## Report on Re ductions Achieved from I nc entive-Based

Emission Re duction Meas ures in the San Joaquin Valley

AP PE NDIX B.3: 2008 Carl Moy er Me mo rial Air Quality

Standards Attai nm ent Pr og ram Guidelines Part IV

Release D ate: Se pt em ber 22, 20 14

He ari ng Dat e: Octo ber 2 3

, 2 014



# Calif or ni a E nvironme nt a l Protection Agen cy



# Air Resources Board

## THE CARL MOYER PROGRAM GUIDELINES

PART IV of IV

APPENDICESTABLE OF CONTENTS

Appendix A Acronyms

Appendix B Tables for Emission Reduction and Cost-E ffectiveness Calculations

Appendix C Cost-Effectiveness Calculation Methodolo gy

Appendix D Light-Duty Vehicle Cost-Effectiveness Ca lculation Methodology

Appendix E Example Calculations

Appendix F Description of Certification and Verific ation Executive Orders

Appendix G Minimum Requirements for Electronic Moni toring Devices

Appendix H Best Practices for Program Administratio n

## APPENDIX A

ACRONYMSA-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 FactorA-2 ACRONYMS

EGR Exhaust Gas Recirculation

EMFAC ARB’s On-Road Motor Vehicle Emission Inventor y 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-DutyA-3 ACRONYMS

LNG Liquefied Natural Gas LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas – commonly called Propa ne 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 Manageme nt 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 DayA-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 CALCULATIONSB-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 proj ects. Included are data such as engine emission factors, load factors, and other co nversion factors used in the calculations discussed in Appendix C: Cost-Effectiv eness 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 hea vy duty engines except diesel urban buses. b – 2004-2006 optional emission standards for all o n-road heavy duty engines except diesel urban buses

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

d – 2004-2006 emission standard for all urban buses

. e - Emission standards were converted where appropr iate, using the NMHC and NOx fraction default

values and the ultra low-sulfur diesel fuel correct ion factors listed in Tables B-26 and B-27, respect ively.

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 0.01B-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 i n 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 i n 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 appropr iate, using the NMHC and NOx fraction default

values and the ultra low-sulfur diesel fuel correct ion factors listed in Tables B-26 and B-27, respect ively.

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 onl y. b - A majority of the natural gas urban buses have been certified to the optional standards. Therefor e, these values are based on the optional standards. c - Many natural gas urban buses have been certifie d 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

<25 0.64 Transport Refrigeration Units

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 0.008B-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 0.45B-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

Fellers/Bunchers 0.71 Logging

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 Irrigation Pump 0.65 Non-Mobile Agricultural Engines Other 0.51

Other All 0.43B-8 EMISSION FACTORS Table B-12 Uncontrolled Off-Road Diesel Engines Emission Factors (g/bhp-hr)

Horsepower Model Year NOx ROG PM10

pre-1988 6.51 2.21 0.547 25 – 49

1988 + 6.42 2.17 0.547

pre-1988 12.09 1.73 0.605 50 – 119

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

50 – 120 2.74 0.12 0.160 3

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 0.54B-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 0.06 0

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 0.06 0

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 0.06 0

Controlled 2001-2006 1.58 0.09 0.060

Controlled 2007-2009 1.05 0.06 0.060

Controlled 2010+ 0.32 0.02 0.060B-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 verifie d to a percent reduction, the emission factors will be that verified percent of the approp riate emissions factors in Table B-15. If a retrofit system is verified to an absolute emissi on 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 0.060B-12 EMISSION FACTORS Table B-17 Off-Road LSI Engines Certified to Optional Standard s

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 0.060B-13 EMISSION FACTORS 

### LOCOMOTIVES

Table B-18a

Locomotive Emission Factors (g/bhp-hr)

Based on 1998 Federal Standards

Engine Model Year Type NOx a ROG b PM10 a

Line-haul and Passenger 12.22 0.51 0.275 Pre-1973

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 baseli ne emissions if the baseline locomotive is certifie d or required to be certified to the 1998 federal locomo tive remanufacture standards, and for the reduced emission locomotive if the project locomotive is re manufactured to these 1998 standards. Factors are based upon Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final U.S. E PA Locomotive Regulation (2008). a - NOx and PM10 emission factors have been adjuste d by a factor of 0.94 and 0.86, respectively, to

account for use of California ultra-low sulfur dies el fuel.

b - ROG = HC * 1.053B-14 EMISSION FACTORS Table B-18b

Locomotive Emission Factors (g/bhp-hr)

Based on 2008 Federal Standards

Engine Model Year Type NOx a ROG b PM10 a

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 4.65 0.14 0.069 2011-2014

Tier 3 Switcher 5.07 0.27 0.069

These factors are to be used for the project baseli ne emissions if the baseline locomotive is certifie d or required to be certified to the new (2008) federal locomotive remanufacture standards, and for the reduced emission locomotive if the project locomoti ve is remanufactured to the new standards or meets Tier 3 standards. Factors are based upon Regulator y Impact Analysis: Final U.S. EPA Locomotive Regulation (2008). a - NOx and PM10 emission factors have been adjuste d by a factor of 0.94 and 0.86, respectively, to

account for use of California ultra-low sulfur dies el 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 0.085B-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 0.255B-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

51-120 0.85 0.464 1

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 0.31B-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 Powe r Requirement*

Break Bulk 1,300 Reefer Fully containerized 3,300
* The average power requirement for passenger vesse ls 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 in corporated 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 METHODOLOGYC-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 de termining 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 b y dividing the annual cost of the potential project by the annual weighted surplus em ission reductions that will be achieved by the project as shown in formula C-1 bel ow.

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

Annualized Cost ($/yr)

Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions (tons/y r)

Descriptions on how to calculate annual emission re ductions and annualized cost are provided in the following sections.

A. Calculating the Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions

Annual weighted emission reductions are estimated b y taking the sum of the project’s annual surplus pollutant reductions following formu la C-2 below. This will allow projects that reduce one, two, or all three of the covered p ollutants to be evaluated for eligibility to receive Carl Moyer Program funding. While NOx a nd 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 Reduc tions:

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

The result of formula C-2 is used to complete formu la C-1 to determine the cost-effectiveness of surplus emission reductions.C-2 COST EFFECTIVENESS

In order to determine the annual surplus emission r eductions by pollutant, formula C-3 below must be completed for each pollutant (NOx, RO G, and PM10), for the baseline technology and the reduced technology, totaling up to 6 calculations:

1. Annual emissions of NOx for the baseline technol ogy 2. Annual emissions of NOx for the reduced technolo gy 3. Annual emissions of ROG for the baseline technol ogy 4. Annual emissions of ROG for the reduced technolo gy 5. Annual emissions of PM10 for the baseline techno logy

6. Annual emissions of PM10 for the reduced technol ogy

These calculations are completed for each pollutant by multiplying the engine emission factor or converted emission standard (found in App endix B) by the annual activity level and by other adjustment factors as specified for th e calculation methodologies presented.

The baseline technology is the technology applied under normal business practi ces, such as, an engine certified by ARB to the current emission standards for new purchases; or the existing engine in a vehicle or e quipment for repowers and retrofits.

The reduced technology is the newer technology used by the applicant to o btain 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 curr ent NOx emission standard, or certified by ARB to the optional NOx or NOx+NMHC em ission standard. Locomotive and marine vessel new purchases have slightly diffe rent criteria. Please see the specific source category cost-effectiveness criteri a for more information.



### • For a repower it would be the replacement engine ce rtified by ARB (for locomotives and marine vessels it would be EPA verified) to a m inimum of 15 percent less than the NOx emissions from the baseline technology (exi sting engine).



### • For a NOx retrofit it would be an ARB-verified retr ofit technology that will reduce NOx emissions by a minimum of 15 percent from the N Ox emissions of the baseline technology.



### • For a PM retrofit it would be the ARB-verified dies el emission control strategy (DECS) that reduces PM emissions as level 1 (25 per cent reduction), level 2 (50 percent reduction), or level 3 (85 percent redu ction).

Since the emission factor or converted standard is given in units of grams, a conversion from grams to tons is also required, as described i n formula C-3 below.

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

Emission Factor or Converted Emission Standard (g/b hp-hr) * Annual Activity * Adjustment Factor(s) * Percent Operation in CA * to n/907,200gC-3 COST EFFECTIVENESS

The Carl Moyer Program allows the emissions reducti ons 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 Prog ram Guidelines.

