Report on Reductions Achieved from Incentive-Based

Emission Reduction Measures in the San Joaquin Valley 

APPENDIX B.3: 2008 Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality

Standards Attainment Program Guidelines Part IV

Release Date: September 22, 2014

Hearing Date: October 23, 2014

California Environmental Protection Agency 

Air Resources Board
THE CARL MOYER PROGRAM GUIDELINES 

PART IV of IV 

APPENDICES

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Appendix A Acronyms 

Appendix B Tables for Emission Reduction and Cost-Effectiveness Calculations 

Appendix C Cost-Effectiveness Calculation Methodology 

Appendix D Light-Duty Vehicle Cost-Effectiveness Calculation Methodology 

Appendix E Example Calculations 

Appendix F Description of Certification and Verification Executive Orders 

Appendix G Minimum Requirements for Electronic Monitoring Devices 

Appendix H Best Practices for Program Administration

APPENDIX A 

ACRONYMS 

A-1 ACRONYMS 

APPENDIX A 

ACRONYMS 

AAP Agricultural Assistance Program 

AB Assembly Bill 

ABT Average Banking and Trading 

AC Alternating Current 

AECP Alternative Emission Control Plan 

AESS Automatic Engine Start-Stop 

Ah Amp-hour 

APCD Air Pollution Control District 

APCO Air Pollution Control Officer 

APU Auxiliary Power Unit 

AQMD Air Quality Management District 

ARB California Air Resources Board 

ASM Acceleration Simulation Mode 

ATCM Airborne Toxic Control Measure 

ATE Advanced Travel Center Electrification 

AVL Automatic Vehicle Locator 

BACT Best Available Control Technology 

BAR Bureau of Automotive Repair 

bhp Brake Horsepower 

BNSF Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad 

BTU British Thermal Unit 

C/E Cost Effectiveness 

CAF Confined Animal Facility 

CARL Clean Air Reporting Log 

CCR California Code of Regulations 

CI Compression Ignition 

CNG Compressed Natural Gas 

CO Carbon Monoxide 

COG Council of Governments 

CRF Capital Recovery Factor 

DC Direct Current 

DDHS Diesel Driven Heating System 

DECS Diesel Emission Control Strategy 

DMV Department of Motor Vehicles 

DOC Diesel Oxidation Catalyst 

DOE Department of Energy 

DPF Diesel Particulate Filter 

E/S Electric Standby 

ECF Energy Consumption Factor 

ECF Energy Consumption Factor 

EF Emission Factor 
A-2 ACRONYMS 

EGR Exhaust Gas Recirculation 

EMFAC ARB’s On-Road Motor Vehicle Emission Inventory Model 

EMU Electronic Monitoring Unit 

EO Executive Order 

EQIP Environmental Quality Incentives Program 

ERCs Emission Reduction Credits 

ES Emission Standards 

FBC Fuel-Borne Catalyst 

FCF Fuel Correction Factor 

FEL Family Emission Limit 

FTA Federal Transit Administration 

FTF Flow-Through Filter 

FTP Federal Test Procedure 

FY Fiscal Year 

g gram 

g/bhp-hr gram per brake horsepower-hour 

gal Gallon 

GPS Geographic Positioning System 

GSE Ground Support Equipment 

GTL Gas-to-Liquid 

GVWR Gross Vehicle Weight Rating 

HC Hydrocarbons 

HD Heavy-Duty 

HDDE Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine 

HDT Heavy-Duty Truck 

HDV Heavy-Duty Vehicle 

HEB Hybrid-Electric Bus 

HHDV Heavy Heavy-Duty Vehicle 

hp Horsepower 

hr Hour 

HSC California Health and Safety Code 

HVAC Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning 

IC Internal Combustion 

ICE Internal Combustion Engine 

ILD Idle Limiting Device 

IMO International Maritime Organization 

IPI Team Incentive Program Implementation Team 

IRS Internal Revenue Service 

ISO International Standards Organization 

kW Kilowatt 

lbs Pounds 

LDV Light-Duty Vehicle 

LETRU Low Emission Transport Refrigeration Unit 

LEV Low Emission Vehicle 

LF Load Factor 

LHD Light Heavy-Duty 
A-3 ACRONYMS 

LNG Liquefied Natural Gas 

LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas – commonly called Propane 

LSI Large Spark Ignition 

MDO Marine Diesel Oil 

MGO Marine Gas Oil 

MHDV Medium Heavy-Duty Vehicle 

mi Mile 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

MV Fee Motor Vehicle Registration Fee 

MY Model Year 

NADA National Automotive Dealership Association 

NMHC Non-Methane Hydrocarbons 

NOFA Notice of Funds Available 

NOx Oxides of Nitrogen 

OBD II On-Road Diagnostics, Phase II 

OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer 

PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 

PEM Proton Exchange Membrane 

PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric 

PM Particulate Matter 

PM10 Inhalable Particulate Matter 

RFP Request for Proposals 

ROG Reactive Organic Gas 

RSD Remote Sensing Device 

SB Senate Bill 

SCAB South Coast Air Basin 

SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District 

SCE Southern California Edison 

SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District 

SOF Soluble Organic Fraction 

SOFC Solid Oxide Fuel Cell 

SOP Statement of Principles 

SORE Small Off Road Engine 

STB Surface Transportation Board 

STD Standard 

SULEV Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicle 

SUV Sport-Utility Vehicle 

SWCV Solid Waste Collection Vehicle 

TAC Toxic Air Contaminant 

TFV Transit Fleet Vehicle 

THC Total Hydrocarbon 

TIP Transportation Implementation Plan 

tpd Tons Per Day 
A-4 ACRONYMS 

TRU Transport Refrigeration Unit 

TSE Truck Stop Electrification 

TSI Two Speed Idle 

U.S. EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

UB Urban Bus 

ULETRU Ultra Low Emission Transport Refrigeration Unit 

ULEV Ultra Low Emission Vehicle 

UP Union Pacific Railroad 

V Volt 

VAVR Voluntary Accelerated Vehicle Retirement 

VIN Vehicle Identification Number 

VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled 

VOC Volatile Organic Compound 

VVR Voluntary Vehicle Repair 

yr Year 

ZEB Zero Emission Bus 
APPENDIX B 

TABLES FOR EMISSION REDUCTION AND 

COST-EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS 

B-1 EMISSION FACTORS 

APPENDIX B 

TABLES FOR EMISSION REDUCTION AND 

COST-EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS 

This appendix presents tables summarizing the data needed to calculate the emission 

reductions and cost-effectiveness of potential projects. Included are data such as 

engine emission factors, load factors, and other conversion factors used in the 

calculations discussed in Appendix C: Cost-Effectiveness Calculation Methodology and 

Appendix E: Example Calculations. 

Table # 

CRF for various Projects B-01 

Heavy Duty On-Road Projects B-02 to B-10 

Off-Road Diesel and Non-Mobile Ag Projects B-11 to B-13 

LSI Projects B-14 to B-17 

Locomotive Projects B-18 to B-19 

Marine Projects B-20 to B-24 

All Engines – Fuel Consumption B-25 

Reference Tables B-26 to B-28 

Table B-1 

Capital Recovery Factors (CRF) for Various Project Life 

At Four Percent Discount Rate 

Project Life CRF 

1* 

2* 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

1.040 

0.530 

0.360 

0.275 

0.225 

0.191 

0.167 

0.149 

0.134 

0.123 

0.114 

0.107 

0.100 

0.095 

0.090 

0.086 

0.082 

0.079 

0.076 

0.074 

• Note: For agricultural projects only. 
B-2 EMISSION FACTORS 

HEAVY-DUTY ON-ROAD PROJECTS

Table B-2 

Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines 2004-2009 

Converted Emission Standards (g/bhp-hr) 

EO Certification Level Converted Emission Standards 

NOx + NMHC Diesel NOx(e) Diesel ROG(e) Alternative 

Fuel NOx 

2.5(a) 2.21 0.12 2.00 

1.8(b) 1.59 0.09 1.44 

1.5(b) 1.33 0.07 1.20 

1.2(b) 1.06 0.06 0.96 

0.9(b) 0.80 0.04 0.72 

0.6(b) 0.53 0.03 0.48 

0.3(b) 0.27 0.01 0.24 

PM10 Diesel PM10 Alternative 

Fuel PM10 

0.10(c) 0.072 0.100 

0.03(b) 0.022 0.030 

0.02(b) 0.014 0.020 

0.01(b,d) 0.007 0.010 

a – 2004-2006 emission standard for all on-road heavy duty engines except diesel urban buses. 

b – 2004-2006 optional emission standards for all on-road heavy duty engines except diesel urban buses. 

c – 2004-2006 emission standard for all on-road heavy duty engines except urban buses. 

d – 2004-2006 emission standard for all urban buses. 

e - Emission standards were converted where appropriate, using the NMHC and NOx fraction default 

values and the ultra low-sulfur diesel fuel correction factors listed in Tables B-26 and B-27, respectively. 

Table B-3 

Heavy-Duty Alternative Fuel Engines 

Converted Emission Standards (g/bhp-hr) 

Model Year NOx PM10 

1988 – 1989 6.0 0.60 

1990 6.0 0.60 

1991 – 1993 5.0 0.25 

1994 – 1997 5.0 0.10 

1998 - September 2002 4.0 0.10 

October 2002 – 2006 2.0 0.10 

2007 1.2 0.01 

2010 0.2 0.01 
B-3 EMISSION FACTORS 

Table B-4 

Diesel Medium Heavy-Duty Vehicles 14,001-33,000 lbs GVWR 

Emission Factors (g/mile) (a) 

Model Year NOx ROG PM10 

Pre-1984 17.21 0.29 0.792 

1984 – 1986 16.65 0.29 0.720 

1987 – 1990 14.6 0.18 0.504 

1991 – 1993 12.18 0.16 0.288 

1994 – 1997 10.7 0.1 0.216 

1998 – 2002 9.77 0.08 0.144 

2003+ 5.39 0.08 0.216 

2004 – 2006 5.12 0.08 0.216 

2007 – 2009 2.79 0.05 0.024 

2010+ 0.51 0.02 0.024 

a - Emission factors were converted using the ultra low-sulfur diesel fuel correction factors listed in 

Table B-27. 

Table B-5 

Diesel Heavy Heavy-Duty Vehicles 33,000+ lbs GVWR 

Emission Factors (g/mile) (a)

 

Model Year NOx ROG PM10 

Pre-1987 21.39 1.04 1.249 

1987 – 1990 21.11 0.81 1.354 

1991 – 1993 18.23 0.54 0.562 

1994 – 1997 17.95 0.4 0.367 

1998 – 2002 17.58 0.51 0.403 

2003 – 2006 11.63 0.26 0.252 

2007 – 2009 6.36 0.23 0.028 

2010+ 1.06 0.18 0.028 

a - Emission factors were converted using the ultra low-sulfur diesel fuel correction factors listed in 

Table B-27. 
B-4 EMISSION FACTORS 

Table B-6 

Diesel Urban Buses 

Converted Emission Standards (g/bhp-hr) 

Model Year NOx ROG PM10 

1987 – 1990(a)

1991 – 1993(a)

1994 – 1995(a)

1996 – 2002(a)

2003(a,b)

2004 – 2006(c)

2007 – 2009 

2010 

5.58 

4.65 

4.65 

3.72 

2.21 

- 

1.20 

0.20 

1.17 

1.17 

1.17 

1.17 

0.12 

- 

0.19 

0.19 

0.432 

0.072 

0.050 

0.036 

0.007 

- 

0.010 

0.010

a - Emission standards were converted where appropriate, using the NMHC and NOx fraction default 

values and the ultra low-sulfur diesel fuel correction factors listed in Tables B-26 and B-27, respectively. 

b - NOx+NMHC emission standard converted to NOx and ROG. 

c - No diesel buses have been certified to the 0.5 g/bhp-hr for the 2004-2006 model year emission 

standard. 

Table B-7 

Natural Gas Urban Buses 

Converted Emission Standards (g/bhp-hr) 

Model Year NOx PM10 

1991 – 1993 5.00 0.100 

1994 – 1995 5.00 0.070 

1996 – 1997 4.00 0.050 

1998 – 2002(b) 2.50 0.050 

2003 – 2006(a,b,c) 1.44 0.020 

2007 – 2009 1.20 0.010 

2010+ 0.20 0.010 

a - NOx+NMHC emission standard converted to NOx only. 

b - A majority of the natural gas urban buses have been certified to the optional standards. Therefore, 

these values are based on the optional standards. 

c - Many natural gas urban buses have been certified to optional standards below this level.
B-5 EMISSION FACTORS 

Table B-8 

Conversion Factors for NOx, ROG and PM10 

Heavy-Duty Vehicle Projects (bhp-hr/mile) 

Model Year Medium Heavy-Duty 

14,001-33,000 lbs. 

Heavy Heavy-Duty 

33,000 lbs. + 

Urban Bus

33,000 lbs. + 

Pre-1989 1.9 3.1 4.0 

1990 - 1993 1.8 3.0 4.0 

1994 - 1995 1.8 2.9 4.0 

1996+ 1.8 2.9 4.0 

Table B-9 

TRU and APU Default Load Factors 

Category Horsepower Load Factor 

Transport Refrigeration Units <25 0.64 

25 – 50 0.53 

Auxiliary Power Unit <25 0.74 

Table B-10 

TRU and APU Emission Factors (g/bhp-hr) 

Horsepower Tier / Model Year NOx ROG PM10 

< 11 Pre-1995 9.30 1.80 0.720 

 1995 – 1999 8.70 1.26 0.410 

 Tier 1 5.76 0.82 0.376 

 Tier 2 4.14 0.59 0.304 

 Tier 4 4.14 0.59 0.152 

11 – 24 Pre-1995 6.44 2.21 0.550 

 1995 – 1999 6.44 1.08 0.413 

 Tier 1 5.49 0.77 0.306 

 Tier 2 4.33 0.69 0.306 

 Tier 4 4.33 0.69 0.152 

25 - 49 Uncontrolled pre-1988 6.51 2.21 0.547 

 Uncontrolled 1988 + 6.42 2.17 0.547 

 Tier 1 5.26 1.74 0.480 

 Tier 2 4.63 0.29 0.280 

 Tier 4 Interim 4.55 0.12 0.128 

 Tier 4 Final 2.75 0.12 0.008 
B-6 EMISSION FACTORS 

OFF-ROAD PROJECTS AND 

NON-MOBILE AGRICULTURAL PROJECTS 

Table B-11 

Off-Road Diesel Engines Default Load Factors 

Category Equipment Type Load Factor 

Aircraft Tug 0.80 

Air Conditioner 0.75 

Air Start Unit 0.90 

Baggage Tug 0.55 

Belt Loader 0.50 

Cargo Loader 0.50 

Forklift 0.30 

Ground Power Unit 0.75 

Lift 0.50 

Service Truck 0.20 

Airport Ground Support 

Other GSE 0.50 

Agricultural Mowers 0.43 

Agricultural Tractors 0.70 

Balers 0.58 

Combines 0.70 

Hydro Power Units 0.48 

Sprayers 0.50 

Swathers 0.55 

Tillers 0.78 

Mobile Agricultural 

Other Agricultural 0.51 

Cranes 0.43 

Crawler Tractors 0.64 

Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.78 

Excavators 0.57 

Graders 0.61 

Off-Highway Tractors 0.65 

Off-Highway Trucks 0.57 

Pavers 0.62 

Other Paving 0.53 

Rollers 0.56 

Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.60 

Rubber Tired Dozers 0.59 

Rubber Tired Loaders 0.54 

Scrapers 0.72 

Signal Boards 0.78 

Skid Steer Loaders 0.55 

Construction 

Surfacing Equipment 0.45 
B-7 EMISSION FACTORS 

Table B-11 

Off-Road Diesel Engines Default Load Factors 

(Continued) 

Category Equipment Type Load Factor 

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.55 

Trenchers 0.75 

Construction 

Other Construction Equipment 0.62 

Aerial Lifts 0.46 

Forklifts 0.30 

Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.68 

Other General Industrial 0.51 

 Industrial 

Other Material Handling 0.59 

 Logging Fellers/Bunchers 0.71 

Skidders 0.74 

 Drill Rig 0.75 

 Lift (Drilling) 0.60 

 Swivel 0.60 

 Workover Rig (Mobile) 0.75 

 Oil Drilling 

 Other Workover Equipment 0.60 

Container Handling Equipment 0.59 

Cranes 0.43 

Excavators 0.57 

Forklifts 0.30 

Other Cargo Handling Equipment 0.51 

Sweeper/Scrubber 0.68 

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.55 

Cargo Handling 

Yard Trucks 0.65 

Non-Mobile Agricultural Irrigation Pump 0.65 

Engines Other 0.51 

Other All 0.43 
B-8 EMISSION FACTORS 

Table B-12 

Uncontrolled Off-Road Diesel Engines 

Emission Factors (g/bhp-hr) 

Horsepower Model Year NOx ROG PM10 

25 – 49 pre-1988 6.51 2.21 0.547 

1988 + 6.42 2.17 0.547 

50 – 119 pre-1988 12.09 1.73 0.605 

1988 + 8.14 1.19 0.497 

pre-1970 13.02 1.59 0.554 

1970 – 1979 11.16 1.20 0.396 

1980 – 1987 10.23 1.06 0.396 

120+ 

1988 + 7.60 0.82 0.274 

Table B-13 

Controlled Off-Road Diesel Engines 

Emission Factors (g/bhp-hr) 

Tier Horsepower NOx ROG PM10 

25 – 49 5.26 1.74 0.480 

50 – 119 6.54 1.19 0.552 

120 – 174 6.54 0.82 0.274 

1 

 

 

 175 + 5.93 0.38 0.108 

25 – 49 4.63 0.29 0.280 

50 – 119 4.75 0.23 0.192 

120 – 174 4.17 0.19 0.128 

175 – 250 4.15 0.12 0.088 

2 

 

 

 

 251+ 3.79 0.12 0.088 

3 50 – 120 2.74 0.12 0.160 

 121 – 750 2.32 0.12 0.112 

25 – 49 4.55 0.12 0.128 

50 – 120 2.40 0.11 0.056 

121 – 174 2.15 0.11 0.008 

175 – 750 1.29 0.08 0.008 

4 Interim 

 

 

 

 >750 2.24 0.12 0.048 

25 – 49 2.75 0.12 0.008 

50 – 120 1.33 0.08 0.008 

121 – 750 0.26 0.06 0.008 

4 Final 

 

 

 >750 2.24 0.06 0.016 

Emission factors were converted using the ultra low-sulfur diesel fuel correction factors listed in 

Table B-28. 
B-9 EMISSION FACTORS 

LARGE SPARK IGNITION ENGINES 

Table B-14 

Off-Road LSI Equipment Default Load Factors 

Category Equipment Type Load Factor 

Agricultural Tractors 0.62 

Balers 0.55 

Combines 0.74 

Sprayers 0.50 

Swathers 0.52 

Agriculture 

Other Agricultural Equipment 0.55 

A/C Tug 0.80 

Baggage Tug 0.55 

Belt Loader 0.50 

Bobtail 0.55 

Cargo Loader 0.50 

Forklift 0.30 

Ground Power Unit 0.75 

Lift 0.50 

Passenger Stand 0.59 

Airport Ground Support 

Other GSE 0.50 

Asphalt Pavers 0.66 

Bore/Drill Rigs 0.79 

Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.78 

Cranes 0.47 

Paving Equipment 0.59 

Rollers 0.62 

Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.63 

Rubber Tired Loaders 0.54 

Skid Steer Loaders 0.58 

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.48 

Trenchers 0.66 

Construction 

Other Construction 0.48 

Aerial Lifts 0.46 

Forklifts 0.30 

Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.71 

Industrial 

Other Industrial 0.54 
B-10 EMISSION FACTORS 

Table B-15 

Off-Road LSI Engines 

Emission Factors (g/bhp-hr) 

Horsepower Fuel Model Year NOx ROG PM10 

25 – 49 Gasoline Uncontrolled – pre-2004 8.01 3.81 0.060 

 Controlled 2001-2006 1.33 0.72 0.060 

 Controlled 2007-2009 0.89 0.48 0.060 

 Controlled 2010+ 0.27 0.14 0.060 

 Alt Fuel Uncontrolled – pre-2004 13.00 0.90 0.060 

 Controlled 2001-2006 1.95 0.09 0.060 

 Controlled 2007-2009 1.30 0.06 0.060 

 Controlled 2010+ 0.39 0.02 0.060 

50 – 120 Gasoline Uncontrolled – pre-2004 11.84 2.66 0.060 

 Controlled 2001-2006 1.78 0.26 0.060 

 Controlled 2007-2009 1.19 0.18 0.060 

 Controlled 2010+ 0.36 0.05 0.060 

 Alt Fuel Uncontrolled – pre-2004 10.51 1.02 0.060 

 Controlled 2001-2006 1.58 0.11 0.060 

 Controlled 2007-2009 1.05 0.07 0.060 

 Controlled 2010+ 0.32 0.02 0.060 

>120 Gasoline Uncontrolled – pre-2004 12.94 1.63 0.060 

 Controlled 2001-2006 1.94 0.16 0.060 

 Controlled 2007-2009 1.29 0.11 0.060 

 Controlled 2010+ 0.39 0.03 0.060 

 Alt Fuel Uncontrolled – pre-2004 10.51 0.90 0.060 

 Controlled 2001-2006 1.58 0.09 0.060 

 Controlled 2007-2009 1.05 0.06 0.060 

 Controlled 2010+ 0.32 0.02 0.060 
B-11 EMISSION FACTORS 

Table B-16

Emission Factors for Off-Road LSI Engine Retrofits

Verified to Absolute Emission Number (g/bhp-hr) 

Manufacturers of LSI retrofit systems may verify to a percent emission reduction or 

absolute emissions. If a retrofit system is verified to a percent reduction, the emission 

factors will be that verified percent of the appropriate emissions factors in Table B-15. If 

a retrofit system is verified to an absolute emission number, use the following table for 

the emission factors. 

Fuel Verified Value NOx ROG PM10

Gasoline 3.0 g/bhp-hr 1.78 0.26 0.060 

2.5 g/bhp-hr 1.48 0.22 0.060 

2.0 g/bhp-hr 1.19 0.18 0.060 

1.5 g/bhp-hr 0.89 0.13 0.060 

1.0 g/bhp-hr 0.59 0.09 0.060 

0.6 g/bhp-hr 0.36 0.05 0.060 

0.5 g/bhp-hr 0.30 0.04 0.060 

Alt Fuel 3.0 g/bhp-hr 1.58 0.10 0.060 

2.5 g/bhp-hr 1.32 0.09 0.060 

2.0 g/bhp-hr 1.05 0.07 0.060 

1.5 g/bhp-hr 0.79 0.05 0.060 

1.0 g/bhp-hr 0.53 0.03 0.060 

0.6 g/bhp-hr 0.32 0.02 0.060 

0.5 g/bhp-hr 0.26 0.02 0.060 
B-12 EMISSION FACTORS 

Table B-17

Off-Road LSI Engines Certified to Optional Standards

Emission Factors (g/bhp-hr) 

Horsepower Fuel Optional Standard NOx ROG PM10

25-50 Gasoline 1.50 0.67 0.36 0.060 

 1.00 0.44 0.24 0.060 

 0.60 0.27 0.14 0.060 

 0.40 0.18 0.10 0.060 

 0.20 0.09 0.05 0.060 

 0.10 0.04 0.02 0.060 

Alt Fuel 1.50 0.98 0.05 0.060 

 1.00 0.65 0.03 0.060 

 0.60 0.39 0.02 0.060 

 0.40 0.26 0.01 0.060 

 0.20 0.13 0.01 0.060 

 0.10 0.07 0.00 0.060 

50-120 Gasoline 1.50 0.89 0.13 0.060 

 1.00 0.59 0.09 0.060 

 0.60 0.36 0.05 0.060 

 0.40 0.24 0.04 0.060 

 0.20 0.12 0.02 0.060 

 0.10 0.06 0.01 0.060 

Alt Fuel 1.50 0.79 0.05 0.060 

 1.00 0.53 0.03 0.060 

 0.60 0.32 0.02 0.060 

 0.40 0.21 0.01 0.060 

 0.20 0.11 0.01 0.060 

 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.060 

>120 Gasoline 1.50 0.97 0.08 0.060 

 1.00 0.65 0.05 0.060 

 0.60 0.39 0.03 0.060 

 0.40 0.26 0.02 0.060 

 0.20 0.13 0.01 0.060 

 0.10 0.06 0.01 0.060 

Alt Fuel 1.50 0.79 0.05 0.060 

 1.00 0.53 0.03 0.060 

 0.60 0.32 0.02 0.060 

 0.40 0.21 0.01 0.060 

 0.20 0.11 0.01 0.060 

 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.060 
B-13 EMISSION FACTORS 

LOCOMOTIVES 

Table B-18a 

Locomotive Emission Factors (g/bhp-hr) 

Based on 1998 Federal Standards 

Engine Model Year Type NOxa ROGb PM10a

Line-haul and 

Passenger Pre-1973 12.22 0.51 0.275 

Switcher 16.36 1.06 0.378 

Line-haul and 

Passenger 8.08 0.51 0.275 1973-2001 

Tier 0 

Switcher 11.84 1.06 0.378 

Line-haul and 

Passenger 6.30 0.49 0.275 2002-2004 

Tier 1 

Switcher 9.31 1.06 0.370 

Line-haul and 

Passenger 4.65 0.27 0.155 2005-2011 

Tier 2 

Switcher 6.86 0.54 0.163 

These factors are to be used for the project baseline emissions if the baseline locomotive is certified or 

required to be certified to the 1998 federal locomotive remanufacture standards, and for the reduced 

emission locomotive if the project locomotive is remanufactured to these 1998 standards. Factors are 

based upon Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final U.S. EPA Locomotive Regulation (2008). 

a - NOx and PM10 emission factors have been adjusted by a factor of 0.94 and 0.86, respectively, to 

account for use of California ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel. 

b - ROG = HC * 1.053 
B-14 EMISSION FACTORS 

Table B-18b 

Locomotive Emission Factors (g/bhp-hr) 

Based on 2008 Federal Standards 

Engine Model Year Type NOxa ROGb PM10a

Line-haul and 

Passenger 6.77 0.32 0.172 1973-2001 

Tier 0+ 

Switcher 9.98 0.60 0.198 

Line-haul and 

Passenger 6.30 0.31 0.172 2002-2004 

Tier 1+ 

Switcher 9.31 0.60 0.198 

Line-haul and 

Passenger 4.65 0.14 0.069 2005-2011 

Tier 2+ 

Switcher 6.86 0.27 0.095 

Line-haul and 

Passenger 2011-2014 4.65 0.14 0.069 

Tier 3 

Switcher 5.07 0.27 0.069 

These factors are to be used for the project baseline emissions if the baseline locomotive is certified or 

required to be certified to the new (2008) federal locomotive remanufacture standards, and for the 

reduced emission locomotive if the project locomotive is remanufactured to the new standards or meets 

Tier 3 standards. Factors are based upon Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final U.S. EPA Locomotive 

Regulation (2008). 

a - NOx and PM10 emission factors have been adjusted by a factor of 0.94 and 0.86, respectively, to 

account for use of California ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel. 

b - ROG = HC * 1.053 

Table B-19 

Locomotive Idle-Limiting Device Factors 

Type Factor 

Switchers 0.90 

Line-Haul 0.97 

Passenger 0.97 

Note: Factors based on assumption ILD reduces 

locomotive engine idling by 50 percent. 
B-15 EMISSION FACTORS 

MARINE VESSELS 

Table B-20a 

Uncontrolled Harbor Craft Propulsion Engine 

Emission Factors (g/bhp-hr) 

Horsepower Model Year ROG NOx PM 

25-50 all 1.32 7.57 0.520 

pre-1997 1.04 14.27 0.575 

51-120 

1997+ 0.71 9.70 0.524 

pre-1971 0.95 15.36 0.527 

1971-78 0.79 14.27 0.451 

1979-83 0.72 13.17 0.376 

121-250 

1984+ 0.68 12.07 0.376 

pre-1971 0.91 15.36 0.506 

1971-78 0.76 14.27 0.431 

1979-83 0.68 13.17 0.363 

251+ 

1984-94 0.65 12.07 0.363 

251-750 1995+ 0.49 8.97 0.260 

751+ 1995+ 0.60 12.07 0.363 

Table B-20b 

Controlled Harbor Craft Propulsion Engine 

Emission Factors (g/bhp-hr) 

Tier Horsepower ROG NOx PM 

25-50 1.30 0.580 

51-120 0.71 

6.93 

0.524 

1 

121 + 0.49 8.97 0.290 

25-50 1.30 

51-120 0.71 

5.04 0.240 

121-175 0.176 

176-750 

4.84 

0.120 

2 

751 + 

0.49 

5.24 0.160 

25-50 1.30 

51-120 0.71 

5.04 0.176 

121-175 3.60 0.077 

176-1900 3.87 0.068 

3 

1901 + 

0.49 

4.14 0.085 
B-16 EMISSION FACTORS 

Table B-21a 

Uncontrolled Harbor Craft Auxiliary Engine 

Emission Factors (g/bhp-hr) 

Horsepower Model Year ROG NOx PM 

25-50 all 1.58 6.42 0.460

pre-1997 1.23 12.09 0.508

51-120 

1997+ 0.85 8.14 0.417

pre-1971 1.13 13.02 0.466

1971-78 0.94 12.09 0.399

1979-83 0.86 11.16 0.333

1984-95 0.82 10.23 0.333

121-250 

1996+ 0.59 7.75 0.255

pre-1971 1.08 13.02 0.448

1971-78 0.90 12.09 0.381

1979-83 0.81 11.16 0.321

1984-94 0.77 10.23 0.321

251-750 

1995+ 0.58 7.60 0.230

pre-1971 1.08 13.02 0.448

1971-78 0.90 12.09 0.381

1979-86 0.81 11.16 0.321

1987-98 0.72 10.23 0.321

751 + 

1999+ 0.58 7.75 0.255
B-17 EMISSION FACTORS 

Table B-21b 

Controlled Harbor Craft Auxiliary Engine 

Emission Factors (g/bhp-hr) 

 

Tier Horsepower ROG NOx PM 

25-50 1.54 6.54 0.511

1 51-120 0.85 0.464

121+ 0.58 

6.93 

0.255

25-50 1.54 

51-120 0.85 

5.04 0.240

121-175 0.176

176-750 

4.84 

0.120

2 

751 + 

0.58 

5.24 0.160

25-50 1.54 

51-120 0.85 

5.04 0.176

121-175 3.60 0.077

176-750 3.78 

751-1900 3.87 

0.068

3 

1901+ 

0.58 

4.14 0.085

Table B-22 

Harbor Craft Load Factors 

Vessel Type Propulsion Engine Auxiliary Engine 

Commercial Fishing 0.27 

Charter Fishing 0.52 

Ferry/Excursion 0.42 

Crew & Supply 0.45 

Pilot 0.51 

Tow 0.68 

Work 0.45 

Other 0.52 

0.43 

Tug 0.50 0.31 
B-18 EMISSION FACTORS 

Table B-23 

Shore Power 

Default Emission Rates (g/kW-hr) 

Pollutant Emission Rate 

NOx 13.9 

ROG 0.49 

PM (marine gas oil fuel with 

0.11- 0.5 % sulfur content) 0.38 

PM (marine gas oil fuel with 

<= 0.10 % sulfur content) 0.25 

Table B-24 

Shore Power 

Default Power Requirements 

Ship Category Ship Size / Type Default 

(TEU) 

Power Requirement 

(kW) 

<1,000 1,000 

1,000 – 1,999 1,300 

2,000 – 2,999 1,600

3,000 – 3,999 1,900

4,000 – 4,999 2,200

5,000 – 5,999 2,300

6,000 – 6,999 2,500

7,000 – 7,999 2,900

8,000 – 9,999 3,300

Container Vessel 

10,000 – 12,000 3,700

Passenger Vessel No Default Value – Use Actual Power Requirement* 

Break Bulk 1,300 Reefer Fully containerized 3,300 

* The average power requirement for passenger vessels is 7,400 kW (ARB Oceangoing Vessel 

Survey, 2005) 
B-19 EMISSION FACTORS 

ALL ENGINES 

Table B-25 

Fuel Consumption Rate Factors (bhp-hr/gal) 

Category Horsepower Fuel Consumption Rate 

Non- Mobile Agricultural 

Engines 

> 50 hp 17.5 

< 750 hp 18.5 

Other 

> 750 hp 20.8 

REFERENCES

The information in these tables has already been incorporated into the preceding 

emission factor tables. These tables are included for informational purposes. 

