Report on Reductions Achieved from Incentive-Based

Emission Reduction Measures in the San Joaquin Valley 

APPENDIX A.3: 2005 Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality

Standards Attainment Program Guidelines Part III

Release Date: September 22, 2014

Hearing Date: October 23, 2014

California Environmental Protection Agency 

Air Resources Board
THE CARL MOYER PROGRAM GUIDELINES 

PART III of IV 

AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Approved 

November 17, 2005
1 AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE 

 PROGRAM 

AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 

The Agricultural Assistance Program was created through provisions of 

Assembly Bill 923 (AB 923, Firebaugh) and went into effect on January 1, 2005. This 

legislation authorizes local districts to increase the motor vehicle registration fee. One 

of the projects which may be funded with the monies is compliance with emission 

reduction requirements for previously unregulated agricultural sources of air pollution. 

Unlike the Carl Moyer Program, the Agricultural Assistance Program does not require 

the emissions reductions to be surplus. This document presents an overview of the 

Agricultural Assistance Program, current regulations, potential project types, application 

requirements, and methodology for calculating the cost-effectiveness of total reductions 

for a project. 

I. Background 

Local air districts may impose a surcharge on motor vehicle registration fees (up to 

$4 per vehicle) for air quality improvement strategies (California Health and Safety Code 

(HSC) sections 41081 and 44229). In 2004, AB 923 provided districts with the authority 

to increase the allowable surcharge by up to an additional $2. Districts receiving the 

additional $2 surcharge may use the funds to implement four specific programs: 

• projects funded through the Carl Moyer Program. 

• the new purchase, retrofit, repower, or add-on of previously unregulated 

equipment for agricultural sources. 

• school bus purchases through the Lower Emission School Bus Program. 

• an accelerated vehicle retirement or repair program. 

The Agricultural Assistance Program was created to implement the second program: 

“the new purchase, retrofit, repower, or add-on of previously unregulated equipment for 

agricultural sources.” 

Districts funds from the two dollar surcharge that are applied to the Agricultural 

Assistance Program may be used to help agricultural operations meet local and state air 

quality requirements. Qualified projects are eligible for funding for a minimum of three 

years from the date of adoption of an applicable rule or standard, or until the compliance 

date of that rule or standard, whichever is later. Eligible projects are not required to 

provide surplus emission reductions. The emission benefits of projects funded by the 

Agricultural Assistance Program are already counted in the emission benefits of 

individual local or state rules. District funds applied to the Agricultural Assistance 

Program do not count for district match funds in the Carl Moyer Program. 

“Agricultural source of air pollution,” for the purposes of AB 923 and the Agricultural 

Assistance Program, is defined in HSC section 39011.5(a) as a source or group of 

sources used in the production of crops or raising of fowl or animals located on 
2 AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE 

 PROGRAM 

contiguous property and under common ownership or control. Four categories of 

emission sources are identified as part of this definition: 

• confined animal facilities (CAFs). 

• internal combustion engines, including portable and off-road engines, unless 

used to propel instruments of husbandry. 

• sources subject to requirements of Title V, the federal Operating Permitting 

Program for major stationary sources. 

• sources of emissions otherwise subject to district regulation. 

The statutory provisions of AB 923 also require that Agricultural Assistance Program 

projects follow the Carl Moyer Guidelines [ARB, 2005c]. Project criteria are based on 

the Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, with modifications to the surplus emission 

reductions requirements and cost-effectiveness methodology. 

II. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements 

 A. SB 700 

In 2003, Senate Bill 700 (SB 700, Florez) amended and added air pollution control 

requirements in the HSC (sections 39011.5, 39023.3, 40724, 40724.5, 40724.6, 

40724.7, 40731, 42301.16, 42301.17, 42301.18, 42310, and 44559.9) to include 

requirements for agricultural sources of air pollution. Some of the key requirements of 

this legislation are listed below: 

• The legislation created a definition for “agricultural source of air pollution.” The 

definition is provided in the preceeding section of this document. 

• The legislation removed language exempting agricultural sources from air quality 

permits in the HSC in its entirety. As a result, agricultural operations may be 

required to obtain air permits from local districts. 

• The legislation established specific agricultural source permitting and exemption 

requirements for local districts. 

• The legislation required certain districts to adopt by regulation a set of measures to 

reduce emissions from agricultural sources in federal particulate matter 

non-attainment areas. 

• The legislation required the ARB to establish a definition for a “large” CAF, and 

required certain districts to adopt rules requiring large CAFs to obtain permits and 

implement emission mitigation measures. 

 B. Stationary Diesel Engines ATCM 

In February 2004, the Board adopted an air toxics control measure (ATCM) for 

stationary compression ignition (CI) engines greater than 50 horsepower [ARB, 2003]. 
3 AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE 

 PROGRAM 

The Board amended the ATCM in May 2005 [ARB, 2005a]. The control measure 

requires new CI engines for agricultural operations, including those used to repower 

agricultural equipment, to meet ARB and federal new off-road engine PM certification 

standards for engines of the same horsepower and model year. The only exception to 

this requirement is for the installation of Tier 2 engines funds through January 1, 2008, 

purchased with Carl Moyer Program. 