1. Calculating Annual Emissions Based on Hours of O peration

When actual annual hours of equipment operation are the basis for determining emission reductions, the equipment activity level m ust be based on a properly functioning hour meter (See Part I, Chapter 2 and t he 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 e quipment load factor is available in Appendix B. The method for calculating emission re ductions based on hours of operation is described in formula C-4 below.

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

Emission Factor or Converted Emission Standard (g/b hp-hr) * Horsepower * Load Factor * Activity (hrs/yr) * Percent Operation in CA * ton/907,200g

The engine load factor is an indicator of the nomin al amount of work done by the engine for a particular application. It is given as a fra ction of the rated horsepower of the engine and varies with engine application. For pro jects in which the horsepower of the baseline technology and reduced technology are diff erent 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 p ercent 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 Consu mption

When annual fuel consumption is used for determinin g emission reductions, the equipment activity level must be based on annual fu el 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 efficien cy and the energy content of the fuel used in that engine into an approximation of the am ount of work output by an engine for

each unit of fuel consumed. The ECF is found in Ta ble B-25 in Appendix B. Formula C-6 below is the formula for calculating annual emi ssions based on annual fuel

consumed.

Formula C-6: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Fu el Consumed using Emission Factors or Converted Emission Standard (tons/yr):

Emission Factor or Converted Emission Standard (g/b hp-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 emissi on factor (g/mile) by the conversion factor (bhp-hr/mile) resulting in (g/bhp-hr). Form ula C-7 below is used to calculate

annual emissions for fuel based on-road calculation s.

Formula C-7: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Fu el Consumed using On-Road Emission Factors (tons/yr):

[On-Road Emission Factor (g/mile)/Unit Conversion F actor (bhp-hr/mile)] * ECF (hp-hr/gal) * Activity (gal/yr) * Percent Operation in CA * ton/907,200g

3. Calculating Annual Emissions Based on Annual Mil es Traveled

Calculations based on annual miles traveled are onl y used for on-road projects. Mileage records must be maintained by the engine ow ner 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 emis sions based on emission

factors and miles traveled.

Formula C-8: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Mi leage 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 Sta ndards : 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/mil e. Formula C-9 describes the method for calculating pollutant emissions using co nverted emission standards.C-5 COST EFFECTIVENESS

Formula C-9: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Mi leage using Converted Emission Standards (tons/yr):

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

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

4. Calculating Annual Surplus Emission Reductions b y Pollutant

The final step in this portion of the calculations is to determine the annual surplus emission reductions by pollutant. For new purchase s and repower projects, subtract the annual emissions for the reduced technology from th e 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 pol lutant emissions by the percent of

emission reductions that the ARB-verified reduced t echnology 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 rec overy 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 invest ing 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 d etermine 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 f ollowing 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 proj ect criteria for default maximums)

The discount rate of 4 percent reflects the prevail ing earning potential for state funds that could reasonably be expected by investing stat e 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 p roject lives using a discount rate of 4 percent. Use the result from formula C-13 to com plete formula C-12 to determine the annualized cost of a project.

2. Calculating the Incremental Cost

In previous guidelines, incremental cost was determ ined by calculating the difference in cost between the new reduced technology and the bas eline technology, making it necessary for the applicant to receive quotes for b oth the reduced and the baseline technologies. ARB staff decided to streamline this process by applying maximum eligible percent funding amounts to define incremen tal cost, eliminating the need to receive quotes for the baseline technology. An app licant would only need to provide an estimate of the cost of the reduced technology. Th erefore, the incremental cost is determined by multiplying the cost of the reduced t echnology by the maximum eligible percent funding amount (from applicable chapter), a s described in formula C-14 below.

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost ($):

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

Generally the cost of the baseline vehicle for a ne w purchase is assumed to be a certain percentage of the cost of a new vehicle meeting red uced emissions from the standard. The cost of the baseline technology for a repower i s assumed to be a percentage of the new engine. For retrofits, there is no baseline te chnology cost; hence the entire cost of the retrofit may be eligible for funding.C-7 COST EFFECTIVENESS

For fleet modernization projects, the incremental c ost is determined by adjusting the value given to the vehicle by the National Automoti ve Dealership Association (N.A.D.A.), as described in formula C-15 below.

Formula C-15: Incremental Cost for Fleet Moderniza tion 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 comple te formula C-12 to determine the annualized cost of a project.

III. List of Formulas

For an easy reference, the necessary formulas to ca lculate the cost-effectiveness of surplus emission reductions for a project funded th rough the Carl Moyer Program are provided below.

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

Annualized Cost ($/yr) Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions (tons/y r)

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/b hp-hr) * Annual Activity * Adjustment Factor(s) * Percent Operation in CA* (to n/907,200g)

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

Emission Factor or Converted Emission Standard (g/b hp-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 reducedC-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/b hp-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 F actor (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 Conve rsion Factor (bhp-hr/mile) *

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

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (t ons/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 P ercent 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 METHODOLOGYD-1 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE CALCULATIONS APPENDIX D

LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE COST-EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATION M ETHODOLOGY

A. Conventional VAVR Projects

Emission reductions from conventional VAVR projects were calculated using the VAVR regulation methodology. They are equal to the reti red vehicle’s emission rates minus those of the replacement vehicle with the differenc e multiplied by the average vehicle miles traveled by light duty vehicles in the year o f 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 retir ed vehicle in the year of vehicle retirement. Replacement vehicle emissions are the fleet average emissions for all gasoline-powered light-duty vehicles for model year s 1990 through the year of vehicle retirement. Emission rates and average vehicle mil es 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 wer e estimated using a similar methodology. Because of very limited data and only minor differences in emission rates from one year to another, average emission reductio ns were only estimated for two model year ranges for all four calendar years. Replacem ent 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 = [ER retired – ER replace ] * VMT * Life

Where: ER retired = Emission rate of retired vehicle

ER replace = 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-19 76), ROG exh , NOx, and CO emission rates for the full 3 year credit life equa l the pollutant concentrations measured by the Smog Check test at the time of vehicle retir ement converted to FTP emission rates using the conversions listed in Table D-5.

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

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

Table D-5. However, Two Speed Idle (TSI) test resu lts from high emitting vehicles that are not testable by the ASM Smog Check test may be used to estimate ROG exh emission

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

For years 2 and 3 of the 3 year project life, ROG exh , NOx, and CO emission rates for most post-1975 vehicles equal the Smog Check pass/fail c utpoints for the retired vehicle’s model year and vehicle class converted to FTP emiss ion 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 i n Table D-7. For high emitting vehicles that are not testable by the ASM Smog Chec k test, ROG exh emission rates are equal to the TSI pass/fail cutpoints for the retire d vehicle’s model year and vehicle class

converted to FTP emission rates as described in Tab le 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 mod el 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 odom eter is in good working order.

2. Exhaust Emission Rates of Replacement Vehicle

Emission rates for an unknown replacement vehicle equal the fleet average emissio n rates of gasoline-powered light-duty vehicles for m odel years 1990 through the year of vehicle retirement in the year retired using the AR B’s latest approved motor vehicle emissions model. Emission rates by the year of veh icle retirement are in Table D-10.

High emitting vehicle projects may also generate ex tra emission reductions for the documented purchase of an ARB-certified LEV or clea ner 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 reduc tion element in a high emitting vehicle project. If no evaporative testing is conducted, d efault 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 v ehicles identified as high emitting vehicles to determine if they are also high evapora tive emitting vehicles.

− Low pressure evaporative testing must be conducted according to manufacturer’s standard operating procedures and BAR protocols usi ng equipment certified by BAR or submitted for BAR certification, if BAR-cert ified equipment is not available.

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

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

repairs that result in passing the low pressure eva porative 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 r eduction component must also include verification that the methodology for measuring PM is scientifically valid, documentation that the results are reproducible, and a complete c opy of the methodology.

C. High Emitter VRV Projects



### Emission Reductions = [ER pre 

### – ER post 

### ] * VMT * Life

Where: ER pre = Emission rate of pre-repaired vehicle

ER post = Emission rate of vehicle after repair

VMT = Vehicle miles traveled Life = Project life = 1 year

1. Exhaust Emissions

Emission reductions are calculated as the differenc e between the pre and post-repair Smog Check test results converted to FTP emission r ates 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 tes table by the ASM Smog Check test may

be used when converted to FTP ROG exh 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. Distric ts may also use the average of the vehicle miles traveled by the vehicle over the imme diately 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 vehicl es identified as high emitting vehicles to determine if they are also high evaporative emit ting vehicles.