Table B-26 

Pollutant Fractions 

NOx+NMHC Standards 

Diesel Engines Alternative Fuel Engines

NOx NMHC NOx NMHC 

0.95 0.05 0.80 0.20 

Table B-27 

Fuel Correction Factors 

On-Road Diesel Engines 

Model Year NOx PM10 HC 

Pre- 2007 

2007+ 

0.93 

0.93 

0.72 

0.80 

0.72

0.72

Table B-28 

Fuel Correction Factors 

Off-Road Diesel Engines 

Model Year NOx PM10

Pre-Tier 1 0.930 0.720

Tier 1+ 0.948 0.800

APPENDIX C 

COST-EFFECTIVENESS 

CALCULATION METHODOLOGY 

C-1 COST EFFECTIVENESS 

APPENDIX C 

COST-EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATION METHODOLOGY 

I. Introduction 

To receive Carl Moyer Program funding, each project must meet the maximum costeffectiveness limit of $16,000 per weighted ton of surplus NOx, ROG, and PM10 (PM10 

means combustion PM) emissions reduced. Only Carl Moyer Program funding, funding 

under the district’s fiduciary budget authority, or funding provided by a port authority (to 

meet the match fund requirement) are included in determining the cost-effectiveness of 

surplus emission reductions. For more details see Part IV: Administration of the Carl 

Moyer Program. 

II. General Cost-Effectiveness Calculations 

The cost-effectiveness of a project is determined by dividing the annual cost of the 

potential project by the annual weighted surplus emission reductions that will be 

achieved by the project as shown in formula C-1 below. 

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions ($/ton): 

Annualized Cost ($/yr) 

Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions (tons/yr) 

Descriptions on how to calculate annual emission reductions and annualized cost are 

provided in the following sections. 

A. Calculating the Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

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

annual surplus pollutant reductions following formula C-2 below. This will allow projects 

that reduce one, two, or all three of the covered pollutants to be evaluated for eligibility 

to receive Carl Moyer Program funding. While NOx and ROG emissions are given 

equal weight; emissions of combustion PM10 (such as diesel exhaust PM10 emissions) 

have been identified as a toxic air contaminant and thus carry a greater weight in the 

calculation. 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions: 

NOx reductions (tons/yr) + ROG reductions (tons/yr) + [20 * (PM10 reductions (tons/yr)] 

The result of formula C-2 is used to complete formula C-1 to determine the 

cost-effectiveness of surplus emission reductions. 
C-2 COST EFFECTIVENESS 

In order to determine the annual surplus emission reductions by pollutant, formula C-3 

below must be completed for each pollutant (NOx, ROG, and PM10), for the baseline 

technology and the reduced technology, totaling up to 6 calculations: 

1. Annual emissions of NOx for the baseline technology 

2. Annual emissions of NOx for the reduced technology 

3. Annual emissions of ROG for the baseline technology 

4. Annual emissions of ROG for the reduced technology 

5. Annual emissions of PM10 for the baseline technology 

6. Annual emissions of PM10 for the reduced technology 

These calculations are completed for each pollutant by multiplying the engine emission 

factor or converted emission standard (found in Appendix B) by the annual activity level 

and by other adjustment factors as specified for the calculation methodologies 

presented. 

The baseline technology is the technology applied under normal business practices, 

such as, an engine certified by ARB to the current emission standards for new 

purchases; or the existing engine in a vehicle or equipment for repowers and retrofits. 

The reduced technology is the newer technology used by the applicant to obtain 

surplus emission reductions. The newer technology may be one of the following: 

• For a new purchase it would be the engine certified by ARB to reduce NOx 

emissions by at least 30 percent less than the current NOx emission standard, or 

certified by ARB to the optional NOx or NOx+NMHC emission standard. Locomotive 

and marine vessel new purchases have slightly different criteria. Please see the 

specific source category cost-effectiveness criteria for more information. 

• For a repower it would be the replacement engine certified by ARB (for locomotives 

and marine vessels it would be EPA verified) to a minimum of 15 percent less than 

the NOx emissions from the baseline technology (existing engine). 

• For a NOx retrofit it would be an ARB-verified retrofit technology that will reduce 

NOx emissions by a minimum of 15 percent from the NOx emissions of the baseline 

technology. 

• For a PM retrofit it would be the ARB-verified diesel emission control strategy 

(DECS) that reduces PM emissions as level 1 (25 percent reduction), level 2 

(50 percent reduction), or level 3 (85 percent reduction). 

Since the emission factor or converted standard is given in units of grams, a conversion 

from grams to tons is also required, as described in formula C-3 below. 

Formula C-3: Estimated Annual Emissions by Pollutant (tons/yr):

Emission Factor or Converted Emission Standard (g/bhp-hr) * Annual Activity * 

Adjustment Factor(s) * Percent Operation in CA * ton/907,200g 
C-3 COST EFFECTIVENESS 

The Carl Moyer Program allows the emissions reductions from a project to be 

calculated using the following activity factors on an annual basis: 

• Hours of operation, 

• Fuel consumption, or 

• Miles traveled. 

Specific activity factors allowed for each project category may differ and are identified in 

the source category chapters of the Carl Moyer Program Guidelines. 

1. Calculating Annual Emissions Based on Hours of Operation 

When actual annual hours of equipment operation are the basis for determining 

emission reductions, the equipment activity level must be based on a properly 

functioning hour meter (See Part I, Chapter 2 and the relative source category chapter 

for additional information on this topic). In addition, the horsepower rating of the engine 

and an engine load factor found in Appendix B must be used. A default load factor of 

0.43 is used for those projects where no specific equipment load factor is available in 

Appendix B. The method for calculating emission reductions based on hours of 

operation is described in formula C-4 below. 

Formula C-4: Estimated Annual Emissions based on hours of Operation (tons/yr): 

Emission Factor or Converted Emission Standard (g/bhp-hr) * Horsepower * 

Load Factor * Activity (hrs/yr) * Percent Operation in CA * ton/907,200g

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 are different by more than 25 percent, the 

load factor must be adjusted following formula C-5 below. 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. 

Formula C-5: Replacement Load Factor: 

Load Factor baseline * hp baseline/hp reduced 

2. Calculating Annual Emissions Based on Fuel Consumption 

When annual fuel consumption is used for determining emission reductions, the 

equipment activity level must be based on annual fuel usage within California provided 

by the applicant. Fuel records must be maintained by the engine owner as described in 

the relative source category chapter for additional information on this topic.
C-4 COST EFFECTIVENESS 

An energy consumption factor (ECF) must be used to convert emissions given in 

g/bhp-hr to units of grams of emissions per gallon of fuel used (g/gal). The ECF is a 

number that combines the effects of engine efficiency and the energy content of the fuel 

used in that engine into an approximation of the amount of work output by an engine for 

each unit of fuel consumed. The ECF is found in Table B-25 in Appendix B. Formula 

C-6 below is the formula for calculating annual emissions based on annual fuel 

consumed.

Formula C-6: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Fuel Consumed using Emission 

Factors or Converted Emission Standard (tons/yr): 

Emission Factor or Converted Emission Standard (g/bhp-hr) * ECF (hp-hr/gal) * 

Activity (gal/yr) * Percent Operation in CA * ton/907,200g

For on-road projects, if the emission factor is in g/mile, a unit conversion factor 

(bhp-hr/mile) found in Table B-8 in Appendix B must be used to convert from g/mile to 

g/bhp-hr. This is completed by dividing the emission factor (g/mile) by the conversion 

factor (bhp-hr/mile) resulting in (g/bhp-hr). Formula C-7 below is used to calculate 

annual emissions for fuel based on-road calculations. 

Formula C-7: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Fuel Consumed using On-Road 

Emission Factors (tons/yr): 

[On-Road Emission Factor (g/mile)/Unit Conversion Factor (bhp-hr/mile)] * 

ECF (hp-hr/gal) * Activity (gal/yr) * Percent Operation in CA * ton/907,200g

3. Calculating Annual Emissions Based on Annual Miles Traveled 

Calculations based on annual miles traveled are only used for on-road projects. 

Mileage records must be maintained by the engine owner as described in Part 1, 

Chapter 3: On-road Heavy-Duty Vehicles. 

Calculations Using Emission Factors: There is no conversion since the emission 

factors for on-road projects provided are given in units of g/mile. Formula C-8 

describes the method for calculating pollutant emissions based on emission 

factors and miles traveled. 

Formula C-8: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Mileage using Emission Factors 

(tons/yr): 

Emission Factor (g/mile) * Activity (miles/yr) * Percent Operation in CA * ton/907,200g 

Calculating Annual Emissions Based on Converted Standards: The unit 

conversion factor found in Table B-8 in Appendix B is used to convert the units of 

the converted emission standard (g/bhp-hr) to g/mile. Formula C-9 describes the 

method for calculating pollutant emissions using converted emission standards. 
C-5 COST EFFECTIVENESS 

Formula C-9: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Mileage using Converted Emission 

Standards (tons/yr): 

Converted Emission Standard (g/bhp-hr) * Unit Conversion (bhp-hr/mile) * Activity (miles/yr) 

* Percent Operation in CA * ton/907,200g 

4. Calculating Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant 

The final step in this portion of the calculations is to determine the annual surplus 

emission reductions by pollutant. For new purchases and repower projects, subtract the 

annual emissions for the reduced technology from the annual emissions for the baseline 

technology following formula C-10 below. 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for Repowers 

and New Purchases: 

Annual Emissions for the Baseline Technology – 

Annual Emissions for the Reduced Technology

For retrofits, multiply the baseline technology pollutant emissions by the percent of 

emission reductions that the ARB-verified reduced technology is verified to following 

formula C-11 below. 

Formula C-11: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for Retrofits: 

Annual Emissions for the Baseline Technology * 

Reduced Technology Verification Percent 

Calculations must be done for each pollutant, NOx, PM10, and ROG, giving a total of 

three calculations. 

For fleet modernization projects the baseline will be the newer vehicle emissions. 

The annual surplus emission reductions by pollutant would be used in Formula C-2 to 

calculate the annual surplus emission reductions. 

B. Determining the Annualized Cost 

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). The resulting 

annualized cost is used to complete formula C-12 to determine the cost-effectiveness of 

surplus emission reductions. 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost ($): 

CRF * incremental cost ($) 
C-6 COST EFFECTIVENESS 

1. Calculating the CRF 

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

various financial instruments over the length of a Carl Moyer 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 C-13 below. 

Formula C-13: Capitol Recovery Factor (CRF): 

[(1 + i)n (i)] / [(1 + i)n - 1] 

Where 

i = discount rate (4 percent) 

n = project life (at least 3 years see specific 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 

instruments over the length of the minimum project life of Carl Moyer Program projects. 

Table B-1 in Appendix B lists the CRF for various project lives using a discount rate of 

4 percent. Use the result from formula C-13 to complete formula C-12 to determine the 

annualized cost of a project. 

2. Calculating the Incremental Cost 

In previous guidelines, incremental cost was determined by calculating the difference in 

cost between the new reduced technology and the baseline technology, making it 

necessary for the applicant to receive quotes for both the reduced and the baseline 

technologies. ARB staff decided to streamline this process by applying maximum 

eligible percent funding amounts to define incremental cost, eliminating the need to 

receive quotes for the baseline technology. An applicant would only need to provide an 

estimate of the cost of the reduced technology. Therefore, the incremental cost is 

determined by multiplying the cost of the reduced technology by the maximum eligible 

percent funding amount (from applicable chapter), as described in formula C-14 below. 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost ($): 

Cost of Reduced Technology ($) * Maximum Eligible Percent Funding Amount

Generally the cost of the baseline vehicle for a new purchase is assumed to be a certain 

percentage of the cost of a new vehicle meeting reduced emissions from the standard. 

The cost of the baseline technology for a repower is assumed to be a percentage of the 

new engine. For retrofits, there is no baseline technology cost; hence the entire cost of 

the retrofit may be eligible for funding. 
C-7 COST EFFECTIVENESS 

For fleet modernization projects, the incremental cost is determined by adjusting the 

value given to the vehicle by the National Automotive Dealership Association 

(N.A.D.A.), as described in formula C-15 below. 

Formula C-15: Incremental Cost for Fleet Modernization Projects ($): 

When the replacement vehicle is not new: 

N.A.D.A value 

where the N.A.D.A value is the retail value of the used vehicle * 50 percent. 

When the replacement vehicle is new: 

Invoice of the New Vehicle * 50 percent 

Use the results from formula C-14 or C-15 to complete formula C-12 to determine the 

annualized cost of a project. 

III. List of Formulas 

For an easy reference, the necessary formulas to calculate the cost-effectiveness of 

surplus emission reductions for a project funded through the Carl Moyer Program are 

provided below. 

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions ($/ton): 

Annualized Cost ($/yr) 

Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions (tons/yr) 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions: 

NOx reductions (tons/yr) + ROG reductions (tons/yr) + [20 * PM10 reductions (tons/yr)] 

Formula C-3: Estimated Annual Emissions by Pollutant (tons/yr): 

Emission Factor or Converted Emission Standard (g/bhp-hr) * Annual Activity * 

Adjustment Factor(s) * Percent Operation in CA* (ton/907,200g) 

Formula C-4: Estimated Annual Emissions based on hours of Operation (tons/yr): 

Emission Factor or Converted Emission Standard (g/bhp-hr) * Horsepower * 

Load Factor * Activity (hrs/yr) * Percent Operation in CA * ton/907,200g 

Formula C-5: Replacement Load Factor: 

Load Factor baseline * hp baseline/hp reduced
C-8 COST EFFECTIVENESS 

Formula C-6: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Fuel Consumed using Emission 

Factors or Converted Emission Standard (tons/yr): 

Emission Factor or Converted Emission Standard (g/bhp-hr) * ECF (hp-hr/gal) * 

Activity (gal/yr) * Percent Operation in CA * ton/907,200g 

Formula C-7: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Fuel Consumed using On-Road 

Emission Factors (tons/yr): 

[On-Road Emission Factor (g/mile)/Unit Conversion Factor (bhp-hr/mile)] * 

ECF (hp-hr/gal) * Activity (gal/yr) * Percent Operation in CA * ton/907,200g 

Formula C-8: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Mileage using Emission Factors 

(tons/yr): 

Emission Factor (g/mile) * Activity (miles/yr) * Percent Operation in CA * ton/907,200g 

Formula C-9: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Mileage using Converted Emission 

Standards (tons/yr): 

Converted Emission Standard (g/bhp-hr) * Unit Conversion Factor (bhp-hr/mile) * 

Activity (miles/yr) * Percent Operation in CA * ton/907,200g 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for Repowers 

and New Purchases: 

Annual Emissions for the Baseline Technology – 

Annual Emissions for the Reduced Technology 

Formula C-11: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for Retrofits: 

Annual Emissions for the Baseline Technology * 

Reduced Technology Verification Percent 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost ($): 

CRF * incremental cost ($) 

Formula C-13: Capitol Recovery Factor (CRF): 

[(1 + i)n (i)] / [(1 + i)n - 1] 

Where i = discount rate (4 percent) and n = project life (at least 3 years see 

specific project criteria for default maximums) 
C-9 COST EFFECTIVENESS 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost ($): 

Cost of Reduced Technology ($) * Maximum Eligible Percent Funding Amount 

Formula C-15: Incremental Cost for Fleet Modernization Projects ($): 

When the replacement vehicle is not new: 

 N.A.D.A value 

where the N.A.D.A value is the retail value of the used vehicle * 50 percent. 

When the replacement vehicle is new: 

 Invoice of the New Vehicle * 50 percent 

APPENDIX D 

LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE COST-EFFECTIVENESS 

CALCULATION METHODOLOGY 

D-1 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE CALCULATIONS 

APPENDIX D 

LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE COST-EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATION METHODOLOGY 

A. Conventional VAVR Projects 

Emission reductions from conventional VAVR projects were calculated using the VAVR 

regulation methodology. They are equal to the retired vehicle’s emission rates minus 

those of the replacement vehicle with the difference multiplied by the average vehicle 

miles traveled by light duty vehicles in the year of vehicle retirement and by the three year 

project life. The retired vehicle’s emission rates are equal to those for gasoline-powered, 

light-duty vehicles for the model year of the retired vehicle in the year of vehicle 

retirement. Replacement vehicle emissions are the fleet average emissions for all 

gasoline-powered light-duty vehicles for model years 1990 through the year of vehicle 

retirement. Emission rates and average vehicle miles traveled are generated by the 

ARB’s motor vehicle emissions model. NOx, ROG, CO, and PM emission reductions 

over the 3 year project life by vehicle model year are located in Tables D-1, 2, 3, and 4. 

Emission reductions for diesel-powered vehicles were estimated using a similar 

methodology. Because of very limited data and only minor differences in emission rates 

from one year to another, average emission reductions were only estimated for two model 

year ranges for all four calendar years. Replacement vehicle emission rates were the 

same as those used for gasoline-powered vehicles. Average NOx, ROG, CO, and PM 

emission reductions over the 3 year project life by model year range are located in Table 

D-15. There are no evaporative emission reductions for retiring a diesel-powered vehicle. 

B. High Emitter VAVR Projects

Emission Reductions = [ERretired – ERreplace] * VMT * Life 

Where: ERretired = Emission rate of retired vehicle 

ERreplace = Emission rate of replacement vehicle 

VMT = Vehicle miles traveled 

Life = Project life = 3 years 

1. Exhaust Emission Rates of Retired Vehicle

For retired vehicles exempt from Smog Check (pre-1976), ROGexh, NOx, and CO 

emission rates for the full 3 year credit life equal the pollutant concentrations measured 

by the Smog Check test at the time of vehicle retirement converted to FTP emission rates 

using the conversions listed in Table D-5. 

For year 1 of the 3 year project life, ROGexh, NOx, and CO emission rates for most post1975 retired vehicles equal the pollutant concentrations measured by the Smog Check 

test at the time of vehicle retirement converted to FTP emission rates as described in 
D-2 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE CALCULATIONS 

Table D-5. However, Two Speed Idle (TSI) test results from high emitting vehicles that 

are not testable by the ASM Smog Check test may be used to estimate ROGexh emission 

rates when converted to FTP emission rates as described in Table D-6. 

For years 2 and 3 of the 3 year project life, ROGexh, NOx, and CO emission rates for most 

post-1975 vehicles equal the Smog Check pass/fail cutpoints for the retired vehicle’s 

model year and vehicle class converted to FTP emission rates as described in Table D-5. 

The most recent Smog Check pass/fail cutpoints are located at 

www.smobcheck.ca.gov/ftp/pdfdocs/asm_ph43.pdf and in Table D-7. For high emitting 

vehicles that are not testable by the ASM Smog Check test, ROGexh emission rates are 

equal to the TSI pass/fail cutpoints for the retired vehicle’s model year and vehicle class 

converted to FTP emission rates as described in Table D-6. The most recent TSI 

pass/fail cutpoints are located in Table D-8. 

VMT is the average VMT of the retired vehicle’s model year based on the ARB’s motor 

vehicle emission model and is listed in Table D-9. Districts may also use the average 

vehicle miles traveled by the retired vehicle over the immediately prior two years as long 

as the district documents the mileage, and the odometer is in good working order. 

 2. Exhaust Emission Rates of Replacement Vehicle 

Emission rates for an unknown replacement vehicle equal the fleet average emission 

rates of gasoline-powered light-duty vehicles for model years 1990 through the year of 

vehicle retirement in the year retired using the ARB’s latest approved motor vehicle 

emissions model. Emission rates by the year of vehicle retirement are in Table D-10.

High emitting vehicle projects may also generate extra emission reductions for the 

documented purchase of an ARB-certified LEV or cleaner replacement vehicle as defined 

in Title 13, CCR, Division 3, Chapter 1, Article 1, Sections 1960.1 and 1961. Default 

emission rates for LEV’s are located in Tables D-11, 12, 13, and 14. 

 3. Evaporative Emission Reductions 

Districts may include an evaporative emission reduction element in a high emitting vehicle 

project. If no evaporative testing is conducted, default evaporative emission reductions 

are estimated from the retired vehicle’s model year as listed in Tables D-1, 2, 3, and 4. 

Districts also may conduct evaporative testing on vehicles identified as high emitting 

vehicles to determine if they are also high evaporative emitting vehicles. 

− Low pressure evaporative testing must be conducted according to manufacturer’s 

standard operating procedures and BAR protocols using equipment certified by 

BAR or submitted for BAR certification, if BAR-certified equipment is not available. 

− Only high emitting vehicles that fail the low pressure evaporative test are eligible to 

receive extra emission reduction credit if retired or receive evaporative control 
D-3 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE CALCULATIONS 

repairs that result in passing the low pressure evaporative test. Extra emission 

reductions equal 14.5 pounds of ROG per vehicle per year.

4. Particulate Matter Emission Reductions 

District project plans that include a PM emission reduction component must also include 

verification that the methodology for measuring PM is scientifically valid, documentation 

that the results are reproducible, and a complete copy of the methodology. 

C. High Emitter VRV Projects 

Emission Reductions = [ERpre – ERpost ] * VMT * Life 

Where: ERpre = Emission rate of pre-repaired vehicle 

 ERpost = Emission rate of vehicle after repair 

 VMT = Vehicle miles traveled 

 Life = Project life = 1 year 

 1. Exhaust Emissions 

Emission reductions are calculated as the difference between the pre and post-repair 

Smog Check test results converted to FTP emission rates using the conversion equations 

in Table D-5 with the difference multiplied by the VMT and the one year project life. Two 

Speed Idle (TSI) test results from vehicles not testable by the ASM Smog Check test may 

be used when converted to FTP ROGexh emission rates as described in Table D-6. 

VMT is the average VMT of the vehicle’s model year based on the ARB’s motor vehicle 

emission model and is listed in Table D-9. Districts may also use the average of the 

vehicle miles traveled by the vehicle over the immediately prior two years as long as the 

district documents the mileage, and the odometer is in good working order. 

The credit life for exhaust and evaporative repairs is one (1) year. 

 2. Evaporative Emission Reductions 

Districts may conduct evaporative testing on vehicles identified as high emitting vehicles 

to determine if they are also high evaporative emitting vehicles. 

− Low pressure evaporative testing must be conducted according to manufacturer’s 

standard operating procedures and BAR protocols using equipment certified by 

BAR or submitted for BAR certification, if BAR-certified equipment is not available. 

− Vehicles that fail low pressure evaporative tests are eligible to receive extra 

emission reductions where reductions equal the average emission reductions for 

repairing evaporative system failures or 14.5 pounds of ROG per vehicle per year. 
D-4 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE CALCULATIONS 

Evaporative repairs must bring the vehicle’s emissions into compliance with the low 

pressure fuel evaporative test to be creditable and fundable. 

3. Particulate Matter Emission Reductions

District project plans that include a PM emission reduction component must also include 

verification that the methodology for measuring PM is scientifically valid, documentation 

that the results are reproducible, and a complete copy of the methodology. 

D. Modifications to Calculation Methodology 

Air districts may propose modifications to the calculation methodology to reflect unique 

project elements but must provide a technical justification to support any modification in 

their project plan. The district must receive written approval from the ARB prior to using 

the modified methodology, and emission reductions for all vehicles retired or repaired 

must be calculated according to the ARB-approved methodology. 

E. Cost-Effectiveness Calculations 

 1. General Requirements 

Funds spent on outreach, data analysis, and database development are administrative 

costs. Costs incurred to identify and diagnose high emitting vehicles may not result in 

any benefits, as some vehicles may not be eligible or some owners may choose to not 

participate. These costs are distributed across successfully retired or repaired vehicles. 

However, VAVR and VRV projects individually must meet the cost-effectiveness limit. 

Districts may propose validated modifications to the calculation methodology to reflect 

unique project elements that must be detailed in the district’s plan which must document 

that the proposed modifications are technically sound. The district must have written 

ARB approval prior to using an alternative methodology. 

State funds used for administrative costs are not included in cost-effectiveness 

calculations. However, they must be accounted for relative to the administrative limits 

associated with each funding source. 

 2. Additional High Emitter Project Requirements 

The district must include State or DMV funds expended on project-related costs to identify 

and retire/repair high emitting vehicles in the cost-effectiveness calculations. 

− Project-related costs are those used to identify high emitting vehicles, run Smog 

Check tests, diagnose vehicles, and retire or repair vehicles. 

− Programmatic costs which cannot be attributed to retiring or repairing a specific 

vehicle shall be distributed across each vehicle repaired or retired in proportion to 

the programmatic costs for each vehicle within each program. 
D-5 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE CALCULATIONS 

− The project cost-effectiveness shall be calculated separately for VAVR and VRV 

projects and for each year of project funding. The results shall be reported in the 

district’s annual and final reports for that year of funding. 