ARB staff is currently working on the development of in-use stationary diesel agricultural 

engine requirements to be considered by the Board in 2006. 

C. Diesel-Fueled Portable Engines ATCM 

An ATCM for portable diesel engines was adopted by the Board in February 2004 [ARB, 

2004]. The control measure requires all diesel-fueled portable engines 50 horsepower 

and greater to be certified to Tier 1, 2, or 3 federal and state off-road engine emission 

standards by 2010. The ATCM also requires fleets of portable engines 50 horsepower 

and greater to meet weighted particulate matter emission standards that become more 

stringent in 2013, 2017, and 2020. 

 D. Large Confined Animal Facility Definition 

In response to the requirements of SB 700, the Board approved a definition for large 

CAF on June 23, 2005 [ARB, 2005b]. The definition (shown in Table 1) is based on 

headcount of livestock categories and takes into consideration the federal ozone 

attainment status of districts as well as livestock population and operational practices of 

facilities. A recordkeeping component requires the owner or operator of a large CAF to 

keep a daily record of animals at the facility and to submit the information to the local air 

district consistent with applicable local rules. 

By July 1, 2006, air districts in federal ozone non-attainment areas must adopt rules 

requiring large CAFs to submit a mitigation plan to reduce air contaminants to the extent 

feasible. Each air district in a federal ozone attainment area must adopt a similar rule 

by July 1, 2006, unless its district board makes a finding in a public hearing that large 

CAFs will not contribute to violations of state or federal standards. Large CAFs have 

six months from the date of adoption of the district rule to submit their mitigation plans to 

the district; the districts have an additional six months to approve submitted plans. One 

year after submitting their plans (July 1, 2008), large CAFs must comply with the 

requirements of their mitigation plans. 
4 AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE 

 PROGRAM 

Table 1 

Large Confined Animal Facility Definition by Livestock Category 

(facilities at or exceeding threshold are considered large) 

Livestock Category Non-Attainment Areas* Attainment Areas* 

Dairy 1,000 milk producing cows 2,000 milk producing cows 

Beef Feedlots 2,500 beef cattle 5,000 beef cattle 

Other Cattle 

Operations 

7,500 calves, heifers, or 

other cattle 

15,000 calves, heifers, or 

other cattle 

Chickens – Broilers 650,000 1,300,000 

Chickens – Egg 

Layers 650,000 1,300,000 

Turkeys 100,000 200,000 

Swine 3,000 6,000 

Sheep and Goats 15,000 30,000 

Horses 2,500 5,000 

Ducks 650,000 1,300,000 

Rabbits, Pheasants, 

Llamas, Others 30,000 60,000 

*Federal 1-hour ozone designation as of January 1, 2004 

 E. Local Air District Rules 

Internal combustion engines: Prior to the adoption of SB 700, most air districts 

specifically exempted agricultural engines from prohibitory rules for stationary internal 

combustion engines greater than 50 horsepower. As a result, stationary agricultural 

engine emissions were largely uncontrolled. These districts have amended (or will 

amend) their internal combustion engine rules to remove the agricultural operation 

exemption. In these districts, stationary internal combustion engines used in agricultural 

operations are now required (or will be required) to meet the emission standards/limits, 

permitting conditions, and compliance requirements of the local district. 

Large Confined Animal Facilities: As outlined in the previous section, local air districts 

in federal ozone non-attainment areas are required to adopt rules developed to mitigate 

emissions from large CAFs. Local air districts in federal ozone attainment areas are 

also required to develop rules to mitigate large CAF emissions unless their district 

boards make a finding in a public hearing that large CAFs will not contribute to 

violations of state or federal standards. A number of air districts have or are preparing 

to adopt regulations to meet these requirements. 

Fugitive Dust Control: A number of air districts require agricultural operations to reduce 

fugitive dust emissions through local rules. Local rules for particulate matter dust 

control generally require agricultural operations to implement a variety of 

practice-specific options to reduce particulate matter. These practices may include 

methods to reduce the movement of soil during land preparation, cultivation, and 
5 AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE 

 PROGRAM 

harvesting, suppression of dust on unpaved roads, alternatives to burning, and 

reduction of agricultural chemical applications. 

IV. Potential Projects 

The statutory provisions of AB 923 include requirements for Agricultural Assistance 

Program eligible projects: 

• Projects must involve the new purchase, retrofit, repower, or add-on of equipment. 

• Projects must reduce emissions from previously unregulated sources; that is, 

sources that are unregulated as of January 1, 2005 (the effective date of the 

legislation), but are subject to regulation at the time of the grant. 

• Projects must be funded within three years of rule adoption or before the compliance 

date of the rule, whichever is later. 

• The ARB must determine that the applicable rule complies with HSC sections 

40913, 40914, and 40915 pertaining to district attainment plan measures. District 

plans must be designed to achieve and maintain the state ambient air quality 

standards by the earliest practicable date through the use of all feasible measures. 

ARB routinely reviews district rules for compliance with these requirements and will 

treat agriculture-related rules the same way. 