− Low pressure evaporative testing must be conducted according to manufacturer’s standard operating procedures and BAR protocols usi ng equipment certified by BAR or submitted for BAR certification, if BAR-cert ified equipment is not available.

− Vehicles that fail low pressure evaporative tests are eligible to receive extra emission reductions where reductions equal the aver age emission reductions for repairing evaporative system failures or 14.5 pound s of ROG per vehicle per year.D-4 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE CALCULATIONS

Evaporative repairs must bring the vehicle’s emissi ons 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 r eduction component must also include verification that the methodology for measuring PM is scientifically valid, documentation that the results are reproducible, and a complete c opy of the methodology.

D. Modifications to Calculation Methodology

Air districts may propose modifications to the calc ulation methodology to reflect unique project elements but must provide a technical justi fication to support any modification in their project plan. The district must receive writ ten approval from the ARB prior to using the modified methodology, and emission reductions f or all vehicles retired or repaired must be calculated according to the ARB-approved me thodology.

E. Cost-Effectiveness Calculations

1. General Requirements

Funds spent on outreach, data analysis, and databas e development are administrative costs. Costs incurred to identify and diagnose hig h 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 su ccessfully retired or repaired vehicles. However, VAVR and VRV projects individually must me et the cost-effectiveness limit. Districts may propose validated modifications to th e calculation methodology to reflect unique project elements that must be detailed in th e district’s plan which must document that the proposed modifications are technically sou nd. The district must have written ARB approval prior to using an alternative methodol ogy.

State funds used for administrative costs are not i ncluded 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 expend ed on project-related costs to identify and retire/repair high emitting vehicles in the cos t-effectiveness calculations.

− Project-related costs are those used to identify h igh emitting vehicles, run Smog Check tests, diagnose vehicles, and retire or repai r vehicles.

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

vehicle shall be distributed across each vehicle re paired 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 o f funding.

If a district has a cap on the amount paid for repa irs, 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, 2006D-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, 2006D-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, 2006D-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, 2006D-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, “Evaluati on of the California Enhanced Inspection and Mainte nance (Smog Check) Program”, (April 2004), Bureau of Automotive Repair and Sierra Research at ww.arb.ca.gov/msprog/smogch eck/jun04/tsd_part2.pdf.D-11 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE CALCULATIONS TABLE D-6 Conversion of Two Speed Idle Measurements to FTP Em ission Rates

Model Inputs:

HCHT = HC_High Term = (ln (High-Speed Idle HC in pp m)) - 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 Vehi cle Model Year - 9.0570

years DISP = DISP Term = (ln (Engine Displacement in Lit ers)) - 0.9873 TRK = + 0.5 for light-duty trucks - 0.5 for passenger vehicles ERG = + 0.5 if the vehicle has exhaust gas recir culation

- 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 E mission Rates from Two-Speed Idle Emissions Concentrations”, May 10, 2001, Technical Notes, Bur eau of Automotive RepairD-12 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE CALCULATIONS TABLE D-7 - ASM Table --- Phase 4.3 ACCELERATED SIMULATION MODE EMISSION STANDARDS (Eff ective 01/08/2003)

Pass/Fail Emission Standard Vehicle Type (by GVWR and LVW) ASM 5015 ASM 2525 ESC 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 - Manufactur e's Gross Vehicle Weight Rating PC - Passenger car
LVW - Loaded vehicle weight MDV - Medium-duty vehic le, GVWR from 6001 to 8500 lbs HC - Hydrocarbon, pp m 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 a nd 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 de termine if a vehicle passes the emission inspection . A vehicle passes if the emission levels are equa l to or less than the standards for HC, CO, and NOx for ASM 5015 and ASM2 525.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 Maximu m 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+CO 2 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 C ategory HC -- Hydrocarbon, ppm CO -- Carbon monoxi de, %

MIN. CO + CO 2 -- Minimum CO + CO 2 dilution threshold MAX. IDLE RPM -- Maximum Idle R PM limits

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

the inspection. A vehicle passes if the emissi on 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 Replacemen t 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 RetirementD-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, 2006D-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, 2006D-17 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE CALCULATIONS Table D-15

Retired Diesel-Powered Vehicle

E mission 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 CALCULATIONSAPPENDIX 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 Pag e 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-42E-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 CN G 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 b us 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 a nd 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 pe rcent 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/9 07,200 g) = 0.19 tons/yr NOx

ROG converted emission standards are not available for the reduced technology, therefore, ROG emission reductions cannot be calcul ated.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/y r = 0.13 tons/yr NOx

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Red uctions 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 t he 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 Surplu s 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 Repow er A line haul trucking company proposes to repower a 1994 heavy heavy-duty diesel truck with a model year 2008 certified diesel engine. Thi s 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 he avy 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/bh p-hrE-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 hea vy 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 F uel 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 M ileage 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 emissionsE-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 b y 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/y r = 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/y r = 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 Be nefits 1.05 tons/yr NOx 0.69 tons/yr NOx

Total ROG Emission Benefits Total ROG Emission Ben efits 0.02 tons/yr ROG 0.01 tons/yr ROG

Total PM10 Emission Benefits Total PM10 Emission B enefits 0.027 tons/yr PM10 0.020 tons/yr PM10

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Red uctions

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/yrE-5 EX CALCS – ON-ROAD HDV

Cost-Effectiveness : Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplu s 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-effect ive.

In this example, fuel usage proved to be greater th en 30% more cost-effective. The cost-effectiveness for the example for both fuel- a nd 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 heav y heavy-duty diesel truck with a

Level 3 retrofit that is verified for both PM and N Ox reductions. This vehicle operates 80 percent of the time in California.

Baseline Technology Information :

• Baseline technology (application): 2005 heavy hea vy-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 o rder): 25 percent reduction of NOx and 85 percent reductio n 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 NO x reductions from a Level 3 DECS (because the PM reductions are required by regulati on) the cost is one-half the project cost.

Emission Reduction Calculations : Formula C-8: Estimated Annual Emissions Based on M ileage 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 NOxE-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 b y 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 Redu ctions 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 Surplu s 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 i nstall 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 PM1 0

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 th e total retrofit costs

• Percent operating in California (application): 10 0 percentE-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 Red uctions 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 Surplu s 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 tha n $16,000 per ton of pollutants reduced. This project qualifies for up to $5,000 i n grant funds requested.

Example 5 - Truck Stop Electrification (TSE) On-boa rd 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 requirement s 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 Sys tem (VDECS). The cost of the APU and VDECS, including installation of the DAPU and V DECS would be $6,500.

The operator proposes to instead install a TSE syst em 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 emissio n 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 pu rposes. 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, retrofitte d 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 (Applicati on): 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 Ho urs of Operation (tons/yr)

1. Annual NOx Baseline Technology Emissions 4.33g/hp-hr*24hp*0.69*1500hr*(ton/907200g) = 0.12 t on/yr

2. Annual NOx Reduced Technology Emissions = 0.0 0 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 = 0.0 0 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 Emissi on Reductions

0.12 ton/yr + 0.02 ton/yr + 20*0.001 ton/yr = 0.16 ton/yrE-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 w eighted surplus emissions

The Cost Effectiveness for this Example is less tha n $16,000 per ton of pollutants reduced. This project qualifies for up to $2,000 i n grant funds requested.

Example 6 - Transport Refrigeration Unit (TRU) Retr ofit A TRU owner plans to retrofit a 24 horsepower model year 2002 diesel TRU Tier 1 engine with a Verified Level 3 Diesel Particulate F ilter (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 r etrofit 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 willi ng to commit to a three-year project life.