If a district has a cap on the amount paid for repairs, vehicle owners may pay for repairs 

that exceed the district cap. Funds contributed by vehicle owners are not included in the 

cost-effectiveness calculation. 
D-6 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE CALCULATIONS 

TABLE D-1 

Retired Vehicle Emission Reductions, CY2008 (lbs/3 yr) 

MY ROG CO NOx PM10 

 Exhaust Evap Total Exhaust Exhaust Exhaust 

Pre 1966 325.9 235.1 560.9 3595.8 187.9 0.54 

1966 284.1 239.9 524.0 3313.3 179.7 0.69 

1967 289.2 242.7 531.9 3374.6 183.8 0.70 

1968 296.5 247.3 543.8 3462.7 188.0 0.69 

1969 304.1 249.8 553.9 3553.5 193.3 1.06 

1970 310.4 178.6 489.0 3669.0 199.6 0.53 

1971 323.4 175.6 499.1 3674.2 201.1 0.60 

1972 337.8 172.2 510.0 3686.3 203.8 0.80 

1973 345.4 174.2 519.6 3709.4 205.9 1.26 

1974 326.6 135.2 461.8 3424.0 185.1 1.41 

1975 256.5 124.8 381.4 3256.4 173.2 0.36 

1976 121.7 119.6 241.3 2759.5 134.1 1.81 

1977 109.7 92.7 202.4 2784.3 118.0 1.21 

1978 109.3 95.5 204.8 2764.6 117.8 1.36 

1979 95.3 93.8 189.1 1863.5 105.5 1.09 

1980 77.3 72.6 149.8 1616.4 99.8 1.16 

1981 64.2 66.2 130.4 1330.5 78.8 2.00 

1982 60.8 63.1 124.0 1310.3 84.0 1.59 

1983 47.6 59.1 106.7 1138.0 87.3 1.37 

1984 45.7 52.9 98.6 1105.0 87.4 1.24 

1985 36.7 47.7 84.4 819.1 82.5 1.44 

1986 36.5 44.7 81.2 791.2 84.7 1.33 

1987 35.7 57.3 93.0 739.0 81.9 1.16 

1988 35.2 60.9 96.1 693.3 80.4 1.23 

1989 36.8 41.5 78.4 748.3 67.2 1.13 

1990 38.2 38.3 76.5 773.0 55.6 1.13 

1991 38.8 34.2 72.9 766.3 57.6 1.10 

1992 39.2 32.2 71.3 767.1 58.5 1.07 

1993 31.7 30.8 62.5 566.5 55.3 1.05 

1994 21.0 28.6 49.7 337.4 42.2 0.97 

1995 16.6 23.6 40.2 242.8 29.6 0.88 

1996 12.0 17.6 29.6 233.4 23.7 0.74 

1997 9.3 11.4 20.8 223.6 17.9 0.64 

1998 4.6 -0.7 3.9 198.1 12.5 0.57 

1999 0.1 -2.1 -2.0 171.9 6.0 0.43 

2000 -4.0 -3.6 -7.6 143.6 -0.6 0.29 

Source: Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1, 2006 
D-7 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE CALCULATIONS 

TABLE D-2 

Retired Vehicle Emission Reductions, CY2009 (lbs/3 yr) 

MY ROG CO NOx PM10 

 Exhaust Evap Total Exhaust Exhaust Exhaust 

Pre 1966 321.8 233.1 554.9 3499.2 186.2 0.76 

1966 282.1 236.3 518.4 3229.2 178.8 0.12 

1967 286.5 240.6 527.1 3288.1 182.5 0.12 

1968 294.7 243.1 537.9 3373.8 186.5 0.10 

1969 301.6 247.4 549.0 3465.2 192.0 0.62 

1970 308.4 176.3 484.7 3577.0 197.9 0.67 

1971 321.3 174.4 495.7 3581.9 200.0 0.75 

1972 336.1 170.8 506.9 3593.3 202.5 0.96 

1973 343.4 172.9 516.4 3612.9 204.4 0.93 

1974 328.8 135.1 463.9 3352.4 186.4 0.87 

1975 257.8 128.1 385.9 3213.7 176.9 0.45 

1976 118.6 118.5 237.1 2658.1 131.2 2.05 

1977 106.4 92.3 198.7 2667.3 116.9 1.26 

1978 106.9 93.2 200.1 2644.1 116.4 1.42 

1979 92.5 91.9 184.4 1740.4 103.4 1.14 

1980 75.5 72.0 147.5 1520.7 98.9 1.23 

1981 61.7 66.1 127.8 1230.7 77.7 2.11 

1982 59.5 62.3 121.8 1216.9 83.2 1.69 

1983 46.4 59.1 105.4 1042.5 86.4 1.47 

1984 44.8 52.5 97.3 1012.0 86.6 1.36 

1985 36.2 47.6 83.8 737.7 82.0 1.18 

1986 35.5 44.4 79.9 701.9 83.4 1.32 

1987 35.8 57.8 93.6 664.6 82.3 1.17 

1988 35.4 63.0 98.4 619.0 80.8 1.10 

1989 37.0 44.3 81.3 671.2 68.0 1.14 

1990 38.1 41.1 79.2 691.4 56.4 1.17 

1991 38.5 36.6 75.1 681.4 58.2 1.14 

1992 39.1 34.8 73.9 681.6 59.5 1.12 

1993 32.0 33.2 65.2 483.0 56.4 1.07 

1994 21.5 30.9 52.4 255.8 43.4 1.00 

1995 17.3 25.7 43.0 162.1 31.1 0.92 

1996 13.1 19.4 32.4 151.9 25.2 0.81 

1997 10.6 13.1 23.7 141.7 19.7 0.72 

1998 5.9 0.7 6.5 114.2 14.5 0.64 

1999 1.4 -0.7 0.7 86.2 8.3 0.52 

2000 -2.7 -2.1 -4.8 56.7 2.1 0.38 

Source: Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1, 2006 
D-8 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE CALCULATIONS 

TABLE D-3 

Retired Vehicle Emission Reductions, CY 2010 (lbs/3 yr) 

MY ROG CO NOx PM10 

 Exhaust Evap Total Exhaust Exhaust Exhaust 

pre 1967 280.4 233.6 514.0 3200.7 176.5 0.21

1967 285.6 236.1 521.7 3258.3 180.3 0.20

1968 292.1 537.3 829.4 3342.6 185.6 0.18

1969 300.3 245.1 545.4 3433.9 191.1 0.75

1970 306.0 174.5 480.4 3547.9 196.1 0.82

1971 320.2 171.9 492.1 3551.7 199.0 0.93

1972 334.3 169.2 503.5 3562.9 201.5 1.17

1973 341.6 171.8 513.3 3583.3 202.5 1.11

1974 330.6 136.2 466.8 3338.2 187.9 0.17

1975 258.8 122.8 381.7 3230.5 179.4 0.58

1976 116.9 117.3 234.1 2636.0 129.4 1.31

1977 105.7 92.6 198.3 2635.6 114.5 1.45

1978 105.3 92.3 197.6 2600.5 115.1 1.49

1979 91.0 90.4 181.4 1706.4 103.0 1.20

1980 73.5 149.5 223.0 1481.2 97.6 1.29

1981 60.9 65.0 126.0 1213.7 77.7 1.61

1982 57.8 61.2 119.0 1194.5 82.3 1.79

1983 45.2 58.4 103.7 1029.3 85.8 1.17

1984 43.8 52.5 96.4 996.9 86.1 1.46

1985 35.8 47.4 83.2 734.5 81.3 1.30

1986 35.1 43.6 78.7 701.5 83.0 1.30

1987 35.0 59.0 93.9 658.3 81.1 1.29

1988 35.6 64.8 100.4 627.0 81.4 1.11

1989 37.1 46.7 83.9 677.5 68.8 1.20

1990 38.3 43.9 82.2 697.2 57.6 1.20

1991 38.7 39.2 77.9 686.3 59.2 1.20

1992 39.2 37.3 76.4 685.3 60.3 1.14

1993 32.2 35.8 68.1 491.0 57.5 1.14

1994 22.1 33.3 55.4 269.8 44.9 1.07

1995 17.9 27.8 45.7 176.5 32.5 0.99

1996 14.1 21.4 35.4 168.7 26.6 0.87

1997 11.6 14.7 26.4 158.8 21.3 0.79

1998 7.1 2.0 9.1 134.1 16.4 0.72

1999 2.6 0.7 3.2 107.3 10.4 0.59

2000 -1.5 -0.6 -2.1 79.8 4.5 0.46

Source: Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1, 2006 
D-9 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE CALCULATIONS 

Table D-4 

Retired Vehicle Emission Reductions, CY 2011 (lbs/3 yr) 

MY ROG CO NOx PM10 

 Exhaust Evap Total Exhaust Exhaust Exhaust 

pre 1968 283.9 232.7 516.6 3229.5 179.1 0.30

1968 292.3 234.8 527.1 3310.0 183.9 0.27

1969 299.3 239.4 538.7 3400.8 188.3 0.12

1970 305.2 174.7 480.0 3514.1 194.9 0.98

1971 319.6 171.5 491.1 3519.8 196.4 1.11

1972 334.8 168.3 503.2 3530.2 199.2 0.70

1973 342.5 169.9 512.4 3550.6 200.5 0.65

1974 335.2 135.2 470.4 3321.7 188.4 0.26

1975 263.3 126.8 390.1 3233.9 180.5 0.33

1976 115.9 114.9 230.9 2611.1 128.2 0.40

1977 104.4 89.5 193.9 2609.3 113.3 1.67

1978 103.7 92.8 196.5 2566.0 113.1 1.09

1979 89.7 88.6 178.3 1676.3 101.1 1.26

1980 72.0 70.2 142.2 1457.4 96.6 1.35

1981 59.1 63.7 122.8 1189.8 76.4 1.07

1982 57.4 60.6 118.0 1182.7 82.1 1.89

1983 44.8 58.3 103.1 1014.1 85.2 1.25

1984 43.4 51.9 95.3 990.1 85.8 1.33

1985 35.5 47.2 82.8 733.1 80.9 1.22

1986 35.0 43.5 78.6 702.3 82.8 1.42

1987 34.8 60.0 94.8 661.6 80.9 1.28

1988 34.9 67.2 102.1 623.5 80.3 1.23

1989 37.5 49.3 86.9 685.6 69.6 1.26

1990 38.7 46.5 85.2 705.0 58.6 1.12

1991 39.2 41.9 81.1 695.2 60.4 1.24

1992 39.5 40.1 79.6 693.2 61.4 1.25

1993 32.6 38.7 71.2 498.4 58.6 1.24

1994 22.7 36.2 58.9 283.3 46.5 1.15

1995 18.6 30.2 48.8 192.6 34.1 1.07

1996 15.0 23.4 38.3 185.0 28.1 0.97

1997 12.6 16.6 29.2 175.4 22.8 0.86

1998 8.1 3.4 11.5 151.4 18.0 0.80

1999 3.7 2.1 5.8 127.1 12.3 0.67

2000 -0.4 0.7 0.3 100.7 6.5 0.56

Source: Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1, 2006 
D-10 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE CALCULATIONS 

TABLE D-5 

ASM-FTP Correlation Equations 

Pre-1990 Model Year

FTP_HC = 1.2648 * exp (- 4.67052 

 + 0.46382 * hc_term 

 + 0.09452 * co_term 

 + 0.03577 * no_term 

 + 0.57829 * wt_term 

 - 0.06326 * my_term 

 + 0.20932 * trk) 

FTP_CO = 1.2281 * exp (- 2.65939 

 + 0.08030 * hc_term 

 + 0.32408 * co_term 

 + 0.03324 * co_term^2 

 + 0.05589 * no_term 

 + 0.61969 * wt_term 

 - 0.05339 * my_term 

 + 0.31869 * trk) 

FTP_NOX = 1.0810 * exp (- 5.73623 

 + 0.06145 * hc_term 

 - 0.02089 * co_term^2 

 + 0.44703 * no_term 

 + 0.04710 * no_term^2 

 + 0.72928 * wt_term 

 - 0.02559 * my_term 

 - 0.00109 * my_term^2 

 + 0.10580 * trk) 

Where: 

hc_term = ln ((ASM1_HC*ASM2_HC) ^ 0.5) - 3.72989 

co_term = ln ((ASM1_CO*ASM2_CO) ^ 0.5) + 2.07246 

no_term = ln ((ASM1_NO*ASM2_NO) ^ 0.5) - 5.83534 

MY_Term = model_year - 1982.71 

wt_term = ln (vehicle_weight in pounds) 

TRK = 0 for a passenger car and 1 for a light-duty truck. 

When HC and NO ASM scores = 0, set scores to 1 ppm 

FTP_HC = HC FTP emission rate in g/mi 

FTP_CO = CO FTP emission rate in g/mi 

FTP_NO = NOx FTP emission rate in g/mi 

 

 

1990 and Newer Model Year

FTP_HC = 1.1754 * exp (- 6.32723 

 + 0.24549 * hc_term 

 + 0.09376 * hc_term^2 

 + 0.06653 * no_term 

 + 0.01206 * no_term^2 

 + 0.56581 * wt_term 

 - 0.10438 * my_term 

 - 0.00564 * my_term^2 

 + 0.24477 * trk) 

FTP_CO = 1.2055 * exp (0.90704 

 + 0.04418 * hc_term^2 

 + 0.17796 * co_term 

 + 0.08789 * no_term 

 + 0.01483 * no_term^2 

 - 0.12753 * my_term 

 - 0.00681 * my_term^2 

 + 0.37580 * trk) 

FTP_NOX = 1.1056 * exp (- 6.51660 

 + 0.25586 * no_term 

 + 0.04326 * no_term^2 

 + 0.65599 * wt_term 

 - 0.09092 * my_term 

 - 0.00998 * my_term^2 

 + 0.24958 * trk) 

Where: 

hc_term = ln ((ASM1_HC*ASM2_HC) ^ 0.5) - 2.32393 

co_term = ln ((ASM1_CO*ASM2_CO) ^ 0.5) + 3.45963 

no_term = ln ((ASM1_NO*ASM2_NO) ^0.5) - 3.71310 

MY_Term = model_year - 1993.69 

wt_term = ln (vehicle_weight in pounds) 

TRK = 0 for a passenger car and 1 for a light-duty truck

 

When CO ASM scores = 0, set score to 0.01%. 

ASM1_HC = ASM 5015 mode HC concentration in ppm 

ASM2_HC = ASM 2525 mode HC concentration in ppm 

ASM1_NO = ASM 5015 mode NOx concentration in ppm 

ASM2_NO = ASM 2525 mode NOx concentration in ppm 

ASM1_CO = ASM 5015 mode CO concentration in % 

ASM2_CO = ASM 2525 mode CO concentration in % 

 

Ref: Technical Support Document, Part 2, “Evaluation of the California Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance (Smog Check) 

Program”, (April 2004), Bureau of Automotive Repair and Sierra Research at ww.arb.ca.gov/msprog/smogcheck/jun04/tsd_part2.pdf.
D-11 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE CALCULATIONS 

TABLE D-6 

Conversion of Two Speed Idle Measurements to FTP Emission Rates 

Model Inputs: 

HCHT = HC_High Term = (ln (High-Speed Idle HC in ppm)) - 2.6995 

COHT = CO_High Term = (ln (High-Speed Idle CO in %)) + 2.9867 

HCLT = HC_Low Term = (ln (Low-Speed Idle HC in ppm)) -3.6573 

COLT = CO_Low Term = (ln (Low-Speed Idle CO in %)) + 2.7987 

AGE = AGE Term = TSI Test Date - January 1 of Vehicle Model Year - 9.0570 

years 

DISP = DISP Term = (ln (Engine Displacement in Liters)) - 0.9873 

TRK = + 0.5 for light-duty trucks 

 - 0.5 for passenger vehicles 

ERG = + 0.5 if the vehicle has exhaust gas recirculation 

 - 0.5 if it does not 

IM240 Predicted Emission Rates: 

IM240 HC (g/mi) = 1.0396169 * EXP(-1.0705335 

 + 0.21479968 * COHT 

 + 0.23151769 * HCLT 

 + 0.035948587 * AGE 

 + 0.083671264 * HCLT^2 

 + 0.020890310 * COLT^2 

 + 0.099280830 * COLT * TRK 

 + 0.59513657 * DISP * ERG 

FTP Predicted Emission Rate: 

FTP HC (g/mi) = 0.094 + 1.194 * IM240 HC (g/mi) 

Source: “Techniques for Estimating IM240 and FTP Emission Rates from Two-Speed Idle Emissions 

Concentrations”, May 10, 2001, Technical Notes, Bureau of Automotive Repair 
D-12 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE CALCULATIONS 

TABLE D-7 - ASM Table --- Phase 4.3 

ACCELERATED SIMULATION MODE EMISSION STANDARDS (Effective 01/08/2003) 

Vehicle Type Pass/Fail Emission Standard 

ESC (by GVWR and LVW) ASM 5015 ASM 2525 

Model 

Year 

Group PC LDT1 LDT2 MDV HC CO NO HC CO NO 

1 X X X A 235.4 2.56 1301.5 185.4 2.36 1161.5 

 1974- B 436041.7 4453.19 1192593.0 436041.7 4453.19 1192593.0 

2 X A 123.0 0.91 1016.3 90.3 0.71 876.3 

 1975-1980 B 273316.7 1362.96 1043519.0 273316.7 1362.96 1043519.0 

3 X A 63.2 0.64 850.0 42.1 0.44 680.0 

 1981-1983 B 234259.3 1064.81 894444.5 212963.0 1064.81 894444.5

4 X A 67.0 0.52 850.0 42.1 0.32 680.0 

 1984-1986 B 212963.0 979.63 894444.5 212963.0 979.63 894444.5 

5 X A 57.0 0.48 608.0 31.7 0.32 547.0 

 1987-1992 B 191666.7 851.85 596296.3 191666.7 979.63 596296.3 

6 X A 59.0 0.29 617.1 24.3 0.23 547.0 

 1993-1995 B 89951.3 724.07 271314.8 89951.3 851.85 596296.3 

7 X A 16.8 0.29 260.0 0.5 0.23 547.0 

 1996-2000 B 128501.9 724.07 596296.3 128501.9 851.85 596296.3 

8 X A 16.8 0.29 260.0 0.5 0.23 547.0 

 2001-2003 B 128501.9 724.07 596296.3 128501.9 851.85 596296.3 

9 X A 16.8 0.29 260.0 0.5 0.23 547.0 

 

2004+ 

 B 128501.9 724.07 596296.3 128501.9 851.85 596296.3 

10 X A 139.4 1.08 1320.9 105.0 0.88 1180.9 

 

1975-1978 

 B 225000.0 2025.00 745370.4 225000.0 2025.00 745370.4

11 X A 139.4 0.88 1315.7 80.0 0.68 1175.7 

 

1979-1983 

 B 225000.0 2025.00 596296.3 150000.0 2025.00 596296.3

12 X A 91.3 0.41 945.0 63.1 0.50 840.0 

 

1984-1987 

 B 150000.0 1725.00 525000.0 150000.0 2250.00 1050000.0 

13 X A 83.0 0.27 875.0 63.1 0.43 735.0 

 

1988-1992 

 B 150000.0 1725.00 525000.0 150000.0 1875.00 525000.0

14 1993-1995 X A 68.3 0.30 377.0 33.3 0.40 630.0 

 B 78750.0 1350.00 525000.0 78750.0 1500.00 525000.0 

15 1996-2000 X A 22.1 0.30 377.0 5.8 0.40 630.0 

 B 112500.0 1350.00 525000.0 112500.0 1500.00 525000.0

16 2001-2003 X A 22.1 0.30 377.0 5.8 0.40 630.0 

 B 112500.0 1350.00 525000.0 112500.0 1500.00 525000.0

17 2004+ X A 22.1 0.30 377.0 5.8 0.40 630.0 

 B 112500.0 1350.00 525000.0 112500.0 1500.00 525000.0

18 1975-1978 X A 139.4 1.08 1320.9 105.0 0.88 1180.9 

 B 225000.0 2025.00 745370.4 225000.0 2025.00 745370.4

19 1979-1983 X A 139.4 0.88 1315.7 80.0 0.68 1175.7 

 B 225000.0 2025.00 596296.3 150000.0 2025.00 596296.3

20 1984-1987 X A 91.3 0.41 945.0 63.1 0.50 840.0 

 B 150000.0 1725.00 525000.0 150000.0 2250.00 1050000.0 

21 1988-1992 X A 83.0 0.27 875.0 63.1 0.43 735.0 

 B 150000.0 1725.00 525000.0 150000.0 1875.00 525000.0

22 1993-1995 X A 68.3 0.30 377.0 33.3 0.40 630.0 

 B 78750.0 1350.00 525000.0 78750.0 1500.00 525000.0 

23 1996-2000 X A 22.1 0.30 377.0 5.8 0.40 630.0 

 B 112500.0 1350.00 525000.0 112500.0 1500.00 525000.0

24 2001-2003 X A 22.1 0.30 377.0 5.8 0.40 630.0 

 B 112500.0 1350.00 525000.0 112500.0 1500.00 525000.0

25 2004+ X A 22.1 0.30 377.0 5.8 0.40 630.0 

 B 112500.0 1350.00 525000.0 112500.0 1500.00 525000.0

26 1978- X A 173.3 2.90 1703.3 123.3 2.70 1563.3 

 B 583333.3 3500.00 1633333.3 583333.3 3500.00 1633333.3 

27 1979-1983 X A 139.4 0.88 1315.7 80.0 0.68 1175.7 

 B 225000.0 2025.00 596296.3 150000.0 2025.00 596296.3

28 1984-1987 X A 91.3 0.41 945.0 63.1 0.50 840.0 

 B 150000.0 1725.00 525000.0 150000.0 2250.00 1050000.0 

29 1988-1992 X A 83.0 0.27 875.0 63.1 0.43 735.0 

 B 150000.0 1725.00 525000.0 150000.0 1875.00 525000.0

30 1993-1995 X A 83.0 0.30 875.0 60.0 0.70 735.0 

 B 150000.0 1350.00 525000.0 150000.0 1500.00 525000.0

31 1996-2000 X A 71.2 0.30 875.0 60.0 0.70 735.0 

 B 150000.0 1350.00 525000.0 150000.0 1500.00 525000.0

32 2001-2003 X A 71.2 0.30 875.0 60.0 0.70 735.0 

 B 150000.0 1350.00 525000.0 150000.0 1500.00 525000.0

33 2004+ X A 71.2 0.30 875.0 60.0 0.70 735.0 

 B 150000.0 1350.00 525000.0 150000.0 1500.00 525000.0

ESC - Emissions Standard Category GVWR - Manufacture's Gross Vehicle Weight Rating PC - Passenger car 

LVW - Loaded vehicle weight MDV - Medium-duty vehicle, GVWR from 6001 to 8500 lbs HC - Hydrocarbon, ppm 

LDT1 - Light-duty truck up through 3750 lbs LVW and GVWR no greater than 6000 lbs CO - Carbon Monoxide, % 

LDT2 - Light-duty truck greater than 3750 lbs LVW and GVWR no greater than 6000 lbs NO - Nitric Oxide, ppm 

Pass/Fail Emission Standards = A + B / VTW, where VTW is vehicle/truck weight

PASS/FAIL STANDARDS – Emission standards used to determine if a vehicle passes the emission inspection. A vehicle passes if the emission levels are equal to or less than the 

standards for HC, CO, and NOx for ASM 5015 and ASM2525. 
D-13 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE CALCULATIONS 

Source: www.autorepair.ca.gov/stdhome.asp. Select “reference library”, “Publications”, then “TSI Cutpoints Table.” 

TABLE D-8

Emission Standards, Dilution Thresholds, and Maximum Idle RPM Limits for BAR-90 Two-speed Test 

(Effective with 1996 ET Software Update) 

E VEHICLE TYPE (by GVWR) 

S 

C PC 

TRUCK (includes motorhome, 

minivan, sport utility) 

AVERAGE EMISSIONS 

FOR PASSING 

VEHICLES 

PASS/FAIL 

STANDARDS 

 

MODEL 

YEAR 

GROUP 

<6,001 <6,001 

6,001 

to 

8,500 

8,501 

to 

14,000 

>14,001 Idle

HC 

Idle

CO 

2500

HC 

2500

CO 

Idle

HC 

Idle

CO 

2500

HC 

2500

CO 

MIN 

CO+CO2

MAX

IDLE

RPM 

1 1966-1967 X X 212 2.3 182 1.7 700 5.5 600 4.5 8.0 1100 

2 1968-1970 X X 192 2.3 163 1.7 650 5.5 600 4.5 8.0 1100 

3 1971-1974 X X 147 1.8 123 1.4 550 5.0 400 4.0 8.0 1100 

4 1975-1980 X 60 0.3 52 0.5 220 2.0 180 1.7 8.0 1100 

5 1981-1983 X 42 0.1 37 0.2 120 1.5 150 1.5 8.0 1100 

6 1984-1986 X 37 0.1 31 0.2 120 1.0 150 1.2 7.0 1100 

7 1987-1992 X 29 0.1 20 0.1 120 1.0 140 1.0 7.0 1100 

8 1993+ X 17 0.0 12 0.1 100 1.0 130 1.0 8.0 1100 

9 1975-1978 X 73 0.5 67 0.9 250 2.5 200 3.0 7.0 1100 

10 1979-1983 X X 51 0.2 45 0.4 250 2.0 200 2.0 8.0 1100 

11 1984-1987 X X 40 0.1 35 0.2 150 1.2 180 1.2 7.0 1100 

12 1988-1992 X X 30 0.1 20 0.1 120 1.0 180 1.0 8.0 1100 

13 1993+ X 17 0.0 13 0.1 100 1.0 170 1.0 7.0 1100 

14 1993+ X 26 0.0 11 0.1 100 1.0 180 1.1 7.0 1200 

15 1966-1969 X X X 188 2.4 241 1.9 700 5.5 750 5.0 7.0 1200 

16 1970-1973 X X X 152 2.0 200 1.4 550 5.0 600 4.5 8.0 1200 

17 1974-1978 X X X 99 1.1 95 0.9 300 3.0 350 3.5 7.0 1200 

18 1979-1983 X X 77 0.8 57 0.6 250 2.2 250 3.0 7.0 1200 

19 1984-1986 X X 57 0.7 33 0.3 250 1.5 200 1.6 7.0 1200 

20 1987-1990 X 51 0.2 34 0.3 220 1.5 200 1.6 7.0 1100 

21 1991+ X 39 0.1 20 0.2 150 1.2 150 1.5 7.0 1100 

22 1987-1990 X 60 0.5 32 0.3 250 2.5 200 1.6 7.0 1100 

23 1991+ X 42 0.3 17 0.2 150 1.5 150 1.5 7.0 1100 

PC = passenger vehicle ESC -- Emissions Standards Category HC -- Hydrocarbon, ppm CO -- Carbon monoxide, % 

MIN. CO + CO2 -- Minimum CO + CO2 dilution threshold MAX. IDLE RPM -- Maximum Idle RPM limits 

PASS/FAIL STANDARDS -- Emission standards used to determine if a vehicle passes the emissions portion of 

 the inspection. A vehicle passes if the emission levels are equal to or less than the 

 hydrocarbon or carbon monoxide standard for the idle or 2500 RPM inspection. 
D-14 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE CALCULATIONS 

Table D-9 

Vehicle Miles Traveled/Yr/Vehicle 

MY Year of Retirement MY Year of Retirement 

 2008 2009 2010 2011 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Pre 1967 5,896 5,793 5,709 5,618 1984 8,193 8,042 7,901 7,765 

1967 6,017 5,902 5,828 5,734 1985 8,342 8,194 8,043 7,900 

1968 6,167 6,074 5,975 5,886 1986 8,552 8,392 8,242 8,094 

1969 6,340 6,239 6,147 6,059 1987 8,662 8,502 8,345 8,198 

1970 6,518 6,422 6,337 6,243 1988 8,827 8,661 8,502 8,345 

1971 6,671 6,578 6,471 6,384 1989 9,009 8,837 8,671 8,513 

1972 6,831 6,730 6,635 6,521 1990 9,156 8,975 8,803 8,637 

1973 6,943 6,828 6,735 6,627 1991 9,386 9,198 9,016 8,847 

1974 6,915 6,806 6,709 6,604 1992 9,612 9,412 9,220 9,041 

1975 7,064 6,926 6,856 6,705 1993 9,882 9,661 9,462 9,274 

1976 7,104 7,002 6,898 6,806 1994 10,128 9,893 9,672 9,473 

1977 7,273 7,163 7,054 6,915 1995 10,359 10,105 9,870 9,650 

1978 7,372 7,254 7,133 7,019 1996 10,662 10,383 10,129 9,894 

1979 7,476 7,359 7,228 7,089 1997 10,961 10,662 10,384 10,130 

1980 7,610 7,484 7,360 7,239 1998 11,319 10,994 10,695 10,417 

1981 7,773 7,644 7,520 7,379 1999 11,727 11,369 11,044 10,744 

1982 7,906 7,769 7,629 7,518 2000 12,103 11,708 11,349 11,023 

1983 7,997 7,854 7,719 7,589 

Source: Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 

TABLE D-10 

Fleet Average Emission Rates for Unknown Replacement Vehicle** (g/VMT) 

Year of ROG CO NOx PM10 

Retirement Exhaust Evap Total Exhaust Exhaust Exhaust 

2008 0.1417 0.1341 0.2758 3.2807 0.3430 0.0151

2009 0.1302 0.1340 0.2643 3.0801 0.3167 0.0156

2010 0.1197 0.1336 0.2533 2.8862 0.2919 0.0160

2011 0.1104 0.1328 0.2432 2.7118 0.2690 0.0166

Source: Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 ** Fleet Ave. = 1990 through Year of Retirement 
D-15 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE CALCULATIONS 