Criteria for the Agricultural Assistance Program are adapted from the 

2005 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines and are designed to ensure that the emission 

reductions expected through the deployment of electric motors, reduced-emission 

engines, or retrofit technologies under this program are real, enforceable, and 

quantifiable. All projects must meet a weighted cost-effectiveness of total reductions 

criterion of $14,300 per weighted ton of pollutants reduced. In addition, at each district’s 

discretion, eligible projects may be subject to funding or cost-effectiveness of total 

reductions caps. A project must be in operation for at least three years from the time it 

is first put into operation; ARB may approve a shorter project life on a case-by-case 

basis. 

 A. New Purchase 

The only eligible project for a new agricultural stationary or portable equipment 

purchase is a new electric motor. For the purposes of determining emission reductions, 

the new electric motor is compared to an off-road diesel engine certified to the current 

off-road emission standards. 
6 AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE 

 PROGRAM 

 B. Repower 

 1. Repower with Electric Motors 

Replacement of uncontrolled or older engines in agricultural operations with electric 

motors provides significant emission benefits. Diesel and SI engines may be repowered 

with electric motors. In addition, selected costs for necessary peripheral equipment 

associated with the motor (e.g., control panel, motor leads, service pole with guy wire, 

connecting electric line) may be included in determining the grant amount awarded. 

In June 2005, the Public Utilities Commission approved a reduced electricity rate and 

line extension allowance for Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) and Southern California 

Edison (SCE) to be used for conversion of stationary agricultural internal combustion 

engines to electric. Individuals enrolling in the PG&E and SCE incentive programs may 

receive funds through the Agricultural Assistance Program for an electric motor 

replacement of an internal combustion engine. Please refer to Part II, Chapter 12: 

Zero-Emission Technologies in the 2005 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines for specific 

information on these projects. 

 2. Repower with Emission-Certified Engines 

Stationary and portable agricultural engines may be repowered with new off-road 

engines certified to the current applicable off-road emission standards. This provision 

applies to repowers with diesel and spark-ignited (SI) engines. Diesel engines may be 

replaced with cleaner diesel or SI engines. SI engines may only be replaced with 

cleaner SI engines; projects replacing SI engines with diesel engines are not eligible for 

Agricultural Assistance Program funding. Cost-effectiveness of total reductions 

calculations are based on the rebuild cost of the engine being replaced. 

 3. Repower with SI Engines Meeting Local District Requirements 

Very few power systems using SI engines for stationary and portable applications have 

been certified to meet applicable emission standards. These power systems are 

typically assembled by third parties and are not required to be certified because they 

are used in stationary applications. Because under certain conditions SI engines can 

be significantly cleaner than diesel engines, Agricultural Assistance Program funds may 

be used to fund purchases of non-certified SI engines in some cases. This provision is 

available until January 1, 2008. This will allow ARB and the districts an opportunity to 

assess the emission performance and durability of non-certified SI engines in the field. 

Emission reduction calculations are based on the rebuild cost of the engine being 

replaced. 

Non-certified SI engines purchased through the Agricultural Assistance Program are 

required to have best available emission control components, and are subject to local 
7 AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE 

 PROGRAM 

district source testing and monitoring requirements. The costs associated for testing 

and monitoring may not be included in the grant award. 

 C. Retrofit 

A retrofit involves modifications to the engine and/or fuel system such that the retrofitted 

engine does not have the same specifications as the original engine. Retrofit projects 

that reduce NOx may be applicable to certain diesel or SI engine families. Emission 

control technologies that have been verified for use to reduce NOx and PM emissions in 

other applications for on-road or off-road diesel or SI engines may be applicable to 

stationary and portable agricultural engines. A NOx retrofit for an uncontrolled diesel 

engine must be verified to reduce emissions to the applicable new engine tier standard 

or less for a given engine size and not increase particulate matter. An 

emission-certified stationary or portable engine may use a retrofit kit that is verified to 

reduce NOx or NOx + non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) emissions by at least 

15 percent from the applicable emission standard. Uncontrolled SI engines may use a 

retrofit kit verified to reduce emissions to the currently applicable standard for large 

SI equipment, or if not feasible, with a retrofit kit verified to reduce emissions to at least 

3.0 g/bhp-hr. The emission reductions provided by a retrofit kit must meet local district 

rule requirements. Emission reduction calculations are based on the emission rates of 

the existing engine being retrofitted. 

 D. Non-Engine Projects 

The Board has directed the Executive Officer to develop project criteria for non-engine 

agricultural sources where technology is available to ensure the emission reductions are 

real, quantifiable, and enforceable. However, no specific project criteria have been 

identified currently due to the limited data available on specific control technologies. 

ARB staff will continue to work closely with the districts and interested stakeholders to 

monitor technological developments to determine when and if it is it appropriate to 

develop project criteria for non-engine sources. 

Agricultural Assistance Program funding will not be available for non-engine agricultural 

projects until ARB staff develop Carl Moyer Program project criteria for these sources. 

Potential control technologies and regulatory options will be evaluated for suitability 

under Agricultural Assistance Program requirements. During these evaluations, ARB 

staff will consider: 

• whether the technology provides real, quantifiable, and enforceable emission 

reductions. 

• the availability of standardized testing procedures that will quantify emission 

reductions from these technologies. 

• availability of baseline emission factors. 

• potential multi-media issues. 
8 AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE 

 PROGRAM 

While engines have a statewide certification or verification process to prove the 

emission levels are achieved in practice, there is no comparable statewide process for 

stationary or area-wide sources. In developing statewide project criteria for non-engine 

technology ARB staff will consider how to assure reductions are achieved. 

If non-engine agricultural projects include reductions of non-combustion PM, the criteria 

will include a weighting factor for non-combustion PM for use in the cost-effectiveness 

of total reductions formula. 

The following sections provide background on some potential non-engine agricultural 

projects. 

 1. Livestock Operations 

Air emissions of concern from livestock include ammonia, nitrous oxide, methane, 

carbon dioxide, volatile organic compounds (VOC), hydrogen sulfide, and particulate 

matter. The emissions can come from animal housing, storage areas for manure and 

wastewater, cropland where manure is applied, and directly from the cows. Livestock 

emissions are most significant in the San Joaquin Valley and the South Coast Air Basin. 

The South Coast Air Quality Management District adopted Rule 1127 - Emission 

Reductions from Livestock Waste in 2004. This rule requires dairies to clear manure 

from corrals more frequently and send the manure to an emissions-controlled compost 

facility, an anaerobic digester, or to agricultural land where manure is approved for 

spreading as fertilizer.

The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District recently adopted a VOC 

emission factor to be used for permitting San Joaquin Valley dairies. The District 

reviewed important classes of VOC constituents and key dairy processes individually 

before approving a total dairy emission factor of 19.3 lbs/year/head. The District will 

consider regulations to reduce emissions from dairies in the near future. 

With the upcoming SB 700 deadlines for approving large CAF mitigation plans, there is 

a need for a rapid, objective assessment of which technologies are most likely to be 

successful in California’s unique economic, regulatory, and environmental conditions. 

The Dairy Manure Technology Feasibility Assessment Panel, created and hosted by the 

ARB, was convened in February 2005 to carry out this work. Members were drawn 

from government, industry, academia, and environmental and conservation groups. 

The Panel evaluated technologies for their potential to reduce environmental impacts 

resulting from air emissions and from releases of nutrients, salts, and pathogens to the 

environment. The Panel is assessing the ability of the technology to prevent releases of 

contaminants and is considering their efficacy in reducing environmental impacts, 

energy production (if any), economic performance (including saleable products 

produced by the technology), quality of supporting data, and the development status. 

The Panel’s draft report is scheduled for release in early 2006. 
9 AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE 

 PROGRAM 

In general, potential technologies may be classified into categories including: 

• Thermal conversion (including combustion and gasification). 

• Solid-liquid separation (including dehydration). 

• Composting. 

• Anaerobic digestion. 

• Aerators/mixers. 

• Nitrification/denitrification. 

• Covers. 

• Microbials, enzymes, and other additives. 

• Feed management. 

• Trapping nutrients in biomass (e.g. crops, plants in constructed wetlands, 

algae, fish). 

• Combination systems (such as wastewater treatment plants). 

It is likely that no single technology will solve all of the problems associated with dairy 

manure and each dairy will likely require its own unique combination of technologies to 

address the specific problems of that area. Research still needs to be done on VOC 

emissions to quantify amounts emitted from each portion of the dairy, and reactivity of 

the chemical species to form ozone. Without this information and a lack of standard 

testing procedures, it is difficult to assess how various technologies will reduce these 

emissions, reduce ozone formation, and improve air quality. 

 2. Other Projects 

Non-combustion particulate matter reductions can be achieved through the use of 

chemical dust suppressants, road paving, and harvesting equipment with catch-frame 

technology to eliminate the need for sweeping. For some of these projects, multimedia 

impacts must also be considered. 

Another potential project is the evaluation of irrigation pump efficiency. Improvement in 

pump efficiency through parts replacement and repair has the potential for emission 

reductions of NOx, ROG, and PM10 by reduced work by the engine or motor for water 

output. 

V. Project Criteria 

The project criteria below have been designed to provide districts and potential 

applicants with a list of minimum eligibility requirements for Agricultural Assistance 

Program funding. Criteria focus on emission reductions, cost-effectiveness of total 

reductions, and the ability for a project to be completed within the timeframe of the 

program. Additional information about funding electric motors for irrigation pumps is 

available in Part II, Chapter 12: Zero Emission Technologies of the 2005 Carl Moyer 

Program Guidelines. 
10 AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE 

 PROGRAM 

Participating districts retain the authority to impose additional requirements in order to 

address local concerns. 

 A. General 

• The Agricultural Assistance Program may be used to fund projects from previously 

unregulated agricultural sources of air pollution for a minimum of three years from 

the adoption of an applicable rule or until the compliance date, whichever is later. 

Emission reductions are not required to be surplus.

• Projects must meet a cost-effectiveness of total reductions of $14,300 per weighed 

ton of NOx + ROG + combustion PM10 reduced calculated in accordance with the 

cost-effectiveness of total reductions methodology discussed in this chapter. 

• No project funded by the Agricultural Assistance Program shall be used for credit 

under any federal or state emission averaging banking and trading program. 

• Agricultural Assistance Program grants can be no greater than a project’s 

incremental cost. The incremental cost is the cost of the project minus the baseline 

cost. The incremental cost shall be reduced by the value of any current financial 

incentive that reduces the project price, including tax credits or deductions, grants, 

or other public financial assistance. 

• Projects must have a minimum project life of three years. ARB may approve shorter 

project life on a case-by-case basis. Projects with shorter lives may be subject to 

additional funding restrictions, such as a lower cost-effectiveness of total reductions 

limit or a project cost cap. 

• The contract term must extend to the end of the project life. 

• Potential projects that fall outside of these criteria may be considered on a 

case-by-case basis if evidence provided to the air district suggests potential real, 

quantifiable, and enforceable emission reduction benefits. 

• Air districts must consult with ARB staff to determine eligibility of all projects 

considered for funding on a case-by-case basis. All projects considered on a 

case-by-case basis must receive ARB approval prior to receiving program funding. 

• An engine must be rated at greater than 25 hp, which is equivalent to an electric 

motor greater than 19 kW. 

• Projects must operate at least 75 percent of total equipment hours in California. 

• The default project life when determining project benefits for new purchases or 

repowers shall be ten years for electric motors. The default project life for engines 

without documentation shall be seven years. A longer project life may be used with 
11 AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE 

 PROGRAM 

approval by ARB staff, however, sufficient documentation must be provided to ARB 

that supports the selected project life based on the actual remaining useful life. 

 B. New Purchase 

• Engine purchases for new 2005 or later model year agricultural stationary or 

portable equipment can only be electric motors.

 C. Repower 

• A repower of an uncontrolled or emission certified (1996+ model year) diesel engine 

must be with one of the following: 

− A new electric motor. 

− A new off-road diesel engine certified to the current applicable emission 

standards. 

− A new off-road spark-ignited (SI) engine certified to the current applicable 

emission standards. 

− A new SI engine that meets or exceeds local district emission requirements and 

is subject to and complies with local district permitting, monitoring, record 

keeping and reporting requirements. This criterion will sunset on 

January 1, 2008. 

• A repower of an uncontrolled SI engine must be with one of the following: 

− A new electric motor. 

− A new off-road SI engine certified to the current applicable emission standards. 

− A new SI engine that meets or exceeds local district emission requirements and 

is subject to and complies with local district permitting, monitoring, record 

keeping and reporting requirements. This criterion will sunset on 

January 1, 2008. 

• A repower of an emissions-controlled SI engine must be with one of the following: 

− A new electric motor. 

− A new off-road SI engine certified to the current applicable emission standards. 

− A new SI engine that meets or exceeds local district emission requirements and 

is subject to and complies with local district permitting, monitoring, record 

keeping and reporting requirements, provided that the new engine provides a 

NOx emission reduction of at least 15% from the baseline engine NOx 

emissions. This criterion will sunset on January 1, 2008. 

• Electric motors may replace diesel or SI engines. The applicant must have 

documentation of payment to the local utility company for power installation. This 

requirement of documentation also applies to new installations. 

• Off-road diesel engines must be certified for sale in California and must comply with 

durability and warranty requirements. 
12 AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE 

 PROGRAM 

• The use of a non-certified SI engine shall be subject to approval by ARB staff. 

Emissions testing of a non-certified SI engine shall be conducted using an 

ARB-approved source testing procedure, such as ARB Test Method 100. 

• Non-certified SI engines shall be required to include currently available emission 

control components such as closed-loop fuel control systems, and three-way 

catalysts. 

• Non-certified SI engines shall be subject to source testing with an ARB-approved 

testing procedure following local district requirements. 

• Non-certified SI engines shall be subject to NOx and hydrocarbon emission readings 

using a portable analyzer following local district monitoring requirements. 

• The costs associated with source testing and monitoring requirements for 

non-certified SI engines are not eligible for funding. 

 D. Retrofit 

• A retrofit of an uncontrolled diesel engine that reduces NOx must be with a retrofit kit 

that is verified to reduce NOx or NOx+NMHC emissions to the applicable new 

engine Tier standard or less for a given engine size. 

• A retrofit of an uncontrolled SI engine that reduces NOx must be with a retrofit kit 

that is verified to reduce NOx+NMHC emissions to the currently applicable standard 

for off-road large spark-ignited equipment. If this is not feasible, the project must 

reduce NOx+NMHC emissions to at least 3.0 g/bhp-hr or less. 

• A retrofit of an emission-certified (1996+ model year) off-road diesel engine that 

reduces NOx must be with a retrofit kit that is verified to reduce NOx or NOx+NMHC 

emissions by at least 15 percent from the applicable NOx or NOx+NMHC emission 

standard. 

• Reduced-emission retrofit kits must be verified following California test procedures 

and must comply with durability and warranty requirements. 

 E. Scrap 

• The existing (old) engine must be destroyed and rendered useless. Engines must 

have a complete and fully visible and legible engine serial number in order to be 

eligible for an engine repower. The destruction of the engine must be documented 

by district staff seeing the destroyed engine or the receipt from a qualified vehicle 

salvage yard (see 2005 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, Part II, Chapter 2: Fleet 

Modernization, Salvage Requirements for definition). Engines without a visible and 

legible serial number may be repowered if district staff stamp the engine block with 

the Agricultural Assistance Program project number and district staff is present to 
13 AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE 

 PROGRAM 

personally verify engine removal from the project vehicle or equipment and the 

subsequent engine destruction. ARB staff will consider alternatives to stamping the 

engine block on a district-by-district basis. 

VI. Cost-Effectiveness of Total Reductions 

Projects funded through the Agricultural Assistance Program are not required to achieve 

surplus emission reductions. The cost-effectiveness calculations used in the 

Carl Moyer Program are not appropriate for evaluating Agricultural Assistance Program 

projects because those calculations are based on surplus emission reductions. 

In order to ensure that the technologies and costs of projects funded by the Agricultural 

Assistance Program are generally comparable to those funded by the 

Carl Moyer Program, ARB staff require Agricultural Assistance Program projects to 

meet a “cost-effectiveness of total reductions” criterion. The cost-effectiveness of total 

reductions is determined by subtracting the emissions of the new engine from the 

emissions of the old engine. Districts may set more restrictive cost-effectiveness of total 

reductions limits when implementing local programs.

The cost-effectiveness of total reductions is the annualized cost divided by the emission 

reductions as if no regulatory requirement existed:

Annualized Cost ($/year) 

Weighted Emission Reductions if no Regulatory Requirement Existed (tons/yr) 

For example, the cost-effectiveness of total reductions calculations for an agricultural 

irrigation pump engine would generally assume a project life of seven years, even if a 

local rule for agricultural use engines takes effect in two years. 

The cost-effectiveness of total reductions cannot be compared to the cost-effectiveness 

of Carl Moyer Program-eligible projects because it includes the total emission 

reductions associated with a project instead of only the surplus emission reductions. 

As described in the 2005 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, the weighted total emission 

reductions are estimated by taking the sum of the project’s annual emission reductions 

of NOx, ROG, and combustion PM using the following formula: 

Weighted Total Emission Reductions = NOx reductions (tons/yr) + 

ROG reductions (tons/yr) + 20*[combustion PM reductions (tons/yr)] 

NOx and ROG emissions are given equal weight; combustion PM is given a greater 

weighting due to the higher cost of reducing PM emissions. 

The annual emission reductions for each pollutant (NOx, ROG, and combustion PM) are 

determined by calculating the annual emissions for the baseline technology, and then 
14 AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE 

 PROGRAM 

subtracting from it the annual emissions of the reduced technology. Annual emissions 

may be calculated based on hours of operation or fuel consumption. 

Annual Emissions Based on Hours of Operation = Emission Standard (g/bhp-hr) 

* Engine Horsepower * Load Factor * Activity (hrs/yr) * ton/907,200 g 

Annual Emissions Based on Fuel Consumption = Emission Standard (g/bhp-hr) * 

Energy Consumption Factor (bhp-hr/gal) * Activity (gal/yr) * ton/907,200 g 

The engine load factor is an indicator of the nominal amount of work done by the engine 

for a particular application. It is given as a fraction of the rated horsepower of the 

engine and varies with engine application. For projects in which the horsepower of the 

baseline technology and reduced technology differ by more than 25 percent, the load 

factor must be adjusted using the following formula: 

Replacement Load Factor = Load Factor baseline * hp baseline/hp reduced 

It is important to understand the replacement load factor must never exceed 

100 percent in cases where the reduced technology engine is significantly smaller than 

the baseline technology engine. 

The emission standards and load factors for off-road diesel engines and large 

SI engines in Appendix B of the 2005 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines may be used for 

these calculations. The default energy consumption factor for a stationary agricultural 

irrigation pump engine greater than 50 hp is 17.56 bhp-hr/gal. 

Annualized cost is the amortization of the one-time incentive grant amount for the life of 

the project to yield an estimated annual cost. The annualized cost is calculated by 

multiplying the incremental cost by the capital recovery factor (CRF). 

Annualized cost ($) = CRF * incremental cost 

The CRF is the level of earnings reasonably expected by investing state funds in 

various financial instruments over the length of an Agricultural Assistance Program 

project. The CRF uses an interest rate and project life to determine the rate at which 

earnings could reasonably be expected if the same funds were invested over a length of 

time equaling the project life. The CRF is calculated following formula: 

Capitol Recovery Factor (CRF) = [(1 + i)n (i)] / [(1 + i)n - 1] 

Where 

i = discount rate (4%) 

n = project life (at least 3 years, see project criteria for default maximums) 

The discount rate of 4 percent reflects the prevailing earning potential for state funds 

that could reasonably be expected by investing state funds in various financial 
15 AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE 

 PROGRAM 

instruments over the length of the minimum project life of Agricultural Assistance 

Program projects 

Table B-1 in Appendix B of the 2005 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines lists the CRF for 

various project lives using a discount rate of 4 percent. 

The incremental cost of a project is calculated by subtracting the cost of the baseline 

technology from the cost of the reduced technology.

Incremental Cost ($) = Cost of Reduced Technology – Cost of Baseline 

Technology 

Generally, the cost of the baseline technology for a new purchase is the price of a new 

piece of equipment meeting the current emission standards. The cost of the baseline 

technology for a repower is the cost of rebuilding the existing engine. 

An example of calculating the cost-effectiveness of total reductions is provided below. 

In this example, a district regulation requires that uncontrolled stationary engines used 

in agricultural operations must be retired from service by January 1, 2008. The project 

cannot meet the three year surplus emission reductions requirement for the Carl Moyer 

Program, but is eligible for funding through the Agricultural Assistance Program. 

Example: Engine Repower (diesel to diesel) Based on Hours 

Baseline Technology information:

• Baseline Technology (application): 1990 John Deere C 8.3P 

• Engine horsepower (application): 285 hp 

• Activity (application): 3,000 hours per year 

• Load factor (default): 0.65 

• Emission Factors: 7.60 g/bhp-hr NOx; 0.82 g/bhp-hr ROG; 0.274 g/bhp-hr PM10 

• Baseline rebuild cost (quote provided with application): $4,000 

Reduced Technology information:

• Reduced Technology (application): 2005 John Deere 6081HF70-275 

• Engine horsepower (application): 275 hp 

• Activity (application): 3,000 hr/yr 

• Load factor (calculated): 0.65 * (285 hp/275 hp) = 0.67 

• Emission Factors: 4.15 g/bhp-hr NOx; 0.12 g/bhp-hr ROG; 0.088 g/bhp-hr PM10 

• New engine cost (quote provided with application): $22,500 

Emission Reduction Calculations:

Annual NOx baseline technology emissions 

(7.60 g/bhp-hr * 285 hp * 0.65 * 3,000 hrs)(ton/907,200 g) = 4.65 tons/yr NOx 

Annual NOx reduced technology emissions 

(4.15 g/bhp-hr * 275 hp * 0.67 * 3,000 hrs)(ton/907,200 g) = 2.53 tons/yr NOx 
16 AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE 

 PROGRAM 

Annual ROG baseline technology emissions 

(0.82 g/bhp-hr * 285 hp * 0.65 * 3,000 hrs)(ton/907,200 g) = 0.50 tons/yr ROG 

Annual ROG reduced technology emissions 

(0.12 g/bhp-hr * 275 hp * 0.67 * 3,000 hrs)(ton/907,200 g) = 0.07 tons/yr ROG 

Annual Combustion PM baseline technology emissions 

(0.274 g/bhp-hr * 285 hp * 0.65 * 3,000 hrs)(ton/907,200 g) = 0.168 tons/yr PM10 

Annual Combustion PM reduced technology emissions 

(0.088 g/bhp-hr * 275 hp * 0.67 * 3,000 hrs)(ton/907,200 g) = 0.054 tons/yr PM10 

• NOx emission benefits = 4.65 tons/yr – 2.53 tons/yr = 2.12 tons/yr NOx 

• ROG emission benefits = 0.50 tons/yr – 0.07 tons/yr = 0.43 tons/yr ROG 

• PM10 emission benefits = 0.168 tons/yr – 0.054 tons/yr = 0.114 tons/yr PM10 

Weighted Total Emission Reductions = 2.12 tons/yr + 0.43 tons/yr + 20(0.114 tons/yr) 

 = 4.83 weighted tons/yr 

Project life: 7 years; CRF = 0.167 

Incremental Cost = $22,500 - $4,000 = $18,500 

Annualized Cost = 0.167 * $18,500 = $3,090/yr 

Cost-Effectiveness of Total Reductions:

($/yr)/( weighted tons/yr) = ($3,090)/(4.83 weighted tons/yr) 

= $640/ton of weighted emissions reduced

The cost-effectiveness for this project is less than $14,300 per weighted ton of total 

emissions reduced. This project qualifies for the maximum amount of grant funds 

requested. 

VII. Minimum Project Requirements 

 A. Application 

The minimum application information for stationary and portable agricultural engine 

projects is in Table 2. Districts may request additional information from the applicant. 

A disclosure must also be included stating that once an applicant submits an application 

for a specific engine to one district or ARB as part of a multi-district solicitation, the 

owner shall not submit an application to any other source of funds, including, but not 

limited to, other districts or ARB for the same engine. Any applicant who is found to 

have submitted multiple applications for the same engine will, at a minimum, be 

disqualified from funding for that engine from all sources and may also be banned from 

submitting future applications to any and all Agricultural Assistance Program and 

Carl Moyer Program solicitations. 
17 AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE 

 PROGRAM 

Table 2 

Minimum Application Information for Stationary and Portable 

Agricultural Engine Projects 

Agricultural Assistance Program 

Applicant Information

Organization, Company or Individual Name 

Street Address 

City, County, State, Zip Code 

Primary Contact Name 

Primary Contact Phone Number 

Person with Contract Signing Authority 

Person who Filled Out Funding Application 

Project Address (if different from above) 

Equipment Information

Equipment Type (portable, stationary, 

 other) 

Equipment Make 

Equipment Model 

Equipment Year 

Equipment Serial Number 

Baseline Equipment Fuel 

New Equipment Vendor (optional) 

Activity Information

Will the new engine have a functioning 

 hour meter for the life of the project? 

Annual Hours of Operation or Annual 

 Gallons of Fuel Consumption 

Percent Operation in California 

Percent Operation in District 

Project Life 

Electronic Monitoring Unit (EMU) 

Will a new eligible EMU be installed as part 

 of this project? (yes/no) 

EMU Make 

EMU Model 

EMU Model Year 

EMU ID Number 

EMU Cost (optional) 

 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION – 

NEW PURCHASE PROJECTS ONLY 

New Electric Motor Make 

New Electric Motor Model 

New Electric Motor Serial Number 

New Electric Motor Family 

New Electric Motor Year 

New Electric Horsepower (converted from kilowatts) 

Projected Year of Purchase of New Equipment 

Baseline Cost 

New Reduced Emission Equipment Cost 

New Electric Motor Vendor (optional) 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION – 

REPOWER PROJECTS ONLY 

Existing and Newer Engine/Motor Make 

Existing and Newer Engine/Motor Model 

Existing and Newer Engine/Motor Year 

Existing and Newer Engine/Motor Serial Number (if 

available) 

Existing and Newer Engine/Motor Fuel Type 

Existing and Newer Engine/Motor Horsepower 

Existing and Newer Engine/Motor Tier 

Existing and Newer Engine/Motor Family 

Is this project participating in the PG&E AG-ICE 

 or the SCE TOU-PA-ICE Incentive Programs? 

Is this project engine a currently covered by a Moyer 

Program contract? 

Engine Rebuild Cost 

New Reduced Emission Equipment Cost 

New Engine Vendor (optional) 

New Engine Installer (optional) 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION – 

RETROFIT PROJECTS ONLY

ARB-Verified Retrofit Device 

Retrofit Device Serial Number 

ARB-Verified NOx Reduction (%) 

ARB-Verified PM Reduction (%) 

ARB-Verified ROG Reduction (%) 

Retrofit Device Executive Order 

Verification Level (Level 1,2 or 3) 

Retrofit Device Cost 

Cost of Retrofit Installation (optional) 

Cost of Retrofit Maintenance for Life of Project (optional) 
18 AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE 

 PROGRAM 

Third party applications are not allowed. The equipment owner must sign and agree to 

the application. However, a third party (e.g. engine dealer or distributor) may complete 

an application or part of an application on an owner’s behalf. Applications must include 

a signature section for third parties. The third party signature section must include 

signature and date lines, and blanks for the third party to list how much they are being 

paid, if anything, to complete the application and what source of funds are being used to 

pay them. Districts are encouraged to provide technical assistance to applicants in 

completing the application. 

 B. Reporting and Monitoring 

Owners of stationary and portable agricultural engines participating in the 

Agricultural Assistance Program are required to keep appropriate records for the life of 

the project and for three years after the project life is completed. The district has the 

authority to conduct periodic checks or solicit operating records from the recipient of 

Agricultural Assistance Program funds. This is to ensure that the engine is being 

operated as stated in the project application. The recipient must maintain and update 

operating records throughout the project life and have them available to the district upon 

request. Annual records must contain, at a minimum, total actual hours of operations or 

estimated amount of fuel used from actual fuel receipts. Actual hours of operations are 

acceptable for an engine equipped with a non-reset hour meter. 

Monitoring may be required to comply with district requirements and to ensure the 

program incentives are being applied toward the project as specified in the application. 

To ease the tracking of the equipment over the life of the project, a district registration 

certificate may be issued to the equipment owner. 

Districts providing Agricultural Assistance Program incentive funds must maintain 

separate record for projects funded through the Carl Moyer Program and the 

Agricultural Assistance Program. 

VIII. References 

ARB, 2003. Air Resources Board. Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons, Airborne 

Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines. 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/statde/isor.pdf 

ARB, 2004. Air Resources Board. Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons, Airborne 

Toxic Control Measure for Diesel-fueled Portable Engines. 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/porteng/isor.pdf 

ARB 2005a. Air Resources Board. Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for 

Proposed Revisions to the Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Compression 

Ignition Engines. 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/statde05/isor.pdf 
19 AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE 

 PROGRAM 

ARB, 2005b. Air Resources Board. Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons, Public 

Hearing to Consider the Large Confined Animal Facility Definition. 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/lcaf05/isor.pdf 

ARB 2005c. Air Resources Board. The Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards 

Attainment Program Guidelines, Revision 2005. 

CASS 2003. California Agricultural Statistics Service. California Agricultural Statistics, 

2003. California Agricultural Overview. 

http://www.nass.usda.gov/ca/bul/agstat/indexcas.htm