Baseline Technology Information

• Engine (application): MY 2002 TRU engine with a l evel 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): 10 0 percentE-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 Complia nce Credit

Model year 2002 engines must comply with the TRU AT CM’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 201 6. 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 alr eady retrofitted with a level 2 DPF, the project is eligible for up to 50% of the cost o f 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 Reduc tions (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-du ty truck used to haul lumber from northern California and replace it with a newer, us ed 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 L evel 3 diesel emission control system (DECS) and the truck engine has been certifi ed to a NOx FEL level of 1.2 g/bhphr. An electronic monitoring unit (EMU) will be in stalled. 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 hea vy-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, h eavy 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 app lication): $80,000

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

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

Emission Reduction Calculations:

Formula C-8: Estimated Annual Emissions Based on M ileage Using

Emission Factors 1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions (21.39 g/mi * 42,000 mi)(ton/ 907,200 g) = 0.990 t ons/yr NOx 2. Annual NOx reduced technology emissions (6.36 g/mi * 42,000 mi)(ton/ 907,200 g) = 0.294 ton s/yr NOx 3. Annual ROG baseline technology emissions (1.04 g/mi * 42,000 mi) (ton/ 907,200 g) = 0.048 t ons/yr ROG 4. Annual ROG reduced technology emissions (0.23 g/mi * 42,000 mi)(ton/ 907,200 g) = 0.011 ton s/yr ROGE-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 to ns/yr = 0.696 tons/yr NOx

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

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

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Red uctions 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 Vehicl e: 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 Surplu s Emission Reductions = ($9,259/yr) / (1.864 weighted tons/yr) = $4,959 weighted tons/yr

In this example, the cost-effectiveness is less tha n 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 T ruck from a Targeted

Vocation A participant wants to scrap an old, heavy heavy-du ty 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 ye ars the old truck operated 100 percent of the time in and around the Northern Cali fornia area. The OEM of the replacement truck will already be equipped with a L evel 3 diesel emission control system (DECS) and the truck engine has been certifi ed 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 in stalled. 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 hea vy-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 truc k: 50% of invoiced price

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

Emission Reduction Calculations:

Formula C-8: Estimated Annual Emissions Based on M ileage Using

Emission Factors 1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions (21.39 g/mi * 42,000 mi)(ton/ 907,200 g) = 0.990 t ons/yr NOx 2. Annual NOx reduced technology emissions (6.36 g/mi * 42,000 mi)(ton/ 907,200 g) = 0.294 ton s/yr NOx 3. Annual ROG baseline technology emissions (1.04 g/mi * 42,000 mi) (ton/ 907,200 g) = 0.048 t ons/yr ROG 4. Annual ROG reduced technology emissions (0.23 g/mi * 42,000 mi)(ton/ 907,200 g) = 0.011 ton s/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 to ns/yr = 0.696 tons/yr NOx

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

• PM10 Emission Benefits = 0.058 tons/yr - 0.001 ton s/yr = 0.057 tons/yr PM10E-14 EX CALCS – ON-ROAD FLEET MOD

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Red uctions 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 Surplu s Emission Reductions = ($13,759/yr) / (1.864 weighted tons/yr) = $7,370 weighted tons/yr

In this example, the cost-effectiveness is less tha n 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 compressio n-ignition projects.

Example 1 – Repower with a Tier 3 Engine and Retrof it 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 o perates 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 Calif ornia. 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, 200 9 and thus is surplus to the Off-Road Regulation and can be given a project life of 4 yea rs.

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 applicatio n): $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): 10 0 percent

• Retrofit: Level 3 verified reductions: 85 perce nt PM10

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

• Retrofits are eligible for up to 100% of total ret rofit 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 ROGE-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 b y Pollutant (tons/yr) for Repowers and New Purchases

• Emission benefits NOx = 3.65 tons/yr - 0.83 tons/y r = 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 ton s/yr = 0.101 tons/yr PM10

Formula C-11: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions b y 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 PM1 0

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Redu ctions 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 Surplu s 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 Leve l 3 DECS A local municipality proposed to install Level 3 di esel particulate filter on a rubber tired loader with a Tier 1 160 hp engine. The cost of th e 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 fleetE-17 EX CALCS – OFF-ROAD CI

under the Off-Road Regulation. This project will b e installed and in operation prior to March 1, 2009 and thus is eligible for a 5 year pro ject 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 PM1 0

Reduced Technology Information:

• Level 3 verified reductions: 85 percent PM10

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

• Percent operating in California (application): 10 0 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 Red uctions 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 Surplu s Emission Reductions ($/ton) ($4,500/yr)/(0.22 weighted tons/yr) = $20,454/tons of weighted surplus emissions reduce d

The cost-effectiveness for this example is greater than the $16,000 per ton weighted cost-effectiveness requirement. In order to meet t he $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 determi ned 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 = $15,644E-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-ignitio n 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 cod e 6) costing $30,000 (including one battery pack). The owner has decided to purchase new elect ric forklift instead of purchasing a 55 horsepower 2008 model year propane fueled forkli ft 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 th e total cost

• Percent operated in California (application): 100 percent

• Emission factors: Electric equipment are zero emi ssion (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 H ours 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 to n/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/yrE-19 EX CALCS – OFF-ROAD LSI

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions b y 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 Redu ctions 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 Surplu s 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 f orklift. 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 oper ate 100 percent of the time in California. This equipment is eligible for a proje ct 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 v erified to an absolute emission value of 1.0 g/bhp-hrE-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 bas ed 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 b y Pollutant (tons/yr)

• Emission benefits NOx = 0.12 tons/yr - 0.01 tons/y r = 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 ton s/yr = 0.00 tons/yr PM10

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Redu ctions 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 Surplu s 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 i n 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 trac tor A farmer proposes to replace an uncontrolled 1985 1 75 hp agricultural tractor with a new 175 hp Tier 3 agricultural tractor. The new eq uipment 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 u se 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 n ew 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 per cent of the new equipment cost.

• Cost of new equipment (quote provided with applica tion): $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): 10 0 percent

• Retrofit: Level 3 verified reductions- 85 percent PM10

• Retrofits are eligible for up to 100% of total cos t.

• 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 ROGE-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 b y Pollutant (tons/yr) for Repowers and New Purchases

• Emission benefits NOx = 1.38 tons/yr - 0.31 tons/y r = 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 ton s/yr = 0.038 tons/yr PM10

Formula C-11: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions b y 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 PM1 0

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Redu ctions 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 Surplu s Emission Reductions ($/ton) ($23,625/yr)/(2.21 weighted tons/yr) = $10,690/tons of weighted surplus emissions reduce d

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 c osts $275,000. This equipmentE-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 wi ll 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 applica tion): $275,000

• Equipment replacement is eligible for up to 80 per cent 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): 10 0 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 ret rofit costs

Emission Reduction Calculations:

Formula C-4: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Hours of Operation (tons/yr) 1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions, equipm ent 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, equipm ent 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 NOxE-24 EX CALCS – EQUIPMENT REP

4. Annual ROG baseline technology emissions, equipm ent 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, equipm ent 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, equip ment 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, equip ment 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 b y 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) - 0.0 2 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 b y 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 PM1 0

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Redu ctions 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 Surplu s Emission Reductions ($/ton) ($67,375/yr)/(2.19 weighted tons/yr) = $30,764/tons of weighted surplus emissions reduce d

The cost-effectiveness for this example is greater than the $16,000 per ton weighted cost-effectiveness requirement. In order to meet t he $16,000 per ton weightedE-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 incremen tal cost). This amount is determined by multiplying the maximum allowed cost- effectiveness by the estimated annual emission reductions and dividing by the capi tal 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 f orklift with a new 2008 Model Year 70 hp LPG forklift. The new equipment will cost $2 2,000. This equipment operates 750 hours per year, 100 percent of the time in Californ ia. 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 applica tion): $22,000

• Equipment replacement is eligible for up to 80 per cent 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): 10 0 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 PM10E-26 EX CALCS – EQUIPMENT REP

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions b y Pollutant (tons/yr) for Repowers and New Purchases

• Emission benefits NOx = 0.16 tons/yr - 0.02 tons/y r = 0.14 tons/yr NOx

• Emission benefits ROG = 0.051 tons/yr - 0.001 ton s/yr = 0.050 tons/yr ROG

• Emission benefits PM10 = 0.001 tons/yr - 0.001 ton s/yr = 0.0 tons/yr PM10

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Redu ctions 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 Surplu s Emission Reductions ($/ton) ($6,336/yr)/(0.19 weighted tons/yr) = $33,347/tons of weighted surplus emissions reduce d

The cost-effectiveness for this example is greater than the $16,000 per ton weighted cost-effectiveness requirement. In order to meet t he $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 incrementa l cost). This amount is determined by multiplying the maximum allowed cost-effectivene ss by the estimated annual emission reductions and dividing by the capital rec overy 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 f orklift 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 Cali fornia.