Table D-12 

CY 2009 LDV LEV Emission Rates by MY, g/mi 

MY ROG CO NOx PM10 

 EXH EVAP TOTAL EXH EXH EXH 

1997 0.1068 0.1148 0.2216 4.1592 0.3653 0.0232

1998 0.1011 0.1427 0.2438 4.0038 0.3632 0.0222

1999 0.0984 0.1248 0.2232 3.9241 0.3536 0.0205

2000 0.0949 0.1068 0.2017 3.8087 0.3436 0.0188

2001 0.0874 0.0895 0.1768 3.5328 0.3318 0.0169

2002 0.0833 0.0711 0.1544 3.3860 0.3424 0.0165

2003 0.0744 0.0491 0.1235 3.0606 0.3154 0.0147

2004 0.0448 0.0355 0.0802 1.8732 0.1678 0.0132

2005 0.0278 0.0220 0.0498 1.1468 0.0970 0.0110

2006 0.0178 0.0168 0.0346 0.7324 0.0566 0.0091

2007 0.0146 0.0138 0.0284 0.5714 0.0427 0.0071

2008 0.0120 0.0113 0.0234 0.4803 0.0380 0.0049

2009 0.0095 0.0090 0.0186 0.4051 0.0289 0.0026

Source: EMFAC2007, V2.3, Nov 1, 2006

Table D-11 

CY 2008 LDV LEV Emission Rates by MY, g/mi 

MY ROG CO NOx PM10 

 EXH EVAP TOTAL EXH EXH EXH 

1997 0.1038 0.1009 0.2048 4.0607 0.3616 0.0241 

1998 0.0979 0.1246 0.2225 3.8895 0.3581 0.0227 

1999 0.0949 0.1070 0.2019 3.8010 0.3476 0.0207 

2000 0.0911 0.0895 0.1805 3.6683 0.3355 0.0186 

2001 0.0830 0.0712 0.1542 3.3853 0.3223 0.0165 

2002 0.0790 0.0510 0.1300 3.2353 0.3327 0.0157 

2003 0.0702 0.0380 0.1082 2.8771 0.3072 0.0137 

2004 0.0405 0.0278 0.0684 1.6568 0.1522 0.0120 

2005 0.0240 0.0171 0.0411 0.9777 0.0847 0.0096 

2006 0.0163 0.0138 0.0301 0.6669 0.0518 0.0075 

2007 0.0131 0.0113 0.0244 0.5218 0.0388 0.0052 

2008 0.0103 0.0090 0.0194 0.4387 0.0342 0.0028 

Source: EMFAC2007, V2.3, Nov 1, 2006
D-16 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE CALCULATIONS 

Table D-13 

CY 2010 LDV LEV Emission Rates by MY, g/mi 

MY ROG CO NOx PM10 

 EXH EVAP TOTAL EXH EXH EXH 

1997 0.1096 0.1288 0.2384 4.2561 0.3687 0.0276

1998 0.1043 0.1615 0.2658 4.1079 0.3680 0.0262

1999 0.1018 0.1354 0.2371 4.0450 0.3591 0.0241

2000 0.0986 0.1245 0.2231 3.9379 0.3501 0.0221

2001 0.0911 0.1068 0.1979 3.6676 0.3389 0.0199

2002 0.0877 0.0893 0.1770 3.5379 0.3526 0.0194

2003 0.0787 0.0683 0.1470 3.2093 0.3251 0.0174

2004 0.0476 0.0456 0.0933 2.0013 0.1732 0.0159

2005 0.0306 0.0275 0.0581 1.2749 0.1060 0.0135

2006 0.0206 0.0208 0.0414 0.8626 0.0646 0.0116

2007 0.0160 0.0167 0.0327 0.6274 0.0465 0.0095

2008 0.0134 0.0138 0.0272 0.5261 0.0418 0.0073

2009 0.0111 0.0113 0.0224 0.4434 0.0321 0.0051

2010 0.0091 0.0090 0.0181 0.3922 0.0284 0.0027

Source: EMFAC2007, V2.3, Nov 1, 2006

Table D-14 

CY 2011 LDV LEV Emission Rates by MY, g/mi 

MY ROG CO NOx PM10 

 EXH EVAP TOTAL EXH EXH EXH 

1997 0.1128 0.1439 0.2568 4.3692 0.3736 0.0297

1998 0.1076 0.1807 0.2883 4.2222 0.3730 0.0283

1999 0.1054 0.1620 0.2675 4.1670 0.3649 0.0262

2000 0.1024 0.0000 0.1024 4.0765 0.3566 0.0241

2001 0.0950 0.1247 0.2196 3.8045 0.3459 0.0219

2002 0.0918 0.1067 0.1985 3.6882 0.3610 0.0215

2003 0.0833 0.0857 0.1689 3.3687 0.3359 0.0195

2004 0.0507 0.0636 0.1143 2.1074 0.1792 0.0180

2005 0.0326 0.0347 0.0673 1.3787 0.1102 0.0156

2006 0.0229 0.0258 0.0486 0.9643 0.0693 0.0137

2007 0.0186 0.0206 0.0393 0.7419 0.0518 0.0116

2008 0.0148 0.0167 0.0314 0.5800 0.0457 0.0095

2009 0.0124 0.0137 0.0262 0.4875 0.0354 0.0073

2010 0.0107 0.0113 0.0220 0.4313 0.0317 0.0051

2011 0.0088 0.0090 0.0179 0.3855 0.0281 0.0028

Source: EMFAC2007, V2.3, Nov 1, 2006 
D-17 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE CALCULATIONS 

Table D-15 

Retired Diesel-Powered Vehicle 

 Emission Reductions 

Model Year Pollutant lb/3 yr 

Range CY 2008-2011 

Pre 1984 ROG 6.535

 NOx 63.980

 PM 7.745

1984-1992 ROG 2.328

 NOx 50.481

 PM 6.078

Source: Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 
 
 

APPENDIX E 

EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 
 
APPENDIX E 

EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicles Page E-1 

II. On-Road Heavy-Duty Fleet Modernization Page E-11 

III. Off-Road Compression Ignition Equipment Page E-15 

IV. Large Spark-Ignition Off-Road Equipment Page E-18 

V. Off-Road Equipment Replacement Page E-21 

VI. Locomotives Page E-29 

VII. Marine Vessels Page E-33 

VIII. Agricultural Sources Page E-38 

IX. Light-Duty Vehicles Page E-42 

E-1 EX CALCS – ON-ROAD HDV 

APPENDIX E 

EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

I. On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicles 

This section provides examples of calculations for determining the cost-effectiveness of 

surplus emission reductions for on-road projects. 

Example 1 –Purchase of a New CNG Bus 

A transit agency proposes to purchase a new 2008 CNG bus certified to 0.9 g/bhp-hr 

NOx + NMHC and 0.01 g/bhp-hr PM10 instead of a new bus certified to the current 

standard of 1.2 g/bhp-hr NOx and 0.01 g/bhp-hr PM10. This new CNG bus is surplus to 

the ARB Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies. The new bus will operate 100 percent of the 

time in California. 

Baseline Technology Information: 

• Baseline technology (application): 2008 urban bus 

• Emission standard (Table B-6): 1.2 g/bhp-hr NOx and 0.010 g/bhp-hr PM10 

• Activity (application): 60,000 mi/yr 

• Percent operated in California (application): 100 percent 

Reduced Technology Information: 

• Reduced technology (application): 2008 CNG urban bus 

• Certified to optional emission standard: 

0.9 g/bhp-hr NOx + NMHC and 0.01 g/bhp-hr PM10 

• Converted emission standard for alternative fuel (Table B-2): 

0.72 g/bhp-hr NOx and 0.010 g/bhp-hr PM10 

• Conversion factor to convert the standard in g/bhp-hr to g/mi (Table B-8): 

4.0 bhp-hr/mi 

• Cost (quote provided with application): $350,000 

• New purchase projects are eligible for up to 25 percent of the cost of the new 

vehicle. 

Emission Reduction Calculations: 

Formula C-9: Estimated Annual Emissions Based on Mileage using Converted 

Emission Standards 

1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions 

(1.2 g/bhp-hr *4.0 bhp-hr/mi)(60,000 mi/yr)(ton/907,200 g) = 0.32 tons/yr NOx 

2. Annual NOx reduced technology emissions 

(0.72 g/bhp-hr * 4.0 bhp-hr/mi)(60,000 mi/yr)(ton/907,200 g) = 0.19 tons/yr NOx 

ROG converted emission standards are not available for the reduced technology, 

therefore, ROG emission reductions cannot be calculated. 
E-2 EX CALCS – ON-ROAD HDV 

PM 10 converted emission standards are the same for the baseline engine and the 

reduced technology, therefore there is no change in PM10 emissions. 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for 

Repowers and New Purchases 

• NOx emission benefits = 0.32 tons/yr – 0.19 tons/yr = 0.13 tons/yr NOx 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

0.13 = 0.13 weighted tons/yr 

Annualized Cost: 

Project Life: 12 years 

CRF (Table B-1) = 0.107 

Transit agencies receive an 80 percent grant from the Federal Transportation Agency 

for most new vehicle purchases. This grant must be subtracted before calculating the 

incremental cost. 

Transit agency’s cost for reduced technology: $350,000 * 0.20 = $70,000 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost 

$70,000 * 25 percent = $17,500 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

 0.107 * $17,500 = $1873/yr 

Cost-Effectiveness: 

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions ($/ton) 

($1873/yr)/(0.13 weighted tons/yr) = 

$14,408/ton of weighted surplus emissions reduced

The cost-effectiveness for the example is less than $16,000 per ton of pollutants 

reduced. This project qualifies for up to $17,500 in grant funds requested. 

Example 2 – Diesel to Diesel Heavy-Duty Truck Repower 

A line haul trucking company proposes to repower a 1994 heavy heavy-duty diesel truck 

with a model year 2008 certified diesel engine. This vehicle operates 90 percent of the 

time in California. The applicant is proposing to use fuel use instead of mileage to 

determine cost-effectiveness. 

Baseline Technology Information: 

• Baseline technology (application): 1994 diesel heavy heavy-duty engine 

• Emission factors (Table B-5): 

17.95 g/mi NOx, 0.40 g/mi ROG, 0.367 g/mi PM10 

• Energy consumption factor (Table B-25): 18.5 g/bhp-hr 
E-3 EX CALCS – ON-ROAD HDV 

• Activity (application): 14,330 gal/yr, 60,000 mi/yr 

• Percent operated in California (application): 90 percent 

• Unit conversion factor: 2.9 bhp-hr/mi (Table B-8)

Reduced Technology Information: 

• Reduced technology (application): 2007 diesel heavy heavy-duty engine 

• Repower projects are eligible for up to 80 percent of the repower cost. 

• Repower cost (quote provided with application): $70,000 

• Emission factors (Table B-5): 

6.36 g/mi NOx, 0.23 g/mi ROG, 0.028 g/mi PM10 

• Unit conversion factor: 2.9 bhp-hr/mi (Table B-8)

Emission Reduction Calculations: 

Formula C-7: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Fuel Usage using Emission 

Factors 

Fuel Based Calculation

1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions 

[17.95 (g/mi) / 2.9 (bhp-hr/mi)] * (18.5 bhp-hr/gal) * (14,330 gal/yr) * (0.90) * 

(ton/907,200 g) = 1.63 tons/yr NOx 

2. Annual NOx reduced technology emissions 

[6.36 (g/mi) / 2.9 (bhp-hr/mi)] * (18.5 bhp-hr/gal) * (14,330 gal/yr) * (0.90) * 

(ton/907,200 g) = 0.58 tons/yr NOx 

3. Annual ROG baseline technology emissions 

[0.40 (g/mi) / 2.9 (bhp-hr/mi)] * (18.5 bhp-hr/gal) * (14,330 gal/yr) * (0.90) * 

(ton/907,200 g) = 0.04 tons/yr ROG 

4. Annual ROG reduced technology emissions 

[0.23 (g/mi) / 2.9 (bhp-hr/mi)] * (18.5 bhp-hr/gal) * (14,330 gal/yr) * (0.90) * 

(ton/907,200 g) = 0.02 tons/yr ROG 

5. Annual PM10 baseline technology emissions 

[0.367 (g/mi) / 2.9 (bhp-hr/mi)] * (18.5 bhp-hr/gal) * (14,330 gal/yr) * (0.90) * 

(ton/907,200 g) = 0.03 tons/yr PM10 

6. Annual PM10 reduced technology emissions 

[0.028 (g/mi) / 2.9 (bhp-hr/mi)] * (18.5 bhp-hr/gal) * (14,330 gal/yr) * (0.90) * 

(ton/907,200 g) = 0.003 tons/yr PM10 

Mileage based calculation

Formula C-8: Estimated Annual Emissions Based on Mileage using Emission Factors 

1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions 

(17.95 g/mi * 0.90 * 60,000 mi/yr)(ton/907,200 g) = 1.07 tons/yr NOx 

2. Annual NOx reduced technology emissions 

(6.36 g/mi * 0.90 * 60,000 mi/yr)(ton/907,200 g) = 0.38 tons/yr NOx 

3. Annual ROG baseline technology emissions 

(0.40 g/mi * 0.90 * 60,000 mi/yr)(ton/907,200 g) = 0.02 tons/yr ROG 

4. Annual ROG reduced technology emissions 

(0.23 g/mi * 0.90 * 60,000 mi/yr)(ton/907,200 g) = 0.01 tons/yr ROG 

5. Annual PM10 baseline technology emissions 
E-4 EX CALCS – ON-ROAD HDV 

(0.367 g/mi * 0.90 * 60,000 mi/yr)(ton/907,200 g) = 0.022 tons/yr PM10 

6. Annual PM10 reduced technology emissions 

(0.028 g/mi * 0.90 * 60,000 mi/yr)(ton/907,200 g) = 0.002 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for 

Repowers and New Purchases 

From fuel based calculation above

• NOx emission benefits = 1.63 tons/yr – 0.58 tons/yr = 1.05 tons/yr NOx 

• ROG emission benefits = 0.04 tons/yr – 0.02 tons/yr = 0.02 tons/yr ROG 

• PM10 emission benefits= 0.03 tons/yr – 0.003 tons/yr = 0.027 tons/yr PM10 

From mileage based calculation above

• NOx emission benefits = 1.07 tons/yr – 0.38 tons/yr = 0.69 tons/yr NOx 

• ROG emission benefits = 0.02 tons/yr – 0.01 tons/yr = 0.01 tons/yr ROG 

• PM10 emission benefits= 0.022 tons/yr – 0.002 tons/yr = 0.02 tons/yr PM10 

Fuel Based Calculation Mileage Based Calculation

Total NOx Emission Benefits Total NOx Emission Benefits 

1.05 tons/yr NOx 0.69 tons/yr NOx 

Total ROG Emission Benefits Total ROG Emission Benefits 

 0.02 tons/yr ROG 0.01 tons/yr ROG 

Total PM10 Emission Benefits Total PM10 Emission Benefits 

0.027 tons/yr PM10 0.020 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

Fuel Based Calculation

1.05 + 0.02 + 20(0.027) = 1.61 weighted tons/yr 

 Mileage based calculation

0.69 + 0.01 + 20(0.02) = 1.1 weighted tons/yr 

Annualized Cost: 

Project Life: 7 years 

CRF (Table B-1) = 0.167 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost 

 $70,000 *80 percent = $56,000 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

 $56,000 * 0.167 = $9,352/yr 
E-5 EX CALCS – ON-ROAD HDV 

Cost-Effectiveness: 

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions ($/ton) 

 Fuel Based Calculation

($9,352/yr)/(1.61 weighted tons/yr) = 

$5,809/ton of weighted surplus emissions reduced 

Mileage based calculation

($9,352/yr)/(1.1 weighted tons/yr) = 

$8,502/ton of weighted surplus emissions reduced 

[($5,809-8502)/$8,502] * 100 = 32% more cost-effective. 

In this example, fuel usage proved to be greater then 30% more cost-effective. The 

cost-effectiveness for the example for both fuel- and mileage-based calculations is less 

than $16,000 per ton of weighted pollutants reduced. This project qualifies for up to 

$56,000 of grant funds requested and can use a fuel based calculation for costeffectiveness. 

Example 3 – Diesel Heavy-Duty Truck Retrofit 

A trucking company proposes to retrofit a 2005 heavy heavy-duty diesel truck with a 

Level 3 retrofit that is verified for both PM and NOx reductions. This vehicle operates 

80 percent of the time in California. 

Baseline Technology Information: 

• Baseline technology (application): 2005 heavy heavy-duty diesel truck 

• Baseline diesel vehicle emission rates (Table B-5): 

11.63 g/mi NOx; 0.252 g/mi of PM10 

• Activity (application): 100,000 mi/yr 

• Percent operated in California (application): 80 percent 

Reduced Technology Information: 

• Retrofit verification emission levels (executive order): 

25 percent reduction of NOx and 85 percent reduction of PM10. ROG is not counted 

since the retrofit device is not verified for ROG. 

• Retrofit cost (quote provided with application): 

$18,000 + $600 annual filter maintenance (5 years) 

• Retrofits are eligible for 100 percent of the cost unless being installed to meet 

regulatory requirements 

• For retrofit projects that only take credit for NOx reductions from a Level 3 DECS 

(because the PM reductions are required by regulation) the cost is one-half the 

project cost. 

Emission Reduction Calculations: 

Formula C-8: Estimated Annual Emissions Based on Mileage using Emission Factors

1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions 

(11.63 g/mi * 0.80 * 100,000 mi/yr)(ton/907,200 g) = 1.03 tons/yr NOx 
E-6 EX CALCS – ON-ROAD HDV 

2. Annual PM10 baseline technology emissions 

(0.252 g/mi * 0.80 * 100,000 mi/yr)(ton/907,200 g) = 0.022 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-11: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for Retrofits 

 1.03 * 0.25 = 0.26 tons/yr NOx 

 0.022 * 0.85 = 0.019 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

 0.26 + 20(0.019) =0.64 weighted tons/yr 

Annualized Cost: 

Project Life: 5 years 

 CRF (Table B-1): = 0.225 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost 

 [$18,000 + ($600*5)] * 100 percent = $21,000 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

0.225 * 21,000 = $4,725/yr 

Cost-Effectiveness: 

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions ($/ton) 

 ($4,725/yr)/(0.64 weighted tons/yr) = 

$7,383/ton of weighted surplus emissions reduced

The cost-effectiveness for the example is less than $16,000 per ton of pollutants 

reduced. This project qualifies for up to $21,000 of grant funds requested. 

Example 4 - APU Retrofit 

An operator of a 2006 line haul truck proposed to install Level 3 diesel particulate filter 

on a 2006 MY 24 horsepower Tier 2 APU. The cost of the retrofit is $5,000 and is 

verified for 85 percent reduction of PM10. The APU operates 1500 hours per year, 100 

percent of the time in California. This project is eligible for a 5 year project life. 

Baseline Technology Information: 

• Engine (application): 2006 MY Tier 2 

• HP (application): 24 

• Annual hours of operation (application): 1500 

• Load factor (Table B-9): 0.74 

• Emission factors (Table B-10): 0.306 g/bhp-hr PM10 

 

Reduced Technology Information: 

• Level 3 verified reductions (executive order): 85 percent PM10 

• Cost of retrofit (quote provided with application): $5,000 

• Retrofits are eligible for up to 100 percent of the total retrofit costs 

• Percent operating in California (application): 100 percent 
E-7 EX CALCS – ON-ROAD HDV 

Emission Reduction Calculations: 

Formula C-4: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Hours of Operation (tons/yr) 

• Annual PM10 baseline technology emissions 

0.306 g/bhp-hr *24 hp*0.74*1500 hr*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.009 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-11: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for retrofits 

• 0.009 tons/yr * 0.85 = 0.008 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

20(0.008 tons/yr) = 0.15 weighted tons/yr PM10 

Annualized Cost: 

Project Life: 5 years 

CRF (Table B-1): = 0.225 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost 

$5,000 * 100 percent = $5,000 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

0.225 * $5,000 = $1,125 

Cost-Effectiveness: 

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions ($/ton) 

($1,125/yr)/(0.15 weighted tons/yr) 

= $7,362/tons of weighted surplus emissions reduced

The Cost Effectiveness for this Example is less than $16,000 per ton of pollutants 

reduced. This project qualifies for up to $5,000 in grant funds requested. 

Example 5 - Truck Stop Electrification (TSE) On-board System 

An operator plans to idle a heavy-duty diesel truck, that has a standard heating and 

cooling system, 1500 hours a year at truck stops in California equipped with TSE 

infrastructure. To meet the regulatory requirements of the ATCM for heavy duty trucks 

idling in California the operator would be required to install a new 2008 MY Tier 4 Diesel 

Auxiliary Power Unit (DAPU) on the Truck. The DAPU would also have to be retrofitted 

with a level 3 Verified Diesel Emission Control System (VDECS). The cost of the APU 

and VDECS, including installation of the DAPU and VDECS would be $6,500. 

The operator proposes to instead install a TSE system on the truck, consisting of an 

electrical plug, inverter/charger, battery pack and electrical HVAC. There would be no 

NOx, ROG and PM10 emissions under this zero emission technology option and the 

difference in emission from the DAPU with a level 3 VDEC would qualify as reduced 

surplus emissions for Carl Moyer Program funding purposes. The cost of the TSE 

system, including installation, would be $8,500. 
E-8 EX CALCS – ON-ROAD HDV 

Baseline Technology Information

• Engine (application): 2008 DAPU engine, retrofitted with verified level 3 (85% 

PM10 reduction) VDECS 

• HP: 24 

• Load factor (Application): 0.69 

• Hours of operation in California (Application): 1,500 hrs/yr 

• Emission factors (Table B-10): 4.33g/bhp-hr NOx, 0.69g/bhp-hr ROG, 0.152 

g/bhp-hr PM 

• DAPU, retrofitted with verifiable 85% VDECS, PM10 emission factor: 0.152 

g/bhp-hr * 15% = 0.023 g/bhp-hr 

• Cost (quote provide with application): $6,500 

• Project Life (Application): 3 years 

Reduced Technology Information

• TSE System (Application) 

• Annual hours of operation in California (Application): 1500 hrs/yr 

• Emission factors: 0 g/bhp-hr NOx, 0 g/bhp-hr ROG, 0 g.bhp-hr PM 

• Cost (quote provided with application): $8,500 

Emission Reduction Calculations

Formula C-4: Estimated Annual Emissions Based on Hours of Operation (tons/yr) 

1. Annual NOx Baseline Technology Emissions 

4.33g/hp-hr*24hp*0.69*1500hr*(ton/907200g) = 0.12 ton/yr 

2. Annual NOx Reduced Technology Emissions = 0.00 ton/yr 

3. Annual ROG Baseline Technology Emissions 

0.69g/hp-hr*24hp*0.69*1500hr*(ton/907200g) = 0.02 ton/yr 

4. Annual ROG Reduced Technology Emissions = 0.00 ton/yr 

5. Annual PM10 Baseline Technology Emissions 

0.023g/hp-hr*24hp*0.69*1500hr*(ton/907200g) = 0.001 ton/yr 

6. Annual PM10 Reduced Technology Emissions = 0.000 ton/yr 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emissions Reduction by Pollutant (tons/yr). 

1. Emission benefits NOx: 0.12 ton/yr – 0.00 ton/yr = 0.12 ton/yr 

2. Emission benefits ROG: 0.02 ton/yr – 0.00 ton/yr = 0.02 ton/yr 

3. Emission benefits PM10: 0.001 ton/yr – 0.00 ton/yr = 0.001 ton/yr 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Average Surplus Emission Reductions 

0.12 ton/yr + 0.02 ton/yr + 20*0.001 ton/yr = 0.16 ton/yr 
E-9 EX CALCS – ON-ROAD HDV 

Annualized Cost:

Project Life (Application): 3 years 

CRF (Table B-1): 0.360 

In this case the incremental cost is the difference between the cost of the TSE system 

and DAPU with retrofit. 

Incremental Cost: $8,500 -$6.500 = $2,000 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

 0.360 * $2,000 = $720 

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

($/ton) 

($720/yr)/(0.16 weighted tons/yr) = $4,500/ton of weighted surplus emissions 

The Cost Effectiveness for this Example is less than $16,000 per ton of pollutants 

reduced. This project qualifies for up to $2,000 in grant funds requested. 

Example 6 - Transport Refrigeration Unit (TRU) Retrofit 

A TRU owner plans to retrofit a 24 horsepower model year 2002 diesel TRU Tier 1 

engine with a Verified Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) system. The cost for the 

DPF system is $2,800, including installation. The TRU is operated 2,000 hours per 

year, 100 percent of the time in California. The retrofit would be installed and in 

operation prior by December 31, 2009, therefore the project is eligible for up to a fiveyear project life. However, the applicant is willing to commit to a three-year project life. 

Baseline Technology Information

• Engine (application): MY 2002 TRU engine with a level 2 retrofit (50% PM10 

reduction) 

• HP (application): 24 

• Load factor (Table B-9): 0.64 

• Hours of operation in California (application): 2,000 hr/yr 

• PM 10 emission factor (Table B-10): 0.306 g/bhp-hr

Reduced Technology Information

• Retrofit (executive order): Level 3 DPF (verified to an 85% reduction in PM10) 

• Cost of retrofit (quote provided with application): $2800 

• Retrofit is eligible for up to 100 percent of the cost 

• Percent operating in California (application): 100 percent 
E-10 EX CALCS – ON-ROAD HDV 

Emissions Reduction Calculation

Formula C-4: Estimated Annual PM10 Emissions Based on Hours of Operation (tons/yr) 

Annual PM baseline technology emissions 

0.306 g/hp-hr*24hp*0.64*2000 hr/yr*(ton/907200 g) = 0.010 tons/yr 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) Early Compliance Credit

Model year 2002 engines must comply with the TRU ATCM’s Low Emission TRU InUse Performance Standard (50 % PM 10 reduction) by December 31, 2009. Model 

year 2002 TRU engines must also comply with the TRU ATCM’s Ultra Low Emission 

TRU standard (85% PM10 reduction) by the end of 2016. Therefore, the surplus PM10 

emissions reduced for each year of the project life (2010-2012) would be 35 percent (85 

percent – 50 percent). Because the TRU was not already retrofitted with a level 2 DPF, 

the project is eligible for up to 50% of the cost of the level 3 DPF. 

Formula C-11 Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for Retrofits 

(PM only)

(85%-50%)*0.010 tons/yr = 0.004 tons/yr 

Formula C-2 Annual Weighted Surplus Emissions Reductions (PM only) 

20(0.004tons/yr) = 0.07 tons/yr 

Annualized Cost

Project Life: 3 years 

 CRF: 0.360 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost 

$2,800 * 50 percent = $1,400 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

0.360 * $1,400 =$504 

Cost Effectiveness Calculations

Formula C-1: Cost Effectiveness 

($504/yr)/(0.07 tons/yr) = $7,200/ton of weighted surplus emissions reduced 

The Cost-Effectiveness is less than $16,000 per ton of pollutants reduced. This project 

qualifies for up to $1,400 in grant funds requested.
E-11 EX CALCS – ON-ROAD FLEET MOD 

II. On-Road Heavy-Duty Fleet Modernization 

This section provides examples of calculations for determining the cost-effectiveness of 

surplus emission reductions for fleet modernization projects. 

Example 1 – Used Replacement of a Heavy-Heavy Duty Truck from a Targeted 

Vocation 

A participant wants to scrap an old, heavy heavy-duty truck used to haul lumber from 

northern California and replace it with a newer, used truck. The participant has 

provided conclusive documentation that for the last three years the old truck operated 

100 percent of the time in and around the Northern California area. The OEM of the 

replacement truck will already be equipped with a Level 3 diesel emission control 

system (DECS) and the truck engine has been certified to a NOx FEL level of 1.2 g/bhphr. An electronic monitoring unit (EMU) will be installed. The replacement truck is also 

required to continue operating in the same vocation and location for the life of the 

project. 

