RESUMO
Air quality models can support pollution mitigation design by simulating policy scenarios and conducting source contribution analyses. The Intervention Model for Air Pollution (InMAP) is a powerful tool for equitable policy design as its variable resolution grid enables intra-urban analysis, the scale of which most environmental justice inquiries are levied. However, InMAP underestimates particulate sulfate and overestimates particulate ammonium formation, errors that limit the model's relevance to city-scale decision-making. To reduce InMAP's biases and increase its relevancy for urban-scale analysis, we calculate and apply scaling factors (SFs) based on observational data and advanced models. We consider both satellite-derived speciated PM2.5 from Washington University and ground-level monitor measurements from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, applied with different scaling methodologies. Relative to ground-monitor data, the unscaled InMAP model fails to meet a normalized mean bias performance goal of <±10% for most of the PM2.5 components it simulates (pSO4: -48%, pNO3: 8%, pNH4: 69%), but with city-specific SFs it achieves the goal benchmarks for every particulate species. Similarly, the normalized mean error performance goal of <35% is not met with the unscaled InMAP model (pSO4: 53%, pNO3: 52%, pNH4: 80%) but is met with the city-scaling approach (15%-27%). The city-specific scaling method also improves the R 2 value from 0.11 to 0.59 (ranging across particulate species) to the range of 0.36-0.76. Scaling increases the percent pollution contribution of electric generating units (EGUs) (nationwide 4%) and non-EGU point sources (nationwide 6%) and decreases the agriculture sector's contribution (nationwide -6%).
RESUMO
Research on air quality and human health "co-benefits" from climate mitigation strategies represents a growing area of policy-relevant scholarship. Compared to other aspects of climate and energy policy evaluation, however, there are still relatively few of these co-benefits analyses. This sparsity reflects a historical disconnect between research quantifying energy and climate, and research dealing with air quality and health. The air quality co-benefits of climate, clean energy, and transportation electrification policies are typically assessed with models spanning social, physical, chemical, and biological systems. This review article summarizes studies to date and presents methods used for these interdisciplinary analyses. Studies in the peer-reviewed literature (n = 26) have evaluated carbon pricing, renewable portfolio standards, energy efficiency, renewable energy deployment, and clean transportation. A number of major findings have emerged from these studies: [1] decarbonization strategies can reduce air pollution disproportionally on the most polluted days; [2] renewable energy deployment and climate policies offer the highest health and economic benefits in regions with greater reliance on coal generation; [3] monetized air quality health co-benefits can offset costs of climate policy implementation; [4] monetized co-benefits typically exceed the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) of renewable energies; [5] Electric vehicle (EV) adoption generally improves air quality on peak pollution days, but can result in ozone dis-benefits in urban centers due to the titration of ozone with nitrogen oxides. Drawing from these published studies, we review the state of knowledge on climate co-benefits to air quality and health, identifying opportunities for policy action and further research.