When calculating emission benefits for replacement with electric equipment, SB 467 requires that calculations are done from two transa ctions: – 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 (max imum of 7 year project life attributed to this transaction) This equipment belongs to a small fleet and is elig ible 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 applica tion): $34,000

• Equipment replacement is eligible for up to 80 per cent 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): 10 0 percent

Emission Reduction Calculations:

Formula C-4: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Hours of Operation (tons/yr) 1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions- Transa ction 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- Transa ction 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- Transa ction 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- Transa ction 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- Trans action 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- Trans action 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 PM10E-28 EX CALCS – EQUIPMENT REP

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions b y 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/y r = 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 Redu ctions

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 surp lus emission reductions from the two

transactions is used to determine the total annual weighted surplus emission reductions for cost effectiveness. This fraction is the projec t 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 Surplu s Emission Reductions ($/ton) ($3,346/yr)/(0.081 weighted tons/yr) = $41,309/tons of weighted surplus emissions reduce d

The cost-effectiveness for this example is greater than the $16,000 per ton weighted cost-effectiveness requirement. In order to meet t he $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 increment al cost). This amount is determined by multiplying the maximum allowed cost- effectiveness by the estimated annual emission reductions and dividing by the capi tal recovery factor:

($16,000 * 0.081)/0.123 = $10,537E-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 a n 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 remanufac ture kit plus installation of the kit costs $400,000. The cost to purchase and install an auto matic 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/b hp-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 PM10 1

• Activity (application): 40,000 gal/year

• Energy consumption factor = 20.8 bhp-hr/gal (Tabl e B-25)

• ILD emission reduction factor (Table B-19): 0.90

• Locomotive project criteria allow for the Carl Moy er Program to pay for up to 85 percent of the remanufacture kit cost and 50 percen t of ILD cost

Emission Reduction Calculations:

Formula C-6: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Fu el 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 emissi ons (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/g uidelines/supplemental-docs.htmE-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/y r = 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 Reduc tions 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 Surplu s 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 Ca rl Moyer Program funding.

Example 2 – Multiple Engine Switcher Purchase (Clas s 1 Railroad) A Class 1 railroad operator has the opportunity to purchase an alternative technology switch locomotive. Because this is a multiple engi ne 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 s witcher is $1.2 million. The project life is 10 years. Emission reductions are calculat ed 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 (Tabl e 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/g uidelines/supplemental-docs.htmE-31 EX CALCS – LOCOMOTIVES

• Energy consumption factor = 18.5 bhp-hr/gal (Tabl e B-25)

• Locomotive project criteria allow for the Carl Moy er 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 F uel 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 emissi ons (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 to ns/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 ton s/yr = 0.335 tons/yr PM10

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reduc tions 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 Surplu s 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 Ca rl Moyer Program funding.

Example 3 – Idle-Limiting Device Installation (Clas s 3 Railroad) A Class 3 railroad wants to purchase and install an AESS ILD on one of its 1970 uncontrolled switch locomotives. Fuel receipts ind icate other switch locomotives with the same activity in the rail yard consume 25,000 g allons of fuel per year. The cost to purchase and install the AESS is $14,000. The proj ect 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 (Tabl e B-25)

• ILD emission reduction factor (Table B-19): 0.90

• Locomotive project criteria allow for the Carl Moy er Program to pay for up to 50 percent of ILD cost

Emission Reduction Calculations:

Formula C-6: Estimated Annual Emissions based on F uel 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 emissi ons (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 ton s/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 ton s/yr = 0.022 tons/yr PM10

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reduc tions 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 Surplu s 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 proje cts.

Example 1 – Tow Boat Auxiliary Engine Repower A tow boat owner in San Diego wishes to repower a 1 25 horsepower 1987 auxiliary engine with a new Tier 2 200 horsepower marine engi ne. The vessel owner has documented that the vessel auxiliary engine operate s for 900 hours annually in California waters. The cost to repower the existin g engine is $50,000. Since the vessel is subject to ARB’s Harbor Craft Diesel Engine Regu lation, 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 co mpletion and the rule implementation deadline). Emission reductions are calculated as f ollows:

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 e ngine

• 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 H ours of Operation (tons/yr) 1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions (10.23 g/bhp-hr * 900 hr/yr * 125 hp * 0.43)(ton/90 7,200 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/90 7,200 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 b y 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 t ons/yr= 0.011 tons/yr PM10

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Redu ctions 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 Surplu s 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 Car l Moyer Program funding.

Example 2 – Fishing Vessel Propulsion Engine Repowe r (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 documente d that the vessel propulsion engine operates 1,200 hours per year in California waters. The cost to purchase andE-35 EX CALCS – MARINE

install a new engine is $51,300. The applicant wil l 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 p roject criteria): 0.80

Reduced-Emission Technology Information:

• Reduced technology (application): Tier 2 marine e ngine

• 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 p roject 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 F uel 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 * 0.8 0)(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 * 0.8 0)(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 * 0.8 0)(ton/907,200 g) = 0.009 ton/yr PM10E-36 EX CALCS – MARINE

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions b y 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 t ons/yr = 0.024 tons/yr PM10

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Redu ctions 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 Emissio n 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 Car l Moyer Program funding.

Example 3 – Passenger Terminal Shore Power The Port of Los Angeles wants to install shore powe r 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 Sho re Power Regulation in 2014 by ensuring at least 50 percent of vessels use shore p ower when at berth. The port has contracts with three cruise ships committing them t o use the shore power at the terminal for ten visits each per year, and for eight hours p er 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 N Ox, 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 yearE-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 k W *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 k W *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 k W *0.9)(ton/907,200 g)

= 0.429 ton/yr PM10

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Redu ctions 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 Emissio n 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 T oxics Control Measure, and must be replaced with an engine meeting Tier 3 emission sta ndards by 12/31/10. The project must use a 2 year project life to ensure emission r eductions surplus to the compliance

date.

Baseline Technology Information:

• Baseline technology (application): 1977 MY (unco ntrolled)

• 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 H ours of Operation (tons/yr) 1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions (11.16 g/bhp-hr * 182 hp * 0.65 * 3,000 hrs)(ton/90 7,200 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/90 7,200 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/90 7,200 g) = 0.044 tons/yr PM10E-39 EX CALCS – AG SOURCES

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions b y Pollutant (tons/yr) for Repowers and New Purchases

• NOx emission benefits = 4.37 tons/yr – 0.92 ton s/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 ton s/yr = 0.101 tons/yr PM10

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Redu ctions 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 Surplu s 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 tha n $16,000 per weighted ton of emissions reduced. This project qualifies for up t o $17,272 of grant funds requested.

Example 2 – Repower (diesel engine to electric moto r) An applicant wants to replace an existing 1991 120 hp diesel stationary irrigation pump engine with a new 100 hp (75 kW) electric motor. T he existing engine is subject to the Stationary Diesel In-Use Agricultural Engines Air T oxics Control Measure, and must be replaced with an engine meeting Tier 3 emission sta ndards by 12/31/10. The project may use up to a 10 year project life for this proje ct; 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 “Stati onary Diesel In-Use Agricultural Engine Air Toxic Control Measure Carl Moyer Program Implem entation Chart” ( http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/guidelines/suppl emental-docs.htm ):

o Transaction 1: two years of emission reductions a re 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 moto r.

Baseline Technology Information- Transaction 1:

• Engine (application): 1991 MY (uncontrolled)

• Engine horsepower (application): 120 hpE-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 equipme nt (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/bh p-hr PM10

Emission Reduction Calculations : Formula C-4: Estimated Annual Emissions Based on H ours of Operation 1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions- Transa ction 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- Transa ction 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 ton s/yr NOx 4. Annual ROG baseline technology emissions- Transa ction 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- Transa ction 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 ton s/yr ROG 7. Annual PM10 baseline technology emissions- Trans action 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- Trans action 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 t ons/yr PME-41 EX CALCS – AG SOURCES

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions b y 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 Redu ctions

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 surp lus emission reductions from the two

transactions is used to determine the total annual weighted surplus emission reductions for project cost effectiveness. This fraction is t he 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 Surplu s 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 r etire a 1980 light-duty vehicle in 2008. Added district costs including vehicle identificati on and testing are $125 for a total cost of $875.

Emissions Reduction: Table D-1 lists the default emission reductions o ver the 3 year project life in pounds for 2008.