Baseline Technology Information

• Baseline technology (application): 1983 heavy heavy-duty diesel truck 

• Emission rates (Table B-5): 21.39 g/mi NOx, 1.04 g/mi ROG, 

1.249 g/mi PM10 

• Activity (application): 42,000 miles/year 

• Percent operated in California (application): 100 percent 

• Vocation (application): Lumber 

Reduced Technology Information

• Reduced technology (application): 2007 MY used, heavy heavy-duty diesel truck 

• Emission rates (Table B-5): 6.36 g/mi NOx, 0.23 g/mi ROG, 

0.028 g/mi PM10 

• Cost (N.A.D.A. used retail value provided with application): $80,000 

• Maximum eligible amount for a used replacement truck: 50% of N.A.D.A. value 

• EMU cost: $1,150 (Includes installation and monitoring for five years) 

Emission Reduction Calculations: 

Formula C-8: Estimated Annual Emissions Based on Mileage Using 

Emission Factors 

1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions 

(21.39 g/mi * 42,000 mi)(ton/ 907,200 g) = 0.990 tons/yr NOx 

2. Annual NOx reduced technology emissions 

(6.36 g/mi * 42,000 mi)(ton/ 907,200 g) = 0.294 tons/yr NOx 

3. Annual ROG baseline technology emissions 

(1.04 g/mi * 42,000 mi) (ton/ 907,200 g) = 0.048 tons/yr ROG 

4. Annual ROG reduced technology emissions 

(0.23 g/mi * 42,000 mi)(ton/ 907,200 g) = 0.011 tons/yr ROG 
E-12 EX CALCS – ON-ROAD FLEET MOD 

5. Annual PM10 baseline technology emissions 

(1.249 g/mi * 42,000 mi)(ton/ 907,200 g) = 0.058 tons/yr PM10 

6. Annual PM10 reduced technology emissions 

(0.028 g/mi * 42,000 mi)(ton/ 907,200 g) = 0.001 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for 

Repowers and New Purchases: 

• NOx Emission Benefits = 0.990 tons/yr - 0.294 tons/yr = 0.696 tons/yr NOx 

• ROG Emission Benefits = 0.048 tons/yr - 0.011 tons/yr = 0.038 tons/yr ROG 

• PM10 Emission Benefits = 0.058 tons/yr - 0.001 tons/yr = 0.057 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

0.696 tons/yr + 0.038 tons/yr + 20(0.057 tons/yr) = 1.864 weighted tons/yr

Annualized Cost

Project Life = 5 Years 

 CRF (Table B-1) = 0.225 

Formula C-15: Incremental Cost 

Maximum Percent Funding for Used Replacement Vehicle: 

 0.50 * $80,000 = $40,000 

Replacement Truck + EMU: 

 $40,000 + $1,150 = $41,150 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost

 $41,150 * 0.225 = $9,259/yr 

Cost-Effectiveness

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions

= ($9,259/yr) / (1.864 weighted tons/yr)

= $4,959 weighted tons/yr 

In this example, the cost-effectiveness is less than threshold of $16,000 per weighted 

ton of pollutants reduced. This project qualifies for up to $41,150 in grant funds 

requested (50% of the N.A.D.A. value + EMU cost). 

Example 2 – New Replacement of a Heavy-Heavy Duty Truck from a Targeted 

Vocation 

A participant wants to scrap an old, heavy heavy-duty truck used to haul lumber from 

northern California and replace it with a new truck. The participant has provided 

conclusive documentation that for the last three years the old truck operated 100 

percent of the time in and around the Northern California area. The OEM of the 

replacement truck will already be equipped with a Level 3 diesel emission control 

system (DECS) and the truck engine has been certified to a NOx FEL level of 1.2 g/bhp-
E-13 EX CALCS – ON-ROAD FLEET MOD 

hr. An electronic monitoring unit (EMU) will be installed. The replacement truck is also 

required to continue operating in the same vocation and location for the life of the 

project. 

Baseline Technology Information

• Baseline technology (application): 1983 heavy heavy-duty diesel truck 

• Emission rates (Table B-5): 21.39 g/mi NOx, 1.04 g/mi ROG, 

1.249 g/mi PM10 

• Activity (application): 42,000 miles/year 

• Percent operated in California (application): 100 percent 

• Vocation (application): Lumber 

Reduced Technology Information

• Reduced technology (application): 2008 new heavy heavy-duty diesel truck 

• Emission rates (Table B-5): 6.36 g/mi NOx, 0.23 g/mi ROG, 

0.028 g/mi PM10 

• Cost (quote provided with application): $120,000 

• Maximum eligible amount for a new replacement truck: 50% of invoiced price 

• EMU cost: $1,150 (Includes installation and monitoring for five years) 

Emission Reduction Calculations: 

Formula C-8: Estimated Annual Emissions Based on Mileage Using 

Emission Factors 

1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions 

(21.39 g/mi * 42,000 mi)(ton/ 907,200 g) = 0.990 tons/yr NOx 

2. Annual NOx reduced technology emissions 

(6.36 g/mi * 42,000 mi)(ton/ 907,200 g) = 0.294 tons/yr NOx 

3. Annual ROG baseline technology emissions 

(1.04 g/mi * 42,000 mi) (ton/ 907,200 g) = 0.048 tons/yr ROG 

4. Annual ROG reduced technology emissions 

(0.23 g/mi * 42,000 mi)(ton/ 907,200 g) = 0.011 tons/yr ROG 

5. Annual PM10 baseline technology emissions 

(1.249 g/mi * 42,000 mi)(ton/ 907,200 g) = 0.058 tons/yr PM10 

6. Annual PM10 reduced technology emissions 

(0.028 g/mi * 42,000 mi)(ton/ 907,200 g) = 0.001 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for 

Repowers and New Purchases: 

• NOx Emission Benefits = 0.990 tons/yr - 0.294 tons/yr = 0.696 tons/yr NOx 

• ROG Emission Benefits = 0.048 tons/yr - 0.011 tons/yr = 0.038 tons/yr ROG 

• PM10 Emission Benefits = 0.058 tons/yr - 0.001 tons/yr = 0.057 tons/yr PM10 
E-14 EX CALCS – ON-ROAD FLEET MOD 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

0.696 tons/yr + 0.038 tons/yr + 20(0.057 tons/yr) = 1.864 weighted tons/yr

Annualized Cost

Project Life = 5 Years 

 CRF (Table B-1) = 0.225 

Formula C-15: Incremental Cost 

Maximum Percent Funding for New Replacement Vehicle: 

 0.50 * $120,000 = $60,000 

New Replacement Truck + EMU: 

 $60,000 + $1,150 = $61,150 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost

 $61,150 * 0.225 = $13,759/yr 

Cost-Effectiveness

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions

= ($13,759/yr) / (1.864 weighted tons/yr)

= $7,370 weighted tons/yr 

In this example, the cost-effectiveness is less than threshold of $16,000 per weighted 

ton of pollutants reduced. This project qualifies for up to $61,150 in grant funds 

requested (50% of the invoice price + EMU cost). 
E-15 EX CALCS – OFF-ROAD CI 

III. Off-Road Compression-Ignition Engines 

This section provides examples of calculations for determining the cost-effectiveness of 

surplus emission reductions for off-road compression-ignition projects. 

Example 1 – Repower with a Tier 3 Engine and Retrofit with a Level 3 DECS 

A construction company meeting the definition of a medium fleet in the Off-Road 

Regulation wants to repower a scraper with a Tier 3 engine. The baseline technology is 

a model year 1987 300 hp uncontrolled engine that operates for 1,500 hours per year. 

The applicant is proposing to install a 300 hp Tier 3 engine that costs $80,000. This 

equipment operates 100 percent of the time in California. A Level 3 diesel particulate 

filter has been verified for use on the engine and has a cost of $25,000. This project will 

be installed and in operation prior to March 1, 2009 and thus is surplus to the Off-Road 

Regulation and can be given a project life of 4 years. 

Baseline Technology Information: 

• Engine (application): 1987 Model Year 

• HP (application): 300 

• Annual Hours of operation (application): 1,500 

• Load factor (Table B-11): 0.72 

• Emission factors (Table B-12): 10.23 g/bhp-hr NOx; 1.06 g/bhp-hr ROG; 

0.396 g/bhp-hr PM10 

Reduced Technology Information: 

• Engine: Tier 3 (ARB executive order) 

• HP (application): 300 

• Hours of operation (application): 1,500 

• Cost of new engine (quote provided with application): $80,000 

• Tier 3 repowers are eligible for up to 85% of the cost of the repower 

• Load factor (Table B-11): 0.72 

• Emission factors (Table B-13): 2.32 g/bhp-hr NOx; 0.12 g/bhp-hr ROG; 

0.112 g/bhp-hr PM10 

• Percent operating in California (application): 100 percent 

• Retrofit: Level 3 verified reductions: 85 percent PM10 

• Cost of retrofit (quote provided with application): $25,000 

• Retrofits are eligible for up to 100% of total retrofit costs 

Emission Reduction Calculations: 

Formula C-4: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Hours of Operation (tons/yr) 

1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions 

10.23 g/bhp-hr *300 hp*0.72*1500 hr*(ton/907,200 g) = 3.65 tons/yr NOx 

2. Annual NOx reduced technology emissions 

2.32 g/bhp-hr *300 hp*0.72*1500 hr*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.83 tons/yr NOx 

3. Annual ROG baseline technology emissions 

1.06 g/bhp-hr *300 hp* 0.72*1500 hr*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.38 tons/yr ROG 
E-16 EX CALCS – OFF-ROAD CI 

4. Annual ROG reduced technology emissions 

0.12 g/bhp-hr *300 hp*0.72*1500 hr*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.04 tons/yr ROG 

5. Annual PM10 baseline technology emissions 

0.396 g/bhp-hr *300 hp*0.72*1500 hr*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.141 tons/yr PM10 

6. Annual PM10 reduced technology emissions 

0.112 g/bhp-hr *300 hp*0.72*1500 hr*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.040 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for 

Repowers and New Purchases 

• Emission benefits NOx = 3.65 tons/yr - 0.83 tons/yr = 2.82 tons/yr NOx 

• Emission benefits ROG = 0.38 tons/yr - 0.04 tons/yr = 0.34 tons/yr ROG 

• Emission benefits PM10 = 0.141 tons/yr - 0.040 tons/yr = 0.101 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-11: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for Retrofits 

 0.040 tons/yr PM10 * 0.85 = 0.034 tons/yr PM10 

Total PM10 Emission Benefits 

 0.101 tons/yr + 0.034 tons/yr = 0.135 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

2.82 tons/yr + 0.34 tons/yr + 20(0.135 tons/yr) = 5.86 weighted tons/yr

Annualized Cost: 

Project Life: 4 years 

CRF (Table B-1): = 0.275 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost 

($80,000 * 85 percent) + ($25,000 * 100 percent) = $93,000 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

 0.275 * $93,000 = $25,575 

Cost-Effectiveness: 

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions ($/ton) 

($25,575/yr)/(5.86 weighted tons/yr) 

= $4,364/tons of weighted surplus emissions reduced

The cost-effectiveness for the example is less than $16,000 per ton of pollutants 

reduced. This project qualifies for up to $93,000 in grant funds requested. 

Example 2 – Retrofit of a Tier 1 Engine with a Level 3 DECS 

A local municipality proposed to install Level 3 diesel particulate filter on a rubber tired 

loader with a Tier 1 160 hp engine. The cost of the retrofit is $20,000 and is verified for 

85 percent reductions of PM10. The loader operates 500 hours per year, 100 percent 

of the time in California. The local municipality meets the definition of a small fleet 
E-17 EX CALCS – OFF-ROAD CI 

under the Off-Road Regulation. This project will be installed and in operation prior to 

March 1, 2009 and thus is eligible for a 5 year project life. 

Baseline Technology Information: 

• Engine (application): Tier 1 

• HP (application): 160 

• Annual hours of operation (application): 500 

• Load factor (Table B-11): 0.54 

• Emission factors (Table B-13): 0.274 g/bhp-hr PM10 

 

Reduced Technology Information: 

• Level 3 verified reductions: 85 percent PM10 

• Cost of retrofit (quote provided with application): $20,000 

• Percent operating in California (application): 100 percent 

Emission Reduction Calculations: 

Formula C-4: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Hours of Operation (tons/yr) 

• Annual PM10 baseline technology emissions 

0.274 g/bhp-hr *160 hp*0.54*500 hr*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.013 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-11: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for retrofits 

• 0.013 tons/yr * 0.85 = 0.011 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

20(0.011 tons/yr) = 0.22 weighted tons/yr PM10 

Annualized Cost: 

Project Life: 5 years 

CRF (Table B-1): = 0.225 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost 

$20,000 * 100 percent = $20,000 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

0.225 * $20,000 = $4,500 

Cost-Effectiveness: 

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions ($/ton) 

($4,500/yr)/(0.22 weighted tons/yr) 

= $20,454/tons of weighted surplus emissions reduced 

The cost-effectiveness for this example is greater than the $16,000 per ton weighted 

cost-effectiveness requirement. In order to meet the $16,000 per ton weighted 

cost-effectiveness requirement, this project would only qualify for a fraction of the 

incremental cost – $15,644. This amount is determined by multiplying the maximum 

allowed cost-effectiveness by the estimated annual emission reductions and dividing by 

the capital recovery factor: 

($16,000 * 0.22)/0.225 = $15,644
E-18 EX CALCS – OFF-ROAD LSI 

IV. Large Spark-Ignition Off-Road Equipment 

This section provides examples of calculations for determining the cost-effectiveness of 

surplus emission reductions for large spark-ignition engine projects. 

Example 1 – New Electric Purchase 

A lumber company applied for a Carl Moyer grant to purchase a new counter balanced 

sit down rider electric forklift (Class I, lift code 6) costing $30,000 (including one battery 

pack). The owner has decided to purchase new electric forklift instead of purchasing a 

55 horsepower 2008 model year propane fueled forklift certified to the 2.0 g/bhp-hr NOx 

+ HC. The company is a small fleet and thus exempt for the off-road LSI in-use fleet 

regulations. The equipment will operate 1900 hours annually and 100 percent of the 

time in California. This equipment is eligible for a project life of 10 years. 

Baseline Technology Information: 

• Engine (application): 2008 model year 

• HP (application): 55 

• Load factor (Table B14): 0.3 

• Activity (from application): 1900 hours/year 

• Emission factors (Table B-15): 1.05 g/bhp-hr NOx; 0.07 g/bhp-hr ROG; 0.06 

g/bhp-hr PM10 

Reduced Technology Information: 

• Technology (application): Electric forklift 

• Forklift cost: $30,000 

• Electric equipment is eligible for up to 30% of the total cost 

• Percent operated in California (application): 100 percent 

• Emission factors: Electric equipment are zero emission (0 g/bhp-hr NOx; 0 g/bhp-hr 

ROG; 0 g/bhp-hr PM10) 

 

Emission Reduction Calculations: 

Formula C-4: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Hours using Off-Road LSI 

Emission Factors

1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions 

(1.05 g/bhp-hr * 55 HP * 0.30 * 1900 hr/yr)/907,200 g/ton = 0.04 ton/yr NOx 

2. Annual NOx reduced technology emissions = 0 ton/yr 

3. Annual ROG baseline technology emissions 

(0.07 g/bhp-hr * 55 HP * 0.3 * 1900 hr/yr)/907,200 g/ton = 0.00 ton/yr 

4. Annual ROG reduced technology emissions = 0 ton/yr 

5. Annual PM10 baseline technology emissions 

(0.06 g/bhp-hr * 55 HP * 0.3 * 1900 hr/yr)/907,200 g/ton = 0.002 ton/yr 

6. Annual PM10 reduced technology emissions = 0 ton/yr 
E-19 EX CALCS – OFF-ROAD LSI 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for new 

purchases and repowers 

• NOx emission benefits = 0.04 tons/yr - 0 tons/yr = 0.04 tons/yr NOx 

• ROG emission benefits = 0.00 tons/yr - 0 tons/yr = 0.00 tons/yr ROG 

• PM10 emission benefits = 0.002 tons/yr - 0 tons/yr = 0.002 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

0.04 tons/yr + 0.00 tons/yr + 20(0.002 tons/yr) = 0.08 weighted tons/yr 

Annualized Cost: 

Project Life: 10 years (from application) 

CRF (Table B-1): = 0.123 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost 

$30,000 * 0.30 = $9,000 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

 0.123 * $9,000 = $1,107yr 

Cost-Effectiveness: 

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions ($/ton) 

($1,107/yr / (0.08 weighted tons/yr) = 

$13,837/ton of weighted surplus emissions 

The cost-effectiveness for the example is less than $16,000 per ton of pollutants 

reduced. This project qualifies for up to $9000 in grants requested. 

Example 2 – LSI Engine Retrofit 

A forklift owner proposes to retrofit an existing forklift. The existing forklift is an 

uncontrolled 55 horsepower propane fueled Toyota MY 1998. A level 3a retrofit has 

been verified for use on this engine. The cost of the retrofit is $3,300. The company is 

a small fleet and thus exempt for the off-road LSI in-use fleet regulations. The applicant 

operates equipment 600 hours per year and will operate 100 percent of the time in 

California. This equipment is eligible for a project life of 3 years. 

Baseline Technology Information: 

• Engine (application): MY 1998 

• HP (application): 55 

• Load factor (Table B-14): 0.3 

• Annual hours (application): 600 hours 

• Emission factors (Table B-15): 10.51 g/bhp-hr NOx; 1.02 g/bhp-hr ROG; 

0.06 g/bhp-hr PM10 

Reduced Technology Information: 

• Technology (application): Level 3a LSI retrofit verified to an absolute emission value 

of 1.0 g/bhp-hr 
E-20 EX CALCS – OFF-ROAD LSI 

• HP (application): 55 

• Load factor (Table B-15): 0.3 

• Annual hours (application): 600 hours 

• Cost of retrofit: ($3,300 – quote from applicant): 

• Retrofit emission factors from (Table B16): 0.53 g/bhp-hr NOx; 0.03 g/bhp-hr ROG 

 

Emission Reduction Calculations: 

Formula number C-4: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Hours using Emission 

Factors

1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions 

(10.51 g/bhp-hr * 55 HP * 0.3 * 600 hr/yr)/907,200 g/ton = 0.12 ton/yr NOx 

2. Annual NOx reduced technology emissions 

(0.53 g/bhp-hr * 55 HP * 0.30 * 600 hr/yr)/907,200 g/ton = 0.01 ton/yr NOx 

3. Annual ROG baseline technology emissions 

(1.02 g/bhp-hr * 55 HP * 0.3 * 600 hr/yr)/907,200 g/ton = 0.01 ton/yr ROG 

4. Annual ROG reduced technology emissions 

(0.03 g/bhp-hr * 55 HP * 0.3 * 600 hr/yr)/907,200 g/ton = 0.000 ton/yr ROG 

5. Annual PM10 baseline technology emissions 

(0.06 g/bhp-hr * 55 HP * 0.3 * 600 hr/yr)/907,200 g/ton = 0.001 ton/yr PM10

6. Annual PM10 reduced technology emissions 

(0.06 g/bhp-hr * 55 HP * 0.3 * 600 hr/yr)/907,200 g/ton = 0.001 ton/yr PM10 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) 

• Emission benefits NOx = 0.12 tons/yr - 0.01 tons/yr = 0.11 tons/yr NOx 

• Emission benefits ROG = 0.01 tons/yr - 0.000 tons/yr = 0.01 tons/yr ROG 

• Emission benefits PM10 = 0.001 tons/yr - 0.001 tons/yr = 0.00 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

0.11 tons/yr + 0.01 tons/yr + 20(0.00 tons/yr) = 0.12 weighted tons/yr 

Annualized Cost: 

Project Life: 3 years 

CRF (Table B-1): = 0.360 

Formula C-14: Maximum Eligible Funding

= $3,300 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

 0.360 * $3,300 = $1,188/yr 

Cost-Effectiveness: 

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions ($/ton) 

($1,188/yr) / (0.12 tons/yr) = 

$9,900/ton of surplus emissions reduced 

The cost-effectiveness for the example is less than $16,000 per ton of pollutants 

reduced. This project qualifies for up to $3,300 in grants requested. 
E-21 EX CALCS – EQUIPMENT REP 

V. Off-Road Equipment Replacement 

This section provides examples of calculations for determining the cost-effectiveness of 

surplus emission reductions for off-road equipment replacement projects. 

Example 1 – Replacement of a 1985 agricultural tractor 

A farmer proposes to replace an uncontrolled 1985 175 hp agricultural tractor with a 

new 175 hp Tier 3 agricultural tractor. The new equipment will cost $100,000. This 

equipment operates 1000 hours per year, 100 percent of the time in California. A Level 

3 diesel particulate filter has been verified for use on the engine and has a cost of 

$25,000. There is no available Tier 3 repower for this specific equipment, so the 

applicant is eligible for up to 80 percent of the new equipment cost. This equipment is 

eligible for a project life of 5 years. 

Baseline Technology Information: 

• Engine (application): 1985 Model Year 

• HP (application): 175 

• Hours of operation (application): 1000 

• Load factor (Table B-11): 0.70 

• Emission factors (Table B-12): 10.23 g/bhp-hr NOx; 1.06 g/bhp-hr ROG; 

0.396 g/bhp-hr PM10 

Reduced Technology Information: 

• Engine: Tier 3 (ARB executive order) 

• HP (application): 175 

• Hours of operation (application): 1000 

• Equipment replacement is eligible for up to 80 percent of the new equipment cost. 

• Cost of new equipment (quote provided with application): $100,000 

• Load factor (Table B-11): 0.70 

• Emission factors (Table B-13): 2.32 g/bhp-hr NOx; 0.12 g/bhp-hr ROG; 

0.112 g/bhp-hr PM10 

• Percent operating in California (application): 100 percent 

• Retrofit: Level 3 verified reductions- 85 percent PM10 

• Retrofits are eligible for up to 100% of total cost. 

• Cost of retrofit (quote provided with application): $25,000 

Emission Reduction Calculations: 

Formula C-4: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Hours of Operation (tons/yr) 

7. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions 

10.23 g/bhp-hr *175 hp*0.70*1000 hr*(ton/907,200 g) = 1.38 tons/yr NOx 

8. Annual NOx reduced technology emissions 

2.32 g/bhp-hr *175 hp*0.70*1000 hr*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.31 tons/yr NOx 

9. Annual ROG baseline technology emissions 

1.06 g/bhp-hr *175 hp*0.70*1000 hr*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.14 tons/yr ROG 

10. Annual ROG reduced technology emissions 

0.12 g/bhp-hr *175 hp*0.70*1000 hr*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.02 tons/yr ROG 
E-22 EX CALCS – EQUIPMENT REP 

11. Annual PM10 baseline technology emissions 

0.396 g/bhp-hr *175 hp*0.70*1000 hr*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.053 tons/yr PM10 

12. Annual PM10 reduced technology emissions 

0.112 g/bhp-hr *175 hp*0.70*1000 hr*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.015 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for 

Repowers and New Purchases 

• Emission benefits NOx = 1.38 tons/yr - 0.31 tons/yr = 1.07 tons/yr NOx 

• Emission benefits ROG = 0.14 tons/yr - 0.02 tons/yr = 0.12 tons/yr ROG 

• Emission benefits PM10 = 0.053 tons/yr - 0.015 tons/yr = 0.038 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-11: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for Retrofits 

 0.015 tons/yr PM10 * 0.85 = 0.013 tons/yr PM10 

Total PM10 Emission Benefits 

 0.038 tons/yr + 0.013 tons/yr = 0.051 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

1.07 tons/yr + 0.12 tons/yr + 20(0.051 tons/yr) = 2.21 weighted tons/yr

Annualized Cost: 

Project Life: 5 years 

CRF (Table B-1): = 0.225 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost 

($100,000 * 80 percent) + ($25,000 * 100 percent) = $105,000 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

 0.225 * $105,000 = $23,625 

Cost-Effectiveness: 

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions ($/ton) 

($23,625/yr)/(2.21 weighted tons/yr) 

= $10,690/tons of weighted surplus emissions reduced

The cost-effectiveness for the example is less than $16,000 per ton of pollutants 

reduced. This project qualifies for up to $105,000 in grant funds requested. 

Example 2 – Replacement of two rubber tired loaders

A construction company meeting the definition of a medium fleet in the Off-Road 

Regulation wants to replace two uncontrolled rubber tired loaders with one Tier 3 rubber 

tired loader. The baseline technologies are: 1) a model year 1987 210 hp uncontrolled 

engine that operates for 750 hours per year and 2) a model year 1978 180 hp 

uncontrolled engine that operates for 350 hours per year. The applicant is proposing to 

purchase a 210 hp Tier 3 rubber tired loader that costs $275,000. This equipment 
E-23 EX CALCS – EQUIPMENT REP 

operates 100 percent of the time in California. A Level 3 diesel particulate filter has 

been verified for use on the engine and has a cost of $25,000. There are no available 

Tier 3 repowers for this specific equipment, so the applicant is eligible for up to 80 

percent of the new equipment cost. This project will be in operation prior to March 1, 

2009 and thus be surplus to the Off-Road Regulation and can be given a maximum 

project life of 4 years. 

Baseline Technology Information, Equipment 1: 

• Engine (application): 1987 Model Year 

• HP (application): 210 

• Annual Hours of operation (application): 750 

• Load factor (Table B-11): 0.54 

• Emission factors (Table B-12): 10.23 g/bhp-hr NOx; 1.06 g/bhp-hr ROG; 

0.396 g/bhp-hr PM10 

Baseline Technology Information, Equipment 2: 

• Engine (application): 1978 Model Year 

• HP (application): 180 

• Annual Hours of operation (application): 350 

• Load factor (Table B-11): 0.54 

• Emission factors (Table B-12): 11.16 g/bhp-hr NOx; 1.20 g/bhp-hr ROG; 

0.396 g/bhp-hr PM10 

Reduced Technology Information: 

• Engine: Tier 3 (ARB executive order) 

• HP (application): 210 

• Hours of operation (application): 1,100 

• Cost of new equipment (quote provided with application): $275,000 

• Equipment replacement is eligible for up to 80 percent of the new equipment cost. 

• Load factor (Table B-11): 0.54 

• Emission factors (Table B-13): 2.32 g/bhp-hr NOx; 0.12 g/bhp-hr ROG; 

0.112 g/bhp-hr PM10 

• Percent operating in California (application): 100 percent 

• Retrofit: Level 3 verified reductions- 85 percent PM10 

• Cost of retrofit (quote provided with application): $25,000 

• Retrofits are eligible for up to 100% of total retrofit costs 

Emission Reduction Calculations: 

Formula C-4: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Hours of Operation (tons/yr) 

1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions, equipment 1 

10.23 g/bhp-hr *210 hp*0.54*750 hr*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.96 tons/yr NOx 

2. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions, equipment 2 

11.16 g/bhp-hr *180 hp*0.54*350 hr*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.42 tons/yr NOx 

3. Annual NOx reduced technology emissions 

2.32 g/bhp-hr *210 hp*0.54*1100 hr*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.32 tons/yr NOx 
E-24 EX CALCS – EQUIPMENT REP 

4. Annual ROG baseline technology emissions, equipment 1 

1.06 g/bhp-hr *210 hp*0.54*750 hr *(ton/907,200 g) = 0.10 tons/yr ROG 

5. Annual ROG baseline technology emissions, equipment 2 

1.20 g/bhp-hr *180 hp*0.54*350 hr*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.05 tons/yr ROG 

6. Annual ROG reduced technology emissions 

0.12 g/bhp-hr *210 hp*0.54*1100 hr*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.02 tons/yr ROG 

7. Annual PM10 baseline technology emissions, equipment 1 

0.396 g/bhp-hr *210 hp*0.54*750 hr*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.037 tons/yr PM10 

8. Annual PM10 baseline technology emissions, equipment 2 

0.396 g/bhp-hr *180 hp*0.54*350 hr*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.015 tons/yr PM10 

9. Annual PM10 reduced technology emissions 

0.112 g/bhp-hr *210 hp*0.54*1100 hr*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.015 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for 

Repowers and New Purchases 

• Emission benefits NOx = (0.96+0.42 tons/yr) - 0.32 tons/yr = 1.06 tons/yr NOx 

• Emission benefits ROG = (0.10+0.05 tons/yr) - 0.02 tons/yr = 0.13 tons/yr ROG 

• Emission benefits PM10 = (0.037+0.015 tons/yr) - 0.015 tons/yr = 0.037 tons/yr 

PM10 

Formula C-11: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for Retrofits 

 0.015 tons/yr PM10 * 0.85 = 0.013 tons/yr PM10 

Total PM10 Emission Benefits 

 0.037 tons/yr + 0.013 tons/yr = 0.050 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

1.06 tons/yr + 0.13 tons/yr + 20(0.050 tons/yr) = 2.19 weighted tons/yr

Annualized Cost: 

Project Life: 4 years 

CRF (Table B-1): = 0.275 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost 

($275,000 * 85 percent) + ($25,000 * 100 percent) = $245,000 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

 0.275 * $245,000 = $67,375 

Cost-Effectiveness: 

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions ($/ton) 

($67,375/yr)/(2.19 weighted tons/yr) 

= $30,764/tons of weighted surplus emissions reduced

The cost-effectiveness for this example is greater than the $16,000 per ton weighted 

cost-effectiveness requirement. In order to meet the $16,000 per ton weighted 
E-25 EX CALCS – EQUIPMENT REP 

cost-effectiveness requirement, this project would only qualify for a fraction of the 

incremental cost – $127,418 (or 52% of the incremental cost). This amount is 

determined by multiplying the maximum allowed cost-effectiveness by the estimated 

annual emission reductions and dividing by the capital recovery factor: 

($16,000 * 2.19)/0.275 = $127,418 

Example 3 – Replacement of a 1993 LSI forklift with a new LSI forklift

An applicant proposes to replace a 1993 60 hp LPG forklift with a new 2008 Model Year 

70 hp LPG forklift. The new equipment will cost $22,000. This equipment operates 750 

hours per year, 100 percent of the time in California. This equipment belongs to a small 

fleet and is eligible for a project life of 3 years. 

Baseline Technology Information: 

• Engine (application): Model Year 1993 

• HP (application): 60 

• Hours of operation (application): 750 

• Load factor (Table B-14): 0.30 

• Emission factors (Table B-15): 10.51 g/bhp-hr NOx; 1.02 g/bhp-hr ROG; 

0.060 g/bhp-hr PM10 

Reduced Technology Information: 

• Engine: Model Year 2007 

• HP (application): 70 

• Hours of operation (application): 750 

• Cost of new equipment (quote provided with application): $22,000 

• Equipment replacement is eligible for up to 80 percent of the new equipment cost. 

• Load factor (Table B-14): 0.30 

• Emission factors (Table B-15): 1.05 g/bhp-hr NOx; 0.07g/bhp-hr ROG; 

0.060 g/bhp-hr PM10 

• Percent operating in California (application): 100 percent 

Emission Reduction Calculations: 

Formula C-4: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Hours of Operation (tons/yr) 

1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions 

10.51 g/bhp-hr *60 hp*0.30*750 hr*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.16 tons/yr NOx 

2. Annual NOx reduced technology emissions 

1.05 g/bhp-hr *70 hp*0.30*750 hr*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.02 tons/yr NOx 

3. Annual ROG baseline technology emissions 

1.02 g/bhp-hr *60 hp*0.30*750 hr*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.051 tons/yr ROG 

4. Annual ROG reduced technology emissions 

0.07 g/bhp-hr *70 hp*0.30*750hr*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.001 tons/yr ROG 

5. Annual PM10 baseline technology emissions 

0.060 g/bhp-hr *60 hp*0.30*750 hr*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.001 tons/yr PM10 

6. Annual PM10 reduced technology emissions 

0.060 g/bhp-hr *70 hp*0.30*750 hr*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.001 tons/yr PM10 
E-26 EX CALCS – EQUIPMENT REP 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for 

Repowers and New Purchases 

• Emission benefits NOx = 0.16 tons/yr - 0.02 tons/yr = 0.14 tons/yr NOx 

• Emission benefits ROG = 0.051 tons/yr - 0.001 tons/yr = 0.050 tons/yr ROG 

• Emission benefits PM10 = 0.001 tons/yr - 0.001 tons/yr = 0.0 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

0.14 tons/yr + 0.050 tons/yr + 20(0.0 tons/yr) = 0.19 weighted tons/yr

Annualized Cost: 

Project Life: 3 years 

CRF (Table B-1): = 0.360 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost 

($22,000 * 80 percent) = $17,600 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

 0.360 * $17,600 = $6,336 

Cost-Effectiveness: 

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions ($/ton) 

($6,336/yr)/(0.19 weighted tons/yr) 

= $33,347/tons of weighted surplus emissions reduced

The cost-effectiveness for this example is greater than the $16,000 per ton weighted 

cost-effectiveness requirement. In order to meet the $16,000 per ton weighted 

cost-effectiveness requirement, this project would only qualify for a fraction of the 

incremental cost – $8,444 (or 48% of the incremental cost). This amount is determined 

by multiplying the maximum allowed cost-effectiveness by the estimated annual 

emission reductions and dividing by the capital recovery factor: 

($16,000 * 0.19)/0.360 = $8,444 

Example 4 – Replacement of a 1993 LSI forklift with a new electric forklift

An applicant proposes to replace a 1993 60 hp LPG forklift with a new electric 70 hp (52 

KW) forklift in 2008. The new equipment will cost $34,000. This equipment operates 

750 hours per year, 100 percent of the time in California. 

When calculating emission benefits for replacement with electric equipment, SB 467 

requires that calculations are done from two transactions: 

– Transaction 1: Existing equipment to be scrapped to zero emission (maximum of 

3 year project life attributed to this transaction)

– Transaction 2: New piece of equipment that would be purchased in 3 years, or 

the time of normal attrition, to zero emission (maximum of 7 year project life 

attributed to this transaction) 

This equipment belongs to a small fleet and is eligible for a maximum total project life of 

10 years. 
E-27 EX CALCS – EQUIPMENT REP 

Baseline Technology Information-Transaction 1: 

• Engine (application): Model Year 1993 

• HP (application): 60 

• Hours of operation (application): 750 

• Load factor (Table B-14): 0.30 

• Emission factors (Table B-15): 10.51 g/bhp-hr NOx; 1.02 g/bhp-hr ROG; 

0.060 g/bhp-hr PM10 

Baseline Technology Information-Transaction 2: 

• Engine (application): Model Year 2011 

• HP (application): 60 

• Hours of operation (application): 750 

• Load factor (Table B-14): 0.30 

• Emission factors (Table B-15): 0.32 g/bhp-hr NOx; 0.02 g/bhp-hr ROG; 

0.060 g/bhp-hr PM10 

Reduced Technology Information: 

• Engine: electric 

• HP (application): 70 

• Hours of operation (application): 750 

• Cost of new equipment (quote provided with application): $34,000 

• Equipment replacement is eligible for up to 80 percent of the new equipment cost. 

• Load factor (Table B-14): 0.30 

• Emission factors (Table B-15): 0 g/bhp-hr NOx; 0 g/bhp-hr ROG; 

0 g/bhp-hr PM10 

• Percent operating in California (application): 100 percent 

Emission Reduction Calculations: 

Formula C-4: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Hours of Operation (tons/yr) 

1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions- Transaction 1 

10.51 g/bhp-hr *60 hp*0.30*750 hr*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.16 tons/yr NOx 

2. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions- Transaction 2 

0.32 g/bhp-hr *60 hp*0.30*750 hr*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.005 tons/yr NOx 

3. Annual NOx reduced technology emissions 

0 g/bhp-hr *70 hp*0.30*750 hr*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.0 tons/yr NOx 

4. Annual ROG baseline technology emissions- Transaction 1 

1.02 g/bhp-hr *60 hp*0.30*750 hr*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.051 tons/yr ROG 

5. Annual ROG baseline technology emissions- Transaction 2 

0.02 g/bhp-hr *60 hp*0.30*750 hr*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.0003 tons/yr ROG 

6. Annual ROG reduced technology emissions 

0.0 g/bhp-hr *70 hp*0.30*750hr*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.0 tons/yr ROG 

7. Annual PM10 baseline technology emissions- Transaction 1 

0.060 g/bhp-hr *60 hp*0.30*750 hr*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.001 tons/yr PM10 

8. Annual PM10 baseline technology emissions- Transaction 2 

0.060 g/bhp-hr *60 hp*0.30*750 hr*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.001 tons/yr PM10 

9. Annual PM10 reduced technology emissions 

0.0 g/bhp-hr *70 hp*0.30*750 hr*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.0 tons/yr PM10 
E-28 EX CALCS – EQUIPMENT REP 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for 

Repowers and New Purchases 

Transaction 1 

• Emission benefits NOx = 0.16 tons/yr - 0.0 tons/yr = 0.16 tons/yr NOx 

• Emission benefits ROG = 0.051 tons/yr - 0.0 tons/yr = 0.051 tons/yr ROG 

• Emission benefits PM10 = 0.001 tons/yr - 0.0 tons/yr = 0.001 tons/yr PM10 

Transaction 2 

• Emission benefits NOx = 0.005 tons/yr - 0.0 tons/yr = 0.005 tons/yr NOx 

• Emission benefits ROG = 0.0003 tons/yr - 0.0 tons/yr = 0.0003 tons/yr ROG 

• Emission benefits PM10 = 0.001 tons/yr - 0.0 tons/yr = 0.001 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

Transaction 1 

0.16 tons/yr + 0.051 tons/yr + 20(0.001 tons/yr) = 0.213 weighted tons/yr

Transaction 2 

0.005 tons/yr + 0.0003 tons/yr + 20(0.001 tons/yr) = 0.025 weighted tons/yr

Only a fraction of each of the annual weighted surplus emission reductions from the two 

transactions is used to determine the total annual weighted surplus emission reductions 

for cost effectiveness. This fraction is the project life associated with each transaction 

over the total project life. 

(3/10 * 0.213) + (7/10 * 0.025) = 0.081 

Annualized Cost: 

Project Life: 10 years 

CRF (Table B-1): = 0.123 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost 

($34,000 * 80 percent) = $27,200 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

 0.123 * $27,200 = $3,346 

Cost-Effectiveness: 

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions ($/ton) 

($3,346/yr)/(0.081 weighted tons/yr) 

= $41,309/tons of weighted surplus emissions reduced

The cost-effectiveness for this example is greater than the $16,000 per ton weighted 

cost-effectiveness requirement. In order to meet the $16,000 per ton weighted 

cost-effectiveness requirement, this project would only qualify for a fraction of the 

incremental cost – $10,537 (or 39% of the incremental cost). This amount is 

determined by multiplying the maximum allowed cost-effectiveness by the estimated 

annual emission reductions and dividing by the capital recovery factor: 

($16,000 * 0.081)/0.123 = $10,537 
E-29 EX CALCS – LOCOMOTIVES 

VI. Locomotives 

This section provides examples of calculations for determining cost-effectiveness of 

surplus emission reductions for locomotive projects. 

Example 1 – Switch Locomotive Engine Remanufacture Kit (Class 3 Railroad) 

A Class 3 railroad operator opts to remanufacture an existing 1971 model year switch 

locomotive engine with a U.S. EPA-certified Tier 0 Engine Remanufacture Kit. The 

existing locomotive consumes 40,000 gallons of fuel per year, with 100 percent 

operation in California. The cost of the remanufacture kit plus installation of the kit costs 

$400,000. The cost to purchase and install an automatic engine start-stop ILD is 

$11,000. The railroad company will commit to a 10 year project life. Emission 

reductions are calculated as follows: 

Baseline Technology Information:

• Locomotive model year (application): 1971 

• Locomotive emission rate (Table B-18a): 16.36 g/bhp-hr NOx, 1.06 g/bhp-hr ROG, 

0.378 g/bhp-hr PM10 

• Activity (application): 40,000 gal/year 

• Energy consumption factor = 20.8 bhp-hr/gal (Table B-25) 

Reduced Technology Information:

• Emission Factors (Table B-18a): 11.84 g/bhp-hr NOx, 1.06 g/bhp-hr ROG, 

0.378 g/bhp-hr PM101

• Activity (application): 40,000 gal/year 

• Energy consumption factor = 20.8 bhp-hr/gal (Table B-25) 

• ILD emission reduction factor (Table B-19): 0.90 

• Locomotive project criteria allow for the Carl Moyer Program to pay for up to 85 

percent of the remanufacture kit cost and 50 percent of ILD cost 

Emission Reduction Calculations:

Formula C-6: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Fuel Consumed using Emission 

Factors or Converted Emission Standard (tons/yr): 

1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions 

(16.36 g/bhp-hr*40,000 gal/yr*20.8 bhp-hr/gal)*(ton/907,200g) = 15.00 ton/yr NOx 

2. Annual NOx reduced technology emissions 

(11.84 g/bhp-hr*40,000 gal/yr*20.8 bhp-hr/gal*0.90)*(ton/907,200g)=9.77 ton/yr NOx 

3. Annual ROG baseline technology emissions 

(1.06 g/bhp-hr *40,000 gal/yr*20.8 bhp-hr/gal)*(ton/907,200g) = 0.97 ton/yr ROG 

4. Annual ROG reduced technology emissions 

(1.06 g/bhp-hr*40,000 gal/yr*20.8 bhp-hr/gal *0.90)*(ton/907,200g)=0.87 ton/yr ROG 

5. Annual combustion PM10 baseline technology 

(0.378 g/bhp-hr*40,000 gal/yr*20.8 bhp-hr/gal)*(ton/907,200g) = 0.347 ton/yr PM10 

6. Annual combustion PM10 reduced technology emissions 

(0.378 g/bhp-hr*40,000 gal/yr*20.8 bhp-hr/gal *0.90)*(ton/907,200g) 

= 0.312 ton/yr PM10 

 

1

 For information regarding how to calculate reduced engine emission factors, refer to the Supplemental

Documents webpage at: www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/guidelines/supplemental-docs.htm 
E-30 EX CALCS – LOCOMOTIVES 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for Repowers 

and New Purchases 

• NOx emission benefits = 15.00 tons/yr – 9.77 tons/yr = 5.23 tons/yr NOx 

• ROG emission benefits = 0.97 tons/yr - 0.87 tons/yr = 0.10 tons/yr ROG 

• PM10 emission benefits= 0.347 tons/yr - 0.312 tons/yr = 0.035 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

5.23 tons/yr + 0.10 tons/yr + 20(0.035 tons/yr) = 6.02 weighted tons/yr

Annualized Cost: 

Project Life: 10 years 

CRF (Table B-1): = 0.123 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost 

($400,000 * 85 percent) + ($11,000 * 50 percent) = 345,500 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

 0.123 * $345,500 = $42,497/yr 

Cost-Effectiveness:

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions ($/ton) 

($42,497/yr)/(6.02 weighted tons/yr) 

= $7,057/tons of weighted surplus emissions reduced

The project cost-effectiveness is below $16,000 per weighted ton of emissions reduced. 

Therefore, the project qualifies for $305,500 in Carl Moyer Program funding. 

Example 2 – Multiple Engine Switcher Purchase (Class 1 Railroad) 

A Class 1 railroad operator has the opportunity to purchase an alternative technology 

switch locomotive. Because this is a multiple engine switcher (Engine Family Number 

7NREG0060LOC) with new electronics, a new battery, and other components, the 

project is evaluated as a new locomotive purchase. Fuel receipts indicate other switch 

locomotives with the same activity in the rail yard consume 45,000 gallons of fuel per 

year. The cost of the new alternative technology switcher is $1.2 million. The project 

life is 10 years. Emission reductions are calculated as follows: 

Baseline Technology Information:

• Locomotive model year: none 

• Locomotive emission factor (Tier 0, Table B-18a)2

: 11.84 g/bhp-hr NOx, 

1.06 g/bhp-hr ROG, 0.378 g/bhp-hr PM10 

• Activity (application): 45,000 gal/year 

• Energy consumption factor = 20.8 bhp-hr/gal (Table B-25) 

Reduced Technology Information:

• Engine model year: 2007 

• Emission factors (Engine Family 7NREG0060LOC)1: 2.54 g/bhp-hr NOx, 

0.105 g/bhp-hr ROG, 0.060 g/bhp-hr PM10 

• Activity (application): 45,000 gal/year 

 

2

 For information regarding how to determine reduced engine emission factors, refer to the Supplemental

Documents webpage at: www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/guidelines/supplemental-docs.htm 
E-31 EX CALCS – LOCOMOTIVES 

• Energy consumption factor = 18.5 bhp-hr/gal (Table B-25) 

• Locomotive project criteria allow for the Carl Moyer Program to pay for up to 

50 percent of Class 1 railroad alternative switcher locomotive purchase cost 

Emission Reduction Calculations:

Formula C-6: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Fuel Consumed using Emission 

Factors or Converted Emission Standard (tons/yr): 

1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions 

(11.84 g/bhp-hr * 45,000 gal/yr * 20.8 bhp-hr/gal) *(ton/907,200g) = 12.21 ton/yr NOx 

2. Annual NOx reduced technology emissions 

(2.54 g/bhp-hr * 45,000 gal/yr * 18.5 bhp-hr/gal) *(ton/907,200g) = 2.33 ton/yr NOx 

3. Annual ROG baseline technology emissions 

(1.06 g/bhp-hr * 45,000 gal/yr * 20.8 bhp-hr/gal) *(ton/907,200g) = 1.09 ton/yr ROG 

4. Annual ROG reduced technology emissions 

(0.105 g/bhp-hr * 45,000 gal/yr * 18.5 bhp-hr/gal) *(ton/907,200g) = 0.10 ton/yr ROG 

5. Annual combustion PM10 baseline technology 

(0.378 g/bhp-hr * 45,000 gal/yr * 20.8 bhp-hr/gal) *(ton/907,200g)=0.390 ton/yr PM10 

6. Annual combustion PM10 reduced technology emissions 

(0.060 g/bhp-hr * 45,000 gal/yr * 18.5 bhp-hr/gal) *(ton/907,200g)=0.055 ton/yr PM10 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for Repowers 

and New Purchases 

• Emission benefits NOx = 12.21 tons/yr – 2.33 tons/yr = 9.88 tons/yr NOx 

• Emission benefits ROG = 1.09 tons/yr – 0.10 tons/yr = 1.00 tons/yr ROG 

• Emission benefits PM10 = 0.390 tons/yr – 0.055 tons/yr = 0.335 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

9.88 tons/yr +1.00 tons/yr + 20(0.335 tons/yr) = 17.59 weighted tons/yr

Annualized Cost: 

Project Life: 10 years 

CRF (Table B-1): = 0.123 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost 

 $1,200,000 * 0.50 = $600,000 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

0.123 * $600,000 = $73,800/yr 

Cost-Effectiveness:

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions ($/ton) 

($73,800/yr)/(17.59 weighted tons/yr) 

= $4,197/tons of weighted surplus emissions reduced

The project cost-effectiveness is below $16,000 per weighted ton of emissions reduced. 

Therefore, the project qualifies for $600,000 in Carl Moyer Program funding. 

Example 3 – Idle-Limiting Device Installation (Class 3 Railroad) 

A Class 3 railroad wants to purchase and install an AESS ILD on one of its 1970 

uncontrolled switch locomotives. Fuel receipts indicate other switch locomotives with 

the same activity in the rail yard consume 25,000 gallons of fuel per year. The cost to 

purchase and install the AESS is $14,000. The project life is 3 years. Emission 

reductions are calculated as follows: 
E-32 EX CALCS – LOCOMOTIVES 

Baseline Technology Information:

• Locomotive model year: 1970 

• Locomotive emission rate (uncontrolled, Table B-18): 16.36 g/bhp-hr NOx, 

1.06 g/bhp-hr ROG, 0.378 g/bhp-hr PM10 

• Activity (application): 25,000 gal/year 

• Energy consumption factor = 20.8 bhp-hr/gal (Table B-25) 

• ILD emission reduction factor (Table B-19): 0.90 

• Locomotive project criteria allow for the Carl Moyer Program to pay for up to 

50 percent of ILD cost 

Emission Reduction Calculations:

Formula C-6: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Fuel Consumed using Emission 

Factors or Converted Emission Standard (tons/yr): 

1) Annual NOx emission reductions 

(16.36 g/bhp-hr * 25,000 gal/yr * 20.8 bhp-hr/gal) *(ton/907,200g) = 9.38 ton/yr NOx 

2) Annual NOx reduced technology emissions 

(16.36 g/bhp-hr*25,000 gal/yr*20.8 bhp-hr/gal*0.90)*(ton/907,200g)=8.44 ton/yr NOx 

3) Annual ROG baseline technology emissions 

(1.06 g/bhp-hr * 25,000 gal/yr * 20.8 bhp-hr/gal) *(ton/907,200g) = 0.61 ton/yr ROG 

4) Annual ROG reduced technology emissions 

(1.06 g/bhp-hr*25,000 gal/yr*20.8 bhp-hr/gal*0.90)*(ton/907,200g) =0.55 ton/yr ROG 

5) Annual combustion PM10 baseline technology 

(0.378 g/bhp-hr * 25,000 gal/yr * 20.8 bhp-hr/gal)*(ton/907,200g) =0.217 ton/yr PM10 

6) Annual combustion PM10 reduced technology emissions 

(0.378 g/bhp-hr*25,000 gal/yr*20.8 bhp-hr/gal*0.90)*(ton/907,200g)=0.195ton/yr PM10 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for Repowers 

and New Purchases 

• Emission benefits NOx = 9.38 tons/yr – 8.44 tons/yr = 0.94 tons/yr NOx 

• Emission benefits ROG = 0.61 tons/yr – 0.55 tons/yr = 0.06 tons/yr ROG 

• Emission benefits PM10 = 0.217 tons/yr – 0.195 tons/yr = 0.022 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

0.94 tons/yr +0.06 tons/yr + 20(0.022 tons/yr) = 1.43 weighted tons/yr

Annualized Cost: 

Project Life: 3 years 

CRF (Table B-1): = 0.360 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost 

 $14,000 * 0.50 = $7,000 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

0.360 * $7,000 = $2,520/yr 

Cost-Effectiveness:

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions ($/ton) 

($2,520/yr)/(1.43 weighted tons/yr) 

= $1,760/tons of weighted surplus emissions reduced

The project cost-effectiveness is below $16,000 per weighted ton of emissions reduced. 

Therefore, the project qualifies for $7,000 in Carl Moyer Program funding. 
E-33 EX CALCS – MARINE 

VII. Marine Vessels 

This section provides examples of calculations for determining the cost-effectiveness of 

surplus emission reductions for marine vessel projects. 

Example 1 – Tow Boat Auxiliary Engine Repower 

A tow boat owner in San Diego wishes to repower a 125 horsepower 1987 auxiliary 

engine with a new Tier 2 200 horsepower marine engine. The vessel owner has 

documented that the vessel auxiliary engine operates for 900 hours annually in 

California waters. The cost to repower the existing engine is $50,000. Since the vessel 

is subject to ARB’s Harbor Craft Diesel Engine Regulation, the repower must be 

complete by December 31, 2011, and the project life may not extend beyond December 

31, 2014 (See Table 1 in the marine vessel chapter for details). Since the repower shall 

be complete by December 31, 2009, the operator opts to commit to the maximum five 

year project life (i.e. the time between project completion and the rule implementation 

deadline). Emission reductions are calculated as follows: 

Baseline Technology Information: 

• Baseline technology (application): 1987 

• Engine horsepower (application): 125 hp 

• Engine emission rate (Table B-21): 10.23 g/bhp-hr NOx, 0.82 g/bhp-hr ROG, 

0.333 g/bhp-hr PM10 

• Activity (application): 900 hr/yr 

• Engine load factor (Table B-22): 0.43 

Reduced Technology Information: 

• Reduced technology (application): Tier 2 marine engine 

• Engine horsepower (application) = 200 hp 

• Emission rate (Table B-21): 4.84 g/bhp-hr NOx, 0.58 g/bhp-hr ROG, 

0.120 g/bhp-hr PM10 

• Activity (application): 900 hr/yr 

• Load factor adjustment (Formula C-5: Replacement Load Factor): 

= 0.43*(125 hp/200 hp) = 0.27 

• Marine vessel project criteria allow for the Carl Moyer Program to pay for up to 50 

percent of the repower cost for this type of vessel

Emission Reduction Calculations: 

Formula C-4: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Hours of Operation (tons/yr) 

1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions 

(10.23 g/bhp-hr * 900 hr/yr * 125 hp * 0.43)(ton/907,200 g) 

= 0.55 ton/yr NOx 

2. Annual NOx reduced technology emissions 

(4.84 g/bhp-hr * 900 hr/yr * 200 hp * 0.27)(ton/907,200 g) 

= 0.26 ton/yr NOx 

3. Annual ROG baseline technology emissions 

(0.81 g/bhp-hr * 900 hr/yr * 125 hp * 0.43)(ton/907,200 g) 
E-34 EX CALCS – MARINE 

= 0.04 ton/yr ROG 

4. Annual ROG reduced technology emissions 

(0.58 g/bhp-hr * 900 hr/yr * 200 hp * 0.27)(ton/907,200 g) 

= 0.03 ton/yr ROG 

5. Annual PM10 baseline technology emissions 

(0.333 g/bhp-hr * 900 hr/yr * 125 hp * 0.43)(ton/907,200 g 

= 0.018 ton/yr PM10 

6. Annual PM10 reduced technology emissions 

(0.120 g/bhp-hr * 900 hrs/year * 200 hp * 0.27)(ton/907,200 g) 

= 0.006 ton/yr PM10 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for 

Repowers and New Purchases 

• NOx emission reductions = 0.55 tons/yr – 0.26 tons/yr = 0.29 tons/yr NOx 

• ROG emission reductions = 0.04 tons/yr – 0.03 tons/yr = 0.01 tons/yr ROG 

• PM10 emission reductions = 0.018 tons/yr – 0.006 tons/yr= 0.011 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

0.28 tons/yr + 0.01 tons/yr + 20(0.011 tons/yr) = 0.53 weighted tons/yr

Annualized Cost: 

Project life = 5 years 

CRF (Table B-1) = 0.225 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost 

$50,000 * 50 percent = $25,000 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

($25,000 * .225) = $5,625/yr 

Cost-Effectiveness: 

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions ($/ton) 

 ($5,625/year)/ (0.53 weighted tons/yr) 

= $10,666/ton of weighted surplus emissions reduced

The project cost-effectiveness is below $16,000 per weighted ton of emissions reduced. 

Therefore, the project qualifies for $25,000 in Carl Moyer Program funding. 

Example 2 – Fishing Vessel Propulsion Engine Repower 

(Wet Exhaust System) 

A commercial fishing vessel owner wishes to repower a 1973 250 horsepower 

propulsion engine with a new Tier 2 250 horsepower marine engine. The vessel has a 

wet exhaust system. The vessel owner has documented that the vessel propulsion 

engine operates 1,200 hours per year in California waters. The cost to purchase and 
E-35 EX CALCS – MARINE 

install a new engine is $51,300. The applicant will commit to a 5 year project life. 

Emission reductions are calculated as follows: 

Baseline Technology Information: 

• Baseline technology (application): 1973 

• Engine horsepower (application): 250 hp 

• Engine emission rate (Table B-20): 14.27 g/bhp-hr NOx, 0.79 g/bhp-hr ROG, 

0.451 g/bhp-hr PM10 

• Activity (application): 1,200 hr/yr 

• Engine load factor (Table B-22): 0.27 

• Wet exhaust emission factor (from marine repower project criteria): 0.80 

Reduced-Emission Technology Information: 

• Reduced technology (application): Tier 2 marine engine 

• Engine horsepower (application): 250 hp 

• Emission rate (Table B-20): 4.84 g/bhp-hr NOx, 0.49 g/bhp-hr ROG, 

0.120 g/bhp-hr PM10 

• Activity (application): 1,200 hr/yr 

• Engine load factor (Table B-22): 0.27 

• Wet exhaust emission factor (from marine repower project criteria): 0.80 

• Marine vessel project criteria allow for the Carl Moyer Program to pay for up to 50 

percent of the repower cost for this type of vessel

Emission Reduction Calculations: 

Formula C-6: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Fuel Consumed using Emission 

Factors or Converted Emission Standard (tons/yr) 

1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions 

(14.27 g/bhp-hr * 1,200 hr/yr * 250 hp * 0.27 * 0.80)(ton/907,200 g) 

= 1.02 ton/yr NOx 

2. Annual NOx reduced technology emissions 

(4.84 g/bhp-hr * 1,200 hr/yr * 250 hp * 0.27 * 0.80)(ton/907,200 g) 

= 0.35 ton/yr NOx 

3. Annual ROG baseline technology emissions 

(0.79 g/bhp-hr * 1,200 hr/yr * 250 hp * 0.27 * 0.80)(ton/907,200 g) 

= 0.06 ton/yr ROG 

4. Annual ROG reduced technology emissions 

(0.49 g.bhp-hr * 1,200 hr/yr * 250 hp * 0.27 * 0.80)(ton/907,200 g) 

= 0.04 ton/yr ROG 

5. Annual PM10 baseline technology emissions 

(0.451 g/bhp-hr * 1,200 hr/yr * 250 hp * 0.27 * 0.80)(ton/907,200 g) 

= 0.032 ton/yr PM10 

6. Annual PM10 reduced technology emissions 

(0.120 g/bhp-hr * 1,200 hr/yr * 250 hp * 0.27 * 0.80)(ton/907,200 g) 

= 0.009 ton/yr PM10 
E-36 EX CALCS – MARINE 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant for Repowers and 

New Purchases 

• NOx Emission Reductions = 1.02 tons/yr – 0.35 tons/yr = 0.67 tons/yr NOx 

• ROG Emission Reductions = 0.06 tons/yr – 0.04 tons/yr = 0.02 tons/yr ROG 

• PM10 Emission Reductions = 0.032 tons/yr – 0.009 tons/yr 

= 0.024 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

0.67 + 0.02 +20(0.024) = 1.17 weighted tons/yr 

Annualized Cost: 

Project life = 5 years 

CRF (Table B-1) = 0.225 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost 

$51,300 * 50 percent = $25,650 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

$25,650 * 0.225 = $5,771/yr 

Cost Effectiveness: 

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Surplus Emission Reductions 

($5,771/year)/(1.17 weighted tons/yr) = 

$4,942 ton of weighted surplus emissions reduced 

The project cost-effectiveness is below $16,000 per weighted ton of emissions reduced. 

Therefore, the project qualifies for $25,650 in Carl Moyer Program funding. 

Example 3 – Passenger Terminal Shore Power 

The Port of Los Angeles wants to install shore power at one of its terminals. The shoreside transformer for the project costs $2 million, and will be installed by December 31, 

2009. The port will begin complying with ARB’s Shore Power Regulation in 2014 by 

ensuring at least 50 percent of vessels use shore power when at berth. The port has 

contracts with three cruise ships committing them to use the shore power at the terminal 

for ten visits each per year, and for eight hours per visit. The vessels typically use 

marine gas oil with a sulfur content of less that 0.10 percent. Emission reductions are 

calculated as follows: 

Project Information: 

• Type of Shore Power Berth: Passenger vessel 

• Vessel emission rate (Table B-23): 13.9 g/kW-hr NOx, 0.49 g/kW-hr ROG, 

0.25 g/kW-hr PM10 

• Average Berthing Time: 8 hours per visit 

• Number of Visits: 3 ships x 10 visits = 30 visits per year 
E-37 EX CALCS – MARINE 

• Ship Power Requirement: 7,200 kW (weighted average for vessels as provided by 

applicant) 

• Control Factor: 0.10 (Chapter 9, Section IV(c)(12)) 

Emission Reduction Calculations: 

1. Annual NOx emission reductions 

(13.9 g/kW-hr * 8 hr/visit * 30 visits/yr * 7,200 kW *0.9)(ton/907,200 g) 

= 23.83 ton/yr NOx 

2. Annual ROG emission reductions 

(0.49 g/kW-hr * 8 hr/visit * 30 visits/yr * 7,200 kW *0.9)(ton/907,200 g) 

= 0.84 ton/yr ROG 

3. Annual PM10 emission reductions 

(0.25 g/kW-hr * 8 hr/visit * 30 visits/yr * 7,200 kW *0.9)(ton/907,200 g) 

= 0.429 ton/yr PM10 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

 23.83 + 0.84 +20(0.429) = 33.241 weighted tons/yr 

Annualized Cost: 

Project life = 4 years 

CRF (Table B-1) = 0.275 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost 

$2 million * 50 percent = $1 million 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

$1 million * 0.275 = $275,000/yr 

Cost Effectiveness: 

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Surplus Emission Reductions 

($275,000/year) / (33.24 weighted tons/yr) = 

$8,273 / ton of weighted surplus emissions reduced 

The project cost-effectiveness is below $16,000 per weighted ton of emissions reduced. 

Therefore, the project qualifies for $1 million in Carl Moyer Program funding. 
E-38 EX CALCS – AG SOURCES 

VIII. Agricultural Sources 

This section provides examples of calculations for determining the cost-effectiveness of 

surplus emission reductions for agricultural source projects. 

Example 1 – Repower (diesel to diesel) 

An applicant wants to replace an existing 1977 182 hp diesel stationary irrigation pump 

engine with a new 184 hp diesel stationary engine. The existing engine is subject to the 

Stationary Diesel In-Use Agricultural Engines Air Toxics Control Measure, and must be 

replaced with an engine meeting Tier 3 emission standards by 12/31/10. The project 

must use a 2 year project life to ensure emission reductions surplus to the compliance 

date. 

Baseline Technology Information: 

• Baseline technology (application): 1977 MY (uncontrolled) 

• Engine horsepower (application): 182 hp 

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

• Load factor (Table B-11): 0.65 

• Emission factors (Table B-12): 11.16 g/bhp-hr NOx; 1.20 g/bhp-hr ROG; 

0.396 g/bhp-hr PM10 

Reduced Technology Information: 

• Reduced technology (application): 2008 MY (Tier 3) 

• Engine horsepower (application): 184 hp 

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

• Load factor (Table B-11): 0.65 

• Emission factors (Table B-13): 2.32 g/bhp-hr NOx; 0.12 g/bhp-hr ROG; 

0.112 g/bhp-hr PM10 

• New engine cost (quote provided with application): $20,320 (includes hour meter) 

• Tier 3 engine repowers are eligible for up to 85% of repower cost. 

Emission Reduction Calculations: 

Formula C-4: Estimated Annual Emissions Based on Hours of Operation (tons/yr) 

1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions 

(11.16 g/bhp-hr * 182 hp * 0.65 * 3,000 hrs)(ton/907,200 g) = 4.37 tons/yr NOx 

2. Annual NOx reduced technology emissions 

(2.32g/bhp-hr * 184 hp * 0.65 * 3,000 hrs)(ton/907,200 g) = 0.92 tons/yr NOx 

3. Annual ROG baseline technology emissions 

(1.20 g/bhp-hr * 182 hp * 0.65 * 3,000 hrs)(ton/907,200 g) = 0.47 tons/yr ROG 

4. Annual ROG reduced technology emissions 

(0.12 g/bhp-hr * 184 hp * 0.65 * 3,000 hrs)(ton/907,200 g) = 0.05 tons/yr ROG 

5. Annual PM10 baseline technology emissions 

(0.396 g/bhp-hr * 182 hp * 0.65 * 3,000 hrs)(ton/907,200 g) = 0.155 tons/yr PM10 

6. Annual PM10 reduced technology emissions 

(0.112 g/bhp-hr * 184 hp * 0.65 * 3,000 hrs)(ton/907,200 g) = 0.044 tons/yr PM10 
E-39 EX CALCS – AG SOURCES 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for 

Repowers and New Purchases 

• NOx emission benefits = 4.37 tons/yr – 0.92 tons/yr = 3.45 tons/yr NOx 

• ROG emission benefits = 0.47 tons/yr – 0.05 tons/yr = 0.42 tons/yr ROG 

• PM10 emission benefits = 0.155 tons/yr – 0.044 tons/yr = 0.101 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

 3.45 tons/yr + 0.42 tons/yr + 20(0.101 tons/yr) = 5.89 weighted tons/yr 

Annualized Cost: 

Project life: 2 years 

CRF (Table B-1): =0.530 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost 

$20,320 * 0.85 = $17,272 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

0.530 * $17,272 = $9,154/yr 

Cost-Effectiveness: 

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

($9,154/yr)/(5.89 weighted tons/yr) 

= $1,554/tons of weighted surplus emissions reduced

The cost-effectiveness for this project is less than $16,000 per weighted ton of 

emissions reduced. This project qualifies for up to $17,272 of grant funds requested. 

Example 2 – Repower (diesel engine to electric motor) 

An applicant wants to replace an existing 1991 120 hp diesel stationary irrigation pump 

engine with a new 100 hp (75 kW) electric motor. The existing engine is subject to the 

Stationary Diesel In-Use Agricultural Engines Air Toxics Control Measure, and must be 

replaced with an engine meeting Tier 3 emission standards by 12/31/10. The project 

may use up to a 10 year project life for this project; the applicant and district choose to 

use a 5 year project life. The emission reductions provided by this project are 

calculated in two transactions following the “Stationary Diesel In-Use Agricultural Engine 

Air Toxic Control Measure Carl Moyer Program Implementation Chart” 

(http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/guidelines/supplemental-docs.htm): 

o Transaction 1: two years of emission reductions are calculated for the existing 

engine being replaced with the electric motor. 

o Transaction 2: three years of emission reductions are calculated for a Tier 3 

diesel engine being replaced with the electric motor. 

Baseline Technology Information- Transaction 1:

• Engine (application): 1991 MY (uncontrolled) 

• Engine horsepower (application): 120 hp 
E-40 EX CALCS – AG SOURCES 

• Load factor (Table B-11): 0.65 

• Activity (application): 2,000 hours per year 

• Emission factors (Tables B-12): 7.60 g/bhp-hr NOx; 0.82 g/bhp-hr ROG; 

0.274 g/bhp-hr PM10 

Baseline Technology Information- Transaction 2:

• Engine (application): 2008 MY (Tier 3) 

• Engine horsepower (application): 120 hp 

• Load factor (Table B-11): 0.65 

• Activity (application): 2,000 hours per year 

• Emission factors (Tables B-13): 2.74 g/bhp-hr NOx; 0.12 g/bhp-hr ROG; 

0.160 g/bhp-hr PM10 

Reduced Technology Information: 

• Motor (application): 2008 electric motor 

• Motor horsepower (application): 100 hp (75 kW) 

• Activity (application): 2,000 hours per year 

• Cost of new motor and necessary peripheral equipment (itemized quote provided 

with application): $18,000 

• Project eligible for up to 85% of cost 

• Emissions: 0 g/bhp-hr NOx; 0 g/bhp-hr ROG; 0 g/bhp-hr PM10 

Emission Reduction Calculations: 

Formula C-4: Estimated Annual Emissions Based on Hours of Operation 

1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions- Transaction 1 

(7.60 g/hp-hr *120 hp * 0.65 * 2,000 hrs)/(907,200 g/ton) = 1.31 tons/yr NOx 

2. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions- Transaction 2 

 (2.74 g/hp-hr *120 hp * 0.65 * 2,000 hrs)/(907,200 g/ton) = 0.47 tons/yr NOx 

3. Annual NOx reduced technology emissions = 0 tons/yr NOx 

4. Annual ROG baseline technology emissions- Transaction 1 

(0.82 g/hp-hr *120 hp * 0.65 * 2,000 hrs)/(907,200 g/ton) = 0.14 tons/yr ROG 

5. Annual ROG baseline technology emissions- Transaction 2 

 (0.12 g/hp-hr *120 hp * 0.65 * 2,000 hrs)/(907,200 g/ton) = 0.02 tons/yr ROG 

6. Annual ROG reduced technology emissions = 0 tons/yr ROG 

7. Annual PM10 baseline technology emissions- Transaction 1 

 (0.274 g/hp-hr *120 hp *0.65 * 2,000 hrs)/(907,200 g/ton) = 0.047 tons/yr PM 

8. Annual PM10 baseline technology emissions- Transaction 2 

 (0.160 g/hp-hr *120 hp *0.65 * 2,000 hrs)/(907,200 g/ton) = 0.028 tons/yr PM 

9. Annual PM10 reduced technology emissions = 0 tons/yr PM 
E-41 EX CALCS – AG SOURCES 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for 

Repowers and New Purchases 

Transaction 1 

• Emission benefits NOx = 1.31 tons/yr - 0 tons/yr = 1.31 tons/yr NOx 

• Emission benefits ROG = 0.14 tons/yr - 0 tons/yr = 0.14 tons/yr ROG 

• Emission benefits PM10 = 0.047 tons/yr - 0 tons/yr = 0.047 tons/yr PM10 

Transaction 2 

• Emission benefits NOx = 0.47 tons/yr - 0 tons/yr = 0.47 tons/yr NOx 

• Emission benefits ROG = 0.02 tons/yr - 0 tons/yr = 0.02 tons/yr ROG 

• Emission benefits PM10 = 0.028 tons/yr - 0 tons/yr = 0.028 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

Transaction 1 

 1.31 tons/yr + 0.14 tons/yr + 20(0.047) tons/yr = 2.39 weighted tons/yr 

Transaction 2 

 0.47 tons/yr + 0.02 tons/yr + 20(0.028) tons/yr = 1.05 weighted tons/yr 

Only a fraction of each of the annual weighted surplus emission reductions from the two 

transactions is used to determine the total annual weighted surplus emission reductions 

for project cost effectiveness. This fraction is the project life associated with each 

transaction over the total project life. 

(2/5 * 2.39 tons/yr) + (3/5 * 1.05 tons/yr) = 1.59 tons/yr 

Annualized Cost: 

Project Life: 5 years 

 CRF (Table B-1) = 0.225 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost 

 $18,000 * 0.85 = $15,300 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

$15,300 * 0.225 = $3,443/yr 

Cost-Effectiveness: 

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

($/weighted ton) 

($3,433/yr)/(1.59 weighted ton/yr) 

= $2,165/weighted ton of surplus emissions reduced

The cost-effectiveness for the example is less than $16,000 per weighted ton of 

pollutants reduced. This project qualifies for up to $15,300 of grant funds requested. 
E-42 EX CALCS – LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES 

IX. Light-Duty Vehicles 

This section provides examples of calculations for determining the cost-effectiveness of 

surplus emission reductions for light-duty vehicle projects. 

Example 1 - Conventional VAVR Project 

A district pays $750 to an enterprise operator to retire a 1980 light-duty vehicle in 2008. 

Added district costs including vehicle identification and testing are $125 for a total cost 

of $875. 

Emissions Reduction: Table D-1 lists the default emission reductions over the 3 

year project life in pounds for 2008. 

• ROGTotal = 149.8 pounds over 3 years 

 = (149.8 lb)/[(3 yrs)*(2000 lb/ton)] 

 = 0.02497 tons/yr ROG 

• NOx = 99.8 pounds over 3 years 

 = (99.8 lb)/[(3 yrs)*(2000 lb/ton)] 

 = 0.01663 tons/yr NOx 

• PM10 = 1.16 pounds over 3 years 

 = (1.16 lb)/[(3 yrs)*(2000 lb/ton)] 

 = 0.000193 tons/yr PM10 

Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions: 0.02497 + 0.01663 + 20*(0.000193) 

 = 0.04546 weighted tons/yr 

Project Life: 3 years CRF: 0.360 based on 4% interest Total Cost: $875 

Annualized Cost: 0.360 * $875 = $315/yr 

Cost-Effectiveness: ($315/yr)/(0.04546 weighted tons/yr) = $6,929/weighted ton 

Example 2 – High Emitter VAVR Project, Unknown Replacement Vehicle

ASM test results completed in 2008 on a 1986 high emitting passenger vehicle weighing 

3,400 lbs are listed below. Total district costs for vehicle retiring was $1,500 including 

costs for identifying the vehicle and stranded costs. The replacement vehicle model 

year was unknown. The district program did not include PM measuring protocols but 

included a BAR-approved protocol for measuring evaporative emissions. Default PM 

emission reductions were obtained from Table D-1. Evaporative emission reductions 

include both the default emission reductions from Table D-1 and extra emission 
E-43 EX CALCS – LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES 

reductions as the vehicle failed the evaporative emissions test. The vehicle miles 

traveled were taken from Table D-9 and listed as 8,552 mi/yr. 

 Pollutant HCExh NOx CO 

 ASM5015 1750 771 0.200 

 ASM2525 1600 660 0.100 

Using Table D-5 conversion equations, the retired vehicle’s year 1 emission rates were: 

 HCExh 6.1023 g/mi 

 NOx 2.1303 g/mi 

The emission rates for the 1986 retired vehicle in years 2&3 were derived from the ASM 

cut points found in Table D-7 and determined as follows. 

 5015 2525 

 HCExh CO NOx HCExh CO NOx 

 A 67.0 0.52 850 42.1 0.32 680.0 

 B 212963.0 979.63 894444.5 212963.0 979.63 894444.5 

Using the equation: Std. = A + B/(weight), the ASM cut points for a 3,400 lb vehicle 

were: 

 5015 2525 

 HCExh CO NOx HCExh CO NOx 

 129.64 0.8081 1113.07 104.74 0.6081 943.07 

Using Table D-5 conversion equations, the retired vehicle’s years 2&3 emission rates 

were: 

 HCExh 2.0899 g/mi 

 NOx 2.0633 g/mi 

The fleet average emission rates for an unknown replacement vehicle in 2008 were 

taken from Table D-11 and are: 

 HCExh 0.1417 g/mi 

 NOx 0.3430 g/mi 

Emission Reductions: HCExh = (6.1023 – 0.1417) x 8,552)/454 = 112.28 lb/yr

 (Yr 1) NOx = (2.1303 – 0.3430) x 8,552)/454 = 33.67 lb/yr 

Emission Reductions: HCExh = (2.0899 – 0.1417) x 8,552)/454 = 36.70 lb/yr 

 (Yr 2 & 3) NOx = (2.0633 – 0.3430) x 8,552)/454 = 32.41 lb/yr 

Emission Reductions: HCEvap = 44.7lb/3 yr + 3*14.5/yr = 88.2 lb/3 yr 

 (Yr 1, 2, & 3) PM = 1.33 lb/3 Yr 
E-44 EX CALCS – LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES 

Total Reductions: HCExh = 112.28 + 2 x 36.70 = 185.68 lb/3yr 

 HCEvap = 88.2 lb/3 yr 

 NOx = 33.67 + 2 x 32.41 = 98.49 lb/3yr 

 PM = 1.33 lb/3yr 

Annual Weighted Surplus: (185.68/3 + 88.2/3 + 98.49/3 + 20*(1.33/3))/2000 

Emission Reductions = 0.0665 weighted tons/yr

Project Life: 3 years CRF: 0.360 Total Cost: $1,500 

Annualized Cost: 0.360 * $1,500 = $540/yr 

Cost Effectiveness: $540/0.0665 tons = $8,121 per weighted ton 

Example 3 – High Emitter VAVR Project, LEV Replacement Vehicle

In 2009, a 1984 high emitting vehicle weighing 3,400 lbs was retired and replaced by a 

2004 ARB-certified low emission vehicle (LEV), as specified in the district contract with 

the owner. The results of the retired vehicle’s ASM test are noted below. The district’s 

VAVR program did not include protocols for measuring PM but included a BARapproved protocol for measuring evaporative emissions. Default PM emission 

reductions were obtained from Table D-2. Evaporative emission reductions include 

both the default emission reductions from Table D-2 and extra emission reductions as 

the vehicle failed the evaporative emissions test. The vehicle miles traveled averaged 

over the last prior two years were documented by the district to be 10,042 mi/yr. The 

total cost to the district was $2,650 which included an extra $1,000 incentive toward the 

purchase of the LEV. 

Pollutant HCExh NOx CO 

 ASM5015 1750 771 0.200 

 ASM2525 1600 660 0.100 

Using Table D-5 conversion equations, the retired vehicle’s year 1 emission rates were: 

 HCExh 6.1023 g/mi 

 NOx 2.1303 g/mi 

The emission rates for the 1984 retired vehicle in years 2&3 were derived from the ASM 

cut points found in Table D-7 and were determined to be: 

 5015 2525 

 HCExh CO NOx HCExh CO NOx 

 A 67.0 0.52 850 42.1 0.32 680.0 

 B 212963.0 979.63 894444.5 212963.0 979.63 894444.5 
E-45 EX CALCS – LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES 

Using the equation Std. = A + B/(weight), ASM cut points for a 3,400 lb vehicle were: 

 5015 2525 

 HCExh CO NOx HCExh CO NOx 

 129.64 0.8081 1113.07 104.74 0.6081 943.07 

Using Table D-5 conversion equations, the retired vehicle’s years 2&3 emission rates 

were: 

 HCExh 2.0899 g/mi 

 NOx 2.0633 g/mi 

The 2004 LEV replacement vehicle emission rates in 2009 were from Table D-12 and 

are: 

 HCExh 0.0448 g/mi 

 NOx 0.1678 g/mi 

Emission Reductions: HCExh = (6.1023 – 0.0448) x 10,042)/454 = 133.99 lb/yr 

 (Yr 1) NOx = (2.1303 – 0.1678) x 10,042)/454 = 43.41 lb/yr 

Emission Reductions: HCExh = (2.0899 – 0.0448) x 10,042)/454 = 45.24 lb/yr

 (Yr 2 & 3) NOx = (2.0633 – 0.1678) x 10,042)/454 = 41.93lb/yr 

 

Emission Reductions: PM = 1.36 lb/3 Yr 

 (Yr 1, 2, & 3) HCEvap = 52.5 lb/3 yr + 3*14.5/yr = 96.0 lb/3 yr 

 

Total Reductions: HCExh = 133.99 + 2 x 45.24 = 224.47 lb/3yr 

 HCEvap = 96.0 lb/3 yr 

 NOx = 43.41 + 2 x 41.93 = 127.27 lb/3yr 

 PM = 1.36 lb/3yr 

Annual Weighted Surplus: (224.47/3 + 96.0/3 + 127.27/3 + 20*(1.36/3))/2000

Emission Reductions = 0.07916 weighted tons/yr 

Project Life: 3 years CRF: 0.360 Total Cost: $2,650 

Annualized Cost: 0.360 * $2,600 = $936/yr 

Cost Effectiveness: $936/0.07916 weighted tons = $11,824 per weighted ton 
E-46 EX CALCS – LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES 

Example 4 – High Emitter VRV Project 

A 3,800 lb high emitting 1994 passenger vehicle was brought in for repair assistance in 

2008. The repair brought the vehicle into compliance with the Smog Check emissions 

standards for the vehicle’s model year and vehicle class. The total cost of repair was 

$637. Additional program costs of $1,300 per vehicle included remote sensing for 

vehicle identification and a systematic diagnosis prior to repair. As this program did not 

include protocols for measuring PM or evaporative emissions, PM reductions were not 

quantified. Default evaporative emission reductions were added pursuant to section 

C.2. of Chapter VIII The vehicle miles traveled of 10,128 mi/yr were from Table D-9. 

ASM Standards were calculated following the methodology used in Example 2. The pre 

and post ASM test results and standard were: 

 ASM 2525 ASM 5015 

 HCExh NOx CO HCExh NOx CO 

 Pre 1870 945 0.178 2070 854 0.306 

 Post 45 437 0.090 75 487 0.150 

 Std. 48 704 0.454 83 688 0.481 

Using the conversion equations from Table D-5, the pre-repair ASM test results 

converted to emission rates were: 

 HC 14.5658 g/mi 

 NOx 1.1784 g/mi 

Using the conversion equations from Table D-5, the post-repair ASM test results 

converted to emission rates were: 

 HC 0.5527 g/mi 

 NOx 0.8477 g/mi 

Emission Reductions: HCExh = (14.5658 – 0.5527) x 10,128/454 = 312.61 lb/yr 

 HCEvap = 14.5 lb/yr 

 NOx = (1.1784 – 0.8477) x 10,128/454 = 7.38 lb/yr 

Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions: (312.61 + 14.5 + 7.38 + 20*(0))/2000 

 = 0.1672 weighted tons/yr 

Project Life: 1 year CRF: 1.00 Total Cost: $1,937 

Annualized Cost: 1 x $1,937 = $1,937/yr 

Cost Effectiveness: $1,937/0.1672 tons = $11,585 per weighted ton reduced 
E-47 EX CALCS – LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES 

Example 5 High Emitter VAVR Projects – Two Speed Idle

An un-tampered 1981 passenger vehicle with exhaust gas recirculation, a 268 cid 

engine, and a VMT of 6,632 mi/yr is tested by the TSI test on June 2, 2008. The total 

cost for scrapping was $1,500. As TSI tests do not measure PM and NOx, no NOx 

emission reductions are included, and default PM emission reductions are assumed. 

No evaporative emission testing is done, so default evaporative emission reductions are 

assumed. The following TSI test results were obtained after dilution corrected 

according to the BAR protocol. TSI pass/fail standards were obtained from Table D-8. 

 TSI Test Results Standards 

 High Speed Idle HC 650 ppm 120 ppm 

 High Speed Idle CO 3.0 % 1.5 % 

 Low Speed Idle HC 2000 ppm 150 

 Low Speed Idle CO 0.0000 % 1.5 % 

TSI test results exceed TSI standards, and the vehicle is a high emitter. Consistent with 

BAR’s TSI protocol, the low speed idle CO value of 0.0000% is replaced by 0.0100 % 

before using Table D-6 equations to convert TSI readings to an FTP HCexh emission 

rate. The predicted FTP HCExh emission rate is 24.7013 g/mi. Note: Using an exel 

spreadsheet to calculate the AGE term, vehicles “birth” date, 01/01/1981, is subtracted 

from the TSI test date, 06/02/2008, and divided by 365 before subtracting 9.0570. The 

retired vehicle’s years 2&3 predicted FTP HC emission rate is derived from Table D-8’s 

TSI standard HCExh emission rate, calculated using Table D-6 equations, and is 3.4275 

g/mi. 

The fleet average HC emission rate for an unknown replacement vehicle in 2008 is 

taken from Table D-11 and is: 

 HCExh = 0.1417 g/mi 

Emission Reductions: HCExh = (24.7013 – 0.1417) x 6,632/454 = 358.76 lb/yr 

 (Yr 1) 

Emission Reductions: HCExh = (3.4275 – 0.1417) x 6,632)/454 = 48.00 lb/yr 

 (Yr 2 & 3) 

Emission Reductions: PM = 1.33 lb/3 yr 

 (Yr 1, 2, & 3) HCEvap = 58.9 lb/3 yr 

Total Reductions: HCExh = 358.76 + 2 x 48.00 = 454.76 lb/3yr 

 HCEvap = 58.9 lb/3 yr 

 PM = 1.33 lb/3yr 

Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions: (454.76/3 + 58.9/3 + 20*(1.33/3))/2000 

 = 0.09004 weighted tons/yr 
E-48 EX CALCS – LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES 

Project Life: 3 years CRF: 0.360 Total Cost: $1,500 

Annualized Cost: 0.360 * $1,500 = $540/yr 

Cost Effectiveness: $540/0.09004 tons = $5,997 per weighted ton reduced 

Example 6 High Emitter VRV Projects – Two Speed Idle

Using the information in Example 5, evaporative emissions and emission control repairs 

brought the vehicle into compliance with both the low-pressure evaporative test and the 

TSI emission standard for hydrocarbon. The total cost to the district for the repair of the 

vehicle was $637. Default PM and evaporative emission reductions are assumed. The 

pre-repair TSI test result converted to an emission rate is: 

 HCExh = 24.7013 g/mi 

Using the conversion equations from Table D-6, the post-repair emission rate is derived 

from the TSI standard from Table D-8 and is: 

 

 HCExh = 3.4275 g/mi 

Emission Reductions: HCExh = (24.7013 – 3.4275) x 6,632/454 = 310.77 lb/yr 

 HCEvap = 14.5 lb/yr 

Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions: (310.77 + 14.5)/2000 

 = 0.1626 weighted tons/yr 

Project Life: 1 year CRF: 1.00 Total Cost: $637 

Annualized Cost: 1 x $637 = $637/yr 

Cost Effectiveness: $637/0.1626 tons = $3,917 per weighted ton 
APPENDIX F 

DESCRIPTION OF CERTIFICATION 

AND VERIFICATION EXECUTIVE ORDERS 

F-1 CERTIFICATION AND VERIFICATION 

APPENDIX F 

DESCRIPTION OF CERTIFICATION AND VERIFICATION 

I. New Engine Certification 

The Air Resources Board (ARB) certifies engines destined for sale in California and 

provides the engine manufacturers with an Executive Order (EO) for each certified 

engine family. An example of an EO is shown in Figure F-1. The EO includes general 

information about the certified engine such as engine family, displacement, horsepower 

rating(s), intended service class, and emission control systems. It also shows the 

applicable certification emission standards as well as the average emission levels 

measured during the actual certification test procedure. For the purpose of the Carl 

Moyer Program, the certification emission standards are used to calculate emission 

reductions. The certification emission standards are shown in the row titled “(DIRECT) 

STD” under the respective “FTP” column headings for each pollutant. For instance, the 

Cummins 8.3 liter natural gas engine illustrated in Figure F-1 was certified to a 

combined oxides of nitrogen plus non-methane hydrocarbon (NOx+NMHC) emission 

standard of 1.8 g/bhp-hr, a carbon monoxide (CO) emission standard of 15.5 g/bhp-hr, 

and a particulate matter (PM) emission standard of 0.03 g/bhp-hr. 

In the case where an EO shows emission values in the rows labeled “AVERAGE STD” 

and/or “FEL”, the engine is certified for participation in an averaging, banking, and 

trading (AB&T) program. AB&T engines (i.e., all FEL-certified engines) are not eligible 

to participate in the CMP for new vehicle purchase projects since emission benefits from 

an engine certified to an FEL level are not surplus emissions. 

II. Retrofit System Verification

The ARB’s verification procedures provide a way to thoroughly evaluate the emission 

reduction capabilities and durability of a variety of emission control strategies as part of 

a retrofit in-use program. It ensures that emission reductions achieved by a control 

strategy are both real and durable and that production units in the field are achieving 

emission reductions which are consistent with their verification. 

The ARB has a verification procedure for in-use strategies to control emissions from 

diesel engines (diesel emission control systems or DECS). The verification procedure 

requires a minimum PM reduction of at least 25 percent. If a diesel emission control 

strategy also reduces NOx emissions by at least 15 percent, that reduction can also be 

verified. Emission control strategies for diesel engines are verified based on a tiered 

verification classification shown in Table F-1 below. It is the responsibility of the diesel 

emission control strategies manufacturer to provide data to verify emission reduction 

claims. The ARB issues Executive Orders for verified emission control strategies 

destined for sale in California. An example of an EO for a retrofit emission control 

system for diesel engines is shown in Figure F-2. 
F-2 CERTIFICATION AND VERIFICATION 

Figure F-1 

Sample Executive Order 

ARB Executive Order

for Heavy-Duty On-Road Engines
F-3 CERTIFICATION AND VERIFICATION 

Table F-1 

Verification Levels for Diesel Emission Control Strategies 

Pollutant Emission Reduction Classification 

< 25% Not Verified 

> 25% Level 1 

PM > 50% Level 2 

> 85%, or 

< 0.01 g/bhp-hr 

Level 3 

< 15% Not Verified NOx 

> 15% Verified in 5% Increments 

ARB staff also has a retrofit verification procedure for large spark-ignited engines (LSI). 

This procedure can be used to verify retrofit systems to reduce NOx and HC emissions 

from LSI engines. Emission control strategies for LSI engines are verified based on a 

tiered verification classification shown in Table F-2 below. 

Table F-2 

LSI Emission Control System Verification Levels 

Classification Percentage Reduction 

(HC+NOx)

Absolute Emissions 

(HC+NOx) 

LSI Level 1 (1) > 25% (2) Not Applicable 

LSI Level 2 (1) > 75%(3) 3.0 g/bhp-hr (3) 

LSI Level 3a (1) > 85% (4) 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 g/bhp-hr 

LSI Level 3b (5) Not Applicable 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 g/bhp-hr 

Notes: 

 (1) Applicable to uncontrolled engines only 

(2) The allowed verified emissions reduction is capped at 25% regardless of actual emission test values 

 (3) The allowed verified reduction for LSI Level 2 is capped at 75% or 3.0 g/bhp-hr regardless of actual emission 

test values 

(4) Verified in 5% increments, applicable to LSI Level 3a classifications only 

(5) Applicable to emission-controlled engines only 
F-4 CERTIFICATION AND VERIFICATION 

Figure F-2 

Example of an EO for a Retrofit Emission Control System 
F-5 CERTIFICATION AND VERIFICATION 
F-6 CERTIFICATION AND VERIFICATION 
F-7 CERTIFICATION AND VERIFICATION 

Figure F-3 

Example of U.S. EPA Certificate of Conformity for a 

Locomotive Engine Remanufacture Kit 
F-8 CERTIFICATION AND VERIFICATION 

Figure F-4 

Example of U.S. EPA Certificate of Conformity for a 

New Locomotive Engine 
APPENDIX G 

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTRONIC 

MONITORING DEVICES 

G-1 EMU REQUIREMENTS 

APPENDIX G 

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTRONIC MONITORING DEVICES 

This appendix provides the minimum required specifications for electronic 

monitoring units (EMU) required to be installed on fleet modernization and 

locomotive projects. Although not required by the Carl Moyer Program 

Guidelines, districts may choose to require the installation of an EMU system 

with each new engine for other source categories. 

The full purchase of the EMU (including warranty, data retrieval, compilation, and 

transmission to the district, and the installation cost) is eligible for Carl Moyer 

Program funding, and may be included when calculating project 

cost-effectiveness. The following are minimum specifications for the districts to 

follow. Districts may allow projects with EMUs installed that meet these minimum 

specifications to complete all reporting through the electronic data system. A 

district may require additional specifications and/or more stringent specifications 

at its discretion. 

Minimum Specifications

When is the EMU required to operate? 

The EMU must be powered at all times during vehicle/equipment operation. If 

the EMU is battery powered, the battery life must be long enough to ensure the 

EMU is charged and functional each time the vehicle/equipment is operated. 

What will the EMU track? 

The EMU must track the geographic position and either the operated hours or the 

mileage traveled, or both, of the vehicle/equipment. 

All data must be recorded while the vehicle/equipment is in operation. The 

vehicle/equipment position must be updated upon startup and at least once every 

30 minutes during vehicle/equipment operation. The time-to-first-fix should be no 

longer than five minutes. 

How must the EMU store and transmit collected data?

The collected data must be provided to the district on a periodic basis, or, at the 

discretion of the district, the data may be transmitted directly to the district in realtime. The EMU must include either the capability to automatically transmit the 

stored data from the vehicle/equipment, or enable downloading of the stored data 

through a port in the device. If the storage method is used, the EMU must have 

the capacity to store as much data as is necessary to ensure that data is not 
G-2 EMU REQUIREMENTS 

over-written prior to any scheduled data retrieval. At the discretion of the district, 

the stored data may be encrypted, or otherwise protected, and require a 

password distributed only to the district and ARB. 

What data must be recorded? 

The EMU must store the time, date, position, elapsed time since last recorded 

position, elapsed operated hours since last recorded position, and accrued 

mileage since last recorded position (required for fleet modernization projects). 

The positional data stored and transmitted must either be accompanied by 

software which will code raw positional data using the following codes, or directly 

transmit the positional data pre-coded into these zones; 

1. Whether or not the position is in the district boundary (including district 

coastal boundary for marine projects). 

2. Whether or not the position is in California (including its coastal waters). 

3. Whether or not the position is outside California (including its coastal 

waters). 

4. Other zones within the district, or other districts in California, may be 

specified at the discretion of the district. 

How often must the collected data be provided to the district? 

Periodically (preferably on a monthly basis, but at least quarterly for fleet 

modernization projects and annually for all other projects), the data must be 

downloaded and transmitted to the district in an electronic format specified by the 

district. 

What information must be provided to the district? 

For each vehicle/equipment the submitted data shall include at least: 

− Grant ID number. (Optional)

− Vehicle ID, Equipment ID, or Vessel ID. 

− Date of download. 

− Total accumulated miles and/or hours operated by coded zone described 

above. All data collected must be reported regardless of whether hours or 

miles or both were recorded. 

− Date and time that any failure or malfunction of the EMU occurred. 

− Time periods, if any, that the EMU was not operational. 

− Fuel consumption. This is optional, and is not required to be monitored by 

the EMU. However, liquefied natural gas-diesel and other dual fuel 

locomotive projects, marine projects, and other fuel based projects are 

required to monitor and report fuel consumption in their annual reports, as 

specified in the revised Carl Moyer Guidelines. 
G-3 EMU REQUIREMENTS 

How long must the collected data be submitted to the district? 

Data collected must be submitted to the district for the lesser of five years or the 

project life. As noted above, districts may allow projects with EMUs installed to 

complete all reporting through the electronic data system. For the remainder of 

the projects life, if any, reporting may continue to be completed through the 

electronic system, although this is not required. However, reporting must 

continue to be completed as required in the revised Carl Moyer Guidelines. 

How rugged must the EMU be? 

The EMU must be tamperproof and be rugged enough to withstand the operating 

environment of the vehicle/equipment for the expected life of the project, if 

installed per the manufacturer’s instructions. 

What are the warranty requirements? 

The EMU must have a full repair or equivalent replacement warranty for 5 years. 

If the project life is less than five years, the warranty may equal the project life. It 

the project life is longer than 5 years the contract may also contain an option for 

the participant to extend the warranty beyond the minimum amount (with district 

approval). This extended warranty may be included when calculating 

cost-effectiveness for Carl Moyer funding eligibility. The reporting must continue 

to be completed through the electronic system for the extent of the warranty. 

What data must be provided in the event the EMU fails? 

The EMU must accurately track vehicle/equipment position and activity during 

the operation of the vehicle/equipment. If the unit fails to record as described 

above for a period exceeding 5 percent of the annual reporting period the 

participant is required to submit as part of the annual report documentation of the 

vehicle/equipment activity during the missing time period. 

Can these minimum specifications be modified by the district? 

It will be the responsibility of the district to assure that participants install, operate 

and report data using the EMU in accordance with these specifications and the 

requirements contained in the revised Carl Moyer Guidelines. On a 

case-by-case basis, and with ARB’s approval, for projects in which an EMU 

meeting these specifications is either not available for the vehicle/equipment, or 

results in additional costs exceeding 10 percent of the project cost (excluding the 

cost of the EMU), some of these specifications may be modified or deleted, or 

monitoring and reporting may be allowed using prior ARB approved methods. 

The district must justify the request for such an exemption, including a 

demonstration that a reasonable effort (such as an RFP or other means) was 

made to contract with a supplier for an EMU meeting the minimum specifications. 
G-4 EMU REQUIREMENTS 

What about projects in which an EMU is already installed on the 

vehicle/equipment? 

On a case-by-case basis, for projects in which an EMU is already in place on the 

vehicle/equipment, at the option of the participant and the district, that EMU may 

be utilized and some of these specifications may be modified or deleted, as 

approved by ARB. In such cases, it will be the responsibility of the participant to 

provide information on the specifications of the EMU system and to maintain the 

EMU system in working condition for the lesser of five years or the project life. 
APPENDIX H 

BEST PRACTICES 

FOR PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

H-1 BEST PRACTICES 

APPENDIX H 

BEST PRACTICES FOR PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

I. Background 

This Appendix complements ‘Chapter 2 – Program Administration’ by describing 

voluntary Best Practices that go beyond minimum Carl Moyer Program 

administrative requirements, and which districts can use to run more effective 

programs. While ARB encourages districts to include these Best Practices in 

their local programs where possible, not all Best Practices are equally applicable 

to all air districts. For example, consolidated post-inspections may not be 

feasible for a rural district with few projects. 

Some of following Best Practices are based on Department of Finance and 

Bureau of State Audits recommendations provided to ARB as part of their 

reviews of the Carl Moyer Program. Some were requirements that have been 

moved from the 2005 Guidelines administration chapter to simplify district 

administration of the Program and provide greater operational flexibility to the 

districts. Others are practices being used by air districts to improve their 

implementation of the Carl Moyer Program. All Best Practices identified in this 

Addendum have end notes with their source. While the end notes may include 

information on districts that implement the associated best practice, the end 

notes are not exhaustive in listing every district that implements every best 

practice. 

II. Responding to ARB’s Carl Moyer Program Solicitation 

Best Practice #1 

Districts that have sufficient demand, may request Carl Moyer Program funds in 

excess of the tentative allocation for their district, as long as the district has 

sufficient district funds available to match the State Carl Moyer Program funds 

being requested. 

Thus, if and when funds become available from other districts that are unable to 

accept and keep their tentative allocation, the districts requesting an excess 

amount are in a position to accept additional funds.

1

Best Practice #2 

The ARB encourages districts to have the district Board approve a multi-year 

resolution to accept Carl Moyer Program funding and implement the program 

consistent with the current Guidelines. Since the Carl Moyer Program is now 

funded through 2015, a multi-year resolution saves the district from having to 

draft and pass a new resolution each year.2
H-2 BEST PRACTICES 

III. Reporting to ARB 

Best Practice #3 

Districts that commit and expend their Carl Moyer Program funds early (commit 

with fully executed contracts before June 30 of the first year, expend before June 

30 of the second year) may complete the required annual/final report before the 

due date (August 31). In addition, if a district has completed the commitment 

(with fully executed contracts) and expenditure of Carl Moyer Program funds by 

June 30 of the first year, the district may complete one combined annual/final 

report.3

IV. Fiscal Tracking 

Best Practice #4 

While districts are required to maintain Carl Moyer Program funds in a way that 

tracks earned interest, the methods for doing so are left to each district. The 

ARB encourages districts to maintain a segregated depository account for Carl 

Moyer Program funds. Such an account will draw interest on only the Carl Moyer 

funds without the need for district staff to compute earned interest.4 

V. District Outreach 

Best Practice #5 

While districts are required to market the Carl Moyer Program to all sectors in 

their community, the methods for doing so are left to each district. The ARB 

strongly encourages districts to vigorously outreach to all sectors of the 

community. Below are brief descriptions of the types of practices that can be 

included as part of a district’s outreach activities.5

A. List of Interested Parties 

Districts can maintain a list of interested parties throughout the year and 

mail a notification to the parties on the list when funds are available. This 

list should also include prior applicants, public agencies (e.g. public works 

departments, sanitation departments, school districts), engine 

dealers/distributors, and, where appropriate, port authorities and farm 

bureaus. 

B. Local Newspaper Announcement 

Districts can put a notification of funds available in local newspapers, in 

locally-based trade newsletters, including the local farm bureau, and in the 

trade journals of organizations representing zero-emission technologies 

such as the Clean Cities Coalition and WestStart-CALSTART. 
H-3 BEST PRACTICES 

C. Notification through District Mediums 

If the district has a website, the Carl Moyer Program solicitation can be 

advertised on the district’s website. Similarly, if the district has a 

newsletter, the Carl Moyer Program solicitation can be advertised in the 

district’s newsletter. And, if the district maintains a 24-hour message line, 

the solicitation can also be advertised there6

D. Prior Participants 

Districts can solicit additional projects from prior participants with 

successfully implemented projects, especially during monitoring visits. 

E. Small Business 

Districts can expand the participation of small business by advertising to 

targeted industries, offering workshops to the engine dealer network, and 

offering to assist small business owners with the completion of the 

application. For example, many urban districts have found the 

construction industry to be a viable source of projects, when the districts 

provide outreach, training and technical assistance to the many small 

businesses that own qualifying equipment. 

F. Agricultural Community 

Districts with agricultural communities can contact the local agricultural 

department and request that a flyer be posted that will be visible to 

farmers when they come in to get their pesticide use permits. 

G. Public Presentations 

Districts can distribute a brochure or other informational hand-out at 

events and industry workshops attended. 

H. Advertising 

Districts can require their grantees to place a logo or decal on the new 

engine(s) advertising that the engine was funded by the district and ARB 

with Carl Moyer Program funds. 

Best Practice #6 

While the ARB strongly encourages districts to outreach to all sectors of their 

community to increase and improve the applicant pool, districts are also 

encouraged to develop and implement techniques to measure the effectiveness 

of their outreach activities.6

 
H-4 BEST PRACTICES 

A. Districts can identify business sectors from which they will obtain 

applications for more cost-effective projects, evaluate whether their 

current outreach efforts are reaching those sectors, implement 

outreach activities to target sectors not being reached, and assess 

whether their outreach efforts enable them to select projects with 

more cost effective emission reductions. 

B. Districts may conduct incentive program surveys to identify how 

applicants/participants heard about the incentive programs. 

VI. District Applications for Projects 

It is not possible for districts to implement both best practices 7 and 8. Each 

district must assess their implementation of the Carl Moyer Program and decide 

which (if either) of these practices best suits their district. 

Best Practice #7 

For consistency throughout the Carl Moyer Program, to assist applicants 

statewide and to limit confusion, ARB encourages districts to use the same 

application form for the Carl Moyer Program. The application is available on the 

Carl Moyer Program web site at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/admin_forms/admin.htm.

7

Best Practice #8 

When districts operate more then one incentive program, districts may use one 

application form for all of the incentive programs. This streamlines and simplifies 

the application process for potential applicants.8

VII. Tracking 

Districts have a number of best practices for tracking applications, proposed 

projects and the status of funded projects. The following best practices (numbers 

9, 10 and 11) can be used separately or all in conjunction with each other. 

Best Practice #9

Districts may use a contract signature tracking sheet which follows the contract 

from initiation through signing and filing. The tracking sheet may list each staff 

person (i.e. the APCO, the Administrative Analyst, the Contracts and Records 

Management Coordinator and the Carl Moyer Program Manager) who must 

review and approve the contract, and includes spaces for initials and date of 

review.9

 
H-5 BEST PRACTICES 

Best Practice #10

The ARB encourages districts to maintain a hard copy or electronic contract log 

of all district contracts that tracks the status and location of each contract. An 

electronic contract log has the advantage of being accessible to all district staff.10 

Best Practice #11

The ARB strongly encourages districts to maintain a checklist in their project 

folders to make sure all of the appropriate documentation is there. The check list 

may define where the specific documentation may be found in the folder or in 

electronic files. The ARB encourages districts to have another staff member 

(project manager and field inspector) cross check these folders to verify that the 

folder is complete. Such a checklist makes it easier for staff (current and new) 

and auditors to know project status and where documentation may be found.11

VIII. Environmental Justice

Environmental Justice refers to the requirement (HSC section 43023.5) that 

districts, with a population of over one million residents, distribute Program funds 

in a manner that directly benefits low-income communities and/or communities of 

color that are disproportionately impacted by air pollution. The Program 

requirements for environmental justice may be found at section 28(m) of the 

administration chapter of these Guidelines. Districts may enhance environmental 

justice implementation using best practices 12 through 16. 

Best Practice #12

The ARB encourages districts with a population of less than one million 

inhabitants to incorporate an environmental justice component in their local Carl 

Moyer Program. 12

Best Practice #13

The ARB encourages districts to periodically reassess their environmental justice 

policies and procedures, particularly their definition of environmental justice 

areas.13

Best Practice #14

To target communities with greater exposure to air pollutants, districts may 

include a measure of pollution (i.e. level of particulate matter in the community) 

or the effects of pollution (i.e. cancer hot spots) in the districts’ approach for 

identifying disproportionately impacted communities.

14

Best Practice #15

To maximize emission reductions in districts that competitively rate and rank their 

applications, districts may include a measure of the cost per ton of emission 

reductions when selecting projects in disproportionately impacted communities.15
H-6 BEST PRACTICES 

Best Practice #16

To ensure funds from the environmental justice set-aside continue to benefit 

disproportionately impacted communities, districts may include a contract 

requirement that the projects selected from disproportionately-impacted areas 

continue to provide benefits from reduced emissions to those communities 

through the end of the project life.16

IX. Project Selection 

Best Practice #17

To expand the applicant pool and provide an opportunity for engine owners that 

operate in more than one district, the ARB encourages districts to refrain from 

setting a minimum percent operation in the district and to jointly fund inter-district 

projects.17

Best Practice #18

To ensure the district is not providing a grant to a company that has outstanding 

permit violations, districts may check their Program applications against their list 

of companies that have a notice of violation with the district. Using this practice, 

one district was able to get a potential grantee to pay the outstanding fine.18

Best Practice #19

To expand the applicant pool to include more small businesses and to capture 

the emission reductions from an otherwise under-represented group, districts 

may provide a preference (in the form of scoring or as a set-aside) for small 

businesses.19 For the purpose of this best practice a small business might be 

defined as in the following examples: 

• An owner-operated business for the on-road and marine categories 

• The same as in the applicable fleet rule (if any). For example, in 

ARB’s Off-Road Fleet Rule a small business is defined as one with 

total fleet horsepower less than or equal to 2500 horsepower. 

• A Class 3 railroad for the locomotive category. 

Best Practice #20

To assist districts in their determination of credible and/or good faith applications, 

districts may refer to the Carl Moyer Program Status Report which contains 

category specific averages for costs, usage, etc. It can be found at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/status/status.htm. Districts may also refer 

to their own or neighboring districts’ averages from past projects.20
H-7 BEST PRACTICES 

X. Commitment of Funds to Projects 

Best Practice #21

ARB strongly encourages districts to commit funds to projects and fully execute 

contracts as soon as possible, prior to the June 30th deadline. This allows more 

time for completing projects. This may also allow for projects to be completed 

before the deadline, thus maximizing the ability to gain early emissions 

reductions.21

Best Practice #22

To reduce the administrative burden resulting from multiple contracts for one 

project owner with more than one funded engine/vehicle/piece of equipment, 

districts may use one contract per project owner.22

Best Practice #23

To more easily track the progress of Carl Moyer funded projects and provide the 

ability of the district to take appropriate action if a project veers off track, the ARB 

encourages districts to include detailed project milestones in contracts.23

Best Practice #24

To help districts ensure that they have sufficient time to perform the required post 

inspections and pay project owners before the two-year availability of Program 

funds expires, ARB strongly encourages districts to require projects to be 

completed before the statutory limit for expending the funds. Districts have had 

good results with requiring completion of projects within six to twelve months of 

contract execution.24

Best Practice #25

The ARB encourages districts to obtain delegated authority from their governing 

boards to approve Carl Moyer Program projects and execute contracts. As an 

alternative for district governing boards that prefer to maintain approval authority 

over higher-risk projects, districts are encouraged to obtain delegated authority to 

approve more routine projects or projects costing less then a certain amount. 

This allows districts to commit funds to projects expeditiously, providing more 

time for project implementation. 25

Best Practice #26

For districts where the governing board desires retaining approval of contracts, 

district staff may invite the engine owners to attend the governing board meeting 

and have the board representative and engine owners execute the contracts as 

part of or right after the board meeting. This expedites the execution process 

and provides a positive forum for the governing board.26

Best Practice #27

Districts can require engine owners to attend an informational training prior to 

signing their contracts. This ensures the engine owners understand their 
H-8 BEST PRACTICES 

contractual obligations and may be used as an efficient process for the districts 

to get contracts fully executed and distributed.27

Best Practice #28

To ensure contracts are fully executed in a timely fashion, the ARB encourages 

districts to include a term that cancels the contract if it is not executed by the 

engine owner in a specified time frame (e. g. 30 days). 28

Best Practice #29

For all categories where insurance is not otherwise required, districts may 

include insurance requirements that would cover the cost of the engine, 

equipment, and/or vehicle. This reduces the risk of emission reductions being 

lost if projects are destroyed.29

XI. Inspections 

Best Practice #30

To make the administration of the program more efficient and effective, districts 

may conduct consolidated inspections whenever practicable. For example, a 

district may perform multiple inspections at the same site on the same day.30

XII. Engine Destruction 

Best Practice #31

To ensure old engines are not reintroduced into the California market, they must 

be destroyed in a way that renders them useless.31 Therefore, ARB 

recommends districts use one of the following methods of rendering the engine 

useless: 

A. With a blow torch heat up the part of the engine to be broken. 

Break a 5-inch jagged-edged hole in the engine with a sledge 

hammer. The hole should catch a water jacket or oil galley. 

Alternatively, take off the oil pan and break the hole right above the 

oil pan lip or rail. 

B. Using a plasma (or an oxy-acetylene) torch, cut a hole of at least 

four inches in diameter over at least one crank shaft journal 

sufficient to destroy the crank bearing and mount. To prevent the 

reuse of the engine heads, using the same torch, cut a line to a 

depth of 1⁄4 to 1⁄2 inch around the entire accessible mating surface 

between the engine block and each head. 
H-9 BEST PRACTICES 

XIII. Project Owner Reporting 

Best Practice #32

To better track the progress of projects, districts may require progress reports 

during the project completion phase of the contract.

32

Best Practice #33

To increase engine owners’ responsiveness to reporting requirements, districts 

may withhold payments of a small, set proportion (five or ten percent) of the 

contract amount until the project owner satisfactorily submits all required 

progress and annual reports.33

Best Practice #34

To minimize the information required from engine owners and make the format 

for annual reporting simple and convenient, districts may use the sample forms 

provided on the Carl Moyer Program website at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/moyer.htm. In addition, ARB encourages 

districts to make the reporting forms and timetables for reporting part of their 

contracts.34

XIV. District Responses to Non Performing Projects 

The administrative chapter requires districts to work with nonperforming grantees 

to ensure Program requirements are met and emission reductions are achieved. 

The chapter also requires districts to make all reasonable efforts to recoup 

Program funds from nonperforming grantees to ensure funded emission 

reductions are achieved. Best practices 35 and 36 relate to those requirements. 

Best Practice #35

In the event a project is not meeting the terms of a contract, a district can use the 

following best practices for maintaining the agreement and obtaining the 

emission reductions.35 Please note that each best practice is based on particular 

conditions. 

A. If an applicant sells an engine or vehicle during the project 

completion term, the district can execute a new (novation) 

agreement with the new owner. The agreement should incorporate 

the original agreement (with a copy), so the new owner is fully 

informed and the State’s interest is protected. A sample novation 

agreement is posted on the ARB Carl Moyer Program website at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer.... 

B. If an applicant’s usage is below the amount listed in the 

application/contract, the district can extend the term of the contract 

to capture the required usage. This practice may be used only if 
H-10 BEST PRACTICES 

the emission reductions, during the extended term, are surplus to 

any regulatory requirement. 

Best Practice #36

In the rare event that the district is unable to secure the emission reductions 

through the means listed in best practice # 35 (above), section 36(b) of the 

administration chapter of these Guidelines requires districts to make all 

reasonable efforts to recoup the funds. In doing so, the ARB strongly 

encourages districts to follow a progressive course of action, devised in 

consultation with their legal counsel. Districts should document the course of 

action and results in the project file. A progressive course of action may include, 

but is not limited to, the following steps:36

A. Program staff attempts to negotiate an appropriate resolution with 

the engine owner. 

B. Legal counsel writes the engine owner a letter demanding 

repayment of the funds or some other suitable resolution. 

C. The district takes legal action against the engine owner for 

noncompliance, especially if fraud or malfeasance is involved. If a 

district plans to take legal action against an engine owner, the 

district should inform ARB. This information is especially important 

if fraud or malfeasance is involved. 

XV. Transparency of the Program 

Best Practice #37

To provide the public with information on the Carl Moyer Program in each district, 

ARB strongly encourages districts to report annually to their governing board and 

to post the annual report on the district’s website. Such a report should include 

the following topic areas:37

A. Total applications received for current year’s funds 

B. Efforts and results of outreach to potential environmental justice, 

and small business project owners 

C. A list of the funded projects 

D. The status of the commitment and expenditure of the current year’s 

funds 

E. The status of the commitment and expenditure of previous years’ 

funds 
H-11 BEST PRACTICES 

F. District monitoring and auditing efforts and results, including any 

audits completed by independent third parties 

G. The status of emissions reductions by projects in the 

implementation phase of their contracts, including reasons for and 

solutions to shortfalls for projects that do not perform as projected 

H. Outstanding features and accomplishments of the district 

I. Challenges for the district in implementing the Carl Moyer Program 

J. The district’s policies and procedures 

XVI. Forms and Formats 

Best Practice #38

Several districts have been recognized for having model forms and formats that 

other districts may want to use. These forms and formats have been made 

electronically available on the Carl Moyer Program webpage at http://arb.ca.gov/. 

These forms and formats include, but are not limited to, the following: 

• An incomplete application notification letter 

• A sample notification of award letter 

• A pre- and post-inspection form 

• A Novation of Agreement 

Before using any of the posted forms or formats the district should be contacted 

to check for updated forms and formats that may have not been posted. 

 

1

 Recommendation from the Administration Chapter of the 2005 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines 

2

 Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District practice 

3

 Recommendation from the Administration Chapter of the 2005 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines 

4 Butte County Air Quality Management District and Glenn County Air Quality Management 

District practice 

5

 Department of Finance audit recommendation and Health and Safety Code section 44290; 5acommon practice among districts: 5b-trade journals San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District 

practice & Farm Bureau Newsletter Monterey Bay Air Pollution Control District practice; 5ccommon practice in districts’ newsletters & solicitation on 24-hour message line San Joaquin 

Valley Air Pollution Control District practice; 5d-common practice among districts; 5e-workshops 

with engine dealers San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District practice & outreach, training 

and technical assistance to construction industry Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality 

Management District practice; 5f-common practice among districts; 5g-San Joaquin Valley Air 

Pollution Control District practice; and, 5-h- Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management 

District and Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (for boats) practice 
H-12 BEST PRACTICES 

 

6

 Bureau of State Audits audit recommendation; 6A- Bureau of State Audits audit 

recommendation; and, 6B- Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District practice 

7

 Department of Finance audit recommendation 

8

 Bureau of State Audits audit recommendation 

9

 Butte County Air Quality Management District, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District and Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District practice 

10 Butte County Air Quality Management District and San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 

Control District practices 

11 Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District and San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District practice 

12 Recommendation from the Administration Chapter of the 2005 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines 

13 Bureau of State Audits audit recommendation and South Coast Air Quality Management 

District practice 

14 Bureau of State Audits audit recommendation and Bay Area Air Quality Management District 

and South Coast Air Quality Management District practice 

15 Bureau of State Audits audit recommendation and South Coast Air Quality Management 

District practice 

16 Bureau of State Audits audit recommendation and Bay Area Air Quality Management District 

practice 

17 Bureau of State Audits audit recommendation 

18 Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District practice 

19 Recommendation from the Administration Chapter of the 2005 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines 

20 San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District practice 

21 South Coast Air Quality Management District practice and Bureau of State Audits audit 

recommendation 

22 Bureau of State Audits audit recommendation 

23 Bureau of State Audits audit recommendation and Bay Area Air Quality Management District 

practice 

24 Bureau of State Audits audit recommendation and Bay Area Air Quality Management District 

practice 

25 Bureau of State Audits audit recommendation 

26 Ventura County Air Pollution Control District practice 

27 South Coast Air Quality Management District practice 

28 Recommendation from the Administration Chapter of the 2005 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines 

29 Requirement from the Administration Chapter of the 2005 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, 

which has been reduced to a Best Practice based on cost benefit analysis for particular source 

categories (i.e. marine and ag pumps) 

30 Bureau of State Audits audit recommendation 

31 Requirement from the Administration Chapter of the 2005 and 2008 Carl Moyer Program 

Guidelines 31a- San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District practice 

32 South Coast Air Quality Management District and Ventura County Air Pollution Control District 

practice 

33 South Coast Air Quality Management District practice 

34 Department of Finance audit recommendation 

35 To fulfill this requirement of the Administration Chapter of the 2008 Carl Moyer Program 

Guidelines 35a-a common practice for districts though the posted novation agreement is from 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District; and 35b- common practice among districts 

36 To fulfill this requirement of the Administration Chapter of the 2008 Carl Moyer Program 

Guidelines 36b- San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District's staff worked with a non-Moyer 

grantee when his vessel's mooring released during a storm, ran aground and was destroyed. 

The engine that was submerged in sea water was overhauled and the grantee agreed to use the 

engine to replace an old engine in a different vessel. Even though the district had good results 

with this negotiated settlement, the district has since strengthened their contract language to 

provide more contractual rather than negotiated resolutions. 

37 Recommendation from the Administration Chapter of the 2005 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines