metric Tons per Day) Baseline Emission Inventories for 2005 (Metric Tons per Day) Baseline Emission Inventories for 2010 (Metric Tons per Day) Distribution of 1999 Nonroad Gasoline Equipment Emissions (Metric Tons per Day) Table 7.5: Distribution of 1999 Onroad Gasoline Vehicle Emissions (Metric Tons per Day) Table 7.6: Distribution of 2005 Nonroad Gasoline Equipment Emissions (Metric Tons per Day) Table 7.7: Distribution of 2005 Onroad Gasoline Vehicle Emissions (Metric Tons per Day) Table 7.8: Distribution of 2010 Nonroad Gasoline Equipment Emissions (Metric Tons per Day) Table 7.9: Distribution of 2010 Onroad Gasoline Vehicle Emissions (Metric Tons per Day) Table 7.10: Fraction of 1999 Emissions Associated with Gasoline Combustion Table 7.11: Fraction of 2005 Emissions Associated with Gasoline Combustion Table 7.12: Fraction of 2010 Emissions Associated with Gasoline Combustion Table 8.1a: Table 8.1b: Table 8.2: Table 8.3: Table 8.4: Table 8.5: Table 8.6a: Table 8.6b: Table 8.7: Table 8.8: Table 8.9: Table 8.10: Table 8.11: Table 8.12: Table 8.13: Table 8.14: Table 8.15: Summertime Gasoline Formulations Subjected to Detailed Emissions Analysis Wintertime Gasoline Formulations Subjected to Detailed Emissions Analysis Emissions-Weighted Technology Fractions for Onroad Vehicles in 2005 Emissions-Weighted Technology Fractions for Onroad Vehicles in 2010 Emissions-Weighted Technology Fractions for Nonroad Vehicles Emissions Impact Estimation Methodology Summertime Per-Vehicle Emission Impacts by Technology Type (Percent Change from Baseline) Wintertime Per-Vehicle Emission Impacts by Technology Type (Percent Change from Baseline) Baseline Adjustment of Per-Vehicle Emission Impacts by Technology Type (Percent Change from Unadjusted Baseline) Distribution of Adjusted Baseline Gasoline Emissions (Metric Tons per Day) 2005 Emissions for Non-Oxygenated Summer CBG Formulations (Metric Tons per Day) 2005 Emissions for Oxygenated Summer CBG Formulations (Metric Tons per Day) 2010 Emissions for Non-Oxygenated Summer CBG Formulations (Metric Tons per Day) 2010 Emissions for Oxygenated Summer CBG Formulations (Metric Tons per Day) CO Emissions for Winter CBG Formulations (Metric Tons per Day) Change in Gasoline (Exhaust Plus Evaporative) Emissions for Wintertime CBG Formulations Toxic Emission Species Potency Factors for Determining Aggregate Emissions Impacts







IV















65 70 71 76 76 77 77 78 78 79 80 81 84 84 87 88 89 92 93 94 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 102 109















December 1, 2005















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















L I S T O F T A B L E S (Cont'd.)







Table 8.16: Change in Toxic Emissions Associated with the Summertime CBG Options Table 8.17: Change in Toxic Emissions Associated with the Wintertime CBG Options Table B.1: Table B.2: Table B.3: Table B.4: Table B.5: Table B.6: Table B.7: Table B.8: Table B.9: Table B.10: Table B.11: Table B.12: Table B.13: Table B.14: Table B.15: Table B.16 Table B.17: Table B.18: Table B.19: Table B.20: Table B.21: Distribution of Baseline 2005 Gasoline Emissions by Technology Type (Metric Tons per Day) Distribution of Baseline 2010 Gasoline Emissions by Technology Type (Metric Tons per Day) Distribution of Adjusted Baseline 2005 Gasoline Emissions by Technology Type (Metric Tons per Day) Distribution of Adjusted Baseline 2010 Gasoline Emissions by Technology Type (Metric Tons per Day) 2005 Gasoline Emissions by Technology Type for Non-Oxygenated Summer Federal RFG Option (Metric Tons per Day) 2005 Gasoline Emissions by Technology Type for Non-Oxygenated Summer California Phase 2 RFG Option (Metric Tons per Day) 2005 Gasoline Emissions by Technology Type for Non-Oxygenated Summer California Phase 3 RFG Option (Metric Tons per Day) 2005 Gasoline Emissions by Technology Type for Oxygenated Summer Federal RFG Option (Metric Tons per Day) 2005 Gasoline Emissions by Technology Type for Oxygenated Summer California Phase 2 RFG Option (Metric Tons per Day) 2005 Gasoline Emissions by Technology Type for Oxygenated Summer California Phase 3 RFG Option (Metric Tons per Day) 2010 Gasoline Emissions by Technology Type for Non-Oxygenated Summer Federal RFG Option (Metric Tons per Day) 2010 Gasoline Emissions by Technology Type for Non-Oxygenated Summer California Phase 2 RFG Option (Metric Tons per Day) 2010 Gasoline Emissions by Technology Type for Non-Oxygenated Summer California Phase 3 RFG Option (Metric Tons per Day) 2010 Gasoline Emissions by Technology Type for Oxygenated Summer Federal RFG Option (Metric Tons per Day) 2010 Gasoline Emissions by Technology Type for Oxygenated Summer California Phase 2 RFG Option (Metric Tons per Day) 2010 Gasoline Emissions by Technology Type for Oxygenated Summer California Phase 3 RFG Option (Metric Tons per Day) Gasoline CO Emissions by Technology Type for Winter CBG Formulations (Metric Tons per Day) Change in Toxic Emissions Associated with the Non-Oxygenated Federal RFG Summertime Option Change in Toxic Emissions Associated with the Non-Oxygenated California Phase 2 Summertime Option Change in Toxic Emissions Associated with the Non-Oxygenated California Phase 3 Summertime Option Change in Toxic Emissions Associated with the Oxygenated Federal RFG Summertime Option







V















110 110 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 B-6 B-7 B-8 B-9 B-10 B-11 B-12 B-13 B-14 B-15 B-16 B-17 B-18 B-19 B-20 B-21 B-22















December 1, 2005















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















L I S T O F T A B L E S (Cont'd.)







Table B.22: Change in Toxic Emissions Associated with the Oxygenated California Phase 2 Summertime Option Table B.23: Change in Toxic Emissions Associated with the Oxygenated California Phase 3 Summertime Option Table B.24: Change in Toxic Emissions Associated with the California Phase 2 Wintertime Option Table B.25: Change in Toxic Emissions Associated with the California Phase 3 Wintertime Option Table B.26: Change in Toxic Emissions Associated with the Federal RFG Wintertime Option B-23 B-24 B-25 B-26 B-27















December 1, 2005















VI















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















LIST OF FIGURES







Figure 4.1: Change in Average 2005/2010 Gasoline-Related Emissions (Screening Analysis ? All Fuels at 30 ppm Sulfur) Figure 4.2: Change in Average 2005/2010 Manmade Emissions (Screening Analysis ? All Fuels at 30 ppm Sulfur) Figure 4.3: Change in Average 2005/2010 Total Emissions (Screening Analysis ? All Fuels at 30 ppm Sulfur) Figure 5.1: Pipeline System Supplying Gasoline to the Phoenix Area Figure 8.1: Change in 2005 Summertime Gasoline Exhaust Plus Evaporative Emissions (Brake, Tire Wear, and Road Dust PM are not in the Baseline) Figure 8.2: Change in 2010 Summertime Gasoline Exhaust Plus Evaporative Emissions (Brake, Tire Wear, and Road Dust PM are not in the Baseline) Figure 8.3: Change in 2005 Summertime Manmade Emissions (Biogenic and Geologic Emissions, Including Road Dust PM, are not in the Baseline) Figure 8.4: Change in 2010 Summertime Manmade Emissions (Biogenic and Geologic Emissions, Including Road Dust PM, are not in the Baseline) Figure 8.5: Change in Total 2005 Summertime Emissions Figure 8.6: Change in Total 2010 Summertime Emissions Figure 8.7: Change in Wintertime CO Emissions Figure 8.8: Change in Wintertime Gasoline Exhaust Plus Evaporative Emissions (Brake, Tire Wear, and Road Dust PM are not in the Baseline) Figure 8.9: Change in Summer 2005 Toxic Emissions Associated with the Combustion and Evaporation of Gasoline in Vehicles and Nonroad Equipment Figure 8.10: Change in Summer 2010 Toxic Emissions Associated with the Combustion and Evaporation of Gasoline in Vehicles and Nonroad Equipment Figure 8.11: Change in Winter Toxic Emissions Associated with the Combustion and Evaporation of Gasoline in Vehicles and Nonroad Equipment 31 31 32 34 103 103 104 104 105 105 106 106 111 111 112















December 1, 2005















VII















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















DISCLAIMER MathPro Inc. and Meszler Engineering Services prepared this study for the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. The results, findings, and conclusions expressed in this report are those of MathPro Inc. and Meszler Engineering Services and do not necessarily reflect those of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. MathPro Inc. and Meszler Engineering Services conducted the analysis and prepared this report using reasonable care and skill in applying methods of analysis consistent with normal industry practice. All results are based on information available at the time of presentation. Changes in factors upon which the study is based could affect the results and findings. Forecasts and projections are inherently uncertain because of events that cannot be foreseen, including the actions of governments, individuals, third parties and competitors. NO IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY SHALL APPLY.















December 1, 2005















VIII















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















Executive Summary Arizona House Bill 2207 provides for adopting the California Air Resources Board's Phase 3 gasoline standard (CARB 3) as part of the Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline (AZ CBG) program. One provision of the bill calls for an independent analysis of the cost, supply, and emissions impacts of adopting the CARB 3 standard. The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) retained Steven Reynolds (prime contractor), MathPro Inc. (subcontractor), and Meszler Engineering Services (subcontractor) to conduct the analysis. This report is the final work product of the study. ES.1 OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE















Consistent with the Scope of Work (SoW) document (Appendix A), this study assessed specified "options for modifying gasoline formulations for the purpose of providing additional supply of motor fuels to Arizona while maintaining or improving the effectiveness of the . . . CBG program being implemented in the Greater Phoenix area." The options were: 1. Add CARB 3 as an additional standard under the CBG program for both the summer and winter seasons [retaining Arizona Type 1 CBG in the summer, as in the current program]. 2. Set CARB 3 as the standard for Arizona Type 2 CBG [replacing CARB 2], as required under House Bill 2207 [again, retaining Type 1 CBG in the summer]. 3. Evaluate the following regional gasoline options as possible CBG standards that will achieve the necessary emissions benefits1 and increase the supply of CBG in the region. Federal reformulated gasoline (RFG), winter season only Las Vegas blend Albuquerque blend West Texas/El Paso blend Tucson blend Any other regional blend that can be delivered to the CBG area cost-effectively 4. Lift the current wintertime Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) cap ? 9 psi ? in the Phoenix metropolitan area at two different oxygen content standards: 11 psi, at 2.0 wt% and 3.5 wt% oxygen content 13.5 psi, at 2.0 wt% and 3.5 wt% oxygen content The study comprised four analytical tasks, as outlined in the SoW.







1















The SoW defines "necessary emissions benefits" as emissions not more than 5% above baseline emissions of criteria pollutants and not more than 10% above baseline emissions of toxic pollutants. IX















December 1, 2005















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















Task 1: Identification and Evaluation of Options Estimation of the current (2004) average properties ? or baseline properties ? of gasoline supplied to the CBG area in the summer and winter seasons, under the current AZ CBG program; Screening of the various gasoline options specified in Option 3 (above), to identify which (if any) of these would achieve the level of emissions performance specified for CBG; Estimation of baseline emission inventories for the criteria pollutants ? particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and volatile organic compounds (VOC) ? and for the years of interest. Baseline gasoline properties and emission inventories are the properties and emission inventories expected in the CBG covered area in the absence of any change in current gasoline programs. Gasoline options that did not satisfy the screening criterion were not considered in the subsequent tasks. Task 2: Analysis of Impacts on Motor Fuel Distribution Identification and assessment of the primary implications of the various gasoline options considered on the operation of the distribution system (from the refinery to the end-use site) that supplies CBG and other refined products to the CBG covered area and its environs. Task 3: Technical and Economic Analysis of Gasoline Production Assessment of the primary implications of the various gasoline options considered in the refining centers that produce AZ CBG, including: Development of approximate measures of the incremental refining costs (relative to the baseline gasoline) of producing the various gasoline options considered; and Estimation of other effects associated with the gasoline options considered, including possible requirements for refinery investment and effects on fuel economy. Task 4: Emissions Analysis Assessment of the emissions effects of each gasoline option considered, including effects on Emissions of PM, CO, VOC, NMOC, and NOx, on a per-vehicle basis within major vehicle technology classifications; Region-wide emissions of CO, PM, NMOC, and NOx from onroad and nonroad mobile source inventories in 2005 and 2010; and















December 1, 2005















X















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















Secondary emissions including hazardous air pollutants and emissions outside of Maricopa County. The emissions analysis was performed for the summer gasoline options and some of the winter gasoline options considered. ES.2 PRIMARY FINDINGS















Effects of Adopting the CARB 3 Standard The results of the study indicate that adoption of the CARB 3 gasoline standard for the Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline program (AZ CBG) will have minimal effect on the cost, supply (actual and prospective), and emissions performance of Arizona CBG, in either the summer or winter gasoline seasons. This finding applies whether Arizona adopts the CARB 3 standard in place of or in addition to the CARB 2 standard (summer and winter). Similarly, adoption of the CARB 3 gasoline standard should, in itself, have no significant effects on the operations or economics of the gasoline distribution system serving the CBG covered area (the KMP South pipeline system and the Phoenix terminal complex). Establishing CARB 3 as an additional summer and winter standard under the CBG program (Option 1 above), rather than as a replacement for CARB 2 (Option 2), could allow the refining industry some additional flexibility in sustaining supply of Arizona CBG during temporary upsets or capacity curtailments in the logistics system. Effects of the Other Gasoline Options Specified For summer CBG, none of the regional gasoline options specified for consideration as possible CBG standards provide the required NOx and VOC emissions performance. For winter CBG, none of the regional gasoline options would provide the required CO emissions performance. Federal RFG, as it has been produced in the Midwest in the winter could offer some reduction in average refining cost of winter CBG. Relaxing the oxygen content and volatility standards of winter CBG, as specified in the SoW, could reduce slightly its average refining cost. Estimating the emissions effects of relaxing these standards was beyond the scope of the study. ES.3 SPECIFIC RESULTS AND FINDINGS OF THE ANALYSIS















Baseline Properties of Gasoline Supplied to the CBG Covered Area Table ES.1 shows the estimated baseline properties of Arizona CBG developed in Task 1. These properties are, with the exception of sulfur content and oxygenate content, the average properties of gasoline supplied to the CBG covered area in the 2004 summer season and the 2003-2004 winter season, determined by analysis of the Arizona Department of Weights and Measures (DWM) retail







December 1, 2005 XI















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















station compliance reports for Area A for the corresponding periods. The average sulfur content is set at 30 ppm, to conform to the federal Tier 2 gasoline sulfur standard to take effect in 2006, and the ethanol content is set at 10 vol% in conformance with the CBG winter standard. TABLE ES.1: BASELINE GASOLINE PROPERTIES: SUMMER AND WINTER







Gasoline Property Octane (R+M)/2 Oxygenate Ethanol MTBE ETBE TAME RVP Oxygen Aromatics Benzene Olefins Sulfur E200 E300 T10 T50 T90 Units Vol% Summer 88.3 Winter 88.9 10.0 0 Psi Wt% Vol% Vol% Vol% Ppm Vol% off Vol% off oF oF oF 6.5 0.2 21.9 0.92 7.5 30 42.9 85.9 145 212 320 8.6 3.4 18.9 0.93 3.1 30 53.4 90.1 127 187 300















Table ES.2 shows the emissions performance corresponding to the baseline gasoline properties, estimated by the federal Complex Model for gasoline certification. These estimated emissions reductions constitute the baseline for the initial screening of the various gasoline options. TABLE ES.2: EMISSIONS PERFORMANCE OF BASELINE GASOLINE: SUMMER AND WINTER







Emission VOCs NOx Toxics CO Summer Winter (% Reduction) 30.5 14.4 15.9 28.4 25.7 23.9















Baseline Emissions Inventories for the CBG covered area Using the source materials provided by ADEQ, along with supplemental analysis tools such as the U.S. EPA's MOBILE6.2 and NONROAD emissions models, we developed baseline emission inventories for PM, CO, NOx, and VOC. To support evaluation of the impacts of the various gasoline options, the emission inventories were resolved sufficiently to isolate those







December 1, 2005 XII















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















portions attributable to gasoline consumption (other portions of the inventory would be essentially unaffected by changes in gasoline formulation.) Tables ES.3 and ES.4 (next page) present the inventories developed for 2005 and 2010, respectively.















TABLE ES.3: BASELINE EMISSION INVENTORIES FOR 2005 (METRIC TONS PER DAY)







Summer Source Category Non-Mobile Sources Nonroad Gasoline Nonroad Other Onroad Gasoline Onroad Other Total Emissions Total Gasoline Emissions VOC 162.76 49.95 13.25 55.33 4.85 286.15 105.29 NOx 60.74 1.16 75.00 84.92 33.38 255.19 86.08 CO 60.77 450.95 80.77 482.85 34.69 1110.02 933.80 SO2 3.13 0.02 7.05 1.88 1.34 13.43 1.90 Direct PM-10 190.07 2.52 4.37 2.16 1.16 200.28 4.68 Direct PM-2.5 66.36 2.32 3.91 1.11 1.00 74.69 3.42 Indirect PM-10 4.24 0.07 6.40 5.01 2.19 17.91 5.08 Indirect PM-2.5 3.58 0.06 5.48 4.16 1.84 15.12 4.22 Winter CO 41.49 450.95 87.37 407.37 36.10 1023.28 858.32















TABLE ES.4: BASELINE EMISSION INVENTORIES FOR 2010 (METRIC TONS PER DAY)







Summer Source Category Non-Mobile Sources Nonroad Gasoline Nonroad Other Onroad Gasoline Onroad Other Total Emissions Total Gasoline Emissions VOC 179.28 17.58 11.14 41.93 4.29 254.22 59.51 NOx 66.01 1.54 73.19 61.23 24.49 226.46 62.77 CO 70.37 466.67 78.76 460.38 27.15 1103.34 927.05 SO2 3.47 0.01 4.99 0.76 0.08 9.30 0.77 Direct PM-10 214.72 3.13 4.07 2.34 0.76 225.02 5.46 Direct PM-2.5 74.59 2.88 3.56 1.12 0.61 82.76 4.00 Indirect PM-10 4.63 0.08 5.55 3.40 1.28 14.94 3.48 Indirect PM-2.5 3.91 0.07 4.72 2.80 1.04 12.54 2.87 Winter CO 49.52 466.67 86.19 386.60 28.28 1017.25 853.27















Screening of Regional Gasoline Options Of the regional gasoline options specified in the SoW, only one ? federal RFG (winter only), as it has been produced in the Chicago-Milwaukee area ? meets the emissions criterion specified in the SoW: estimated emissions not more than 5% higher for criteria pollutants and not more than 10% higher for toxic pollutants, relative to the baseline gasoline.















December 1, 2005















XIII















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















None of the regional gasoline options meet the screening criterion for the summer season. In particular, all the options fail on VOC, with respect to both vehicle emissions (as estimated by the Complex Model) and total Maricopa County emissions.2 Accordingly, of the regional gasoline options specified in the SoW, only federal RFG (winter only) was subjected to further emissions analysis in this study, along with all CBG options specified in the SoW. The Gasoline Distribution System Serving the CBG covered area The CBG covered area receives almost all of its gasoline (including AZRBOB3) and other refined products by pipeline. In 2004, the area received by pipeline an average of about 96 K Bbl/day of AZ CBG and about 15 K Bbl/day of conventional gasoline (CG), with relatively little seasonal variation. Just over half of the CBG volume came from refineries west of Phoenix (primarily in the Los Angeles refining center); the balance came from refineries east of Phoenix (primarily in the West Texas/New Mexico refining center). In addition to the pipeline volumes, the CBG covered area received small volumes of CBG by truck and rail (from East-side sources), as well as rail shipments of ethanol for terminal blending with AZRBOB in the winter months. The pipeline system serving the Phoenix area is a common carrier owned and operated by Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P (KMP). The KMP system delivers refined products (AZ CBG, conventional gasoline (CG), jet fuel, and diesel fuels) to terminals in Phoenix and Tucson, through two pipelines. The West line moves refined products produced in the Los Angeles refining center, as well as lesser volumes produced in the San Francisco and Puget Sound refining centers, from Los Angeles to Phoenix and on to Tucson.4 At Colton (east of Los Angeles), the West line connects with KMP's CalNev pipeline, which carries refined products, including Las Vegas's special gasoline formulation, to the Las Vegas area. The East line moves refined products produced in the West Texas/New Mexico and Gulf Coast refining centers from El Paso, TX, to Tucson and on to Phoenix.







2















Note that the fraction of Maricopa County emissions associated with gasoline combustion changes over time in accordance with national and local control programs as well as changes in source distributions, etc. For screening analysis purposes, the average of the gasoline emissions fractions for 2005 and 2010 were averaged to derive an average emission fraction for the 2005-2010 time period. AZRBOB is Arizona Reformulated Blendstock for Oxygenate Blending, the base gasoline blend produced at refineries for local blending with ethanol to produce finished CBG. However, as of October 2005, no gasoline supplies from the West will move east of Phoenix. XIV















3















4















December 1, 2005















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















By virtue of this configuration, Phoenix is served by both West-side and East-side refineries. Several proprietary pipelines deliver refined products to El Paso, for onward shipment in the East line. In addition, refined products and gasoline blendstocks from the Gulf Coast refining center move to El Paso through the new Longhorn Pipeline, which connects there with the KMP East line, and through the existing Magellan Pipeline Co. South line. In normal operations, the East line is fully allocated (i.e., operates at full capacity), with suppliers receiving allocations, or prorated shares, of pipeline capacity. By contrast, the West line operates with spare capacity. Hence, in general, the Los Angeles refining center is the marginal supplier of gasoline to the Phoenix area. KMP is currently expanding the capacity of the East line from El Paso to Phoenix, with completion scheduled for the second quarter of 2006. The project will increase the total capacity of the East line by about 45 K Bbl/day. KMP expects that about 25 K Bbl/day of the new capacity will be allocated to gasoline. (In August 2005, KMP announced plans for a further expansion of the East line, which will add 23 K Bbl/day of capacity from El Paso to Tucson.) After the expansion, the East line is likely to continue being fully allocated, with marginal supplies to Phoenix continuing to come from the West. In general, the West side of the Phoenix distribution system is long on pipeline capacity and short on refining capacity to supply CBG and other refined products, whereas the East side is short on pipeline capacity but long on refining capacity. The Phoenix terminal complex comprises five essentially contiguous bulk terminals, with an aggregate working storage capacity for CBG storage corresponding in volume to about ten days of CBG consumption. Actual gasoline stocks ? as distinct from storage capacity ? are not a matter of public record. However, the average volume of gasoline stocks held in the Phoenix terminal complex probably is on the order of four days of CBG consumption ? several days less than the pipeline transit times to Phoenix from either Los Angeles or El Paso. By contrast, in PADD 5,5 stocks of finished gasoline and gasoline blendstocks held at terminals (yearend 2004) were equal to approximately ten days of demand nation-wide and seven days of demand. Many refineries, particularly those in PADDs 16 and 5, are located close to (or indeed within) their primary market areas and have their own facilities for supplying these markets directly. Hence, some significant portion of refinery stocks (varying from PADD to PADD) is equivalent to terminal stocks, in the sense that both are "prompt stocks" ? close, in distance and time, to final demand sites. Stocks of finished gasoline and gasoline blendstocks (year-end 2004) at terminals and refineries in PADD 5 were equal to approximately seventeen days of gasoline demand in PADD 5 ? significantly higher than the prompt stocks available to the Phoenix area.















5















PADD 5 (Petroleum Administration for Defense District 5) comprises Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. PADD 1 comprises seventeen states along the Eastern seaboard, from Maine to Florida. XV















6















December 1, 2005















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















Fungibility in the Distribution System The KMP system and the Phoenix terminal complex are configured to handle only one AZ CBG type, in two grades: regular and premium. Hence, all batches of a given grade of AZ CBG shipped via the West and East lines must be mutually fungible ? that is, amenable to commingling with other batches of CBG in the pipeline, pipeline break-out tanks, and terminals. However, AZRBOB supplied for ethanol blending and finished, non-oxygenated CBG are not mutually fungible, because of necessary differences in octane and volatility. They must be segregated from the refinery to the pump. The refineries have dealt with the mutual fungibility requirement by limiting the CBG batches supplied to Phoenix to a single type, which changes seasonally. In the winter, the current CBG program calls for just one gasoline class: Type 2 CBG (CARB 2 standard, 9 RVP, 10 vol% ethanol). In the summer, the current CBG program requires either Type 1 CBG (federal RFG "look-alike", with no oxygenate required) or Type 2 CBG (CARB 2 standard, with no oxygenate required). Nonoxygenated Type 1 and Type 2 CBG are fungible. The refining industry has chosen to supply only non-oxygenated summer CBG. (Prior to Arizona's ban on MTBE use, non-oxygenated Type 1 CBG and MTBE-blended Type 2 CBG were considered fungible.) Enabling the distribution system to handle two gasoline segregations (i.e., two non-fungible gasoline types) would require investment in additional tankage and other equipment in the pipeline and terminals. We understand that KMP has no plans for undertaking such investments. Because the existing KMP system cannot segregate two non-fungible gasoline types, the CBG volumes supplied to the CBG covered area via both the East and West lines must be either All ethanol blended or All non-oxygenated. In the winter season, the existing distribution system can accommodate any combination of ethanolblended CARB 2, CARB 3, or federal RFG, because they would be mutually fungible and interchangeable (when properly certified) with respect to the AZ CBG program. In the summer season, the existing distribution system could accommodate either any combination of nonoxygenated federal RFG, CARB 2, or CARB 3 OR any combination of ethanol-blended federal RFG, CARB 2 or CARB 3 (all with the same ethanol content) ? but not both. Refining Sector Considerations Gasoline production in California is not keeping pace with in-state demand in the wake of the California MTBE ban. Some refineries in the Los Angeles refining center are capable of supplying a flexible gasoline slate, including not only CARB 3 for California, but also AZ CBG (under the current program), Las Vegas gasoline, and perhaps other gasolines, in response to market driving







December 1, 2005 XVI















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















forces. Other refineries are configured and operated to produce primarily CARB 3 gasoline, with little or no capability to segregate additional classes for out-of-state markets. In general, aggregate terms, the gasoline slate produced by the West Texas/New Mexico refining center (conventional gasoline, 7 RVP gasoline, and AZ CBG) is less demanding and less costly to produce than that produced by the Los Angeles refining center (mainly CARB 3, with some conventional gasoline, Las Vegas gasoline, and AZ CBG). The CBG covered area and environs is a primary gasoline market for a number of West Texas/New Mexico refineries. They have captured an increasing share of the market in recent years; since 1997, essentially all the growth in gasoline demand in the area has been met by increased supplies from East-side refineries. As a group, the West Texas/New Mexico refineries supplying CBG have increased aggregate gasoline production capability in recent years. The planned expansion of the KMP East line suggests that West Texas/New Mexico refineries intend to continue to increase their capacity to meet increasing demand for AZ CBG. The refineries can do so either by expanding their facilities and increasing total gasoline production or by upgrading to CBG some conventional gasoline now supplied to other markets. In summary: In the California refining sector, CARB 3 production predominates, Arizona CBG production represents about 5% of gasoline production, and summer CBG produced to the Type 1 standard is less costly to produce than CARB 2 or CARB 3 gasoline produced for sale in California. In the West Texas/New Mexico refining center, CARB 3 production is negligible, Arizona CBG production constitutes a significant share of the gasoline out-turn of the refineries supplying CBG, and CBG is more costly to produce than the balance of their gasoline production. Estimated Refining Costs of the CBG Options Considered Tables ES.5a and ES.5b show the refining costs estimated in the technical and economic analysis of CBG production conducted in Task 3. TABLE ES.5A: ESTIMATED REFINING ECONOMICS OF CBG OPTIONS: SUMMER 2010







Non-Oxygenated Reference Case Study Cases 0 0 0 Fed-S Cal2-S Cal3-S 2.4 2.2 2.7 120 60 60







XVII















Ethanol Content (Vol%) --> Certificat ion Option -->















Ethanol-Blended Reference Case Study Cases 10 5.7 5.7 Fed-S Cal2-S Cal3-S 2.9 1.9 4.2 150 50 100 3.5 2.0 5.5 190 60 130















Refining Cost (?/gal of CBG) East W est Daily Refining Cost ($K/d) East W est







December 1, 2005















2.2 2.0 2.5 120 60 60















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















Summer In the summer, Type 1 CBG (Fed-S in Table ES.5a) enjoys a refining cost advantage over CARB 2 (Cal2-S) and CARB 3 (Cal3-S) gasoline of about 2?2??/gal with no ethanol blending and about 3?3??/gal with ethanol blending. These cost differences are likely to lead all CBG suppliers, East and West, to continue meeting the CBG summer requirements by supplying Type 1 CBG rather than gasoline produced to the CARB 2 (if it remains in the CBG program) or CARB 3 standards, except in unusual or transient circumstances. Because Type 1 CBG will continue to be the standard of choice for summer gasoline, the CBG covered area is likely to experience little change in the average properties of summer CBG as a consequence of HB 2207. CBG certified to either the CARB 2 or CARB 3 standard would be more costly to produce in the West refining center than in the East. This cost difference arises from the different volume shares of CARB gasoline produced in the two refining centers. The California refining sector produces a gasoline pool that is predominately CARB 3; the West Texas/New Mexico refining center produces a gasoline pool with little or no CARB gasoline. The difference between the costs of producing the non-oxygenated CBGs and the costs of producing their ethanol-blended counterparts would depend on the delivered price of ethanol and the relationship of the ethanol price to oil prices. Forecasting these price relationships was beyond the scope of the study. TABLE ES.5B: ESTIMATED REFINING ECONOMICS OF CBG OPTIONS: WINTER 2010







Reference Case Cal2-W 8.7 10.0 8.7 10.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0 0 0 Study Cases Cal3-W 11.0 10.0 5.7 -0.8 -0.8 -0.8 -40 -20 -20 -1.1 -1.2 -1.0 -60 -40 -20 13.5 10.0 5.7 -1.6 -1.6 -1.6 -90 -50 -40 -2.1 -2.2 -1.9 -100 -60 -40















Certification Option --> RV P (psi)-->. Ethanol Content (Vol%) -->















Fed-W 12.5 10.0 -2.0 -1.5 -2.6 -100 -40 -60















Refining Cost (?/gal of CBG) East W est Daily Refining Cost ($K/d) East W est















Winter In the winter, Arizona CBG would have the same average refining costs whether certified to either the CARB 2 (Cal2-W in Table ES.5b) and CARB 3 (Cal3-W) standards. Some individual refineries may have an economic incentive to continue producing to the CARB 2 standard (if it















December 1, 2005















XVIII















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















remains part of the CBG program); others, particularly in the Los Angeles refining center, may prefer CARB 3. The other winter CBG options specified in the SoW for consideration ? federal RFG (Fed-W) and the CARB 3 variants with relaxed RVP or oxygen standards (Cal3-WR) ? all have lower average refining costs than CARB 2 or CARB 3 produced to the Type 2 standard. The difference in refining costs between CARB 3 ethanol blended at 10 vol% ethanol and 5.7 vol% ethanol depends on the delivered price of ethanol and the relationship of the ethanol price to oil prices. Emissions Effects of the CBG Options Considered We conducted a detailed emissions analysis of six summer gasoline options: Non-oxygenated Type 1 (Federal) CBG and ethanol-blended Type 1 CBG. Non-oxygenated Type 2 (California Phase 2) CBG and ethanol-blended Type 2 CBG. Non-oxygenated California Phase 3 CBG and ethanol-blended California Phase 3 CBG. The non-oxygenated Type 1 CBG and ethanol-blended Type 1 CBG, are expected to be the summer gasolines of choice on economic grounds. We conducted a detailed emissions analysis of three winter gasoline options: CARB 2 and CARB 3, with 10 vol% ethanol and 9 psi RVP, as specified by the SoW. Federal RFG, with 10 vol% ethanol and an ASTM compliant RVP. Given limitations in available analytical tools and the need to develop emission impact estimates on both a per-vehicle and regional basis, a hybrid analysis approach was employed to evaluate the emissions impacts of the four gasoline options. The approach included the use of EPA's MOBILE6.2, the EPA Complex Model, and the CARB Phase 3 Predictive Model. MOBILE6.2 served as the hub of the emissions analysis, producing emission factors by technology type for each fuel formulation (both the baseline formulation and associated options). However, MOBILE6.2 does not include algorithms to estimate the emissions response to changes in the full range of fuel properties. To estimate emission responses for such qualities as E200, E300, aromatic content, olefin content, and benzene content, a secondary analysis method was employed using a combination of the Complex Model and the Predictive Model. Figures ES.1 through ES.5 summarize the estimated emissions impacts for 2010 (when not included, 2005 impacts are similar). In all cases, positive values indicate emissions increases, while negative values indicate emissions decreases. As Figures ES.1 and ES.4 indicate, the emissions impacts of the summertime gasoline options are generally within the range of variability allowable under the existing CBG program. While significant summertime reductions of both criteria pollutant and toxic emissions could result from the sale of either CARB 2 or CARB 3 CBG relative to the Federal RFG blends that currently dominate summertime CBG sales, there is nothing in the current CBG program that







December 1, 2005 XIX















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















prohibits CARB 2 sales. So the actual impacts of the potential CBG program revisions are reflected solely in the emissions differences between CARB 2 and CARB 3 CBG. As indicated in Figures ES.1 and ES.4, the emissions impact differences of these blends are commensurate with the modest changes in prospective average CBG properties associated with these blends. As indicated in Figure ES.1, the oxygenated summertime options result in significant CO reductions. However, this impact should be considered with the understanding that summertime oxygenate use is not prohibited under the current CBG program. It is simply more economical (currently) to provide non-oxygenated gasoline. Additionally, CO is not a major contributor to summertime air quality issues. The emissions performance of the wintertime CARB 2 and CARB 3 options are also similar as indicated in Figures ES.2, ES.3, and ES.5. However, as is also indicated, there are significant emissions increases associated with the wintertime use of a federal RFG, which is not allowable under the current CBG requirement for Type 2 wintertime gasoline. These increases result from the higher aromatic, olefin, and sulfur content of the federal fuel, as well as its increased volatility. Therefore, a relaxation of the current wintertime Type 2 CBG requirement could lead to significant increases in both criteria pollutant and toxic emissions.















FIGURE ES.1: CHANGE IN TOTAL 2010 SUMMERTIME EMISSIONS







+5%















0% Emissio n s Change .















-5% No n -Oxy g en at ed FedRFG -10% No n -Oxy g en at ed CARB 2 No n -Oxy g en at ed CARB 3 Oxy g en at ed FedRFG -15% Oxy g en at ed CARB 2 Oxy g en at ed CARB 3 -20%















Summer VOC















Summer NO x















Summer CO















Summer SO 2















Summer PM- 10















Summer PM- 2.5















December 1, 2005















XX















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















FIGURE ES.2: CHANGE IN WINTERTIME CO EMISSIONS







+20% CA RB 2 +15% Emi ssi o n s Change . CA RB 3 Fed RFG















+10%















+5%















0%















2005 2005 Gasoline Manmade Emissions Emissions















2005 2010 2010 2010 Total Gasoline Manmade Total Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions















FIGURE ES.3: CHANGE IN WINTERTIME GASOLINE EXHAUST PLUS EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS







+60% +50% +40% Emissio n s Change . +30% +20% +10% 0% -10% -20% CA RB 2 (2005) CA RB 3 (2005) Fed RFG (2005) CA RB 2 (2010) CA RB 3 (2010) Fed RFG (2010)















Winter VOC















Winter N Ox















Winter SO 2















Winter PM- 10















Winter PM- 2.5















December 1, 2005















XXI















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















FIGURE ES.4: CHANGE IN SUMMER 2010 TOXIC EMISSIONS







+10%















+5%















Emissi o n s Change .















0%















-5% No n -Oxy g en ated FedRFG -10% No n -Oxy g en ated CARB 2 No n -Oxy g en ated CARB 3 Oxy g en at ed FedRFG Oxy g en at ed CARB 2 Oxy g en at ed CARB 3 -20%















-15%















Potency- Weighted N on- Cancer Risk















Potency- Weighted Cancer Risk















FIGURE ES.5: CHANGE IN WINTER TOXIC EMISSIONS







+15%















+10% Emissio n s Change .















+5%















0% CA RB 2 (2005) CA RB 2 (2010) CA RB 3 (2005) CA RB 3 (2010) Fed RFG (2005) Fed RFG (2010)















-5%















-10%















Potency- Weighted N on- Cancer Risk















Potency- Weighted Cancer Risk















December 1, 2005















XXII















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















Cost-Effectiveness of Adopting the CARB 3 Standard The primary findings of the study are that both the estimated costs of adopting the CARB 3 standard and the estimated emissions effects are small. Consequently, developing measures of the costeffectiveness of adopting the CARB 3 standard was not feasible.















December 1, 2005















XXIII















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















1. Introduction The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) retained Steven Reynolds (prime contractor), MathPro Inc. (subcontractor), and Meszler Engineering Services (subcontractor) to conduct an analysis of the cost, supply, and emissions impacts of Arizona's adopting the California Air Resources Board's Phase 3 gasoline standard (CARB 3) for the Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline program (AZ CBG), pursuant to Arizona House Bill 2207 [1]. MathPro Inc. conducted the analysis of refining and distribution effects of this initiative, including effects on the average properties of gasoline supplies to Arizona's the CBG covered area (Maricopa County and adjacent areas). Meszler Engineering Services conducted the analysis of emissions effects of the initiative, including effects on inventories of mobile source emissions in the Maricopa County airshed. This report is the final work product of the project. 1.1 OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS The Scope of Work document calls for evaluation of "options for modifying gasoline formulations for the purpose of providing additional supply of motor fuels to Arizona while maintaining or improving the effectiveness of the . . . CBG program being implemented in the Greater Phoenix area." 1. Add CARB 3 as an additional standard under the CBG program for both the summer and winter seasons [retaining Arizona Type 1 CBG in the summer, as in the current program]. 2. Set CARB 3 as the standard for Type 2 CBG [replacing CARB 2], as required under House Bill 2207 [again, retaining Type 1 CBG in the summer]. 3. Evaluate the following regional gasoline options as possible CBG standards that will achieve the necessary emissions benefits7 and increase the supply of CBG in the region. Federal RFG (wintertime only) Las Vegas blend Albuquerque blend West Texas/El Paso blend Tucson blend Any other regional blend that can be delivered to the CBG covered area cost-effectively















7















As noted in the Executive Summary, the SoW defines "necessary emissions benefits" as emissions not more than 5% higher for criteria pollutants and not more than 10% higher for toxic pollutants ? all of which we interpret as being relative to the baseline gasoline.







1















December 1, 2005















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















4. Lift the current wintertime cap (9 psi) on the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP)8 of gasoline supplied to the Phoenix metropolitan area, at two different oxygen content standards: 11 psi, at 2.0 wt% and 3.5 wt% oxygen content 13.5 psi, at 2.0 wt% and 3.5 wt% oxygen content We evaluated the primary technical, economic, and air quality effects of these options by carrying out four analytical tasks specified in the SoW: Task 1: Identification and Evaluation of Options Estimation of the current average properties ? or baseline properties ? of gasoline supplied to the CBG area in the summer and winter seasons, under the current CBG program; Screening evaluation of the various gasoline options specified in Option 3 (above) as possible alternatives to the CBG standard, to identify which (if any) of these ? as alternative gasoline standards ? would achieve the specified level of emissions performance; Estimation of baseline emission inventories for the pollutants of interest ? particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and volatile organic compounds (VOC) ? for the years of interest. Two comments are appropriate here. First, in the context of this study, baseline gasoline properties and emissions denote the properties and emissions expected in the CBG covered area in the absence of any change in current gasoline programs (as discussed in Section 2.1). Second, any gasoline options that did not satisfy the screening criterion in Task 1 were not considered in the subsequent tasks. Task 2: Analysis of Impacts on Motor Fuel Distribution Identification and assessment of the primary implications of the various gasoline options considered on the operation of the distribution system (from the refinery to the end-use site) that supplies CBG and other refined products to the CBG covered area and its environs. Task 3: Technical and Economic Analysis of Gasoline Production Assessment of the primary implications of the various gasoline options considered in the refining centers that produce the gasoline supplied to the CBG covered area, including: Development of approximate measures of the incremental refining costs (relative to the baseline gasoline) of producing the various gasoline options considered; and







8















Reid Vapor Pressure is a standard measure of gasoline volatility (i.e., propensity to evaporate).







2















December 1, 2005















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















Estimation of other effects associated with the gasoline options considered, including possible requirements for refinery investment and effects on fuel economy. Task 4: Emissions Analysis Assessment of the emissions effects of each gasoline option considered, including effects on Emissions of PM, CO, VOC, NMOC, and NOx, on a per-vehicle basis within major vehicle technology classifications; Region-wide emissions of CO and for PM, NMOC, and NOx from onroad and nonroad mobile sources in 2005 and 2010; and Secondary emissions, including hazardous air pollutants and effects on emissions outside of Maricopa County. As specified in the SoW, the emissions analysis was performed for the summer gasoline options considered and for some of the winter gasoline options. 1.2 OVERVIEW OF THE REPORT Section 2 summarizes relevant aspects of the Arizona CBG and California (CARB) RFG programs. Section 3 deals with the estimation of baseline gasoline properties and presents the estimated properties. Section 4 discusses the screening evaluation of the various regional gasoline options as possible CBG standards. Section 5 describes the distribution system through which supplies of CBG flow to the Phoenix area (Task 2). Section 6 describes the basis, methodology, and results of the technical and economic analysis of CBG production in the refining sector (Task 3). Section 7 deals with the estimation of baseline emissions inventories and presents the estimated inventories (Task 1). Section 8 describes the emissions analysis of the CBG options considered (Task 4). Section 9 briefly discusses implications of some of the key results and findings. Section 10 lists references. Appendix A contains relevant portions of the Statement of Work. Appendix B presents a series of tables that provide detailed emissions analysis data in support of the more aggregate data presented in Section 8. Section 8 includes references to the tables in Appendix B where appropriate.















December 1, 2005















3















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















2.















Overview of Applicable Gasoline Standards















All gasoline supplied to the CBG covered area must satisfy the physical property and/or emissions requirements of the Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline (AZ CBG) program [2, 3], Arizona's ban on the use of MTBE in gasoline, and various federal programs. This section provides a brief overview of these standards, as well as the CARB 3 standard. 2.1 ARIZONA CBG STANDARD For purposes of this analysis, one can summarize the current Arizona CBG standard as follows. 2.1.1 The CBG Covered Area The AZ CBG program requires that CBG be sold in the CBG covered area, comprising all of Maricopa County plus the portions of Arizona's Area A that are in Pinal and Yavapai Counties.9 (In this report, we call this area "the CBG area.") 2.1.2 Summer Season















The summer season, the NOx and VOC control period, extends from May 1 to September 30.10 During this period, gasoline supplied to the CBG covered area may be either Type 1 CBG or Type 2 CBG. Type 1 CBG is similar to federal Phase 2 reformulated gasoline (RFG 2), in that it must meet the federal Phase 2 RFG standards for NOx and VOC emission reductions (as certified by the federal Complex Model [4] for gasoline certification). However, Type 1 CBG is not subject to the existing federal RFG standards for Toxics emissions, because Arizona does not regulate toxic emissions;11 Benzene content12, because CBG is not intended for toxics control; and Oxygen content.







9 10















The legal description of Area A is given in ARS 49-541(1). The season definitions apply at the pump (i.e., at retail). Terminals and pipelines that supply CBG are not subject to formal season definitions, but are responsible for supplying the retail level with required gasoline types at all times. Under ?211(c) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, states other than California are pre-empted from regulating toxic emissions. The federal government has no National Ambient Air Quality Standard for toxics emissions. The federal RFG limit on benzene content is 0.95 vol%, under the averaging program.







4















11















12















December 1, 2005















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















Type 1 CBG may, but need not, contain oxygen. (The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 specified that federal RFG contain, on average, at least 2.1 wt% oxygen. The Energy Policy Act of 2005, which became law in July 2005, has repealed this oxygen requirement; federal RFG no longer need contain oxygen.) Ethanol-blended RFG or Type 1 CBG can be certified via the Complex Model at any ethanol concentration used in commerce ? that is, at 5.7, 7.7, and 10 vol%. Type 2 CBG is (at present) similar equivalent to California Phase 2 RFG (CARB 2), in that it must conform to the CARB 2 program's emissions standards for NOx and VOC, through either the averaging or "flat-limits" (non-averaging) options (as certified by the California Phase 2 Predictive Model [5]). Type 2 CBG is not subject to the CARB 2 program's emission standard for Toxics, because Arizona does not regulate toxic emissions. As with Type 1 CBG, Type 2 CBG may, but need not, contain oxygen. The CARB 2 standard does not include an oxygen content requirement.13 Ethanol-blended CARB 2 can be certified via the CARB 2 Predictive Model (PM2) at 5.7 and 7.7 vol% ethanol, but not at 10 vol%.14 2.1.3 Winter Season















The winter season, the CO control period, extends from November 1 to March 31. (Over the past fifteen years, Maricopa County has experienced no violations in February and March of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for CO. For this reason, Arizona intends to petition EPA to limit the winter gasoline program to November, December, and January. The ultimate duration of the winter season has no bearing on this study.) During the winter season, all gasoline supplied to the CBG area must Conform to the CARB 2 standard (with oxygen content set at 2.0 wt% for certifying compliance); Have a Reid vapor pressure (RVP) < 9.0 psi; and Contain 10 vol% ethanol (corresponding to 3.5 wt% oxygen).15















13















However, all CARB gasoline sold in those parts of California subject to the federal RFG program (as well as the CARB program) must contain oxygen, in conformance with the federal standard. About 80% of California's gasoline consumption is in federal RFG areas. Similarly, CARB 3 can be certified via the CARB 3 Predictive Model (PM3) at 5.7 and 7.7 vol%, but not at 10 vol%. Because ethanol has a strong affinity for water, ethanol-blended gasolines are prepared by blending ethanol into a suitable gasoline base blend at the local terminal just before delivery to the end-use sites (e.g., retail sales sites). Base blends suitable for ethanol blending to produce AZ CBG are called AZRBOB (Arizona Reformulated Blendstock for Oxygenate Blending).















14 15















December 1, 2005















5















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















2.1.4















Transition Seasons















The gasoline calendar includes two transition periods between the primary gasoline seasons. They are necessary to accommodate practical limitations in the capability of the gasoline distribution system ? pipelines and terminals ? to segregate winter and summer gasolines without cross-contamination. The spring transition extends from April 1 to April 30. The fall transition season extends from September 16 to November 1. During these periods, gasoline supplied to the CBG area must comply with the summer AZ CBG standards (Type 1 or Type 2), except for RVP. In the transition periods, CBG must meet a 9 RVP standard. 2.2 ARIZONA BAN ON MTBE IN GASOLINE All gasoline supplied to Arizona is subject to the state's ban on MTBE in gasoline. This ban took effect 1 January 2005 (pursuant to HB 2142, Chapter 218). As a consequence, ethanol is the only practical choice as the oxygenate in AZ CBG.16 The Arizona MTBE ban affects summer CBG only, because winter CBG is already subject to an ethanol mandate (independent of the MTBE ban). As a practical matter, essentially all AZ CBG supplied in 2004 was MTBE-free, except for small volumes of MTBE-blended premium grade Type 1 CBG produced in refineries in the West Texas/New Mexico refining center. 2.3 FEDERAL REGULATORY PROGRAMS All gasoline consumed in the U.S. is subject to the federal Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) program and the federal Tier 2 gasoline sulfur control program. The MSAT program applies to refiners, not consuming areas, and is aimed at preventing toxics emissions from gasoline from increasing above the average levels reported by refiners in a baseline period (1998-2000). The Tier 2 gasoline sulfur control program, setting limits on the average sulfur content of gasoline, took effect in 2004. The average sulfur standard was 120 ppm in 2004, is 90 ppm in 2005, and will be 30 ppm in 2006 and thereafter. The latter value corresponds to the CARB 2 (Type 2 CBG) sulfur standard, under averaging compliance. Hence, the Tier 2 sulfur program has had and will have little effect on the sulfur content of Type 2 CBG. However, the program has had a significant effect on the sulfur content of Type 1 CBG, particularly that produced in the West Texas/New Mexico and Gulf Coast refineries, with attendant reduction in emissions, especially NOx emissions. (Typically, refiners can produce complying federal RFG with sulfur















16















An oxygenate is a gasoline blendstock that contains oxygen.







6















December 1, 2005















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















levels as high as 150?180 ppm). These refineries will implement some additional sulfur control in 2005 to meet the 2006 Tier 2 standard of 30 ppm. 2.4 OVERVIEW OF THE CARB 3 STANDARD California banned the use of MTBE in gasoline sold in California, effective 1 January 2004. To facilitate the production of CARB gasoline with ethanol as the oxygenate instead of MTBE, the California Air Resources Board established the California Phase 3 RFG (CARB 3) program. The CARB 3 program supersedes the CARB 2 program. Since the advent of the CARB 3 program, all gasoline produced for sale in California must conform to the CARB 3 emissions standards and be certified with PM3. The CARB 3 program bans the use of MTBE, includes a new set of reference gasoline properties, and has a new Predictive Model ? the Phase 3 Predictive Model (PM3) [6] ? that replaces the former one (PM2). The emissions reduction targets of the two standards are comparable. Table 2.1 provides a side-by-side comparison of the CARB 2 and CARB 3 standards. The CARB 3 limits for T50 and T90 are higher than the corresponding CARB 2 limits, a technical adjustment to facilitate production of ethanol-blended CARB gasoline. To compensate for the emissions effects of these changes, the CARB 3 limits for sulfur and benzene are lower than the corresponding CARB 2 limits. TABLE 2.1: THE CALIFORNIA REFORMULATED GASOLINE PHASE 2 AND PHASE 3 STANDARDS







Gasoline Property RVP Oxygen Aromatics Benzene Olefins Sulfur T50 T90 Notes: 1. The indicated RVP standards do not apply in the winter months (November ? February). 2. The CARB 3 RVP standard of 7.00 psi applies to the "non-evaporative" version of PM3. Most refiners use this version for certifying CARB 3 batches. 3. T50 and T90 are widely-used measures of gasoline volatility, as indicated by the gasoline "distillation curve." T50 and T90 denote the temperatures at which 50% and 90% of the gasoline volume is vaporized. Units Psi Wt% Vol% Vol% Vol% Ppm oF oF Flat Limits CARB 2 CARB 3 7.00 1.8 ? 2.2 25.0 1.00 6.0 40 210 300 7.00 1.8 ? 2.2 25.0 0.8 6.0 20 213 305 Averaging Limits CARB 2 CARB 3 N.A. N.A. 22.0 0.80 4.0 30 200 290 N.A. N.A. 22.0 0.70 4.0 15 203 295 Cap Limits CARB 2 CARB 3 7.00 0 ? 3.5 30.0 1.20 10.0 80 220 330 6.40 ? 7.20 0 ? 3.5 35.0 1.10 10.0 30 220 330















December 1, 2005















7















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















The CARB gasoline program does not require oxygen in CARB gasoline produced for sale in California, except for gasoline sold in Southern California in the winter months (which must contain 2.7 vol.% oxygen). However, about 80% of California's gasoline consumption is in areas subject not only to the CARB program but also to the federal RFG program, year-round. In particular, essentially all of the California markets served by the Los Angeles refining center are subject to the federal RFG program. Until the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (the Act) in July 2005, the federal RFG program contained an oxygen requirement (at least 2.1 wt%, under averaging). Hence, essentially all CARB 3 gasoline produced by the Los Angeles refineries ? the California refiners that supply AZ CBG to Phoenix ? is now ethanol-blended, though that may change in response to the Act's repeal of the federal oxygen requirement for RFG.17 The CARB oxygen limit is 3.5 vol% (corresponding to 10 vol% ethanol). However, as a practical matter, gasoline containing more than 2.7 vol% oxygen would fail both PM2 and PM3 (on NOx emissions). 2.5 ARIZONA CBG AS A BOUTIQUE GASOLINE A "boutique gasoline" is a special gasoline produced to local standards (usually for improving air quality) and not widely supplied throughout the area served by the gasoline supply system. Boutique gasolines are not produced by as many refineries as standard gasolines (e.g., conventional gasoline, federal RFG) and therefore can be more subject to supply interruptions than standard gasolines. Under this definition, Arizona CBG is a boutique gasoline. The CBG area is the only area in the country that requires gasoline certified to the CARB 2 standard. The CBG winter standards calling for the combination of 9 RVP and 10 vol% ethanol are unique to the CBG area. Finally, the CBG Type 1 standard (federal RFG, but without oxygen and benzene control) also is unique to the CBG area. The Act contains provisions intended to prevent further proliferation of boutique gasolines. In particular, Section 1541(b)(I) prohibits EPA from approving a fuel for SIP if that fuel would increase the total number of unique fuels incorporated in all SIPS nationally, as of September 1, 2004. (Section 1541(b)(II) directs EPA and the U.S. Department of Energy to develop and publish a list of the unique boutique fuels in use as of September 1, 2004.) In summary, the act appears to allow EPA to approve a new boutique fuel for a SIP only if (1) the national list has "room" for the new fuel (because either the new fuel completely replaces a fuel already on the list or the list has an opening because some other boutique fuel has gone out of use) and (2) the fuel has 7 RVP in the summer. One would expect Type 1 and Type 2 CBG (as they were defined as September 1, 2004), as well as CARB 3, to be on the national list.







17















Title 15 of the Energy Policy Act repeals the requirement for oxygen content in federal RFG, effective immediately for California and 270 days after enactment in the rest of the country.







8















December 1, 2005















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















2.6 THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005 The Act contains numerous provisions (some mentioned above) that will affect the production cost and supply of gasoline nation-wide and that could affect the AZ CBG program in particular. The most significant fuels provisions of the Act include: A national ethanol mandate, starting at 4 billion gallons per year (bgy) in 2006 and increasing annually to 7.5 bgy in 2012 (Thereafter, the mandate volume increases in step with national gasoline use, so as to maintain ethanol's volume share of the gasoline pool at its 2012 level.) Repeal of the federal oxygen requirement in RFG Establishment of an ethanol credit trading program, to facilitate compliance with the ethanol mandate Limitation on the number of boutique fuels permitted in the future In addition, the Act directs EPA to conduct studies on a number of topics, including the effects of ethanol permeation and the possible limitation on the allowable number of distinct gasoline types. The Act could have significant effects on the AZ CBG program in the future. This study did not address the act or any its possible effects, because all analytical work had been completed before the act's passage. 2.7 NOTE ON TERMINOLOGY As this discussion indicates, the Type 1 and Type 2 CBG standards correspond only in part to the federal RFG and CARB standards, respectively. Hence, in the context of the AZ CBG program, the terms "RFG", "CARB 2", and "CARB 3" as used in this report may denote CBG meeting (1) Arizona standards for RVP and (winter) oxygen content and (2) the federal or California reformulated gasoline standards, except for benzene content and hazardous air pollutant performance.















December 1, 2005















9















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















3.















Baseline Gasoline Properties















This section defines the baseline gasoline properties for this study and presents our estimates of the baseline properties. 3.1 DEFINITION OF BASELINE PROPERTIES For purposes of this study, the baseline gasoline properties are the average properties of the AZ CBG that would be supplied to the CBG area in the summer and winter seasons of the study's target years (2005 and 2010), if there were (1) no changes in the AZ CBG program, (2) no new federal regulatory programs affecting gasoline quality, and (3) no change from the 2004 sourcing pattern for AZ CBG. The estimated baseline gasoline properties are a key intermediate result of the study. In subsequent tasks, the set of baseline properties are the standard of comparison for evaluating the technical and economic effects of proposed changes in the AZ CBG program. Table 3.1 shows the set of gasoline properties for which we developed baseline values.







TABLE 3.1: BASELINE GASOLINE PROPERTY SET







Gasoline Property Octane (R+M)/2 RVP Oxygen







Ethanol MTBE ETBE TAME















Units Psi Wt%







Vol% Vol% Vol% Vol% Vol% Vol% Vol%















Aromatics Benzene Olefins Sulfur E200 E300 T50 T90















Ppm Vol% off Vol% off oF oF















With the exception of octane, these gasoline properties are the inputs to the federal Complex Model for RFG certification (CM) and the California Predictive Models for CARB gasoline certification (PM2 and PM3).18















18















E200/E300 and T50/T90 are alternative characterizations of a gasoline's distillation curve. The Complex Model takes E200 and E300 as inputs; the Predictive Model takes T50 and T90. The other gasoline properties shown in Table 3.1 are common inputs to both models.







10















December 1, 2005















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















These models are the prescribed tools for estimating the emissions performance of gasoline formulation and specific gasoline batches. The models compute reductions (relative to a specified baseline gasoline) in vehicle emissions of VOC, NOx, and toxics as nonlinear functions of the gasoline properties shown in Table 3.1, for a specified mix of vehicle types. 3.2 TECHNICAL APPROACH FOR ESTIMATING BASELINE PROPERTIES 3.2.1 Sources of Data on Gasoline Properties in the CBG area















We obtained and analyzed data from three sources on the current properties of gasoline supplied to the CBG area: The Batch Certification Reports submitted by refineries to the Arizona Department of Weights and Measures (DWM), as required by the AZ CBG program [2]. Refiners must submit one of these reports for each gasoline batch produced in the source refinery and released for shipment to the CBG area. Each batch report lists numerous physical and chemical properties (determined by the refinery's designated analytical facilities) for the gasoline batch. DWM receives and stores these reports and records their contents in an electronic database. We examined summary reports generated by DWM from the database, not the original batch reports submitted by the refineries. The data we examined cover the period January 2003 through January 2005. The Station Compliance Reports for Area A, developed by DWM These reports cover gasoline samples collected at the retail level by DWM and analyzed by a contract laboratory. The DWM sampling program covers regular, mid-grade and premium gasolines. The gasoline property data we examined cover the period April 2003 through January 2005. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) North American Fuels Surveys [7] The AAM survey program is based on analysis of retail gasoline (and diesel fuel) samples collected in many metropolitan areas, including Phoenix. (It also covers Albuquerque, Denver, and Las Vegas.) The survey reports show the properties of retail gasoline samples in the local summer and winter gasoline seasons. The results we examined covered the 2003-2004 winter and 2004 summer seasons. Data from each of these sources include all or most of the properties listed in Table 3.5 (at the end of this section). With the two sources of data provided by AZ DWM in hand, we did not consider the AAM survey as a candidate source for estimating CBG area baseline properties. However, the AAM data for Phoenix















December 1, 2005















11















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















and other Western cities were of significant value in the screening assessment of alternative gasoline formulations (discussed in Section 4). 3.2.2 Data Source of Choice















After careful assessment of the batch report data (refinery level) and the station compliance data (retail level), we chose to use the station compliance data as the basis for estimating baseline gasoline properties for the CBG area. We did so for the following reasons. The retail-level data set comprises a large number of samples, as shown in Table 3.2. TABLE 3.2: SAMPLES REPORTED IN STATION COMPLIANCE REPORTS FOR AREA A Summer 2004 Winter 2003-2204 Premium Mid-grade Regular Total Pool 142 136 158 436 44 41 50 135















On visual inspection, the reported properties for these samples appear reasonable in magnitude and complete (i.e., no omissions). On the other hand, the refinery-level data drawn from the batch reports appear to have several deficiencies. The total volume of AZ CBG covered by the batch reports for 2004 is less (by about 10%) than the total volume of CBG actually supplied in 2004, as indicated by pipeline deliveries to Phoenix (see Table 3.1). Along these lines, visual inspection of the batch report data reveals a number of temporal gaps in the batch reports submitted by several refiners that are regular suppliers of gasoline to the CBG area. For a number of batches, certain properties (e.g., benzene content, aromatics content) are either unreported or obviously incorrect (e.g., aromatics content > 100%). For a number of winter gasoline batches, the reported oxygen content is around 2.0 wt% or 2.7 wt%, rather than the 3.5 wt% required for winter CBG. Such values probably reflect preparation by the refineries of "hand blends" of the CBG base blend (AZRBOB) actually shipped to the CBG area plus 5.7 vol% or 7.7 vol% ethanol (corresponding to in-use winter CARB 2 gasoline), rather than the required AZRBOB + 10 vol% ethanol (corresponding to in-use AZ winter CBG). Such errors affect the reported values of all relevant gasoline properties, not just oxygen content.















December 1, 2005















12















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















Reported properties for some Type 2 CBG batches were actually "flat limit" properties (analytical artifacts used in certifying CARB gasoline supplied to California), instead of the actual in-use properties of the batches. In summary, the retail-level data for the CBG area appear to be the more robust and reliable of the two data sources provided by DWM for the baseline period. We understand that DWM, through its compliance audits, is aware of the errors in the batch reports and has instituted procedures to minimize such errors in the future. 3.2.3 Procedure for Calculating Baseline Properties The SoW specifies 2005 and 2010 as the target years for the study. However, with respect to gasoline sulfur content, 2005 is a transition year, with an average sulfur limit of 90 ppm. (See Section 3.1.3.) In 2006 and later years, the average sulfur limit will go to 30 ppm. Hence, for purposes of calculating baseline gasoline properties, we set 2006 as the baseline year. Using the retail-level sampling data, we estimated the baseline properties for summer and winter AZ CBG for 2006 and later years using the following procedure for each season. 1. Compute three sets of average properties, covering the regular grade gasoline samples, the midgrade samples, and the premium samples. 2. Compute the volume-weighted average of the three sets of average grade properties, using the following weighting factors: -- Regular: 0.83 -- Mid-grade: 0.06 -- Premium: 0.11 These weighting factors are the volume shares of regular, mid-grade, and premium gasoline consumption in Arizona in 2003, estimated from the Department of Energy/Energy Information Agency's (DOE/EIA) Petroleum Marketing Annual 2003 [10]. The result of this step is the set of estimated baseline properties for AZ CBG for the Summer 2004 and Winter 2003-2004 seasons. 3. Project the results of Step 2 from 2004 to 2006 by setting the average sulfur level at 30 ppm, reflecting the federal Tier 2 sulfur control standard for 2006 and later years and setting the oxygenate levels to conform to the CBG oxygenate requirements. The sulfur adjustment is minor. Step 2 yielded estimated average sulfur levels of 48 ppm in the summer and 33 ppm in the winter. These low current sulfur levels reflect (1) the 30 ppm average sulfur limit (and 40 ppm "flat limit") in the CARB 2 gasoline program, (2) the strong















December 1, 2005















13















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















overall sulfur control capabilities in the California refineries, and (3) the progress East-side refiners have made toward coming into compliance with the 2006 Tier 2 sulfur standard. This simple adjustment, affecting no other estimated baseline properties, reflects the assumption that refineries can accomplish the small increment of sulfur control with minimal effects on the other gasoline properties of interest. 3.3 BASELINE GASOLINE PROPERTIES: 2006















Table 3.3 shows the resulting estimated baseline gasoline properties for summer and winter. Table 3.4 shows the corresponding emissions reductions, computed by the Complex Model from the baseline properties. TABLE 3.3: BASELINE GASOLINE PROPERTIES: SUMMER AND WINTER







Gasoline Property Octane (R+M)/2 Oxygenate Ethanol MTBE ETBE TAME RVP Oxygen Aromatics Benzene Olefins Sulfur E200 E300 T10 T50 T90 Units Summer 88.3 Vol% 10.0 0 Psi Wt% Vol% Vol% Vol% Ppm Vol% off Vol% off oF oF oF 6.5 0.2 21.9 0.92 7.5 30 42.9 85.9 145 212 320 8.6 3.4 18.9 0.93 3.1 30 53.4 90.1 127 187 300 Winter 88.9















TABLE 3.4: COMPLEX MODEL EMISSIONS OF BASELINE GASOLINE: SUMMER AND WINTER







Emission VOCs NOx Toxics CO Summer Winter (% Reduction) 30.5 14.4 15.9 28.4 25.7 23.9















December 1, 2005















14















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















As noted in Section 2.1.2, MTBE use is banned in Arizona, as of 2005. TAME (an ether, like MTBE) is not yet banned in Arizona, but the legislature is considering a bill (SB 1154) to ban TAME and other ethers. Nonetheless, as Table 3.3 indicates, the estimated baseline gasoline properties show small concentrations of MTBE and the ether TAME in the baseline gasolines. Examination of the batch reports, coupled with information provided by KMP, indicates that essentially all of the MTBE and TAME in the AZ CBG pool in 2004 was in premium-grade AZ CBG supplied by East-side refineries in 2004. (Apparently, these refiners had not yet completed modifications needed to enable production of premium-grade CBG without MTBE). We did not attempt to adjust the baseline gasoline properties to reflect removal of these oxygenates by 2006, for several reasons. Even with the ether bans in place in 2006 and beyond, AZ CBG is likely to contain some de minimus, but as yet unknown, average concentration of ethers, due to commingling in refineries and pipelines supplying AZ CBG. Rigorous reestimation of baseline properties of AZ CBG, with an assumed de minimus ether content, would not have been simple. It would have called for refinery modeling, beyond the intended scope of Task 1. The resulting estimated baseline gasoline, re-blended without MTBE and TAME, would have properties and emissions reductions only slightly different than those shown in Tables 3.3 and 3.4. We consider the estimate shown in Table 3.3 adequate for purposes of this study. Finally, the data in the batch reports did not permit quantitative estimates of the volume shares of Type 1 and Type 2 CBG supplied to the CBG area in the summer of 2004. However, inspection of the reported properties of individual suggests that most of the CBG supplied was Type 1. Reported sulfur levels of East batches indicate that virtually all East volumes were Type 1. The set of average reported properties for all reported West batches do not pass PM-2, suggesting that most of them were certified as Type 1. 3.4 BACK-UP DATA AND CALCULATIONS Tables 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7 show data obtained or developed in this analysis. Table 3.5 shows estimates of the average properties (and corresponding CM emissions estimates) of Phoenix area gasoline, by season, year, and data source, derived from the various data sources described in Section 3.3: the DWM retail-level survey data, the DWM refinery-level batch report data, and the AAM fuels survey. Italicized numbers denote estimates made from a data subset, after eliminating incomplete or erroneous records. This table indicates the three data sources lead to similar estimates of baseline gasoline properties and Complex Model emissions, lending credence to the AAM survey as the source for average properties of the various gasoline options (e.g., Denver gasoline, etc.) to be assessed in this study. Table 3.6 shows (1) average properties of AZ CBG estimated from the batch report data, by season, year, and sourcing and (2) the gasoline volumes and volume shares covered by these reports.















December 1, 2005















15















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















This table shows the differences in the average properties of the AZ CBG pools supplied via the West and East lines. It also shows that essentially all of the MTBE in the Summer 2004 CBG pool was from gasoline produced by East-side refineries. Finally, comparison of the column headed Volume & Share with Table 5.2 indicates the shortfall in CBG volumes covered by the batch reports. Table 3.7 shows (1) average properties of AZ CBG estimated from the retail survey data, by season, year, and gasoline grade and (2) the number of samples of each gasoline grade, by season and year.















December 1, 2005















16















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















TABLE 3.5: ESTIMATED AVERAGE PROPERTIES AND COMPLEX MODEL EMISSION REDUCTIONS FOR CBG, BY SEASON, DATA SOURCE, AND PERIOD







Properties & Emission Reductions Properties Octane ((R+M)/2)) RVP (psi) Oxygen (wt%)







Etoh (Vol%) MTBE (vol%) ETBE (vol%) TAME (vol%)















AAM 2004 88.4 6.7 0.1







0.6 0.2















Summer Ariz. Retail Surveys 2003 2004 88.7 6.8 1.4







0.0 6.3 0.0 1.0















Batch Reports 2003 2004 6.7 1.4







5.8 1.8















AAM 2003-2004 6.6 0.1







0.5 0.2















Winter Ariz. Retail Surveys 2003-2004 2005 88.9 8.6 3.4







8.9 0.2 0.0 0.2















Batch Reports 2003 2003-2004 8.7 2.5







7.3 -















88.3 6.5 0.2







0.0 0.5 0.0 0.4















90.0 9.0 3.3







9.6















88.9 8.7 3.7







9.5 0.0 0.0 0.5















8.7 3.0







8.9 -















Aromatics (vol%) Benzene (vol%) Olef ins (vol%) Sulf ur (ppm) E200 (%off) E300 (%off) T10 (?F) T50 (?F) T90 (?F)















20.6 0.90 6.5 68 43.3 86.5 145 211 317















22.2 0.97 4.1 66 49.1 87.7 141 202 311















21.9 0.92 7.5 48 42.9 85.9 145 212 320 30.3 13.6 28.0















22.0 0.98 4.6 76 51.1 87.2 206 305 30.2 12.1 30.6















20.2 0.84 8.9 57 42.6 85.9 211 315 30.0 13.3 29.1















17.4 0.94 1.6 20 51.9 89.4 129 191 304















18.9 0.93 3.1 33 53.4 90.1 127 187 300















18.1 0.70 4.3 32 51.9 89.4 130 193 303















17.2 0.97 3.3 23 199 300















21.1 1.11 1.9 18 189 300















Complex Model Emission Reductions (%) VOCs 29.0 29.2 NOx 13.2 12.8 Toxics 28.4 30.6 CO















16.9 26.6 24.5















15.7 25.7 23.8















16.2 27.1 24.6















-















-















Note: Italics indicates estimate based on a subset of refinery batch reports. Sources: AAM: Derived from North American Fuels Survey , Summer 2004, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. Arizona Retail Surveys: Exhibits A.3 and B.2. Batch Reports: Exhibit A.2.















December 1, 2005















17















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















TABLE 3.6: ESTIMATED AVERAGE PROPERTIES OF CBG IN 2003 AND 2004, FROM BATCH REPORTS SUBMITTED BY SUPPLIERS







Year & Region Summer 2003 East W est 2004 East W est Winter 2003 East W est 2003-2004 East W est Volume & Share







(K b/d & %)















RVP (psi) 6.7 6.6 6.8 6.6 6.6 6.6















Oxygen (wt%) 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.1 0.2 0.0















Properties Oxygenate (Vol%) Aromatics Benzene Olefins Etoh MT BE ET BE TAME (vol%) (vol%) (vol%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 5.8 7.9 0.5 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.8 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 22.0 18.9 24.3 20.2 17.1 23.7 0.98 1.21 0.81 0.84 1.02 0.64 4.6 4.8 4.4 8.9 7.6 10.3















Sulfur (ppm) 76 161 12 57 87 23















E200 (% off) 51.1 49.7 52.2 42.6 41.8 43.5















E300 (% off) 87.2 87.4 87.1 85.9 86.5 85.1















T50 (?F) 206 208 204 211 212 210















T90 (?F) 305 304 306 315 320 310















89 43% 57% 86 53% 47%















80 57% 43% 91 45% 55%















8.7 8.7 8.6 8.7 8.7 8.7















2.5 2.7 2.3 3.0 2.7 3.3















7.3 7.9 6.5 8.7 7.8 9.5















0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0















0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0















0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0















17.2 15.9 19.0 21.1 16.3 25.1















0.97 1.13 0.75 1.11 0.95 1.24















3.3 1.3 6.1 2.0 1.9 2.1















23.2 24.6 21.2 17.9 30.3 7.7















43.0 -















89.8 -















199 191 210 189 197 183















300 291 311 300 302 299















Notes: Includes gasoline shipments from April 8 through September 14 Italics indicates partial reporting by refineeries, i.e. estimates reflect a subset of gsoline shipments Source: Derived from "Refinery Batch Reports for CBG," 2003 & 2004, Arizona Department of Weights and Measures.















December 1, 2005















18















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















TABLE 3.7: AVERAGE PROPERTIES OF CBG SAMPLED AT RETAIL IN 2004, AREA A







Season & Year Summer 2003 Grade Premium Intermediate Regular Pool Premium Intermediate Regular Pool Premium Intermediate Regular Pool Premium Intermediate Regular Pool No. of Samples 94 87 102 283 142 136 158 436 44 41 50 135 28 20 27 75 Octane (R+M)/2 91.7 89.8 88.2 88.7 91.6 89.5 87.8 88.3 92.0 90.2 88.4 88.9 92.1 90.1 88.3 88.9 RVP (psi) 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 8.5 8.5 8.7 8.6 8.5 8.7 8.7 8.7 Oxygen (wt%) 2.2 1.7 1.3 1.4 0.9 0.5 0.1 0.2 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.4 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.7 Etoh Oxygenate (vol %) Aromatics Benzene Olefins Mtbe Etbe T ame (vol%) (vol%) (vol%) 10.0 7.9 5.7 6.3 3.3 1.4 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 1.2 0.9 1.0 1.3 0.7 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 20.4 21.0 22.5 22.2 21.4 21.6 22.0 21.9 16.2 17.5 19.3 18.9 13.9 16.4 18.7 18.1 0.82 0.91 0.99 0.97 0.92 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.67 0.84 0.97 0.93 0.59 0.64 0.72 0.70 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.1 5.3 6.7 7.9 7.5 2.5 2.9 3.2 3.1 2.9 3.6 4.6 4.3 Su l f u r (ppm) 91.3 71.6 62.4 66.0 44.9 44.9 48.7 48.0 25.3 30.6 33.9 32.8 36.1 30.9 31.1 31.6 E200 (%off) 46.3 48.5 49.5 49.1 41.1 42.1 43.2 42.9 48.8 51.4 54.1 53.4 47.8 49.8 52.6 51.9 E300 (%off) 86.5 87.3 87.9 87.7 87.5 86.4 85.6 85.9 90.0 90.0 90.1 90.1 89.9 89.2 89.4 89.4 T10 (?F) 143 141 140 141 148 146 145 145 131 129 127 127 134 131 129 130 T50 ( ?F ) 207 203 201 202 214 214 212 212 203 194 185 187 205 199 190 193 T 90 (?F) 318 313 310 311 314 319 321 320 300 301 300 300 301 305 303 303















0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.2 9.4 8.8 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.5















2004















Winter 2003-2004















2004-2005















Notes: Gasoline shares for premium/intermediate/regular grades used to calculate gasoline pool properties are 11%/6%/83%. Source: Derived from "Retail Gasoline Surveys," Area A, Arizona Department of Weights and Measures.















December 1, 2005















19















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















4.















Screening Analysis of the Gasoline Options















The SoW calls for a screening evaluation of specified gasoline formulations as options for changing CBG standards, to identify which (if any) of these options ? that is, alternative gasoline standards ? would (1) achieve emissions benefits comparable to those of the current AZ CBG program and (2) increase the prospective supply of CBG. This section describes the screening analysis conducted in Task 1 of the study and presents the results. 4.1 OVERVIEW Consistent with the SoW, only those options passing the two tests cited above were considered further in this study. As noted in Section 1, the SoW defines six alternative gasoline standards to be screened. Five are the gasoline formulations (or "blends") currently supplied to five metropolitan areas in the Southwest ? in particular, Albuquerque, Denver, El Paso, Las Vegas, and Tucson; the sixth is federal RFG, for the winter only. We screened these options primarily by (1) estimating the average properties of these gasoline blends, using published data, (2) using these sets of average properties to estimate (with the Complex Model) the emissions of each alternative gasoline ? NOx and VOC in the summer, CO in the winter ? and (3) comparing these to the corresponding estimated emissions of the baseline gasoline (shown in Table 3.4) to determine which (if any) of the specified gasoline blends would provide "necessary emissions benefits" for the CBG area (as defined in Section 1). 4.2 SPECIFIED GASOLINE OPTIONS 4.2.1 Albuquerque Gasoline















The Albuquerque area uses conventional gasoline (CG) in the summer, and oxygenated gasoline (i.e., CG containing an oxygenate in a specified concentration) in the winter (November 1 to February 28). The winter gasoline program is part of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for maintenance of the area's attainment of the CO standard. Albuquerque winter gasoline must contain at least 2.7 wt% oxygen, with ethanol the oxygenate of choice. The Albuquerque area receives its gasoline supplies from refineries in El Paso, Texas and New Mexico.















December 1, 2005















20















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















4.2.2















Denver Gasoline















Through 2004, the Denver-Boulder area used CG, but with a voluntary 8.5 RVP standard (i.e., RVP < 8.5 psi), in the summer; the area uses oxygenated gasoline in the winter (November 1 to February 7). In 2004, EPA denied Colorado's request for a continuation of a long-standing EPA waiver allowing use of CG in the summer in the Denver-Boulder area. Absent the waiver, EPA requires the area to use 7.8 psi RVP CG in the summer. However, the AAM survey indicated the area continued to receive 8.5 RVP CG in the summer of 2004 ? apparently because the waiver denial came too late to affect gasoline supplies last summer. The winter gasoline program is part of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for maintenance of the area's attainment of the CO standard. Denver-Boulder winter gasoline must contain 3.5 wt% oxygen, with ethanol as the oxygenate. The Denver area receives its gasoline supplies primarily from local refineries. 4.2.3 Las Vegas Gasoline















The Las Vegas (Clark County) area uses CG in the summer, and a special ("boutique") gasoline in the winter (November thru March). The winter gasoline has a 10 psi RVP standard, oxygen content of 3.5 wt%, with ethanol (10 vol%) as the mandated oxygenate; and sulfur and aromatics content meeting CARB 2 standards. Clark County receives the bulk of its gasoline supplies from the Los Angeles refining center, via the KMP West and CalNev pipelines. 4.2.4 Tucson Gasoline















The Tucson area (Area B) uses CG in the summer, and oxygenated gasoline in the winter (October thru March). The winter gasoline program is part of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for maintenance of the area's attainment of the CO standard. The winter gasoline has a 13.5 psi RVP standard, oxygen content of 2.0 to 3.5 wt%, and ethanol as the mandated oxygenate. Area B receives essentially all of its gasoline supplies from refineries in the West Texas/New Mexico refining center via the KMP East line and from the Gulf Coast refining center via the Longhorn Pipeline to El Paso and then the KMP East line. At present, the West Texas/New Mexico refining center is the primary source. 4.2.5 San Antonio Gasoline















The SoW calls for screening of El Paso gasoline, but we replaced El Paso with San Antonio. We could find no information on the average properties of El Paso gasoline. (El Paso gasoline is not reported in either the AAM survey or the similar retail survey conducted by Southwest Research Institute.) San Antonio gasoline is reported in the AAM survey.







December 1, 2005







21















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















El Paso uses a 7 RVP CG in the summer and ethanol-blended oxygenated gasoline in the winter, similar to Albuquerque's winter gasoline. El Paso receives its gasoline supplies from local refineries, which also supply the Albuquerque area. San Antonio uses a 7.8 RVP CG in the summer and CG in the winter. San Antonio receives its gasoline supplies from the Gulf Coast refining center, via pipeline. 4.2.6 Federal RFG (Winter Only)















We interpret this option to mean federal winter RFG, containing 10 vol% ethanol, and subject to the ASTM standard for RVP. Ethanol-blended RFG is used (year round) in a few mid-western metropolitan areas ? Chicago-Lake County-Gary, Indiana; Milwaukee-Racine, Wisconsin; St. Louis, Missouri, and Louisville and Covington, Kentucky ? and, as of 1 January 2005, in the New York RFG areas and all of Connecticut. Mid-western RFG is ethanol-blended at 10 vol% (3.5 wt% oxygen), in response to state mandates and/or tax subsidies. No official data are available yet on the ethanol content of the New York and Connecticut RFG. None of these areas impose any special RVP standards on winter RFG. 4.3 ESTIMATED AVERAGE PROPERTIES OF THE GASOLINE OPTIONS Table 4.1 shows estimated average properties of the gasoline options described above (and CBG), for the 2004 summer and 2003-2004 winter seasons. We developed these estimates using average gasoline property data from the following sources. Albuquerque, Denver, Las Vegas, San Antonio: Tucson: AAM North American Fuels Survey [7]















AZ DWM Retail Station Compliance Reports, Area B















Federal RFG (Winter): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Summary of Surveys Conducted by the RFG Survey Association [8] Table 4.2 shows in further detail the results drawn from the DWM retail surveys of Area B gasoline. The average properties for Area B gasoline shown in Table 4.1 are volume-weighted averages of the values shown in Table 4.2, calculated using the three-step procedure laid out in Section 3.2.3. Table 4.3 shows average properties of ethanol-blended winter RFG in the various mid-western areas that use it, for the years 2000-2003, drawn from the retail surveys reported in the EPA publication cited above. The average properties for winter RFG shown in Table 4.3 are volume-weighted averages of the values shown in Table 4.2 for 2003. The weighting factors reflect volumes of RFG consumption in these areas in 2003, drawn from the DOE/EIA Petroleum Marketing Annual 2003 [9].







December 1, 2005







22















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















TABLE 4.1: ESTIMATED AVERAGE PROPERTIES AND EMISSIONS PERFORMANCE OF CBG AND ALTERNATIVE GASOLINE OPTIONS







Properties & Emission Reductions Properties Octane ((R+M)/2)) RVP (psi) Ox ygen (wt%)







Etoh (Vol%) MTBE (vol%) ETBE (vol%) TAME (vol%)















Phoenix AZ 88.3 6.5 0.2







0.0 0.5 0.0 0.4















Albuquerque NM 87.7 8.3 0.4







1.3















Summer 2004 Denver Las Vegas San Antonio CO NV TX 86.9 8.3 1.6







4.5















T ucson AZ 88.1 7.8 0.2







0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2















Phoenix Albuquerque AZ NM 88.9 8.6 3.4







8.9 0.2 0.0 0.2















Denver CO 87.5 14.1 2.9







8.3















Winter 2003-2004 Las Vegas San Antonio T ucson NV TX AZ 89.0 9.1 3.4







9.8 0.4















Etoh-Blended RFG 12 to 15 3.6







10.5 0.1 0.0 0.0















88.0 8.2















88.9 7.4















89.2 12.6 2.8







8.0















88.5 12.9 0.1















89.2 10.7 2.1







5.4 0.1 0.3 0.1















Arom atics (vol%) Benzene (vol%) Olef ins (vol%) Sulfur (ppm) E200 (%off) E300 (%off) T10 (?F) T50 (?F) T90 (?F)















21.9 0.92 7.5 48 42.9 85.9 145 212 320















31.8 1.86 10.2 198 43.2 82.0 134 213 334















28.6 1.54 10.3 126 46.1 82.5 133 204 330 10.9 7.0 13.7















33.2 0.74 7.1 50 42.5 78.4 130 220 341 7.9 10.8 21.7















33.7 0.62 11.6 44 43.1 76.3 134 216 350 16.8 9.5 22.5















28.3 1.36 8.1 130 42.0 82.4 140 218 331 15.7 8.0 14.5















18.9 0.93 3.1 33 53.4 90.1 127 187 300















26.0 1.62 10.1 148 56.6 85.4 114 175 319















22.7 1.34 8.7 102 56.9 86.1 108 172 317















22.3 0.58 3.9 20 50.8 82.7 127 194 332















25.6 0.70 11.1 88 49.1 76.9 112 201 348















28.2 1.39 11.8 254 48.8 84.0 119 204 328















17.0 0.79 6.3 200 58.9 85.7 164 325















Complex Model Emission Reductions (%) VOCs 30.3 8.2 NOx 13.6 3.9 Toxics 28 0.0 CO















15.7 25.7 23.8















7.0 11.8 15.1















10.3 18.7 18.6















15.3 25.2 22.3















9.2 18.9 9.3















2.4 7.3 7.8















8.8 23.6 18.7















Complex Model Emission Reductions Adjusted for 30 ppm Tier 2 Sulfur Standards (%) VOCs 30.5 10.0 11.9 8.2 17.0 16.7 NOx 14.4 11.0 11.3 11.8 10.1 12.5 Toxics 28.4 5.0 16.1 22.1 22.9 17.0 CO















15.9 25.7 23.9















12.2 15.0 19.5















13.5 20.5 21.2















Same















11.9 20.2 11.7















11.5 13.7 16.7















15.8 27.1 24.7















Sources: Phoenix: Exhibit A.3. Albuquerque, Denver, Las Vegas, & San Antonio: Derived from North American Fuels Survey , 2004, Association of Automobile Manufacturers. Tucson: Exhibit B.2 Etoh-Blended RFG: Exhibit B.3. Complex Model Emission Reductions: Derived Using EPA's Phase 2 Complex Model with CO Enhancement.















December 1, 2005















23















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















TABLE 4.2: AVERAGE PROPERTIES OF GASOLINE SAMPLED AT RETAIL IN 2004, AREA B







Season & Year Summer 2003 Grade Premium Intermediate Regular Pool Premium Intermediate Regular Pool Premium Intermediate Regular Pool Premium Intermediate Regular Pool Premium Intermediate Regular Pool No. of Samples 25 22 25 72 4 4 4 12 42 42 43 127 65 63 63 191 6 3 8 17 Octane (R+M)/2 91.3 89.5 88.0 88.5 91.0 89.3 87.6 88.1 91.7 90.2 89.1 89.5 91.2 89.7 88.9 89.2 91.0 89.3 88.9 89.2 RVP ( psi) 7.8 7.9 8.1 8.0 7.3 7.6 7.9 7.8 11.5 11.4 11.3 11.3 10.6 10.6 10.7 10.7 10.1 10.2 10.8 10.7 O xygen (wt%) 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.3 E toh Oxygenate (vol %) Aromatics Benzene Olefins Mtbe Etbe T ame (vol%) (vol%) (vol%) 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.3 38.3 33.9 28.6 29.9 27.8 28.1 28.4 28.3 32.4 27.2 24.3 25.3 35.4 30.2 27.2 28.2 33.1 29.6 29.1 29.5 1.93 1.64 1.32 1.41 1.33 1.35 1.36 1.36 1.78 1.39 1.25 1.31 1.88 1.51 1.31 1.39 1.48 1.47 1.47 1.47 5.8 9.0 11.6 10.9 4.2 6.6 8.7 8.1 9.4 10.8 11.8 11.4 8.9 11.2 12.2 11.8 8.6 10.5 11.2 10.9 S ul fur ( p p m) 242 237 241 241 75 104 139 130 85 100 112 108 173 232 265 254 95 125 142 136 E200 (%off) 33.8 40.2 46.0 44.4 31.3 37.0 43.8 42.0 48.5 50.8 52.2 51.7 43.4 47.2 49.6 48.8 41.8 44.7 46.0 45.5 E300 (%off) 82.0 82.1 83.0 82.9 83.5 83.0 82.3 82.4 86.9 87.1 87.0 87.0 82.4 83.4 84.2 84.0 83.0 83.0 83.3 83.2 T 10 (? F) 144 135 132 133 151 148 138 140 117 116 116 116 122 119 118 119 124 121 119 119 T 50 (? F) 233 223 210 213 232 227 215 218 206 199 195 196 220 209 201 204 222 211 213 214 T 90 (? F ) 326 328 328 328 327 331 332 331 315 315 316 316 331 329 327 328 327 328 327 327















0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.2 5.1 5.4 5.4 5.1 5.7 5.6 5.5















2004















Winter 2002-2003















2003-2004















2004-2005















Notes: Non-complying gasoline (some winter gasoline) is excluded from the tabulations Summer 2004 has a small sample size -- only about four observations per grade. One sample for each of the premium and mid grades has very low aromatics -none of the gasoline samples for 2003 had aromatics content as low. If these two samples are removed, aromatics levels for 2004 approximate those in 2003. Gasoline shares for premium/intermediate/regular grades used to calculate gasoline pool properties are 11%/6%/83%. Source: Derived from "Retail Gasoline Surveys," Area B, Arizona Department of Weights and Measures.















December 1, 2005















24















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















TABLE 4.3: ESTIMATED AVERAGE PROPERTIES OF ETHANOL-BLENDED WINTER RFG







Illinois & Indiana Chicago-Lake Co.& Gary 2000 2001 2002 2003 Properties RVP (psi) Oxygen (wt %)







Ethanol (wt %) MTBE (wt %) ETBE (wt %) TAME (wt %)















2000 3.7







10.5 0.0 0.0 0.0















Wisconsin Milwaukee-Racine, WI 2001 2002 3.5







10.1 0.0 0.0 0.0















2003 3.7







10.6 0.0 0.0 0.0















Kentucky Covington Louisville 2003 2003 3.7







10.7 0.0 0.0 0.0















Missouri St. Louis 2003 3.5







9.7 0.5 0.0 0.0















Wtg. Average 2003















3.7







10.7 0.0 0.0 0.0















3.6







10.5 0.0 0.0 0.0















3.6







10.5 0.0 0.0 0.0















3.7







10.5 0.0 0.0 0.0















3.6







10.4 0.0 0.0 0.0















3.7







10.7 0.0 0.0 0.0















3.6







10.5 0.1 0.0 0.0















Aromatics (vol %) Benzene (vol %) Olef ins (vol %) Sulf ur (ppm) E200 (% off) E300 (% off) T50 (?F) T90 (?F) Phase 2 Complex Model VOC Reduction (%) NOx Reduction (%) Toxics Reduction (%) CO Reduction (%) Number of surveys















15.1 0.78 5.3 249 59.8 85.5 161 327















15.9 0.82 6.0 232 59.0 85.2 162 327















16.1 0.75 6.2 232 60.5 85.6 158 327















16.4 0.80 5.7 199 58.8 85.8 164 326















15.6 0.87 5.4 265 59.9 85.8 160 326















15.0 0.89 6.5 228 60.1 86.3 159 324















16.0 0.79 6.2 194 59.9 86.0 161 325















15.8 0.87 6.1 197 60.7 85.7 157 327















14.8 0.82 6.6 239 61.0 88.3 156 311















15.2 0.78 6.3 247 62.0 88.1 157 310















21.7 0.64 9.0 173 55.7 83.5 174 330















17.0 0.79 6.3 200 58.9 85.7 164 325















8 .3 22.9 4















8.5 22.4 4















8 .1 23.4 4















9.2 23.3 5















7 .8 22.0 4















8.7 23.0 4















9 .5 24.1 4















9.4 23.5 4















8 .2 24.0 2















7.7 24.0 2















7 .5 21.9 2















8.8 23.6 18.7















Sources: State/Area Data: EPA summary of surveys conducted by RFG Survey Association, EPA Website. Wtg Average 2003: Properties: Derived using State/Area data and weighting factors reflecting state RFG sales as reported in Petroleum Marketing Annual, 2003, EIA/DOE; and population data for Covington and Louisville from Rand McNally Road Atlas . Phase 2 Complex Model Emissions: Derived using EPA's Phase 2 Complex Model with CO Enhancement.















December 1, 2005















25















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















4.4 SCREENING EVALUATIONS OF THE GASOLINE OPTIONS As noted earlier, the SoW states the following primary criterion for screening the gasoline options. ". . .eliminate those blends . . .likely to increase emissions by more than 5% for criteria pollutants [ozone, for which NOx and VOCs are precursors, and CO] and 10% for total toxics over those of the baseline fuel [i.e., the baseline gasoline defined in Table 2.3 above] . . ." After careful consideration, we concluded that the criterion lent itself to multiple interpretations. We decided to conduct the screening evaluation under each of two interpretations: Complex Model Emissions Eliminate those gasoline options likely to increase vehicle emissions, as measured by the Complex Model, by more than 5% for criteria pollutants and 10% for total toxics, relative to those of the baseline gasoline. Total Emissions Eliminate those gasoline options likely to increase man-made and total emissions from all sources in Maricopa County, by more than 5% for criteria pollutants and 10% for total toxics, relative to the corresponding emissions with the baseline gasoline. The corresponding screening evaluations are discussed in Sections 4.4.1 and 4.4.2, respectively. The evaluation based on Complex Model emissions was the simpler of the two, requiring only the prior estimation of the baseline gasoline properties for the CBG area. (See Section 3 and, in particular, Tables 3.3 and 3.4.) Accordingly, we completed this screening evaluation first and used its results to establish the scope of the subsequent refining analysis. The evaluation based on total emissions from all Maricopa County sources was more challenging, requiring the prior estimation of the baseline emissions inventory for Maricopa County. (See Section 7 for a discussion of this effort, which proved to be complex and time-consuming.) We used the results of this screening evaluation to confirm the results of the Complex Model screening. 4.4.1 Screening for Complex Model Emissions















Table 3.4 shows the emissions reductions estimated by the Complex Model for the baseline gasoline. Applying to these estimates of baseline emissions the 5% and 10% "discount factors" expressed in the screening criterion yields a set of target emission reduction values for screening based on Complex Model emissions. The targets are shown in Table 4.4.















December 1, 2005















26















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















TABLE 4.4: TARGET EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS: SUMMER AND WINTER







Emission VOCs NOx Toxics CO Summer Winter (% Reduction) 29.0 13.7 15.1 25.6 23.1 22.7















Table 4.1 shows two sets of estimated emissions reductions returned by the Complex Model for the specified gasolines. One set corresponds to the estimated properties shown in Table 4.1. The other set corresponds to the same properties, but with sulfur content set at 30 ppm to reflect effects of the Tier 2 sulfur control program as of 2006. (Comparison of the two sets of estimates shows the strong effect of sulfur reduction on emissions performance, especially NOx reduction, registered by the Complex Model.) Tables 4.5a and 4.5b show the latter (sulfur-adjusted) set of estimated emissions reduction, for the summer and winter gasolines, respectively. These estimated emissions reductions were compared with the adjusted baseline emission reductions, shown in Table 4.4. TABLE 4.5A: ESTIMATED EMISSIONS PERFORMANCE OF AZ CBG AND GASOLINE OPTIONS: SUMMER 2006 COMPLEX MODEL EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS (%)







Emissions VOCs NOx Toxics CO Phoenix (CBG area) 30.5 14.4 28.4 Albuquerque NM 10.0 11.0 5.0 Denver CO 11.9 11.3 16.1 Las Vegas NV 8.2 11.8 22.1 San Antonio TX 17.0 10.1 22.9 Tucson (Area B) 16.7 12.5 17.0















TABLE 4.5B: ESTIMATED EMISSIONS PERFORMANCE OF AZ CBG AND GASOLINE OPTIONS: WINTER 2006 COMPLEX MODEL EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS (%)







Emissions VOCs NOx Toxics CO Phoenix (CBG area) 15.9 25.7 23.9 Albuquerque NM 12.2 15.0 19.5 Denver CO 13.5 20.5 21.2 Las Vegas NV 15.3 25.2 22.3 San Antonio TX 11.9 20.2 11.7 Tucson (Area B) 11.5 13.7 16.7 Federal RFG (Winter) 15.8 27.1 24.7















December 1, 2005















27















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















Only those gasoline formulations offering emissions reductions greater than those shown in Table 4.4 meet the screening criterion. Clearly, under the Complex Model interpretation of the screening criterion, only one gasoline formulation does so: federal RFG in the winter season, as it is currently being produced for RFG markets in the mid-west. Accordingly, none of the other gasoline formulations received further consideration in this study. 4.4.2 Screening for Total Emissions















The emissions performance predicted by the Complex Model is expressed as emissions changes relative to a hypothetical baseline gasoline (with properties equal to the 1990 average for U.S. summer gasoline). Hence, it is necessary to combine Complex Model predictions with emissions data applicable to Maricopa County to fully investigate the absolute emissions impacts of the various alternative formulations. There are two constraints that should be recognized in reviewing the total emissions screening. First, as described in Section 7, available emissions inventories are limited to the summer season (with the exception of CO). Therefore, the total emissions screening analysis focused solely on the summer specifications of the alternative formulations. Second, as a screening analysis, the rigor relative to a detailed emissions analysis is necessarily constrained. The Complex Model estimates emissions changes for a 1990-era passenger car fleet; in principle, Complex Model outputs can be applied precisely only to emissions associated with the fraction of gasoline consumed by such vehicles. But not all gasoline is consumed in 1990-era passenger cars. Applying Complex Model outputs to gasoline consumed by post-1990 passenger cars as well as by other onroad vehicles and nonroad engines necessarily involves some uncertainty. Detailed adjustments designed to minimize such uncertainty are explicitly included in the detailed emissions evaluation conducted for the gasoline formulations that met the screening criterion (as presented in Section 8). However, for the screening analysis itself, Complex Model predictions are assumed to be reasonably representative of the emissions impacts that can be expected for the entire pool of gasoline consumed in the CBG area. Note that the screening analysis does not include an estimate of PM emission impacts, because the Complex Model does not estimate PM emission impacts. Analysis of PM emissions must be conducted using other analysis tools, not easily included in a screening-level analysis. However, changes in gasoline-related PM emissions will result primarily from changes in fuel sulfur content, and to a lesser extent from changes in gasoline-related NOx emissions. Thus, comparative fuel sulfur contents and screening analysis results for NOx provide a reasonable surrogate for PM. Moreover, since gasoline sulfur content will be restricted to 30 ppm on average for all U.S. gasoline starting in 2006, it is likely that any significant differences between gasoline formulations in their PM emissions performance will decline dramatically after this year.19















19















Gasoline sulfur content limits are an integral component of the national Tier 2 motor vehicle emission standards. The 30 ppm limit on average sulfur content will take effect in 2006.







28















December 1, 2005















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















By relating Complex Model predictions for candidate gasoline formulations to Complex Model predictions for current Maricopa County gasoline, impacts on the fraction of total Maricopa County emissions associated with gasoline combustion can be derived directly from Complex Model outputs. In conducting this analysis, the sulfur content of the baseline Maricopa County gasoline and each of the candidate fuel formulations has been adjusted to 30 ppm to reflect the impending national sulfur limitation (as described in Section 4.4.1). Table 4.6 presents the impacts predicted by such an approach (which is equivalent to that described in Section 4.4.1), where positive values indicate emissions increases and negative values indicate emissions decreases. As indicated in Table 4.6, all of the candidate gasoline options violate the 5% criterion for VOC, and all are near or exceed the 10% criterion for toxic compound emissions. However, these data represent increases in gasoline-related emissions, which constitute only a fraction of total Maricopa County emissions. Using the emission distribution data presented in Section 7, gasoline-specific impacts can be converted to overall emissions impacts. As indicated in Tables 7.11 and 7.12, the fraction of Maricopa County emissions associated with gasoline combustion changes over time in accordance with national and local control programs as well as changes in source distributions, etc. For screening analysis purposes, the gasoline emissions fractions from Tables 7.11 and 7.12 were averaged to derive an average emission fraction for the 2005-2010 time period. This average fraction was then applied to the gasoline-specific emissions impacts of Table 4.6 to derive estimates of the impact on both all man-made and total emissions. The resulting impacts are presented in Tables 4.7 and 4.8 respectively, as well as graphically in Figures 4.1 through 4.3 (in both the tables and the figures, positive values indicate emissions increases and negative values indicate emissions decreases). As the tables and figures indicate, although the expanded analysis shows increasing compliance with the screening criteria, all of the candidate formulations continue to violate the 5% emissions increase criterion for VOC (albeit by a substantially diminished amount relative to the initial analysis). All candidate formulations meet the 5% criterion for NOx and the 10% criterion for toxic compound emissions, while screening analysis impacts for CO vary across the candidate formulations. Regardless, on the basis of estimated VOC impacts in the summer season, none of the candidate fuel formulations satisfies the screening criterion in the SoW.















December 1, 2005















29















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















TABLE 4.6:







Pollutant VOC CO NOx Toxics















SCREENING ANALYSIS ? AVERAGE 2005/2010 CHANGE IN GASOLINE EMISSIONS







Albuquerque Blend +29.1% +3.0% +3.9% +31.6% Denver Blend +25.6% -2.4% +3.6% +18.0% Las Vegas Blend +31.7% +7.1% +3.1% +9.5% San Antonio Blend +19.8% +8.4% +5.0% +8.1% Tucson Blend +19.1% +2.1% +2.3% +15.9%















Only values in bold italics meet the screening criteria.















TABLE 4.7:







Pollutant VOC CO NOx Toxics















SCREENING ANALYSIS ? AVERAGE 2005/2010 CHANGE IN MANMADE EMISSIONS







Albuquerque Blend +10.5% +2.5% +1.2% +11.4% Denver Blend +9.2% -2.0% +1.1% +6.5% Las Vegas Blend +11.4% +6.0% +1.0% +3.4% San Antonio Blend +7.1% +7.0% +1.6% +2.9% Tucson Blend +6.9% +1.8% +0.7% +5.8%















Only values in bold italics meet the screening criteria.















TABLE 4.8:







Pollutant VOC CO NOx Toxics















SCREENING ANALYSIS ? AVERAGE 2005/2010 CHANGE IN TOTAL EMISSIONS







Albuquerque Blend +8.8% +2.5% +1.2% +9.5% Denver Blend +7.7% -2.0% +1.1% +5.4% Las Vegas Blend +9.5% +6.0% +0.9% +2.9% San Antonio Blend +6.0% +7.0% +1.5% +2.4% Tucson Blend +5.7% +1.8% +0.7% +4.8%















Only values in bold italics meet the screening criteria.















December 1, 2005















30















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















FIGURE 4.1: CHANGE IN AVERAGE 2005/2010 GASOLINE-RELATED EMISSIONS (SCREENING ANALYSIS ? ALL FUELS AT 30 PPM SULFUR)







+35% +30% +25% Albuquerque Blend Denver Blend Las Vegas Blend San Antonio Blend Tucson Blend















Emissions Change .















+20% +15% +10% +5% 0% -5%















VOC















CO















NOx















Toxics















FIGURE 4.2: CHANGE IN AVERAGE 2005/2010 MANMADE EMISSIONS (SCREENING ANALYSIS ? ALL FUELS AT 30 PPM SULFUR)







+14% +12% +10% Albuquerque Blend Denver Blend Las Vegas Blend San Antonio Blend Tucson Blend















Emissions Change .















+8% +6% +4% +2% 0% -2% -4%















VOC







December 1, 2005















CO







31















NOx















Toxics















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















FIGURE 4.3: CHANGE IN AVERAGE 2005/2010 TOTAL EMISSIONS (SCREENING ANALYSIS ? ALL FUELS AT 30 PPM SULFUR)







+12% +10% +8% Albuquerque Blend Denver Blend Las Vegas Blend San Antonio Blend Tucson Blend















Emissions Change .















+6% +4% +2% 0% -2% -4%















VOC















CO















NOx















Toxics















December 1, 2005















32















Adopting the CARB 3 Gasoline Standard for Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline















.















5.















Gasoline Supply to the CBG Covered Area















This section provides an overview of the distribution system supplying the CBG area, developed in Task 2, and a brief assessment of the implications for this system of the various CBG options considered in this study. 5.1 PIPELINE SYSTEM SUPPLYING THE CBG COVERED AREA AND ENVIRONS The Phoenix area receives almost all of its gasoline (including AZRBOB) and other r