• ROG Total = 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 Repl acement Vehicle

ASM test results completed in 2008 on a 1986 high e mitting passenger vehicle weighing 3,400 lbs are listed below. Total district costs f or vehicle retiring was $1,500 including costs for identifying the vehicle and stranded cost s. The replacement vehicle model year was unknown. The district program did not incl ude PM measuring protocols but included a BAR-approved protocol for measuring evap orative emissions. Default PM

emission reductions were obtained from Table D-1. Evaporative emission reductions

include both the default emission reductions from T able D-1 and extra emissionE-43 EX CALCS – LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES

reductions as the vehicle failed the evaporative em issions test. The vehicle miles traveled were taken from Table D-9 and listed as 8, 552 mi/yr.

Pollutant HC Exh NOx CO

ASM5015 1750 771 0.200

ASM2525 1600 660 0.100

Using Table D-5 conversion equations, the retired v ehicle’s year 1 emission rates were:

HC Exh 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 fol lows.

5015 2525
HC Exh CO NOx HC Exh 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 8944 44.5

Using the equation: Std. = A + B/(weight), the ASM cut points for a 3,400 lb vehicle

were:

5015 2525
HC Exh CO NOx HC Exh CO NOx

129.64 0.8081 1113.07 104.74 0.6081 943.07

Using Table D-5 conversion equations, the retired v ehicle’s years 2&3 emission rates

were:

HC Exh 2.0899 g/mi NOx 2.0633 g/mi

The fleet average emission rates for an unknown rep lacement vehicle in 2008 were

taken from Table D-11 and are:

HC Exh 0.1417 g/mi NOx 0.3430 g/mi

Emission Reductions: HC Exh = (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: HC Exh = (2.0899 – 0.1417) x 8,552)/454 = 36.70 lb/yr (Yr 2 & 3) NOx = (2.0633 – 0.3430) x 8,552)/45 4 = 32.41 lb/yr

Emission Reductions: HC Evap = 44.7lb/3 yr + 3*14.5/yr = 88.2 lb/3 yr (Yr 1, 2, & 3) PM = 1.33 lb/3 YrE-44 EX CALCS – LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES

Total Reductions: HC Exh = 112.28 + 2 x 36.70 = 185.68 lb/3yr

HC Evap = 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 Replacem ent Vehicle

In 2009, a 1984 high emitting vehicle weighing 3,40 0 lbs was retired and replaced by a 2004 ARB-certified low emission vehicle (LEV), as s pecified in the district contract with

the owner. The results of the retired vehicle’s AS M test are noted below. The district’s VAVR program did not include protocols for measurin g PM but included a BARapproved protocol for measuring evaporative emissio ns. Default PM emission reductions were obtained from Table D-2. Evaporati ve 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 th e district to be 10,042 mi/yr. The total cost to the district was $2,650 which include d an extra $1,000 incentive toward the purchase of the LEV.

Pollutant HC Exh NOx CO

ASM5015 1750 771 0.200

ASM2525 1600 660 0.100

Using Table D-5 conversion equations, the retired v ehicle’s year 1 emission rates were:

HC Exh 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 t o be:

5015 2525
HC Exh CO NOx HC Exh 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 8944 44.5E-45 EX CALCS – LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES

Using the equation Std. = A + B/(weight), ASM cut p oints for a 3,400 lb vehicle were:

5015 2525
HC Exh CO NOx HC Exh CO NOx

129.64 0.8081 1113.07 104.74 0.6081 943.07

Using Table D-5 conversion equations, the retired v ehicle’s years 2&3 emission rates

were:

HC Exh 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:

HC Exh 0.0448 g/mi NOx 0.1678 g/mi

Emission Reductions: HC Exh = (6.1023 – 0.0448) x 10,042)/454 = 133.99 lb/y r (Yr 1) NOx = (2.1303 – 0.1678) x 10,042)/454 = 43.41 lb/yr

Emission Reductions: HC Exh = (2.0899 – 0.0448) x 10,042)/454 = 45.24 lb/yr (Yr 2 & 3) NOx = (2.0633 – 0.1678) x 10,042)/4 54 = 41.93lb/yr

Emission Reductions: PM = 1.36 lb/3 Yr (Yr 1, 2, & 3) HC Evap = 52.5 lb/3 yr + 3*14.5/yr = 96.0 lb/3 yr

Total Reductions: HC Exh = 133.99 + 2 x 45.24 = 224.47 lb/3yr

HC Evap = 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 tonE-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 complian ce 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 vehic le included remote sensing for vehicle identification and a systematic diagnosis p rior to repair. As this program did not include protocols for measuring PM or evaporative e missions, PM reductions were not quantified. Default evaporative emission reduction s 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 methodo logy used in Example 2. The pre and post ASM test results and standard were:

ASM 2525 ASM 5015

HC Exh NOx CO HC Exh 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: HC Exh = (14.5658 – 0.5527) x 10,128/454 = 312.61 lb/yr

HC Evap = 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 reducedE-47 EX CALCS – LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES

Example 5 High Emitter VAVR Projects – Two Speed Id le

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 T SI 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 em ission reductions are assumed. No evaporative emission testing is done, so default evaporative emission reductions are assumed. The following TSI test results were obtai ned after dilution corrected according to the BAR protocol. TSI pass/fail stand ards 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 vehi cle 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 rea dings to an FTP HC exh emission rate. The predicted FTP HC Exh emission rate is 24.7013 g/mi. Note: Using an ex el spreadsheet to calculate the AGE term, vehicles “bi rth” 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 emissi on rate is derived from Table D-8’s

TSI standard HC Exh emission rate, calculated using Table D-6 equation s, and is 3.4275 g/mi.

The fleet average HC emission rate for an unknown r eplacement vehicle in 2008 is

taken from Table D-11 and is:

HC Exh = 0.1417 g/mi

Emission Reductions: HC Exh = (24.7013 – 0.1417) x 6,632/454 = 358.76 lb/yr (Yr 1)

Emission Reductions: HC Exh = (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) HC Evap = 58.9 lb/3 yr

Total Reductions: HC Exh = 358.76 + 2 x 48.00 = 454.76 lb/3yr

HC Evap = 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/yrE-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 Idl e

Using the information in Example 5, evaporative emi ssions and emission control repairs brought the vehicle into compliance with both the l ow-pressure evaporative test and the TSI emission standard for hydrocarbon. The total c ost to the district for the repair of the vehicle was $637. Default PM and evaporative emis sion reductions are assumed. The pre-repair TSI test result converted to an emission rate is:

HC Exh = 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:

HC Exh = 3.4275 g/mi

Emission Reductions: HC Exh = (24.7013 – 3.4275) x 6,632/454 = 310.77 lb/yr

HC Evap = 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 ORDERSF-1 CERTIFICATION AND VERIFICATION APPENDIX F

DESCRIPTION OF CERTIFICATION AND VERIFICATION

I. New Engine Certification

The Air Resources Board (ARB) certifies engines des tined 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 Fig ure F-1. The EO includes general information about the certified engine such as engi ne family, displacement, horsepower rating(s), intended service class, and emission con trol systems. It also shows the applicable certification emission standards as well as the average emission levels measured during the actual certification test proce dure. For the purpose of the Carl Moyer Program, the certification emission standards are used to calculate emission

reductions. The certification emission standards a re 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 hydroc arbon (NOx+NMHC) emission standard of 1.8 g/bhp-hr, a carbon monoxide (CO) em ission 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 th e rows labeled “AVERAGE STD” and/or “FEL”, the engine is certified for participa tion in an averaging, banking, and trading (AB&T) program. AB&T engines (i.e., all FE L-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 emissio n reductions achieved by a control strategy are both real and durable and that product ion units in the field are achieving

emission reductions which are consistent with their verification.

The ARB has a verification procedure for in-use str ategies to control emissions from diesel engines (diesel emission control systems or DECS). The verification procedure requires a minimum PM reduction of at least 25 perc ent. 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 e ngines are verified based on a tiered

verification classification shown in Table F-1 belo w. 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 verifi ed 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 EnginesF-3 CERTIFICATION AND VERIFICATION Table F-1

Verification Levels for Diesel Emission Control Str ategies

Pollutant Emission Reduction Classification

< 25% Not Verified

> 25% Level 1

> 50% Level 2 PM

> 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 procedur e for large spark-ignited engines (LSI). This procedure can be used to verify retrofit syste ms 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 c apped at 75% or 3.0 g/bhp-hr regardless of actual e mission

test values

(4) Verified in 5% increments, applicable to LSI Level 3a classifications only

(5) Applicable to emission-controlled engines onlyF-4 CERTIFICATION AND VERIFICATION Figure F-2 Example of an EO for a Retrofit Emission Control Sy stemF-5 CERTIFICATION AND VERIFICATIONF-6 CERTIFICATION AND VERIFICATIONF-7 CERTIFICATION AND VERIFICATION Figure F-3 Example of U.S. EPA Certificate of Conformity for a Locomotive Engine Remanufacture KitF-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 DEVICESG-1 EMU REQUIREMENTS APPENDIX G

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTRONIC MONITORING DEVI CES

This appendix provides the minimum required specifi cations 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 ins tallation of an EMU system with each new engine for other source categories.

The full purchase of the EMU (including warranty, d ata retrieval, compilation, and transmission to the district, and the installation cost) is eligible for Carl Moyer Program funding, and may be included when calculati ng project cost-effectiveness. The following are minimum spec ifications for the districts to follow. Districts may allow projects with EMUs ins talled that meet these minimum specifications to complete all reporting through th e 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 b e 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 eith er the operated hours or the mileage traveled, or both, of the vehicle/equipment

.

All data must be recorded while the vehicle/equipme nt is in operation. The vehicle/equipment position must be updated upon sta rtup 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 transmi tted directly to the district in realtime. The EMU must include either the capability t o automatically transmit the stored data from the vehicle/equipment, or enable d ownloading of the stored data through a port in the device. If the storage metho d is used, the EMU must have the capacity to store as much data as is necessary to ensure that data is notG-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 prot ected, and require a password distributed only to the district and ARB.

What data must be recorded?

The EMU must store the time, date, position, elapse d time since last recorded position, elapsed operated hours since last recorde d position, and accrued mileage since last recorded position (required for fleet modernization projects). The positional data stored and transmitted must eit her be accompanied by software which will code raw positional data using the following codes, or directly transmit the positional data pre-coded into these z ones;

1. Whether or not the position is in the district b oundary (including district coastal boundary for marine projects). 2. Whether or not the position is in California (in cluding its coastal waters). 3. Whether or not the position is outside Californi a (including its coastal waters). 4. Other zones within the district, or other distri cts in California, may be specified at the discretion of the district.

How often must the collected data be provided to th e district?

Periodically (preferably on a monthly basis, but at least quarterly for fleet modernization projects and annually for all other p rojects), the data must be

downloaded and transmitted to the district in an el ectronic 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 c oded zone described above. All data collected must be reported regardl ess of whether hours or

miles or both were recorded.

− Date and time that any failure or malfunction of t he EMU occurred.

− Time periods, if any, that the EMU was not operati onal.

− Fuel consumption. This is optional, and is not re quired to be monitored by the EMU. However, liquefied natural gas-diesel and other dual fuel locomotive projects, marine projects, and other fue l 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 th e district?

Data collected must be submitted to the district fo r 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 t o 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 expect ed 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 repla cement warranty for 5 years. If the project life is less than five years, the wa rranty may equal the project life. It the project life is longer than 5 years the contrac t may also contain an option for the participant to extend the warranty beyond the m inimum amount (with district approval). This extended warranty may be included when calculating cost-effectiveness for Carl Moyer funding eligibili ty. The reporting must continue to be completed through the electronic system for t he extent of the warranty.

What data must be provided in the event the EMU fai ls?

The EMU must accurately track vehicle/equipment pos ition and activity during the operation of the vehicle/equipment. If the uni t fails to record as described above for a period exceeding 5 percent of the annua l reporting period the participant is required to submit as part of the an nual 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 as sure that participants install, operate and report data using the EMU in accordance with th ese specifications and the requirements contained in the revised Carl Moyer Gu idelines. On a case-by-case basis, and with ARB’s approval, for pr ojects in which an EMU meeting these specifications is either not availabl e 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 e xemption, 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 inst alled on the vehicle/equipment?

On a case-by-case basis, for projects in which an E MU 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 res ponsibility of the participant to provide information on the specifications of the EM U system and to maintain the EMU system in working condition for the lesser of f ive years or the project life.

## APPENDIX H

BEST PRACTICES

FOR PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIONH-1 BEST PRACTICES APPENDIX H

BEST PRACTICES FOR PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION

I. Background

This Appendix complements ‘Chapter 2 – Program Admi nistration’ by describing voluntary Best Practices that go beyond minimum Car l Moyer Program administrative requirements, and which districts ca n use to run more effective programs. While ARB encourages districts to includ e these Best Practices in their local programs where possible, not all Best P ractices are equally applicable to all air districts. For example, consolidated po st-inspections may not be feasible for a rural district with few projects.

Some of following Best Practices are based on Depar tment of Finance and Bureau of State Audits recommendations provided to ARB as part of their reviews of the Carl Moyer Program. Some were requi rements that have been moved from the 2005 Guidelines administration chapt er to simplify district administration of the Program and provide greater o perational 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 t he end notes may include information on districts that implement the associa ted 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 Solicita tion

Best Practice #1 Districts that have sufficient demand, may request Carl Moyer Program funds in

excess of the tentative allocation for their distri ct, as long as the district has

sufficient district funds available to match the St ate 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 dis tricts requesting an excess amount are in a position to accept additional funds

. 1

Best Practice #2 The ARB encourages districts to have the district B oard 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. 2H-2 BEST PRACTICES

III. Reporting to ARB

Best Practice #3 Districts that commit and expend their Carl Moyer P rogram 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 an nual/final report before the due date (August 31). In addition, if a district h as completed the commitment (with fully executed contracts) and expenditure of Carl Moyer Program funds by June 30 of the first year, the district may complet e 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 ar e left to each district. The ARB encourages districts to maintain a segregated d epository account for Carl Moyer Program funds. Such an account will draw int erest on only the Carl Moyer funds without the need for district staff to comput e earned interest. 4

V. District Outreach

Best Practice #5 While districts are required to market the Carl Moy er Program to all sectors in their community, the methods for doing so are left to each district. The ARB strongly encourages districts to vigorously outreac h to all sectors of the community. Below are brief descriptions of the typ es of practices that can be included as part of a district’s outreach activitie s. 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 a gencies (e.g. public works departments, sanitation departments, school distric ts), 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 loca l farm bureau, and in the trade journals of organizations representing zero-e mission technologies

such as the Clean Cities Coalition and WestStart-CA LSTART.H-3 BEST PRACTICES C. Notification through District Mediums

If the district has a website, the Carl Moyer Progr am solicitation can be advertised on the district’s website. Similarly, i f the district has a newsletter, the Carl Moyer Program solicitation can be advertised in the district’s newsletter. And, if the district mainta ins a 24-hour message line,

the solicitation can also be advertised there 6

D. Prior Participants

Districts can solicit additional projects from prio r participants with successfully implemented projects, especially durin g monitoring visits.

E. Small Business

Districts can expand the participation of small bus iness by advertising to targeted industries, offering workshops to the engi ne dealer network, and offering to assist small business owners with the c ompletion of the application. For example, many urban districts hav e found the construction industry to be a viable source of proj ects, 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 us e permits.

G. Public Presentations

Districts can distribute a brochure or other inform ational hand-out at events and industry workshops attended.

H. Advertising

Districts can require their grantees to place a log o 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 outr each to all sectors of their community to increase and improve the applicant poo l, districts are also encouraged to develop and implement techniques to m easure the effectiveness

of their outreach activities. 6H-4 BEST PRACTICES A. Districts can identify business sectors from whi ch they will obtain applications for more cost-effective projects, eval uate whether their current outreach efforts are reaching those sectors , implement outreach activities to target sectors not being rea ched, and assess

whether their outreach efforts enable them to selec t projects with

more cost effective emission reductions.

B. Districts may conduct incentive program surveys to identify how applicants/participants heard about the incentive p rograms.

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 Ca rl Moyer Program and decide which (if either) of these practices best suits the ir district.

Best Practice #7 For consistency throughout the Carl Moyer Program, to assist applicants statewide and to limit confusion, ARB encourages di stricts to use the same application form for the Carl Moyer Program. The a pplication is available on the Carl Moyer Program web site at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/admin_forms/admi n.htm

. 7

Best Practice #8 When districts operate more then one incentive prog ram, 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 track ing applications, proposed projects and the status of funded projects. The fo llowing best practices (numbers 9, 10 and 11) can be used separately or all in conj unction with each other.

Best Practice #9 Districts may use a contract signature tracking she et which follows the contract from initiation through signing and filing. The tr acking sheet may list each staff person (i.e. the APCO, the Administrative Analyst, the Contracts and Records Management Coordinator and the Carl Moyer Program M anager) who must review and approve the contract, and includes space s for initials and date of

review. 9H-5 BEST PRACTICES

Best Practice #10 The ARB encourages districts to maintain a hard cop y or electronic contract log

of all district contracts that tracks the status an d 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 documen tation 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 t hese folders to verify that the folder is complete. Such a checklist makes it easi er for staff (current and new) and auditors to know project status and where docum entation may be found. 11

VIII. Environmental Justice Environmental Justice refers to the requirement (HS C section 43023.5) that districts, with a population of over one million re sidents, distribute Program funds in a manner that directly benefits low-income commu nities and/or communities of color that are disproportionately impacted by air p ollution. The Program requirements for environmental justice may be found at section 28(m) of the administration chapter of these Guidelines. Distri cts may enhance environmental justice implementation using best practices 12 thro ugh 16.

Best Practice #12 The ARB encourages districts with a population of l ess 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 reasse ss their environmental justice policies and procedures, particularly their definit ion 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 parti culate 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 c ompetitively rate and rank their applications, districts may include a measure of th e cost per ton of emission reductions when selecting projects in disproportion ately impacted communities. 15H-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 disprop ortionately-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 opportu nity for engine owners that operate in more than one district, the ARB encourag es 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 Progra m applications against their list of companies that have a notice of violation with t he 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-rep resented 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 bus iness might be defined as in the following examples:

• An owner-operated business for the on-road and mar ine categories

• The same as in the applicable fleet rule (if any). For example, in

ARB’s Off-Road Fleet Rule a small business is defin ed as one with total fleet horsepower less than or equal to 2500 h orsepower.

• A Class 3 railroad for the locomotive category.

Best Practice #20

To assist districts in their determination of credi ble and/or good faith applications, districts may refer to the Carl Moyer Program Statu s Report which contains category specific averages for costs, usage, etc. It can be found at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/status/status.ht m. Districts may also refer to their own or neighboring districts’ averages fro m past projects. 20H-7 BEST PRACTICES

X. Commitment of Funds to Projects

Best Practice #21 ARB strongly encourages districts to commit funds t o projects and fully execute contracts as soon as possible, prior to the June 30 th 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/vehi cle/piece of equipment, districts may use one contract per project owner. 22

Best Practice #23 To more easily track the progress of Carl Moyer fun ded 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 mi lestones 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-y ear 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 au thority from their governing boards to approve Carl Moyer Program projects and e xecute contracts. As an alternative for district governing boards that pref er to maintain approval authority over higher-risk projects, districts are encouraged to obtain delegated authority to approve more routine projects or projects costing l ess then a certain amount. This allows districts to commit funds to projects e xpeditiously, providing more time for project implementation. 25

Best Practice #26 For districts where the governing board desires ret aining approval of contracts, district staff may invite the engine owners to atte nd 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 exp edites the execution process and provides a positive forum for the governing boa rd. 26

Best Practice #27 Districts can require engine owners to attend an in formational training prior to signing their contracts. This ensures the engine o wners understand theirH-8 BEST PRACTICES

contractual obligations and may be used as an effic ient 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 contra ct if it is not executed by the engine owner in a specified time frame (e. g. 30 da ys). 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 effi cient and effective, districts may conduct consolidated inspections whenever pract icable. For example, a district may perform multiple inspections at the sa me 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 metho ds 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 oi l galley. Alternatively, take off the oil pan and break the h ole 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 sha ft journal sufficient to destroy the crank bearing and mount. To prevent the reuse of the engine heads, using the same torch, cu t a line to a depth of 1⁄4 to 1⁄2 inch around the entire accessible m ating 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 report ing requirements, districts may withhold payments of a small, set proportion (f ive or ten percent) of the contract amount until the project owner satisfactor ily submits all required progress and annual reports. 33

Best Practice #34 To minimize the information required from engine ow ners and make the format for annual reporting simple and convenient, distric ts 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 timetable s for reporting part of their

contracts. 34

XIV. District Responses to Non Performing Projects The administrative chapter requires districts to wo rk with nonperforming grantees to ensure Program requirements are met and emission reductions are achieved. The chapter also requires districts to make all rea sonable 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 agreem ent and obtaining the

emission reductions. 35 Please note that each best practice is based on p articular

conditions.

A. If an applicant sells an engine or vehicle durin g the project completion term, the district can execute a new (no vation) agreement with the new owner. The agreement should incorporate the original agreement (with a copy), so the new ow ner is fully informed and the State’s interest is protected. A sample novation agreement is posted on the ARB Carl Moyer Program w ebsite at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer

....

B. If an applicant’s usage is below the amount list ed in the application/contract, the district can extend the t erm of the contract to capture the required usage. This practice may b e used only ifH-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 se cure the emission reductions through the means listed in best practice # 35 (abo ve), section 36(b) of the administration chapter of these Guidelines requires districts to make all reasonable efforts to recoup the funds. In doing s o, the ARB strongly encourages districts to follow a progressive course of action, devised in consultation with their legal counsel. Districts s hould document the course of action and results in the project file. A progress ive course of action may include, but is not limited to, the following steps: 36

A. Program staff attempts to negotiate an appropria te resolution with the engine owner.

B. Legal counsel writes the engine owner a letter d emanding repayment of the funds or some other suitable resol ution.

C. The district takes legal action against the engi ne owner for noncompliance, especially if fraud or malfeasance i s involved. If a district plans to take legal action against an engi ne owner, the

district should inform ARB. This information is es pecially 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 annuall y 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 f unds

B. Efforts and results of outreach to potential env ironmental 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’

fundsH-11 BEST PRACTICES F. District monitoring and auditing efforts and res ults, including any audits completed by independent third parties

G. The status of emissions reductions by projects i n the implementation phase of their contracts, including reasons for and solutions to shortfalls for projects that do not pe rform 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 m odel forms and formats that other districts may want to use. These forms and f ormats have been made electronically available on the Carl Moyer Program webpage at http://arb.ca.gov/

. These forms and formats include, but are not limite d 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 hav e not been posted.

1 Recommendation from the Administration Chapter of the 2005 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines

2 Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management Dis trict practice

3 Recommendation from the Administration Chapter of the 2005 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines

4 Butte County Air Quality Management District and Gl enn County Air Quality Management District practice

5 Department of Finance audit recommendation and Hea lth 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 & solicit ation 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 Pollutio n Control District practice & outreach, training and technical assistance to construction industry S acramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District practice; 5f-common practice am ong districts; 5g-San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District practice; and, 5-h- Sacr amento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District and Ventura County Air Pollution Control D istrict (for boats) practiceH-12 BEST PRACTICES 6 Bureau of State Audits audit recommendation; 6A- B ureau of State Audits audit recommendation; and, 6B- Sacramento Metropolitan Ai r 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 Di strict practice

10 Butte County Air Quality Management District and S an Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District practices

11 Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management Dis trict 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 So uth Coast Air Quality Management District practice

14 Bureau of State Audits audit recommendation and Ba y Area Air Quality Management District and South Coast Air Quality Management District pra ctice

15 Bureau of State Audits audit recommendation and So uth Coast Air Quality Management District practice

16 Bureau of State Audits audit recommendation and Ba y Area Air Quality Management District practice

17 Bureau of State Audits audit recommendation

18 Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management Dis trict practice

19 Recommendation from the Administration Chapter of the 2005 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines

20 San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control D istrict practice

21 South Coast Air Quality Management District practi ce and Bureau of State Audits audit

recommendation

22 Bureau of State Audits audit recommendation

23 Bureau of State Audits audit recommendation and Ba y Area Air Quality Management District practice

24 Bureau of State Audits audit recommendation and Ba y Area Air Quality Management District practice

25 Bureau of State Audits audit recommendation

26 Ventura County Air Pollution Control District prac tice

27 South Coast Air Quality Management District practi ce

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 Poll ution Control District practice

32 South Coast Air Quality Management District and Ve ntura County Air Pollution Control District practice

33 South Coast Air Quality Management District practi ce

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 thou gh 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 C hapter of the 2008 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines 36b- San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Contr ol 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 over hauled and the grantee agreed to use the engine to replace an old engine in a different vess el. Even though the district had good results with this negotiated settlement, the district has s ince strengthened their contract language to provide more contractual rather than negotiated res olutions.

37 Recommendation from the Administration Chapter of the 2005 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines