THE CARL MOYER PROGRAM 

GUIDELINES 

Approved Revision 2005

 

 

 Release Date: January 6, 2006

 

 

 

California Environmental Protection Agency

Air Resources Board
In memory of Dr. Carl Moyer 

(1937 - 1997) 

This program is named in honor of the late 

Dr. Carl Moyer, whose extraordinary 

dedication, hard work, vision and leadership 

made this program possible. He created 

and masterminded this program, in a noble 

effort to unite business and government in 

the name of public interest to improve 

California’s air quality. 

This update was a collaborative effort and has benefited from the valuable contributions 

of the participating air districts. The ARB appreciates the considerable efforts of district 

staff both in the development of these guidelines as well as the day-to-day 

implementation of the Carl Moyer Program. 

Disclaimer 

Publication does not signify that the content reflects the views and policies of the 

California Air Resources Board, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial 

products constitute endorsement or recommendation for their use.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Air pollution is a serious problem for California. Over 90 percent of Californians live in 

areas that have unhealthful air at times. Air pollution has been tied to serious health 

impacts. Studies have linked particulate pollution to premature death in the elderly and 

other vulnerable populations. Research also shows that children exposed to unhealthful 

levels of ozone, or smog, suffer decreased lung function growth and increased asthma. 

The California Air Resources Board (ARB), together with the 35 local air districts, is 

responsible for developing and implementing strategies to reduce air pollution and 

achieve health-based ambient air quality standards. Emission standards on new 

vehicles and engines help to reduce air pollution as older sources are retired and 

replaced by newer, cleaner vehicles and engines. However, new emission standards 

alone will not solve California’s air pollution problem. Although older sources of 

pollution contribute a disproportionate share of emissions, there are technologies 

available to reduce these emissions. Devices are available that can reduce emissions 

from in-use vehicles and equipment by up to 85 percent, and new, low-emission 

engines equipment and vehicles are available that can reduce emissions by 25 to 

85 percent. However, reducing emissions from these in-use sources can be difficult. 

The Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program 

(Carl Moyer Program) has proven to be an effective, cost-effective, and popular means 

of reducing emissions from existing pollution sources. 

The Carl Moyer Program is a grant program, implemented by a partnership of ARB and 

local air districts, that funds the incremental cost of cleaner-than-required engines, 

equipment, and other sources of pollution. Carl Moyer Program grants provide early or 

extra emission reductions. It can also accelerate the development and 

commercialization of advanced emission control technology, accelerate the turnover 

rate of old equipment to newer and cleaner equipment, and help reduce costs to the 

regulated community. Projects to reduce emissions from on-road heavy-duty vehicles, 

idle reduction technologies, off-road diesel equipment, transportation refrigeration units, 

off-road spark-ignition equipment, marine vessels, locomotives, and agricultural engines 

have been eligible for grants. Legislative changes enacted in 2004 made projects to 

reduce emissions from other agricultural sources, light-duty vehicles, and on-road fleet 

modernization eligible for Carl Moyer Program funding as well. These legislative 

changes also created a new incentive program aimed at previously unregulated 

agricultural sources, which ARB staff is proposing to call the 

Agricultural Assistance Program. 

In its first six years, the Carl Moyer Program has provided $154 million in funding to 

clean up almost 7,000 engines statewide. The Carl Moyer Program has reduced about 

18 tons per day of nitrogen oxides (NOx, a smog-forming pollutant), and 1 ton per day 

of diesel particulate matter. The emission reductions funded through 

Carl Moyer Program grants are very cost-effective, about $3,000 per ton of NOx, 

comparing favorably to the cost-effectiveness of other air pollution regulations. The 
recent legislative changes expand the focus of the Carl Moyer Program to additional 

pollutants – reactive organic gases (which combine with NOx in the atmosphere to form 

smog) and particulate matter (which includes toxic diesel particulate matter). This 

change will allow the Carl Moyer Program to more comprehensively address all of 

California’s air pollution challenges, including the air toxic risk associated with emissions 

from diesel engines. 

The legislative changes enacted in 2004 also provided increased and continued funding 

for the Carl Moyer Program and other incentive programs – up to $141 million a year 

statewide through 2015. Emission reductions achieved through the 

Carl Moyer Program are an important component of the California State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) – the State’s federally-required road map to reducing emissions to meet the 

health-based ambient air quality standards. All emission reductions funded with 

Carl Moyer Program funds must be real, surplus, quantifiable, and enforceable in order 

to be credited toward California’s obligations in the SIP. These Guidelines describe 

project criteria to ensure that projects funded by the Carl Moyer Program achieve 

SIP-creditable emission reductions. The Guidelines also formalize the administrative 

requirements for both ARB and the local districts that administer the 

Carl Moyer Program. Funding criteria for the Agricultural Assistance Program are 

based on the Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, but the emission reductions under the 

Agricultural Assistance Program are not required to be surplus to regulatory 

requirements. 

It is important to note that regulations will continue to be the primary means to reduce 

emissions to improve air quality. The incentives provided by the Carl Moyer Program, 

and other incentive programs, are intended to complement, not replace, these 

regulatory requirements. Although incentive programs can help reduce costs to the 

regulated community, there are simply not enough funds to purchase all the emission 

reductions needed to achieve healthful air. 

The Carl Moyer Program has proven to be immensely popular in its first seven years, 

with the demand for grants routinely outstripping available funds. The inclusion of 

additional project categories combined with increased funding will allow the 

Carl Moyer Program to more fully realize the potential of incentive programs to improve 

air quality in California. In order to assure that the Carl Moyer Program remains 

responsive to the challenges facing air pollution control today, ARB staff is committed to 

improve all aspects of the Program from the technical data to the administrative 

requirements to customer service. Toward that end, ARB staff will update the technical 

information, as needed; encourage transparency in Program administration; and 

continue to explore ways to increase Program accessibility, especially to small 

businesses. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

PART I – PROGRAM OVERVIEW AND ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS 

Chapter One – Program Overview ................................................................................ I-1 

Chapter Two – Administration of the Carl Moyer Program........................................... II-1 

PART II – PROJECT CRITERIA 

Chapter One – Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles ............................................................. I-1 

Chapter Two – Heavy-Duty On-Road Fleet Modernization .......................................... II-1 

Chapter Three – Reducing Idling Emissions from Heavy-Duty Vehicles..................... III-1 

Chapter Four – Transport Refrigeration Units ............................................................IV-1 

Chapter Five – Compression-Ignition Off-Road Equipment .........................................V-1 

Chapter Six – Large Spark-Ignition Off-Road Equipment............................................VI-1 

Chapter Seven – Airport Ground Support Equipment ................................................VII-1 

Chapter Eight – Locomotives ....................................................................................VIII-1 

Chapter Nine – Marine Vessels...................................................................................IX-1 

Chapter Ten – Agricultural Sources .............................................................................X-1 

Chapter Eleven – Light-Duty Vehicles.........................................................................XI-1 

Chapter Twelve – Zero-Emission Technologies.........................................................XII-1 

PART III – AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 

PART IV – APPENDICES 

Appendix A – Acronyms

Appendix B – Tables for Emission Reduction and Cost-Effectiveness Calculations 

Appendix C – Cost-Effectiveness Calculation Methodology 

Appendix D – Example Calculations 

Appendix E – Description of Certification and Verification Executive Orders 

Appendix F – Retrofit Emission Control Strategies 
THE CARL MOYER PROGRAM GUIDELINES 

PART I of IV 

PROGRAM OVERVIEW AND ADMINISTRATIVE 

REQUIREMENTS 

Approved Revision 2005 

November 17, 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Chapter One – Program Overview ................................................................................ I-1 

Chapter Two – Administration of the Carl Moyer Program........................................... II-1 
I-1 PROGRAM OVERVIEW 

Chapter One 

PROGRAM OVERVIEW 

The Carl Moyer Program Air Quality Standards Attainment Program 

(“Carl Moyer Program”) enacted in Health and Safety Code (HSC) section 44275, et 

seq. is a grant program that funds the incremental cost of cleaner-than-required 

engines, equipment, and other sources of air pollution. Although air pollution 

regulations have significantly reduced emissions and improved air quality across the 

State, many areas of California continue to experience unhealthful air. The 

Carl Moyer Program complements California’s regulatory program by providing 

incentives to obtain early or extra emission reductions, especially from emission 

sources in environmental justice communities and areas disproportionately impacted by 

air pollution. 

This document describes approved revisions to the Carl Moyer Program Guidelines to 

respond to legislation enacted in 2005, and to update the program to reflect current 

technical information and regulatory requirements for vehicles, equipment, engines and 

other pollution sources in California. 

I. Background 

Since 1998, the Carl Moyer Program has provided grants to encourage the owners of 

heavy-duty diesel engines to go beyond regulatory requirements by retrofitting, 

repowering, or replacing their engines with newer and cleaner ones. With the clean-up 

of about 7,000 old, high-emission engines, resulting in about 18 tons per day of oxides 

of nitrogen (NOx) emission reductions throughout the State, the Carl Moyer Program is 

a successful and popular air pollution program. The Carl Moyer Program offers critical 

emission reductions that are needed to achieve health-based air quality standards and 

prevent the loss of federal transportation funds throughout California. Although the 

Program has evolved, it retains its primary objective of obtaining cost-effective and 

surplus emission reductions to be credited toward California’s legally-enforceable 

obligations in the State Implementation Plan (SIP) – California’s roadmap for attaining 

the health-based national ambient air quality standards. In addition, 

Carl Moyer Program grants accelerate the turnover rate of old engines to newer and 

cleaner engines; accelerate the development and commercialization of advanced, 

reduced-emission technology; and help reduce costs to the regulated community. 

On January 1, 2005, new legislation (AB 923, Firebaugh/Pavley) took effect, which 

expands the Carl Moyer Program to include additional pollutants, as well as additional 

sources of air pollution (HSC section 44275). The legislation requires the ARB to 

establish or update grant criteria (HSC section 44283) and guidelines for covered 

projects, as revised by the bill, by January 1, 2006. 
I-2 PROGRAM OVERVIEW 

The Carl Moyer Program has been successfully implemented through the cooperative 

efforts of the Air Resources Board (ARB or “Board”) and the local air pollution control 

and air quality management districts (“air districts” or “districts”). Each year, the ARB 

makes grant awards to air districts that apply for Carl Moyer Program funds to 

implement local programs. The air districts, following the Guidelines criteria approved 

by the Board, provide grants to public and private entities for the incremental cost of 

cleaner-than-required engines and/or equipment. In implementing the 

Carl Moyer Program, local districts enjoy considerable flexibility. For instance, districts 

may impose additional or more stringent eligibility requirements for projects in their 

districts. This flexibility allows air districts to tailor the use of Carl Moyer Program funds 

to meet local air quality objectives. 

Although the Carl Moyer Program is an important component of California’s clean air 

plan, it is important to note that there are simply not sufficient public funds to purchase 

the emission reductions needed to provide healthful air. The Carl Moyer Program is not 

an easy path to compliance with regulatory requirements, but the Program can provide 

financial incentives to those who are able to secure early or extra emission reductions. 

II. Legislative Changes 

Three key pieces of legislation enacted in 2004 and 2005 provided increased and 

continued funding, and expanded the Carl Moyer Program. These include 

Senate Bill 1107, Assembly Bill 923 (Firebaugh/Pavley), and Assembly Bill 1394 

(Levine). In addition, on September 6, 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger signed 

Senate Bill 467 (Lowenthal) which requires the ARB to revise the Carl Moyer Program 

Guidelines to include projects in which an applicant turns in off-road equipment powered 

by an internal combustion engines and replaces that equipment with new zero-emission 

technologies. This legislation will take effect on January 1, 2006. ARB staff will 

evaluate how to incorporate the requirements of this legislation into the 

Carl Moyer Program in 2006. 

A. Senate Bill 1107 (SB 1107) 

As part of the fiscal year 2004-2005 budget, SB 1107 adjusted the Smog Check fee 

while extending the newer-vehicle Smog Check exemption, securing about $7 million for 

consumer assistance in the Smog Check program and about $61 million in annual 

funding to be deposited in the Air Pollution Control Fund to fund the 

Carl Moyer Program “...to mitigate or remediate the harm caused by the type of motor 

vehicle on which the fee is imposed” (HSC section 44091.1). 

B. Assembly Bill 923 (AB 923) 

AB 923 provided two additional sources of funding for the Carl Moyer Program, and 

expanded the program to include new emission sources and new pollutants. 
I-3 PROGRAM OVERVIEW 

This legislation adjusted the tire fee that is assessed on purchasers of new tires from 

$1.00 per tire to $1.75 per tire starting on January 1, 2005. The tire fee is reduced to 

$1.50 per tire staring on January 1, 2007 (Public Resources Code section 42885). The 

adjustments to the tire fee will provide about $25 million for clean air programs like the 

Carl Moyer Program in fiscal year 2005-2006, decreasing to $16 million a year from 

2007 through 2015. 

AB 923 also provided air district governing boards with the authority to approve a 

$2 increase in motor vehicle registration fees (“MV Fees”). The adjustment to the motor 

vehicle registration fee provides up to $55 million directly to the local air districts for four 

specific incentive programs, including projects eligible for funding under the 

Carl Moyer Program, “...that the district determines remediate air pollution harms 

created by motor vehicles on which the surcharge is imposed.” The other three 

programs that may be funded with the $2 MV Fee are the purchase of new school 

buses under the Lower Emission School Bus Guidelines [ARB, 2004], light-duty 

accelerated vehicle retirement or repair programs [ARB, 2001], and a program targeted 

at previously unregulated agricultural sources – the “Agricultural Assistance Program.” 

As directed by AB 923, the funding criteria for the Agricultural Assistance Program are 

based on the Carl Moyer Program Guidelines and appear in Part III of this document. 

AB 923 expanded the Carl Moyer Program to include light-duty vehicle projects and 

agricultural sources of air pollution as defined in HSC section 39011.5(a). AB 923 also 

directed ARB to consider emission reductions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and 

particulate matter (PM10) emissions, as well as NOx, when evaluating eligible projects. 

The legislation specifically directs ARB to develop a weighted cost-effectiveness to 

evaluate projects that obtain NOx, ROG and PM10 emission reductions. 

 C. Assembly Bill 1394 (AB 1394) 

AB 1394 (Levine) directed the ARB to broaden the Carl Moyer Program to include 

heavy-duty fleet modernization projects that reduce NOx and/or PM10 emissions 

through the replacement of old trucks. New criteria are in these Guidelines so districts 

may select appropriate projects that would qualify for funding under the heavy-duty fleet 

modernization source category. 

III. Summary of Guideline Revisions 

A. Addition of ROG and PM10 

With the enactment of AB 923, the Carl Moyer Program has expanded from a 

NOx-focused incentive program to include projects that also reduce ROG and PM10. 

This change allows the Carl Moyer Program to more comprehensively address all of 

California’s air pollution challenges, including the air toxic risk associated with emissions 

from diesel engines. 
I-4 PROGRAM OVERVIEW 

Reactive organic gases combine in the atmosphere with NOx to form smog. Because 

different regions of the State require a different combination of ROG and NOx emission 

reductions to meet ambient air quality standards, the inclusion of ROG in the 

Carl Moyer Program will allow local regions to tailor the Carl Moyer Program to more 

closely meet the requirements of their local SIP. 

The addition of PM10 allows the Carl Moyer Program to respond to the major air quality 

challenge of diesel particulate matter. The ARB has identified particulate emissions 

from diesel-fueled engines as toxic air contaminants (TACs), and reducing diesel 

particulate emissions is a priority for the ARB. In October 2000, the ARB approved a 

comprehensive Diesel Risk Reduction Plan [ARB, 2000] to reduce diesel emissions 

from both new and existing diesel-fueled engines and vehicles. The Plan is a roadmap 

that identifies the steps that ARB will be taking to develop specific regulations to reduce 

diesel PM10 emissions. The ability to fund projects that reduce PM10 emissions will 

help ARB and districts reduce the risk associated with exposure to toxic diesel PM10. 

Retrofit technologies to reduce PM10 emissions from diesel engines are becoming 

more widely available. These retrofit technologies include diesel oxidation catalysts, 

passive and active diesel particulate filters, flow-through filters, and fuel additives. 

A number of these retrofits have been verified by the ARB and could be funded using 

Carl Moyer Program grants. Airborne toxic control measures (ATCMs) already require 

some diesel-fueled sources to install retrofit devices. Fleets that are subject to these 

ATCMs may still qualify for Carl Moyer Program funds if they install retrofits earlier than 

required so that the emission reductions achieved are surplus to regulatory 

requirements. 

B. New Cost-Effectiveness Formula to Include NOx, ROG and PM10 

Emission Reductions 

As discussed earlier, AB 923 requires the ARB to establish a weighted 

cost-effectiveness cap for Carl Moyer Program projects that reduce emissions of NOx, 

ROG and PM10. Cost-effectiveness for the Carl Moyer Program was previously based 

only on NOx emission reductions. 

Cost-effectiveness is a measure of the dollars provided to a project for each ton of 

covered emission reductions. To calculate Carl Moyer Program cost-effectiveness, the 

project grant amount is annualized based on the project’s life and an appropriate 

discount rate. This annual cost is then divided by the project’s estimated annual 

emission reductions. In order to consider NOx, ROG and PM10 emission reductions in 

one calculation, ARB staff weighted the emission reductions to develop a “weighted 

cost-effectiveness.” 

For NOx and ROG emission reductions, a weighting factor of one is used. Oxides of 

nitrogen and ROG are precursor emissions – that is they combine in the atmosphere 

with other emissions to form air pollutants such as ozone (smog) or secondary 

particulate matter. The relative importance of NOx, ROG and other precursor emissions 
I-5 PROGRAM OVERVIEW 

in the formation of smog and PM depends on many factors including location, 

temperature, geographic features, and the concentration of other pollutants. In order to 

accurately reflect the actual role of NOx and ROG, the weighting factors would have to 

be adjusted for each individual air basin. Historically, the ARB has treated NOx and 

ROG emissions equally. For example, the cost-effectiveness of ARB’s regulations is 

generally provided in dollars per ton of NOx + ROG, with no weighting factors. The Carl 

Moyer Program follows the same approach and, thus, NOx and ROG emission 

reductions carry a weighting factor of one in the weighted cost-effectiveness formula. 

ARB staff believes it is appropriate for emission reductions of combustion PM10 to carry 

additional weight in the calculation because, for an equivalent weight, these emissions 

are more harmful to human health. Non-combustion PM10 is not included in the 

weighted cost-effectiveness formula at this time because specific project criteria for 

non-engine projects have not yet been developed. 

ARB staff considered a range of weighting factors for combustion PM10, ranging from 

10 to 30. In Carl Moyer Program Advisory: # 05-001 (December 20, 2004), the staff 

weighted combustion PM10 emission reductions by 10 on an interim basis based on the 

cost to control combustion PM10 in the Solid Waste Collection Vehicle ATCM 

[ARB, 2003a]; that is, a weighting factor of 10 would offset the increased cost of 

reducing an equal amount of combustion PM10 emissions compared to the emissions 

of ozone precursors such as NOx. Based on an evaluation of a broader range of diesel 

ATCMs, staff found that the current cost to control PM10 is about 15 times the cost to 

control the ozone precursors NOx and ROG. 

ARB staff also evaluated the relative health benefits of reducing NOx emissions and 

reducing PM10 emissions. ARB staff estimated the monetary benefits by considering 

health endpoints that could be expected from reducing a given amount of combustion 

PM10 emissions, including premature deaths, asthma related emergency room visits, 

work loss days, and minor restricted activity days. Staff estimated monetary values for 

these benefits based on various economic values established for these health endpoints 

by both the U.S. EPA and the ARB [U.S. EPA, 2000a; U.S. EPA, 2000b; U.S. EPA, 

2003; U.S. EPA, 2004; ARB, 2003b]. Based on this evaluation, the health benefits of 

reducing one ton of PM10 outweighed the health benefits of reducing one ton of NOx by 

about 30 times. 

Based on the staff’s evaluation, as well as discussions with stakeholder groups, 

combustion PM10 is weighted by 20 times. Staff believes that this weighting factor 

balances the objective of the Carl Moyer Program to obtain SIP-creditable emission 

reductions while also reducing the risk associated with toxic diesel particulate matter. 

Thus, the formula for weighted cost-effectiveness is: 

Annualized Cost ($/year) 

(NOx reductions + ROG reductions + 20 x combustion PM10 reductions) (tons/year) 
I-6 PROGRAM OVERVIEW 

Some stakeholders also suggested incorporating exposure, particularly to sensitive 

receptors such as school children, into the cost-effectiveness calculation. After 

considering the nature of mobile source projects which travel throughout local air 

districts, and sometimes the entire state, and the potential difficulties associated with 

assessing the location, timing, and duration of emissions of each individual 

Carl Moyer Program project, it was decided not to incorporate exposure into the 

cost-effectiveness calculation at this time. 

Although the weighted cost-effectiveness formula does not incorporate exposure, it 

should be noted that local districts have the discretion to use project selection criteria 

that account for exposure. In addition, local districts with a population of over 

one million must have a method in place to provide for the expenditure of 50 percent of 

Carl Moyer Program (HSC section 43023.5) funds for projects that operate or are based 

in environmental justice areas. 

C. Administrative Requirements 

To ensure the best use of public funds and continued public confidence, the 

Carl Moyer Program must have clearly defined administrative responsibilities and 

oversight. The administrative criteria formalize existing practices and policies, and 

contain minimum requirements that ARB and local air districts must follow to continue 

implementing a successful statewide Carl Moyer Program based on the requirements of 

the Health and Safety Code. The requirements identify ARB’s responsibilities pertaining 

to program oversight, audits, and recapture of districts’ funds. They also identify the 

minimum requirements that districts must include in their local programs so ARB can 

document the districts’ success and determine if funds need to be recaptured. 

D. Agricultural Sources 

The Carl Moyer Program has funded the clean-up of over 2,000 agricultural engines. 

AB 923 expanded the source categories that are eligible for Carl Moyer Program 

funding to include agricultural sources of air pollution as defined in HSC section 

39011.5(a). This definition includes stationary and area-wide sources of pollution 

including engines, livestock operations, and other agricultural activities. 

The Guidelines respond to the legislative direction by including projects to reduce 

emissions from internal combustion engines that are agricultural sources. However, 

project criteria for non-engine agricultural projects have not been proposed at this time. 

The Board has directed the Executive Officer develop and approve project criteria for 

non-engine agricultural sources when technology is available to ensure that the 

emission reductions are real, surplus, quantifiable, and enforceable. If these projects 

include reductions of non-combustion PM10, the criteria will include a weighting factor 

for non-combustion PM10 for use in the cost-effectiveness formula. 
I-7 PROGRAM OVERVIEW 

E. Agricultural Assistance Program 

AB 923, in HSC section 44229, also creates an opportunity to provide incentives to fund 

new purchases, retrofit, repower, or add-on equipment for previously unregulated 

sources of air pollution. ARB staff is referring to this new program as the “Agricultural 

Assistance Program”. AB 923 allows a portion of the $2 MV Fees to be used to fund 

this program. One major difference from the Carl Moyer Program is that Agricultural 

Assistance Program projects are not required to achieve surplus emission reductions. 

The HSC requires that Agricultural Assistance Program projects comply with the 

Carl Moyer Program Guidelines. Based on this statutory guidance, the Agricultural 

Assistance Program is modeled on the Carl Moyer Program Guidelines. Agricultural 

Assistance Program projects are limited to those for which the Board has approved 

Carl Moyer Program Guidelines. Guidelines for stationary and portable agricultural 

engines are included. Guidelines for non-engine projects, such as dairies, are not 

included at this time, but will be developed by ARB staff, in consultation with interested 

stakeholders, when technologies for such projects become available. 

F. Light-Duty Vehicle Program 

AB 923 authorizes the districts and the ARB to fund projects to reduce emissions from 

light-duty vehicles under the Carl Moyer Program (HSC section 44275). Light-duty 

vehicle projects are initially limited to voluntary accelerated vehicle retirement (VAVR) 

programs that meet the ARB’s VAVR regulations. The option of using remote sensing 

devices (RSDs) to identify high emitting vehicles that can be targeted for voluntary early 

retirement and is taking a two-step approach to integrate RSD into the Carl Moyer 

Program and the VAVR regulation is also an option. As a first step, the ARB has 

authorized a RSD-based “High-Emitting Vehicle Identification, Repair, and Scrapping 

Program” to be run by the South Coast Air Quality Management District during 2005 

and 2006. The ARB will use the data from this project to revise the VAVR regulation 

and these guidelines in 2006. After the ARB revises the regulation and the Carl Moyer 

Program Guidelines to fully incorporate RSD, any district that chooses to would be able 

to develop and implement RSD-based VAVR programs. 

G. On-Road Fleet Modernization Program

AB 1394 expanded the Carl Moyer Program to include on-road fleet modernization 

(HSC section 44297), which is the replacement of an old, high-polluting, heavy-duty 

vehicle, which was not likely to be replaced on its own, with a cleaner vehicle. Fleet 

modernization provides incentive funds to truck owners that typically do not have the 

financial resources to buy a newer, cleaner vehicle. Incentives offset part of the cost of 

the newer, lower polluting vehicle. ARB staff has incorporated a heavy-duty vehicle 

fleet modernization component into the Carl Moyer Program. 
I-8 PROGRAM OVERVIEW 

 H. Zero-Emission Projects

Zero-emission technology, such as electric equipment, is a key element of California's 

long-term plan for attaining health-based air quality standards. Zero-emission 

technology is able to provide major reductions of NOx, ROG, and PM10 emissions, as 

well as reductions in emissions of TACs and greenhouse gases. In addition, electric 

equipment will remain emission-free throughout its life. Yet, despite these attributes, 

and the fact that electric technologies are ideally suited for a number of 

Carl Moyer Program projects, there have been relatively few zero-emission projects 

funded through Carl Moyer Program grants. Districts are now required to encourage 

zero-emission projects. Each district may choose how to encourage zero-emission 

projects. Options include, but are not limited to, a funding set-aside, priority processing, 

or additional outreach. ARB staff has also developed a Zero-Emission Project chapter 

in these Guidelines to highlight potential projects. 

I. Streamlining Program Administration for Small Businesses 

ARB staff is committed to work with local air districts to evaluate ways to improve the 

efficiency of the Carl Moyer Program. Improved program efficiency would benefit all 

applicants seeking Carl Moyer Program grants, but may be especially beneficial for 

small businesses. 

As part of this effort, ARB staff will work with the South Coast Air Quality Management 

District staff to develop a program next year to examine the feasibility of a rebate or 

voucher program to streamline and expedite fund disbursement. Based on the results 

of this program, ARB staff will evaluate whether a rebate or voucher program can be 

implemented statewide. If feasible, ARB staff will develop specific criteria for rebate or 

voucher programs to be incorporated in the next Carl Moyer Program Guideline 

revision. Prior to the next Guideline revision, ARB staff may also provide interim 

guidance to districts on how to implement a rebate or voucher program. 

J. Other Revisions 

In addition to the revisions specifically discussed above, the Carl Moyer Program 

guideline revision also contains other criteria that are specific to each project category. 

These revisions reflect input from the public and air districts, as well as new statutory 

requirements. 

The Guidelines adjust the cost-effectiveness cap from $13,600 per ton of NOx to 

$14,300 per ton of weighted NOx, ROG, and combustion PM10 emissions to account 

for an approximately 5 percent inflation rate from 2003 to present. This number is 

based on the California average Consumer Price Index [U.S. BLS, 2005]. A discount 

rate of 4 percent is used to calculate the capital recovery factors in determining the 

annualized cost of Carl Moyer Program grants provided for a project. This number is 

based on the average annual yields for U.S. Treasury securities, averaged from 
I-9 PROGRAM OVERVIEW 

January 2005 through August 2005, with a 3-year, 5-year, 7-year, and 10-year 

maturation [U.S. FRB, 2005]. 

Additionally, the revisions also reflect the current regulatory environment, new 

technology, and potential projects. These project criteria, along with program 

administration criteria and updated emission rates are discussed in more detail in each 

chapter of the Guidelines. 

IV. References 

ARB, 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from 

Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpFinal.pdf

ARB, 2001. Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons. Proposed Amendments to Air 

Resources Board Voluntary Accelerated Vehicle Retirement Regulations – Minimize 

Differences Between ARB and BAR VAVR Regulations and Allow Parts Recycling and 

Resale of Non-Emission Related and Non-Drive Train Parts. 

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

ARB, 2003a. Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons. Proposed Diesel Particulate 

Matter Control Measure for On-Road Heavy-Duty Residential and Commercial Solid 

Waste Collection Vehicles. http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/dieselswcv/isor.pdf 

ARB, 2003b. Final Research Report: The Economic Value of Respiratory and 

Cardiovascular Hospitalizations, May 31, 2003. 

ftp://ftp.arb.ca.gov/carbis/research/apr/past/99-329.pdf 

ARB, 2004. Lower-Emission School Bus Program – Final Revised Guideline 

Addendum. http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/schoolbus/2004final.pdf 

U.S. BLS, 2005. Consumer Price Index – All Urban Consumers, http://data.bls.gov/cgibin/surveymost, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, August 2005. 

U.S. EPA, 2000a. Regulatory Impact Analysis: Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicle 

Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements, December 2000. 

EPA-420-R-00-026. Office of Air Radiation, Research Triangle Park, NC 

U.S. EPA, 2000b. Cost of Illness Handbook. http://www.epa.gov/oppt/coi/view.html 

U.S. EPA 2003. Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions from Nonroad 

Diesel Engines, April 2003, EPA-420-R-03-008, Office of Transportation and Air Quality. 

U.S. EPA, 2004. Final Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions from Nonroad 

Diesel Engines, May 2004, EPA-420-R-04-007, Office of Transportation and Air Quality. 
I-10 PROGRAM OVERVIEW 

U.S. FRB, 2005. Federal Reserve Statistical Release, H.15, Selected Interest Rates, 

http://federalreserve.gov/Releases/H15/data.htm, U.S. Federal Reserve Board, Release 

date: September 19, 2005. 
II-1 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

Chapter Two 

ADMINISTRATION OF THE CARL MOYER PROGRAM 

The Carl Moyer Program has been successfully implemented through the cooperative 

efforts of the Air Resources Board (ARB) and the local air pollution control and air 

quality management districts (districts). Health and Safety Code (HSC) section 44286 

authorizes ARB to make grant awards to local air districts that apply for funds to 

implement a local Carl Moyer Program. The ARB has ultimate oversight responsibility 

for the statewide Carl Moyer Program. The districts implement their local programs in 

accordance with the guideline criteria approved by ARB. These Guidelines are binding 

and enforceable. The ARB provides the districts with flexibility in implementing the 

program, including the authority to implement stricter criteria based on their local air 

pollution challenges and air quality goals. 

The ARB’s goal is to administer the Carl Moyer Program stringently enough to ensure 

emissions benefits are realized, while maintaining enough flexibility to allow for ease in 

district and applicant participation and maintaining enough transparency for public 

scrutiny. The ARB has followed the requirements of HSC sections 44287 through 

44297 in determining and reporting the success of local districts’ programs. For each 

funding cycle, the districts are currently required to report to ARB three times during the 

two-year period, in order for ARB staff to track local progress in spending the 

Carl Moyer Program funds. With continued funding increasing up to $140 million per 

year from all funding sources through 2015, it is critical to track funds from the point the 

district applies for funds from ARB, through the point the local district pays for a project, 

and during project implementation. This chapter formalizes the minimum requirements 

that ARB and local air districts must follow to continue implementing a successful 

statewide Carl Moyer Program. The chapter is designed to outline ARB’s responsibility 

pertaining to program oversight, audits, and recapture of districts’ funds. It also 

provides the minimum requirements that districts must include in their local programs so 

ARB can document and publicly report the districts’ success and failures, and determine 

if there is a need to recapture Carl Moyer Program funds. 

I. Administrative Terminology 

Carl Moyer Program Funds. Carl Moyer Program funds include both the state funds 

awarded by the ARB (as provided by statute) and district matching funds. 

Contract. A contract, grant, or other legally binding agreement used by a district to 

obligate and expend funds for a project funded through the Carl Moyer Program. 
II-2 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

II. Funding Sources and Types of Carl Moyer Projects 

A. New Carl Moyer Program Funding Sources 

Two key pieces of legislation enacted in 2004 have expanded the Carl Moyer Program 

and brought an increased, continued source of annual funding through 2015. These are 

Senate Bill 1107and Assembly Bill 923 (Firebaugh/Pavley). 

1. Senate Bill 1107 (SB 1107) 

As part of the fiscal year 2004-2005 budget, this legislation adjusted the Smog Check 

fee while extending the newer-vehicle Smog Check exemption, securing about 

$7 million for consumer assistance in the Smog Check program and about $61 million in 

annual funding to be deposited in the Air Pollution Control Fund to fund the 

Carl Moyer Program “... to the extent that the state board or a participating district 

determines that the moneys are expended to mitigate or remediate the harm caused by 

the type of motor vehicle on which the fee is imposed” (HSC, section 44091.1). 

The adjustment to the Smog Check fee is imposed on vehicles that are subject to 

biennial smog checks. Vehicles subject to the Smog Check Program include 

gasoline-powered passenger cars, light-duty trucks, medium-duty trucks, and 

heavy-duty trucks. These vehicles emit about 620 tons per day (tpd) of NOx, 400 tpd of 

ROG, and 13 tpd of PM10 emissions. It is the harms caused by these automotive 

pollutants that the fees will be used to mitigate. Under the Smog Check Program, 

vehicles are required to be tested every two years to measure the levels of NOx, 

hydrocarbon (HC), and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions. Vehicles exceeding the 

allowed emission thresholds are required to be repaired prior to being able to renew 

their registrations with the Department of Motor Vehicles. Vehicles powered with diesel 

engines are not subject to the Smog Check Program. 

Gasoline engines generally do not produce as many NOx and PM10 emissions as 

diesel engines. On a per mile driven basis, the ARB’s emission inventory shows that 

heavy-duty diesel trucks emit about 22 times the NOx, 21 times the PM10, and 

1.5 times the ROG emissions compared to gasoline-powered vehicles subject to the 

Smog Check Program (see Table 2-1). In addition to heavy-duty diesel trucks, other 

heavy-duty diesel engines and pollution sources also contribute significantly to NOx, 

ROG, and PM10 emissions. 

Particulate matter emissions from both gasoline-powered vehicles and heavy-duty 

diesel vehicles are formed in the combustion process and are dominated by fine PM. 

Strong links have been demonstrated between elevated fine particulate levels and 

premature deaths, hospital admissions, emergency room visits, and asthma attacks 

[ARB, 2002]. In addition, regardless of their origin, whether from light-duty 

gasoline-powered vehicles or other sources, NOx and ROG emissions react in the 

atmosphere to form ozone. Ozone is a powerful oxidant that can damage the 

respiratory tract, causing inflammation and irritation, and induces symptoms such as 
II-3 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

coughing, chest tightness, shortness of breath, and worsening of asthma symptoms 

[ARB, 2005]. Recent evidence has, for the first time, linked the onset of asthma to 

exposure to elevated ozone levels in exercising children [McConnell, 2002]. Light-duty 

vehicles are one of a multitude of sources that emit both NOx and ROG; a strategy that 

effectively reduces these emissions, no matter from what source, would reduce the 

harm caused by motor vehicles and have positive health benefits for the people of 

California, and particularly for sensitive groups, including young children.

Table 2-1 

NOx, ROG, and PM10 Emissions from Vehicles Subject to the Smog Check 

Program and Heavy-Duty Diesel Trucks for 2005 

(grams per mile)

Pollutants “Smog-Check” Vehicles Heavy-Duty Diesel Trucks

NOx 0.7 15.2 

ROG 0.4 0.7 

PM10 0.015 0.32 

 Source: EMFAC2002_v2.2, April 23, 2003 

Gasoline-powered vehicles, particularly light-duty vehicles, in California are already 

subject to the most stringent emission standards in the nation. It is challenging to obtain 

additional emission reductions from individual new vehicles over these already 

extremely low emission levels. In-use emissions from existing gasoline-powered 

vehicles are significant, especially from older vehicles, due to deterioration and as a 

result of mal-maintenance. However, in-use emissions already are being addressed 

through the Smog Check Program as well as the vehicle repair and scrap program 

being operated by the Bureau of Automotive Repairs (BAR) (HSC, sections 

44100-44122, in part). 

As discussed earlier, AB 923 expanded the Carl Moyer Program to allow funding for 

projects to reduce emissions from light-duty vehicles (HSC, section 44275). Thus, 

project criteria have been developed for funding light-duty vehicle projects through the 

voluntary accelerated vehicle retirement program. ARB staff will also participate in a 

program that is being planned for 2006 in the South Coast Air Basin to evaluate a 

remote sensing program to detect gross-polluting vehicles. Staff believes that the 

programs described above, both for the BAR program and the ARB Carl Moyer 

Program, for light-duty vehicles represent adequate and reasonable efforts to reduce 

emissions from this class of vehicles. As staff gains more information on the 

accelerated vehicle retirement and the remote sensing programs, staff plans to revisit 

this category and will revise the funding criteria for these projects to more fully 

incorporate them in the Carl Moyer Program. 

Based on the discussion presented above, maximum and cost-effective emission 

benefits to mitigate the harms caused by light-duty vehicles would be obtained if funds 

from the adjustment to the Smog Check fee, as provided for by SB 1107, are used to 
II-4 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

reduce emissions from other sources of the same pollutants as automobiles produce. 

This approach would most expediently and effectively reduce NOx, ROG, and PM10 

emissions and would serve the best interests of the people of California. Local air 

districts have the authority to select projects that would most effectively reduce NOx, 

ROG, and PM10 emissions in their local area. 

2. Assembly Bill 923 (AB 923) 

This legislation introduced significant revisions to the Carl Moyer Program, including two 

new funding sources for the Carl Moyer Program – the adjustment to the tire fee and an 

allowance for an increase to the motor vehicle registration fee. 

Increase in Tire Fee. Assembly Bill 923 adjusted the tire fee that is assessed on 

purchasers of new tires from the current $1.00 per tire to $1.75 per tire starting 

January 1, 2005. The tire fee is reduced to $1.50 per tire staring on and after 

January 1, 2007 (Public Resources Code, section 42885). The adjustments to the tire 

fee translate to about $25 million available for the Carl Moyer Program in 2005-2006, 

and $16 million from 2007 on. 

The legislation requires a portion of the revenues generated by the tire fee to be 

deposited in the Air Pollution Control Fund for use by the ARB and the air districts. 

AB 923 also requires the ARB to expend or allocate the portion of the tire fee 

adjustment that is directed to the Air Pollution Control Fund to fund programs and 

projects that mitigate or remediate air pollution caused by tires in the state, to the extent 

that the state board or the applicable district determines that the program or project 

remediates air pollution harms created by tires upon which the fee described in 

Section 42885 is imposed” (Public Resources Code, section 42889). 

Air pollutants generated through tire wear are particulate matter whose composition is 

directly related to the constituents and processes used to manufacture the new tire. 

Tires are manufactured using a mixture of natural rubber; styrene-butadiene synthetic 

rubber; carbon black; molecular sulfur and sulfur compounds; silicone elastomers; 

phenolic resin; aromatic, naphthenic, and paraffinic oils; petroleum waxes; zinc oxide, 

titanium dioxide and other metals; fatty acids and inert materials. Carbon blacks 

typically contain varying quantities of adsorbed by-products from the production 

processes, particularly aromatic compounds. Typical classes of chemicals adsorbed 

onto the carbon black surface are carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

(PAHs), nitro-derivatives of PAHs and sulfur-containing PAHs. The presence of these 

compounds can significantly increase the hazards of carbon black exposure. Some of 

these compounds have been identified by the ARB as TACs. 

The legislative intent of the portion of the tire fee as expressed in AB 923 is to reduce 

PM and TAC emissions to improve air quality for Californians. Elevated PM emissions 

have been linked to premature deaths and other health ailments, such as asthma 

attacks. Fine PM, regardless of source, can bypass the body’s defense mechanism and 

can embed deep in the lungs. Ongoing studies have indicated that particulate matter 
II-5 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

pollution may significantly reduce lung function growth in children [Peters et al. 2001, 

Avol et. al. 2001, Gauderman et al. 2002] and that exposure to diesel PM could also 

cause lung cancer [ARB, 2002]. 

Technologies used to reduce PM emissions from tires generally involve strategies to 

reduce tire wear. This could be accomplished either through the use of high-mileage 

tires or by maintaining proper tire pressures. Although high-mileage tires have been 

available for a number of years, they have been marketed principally for their 

high-mileage attribute rather than for their potential to reduce PM emissions. Similarly, 

although tire manufacturers have informed consumers on the benefits of maintaining 

proper tire pressures in terms of prolonging tire life and improving fuel economy, they 

have not engaged in presenting the impacts of improper tire inflation on PM emissions. 

Existing criteria for funding Carl Moyer Program projects are based on the net emission 

benefits of using a low-emission engine or advanced technology compared to a 

conventional engine or technology. In the case of tires, it is very difficult to accurately 

quantify the emission benefits of using high-mileage tires versus conventional tires. 

Although basic information on tire wear is known, factors affecting tire wear PM 

emissions specific to the types of tires currently available, such as high mileage tires, 

conventional tires, high performance tires, as well as other specialty tires, have not 

been developed. Tire wear is also dependent on material and manufacturing process, 

as well as operational conditions, such as vehicle speed, load, tire pressures, and road 

conditions. 

Because of these factors, the potential emission benefits of high-mileage tires 

compared to conventional tires, or due to maintaining proper tire inflation, are very 

difficult to quantify accurately and to enforce. Since the primary objective of the 

Carl Moyer Program is to obtain surplus emission reductions, and because of the 

uncertainty in the actual emission benefits of these strategies, criteria for projects that 

reduce tire wear cannot be developed for this Guidelines revision. ARB staff will 

continue to evaluate the potential for these projects to receive Carl Moyer Program 

funding as technologies to reduce tire wear emissions continue to be developed so that 

we can accurately quantify the emission benefits. 

Since projects to reduce tire wear cannot be evaluated using traditional 

Carl Moyer Program criteria, the funds associated with the tire fee will be used on 

projects that remediate the harms caused by PM and TAC emissions generally, since 

these emissions are caused by tires. 

Potential $2 Motor Vehicle Registration Fee Increase ($2 MV Fee). AB 923 

amended the HSC to authorize districts in non-attainment areas to increase the motor 

vehicle registration fee surcharge, currently authorized up to $4 to fund specified air 

district activities to implement the California Clean Air Act, by up to $2, provided air 

district governing boards formally approve the increase. Health and Safety Code 

section 44229 (b) directs the districts to use the $2 MV Fee increase to implement any 
II-6 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

or all of the following four programs “...that the district determines remediate air 

pollution harms created by motor vehicles on which the surcharge is imposed”: 

• Projects eligible for grants under the Carl Moyer Program. 

• The new purchase, retrofit, repower, or add-on equipment for previously unregulated 

agricultural sources of air pollution, for a minimum of three years from the date of 

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

standard, whichever is later. The ARB is calling this program the “Agricultural 

Assistance Program.” 

• The new purchase of school buses pursuant to the Lower-Emission School Bus 

Program. 

• An accelerated vehicle retirement or repair program. 

If each eligible district chose to use the entire $2 increase to fund the 

Carl Moyer Program, the adjustment to the motor vehicle registration fee could provide 

up to $55 million directly to the local air districts for the Carl Moyer Program. Motor 

vehicles subject to the registration fee surcharge include all on-road vehicles, e.g. 

light-duty, medium-duty, and heavy-duty vehicles. On-road vehicles are major 

contributors of NOx, ROG, and PM10 emissions. As shown in Table 2-2, these vehicles 

emit about 1,518 tons per day of NOx, 772 tons per day of ROG, and 50 tons per day of 

PM10 in 2005. As discussed in previous sections, strong links have been demonstrated 

between elevated fine particulate levels and premature deaths, hospital admissions, 

emergency room visits, and asthma attacks [ARB, 2002]. In addition, NOx and ROG 

emissions react in the atmosphere to form ozone, a powerful oxidant that can damage 

the respiratory tract, causing inflammation and irritation, and induces symptoms such as 

coughing, chest tightness, shortness of breath, and worsening of asthma symptoms 

[ARB, 2005]. On-road vehicles are one of a multitude of sources that emit the NOx, 

ROG, and PM10 emissions that cause these harms. In addition to heavy-duty diesel 

trucks, other heavy-duty diesel engines and pollution sources also contribute 

significantly to NOx, ROG, and PM10 emissions. As shown in Table 2-2, these other 

mobile sources emit about 908 tons per day of NOx, 436 tons per day of ROG, and 

69 tons per day of PM10 in 2005. A strategy that effectively reduces these emissions, 

no matter from what sources, would reduce the harms caused by motor vehicles and 

have positive health benefits for the people of California, particularly for sensitive 

groups, including young children. 
II-7 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

Table 2-2 

NOx, ROG, and PM10 Emissions from 

On-Road Mobile and Off-Road Mobile Sources for 2005

(tons per day)

Pollutants On-Road Mobile Off-Road Mobile 

NOx 1518 908 

ROG 772 436 

PM10 50 69 

 Source: The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality, 2005 Edition 

B. Outreach Funds 

The ARB sets aside up to two percent of the total Carl Moyer Program annual funding 

for local air district outreach to implement their local program. These funds are 

distributed to each district based on the annual allocation of project funds that a district 

receives. Administrative funds shall be used for direct costs associated with the tasks 

outlined in this chapter and must be documented by the district. Examples of such 

costs and the documentation required are: 

• Staff time to complete the tasks outlined in this chapter. The staff time shall be 

documented with time sheets. 

• If consultants are used to assist districts in administering their local programs, 

consultant fees may also qualify. They shall be documented with a contract and 

invoices. 

• Printing, mailing and travel costs directly associated with the implementation of the 

Carl Moyer Program may also qualify. These costs shall be documented with 

receipts and/or invoices. 

 C. Matching Funds 

The district matching fund requirement is important because it provides a literal “buy-in” 

from the districts responsible for the selection, monitoring, and enforcement of the 

projects. This requirement helps ensure that the most worthwhile projects are selected 

and that more funds are available for clean air projects. 
II-8 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

1. Match Fund Formula 

Currently districts participating in the Carl Moyer Program are required to provide $1 in 

match funding for every $2 of state Carl Moyer Program funding awarded by ARB, with 

a cap on statewide match funds at a total of $12 million. The formula provided below is 

used to determine each district’s required matching funds. 

District’s annual allocation * $12,000,000

[Current annual funding level - (ARB & district admin./outreach funds + 10% holdback)] 

The ARB recognizes the fiscal realities, especially for rural districts, which make it a 

challenge to meet matching fund requirements of the Carl Moyer Program. Currently, a 

district receiving the minimum grant award of $200,000 may request a waiver of the 

match fund requirement provided the district can demonstrate appropriate staff 

commitment for program implementation and administration. The ARB staff works 

closely with local district staff to determine the proper level of commitment necessary 

based on previous history of projects funded and performance. 

2. Sources of Matching Funds and Allowable Expenditures 

Districts have a variety of local funds under their fiduciary control that can be used to 

meet their match fund requirement. Districts are allowed to meet their matching fund 

requirement on an overall program basis, rather than a project-by-project basis. This 

allows the districts the flexibility to fund worthwhile clean air projects from a variety of 

targeted funding sources. 

AB 2766 - $4 Surcharge on Motor Vehicle Registration Fees ($4 MV Fee). Many 

districts receive funds from a $4 surcharge on motor vehicle registration fees. Funds 

generated by the $4 MV Fee must be used for projects that reduce emissions from 

motor vehicles and infrastructure when it serves Carl Moyer Program motor vehicle 

projects [ARB, 1998]. Table 2-3 below gives a partial list of motor vehicles that are 

eligible to be funded by the $4 MV Fee. The non-motor vehicles listed below are not 

eligible project categories for motor vehicle registration fee funds. 
II-9 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

Table 2-3 

Motor Vehicles vs. Non-Motor Vehicles 

Motor Vehicles Non-Motor Vehicles 

Automobiles Locomotives 

Trucks Aircraft 

Buses Lawn mowers (non-riding) 

Vans Leaf blowers 

Road graders Refrigeration units 

Earth movers Chain saws 

Tractors Auxiliary generators 

Golf carts Welding machines 

Motorcycles Pleasure craft 

Self-propelled harvesters Cranes 

Forklifts Marine vessels 

Sweepers Stationary agricultural engines 

Motorized Bicycles Bicycles 

AB 923 – $2 MV Fee. As previously discussed, statewide the $2 MV Fee could 

generate up to $55 million annually if local governing boards approve the adjustment. 

As indicated in HSC sections 41081(d), 44225 and 44229(b), districts approving the 

adjustment must use those funds in one of the four areas previously discussed. 

If districts use the $2 MV Fee to pay for projects that meet the Carl Moyer Program 

criteria (including infrastructure in support of a Carl Moyer Program-funded motor 

vehicle project) or light-duty accelerated vehicle retirement and repair programs that 

meet the Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, those funds count toward a district’s match 

fund requirement. Emission reductions generated from projects in both categories are 

considered to be surplus. Note that projects paid for under the Agricultural Assistance 

Program do not need to meet the criteria that all funded emission reductions must be 

“surplus” to those reductions required by law, although other Carl Moyer Program 

criteria, however, must be met. In addition, projects paid for under the Lower Emission 

School Bus Program also do not have to be surplus nor do they have to meet the 

cost-effectiveness criteria under the Carl Moyer Program. Hence, only funds from the 

$2 MV Fee that are used on projects that meet the Carl Moyer Program Criteria may 

count toward the district’s match funding requirement. 

Since the Health and Safety Code requires districts to use the $2 MV Fee on projects in 

four specified areas, it is necessary for ARB to monitor and document that public funds 

are being spent as intended by law. Hence, all projects funded by the $2 MV Fee will 

be subject to the same reporting, auditing, and oversight requirements as other 

Carl Moyer Program projects. After deciding whether to adopt the additional $2 MV Fee 

and which category(ies) of projects to use the funds for, districts must report projects 

funded by the extra $2 MV Fee in the Carl Moyer Program database (including 

non-Carl Moyer Program projects funded with the $2 MV Fee). 
II-10 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

Other District Funds. Other funds under the districts’ budget authority may be used as 

match. The eligible expenditures for match with other district funds include: 

• Carl Moyer Program Projects. Match funds may be used to pay for any project 

which meets the Carl Moyer Program requirements of providing cost-effective 

emission reductions that are real, surplus, enforceable, and quantifiable and that 

meet the other project criteria in these Guidelines.

• Incremental Fuel Cost. Match funds may be used to pay for the incremental cost of 

liquid or gaseous fuel and electricity, other than standard gasoline or diesel, which is 

integral to a Carl Moyer Program qualifying project. 

• Infrastructure Projects. Match funds may be used for electric and alternative fuel 

infrastructure projects that serve Carl Moyer Program qualifying projects. 

• In-Kind Contributions. Up to 15 percent of a district’s match requirement may be 

fulfilled through in-kind contributions. In-kind contributions are local funds under the 

district’s fiduciary control that are used to pay for administering the local Carl Moyer 

Program, including but not limited to, staff resources assigned to the Carl Moyer 

Program, and printing, mailing, transportation and travel cost used by that staff to 

implement the Carl Moyer Program. Examples of acceptable indirect costs are 

administrative staff services to the Carl Moyer Program, office space, and telephone 

service. These in-kind contributions must be made in the same time frame as the 

agreement term for the funds, must be proportional to the time and amount 

dedicated to Carl Moyer Program activities, and shall not be carried over to other 

years. The in-kind contributions must be documented and records available for 

review during ARB or other State monitoring visits and audits. Acceptable 

documentation includes time sheets, contracts, and invoices. 

Districts are entitled to use any funds under their budget authority to cover the in-kind 

costs to administer the Carl Moyer Program. When using these other district funds for 

in-kind match, districts must follow any guidelines and other legal requirements for 

expending those other funds. While the two percent outreach funds that districts 

receive with each allocation comes under the districts’ budget authority, those outreach 

funds shall not be counted as part of a district’s in-kind match contribution 

Matching Funds from Outside Sources. HSC section 44287(e) allows port authorities to 

provide match funding for port projects. Port authorities may participate through 

projects involving their own equipment, or by soliciting port tenants to apply for project 

funding. To encourage port authority participation, port authorities are authorized to put 

up match funding for port projects, to satisfy districts' match funding obligations. Thus, 

funding provided by a port authority for a qualifying project, or for associated 

infrastructure, would count toward the district’s matching fund requirement. No more 

than 30 percent of a district’s match obligation shall come from a port authority. 
II-11 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

Private companies are not allowed to provide match funding to satisfy the districts' 

match funding obligation. The requirement that districts provide the matching funds 

facilitates an equitable distribution of funds, by preventing companies with “deep 

pockets” from tying up the majority of the funds. This requirement also helps ensure 

that districts independently evaluate the projects they approve for funding. 

 D. Cost-Effectiveness 

Carl Moyer Program funding shall only be used to pay for the incremental cost of a 

project, minus any other public financial assistance, up to the program 

cost-effectiveness limit. Public financial assistance includes, but is not limited to, 

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and Federal Transportation Authority 

(FTA) funds. 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), is included in the cost-effectiveness calculation. Private funding is not 

included in the cost-effectiveness calculation. Thus, a project that costs more than the 

cost-effectiveness limit may be funded, but only if outside funding is used to “buy down” 

the incremental cost. Funding for infrastructure is not included in the cost-effectiveness 

calculation. For more details on how to determine the cost-effectiveness of a particular 

project, see Part II of the Guidelines, Chapters 1-12. A general discussion of the 

cost-effectiveness calculation methodology is presented in Part IV of the Guidelines, 

Appendix C. 

 E. Obligation 

Since the inception of the Carl Moyer Program, ARB has required districts to obligate 

state funds one year from June 30 of the year the district receives its initial Grant Award 

and Authorization Form. This requirement ensures ARB that state funds will be spent in 

a timely manner as required by law. 

When obligating funds, districts shall do so by contracting with owners to complete 

selected projects. Funds are considered to be obligated when the district takes one of 

the following actions: 

• The district’s governing board approves a project for funding through a resolution, 

minute order, letter or other written instrument. 

• The Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO) or designated district staff, if given the 

authority by the governing board, approves a contract. 

• The contract between the district and the owner is fully executed. 

Carl Moyer Program funds shall be obligated by a district one year from 

June 30 of the year a district received its Grant Award and Authorization Form. 
II-12 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

In the event previous years’ funds were awarded or obligated to projects that withdraw 

or are terminated, those funds shall be awarded and/or obligated to other projects along 

with the current year’s funds, following the current year’s requirements. However, for 

tracking purposes, they must be reported with the correct previous year’s reports. 

 F. Expenditures 

HSC section 44287(k) requires that Carl Moyer Program funds be expended by a 

district two years from June 30 of the year a district received its initial Grant Award and 

Authorization Form. Districts expend funds by paying owners for completing milestones 

of projects under contract. Prior to paying for a delivered engine/vehicle or making final 

payment for completed project, the district must receive an invoice from the owner and 

complete a satisfactory post-inspection. 

Some districts withhold a percentage of the grant amount until all annual reporting 

requirements are met. These withhold payments ensure the owners submit their annual 

reports and do so in a timely fashion. Districts that have withhold payments as part of 

the contract with the owner shall count the withhold payments as expended, for the 

purposes of this section, once the district pays the invoice(s) for all but the withhold 

amount. 

In the event previous years’ funds (that were obligated and invoiced) are returned to a 

district, those returned funds are to be re-obligated to projects along with the current 

year’s funds, and following the current year’s requirements. However, for tracking 

purposes, they must be reported with the correct previous year’s reports. 

G. “At-Risk” Districts 

In accordance with HSC section 44291(d), ARB shall monitor the districts’ 

implementation of the Carl Moyer Program. The ARB will use the minimum 

requirements outlined in this chapter as the benchmark for satisfactory implementation 

of the Carl Moyer Program. The ARB will also evaluate districts’ implementation of their 

local Carl Moyer Program through monitoring and auditing as required. A district will be 

determined to be “at-risk” if the district fails to demonstrate that it is implementing the 

local program consistent with this chapter, which includes but is not limited to any of the 

following: 

• Funds not being obligated and/or expended within the required time frames. 

• Funds being spent in any way that is not consistent with the requirements of the 

Carl Moyer Program. For example, not maintaining adequate fiscal and 

programmatic records. 

• Funds being spent in a way that is not consistent with the district’s own policies and 

procedures manual. 
II-13 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

• Implementing the local Carl Moyer Program in a way that cannot guarantee the 

funds are being used for projects that provide real, quantifiable, and surplus 

emissions reductions within the cost-effectiveness limits. 

The ARB shall provide technical assistance to districts that are determined to be 

“at-risk.” The repercussions for “at-risk” districts that fail to correct deficiencies are 

outlined, in Section XI - ARB’s Oversight. 

H. Training and Technical Assistance

The ARB provides training and technical assistance to districts through several means. 

On a day-to-day basis ARB maintains regular communication with the local districts 

through ARB’s district liaison and the district’s Carl Moyer Program contact person. The 

ARB also provides training and technical assistance when monitoring districts’ 

performance, including review of projects and reports, and making on-site monitoring 

visits. 

After each Guideline revision, ARB provides training and technical assistance on the 

changes to the Guidelines. This training is mandatory for all participating districts. The 

ARB, in conjunction with the districts, also provides training and technical assistance at 

the quarterly Incentive Program Implementation Team (IPI Team) meetings. All districts 

must attend at least two IPI Team meetings per year. At-risk districts must attend all 

IPI Team meetings. 

III. ARB’s Carl Moyer Program Award Process 

The ARB determines the tentative awards for each year in accordance with the formula 

identified in HSC section 44299.2(a). The formula provides a minimum allocation of 

$200,000 to all districts. Districts that accept only the minimum allocation may request 

a waiver from the match requirement. With the exception of the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (SCAQMD), awards that exceed the minimum allocation of 

$200,000 are calculated based on district population, severity of the air quality problems 

and the historical funding awards under the Carl Moyer Program. The SCAQMD award 

is based solely on population. Each year, tentative funding awards are provided in the 

Carl Moyer Program solicitation package. 

Districts may request more than the tentative award. In fact, districts are encouraged to 

request the maximum funding for which they can commit the required match funds. 

Even though some districts will opt to accept the minimum award and have the match 

requirement waived, ARB expects that the total funding requested will exceed the 

funding available. Each year, all funds will be awarded and ARB will determine the final 

funding award among the districts. If any district requests less than their tentative 

award, the remaining funds will be allocated among the districts that requested more 

than their tentative award following the required formula. 
II-14 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

Health and Safety Code section 44286 grants ARB the authority to set aside 10 percent 

of Carl Moyer Program funds for projects to pay for projects that are multi-district in 

nature. As such, ARB will include an annual 10 percent hold-back from project funds to 

pay for projects that operate a portion of the time or miles outside their primary district of 

operation (within California). This includes projects that have significant air quality 

impacts in neighboring districts as a result of air pollution transport. The ARB’s 

10 percent hold-back funds will also focus on areas of statewide importance. In Year 7 

(fiscal year 2004-2005), ARB prioritized goods movement projects. Examples of 

multi-district projects funded in Year 7 include construction equipment, marine vessels, 

line haul trucks and a locomotive. 

IV. ARB’s Carl Moyer Program Solicitation 

A. Solicitation

The ARB solicits district applications to conduct a local Carl Moyer Program, by sending 

solicitation packets to the Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO) at each district. The 

solicitation packet is also made available electronically on the Carl Moyer Program 

website. The application packet includes all of the following: 

• A cover letter with instructions for completing and submitting the application. 

• An application with match requirement information and documentation requirements. 

• A match waiver request form. 

• A list of the tentative awards. 

B. Districts’ Carl Moyer Program Applications 

Districts interested in participating in the Carl Moyer Program must submit a completed 

application packet with all documentation by the posted deadline, which is 60 days from 

the date of the solicitation. The completed application packet must include the 

documents described below. 

1. Completed Application 

The ARB application must be completed and originally signed. All information 

requested must be provided or the application will be considered incomplete. 

2. Documentation for Match Commitment 

Any district may elect to request the minimum allocation of $200,000 per year and 

request a match waiver. Districts that request a match commitment waiver shall 

document the request by submitting the match commitment waiver request form which 

commits the district to provide sufficient resources to implement the local 
II-15 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

Carl Moyer Program. The match waiver must be originally signed by the APCO. 

Districts requesting the monetary match waiver are not eligible to receive reallocated 

Carl Moyer Program funds. 

Districts receiving an award that exceeds the $200,000 minimum allocation must 

provide documentation of monetary match of district funds that has or will be spent on 

eligible projects. Projects that have been completed shall be documented by entering 

or uploading the project data into the Carl Moyer Program database. Future projects 

shall be proposed by listing the type of monetary match on the application and 

identifying the source of funds that the district will be using. The ARB staff will verify 

that the listed amount and source of funds are available for the district to use under the 

Carl Moyer Program. Districts may also meet up to 15 percent of their match 

requirement with in-kind contributions. 

3. Local District Board Resolution 

The application must include a resolution of the district governing board that authorizes 

the district to participate in the Carl Moyer Program and accept funds from ARB. 

Districts may want to include language and funding amounts in the resolution that 

provide the districts with the opportunity to accept additional funds, should additional 

funds become available. For districts with a match requirement, the board resolution 

shall authorize the APCO to apply sufficient funding to meet the match requirement. 

Since Carl Moyer Program funding is now authorized until 2015, districts may include a 

board resolution, which authorizes the district to implement the Carl Moyer Program for 

multiple years. Each year the district would document the resolution as still being in 

effect by simply including a copy of the resolution with the signed application. 

4. Local Carl Moyer Program Implementation Plan 

The district shall include a Carl Moyer Program implementation plan for obligating the 

grant award, including, but not limited to, how the district will complete the tasks of 

outreach, solicitation, application processing, obligation and invoicing of funds, reporting 

and monitoring. The plan must include a timeline for completing milestones for the 

identified tasks. Districts that have already submitted their implementation plan in 

previous years may submit just their timetable for implementation of the milestones and, 

if appropriate, changes the district is making to the local implementation of the 

Carl Moyer Program. 

5. Documentation of Obligation and Expenditure of Previous 

Grant Awards 

Districts that have previously been awarded Carl Moyer Program funds must have 

submitted, or submit with the application, documentation of the status 

(obligation/expenditure) of all previous years’ Carl Moyer Program funds for which no 

final report has been submitted. The details of this status report are described under 

section IV.F.1., below. ARB reviews the documentation to evaluate each district’s 
II-16 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

status of obligating and expending previous years’ funds before approving additional 

allocations. This evaluation ensures funds are expended within the time frames 

required by the HSC section 44287(k). 

C. Review and Approval of Carl Moyer Program Applications 

The ARB receives the applications and determines if each application is complete. If 

the application is incomplete, ARB shall provide the district with a written explanation of 

what is missing from the application within ten working days of receipt of the application. 

Once the district application is complete, ARB shall verify all commitments of monetary 

match and, complete a review of all previous years’ Carl Moyer Program funding. 

While districts may apply for funding each year, beginning with Year 9 (fiscal year 

2006-2007) for the Year 10 funding application, ARB specifies minimum requirements 

regarding the amount of funds that each district must obligate from previous awards in 

order to receive a grant award in the new funding cycle. The requirements are as 

follows: 

• Any district receiving the minimum award of $200,000 that has not obligated at least 

50 percent of their funds from the previous year shall not be eligible to receive funds 

for the current fiscal year. 

• Any district receiving more than the minimum award of $200,000 that has not 

obligated 70 percent of their funds from the previous year shall only be eligible to 

apply for a reduced award amount and shall not be eligible to accept additional 

funds, should they become available. 

Any district that has not met the obligation requirements by the application deadline 

may still reserve funds for the current year. However, the district will be given a 

grant award that contains conditions requiring that the district must obligate and 

provide documentation of that obligation for an increased percentage (70 percent for 

districts that requested the minimum allocation and 90 percent for districts that 

requested more than the minimum allocation) of their allocation by April 30 of the 

current year. Any district that fails to meet this obligation requirement shall have 

their current year’s allocation cancelled or reduced. ARB will consider the amount of 

funds that can be reasonably obligated in consultation with the district. 

ARB shall redistribute any cancelled funds following the formula identified in 

HSC section 44299.2(a). However, only those districts that have applied for 

additional funds during the application period, and have met the match fund 

requirements and the obligation requirements will be considered in the formula. 

• Districts may elect to return unobligated funds from previous years to obtain their full 

current year award. 
II-17 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

• “At-risk” districts are only eligible to apply for funds once corrective action has been 

taken and the “at-risk” determination has been removed. 

Complete applications, which fulfill all criteria, shall be approved no later than 60 days 

after receipt. On a case-by-case basis, ARB may elect to approve an application that is 

missing a particular item and make the submittal of that item a stipulation of the Grant 

Agreement. For example, sometimes district staff is unable to obtain a board resolution 

before the application deadline. In such a case, ARB may allow a board resolution to 

be submitted with the signed Grant Agreement or prior to the district’s initial 

disbursement. 

D. Final Grant Awards 

Once all of the districts’ applications have been approved, ARB will determine the final 

awards. Final awards are incorporated into the Grant Award and Authorization with the 

districts. The Grant Award and Authorization Form shall specify the amount of each 

districts’ award that are from the smog check fee, the tire fee and for outreach. The 

ARB prepares and submits two original copies of the Grant Award and Authorization 

Forms to qualifying districts. The districts review and have the authorized person 

(usually the APCO) originally sign both copies of the agreement. The districts retain 

one fully executed copy of the agreement for their files and return one original copy of 

the fully executed agreement to the ARB. April 30 of each year is the deadline for 

acceptance of a grant award. From June 30 following the full execution of the 

agreement, the districts have 12 months (one year) to obligate and 24 months 

(two years) to expend the grant award. 

E. Disbursement Requests to Districts 

1. Initial Disbursements 

In order to receive a disbursement, each district must submit a Grant Disbursement 

Request to ARB. The Grant Disbursement Request form must be signed by a district 

board-authorized party. If there are stipulations on the Grant Award and Authorization 

form, all stipulations must be met prior to submitting the initial disbursement request. 

For the initial disbursement, districts may request up to ten percent of their allocation or 

$100,000, whichever is greater. If a district submits a request that documents the need 

for more than ten percent or $100,000, to the satisfaction of ARB, a larger disbursement 

may be made. In addition, districts may request half of their administrative funds. 

Districts will receive one check for both administration and project funds. However, 

districts must account for the administration and project funds separately. 

Prior to receiving the initial disbursement, districts must submit documentation of the 

obligation and expenditure of previous years’ Carl Moyer Program and required 

matching funds as follows: 
II-18 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

• Obligation and expenditure of 100 percent of all Carl Moyer Program funds and 

required district match from allocations awarded 2 or more years previous. 

• Obligation of at least 90 percent of the previous year’s Carl Moyer Program and 

required match funds. 

Districts that maintain withhold payments to ensure owners submit annual reports, shall 

count those withhold payments as expended when calculating the percentage of funds 

expended for the purposes of this section. 

2. Additional Disbursements 

For additional disbursements of Carl Moyer Program funds, districts must submit a 

Grant Disbursement Request and provide documentation of obligation of previous and 

current years’ funds as follows: 

• Obligation of 100 percent of all previous years’ funds, documented by entering or 

uploading the projects’ information into the database and the submission of a copy 

of pertinent pages (initial page, signature page and page describing the project) of 

the executed contracts for the same projects. 

• Obligation of 50 percent of the initial disbursement, documented by entering or 

uploading the projects’ information into the database and submitting a copy of 

approval by board resolution, minute order, or board letter; APCO approved 

contracts; or, fully executed contracts. On a case-by-case basis, ARB may accept 

other documentation of the commitment to obligate current year’s funds. 

Districts may request the other half of their administrative funds when 50 percent of their 

Carl Moyer Program funds have been obligated. Districts will again receive one check 

for both administration and project funds and must account for the administration and 

project funds separately. 

3. Earned Interest

Any Carl Moyer Program funds provided by the State that are deposited in interest 

bearing accounts must be reported to ARB. The interest income must be used to fund 

projects that meet the current Carl Moyer Program Guidelines. Projects funded by 

interest earned shall be entered or uploaded into the database and included in the final 

report of the year from which the interest accrued.

F. District Reporting Requirements 

Districts are required to report on the status of each year of Carl Moyer Program funding 

three times. The required reports - the status, annual and final reports - are described 

below. Districts that fail to submit a satisfactory annual report on a timely basis shall be 
II-19 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

deemed “at-risk.” Districts that fail to submit satisfactory initial and final reports may 

also be deemed “at-risk.” 

1. Status Report 

Each district shall submit their status report to ARB in mid-November at the time 

Carl Moyer Program district applications are due. If a district is not applying for the next 

year’s Carl Moyer Program, the district shall submit the status report, by itself, by 

November 15. The report shall use the ARB prescribed format to indicate the district’s 

progress in meeting its projected milestones from its current year’s Carl Moyer Program 

funds. This report shall be made publicly available. Funds that have been obligated to 

projects shall be documented by updating the project data in the Carl Moyer Program 

database. While not being termed “at-risk,” any district that has not met the minimum 

obligation requirement of their funds (50 percent of funds obligated for districts receiving 

the minimum allocation or less and 70 percent of funds obligated for districts receiving 

more than the minimum allocation), at this time, shall be monitored more closely by 

ARB and may be provided extra training and technical assistance. In addition, any 

district not meeting the minimum obligation requirement shall either not be eligible for 

funding or only be eligible for the minimum award as specified in Section IV.C. of this 

chapter. 

If a district has not already done so, the district shall submit their written policies and 

procedures manual for the implementation of the Carl Moyer Program as part of the 

status report. If all funds have been obligated, the database updated, and the policies 

and procedures manual submitted to ARB by the November 15 deadline, the status 

report will (with ARB approval) satisfy the requirement for the annual report. 

2. Annual Report 

Districts shall submit an annual report by or before June 30 of the year following their 

allocation. This report shall be made publicly available. At a minimum, districts shall 

submit a brief narrative report on their implementation of the Carl Moyer Program and 

update all of their project information in the database to assure data is current and 

accurate. The brief narrative shall specifically include information on: 

• Total applications received. 

• Efforts to meet environmental justice mandates, if required. 

• Efforts to outreach to potential zero-emission and small business projects. 

• Monitoring and auditing efforts and results. 

• Enforcement actions and recaptured funds, if any. 

• Outstanding features and accomplishments. 
II-20 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

• Challenges in implementation. 

• For Year 8 only, information on the average and median time to obligate funds (from 

receipt of application to execution of contract). 

The update of the project information shall include the following: 

• Carl Moyer Program projects, including those funded by state funds (specified by 

smog check or tire fee), interest accrued on state funds, and local matching funds. 

• Other projects funded by AB 923 (Light Duty Vehicle, Lower Emission School Bus, 

and Agricultural Assistance Programs). 

• Any significant deviations relative to the original project shall be provided as an 

update. The status of emissions reductions by projects in the implementation phase 

is assumed to be as originally submitted, unless updated by the district. 

• Copies of executed contracts for all Carl Moyer Program projects and AB 923 

funded projects. Districts may make and submit one complete copy of their standard 

contract format and then submit only the pertinent pages (initial page, signature 

page and page describing the project) of the agreements to ARB. Districts are 

required to submit only one copy of each agreement or the pertinent pages of each 

agreement. 

If a district has previously submitted a satisfactory annual report, all funds have been 

expended and the database updated, the district may complete a combined annual and 

final report brief narrative, which will (with ARB approval) satisfy the requirement for the 

final report. 

3. Final Report 

Districts shall submit a final report no later than June 30 of the second year following 

their award or after all Carl Moyer Program funds and local match commitment have 

been expended. This report shall be made publicly available. At a minimum, districts 

shall submit a brief narrative report on their implementation of the Carl Moyer Program 

and update all of their required project information already entered into the database 

and any new project information. The brief narrative shall specifically include 

information on: 

• Results of environmental justice efforts, if required. 

• Results of outreach efforts to zero-emission and small business projects. 

• Monitoring and auditing efforts and results. 
II-21 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

• Enforcement actions and recaptured funds, if any. 

• Outstanding features and accomplishments. 

• Challenges in implementation. 

• For Year 8 only, information on the average and median time to expend funds (from 

contract execution to invoice payment) 

The update will ensure that the data in the database is current and accurate. The 

update shall include all of the following: 

• Modifications to Carl Moyer Program projects, including both state funds, interest 

accrued on state funds, and local matching funds. 

• Modifications to AB 923 funds obligated for projects not meeting 

Carl Moyer Program requirements. 

• Any significant deviations relative to the original project shall be provided as an 

update. The status of emissions reductions by projects in the implementation phase 

is assumed to be as originally submitted, unless updated by the district. 

• Copies of executed contracts, as listed in item two above, that obligate 

Carl Moyer Program and local match funds to projects, which were not previously 

submitted. 

• Copies of invoices that document the amount Carl Moyer Program funds and local 

district match expended for each project. 

G. Policies and Procedures Manual 

Each District shall maintain a current policies and procedures manual, which is in 

conformance with or more stringent than these guidelines. The policies and procedures 

manual must, at a minimum, include the overall plan and day-to-day process for the 

districts’ implementation of the following tasks as outlined in this chapter: 

• District solicitation (including outreach efforts to environmental justice communities, 

to small businesses, and for zero-emission projects) and project acceptance. 

• Project selection. 

• Obligation of funds to projects. 

• Contract development and boilerplate language. 

• Monitoring of projects. 
II-22 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

• Expending the funds. 

• Auditing of projects, and when necessary recapturing funds. 

• Reporting to ARB. 

• Requesting disbursements from ARB. 

The policies and procedures manual shall be submitted to ARB for approval with the 

Year 8 status report by November 15, 2006, or with the next year’s Carl Moyer Program 

application in November 2006, and with any substantive revision thereafter. 

 H. Timeline for Each Year of Funds 

Mid-September ARB solicits applications from the districts 

based on tentative awards 

Mid-November ARB receives applications from the districts 

including districts’ status report from the 

previous year 

Early January ARB notifies districts of final awards 

April 30 District deadline to accept or decline funds 

June 30 following year Districts’ annual report to ARB – funds must be 

obligated 

June 30 of second year Districts’ final report to ARB – projects invoiced

and paid for, funds expended 

V. District Solicitation and Project Acceptance 

Each district must maintain and follow written policies and procedures for soliciting and 

accepting projects. ARB encourages districts to provide clear and detailed information 

to the owner regarding the reporting requirements and consequences for failure to 

demonstrate achievement of emissions reductions. 

A. Outreach 

Outreach prior to and during the time frame of the solicitation is critical for the success 

of a local program. The districts shall focus their outreach in a way that encourages 

applications from all sectors, including environmental justice communities, small 

businesses, and zero-emission projects. Below are brief descriptions of the types of 

practices that should be included as part of a district’s outreach activities. 
II-23 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

1. List of Interested Parties 

Districts should maintain a list of interested parties throughout the year and mail a 

notification to the parties on the list when funds are available. This list should also 

include prior applicants, public agencies (e.g. public works departments, sanitation 

departments, school districts), engine dealers/distributors, and where appropriate, port 

authorities, and farm bureaus. 

2. Local Newspaper Announcement

Districts are encouraged to put an announcement in local newspapers, in locally based 

trade newsletters including the local farm bureau and in the trade journals of 

organizations representing zero-emission technologies such as the Clean Cities 

Coalition and WestStart-CALSTART. 

3. Web Site Notification

If the district has a website, the Carl Moyer Program solicitation should be advertised on 

the district’s website. Similarly, if the district has a newsletter, the Carl Moyer Program 

solicitation should be advertised in the district’s newsletter. 

4. Prior Participants 

Districts should solicit additional projects from prior participants with successfully 

implemented projects, especially during monitoring visits. 

5. Small Business 

Districts are encouraged to expand the participation of small business by advertising to 

targeted industries, offering workshops to the engine dealer network, and offering to 

assist small business owners with the completion of the application. For example, many 

urban districts have found the construction industry to be a viable source of projects, 

when the districts provide outreach, training and technical assistance to the many small 

businesses that own qualifying equipment. 

6. Agricultural Community 

Districts with agricultural communities are encouraged to contact the local agricultural 

department and request that a flyer is posted that will be visible to farmers when they 

come in to get their pesticide use permits. 
II-24 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

7. Advertising 

Districts may consider requiring their grantees to place a logo or decal on the new 

engine(s) advertising that the engine was funded by the district and ARB with 

Carl Moyer Program funds. 

B. Environmental Justice 

It is important that projects funded under the Carl Moyer Program benefit all Californians 

especially those in communities disproportionately impacted by air pollution. As such, 

ARB encourages all districts to incorporate an environmental justice component in their 

local Carl Moyer Programs. Districts with a population greater than 1 million inhabitants 

are required to provide funding to projects that benefit environmental justice areas 

(HSC section 43023.5). This will continue to be a requirement and an important 

component of the Carl Moyer Program for these districts. These districts are 

encouraged to continue updating current written policies and procedures, where 

necessary, to define the environmental justice areas within district boundaries. They 

must market the Carl Moyer Program to owners that operate or are based in 

environmental justice areas. These districts must select from their applicant pool in a 

way that ensures that 50 percent or more of their Carl Moyer Program funds (including 

the smog check fee, and adjustment to the tire fee) are expended on projects that are 

located and/or operate in environmental justice areas. The ARB also recommends 

these districts expend 50 percent or more of their $2 MV Fee funds on projects that are 

located and/or operate in environmental justice areas. 

C. Project Solicitation 

Below are brief descriptions of the options districts typically use for accepting 

applications. Districts may solicit two years of funds with one solicitation in order to stay 

current with the obligation requirements. When combining two years of funds in one 

solicitation, however, the previous year’s funds must be obligated first. 

1. Over the Counter

The over the counter method is also referred to as a first-come first-served application 

process, where the district announces the first day project applications will be accepted. 

Applications are accepted until all of the funds are obligated. This method provides 

districts with smaller populations a greater opportunity to garner Carl Moyer Program 

eligible projects. This method may also maximize flexibility for applicants by allowing 

them to apply at any time, up until the funds run out. 

2. Notice of Funds Available (NOFA) 

The NOFA method is also referred to as Request for Proposals (RFP), or Call for 

Projects. Districts following this method announce an application deadline for all 

proposals to be submitted. This method allows proposals to be accepted from the date 
II-25 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

of the solicitation to a specified date and time. This method provides districts with a 

high demand for Carl Moyer Program funds with the opportunity to select the most 

cost-effective projects that meet local criteria through a competitive rating and ranking 

process. 

D. Project Applications 

For consistency throughout the Carl Moyer Program, to assist applicants statewide and 

to limit confusion, ARB encourages all districts to use the same application form for the 

Carl Moyer Program. The application is available on the Carl Moyer Program web site 

at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/moyer.htm. Districts that use their own 

application form shall ensure it includes all the information the ARB application includes, 

as listed in each source category chapter. A few districts run their local 

Carl Moyer Program concurrently with other local heavy-duty incentive programs, which 

use one combined and unique application form. In these cases districts will have 

unique application forms. 

No matter which forms are used, districts’ applications must include a disclosure 

statement that the owner (or the owner’s designee) must initial/sign. The disclosure 

statement certifies that the owner has not submitted and shall not submit an application 

for Carl Moyer Program funds to any other district and/or the ARB for the same project. 

Owners are allowed to re-apply for project funding only if a previous application for the 

same project has been rejected and is no longer being considered for funding. In 

addition, owners are required to disclose the value of any current financial incentive that 

directly reduces the project price, including tax credits or deductions, grants, or other 

public financial assistance, for the same engine. The incremental cost of the project 

shall be reduced by the amount of the current financial incentive. Any owner or owner’s 

designee who is found to have submitted multiple applications for the same engine 

and/or not disclosed any current financial incentive shall, at a minimum, be disqualified 

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

future applications to any and all Carl Moyer Program solicitations. In addition, as a 

violation of law, including but not limited to the Business and Professional Code, ARB 

and the districts may levee fines and/or seek criminal charges. 

Third party applications are not allowed. The owner of the engine must sign and agree 

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

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

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

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

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

used to pay them. To make the Carl Moyer Program accessible to all potential 

applicants, including applicants who cannot afford to hire third party assistance, districts 

are encouraged to provide technical assistance to applicants in completing the 

application. 
II-26 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

1. Completeness of Application 

In accordance with HSC section 44288(a), districts must review all applications for 

completeness upon receipt and notify the applicants in writing if their application is not 

complete within five working days of receipt of the application. The notification must 

clearly state what is required to make the application complete. A copy of the 

notification must be maintained with the application. This written notification must be 

accomplished using one of the options below: 

• A letter, sent through the U.S. mail. 

• An email message. 

• A boiler plate form with check-offs. 

No matter what method is selected, the notification must be copied, with the original 

handed or sent to the owner and the copy must be placed in the applicant file along with 

a copy of the incomplete application. Districts are encouraged to assist applicants, 

especially small business applicants, in completing their applications. Districts may 

determine that an application is not in good faith, credible or in compliance with the 

Carl Moyer Program and its objectives. 

2. Eligibility of Projects 

All complete applications that are in good faith, credible, and in compliance with the 

Carl Moyer Program and its objectives, must be reviewed by the district for eligibility. 

This process must include all of the following: 

• Entering or uploading the data from the application into the database or the 

database calculator to ensure it meets the emission reductions and 

cost-effectiveness criteria of the Carl Moyer Program. 

• Checking to ensure the project meets all of the minimum requirements outlined in 

the chapter for the appropriate category. 

• Maintaining a record of the eligibility verification in the applicant file. 

E. Application Tracking 

Districts must have a system for tracking applications. Districts may use the database 

to track applications. At a minimum, the tracking system shall include the name and 

address of the owner, the category, and type of baseline engine. The district shall also 

maintain a copy of each application and a file for each selected project. A district may 

use a solely electronic file system only after the district satisfactorily demonstrates to 

ARB that all documentation is maintained and can be easily accessed on demand. 
II-27 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

VI. Project Selection 

The districts have the authority and responsibility for selecting Carl Moyer Program 

eligible projects in their areas. Once a district has checked the eligibility of projects, the 

district must follow its policies and procedures manual in selecting projects to fund. The 

record of each project’s rating and ranking, receipt date, or other project selection 

criteria must be maintained with the application. Districts may choose to disqualify an 

application if the applicant defaulted or otherwise violated the terms of a previous 

Carl Moyer Program contract or other incentive program contract. Districts must ensure 

that selected projects are surplus to compliance deadlines of adopted regulations. 

The requirements in the following paragraph apply to those districts that do not currently 

operate and maintain their own database. 

At this time, the project information shall be entered into the database to ensure the 

project meets the emission reduction requirements and cost-effectiveness criteria of the 

Carl Moyer Program. No project shall be funded unless the database indicates the 

emission reduction requirements and cost-effectiveness criteria of the 

Carl Moyer Program have been met. If the database indicates the project does not 

meet either the emission reduction requirements or the cost-effectiveness criteria of the 

Carl Moyer Program, and the district representative thinks the project should actually 

qualify, the district representative may contact his or her ARB liaison to determine if the 

project is, in fact, eligible. 

Districts that currently operate and maintain their own database will upload their project 

information when the district requests disbursement of funds from the ARB. 

Once a project is selected, a flag shall be set in the database indicating that the project 

has been selected for funding. The project shall be assigned a Carl Moyer Program 

project number by the ARB database. Districts may continue to use their own 

numbering system within their district. All exchanges between ARB and the districts 

shall utilize the standardized project grant numbering system, and may also use the 

district’s number system upon request. 

Districts shall make every effort to process an application and grant an award rapidly. 

The district shall provide ARB with information on the average and median time frames 

to award grants as part of the districts’ Year 8 annual report. A file shall be created for 

all projects selected for funding. Grant award notification shall be in writing, and a copy 

of the grant award notification letter must be maintained in the applicant file. 

VII. Obligation of Funds to Projects 

Districts shall obligate their allocation of Carl Moyer Program funds consistent with other 

sections of this chapter. In addition, districts that have a match requirement must 

obligate their match funds in a way that meets all of the Carl Moyer Program criteria. 

Districts must document their in-kind support with fiscal records of resource allocations 
II-28 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

to the Carl Moyer Program. Districts may meet up to 15 percent of their match funding 

requirement with in-kind contributions. 

For ease of financial tracking of funds, and to the maximum extent practical, projects 

should be paid entirely through either ARB funds or district match funds. If ARB funds 

and district match funds must be mixed, it shall be for only one project and, if the project 

is for more than one engine, for only one engine. If funds from two years or phases of 

the programs are used for a project, the funds must be either ARB funds or district 

match funds but not both. 

VIII. Minimum Contract Requirements 

When paying for projects using Carl Moyer Program funds, districts must enter into a 

contract with the applicant. The contract must be signed and the project milestones 

(e.g. engine delivery, engine installation, final inspection, and acceptance) shown in the 

contract must be met before Carl Moyer Program funds are given to an applicant. The 

equipment must be operating before the final payment is issued. In order to provide 

consistency in contract requirements throughout the Carl Moyer Program, staff has 

conducted an extensive review of contracts used by many local districts participating in 

the Carl Moyer Program. Staff also conducted several working group meetings to 

determine the minimum content for contracts used by districts under the 

Carl Moyer Program. Based on this research and input from districts, all districts 

participating in the Carl Moyer Program are required to incorporate the following 

minimum requirements in contracts entered into with applicants who have been 

selected to receive funds under the Carl Moyer Program. Samples of contract terms 

from existing districts’ contracts are provided to districts upon request. Actual language 

in each district’s contracts shall be established by the district in consultation with the 

district’s legal staff. 

A. Party Names and Date 

All contracts shall state the name of the district and the owner as parties to the contract. 

All contracts shall also state that, in addition to enforcement by the district, the ARB, as 

an intended third party beneficiary, reserves the right to audit and enforce the terms of 

the contract at any time during the contract term. 

B. Contract Term 

All contracts shall provide the term of the contract. The term of the contract must 

extend to the end of the project life and shall include both the project completion and 

project implementation time frames. The contract term shall include two main time 

frames − project completion and project implementation/life periods − to ensure that the 

district and ARB can fully enforce the contract terms during the life of the 

Carl Moyer Program-funded project. 

Contract Term = Project Completion + Project Implementation/Life 
II-29 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

1. Project Completion 

The project completion time frame is the first part of the contract term. Project 

completion is the time frame starting with the date of execution of the contract to when 

the project is complete i.e., becomes operational. This includes the time period when 

an engine or vehicle is ordered, delivered and installed. Districts may require periodic 

reporting during this time frame. The contract shall include a specified time frame in 

which project completion shall occur, so that the funds are expended within the two-year 

required timeframe. The contract shall also require that no work may begin on the 

project until the contract is fully executed. 

2. Project Implementation/Life 

The project implementation/life time frame is the second part of the contract term. The 

project implementation time frame equals the project life. Project life is the number of 

years that a Carl Moyer Program project obtains or is claimed to obtain surplus 

emission reductions while operating in California. Surplus emission reductions are 

reductions that are early or extra. That is, the reductions occur prior to a rule 

compliance date or the reductions exceed the requirements of a rule or regulation. 

The contract shall specify that the project implementation equals the period of time 

during which the owner is required to operate and maintain their 

Carl Moyer Program-funded engine/vehicle according to the terms of the contract. The 

contract shall specify that by executing the contract, the owner understands and agrees 

to operate the engine/vehicle according to the terms of the contract and to cooperate 

with the district and ARB in implementation, monitoring, enforcement, and other efforts 

to assure the emissions benefits are real, quantifiable, surplus, and enforceable. The 

minimum project implementation time frame shall be three years, unless otherwise 

approved in advance by the ARB. The maximum project implementation/life is defined 

in the following chapters under each specific source category. A local air district must 

inform ARB if the district imposes additional restrictions on the project life for any source 

category. The project implementation time frame includes the district monitoring and 

ARB auditing phases which may run concurrently or sequentially: 

• During all or a part of the project implementation term, the district is responsible for 

monitoring the project to assure the project is operational and emissions reductions 

are realized. The contract shall require the owner to report at least annually to the 

district on the operation of the vehicles or equipment during this district monitoring 

phase. The contract shall inform the owner that noncompliance with the reporting 

requirements shall require on-site monitoring. The district monitoring phase shall 

match the project life when the project life is less than five years. When the project 

life is more than five years, the district monitoring phase shall be for a minimum of 

five years. 
II-30 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

• While the district remains responsible for the enforcement of the contract, the district 

shall also include language in the contract that clearly states the owner understands 

and agrees that the ARB has the authority and reserves the right to monitor and 

enforce the terms of the contract at any time during the project life to ensure 

emission reductions are obtained for a minimum of 75 percent operation within 

California or as specified in the contract for marine projects, including the period 

between 5 years and the end of the project life for those projects with project lives 

that are more than 5 years. The contract shall also inform the owner that ARB will 

seek whatever legal, equitable, and other remedies are available under State law for 

the owner’s failure to comply with the Carl Moyer Program requirements and failure 

to fully perform under the contract. 

The contract term may also outline other timing requirements. For example, districts 

may include a requirement that the owner sign and return the contract by a certain date 

or the Board’s obligation of funds to the project is nullified. 

C. Payment 

In order to ensure that the district and ARB are paying only for the incremental cost of 

eligible items, paying only once for each engine, and the equipment being paid for is 

operating, all contracts must include the following payment terms. 

1. Maximum Contract Amount 

The maximum contract amount (which is the incremental cost, partial incremental cost, 

or funding cap), must meet the required minimum cost-effectiveness limit. The 

maximum contract amount may never exceed the incremental cost. If a district desires 

to have their maximum contract amounts in round numbers, the district is only allowed 

to round down. 

2. Itemized Invoices 

Payment terms must require itemized invoices from the engine supplier for repowers or 

paid invoices from the vehicle owner for new vehicles and satisfactory post-inspection 

by the district prior to payment of the owner’s invoice. Partial payments may be made 

only if the payment process and requirements have been reviewed and approved by the 

district. Payments shall be made directly to the project applicant only if the invoice has 

been paid and the payment is a reimbursement. Payments may be made to the engine 

dealer or distributor only if such payment arrangements are specified in the contract. 

3. Disclosure of Funds 

The owner (or owner’s designee) must initial/sign a disclosure statement. The 

disclosure statement certifies that once the owner (or the owner's designee) signs this 

contract for this project, the owner (or designee) shall not submit another application or 

sign another contract for the same specific engine(s) with any other source of funds, 
II-31 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

including but not limited to, other districts or to ARB for a multi-district solicitation. Any 

owner or owner’s designee who is found to have submitted multiple applications or 

signed multiple contracts for the same engine(s) shall, at a minimum, be disqualified 

from funding for that engine(s) from all sources and may also be banned from 

submitting future applications to any and all Carl Moyer Program solicitations. In 

addition, as a violation of law, including but not limited to the Business and Professional 

Code, ARB and the districts may levee fines and/or seek criminal charges. 

4. Non-Compliance Terms 

Districts shall include terms to cancel contracts or withhold payment for non-compliance 

with or not meeting the obligations of the contract, and may include a term that cancels 

the contract if it is not executed by the owner in a timely manner. 

D. Carl Moyer Program Criteria 

All contracts shall include basic Carl Moyer Program Guidelines. Contracts must 

contain either a general statement of compliance with all Carl Moyer Program 

Guidelines and/or outline those requirements, as follows: 

• The project shall not be required by any local, state and/or federal rule, regulation or 

MOU currently in effect. 

• The low emissions technology must be certified or verified (as outlined in the 

following source category chapters) and meet the current NOx, PM and/or ROG 

requirements. If the low emissions technology is not certified or verified it may be 

approved based on an ARB case-by-case evaluation. When approved by an ARB 

case-by-case evaluation, the method for emissions verification must be included as 

part of the contract. 

• Rights to the emission reductions must not be claimed by any participant as 

emission reduction credits or in an averaging, banking, and trading program. 

• The new engine/equipment/vehicle must not have been purchased prior to the 

effective date of the contract or the date of the governing board’s approval, if 

applicable, whichever occurs first. The purpose of this requirement is to avoid 

funding of engines purchased prior to implementation of the contract, which would 

violate the Carl Moyer Program statutory provisions. 

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

methods for the vehicle in the fleet modernization category and for the vehicle and 

engine in the light duty category are further described in those chapters. Engines 

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

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

documented by the district seeing the destroyed engine or the receipt from the 

qualified vehicle salvage yard (see Part II, Chapter 2: Fleet Modernization, Salvage 
II-32 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

Requirements for definition). Engines without a visible and legible serial number 

may be repowered if district staff stamp the engine block with the 

Carl Moyer Program project number and district staff is present to personally verify 

engine removal from the project vehicle or equipment and the subsequent engine 

destruction. ARB will consider alternatives to stamping the engine block on a 

district-by-district basis. 

• The new engine/vehicle/equipment must remain in service for the project life; 

operate in California as per the source category requirements specified in the 

following chapters; and, operate a specified amount. The district may specify 

minimum operating requirements within air district or air basin boundaries. 

E. Maintenance of the Engine/Vehicle 

All contracts shall require the owner to maintain the engine/vehicle according to the 

manufacturer’s specifications for the life of the project. This includes a requirement for 

no tampering. The owner is also responsible for maintaining a working hour meter, or 

other approved usage measuring device, for projects that document hours of operation 

as a means of calculating emissions reductions and cost-effectiveness. If the hour 

meter/usage device fails, the owner remains responsible for validating any hours not 

recorded by the hour meter/usage device. The owner must either repair or replace the 

non-operating meter/device or provide other documentation of equipment operating 

hours acceptable to the district. 

F. Project Specifications and Performance Expectations 

All contracts shall include detailed information on the baseline engine. This detailed 

information shall include at a minimum, the make, model, model year, horsepower and 

serial number of the baseline engine. All contracts shall also include the same detailed 

information on the new engine. This requirement may be met by including the project 

application as an attachment to the contract. An engine, which meets or exceeds the 

certification of the proposed engine, may be substituted with prior approval of the 

district. All contracts shall specify the amount the engine is to operate based on hours, 

miles or fuel usage within California (or the district) each year. Due to fluctuations in 

weather and other unforeseen circumstances, districts may average multiple years’ 

usage to determine annual usage. 

G. Repercussions for Nonperformance 

The contract must outline the repercussions to the owner for nonperformance and for 

not meeting any of the obligations of the contract. The contract must also inform the 

owner that ARB and the district have the authority to fine the owner or seek other 

remedies available under the law for noncompliance with Carl Moyer Program 

requirements and nonperformance with the contract. Districts may consider unforeseen 

circumstances beyond the owners’ control in determining repercussions for 

nonperformance. 
II-33 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

H. On-Site Inspections 

All contracts shall include language that allows the district, ARB or their designee(s) to 

inspect the engine(s) and/or records relating to the engine during the term of the 

contract. 

I. Auditing 

All contracts shall include language that allows for fiscal auditing by the district, ARB or 

a third party designee during the life of the project. 

J. Records and Records Retention 

All contracts shall include language requiring the owner to maintain records and retain 

the records for at least three years after the term of the contract. 

K. Reporting 

All contracts must include a provision for owners to submit, at a minimum, annual 

reports commencing one year after project completion and annually thereafter for the 

district monitoring and auditing phase of the contract. The district shall include the 

dates the annual report is due. The owner shall also submit a copy of evidence of the 

appropriate insurance. If the district monitoring phase of the contract term exceeds five 

years, the owner’s reporting responsibility may be reduced to once every other year 

after the initial five years of reporting. If the project is a zero-emission technology, 

reporting may be reduced to biennially for the first six years, and no annual reports are 

required thereafter. 

L. Insurance 

All contracts shall require owners to carry and (as required by annual reports or 

requested during monitoring and auditing) provide proof of insurance covering the new 

engines throughout the term of the agreement. A district may require more or additional 

insurance. 

M. Notices 

All contracts shall include contact information for both parties to the contract, and how to 

send and receive notices. 

N. Signature Blocks 

All contracts must include signature blocks with an area for the dates that the contract is 

signed. 
II-34 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

O. Optional Contract Terms

All districts have the option to include other terms and conditions in their agreements. 

Below, are contract terms that are used by some districts. Even though they are not 

required, all districts have the option of including the following additional contract terms: 

1. Severability 

If any part of agreement is found invalid by a court of law, the severability contract term 

maintains the enforceability of the remainder of the contract. 

2. Tax Implications and Information 

Each district should consult with its tax attorney regarding potential tax implications for 

the owners and what, if any, actions the district will take as a result of the attorney’s 

assessment. 

3. Non-Allocation of Funds 

If funds are not available from ARB, this contract term provides the district the ability to 

cancel the contract 

4. Decals 

Districts may want to add a contract term to require a decal to be affixed on the new 

engine. This is one method for outreach. 

5. Electronic Monitoring Unit 

Some categories (marine, locomotive and fleet modernization) require the installation of 

an Electronic Monitoring Unit (EMU). Contracts for those categories must include a 

contract term for EMUs. Districts may require the installation of an EMU with each new 

engine for other categories as well. The EMU is a Carl Moyer Program eligible expense 

and may be added to the incentive amount as long as the project still meets the 

cost-effectiveness cap. Districts may allow projects with EMUs to complete all reporting 

through the electronic data system. 

6. Incorporate the Application 

In order to assure the baseline engine in the application is the one being replaced, 

districts may want to incorporate the application by reference. 
II-35 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

IX. Districts’ Monitoring Requirements 

A. Pre-Inspection 

Once an application is deemed eligible and before contract execution, a pre-inspection 

shall be completed by the district. The one exception is for public agencies (e.g. public 

works departments, transit organizations, and school districts). Districts may choose to 

allow public agencies to provide documentation of the engine and its use. 

The pre-inspection shall, at a minimum, include collecting the serial number of the 

baseline engine and verifying the information in the application about the baseline 

engine (make, model, model year, horsepower). The pre-inspection shall also verify the 

engine is operational (with a start up) and that the engine is working as described in the 

application (document function and use). A photo shall be taken for the file. The photo 

must include the applicant’s name, the date and the serial number of the engine. 

A pre-monitoring form shall be used to document the pre-inspection. The required 

elements for a pre-inspection form include all of the following: 

• Owner’s name, address and telephone number. 

• Location of the engine. 

• Verification of the baseline engine information (make, model, model year, 

horsepower, and serial number) as described in the application. 

• Space for the inspector to record whether the engine is in running condition, make 

comments, and attach pictures. 

A hard copy of the completed pre-inspection form shall be maintained in the project file. 

Districts may utilize paraprofessional staff, with training, to complete pre-inspections. 

Districts may also complete the Carl Moyer Program pre-inspections in combination with 

permit inspections. 

B. Post-Inspection 

Post-inspections shall be completed on all projects funded under the 

Carl Moyer Program. The post-inspection shall occur after the district receives an 

invoice from the owner for an engine, but prior to the district paying for that engine (or 

making final payment for the engine). For public fleets, such as transit organizations, 

where more than 20 of the vehicles in the fleet are included in the project, the district 

may choose to inspect a random sample of the vehicles included in the project. The 

sample size must be statistically significant. 

The district’s post-inspection must verify that the engine listed in the contract was 

installed. The inspector shall record the information from the plate (serial number, 
II-36 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

make, model, model year, and horsepower) on the inspection form and verify it with the 

information listed in the contract. The engine must be operational in the equipment or 

vehicle as stated in the contract. The inspector must visually witness all engines start 

up and mobile projects run. The vehicle or engine information must be documented 

with pictures. 

Where applicable, the post-inspection shall also verify that the baseline engine or 

vehicle is destroyed and rendered useless. Depending on the method of destruction 

selected, the inspector must see the destroyed engine, witness the engine destruction, 

and take photos of the destroyed engine. The photos shall include the name of the 

owner and date of the inspection. For engines with a complete, fully visible and legible 

engine serial number, the district must see the destroyed engine or the receipt from the 

qualified vehicle salvage yard. For engines without a complete, visible, and legible 

serial numbers, the district staff must stamp the engine block with the Carl Moyer 

Program project number and be present to personally verify engine removal from the 

project vehicle or equipment and the subsequent engine destruction. ARB will consider 

alternatives to stamping the engine block on a district-by-district basis. The district must 

follow all additional requirements for the methods of destruction for fleet modernization 

and light-duty categories as further described in those chapters. 

A post-inspection form shall be used to document the post-inspection. The required 

elements for a post inspection form include all of the following: 

• Owner’s name, address and telephone. 

• Location of the engine. 

• Baseline engine information (make, model, model year, horsepower, and serial 

number) as written in the application and/or contract. 

• Space for the inspector to record whether the engine was scrapped or destroyed. 

• New engine information (make, model, model year, horsepower, and serial number). 

• Space for the inspector to record whether the engine is in running condition and 

make comments. 

Photos shall be maintained with the hard copy file or electronically and made available 

upon ARB request. The completed form shall be maintained in the project file. Final 

payment shall only be made to an owner once a satisfactory post-inspection has been 

completed. 

C. Annual Reports

Districts shall require all owners to submit annual reports commencing one year after 

project completion and annually thereafter for the term of the contract. The annual 
II-37 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

report shall be in a format prescribed by the district and shall contain all of the following 

information: 

• Owner’s name, address, and telephone number. 

• Location of the engine. 

• Engine information (make, model, model year, horsepower, and serial number). 

• Condition of the engine, including current working condition and any major 

maintenance of the engine that significantly affected the annual usage of the engine. 

• Any conditions (e.g. weather, permits) that significantly affected the annual usage of 

the engine. 

• Readings of the usage meter (hour meter, odometer, EMU, etc.). 

• A copy of evidence of the appropriate insurance. 

The districts shall review the annual report for completeness, accuracy, and usage. 

A hard copy of the annual report and a written record of the district’s analysis of the 

annual report shall be maintained in the project file. If the project performed 30 percent 

above or below the usage specified in the contract, the district shall flag the project. 

Any project that has been flagged for performance shall be evaluated over a multiyear 

basis. If the project’s usage does not average out to within 30 percent of the usage 

specified in the contract over at least a 3 year period, the district shall take appropriate 

action to ensure the contracted emissions reductions are realized. Appropriate actions 

include, but are not limited to, recapturing funds from the project in proportion to the loss 

in emissions reductions. 

There are a few situations whereby the district may reduce annual reporting 

requirements. If the district’s monitoring phase of the contract term exceeds five years, 

the owner’s reporting responsibility may be reduced to once every other year after an 

initial five years of satisfactory reporting. If the project involves a zero-emission 

technology, reporting may be reduced to biennially for the first six years and no annual 

reports are required thereafter. If the project has an EMU, the annual report may be 

collected through the electronic data system. 

If an annual report is incomplete, inaccurate or not received from an owner on schedule 

the district shall make a reasonable attempt to obtain the complete and accurate report 

from the owner. If the district is unable to obtain the report, all of the engines in that 

project shall be audited by the district. Owners with outstanding reports shall not be 

granted any additional Carl Moyer Program funds until all reports are satisfactorily 

submitted. Districts may bar an owner from applying for any additional 

Carl Moyer Program funds, if that owner has a history of not submitting satisfactory 

annual reports. 
II-38 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

D. Audits 

Districts shall audit at least ten percent (or a statistically significant number) of the 

projects that have more than a three-year project life and are within two years of 

contract expiration. In addition, district audits shall include all of the projects whose 

owners fail to report annually. The audit shall be completed by district staff and shall 

include verification that the engines paid for are still operational in the same equipment 

and meet the mileage, fuel usage, or hours of operation indicated on the executed 

contract. This shall be completed by checking the serial number of the engine; 

witnessing the engine operate; and checking the odometer, hour meter/usage device, 

fuel receipts, or EMU. 

Districts shall also randomly audit at least five percent (or a statistically significant 

number) of the projects at the end of the contract term. Districts shall also include those 

projects whose owners failed to report annually and those projects that were found to be 

below the level of use during the audit two years prior to the end of the contract. The 

audit shall be completed by district staff and shall, at a minimum, include verifying that 

the engines paid for are still operational in the same equipment and meet the mileage, 

fuel usage, or hours of operation indicated on the executed contract. This shall be 

completed by checking the serial number of the engine; witnessing the engine operate; 

and checking the odometer, hour meter/usage device, fuel receipts, or EMU. 

If the project is more than 30 percent below or above an annual average of the level of 

use outlined in the contract, the district shall take appropriate action to ensure the 

emissions benefits are realized and captured during the term of the contract. In 

addition, the district shall audit all of the other engines owned by the same participant 

and included in the same Carl Moyer Program funded project. 

X. Expenditure Requirements 

The final payment for a project shall only be made after a post-inspection is 

satisfactorily completed (see post-inspection section above) and all invoices have been 

received and approved. The district shall review the itemized receipts and only pay for 

eligible expenses. Eligible expenses are limited to those mechanical items that are 

necessary to complete the installation of the new engine or retrofit. At the discretion of 

the district the labor and sales tax directly associated with that installation may be 

included. The district shall maintain copies of all invoices and documentation of 

payment in the project file. For all on-road projects, if a compliance check was not 

previously completed, the district shall verify with its ARB district liaison that there are 

no outstanding violations prior to payment. 

Districts may make progress payments to owners provided the progress payments are 

based on a predetermined schedule that is set forth in the contract between the district 

and the owner. Those progress payments shall only be made after the owner provides 

the district with sufficient evidence of completing predetermined milestones (e.g. 
II-39 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

delivery of an engine). The district must maintain a clear record of progress payments 

in the file and in the administration/fiscal unit of the district. Progress payments include 

final payments that are withheld until all reporting requirements are met, also known as 

withhold payments. For purposes of ascertaining the percentage of funds expended to 

qualify for disbursement requests, districts that demonstrate the maintenance of 

withhold payments as a part of contracts with owners, may count the value of the 

withheld payment as expended once all other invoices for the project are paid. 

XI. ARB's Oversight 

The ARB’s oversight responsibilities for the Carl Moyer Program are multifaceted. The 

ARB must ensure that the emission reductions claimed by the Carl Moyer Program are 

real, surplus, enforceable, and quantifiable. The ARB is responsible for ensuring the 

funds are expended on projects that meet and follow the Health and Safety Code and 

Carl Moyer Program Guidelines. The ARB is also responsible for reviewing districts’ 

progress obligating and expending statewide funds, ultimately determining, when 

necessary, the need to reallocate funds within a funding cycle. The ARB may contract 

with an independent third party to ensure the structure of the Carl Moyer Program 

ensures the integrity of the program. The ARB staff shall report to the Board annually 

on the progress of the Carl Moyer Program. In carrying out these responsibilities, ARB 

maintains a close working relationship with the districts. 

A. Monitoring and Auditing of District Programs 

Monitoring is an ongoing process that is designed to provide training and technical 

assistance, as well as oversight, to the districts. Throughout the implementation of the 

Carl Moyer Program, ARB completes desk reviews of district programs, on-site 

monitoring, and audits. Desk reviews include reviewing project data to ensure 

emissions reductions and cost-effectiveness meet Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, and 

are real, surplus, enforceable, and quantifiable. At a minimum, the project data review 

shall occur when a district obligates funds on June 30 one year after the award of funds, 

and on June 30 two years after the award of funds. During the project data review, any 

Carl Moyer Program funds expended on a project or portion of a project that ARB finds, 

through its monitoring and auditing of districts, to not be eligible shall be documented as 

a finding in the district’s audit. The ARB will work closely with the district to determine 

the appropriate action necessary to rectify the incorrect project selection. If the 

correction is not made by the district, the district will be deemed “at risk.” 

The ARB also reviews all districts’ Carl Moyer Program policy and procedures manuals 

to ensure they are consistent with Carl Moyer Program rules, guidelines, and advisories. 

This review shall be completed at the time of the initial report, and when determined 

necessary by ARB. 

The ARB shall complete on-site monitoring on at least 5 percent of district projects, that 

were funded in the last completed funding cycle, for at least 4 districts per year. Due to 

statistical significance in random sampling, ARB may monitor up to 100 percent of the 
II-40 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

projects of a district if the district funds 20 or less projects per year. During the on-site 

monitoring, ARB shall review and verify that project data, emission reductions and 

cost-effectiveness meet Carl Moyer Program Guidelines and advisories, and all 

emission reductions are real, quantifiable, and surplus. The ARB’s on-site monitoring 

includes randomly selecting a sample of at least 5 percent of the projects funded in one 

funding cycle, completing an on-site file review, and project field review for each 

sampled project. The on-site monitoring also includes reviewing the implementation of 

the district’s local program for consistency with Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, 

advisories, and the district’s policies and procedures manual. This includes reviewing 

administrative (i.e. fiscal) controls. 

Auditing is a periodic formal process designed to assess each district’s implementation 

of the Carl Moyer Program and that its implementation is consistent with all applicable 

rules, regulations, and guidelines, including the district’s own policies and procedures 

manual. Audits may be fiscal, programmatic, or both. A district may be audited with or 

without a previous monitoring or auditing. For example, the State Bureau of Audits may 

audit a district whether or not ARB has previously monitored or audited the same 

district. An audit may include all components of both desk and on-site reviews. The 

ARB may include an audit of the Carl Moyer Program with any other scheduled ARB 

audit of a district. The ARB may also designate a third party auditor to perform the 

audit. 

At the conclusion of monitoring and/or auditing, ARB shall provide the district with a 

written report. This written review shall include, if applicable, any deficiencies in the 

district’s program that require correction. The district will have 30 calendar days, from 

the date of the written report, to correct the deficiencies and respond in writing to the 

report. The ARB staff will provide the district with the opportunity for training and 

technical assistance to develop and implement a corrective action plan. If ARB 

determines the district has not taken adequate corrective action within the allotted 

30 days, the district will be deemed “at-risk”; the district shall not be eligible to apply for 

future funding; and ARB shall hold at least one public meeting to consider public 

comments prior to recapturing all Carl Moyer Program funds that have not been 

obligated by the district. When recapturing project funds, ARB may also recapture 

administrative funds associated with the project funds. The ARB shall reallocate those 

funds to districts that are eligible to receive additional funds based on applications for 

the same fiscal year. 

B. ARB Administrative Action 

The administrative actions described in this section are the procedures ARB shall follow 

to recapture funds. The HSC section 44287(k), requires any funds not expended by a 

district by June 30 of the second calendar year following the date of the reservation, to 

revert back to the ARB as of that June 30. Those funds shall be recaptured and 

reallocated to another district or districts based on applications for the same fiscal year. 

The HSC section 44287(k) also requires that any district whose allocation has been 
II-41 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

recaptured remain eligible to reserve funds for local administration of the 

Carl Moyer Program. 

1. “At-Risk” Districts

Any and all districts that have not provided an annual report documenting the obligation 

of all of their funding by June 30 of the year following their award are defined as an 

“at-risk” district. Any district that has been identified as “at-risk” by ARB will receive a 

letter from ARB by July 30 of the year following the district’s award (or as soon 

thereafter as practically possible) stating the reason the district has been identified as 

“at-risk.” The ARB notification letter will also require the district to develop and submit 

an acceptable remedial plan within 30 calendar days from the date the district receives 

notification (sent certified mail) from ARB. 

2. Submittal of a Remedial Plan 

The remedial plan shall include all of the following: 

• An outline of milestones the district will follow to fully obligate the remainder of their 

allocation by December 30. 

• An outline of milestones to completely expend the funds by the second June 30 

following their award. 

• An annual report documenting the amount of match and Carl Moyer Program funds 

the district has obligated to date. 

Upon receipt of the remedial plan, ARB will review and approve or disapprove the plan 

as acceptable. If a district does not submit an acceptable plan within 30 calendar days, 

the ARB shall begin administrative action to recapture the funds from that district. 

When recapturing project funds, ARB may also recapture administrative funds 

associated with the project funds. The ARB will reallocate those funds to districts that 

are eligible to receive additional funds based on applications for the same fiscal year. 

3. ARB Assistance to Meet Acceptable Remedial Plan 

Once an acceptable remedial action plan is submitted by an “at-risk” district, ARB will 

provide the district with technical assistance to and monitor the district’s progress in 

meeting the milestones in the remedial plan. This will require the “at-risk” district to 

update and submit reports on progress in meeting their milestones as required by ARB. 

If the “at-risk” district falls 30 or more days behind its remedial plan, ARB will take 

administrative action to recapture the remaining unobligated Carl Moyer Program funds 

from that district. Those funds will be reallocated to districts that are eligible to receive 

additional funds based on applications for the same fiscal year. 
II-42 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

4. Obligation and Expenditure of Match Funds 

If a district has obligated funds from an allocation, and any of the allocation has been 

recaptured by the ARB, the district remains responsible for obligating and expending all 

of the required match for the obligated amount of the allocation. No further 

disbursements from any allocation will be made to a district that has an outstanding 

match requirement from any previous allocation. 

C. ARB Allocation of Recaptured District Funds 

When ARB recaptures funds in any fiscal year, ARB will only consider the districts that 

have applied for and have sufficient match to accept additional funding for the same 

year and type of (district or multi-district) allocation. The ARB will not consider any 

districts that are “at-risk” at the time of this allocation. The ARB is not able to reallocate 

funds to any district receiving the minimum award of $200,000 unless that district is able 

to provide match funds for the minimum award of $200,000 plus any additional funds 

applied for. 

Once ARB has a list of districts with sufficient match and that are not “at-risk,” ARB will 

use the following steps to allocate the recaptured funds to the district(s) that are eligible 

to receive an additional award. 

• The ARB will first try to allocate funds to districts that are located in the same air 

basin as the district from which the funds have been recaptured. 

• If there are no districts in the air basin that have sufficient match and are in good 

standing, then ARB will allocate the funds to districts that have projects that travel 

through the same air basin as the district from which the funds were recaptured. 

• If there are no districts that have projects that travel through the same air basin, ARB 

will allocate the recaptured funds to the districts that have already obligated all of 

their allocation of that same FY funds; and, are the first, or among the first, to 

propose a Carl Moyer Program eligible and viable project, which will be completed 

(funds obligated and expended) within two years of the original allocation of the 

reallocated funds. 

The new allocated funds must be spent in the same category (district or multi-district) 

from which they came. These funds may or may not include the administration funds 

originally associated with them. 

D. Report to the Board 

The Carl Moyer Program staff shall report to the Board annually on the progress in 

implementing the Carl Moyer Program. This report will provide the general public with 
II-43 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

another opportunity to be advised of the results of the program. This report shall 

include the following topic areas: 

• Total applications received for current year’s funds. 

• Efforts and results of outreach to potential environmental justice, zero-emission 

projects, and small business project owners. 

• The status of the obligation and expenditure of the current year’s funds statewide 

and by district. 

• The status of the obligation and expenditure of previous years’ funds statewide and 

by district. 

• District and ARB monitoring and auditing efforts and results, including any audits 

completed by independent third parties. 

• The status of emissions reductions by projects in the implementation phase of their 

contracts, including reasons for and solutions to shortfalls for projects that do not 

perform as projected. 

• Outstanding features and accomplishments of the districts and ARB. 

• Challenges for the districts and ARB in implementing the Carl Moyer Program. 

The ARB encourages the districts to report to their governing boards in a similar 

fashion. 

XII. References

ARB, 1998. Air Resources Board. ARB 1998 Criteria and Guidelines for the Use of 

Motor Vehicle Registration Fees. 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/tsaq/mvrfp/criteria/criteria.htm 

ARB, 2002. Air Resources Board and Office of Environmental Health Hazard 

Assessment. Staff Report: Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Ambient Air 

Quality Standards for Particulate Matter and Sulfates. 

ftp://ftp.arb.ca.gov/carbis/regact/aaqspm/isor.pdf 

ARB, 2005. Air Resources Board. Staff Report: Review of California Ambient Air 

Quality Standards for Ozone. ftp://ftp.arb.ca.gov/carbis/regact/ozone05/isorv3.pdf 

Avol, E.L., et al. 2001. Respiratory effects of relocating to areas of differing air pollution 

levels. Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 164: 2067-2072. 
II-44 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

Gauderman, W.J., et al. 2002. Association between air pollution and lung function 

growth in Southern California children: Results from a second cohort. Am J Resp Crit 

Care Med, 166(1): 74-84. 

McConnell, R., et al. 2002. Asthma in exercising children exposed to ozone: A cohort 

study. Lancet, 359: 386–391. 

Peters, A., D.W. Dockery, J.E. Muller, and M.A. Mittleman. 2001. Increased particulate 

air pollution and the triggering of myocardial infarction. Circulation; 103: 2810-2815. 
THE CARL MOYER PROGRAM GUIDELINES 

PART II of IV 

PROJECT CRITERIA

Approved Revision 2005 

November 17, 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Chapter One –Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles .............................................................I-1 

Chapter Two –Heavy-Duty On-Road Fleet Modernization ..........................................II-1 

Chapter Three – Reducing Idling Emissions from Heavy-Duty Vehicles....................III-1 

Chapter Four – Transport Refrigeration Units ........................................................... IV-1 

Chapter Five – Compression-Ignition Off-Road Equipment ....................................... V-1 

Chapter Six – Large Spark-Ignition Off-Road Equipment.......................................... VI-1 

Chapter Seven – Airport Ground Support Equipment .............................................. VII-1 

Chapter Eight – Locomotives .................................................................................. VIII-1 

Chapter Nine – Marine Vessels................................................................................. IX-1 

Chapter Ten – Agricultural Sources ........................................................................... X-1 

Chapter Eleven – Light-Duty Vehicles....................................................................... XI-1 

Chapter Twelve – Zero-Emission Technologies....................................................... XII-1 
I-1 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

Chapter One 

ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

This chapter addresses the project criteria for on-road heavy-duty vehicles (HDVs). It 

also contains a brief overview of the HDV emission inventory, current engine emission 

standards and regulations impacting HDVs available control technologies, potential 

projects eligible for funding, and cost-effectiveness calculations. Since the 2003 

Guidelines, the Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) has adopted many regulations that 

affect existing heavy-duty vehicles. The project criteria in this chapter have been 

updated to reflect these new regulatory requirements. The Carl Moyer Program 

provides financial incentives to pay for the incremental cost of cleaner-than-required 

HDV purchase of new vehicles, repowers, and retrofits. 

I. Introduction 

On-road HDVs encompass a large variety of vehicles such as buses, solid waste 

collection vehicles (SWCV), street sweepers, delivery trucks and more. These vehicles 

are typically categorized by weight. Vehicles greater than 8,501 pounds (lbs) gross 

vehicle weight rating (GVWR) are considered to be HDVs which can also be 

subcategorized as light heavy-duty (LHD), medium heavy-duty (MHD) and 

heavy heavy-duty (HHD) vehicles (see Table 1-1). 

Table 1-1 

Heavy-Duty Vehicle Classifications 

Vehicle Classification GVWR 

Light Heavy-duty (LHD) 8,501 < 14,000 lbs 

Medium Heavy-Duty (MHD) 14,001 < 33,000 lbs 

Heavy Heavy-Duty (HHD) 33,001 or more lbs 

HDVs can also be further categorized by use and fuel type. Regulations traditionally 

refer to the vehicle usage type such as SWCVs, urban buses, and public fleets. 

Section III of this chapter provides information on regulations that currently impact these 

vehicles. 

Fuel types for HDVs include diesel, alternative diesel fuels, compressed natural gas 

(CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), liquefied propane gas (LPG), gasoline and 

electricity. The majority of HDVs are powered by compression-ignition engines typically 

fueled with diesel fuel. This preference for diesel engines presents an air quality 

challenge since diesel emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and particulate matter 

(PM) have not been controlled to the extent that gasoline-fueled vehicle emissions 

have, particularly for light and medium-duty vehicles. Furthermore, HDVs involved in 

the transport of goods typically accrue higher annual mileage than other vehicles. 
I-2 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

Consequently, the share of total emissions from HDVs is disproportionately higher than 

their population would suggest. 

II. Emissions 

Even though the population of all HDVs, including urban buses, account for 

approximately one percent of all on-road vehicles, they emit about 55 percent of the 

on-road statewide NOx emissions, 14 percent of the statewide reactive organic gases 

(ROG) emissions and 35 percent of the statewide PM10 emissions. As shown in 

Table 1-2, the NOx, ROG and PM10 annual emissions from HDVs will decrease 

through 2010. However, it is important to note that emissions from other on-road motor 

vehicle categories will also decrease, and by 2010, HDVs will contribute an even larger 

share of the emissions from motor vehicles. In addition, daily vehicle miles traveled 

(VMT) by HDVs are projected to increase by about 11 percent from 2005 to 2010. 

Clearly, emissions from heavy-duty vehicles have to be reduced further if California is to 

achieve its air quality goals. 

Table 1-2 

Heavy-Duty Vehicle Annual Emissions* 

Vehicles Greater than 8,500 Pounds 

VMT NOx 

tpd 

ROG 

tpd 

PM10 

tpd 

2005 61,446,000 839 107 18 

2010 69,112,000 654 84 15 

 * 2005 Almanac 

III. Regulatory Requirements 

All HDVs sold in California have engines that have been certified to specific standards. 

Those standards are, in general, consistent nationwide and are discussed below. 

Urban transit buses are an exception, having more stringent requirements than other 

HDVs until the two standards align in 2007. All purchases of new vehicles funded by 

the Carl Moyer Program must be surplus to these minimum requirements. 

In addition, the ARB has developed, or is in the process of developing, additional 

regulations which will overlay these new engine standards for specific categories. 

These categories, discussed below, include transit vehicles, SWCVs, school buses, 

public fleets and private fleets. Any Carl Moyer Program project must be surplus to 

these regulations. 

A. Emission Standards 

Engine emission standards have progressively and substantially reduced NOx and PM 

emissions from HDVs. Table 1-3 lists the existing and future NOx and PM emission 

standards for heavy-duty engines as found in Title 13, California Code of Regulations 
I-3 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

Table 1-3 

Emission Standards for Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines 

(grams per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr)) 

(1) NOx plus NMHC 

(2) NOx plus NMHC with 0.5 g/bhp-hr NMHC cap 

(3) Between 2007-2009, U.S. EPA requires 50 percent of heavy-duty diesel engine family certifications to meet the 

0.2 g/bhp-hr NOx standard. Averaging is allowed, and it is expected that most engines will conform to the fleet NOx 

average of approximately 1.2 g-bhp/hr. 

(4) Optional Standard sunsets on December 31, 2006 

(CCR), section 1956.8 [ARB, 2002a]. Urban buses have a separate set of standards 

and are shown in Table 1-4 as found in Title 13, CCR, section 1956.1 [ARB, 2002b].

Table 1-4 

Emission Standards for Urban Buses 

(g/bhp-hr) 

(1) Standard applies to urban bus equipped with diesel-fuel, dual fuel, or bi-fuel engines. 

(2) NOx plus NMHC 

(3) NOx plus NMHC with 0.5 g/bhp-hr NMHC cap 

(4) Between 2007-2009, U.S. EPA requires 50 percent of heavy-duty diesel engine family certifications to meet the 0.2 

g/bhp-hr NOx standard. Averaging is allowed, and it is expected that most engines will conform to the fleet NOx average 

of approximately 1.2 g-bhp/hr. 

(5) Standard sunsets on December 31, 2006 

B. Fleet Regulation for Transit Agencies 

1. Transit Fleet Vehicles 

The fleet regulation for transit agencies was amended by the Board on 

February 24, 2005 [ARB, 2005]. This regulation impacts vehicles owned or operated by 

a transit agency. The specific transit fleet vehicles impacted are on-road vehicles 

8,501 pounds GVWR or greater powered by a heavy-duty engine fueled by diesel or 

Diesel Urban Bus Alt Fuel Urban Bus Alt Fuel Urban Bus 

Optional Standard (5)

Model Year NOx PM NOx PM NOx + NMHC PM 

2004 - 2006 0.5(1) 0.01 2.4(2) or 2.5(3) 0.01 1.8 - 0.3 0.03 - 0.01 

2007 1.2(4) 0.01 1.2(4) 0.01 - - 

2010 0.2 0.01 0.2 0.01 - - 

Heavy-Duty Vehicles Heavy-Duty Optional Standard (4)

Model Year NOx PM NOx + NMHC PM 

2004 - 2006 2.4(1) or 2.5(2) 0.1 1.8 - 0.3 0.03 - 0.01 

2007 1.2(3) 0.01 - - 

2010 0.2 0.01 - - 
I-4 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

alternative fuel that are not urban buses. Transit agencies operating only 

gasoline-powered vehicles are not subject to this regulation.

The regulation establishes a fleet average NOx standard and PM emission reduction 

requirement for transit fleet vehicles phased-in between 2007 and 2010. Transit fleet 

vehicles are subject to the heavy-duty diesel engine emission standards and not the 

urban bus engine exhaust emission standards.

A transit agency must meet NOx emission averages of 3.2 g/bhp-hr by 

December 31, 2007, and 2.4 g/bhp-hr by December 31, 2010, from its transit fleet 

vehicles. A transit agency must also reduce diesel PM emissions of its transit fleet 

vehicles by 40 percent as of December 31, 2007, and 80 percent as of 

December 31, 2010, compared to the agency’s baseline emissions as of 

January 1, 2005. 

2. Urban Bus 

An urban transit bus is a passenger-carrying vehicle powered by a heavy heavy-duty 

diesel engine with a load capacity of fifteen or more passengers and intended primarily 

for short rides and frequent stops. Urban transit buses statewide are subject to ARB’s 

Public Transit Agency Vehicle regulation amended in 2005. The regulation required 

transit agencies that own, operate or lease urban buses to choose a diesel fuel or 

alternative fuel path and follow the requirements as described for each fuel path. 

Agencies on the alternative fuel path are required to: 

• Purchase or lease alternative fuel buses that meet the current standards for 

85 percent of the annual purchases made by the agency, through 2015. 

• Only purchase new buses with an engine certified to an optional PM standard of 

0.03 g/bhp-hr or lower. 

• Agencies established before January 1, 2005 that are on the alternative-fuel path 

shall not operate an active fleet of urban buses with: 

- Average NOx emissions in excess of 4.8 g/bhp-hr, based on the engine 

certification standards of the engines in the active fleet. 

- Diesel PM emission totals exceeding: 

(1) 40 percent of the agency’s January 1, 2002 diesel PM average beginning 

January 1, 2007. 

(2) 15 percent of the agency’s January 1, 2002 diesel PM average beginning 

January 1, 2009. 

Agencies on the diesel fuel path are required to: 

• Purchase a diesel-fueled, dual-fueled or bi-fueled bus with 2004-2006 MY engines 

certified to 0.5 g/bhp-hr of NOx and 0.01 g/bhp-hr of PM or an alternative fuel bus 

with an engine certified to an optional PM standard of 0.03 g/bhp-hr or lower. 

• Agencies established before January 1, 2005 that are on the diesel fuel path shall 

not operate an active fleet of urban buses with: 
I-5 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

- Average NOx emissions in excess of 4.8 g/bhp-hr, based on the engine 

certification standards of the engines in the active fleet. 

- Diesel PM emission totals exceeding: 

(1) 40 percent of the agency’s January 1, 2002 diesel PM average beginning 

January 1, 2005. 

(2) 15 percent of the agency’s January 1, 2002 diesel PM average or equal to 

0.01 g/bhp-hr times the total number of current diesel-fueled active fleet 

buses whichever is greater beginning January 1, 2007. 

Agencies established after January 1, 2005, regardless of which path they choose, shall 

not operate an active fleet of urban buses with: 

• Average NOx emissions in excess of 4.0 g/bhp-hr, or the NOx average of the active 

fleet of the transit agency from which it was formed whichever is lower, or in the 

case of a merger of two or more transit agencies or parts of two or more transit 

agencies, the average of the NOx fleet averages, whichever is lower. 

• Diesel PM exhaust emissions exceeding the following values: 

(1) Through December 31, 2009, 0.05 g/bhp-hr times the total number of 

diesel-fueled buses in the active fleet. 

(2) As of January 1, 2010, 0.01 g/bhp-hr times the total number of diesel-fueled 

buses in the active fleet. 

C. Solid Waste Collection Vehicles 

SWCVs are on-road heavy-duty vehicles with a GVWR of 14,000 pounds or more and 

are used for the purpose of collecting residential and commercial solid waste. SWCVs 

are subject to a statewide diesel PM control measure adopted by the Board on 

September 23, 2003 [ARB, 2004]. The regulation requires each owner to use one of 

the best available control technologies (BACT) as described in the regulation on each 

engine or collection vehicle in the fleet. 

BACT, as defined by the regulation, can be summarized as an engine or power system 

certified to the optional 0.01 g/bhp-hr PM standard; an engine or power system certified 

to the 0.1 g/bhp-hr PM emission standard, used in conjunction with the highest level 

diesel emission control system (DECS); an alternative fuel or heavy-duty pilot ignition 

engine, model year 2004 – 2006 certified to the optional standard; or the highest level 

diesel emission control strategy that is verified. 

BACT compliance deadlines are phased in, and are based on a group of engine model 

years as listed in Table 1-5. It is important to note that Group 2 requirements apply to 

specific model years (MY) based on the fleet size. Compliance deadlines begin in 2004 

and continue through 2010. 
I-6 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

Table 1-5 

Implementation Schedule for Solid Waste Collection Vehicles, 

Model Years 1960 to 2006 

Group Engine Model Years 

Percentage of 

Group to Use Best 

Available Control 

Technology 

Compliance 

Deadline 

1 1988 – 2002 10 

25 

50 

100 

December 31, 2004 

December 31, 2005 

December 31, 2006 

December 31, 2007 

2a 1960 – 1987 

(Total fleet ≥ 15 

collection vehicles) 

15 

40 

60 

80 

100 

December 31, 2005 

December 31, 2006 

December 31, 2007 

December 31, 2008 

December 31, 2009 

2b 1960 – 1987 

(Total fleet < 15 

collection vehicles) 

25 

50 

75 

100 

December 31, 2007 

December 31, 2008 

December 31, 2009 

December 31, 2010 

3 2003 – 2006 

(Includes dual-fuel and 

bi-fuel engines) 

50 

100 

December 31, 2009 

December 31, 2010 

D. Upcoming Regulations 

Municipal or utility-owned on-road heavy-duty diesel-fueled vehicles, such as dump 

trucks, street sweepers, and aerial lift trucks are not currently regulated by a fleet rule. 

The Board will consider a proposed in-use diesel particulate control measure for public 

and utility fleets in December 2005 which may impact the project criteria for these 

projects. Due to low mileage, these projects are generally only eligible for small grant 

amounts. 

Private on-road heavy-duty diesel-fueled vehicle fleets such as in-use heavy-duty trucks 

are not currently regulated. The Board is tentatively scheduled to hear a proposed 

diesel particulate control measure for private fleets in 2006 which may impact the 

project criteria for these projects. 

IV. Potential Project Types 

The Carl Moyer Program can achieve emission reductions from heavy-duty vehicles 

operating in California. The project criteria are designed to ensure that the emission 

reductions expected through the deployment of low-emission engines or retrofit 

technologies under this program are surplus, real, quantifiable, and enforceable. 
I-7 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

There are four main types of HDV projects: purchase of new vehicle, repower, retrofit, 

and alternative fuels. Each of these are discussed below. 

Commercially available low-emission HDVs are considered suitable 

Carl Moyer Program projects, either as new engine/vehicle purchases or new engine 

purchases for vehicle repowers. Recent statutory changes now allow for the potential to 

fund LHD projects. Due to the uncertainty of future requests, LHD projects will be 

considered initially on a case-by-case basis. If an appreciable number of applications 

are received for LHD projects, ARB will develop specific guidance. 

Diesel engines, due to their high efficiency and long life, dominate the HDV markets. 

However, their typical lean-burn, high-compression, high-temperature operation has 

resulted in technical limitations for achieving significant NOx emission reductions. 

Alternative fuel engines, especially those fueled by CNG and LNG, have been able to 

achieve NOx emissions of about half of a conventional diesel engine. Alternative fuel 

engines, including LPG engines, are available for MHD truck applications and HHD 

engines used in trash truck applications. 

In 2010, both the alternative-fuel and diesel fuel standards will align at 

0.2 g/bhp-hr NOx. As a result, engine manufacturers have invested significant 

resources for the development of reduced-emission diesel engines and progress has 

been made, especially with the integration of advanced electronics, the use of exhaust 

gas recirculation, and after treatment devices. Today's generation of HD diesel engines 

are nearly as clean as some of the alternative-fuel engines produced prior to 2003. 

Nevertheless, it is likely that only alternative-fuel engines will meet the lower NOx 

emission standard requirements for Carl Moyer Program funding for the purchases of 

new vehicles at this time. 

The variety of alternative fuel engines available and the number sold in California has 

increased significantly. However, due to increasingly stringent emission standards, the 

number of available alternative fuel engines being certified each year has decreased. 

As engine technology matures, the number and variety of engines certified to the 

emission standards will expand. Alternative fuel vehicles have had the most success in 

the urban bus market. Presently, approximately 50 percent of all bus sales in California 

are alternative fuel vehicles and a significant number of transit agencies have focused 

exclusively on alternative fuel buses for new bus purchases. 

A. Purchase of New Vehicle 

New vehicle purchases of LNG and CNG HDVs are expected to continue to be the most 

common type of project for on-road heavy-duty vehicles under the Carl Moyer Program, 

although LPG vehicles continue to be an option. The ARB certifies engines destined for 

sale in California and provides the engine manufacturers with an Executive Order (EO) 

for each certified engine family which is used to determine eligibility for new vehicle 

purchases and engine repowers. To be eligible, the new vehicle/engine must be 

certified to one of the ARB’s current optional emission standards of 
I-8 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

1.8 g/bhp-hr NOx + NMHC or lower through 2006, regardless of fuel type or engine 

design. Beginning in January 2007, the optional standards will sunset, and projects for 

the purchase of a new vehicle must have an engine certified to 0.2 g/bhp-hr of NOx. 

The Heavy-Duty Diesel-Engine and Vehicle Standard will continue to be used as the 

baseline for determining eligibility for on-road purchases of new vehicles except urban 

buses. Engines and vehicles certified to the Heavy-Duty Otto-Cycle Engine Standard 

may also be eligible for funding if certified to a level equivalent to the current optional 

diesel standard or 30 percent less than the current diesel standard. Since new engines 

are certified throughout the year, districts are encouraged to contact ARB for the most 

current list of eligible engines. 

Purchases of new vehicles must also be beyond the requirements of ARB’s regulations. 

Thus, applicants must submit evidence of compliance with the regulations or 

documentation to support that Carl Moyer Program funds will not be used to meet 

regulatory requirements. 

Heavy-duty hybrid electric vehicle purchases are another new vehicle purchase project 

type eligible for Carl Moyer Program funding. Heavy-duty hybrid-electric propulsion 

systems combine two motive power sources: an energy storage system such as 

batteries or ultra-capacitors, and an internal combustion engine, turbine, or fuel cell 

functioning as an auxiliary power unit. An electric motor provides partial or complete 

power to the wheels. In addition, energy otherwise lost as heat during braking is 

captured through regenerative braking to charge the energy storage system. 

In order to qualify for the Carl Moyer Program, the hybrid-electric drive system must be 

certified using the "California Interim Certification Procedures for 2004 and Subsequent 

Model Hybrid-Electric Vehicles, in the Urban Bus and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Classes." 

These test procedures provide a method to quantify the emission benefits of a hybridelectric drive system which is not possible through engine certification methods. At this 

time, one gasoline hybrid-electric drive system for use in urban buses is certified to the 

optional NOx standards at 0.6 g/bhp-hr and is classified as an alternative fuel bus. 

Average Banking and Trading (ABT) engines (i.e., all Family Emission Limit 

(FEL)-certified engines) are not eligible to participate in the Carl Moyer Program for new 

vehicle purchase projects since emission benefits from an engine certified to an FEL 

level are not surplus emissions. 

B. Repower 

Vehicle repower refers to the replacement of an existing engine with a newer engine 

certified to lower emission standards. For the Carl Moyer Program, existing HDV 

engines, regardless of model year, must be repowered with an ARB certified engine, 

Model Year 1991 or newer. Engine repowers are allowed only when the highest 

available ARB verified retrofit is installed as part of the repower project. All other 

eligibility criteria must also be met. Under the Carl Moyer Program, funding is not 
I-9 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

available for projects in which spark-ignition engines (i.e., natural gas or gasoline, etc.) 

are replaced with new diesel engines. 

Replacement of an old mechanical engine with a newer mechanical engine that is 

certified to a lower NOx emission standard may be cost-effective. (Mechanical engines 

are those having mechanically-controlled injection timing. These engines are common 

in pre-1991 models). Some air districts have also expressed interest in 

mechanical-to-electronic engine repowers for on-road heavy-duty engines. Although 

substantial NOx emission reductions may occur in these types of projects, installation of 

an electronically controlled engine into a mechanical engine platform is difficult due to 

the significant differences in fuel and electrical systems. Thus, mechanical-to-electronic 

engine repower projects will be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

Another possible repower option is the use of an engine that was certified to a FEL level 

as the replacement engine. FEL engines can be funded for vehicle repower projects 

only if they are certified to a level that is below the required emission standard. Due to 

the possibility of emission credits being generated from FEL engine averaging, specific 

guidelines must be followed when calculating emission reductions. These guidelines 

are explained in the repower portion of the Project Criteria section below. 

C. Retrofit 

Retrofit involves modifications to an engine and/or fuel system such that the retrofitted 

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

are allowed for all engine model years, regardless of mechanical or electronic control. 

The most straightforward retrofit projects are add-on after treatments. ARB has 

approved formal verification procedures for several retrofit kits and diesel emission 

control strategies. The verification process is ongoing, and districts are encouraged to 

contact ARB to obtain the most current list of eligible retrofits. Retrofits may also 

include engine and/or fuel system component upgrades that could be done at the time 

of an engine rebuild, resulting in a lower emission configuration. See Appendix F for 

more detailed information regarding retrofits. 

D. Alternative Fuel 

Districts have the option to fund the cost difference between conventional diesel fuel 

and an alternative fuel such as alternative-diesel fuel, CNG, LNG, and LPG with 

matching funds. The fuel purchase must be an integral part of an engine purchase, 

repower, or retrofit. 

V. Project Criteria 

Reduced-emission on-road heavy-duty vehicle projects which include the purchase of a 

new vehicle, vehicle engine replacement (repower), and engine retrofit, can be 

considered for incentive funding. The project criteria listed below for on-road 

heavy-duty vehicles provide districts, fleet operators, transit agencies, and applicants 
I-10 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

with the minimum qualifications for the Carl Moyer Program. The primary criteria for 

selection are: emission reductions, cost-effectiveness, and ability for the project to be 

completed within the timeframe of the program. Sample calculations that illustrate the 

methodology for determining emission reductions and cost-effectiveness are included in 

Appendices C and D. 

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

address local concerns. 

A. General 

• Emission reductions obtained through Carl Moyer Program projects must not be 

required by any federal, state or local regulation, memorandum of 

agreement/understanding with a regulatory agency, settlement agreement, 

mitigation requirement, or other legal mandate. 

• Projects must meet a cost-effectiveness of $14,300 per weighed ton of NOx + ROG 

+ PM10 reduced calculated in accordance with the cost-effectiveness methodology 

discussed in this chapter. 

• No emission reductions generated by the Carl Moyer Program shall be used as 

marketable emission reduction credits, or to offset any emission reduction obligation 

of any person or entity. 

• No project funded by the Carl Moyer Program shall be used for credit under any 

federal or state emission averaging banking and trading program. 

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

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

subject to additional funding restrictions, such as a lower cost-effectiveness limit or a 

project cost cap. 

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

• Funded projects must have at least 75 percent of the vehicle’s annual miles traveled 

in California. 

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

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

real, quantifiable and enforceable emission reduction benefits. 

• Vehicles operating under a compliance extension granted by the ARB, a local 

district, or the U.S. EPA are not eligible for funding. 
I-11 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

• Default project life for on-road projects are as follows: 

School buses > 33,000 GVWR - New 20 years 

Buses > 33,000 GVWR - New 12 years 

Other On-road - New 10 years 

Repowers + Retrofits 5 years 

Retrofits 5 years 

Applicants must provide documentation to justify a longer project life. The default 

project life does not consider upcoming regulatory requirements. Project life may be 

shorter due to regulatory requirements. 

• On-road heavy-duty diesel vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating between 

8,501 and 14,000 pounds may be considered for Carl Moyer Program funding for 

new, repower and retrofit projects on a case-by-case basis. 

• All engines in new vehicle purchases and repower projects must be certified by the 

ARB for sale in California and must comply with durability and warranty 

requirements. 

• All aftermarket emission controls (retrofits) must be verified by ARB. 

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

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

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

B. Compliance Check 

After the district receives an application for any on-road repower or retrofit project but 

before the district APCO signs an agreement for funding a project, the district must 

submit information regarding the project to ARB to check for outstanding violations. The 

process for completing the compliance check is as follows: 

• The district shall email its ARB district liaison the registered owner’s name, vehicle 

identification number, California Highway Patrol number, Department of 

Transportation number or Interstate Commerce Commission number for each 

engine to be repowered or retrofitted in the project. Due to the large number of 

vehicles that could require compliance checks, districts are encouraged to submit 

this data as soon as possible after receipt of the application. 

• The liaison will forward that information electronically to the responsible parties at 

ARB. The liaison will email the district the results of the compliance check within 

seven working days. 

• If the compliance check indicates there is an outstanding violation the district shall 

inform the engine owner in writing that no disbursement may be made until the 

owner provides proof that the violation has been corrected and the fines have been 

paid. 
I-12 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

• If the outstanding violation is based on problems with the baseline engine (e.g., 

gross polluter) the new engine must be installed (instead of fixing the old engine), 

the vehicle must be operational, the engine owner must pay the violation and submit 

documentation of the violation being corrected with, or before submitting, the 

invoice. 

• During inspections, districts must also check for a sticker verifying engines subject to 

the software upgrades for diesel trucks (i.e., chip reflash) have completed the 

upgrade before receiving funding. 

C. Purchase of New Vehicle 

The following criteria apply to all on-road new vehicle purchases 

• Engines must be certified to an optional, low-emission standard of at least 

1.8 g/bhp-hr NOx + NMHC or provide at least a 30 percent reduction of NOx 

compared to the baseline NOx emission factors for the specific vehicle type to claim 

NOx reductions from the project. 

• Fleets/agencies affected by upcoming fleet regulations may use Carl Moyer Program 

funding to purchase a new vehicle if the project life expires prior to the final 

compliance date for the reductions in the regulation. For example, if a project with a 

3-year project life is funded in December 2006, the emission reductions must be 

surplus to any emission reductions that are required by any regulations that apply 

through December 2009. 

• Fleets/agencies purchasing vehicles that will be affected by upcoming emission 

standards may use Carl Moyer Program funding to purchase a new vehicle up to the 

compliance date of the new standard. 

• The Heavy-Duty Diesel-Engine and Vehicle Standard will be used as the baseline 

for determining eligibility for the purchase of a new on-road vehicle. Engines and 

vehicles certified to the Heavy-Duty Otto-Cycle Engine Standard may be eligible if 

certified to a level equivalent to the current optional diesel standard or 30 percent 

less than the current diesel standard. 

• Through 2006, the purchase of a new vehicles is eligible for the Carl Moyer Program 

if the engine is certified to an optional, low-emission standard of 

1.8 g/bhp-hr NOx + NMHC or less. 

• From 2007 to 2009, the purchase of a new vehicle is eligible for the 

Carl Moyer Program if the engine is certified to a 0.2 g/bhp-hr NOx emission limit. 

• Engines used in any ABT program are not eligible for funding. 
I-13 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

D. Repower 

The following criteria apply to all on-road repower (engine replacement) projects. 

• Repower replacement engines must be an ARB certified engine with a Model Year 

of 1991 or newer. 

• On-road engine repowers are allowed only when the highest available ARB retrofit is 

installed as part of the repower project. 

• If a repower project does not meet the weighted cost-effective limit due to a retrofit, 

then the project is only eligible for the cost up to the weighted cost-effective limit. 

• The full cost of a retrofit kit included in a repower project may be funded subject to 

the $14,300 weighted cost-effectiveness limit. 

• If no retrofit is shown to be technically feasible to the district and ARB, the retrofit is 

not required. 

• Repower projects that reduce NOx emissions must be certified by ARB to a 

NOx reduction level of at least 15 percent from the baseline engine to claim 

NOx reductions from the project. 

• Fleets/agencies affected by upcoming fleet regulations may use Carl Moyer Program 

funding for repower projects if the project life expires prior to the final compliance 

date for the reductions in the regulation. For example, if a project with a 3-year 

project life is funded in December 2006, the emission reductions must be surplus to 

any emission reductions that are required by any regulations that apply through 

December 2009. 

• Funding requests for other related repowering equipment, such as the vehicle 

transmission, will be considered on a case-by-case basis, based upon whether it is a 

necessary expense, and is at the discretion of the district. 

• The replacement engine used in vehicle repower projects may be a new, rebuilt, or 

remanufactured engine. Eligible rebuilt or remanufactured engines are those offered 

by the original engine manufacturer (OEM) or by a non-OEM rebuilder who 

demonstrates to the ARB that the rebuilt engine and parts are functionally equivalent 

from an emissions and durability standpoint to the OEM engine and components 

being replaced. Rebuild and remanufactured engines that are not re-certified to new 

emission standards, shall use the emission standards associated with the original 

engine block. 

• For repowers, replacement engines manufactured after September 30, 2002, that 

are not certified to at least the 2.4 g/bhp-hr NOx + NMHC, or 
I-14 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

2.5 g/bhp-hr NOx + NMHC with a 0.5 g/bhp-hr NMHC cap, are ineligible to 

participate in the Carl Moyer Program. 

• Engines that are certified to a FEL NOx or NOx + NMHC level that is lower than the 

required emission standard are eligible for use in vehicle repower projects. 

However, the emission level that can be used in cost-effectiveness calculations for 

these engines would be the applicable emission standards and not the FEL levels. 

• Replacement engines subject to the software upgrades for diesel trucks (i.e., chip 

reflash) must complete the software upgrade process before being installed in a 

vehicle. The cost of the software upgrade, if any, is not an eligible 

Carl Moyer Program expense. 

• Mechanical-to-electronic engine repower projects will be considered on a 

case-by-case basis. 

• Funding is not available for projects to replace spark-ignition engines (i.e., natural 

gas or gasoline, etc.) with diesel engines. 

E. Retrofit 

The following criteria apply to all on-road retrofit projects: 

• Only ARB-verified retrofits are eligible for funding. 

• Retrofit projects that reduce NOx emissions must be verified by ARB to a 

NOx reduction level of at least 15 percent from the baseline engine to claim 

NOx reductions from the project. 

• Retrofit projects that control PM must use the highest level cost-effective technology 

available for the equipment being retrofitted. The following are the diesel PM 

reductions for each ARB verified level: Level 1 (25 percent reduction), 

Level 2 (50 percent reduction), or Level 3 (85 percent reduction). 

• Fleets/agencies affected by upcoming fleet regulations may use Carl Moyer Program 

funding for retrofit projects if the project life expires prior to the final compliance date 

for the reductions in the regulation. For example, if a project with a 3-year project 

life is funded in December 2006, the emission reductions must be surplus to any 

emission reductions that are required by any regulations that apply through 

December 2009. 

• If the retrofit device reduces both NOx and PM emissions and is being installed to 

comply with a PM requirement, only the cost of the NOx reductions is eligible for 

Carl Moyer Program funding. 
I-15 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

• From 2007 to 2009, retrofits of urban buses and transit vehicles will be considered 

on a case-by-case basis. Applicants must provide documentation that the retrofit will 

not be used to off-set a new diesel urban bus purchase. 

• The cost of the retrofit, all filters and maintenance needed during the project life, 

may be paid for with Carl Moyer Program funding provided it meets the weighted 

cost-effectiveness limit. 

F. Scrap 

• Scrap requirements are described in the 2005 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, 

Part I, Chapter 2: Administration of the Carl Moyer Program. 

G. Fuel 

• Carl Moyer Program funds can not be used for fuel projects, however funds under a 

district's budgetary authority or fiduciary control (i.e. match funds) may be used to 

pay for the incremental cost of liquid or gaseous fuel, other than standard gasoline 

or diesel, which is integral to a covered emission reducing technology that is part of 

a project receiving grant funding under the Program. If all Carl Moyer Program 

criteria are met and the project is not a “fuel-only” project, the incremental cost of 

alternative fuel can be considered a qualified matching contribution from a district. 

H. Glider Kits 

• An engine repower for a glider kit (replacement cab and chassis) is eligible for 

funding. The replacement engine must be newer than the glider kit and meet the 

general program criteria above. 

• Glider kits are not an eligible expense under the Carl Moyer Program. 

I. Heavy-Duty Trucks 

Currently, most in-use heavy-duty trucks, or heavy-duty vehicles designed to carry an 

entire load such as long-haul, short-haul, delivery, and construction trucks, are not 

subject to any fleet rules. The ARB is developing a fleet rule for private heavy-duty 

vehicles that is tentatively scheduled to be presented to the Board in 2006. If approved, 

it may affect the project criteria for these projects. Eligible heavy-duty truck projects 

including new vehicle purchases, repowers, and retrofits are subject to the general 

criteria cited above. 

• Heavy-duty trucks are eligible for funding if they meet the general program criteria 

above. 

• New hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) purchases will be considered on a case-by-case 

basis if the HEV is certified to the current NOx and PM standards. 
I-16 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

J. Private Fleets 

Private on-road heavy-duty diesel vehicle fleets are not currently regulated by a fleet 

regulation. The Board is tentatively scheduled to consider a proposed diesel particulate 

control measure for these fleets in 2006 which may affect the project criteria for these 

projects. 

• Private fleet vehicles are eligible for funding if they meet the general program criteria 

above. 

K. Public and Utility Fleets 

Municipal and utility-owned on-road heavy-duty diesel-fueled vehicles are not currently 

regulated by a fleet regulation. The ARB will consider a proposed diesel particulate 

control measure for these fleets in December 2005 which may affect the project criteria 

for these projects. Due to low mileage, these projects are generally only eligible for 

small grant amounts. 

• Public and utility fleet vehicles are eligible for funding if they meet the general 

program criteria listed above. 

L. School Buses 

School buses are vehicles used for the express purpose of transporting students 

through grade 12 from home to school, school to home and to any school sponsored 

activities. 

• School buses are eligible for Carl Moyer Program funding if they meet the general 

program criteria above; however, their relatively low annual miles traveled usually 

allows for minimum grant amounts. 

M. Solid Waste Collection Vehicles 

SWCVs are on-road heavy-duty vehicles with a GVWR of 14,000 pounds or more that 

are used for the purpose of collecting residential and commercial solid waste. SWCVs 

are subject to a statewide in-use diesel particulate matter airborne toxic control measure 

(ATCM). Projects that meet the following criteria provide emission reductions that are 

surplus to the regulatory requirements and may be funded: 

• Projects are subject to the general program criteria listed above. 

• Projects will be considered on a case-by-case basis. All SWCV projects must 

submit compliance records as described in the SWCV rule to show that the funds 

will not be used to meet the rule’s requirements. The SWCV regulation requires 

owners to maintain compliance records including the following beginning 

December 31, 2004: the name of the company, address, and fleet terminal(s) names 
I-17 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

and locations; statement of compliance; a list by vehicle identification number of 

collection vehicles identifying each vehicle type, engine manufacturer, model year, 

family, and series; status as active fleet or back-up vehicle, and correlated to each 

collection vehicle; the installed diesel emission control strategy, fuel or fuel additives 

used as a diesel emission control strategy; and backup vehicle mileage. The 

companies must also identify out of which terminal the vehicles potentially receiving 

Carl Moyer Program funds operate. This information must be submitted with the 

application and will be forwarded to ARB by the districts. ARB and/or the district will 

notify applicants if any additional documentation is required. 

• During 2007-2009, new SWCV purchases must meet the new vehicle purchase 

requirements above and must be certified to 0.2 g/bhp-hr for NOx. 

• Surplus NOx reductions from retrofit projects are eligible for funding as described in 

the retrofit criteria above. 

• Purchase of new vehicles, repower, and retrofit projects for SWCVs in group 2a 

(MY 1960-1987 with a total fleet of > 15 collection vehicles) of the ATCM are eligible 

for funding through December 31, 2006 if the following are met: 

− 100 percent of the vehicles in group 2a must be in compliance with the SWCV 

ATCM and in operation by December 31, 2006. 

− 20 percent of the vehicles in group 2a would be eligible for the incremental cost 

of the new vehicle purchase, repower or retrofit project up to the weighted 

cost-effectiveness limit. 

− The maximum project life for these projects is three years. 

• Purchase of new vehicles, repower, and retrofit projects for SWCVs in group 2b 

(MY 1960-1987 with a total fleet of < 15 collection vehicles) of the ATCM are eligible 

for funding through December 31, 2007 if one of the following options are met: 

− If 100 percent of the vehicles in group 2b are in compliance with the SWCV 

ATCM and in operation by December 31, 2006, 50 percent of the vehicles in 

group 2b would be eligible for the incremental cost of the new vehicle purchase, 

repower or retrofit project up to the weighted cost-effectiveness limit. The project 

life for 50 percent of the vehicles is three years and the remaining 50 percent is 

four years. 

− If 100 percent of the vehicles in group 2b are in compliance with the SWCV 

ATCM and in operation by December 31, 2007, 25 percent of the vehicles in 

group 2b would be eligible for the incremental cost of the new vehicle purchase, 

repower or retrofit project up to the weighted cost-effectiveness limit. The project 

life for these vehicles is three years. 
I-18 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

• Purchase of new vehicles, repower, and retrofit projects for SWCVs in group 3 

(MY 2003-2006) of the ATCM are eligible for funding through December 31, 2007 if 

one of the following options are met: 

− If the project is in operation by December 31, 2006, the remaining group 3 

vehicles in the fleet do not have to show compliance with the ATCM. The project 

life for 50 percent of the vehicles is four years and the remaining 50 percent is 

four years. 

− After December 31, 2006, 100 percent of the group 3 vehicles of the fleet must 

show compliance with the SWCV ATCM and be in operation by 

December 31, 2007 in order to receive funds. Fifty percent of these vehicles 

would be eligible for the incremental cost of the project up to the weighted costeffectiveness limit. The project life for these vehicles is three years. 

N. Street Sweepers and Other Stop-and-Go Vehicles 

Stop-and-go vehicles, such as street sweepers, may be included in the public fleet rule 

scheduled to be considered by the Board in December 2005. This may affect the 

project criteria for these projects. 

• Street sweeper projects that are surplus to regulations are eligible for funding for the 

purchase of a new vehicle, repower, and retrofit projects. See the general program 

criteria listed above. 

O. Transit Fleet Vehicles (Non-Urban Buses and Transit Vehicles) 

Transit fleets include commuter service buses and or transit fleet vehicles that are not 

urban buses. These fleets are subject to a statewide in-use fleet rule that impacts 

vehicles with a GVWR of 8,501 pounds or greater and are powered by a heavy-duty 

engine fueled by diesel or alternative fuel that are owned or operated by a transit 

agency.

• Projects are subject to the general program criteria listed above. 

• Projects will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Beginning in January 2006, 

transit agencies are required to submit annual documentation of compliance with the 

transit fleet rule to ARB for all transit vehicles that are not urban buses. Districts will 

work with ARB to determine if applicants are in compliance with the regulatory 

requirements and to ensure that Carl Moyer Program funds will not be used to meet 

these requirements. Transit agencies are not required to submit any additional 

regulatory compliance information with the Carl Moyer Program application and will 

be notified if districts and/or ARB require additional documentation. 

• Through 2006, purchases of new vehicles by transit agencies are eligible for 

Carl Moyer Program funding if the engine is certified to the optional standard of 

1.8 g/bhp-hr NOx + NMHC. 
I-19 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

• From 2007 to 2009 purchases of new vehicles are eligible for funding if the engine is 

certified to 0.2 g/bhp-hr NOx. 

• Transit agency fleets established before January 1, 2007 are eligible for 

Carl Moyer Program funds for new, repower and retrofit projects through 

December 31, 2007 if documentation is provided that shows: 

1. The whole fleet has met the 3.2 g/bhp-hr NOx fleet average, and 

2. Diesel PM reductions of 40 percent compared to January 1, 2005 PM levels. 

These projects shall have a four year project life if installed and in operation by 

December 31, 2006 and a three year project life if installed and in operation by 

December 31, 2007. 

• Transit agency fleets established before January 1, 2007 are eligible for 

Carl Moyer Program funds for purchases of new vehicles, repower and retrofit 

projects if documentation is provided that shows: 

1. The whole fleet has met the 2.4 g/bhp-hr NOx fleet average, and 

2. Diesel PM reductions of 80 percent compared to January 1, 2005 PM levels or 

equal to 0.01 g/bhp-hr times the total number of transit fleet vehicles in the 

current fleet, whichever is greater. 

These projects may have the default project life. 

• Transit agency fleets established after January 1, 2007 are eligible for 

Carl Moyer Program funds for purchases of new vehicles, repower and retrofit 

projects through December 31, 2007 if documentation is provided that shows: 

1. The whole fleet has met the 2.4 g/bhp-hr NOx fleet average, and 

2. Diesel PM reductions of 50 percent compared to the fleet’s baseline when 

established. 

These projects shall have a five year project life if installed and in operation by 

December 31, 2007, four year project life if installed and in operation by 

December 31, 2008 and a three year project life if installed and in operation by 

December 31, 2009. 

• Transit agency fleets established after January 1, 2007 are eligible for 

Carl Moyer Program funds for purchases of new vehicles, repower and retrofit 

projects beginning January 1, 2008 if documentation is provided that shows: 

1. The whole fleet has met the 2.4 g/bhp-hr NOx fleet average, and 

2. Diesel PM reductions of 80 percent compared to the fleet’s baseline when 

established. 

These projects may have the default project life. 

P. Urban Transit Buses 

An urban transit bus is a passenger-carrying vehicle powered by a heavy heavy-duty 

diesel engine with a load capacity of fifteen or more passengers and intended primarily 

for intra-city operation, short rides and frequent stops. Urban transit buses statewide 
I-20 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

are subject to an in-use and new vehicle purchase regulation that requires transit 

agencies that own, operate or lease urban buses to choose a diesel-fuel or 

alternative fuel path and follow the requirements as described for each fuel path. 

• Projects are subject to the general program criteria listed above. 

• Projects will be considered on a case-by-case basis. In January of each year, transit 

agencies are required to submit annual documentation of compliance with the transit 

fleet rule to ARB for all urban buses. Districts will work with ARB to determine if 

applicants are in compliance with the regulatory requirements and to ensure that 

Carl Moyer Program funds will not be used to meet these requirements. Transit 

agencies are not required to submit any additional regulatory compliance information 

with the Carl Moyer Program application and will be notified if districts and/or ARB 

require additional documentation. 

• For urban bus new vehicle projects, only the portion not funded by the Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA) is eligible for Carl Moyer Program funding. Proper 

documentation must be provided. The full incremental cost for an urban transit bus 

that is not funded by FTA may be granted under the Carl Moyer Program. Operation 

and maintenance costs are not eligible for Carl Moyer Program funding. 

• Through 2006, alternative fuel new bus purchases are eligible for 

Carl Moyer Program funds if the engine is certified to at least the optional standard 

of 1.8 g/bhp-hr for NOx + NMHC. 

• Through 2006, diesel fuel new bus purchases are eligible for Carl Moyer Program 

funds if the engine is certified to 0.2 g/bhp-hr for NOx. 

• From 2007 to 2009 new bus purchases are eligible for funding if the engine is 

certified to 0.2 g/bhp-hr NOx. 

• All urban bus fleets established before January 1, 2005 are eligible for 

Carl Moyer Program funds for the purchase of a new bus, repower and retrofit 

projects if documentation is provided that shows: 

1. The whole fleet has met the 4.8 g/bhp-hr NOx average, and 

2. PM reductions of 85 percent compared to January 1, 2002 PM levels or equal to 

0.01 g/bhp-hr times the total number of current diesel-fueled active fleet buses, 

whichever is greater. 

These projects may have the default project life. 

• All urban bus fleets established after January 1, 2005 are eligible for 

Carl Moyer Program funds for the purchase of a new bus, repower and retrofit 

projects through December 31, 2006 if documentation is provided that shows: 

1. The whole fleet has met the 4.0 g/bhp-hr NOx average, and 

2. May not have a diesel PM emission total exceeding 0.05 g/bhp-hr (exhaust 

emission value) times the total number of diesel-fueled buses in the active fleet. 
I-21 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

These projects shall have a three year project life if installed and in operation by 

December 31, 2006. 

• Urban bus fleets established after January 1, 2005 are eligible for 

Carl Moyer Program funds for the purchase of a new bus, repower and retrofit 

projects if documentation is provided that shows: 

1. The whole fleet has met the 4.0 g/bhp-hr NOx average, and 

2. May not have a diesel PM emission total exceeding 0.01 g/bhp-hr (exhaust 

emission value) times the total number of diesel-fueled buses in the active fleet. 

These projects may have the default project life. 

• New hybrid electric bus (HEB) purchases will be considered on a case-by-case 

basis, if the HEB is certified to the current NOx and PM standards. 

VI. Cost-Effectiveness Calculations 

To receive Carl Moyer Program funding, each project must meet the maximum 

cost effective threshold of $14,300 per weighted ton of covered pollutants reduced. 

Only funds provided by the Carl Moyer Program and local district matching funds are to 

be used in determining cost-effectiveness. 

The emission factors in the tables of Appendix B reflect preliminary data developed by 

ARB staff as part of a comprehensive effort to update the emissions models used for 

on-road motor vehicles and off-road mobile sources. These draft data were made 

available on ARB's website in early 2005, but are subject to change as staff completes 

its analyses and the associated model development. Appropriate emission factors as a 

function of vehicle type and model year are illustrated in Appendix B. ARB staff will 

issue Carl Moyer Program Advisories to update the tables as necessary. 

The converted emission standards used in the calculations are the standards described 

in the emission standard section of this chapter that have been adjusted using the fuel 

correction factors and NOx fraction factors in Appendix B. It is important to note that 

urban buses have different standards than other heavy-duty vehicles. 

Examples

On-road project calculations are generally mileage based. However, some projects 

such as stop-and-go vehicles can use fuel-based calculations. 

For a purchase of a new vehicle, the baseline will be an engine certified to the current 

standard. The reduced technology will be an engine certified to the current optional 

standard or 30 percent less than the current standard. For repower projects, the 

baseline will be the model year of the existing engine that would have been rebuilt. The 

reduced technology will be the engine certified to at least 5.0 g/bhp-hr of NOx that will 

be installed instead of the rebuilt engine. The baseline for a retrofit project is the 
I-22 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

existing engine. The reduced technology is the verified level of emission reductions for 

the retrofit. 

A detailed description of how to calculate cost-effectiveness can be found in 

Appendices C and D. 

VII. Minimum Project Application Requirements 

A. Application 

The applicant must provide the minimum information listed in Table 1-6. 

A disclosure must also be included stating that the proposed project has not been 

funded and is not being considered for funding by another air district, ARB, or any other 

public agency. Any applicant who is found to have submitted multiple applications for 

the same project may be banned from submitting future applications to any and all 

Carl Moyer Program solicitations and may be subject to criminal sanctions. A project 

funded cooperatively by multiple air districts is eligible for funding if the project 

parameters are coordinated amongst the participating districts and the project meets all 

applicable Carl Moyer Program criteria. Applicants are allowed to re-apply for project 

funding if a previous application has been rejected and is no longer being considered for 

funding. 

Third party applications are not allowed. The owner of the engine must sign and agree 

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

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

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

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

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

used to pay them. To make the Carl Moyer Program accessible to all potential 

applicants, including applicants that cannot afford to hire third party assistance, districts 

are encouraged to provide technical assistance to applicants in completing the 

application. 
I-23 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

Table 1-6 

Minimum Application Requirements for On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicle Projects 

Applicant Information

Organization, Company or Individual Name 

Street Address 

City, County, State, Zip Code 

Primary Contact Name 

Primary Contract Phone Number 

Person with Contract Signing Authority 

Person who Filled out Funding Application 

Project Address (if different from above) 

Vehicle Information

Vehicle Type (Solid Waste Collection Vehicle, 

Street Sweeper, School Bus, Urban Bus, 

Other Transit Vehicle, Other Heavy-Heavy 

Duty Vehicle, Other Medium-Heavy Duty 

Vehicle, or Other Light-Heavy Duty Vehicle) 

Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) 

Vehicle Make 

Vehicle Model 

Model Year 

Vehicle GVWR 

Vehicle License Plate Number 

Department of Transportation Number 

 (if interstate) 

California Highway Patrol CA Number 

Projected Year of Purchase of New Vehicle 

Baseline Vehicle Fuel 

New Vehicle Vendor (optional) 

Activity Information

Percent Operation in California 

Percent Operation in District 

Project Life 

Annual Miles Traveled or Gallons Fuel Used 

Electronic Monitoring Unit (EMU) 

Will a new eligible EMU be installed as part 

 of this project? (yes/no) 

EMU Make 

EMU Model 

EMU Model Year 

EMU ID Number 

EMU Cost (optional) 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONNEW PURCHASE PROJECTS ONLY 

Engine Make 

Engine Model 

Engine Year 

Engine Serial Number 

NEW PURCHASE (cont.) 

ARB Certification Executive Order (if Engine 

Certified to Alt. NOx Standard) 

Fuel Type 

Baseline Fuel Type for Main and (if applicable) 

Auxiliary Engine 

Auxiliary Engine Make, Model, Year, Serial Number, 

Horsepower, Tier, Fuel, and Family (if applicable) 

Baseline Cost 

New Vehicle Cost 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONREPOWER PROJECTS ONLY 

Baseline Main

 Engine Family 

 Engine Make 

 Engine Model 

 Engine Year 

 Engine Serial Number 

 Fuel Type 

Reduced Emission Main

 Engine Family 

 Engine Make 

 Engine Model 

 Engine Year 

 Engine Serial Number 

 Fuel Type 

 ARB Executive Order Number 

 (If Engine Certified to Alt NOx Standard)

 Baseline and Reduced Auxiliary Engine Make, 

Model, Year, Serial Number, Horsepower, 

Tier, and Engine Family (if applicable) 

 Engine Remanufacture Cost 

 Newer Engine Cost 

 Newer Engine Installation Cost 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONRETROFIT ONLY 

Engine Family, Make, Model, Year, and (if 

applicable) Tier 

Engine Serial Number 

Fuel Type 

Retrofit Device Make and Serial Number 

ARB-Verified Retrofit Device 

Retrofit Device ARB Executive Order 

Retrofit Device Serial Number 

Verification Level (Level 1, 2 or 3) 

ARB-Verified NOx Reduction (%) 

ARB-Verified PM Reduction (%) 

ARB-Verified ROG Reduction (%) 

Retrofit Device Cost 

Cost of Retrofit Installation (optional) 

Cost of Retrofit Maintenance for Project Life 

(optional) 
I-24 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

B. Reporting and Monitoring 

Reporting and monitoring requirements for districts are described in the Administrative 

Chapter of these Guidelines. 

Fleet operators and transit agencies participating in the Carl Moyer Program are 

required to keep appropriate records during the life of the funded project as determined 

by the district and ARB. Records must contain, at a minimum, total miles traveled in 

and outside of California, fuel usage, and maintenance and repair information. Records 

must be retained and updated throughout the project life and made available at the 

request of the district or ARB. 

VIII. References 

ARB, 2002a. Air Resources Board. December 12, 2002. California Exhaust Emission 

Standards and Test Procedures for 1985 through 2003 Model Heavy-Duty 

Diesel Engines and Vehicles. http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroadhd/85-

03hddtps_levhdg02_clean_11-14.doc 

ARB, 2002b. Air Resources Board. December 12, 2002. California Exhaust Emission 

Standards and Test Procedures for 2004 and Subsequent Model Heavy-Duty 

Diesel Engines and Vehicles. 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroadhd/2004hddtps_levhdg02_clean_11-13.doc 

ARB, 2004. Air Resources Board. June 4, 2004. Diesel Particulate Matter Control 

Measure for On-road Heavy-duty Diesel-fueled Residential and Commercial Sold Waste 

Collection Vehicles. http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/dieselswcv/fro2.doc 

ARB, 2005. Air Resources Board. January 7, 2005. Staff Report: Proposed 

Modifications to the Fleet Rule for the Transit Agencies and New Requirements for 

Transit Fleet Vehicles. http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/bus04/isor.pdf 
II-1 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

Chapter Two 

HEAVY-DUTY ON-ROAD FLEET MODERNIZATION 

This chapter adds a fleet modernization source category to the Carl Moyer Program. 

Fleet modernization provides incentives to replace old high-polluting heavy-duty 

vehicles with newer, lower emission replacement vehicles. The fleet modernization 

source category provides real emission benefits by retiring the high polluting vehicle 

earlier than would have been expected through normal attrition. Carl Moyer Program 

funds for fleet modernization projects are used to offset part of the cost of the 

replacement vehicle. Project funds also pay for a diesel particulate emission reduction 

device to further reduce emissions and an electronic monitoring unit to verify miles 

traveled in California and the district. An additional vehicle replacement strategy 

included in fleet modernization is the tiered transaction. A tiered transaction project 

combines the purchase of a new vehicle certified to the optional NOx standard by one 

owner with the replacement of an old vehicle by a second owner. 

I. Introduction 

Heavy-duty diesel trucks are durable and stay in operation for an average of 18.5 years. 

Old trucks contribute disproportionately to the state’s NOx, ROG, and PM10 emissions. 

Pre-1990 heavy-duty trucks emit one and a half times as much NOx and two and a half 

times as much PM10 as a truck that meets current standards. These old trucks tend to 

be driven by relatively low-income operators and are concentrated in specific industrial 

sectors. Generally, the income generated from the old trucks operating in low paid 

vocations does not justify the purchase of a newer truck, even with the improved fuel 

economy, reduced maintenance costs, and fewer downtime expenses of a newer truck. 

These old trucks continue operating until they deteriorate to a point that it does not 

make economic sense to repair them. 

The Carl Moyer Program for on-road vehicles was designed to pay for the incremental 

purchase cost of a new vehicle that is cleaner than the required emission standards. 

However, the owners of the oldest trucks cannot afford to buy a new vehicle that 

qualifies for incentive funds. It is unlikely that the old truck owners would be willing to 

invest in a newer truck since the old truck is still operating. In addition, operators of old 

trucks do not have an incentive to sell their trucks since the market price for the old 

trucks is undervalued relative to its utility to the truck owner. Traditional scrap 

programs, which provide incentives to scrap a vehicle, may not lower emissions from 

the old, heavy-duty sector because the old, scrapped truck is likely to be replaced with 

another affordable old truck. 

Recognizing that resources were not available to get old, high polluting vehicles off the 

road, AB 1394 was passed in 2004 directing ARB to consider fleet modernization as a 

potential project under the Carl Moyer Program. As such, the Air Resources Board 

(ARB or Board) has created a source category that provides incentive funds to replace 

old vehicles that were unlikely to be removed from operation with newer, cleaner 

vehicles. The incentives provided by the Carl Moyer Program change the economics of 
II-2 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

vehicle replacement, making it economically feasible for owners who could not 

previously justify the expense. 

II. Emissions

According to ARB’s motor vehicle inventory, 1990 and older vehicles account for 

33 percent of California’s heavy-duty fleet. This equates to about 58,800 pre-1991 and 

older heavy-duty vehicles traveling over four million miles per day statewide. In 2005, 

these vehicles will emit about 107 tons of NOx and three tons of PM10 per day, as 

reflected in Table 2-1. The number of these old trucks will decrease to slightly over 

32,000 by 2010, but this gradual decline is not sufficient if California is to achieve its air 

quality goals. This is of particular concern because emissions from older trucks often 

occur in environmental justice areas, such as ports, which are heavily impacted by high 

volumes of truck traffic. 

Table 2-1 

Statewide Calendar Year 2005 

Contribution of Pollutants by On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicles 

1990 Model Year and Older* 

 Population NOx ROG PM10 

2005 58,775 107 6 3 

2010 32,155 43 3 1 

 *EMFAC2002 v2.2 (April 03) 

Using data from the United States Census Bureau 2002 Economic Census - Vehicles 

and Use Survey [U.S. Census Use Survey], ARB staff determined that in California 

there are specific industrial sectors that have the highest concentration of old vehicles. 

Most significant to the fleet modernization category are the vocations with the highest 

numbers of 1990 and older trucks in service. Approximately 60 percent of the mining 

fleet is 1990 and older; 55 percent of the trucks engaged in agriculture and forestry are 

1990 and older; and, 43 percent of the construction fleet is 1990 and older. In addition 

to these fleets, it is widely recognized that haulers moving goods from California’s ports 

and rail yards utilize the oldest trucks in the fleet. 

The concentration of old trucks in specific vocations generally occurs through a series of 

sales of the individual trucks. Trends in the industry show that fleets which normally 

utilize new trucks turn over their trucks in three to five years. The vehicles are then sold 

to operators that drive high mileage in a well-paid vocation. After several years of use, 

the vehicle is sold again, moved into a low-paid, low-mileage sector and driven until it 

deteriorates to the point where it does not make economic sense to repair it. The 

owners of the oldest vehicles tend to buy another old vehicle to replace the truck that 

has deteriorated, and do not normally purchase a new or newer vehicle. Data from the 

U.S. Census Use Survey supports this claim: four out of five newer trucks (<5 years 

old) are purchased as new vehicles, while four out of five old trucks (>15 years old) are 

purchased as used vehicles. 
II-3 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

III. Regulatory Requirements 

To help meet California’s air quality goals, the ARB has adopted engine emission 

standards and several mobile source fleet regulations that apply to on-road trucks. In 

addition, ARB is currently drafting regulations that will be considered by the Board in 

late 2005 and 2006. Recently adopted regulations demonstrate the Board’s increased 

commitment to reduce emissions from the in-use fleet. The standards and regulations, 

which may impact eligibility for all heavy-duty, on-road projects, including fleet 

modernization, are included in Chapter One. All Carl Moyer Program project emission 

reductions must be surplus to regulatory requirements. Applicants from fleet categories 

must be especially cognizant of the impact of recently adopted and upcoming 

requirements, such as solid waste collection vehicles and public and utility fleets. 

Public and private, on-road, heavy-duty, diesel-fueled vehicle fleets, such as in-use 

heavy-duty trucks, are not currently regulated. The Board will hear a proposed diesel 

particulate control measure for private fleets in 2006, which may further impact the 

project criteria for these projects. 

Fleet modernization incentives may be used for the purchase of a new vehicle. For 

standard fleet modernization projects that replace an old vehicle with a new vehicle, the 

new vehicle must be certified to more stringent emission standards than the vehicle 

being replaced. With tiered transaction projects, the new vehicle must be certified to 

ARB’s current optional NOx emission standards of 1.8 grams per 

brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr) of NOx through 2006, regardless of fuel type or 

engine design. Beginning in 2007, the optional standards will sunset and projects for 

new vehicle/engine must be certified to 0.2 g/bhp-hr of NOx. Since new engines are 

certified throughout the year, districts are encouraged to contact ARB for the most 

current list of eligible engines. 

IV. Development of the Fleet Modernization Source Category 

The ARB has long recognized the need to reduce emissions from the oldest trucks in 

the heavy-duty diesel truck sector. In 1994, the ARB proposed a concept for retiring 

heavy-duty vehicles in its State Implementation Plan for Ozone as Measure M-7. The 

measure envisioned the program could be self-sustaining through the sale of the old 

trucks for export to overseas markets. However, the M-7 measure was eventually 

withdrawn because of concern regarding the lack of funding and analyses showing that 

the old, high emitting trucks removed from the fleet were likely to be replaced with 

similar aged trucks from outside the area. 

In 2001, the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) 

received ARB’s approval to establish a fleet modernization pilot program, which was 

funded by the Sacramento Emergency Clean Air Transportation program in partnership 

with the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). The Sacramento 

program was designed to replace the oldest trucks in a fleet by scrapping the trucks and 

providing a monetary incentive to purchase newer trucks with fewer emissions. The 

SMAQMD developed the concept as an alternative to on-road repower projects. Also in 
II-4 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

2001, the Gateway Cities Coalition of Governments, located in the area surrounding the 

Port of Long Beach, initiated a fleet modernization program that mirrored the 

Sacramento program. To ensure that incentives were changing the normal purchase 

practices of operators with the oldest trucks, both pilot programs required the 

destruction of the old truck and a commitment to keep the replacement vehicle in the 

same location doing the same type of work. These requirements aimed to resolve the 

concerns raised in response to the original M-7 measure. 

A. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District Program 

The SMAQMD in partnership with SACOG administers a fleet modernization program 

for the Sacramento and surrounding air districts. This region includes El Dorado, 

Placer, Sacramento, Solano and Yolo counties. The SMAQMD pilot program was 

implemented in 2002 with the expectation that data would be gathered on the 

replacement vehicles for five years. To date, the SMAQMD program has appropriated 

approximately $10 million to replace 300 trucks. The average incentive award for the 

program is $35,000 with a cost-effectiveness of $8,000/ton of NOx reduced. It is 

estimated that the SMAQMD program has reduced 200 tons of NOx and 30 tons of 

PM10 per year. The replaced vehicles come primarily from construction and 

heavy-hauling vocations. 

B. Gateway Cities Council of Governments Program 

The Gateway Cities Council of Governments (COG) administers a program in the region 

surrounding the Port of Long Beach and the Port of Los Angeles. The COG is a joint 

powers authority whose members are the 27 cities in southeast Los Angeles County 

and the Port of Long Beach. The COG program has expended approximately 

$7.6 million on the replacement of 350 trucks. The average incentive award for the 

program is $25,000 with a cost-effectiveness of $8,400/ton of NOx reduced. It is 

estimated that the COG program has reduced 193 tons of NOx and 42 tons of PM10 

per year. The replacement vehicles are owned primarily by independent operators 

working in port related vocations. The Gateway vehicles tend to be older and have 

lower mileage than the Sacramento program. Approximately 85 percent of the program 

participants are non-English speaking. The Gateway Cities program has received 

funding from multiple sources including the ARB, the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review 

Committee, and the Port of Los Angeles. 

C. Lessons Learned 

In developing the criteria for the heavy-duty fleet modernization source category, ARB 

staff, in collaboration with a multi-agency workgroup, established parameters based on 

the legislative guidance and mandates, data from existing federal and state emission 

inventories, and data and expertise gathered from the pilot programs. This information 

has been instrumental in the development of project criteria for a robust, statewide 

program. To insure real emission reductions, the criteria includes requirements that 

assure the newly-funded truck will have the same configuration as the old truck, that it 
II-5 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

will stay in the same vocation and not move to a new location, and that the greatest 

emission reductions are realized through the use of diesel emission reduction devices. 

Rigorous qualifying criteria has been developed to assure that the replaced vehicle 

would have been operating for the project life and that the heavy-duty fleet 

modernization participants would have been unlikely to have replaced their old truck 

with a newer truck without incentive funds. The fulfillment of contract obligations is 

addressed through the use of electronic monitoring devices and monitoring and 

reporting requirements. 

V. Key Components of the Fleet Modernization Source Category

Ensuring that the emission reductions from an incentive program are real, quantifiable, 

enforceable, and surplus, is critical to the success of the Carl Moyer Program. Given 

the new niche that fleet modernization must serve, new and rigorous criteria have been 

developed to protect the integrity of the program. The major criteria include: eligibility of 

the old vehicle, vocations, model years, project life, weight class, salvage requirements, 

electronic monitoring units, funding caps, subtracting the cost of repairs, tiered 

transactions, and administrative tools. 

A. Eligibility of the Old Vehicle and Replacement Vehicle

To receive funding for fleet modernization projects, participants must show that the old 

vehicle meets the following requirements: it must be a model year 1990 or older; it must 

have California registration for the last three years; the participant must show proof of 

ownership, vocation, operation, and documentation to verify actual mileage; and the old 

vehicle must be turned over to an approved salvage yard for destruction, this includes 

requiring the engine be destroyed and the frame rails cut. The replacement vehicle 

must be model year 1999 or newer and it must be identical to the old vehicle including 

axle configuration and body type to prevent a change in vocation during the life of the 

project. New vehicles participating in tiered transaction projects are required to meet 

the optional NOx standard. 

B. Vocations

One of the goals of the fleet modernization is to ensure that participants continue to do 

the same type of work and do not drift to other vocations once they have acquired a 

newer vehicle that is capable of traveling long distances with greater reliability. This 

restriction is necessary because the movement of a fleet modernization truck to a new 

vocation would result in another old truck backfilling the original vocation. The program 

requires participants to show proof of vocation for the previous three years and maintain 

that vocation for the life of the project. 

Vocation is further emphasized by providing greater incentives to vehicles operating in 

vocations known to have the highest number of old trucks in service. Targeted 

vocations include vehicles operating in agricultural, construction, mining, forestry 

vocations, vehicles that move goods in and out of ports and rail yards, and public fleet 

vehicles in low-population areas as defined in the public fleet regulations adopted by the 
II-6 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

ARB in December 2005. Participants from the targeted vocation are eligible for a five 

year project life, rather than the standard three year project life available for other types 

of vocations. 

C. Model Years

To be eligible for the fleet modernization source category, the old vehicle must be a 

model year 1990 or older. This model year was selected for several reasons. The 

emission factors for the 1990 and older vehicle make it a high emitting vehicle at 

21.2 grams of NOx/mile and 1.32 grams of PM/mile. The EMFAC 2002 inventory 

shows that there are approximately 58,000 of these old vehicles on the road today. 

Reducing the number of these high emitting vehicles will improve air quality. The 

SMAQMD pilot program originally allowed only 1983 and older vehicles to participate in 

its program. The district then modified its pilot program to allow 1986 and older 

vehicles. Recently, the district moved the eligible model year to 1990 and older vehicles 

because it has exhausted the number of available applicants with 1986 and older 

vehicles. Districts should consider a similar strategy when establishing a fleet 

modernization category- initially targeting the very oldest trucks and then moving up the 

allowable age as the program progresses. 

Under fleet modernization, the replacement vehicle must be model year 1999 or newer. 

A 1999 model year was selected due to reduced emission factors, concern with consent 

decree engines, and affordability to participants. Dual-calibration engines manufactured 

from 1993-1998 are bound by ARB and U.S. EPA consent degrees and are not eligible 

for Carl Moyer Program funding. Districts will need to verify the engine model year for 

1999 model year vehicles because 1998 model year engines may have been installed 

and are not eligible for funding. Experience with the Gateway COG pilot program 

shows that a majority of their fleet modernization participants purchased 1999 model 

year replacement trucks. 1999 is a popular choice because it is generally the least 

expensive model qualified for fleet modernization funding. Selecting a newer, more 

expensive model year would make the fleet modernization inaccessible to program 

participants that are from low-paid vocations. 

D. Project Life

The project life for fleet modernization projects, with the exception of target vocations, is 

three-years. A three-year project life was selected because inventory data show the life 

expectancy of a 1990 on-road, heavy-duty vehicle that is still on the road is an 

additional 5.5 years. This means that 50 percent of the heavy-duty fleet 15 years and 

older would remain on the road for another 5.5 years on average, while the other 

50 percent would retire through attrition. It is expected that the old trucks volunteered 

for a fleet modernization project will be those with less remaining life. To be protective 

of air quality and ensure that real emission reductions are achieved, three years has 

been selected as an acceptable project life. This approach follows what has already 

been established in the existing regulations for the Voluntary Accelerated Light-Duty 

Vehicle Retirement Program. The light-duty program is designed to retire very old 
II-7 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

light duty vehicles. In that program the life expectancy was reduced by 50 percent to 

determine the credit value. 

Targeted vocations are allowed a five-year project life because they are known to keep 

the oldest vehicles in service for more years and would be less likely to replace their 

trucks with a newer truck than the average old truck owner. Data indicate that in these 

very limited target vocations, the normal practice for purchasing vehicles is to purchase 

vehicles of the same age or older. For these vocations, the data justifies allowing a 

five year project life. 

E. Weight Class 

The focus of the fleet modernization pilot programs has been the replacement of heavy 

heavy-duty trucks with all analysis conducted on the heaviest class of vehicles. Fleet 

modernization projects will continue to focus on vehicles having a gross vehicle weight 

rating of 33,000 pounds and greater. However, some districts have expressed an 

interest in including vehicles in the medium heavy-duty class. Districts may request 

inclusion of medium heavy-duty vehicles with a weight class rating of 

19,501-33,000 pounds on a case-by-case basis. 

F. Salvage Requirements

Fleet modernization requires that the old truck be scrapped. To ensure that the vehicle 

will not be used again, the criteria specify that a qualified salvage yard destroy the 

engine as specified in the Administration Chapter of these Guidelines and cut the frame 

rails of the old vehicle. This requirement has been established to ensure that emission 

reductions are real. It prevents the old trucks from being moved into another locale to 

continue emitting high levels of pollutants. 

G. Electronic Monitoring Units

All fleet modernization replacement vehicles must be equipped with an electronic 

monitoring unit (EMU). The EMU electronically reports vehicle miles traveled and the 

number of miles a vehicle has operated within California and district boundaries. This 

requirement has been established to verify that the replacement vehicle continues to 

operate in the same location as the old, scrapped vehicle. 

H. Funding Caps

The fleet modernization criteria sets a maximum funding amount of 72 percent of the 

value of a used, replacement vehicle and 80 percent of the invoice price of a new 

vehicle. These caps are based on the maximum loan value available through lending 

institutions. 
II-8 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

I. Subtracting the Cost of Repairs 

Fleet modernization projects are required to subtract the cost of repairs needed for the 

old vehicle from the incremental cost of the new vehicles. The cost of repairs is 

subtracted because it is assumed that repair costs are a normal business expense that 

would have been incurred by the participant had the vehicle stayed in service. The 

repair costs are identified during the inspection verifying the operating condition of the 

old vehicle. 

J. Tiered Transactions

Tiered transactions are an additional vehicle replacement strategy available through 

fleet modernization. A tiered transaction combines the emission reductions achieved 

from the purchase of a new vehicle meeting the optional NOx standard with a basic fleet 

modernization project. Combining both transactions provides additional incentives to 

offset the cost of purchasing the vehicle meeting the optional standard. However, 

linking the purchase of the new vehicle by one owner, with the retirement of an old truck 

and purchase of a replacement truck by a second participant, presents complexities that 

are not found in the basic fleet modernization transaction. Tiered transactions are a 

new concept enacted by legislation and have not been included in the pilot programs. 

Local air districts may develop and implement tiered transactions as part of their fleet 

modernization component. ARB must approve a district’s proposed tiered transaction 

component prior to implementation. 

K. Administrative Tools

The ARB must review and approve local air district fleet modernization guidelines prior 

to the district funding fleet modernization projects. This requirement has been 

established because both pilot programs show there are many administrative tools 

needed to implement fleet modernization. These include: contracts with the applicant, 

dealers and scrap yards; performance requirements; reimbursement procedures; 

pre- and post-inspections; and, monitoring and enforcement considerations. This 

requirement will help achieve ARB’s goal of establishing a robust, verifiable, 

enforceable fleet modernization component that reaches previously non-eligible sectors. 

As with all Carl Moyer Program components, districts are provided with outreach funds, 

which are approximately two percent of the Carl Moyer Program grant. In addition, 

there are a number of funding sources districts may use to cover in-kind costs. When 

using these other funding sources, districts must follow the guidelines for expending 

those other funds. 

VI. Potential Projects

As discussed, there are two types of potential projects available under the fleet 

modernization category. The first is the replacement of an old vehicle (1990 or older) 

with the new or newer vehicle (1999 or newer). The second type of project is a tiered 

transaction, which links the emission reductions achieved from the purchase of a new 
II-9 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

vehicle meeting the optional NOx standard with the retirement of an old vehicle 

(1990 and older). Under the tiered transaction project, two transactions take place: 

• A participant proposes the purchase of a new vehicle meeting the optional NOx 

standard and estimates the cost of this transaction based on a new, heavy-duty 

vehicle purchase (as discussed in Chapter One, Section V-C). 

• This same owner identifies a standard fleet modernization project that meets the 

fleet modernization criteria and estimates the cost-effectiveness of the project. 

• The combined cost-effectiveness of both transactions is used to determine 

cost-effectiveness. 

Tiered transactions could potentially be utilized by one party that purchases new 

equipment meeting the optional standard and contributes replacement vehicles to a 

fleet that has old vehicles. 

In addition to replacing an old, high-emitting vehicle with a newer, cleaner vehicle, fleet 

modernization requires the use of diesel emission control strategy (DECS) on all 

projects. An ARB-verified DECS is required on all fleet modernization vehicles. In 

selecting the appropriate DECS for the project, preference is given to the device 

providing the highest level of emission reductions. Examples of DECS include diesel 

particulate filters, diesel oxidation catalysts, and flow through filters. Incentive funds 

may be used to cover the cost of DECS maintenance and filters needed for the duration 

of the project life. 

The requirement for a DECS may be waived by the ARB. The waiver must be based 

upon the specifics of individual projects including cost, vehicle duty cycle restrictions, 

availability, and other factors. Additional details regarding the DECS requirement, 

including funding and data logging options, are included in Section VII-C. 

VII. Project Criteria 

Fleet modernization projects, which include scrapping an old, high-emitting vehicle and 

replacing it with a newer, cleaner vehicle, are eligible for incentive funding. The project 

criteria listed below provide the minimum qualifications for the Carl Moyer Program. 

Sample calculations that illustrate the methodology for determining emission reductions 

and cost-effectiveness are included in Appendix D. 

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

address local concerns. 

A. General Criteria 

• Emission reductions obtained through Carl Moyer Program projects must not be 

required by any federal, state or local regulation, memorandum of 
II-10 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

agreement/understanding with a regulatory agency, settlement agreement, 

mitigation requirement, or other legal mandate. 

• Projects must meet a cost-effectiveness of $14,300 per weighed ton of NOx + 

ROG + combustion PM10 reduced calculated in accordance with the 

cost-effectiveness methodology discussed in this chapter. 

• No emission reductions generated by the Carl Moyer Program shall be used as 

marketable emission reduction credits or to offset any emission reduction obligation 

of any person or entity. 

• No project funded by the Carl Moyer Program shall be used for credit under any 

federal or state emission averaging banking and trading program. 

• In funding fleet modernization projects, the replacement vehicle must reduce NOx 

emissions by at least 15 percent from the old vehicle emissions. 

• Carl Moyer Program grants can be no greater than a project’s incremental cost. The 

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

cost shall be reduced by the value of any current financial incentive that reduces the 

project price, including tax credits or deductions, grants, or other public financial 

assistance. 

• Fleet modernization projects have a minimum project life of three years. Project life 

is the number of years that a Carl Moyer Program project must operate in California 

under the conditions specified in the grant funding agreement. 

• The default project life does not consider upcoming regulatory requirements. Project 

life may be shorter due to regulatory requirements. 

• Fleet operators with vehicles in open vocation categories are eligible to receive 

funding for a maximum of five vehicles. There is no restriction on the number of 

vehicles per fleet that can be funded in targeted vocation categories. 

• Fleet modernization project life must be equal to the project contract life. 

• Vehicles equipped with glider kits are not eligible to participate in the fleet 

modernization category; this includes both old and replacement vehicles. Glider kits 

are replacement chassis and cab for on-road heavy-duty vehicles. Glider kits are 

identified with a vehicle identification number (VIN) starting with the letters “GL”. 

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

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

real, quantifiable and enforceable emission reduction benefits. 
II-11 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

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

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

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

B. Participant Requirements 

The following categories of vehicles are eligible for Carl Moyer Program funding: 

• Open Category: Vehicles from any vocation or fleet size are eligible for funding 

provided the participant submits conclusive documentation of annual mileage and 

vehicle usage in California. The maximum project life is three years. 

• Targeted Vocation Category: Vehicles operating in agricultural, construction, 

mining, port hauling, and forestry vocations, or vehicles that move goods in and out 

of ports and rail yards may apply as a targeted vocation. The participant is required 

to submit conclusive documentation of annual mileage and vehicle usage in 

California. The maximum project life is five years. 

• The old vehicle must have both engine and chassis of model year 1990 or older. 

• The old vehicle must have been registered in California for the previous three years. 

• The old vehicle must be in operational condition to qualify for funding. Operating 

condition must be determined through a California Highway Patrol’s Biennial 

Inspection of Terminals (CHP BIT) or equivalent inspection. The inspection must 

identify any needed repairs and the estimated cost of the repairs. The district will 

also verify the operating condition of the truck by a visual and operational inspection. 

If the district cannot conduct a pre-inspection, the ARB may approve one of the 

following methods on a case-by-case basis: 

− The motor carrier company may submit a completed CHP 90-Day Safety 

Inspection Form documenting the inspection and the estimated cost of any 

repairs. 

− A participating dealership or motor company may conduct the inspection of the 

old vehicle and provide pictures verifying the vehicle condition. The dealer must 

provide a completed CHP 90-Day Safety Inspection Form and documentation of 

any necessary repairs. The participant will pay the cost of the inspection. 

− Other methods as approved by ARB. 

• The participant must currently own and operate the old vehicle. If it is unclear 

whether a vehicle is owned or leased by a participant, the district will determine 

whether the vehicle is eligible. 
II-12 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

• Participants must submit documentation of annual miles traveled for the previous 

three years to determine cost-effectiveness. Examples of documentation include: 

logbooks, fuel records, and, maintenance records or tax records. 

• The participant must maintain replacement value insurance coverage for the project 

life. 

• The participant must be in compliance with air quality laws; all outstanding citations 

must be paid up. 

C. Replacement Vehicle Requirements 

All replacement vehicles must meet the following conditions before funding is awarded 

to the participant. 

• Model Year: The replacement vehicle must have both an engine and chassis model 

year of 1999 and newer. 

• The replacement vehicle must operate in the same vocation for the project life. The 

participant must stay in the contracted vocation for a minimum of 85 percent of the 

miles, as specified in the application. If a change of vocation is required to stay in 

operation, a written explanation must be provided to the district and approved by the 

ARB. 

• The annual mileage of the replacement vehicle must not exceed 150 percent of the 

baseline project mileage, except as approved by the district and ARB. 

• Engine Horsepower Requirements: The horsepower rating for the replacement 

vehicle engine must not be greater than 120 percent of the original manufacturer 

rated horsepower (baseline horsepower) for the old vehicle engine. This is 

necessary because engine horsepower is related to the emissions produced by 

heavy-duty diesel engines. Auditing of the replacement vehicle's horsepower may 

occur throughout the length of the agreement. 

− Participants must use the horsepower rating listed on the old engine tag. If the 

engine tag is not legible, a dynamometer test can be used to determine the 

horsepower rating. The results of a dynamometer test will take into account a 

15 percent loss in actual horsepower, based on transmission loss. The 

participant must pay the cost of dynamometer testing. 

− In the event the replacement engine horsepower is more than 20 percent greater 

than the old vehicle, it must be derated (reduced) to not exceed the 20 percent 

allowable increase. The 20 percent allowable increase in horsepower is 

calculated as follows: 

(Old Engine Horsepower) x (1.20) = Maximum New Engine Horsepower 

 (Example: 300 HP x 1.20 = 360 HP) 
II-13 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

− In limited situations, the district may approve a greater than 20 percent increase 

in horsepower. 

• Weight Class: Eligible vehicles must have a California heavy-heavy gross vehicle 

weight rating of 33,000 pounds. Vehicles having a California medium heavy-duty 

weight rating of 19,501-33,000 pounds may be eligible upon the request of the 

district on a case-by-case basis. The replacement vehicle must be in the same 

weight rating as the old vehicle. 

• Body and Axle Configuration: The replacement vehicle must have the same axle 

and body configuration as the old vehicle. The district may allow slight changes 

based on the latest technology. Changes must be requested and approved prior to 

the purchase of the replacement vehicle. 

• Warranty Requirements: All participants must purchase a minimum of a one-year or 

100,000-mile major component engine warranty for the replacement vehicle. The 

warranty must cover parts and labor. It is recommended that the highest grade 

warranty be purchased in order to avoid expensive repairs in the future. No 

Carl Moyer Program funds will be issued for maintenance or repairs related to the 

operation of the vehicle. The participant takes sole responsibility for ensuring that 

the vehicle is in operational condition throughout the agreement period. 

• ARB Verified Diesel Emission Control System (DECS): An ARB-verified DECS is 

required on all replacement vehicles. 

− In selecting the appropriate DECS for the project, preference shall be given to 

the DECS providing the highest level of NOx and PM10reductions. 

− The DECS must be installed prior to vehicle delivery to the participant and must 

stay in operation on the replacement vehicle for the project life. 

− The cost of the device, and all filters and maintenance of the filters needed 

during the project life, may be paid for with incentive funding provided it meets 

the cost-effectiveness limit. 

− Upon approval of the ARB, the district may waive the requirement for installation 

of the DECS. The waiver must be based upon the specifics of individual 

projects, including cost, vehicle duty cycle restrictions, availability, and other 

factors. 

− Data-logging may be conducted on the old vehicle to determine the proper DECS 

device needed for the replacement vehicle. Data-logging, which is the collection 

of exhaust temperatures, must be conducted while a vehicle is in service. The 

information gathered from the old vehicle is applied to the replacement vehicle. 

Data-logging may be paid for with incentive funding, if it meets the 

cost effectiveness limit. 
II-14 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

− The participant must maintain the DECS as specified by the manufacturer’s 

warranty requirements. The participant must provide maintenance reports to the 

district as required. 

− If an ARB-approved DECS is not available at the time the replacement vehicle is 

purchased, a DECS will be installed when a DECS compatible with the engine 

and the vehicle duty cycle has been verified by ARB, unless otherwise stipulated 

at the time of purchase by the district. 

− Vehicles outfitted with dual exhaust will be addressed on a case-by-case basis. 

The district will determine if no DECS is required, or if a DECS shall be installed 

on both exhaust tailpipes, or if the exhaust shall be converted to a single pipe 

with a DECS. 

− Additional information on retrofit systems is included in Appendix F - Retrofit 

Emission Control Systems.

• Electronic Monitoring Unit (EMU): The EMU electronically reports vehicle miles 

traveled and the number of miles a vehicle has operated within the California and 

district boundaries. An EMU is required on all replacement vehicles. 

− Installation and maintenance of the EMU may be included in the cost of the 

project. 

− If an affordable and suitable EMU is not available at the time the replacement 

vehicle is ready for delivery, the vehicle may be delivered to the applicant. The 

owner will be required to return the vehicle to the dealer when an EMU is 

available for installation. Verification of the installation must be submitted to the 

district following installation. 

− EMU data must be reported to the district for the project life. 

− If the EMU is not functioning properly as indicted by the district, the participant 

will submit mileage reports as specified the district. 

− Upon approval of the ARB, the district may waive the requirement for installation 

of an EMU. 

• Engine and Emission Control Modifications: Emission controls on the replacement 

vehicle engine cannot be modified in any manner. Unauthorized modification to 

engine performance (including changes in horsepower), emission characteristics, 

engine emission components (not including repairs with like-original equipment 

manufacturers replacement parts), or any other modifications to the engine’s 

emission control function or the EMU are not allowed. 
II-15 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

D. Tiered Transactions 

Districts may establish a tiered transaction component within their fleet modernization 

source category. Tiered transactions were added to the Carl Moyer Program with the 

enactment of AB 1394 in January 2005, but were not included in the fleet modernization 

pilot programs. As a result, there is no experience or model to guide districts in 

implementing a tiered transaction component. ARB must approve district plans for 

implementing a tiered transaction component prior to funding projects in this unmapped 

territory. 

A tiered transaction combines the emission reductions achieved from the purchase of a 

new vehicle meeting the optional NOx standard with the replacement of a 1990 or older 

vehicle. In the tiered transaction, the purchaser of a new vehicle meeting the optional 

standard identifies a standard fleet modernization project that meets the fleet 

modernization criteria, including the participation of a 1999 or newer replacement 

vehicle. A second participant acquires the replacement vehicle and scraps a 1990 or 

older vehicle. Tiered transaction programs should include the following elements; 

however, districts may request that ARB consider alternative components. 

• In determining the grant award for the purchaser of the new vehicle, the emission 

benefits and cost-effectiveness of the project must include two transactions: 

− Emission reductions from the currently applicable standard to the new vehicle 

meeting the optional standard. 

− Emission reductions from the old vehicle to the replacement vehicle. 

• The baseline cost for the new vehicle purchase is the cost of a new vehicle that 

meets the current emission standards. The incremental cost eligible for funding is 

the cost of the vehicle meeting the optional standard minus cost of the vehicle 

meeting the existing standards. This is the standard method used for new, on-road 

Moyer projects. 

− Emission reductions from the old vehicle are based on the annual mileage 

traveled by the old vehicle. 

− The participant scrapping the old vehicle is subject to all fleet modernization 

project criteria. The participant purchasing the new vehicle is subject to all 

on-road, heavy-duty project criteria. 

− The participant purchasing the new vehicle is not eligible for emission reductions 

from scrapping an old vehicle within his/her own fleet. 

VllI. Emission Reduction and Cost-Effectiveness Calculations 

To receive weighted Carl Moyer Program funding, each fleet modernization project must 

meet the maximum cost-effectiveness threshold of $14,300 per weighted ton of NOx + 
II-16 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

ROG + PM10 reduced. State and local funds used to pay for a fleet modernization 

project are to be used in determining cost-effectiveness. Any federal incentives must be 

discounted from the overall grant award. Appropriate emission factors as a function of 

vehicle type and model year are illustrated in Tables B-5 in Appendix B. Sample 

calculations for the fleet modernization category are provided in Appendix D. 

IX. Minimum Project Application Requirements 

All fleet modernization applicants must provide the minimum information listed in the 

following table (Table 2-2). 

Table 2-2 

Minimum Application Requirements for Fleet Modernization 

Applicant Information

Organization, Company or Individual Name 

Street Address 

City, State, Zip Code 

Primary Contact Name 

Primary Contract Phone Number 

Person with Contract Signing Authority 

Person who Filled out Funding Application 

Project Address (if different from above) 

Old Vehicle Information 

Vehicle Type (Solid Waste Collection Vehicle, Street 

Sweeper, School Bus, Urban Bus, Other Transit 

Vehicle, Other Heavy-Heavy Duty Vehicle, Other 

Medium-Heavy Duty Vehicle, or Other Light-Heavy 

Duty Vehicle) 

Vehicle Vocation 

Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) 

Vehicle Make 

Vehicle Model 

Vehicle Model Year 

GVWR 

Horsepower 

License Plate Number 

Registered Truck Owner 

Department of Transportation Number 

 (if interstate) 

California Highway Patrol Number 

Vehicle Fuel 

Engine Family 

Engine Make 

Engine Model 

Engine Year 

Engine Serial Number 

ARB Executive Order Number 

 (If Engine Certified to Alt NOx Standard) 

New Vehicle Information 

 (Same as Above) 

 

Retrofit Information

Retrofit Device Make 

ARB-Verified Retrofit Device Name 

Retrofit Device Serial Number 

Retrofit Device ARB Executive Order 

Verification Level (Level 1, 2 or 3) 

ARB-Verified NOx Reduction (%) 

ARB-Verified PM Reduction (%) 

ARB-Verified ROG Reduction (%) 

Electronic Monitoring Unit (EMU) 

Will a new eligible EMU be installed as part 

 of this project? (yes/no) 

EMU Make 

EMU Model 

EMU Model Year 

EMU ID Number 

Activity Information

Vehicle Vocation 

Percent Operation in California 

Percent Operation in District 

Project Life 

Annual Miles Traveled or Gallons Fuel Used 

Cost Information

Adjusted Loan Value of Replacement Vehicle 

Retrofit Device Cost 

Cost of Retrofit Installation (optional) 

Cost of Retrofit Maintenance for Project Life 

(optional) 

Cost of Retrofit Warranty (optional) 

EMU Cost (optional) 
II-17 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

A disclosure must also be included stating that the proposed project has not been 

funded and is not being considered for funding by another air district, ARB, or any other 

public agency. Any applicant who is found to have submitted multiple applications for 

the same project may be banned from submitting future applications to any and all 

Carl Moyer Program solicitations and may be subject to criminal sanctions. A project 

funded cooperatively by multiple air districts is eligible for funding if the project 

parameters are coordinated amongst the participating districts and the project meets all 

applicable Carl Moyer Program criteria. Applicants are allowed to re-apply for project 

funding if a previous application has been rejected and is no longer being considered for 

funding. 

Third party applications are not allowed. The owner of the engine must sign and agree 

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

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

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

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

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

used to pay them. To make the Carl Moyer Program accessible to all potential 

applicants, including applicants that cannot afford to hire third party assistance, districts 

are encouraged to provide technical assistance to applicants in completing the 

application. 

In addition, the following items must accompany the completed application at the time of 

submittal: 

• A copy of the old vehicle title. 

• Copies of California Motor Carrier Permits and permit applications for the last three 

years. If the participant does not have a Motor Carrier Permit, submit copies of the 

Department of Motor Vehicle registration and proof of insurance for the old vehicle 

for the last three years. 

• The participant must provide mileage verification for the previous three years. 

• Proof of vehicle vocation for the last three years. 

• The participant may be required to provide either:

− Copies of the participant’s United States Internal Revenue Service Form 2290 

(Heavy Highway Vehicle Use Tax Return) for the previous three years. 

− United States Internal Revenue Service Schedule C.

• If the old vehicle engine tag is missing, the participant may be required to provide a 

dynamometer printout of the engine horsepower from a participating engine 
II-18 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

dealership, or another means of obtaining the required information approved by the 

ARB. 

• The district may request any additional information. 

X. Administrative Requirements 

Districts must establish fleet modernization policies and guidelines before they can fund 

fleet modernization projects. Many administrative tools are needed to manage a 

reliable fleet modernization source category. This includes agreements with local 

dealerships and salvage yards, reimbursement procedures, the development of 

contracts, etc. The ARB must approve district fleet modernization policies and 

guidelines prior to district implementation of a fleet modernization category. The ARB 

will provide examples for district use. The district’s fleet modernization guidelines must 

address all of the above criteria as well as the items discussed in the following sections. 

 A. Determining Awards 

Grant award determinations must be made with the following considerations: 

• Funding awards are based on the average miles per year driven during the previous 

three years. Fleet averages can not be used. Participants must submit conclusive 

documentation of mileage including logbooks, fuel records, and maintenance 

records maintained for individual vehicles. 

• The incentive amount available for the purchase of the vehicle will be based upon 

three criteria: cost-effectiveness of the project based upon the weighted 

NOx + ROG + combustion PM10 emission benefits as calculated by the district; the 

value of the used vehicle based upon the National Automotive Dealership 

Association (N.A.D.A.) adjusted loan value or new vehicle invoice price; and, less 

any costs associated with repairs noted during the vehicle inspection. 

• The maximum reimbursement for all awards will be the N.A.D.A. adjusted loan value 

of the replacement truck or the maximum calculated incentive -- whichever is less. 

The funding amount of a used, replacement vehicle shall not exceed the value of the 

vehicle given by the N.A.D.A. commercial vehicle guide adjusted loan value. The 

funding amount of a new replacement vehicle shall not exceed 80 percent of the 

invoice price. 

• If suitable equipment is available and deemed cost-effective by the district, 

supplemental incentive funding will be provided to cover installation of a DECS 

and/or an EMU. 

• Incentive funding can only be used to pay for items essential to the operation of the 

vehicle. Optional items, such as cigar lighters and custom mud flaps, must be paid 

for at the owner’s expense. 
II-19 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

• The participant may obtain financing to assist in the purchase of a replacement 

vehicle. 

 B. Dealer Requirements 

Districts are encouraged to establish contracts with dealers that are selling replacement 

vehicles to fleet modernization participants. Experience with the pilot programs has 

shown that dealers have provided participants with needed assistance in the application 

process. Vehicle dealers are encouraged to help in the application process as much as 

possible. If districts use vehicle dealers in implementing the fleet modernization 

category, reimbursement cannot be issued until all forms are submitted and approved 

by the district. 

Participants may purchase the replacement vehicles from a private party, provided all 

required documentation is submitted. This includes warranty requirements and all other 

fleet modernization requirements. 

Vehicle dealers are expected to do the following: 

• Provide basic information about the fleet modernization category. Districts will 

provide liaison training to dealership staff. 

• Inform participants of rights and responsibilities as outlined in the district and ARB 

guidelines. 

• Help the participants complete the application. The vehicle dealers will ensure that 

the participant correctly completes the application. It is important to make sure that 

all information is filled out correctly and that the participant understands the meaning 

of the program and the contract. The district will provide all forms and certificates as 

appendices to the application. Once complete, the dealer will submit the application 

package to the district. 

To ensure that an application package is complete, the dealer will make sure that all the 

following items are complete and included in the participant’s submission to the district. 

The following must be completed before reimbursement can be made: 

• Submit a signed and complete application. 

• Provide documentation showing that the old vehicle is roadworthy. This includes 

documentation showing that the old vehicle has passed a CHP BIT inspection old 

vehicle in the past 90 days or conduct an equivalent vehicle inspection and sign as 

appropriate. The district reserves the right to audit the dealer’s record of inspection. 

• Provide invoices of all work performed on the replacement vehicle. The invoices 

must include all engine, transmission, body and other work performed on the 

replacement vehicle. Invoices must include the installation of all equipment required 

by this program: EMU (at the discretion of the district), diesel emission control 
II-20 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

system (at the discretion of the district), and engine horsepower derated, if 

necessary. 

• Submit digital photographs of the old vehicle and the replacement vehicle to the 

district. The district will specify the required digital format. Reimbursement will not 

be processed until all photographs are received and verified by the district. Before 

submitting photographs to the district, dealers must verify that photographs are 

clear. All VIN and engine serial numbers must be legible. 

 Photographs of the old vehicle must include the following views: 

− Right Side - hood down. 

− Front - hood down. 

− Left Side - hood down. 

− VIN Tag - inside vehicle or on frame rail. 

− Engine - left side. 

− Engine - right side. 

− Engine Serial Number - either tag or stamp on block. 

− License plate. 

− Rear. 

Photographs of the replacement vehicle must include the following views: 

− Right Side - hood down. 

− Front - hood down. 

− Left Side - hood down. 

− VIN Tag - inside vehicle. 

− VIN Tag - on frame rail. 

− Engine - left side. 

− Engine - right side. 

− Engine Serial Number and Engine Information – tag.

− License plate. 

− Rear. 

− Electronic Monitoring Unit (in working condition).

− Diesel Emission Control Device (if available). 

− Odometer Reading. 

− Additional modifications (if applicable). 

• Provide certification that the old vehicle will be delivered to a qualified salvage yard. 

The certification must state that the vehicle will be picked up by the salvage yard 

within 30 days of receipt of the old truck. The contract must include the make, 

model, year, VIN, engine make, engine serial number, and the date the vehicle is 

expected to be delivered. It is the dealer’s responsibility to ensure that the salvage 

actually occurs, to obtain the completed Certificate of Vehicle Destruction, and to 

ensure that the Certificate of Vehicle Destruction has been filed with the district. The 

district will not cover the salvage costs. 
II-21 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

• Provide documentation of replacement vehicle warranty and registration. 

• Provide proof of replacement vehicle financing. The financing package will enable 

the district to determine the reimbursement costs that may be accrued in case the 

participant defaults on the contracted performance requirements. 

Prior to releasing the replacement vehicle to the participant, the dealer must have 

documentation of a district pre-inspection of the old vehicle and a post-inspection of the 

replacement vehicle. Upon request of the district, ARB may waive inspection 

requirements. 

After the application and all required documentation have been approved by the district, 

the dealer must provide the district with proof of sale of the replacement vehicle. 

 C. Salvage Requirements 

Destruction of the old vehicle chassis and engine permanently removes the old, high 

emitting vehicles from service. The old vehicle must be driven to a qualified vehicle 

salvage yard for destruction. Vehicle salvage yards are required to enter into an 

agreement with the district to qualify for participation. Qualified vehicle salvage yards 

are required to be licensed by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) as an 

auto-dismantler; have a current, valid California Environmental Protection Agency 

(Cal/EPA) Hazardous Materials Generators Permit; and be in compliance with all local, 

state and federal laws and regulations. 

Funding is not available for the salvage of any old vehicle. The vehicle salvage value 

will be negotiated between the participant, the dealership and the salvage yard. The 

salvage yard operator must do the following: 

• Dismantle the old vehicle within 60 days of receipt. The destruction must be done in 

accordance with program guidelines. 

• The old vehicle’s engine must be destroyed and rendered useless as specified in the 

Administration Chapter of these Guidelines

• Cut the frame rails of the old vehicle to ensure that the vehicle will not be used 

again. 

• Take photographs of the destroyed engine as specified in the Administration 

Chapter of these Guidelines and the cut frame rails. Photographs of the destroyed 

engine block and cut frame rails must be provided to the district within ten business 

days of salvaging the vehicle. The following picture views must be taken: 

− Front of vehicle with hood down. 

− Right side of vehicle with hood down. 

− Left side of vehicle with hood down. 
II-22 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

− Serial number printed either on the tag inside in the cab or on the frame rail. 

− Engine side view. 

− Engine serial number either stamped on the block or on the tag. 

− Destroyed engine block either in-frame or out of frame as specified in the 

Administration Chapter of these Guidelines. 

− Cut frame rails. 

• File a “Non-Repairable Vehicle Certificate” with the DMV using an “Application for 

Salvage Certification or Non-Repairable Vehicle Certification”. 

• Upon request of the district, ARB may approve an alternative disposition for the old 

vehicle. 

• Upon request of the district, ARB may approve an extension to the required 

timeframe for vehicle destruction. 

 D. Pre- and Post-Inspections 

To protect the integrity of the fleet modernization source category, districts must 

conduct a pre-inspection of the old vehicle and a post-inspection of the replacement 

vehicle. Districts are encouraged to design rigorous pre- and post-inspection 

procedures. At a minimum, the inspection of the old vehicle must be conducted to 

establish that it has been in service, that it meets the described weight class and 

configuration, and that costs associated with needed repairs have been identified and 

deducted from the incentive award. The cost of repairs needed for the old vehicle will 

be subtracted from the incremental cost of the grant award. 

Post-inspection of the replacement vehicle must be conducted to verify that the vehicle 

meets the contract description, including class and configuration descriptions, DECS 

and EMU installation, and any other items deemed necessary to confirm the authenticity 

project. Upon the request of the district, the ARB may approve an alternative method of 

ascertaining the authenticity of the old and replacement vehicle. 

 E. Minimum Reporting Requirements 

Fleet modernization reporting requirements have been established to verify that project 

participants meet contract requirements and to quantify the emission reductions 

achieved through the Carl Moyer Program. Fleet modernization projects are subject to 

the following minimum reporting requirements: 

• If the participant has a California Motor Carrier Permit, a current copy must be 

submitted to the district annually. If the participant does not have a California Motor 

Carrier Permit, the participant must provide registration and proof of insurance to the 

district annually. 

• The participant must provide annual reports for the life of the project. The report on 

the replacement truck will include information such as the number of hours of 
II-23 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

operation, miles driven in the district and California, the amount of fuel consumed in 

the twelve months preceding the report date, details regarding maintenance and 

servicing, and any other items specified by the district. 

• Participants from targeted vocation categories must provide documentation of 

vocation on an annual basis. 

• If the replacement vehicle is involved in an accident, the participant must report the 

accident to district staff within 14 days. The participant will be required to provide a 

police report of the accident, a letter from the insurance company regarding the 

accident and any additional information requested by the district. The participant is 

required to repair the vehicle and return it to operation, if possible. Down time due 

to an accident will be credited toward the performance requirements as along as the 

information is reported as requested and the repairs are made as soon as possible. 

If the vehicle is totaled, the participant and the district staff must come to an 

agreement regarding any requirements that still need to be met. 

 F. Compliance Checks 

After the district qualifies fleet modernization projects for funding, but before the district 

APCO signs an agreement for funding a project, the district must submit the project to 

ARB to check for outstanding violations. The process for completing the compliance 

check is as follows: 

• The district shall email its ARB district liaison the contact name, address, 

organization or business name, DOT number, CHP number, and VIN for the project. 

• The liaison shall then forward that information electronically to the responsible 

parties at ARB. The liaison will email the district the results of the compliance check 

within 14 working days. 

• If the compliance check indicates there is an outstanding violation the district shall 

inform the applicant in writing that no disbursement may be made until the owner 

provides proof that the fines have been paid. 

• Clearance of the citation requires proof of repair or a “Statement of Facts” 

documenting that the old truck will be scrapped. The “Statement of Facts” can be 

written by the dealer or the participant explaining the old truck will be scrapped as 

required by the Carl Moyer fleet modernization program. The statement and a copy 

of the fleet modernization contract should be provided along with the penalty 

payment. Include the citation number on all documents. 

 G. Recovery of Incentive Funds

The district must establish a mechanism to assure the participant fulfills all contractual 

obligations. This includes owning and operating the replacement vehicle for the project 

life, and staying in the agreed upon vocation for the duration of the contract. 
II-24 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

Participants must meet an 80 percent minimum baseline mileage requirement for the life 

of the project and agree to repay a pro-rated portion of the incentive funding for failure 

to fulfill the minimum performance requirements. Upon request of the district, ARB may 

approve an alternate minimum baseline requirement. The district will determine the 

method of notice and achieving fund recovery. Options may include: 

• List the district as co-lien holder on the title of the replacement vehicle for the term of 

the agreement. The participant must submit a completed Uniform Commercial 

Code-1 Financing Statement Form to the California Secretary of State, with a copy 

sent to the district, within 30 days of the purchase of the replacement vehicle. The 

financing statement must have the district as the secured party and the vehicle 

should be listed as collateral. 

• The participant must be the registered owner of the replacement vehicle for the 

project life. If the replacement vehicle is sold within the project life, the new owner 

must assume the obligations under the participant’s contract with the district and 

comply with the terms and conditions of the contract. The district must approve the 

change in ownership prior to the sale. 

XI. References

ARB 2002. California Emissions Inventory Model, EMFAC2002, v2.2 (Apr03). 

ARB 2005. California Emissions Inventory Model, EMFAC2005. 

Gateway Cities Council of Governments. November 2004, Gateway Cities Clean Air 

Pilot Program: Truck Fleet Modernization Program Guidelines. 

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. May 2005. Fleet 

Modernization Impacts on Normal Vehicle Turnover - Issue Paper. 

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. Fall 2004, Version 3.0. 

The Sacramento Emergency Clean Air Transportation (SECAT) Program, Policies 

and Guidelines. 

United States Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration, 

United States Census Bureau. 2002 Economic Census Vehicle Inventory and Use 

Survey, Geographic Area Series. 
III-1 REDUCING HDV IDLING EMISSIONS 

Chapter Three 

REDUCING IDLING EMISSIONS FROM HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

This chapter addresses the project criteria for idling reduction technologies that may be 

installed on on-road heavy-duty vehicles. Projects that meet the criteria may be 

considered for Carl Moyer Program funding. This chapter contains a brief overview of 

the engine idling practices of truck operators, emission inventories, available control 

technology, emission reductions and cost effectiveness calculations. This chapter 

expands eligible idling reduction techniques to electrification projects. Information 

specific to electric auxiliary power units (APU) and other zero-emission technologies is 

provided in Chapter 12: Zero-Emission Technologies. 

I. Introduction 

Heavy-duty vehicles are employed in line-haul service carrying goods across the state 

and throughout the nation. The majority of heavy-duty vehicles are powered by diesel 

engines. Heavy-duty vehicles employed in line-haul service are typically greater than 

33,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), are grouped under a Class 8 truck 

classification, and often accrue very high annual mileage. It is not uncommon for a 

line-haul truck to accrue 100,000 miles or more annually. These heavy-duty vehicles 

(HDV) idle at low engine speeds for a significant amount of time for various operational 

reasons. The low engine efficiency at these idle speeds results in significant increases 

in fuel consumption and emissions. 

Truck idling practices vary among different fleets, operators, and geographical locations. 

Two main purposes of idling are to keep the engine and fuel warm, especially in cold 

weather, and to heat or cool the truck’s cab/sleeper compartment. Although 

technologies for reducing idling emissions from heavy-duty trucks are commercially 

available, relatively high initial costs have prevented these idling reduction strategies 

from being more widely utilized. 

The average power demand for an APU operating under extreme climate conditions is 

estimated to be approximately 2.3 kilowatts (kW) for winter conditions and 3.1 kW for 

summer conditions [Wallace, 2003; Lutsey, 2003]. Staff assumed that the diesel-fueled 

APU would provide an average of 2.7 kW power to provide sleeper berth comfort and 

electrical power for accessories. 

The Carl Moyer Program can provide incentives to reduce emissions from truck idling 

by encouraging the purchase and installation of alternative idling reduction 

technologies. These technologies not only reduce idling emissions from heavy-duty 

trucks, but can also result in fuel savings and reduced maintenance costs to truck 

operators.
III-2 REDUCING HDV IDLING EMISSIONS 

II. Emissions 

According to the Air Resources Board’s (ARB or “Board”) emission inventory, idling 

emissions from heavy heavy-duty diesel (HHD) trucks account for approximately 

29 tons per day (tpd) of nitrogen oxides (NOx), 1.6 tpd of reactive organic gases (ROG) 

and 0.7 tpd of particulate matter (PM10). This represents about 7 percent of the total 

NOx, ROG and PM10 emissions from this sector of vehicles in California. Idling 

emissions from individual trucks are significant and the idling emission rate for HHD 

diesel trucks is large. For example, a single HHD truck that idles an average of 

1,500 hours per year emits approximately: 564 pounds/year of NOx, 114 pounds/year of 

ROG and 7.6 pounds/year of PM10 from idling. 

III. Regulatory Requirements 

A. School Bus Idling 

An airborne toxic control measure (ATCM) became effective on July 16, 2003, that 

restricts idling by school buses and other special classes of vehicles at schools. The 

regulation also limited the idling of these buses and vehicles to no more than five 

minutes when within 100 feet of a school. [ARB, 2003] 

B. Heavy-Duty Vehicle Idling 

On February 1, 2005, an ATCM became effective that extended idling limitations 

beyond school buses to include diesel APUs, and heavy-duty diesel trucks over 

10,000 GVWR. The ATCM specifically limits idling of the main engine or the operation 

of diesel-fueled APU systems when health, safety or operational concerns are not an 

issue. This regulation limits the idling of HDVs to no more than five minutes if the truck 

is within 100 feet of a school or home. These requirements apply to both California and 

non-California trucks. 

In addition to statewide restrictions on idling, some local government and municipalities 

have ordinances restricting idling time for some types of vehicles. Carl Moyer Program 

funding for projects must be surplus to the requirements of both the ATCM and local 

ordinances. 

C. Idling Restrictions 

In October 2005, the Board approved a proposal that removes the exemption for idling 

of heavy duty trucks equipped with sleeper berths. This proposal prohibits heavy duty 

trucks with sleeper berths from idling more than five minutes unless certain conditions 

are met. Beginning in 2008, model year 2006 and older trucks may operate APUs 

powered by a certified diesel engine. Model year 2007 and newer trucks may only 

operate an APU for longer than 5 minutes if the exhaust of the APU powered by a 

certified diesel engine is equipped with a level 3 PM retrofit device or is routed through 

the main engine exhaust with a level 3 PM retrofit device; however, the truck must not 

be within 100 feet of a restricted area such as a school or residential area. In addition, 
III-3 REDUCING HDV IDLING EMISSIONS 

2008 and subsequent model year heavy duty trucks may idle longer than longer than 

five minutes in a non-restricted area if the main engine meets a low NOx standard of 

30 g/hr. 

The Board approval of the regulation means that beginning with the 2008 calendar year 

the baseline for calculating the benefits of truck idle reduction projects will be the 

15.1 g/hr NMHC+NOx and .087 g/hr of PM emission rate for APUs assumed in the 

idling regulation. Zero-emission or near-zero emission technologies would be eligible 

for funding using the lower emission baseline. 

IV. Potential Projects 

A. Auxiliary Power Units 

APUs are usually installed on the truck chassis outside the truck cab to provide power 

for the truck’s accessory loads and to keep the engine warm when the truck is parked. 

This allows the operator to refrain from idling the truck’s main engine. The extent of 

labor involved in the installation of an APU on the truck depends on the configuration of 

the truck engine and chassis and the plumbing of its heating/cooling system. Heating 

and cooling of the cab compartment are accomplished through either dedicated 

equipment supplied with the APU or through the truck's existing heating and cooling 

system. APUs are commercially available and meet most of the power needs of truck 

operators. Some APUs are available with an electric option for a few hundred dollars 

more. 

B. Truck Stop Electrification 

Another strategy for reducing truck idling is the retrofit of trucks with components such 

as engine block heaters, fuel heaters, electric heaters and air conditioning for 

cab/sleeper areas. This strategy requires the installation of charging infrastructure at 

truck stops and rest areas. Specific information and project criteria pertaining to truck 

stop electrification is provided in Chapter 12: Zero-Emission Technologies. 

C. Advanced Travel Center Electrification 

An alternative to truck stop electrification that does not require truck modification has 

been introduced by IdleAire Technologies. Specific information and project criteria are 

provided in Chapter 12: Zero-Emission Technologies. 

D. Direct-Fired Heaters and Thermal Storage 

Direct-fired heaters for truck heating applications are devices that use the combustion 

heat of a small internal combustion engine to provide heat directly to the truck's 

cab/sleeper area through the use of a small heat exchanger. Because it is designed to 

provide heat directly from a combustion flame, the heating efficiency of these units is 

higher than that obtained through the truck's engine due to reduced mechanical losses 

and fuel consumption. Two primary limitations of direct-fired heaters for this application 
III-4 REDUCING HDV IDLING EMISSIONS 

are that they cannot provide cooling and that they draw on the truck's battery power 

during operation. Direct-fired heater technologies continue to evolve, but they have not 

gained widespread commercial acceptance. 

Thermal storage systems provide both heating and cooling for the cab/sleeper area. 

This technology uses the heat of transformation associated with material phase change 

to provide heating and cooling to the cab/sleeper area. However, the technology cannot 

provide cooling at night unless the truck's air conditioner was used in the daytime. 

V. Project Criteria 

The project criteria for eligible idling reduction strategies for heavy-duty vehicles provide 

districts and fleet operators with the minimum requirements for participation in the 

Carl Moyer Program. The criteria have been developed specifically for idling reduction 

technologies that will be installed on a heavy-duty truck to reduce the truck's idling 

emissions. The ARB may develop additional project criteria for idling reduction 

strategies if additional technologies enter the market. 

Idling reduction technologies provide a cost-effective means to reduce idling emissions 

from heavy-duty diesel trucks. Carl Moyer Program funds can be used to pay for a 

portion of the capital cost of idling reduction equipment as well as the installation costs. 

A. General Criteria 

• Emission reductions obtained through Carl Moyer Program projects must not be 

required by any federal, state or local regulation, memorandum of 

agreement/understanding, settlement agreement, mitigation requirement, or other 

legally binding document. 

• Projects must meet a cost-effectiveness of $14,300 per weighed ton of NOx + ROG 

+ combustion PM10, reduced calculated in accordance with the cost-effectiveness 

methodology discussed in this section. 

• No emission reductions generated with funding from the Carl Moyer Program shall 

be used as marketable emission reduction credits, or to satisfy any emission 

reduction obligation of any person or entity. 

• No emission reductions from a project funded by the Carl Moyer Program shall be 

used for credit under any federal or state emission averaging, banking and trading 

program 

• Carl Moyer Program grants shall be no greater than a project’s incremental cost. 

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

incremental cost shall be reduced by the value of any current financial incentive that 

reduces the project price, including but not limited to tax credits or deductions, 

grants, or other public financial assistance. 
III-5 REDUCING HDV IDLING EMISSIONS 

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

shorter project life in writing for good cause on a case-by-case basis. Projects with 

shorter lives may be subject to additional funding restrictions, such as a lower 

cost-effectiveness limit or a project cost cap. 

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

• The default project life does not consider upcoming regulatory requirements. Project 

life may be shorter due to regulatory requirements. 

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

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

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

• Repower projects must provide at least a 15 percent NOx emission benefit 

compared to baseline idling NOx emissions. 

• 75 percent of the APU usage must be in California. The ARB may approve 

exceptions on a case by case basis. 

• Air districts are encouraged to co-fund projects that will produce emission reductions 

in more than one air district. 

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

case-by-case basis is evidence provided to the air district suggests potential surplus, 

real, quantifiable and enforceable emission reduction benefits. 

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

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

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

B. APUs and Alternative Technologies 

• The engine used in an APU must meet current emission standards, be certified by 

the ARB for sale in California, and comply with all applicable durability and warranty 

requirements. 

• If an internal combustion engine APU is available with an electric plug-in option, the 

incremental cost of the plug-in option is eligible for Carl Moyer Program funding. 

• An hour-meter or other means to measure usage must be installed with an APU to 

track operation. The participant shall provide this information to ARB or the district 

upon request during the life of the project. 
III-6 REDUCING HDV IDLING EMISSIONS 

• The default load factor for the engine used in an APU shall be the maximum power 

rating of the engine, unless another load factor is proposed by the participant and 

supported by proper documentation as determined by the ARB. 

• Emission benefits must be based on the vehicle's idling time that occurs in 

California. At least 75 percent of the idling time must be in California. ARB may 

approve exceptions on a case-by-case basis. 

• The actual capital cost, up to $5,500, of an APU may be eligible for funding. 

• The installation cost of an APU, including installation of an hour-meter, up to a 

maximum of $1,700 per diesel APU and a maximum of $3,400 per alternative fuel, 

electric motor, or fuel cell APU, may be funded. 

• The full cost of a PM retrofit device may be funded provided that the 

cost-effectiveness for the overall project does not exceed $14,300. 

C. Scrap 

• Scrap requirements are described in the 2005 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, 

Part I, Chapter 2: Administration of the Carl Moyer Program. 

VI. Minimum Project Requirements 

A. Application 

In order to qualify for incentive funds, districts make applications available and solicit 

proposals for reduced-emission projects from HDV operators. The applicant must 

provide at least the following information listed in Table 3-2. 

A disclosure must also be included stating that the proposed project has not been 

funded and is not being considered for funding by another air district, ARB, or any other 

public agency. Any applicant who is found to have submitted multiple applications for 

the same project may be banned from submitting future applications to any and all 

Carl Moyer Program solicitations and may be subject to criminal sanctions. A project 

funded cooperatively by multiple air districts is eligible for funding if the project 

parameters are coordinated amongst the participating districts and the project meets all 

applicable Carl Moyer Program criteria. Applicants are allowed to re-apply for project 

funding if a previous application has been rejected and is no longer being considered for 

funding. 
III-7 REDUCING HDV IDLING EMISSIONS 

Table 3-2 Minimum Application Information Auxiliary Power Unit Projects 

Applicant Information

Organization, Company or Individual Name 

Street Address 

City, County, State, Zip Code 

Primary Contact Name 

Primary Contract Phone Number 

Person with Contract Signing Authority 

Person who Filled out Funding Application 

Project Address (if different from above) 

Vehicle Information

Vehicle Type (Solid Waste Collection Vehicle, 

Street Sweeper, School Bus, Urban Bus, Other 

Transit Vehicle, Other Heavy-Heavy Duty Vehicle, 

Other Medium-Heavy Duty Vehicle, or Other LightHeavy Duty Vehicle) 

Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) 

Vehicle Make 

Vehicle Model 

Model Year 

Vehicle GVWR 

Vehicle License Plate Number 

Department of Transportation Number 

 (if interstate) 

California Highway Patrol CA Number 

Engine Make 

Engine Model 

Engine Year 

Engine Serial Number 

ARB Certification Executive Order (if Engine 

Certified to Alt. NOx Standard) 

Fuel Type 

Auxiliary Engine Make, Model, Year, Serial 

Number, Horsepower, Tier, and Family (if 

applicable) 

APU Engine Information

Engine Make 

Engine Model 

Engine Year 

Fuel Type 

Engine Tier 

Certified APU or Alternative Technology Cost 

APU or Alternative Technology Installation Cost 

Activity Information

Percent Operation in California 

Percent Operation in District 

Project Life 

Annual Gallons Fuel Used 

Annual Hours Idled 

Electronic Monitoring Unit (EMU) 

Will a new eligible EMU be installed as part 

 of this project? (yes/no) 

EMU Make 

EMU Model 

EMU Model Year 

EMU ID Number 

EMU Cost (optional) 

Third party applications are not allowed. The owner of the engine must sign and agree 

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

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

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

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

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

used to pay them. To make the Carl Moyer Program accessible to all potential 

applicants, including applicants that cannot afford to hire third party assistance, districts 

are encouraged to provide technical assistance to applicants in completing the 

application. 
III-8 REDUCING HDV IDLING EMISSIONS 

B. Reporting and Monitoring 

The district has the authority to conduct periodic checks or solicit operating records from 

the applicant that has received Carl Moyer Program funds for emission reduction 

projects. This is to ensure that the APU is operated as stated in the program 

application. Fleet operators participating in the Carl Moyer Program are required to 

keep appropriate records during the life of the project. Records must contain, at a 

minimum, total California hours idled. Records must be retained and updated 

throughout the project life and made available at the request of the district. 

VII. References 

ARB, 2003. Final Regulation Order: Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit School 

Bus Idling And Idling At Schools. July 16, 2003. 

ARB, 2004. Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Idling Reduction. September 1, 2005. 

Lutsey, Nicholas. Fuel Cells For Auxiliary Power in Trucks: Requirements, Benefits, 

and Marketability. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis. 

UCD-ITS-RR-03-04. July 2003. 

Wallace, John Paul. Modeling of Line-Haul Truck Auxiliary Power Units in ADVISOR 

2002. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis. UCD-ITS-RR03-07. August 2003 
IV-1 TRANSPORT 

 REFRIGERATION UNITS 

Chapter Four 

TRANSPORT REFRIGERATION UNITS 

This chapter is a new source category and presents the project criteria for transport 

refrigeration units (TRU) and transport refrigeration generator sets. This chapter also 

contains a brief overview of the engine operating characteristics of transport 

refrigeration units, emission inventory, available control technology, potential projects 

eligible for funding, and emission reduction and cost-effectiveness calculation 

methodologies. Information is also provided for potential consideration of other 

alternative technologies or strategies that may offer real emission reduction of transport 

refrigeration unit operations from transport refrigeration unit diesel engines. For more 

information about zero-emission technology, consult Chapter 12: Zero-Emission 

Technologies. 

I. Introduction 

TRUs are employed in service carrying perishable goods throughout the world. TRUs 

use an internal combustion engine to run the compressor of the refrigeration system. 

TRUs and TRU generator sets operating in the United States are generally powered by 

diesel engines, typically between 9 and 36 horsepower. TRUs may be installed on 

trucks, trailers, shipping containers, and railcars to refrigerate perishable contents. 

When a refrigerated trailer becomes disconnected from the tractor, the trailer TRU will 

continue to maintain temperature. When the tractor is parked at a rest stop or shut 

down, the TRU engine continues to cycle. TRU generator sets are also attached to 

ocean-going shipping containers when they are on land, to provide electric power to the 

shipping container's refrigeration system between the port and cold storage warehouse 

or distribution center. 

II. Emissions 

There are currently about 31,000 TRUs and TRU generator sets based in California, 

and another 7,500 out-of-state refrigerated trailers and 1,700 railcar TRUs operating in 

California at any given time. The Air Resources Board (ARB or “Board”) estimates that 

emissions of diesel particulate emissions from TRUs and TRU generator sets were 

almost two tons per day or 2.6 percent of the total statewide diesel particulate matter 

emissions in 2000. Estimated NOx emissions in 2000 were about 20 tons per day. 

Based on emission projections, the diesel PM10 emissions from TRUs will decrease to 

about 1.6 tons per day in 2010 and decrease again to about 0.3 tons per day in 2020, 

because of the cumulative effects of new emission standards and ARB's in-use TRU 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM). 
IV-2 TRANSPORT 

 REFRIGERATION UNITS 

III. Regulatory Requirements 

In February 2004, the Board approved an ATCM for TRUs that set in-use performance 

standards for PM10 emissions beginning in 2008. Compliance is phased in over the 

next 12 years. 

The TRU ATCM In-Use Performance Standards and compliance dates must be 

considered when determining whether emission reductions are surplus. Table 4-1 gives 

the TRU and TRU Generator Set In-Use Performance Standards and Table 4-2 

provides a graphical representation of the implementation schedule. The region in 

Table 4-2 labeled Potential Surplus Reductions shows a window of opportunity where 

projects can achieve emissions reductions prior to the compliance date of the TRU 

ATCM [ARB, 2003]. 

Table 4-1 

TRU and TRU Generator Set In-Use Performance Standards 

Horsepower 

Category 

Engine Certification Value 

PM10 Emissions Standard 

(grams/horsepower-hour) 

Options for Meeting 

Performance Standard 

Low Emission Performance Standards

less than 25 0.30 g/hp-hr

 Use an engine that meets the 

Engine Certification Value 

 Retrofit with at least Level 2 DECS* 

(>50% PM10 reduction) 

 Use an Alternative Technology 

25 or greater 0.22 g/hp-hr

 Use an engine that meets the 

Engine Certification Value 

 Retrofit with at least Level 2 DECS 

 Use an Alternative Technology 

Ultra-Low Emission Performance Standard 

less than 25 N/A

 Retrofit with Level 3 DECS (>85% 

PM10 reduction) 

 Use an Alternative Technology 

25 or greater 0.02 g/hp-hr

 Use an engine that meets the 

Engine Certification Value 

 Retrofit with Level 3 DECS 

 Use an Alternative Technology 

* Diesel Emission Control System 
IV-3 TRANSPORT 

 REFRIGERATION UNITS 

• Table 4-2 

≥ 25 hp TRU and TRU Generator Set Engines In-Use Compliance Dates 

(Compliance date is December 31 of applicable year)

In-Use Compliance Year

MY ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12 ‘13 ‘14 ‘15 ‘16 ‘17 ‘18 ‘19 ‘20 

‘01 & Older L L L L L L L U U U U U U 

‘02 L L L L L L L U U U U U 

‘03 U U U U U U U U U U U 

‘04 U U U U U U U U U U 

‘05 U U U U U U U U U 

‘06 U U U U U U U U 

‘07 U U U U U U U 

‘08 U U U U U U 

‘09 U U U U U 

‘10 U U U U 

‘11 U U U 

‘12 U U 

‘13 

< 25 Hp 2013 and subsequent MY must meet ULETRU 7 years after MY 

L = Low-Emission TRU, U = Ultra Low-Emission TRU 

IV. Potential Projects 

TRU owners can apply for Carl Moyer Program grant funds for projects that achieve 

surplus emission reductions by repowering with cleaner certified engines, installing 

verified retrofit diesel emission control strategies, or using alternative technologies to 

reduce or eliminate NOx, ROG, and PM10 emissions. Many of the technologies 

discussed below have not yet been verified. However, they are included in this 

discussion since they could provide real emission reductions and could potentially be 

verified during the time frame covered by the Guidelines. 

A. New Purchase 

Purchase of a new TRU is eligible for Carl Moyer Program funding if the new TRU is 

cleaner than what would have normally been purchased – a diesel engine. Thus the 

incremental cost of the new purchase of alternative technologies may be eligible for 

Carl Moyer Program grants. 

B. Repower 

Repowering TRUs with cleaner certified diesel engines is one type of potential project. 

However, there may be some compatibility issues with some engines due to spatial and 

electronic control differences (e.g., the new engine is too big to fit in the available space 

or the electronic controls are incompatible). Those compatibility issues must be 

resolved prior to submitting a grant application. 

Potential 

Surplus 

Emissions
IV-4 TRANSPORT 

 REFRIGERATION UNITS 

C. Retrofit with a Diesel Emission Control Strategy

Retrofit with a diesel emission control strategy is another potential project if the retrofit is 

not required by the TRU ATCM or any other regulation. Diesel retrofit systems must be 

verified by ARB in order to qualify for Carl Moyer Program funding. Potential retrofits 

include diesel oxidation catalysts, diesel particulate filters, flow though filters and fuel 

additives. 

D. Alternative Technologies to Reduce or Eliminate NOx, ROG, and PM 

Emissions 

Alternative technologies are defined under the TRU ATCM as electric standby, 

cryogenic temperature control systems, alternative fuels, alternative diesel fuels, fuel 

cells, and other systems that reduce or eliminate diesel engine operation. Brief 

descriptions of each of these potential project types follow. 

1. Electric Standby 

Electric standby equipped TRUs allow the TRU engine to be shut off when a compatible 

electric power supply is available at a facility so TRU diesel engine emissions are 

eliminated while the TRU is plugged in at the facility. See Chapter 12: Zero-Emission 

Technologies for more information. 

2. Hybrid Electric TRU 

Hybrid electric TRUs have been available in Europe for several years. The diesel 

engine drives a generator that, in turn, powers an electric semi-hermetic refrigeration 

compressor and electrically driven fans, all controlled by an advanced microprocessor. 

This hybrid electric TRU is easily adaptable to run on electric grid power when at a 

facility, so that diesel engine operation is eliminated. The cost is higher than a 

traditional TRU, but costs less than it would to retrofit a traditional TRU with an electric 

standby system. One big advantage is that the hybrid design provides full refrigeration 

capacity for the initial chill-down. The hybrid design is also very likely to be adaptable 

for future use with fuel cell technology 

3. Cryogenic Temperature Control Systems 

Cryogenic temperature control systems heat and cool using a cryogen, such as liquid 

carbon dioxide or liquid nitrogen that is routed through an evaporator coil that cools air 

blown over the coil. Since there is no diesel engine, diesel PM10 emissions are 

eliminated. Capital costs for these types of systems are ten percent higher than a 

diesel TRU, but the facility infrastructure costs for cryogenic "fuel" storage and 

dispensing add to the capital cost. 
IV-5 TRANSPORT 

 REFRIGERATION UNITS 

4. Alternative Fuels 

Conventional diesel engines are internal combustion, compression-ignition engines. In 

contrast, engines that operate on an alternative fuel, such as compressed natural gas 

(CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), and liquid propane gas (LPG), are usually 

spark-ignited. Engines certified to operate on alternative fuels produce substantially 

lower PM10 and NOx emissions than diesel-fueled engines that are not equipped with 

exhaust after-treatment. 

5. Alternative Diesel Fuels 

Before any alternative diesel fuel can be used to comply with a diesel PM10 control 

measure or used in a Carl Moyer Program project, it must be verified through ARB’s 

Verification Procedure, which includes a special section that deals specifically with 

alternative diesel fuels. 

The Carl Moyer Program does not fund fuel-only projects however, districts may use 

matching funds to pay for the incremental cost of alternative diesel fuels if they are part 

of a Carl Moyer Program project. Recordkeeping and reporting must provide assurance 

that the emission reductions are real, quantifiable, surplus and enforceable. 

6. Fuel Cells 

Compared to a conventional diesel-powered TRU, fuel cell TRUs would offer zero or 

near-zero emissions of criteria pollutants and lower greenhouse gas emissions. At this 

time, there are no fuel cells appropriately sized for use on a TRU, but electrically-driven 

TRUs could be powered by fuel cells on or off the road (e.g., at a facility). 

V. Project Criteria 

Participating districts retain the authority to impose additional more stringent 

requirements in order to address local issues. 

A. General Criteria 

• Emission reductions obtained through Carl Moyer Program projects must not be 

required by any federal, state or local regulation, memorandum of 

agreement/understanding, settlement agreement, mitigation requirement, or other 

legally binding document. 

• Projects must meet a cost-effectiveness of $14,300 per weighed ton of NOx + ROG 

+ combustion PM10 reduced calculated in accordance with the cost-effectiveness 

methodology discussed in this chapter. 
IV-6 TRANSPORT 

 REFRIGERATION UNITS 

• No emission reductions generated by the Carl Moyer Program shall be used as 

marketable emission reduction credits, or to satisfy any emission reduction 

obligation of any person or entity. 

• No project funded by the Carl Moyer Program shall be used for credit under any 

federal or state emission averaging, banking, and trading program. 

• Carl Moyer Program grants shall be no greater than a project’s incremental cost. 

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

incremental cost shall be reduced by the value of any current financial incentive that 

reduces the project price, including but not limited to tax credits or deductions, 

grants, or other public financial assistance. 

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

project life in writing for good cause on a case-by-case basis. Projects with shorter 

lives may be subject to additional funding restrictions, such as a lower 

cost-effectiveness limit or a project cost cap. 

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

• The default project life does not consider upcoming regulatory requirements. Project 

life may be shorter due to regulatory requirements.

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

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

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

• Projects with more than a 5 year project life must have a contract term of at least 

5 years. 

• Emission benefits must be based on the TRU operations that occur in California. 

75 percent of TRU operations must be in California. The ARB may approve 

exceptions in writing on a case-by-case basis. 

• Air districts are encouraged to co-fund projects that will produce emission reductions 

in more than one air district. (Most TRU projects will provide multi-district emission 

reductions.) 

B. Repowers 

• For repower projects, Carl Moyer Program funds shall only be used to pay for the 

incremental costs of an eligible engine and the cost to install that engine in the TRU 

equipment. 
IV-7 TRANSPORT 

 REFRIGERATION UNITS 

• The replacement engine for repower projects used in the TRU must meet current 

emission standards and be certified by the ARB for sale in California. Compliance 

with all applicable durability and warranty requirements is required. 

• Repower projects must provide at least 15 percent NOx emission benefit compared 

to baseline NOx emission level. 

• The participant shall install an hour-meter or other means to measure usage on the 

TRU to track operating hours, and shall provide this information to ARB or the district 

upon request. 

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

case-by-case basis is evidence provided to the air district suggests potential surplus, 

real, quantifiable and enforceable emission reduction benefits. 

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

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

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

C. Retrofits 

• For retrofit projects, diesel emission control strategies used on TRUs must be 

verified by ARB for sale in California. Compliance with all applicable durability and 

warranty requirements is required. 

• Alternative technologies such as electric standby and pure cryogenic systems are 

not required to be verified, but ARB must review and approve such systems in 

writing on a case-by-case basis. The district shall require recordkeeping and 

reporting to assure that estimated emission reductions are achieved. 

D. Scrap

• Scrap requirements are described in the 2005 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, 

Part I, Chapter 2: Administration of the Carl Moyer Program. 

VI. Cost-Effectiveness 

To receive Carl Moyer Program funding, each project must meet the maximum 

cost-effective threshold of $14,300 per weighted ton of covered pollutants reduced. 

Only funds provided by the Carl Moyer Program and local district matching funds are to 

be used in determining cost-effectiveness. 

In general, the emission reduction benefit represents the difference in the emission level 

of a baseline engine and reduced-emission engine, retrofit, or use of alternative 

technology. TRU engine annual emissions are calculated by multiplying the emission 
IV-8 TRANSPORT 

 REFRIGERATION UNITS 

factor in grams per horsepower-hour for each pollutant by the rated hp, load factor, and 

activity (annual engine hours of operation). 

VII. Minimum Project Requirements 

A. Application 

In order to qualify for incentive funds, districts make applications available and solicit 

proposals for reduced-emission projects from distribution centers and TRU owners. 

The applicant must provide at least the following information listed in Table 4-4. 

A disclosure must also be included stating that the proposed project has not been 

funded and is not being considered for funding by another air district, ARB, or any other 

public agency. Any applicant who is found to have submitted multiple applications for 

the same project may be banned from submitting future applications to any and all 

Carl Moyer Program solicitations and may be subject to criminal sanctions. A project 

funded cooperatively by multiple air districts is eligible for funding if the project 

parameters are coordinated amongst the participating districts and the project meets all 

applicable Carl Moyer Program criteria. Applicants are allowed to re-apply for project 

funding if a previous application has been rejected and is no longer being considered for 

funding. 

Third party applications are not allowed. The owner of the engine must sign and agree 

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

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

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

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

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

used to pay them. To make the Carl Moyer Program accessible to all potential 

applicants, including applicants that cannot afford to hire third party assistance, districts 

are encouraged to provide technical assistance to applicants in completing the 

application. 

B. Reporting and Monitoring 

The district has the authority to conduct periodic checks or solicit operating records from 

the applicant that has received Carl Moyer Program funds for emission reduction 

projects. This is to ensure that the TRU is operated as stated in the program 

application. Fleet operators participating in the Carl Moyer Program are required to 

keep appropriate records during the life of the project. Records must contain, at a 

minimum, total California hours idled. Records must be retained and updated 

throughout the project life and made available at the request of the district. 
IV-9 TRANSPORT 

 REFRIGERATION UNITS 

Table 4-4 

Minimum Application Information Transport Refrigeration Unit Projects 

Applicant Information

Organization, Company or Individual Name 

Street Address 

City, County, State, Zip Code 

Primary Contact Name 

Primary Contact Phone Number 

Person with Contract Signing Authority 

Person who Filled Out Funding Application 

Project Address (if different from above) 

Project Information

TRU Application (Truck, Trailer, Shipping 

 Container, or Railcar) 

Vehicle ID Type (VIN, Railcar Recording Mark, 

 Container Number, or Company ID Number) 

Vehicle ID Number 

TRU Make 

TRU Model 

TRU Model Year 

TRU Serial Number 

TRU Horsepower Rating 

TRU Fuel Type 

TRU Engine Tier 

TRU Engine Family 

Activity Information

Will the new engine have a functioning 

 hour meter for the life of the project? 

Annual Hours of Operation or Annual 

 Gallons of Fuel Consumption 

Percent Operation in California 

Percent Operation in District 

Project Life 

Electronic Monitoring Unit (EMU) 

Will a new eligible EMU be installed as part 

 of this project? (yes/no) 

EMU Make 

EMU Model 

EMU Model Year 

EMU ID Number 

EMU Cost (optional) 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION – 

NEW PURCHASE ONLY 

Project Year of Purchase of New Equipment 

Baseline Cost 

New TRU Cost 

New TRU Vendor (optional) 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION – 

REPOWER PROJECTS ONLY 

Reduced Emission TRU Make 

Reduced Emission TRU Model 

Reduced Emission TRU Model Year 

Reduced Emission TRU Serial Number 

Reduced Emission TRU Horsepower Rating 

Reduced Emission TRU Fuel Type 

Reduced Emission TRU Engine Tier 

Reduced Emission TRU Engine Family 

TRU Remanufacture Cost – Parts 

TRU Remanufacture Cost – Labor 

TRU Repower Cost – Engine 

TRU Repower Cost – Labor 

New Engine Vendor (optional) 

New Engine Installer (optional) 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION – 

RETROFIT PROJECTS ONLY 

ARB-Verified Retrofit Device 

Retrofit Device Make 

Retrofit Device Serial Number 

Verification Level (Level 1, Level 2, Level 3) 

ARB-Verified NOx Reduction (%) 

ARB-Verified PM Reduction (%) 

ARB-Verified ROG Reduction (%) 

Retrofit Device ARB Executive Order 

Retrofit Device Cost 

Cost of Retrofit Device Installation Cost (optional) 

Cost of Retrofit Maintenance for Life of Project 

(optional) 

VIII. References 

ARB, 2003. ARB, Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for In-Use Diesel-Fueled Transport Refrigeration Units 

(TRU) and TRU Generator Sets, and Facilities Where TRUs Operate, Stationary Source 

Division, Emissions Assessment Branch, October 28, 2003. 
V-1 OFF-ROAD CI ENGINES 

Chapter Five 

COMPRESSION-IGNITION OFF-ROAD EQUIPMENT 

This chapter presents the project criteria for off-road compression-ignition (CI) 

equipment projects under the Carl Moyer Program. It also contains a brief overview of 

the current regulations, incentive projects eligible for funding, project criteria, cost 

effectiveness calculations, and minimum application requirements for off-road CI 

equipment. Updates to the project criteria in this chapter since the 2003 Guidelines 

include: 1) lowering the minimum engine horsepower (hp) to 25 hp, and 2) prioritizing 

Tier 2 or Tier 3 repowers. 

I. Introduction 

Off-road CI equipment eligible for Carl Moyer Program funding includes equipment 

25 hp (19 kilowatt) or greater such as construction and agricultural equipment. This 

also includes auxiliary engines found on off-road equipment and on-road vehicles. 

Excluded from this discussion are engines that propel or are used on locomotives, 

marine vessel propulsion and auxiliary, and most forklifts (except for class 7 forklifts) 

which are discussed in other chapters of these Guidelines. Aircraft engines are 

excluded from the Carl Moyer Program. In addition, the Carl Moyer Program does not 

apply to off-road engines used for underground mining operations, which are regulated 

by the Mining Safety and Health Administration. 

II. Emissions 

Off-road CI engines are used in a wide array of applications including agricultural 

tractors, backhoes, excavators, trenchers, and motor graders. Off-road equipment can 

be categorized broadly into equipment less than 175 hp and equipment equal to or 

greater than 175 hp. 

Table 5-1 displays statewide population and emission estimates for off-road CI engines. 

Table 5-1 

Statewide Emissions from Off-Road Compression-Ignition Engines* 

(tons per day) 

Population NOx ROG PM10 

2005 350,420 453 54 30 

2010 354,175 354 24 39 

*Includes agricultural, construction, dredging, drilling, industrial, and logging equipment. 
V-2 OFF-ROAD CI ENGINES 

III. Regulatory Requirements 

A. Off-Road Compression Engine Regulations 

The Air Resources Board (ARB or “Board”) is preempted from regulating new farm and 

construction equipment less than 175 hp. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(U.S. EPA) has sole authority to regulate this type of equipment. ARB has the authority 

to regulate new off-road equipment equal to or greater than 175 hp and non-preempted 

off-road equipment less than 175 hp. ARB and U.S. EPA have worked closely to 

harmonize the off-road CI standards. ARB is not preempted from regulating in-use 

equipment; a discussion of these regulations may be found in Section III. B of this 

chapter. 

Current off-road engine regulations contain exhaust emission standards that engines 

are not to exceed under steady state and transient conditions [ARB, 2000 and ARB, 

2004b]. In addition, the regulations include provisions that assist engine and equipment 

manufacturers in complying with emission standards through: 1) flexibility provisions for 

equipment manufacturers, 2) Averaging, Banking, and Trading (ABT) programs, and 

3) the Tier 4 Early Introduction Incentive for engine manufacturers. Since the objective 

of the Carl Moyer Program is the deployment of cleaner-than-required low-emission 

engines to achieve maximum emission reduction benefits, it is important to understand 

the regulatory provisions that allow for the sale of engines not meeting the current 

applicable emission standards. 

1. Emission Standards 

Emissions from off-road equipment between 175 and 750 horsepower were 

uncontrolled prior to 1996. Estimates of NOx emission rates from uncontrolled off-road 

engines range from 8.2 g/bhp-hr to 14 g/bhp-hr. In January 1992, the Board adopted 

exhaust emission standards for off-road diesel-cycle engines 175 hp and greater, 

effective beginning with 1996 model year engines. 

In August 1996, the U.S. EPA, ARB, and off-road diesel engine manufacturers signed a 

Statement of Principles which called for harmonization of ARB and U.S. EPA off-road 

diesel engine regulations, as appropriate, in exchange for an accelerated introduction of 

progressively more stringent standards. The U.S. EPA adopted emission standards in 

1998 and again in 2004 that provided for new NOx + non-methane hydrocarbons 

(NMHC), PM, and carbon monoxide (CO) emission standards for engines within 

different power categories in a tiered approach, commonly referred to as “Tier” 

standards. These standards are defined in Title 13, California Code of Regulations 

(CCR), sections 2423(b)(1). ARB has since amended the California exhaust emission 

standards for off-road diesel engines to harmonize with the federal requirements. 

Table 5-2 summarizes the existing and future emission standards for these engines. 
V-3 OFF-ROAD CI ENGINES 

Table 5-2 

ARB and U.S. EPA Exhaust Emission Standards for 

New Off-Road Diesel Engines ≥ 25 hp 

(g/bhp-hr) 

Maximum 

Rated 

Power 

(hp)

Tier Model Year NOx HC NOx+NMHC CO PM

25=<50 Tier 1 2000-2003 — — 7.1 4.1 0.60 

 Tier 2 2004-2007 — — 5.6 4.1 0.45 

 Tier 4 Interim 2008-2012 — — 5.6 4.1 0.22 

 Tier 4 2013 and later — — 3.5 4.1 0.02 

Tier 1 2000-2003(a) 6.9 — — — — 

Tier 2 2004-2007 — — 5.6 3.7 0.30 

50=<75 

Tier 3(b) 2008-2011 — — 3.5 3.7 0.30 

 Tier 4 Interim 2008-2012 — — 3.5 3.7 0.22 

 Tier 4 2013 and later — — 3.5 3.7 0.02 

Tier 1 2000-2003(a) 6.9 — — — — 

Tier 2 2004-2007 — — 5.6 3.7 0.30 

75=<100 

Tier 3 2008-2011 — — 3.5 3.7 0.30 

 Tier 4 Interim(c) 2012-2014 2.5 0.14 — 3.7 0.015 

 Tier 4 2015 and later 0.3 0.14 — 3.7 0.015 

Tier 1 2000-2002(a) 6.9 — — — — 

Tier 2 2003-2006 — — 4.9 3.7 0.22 

100=<175 

Tier 3 2007-2011 — — 3.0 2.6 0.22 

 Tier 4 Interim(c) 2012-2014 2.5 0.14 — 3.7 0.015 

 Tier 4 2015 and later 0.3 0.14 — 3.7 0.015 

Tier 1 1996-2002 6.9 1.0 — 8.5 0.40 

Tier 2 2003-2005 — — 4.9 2.6 0.15 

175=<300 

Tier 3(d) 2006-2010 — — 3.0 2.6 0.15 

 Tier 4 Interim(c) 2011-2013 1.5 0.14 — 2.6 0.015 

 Tier 4 2013 and later 0.3 0.14 — 2.2 0.015 

Tier 1 1996-2000 6.9 1.0 — 8.5 0.40 

Tier 2 2001-2005 — — 4.8 2.6 0.15 

300=<600 

Tier 3(d) 2006-2010 — — 3.0 2.6 0.15 

 Tier 4 Interim(c) 2011-2013 1.5 0.14 — 2.6 0.015 

 Tier 4 2013 and later 0.3 0.14 — 2.2 0.015 

Tier 1 1996-2001 6.9 1.0 — 8.5 0.40 

Tier 2 2002-2005 — — 4.8 2.6 0.15 

600=<750 

Tier 3(d) 2006-2010 — — 3.0 2.6 0.15 

 Tier 4 Interim(c) 2011-2013 1.5 0.14 — 2.6 0.015 

 Tier 4 2013 and later 0.3 0.14 — 2.2 0.015 

≥750 Tier 1 2000-2005 6.9 1.0 — 8.5 0.4 

 Tier 2 2006-2010 — — 4.8 2.6 0.15 

Tier 4 Interim 2011-2014 2.6 0.30 — 2.6 0.07 

Tier 4 2015 and later 2.6 0.14 — 2.6 0.03 

(a) ARB model years, U.S. EPA model years for Tier 1 start at 1998 for 50=<75 hp and 75=<100 hp, and 1997 for 

100=<175 hp. 

(b) Engine families in this power category may meet the Tier 3 PM standard instead of the Tier 4 interim PM standard 

in exchange for introducing the final Tier 4 PM standard in 2012. 

(c) The implementation schedule shown is the three-year alternate NOx approach. Other schedules are available. 

(d) Caterpillar, Cummins, Detroit Diesel Corporation, and Volvo Truck Corporation have agreed to comply with these 

standards by 2005. 
V-4 OFF-ROAD CI ENGINES 

2. Flexibility Provisions for Equipment Manufacturers 

Current regulations for off-road heavy-duty CI engines contain a flexibility provision that 

allows original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to use engines not meeting current 

applicable emission standards in their existing product line for new equipment. Thus, 

engines that are certified under the flexibility provisions do not comply with current 

applicable emission standards, and are not eligible as replacement engines for the 

Carl Moyer Program. The flexibility provision took effect with the introduction of Tier 2 

engines (Tier 1 for power categories less than 50 hp) and applies separately for each 

engine power category. Engine families certified under the flexibility provision must 

have previously been certified to a prior engine standard, for example Tier 1. 

There are four main elements to the flexibility program: 1) a percent-of-production 

allowance, 2) a small-volume allowance, 3) continuance of the Tier 1 allowance to use 

up existing inventories of engines, and 4) availability of hardship relief. The adoption of 

the Tier 4 emission standards added several additional components to the program 

including technical hardship allowances, retroactive use of flexibilities, delayed 

implementation, an economic hardship allowance, an early introduction incentive, and a 

labeling requirement. The percent-of-production allowance is the largest component of 

the program and allows each equipment manufacturer to use flexibility engines in its 

new product line over a seven-year period in cumulative quantities that sum up to 

80 percent of a single year’s national production at the end of the seven years. 

Except for engines used in flexibility allowances prior to January 1, 2007, flexibility 

engines will be labeled according to the requirements of Title 13, CCR, sections 2423(d) 

and 2424(c). In addition, the Executive Order (EO) for engines certified under this 

program state that the engines were certified in compliance with Title 13, CCR, 

section 2423(d). 

3. Averaging, Banking, and Trading 

Off-road engine manufacturers are allowed the flexibility to participate in an ABT 

program in lieu of only producing engines that comply with the current emission 

standards. The emission benefits from an engine certified to a lower Family Emission 

Limit (FEL) may be used to offset the emissions from engines certified to a higher FEL 

levels within the engine manufacturer’s ABT program. As a result, ABT emission credits 

are generated from the lower FEL level engine since it is certified lower than the 

required emission standards. These engines are only eligible for Carl Moyer Program 

funding as part of repower projects. In these cases, the emission factor based on the 

applicable emission standard, not the certified FEL level, will be used in emission 

calculations. The FEL emission level is identified on the EO and is located under the 

emission standard. 
V-5 OFF-ROAD CI ENGINES 

4. Tier 4 Early Introduction Incentives for Engine Manufacturers 

(“Engine Offsets”) 

Engine manufacturers may voluntarily certify engines to the Tier 4 standards prior to 

2011 in exchange for making fewer Tier 4 engines after 2011. These early introduction 

Tier 4 engines are not eligible for Carl Moyer Program funding. These engines are first 

offered to OEMs to use as part of the flexibility program (see Section III. A. 2 above). 

Should the OEM decline the engine, the engine manufacturer may use it as part of the 

“Tier 4 Early Introduction Incentive for Engine Manufacturers” created by Title 13, CCR, 

section 2423(b)(6). 

Engines used as part of the “Tier 4 Early Introduction Incentive for Engine 

Manufacturers” must be in production by September 1 of the year prior to the first model 

year when the standards would otherwise be applicable, where the model year means 

the manufacturer’s annual production period which includes January 1 of a calendar 

year or, if the manufacturer has no annual production period, the calendar year. 

Engines sold during the transitional “phase-in” model years (years where the Tier 4 

interim standards are in effect) are not considered “early” introduction engines. 

These engines will meet all federal labeling requirements but will add the following 

statement: “This engine meets U.S. EPA emission standards under 40 CFR 

1039.104(a)” and an additional statement of “meeting ARB requirements under 13 CCR 

section 2423(b)(6)”. In addition, the EO for engines certified under this program will 

reference that the engines were certified in compliance with 13 CCR section 2423(b)(6). 

B. Upcoming Regulations 

The Board approved a cargo handling equipment regulation in December 2005 that 

applies to diesel-fueled cargo handling equipment at California's ports and intermodal 

railyards. Cargo handling equipment is used to transfer goods and includes equipment 

such as yard tractors (hostlers), rubber tire gantry cranes, top handlers, side handlers, 

forklifts, loaders, and mobile cranes. Specific Carl Moyer Program project criteria are 

being identified for this equipment and will be available in early 2006. 

The ARB is also developing a control measure to reduce diesel particulate matter 

emissions from in-use, off-road, diesel-fueled, mobile equipment greater than or equal 

to 25 horsepower. This includes, but is not limited to, construction equipment, mining 

equipment, airport ground support equipment, and industrial equipment such as forklifts. 

The proposal will not cover equipment used in agricultural operations, cargo handling at 

ports and intermodal rail facilities, or equipment already covered by an in-use rule or 

agreement. This item is scheduled to be heard by the Board in 2006. If approved, it 

may affect project criteria for off-road projects. 
V-6 OFF-ROAD CI ENGINES 

IV. Potential Projects 

The Carl Moyer Program can achieve significant emission reductions from off-road 

diesel engines operating in California. All eligible projects must use certified technology 

or technology that has been verified by the ARB for real and quantifiable emission 

reductions that go beyond any regulatory requirement. The project criteria included in 

this chapter are designed to ensure that emission reductions achieved by the 

deployment of reduced-emission engines or retrofit technologies are surplus, real, 

quantifiable, and enforceable. 

Off-road projects fall into three distinct categories: 1) new purchase of equipment 

equipped with an emission certified engine, 2) repower with an emission certified 

engine, and 3) retrofit with a verified diesel emission control strategy (DECS). Based on 

past experience, most projects will likely fall under the repower category for off-road 

projects. Emerging reduced-emission technologies, such as engine retrofit or new 

engine technologies, will become eligible for program participation after ARB grants 

verification or certification for sale in California. Districts have the option to fund the 

cost difference between conventional diesel fuel and an alternative fuel such as 

alternative-diesel fuel, CNG, LNG, and LPG with matching funds. The fuel purchase 

must be an integral part of an engine purchase, repower, or retrofit project. 

Auxiliary engines on mobile equipment are considered portable engines and are 

regulated by the ARB’s Portable Equipment Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM). 

Auxiliary engines that are an integral part of the vehicle’s or barge’s main function, and 

are not covered under any district rule may be eligible for Carl Moyer Program funding. 

Because the ATCM requires that all portable engines be certified engines by 

January 1, 2010, projects must begin by January 1, 2007, to meet the minimum three 

year project life requirement [ARB, 2004a]. 

Class 7 diesel forklifts are the only diesel forklifts eligible for Carl Moyer Program 

funding and are subject to all off-road project criteria. The district must obtain and verify 

documentation of the classification of the forklift prior to funding. Class 7 forklifts 

typically have a lift capacity of over 6,000 pounds, pneumatic tires, and internal 

combustion, compression ignition engines powered almost exclusively by diesel. Many 

of the characteristics of these forklifts, including pneumatic tires for rough terrain, make 

them exclusively for outdoor use. 

A. New Purchase 

For most engine categories, the current standard is Tier 2 or Tier 3 with an optional 

Blue Sky Standard that applies through Tier 3. However, at this time, no engines have 

been certified to the Blue Sky standard. New equipment having an engine that was 

certified to any FEL level is not eligible for new purchase in the Carl Moyer Program. 

This is because the emission level from an eligible FEL engine in the new equipment 

would be considered to be at the level of the required emission standard for that engine, 
V-7 OFF-ROAD CI ENGINES 

through the averaging provision of the ABT program discussed previously. Therefore, 

the emissions from an FEL engine in the new equipment would not be surplus when 

compared to the emissions from a new engine meeting the required emission 

standards. 

For some off-road equipment such as yard tractors, it may be possible to purchase new 

equipment with a new on-road engine certified to ARB’s optional NOx emission credit 

standard instead of a new off-road engine. Where this is the case, emission benefits 

relative to the baseline engine are calculated based on on-road engine emission factors. 

If an applicant provides ARB with documentation showing that in past practice, the fleet 

has been powered by off-road engines, then the baseline emission may be calculated 

using the off-road engine emission factors. 

B. Repower 

Replacement of the in-use engine (i.e., repower) with an emission-certified engine 

instead of rebuilding the existing engine to its original uncontrolled specifications is the 

most common type of off-road project. Although this is commonly a diesel-to-diesel 

repower, significant NOx and PM benefits are achieved due to the high emission levels 

of the uncontrolled engine being replaced. Eligible engines are those that are certified 

to the current applicable emission standard or to an optional credit emission standard. 

For off-road equipment with similar modes of operation to on-road vehicles, other 

possible options include the replacement of an older uncontrolled diesel off-road engine 

with a new or rebuilt on-road engine certified to an emission standard equal to or lower 

than the Tier 2 off-road emission standard or a newer emission-certified alternative fuel 

engine. 

The Carl Moyer Program Guidelines require repower with a newer engine meeting 

current applicable emission standards (i.e., Tier 2 or Tier 3). If this is not a technical or 

practical option, as determined by the engine manufacturer, a newer emission-certified 

engine that meets the Tier 1 standards may be used. Off-road CI engines have 

undergone major design changes to meet new and more stringent emission regulations. 

Off-road engine manufacturers have made significant hardware modifications in order to 

meet the Tier 2 emission standards for engines with horsepower rating of 100 hp and 

greater. The incorporation of air-to-air aftercoolers and other auxiliary systems have 

resulted in Tier 2 engines for some applications that are physically different than the 

earlier Tier 1 engines. As a result, some existing equipment cannot accept Tier 2 

engines without extensive modifications. This may involve cutting the equipment frame 

to gain adequate space for the Tier 2 engine. In these situations, technical, cost, and 

safety considerations make a new Tier 2 engine repower infeasible. Thus, the use of a 

newer emission-certified engine meeting the earlier Tier 1 emission standard may be 

justified. Specific information on the eligibility of these projects is further described in 

the project criteria. 

In addition, ARB staff requires that all repower projects funded by the 

Carl Moyer Program install a retrofit device if one is available. ARB staff requires that 
V-8 OFF-ROAD CI ENGINES 

the highest level ARB-verified retrofit device be installed for retrofit projects if the project 

meets the cost effectiveness limit of $14,300 per weighted ton. If a Level 3 device is not 

feasible or does not meet the cost-effectiveness limit, a Level 2 device must be 

installed; if no Level 3 or Level 2 devices are feasible a Level 1 device must be installed. 

Due to limited current availability of retrofit devices for off-road engines it is likely that a 

retrofit will not be available in the near term. Repower projects are not disqualified from 

participation in the Carl Moyer Program if retrofit devices are not available, feasible, or if 

the cost of the available retrofit places the project over cost-effectiveness limit. 

Funding is not available for projects where a spark-ignition engine (i.e., natural gas, 

gasoline, etc.) is replaced with a diesel engine. 

C. Retrofit 

Retrofit refers to modifications made to an engine and/or fuel system such that the 

specifications of the retrofitted engine are not the same as the original engine, please 

refer to Appendix F for more detailed information. The most straightforward retrofit 

projects are add-on after treatments. Other retrofits include upgrades of components 

that can be accomplished at the time of engine rebuild and result in a lower emission 

configuration. To qualify for Carl Moyer Program funding, the retrofit technology must 

be verified for sale in California and must comply with established durability and 

warranty requirements. Retrofits are verified for diesel PM reductions of: Level 1 - 

25 percent, Level 2 - 50 percent, and Level 3 - 85 percent. Although retrofit technology 

options for off-road diesel engines are limited, it is possible that retrofit technologies that 

have been used to reduce NOx and PM emissions from on-road heavy-duty diesel 

engines may be used to control off-road engine emissions in some applications. More 

information on DECS, including a list of currently verified DECS, may be found at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/verdev.htm. 

V. Project Criteria

Participating districts retain the authority to impose more stringent additional 

requirements in order to address local concerns. 

A. General 

• Emission reductions obtained through Carl Moyer Program projects must not be 

required by any federal, state or local regulation, memorandum of 

agreement/understanding with a regulatory agency, settlement agreement, 

mitigation requirement, or other legal mandate. 

• Projects must meet a cost-effectiveness of $14,300 per weighed ton of NOx + ROG 

+ PM10 reduced, calculated in accordance with the cost-effectiveness methodology 

discussed in this chapter. 
V-9 OFF-ROAD CI ENGINES 

• No emission reductions generated by the Carl Moyer Program shall be used as 

marketable emission reduction credits, or to satisfy any emission reduction 

obligation of any person or entity. 

• No project funded by the Carl Moyer Program shall be used for credit under any 

federal or state emission averaging, banking, and trading program. 

• Carl Moyer Program grants can be no greater than a project’s incremental cost. The 

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

cost shall be reduced by the value of any current financial incentive that reduces the 

project price, including, but not limited to, tax credits or deductions, grants, or other 

public financial assistance. 

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

shorter project life in writing for good cause on a case-by-case basis. Projects with 

shorter lives may be subject to additional funding restrictions, such as a lower 

cost-effectiveness limit or a project cost cap. 

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

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

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

real, quantifiable, and enforceable emission reduction benefits. 

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

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

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

• The certification emission standard and Tier designation for the engine must be 

determined from the Executive Order issued for that engine, not by the engine model 

year. Executive Orders for off-road engines may be found at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/offroad/cert/cert,php 

• Reduced-emission engines or retrofits must be certified/verified for sale in California 

and must comply with durability and warranty requirements. These may include new 

ARB certified engines, ARB certified after-market part engine/control devices, and 

verified diesel emission control strategies. 

• Engines participating in the ABT program that are certified to FELs higher than the 

applicable emission standards, as designated on the Executive Order, are ineligible 

to participate in the Carl Moyer Program. 

• Equipment manufactured under the “Flexibility Provisions for Equipment 

Manufacturers”, as detailed in Title 13, CCR, section 2423(d), are ineligible for 

Carl Moyer Program funding as a replacement engine.
V-10 OFF-ROAD CI ENGINES 

• Engines that are participating in the “Tier 4 Early Introduction Incentive for Engine 

Manufacturers” program, as detailed in Title 13, CCR, section 2423(b)(6), are 

ineligible for Carl Moyer Program funding. 

• Auxiliary engines on mobile equipment are eligible for Carl Moyer Program funding 

through January 1, 2007 if they are an integral part of the vehicle’s or vessel’s main 

function and are not covered by any district rule. 

• Class 7 diesel forklifts are the only diesel forklifts eligible for diesel-to-diesel repower 

in the Carl Moyer Program and are subject to all off-road project criteria. The district 

must obtain and verify documentation of the classification of the forklift prior to 

funding. 

• Funded projects must operate at least 75 percent of total equipment operation hours 

in California. 

• Default project life 

Off-road new purchase 10 years 

Off-road repower 7 years 

Off-road repower and retrofit 5 years 

Retrofit 5 years 

Applicants must provide documentation to justify a longer project life. 

B. New Purchase 

• Engines must be certified to an ARB optional NOx or NOx+NMHC emission credit 

standard for off-road diesel engines that is at least 30 percent lower than current 

applicable emission standards or for some equipment, such as yard tractors, an 

on-road engine certified to ARB’s optional NOx emission credit standard 

• Engines that are certified to FEL levels are not eligible for funding in new equipment 

purchase projects. 

C. Repower 

• For repower projects that replace uncontrolled engines in existing equipment, the 

replacement engine must be certified to either: 1) the current applicable emission 

standard except as noted below, 2) to a FEL NOx or NOx+NMHC level that is lower 

than the required emission standard, or 3) to an optional credit emission standard as 

applicable for the horsepower rating. 

• For equipment repower projects that replace emission-certified engines in existing 

equipment, the replacement engine must be certified to a NOx emission standard 
V-11 OFF-ROAD CI ENGINES 

that is at least 15 percent lower than the emission standard(s) applicable to the 

existing engine. 

• Engines used in equipment repower projects may be new, emission-certified rebuilt, 

or emission-certified remanufactured units. Eligible new engine are those offered by 

the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) or by a non-OEM who demonstrates to 

the ARB that the repower is functionally equivalent with regard to emissions, 

durability, and safety as described in Appendix G. Eligible rebuilt or remanufactured 

engines are those offered by the OEM or by a non-OEM rebuilder who demonstrates 

to the ARB that the rebuilt engine and parts are functionally equivalent from an 

emissions and durability standpoint to the original engine and components being 

replaced as described in Appendix G. Rebuilt and remanufactured engines that are 

not re-certified to new emission standards shall use the emission standards 

associated with the original engine block. 

• ARB strongly recommends that districts give priority to Tier 2 or Tier 3 repowers. 

However, ARB recognizes that in some cases repower with the current applicable 

standard is not possible. In these cases a Tier 1 repower may be allowed if the 

conditions below are met and the project meets a project cost-effectiveness cap of 

$6,000 per weighted ton of emission reductions for the repower portion of the 

project. Tier 1 repowers of specialty equipment not meeting the project costeffectiveness cap may be allowed on a case-by-case basis. 

• If repower with an engine meeting the current applicable standard is technically 

infeasible, unsafe, or cost prohibitive, the replacement must meet the most current 

practicable previously applicable emission standard. The district shall determine 

eligibility of a Tier 1 engine repower project on a case-by-case basis by obtaining a 

Tier 2/Tier 3 repower exemption using one of the two following methods: 

1. The Carl Moyer Program application may include a written statement of 

reason(s) from the engine manufacturer verifying that a particular piece of 

equipment cannot accommodate an engine meeting current standards without 

major modifications, safety risks, or exorbitant cost. The letter must include 

information on the equipment being repowered, the engine being replaced, the 

reason why an engine meeting the currently applicable standard cannot be used 

(including details on required equipment modifications with pictures of the 

equipment, engineering drawings as necessary, and cost for the Tier 2/Tier 3 

engine), and the proposed Tier 1 replacement engine. Districts must submit the 

written statement of reason(s) to ARB as an attachment to the annual report. 

2. The engine manufacturer may provide ARB with sufficient information on engine 

and/or equipment models for which Tier 2/Tier 3 repowers are available, and 

engine and/or equipment models for which Tier 2/Tier 3 repowers are not 

feasible. Engine manufacturers who are interested in pursuing this option should 

contact ARB. ARB staff will maintain a list of such engines and/or equipment 

models and make that list available to district staff. 
V-12 OFF-ROAD CI ENGINES 

• If an ARB-verified diesel emission control strategy is available for the replacement 

engine, ARB requires installation of the retrofit verified to the highest level, as 

discussed in the retrofit section of these project criteria, which still meets the 

cost-effectiveness limit of $14,300. 

• For repowers of equipment with baseline engines manufactured under the flexibility 

provision, as detailed in Title 13, CCR, section 2423(d), baseline emission rates 

shall be determined by using the latest applicable Tier emission standard for that 

engine model year and horsepower rating. Alternative emission rates will be allowed 

with documentation of the actual emission rates from the manufacturer based on the 

engine serial number. Districts must submit all documentation to ARB as an 

attachment to the annual report. 

• Replacement of an uncontrolled diesel off-road engine with a new or rebuilt on-road 

engine certified to an emission standard equal to or lower than the Tier 2 off-road 

emission standard or a newer emission-certified alternative-fuel engine is eligible for 

funding in off-road equipment with similar modes of operation to on-road vehicles. 

Other equipment may be eligible for funding on a case-by-case basis. These 

repowers must meet all other applicable project criteria. 

D. Retrofit 

• Only ARB-verified retrofits are eligible for funding. Emerging engine retrofits will 

become eligible for Program participation once ARB grants verification for sale in 

California. Non-verified technologies may be considered on a case by case basis if: 

1) an application for verification of the retrofit or add-on equipment on the proposed 

engine category is pending, or 2) for highly specialized equipment where it is unlikely 

that a retrofit would be verified. 

• Retrofit projects that control PM must use the highest level ARB-verified technology 

available for the equipment being retrofitted. The following are the diesel PM 

reductions for each verified level: 

– Level 1 - 25 percent; 

– Level 2 - 50 percent; and 

– Level 3 - 85 percent. 

• Retrofit projects that control NOx must reduce NOx emissions from uncontrolled 

engines to the current applicable emission standard. If this is not feasible, the 

project must reduce NOx to at least the applicable Tier 1 NOx emission level 

(6.9 g/bhp-hr or lower). For emission-certified engines, the retrofit technology must 

be able to reduce NOx emissions by at least 15 percent. 

• The cost of the retrofit, filters, and maintenance of the retrofit device needed during 

the project life may be paid for with incentive funding provided it meets the 

cost-effectiveness limit. 
V-13 OFF-ROAD CI ENGINES 

E. Scrap 

• Scrap requirements are described in the 2005 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, 

Part I, Chapter 2: Administration of the Carl Moyer Program. 

VI. Cost-Effectiveness 

To receive Carl Moyer Program funding, each project must meet the maximum 

cost-effective threshold of $14,300 per weighted ton of covered pollutants reduced. 

Only funds provided by the Carl Moyer Program and local district matching funds are to 

be used in determining cost-effectiveness. 

Emission reduction benefits represent the difference in the emission levels of the 

existing baseline technology relative to the newer, reduced-emission technology. 

Baseline and reduced engine emission factors are listed in Table B-12 in Appendix B. 

These factors reflect preliminary emission data based on model input values to the 

OFFROAD emission inventory model for engines greater than or equal to 25 hp. 

A detailed description of how to calculate cost-effectiveness can be found in 

Appendix C. Off-road emission reduction calculations will use either the fuel or hour 

based formula as discussed Appendix C. The equipment activity level must be based 

on actual hours reading from an hour-meter or other similarly appropriate 

documentation provided by the applicant (i.e., fuel receipts). Future annual hours of 

equipment operation for determining emission reductions must be based only on 

readings from an installed and fully operational hour-meter. A properly functioning 

hour-meter is required to support equipment activity information included in the 

application for Carl Moyer Program funding. See the Administrative Part of the 

Guidelines for additional information on this topic. In addition, specific 

cost-effectiveness criteria and sample calculations for off-road projects may be found in 

Section V of Appendix D. 

VII. Minimum Project Requirements 

These are minimum project application requirements; the district has full authority to 

require additional application, reporting, monitoring, and scrapping requirements. 

A. Application 

Districts solicit bids for reduced-emission projects from off-road diesel equipment 

operators. The applicant must provide the minimum information illustrated in Table 5-3 

below. 
V-14 OFF-ROAD CI ENGINES 

Table 5-3 

Minimum Application Information for Off-road CI Projects 

Applicant Information

Organization, Company or Individual Name 

Street Address 

City, County, State, Zip Code 

Primary Contact Name 

Primary Contact Phone Number 

Person with Contract Signing Authority 

Person who Filled Out Funding Application 

Project Address (if different from above) 

Equipment Information

Equipment Type/Function 

Equipment Make 

Equipment Model 

Equipment Model Year 

Equipment Serial Number 

Number of Main Engines on this Equipment 

Activity Information

Will the piece of equipment have a 

 functioning hour meter for the full project 

 life? (yes/no) 

Equipment Annual Hours of Operation or 

Gallons Fuel Consumption 

Percent Operation in California 

Percent Operation in Air District 

Project Life 

Electronic Monitoring Unit (EMU) 

Will a new eligible EMU be installed as part 

 of this project? (yes/no) 

EMU Make 

EMU Model 

EMU Model Year 

EMU ID Number 

EMU Cost (optional) 

 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION -- 

NEW PURCHASE PROJECTS ONLY 

Projected Year of Purchase of New Equipment 

Engine Information (for each project engine) 

New Engine Family 

New Engine Make 

New Engine Model 

New Engine Serial Number 

New Engine Horsepower 

NEW PURCHASE PROJECTS ONLY(cont.) 

New Engine Tier 

Fuel Type 

Baseline Cost 

New Equipment Cost 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION -- 

REPOWER PROJECT ONLY 

Number of Main Engines to be Repowered 

Engine Information (for each project engine) 

 Baseline Fuel Type 

 Baseline Engine Make, Model, and Year 

 Baseline Engine Horsepower 

 Baseline Engine Tier 

 Baseline Engine Serial Number 

 Engine Annual Gallons Fuel Consumption 

 or Hours of Operation 

 Reduced Engine Fuel Type 

 Reduced Engine Make, Model, and Year 

 Reduced Engine Horsepower 

 Reduced Engine Tier 

 Reduced Engine Serial Number 

 (if available) 

 Reduced Engine Family 

 Engine Baseline Cost 

 New Engine Cost 

 New Engine Installation Cost (optional) 

 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION --

RETROFITS ONLY 

Engine Make, Model, and Year 

Engine Horsepower 

Engine Serial Number 

Engine Tier 

Fuel Type 

ARB-Verified Retrofit Device Name 

Retrofit Device Serial Number 

Retrofit Device Verification Level 

ARB-Verified NOx Reduction (%) 

ARB-Verified PM Reduction (%) 

ARB-Verified ROG Reduction (%) 

Retrofit Device ARB Executive Order Number 

Cost of Retrofit 

Cost of Installation (optional) 

Cost of Maintenance for Life of Project 

(optional) 

A disclosure must also be included stating that the proposed project has not been 

funded and is not being considered for funding by another air district, ARB, or any other 

public agency. Any applicant who is found to have submitted multiple applications for 
V-15 OFF-ROAD CI ENGINES 

the same project may be banned from submitting future applications to any and all 

Carl Moyer Program solicitations and may be subject to criminal sanctions. A project 

funded cooperatively by multiple air districts is eligible for funding if the project 

parameters are coordinated amongst the participating districts and the project meets all 

applicable Carl Moyer Program criteria. Applicants are allowed to re-apply for project 

funding if a previous application has been rejected and is no longer being considered for 

funding. 

Third party applications are not allowed. The owner of the engine must sign and agree 

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

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

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

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

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

used to pay them. To make the Carl Moyer Program accessible to all potential 

applicants, including applicants that cannot afford to hire third party assistance, districts 

are encouraged to provide technical assistance to applicants in completing the 

application. 

B. Reporting and Monitoring 

Districts must abide by all reporting and monitoring requirements described in 

Part I-Program Administration. Monitoring of project progress ensures that the vehicle 

or engine is operated as stated in the program application. Fleet operators and transit 

agencies participating in the Carl Moyer Program are required to keep appropriate 

records during the life of the funded project. Records must be retained and updated for 

the duration of the project life and made available at the request of the district or ARB.

IV. References 

ARB, 2000. Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons. Public Hearing to Consider 

Amendments to Off-road Compression-ignition Engine Regulations: 2000 and Later 

Emissions Standards, Compliance Requirements and Test Procedures. 

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

ARB, 2004a. Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons. Proposed Amendments to the 

regulation for Statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program. 

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

ARB, 2004b. Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons. Public Hearing to Consider 

Amendments to the California Off-road Emissions Regulations for Compression-ignition 

Engines and Equipment. http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/offrdcie/isor.pdf
VI-1 OFF-ROAD LSI ENGINES 

Chapter Six 

 LARGE SPARK-IGNITION OFF-ROAD EQUIPMENT 

Due to the upcoming regulations for large spark-ignition (LSI) equipment that include 

forklifts, this chapter has been added to replace the Forklift Chapter in the 2003 

Guidelines. This revision of the Guidelines expands funding opportunities from only 

forklifts to all LSI equipment types. The chapter provides an overview of off-road LSI 

equipment and discusses the emissions from LSI equipment, the State and federal 

emission standards, and potential types of projects eligible for funding. 

The Carl Moyer Program funds projects that provide emission reductions that are 

surplus to any regulation. Because proposed regulations for LSI equipment are 

scheduled for consideration by the Board, staff will provide specific criteria to districts 

through a technical advisory approved by the Executive Officer once the Board has 

approved the proposed regulations. 

In the interim, districts may continue to use the 2003 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines to 

fund projects or request consideration of other projects on a case-by-case basis. 

I. Introduction

LSI engines are typically derived from automobile engines and are most commonly 

fueled by gasoline or liquefied petroleum gas. A small number are fueled by 

compressed natural gas (CNG), and some have dual fuel capability. Off-road LSI 

equipment includes the following types of equipment: large turf care equipment, 

scrubber/sweepers, airport service vehicles, and a variety of other agricultural, 

construction, and general industrial equipment. The largest group of LSI equipment in 

California is forklifts, representing almost half of the LSI inventory. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has sole authority to regulate 

new farm and construction equipment less than 175 hp. However, the Air Resources 

Board (ARB) has authority to regulate off-road equipment equal to or greater than 

175 hp, and all in-use off-road equipment and non-preempted off-road equipment less 

than 175 hp. 

II. Emissions 

Uncontrolled LSI engines can emit more than 12 grams per brake horsepower-hour 

(g/bhp-hr) of oxides of nitrogen plus hydrocarbons (NOx + HC). Statewide, the 

NOx + HC emissions from LSI equipment are approximately 70 tons per day. 

The equipment categories shown in Table 6-1 represent the largest contribution to the 

overall off-road LSI inventory and are the focus of the proposed LSI regulation. 

Although these three categories account for only 60 percent of the off-road LSI 

equipment population in 2004, they account for more than 80 percent of the NOx + HC 
VI-2 OFF-ROAD LSI ENGINES 

Table 6-1 

Statewide Emissions from Off-Road LSI Equipment 

(tons per day) 

Equipment 2004 2010 2020 

Category NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG 

Industrial Forklifts 40.4 11.8 19.9 5.3 15.6 3.4 

Airport Ground 

Support Equipment 3.3 0.6 1.5 0.3 1.0 0.2 

Sweeper/Scrubbers 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 

Total 44.5 12.6 21.7 5.7 16.8 3.7 

off-road LSI emission inventory. As shown in Table 6-1, most of those emissions are 

from forklifts, 80 percent of which are in large fleets. 

III. Regulatory Requirements 

A. Emission Standards 

In 1998, the ARB adopted LSI regulations that addressed the State's obligations under 

the 1994 State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP is California’s federally required 

plan describing how the State will reduce emissions and meet federal clean air 

standards. 

That regulation required all new LSI engines over 25 horsepower sold in California to be 

certified to a standard of 3.0 g/bhp-hr of NOx + HC. This was to be phased in from 

2001 to 2004. In 2002, U.S. EPA adopted a more stringent standard requiring that new 

LSI engines meet a 2.0 standard of g/bhp-hr of NOx + HC beginning in 2007. 

B. Proposed Regulation 

In order to achieve California’s clean air goals, the 2003 SIP calls for further reductions 

from new and in-use LSI engines. 

1. Emission Standards 

The ARB staff has developed a proposal that would provide more low emission options 

for equipment purchases. Staff is proposing to require 2007 model year engines to 

meet a 2.0 g/bhp-hr standard and 2010 and subsequent model year engines to meet a 

0.6 g/bhp-hr standard. ARB staff is also proposing NOx + HC optional standards so that 

new 2007 engines can be certified to 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 1.0, and 1.5 g/bhp-hr. For model 

years 2010 and beyond, new engines could be certified to 0.1, 0.2, and 0.4 g/bhp-hr. 
VI-3 OFF-ROAD LSI ENGINES 

2. Fleet Rules 

As part of the staff proposal, equipment fleets would have to meet average emission 

requirements. Large and mid-size fleets of forklifts, airport ground support equipment 

(GSE), sweeper/scrubbers (with a displacement greater than one liter), and non-GSE 

industrial tow tractors would have specific emission averages to meet. 

Table 6-2 lists the proposed standards required of manufacturers as well as proposed 

compliance dates for fleets. The proposed averages that fleets would be required to 

meet would be based on the total number of pieces of equipment in the fleet. 

Equipment with hour-meters documenting usage of less than 251 hours per year would 

be exempt from the fleet average emission level requirements. 

Table 6-2 

Current and Proposed Emission Standards and Fleet Average Requirements 

(g/bhp-hr of NOx + HC) 

LSI Fleet Type 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2016 

Current Standards 

(CA and U.S. EPA) 3.0 2.0 

Proposed Standards 3.0 2.0 0.6 

Proposed 

Optional Standards 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 1.0, and 1.5 0.1, 0.2, and 0.4 

Proposed Fleet Average 

Large Fleet Forklift 2.4 2.4 1.7 1.7 1.1 1.1 

Proposed Fleet Average 

Mid-size Fleet Forklift 2.6 2.6 2.0 2.0 1.4 1.4 

Proposed Fleet Average 

Non-forklift 3.0 3.0 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.5 

Proposed Fleet Average 

Small Fleet 3.0 

Proposed Fleet Average 

Ground Support Equipment 3.0 

Proposed Agricultural Crop 

Preparation Services Fleets 12 11.1 10.2 9.3 8.4 7.5 6.6 5.7 3 

IV. Potential Projects 

The ARB encourages replacement of LSI equipment with zero-emission equipment 

where feasible. Information about zero-emission strategies is provided in Chapter 12. 

Below are brief descriptions of potential projects. Off-road projects fall into three 

categories: 1) new purchase of an emission certified engine, 2) repower with an 

emission certified engine, and 3) retrofit with ARB-verified technology. 
VI-4 OFF-ROAD LSI ENGINES 

A. New Purchase 

New or expanding facilities purchasing LSI equipment with engines that are certified to 

30 percent below the current standard may qualify for funding if the emission reductions 

are shown to exceed any regulatory requirements or LSI regulations adopted by ARB. 

This could be accomplished by purchasing equipment that is electric or certified to an 

optional low emission standard. 

Since replacing an older electric forklift with a newer electric model would not reduce 

emissions, projects with "electric to electric" replacements are excluded. Purchase of 

new CNG LSI equipment may also be eligible if it is certified to meet optional low 

emission standards. 

B. Repower 

Repower refers to the replacement of an existing engine with a newer engine certified to 

lower emission standards. This is an alternative to rebuilding an existing engine to the 

original higher emitting specifications the existing engine. The replacement engine 

must include all the emission control components that an engine certified to the 

standard would have as stated in the Executive Order. There may be some limits to 

repowering of LSI equipment because installing a newer engine design into existing 

equipment may not always be feasible. The baseline emissions for these projects 

would be the emission rate of the existing engine. The baseline cost would be the cost 

to rebuild. Repower projects may qualify for funding if the emission reductions are 

shown to exceed any regulatory requirement or LSI regulations adopted by ARB. 

Repowers of certified engines must provide at least a 15 percent emission reduction 

from the baseline engine and repowers of uncontrolled engines must meet the current 

emission standard. 

C. Retrofit 

Retrofit refers to modifications or additions made to an engine and/or fuel system such 

that the specifications of the retrofitted engine are not the same as the original engine. 

Data has shown that existing LSI engines retrofitted with closed loop, catalyst-based 

emission systems could achieve emission reductions similar to those achieved from 

new engines designed with catalysts. Retrofits for LSI equipment will likely incorporate 

advanced automotive-inspired emission control technologies that dramatically reduce 

emissions while meeting operational requirements. (See Appendix F for more 

discussion on retrofits.) This technology has been in use for about 10 years on a variety 

of LSI equipment. A retrofit would usually be installed at the time of engine rebuild or a 

regularly scheduled maintenance. To qualify for Carl Moyer Program funding, the 

emission control technology must be verified for sale in California. The ARB has an 

interim verification procedure which manufacturers use to verify their emission control 

systems for LSI equipment. 
VI-5 OFF-ROAD LSI ENGINES 

To be eligible to receive Carl Moyer Program funds, emission reductions must exceed 

any regulatory requirement or LSI regulations adopted by ARB. Typically under the 

Carl Moyer Program, retrofit projects are allowed if they provide at least 15 percent 

reductions in emissions. However, under the proposed LSI regulations only retrofits 

that reduce emissions by 25 percent or more will be verified. Hence, only retrofits that 

reduce emissions on uncontrolled LSI engines by 25 percent would be for 

Carl Moyer Program funding. Retrofit systems for installation on emission-certified 

engines must by verified to a 2.0 g/bhp-hr of NOx+HC level or lower. 

 

The eligible cost would be the complete emission control system and installation costs. 

It must be installed according to the criteria stated in the interim verification letter or 

Executive Order as applicable. 

Since nearly half of the LSI equipment in California is forklifts, some information on 

forklift classes is presented below. The Industrial Truck Association (ITA) has defined 

seven classes of forklifts. These classes are defined by the type of engine, work 

environment (indoors, outdoors, narrow aisle, smooth or rough surfaces), operator 

positions (sit down or standing), and equipment characteristics (type of tire, maximum 

grade, etc.). Several classes are further divided by operating characteristics. 

Classifications are described in Table 6-3. 

Table 6-3 

Forklift Classes 

Class Lift Code Engine Type Type/Use 

1 1 Counterbalanced rider, stand up 

1 4 Three-wheel, sit down 

1 5 Counterbalanced rider, sit down 

1 6 Counterbalanced rider, sit down 

2 Narrow aisle truck 

3 

Electric 

Hand or hand/rider truck 

4 Rider, sit down, generally suitable for 

indoor use on hard surfaces 

5 

Internal 

Combustion Rider, sit down, typically used 

outdoors, on rough surfaces or steep 

inclines 

6 

Internal 

combustion 

and Electric 

Ride on unit with the ability to tow at 

least 1,000 pounds; designed to tow 

cargo rather than lift it (e.g. an airport 

tug) 

7 

Internal 

combustion 

(primarily 

diesel) 

Rough terrain forklift truck for outdoor 

use; almost exclusively powered by 

diesel engines 
VI-6 OFF-ROAD LSI ENGINES 

Class 1 forklifts (lift codes 5 and 6) can be used in many of the same work applications 

as the class 4 or 5 forklifts because they are similar in design and specification. 

Increasing the use of class 1 forklifts relative to class 4 and 5 forklifts would reduce NOx 

emissions of the fleets. 

Class 6 trucks are ride-on vehicles designed to tow at least 1,000 pounds. Airport tugs 

are an example of a Class 6 truck. See Chapter 7 for a description of Ground Support 

Equipment. 

Class 7 consists of rough terrain forklifts for outdoor use. See Chapter 5 for project 

funding criteria for Class 7 forklifts which are usually powered by diesel engines. 

V. Proposed Project Criteria 

Since all Carl Moyer Program projects must be surplus to any regulations, specific 

project criteria that define project eligibility for the LSI source category must be based 

on LSI regulations that are adopted by the Board. After Board approval of the LSI 

regulation, staff will develop criteria for those projects that provide emission reductions 

beyond the approved regulatory requirements. Staff recommends that the Board grant 

the Executive Officer the authority to approve LSI project criteria in a technical advisory. 

In the interim, forklift projects would be allowed as approved under Chapter 12 

(Zero-emission Technologies) for electric forklift replacements and the 2003 Carl Moyer 

Program Guidelines. During this interim period additional LSI projects may be 

considered on a case-by-case basis. 

 

On September 6, 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Senate Bill 467 (Lowenthal) 

which requires the ARB to revise the Carl Moyer Program Guidelines to include projects 

in which an applicant turns in off-road equipment powered by an internal combustion 

engines and replaces that equipment with new zero-emission technologies. This 

legislation will take effect on January 1, 2006. ARB staff will evaluate how to 

incorporate the requirements of this legislation into the Carl Moyer Program in 2006. 

VI. Minimum Project Requirements 

These are minimum project application requirements; the district has full authority to 

require additional application, reporting, monitoring, and scrapping requirements. 

A. Application 

Districts solicit bids for reduced-emission projects from off-road equipment operators. 

The applicant must provide the minimum information illustrated in Table 6-4 below. 
VI-7 OFF-ROAD LSI ENGINES 

Table 6-4 

Minimum Application Requirements for LSI Projects 

Applicant Information

Organization, Company or Individual Name 

Street Address 

City, State, Zip Code 

Primary Contact Name 

Primary Contact Phone Number 

Person with Contract Signing Authority 

Person who Filled Out Funding Application 

Project Address (if different from above) 

Equipment Information

Forklift will be for: existing operation or facility, 

facility expansion, or new facility operations 

(select one) 

Does the applicant rent/lease forklift to 

 others? 

Equipment Make 

Equipment Model 

Equipment Model Year 

Equipment Serial Number 

Maximum Rated Lift Capacity (pounds) 

Forklift Class 

Activity Information 

Will the piece of equipment have a 

 functioning hour meter for the full project 

 life? (yes/no) 

Annual Hours of Operation or Gallons Fuel 

Consumption 

Percent Operation in California 

Percent Operation in District 

Project Life 

Electronic Monitoring Unit (EMU) 

Will a new eligible EMU be installed as part 

 of this project? (yes/no) 

EMU Make 

EMU Model 

EMU Model Year 

EMU ID Number 

EMU Cost (optional) 

 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - 

NEW PURCHASE ONLY 

Engine Family 

Engine Make 

Engine Model 

Engine Year 

Fuel Type 

Engine Serial Number 

Engine Tier 

Baseline Equipment Cost 

New Equipment Cost 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - 

REPOWER ONLY 

Baseline Engine Information

 Fuel Type 

 Engine Make, Model and Year 

 Engine Serial Number 

 Engine Horsepower 

 Engine Tier 

 Engine Remanufacture Cost 

Reduced Engine Information

 Fuel Type 

 Engine Make, Model and Year 

 Engine Serial Number 

 Engine Horsepower 

 Engine Tier 

 Newer Engine Cost 

 Newer Engine Installation Cost 

 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - 

RETROFIT ONLY 

ARB-Verified Retrofit Device Name 

Retrofit Device Make 

Retrofit Device Serial Number 

Verification Level (Level 1, Level 2, Level 3) 

ARB-Verified NOx Reduction (%) 

ARB-Verified PM Reduction (%) 

ARB-Verified ROG Reduction (%) 

Retrofit Device ARB Executive Order 

Retrofit Device Cost 

Cost of Retrofit Device Installation Cost 

(optional) 

Cost of Retrofit Maintenance for Life of Project 

(optional) 
VII-1 AIRPORT GSE 

Chapter Seven 

AIRPORT GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

This chapter describes the airport ground support equipment (GSE) category under the 

Carl Moyer Program. It also gives a brief overview of the requirements for fleets. It 

discusses different types of equipment, current emission standards, available control 

technology, and potential incentive projects eligible for funding. 

All Carl Moyer Program projects must be surplus to any regulation. Because 

regulations for GSE equipment with spark-ignition engines are currently scheduled for 

consideration by the Board in late 2005, this chapter does not present criteria districts 

would use in selecting a project to fund. Staff will present specific criteria to districts 

through a technical advisory approved by the Executive Officer once the Board has 

approved the proposed regulations for large spark-ignition (LSI) equipment. In the 

interim, projects would be allowed as approved under the 2003 guidelines. 

I. Introduction 

Airport vehicles and ground support equipment are used to transport passengers as 

well as baggage and freight, to support maintenance and repair functions, and to 

provide power to various service functions. Airport GSE includes aircraft pushback 

tugs, baggage and cargo tugs, carts, forklifts and lifts, ground power units, air 

conditioning units, belt loaders, and other equipment. Vehicles and equipment at 

airports fall into two broad categories. Land-side vehicles and equipment are used on 

the passenger/entry side of the airport. Air-side vehicles are used principally (at least 

half of the time) on the tarmac. For the purposes of the Carl Moyer Program, this airport 

GSE chapter is only to be used to evaluate air-side equipment. Land-side vehicles and 

equipment may be considered under the on-road vehicles (Chapter 1) and off-road 

vehicles and equipment (Chapters 5 and 6) project criteria of the Carl Moyer Program. 

Airport GSE is typically powered by gasoline, diesel or propane. Airport GSE can also 

be powered by electric motors having zero exhaust emissions. Electric GSE is 

commercially available from a number of manufacturers, and interest in the use of 

electric equipment is increasing. Currently, there are no federal or California regulations 

that require the use of electric GSE. There are airports throughout the United States, 

however, with a very high percentage of electric GSE. For example, Denver 

International Airport was designed for all electric GSE. Also, Logan International Airport 

in Boston has made considerable progress in switching to electric GSE equipment. 

Airport GSE are used from the moment an aircraft lands until it takes off. GSE perform 

a variety of functions such as towing, powering, and servicing aircrafts. There is great 

diversity in the type of equipment used, as well as in the variety of engines that power 

GSE. Table 7.1 below lists the commonly used types of GSE. Airport GSE can be 

owned by airlines, airports, cargo handlers, mail and parcel companies or management 
VII-2 AIRPORT GSE 

companies. Most airlines own or maintain the GSE they use, or have full service 

leasing from equipment management companies. Airports usually own the buildings 

and other stationary infrastructure on site and lease them to the airlines. The 

installation and cost of improvements, including electric equipment and vehicle 

infrastructure, are usually subject to the approval of the airport's property management. 

Costs can either be borne by the airport or passed on to the airlines. There is also a 

growing trend for airports to own the ground power units and charge the airlines for the 

time of usage. 

Table 7-1 

Types of Airport GSE 

Baggage Tug 

Belt Loader 

Forklifts, lifts & cargo loaders 

Ground Power Unit 

Aircraft Tug (narrow & wide body) 

Airstart Unit 

Air Conditioner 

Deicer 

Cart & Lavatory Cart 

Fuel Trucks 

Utility Trucks (lavatory, maintenance, 

water & service) 

Bobtail 

II. Regulatory Requirements 

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and ARB have adopted 

emission standards that will be phased in for new GSE equipment powered by off-road 

internal combustion (IC) engines. Internal combustion engines used in GSE can be 

powered by either compression-ignition (CI or “diesel”) engines or by spark-ignition (SI) 

engines using gasoline, compressed natural gas (CNG), or propane fuel. GSE is 

regulated under ARB and U.S. EPA's emission standards for off-road equipment. 

ARB has the authority to regulate new off-road CI equipment equal to or greater than 

175 hp and non-preempted off-road CI less than 175 horsepower. In January 1992, the 

Board adopted exhaust emission standards for off-road diesel engines 175 hp and 

greater, effective beginning with 1996 model year engines. 

In August 1996, the U.S. EPA, ARB, and off-road diesel engine manufacturers signed a 

Statement of Principles, which established a progressive set of emission standards and 

called for harmonization of ARB and U.S. EPA off-road diesel engine regulations. The 

U.S. EPA adopted emission standards in 1998 and again in 2004 that provided for new 

oxides of nitrogen (NOx) + non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC), PM, and carbon 

monoxide (CO) emission standards for engines within different power categories to be 
VII-3 AIRPORT GSE 

effective in a tiered approach, commonly referred to as Tier standards. ARB has since 

amended the California exhaust emission standards for off-road diesel engines 

(originally adopted in 1992) to include non-preempt engines below 175 horsepower and 

to harmonize with the federal requirements. Please refer to Chapter 5: 

Compression-Ignition Off-Road Equipment for more discussion on these requirements. 

In 1998, the ARB adopted regulations for off-road LSI engines sold in California. The 

regulations require new LSI engines 25 horsepower and greater to be certified to an 

emission standard of 3.0 g/bhp-hr of NOx+HC. This standard was phased in between 

2001 and 2004. The U.S. EPA followed in 2002, adopting the same NOx+HC standard 

beginning in 2004. At the same time, the U.S. EPA also adopted a standard of 

2.0 g/bhp-hr NOx+HC, beginning in 2007. ARB is currently developing a proposal that 

includes new emission standards and fleet requirements for LSI engines and 

equipment. This proposal is scheduled for Board consideration in late 2005 and would 

govern the development of project criteria for GSE. Please refer to Chapter 6: 

Off-Road Large Spark Ignition Equipment for more discussion on the off-road LSI 

equipment category and emission requirements. 

In 2002, the ARB and several airlines entered into a Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) aimed at introducing cleaner GSE, with an emphasis on electric GSE, into the 

South Coast Air Basin. Under the agreement, all major airlines operating at five airports 

in the South Coast Air Basin (LAX, Ontario, Orange County, Burbank, and Long Beach) 

would begin to incorporate lower-emission GSE into their fleets. GSE projects that are 

surplus to the emission reductions required under the MOU are eligible for funding 

under the Carl Moyer Program. After the original publication of these Guidelines, the 

airlines exercised their option to terminate the MOU. The South Coast Air Quality 

Management District should coordinate with ARB staff prior to funding GSE projects. 

III. Potential Projects 

A cost-effective strategy to reduce emissions involves the purchase of electric GSE, 

which has no exhaust emissions. Electric GSE is commercially available for a number 

of equipment types, including belt loaders, baggage tractors, aircraft tugs, lifts, and 

ground power units. Several airlines and airports have conducted electric GSE 

demonstration programs and fleet conversion programs. Further discussion of electric 

GSE experiences can be found in Chapter 12: Zero-Emission Technologies and a 

report by Arcadis, Geraghty & Miller [ARB, 1999]. 

Airport GSE emissions can also be decreased by retrofitting the equipment with a PM 

filter, diesel oxidation catalyst or a three-way catalyst. For instance, catalysts have 

been added to SI GSE to meet the current LSI emission standards. In addition, to 

reduce emissions GSE can be repowered with a new, cleaner IC engines. 

The Carl Moyer Program will fund the purchase of electric GSE, as well as GSE 

repower and retrofit projects if this equipment is not subject to any existing or planned 

regulations, funded through another incentive program, or used to generate credits of 
VII-4 AIRPORT GSE 

any type. In addition, projects that are surplus to the emission reductions required under 

the South Coast MOU are eligible for funding. The most promising categories are those 

where electric equipment has been used and demonstrated and are readily available 

from commercial vendors. This includes electric baggage tugs, belt loaders, and aircraft 

tugs. These equipment categories also represent a significant portion of the statewide 

GSE population and have some of the highest average annual hours of usage. 

Purchase of electric GSE instead of IC-engine GSE would yield significant emission 

benefits. Therefore, the Carl Moyer Program guidelines would continue to target these 

categories. Other promising projects include lifts and cargo loaders. Carts, lavatory 

carts and air-start units each represent a smaller fraction of the GSE equipment 

inventory. Fuel, utility, water, and service trucks are not covered under the current 

airport GSE guidelines, but may be considered under the on-road vehicle category 

(Chapter 1). 

IV. Project Criteria 

Since potential GSE projects could involve either CI or SI engines, eligibility criteria for 

GSE would be dependent on the base engine of the GSE and any regulatory 

requirements, including fleet requirements, applicable to the GSE category. For 

projects involving CI GSE, please refer to Chapter 5. For LSI GSE, specific project 

criteria will be developed based on the outcome of the proposed regulation for LSI 

engines and equipment currently scheduled for Board’s consideration in late 2005. 

Staff recommends that the Board grant the Executive Officer authority to approve GSE 

project criteria in a Carl Moyer Program advisory. Until the Board adopts the upcoming 

LSI regulation, districts may continue to fund GSE projects using the 2003 Carl Moyer 

Program Guidelines. In addition, airport GSE used at non-commercial airports would be 

eligible for funding. During this interim period, additional GSE projects may be 

considered on a case-by-case basis. 

Airport GSE projects funded by the Carl Moyer Program must meet a cost-effectiveness 

of $14,300 per weighed ton of NOx + ROG + combustion PM10 reduced calculated in 

accordance with the cost-effectiveness methodology discussed in the Guidelines. 

On September 6, 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Senate Bill 467 (Lowenthal) 

which requires the ARB to revise the Carl Moyer Program Guidelines to include projects 

in which an applicant turns in off-road equipment powered by an internal combustion 

engines and replaces that equipment with new zero-emission technologies. This 

legislation will take effect on January 1, 2006. ARB staff will evaluate how to 

incorporate the requirements of this legislation into the Carl Moyer Program in 2006. 
VII-5 AIRPORT GSE 

Table 7-2 

Minimum Application Requirements for Ground Support Equipment 

Applicant Information

Organization, Company or Individual Name 

Street Address 

City, State, Zip Code 

Primary Contact Name 

Primary Contact Phone Number 

Person with Contract Signing Authority 

Person who Filled Out Funding Application 

Project Address (if different from above) 

Equipment Information

Equipment Type (A/C tugs – narrow body, 

 AC tugs – wide body, belt loader, 

 baggage tug, cargo loaders, ground 

 power units, or lifts) 

Equipment Operator (airline, airport, 

 equipment management company, or 

other) 

Equipment Make, Model and Year 

Equipment Serial Number 

Projected Year of Purchase of New GSE 

Baseline GSE Fuel 

New GSE Vendor (optional) 

Activity Information 

Will the piece of equipment have a 

 functioning hour meter for the full project 

 life? (yes/no) 

Annual Hours of Operation or Gallons Fuel 

Consumption 

Percent Operation in California 

Percent Operation in District 

Project Life 

Electronic Monitoring Unit (EMU) 

Will a new eligible EMU be installed as part 

 of this project? (yes/no) 

EMU Make 

EMU Model 

EMU Model Year 

EMU ID Number 

EMU Cost (optional) 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - 

NEW PURCHASE ONLY 

Engine Family 

Engine Make, Model, Year 

Fuel Type 

Engine Serial Number 

Engine Tier 

Baseline Equipment Cost 

New Equipment Cost 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - 

REPOWER ONLY 

Baseline Engine Information

 Fuel Type 

 Engine Make, Model and Year 

 Engine Serial Number 

 Engine Horsepower 

 Engine Tier 

 Engine Remanufacture Cost 

Reduced Engine Information

 Fuel Type 

 Engine Make, Model and Year 

 Engine Serial Number 

 Engine Horsepower 

 Engine Tier 

 Newer Engine Cost 

 Newer Engine Installation Cost 

 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - 

RETROFIT ONLY 

ARB-Verified Retrofit Device Name 

Retrofit Device Make 

Retrofit Device Serial Number 

Verification Level (Level 1, Level 2, Level 3) 

ARB-Verified NOx Reduction (%) 

ARB-Verified PM Reduction (%) 

ARB-Verified ROG Reduction (%) 

Retrofit Device ARB Executive Order 

Retrofit Device Cost 

Cost of Retrofit Device Installation Cost 

Cost of Retrofit Maintenance for Life of Project 

V. References 

ARB, 1999. Assessment of Airport Ground Support Equipment Using Electric Power or 

Low-Emitting Fuels (Final Report), Final Report to Air Resources Board. Arcadis 

Geraghty & Miller, July 20, 1999. 
VIII-1 LOCOMOTIVES 

Chapter Eight 

LOCOMOTIVES 

This chapter presents program criteria for locomotive projects, and provides an 

overview of the locomotive industry, locomotive emissions, current emission control 

requirements, and types of incentive projects eligible for funding. The chapter also sets 

requirements for installation of an idle-limiting device (ILD) on project locomotives, and 

defines criteria for hybrid and multiple engine switcher projects. 

I. Introduction 

Locomotives move more than 40 percent of the freight in the United States, on a 

ton-miles basis [Association of American Railroads, 2004]. Most locomotives operating 

today are diesel-electric, using a diesel engine to drive a generator, which in turn drives 

the locomotive wheels. Locomotive engines have very long useful lives, with the 

capability of being rebuilt numerous times. 

Locomotives provide line-haul, short-haul, switcher, and passenger service. Each of 

these locomotive types has discrete functions and characteristics: 

• Line Haul - Line-haul locomotives typically transport goods between major urban 

centers, sometimes up to 3,000 miles apart. Line-haul locomotives operate at higher 

speeds than other locomotives and generally utilize engines with 3,000 or greater 

horsepower. Because reliability is important for line-haul operators, these 

locomotives tend to be newer and well-maintained. 

• Short-Haul - Short-haul locomotives perform a combination of line-haul and railyard 

service. Typically, they use 2,000 to 3,800 horsepower engines, and move freight 

regionally or locally. For the purposes of the Carl Moyer Program, short-haul 

locomotives are treated the same as line-haul locomotives. 

• Switcher - Switch locomotives separate and move railcars from track to track or 

transfer cars to and from regional carriers. Typically, they use 1,500 to 2,300 

horsepower diesel engines, travel short distances at low speeds, make numerous 

stops, and idle frequently for long periods of time. Switcher locomotives are 

generally remanufactured from aging line-haul locomotives. Switchers are typically 

the oldest and most poorly maintained locomotives. 

• Passenger - Passenger locomotives haul passengers rather than freight, and are 

typically used in high speed, line-haul type operations. The average passenger train 

is about 10 years old and has a 3,000 to 3,600 horsepower engine. 
VIII-2 LOCOMOTIVES 

II. Emissions 

Locomotives are a significant source of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and particulate matter 

(PM) emissions. Line haul and short-haul locomotives emit over 90 percent of 

locomotive NOx and PM emissions in California, while switchers and passenger 

locomotives are responsible for about six and two percent of locomotive emissions, 

respectively. Although switch locomotives generate less overall emissions than 

line-haul locomotives, their emissions tend to be concentrated at and around railyards, 

and can pose greater health concerns for nearby communities. 

About 25 percent of the State’s locomotive NOx and PM emissions occur in the Mojave 

Desert Air Basin (See Table 8-1, below). The bulk of these emissions are generated by 

the hauling of freight from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach through Barstow to 

points east. Barstow is home to the second largest rail yard west of the Mississippi 

River; the largest is the Roseville Rail Yard in the Sacramento Valley. Locomotives in 

the South Coast Air Basin contribute about 20 percent of statewide locomotive 

emissions, while the locomotives in the San Joaquin Valley and Sacramento Valley 

each account for about 15 percent. 

Table 8-1 

Locomotive Emission Inventory

(Annual average tons per day in 2005) 

Region NOx PM 

Mojave Desert Air Basin 39 1.3 

South Coast Air Basin 33 1.0 

San Joaquin Valley 24 0.7 

Sacramento Valley 23 0.7 

Bay Area 11 0.3 

Rest of the State 32 1.1 

Total 162 5.1 

Based on ARB’s CCOS Emissions Inventory (Version 2.12) 

III. Regulatory Requirements 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), with its sole authority to set 

emission standards for new and remanufactured locomotives, has adopted phased-in 

locomotive emission standards [Federal Register, April 16, 1998]. Federal locomotive 

emission standards contain two primary provisions: 1) remanufacture emission limits 

applicable to railroads whenever they remanufacture or rebuild their locomotive 

engines, and 2) emission standards for new locomotives applicable to locomotive 

manufacturers. 
VIII-3 LOCOMOTIVES 

 A. Locomotive Remanufacture Emission Standards 

Regulation of remanufactured locomotives is critical because locomotives are generally 

remanufactured five to ten times during their service lives. U.S. EPA’s locomotive 

remanufacture emission standards therefore provide a mechanism to reduce emissions 

from the existing fleet. Federal locomotive remanufacture emission standards require 

locomotives originally manufactured in 1973 or later to meet the emission limits listed in 

Table 8-2 whenever they are rebuilt or remanufactured. Locomotives originally 

manufactured before 1973 are exempt from the federal locomotive remanufacture 

requirements. 

Table 8-2 

Federal Exhaust Emission Standards for Locomotives 

for New Engines and at Time of Remanufacture 

(g/bhp-hr) 

Duty-cycle Gaseous and Particulate Emissions 

HC CO NOx PM 

Tier 0 (1973 – 2001 model years)

Line-haul/ 

Passenger 

1.00 5.0 9.5 0.60 

Switcher 2.10 8.0 14.0 0.72 

Tier 1 (2002 – 2004 model years) 

Line-haul/ 

Passenger 

0.55 2.2 7.4 0.45 

Switcher 1.20 2.5 11.0 0.54 

Tier 2 (2005 and later model years) 

Line-haul/ 

Passenger 

0.30 1.5 5.5 0.20 

Switcher 0.60 2.4 8.1 0.24 

U.S. EPA locomotive remanufacture requirements also include an exemption for small 

railroads -- line-haul railroads with fewer than 1,500 employees, and switch railroads 

with fewer than 500 employees. Surface Transportation Board (STB) freight railroad 

classifications, based on annual revenues, provide an equivalent mechanism for 

distinguishing between large and small railroads in California. STB railroad 

classifications, and the applicable U.S. EPA remanufacture requirements, are as 

follows: 

• Class I Railroads - Class I freight railroads are carriers with annual revenues greater 

than or equal to $266.7 million. Locomotives owned and operated by Class I 

railroads in California must meet the U.S. EPA remanufacture emission limits in 

Table 8-2. The Union Pacific Railroad (UP) and the Burlington Northern & Santa Fe 

Railroad (BNSF) are the only Class I freight railroad companies operating in 

California. 
VIII-4 LOCOMOTIVES 

• Class II Railroads - Class II railroads are carriers with annual revenues between 

$21.3 and $266.7 million. Class II railroads are exempt from federal locomotive 

remanufacture requirements. Currently, there are no Class II railroads 

headquartered in California. For the purposes of the Carl Moyer Program, a Class II 

railroad locomotive must meet the same project criteria as a Class III railroad 

locomotive. 

• Class III Railroads - Class III railroads are carriers with annual revenues less than 

$21.3 million. Class III railroads in California are largely exempt from federal 

locomotive engine remanufacture requirements. As a result, many older, 

unregulated locomotives continue to operate at Class III railroads. 

• Military and Industrial Railroads – Over 100 military and industrial locomotives 

owned by non-railroad companies operate in California. These locomotives are 

generally much smaller in size and horsepower than locomotives used by larger rail 

yards, are confined to small yards or industrial plants, and are typically 40 to 60 

years old. Military and industrial locomotives are largely exempt from federal 

locomotive remanufacture requirements. For the purposes of the 

Carl Moyer Program, military and industrial locomotives must meet the same project 

criteria as a Class III railroad locomotive. 

• Passenger Service Railroads – Amtrak is California’s only passenger locomotive

operator not considered a small railroad by federal regulations. Amtrak is therefore 

the state’s only passenger railroad subject to federal locomotive remanufacture 

requirements. Amtrak locomotives are currently required to meet all Tier 1 and 

Tier 2 emission limits, but are not subject to Tier 0 remanufacture requirements for 

their 1973 through 2001 model year locomotives until 2007. 

The practical impact of the federal small railroad exemption from locomotive 

remanufacture requirements is that UP, BNSF, and Amtrak locomotives must meet 

federal remanufacture emission limits, while other railroads can remanufacture to 

uncontrolled emission levels. 

 B. Emission Standards for New Locomotives 

The second component of federal locomotive standards took effect in 2000, applies to 

locomotive manufacturers, and requires all new locomotives to meet the tiered emission 

standards in Table 8-2. Because these standards apply to locomotive manufacturers, 

all railroads, regardless of size, must purchase locomotives meeting Tier 2 emission 

limits when purchasing a new locomotive. In practice, however, only Class I railroads 

purchase new locomotives, while Class III railroads typically purchase existing in-use 

locomotives. 
VIII-5 LOCOMOTIVES 

C. Upcoming Regulations 

In May 2004, U.S. EPA issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, signaling 

its intent to pursue more stringent standards for new and existing locomotives 

[U.S. EPA, 2004]. The standards are likely to be modeled after 2007 and 2010 on-road 

and off-road diesel engine standards, and to be based on the application of catalytic 

after-treatment technology. The new locomotive standards could be phased in 

beginning as early as 2011. 

 D. South Coast Locomotive Memorandum of Understanding 

The Air Resources Board (ARB or “Board”) and U.S. EPA have an enforceable 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with UP and BNSF railroads to implement a 

locomotive fleet average emissions program in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The 

purpose of the South Coast MOU is to expedite the introduction of new, lower-emitting 

locomotive engines in the SCAB. The agreement commits UP and BNSF railroads to 

achieve a 5.5 g/bhp-hr locomotive fleet average NOx emission rate in the SCAB by 

2010. The railroads can also get credit towards their 2010 fleet average target by 

exceeding the fleet average emissions targets between 2005 and 2009. 

In order to ensure Carl Moyer Program funding achieves surplus emission reductions, 

railroads subject to the South Coast MOU must meet the following minimum project 

criteria: 

• Locomotive projects in the SCAB may not be included in the MOU fleet average 

emission rate compliance demonstration. 

• The project baseline emission rate for all locomotives in the SCAB subject to the 

South Coast MOU shall be equivalent to the Tier 2 emission rates identified for 

line-haul and switch locomotives in Table B-16. 

• Class I freight railroad locomotive projects in all air districts, with the exception of the 

South Coast, must have a minimum project life of ten years. 

This last requirement helps ensure that a cleaner locomotive funded in another air 

district cannot be exchanged for a dirtier locomotive in the SCAB at the completion of 

the project life to demonstrate compliance with the South Coast MOU. Allowing such an 

exchange, even at the end of the project life, could result in higher overall emissions 

since the locomotive exchanged into the participating air district could be dirtier than the 

original project locomotive. 

 E. Statewide Locomotive Memorandum of Understanding 

In June 2005, ARB signed a Statewide MOU with UP and BNSF railroads. The MOU 

requires UP and BNSF to install an ILD on over 99 percent of their intrastate 

locomotives between June 30, 2006 and June 30, 2008. The Statewide MOU also 

requires 80 percent of the diesel fuel dispensed to UP and BNSF locomotives in 

California to be low-sulfur diesel by the end of 2006. This agreement complements an 
VIII-6 LOCOMOTIVES 

ARB intrastate locomotive fuels regulation, adopted in November 2004, which requires 

all intrastate diesel locomotives to use California reformulated low-sulfur diesel fuel by 

January 1, 2007. The Statewide MOU also requires that railroads conduct health risk 

assessments at California’s rail yards and consider additional long-term strategies to 

reduce idling PM emissions and health risks. Because the Statewide MOU requires 

virtually all UP and BNSF locomotives have ILDs, ILD projects for UP and BNSF 

locomotives are not eligible for Carl Moyer Program funding. 

IV. Potential Projects 

Projects eligible for Carl Moyer Program incentive funding include repower or retrofit of 

an existing locomotive engine, purchase of a new reduced-emission engine or 

locomotive, or installation of an ILD. Hybrid and multiple engine switch locomotive 

projects have also received Carl Moyer Program funding in recent years and are eligible 

for funding. Other technologies that offer real emission reductions may also be 

considered on a case-by-case basis. Funding for projects considered on a 

case-by-case basis shall be contingent on a clear demonstration that the project shall 

achieve surplus, real, quantifiable, and enforceable emission reductions. 

 A. Repower 

A locomotive engine repower involves replacing an existing locomotive engine with a 

newer, lower-emitting engine. Locomotive repower projects must achieve at least a 15 

percent NOx reduction beyond existing emissions levels. Repower projects for 1973 

and later year Class III locomotives must achieve at least Tier 0-equivalent emission 

rates if a remanufacture kit certified by U.S. EPA to meet Tier 0 or lower emission levels 

is available. Baseline emissions for locomotive repower projects reflect federal 

emission requirements for engine remanufacture (e.g. Tier 0 through Tier 2 emission 

rates for Class I locomotives, and uncontrolled emissions for pre-1973 locomotives and 

Class III locomotives). Baseline costs for repower projects reflect the cost to 

remanufacture the project engine or $50,000, whichever is greater. All locomotive 

repower projects must include installation of an automatic engine start-stop (AESS) idle 

reduction device if the project locomotive is not already equipped with such a device 

and installation is technically feasible. 

B. Retrofits 

Retrofits involve hardware modifications to the engine or exhaust system to reduce 

emissions. Potential retrofit projects involve the addition of an ARB-verified retrofit 

device, or installation of a U.S. EPA-certified remanufacture emission kit. For most 

Carl Moyer Program categories, a retrofit device must be ARB-verified in order to be 

considered for funding. To date, however, very few retrofit technologies have been 

verified to reduce emissions from a locomotive. Retrofit technologies generally develop 

first for on-road sources, and are later refined for use on off-road engines. Because of 

the lack of retrofit devices verified for use on a locomotive engine, ARB will consider 

funding a locomotive after-treatment retrofit device which is not yet ARB-verified for use 
VIII-7 LOCOMOTIVES 

on locomotives on a case-by-case basis. Applicants for funding on a case-by-case 

basis must meet the applicable project criteria identified in Section V of this chapter. 

In recent years, engine manufacturers have also developed U.S. EPA-certified engine 

remanufacture kits for use on locomotives. To be eligible for Carl Moyer Program 

funding, remanufacture kits must be U.S. EPA certified to achieve at least Tier 0 

locomotive emission standards on the project locomotive engine. Remanufacture kit 

projects must also achieve at least 15 percent NOx reductions from the project 

locomotive if taking credit for NOx emission reductions. Kits which utilize fuel injection 

timing retard must be clearly demonstrated to not increase in-use PM or hydrocarbon 

emissions to be eligible for funding. Individual engine parts or other locomotive 

components are not eligible for funding except as part of a complete U.S. EPA-certified 

engine remanufacture kit. 

C. Idle-Limiting Devices 

Locomotive operators idle their engines to maintain battery charge, warmth of the 

engine coolant, fuel, oil, and water, and comfortable temperatures inside the operator 

cabs. Locomotives also idle to ensure the engine is readily available (avoiding 

unnecessary starting and shutting-down), and because of habitual practice. Installation 

of an ILD can significantly reduce emissions from locomotives, which typically spend 

40 to 60 percent of their operating time in the idle duty cycle. 

The ILD technologies on the market today vary in operational requirements and 

predictability of idling reductions. The AESS provides an automatic, fully integrated 

mechanism to reduce idling and does not rely upon a locomotive operator or require 

additional engines or infrastructure. An AESS typically uses a central computer to 

monitor vital engine parameters, such as battery charge, water temperature, and brake 

pressure, and automatically shuts off the engine after a set time. This technology is 

generally applicable to more locomotive types and operating conditions than other ILD 

devices. 

Other ILDs include diesel driven heating systems (DDHS), stationary power plug-in 

units, and locomotive auxiliary power units (APU). These ILD technologies can reduce 

locomotive idling time under certain conditions. For example, a DDHS is particularly 

effective in colder climates, while a stationary power plug-in unit is feasible only for 

site specific locomotives where plug-in technology can be permanently located. Costs 

for these ILDs range from $4,000 to $12,000 for a shore power plug-in unit, $8,000 to 

$15,000 for an AESS, and $25,000 to $35,000 for an DHSS or APU. 

Because an AESS unit can provide significant and predictable air quality benefits at a 

relatively low cost, locomotive repower projects without a functioning ILD must include 

installation of an AESS, if feasible, to receive program funding. The 

Carl Moyer Program shall pay actual equipment costs up to a maximum of $8,000 for 

the AESS and actual installation costs of the AESS up to $3,400. The award cap 

reflects the fact that AESS installation significantly reduces locomotive operating costs 
VIII-8 LOCOMOTIVES 

and has a typical capital payback period of one to three years. Other ILD technologies 

may be considered for program funding on a case-by-case basis if an AESS device 

cannot be installed on the project locomotive. 

D. Alternative Technology Switch Locomotives 

In recent years, several diesel-electric hybrid switch locomotives have been funded 

through the Carl Moyer Program. Hybrid switch locomotives significantly reduce PM 

and NOx emissions, idling time, and fuel use compared to conventional switchers. 

These locomotives use the same basic concept as a gas-electric hybrid automobile -- a 

battery pack powers the locomotive, while a small diesel engine runs as needed to keep 

the batteries charged. Hybrid locomotives typically utilize an aging locomotive frame 

and replace the existing large diesel engine, generator, and analog controls with a small 

diesel generator, battery pack, and computerized control module. The batteries can 

provide up to 90 percent of the locomotive horsepower at full load, while the remaining 

power comes from a 300 to 800 horsepower diesel engine. In addition to driving the 

locomotive, the added weight of the battery pack provides additional traction to propel 

the locomotive. 

Switch locomotive projects which involve replacing the main engine with multiple 

heavy-duty truck or off-road engines have also become more common. Multi-engine 

locomotive projects also typically involve significantly refurbishing an existing locomotive 

frame with new batteries, electronics, and controls. The replacement engines typically 

have a much lower horsepower rating and lower emissions than the engine they 

replace. For the purposes of the Carl Moyer Program, hybrid and multiple engine 

switchers, as described above, are defined as alternative technology switchers. 

Switch locomotive purchase practices are unique. Few new locomotives are 

manufactured and purchased by the railroads for use in switcher service. Instead, as 

line-haul locomotives get older and less reliable, they are remanufactured for switching 

service and moved to a rail yard. In many cases, Class III railroads will purchase older 

switchers when they are retired by Class I railroads. Because railroads do not typically 

purchase newly manufactured switcher locomotives, an alternative technology switcher 

is considered a new locomotive purchase for the purpose of the Carl Moyer Program. 

Baseline project emissions and costs for alternative technology switchers also reflect 

differing Class I and Class III regulatory requirements and purchase practices. Since 

Class I railroads are required to meet federal locomotive remanufacture emission 

standards for 1973 and newer locomotives, a new Class I switcher would typically emit 

at Tier 0 emission rates. Class III railroads -- which are not subject to federal 

requirements and typically purchase older, in-use locomotives -- typically remanufacture 

to uncontrolled emission levels. Baseline emissions for hybrid and multiple engine 

switcher projects at Class I and Class III railroads therefore reflect Tier 0 and 

uncontrolled emission rates, respectively. 
VIII-9 LOCOMOTIVES 

The Carl Moyer Program may fund up to 60 percent and 80 percent of the total cost of 

an alternative technology switcher for Class I and Class III railroads, respectively. 

Project funding caps reflect the differential cost of a typical switcher purchased by 

Class I and Class III railroads, as described above. Funding caps have also been set in 

recognition that an alternative technology switcher achieves significant fuel cost savings 

over its lifetime relative to a traditional switch locomotive. 

U.S. EPA requires new switchers with an aggregate engine power rating greater than or 

equal to 1,006 horsepower to be certified to meet federal locomotive emission 

standards. An alternative technology switcher with federal locomotive certification must 

be evaluated based upon its certified locomotive emission rate. If federal locomotive 

certification is not required or not yet complete, the switcher may be evaluated and 

considered for Carl Moyer Program funding based upon the project engine’s on- or 

off road engine certification. However, alternative technology switchers must meet all 

federal certification requirements before program funding can be distributed to the 

project participant. Federal locomotive certification must demonstrate the locomotive 

emits NOx at a rate at least 30 percent below the Tier 2 locomotive emission standard. 

V. Project Criteria 

These criteria provide the minimum requirements for all Carl Moyer Program locomotive 

projects. Participating districts retain the authority to impose additional requirements in 

order to address local concerns. 

A. General 

• Emission reductions obtained through Carl Moyer Program projects must not be 

required by or used to comply with any federal, state or local regulation, 

memorandum of agreement/understanding with a regulatory agency, settlement 

agreement, mitigation requirement, or other legally binding document. Inclusion in a 

rail yard or port emission reduction plan, lease agreement, or other voluntarily 

adopted strategy does not exclude a locomotive project from funding eligibility, if 

such a project is not otherwise required. 

• No emission reductions generated by the Carl Moyer Program shall be used as 

marketable emission reduction credits, or to offset any emission reduction obligation 

of any person or entity. 

• No project funded by the Carl Moyer Program shall be used for credit under any 

federal or state emission averaging banking and trading program. 

• Locomotive operators utilizing an alternative emission control plan (AECP) to comply 

with California’s locomotive low-sulfur diesel fuel requirements shall not be eligible 

for Carl Moyer Program funds. 
 VIII-10 LOCOMOTIVES 

• Beginning January 1, 2007, all diesel locomotive projects must use ARB low-sulfur 

diesel fuel. Emission reductions and costs associated with use of ARB low-sulfur 

diesel shall not be included in project cost-effectiveness calculations. 

• Projects must meet a cost-effectiveness of $14,300 per weighed ton of NOx + ROG 

+ combustion PM10 reduced calculated in accordance with the cost-effectiveness 

methodology discussed in this chapter. 

• Carl Moyer Program grants can be no greater than a project’s incremental cost. The 

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

cost shall be reduced by the value of any current financial incentive that reduces the 

project price, including tax credits or deductions, grants, or other public financial 

assistance. 

• The contract term for all locomotive projects must be equivalent to the project life. 

The project life is defined as the number of years used to evaluate project 

cost-effectiveness. 

• Class I freight locomotive projects in air districts other than the South Coast must 

have a minimum project life of ten years. All other locomotive projects have a 

minimum project life of three years. ARB may approve a shorter project life on a 

case-by-case basis. Projects with shorter lives may be subject to additional funding 

restrictions, such as a lower cost-effectiveness limit or a project cost cap. 

• The maximum project life for a locomotive project is 20 years. 

• Because of uncertainty in locomotive load factors, locomotive project activity must 

be based upon fuel consumption. 

• Seventy-five percent of estimated annual miles traveled and annual fuel 

consumption must occur in California. 

• The energy consumption rate for a locomotive engine is 20.8 bhp-hr per gallon. The 

energy consumption factor for an on- or off-road engine used in a locomotive 

application is 18.5 bhp-hr per gallon. 

• Carl Moyer Program funds cannot be use to pay for labor or parts used during 

routine maintenance. 

• Class I locomotives subject to the South Coast MOU are eligible for 

Carl Moyer Program funding only if such locomotives are excluded from the fleet 

average emission rate calculations which demonstrate compliance with the MOU 

provisions. The baseline emission rates used to determine emission reductions and 

cost-effectiveness for these locomotive projects reflect the Tier 2 emission rates for 

line-haul and switch locomotives identified in Table B-16. Locomotives subject to 
 VIII-11 LOCOMOTIVES 

the South Coast MOU which receive Carl Moyer Program funding are ineligible to 

receive fleet average emission credits. 

• Military and industrial locomotives and locomotives owned or operated by Class II 

railroads use the same Carl Moyer Program criteria as Class III railroad locomotives. 

• Locomotive engine emissions, if based on emission testing, must be determined 

following the most current and approved U.S. EPA emission testing procedures for 

locomotives. 

• All locomotive new purchase or repower projects must include an electronic 

monitoring unit (EMU) to track activity and geographic location. Eligible EMUs 

include a geographic positioning system (GPS) unit, transponding device, automated 

vehicle locator (AVL), or other similar device. The EMU must be capable of 

providing complete digital information regarding total activity both within the air 

district and the State of California; this information shall be reported to air districts 

annually for the project life. The full purchase, installation and data summarization 

or transmittal costs associated with the EMU is eligible for Carl Moyer Program 

funding, and may be included when calculating project cost-effectiveness. 

• For all liquefied natural gas-diesel or other dual fuel locomotive projects, an EMU 

must be used to electronically monitor activity and fuel consumption by fuel type. 

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

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

real, quantifiable, and enforceable emission reduction benefits. 

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

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

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

B. New Purchase 

• Purchase of a new locomotive must achieve federal Tier 2 locomotive emission 

standards for PM and hydrocarbon emissions, and a NOx emission rate at least 

30 percent below Tier 2 locomotive emission standards. 

• For the purposes of the Carl Moyer Program, an alternative technology switcher is 

defined as a hybrid (e.g., Green Goat) or multiple engine switcher in which an 

existing locomotive chassis is significantly refurbished with a new engine, batteries, 

electronic controls, and/or other equipment. An alternative technology switcher 

project is considered a new locomotive purchase and must meet all emission criteria 

for a new locomotive purchase. Other switch locomotives may be considered for 

funding as an alternative technology switcher on a case-by-case basis. 
 VIII-12 LOCOMOTIVES 

• Baseline emissions for an alternative technology switcher project reflect Tier 0 

emission rates for Class I locomotives and uncontrolled emission rates for Class III 

locomotives. The cost of an alternative technology switcher eligible for 

Carl Moyer Program funding shall not exceed 60 percent of the total cost of the new 

switcher for Class I railroad switchers, and 80 percent of the total cost of the new 

switcher for Class III railroad switchers. 

• Baseline emissions and costs for a new locomotive purchase project which is not an 

alternative technology switcher reflect Tier 2 emission rates and the cost of a new 

Tier 2 locomotive, respectively. 

• An alternative technology switcher with federal locomotive certification must be 

evaluated based upon its federally certified locomotive emission rate; alternatively, if 

federal locomotive certification is not required or not yet complete, the project may 

be evaluated and considered for funding based upon its on- or off-road engine 

certification. If not federally certified, locomotives may on a case-by-case basis 

utilize NOx emission rates associated an ARB determination of an Ultra-Low 

Emission Locomotive under the South Coast MOU. Locomotives must meet all 

federal certification requirements before funding can be distributed to the project 

participant. 

C. Repower 

• Locomotive repower projects must achieve at least a 15 percent NOx reduction 

beyond existing emission levels. 

• Baseline emissions for a locomotive engine repower are based upon federal 

emission requirements for engine remanufacture (see Section III of this chapter) and 

the corresponding emission rates in Table B-16. Baseline costs for a locomotive 

engine repower equal the actual remanufacture cost or $50,000, whichever is 

greater. 

• 1973 and later model year Class III locomotives must achieve at least Tier 0 

emission levels, if Tier 0 remanufacture kits are available. 

• Alternative-fueled engines must be ARB- or U.S. EPA-certified to achieve a reduced 

emission level in a locomotive application. Alternative-fueled engines not certified to 

achieve a reduced emission limit in a locomotive application may be eligible for 

funding on a case-by-case basis. 

D. Retrofit 

• A retrofit device must be ARB-verified to reduce emissions from the project engine in 

order to be eligible for funding. Non-verified technologies may be considered on a 

case by case basis if: 1) an application for verification of the retrofit or add-on 

equipment on the proposed engine category is pending, 2) the retrofit or add-on 
 VIII-13 LOCOMOTIVES 

equipment has been verified or certified by ARB or U.S. EPA for use on a similar 

engine category, or 3) project emission benefit, durability, and applicability have 

been or shall be demonstrated through in-situ testing. 

• Retrofits considered for funding on a case-by-case basis must be clearly 

demonstrated to achieve the expected emission reductions for the full project life, 

function properly under the project locomotive engine duty cycle, and to not harm the 

locomotive engine. 

• Remanufacture emission kits must achieve at least a 15 percent NOx reduction and 

be U.S. EPA certified to achieve at least Tier 0 locomotive emission standards on 

the project locomotive engine. Emission kits must be demonstrated not to increase 

in-use emissions of NOx, ROG, or PM emissions. Individual engine parts or other 

locomotive components are not eligible for funding except as part of a complete 

U.S. EPA certified engine retrofit kit. 

E. Idle-Limiting Device 

• All locomotive purchase and repower projects (except alternative technology 

switchers) must include purchase and installation of an AESS ILD to reduce 

unnecessary engine idling if the locomotive is not already equipped with such a 

device and AESS installation is technically feasible. 

• If not already required by a rule, regulation, MOU, or other legal mandate, the 

purchase and installation cost of an AESS is eligible for Carl Moyer Program 

funding, subject to the following limitations: 

− The Carl Moyer Program may provide actual equipment costs up to a maximum 

of $8,000 for a locomotive-specific AESS. 

− The Carl Moyer Program may provide the lower amount of actual installation 

costs of the AESS, up to a maximum of $3,400. 

− AESS emission reductions are calculated by applying the ILD factors in 

Table B-17. Appendix D provides details regarding use of the ILD factors. 

− All ILDs must comply with applicable durability and warranty requirements. 

F. Scrap 

• Scrap requirements are described in the 2005 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, 

Part I, Chapter 2: Administration of the Carl Moyer Program. 

VI. Cost-Effectiveness 
 VIII-14 LOCOMOTIVES 

To receive Carl Moyer Program funding, each project must meet the maximum 

cost-effective threshold of $14,300 per weighted ton of covered pollutants reduced. 

Only funds provided by the Carl Moyer Program and local district matching funds are to 

be used in determining cost-effectiveness. Emission reduction benefits represent the 

difference in the emission levels of the existing baseline technology relative to the 

newer, reduced-emission technology. Baseline and reduced engine emission factors 

are listed in Table B-16 in Appendix B. These factors represent U.S. EPA emission 

factors from U.S. EPA Technical Highlights – Emission Factors for Locomotives

[December 1997], with fuel correction factors applied. 

As mentioned earlier, an AESS ILD is required for all locomotive repower or new 

purchase projects (other than alternative technology switchers) if feasible. An ILD 

Factor, identified in Table B-17, is used to account for the air quality benefits of reduced 

idling. 

A detailed description and examples of how to calculate cost-effectiveness can be found 

in Appendix D. Locomotive emission reduction calculations will use the fuel- based 

formula as discussed in Appendix C. 

VII. Minimum Project Application Requirements 

The minimum application requirements for locomotive projects are described below. Air 

districts have full authority to require additional application, reporting, and monitoring 

requirements. 

A. Application 

Districts solicit bids for reduced-emission projects for locomotives. The applicant must 

provide the minimum information listed in Table 8-3. A disclosure must also be included 

stating that the proposed project has not been funded and is not being considered for 

funding by another air district, ARB, or any other public agency. Any applicant who is 

found to have submitted multiple applications for the same project may be banned from 

submitting future applications to any and all Carl Moyer Program solicitations and may 

be subject to criminal sanctions. A project funded cooperatively by multiple air districts 

is eligible for funding if the project parameters are coordinated amongst the participating 

districts and the project meets all applicable Carl Moyer Program criteria. Applicants 

are allowed to re-apply for project funding if a previous application has been rejected 

and is no longer being considered for funding. 
 VIII-15 LOCOMOTIVES 

Table 8-3 

Minimum Application Requirements for Locomotive Projects 

Applicant Information

Organization, Company or Individual Name 

Street Address 

City, County, State, Zip Code 

Primary Contact Name 

Primary Contact Phone Number 

Person with Contract Signing Authority 

Person who Filled Out Funding Application 

Project Address (if different from above) 

Locomotive Information

Railroad Class (Class 1 or Class 3) 

Locomotive Type (Line Haul, Traditional Switcher, 

Alt. Technology Switcher, Passenger) 

Locomotive Make 

Locomotive Model 

Locomotive Horsepower 

Locomotive Serial Number 

Fuel Type 

Engine Make 

Engine Model 

Engine Year 

Engine Serial Number 

Activity Information

Does the project locomotive already have a 

functioning automatic engine start-stop (AESS) 

ILD installed? (yes/no) 

Annual Gallons Fuel Consumption 

Percent Operation in California 

Percent Operation in District 

Project Life 

Electronic Monitoring Unit (EMU) 

Will a new eligible EMU be installed as part 

 of this project? (yes/no) 

EMU Make 

EMU Model 

EMU Model Year 

EMU ID Number 

EMU Cost (optional) 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION – 

NEW PURCHASE PROJECTS ONLY 

Projected Year of Purchase of New Locomotive 

New Locomotive Cost 

Locomotive Vendor (optional) 

Alt. Technology Switcher New Purchase Information

What type of engine(s) does the new switcher use? 

(on-road or off-road/stationary) 

Engine Make, Model, Year, Horsepower, and Serial 

Number (for each engine) 

ARB Certification Executive Order, if any 

(on-road engine(s) only) 

Engine Family and Tier 

(off-road/stationary engine(s) only) 

New Switcher Fuel Consumption (if different from 

baseline) 

Has this locomotive been certified by U.S. EPA? 

 If yes: 

U.S. EPA certified locomotive NOx emission rate 

(g/bhp-hr) 

U.S. EPA certified locomotive HC emission rate 

(g/bhp-hr) 

U.S. EPA certified locomotive PM emission rate 

(g/bhp-hr) 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION – 

REPOWER PROJECTS ONLY 

Reduced Emission Engine Make 

Reduced Emission Engine Model 

Reduced Emission Engine Serial Number 

Reduced Emission Engine Horsepower 

Engine Rebuild Cost 

New Lower Emission Engine Cost 

New Lower Emission Engine Installation Cost 

New Engine Vendor (optional) 

New Engine Installer (optional) 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION – 

LOCOMOTIVE IDLING LIMITING DEVICE OR 

ENGINE REMANUFACTURE KIT ONLY 

For AESS ILD Projects 

 AESS Make 

 AESS Model 

 AESS Year 

 AESS ID Number 

 AESS Capital Cost 

 AESS Installation Cost 

For Engine Remanufacture Kits 

 Remanufacture Kit Make 

 Remanufacture Kit Model 

 U.S. EPA Certified Locomotive Emission Level 

(Tier 0, Tier 1, or Tier 2) 

 Remanufacture Kit Cost 
 VIII-16 LOCOMOTIVES 

Third party applications are not allowed. The owner of the engine must sign and agree 

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

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

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

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

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

used to pay them. To make the Carl Moyer Program accessible to all potential 

applicants, including applicants that cannot afford to hire third party assistance, districts 

are encouraged to provide technical assistance to applicants in completing the 

application.

B. Reporting and Monitoring 

Air districts must abide by all reporting and monitoring requirements described in 

Chapter 1 – Program Administration. Monitoring of project progress ensures that the 

vehicle or engine is operated as stated in the program application. Records must be 

retained and updated for the duration of the project life and made available at the 

request of the air district or ARB. 

VIII. References 

Association of American Railroads, 2004. Association of American Railroads, 2004, 

Overview of U.S. Freight Railroads. 

Federal Register, April 16, 1998. Federal Register, Part II - Environmental Protection 

Agency, Emission Standards for Locomotives and Locomotive Engines Final Rule; 40 

CFR Parts 85, 89 and 92; April 16, 1998. 

U.S. EPA, 2004. U.S. EPA Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the Control of 

Emissions of Air Pollution from New Locomotive Engines and New Marine 

Compression-Ignition Engines Less Than 30 Liters Per Cylinder; 

Docket OAR-2003-0190. 
IX-1 MARINE VESSELS 

Chapter Nine 

MARINE VESSELS 

This chapter presents program criteria for marine vessel projects, and provides an 

overview of types of marine vessels, current emission control requirements, and 

available emission reduction technologies. The chapter also expands eligibility for 

Carl Moyer Program marine vessel projects to marine vessels with wet exhaust 

systems, and utilizes a single set of emission factors for propulsion and auxiliary 

engines, consistent with federal emission standards. 

I. Introduction 

Marine vessels eligible for Carl Moyer Program funding include harbor craft and 

oceangoing ships, but exclude recreational vessels such as personal watercraft. 

Historically, harbor craft have received the vast majority of Carl Moyer Program funding 

for marine vessels. However, oceangoing vessels remain eligible for funding if they 

operate in California Coastal Waters enough to generate cost-effective emission 

reductions and the proposed project meets all applicable Carl Moyer Program criteria. 

A map of California Coastal Waters can be found in Figure 9-1. 

 A. Harbor Craft 

Harbor craft include tugboats, fishing vessels, work boats, crew boats, ferries, 

Coast Guard vessels, and some military vessels. These vessels generally stay within 

California Coastal Waters and often leave and return to the same port. Tugboats 

generally have the most powerful engines, averaging about 1,300 horsepower. 

Commercial fishing and work boats, at the other end of the spectrum, average a little 

over 200 horsepower [ARB, 2003]. Beginning on January 1, 2007, all fuel sold to 

harbor craft statewide will be required to meet Air Resources Board (ARB or “Board”) 

low-sulfur diesel fuel standards. This ARB requirement goes into effect on 

January 1, 2006 in the South Coast Air Basin. 

 B. Oceangoing Ships 

Oceangoing ships usually travel internationally and include container ships, bulk 

carriers, general cargo ships, tankers, military ships, auto carriers, cruise ships and 

ocean-going tugboats. Oceangoing ships generally run on one or more 750 or greater 

horsepower engines. Most oceangoing ships run their main propulsion engines on a 

mixture of residual and distillate fuel (heavy fuel oil). Diesel gas turbine propulsion 

engines and auxiliary engines on ocean-going ships often run on cleaner marine gas oil 

(MGO). 
IX-2 MARINE VESSELS 

 C. Propulsion Engines 

Both propulsion and auxiliary marine vessel engines are eligible for Carl Moyer Program 

funding. For the purpose of the Carl Moyer Program, a propulsion engine is defined as 

an engine that powers the vessel through the water or directs the movement of the 

vessel. About two-thirds of harbor craft in California have one propulsion engine, while 

the remaining vessels have two or more engines [ARB, 2003]. Unlike most recreational 

vessel engines, harbor craft engines typically push the vessel through the water rather 

than hydroplaning, endure heavy use, and operate up to 6,000 hours a year. Harbor 

craft propulsion engines are therefore designed for prolonged operation at high loads. 

Ocean-going vessels may be propelled by diesel piston engines, steam turbines, or 

diesel-fueled gas turbines. In addition, diesel piston or turbine engines on oceangoing 

vessels may be used to drive generators to create electric power for propulsion. 

 D. Auxiliary Engines 

Auxiliary engines are used to power on-board equipment such as electrical lights, 

refrigeration units, and radios. For the purposes of the Carl Moyer Program, an 

auxiliary engine is defined as a marine vessel engine that is not the propulsion engine 

whose fuel, cooling, or exhaust systems are an integral part of the vessel or require 

special mounting hardware. All other engines are considered portable and may be 

eligible for funding under the Off-Road Compression Ignition project criteria (See 

Chapter 5). 

About 40 percent of harbor craft in California have auxiliary engines; almost half of 

these vessels are equipped with more than one engine [ARB, 2003]. Harbor craft 

auxiliary engines range from 4 to 400 horsepower, with ferries, tug boats, and 

commercial work boats having the highest horsepower auxiliary engines. 

II. Emissions 

Marine vessels are a significant source of airborne particulate matter (PM) and oxides of 

nitrogen (NOx), particularly at and around the State’s major maritime ports. The Ports 

of Los Angeles and Long Beach are among the busiest in the world, and emissions from 

marine vessels serving the ports impact air quality in surrounding communities and the 

South Coast Air Basin. At the Port of Los Angeles, for example, marine vessels are 

responsible for about two-thirds of port-related NOx emissions and over 80 percent of 

port-related PM emissions -- locomotives, heavy-duty trucks, and cargo-handling 

equipment contribute the bulk of remaining emissions [Port of Los Angeles Air Quality 

Task Force, 2005]. As trade with the Pacific Rim countries continues to grow, marine 

vessel emissions are projected to increase significantly. 

As shown in Table 9-1, emissions from ocean-going ships are far greater than 

emissions from harbor craft. The majority of California’s commercial marine vessel NOx 

and PM emissions (excluding emissions in the outer continental shelf) occur in the 
IX-3 MARINE VESSELS 

South Coast Air Basin. The San Francisco Bay Area, home to the Port of Oakland, is 

responsible for another 20 percent of the State’s total marine vessel emissions. 

Table 9-1 

Marine Vessel Emissions 

(Statewide, Annual Average, tpd) 

Pollutant 

by Vessel Type 2005 2010 2015 2020 

NOx 

 Harbor Craft 24 25 25 25 

 Ocean-going Ships 119 132 156 181 

Total 143 157 181 206 

PM 

 Harbor Craft 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 

 Ocean-going Ships 10.3 11.3 13.0 14.9 

Total 11.6 12.6 14.4 16.2 

ROG 

 Harbor Craft 3 3 3 3 

 Ocean-going Ships 6 7 8 10 

Total 9 10 11 13 

Based on the 2005 ARB Emission Inventory Almanac. Numbers may not total due to rounding. 

PM tends to be a localized pollutant, having the greatest impact in proximity to where it 

is emitted. PM emissions from vessels which spend much of their time further off-shore, 

such as fishing vessels, may therefore have less of a human health impact than 

emissions from vessels which operate closer to shore. At this time, however, PM 

emission standards for marine vessel engines are not differentiated by vessel type 

based upon the potential for human exposure. ARB staff will evaluate whether PM 

emissions from certain vessels should be discounted based on exposure potential in 

future Carl Moyer Program Guideline revisions. 
IX-4 MARINE VESSELS 

Figure 9-1 

California Coastal Water Boundaries 

III. Regulatory Requirements 

Most marine vessels in operation today have uncontrolled engines, since marine vessel 

emission standards have only recently begun being phased-in. Harbor craft began 

being subject to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) emission standards 

beginning in 2004, while new oceangoing vessels have recently become subject to 

federal and international emission standards. 

 A. Harbor Craft Emission Standards

Unlike other Carl Moyer Program categories, marine vessel propulsion and auxiliary 

engine emission standards are based upon cylinder displacement rather than 

horsepower. Basing standards on displacement rather than horsepower is intended to 

help ensure that each engine is not subject to multiple standards, since marine engines 

can be tuned for different power output. 

U.S. EPA harbor craft emission standards, adopted in 1999, apply to new 

diesel-powered engines with a displacement of up to 30 liters per cylinder. The 

standards apply to both propulsion and auxiliary engines and take effect between 2004 

and 2007, depending upon the engine size [Federal Register, 1999]. Table 9-2 

provides more information regarding federal harbor craft engine standards. 
IX-5 MARINE VESSELS 

Table 9-2 

U.S. EPA Marine Propulsion and Auxiliary 

Engine Emission Standards 

(g/kW-hr)* 

Displacement 

(liter/cyl) 

Starting 

Date 

NOx+THC** PM 

D < 0.9 2005 7.5 0.40 

0.9 < D < 1.2 2004 7.2 0.30 

1.2 < D < 2.5 2004 7.2 0.20 

2.5 < D < 5.0 2007 7.2 0.20 

5 < D < 15 2007 5.8 0.20 

15 < D < 20 

(P < 3300 kW) 

2007 7.8 0.27 

15 < D < 20 

(P > 3300 kW) 

2007 8.7 0.50 

20 < D < 25 2007 9.8 0.50 

25 < D < 30 2007 11.0 0.50 

* grams per kilowatt-hour. 

** NOx plus total hydrocarbon emissions. 

In May 2004, U.S. EPA issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, signaling 

its intent to pursue more stringent standards for new and existing harbor craft engines 

[U.S. EPA, 2004]. The standards are likely to be modeled after 2007 diesel off-road and 

2010 heavy-duty diesel on-road engine standards, and be based on the application of 

catalytic after-treatment technology. The new standards could be phased in as early as 

2011 and require a 90 percent reduction from previous limits. 

ARB staff is also developing a rule that may require the Best Available Control 

Technology (BACT), such as after-treatment devices or accelerated turnover, to reduce 

emissions from existing harbor craft fleets. The rule is scheduled to be considered for 

adoption by the Board in mid- to late-2006. If the rule is adopted, ARB shall publish an 

advisory describing how the rule impacts Carl Moyer Program funding eligibility. 

 B. Oceangoing Vessel Emission Standards 

International oceangoing vessels fall under the regulatory jurisdiction of the International 

Maritime Organization (IMO). In 1997, the IMO established NOx emission standards for 

diesel-powered propulsion and auxiliary engines over 130 kW (174 hp) on new 

ocean-going ships. The IMO standards have been ratified by the requisite number of 

nations and became enforceable in May 2004. Engine manufacturers have generally 

produced IMO-compliant engines since January 1, 2001, however, since the standards 

were retroactive to that date upon ratification. 
IX-6 MARINE VESSELS 

Table 9-3 

International Maritime Organization NOx Emission Standards 

Engine Speed (rpm) NOx (g/kW-hr) NOx (g/bhr-hr) 

n < 130 17.0 12.7 

130 < n < 2000 45n(-0.2) (convert from g/kW-hr)

n > 2000 9.8 7.3 

n = IMO rated engine speed (crankshaft revolutions per minute). 

U.S. EPA also adopted NOx emission standards for new oceangoing vessel engines in 

2003 [U.S. EPA, 2003]. The federal standards are virtually equivalent to the IMO 

standards but apply only to vessels flagged or registered in the United States beginning 

in 2004. U.S. EPA has also committed to adopt more stringent standards for 

oceangoing vessel engines by April 2007. The IMO and U.S. EPA standards do not 

include PM or reactive organic gas (ROG) emission limits, leaving marine vessels 

largely unregulated for these pollutants. 

An ARB rule requiring oceangoing vessel auxiliary engines run on MGO or marine 

diesel oil (MDO) while at dock or in California Coastal Waters is also under 

development. Use of MGO or MDO in place of dirtier heavy fuel oil can achieve up to 

80 percent emission reductions from oceangoing vessel auxiliary engines. The draft 

rule is scheduled to be considered by the Board in December 2005 and could require 

implementation beginning in mid-2006. 

Finally, ARB staff is developing a rule to require ships that visit California frequently to 

implement emission reduction strategies. The rule will be considered for adoption by 

the Board sometime in 2006. ARB will publish an advisory once these rules are 

adopted describing how each rule impacts Carl Moyer Program funding eligibility. 

 C. Voluntary Emission Standards—The Blue Sky Series Program 

In order to provide engine manufacturers with an incentive to produce engines that are 

cleaner than those required by regulations, the federal government developed the 

Blue Sky Series Program. U.S. EPA’s voluntary Blue Sky Series Program permits 

manufacturers to certify their engines to more stringent emission standards than 

required. New marine vessel purchase projects must meet the federal Blue Sky 

Standards to qualify for Carl Moyer Program funding. To date, no marine vessel 

propulsion engines have been certified to meet the Blue Sky standards, and no marine 

vessel new purchase projects have been funded through the Carl Moyer Program. 
IX-7 MARINE VESSELS 

Table 9-4 

“Blue Sky Series” Voluntary Emission Standards 

(g/kW-hr) 

Cylinder Displacement (D, dm3

) NOx+THC PM 

Power ≥ 37 kW & D < 0.9 4.0 0.24 

0.9 < D < 1.2 4.0 0.18 

1.2 < D < 2.5 4.0 0.12 

2.5 < D < 5.0 5.0 0.12 

5.0 < D <15 5.0 0.16 

15 < D < 20 & Power < 3300 kW 5.2 0.30 

15 < D < 20 & Power < 3300 kW 5.9 0.30 

20 < D < 25 5.9 0.30 

25 < D < 30 6.6 0.30 

IV. Potential Projects 

The vast majority of Carl Moyer Program marine vessel projects thus far involve harbor 

craft, rather than oceangoing vessels. Harbor craft projects have been more common 

due to several factors – their emissions tend to occur solely within California Coastal 

Waters, vessel activity is more predictable, and engine replacement is extremely 

cost-effective. 

Marine vessel projects that could potentially qualify for incentive funding under the 

Carl Moyer Program include the purchase of a new reduced emission marine vessel, a 

marine vessel repower, or a marine vessel retrofit. Shore power projects to reduce 

marine vessel auxiliary engine emissions may also be eligible for Carl Moyer Program 

funding and are discussed in Chapter 12. Projects to replace gasoline-fueled engines 

with diesel engines are not eligible for funding. 

 A. New Purchase 

New marine vessels with propulsion engines certified to U.S. EPA’s Blue Sky Series 

emission limits are eligible for Carl Moyer Program funding. While no marine vessel 

propulsion engines currently meet the Blue Sky Standards, engines meeting certification 

emission limits may become commercially available as engine technologies continue to 

advance. 

 B. Repower 

To date, most Carl Moyer Program marine vessel projects have involved replacing or 

“repowering” an old harbor craft engine with a newer, cleaner engine. Most of these 

projects have involved replacing an older mechanical engine with a newer electronically 

controlled engine. For all Carl Moyer Program engine repowers, the replacement 

engine certified emission rate must provide at least a 15 percent NOx reduction relative 

to the baseline engine. If the replacement engine is significantly modified or 
IX-8 MARINE VESSELS 

re-configured in any way during the project life, emissions testing must be conducted to 

determine its new emission rates. 

Engine repowers for marine vessels equipped with a wet exhaust system are eligible for 

Carl Moyer Program funding. Since a wet exhaust system reduces air emissions from 

both the baseline and the newer, cleaner engine, repower projects on marine vessels 

with these systems may result in slightly fewer emission reductions compared to 

repowers of vessels with dry exhaust. An analysis of emissions data from California 

harbor craft indicates wet exhaust systems reduce PM and NOx emissions from 

propulsion and auxiliary engines by 1 to 19 percent. In order to ensure emission 

reductions projects on vessels with wet exhaust systems are not overstated, a 

conservative 20 percent NOx and PM emission reduction factor must be applied to both 

the baseline and reduced emission engine (See marine vessel Example Calculation 3 in 

Appendix D for more information). The Carl Moyer Program does not provide funding to 

repair or replace any component of the wet exhaust system itself. 

 C. Retrofits 

Potential marine vessel retrofit projects involve the addition of an ARB-verified diesel 

particulate filter, diesel oxidation catalyst, or selective catalytic reduction technology. A 

retrofit device must typically be verified by ARB in order to be considered for funding. 

To date, however, very few retrofit technologies have been verified to reduce emissions 

from marine vessels. Retrofit technologies generally develop first for on-road sources, 

and are refined for use on off-road engines. Because of the lack of retrofit devices 

verified for use on a marine vessel engine, a marine vessel retrofit device which is not 

yet verified may be considered for funding on a case-by-case basis. Applicants for 

funding on a case-by-case basis must meet the applicable project criteria described in 

Section V of this chapter. 

In recent years, engine manufacturers have also developed engine remanufacture 

retrofit kits certified by the IMO to meet IMO NOx emission standards. To be eligible for 

Carl Moyer Program funding, a remanufacture retrofit kit must be certified by the ARB, 

U.S. EPA, or the IMO to reduce emissions from the project vessel engine. NOx 

emissions must be reduced by at least 15 percent to take credit for NOx emission 

reductions. Remanufacture kits which employ fuel injection timing retard are only 

eligible for funding if it is demonstrated that PM emissions from the project vessel shall 

not increase. If the retrofit kit certification does not specify a specific percent reduction 

or emission rate for NOx, PM, or ROG, emissions testing must be conducted annually 

for the life of the project to ensure the retrofit does not increase emissions of these 

individual pollutants. Individual engine parts or other vessel components are not eligible 

for funding unless as part of a complete certified engine remanufacture kit. 

 D. On-Board Testing 

Because of the high variability in marine engine emission rates, districts may utilize 

on-board testing to determine baseline marine vessel emission rates for the purposes of 
IX-9 MARINE VESSELS 

Carl Moyer Program cost-effectiveness calculations, if testing follows approved test 

procedures. Constant speed propulsion engines should be tested on the International 

Organization for Standardization’s (ISO) 8178- E2 test cycle and constant speed 

auxiliary engines on the ISO 8178-D2 test cycle. Variable speed auxiliary engines and 

variable speed propulsion engines used with variable-pitch propellers (or electrically 

coupled propellers) should be tested on the ISO 8178-C1 duty cycle. All other engines, 

including those used with fixed-pitch propellers, should be tested on the ISO 8178-E3 

Marine Propeller Law Heavy Duty operating cycle. When on-board testing is conducted 

in accordance with approved procedures, these results must be used when calculating 

emission reductions. The maximum acceptable values of baseline NOx, ROG, and PM 

emission factors derived from in-situ source testing are 20 g/bhp-hr, 2.0 g/bhp-hr, and 

1.0 g/bhp-hr, respectively. If emission testing is not feasible, the applicant can use the 

default baseline emission factors presented in Appendix B. 

V. Project Criteria 

These criteria provide the minimum requirements for all Carl Moyer Program marine 

vessel projects. Participating districts retain the authority to impose additional 

requirements in order to address local concerns. 

 A. General 

• Emission reductions obtained through Carl Moyer Program projects must not be 

required by any federal, state or local regulation, memorandum of 

agreement/understanding with air quality regulators, settlement agreement, 

mitigation requirement, or other legal mandate. Inclusion in a port emission 

reduction plan, lease agreement, or other voluntarily adopted strategy does not 

exclude a marine vessel project from Carl Moyer Program funding eligibility, if such 

project is not otherwise required. 

• No emission reductions generated by the Carl Moyer Program shall be used as 

marketable emission reduction credits, or to offset any emission reduction obligation 

of any person or entity. 

• No project funded by the Carl Moyer Program shall be used for credit under any 

federal or state emission averaging banking and trading program. 

• Marine vessels and engines utilizing an alternative compliance plan to comply with a 

rule, requirement, or other mandate shall not be eligible for Carl Moyer Program 

funds. 

• A marine vessel engine receiving any type of emission reduction credit or offset is 

ineligible for Carl Moyer Program funding. 

• Beginning January 1, 2007, all harbor craft with diesel engines must use ARB 

low-sulfur diesel fuel to be eligible for Carl Moyer Program funding. Emission 
IX-10 MARINE VESSELS 

reductions and costs associated with use of ARB diesel shall not be included in 

project cost-effectiveness calculations. 

• Only marine vessel engines with a United States Coast Guard Documentation 

Number or IMO/Lloyd’s Number are eligible for Carl Moyer Program funding. This 

information must be included in the project application. 

• Projects must meet a cost-effectiveness of $14,300 per weighed ton of NOx + ROG 

+ combustion PM10 reduced calculated in accordance with the cost-effectiveness 

methodology discussed in this chapter. 

• Carl Moyer Program grants can be no greater than a project’s incremental cost. The 

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

cost shall be reduced by the value of any current financial incentive that reduces the 

project price, including tax credits or deductions, grants, or other public financial 

assistance. 

• The contract term for all marine vessel projects must be equivalent to the project life. 

The project life is defined as the number of years used to evaluate project 

cost-effectiveness. 

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

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

additional funding restrictions, such as a lower cost-effectiveness limit or a project 

cost cap. 

• The maximum project life for marine vessel projects (equivalent to the average 

engine life reported by U.S. EPA) is as follows: 

Maximum 

Project Life

Engine displacement <5.0 liter/cyl. 16 years 

Engine displacement >5.0 liter/cyl. 23 years 

Auxiliary engines 17 years 

• Only marine vessel activity in California waters may be used to determine project 

emission reductions. For the purposes of the Carl Moyer Program, California water 

boundaries are based upon each air districts' emission inventory boundary. If a local 

district has not established an emission inventory boundary, the ARB and district 

staff will determine an appropriate boundary for use in project evaluation. 

• Non-captive California fleets and vessels may be considered for funding on 

case-by-case basis if their operation in California coastal waters can be properly 

documented. 
IX-11 MARINE VESSELS 

• Marine vessels which are not self-propelled (e.g. barges) are not eligible for 

Carl Moyer Program funding. 

• Project marine vessels must be equipped with a functioning tamper proof electronic 

monitoring unit (EMU) to track activity and geographic location. The EMU must be 

turned on and functional when the project engine is running to record all vessel trips 

and activity. If the EMU is battery powered, the battery life must be long enough to 

ensure the EMU is charged and functional each time the project vessel is operated. 

Electronic information from the EMU regarding total and percent of activity (fuel use 

or hours of operation) within the air district coastal boundary and California Coastal 

Waters must be reported to air district annually. The cost of a new unit, as well as 

installation and data summarization and transmittal costs, may be included in the 

Carl Moyer Program grant and in the project cost-effectiveness calculations if not 

required by any rule, statute, MOU, or other mandate. 

• Carl Moyer Program funds cannot be expended on costs for labor or parts used 

during routine maintenance. 

• Funding is not available for projects where spark-ignition engines (i.e. natural gas or 

gasoline, etc.) are replaced with diesel engines. 

• Engines on marine vessels with wet exhaust systems are eligible for 

Carl Moyer Program funding if the project vessel meets all other applicable program 

requirements. The wet exhaust systems themselves are not eligible for 

Carl Moyer Program funding. A wet exhaust factor of 0.80 must be applied to the 

baseline and reduced emission propulsion and auxiliary engine emission 

calculations for all projects on vessels with wet exhaust systems. 

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

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

real, quantifiable, and enforceable emission reduction benefits. 

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

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

on a case-by-case basis must receive ARB approval prior to receiving program 

funding. 

 B. New Purchase 

• A new marine vessel must meet the U.S. EPA Blue Sky Series Standards identified 

in Table 9-4 to be eligible for funding. All propulsion and auxiliary engines on new 

marine vessel purchase projects must also achieve at least a 30 percent NOx 

emission reduction from baseline levels. 
IX-12 MARINE VESSELS 

 C. Repower 

• A replacement engine or retrofit must provide a 15 percent minimum NOx emission 

reduction relative to the baseline engine. 

 D. Retrofit 

• A retrofit device must be ARB-verified to reduce emissions from the project engine in 

order to be eligible for funding. Non-verified technologies may be considered on a 

case by case basis if: 1) an application for verification of the retrofit or add-on 

equipment on the proposed engine category is pending, 2) the retrofit or add-on 

equipment has been verified or certified by ARB for use on a similar engine 

category, or 3) project emission benefit, durability, and applicability have been or 

shall be demonstrated through in-situ testing. 

• Retrofits considered for funding on a case-by-case basis must be clearly 

demonstrated to achieve the expected emission reductions for the full project life, to 

function properly under the project vessel engine duty cycle, and to not harm the 

vessel engine. 

• To be eligible for Carl Moyer Program funding, an engine remanufacture retrofit kit 

must be certified by the ARB, U.S. EPA, or the IMO to reduce emissions from the 

project vessel engine. NOx emissions must be reduced by at least 15 percent to 

take credit for NOx emission reductions. Engine remanufacture kits must also not 

increase NOx, PM, or ROG emissions from the project vessel. If the engine 

certification does not specify a specific percent reduction or emission rate for NOx, 

PM, or ROG, emissions testing must be conducted annually for the life of the project 

to ensure the retrofit does not increase emissions from these individual pollutants. 

Individual engine parts or other vessel components are not eligible for funding 

unless as part of a complete certified engine remanufacture kit. 

E. Scrap 

• Scrap requirements are described in the 2005 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, 

Part I, Chapter 2: Administration of the Carl Moyer Program. 

VI Cost-Effectiveness Calculations 

To receive Carl Moyer Program funding, each project must meet the maximum 

cost-effective threshold of $14,300 per weighted ton of covered pollutants reduced. 

Only funds provided by the Carl Moyer Program and local district matching funds are to 

be used in determining cost-effectiveness. Emission reduction benefits represent the 

difference in the emission levels of the existing baseline technology relative to the 

newer, reduced-emission technology. Baseline and reduced engine emission factors 

are listed in Table B-18 in Appendix B. Harbor craft emission factors represent off-road 
IX-13 MARINE VESSELS 

engine emission factors for uncontrolled engines, and harbor craft emission standards 

for controlled engines. Fuel correction factors have been applied to all emission factors. 

A detailed description of how to calculate cost-effectiveness can be found in 

Appendix C. Marine vessel emission reduction calculations will use either the fuel- or 

hour-based formula as discussed in Appendix C. Examples of cost-effectiveness 

calculations can also be found in Appendix D. 

VII. Minimum Project Application Requirements 

These are minimum project application requirements. Air districts have full authority to 

require additional application, reporting, and monitoring requirements. 

 A. Application 

Districts solicit bids for reduced-emission projects for marine vessels. The applicant 

must provide the minimum information illustrated in Table 9-5. 

A disclosure must also be included stating that the proposed project has not been 

funded and is not being considered for funding by another air district, ARB, or any other 

public agency. Any applicant who is found to have submitted multiple applications for 

the same project may be banned from submitting future applications to any and all 

Carl Moyer Program solicitations and may be subject to criminal sanctions. A project 

funded cooperatively by multiple air districts is eligible for funding if the project 

parameters are coordinated amongst the participating districts and the project meets all 

applicable Carl Moyer Program criteria. Applicants are allowed to re-apply for project 

funding if a previous application has been rejected and is no longer being considered for 

funding. 

Third party applications are not allowed. The owner of the engine must sign and agree 

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

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

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

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

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

used to pay them. To make the Carl Moyer Program accessible to all potential 

applicants, including applicants that cannot afford to hire third party assistance, districts 

are encouraged to provide technical assistance to applicants in completing the 

application. 
IX-14 MARINE VESSELS 

Table 9-5 

Minimum Application Requirements for Marine Vessel Projects 

Applicant Information

Organization, Company or Individual Name 

Street Address 

City, County, State, Zip Code 

Primary Contact Name 

Primary Contact Phone Number 

Person with Contract Signing Authority 

Person who Filled Out Funding Application 

Project Address (if different from above) 

MARINE VESSEL REPOWER 

Equipment Type (Commercial Fishing, Charter 

Fishing, Crew and Supply, Ferry Excursion, Pilot, 

Tow, Tug, Work, or Other) 

Number of Propulsion Engines to be Repowered 

Number of Auxiliary Engines to be Repowered 

Vessel Name 

Vessel Make 

Vessel Model 

Vessel Year 

U.S. Coast Guard Documentation Number 

 (IMO/Lloyd's Number if oceangoing vessel) 

Does the project vessel utilize a wet exhaust 

system? (yes/no) 

Engine Information – Needed for Each 

Project Engine (Propulsion and/or Auxiliary)

Baseline Engine Make 

Baseline Engine Model 

Baseline Engine Year 

Baseline Engine Serial Number 

Baseline Engine Horsepower 

Baseline Engine Displacement (ltr/cyl) 

Baseline Engine Fuel 

Will the vessel engine have a functioning hour 

meter for the full project life? (yes/no) 

Engine Annual Hours of Operation or Gallons 

Fuel Consumption 

Newer Engine Make 

Newer Engine Model 

Newer Engine Year 

Newer Engine Serial Number (if available) 

Newer Engine Horsepower 

Newer Engine Displacement (ltr/cyl) 

Activity Information

Vessel Berthing Location (if any) 

Percent Operation in California Waters 

Percent Operation in District Waters 

Vessel Annual Hours of Operation or Gallons Fuel 

Consumption 

Does Vessel Remain in Port Only? (yes, no) 

Project Life 

Electronic Monitoring Unit (EMU) 

Will a new eligible EMU be installed as part 

 of this project? (yes/no) 

EMU Make 

EMU Model 

EMU Model Year 

EMU ID Number 

EMU Cost (optional) 

Cost Information– Needed for Each 

Project Engine (Propulsion and/or Auxiliary)

Cost to Rebuild Existing Engine 

New Engine Purchase Price 

New Engine Installation Cost 

New Engine Vendor (optional) 

New Engine Installer (optional) 

 B. Reporting and Monitoring 

Air districts must abide by all reporting and monitoring requirements described in 

Chapter 1 – Program Administration. Monitoring of project progress ensures that the 

vessel or engine is operated as stated in the program application. Records must be 
IX-15 MARINE VESSELS 

retained and updated for the duration of the project life and made available at the 

request of the air district or ARB. 

VIII. References 

ARB, 2003. California Air Resources Board 2003 Harbor Craft Survey. 

Federal Register, 1999. Federal Register - Environmental Protection Agency, Control of 

Emissions of Air Pollution From New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 

37 kW, December 29, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 249). 

Port of Los Angeles Air Quality Task Force, 2005. Port of Los Angeles Air Quality Task 

Force, Port of Los Angeles No Net Increase in Air Emissions Final Report, June 24, 

2005. 

U.S. EPA, 2003. U.S. EPA, Control of Emissions From New Marine CompressionIgnition Engines at or Above 30 Liters Per Cylinder, Federal Register 9745-9789, 28 

Feb 2003. 

U.S. EPA, 2004. United States Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. EPA Advanced 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from New 

Locomotive Engines and New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines Less Than 30 

Liters Per Cylinder (Docket OAR-2003-0190). 
X-1 AGRICULTURAL SOURCES 

Chapter Ten 

AGRICULTURAL SOURCES 

This chapter presents the project criteria under the Carl Moyer Program for stationary 

and portable agricultural engines and for non-engine agricultural projects (e.g. dairies). 

Previous versions of the Carl Moyer Program Guidelines only allowed funding for 

stationary agricultural irrigation pump engines; eligible projects now include other 

non-mobile agricultural engines and non-engine sources. Information about mobile 

agricultural use equipment (e.g. tractors) can be found in Chapter 5: Compression 

Ignition Off-Road Equipment. This chapter also contains an overview of agricultural 

sources of air pollution, current regulations, potential project types, and application 

requirements. For information about electric-powered agricultural equipment, please 

consult Chapter 12: Zero-Emission Technologies. 

I. Introduction 

The agricultural industry contributes greatly to the economy and identity of California. 

Approximately 78,500 farming operations within California produce 13 percent of the 

nation's gross farming receipts, while representing only 4 percent of the total farms in 

the nation. Agricultural marketings from California's farmers and ranchers reached 

$27.8 billion in 2003 [CASS, 2003]. 

Until the enactment of Senate Bill 700 (SB 700, Florez) in 2003, the agricultural industry 

in California was largely exempt from air pollution regulations. Local air districts are 

currently adopting regulations to reduce air pollution from agricultural engines as well as 

other agricultural sources. 

Since 1998, the Carl Moyer Program has provided significant funding for repowers or 

retrofits of internal combustion engines powering irrigation pumps, and for engine 

replacement of self-propelled farm equipment. Recent legislative changes extended the 

Carl Moyer Program to additional agricultural sources of air pollution. 

II. Emissions 

Emissions attributed to agricultural use of off-road vehicles are included in the 

emissions estimates found in the Chapter 5: Compression Ignition Off-Road 

Equipment. Currently available estimates for other agricultural sources are discussed 

below. 

As part of the airborne toxic control measure (ATCM) for stationary diesel engines, ARB 

staff worked with the local districts and the agricultural community to create an estimate 

of emissions from stationary diesel-fueled engines used in agricultural operations [ARB, 

2003]. ARB staff was unable to project the emissions for future years with any degree 
X-2 AGRICULTURAL SOURCES 

of certainty because of the limited data available. The emissions estimates for 

stationary agricultural use of diesel engines are shown in Table 10-1. 

Table 10-1 

Statewide Emissions from Agricultural Use of Stationary Diesel Engines for 2001 

(prime engines, tons per day) 

Population NOx ROG PM10 

5,338 21.1 4.3 1.5 

No emissions estimates for stationary spark-ignited (SI) agricultural use engines are 

available because the population of stationary SI engines in agricultural operations is 

not known. 

Emission estimates for livestock operations were developed for the recent regulatory 

process for creating a definition for large confined animal facility (CAF) [ARB, 2005b]. 

The emission estimates (found in Table 10-2) are based on current best available data 

as of March 2005. The emission factors used to develop livestock emission estimates 

will be refined as additional research studies are completed. 

Table 10-2 

Statewide ROG and PM10 Emissions from Livestock for 2004 

(tons per day) 

 ROG PM10 

Dairies 35.7 8.3 

Other livestock 10.1 11 

III. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements 

A. SB 700 

In 2003, SB 700 amended and added air pollution control requirements in the California 

Health and Safety Code (sections 39011.5, 39023.3, 40724, 40724.5, 40724.6, 

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

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

this legislation are listed below: 

• The legislation defined “agricultural source of air pollution” as a source or group of 

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

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

emission sources are identified as part of this definition: 

− Large CAFs. 

− Internal combustion engines, including portable and off-road engines, unless 

used to propel instruments of husbandry. 
X-3 AGRICULTURAL SOURCES 

− Sources subject to requirements of Title V, the federal operating permitting 

program for major stationary sources. 

− Sources of emissions otherwise subject to district regulation. 

• The legislation removed language exempting agricultural sources from air quality 

permits in the Health and Safety Code in its entirety. As a result, agricultural 

operations may be required to obtain air permits from local districts. 

• The legislation established specific agricultural source permitting and exemption 

requirements for local districts. 

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

reduce emissions from agricultural sources in federal particulate matter 

non-attainment areas. 

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

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

implement emission mitigation measures. 

B. Stationary Diesel Engines ATCM 

In February 2004, the Board adopted an ATCM for stationary compression ignition (CI) 

engines greater than 50 horsepower [ARB, 2003]. The Board amended the ATCM in 

May 2005 [ARB, 2005a]. The control measure requires new CI engines for agricultural 

operations, including those used to repower agricultural equipment, to meet ARB and 

federal new off-road engine PM certification standards for engines of the same 

horsepower and model year. The only exception to this requirement is for the 

installation of Tier 2 engines through January 1, 2008, purchased with 

Carl Moyer Program funds. 

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

engine requirements to be considered by the Board in 2006. 

C. Portable Diesel Engine ATCM 

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

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

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

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

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

stringent in 2013, 2017, and 2020. 

D. Large Confined Animal Facility Definition 

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

CAF on June 23, 2005 [ARB, 2005b]. The definition (shown in Table 10-3) is based on 
X-4 AGRICULTURAL SOURCES 

headcount of livestock categories and takes into consideration the federal ozone 

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

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

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

district consistent with applicable local rules. 

Table 10-3 

Large Confined Animal Facility Definition by Livestock Category 

(facilities at or exceeding threshold are considered large) 

Livestock Category Non-Attainment Areas* Attainment Areas* 

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

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

Other Cattle 

Operations 

7,500 calves, heifers, or 

other cattle 

15,000 calves, heifers, or 

other cattle 

Chickens – Broilers 650,000 1,300,000 

Chickens – Egg 

Layers 650,000 1,300,000 

Turkeys 100,000 200,000 

Swine 3,000 6,000 

Sheep and Goats 15,000 30,000 

Horses 2,500 5,000 

Ducks 650,000 1,300,000 

Rabbits, Pheasants, 

Llamas, Others 30,000 60,000 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

requirements of their mitigation plans. 

E. Local Air District Rules 

Because most Carl Moyer Program projects affect mobile sources that are subject to 

statewide regulation, few district rules affect Carl Moyer Program funding. However, 

future district rules impacting agricultural sources must be considered when determining 

whether projects provide reductions surplus to regulatory requirements. 

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

specifically exempted agricultural engines from prohibitory rules for stationary internal 
X-5 AGRICULTURAL SOURCES 

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

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

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

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

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

permitting conditions, and compliance requirements of the local district. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

to adopt regulations to meet these requirements. 

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

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

control generally require agricultural operations to implement a variety of 

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

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

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

reduction of agricultural chemical applications. 

IV. Potential Projects 

Potential Carl Moyer Program projects for agricultural sources fall into three broad 

categories: 

• Mobile source projects. Criteria for the projects may be found in 

Chapter 5: Compression Ignition Off-Road Equipment. 

• Stationary and portable agricultural engines. 

• Non-engine agricultural sources. 

The Carl Moyer Program seeks cost-effective emission reductions from stationary and 

portable agricultural engines operating in California. Criteria are designed to ensure 

that the emission reductions expected through the deployment of electric motors, 

reduced-emission engines, or retrofit technologies under this program are real, surplus, 

enforceable, and quantifiable. In addition, at each district’s discretion, eligible projects 

may be subject to funding or cost-effectiveness caps. 

Portable diesel engine repower projects must begin by January 1, 2007, to meet the 

three year project life requirement due to the requirement of the diesel-fueled portable 

engines ATCM that all diesel-fueled portable engines be certified engines by 

January 1, 2010 [ARB, 2004]. 
X-6 AGRICULTURAL SOURCES 

A. New Purchase 

The only Carl Moyer Program eligible project for a new agricultural stationary or 

portable equipment purchase is a new electric motor. For the purposes of determining 

emission reductions, the new electric motor will be compared to an off-road diesel 

engine certified to the current off-road emission standards. 

B. Repower 

 1. Repower with Electric Motors 

Replacement of uncontrolled or older engines in agricultural operations with electric 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

receive funds through the Carl Moyer Program for an electric motor replacing an internal 

combustion engine, regardless of whether they are currently under Carl Moyer Program 

contract. Because of the limited enrollment timeframe, ARB will allow grantees 

currently under contract to negotiate new contracts if they choose to participate in the 

utilities’ incentive programs. Please refer to Chapter 12: Zero-Emission Technologies 

for specific information on these projects. 

 2. Repower with Emission-Certified Engines 

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

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

applies to repowers with diesel and SI engines. Diesel engines may be replaced with 

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

projects replacing SI engines with diesel engines are not eligible for 

Carl Moyer Program funding. Emission reductions must be surplus to state or district 

rules and any permit conditions. Cost-effectiveness calculations are based on the 

rebuild cost of the engine being replaced. 

 3. Repower with SI Engines Exceeding Local District 

Requirements 

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

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

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

are used in stationary applications. Because under certain conditions SI engines can 
X-7 AGRICULTURAL SOURCES 

be significantly cleaner than diesel engines, Carl Moyer Program funds may be used to 

fund purchases of non-certified SI engines in some cases. This provision is available 

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

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

emission reductions provided by a non-certified SI engine must be surplus to any local 

district rules. Emission reduction calculations will be based on the rebuild cost of the 

engine being replaced. 

Non-certified SI engines purchased through the Carl Moyer Program will be required to 

have best available emission control components, and will be subject to source testing 

and monitoring requirements as described in the Project Criteria or local district 

requirements, whichever is more stringent. The costs associated for testing and 

monitoring may not be included in the grant award. 

C. Retrofit 

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

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

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

control technologies that have been verified for use to reduce NOx and PM10 emissions 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.0 g/bhp-hr. The emission reductions provided by a retrofit kit must be surplus to the 

local district rule. Emission reduction calculations will be based on the emission rates of 

the existing engine being retrofitted. 

Additional information on retrofit emission control strategies is provided in Appendix F. 

D. Non-Engine Projects 

Recent legislative changes have extended the Carl Moyer Program to non-engine 

agricultural sources of air pollution. The Board has directed the Executive Officer to 

develop and approve project criteria for non-engine agricultural sources where 

technology is available to ensure the emission reductions are real, surplus, quantifiable, 

and enforceable. No specific project criteria are included at this time due to the limited 

data available on specific control technologies. ARB staff will continue to work closely 

with the districts and interested stakeholders to monitor technological developments to 

determine when and if it is it appropriate to develop project criteria for non-engine 

sources. 
X-8 AGRICULTURAL SOURCES 

Potential control technologies and regulatory options will be evaluated for suitability 

under Carl Moyer Program requirements. During these evaluations, ARB staff will 

consider: 

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

reductions. 

• The availability of standardized testing procedures that will quantify emission 

reductions from these technologies. 

• Availability of baseline emission factors. 

• Potential multi-media issues. 

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

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

stationary and area-wide sources. In developing statewide project criteria for 

non-engine technology, ARB staff will need to consider how to ensure that emission 

reductions are achieved. 

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

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

formula. 

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

projects. 

 1. Livestock Operations 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

spreading as fertilizer.

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

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

reviewed important classes of VOC constituents and key dairy processes individually 
X-9 AGRICULTURAL SOURCES 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Panel evaluated technologies for their potential to reduce environmental impacts 

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

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

contaminants and is considering their efficacy in reducing environmental impacts, 

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

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

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

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

• Thermal conversion (including combustion and gasification). 

• Solid-liquid separation (including dehydration). 

• Composting. 

• Anaerobic digestion. 

• Aerators/mixers. 

• Nitrification/denitrification. 

• Covers. 

• Microbials, enzymes, and other additives. 

• Feed management. 

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

algae, fish). 

• Combination systems (such as wastewater treatment plants). 

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

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

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

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

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

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

emissions, reduce ozone formation, and improve air quality. 

 2. Other Projects 

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

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

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

impacts must also be considered. 
X-10 AGRICULTURAL SOURCES 

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

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

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

output. 

V. Project Criteria 

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

applicants with a list of minimum eligibility requirements for Carl Moyer Program 

funding. Criteria focus on emission reductions, cost-effectiveness, and the ability for a 

project to be completed within the timeframe of the program. Additional information 

about funding electric motors for irrigation pumps is available in 

Chapter 12: Zero-Emission Technologies. 

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

address local concerns. 

A. General 

• Projects that replace non-mobile agricultural engines with electric motors should be 

encouraged. After electric motors, priority should be given to engine repowers with 

certified engines, and then to engine retrofits and non-certified engines, if applicable. 

• Emission reductions obtained through Carl Moyer Program projects must not be 

required by any federal, state or local regulation, memorandum of 

agreement/understanding with a regulatory agency, settlement agreement, 

mitigation requirement, or other legal mandate. 

• Projects must meet a cost-effectiveness of $14,300 per weighed ton of NOx + ROG 

+ combustion PM10 reduced calculated in accordance with the cost-effectiveness 

methodology discussed in this chapter. 

• No emission reductions generated by the Carl Moyer Program shall be used as 

marketable emission reduction credits, or to offset any emission reduction obligation 

of any person or entity. 

• No project funded by the Carl Moyer Program shall be used for credit under any 

federal or state emission averaging banking and trading program. 

• Carl Moyer Program grants can be no greater than a project’s incremental cost. The 

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

cost shall be reduced by the value of any current financial incentive that reduces the 

project price, including tax credits or deductions, grants, or other public financial 

assistance. 
X-11 AGRICULTURAL SOURCES 

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

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

additional funding restrictions, such as a lower cost-effectiveness limit or a project 

cost cap. 

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

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

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

real, quantifiable, and enforceable emission reduction benefits. 

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

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

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

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

motor greater than 19 kW. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

default project life does not consider upcoming regulatory requirements. Project life 

may be shorter due to regulatory requirements. 

B. New Purchase 

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

portable equipment can only be electric motors.

C. Repower 

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

must be with one of the following: 

− A new electric motor. 

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

standards. 

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

emission standards. 

− A new SI engine that exceeds local district emission requirements and is subject 

to and complies with local district permitting, monitoring, record keeping and 

reporting requirements. This criterion will sunset on January 1, 2008. 
X-12 AGRICULTURAL SOURCES 

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

− A new electric motor. 

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

− A new SI engine that exceeds local district emission requirements and is subject 

to and complies with local district permitting, monitoring, record keeping and 

reporting requirements. This criterion will sunset on January 1, 2008. 

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

− A new electric motor. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

requirement of documentation also applies to new installations. 

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

durability and warranty requirements. 

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

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

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

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

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

catalysts. 

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

testing procedure following local district requirements. 

• Non-certified SI engines must be emission tested using a portable analyzer every 

1,000 hours of operation and at least annually, or following local district monitoring 

requirements, whichever is most stringent. The emission tests shall measure NOx 

and hydrocarbon emissions. An alternative monitoring schedule may be used upon 

approval by ARB staff. 

• The costs associated with source testing and monitoring requirements for 

non-certified SI engines are not eligible for funding. 
X-13 AGRICULTURAL SOURCES 

D. Retrofit 

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

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

engine Tier standard or less for a given engine size. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

standard. 

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

and must comply with durability and warranty requirements. 

E. Scrap 

• Scrap requirements are described in the 2005 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, 

Part I, Chapter 2: Administration of the Carl Moyer Program. 

VI. Cost-Effectiveness 

To receive Carl Moyer Program funding, each project must meet the maximum 

cost-effective threshold of $14,300 per weighted ton of covered pollutants reduced. 

Only funds provided by the Carl Moyer Program and local district matching funds are to 

be used in determining cost-effectiveness. 

Cost-effectiveness methodology and sample project calculations are provided in 

Appendices C and D. Emission reduction benefits are calculated by comparing the 

emission levels and operating parameters of the baseline engine and the replacement, 

reduced emission engine or motor. The emission reductions and cost-effectiveness of 

an agricultural engine project may be calculated based on annual hours of operation or 

annual fuel consumption. 

VII. Minimum Project Requirements 

A. Application 

The minimum application information for stationary and portable agricultural engine 

projects is in Table 10-4. Districts may request additional information from the 

applicant. 
X-14 AGRICULTURAL SOURCES 

Table 10-4 

Minimum Application Information for Stationary and Portable 

Agricultural Engine Projects 

Applicant Information

Organization, Company or Individual Name 

Street Address 

City, County, State, Zip Code 

Primary Contact Name 

Primary Contact Phone Number 

Person with Contract Signing Authority 

Person who Filled Out Funding Application 

Project Address (if different from above) 

Equipment Information

Equipment Type (portable, stationary, 

 other) 

Equipment Make 

Equipment Model 

Equipment Year 

Equipment Serial Number 

Baseline Equipment Fuel 

New Equipment Vendor (optional) 

Activity Information

Will the new engine have a functioning 

 hour meter for the life of the project? 

Annual Hours of Operation or Annual 

 Gallons of Fuel Consumption 

Percent Operation in California 

Percent Operation in District 

Project Life 

Electronic Monitoring Unit (EMU) 

Will a new eligible EMU be installed as part 

 of this project? (yes/no) 

EMU Make 

EMU Model 

EMU Model Year 

EMU ID Number 

EMU Cost (optional) 

 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION – 

NEW PURCHASE PROJECTS ONLY 

New Electric Motor Make 

New Electric Motor Model 

New Electric Motor Serial Number 

New Electric Motor Family 

New Electric Motor Year 

New Electric Horsepower (converted from kilowatts) 

Projected Year of Purchase of New Equipment 

Baseline Cost 

New Reduced Emission Equipment Cost 

New Electric Motor Vendor (optional) 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION – 

REPOWER PROJECTS ONLY 

Existing and Newer Engine/Motor Make 

Existing and Newer Engine/Motor Model 

Existing and Newer Engine/Motor Year 

Existing and Newer Engine/Motor Serial Number (if 

available) 

Existing and Newer Engine/Motor Fuel Type 

Existing and Newer Engine/Motor Horsepower 

Existing and Newer Engine/Motor Tier 

Existing and Newer Engine/Motor Family 

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

 or the SCE TOU-PA-ICE Incentive Programs? 

Is this project engine a currently covered by a Moyer 

Program contract? 

Engine Rebuild Cost 

New Reduced Emission Equipment Cost 

New Engine Vendor (optional) 

New Engine Installer (optional) 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION – 

RETROFIT PROJECTS ONLY

ARB-Verified Retrofit Device 

Retrofit Device Serial Number 

ARB-Verified NOx Reduction (%) 

ARB-Verified PM Reduction (%) 

ARB-Verified ROG Reduction (%) 

Retrofit Device Executive Order 

Verification Level (Level 1,2 or 3) 

Retrofit Device Cost 

Cost of Retrofit Installation (optional) 

Cost of Retrofit Maintenance for Life of Project (optional) 
X-15 AGRICULTURAL SOURCES 

A disclosure must also be included stating that the proposed project has not been 

funded and is not being considered for funding by another air district, ARB, or any other 

public agency. Any applicant who is found to have submitted multiple applications for 

the same project may be banned from submitting future applications to any and all 

Carl Moyer Program solicitations and may be subject to criminal sanctions. A project 

funded cooperatively by multiple air districts is eligible for funding if the project 

parameters are coordinated amongst the participating districts and the project meets all 

applicable Carl Moyer Program criteria. Applicants are allowed to re-apply for project 

funding if a previous application has been rejected and is no longer being considered for 

funding. 

Third party applications are not allowed. The owner of the engine must sign and agree 

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

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

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

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

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

used to pay them. To make the Carl Moyer Program accessible to all potential 

applicants, including applicants that cannot afford to hire third party assistance, districts 

are encouraged to provide technical assistance to applicants in completing the 

application. 

B. Reporting and Monitoring 

Owners of stationary and portable agricultural engines participating in the 

Carl Moyer Program are required to keep appropriate records during the life of the 

project. During the project life, the district has the authority to conduct periodic checks 

or solicit operating records from the recipient of Carl Moyer Program funds. This is to 

ensure that the engine is being operated as stated in the project application. The 

recipient must maintain and update operating records throughout the project life and 

have them available to the district upon request. Annual records must contain, at a 

minimum, total actual hours of operations or estimated amount of fuel used from actual 

fuel receipts. Actual hours of operations are acceptable for an engine equipped with a 

non-reset hour meter. 

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

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

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

certificate may be issued to the equipment owner. 

VIII. References 

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

Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines. 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/statde/isor.pdf 
X-16 AGRICULTURAL SOURCES 

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

Toxic Control Measure for Diesel-fueled Portable Engines. 

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

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

Proposed Revisions to the Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Compression 

Ignition Engines. 

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

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

Hearing to Consider the Large Confined Animal Facility Definition. 

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

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

2003. California Agricultural Overview. 

http://www.nass.usda.gov/ca/bul/agstat/indexcas.htm
XI-1 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

Chapter Eleven 

LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES

This is a new chapter that addresses the project criteria for on-road, light-duty vehicle 

projects under the Carl Moyer Program. The chapter contains a brief overview of the 

light-duty vehicle emission inventory, current engine emission standards, available 

control technologies, potential projects eligible for funding, and emission reduction and 

cost-effectiveness calculation methodologies. 

I. Introduction 

Light-duty vehicles include passenger cars and light-duty trucks such as pick-up trucks, 

sport utility vehicles (SUVs), and vans. In 2005, the estimated number of light-duty 

vehicles in California is over 21 million vehicles. This number is expected to increase to 

over 23 million vehicles by 2010. Light-duty vehicles are major contributors to 

California’s ozone and particulate matter air pollution. Although emissions from 

light-duty vehicles are decreasing with the implementation of stricter emission control 

standards, light-duty vehicles contribute about half of the ozone producing emissions 

from all on-road vehicles. 

II. Emissions 

The oxides of nitrogen (NOx), reactive organic gas (ROG), and particulate matter 

(PM10) emissions from the light-duty fleet are shown in Table 11-1. In addition to these 

pollutants, light-duty vehicles emit toxic air contaminants and carbon monoxide (CO). 

Table 11-1 

Statewide Emissions from On-Road Light-Duty Vehicles 

(tons per day) 

 Population NOx ROG PM10 

2005 21,500,000 574 583 29 

2010 23,700,000 388 405 32 

Older, light-duty vehicles (pre-1990 model years) account for 56 percent of the ROG 

and 41 percent of the NOx emissions from all light-duty vehicles in 2005 despite 

accounting for only 19 percent of the vehicle population and less than 13 percent of the 

vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Generally, these older vehicles emit more pollutants 

because of less restrictive emission standards and increased wear and tear on drive 

train and emission control components. Additionally, the subset of older vehicles that 

are not well maintained has a higher probability of being high emitters. As a result, 

older vehicles tend to be major contributors to ozone and particulate matter air pollution 

in California. 
XI-2 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

III. Regulatory Requirements 

California’s emission controls for light-duty vehicles date back to the 1960s. Emission 

standards have become more restrictive over the years, enabled by new control 

technologies and cleaner fuels. 

Since the 1990s, the Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) regulations have been the 

cornerstone of the ARB’s program to reduce emissions from light-duty vehicles. The 

LEV program, implemented in 1994, established four tiers of low emission standards 

and provided manufacturers with the option of certifying their vehicles to any mix of 

these standards as long as they complied with an average non-methane organic gas 

annual fleet requirement. The fleet average requirement gradually decreased each year 

between 1994 and 2003, resulting in the introduction of a greater number of cleaner 

vehicles each proceeding model year. The LEV II regulation, adopted in 1998, set even 

more stringent, declining fleet average emission requirements for 2004 through 2010 as 

well as lowering the NOx emission standards. 

Figure 11-1 shows the progressively more stringent emission standards for new 

light-duty vehicles from 1970 through 2010. As a result of the ARB’s LEV program, a 

new 2005 model year car is on average 99 percent cleaner than an uncontrolled car. 

California also has requirements to ensure vehicles’ emission control systems continue 

to work throughout their lives. Under the Inspection and Maintenance Program 

(Smog Check), vehicles are tested biennially to ensure that they stay clean as they age. 

A Smog Check includes a tailpipe emissions test and a visual inspection of the emission 

control system. For vehicles equipped with on-board diagnostic (OBD II) systems 

Emission Standards for New Light-Duty Vehicles

1970-2010

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1970

19721974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

19861988

1990

1992

1994

19961998

2000

20022004

200620082010

ROG + NOx Emissions (g/mi)

Figure 11-1 
XI-3 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

(model years 1996 and later), the inspection also includes a check of the malfunction 

indicator light to ensure that no problems have been detected with the vehicle’s 

emission control system. 

IV. Potential Projects 

Under the general heading of light-duty vehicle projects, the ARB has identified two 

programs that are eligible for funding under the Carl Moyer Program: voluntary 

accelerated vehicle retirement (VAVR) and voluntary vehicle repair (VVR). Both 

programs have the potential to decrease excess emissions from older, high emitting 

vehicles. These Guidelines will focus on implementing the VAVR program under the 

Carl Moyer Program. The ARB staff will continue to assess how to incorporate VVR 

into the Carl Moyer Program and anticipates providing guidance on VVR in 2006. As 

part of this assessment, the ARB staff will also evaluate extending the guidance to 

medium-duty vehicles. 

A. VAVR Programs 

The goal of VAVR programs is to retire older, more polluting vehicles earlier than their 

expected lifetime, thereby eliminating air pollution emissions associated with their 

operation. VAVR programs are strictly voluntary programs overseen by the ARB and 

administered by local air districts. Enterprise operators are contracted by the district 

and are responsible for evaluating, approving, and disposing of qualified light-duty 

vehicles. Real emission reductions can be achieved as vehicles are still fully 

operational and have a useful life remaining. Therefore, to qualify for a VAVR program, 

a vehicle must meet registration, functionality, and equipment eligibility criteria. To 

accommodate car collectors and others with potential interest in vehicles offered for 

retirement, VAVR programs provide the public with an opportunity to purchase vehicles 

in whole or in part before the vehicle is entered into the VAVR program. Vehicles 

accepted into the program for emission reductions must be retired by crushing the 

vehicle to such a degree that the vehicle and its parts are rendered unusable. 

B. Legislative and Regulatory History of VAVR 

Vehicle scrapping programs were first introduced in California in the early 1990s. In the 

1994 State Implementation Plan (SIP), the ARB included a measure calling for a vehicle 

scrapping program in the South Coast Air Basin. Senate Bill 501 (Calderon, 1995) 

directed the ARB to adopt a regulation governing VAVR which would include 

market-based, privately-operated VAVR enterprises and the generation of emission 

reduction credits. (See California Health and Safety Code sections 44100-44122, in 

part.) The ARB adopted VAVR regulations in 1998 and amended these regulations in 

2002 [ARB, 1998 and ARB, 2001]. In 1998 and 1999, the ARB conducted a pilot 

program for retiring light-duty vehicles in the South Coast Air Basin. While the results of 

the pilot program were encouraging, funding limitations did not permit expansion of the 

program to achieve the emission reductions called for in the SIP. 
XI-4 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

The 2003 SIP did not contain an explicit commitment to vehicle retirement because 

sufficient funding for such programs had not been secured. However, the SIP did 

acknowledge the need to provide incentives for VAVR programs in the long term. 

Legislative changes to the Carl Moyer Program enacted with the signing of 

Assembly Bill 923 (Firebaugh, 2004) added light-duty vehicle projects to the list of 

allowable projects and provided additional means of funding VAVR programs to reduce 

NOx, ROG, and PM10 emissions. 

C. District VAVR and the BAR Vehicle Retirement Programs 

Four districts have recently operated or continue to operate VAVR programs including 

the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (AQMD), San Diego Air Pollution Control 

District (APCD), Santa Barbara APCD, and South Coast AQMD. Between 2000 and 

2003, these districts scrapped over 21,000 vehicles or over 5,000 vehicles per year. 

In addition to district VAVR programs, the Bureau of Automotive Repair’s (BAR) 

Smog Check Program includes a voluntary vehicle retirement element. As part of 

BAR’s Consumer Assistance Program, owners of qualifying vehicles that fail the 

biennial inspection are given the option of voluntarily retiring their vehicle rather than 

repairing it. BAR offers $1,000 in exchange for the vehicle. 

District VAVR programs work outside of BAR’s Smog Check Program to ensure that 

district programs generate emission reductions that are surplus to the those obtained 

through the Smog Check. BAR’s program covers vehicles that have failed their biennial 

Smog Check while the district programs cover vehicles that have passed their biennial 

Smog Check or are “off cycle” for Smog Check (i.e., not due for their biennial 

inspection). To ensure that the two programs do not compete with one another, 

vehicles that are within 60 days from their next required Smog Check must pass the 

Smog Check inspection under the VAVR regulation. If the vehicles are between 61 to 

90 days of the next Smog Check, the district must verify that the vehicle has not failed 

the Smog Check inspection before the vehicle can be accepted. Additionally, the 

vehicle cannot be operating under either a BAR repair cost waiver or economic hardship 

extension. 

D. Remote Sensing 

Studies by the ARB, BAR, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), and 

the University of Denver, Colorado, among others, have shown that remote sensing 

devices (RSD) can be effective tools in identifying high emitting vehicles [BAR, 2001; 

U.S. EPA; Stedman, 1994; and Stedman]. 

Remote sensing typically uses infrared and, at times, ultraviolet spectroscopy to 

measure the concentrations of air pollutants in vehicle exhaust while the vehicle is in 

use on the roadway. Concentrations of ROG, NOx, and CO in parts per million or 

percent are recorded along with the vehicle’s speed and rate of acceleration and a 

photo of the license plate. 
XI-5 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

The option of using RSD is included to identify high emitting vehicles that can then be 

contacted for participation in voluntary early retirement programs. Staff is taking a 

two-step approach to integrate RSD into the Carl Moyer Program and the VAVR 

regulation. As a first step, the ARB would authorize an RSD-based “High-Emitting 

Vehicle Identification, Repair, and Scrapping Program” to be run by the South Coast 

AQMD starting in Spring 2006. Then, the ARB would use the data from this program to 

revise the VAVR regulation and provide additional Carl Moyer Program guidance in 

2006 to fully incorporate RSD. The revisions would codify the use of RSD; establish 

protocols for quantifying emission reductions; and determine the appropriate application 

of Moyer funds to RSD-based VAVR programs. As part of this guidance, the ARB 

would evaluate what elements related to the use of RSD would be eligible for funding 

under the Carl Moyer Program consistent with legislative requirements and Board 

direction. After the ARB revises the regulation and Carl Moyer Program guidance, any 

district may develop and implement an RSD-based VAVR program. 

The South Coast project will mark the first time an RSD-based VAVR program has been 

implemented. Because the methodology for calculating the emission reductions 

associated with retiring or repairing high-emitting vehicles has not been established and 

the level of vehicle owner participation cannot be predicted in advance, the 

cost-effectiveness of the program cannot be fully established in advance. 

Carl Moyer Program funds can only be used for projects that meet the $14,300 per 

weighted ton cost-effectiveness limit. By undertaking this introductory RSD program, 

the South Coast Air District is taking some risk if the program ultimately exceeds the 

cost-effectiveness limit. 

V. Project Criteria 

Light-duty vehicle projects will initially be limited to VAVR programs that meet the ARB’s 

VAVR regulations. As noted above, the Guidelines also provide for an RSD 

implementation program in the South Coast. The project criteria listed below provide 

districts with the minimum qualifications for the Carl Moyer Program. 

The criteria listed below highlight many, but not all, of the requirements of the ARB’s 

VAVR regulation. VAVR programs must meet all of the requirements of the regulation. 

Districts starting VAVR programs using Carl Moyer Program funding should reference 

these Guidelines as well as the regulation. Where the Carl Moyer Program Guidelines 

go beyond the requirements of the regulation, it is noted below. Participating districts 

retain the authority to impose additional requirements to address local concerns. 

A. General Requirements 

• Emission reductions obtained through Carl Moyer Program projects must not be 

required by any federal, state, or local regulation; memorandum of 

agreement/understanding with a regulatory agency; settlement agreement; 

mitigation requirement; or other legal mandate. 
XI-6 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

• Projects must meet a cost-effectiveness of $14,300 per weighed ton of NOx + ROG 

+ combustion PM10 reduced calculated in accordance with the cost-effectiveness 

methodology discussed in this chapter. 

• No emission reductions generated by the Carl Moyer Program shall be used as 

marketable emission reduction credits or to offset any emission reduction obligation 

of any person or entity. 

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

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

subject to additional funding restrictions, such as a lower cost-effectiveness limit or a 

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

default project life does not consider upcoming regulatory requirements. 

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

case-by-case basis if evidence provided to the ARB suggests potential surplus, real, 

quantifiable, and enforceable emission reduction benefits. 

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

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

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

• Participation in a light-duty VAVR program shall be entirely voluntary for vehicle 

owners. 

• VAVR programs shall comply with all provisions of the VAVR regulations found in 

Title 13 California Code of Regulations, Division 3, Chapter 13, Article 1, section 

2601 et seq. 

• VAVR programs seeking funding under the Carl Moyer Program shall comply with all 

applicable provisions of the Carl Moyer Program Guidelines including 

“Administration of the Carl Moyer Program.” 

• Funding of program administrative costs, including advertising or outreach, shall be 

limited to the amount allowable under statute. 

B. Vehicle Eligibility Requirements 

• The vehicle to be retired must be currently registered with the Department of 

Motor Vehicles (DMV) as an operating vehicle and must have been registered for at 

least 24 consecutive months prior to the final date of the sale to a VAVR enterprise 

to an address, or addresses, within the district in which the VAVR enterprise is 

operated. Smog Checks must be performed as required by the DMV in order for the 

vehicle to be considered registered. 
XI-7 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

1. A vehicle may also be eligible if the owner of the vehicle placed the vehicle in 

planned non-operational status per Vehicle Code section 4604, et seq., for a total 

of 2 months during the continuous 24 month registration period, occurring at least 

3 months prior to the date of sale to the VAVR enterprise. 

2. A vehicle may also be eligible if the registration has lapsed for a period not to 

exceed 180 days during the previous 24 months and all appropriate registration 

fees and late penalties have been paid to the DMV, provided that the vehicle is 

registered for at 90 days immediately prior to its date of sale to a VAVR 

enterprise. 

NOTE: These eligibility requirements are stricter than the ARB’s current VAVR 

regulation but are consistent with the requirements of Health and Safety Code 

section 44094. 

• The vehicle to be retired shall be driven to the VAVR enterprise purchase site under 

its own power and shall pass a functional and equipment eligibility inspections as 

specified in the ARB’s VAVR regulation. 

• The vehicle to be retired shall not be operating under a Smog Check repair cost 

waiver. 

• If a vehicle volunteered for retirement is within 60 days of its next required 

Smog Check inspection, the vehicle shall pass the Smog Check inspection without 

receiving a repair cost waiver or economic hardship extension prior to acceptance by 

a VAVR enterprise operator. 

• If a vehicle volunteered for retirement is within 61-90 days of its next required 

Smog Check inspection, the district shall verify that the vehicle has not failed a 

Smog Check inspection during this time frame. 

C. Calculating Emission Reductions 

• Emission reductions from VAVR programs shall be calculated in accordance with the 

methodology specified in the ARB’s VAVR regulations. Emission reductions, by 

model year of vehicle retired, are shown in Table 11-2. (The table is also included in 

Appendix B, Tables for Emission-Reduction and Cost-Effectiveness Calculations, at 

Table B-21.) 

• The project life for a vehicle retirement project is three years as specified in the 

ARB’s VAVR regulation. 

D. Offering Vehicles/Parts to the Public 

• The enterprise operator must inform the district of the vehicles that are ready for 

dismantling. 
XI-8 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

• The district must provide a detailed description of the vehicle to interested parties 

including collectors and enthusiasts. 

• The enterprise operator must wait a minimum of 10 days before submitting a Notice 

to Dismantle to the DMV. 

• If an interested person contacts the enterprise operator, the enterprise operator must 

hold the vehicle for an additional, minimum of 7 days. 

• Non-emission-related and non-drive train parts from the vehicle may be sold at the 

sole discretion of the enterprise operator. 

• Engine, emission-related parts, transmission, and drive train parts must be removed 

from the vehicle and destroyed after the 10 day waiting period but prior to offering 

the remaining parts for sale. (Emission-related and drive train parts are defined in 

the VAVR regulation.) 

• If a vehicle or its emission-related or drive train parts are sold instead of retired, no 

emission reductions will be generated, and Carl Moyer Program funds may to be 

used for retiring the vehicle. 

E. Recordkeeping 

• For each vehicle retired, the district shall retain the following information: 

1. Vehicle Identification Number (VIN). 

2. Vehicle license plate number. 

3. Vehicle model year. 

4. Vehicle odometer reading. 

5. Vehicle make and model. 

6. Name, address, and phone number of legal owner selling vehicle to the 

enterprise operator. 

7. Name and business address of inspector conducting the vehicle’s eligibility 

inspection, if the VAVR enterprise operator contracts with an ARB-approved 

inspection entity to perform the vehicle functional and equipment eligibility 

inspection. 

8. Date of purchase of vehicle by enterprise operator. 

9. Date of vehicle retirement. 

10. Emission reduction claimed. 
XI-9 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

• The VAVR enterprise operator shall maintain the following: 

1. Reproduction of California Certificate of Title and registration, as signed-off by 

the seller at time of final sale to the VAVR enterprise. 

2. Reproduction of the applicable certificate of functional and equipment eligibility; 

3. Reproduction of the applicable Notice to Dismantler (DMV Registration 42 form). 

4. Reproduction of written documentation from the DMV verifying that a vehicle 

meets the vehicle registration requirements of the ARB’s VAVR regulations. 

5. If the retired vehicle was within 60 days of its next required Smog Check 

inspection, a reproduction of documentation that the vehicle passed its 

Smog Check inspection. 

• Districts and enterprise operators shall retain these records for the life of the project 

plus an additional three years. 

NOTE: This requirement is stricter than the ARB’s current VAVR regulation which 

requires that records be maintained for the life of the project but is consistent with 

the Carl Moyer Program administrative requirements.

F. Criteria for South Coast AQMD RSD/Scrapping/Repair Project 

• The South Coast AQMD may operate an RSD-based high-emitting vehicle 

identification, repair, and scrapping program. 

• Prior to project implementation, the district shall submit a detailed project plan for 

approval by the ARB’s Executive Officer (EO). 

1. The plan shall include a detailed protocol describing the installation, calibration, 

and operation of RSD that will be used to identify high emitters along with the 

methodology for processing of the data collected. 

2. The plan shall include itemized, estimated project costs including, but not limited 

to, the funds allocated to vehicle repair and the number of vehicles to be 

repaired; the funds allocated to vehicle retirement and the number of vehicles to 

be retired; and the costs allocated to RSD data collection, data analysis, 

outreach, and solicitation of vehicle owners. 

3. The plan shall include a sample of the letter that the South Coast AQMD intends 

to send to vehicle owners soliciting their voluntary participation in the project. 

4. The project must follow the plan, and any substantive changes must be 

pre-approved by the EO. 

• The South Coast AQMD shall permit the ARB to perform emissions testing on a 

subset of the retired vehicles selected by the ARB prior to dismantling. 

• As part of the Carl Moyer Program reporting requirements, the South Coast AQMD 

shall report on each vehicle retired or repaired under this program. 
XI-10 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

• The ARB may conduct periodic auditing of the program, and the South Coast AQMD 

shall provide any required information concerning the program. 

• If vehicle records are missing, incomplete, or chronically late, the ARB may disallow 

emission reduction credit for that vehicle. 

• The ARB has not yet established the methodology for calculating the extra emission 

benefits from retiring high-emitting vehicles identified using RSD. Because of this, 

the emission reductions achieved under this project shall be calculated in 

accordance with a new methodology that will be established during the next revision 

of the VAVR regulation. 

• An acceleration simulation mode (ASM) Smog Check test must be run on all 

vehicles being retired or repaired during this introductory RSD/scrapping/repair 

project to help establish the emission reduction calculation methodology. 

VI. Emission Reduction and Cost-Effectiveness Calculations 

For VAVR projects, the emission reduction benefits represent the difference in the 

emission levels of the retired vehicle and the replacement vehicles. The ARB approved 

the methodology for calculating emission reductions associated with VAVR at its 

December 1998 Board meeting [ARB, 1998]. Emission reductions, by model year of 

vehicle retired, calculated in accordance with the approved methodology are listed in 

Table 11-2. The table lists the reductions over the full three year life of a vehicle 

retirement project. The methodology for retiring high-emitting vehicles identified via 

RSD has not yet been established. 

A detailed description of how to calculate cost-effectiveness can be found in 

Appendix C: Cost-Effectiveness Calculation Methodology and Appendix D: Example 

Calculations. 
XI-11 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

Table 11-2 

Voluntary Accelerated Light-Duty Vehicle Retirement Program 

Emission Reductions for Calendar Year 2006* 

Total Pounds Per Vehicle Over 3 Year Credit Life 

Emission Reductions (pounds) – 3 Year Credit Life

Model Year NOx ROG** CO PM10 

65 and earlier 151 496 2,757 0.68 

66 145 471 2,552 0.67 

67 148 477 2,611 0.65 

68 156 492 2,731 0.81 

69 162 504 2,841 0.56 

70 169 438 2,971 0.99 

71 172 449 2,990 0.95 

72 177 458 3,037 0.83 

73 180 469 3,082 0.64 

74 159 401 2,859 1.20 

75 145 345 2,861 1.17 

76 130 222 2,673 1.04 

77 108 183 2,546 1.13 

78 107 186 2,493 1.10 

79 95 168 1,625 0.90 

80 85 129 1,373 1.13 

81 62 108 1,092 1.22 

82 66 101 1,085 1.36 

83 73 85 934 1.22 

84 73 74 883 1.05 

85 69 59 575 0.89 

86 71 61 527 0.91 

87 67 71 468 0.92 

88 67 65 430 0.85 

89 50 46 492 0.84 

90 38 45 529 0.81 

91 38 42 514 0.76 

92 40 41 510 0.71 

93 35 31 279 0.64 

94 19 17 21 0.54 

* Table is repeated in Appendix B, Table B-21 

** Includes exhaust and evaporative emissions 

Source: EMFAC2002, Version 2.2, statewide, annual average. Assumes average 1965 through 2006 

vehicle as replacement vehicle for vehicles retired in calendar year 2006. 

This table updates the emission reductions provided in the ARB’s VAVR regulation consistent with the 

methodology in the staff report, Proposed Regulations for Voluntary Accelerated Light-Duty Vehicle 

Retirement Enterprises, released October 23, 1998, and approved by the ARB on December 10, 1998. 
XI-12 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

VII. Minimum Project Application Requirements 

Districts must submit a VAVR plan to the ARB, consistent with the Carl Moyer Program 

Guidelines. The district must receive written approval of the plan from the ARB’s EO 

prior to implementing the VAVR program under the Carl Moyer Program. The district 

must also follow all other Carl Moyer Program reporting requirements. 

The district plan must at a minimum include: 

1. The name, title, and telephone number of the district contact for the VAVR program. 

2. An evaluation of environmental justice considerations including, but not limited to, 

outreach addressing community needs. 

3. An estimate of the number of vehicles that may be retired and an estimate of the 

cost-effectiveness of the program along with all assumptions and calculations that 

were used to derive the estimate (recognizing that the ultimate cost-effectiveness 

will depend on the mix of vehicles actually retired). 

4. A sample of the enterprise operation contract. 

5. A description of the methods that will be used and a timetable for monitoring and 

auditing enterprise operations. 

6. A copy of the statement of certification that an enterprise operator has demonstrated 

compliance with all applicable provisions of the regulation. 

7. The methodology and sample records for verifying that a vehicle is eligible for 

inclusion in the VAVR program including confirmation of compliance with any 

Smog Check requirements. 

8. The protocol for informing the public of the availability of eligible vehicles for sale. 

9. A sample of the records that will be required of the enterprise operator. 

10. A description of changes to the VAVR program that are more stringent than those 

listed in the statewide regulation (if a district chooses to adopt requirements beyond 

those required). 

11. Any additional information necessary to explain or clarify how the district plan 

complies with the VAVR regulation and the Carl Moyer Program. 

The annual report shall contain, for each vehicle retired, at a minimum: 

1. Vehicle Identification Number (VIN). 

2. Vehicle license plate number. 

3. Vehicle model year. 

4. Vehicle odometer reading. 

5. Vehicle make and model. 

6. Name, address, and phone number of legal owner selling vehicle to the enterprise 

operator. 

7. Name and business address of inspector conducting the vehicle’s eligibility 

inspection, if the VAVR enterprise operator contracts with an ARB-approved 

inspection entity to perform the vehicle functional and equipment eligibility 

inspection. 

8. Date of purchase of vehicle by enterprise operator. 

9. Date of vehicle retirement. 
XI-13 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

10. Emission reductions claimed. 

VIII. References 

ARB, 1998. Air Resources Board, Proposed Regulations for Voluntary Accelerated 

Light-Duty Vehicle Retirement Enterprises, October 23, 1998. 

ARB, 2001. Air Resources Board, Proposed Amendments to Air Resources Board 

Voluntary Accelerated Vehicle Retirement Regulations – Minimize the Differences 

Between ARB and BAR VAVR Regulation and Allow Parts Recycling and Resale of 

Non-Emission-Related and Non-Drive Train Parts, November 30, 2001. 

BAR, 2001. Bureau of Automotive Repair, Remote Sensing Device High Emitter 

Identification with Confirmatory Roadside Inspection, Final Report 2001-06, 

August 30, 2001. 

U.S. EPA. Julian W. Jones, C. Ted Ripberger, and Niranjan Vescio, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, FINAL 

REPORT An Investigation of Remote Sensing Devices for Chemical Characterization of 

Motor Vehicle Exhaust. 

Stedman. Donald H. Stedman and Gary A. Bishop, Department of Chemistry and 

Biochemistry, University of Denver, Colorado, Emissions-Based Mobile Source 

Inventory Methods. 

Stedman, 1994. Donald H. Stedman, On-Road Remote Sensing of CO and HC 

Emissions in California, February 1994, ARB Contract No. A032-093. 
XII-1 ZERO-EMISSION TECHNOLOGIES 

Chapter Twelve 

ZERO-EMISSION TECHNOLOGIES 

This is a new chapter that highlights some of the available zero-emission technologies 

eligible for Carl Moyer Program funding. It provides more detail on zero-emission 

technologies and, for some project types, provides additional project criteria. It also 

describes emission reduction and cost-effectiveness calculation methodologies. This 

chapter is a supplement to other chapters in these Guidelines: it does not replace or 

supersede any other criteria. 

I. Introduction 

A. Benefits of Zero-Emission Projects 

Zero-emission technology is a key element of California's long-term plan for attaining 

health-based air quality standards. Electric motors are the most commercially viable 

zero-emission technology available today. In general, replacing internal combustion 

engines with electric motors provides major reductions in oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and 

particulate matter (PM10). Zero-emission technologies also have a number of societal 

benefits that are not quantified in the Carl Moyer Program. These include reductions in 

toxic air contaminants, greenhouse gases, petroleum consumption and noise pollution. 

In addition, electricity production does not have as many “upstream” emission impacts 

as the production of combustible fuels. Refining, storage and delivery all have 

associated emissions from routine operations and accidents (e.g., fuel spills). 

Furthermore, unlike other technologies with emission control devices that may lose 

effectiveness over time, with zero-emission equipment there is no emission rate 

deterioration. Electric equipment will remain emission-free throughout its useful life. 

Although the purchase price of electric equipment can be higher than comparable 

internal combustion engine equipment, owners and operators generally realize 

significant fuel and maintenance cost savings. The higher purchase price is sometimes 

recouped through these savings during the life of the equipment. Higher salvage values 

and longer lives can provide electric equipment with an economic advantage compared 

to internal combustion engine equipment. In addition, electric equipment operators 

sometimes derive indirect benefits from privileges like access to restricted areas, use of 

carpool lanes and even public relations benefits. 

Yet, despite these attributes and the fact that electric technologies may be well-suited 

for a multitude of applications, there have been relatively few zero-emission projects 

funded by the Carl Moyer Program. Many prospective buyers still perceive electric 

equipment to be an unfamiliar, risky technology or are deterred by the higher initial 

investment. The Carl Moyer Program can address both of these issues, first by serving 

as a source of information regarding electric technologies and, second, by providing 

grants to help offset increased costs. Zero-emission projects should become 
XII-2 ZERO-EMISSION TECHNOLOGIES 

increasingly competitive within the Carl Moyer Program. New regulations, tighter 

emission standards, increasing petroleum prices, and technology advances are helping 

to make zero-emission technologies more competitive. As regulatory requirements 

continue to decrease baseline emission levels, Carl Moyer Program applicants need to 

find cleaner technologies to qualify for funding. 

The Air Resources Board (ARB) requires districts to encourage zero-emission projects. 

This encouragement can be demonstrated in a number of ways. Districts operating on 

a “first-come-first-served” basis may rotate zero-emission projects to the top of the list, 

regardless of when the applications were submitted. Districts that solicit projects and 

rank them by cost-effectiveness may choose to fund zero-emission projects first, 

regardless of their cost-effectiveness (as long as the project does not exceed $14,300 

per weighted ton). Alternatively, districts may earmark a percentage of their allocation 

for zero-emission projects or increase outreach efforts that target zero-emission 

projects. Any of these strategies are acceptable, as well as other means of 

encouragement. Districts’ policies and procedures must describe how they plan to 

encourage zero-emission technologies. 

B. Types of Zero-Emission Projects 

To date, the Carl Moyer Program has funded approximately 231 electric forklifts, 

55 hybrid-electric buses, 7 electric motor driven agricultural pumps, and 4 electric 

battery hybrid locomotives. In addition, 30 truck stop spaces are scheduled to be 

equipped with IdleAire systems to reduce truck idling under the Carl Moyer Program. In 

all of these projects, the NOx-only cost effectiveness is very favorable. These projects 

will be even more cost-effective when reactive organic gases (ROG) and combustion 

PM are taken into account with the new weighted cost-effectiveness formula. 

Zero-emission projects have an inherent emissions advantage because there is no NOx 

versus PM trade-off (as with some diesel projects) and no additional cost for controlling 

PM or ROG. 

In addition to agricultural pumps, buses, locomotives, and forklifts, there are several 

other applications where zero-emission technologies are capable of replacing 

combustion engines. Marine ports, airport ground support equipment (GSE), and 

industrial equipment are all good candidates for zero-emission technology. In addition, 

electric motors can substitute for idling trucks and engines used for truck refrigeration 

units. All these applications are eligible for the Carl Moyer Program funding, and 

zero-emission technologies are the cleanest option. 

In the following section, we discuss the availability and provisions for using zero and 

near-zero emission technologies. For new applications of zero-emission technologies 

not addressed elsewhere in the Guidelines, such as truck parking space electrification, 

we outline the parameters for Carl Moyer Program eligibility. Although many of these 

projects will be assessed on a case-by-case basis at this time, our intent is to provide a 

general framework for evaluation. As with all projects, emission reductions must be 
XII-3 ZERO-EMISSION TECHNOLOGIES 

surplus, real, quantifiable, and enforceable and the project must meet the 

cost-effectiveness threshold of $14,300 per weighted ton of reduced emissions. 

Most Carl Moyer Program projects can simply substitute an electric motor for an internal 

combustion engine. In those cases, the same criteria and methodologies apply as for a 

typical repower or new purchase, except as noted in the criteria section of this chapter. 

All relevant regulations and MOUs discussed or referred to in the respective chapters 

also apply to zero-emission projects. The only difference is that the new or replacement 

piece of equipment has no emissions. 

II. Regulatory Requirements 

Regulatory requirements that apply to the baseline equipment are included in the 

respective chapters pertaining to the category of equipment under consideration. 

Because there are no regulatory requirements for Carl Moyer Program categories that 

mandate zero-emission technologies, emission reductions resulting from using such 

technologies will always be surplus. 

III. Potential Zero-Emission Projects 

A. Electrically-Driven Agricultural Equipment 

Agricultural equipment, such as pumps, provides an ideal application and the potential 

for wide-scale deployment of a zero-emission technology. Statewide, several thousand 

internal-combustion engines are used for pumping water for agricultural purposes. To 

date over 2,000 pumps have been replaced using Carl Moyer Program funds, all but a 

few of those replacements were with diesel engines. Farmers are reluctant to purchase 

electrically driven pumps for several reasons but the high cost of installing infrastructure 

and unpredictable electricity rates have been the primary deterrents to purchasing 

electric motor pumps. In addition, farmers usually have to pay substantial fixed charges 

for electricity even when the electric pump is not used. Because of these issues, most 

farmers opt for diesel pumps. 

A new utility company incentive program coupled with Carl Moyer Program funding 

provides an opportunity to go electric. Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) and Southern 

California Edison (SCE) have developed a rate-based incentive program that helps 

make electric motor irrigation pumps cost-competitive with diesel pumps. These new 

incentive rates, which have been approved by the Public Utility Commission, are 

structured with the intent to achieve cost parity between owning and operating 

electrically driven agricultural pumps and diesel pumps capable of equal output. The 

rates were developed with a diesel price assumption of $1.15 per gallon. The rates are 

guaranteed to remain fixed (with the exception of a one and one half percent annual 

increase) until the year 2015. With current diesel prices more than double the assumed 

$1.15 price, electrically driven pumps should prove a viable economic option to 

diesel-powered pumps. The PG&E and SCE incentive programs are 

first-come-first-served programs that are accepting applications through July 31, 2007. 
XII-4 ZERO-EMISSION TECHNOLOGIES 

Applicants must obtain prior approval from the district before purchasing an electric 

motor under the PG&E and SCE incentive programs. 

The PG&E and SCE incentive programs also provide funding to partially or fully offset 

the cost of extending power lines to the pump sites and eliminate the fixed demand 

charge, so customers do not have to pay a fee for the months that the pump is not 

operated. Carl Moyer Program funding coupled with the PG&E and SCE incentive 

programs can provide lower electricity rates, price stability, infrastructure subsidies and 

waived demand charges, making electric motor pumps a very attractive option. 

In order to qualify for the PG&E or SCE incentive program, the applicant must replace 

an internal combustion engine (excluding those fired with natural gas) used for irrigation 

pumping which was installed and operational prior to September 1, 2004. In addition, 

the replaced engine must be destroyed or, if purchased with Carl Moyer Program funds, 

surrendered, destroyed, relocated or removed as instructed by the ARB and the local air 

district. All Tier 1 engines originally funded by the Carl Moyer Program that are 

replaced through the PG&E or SCE incentive program must be destroyed as described 

in the Administration Chapter (Chapter Two, Part I of the Approved Carl Moyer Program 

Guidelines). If a Tier 2 engine currently under Moyer contract is relocated to replace a 

dirtier engine within the air district, then the dirtier engine must be destroyed. Districts 

should conduct pre-inspections to ensure the dirtier engine is operational, and 

post-inspections to ensure that the replacement Tier 2 engine is properly installed and 

functioning. 

Districts may allow the sale of Tier 2 engines that are replaced through the PG&E or 

SCE incentive program if documentation is provided to establish the chain-of-custody of 

the engine, and the sale price. If the district allows the sale of Tier 2 engines, all 

proceeds from the sale must be divided between the applicant and the district based 

upon the ratio of original funding provided for the purchase of the Tier 2 Moyer engine. 

Funds returned to the district must be spent on Moyer eligible projects (funds may be 

used to offset the added cost of the pre- and post-inspections). If the Tier 2 engine 

cannot be relocated or sold within 60 days of the electric service being energized, it 

must be destroyed. If the engine is sold out of California, documentation that the engine 

will not be used in or re-sold into California must be provided to the district. 

Because the PG&E and SCE incentive programs are a limited time offer, ARB staff will 

allow pump engines currently under Carl Moyer Program contract to be replaced with 

electric motors under the incentive programs, with the contract to be revised to reflect 

the use of an electric motor. The remaining project life of the initially funded engine 

project would be added to the project life for the new electric motor pump project. The 

increased project life would be used in the cost-effectiveness calculation, and the 

contract duration will be increased accordingly. 

For replacement agricultural pump engines not currently funded by the 

Carl Moyer Program, applicants are allowed to use one-half of the normal rebuild cost 

for the baseline cost. Normally, Carl Moyer Program participants apply for grants at the 
XII-5 ZERO-EMISSION TECHNOLOGIES 

time an engine needs to be rebuilt. In these cases, the grower would pay the base 

rebuild cost, while the Program would fund the incremental cost of a repowering with a 

newer, cleaner engine. Because the PG&E and SCE incentive programs are a limited 

time first-come, first-served offer, some growers may choose to replace their engines 

with an electric motor before the normal rebuild interval for their engine. Because it will 

be difficult to determine where each individual engine is in its rebuild cycle, it is 

assumed that all engines taking advantage of the PG&E and SCE incentive programs 

are halfway through their rebuild cycle – and that the applicant’s base cost would be half 

the rebuild cost. 

Carl Moyer Program applicants using the PG&E and SCE incentive programs will also 

have to make adjustments to the emission reduction calculations. Because to date 

virtually no electric agricultural pump projects have been funded through 

Carl Moyer Program grants, the PG&E and SCE incentive programs take credit for the 

emission reduction between a Tier 3 engine and an electric motor. As a condition of the 

PG&E and SCE incentive programs, these emission reductions must be donated to the 

Carl Moyer Program for clean air. The emission reduction benefit between the replaced 

engine and a Tier 3 engine, may be included in the cost-effectiveness calculation to 

determine the grant amount. An example of this calculation is provided in Appendix D. 

Project Criteria for Electrically Driven Agricultural Equipment 

• Purchases of new 2005 or later model year agricultural equipment can only be 

electric motors. 

• Priority must be given to projects that replace stationary agricultural engines with 

electric motors. 

• Agricultural equipment that use an electric motor may use a default 10 year project 

life for calculating cost-effectiveness. 

• Costs for necessary peripheral equipment associated with the motor (e.g. control 

panel, motor leads, service pole with guy wire, and connecting electric line) may be 

included in the grant award amount. 

• District match funds may be used for infrastructure purchase and installation. 

• District match funds may be used to offset the higher cost of electricity relative to 

diesel fuel, if applicable. In this case, the fuel cost difference will be accounted for 

when calculating the cost-effectiveness of the project. 

• All electric-driven equipment must have a functioning kilowatt-hour meter, or other 

method approved by the local air district, to monitor usage. 
XII-6 ZERO-EMISSION TECHNOLOGIES 

 B. Marine Shore-Side Provided Power 

In addition to being the largest source of air pollution in many districts, ports are often 

situated in environmental justice areas. For these reasons, ports are a primary focus for 

emission reduction strategies throughout the state. Governor Schwarzenegger has 

directed state and regional air agencies to work together with the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, industry and community stakeholders to address port-related sources 

of air pollution. 

The largest emission source at ports is marine vessels. One strategy for reducing 

marine vessel emissions is “cold ironing” where ships plug into shore-side power while 

docked, rather than continuously running their diesel engines to generate electricity. 

Cold-ironing requires the proper electrical supply connections from the shore — lines, 

transformers, switching gear, cables, etc. — and the necessary hook-ups on the ship. 

Cold ironing, long used for naval vessels, has recently been implemented in the 

non-military sector in Juneau, Alaska and at the Port of Los Angeles. Four 

specially-equipped cruise ships plug into shore-side power in Juneau during hotelling 

operations, while a container vessel plugs in at the electrified berth in Los Angeles. In 

addition, the Port of Long Beach has begun work to provide dockside electricity to 

accommodate two retrofitted oil tankers and work has begun in Seattle to convert a 

berth for cruise ships. Other ports in the U.S. and worldwide are also considering 

cold-ironing. Early results of ARB’s shore-electrification feasibility study indicate that 

cold-ironing is a cost-effective measure to reduce pollutants from a variety of ships — 

namely, cruise ships, container ships, and refrigerated bulk ships — at several 

California ports. 

Most marine projects in the Carl Moyer Program deal with harbor craft. Cold ironing 

projects go beyond harbor craft and include cruise ships, tankers, and freighters. 

Because cold ironing is a nascent technology, it is difficult to specifically identify the 

exact components that will be eligible for Carl Moyer Program funding. Because each 

cold ironing project will be unique, each must be considered for grant funding on a 

case-by-case basis. The cost-effectiveness and grant amount will depend on a number 

of issues such as interface compatibility, operating voltage, energy needs and electricity 

availability at the dock. However, evidence must be submitted to the air district to prove 

that all emission reductions are surplus, real, quantifiable, and enforceable and the 

cost-effectiveness limit is not exceeded. Applications will be evaluated based on factors 

including, but not limited to, frequency and duration of port visitations, energy usage at 

the dock, seasonal operating variances and regularity of travel routes. 

 C. Forklifts and Other Large Spark-Ignition Equipment 

The Carl Moyer Program has two general emission control strategies for forklifts -- 

(1) purchase of new electric forklifts instead of new internal combustion engine (ICE) 

forklifts; and (2) retrofit or repower of internal combustion forklifts that do not lend 
XII-7 ZERO-EMISSION TECHNOLOGIES 

themselves to electric substitution. Specific project criteria for funding large 

spark-ignition (LSI) engines are not yet formalized in these Carl Moyer Program 

Guidelines pending the Board’s action on the staff’s proposed regulations for LSI 

engines and equipment. However, staff proposes the following changes regarding 

electric forklift projects: 

• The cost-effectiveness limit for electric forklifts is $7,000 per weighted ton of reduced 

emissions. 

• Leased forklifts are eligible for funding if the lease term is three years or more. 

Chapter Six provides additional background discussion on this project category and 

potential criteria that could be used to establish funding eligibility under the Carl Moyer 

Program for both strategies. Until the Board adopts the LSI regulation, districts may 

continue to fund forklift projects using the 2003 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines. During 

this interim period, additional zero-emission LSI projects may be considered on a 

case-by-case basis. 

D. Airport Ground Support Equipment 

Electric GSE have several attributes that make them appeal to users. Participants of 

demonstration and fleet conversion programs like the way that electric GSE handle and 

appreciate the fact that they are more “task specific”. Battery weight often provides 

valuable ballast needed to lift heavy objects or push airplanes; usage is often conducive 

to charging cycles; there are no odors; and no liquid fuel required in the aircraft staging 

area. Most importantly, electric GSE can be cost-effective and generally have relatively 

short payback periods. Electric GSE are commercially available and commonly used 

for a number of equipment types including belt loaders, baggage tractors, aircraft tugs, 

lifts, ground power units, cargo loaders, lavatory carts and air-start units. However, the 

higher capital cost of electric equipment is often a deterrent to prospective buyers. 

Carl Moyer Program funds can be used to offset this initial capital investment. 

As discussed in Chapter Seven, there are currently no regulations requiring the use of 

electric ground support equipment (GSE) at airports but there is a Memorandum of 

Understanding that involves five airports in southern California (Los Angeles, Ontario, 

Orange County, Burbank, and Long Beach). The Carl Moyer Program will fund the 

purchase of new electric GSE instead of new GSE powered by internal combustion 

engines if this equipment is surplus to the MOU; is not used to meet the requirements of 

any regulation, including the upcoming large-spark ignition regulation; is not funded 

through any other incentive program; and is not used to generate credits of any type. 

 E. Idling Reduction Technologies 

Truck drivers idle their propulsion engines for a number of reasons but the main 

purpose is for interior climate control -- heating and cooling the cab/sleeper 

compartment of the truck. A pilot survey on truck idling trends conducted in Northern 
XII-8 ZERO-EMISSION TECHNOLOGIES 

California indicates that 67 percent of idling is to provide heating and 83 percent for air 

conditioning [Brodrick et al., 2001]. Therefore, devices capable of providing heating and 

air conditioning without operating the propulsion internal combustion engine may 

substantially reduce emissions associated with truck idling. Such devices are eligible 

for funding in the Carl Moyer Program. 

Idling emissions, as well as fuel consumption, can be reduced by installing an available 

zero-emission idling control technology such as an on-board non-internal combustion 

engine device; by using a site-specific off-vehicle technology such as IdleAire; or by 

combining on and off-vehicle technologies. 

Available zero-emission on-vehicle technologies include generators or upgraded 

alternators coupled with inverter/chargers and electric heating ventilation and air 

conditioning (HVAC) systems. On-board battery packs or fuel cells are also an option. 

Off-vehicle technologies include grid-supplied electricity at truck stops and advanced 

truck stop electrification (e.g., IdleAire). The use of these devices, in lieu of operating 

the heavy-duty engine at idle, will result in significant NOx reductions. Reductions in 

PM and ROG are also expected but to a lesser extent depending on the type of 

alternative idle reduction device/strategy used. 

In October 2005, the Board will consider a proposal that would limit idling of heavy-duty 

trucks equipped with sleeper berths. This proposal would prohibit heavy duty trucks 

with sleeper berths from idling more than five minutes unless certain conditions are met. 

If the Board approves the staff recommendations, the baseline for calculating the 

benefits of truck idle reduction projects would be a certified diesel APU. Zero-emission 

technologies would be eligible for funding using the lower emission baseline. 

1. Idling Reduction Technology Options 

Because the vast majority of truck idling occurs away from truck stops, the most 

effective idle reduction technologies are those that are available to meet operator needs 

at any location idling occurs. The costs of these technologies vary widely, although the 

initial capital investment can typically be recovered within one to three years from 

reduced fuel and maintenance savings. Still, truck owners and operators have not been 

receptive to these solutions because of their higher initial cost. 

Another on-board idle reduction system utilizes electric heating, ventilation, and air 

conditioning (HVACs) instead of internal combustion engine-driven HVACs. These 

electric HVACs can be powered directly from the grid, a fuel cell, or from energy stored 

in battery packs. The battery packs can be charged from the grid, from the truck’s 

alternator, or from a small on-board gen-set. Fuel cells are an emerging zero-emission 

technology that may also substitute for idling truck engines or auxiliary power units in 

the future. 

Carl Moyer Program funds could be used to help defray the initial cost of equipping the 

truck with the necessary idle-reducing electric equipment. The Carl Moyer Program 
XII-9 ZERO-EMISSION TECHNOLOGIES 

would pay up to $5,500 toward electric equipment and up to $3,400 for its installation. 

In order to be eligible for funding, 75 percent of the applicant’s usage must take place 

within California. 

2. Truck Stop Electrification 

Installation of electric power infrastructure at truck stops, or truck stop electrification 

(TSE), is gaining support as an idling reduction strategy. Under this option, trucks 

would be provided with 110 volt alternating current (AC) electrical power at truck stops 

to run the electric air conditioning, heating and onboard appliances. The electric supply 

can also be used to charge on-board batteries for electricity use away from the truck 

stop. Truck stops would need to be equipped with electrical outlets throughout the 

parking spaces and trucks would need to be equipped, at a minimum, with 

inverter/chargers and electrical power connections. If fitted with batteries, the truck 

could use electricity away from the truck stop. The inverter/charger is used to charge 

the truck batteries and to convert the truck’s 12 volt direct current (DC) batteries to 

120 volt AC power for all onboard appliances. Currently, AC power inverters that are 

built into the truck are offered as a factory option by Freightliner, Volvo and 

International. The cost for inverter/chargers is approximately $1,400, a 600-700 Ah lead 

acid battery pack (good for about 8-15 hours of HVAC and appliance operation) costs 

approximately $8,000. 

As discussed above, the Carl Moyer Program would pay up to $5,500 toward electric 

equipment on-board the truck and up to $3,400 for its installation. TSE infrastructure 

installation at truck stops costs approximately $2,000 per truck parking space. District 

matching funds may be used to offset this cost. 

3. Advanced Truck Stop Electrification 

An alternative to the TSE system that does not need truck modifications has been 

introduced by IdleAire Technologies. This system provides heating and air conditioning 

to the truck, as well as electrical power for on-board appliances. It also provides basic 

services such as telephone and internet access and cable or satellite television. The 

unit is connected to the truck through a console mounted to the truck window using a 

template insert. The console contains all the necessary connections and controls, 

including a card reader for the billing system. The infrastructure cost is approximately 

$17,000 per parking space but may vary depending on the number of parking spaces 

installed. 

Several advanced truck stop electrification projects have been installed with state and 

local funding. Carl Moyer Program funds may be used for installing advanced truck 

stop electrification systems (e.g., IdleAire systems). In these cases, a partial payment 

would be made upfront to help offset the initial capital investment. The remainder of the 

grant amount would be paid out in installments based on system utilization. The 

amount of the initial payment and subsequent installments will be determined on a 

case-by-case basis. 
XII-10 ZERO-EMISSION TECHNOLOGIES 

The truck idling reduction projects described are just a few of many zero-emission idle 

reduction strategies. Other technologies and projects may also be eligible for 

Carl Moyer Program funding on a case-by-case basis. As with all projects, emission 

reductions must be surplus, real, quantifiable, and enforceable and the project must 

meet the cost-effectiveness threshold of $14,300 per weighted ton of emission 

reductions. 

 F. Transportation Refrigeration Units 

Electric standby transportation refrigeration units allow the engine to be turned off when 

a compatible electric power supply is available to operate the transportation refrigeration 

unit (TRU). Diesel engine emissions are eliminated while the TRU is plugged in at the 

facility. TRU manufacturers currently offer an electric standby option on most models 

but very few trucks operating in the United States – less than one percent of trucks with 

TRUs – opt for these units. Electric standby TRU models are common in Europe where 

approximately 90 percent of all truck TRUs have some type of electricity plug-in 

capability. As currently designed, however, the electric motors are only sized to hold a 

temperature set point and may not have sufficient power to pre-cool large trailer 

enclosures. This technology does not reduce emissions when the vehicle is away from 

an electricity source. 

Electrically-driven TRUs could, in the long term, be powered by fuel cells. This would 

allow the TRU to operate emission-free while enroute or when stopped at a facility, 

regardless of the availability of electricity. As previously mentioned, fuel cell technology 

for this application is not currently market-ready. 

Zero-emission TRU projects will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Criteria for 

other TRU projects are discussed in Chapter Four: Transport Refrigeration Units. 

 G. Other Zero-Emission Projects 

This chapter addresses some of the most likely zero-emission technology projects. It is 

by no means a complete list of zero-emission technology projects. Other zero-emission 

technology projects either require no special consideration (e.g., an internal combustion 

engine is directly replaced with an electric motor) or are described in the appropriate 

chapters (e.g., electric TRUs and power plug-in units to reduce locomotive idling). 

Zero-emission technology projects not specifically addressed in this chapter or 

elsewhere in the Guidelines may be considered for Carl Moyer Program funding on a 

case-by-case basis. As with all projects, emission reductions must be surplus, real, 

quantifiable, and enforceable and the project must meet the cost-effectiveness 

threshold of $14,300 per weighted ton. 

ARB staff will continue to work closely with interested stakeholders to monitor 

technological developments in effort to determine when it may be appropriate to 

develop or modify criteria for zero-emission projects. If necessary, ARB will issue 
XII-11 ZERO-EMISSION TECHNOLOGIES 

advisories to inform prospective applicants and districts of any new policy developments 

regarding Carl Moyer Program projects using zero-emission technologies. 

On September 6, 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Senate Bill 467 (Lowenthal) 

which requires the ARB to revise the Carl Moyer Program Guidelines to include projects 

in which an applicant turns in off-road equipment powered by internal combustion 

engines and replaces that equipment with new zero-emission technologies. This 

legislation will take effect on January 1, 2006. ARB staff will evaluate how to 

incorporate the requirements of this legislation into the Carl Moyer Program in 2006. 

IV. References 

Brodrick, C .J., N. P. Lutsey, Q. A. Keen, D. I. Rubins, J. P. Wallace, H. A. Dwyer, and 

S. W. Gouse III, Truck Idling Trends: Results of a Pilot Survey in Northern California, 

Society of Automotive Engineers, Technical Paper Series 2001-01-2828, Warrendale, 

PA, 2001.
THE CARL MOYER PROGRAM GUIDELINES 

PART III of IV 

AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Approved 

November 17, 2005
1 AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE 

 PROGRAM 

AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 

The Agricultural Assistance Program was created through provisions of 

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

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

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

reduction requirements for previously unregulated agricultural sources of air pollution. 

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

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

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

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

for a project. 

I. Background 

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

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

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

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

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

• projects funded through the Carl Moyer Program. 

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

equipment for agricultural sources. 

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

• an accelerated vehicle retirement or repair program. 

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

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

agricultural sources.” 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agricultural Assistance Program are already counted in the emission benefits of 

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

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

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

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

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

 PROGRAM 

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

emission sources are identified as part of this definition: 

• confined animal facilities (CAFs). 

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

used to propel instruments of husbandry. 

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

Program for major stationary sources. 

• sources of emissions otherwise subject to district regulation. 

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

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

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

reductions requirements and cost-effectiveness methodology. 

II. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements 

 A. SB 700 

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

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

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

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

this legislation are listed below: 

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

definition is provided in the preceeding section of this document. 

• The legislation removed language exempting agricultural sources from air quality 

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

required to obtain air permits from local districts. 

• The legislation established specific agricultural source permitting and exemption 

requirements for local districts. 

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

reduce emissions from agricultural sources in federal particulate matter 

non-attainment areas. 

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

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

implement emission mitigation measures. 

 B. Stationary Diesel Engines ATCM 

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

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

 PROGRAM 

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

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

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

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

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

purchased with Carl Moyer Program. 

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

engine requirements to be considered by the Board in 2006. 

C. Diesel-Fueled Portable Engines ATCM 

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

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

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

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

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

stringent in 2013, 2017, and 2020. 

 D. Large Confined Animal Facility Definition 

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

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

headcount of livestock categories and takes into consideration the federal ozone 

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

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

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

district consistent with applicable local rules. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

requirements of their mitigation plans. 
4 AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE 

 PROGRAM 

Table 1 

Large Confined Animal Facility Definition by Livestock Category 

(facilities at or exceeding threshold are considered large) 

Livestock Category Non-Attainment Areas* Attainment Areas* 

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

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

Other Cattle 

Operations 

7,500 calves, heifers, or 

other cattle 

15,000 calves, heifers, or 

other cattle 

Chickens – Broilers 650,000 1,300,000 

Chickens – Egg 

Layers 650,000 1,300,000 

Turkeys 100,000 200,000 

Swine 3,000 6,000 

Sheep and Goats 15,000 30,000 

Horses 2,500 5,000 

Ducks 650,000 1,300,000 

Rabbits, Pheasants, 

Llamas, Others 30,000 60,000 

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

 E. Local Air District Rules 

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

specifically exempted agricultural engines from prohibitory rules for stationary internal 

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

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

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

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

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

permitting conditions, and compliance requirements of the local district. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

to adopt regulations to meet these requirements. 

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

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

control generally require agricultural operations to implement a variety of 

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

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

 PROGRAM 

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

reduction of agricultural chemical applications. 

IV. Potential Projects 

The statutory provisions of AB 923 include requirements for Agricultural Assistance 

Program eligible projects: 

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

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

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

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

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

date of the rule, whichever is later. 

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

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

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

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

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

treat agriculture-related rules the same way. 

Criteria for the Agricultural Assistance Program are adapted from the 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

basis. 

 A. New Purchase 

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

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

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

off-road emission standards. 
6 AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE 

 PROGRAM 

 B. Repower 

 1. Repower with Electric Motors 

Replacement of uncontrolled or older engines in agricultural operations with electric 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

receive funds through the Agricultural Assistance Program for an electric motor 

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

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

information on these projects. 

 2. Repower with Emission-Certified Engines 

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

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

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

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

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

Agricultural Assistance Program funding. Cost-effectiveness of total reductions 

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

 3. Repower with SI Engines Meeting Local District Requirements 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

replaced. 

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

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

 PROGRAM 

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

and monitoring may not be included in the grant award. 

 C. Retrofit 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the existing engine being retrofitted. 

 D. Non-Engine Projects 

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

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

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

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

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

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

develop project criteria for non-engine sources. 

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

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

Potential control technologies and regulatory options will be evaluated for suitability 

under Agricultural Assistance Program requirements. During these evaluations, ARB 

staff will consider: 

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

reductions. 

• the availability of standardized testing procedures that will quantify emission 

reductions from these technologies. 

• availability of baseline emission factors. 

• potential multi-media issues. 
8 AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE 

 PROGRAM 

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

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

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

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

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

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

of total reductions formula. 

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

projects. 

 1. Livestock Operations 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

spreading as fertilizer.

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

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

reviewed important classes of VOC constituents and key dairy processes individually 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Panel evaluated technologies for their potential to reduce environmental impacts 

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

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

contaminants and is considering their efficacy in reducing environmental impacts, 

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

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

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

 PROGRAM 

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

• Thermal conversion (including combustion and gasification). 

• Solid-liquid separation (including dehydration). 

• Composting. 

• Anaerobic digestion. 

• Aerators/mixers. 

• Nitrification/denitrification. 

• Covers. 

• Microbials, enzymes, and other additives. 

• Feed management. 

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

algae, fish). 

• Combination systems (such as wastewater treatment plants). 

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

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

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

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

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

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

emissions, reduce ozone formation, and improve air quality. 

 2. Other Projects 

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

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

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

impacts must also be considered. 

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

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

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

output. 

V. Project Criteria 

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

applicants with a list of minimum eligibility requirements for Agricultural Assistance 

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

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

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

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

Program Guidelines. 
10 AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE 

 PROGRAM 

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

address local concerns. 

 A. General 

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

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

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

Emission reductions are not required to be surplus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

or other public financial assistance. 

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

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

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

limit or a project cost cap. 

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

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

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

quantifiable, and enforceable emission reduction benefits. 

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

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

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

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

motor greater than 19 kW. 

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

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

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

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

 PROGRAM 

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

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

 B. New Purchase 

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

portable equipment can only be electric motors.

 C. Repower 

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

must be with one of the following: 

− A new electric motor. 

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

standards. 

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

emission standards. 

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

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

keeping and reporting requirements. This criterion will sunset on 

January 1, 2008. 

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

− A new electric motor. 

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

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

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

keeping and reporting requirements. This criterion will sunset on 

January 1, 2008. 

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

− A new electric motor. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

requirement of documentation also applies to new installations. 

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

durability and warranty requirements. 
12 AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE 

 PROGRAM 

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

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

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

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

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

catalysts. 

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

testing procedure following local district requirements. 

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

using a portable analyzer following local district monitoring requirements. 

• The costs associated with source testing and monitoring requirements for 

non-certified SI engines are not eligible for funding. 

 D. Retrofit 

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

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

engine Tier standard or less for a given engine size. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

standard. 

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

and must comply with durability and warranty requirements. 

 E. Scrap 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 PROGRAM 

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

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

engine block on a district-by-district basis. 

VI. Cost-Effectiveness of Total Reductions 

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

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

Carl Moyer Program are not appropriate for evaluating Agricultural Assistance Program 

projects because those calculations are based on surplus emission reductions. 

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

Assistance Program are generally comparable to those funded by the 

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

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

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

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

reductions limits when implementing local programs.

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

reductions as if no regulatory requirement existed:

Annualized Cost ($/year) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

weighting due to the higher cost of reducing PM emissions. 

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

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

 PROGRAM 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

factor must be adjusted using the following formula: 

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

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

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

the baseline technology engine. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Annualized cost ($) = CRF * incremental cost 

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

various financial instruments over the length of an Agricultural Assistance Program 

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

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

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

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

Where 

i = discount rate (4%) 

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

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

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

 PROGRAM 

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

Program projects 

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

various project lives using a discount rate of 4 percent. 

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

technology from the cost of the reduced technology.

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

Technology 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Baseline Technology information:

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

• Engine horsepower (application): 285 hp 

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

• Load factor (default): 0.65 

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

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

Reduced Technology information:

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

• Engine horsepower (application): 275 hp 

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

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

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

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

Emission Reduction Calculations:

Annual NOx baseline technology emissions 

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

Annual NOx reduced technology emissions 

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

 PROGRAM 

Annual ROG baseline technology emissions 

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

Annual ROG reduced technology emissions 

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

Annual Combustion PM baseline technology emissions 

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

Annual Combustion PM reduced technology emissions 

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

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

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

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

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

 = 4.83 weighted tons/yr 

Project life: 7 years; CRF = 0.167 

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

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

Cost-Effectiveness of Total Reductions:

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

= $640/ton of weighted emissions reduced

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

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

requested. 

VII. Minimum Project Requirements 

 A. Application 

The minimum application information for stationary and portable agricultural engine 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

submitting future applications to any and all Agricultural Assistance Program and 

Carl Moyer Program solicitations. 
17 AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE 

 PROGRAM 

Table 2 

Minimum Application Information for Stationary and Portable 

Agricultural Engine Projects 

Agricultural Assistance Program 

Applicant Information

Organization, Company or Individual Name 

Street Address 

City, County, State, Zip Code 

Primary Contact Name 

Primary Contact Phone Number 

Person with Contract Signing Authority 

Person who Filled Out Funding Application 

Project Address (if different from above) 

Equipment Information

Equipment Type (portable, stationary, 

 other) 

Equipment Make 

Equipment Model 

Equipment Year 

Equipment Serial Number 

Baseline Equipment Fuel 

New Equipment Vendor (optional) 

Activity Information

Will the new engine have a functioning 

 hour meter for the life of the project? 

Annual Hours of Operation or Annual 

 Gallons of Fuel Consumption 

Percent Operation in California 

Percent Operation in District 

Project Life 

Electronic Monitoring Unit (EMU) 

Will a new eligible EMU be installed as part 

 of this project? (yes/no) 

EMU Make 

EMU Model 

EMU Model Year 

EMU ID Number 

EMU Cost (optional) 

 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION – 

NEW PURCHASE PROJECTS ONLY 

New Electric Motor Make 

New Electric Motor Model 

New Electric Motor Serial Number 

New Electric Motor Family 

New Electric Motor Year 

New Electric Horsepower (converted from kilowatts) 

Projected Year of Purchase of New Equipment 

Baseline Cost 

New Reduced Emission Equipment Cost 

New Electric Motor Vendor (optional) 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION – 

REPOWER PROJECTS ONLY 

Existing and Newer Engine/Motor Make 

Existing and Newer Engine/Motor Model 

Existing and Newer Engine/Motor Year 

Existing and Newer Engine/Motor Serial Number (if 

available) 

Existing and Newer Engine/Motor Fuel Type 

Existing and Newer Engine/Motor Horsepower 

Existing and Newer Engine/Motor Tier 

Existing and Newer Engine/Motor Family 

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

 or the SCE TOU-PA-ICE Incentive Programs? 

Is this project engine a currently covered by a Moyer 

Program contract? 

Engine Rebuild Cost 

New Reduced Emission Equipment Cost 

New Engine Vendor (optional) 

New Engine Installer (optional) 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION – 

RETROFIT PROJECTS ONLY

ARB-Verified Retrofit Device 

Retrofit Device Serial Number 

ARB-Verified NOx Reduction (%) 

ARB-Verified PM Reduction (%) 

ARB-Verified ROG Reduction (%) 

Retrofit Device Executive Order 

Verification Level (Level 1,2 or 3) 

Retrofit Device Cost 

Cost of Retrofit Installation (optional) 

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

 PROGRAM 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

completing the application. 

 B. Reporting and Monitoring 

Owners of stationary and portable agricultural engines participating in the 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

certificate may be issued to the equipment owner. 

Districts providing Agricultural Assistance Program incentive funds must maintain 

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

Agricultural Assistance Program. 

VIII. References 

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

Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines. 

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

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

Toxic Control Measure for Diesel-fueled Portable Engines. 

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

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

Proposed Revisions to the Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Compression 

Ignition Engines. 

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

 PROGRAM 

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

Hearing to Consider the Large Confined Animal Facility Definition. 

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

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

Attainment Program Guidelines, Revision 2005. 

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

2003. California Agricultural Overview. 

http://www.nass.usda.gov/ca/bul/agstat/indexcas.htm
THE CARL MOYER PROGRAM GUIDELINES 

PART IV 

APPENDICES 

Approved 

November 17, 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Appendix A – Acronyms

Appendix B – Tables for Emission Reduction and Cost-Effectiveness Calculations 

Appendix C – Cost-Effectiveness Calculation Methodology 

Appendix D – Example Calculations 

Appendix E – Description of Certification and Verification Executive Orders 

Appendix F – Retrofit Emission Control Strategies 

Appendix G – Description of Functional Equivalency of Non-Original Equipment 

Manufacturer Repowers and Rebuilt Engines for use in Repowers
APPENDIX A 

ACRONYMS 
A-1 ACRONYMS 

APPENDIX A 

ACRONYMS 

AAP Agricultural Assistance Program 

AB Assembly Bill 

ABT Average Banking and Trading 

AC Alternating Current 

AECP Alternative Emission Control Plan 

AESS Automatic Engine Start-Stop 

Ah Amp-hour 

APCD Air Pollution Control District 

APCO Air Pollution Control Officer 

APU Auxiliary Power Unit 

AQMD Air Quality Management District 

ARB California Air Resources Board 

ASM Acceleration Simulation Mode 

ATCM Airborne Toxic Control Measure 

ATE Advanced Travel Center Electrification 

AVL Automatic Vehicle Locator 

BACT Best Available Control Technology 

BAR Bureau of Automotive Repair 

bhp Brake Horsepower 

BNSF Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad 

BTU British Thermal Unit 

C/E Cost Effectiveness 

CAF Confined Animal Facility 

CCR California Code of Regulations 

CI Compression Ignition 

CNG Compressed Natural Gas 

CO Carbon Monoxide 

COG Council of Governments 

CRF Capital Recovery Factor 

DC Direct Current 

DDHS Diesel Driven Heating System 

DECS Diesel Emission Control Strategy 

DMV Department of Motor Vehicles 

DOC Diesel Oxidation Catalyst 

DOE Department of Energy 

DPF Diesel Particulate Filter 

E/S Electric Standby 

ECF Energy Consumption Factor 

ECF Energy Consumption Factor 

EF Emission Factor 

EGR Exhaust Gas Recirculation 
A-2 ACRONYMS 

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

EMU Electronic Monitoring Unit 

EO Executive Order 

EQIP Environmental Quality Incentives Program 

ERCs Emission Reduction Credits 

ES Emission Standards 

FBC Fuel-Borne Catalyst 

FCF Fuel Correction Factor 

FEL Family Emission Limit 

FTA Federal Transit Administration 

FTF Flow-Through Filter 

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 

LETRU Low Emission Transport Refrigeration Unit 

LF Load Factor 

LHD Light Heavy-Duty 

LNG Liquefied Natural Gas 

LPG Liquefied Propane Gas 

LSI Large Spark Ignited 

MDO Marine Diesel Oil 
A-3 ACRONYMS 

MGO Marine Gas Oil 

MHDV Medium Heavy-Duty Vehicle 

mi Mile 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

MV Fee Motor Vehicle Registration Fee 

MY Model Year 

NADA National Automotive Dealership Association 

NMHC Non-Methane Hydrocarbons 

NOFA Notice of Funds Available 

NOx Oxides of Nitrogen 

OBD II On-Road Diagnostics, Phase II 

OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer 

PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 

PEM Proton Exchange Membrane 

PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric 

PM Particulate Matter 

PM10 Inhalable Particulate Matter 

RFP Request for Proposals 

ROG Reactive Organic Gas 

RSD Remote Sensing Device 

SB Senate Bill 

SCAB South Coast Air Basin 

SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District 

SCE Southern California Edison 

SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District 

SOF Soluble Organic Fraction 

SOFC Solid Oxide Fuel Cell 

SOP Statement of Principles 

SORE Small Off Road Engine 

STB Surface Transportation Board 

STD Standard 

SULEV Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicle 

SUV Sport-Utility Vehicle 

SWCV Solid Waste Collection Vehicle 

TAC Toxic Air Contaminant 

TFV Transit Fleet Vehicle 

THC Total Hydrocarbon 

TIP Transportation Implementation Plan 

tpd Tons Per Day 

TRU Transport Refrigeration Unit 

TSE Truck Stop Electrification 

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

UB Urban Bus 
A-4 ACRONYMS 

ULETRU Ultra Low Emission Transport Refrigeration Unit 

ULEV Ultra Low Emission Vehicle 

UP Union Pacific Railroad 

V Volt 

VAVR Voluntary Accelerated Vehicle Retirement 

VIN Vehicle Identification Number 

VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled 

VOC Volatile Organic Compound 

VVR Voluntary Vehicle Repair 

yr Year 

ZEB Zero Emission Bus 
APPENDIX B 

TABLES FOR EMISSION REDUCTION AND 

COST-EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS 
B-1 EMISSION REDUCTION TABLES 

APPENDIX B 

TABLES FOR EMISSION REDUCTION AND 

COST-EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS 

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

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

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

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

Appendix D: Example Calculations. 

The emission factors in the tables reflect preliminary data on emission rates developed 

by ARB staff as part of a comprehensive effort to update the emissions models used for 

on-road motor vehicles and off-road mobile sources. These draft data were made 

available on ARB's website in early 2005, but are subject to change as staff completes 

its analyses and the associated model development. ARB staff will issue 

Carl Moyer Program Advisories to update the tables as necessary. 
B-2 EMISSION REDUCTION TABLES 

CRF FOR ALL PROJECTS 

Table B-1 

HEAVY-DUTY ON-ROAD VEHICLES 

Tables B-2 – B-8 

HEAVY-DUTY TRUCK IDLE REDUCTION 

Tables B-9 – B-10 

TRANSPORT REFRIGERATION UNITS 

Table B-11 

OFF-ROAD EQUIPMENT AND 

STATIONARY AND PORTABLE AGRICULTURAL ENGINES 

Tables B-12 – B-13 

LARGE SPARK IGNITION ENGINES 

Table B-14 

AIRPORT GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

Table B-15 

LOCOMOTIVES 

Tables B-16 – B-17 

MARINE VESSELS 

Tables B-18 – B-23 

LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

Table B-21 

REFERENCE 

Tables B-25 – B-28 
B-3 EMISSION REDUCTION TABLES 

ALL PROJECTS 

Table B-1 

Capital Recovery Factors (CRF) for Various Project Life 

At Four Percent Discount Rate 

Project Life CRF 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

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 
B-4 EMISSION REDUCTION TABLES 

HEAVY-DUTY ON-ROAD VEHICLES 

Table B-2 

Heavy-Duty Engines 2004-2006 

Converted Emission Standards 

(g/bhp-hr) 

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

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

urban buses. 

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

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

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

default values and the ultra low-sulfur diesel fuel correction factors listed in Appendix B, Tables 

B-22 and B-24, respectively 

Table B-3 

Heavy-Duty Alternative Fuel Engines 

Converted Emission Standards 

(g/bhp-hr) 

Model Year NOx PM10 

1988 – 1989 6.0 0.60 

1990 6.0 0.60 

1991 – 1993 5.0 0.25 

1994 – 1997 5.0 0.10 

1998 - September 2002 4.0 0.10 

October 2002 – 2006 2.0 0.10 

2007 1.2 0.01 

2010 0.2 0.01 

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 
B-5 EMISSION REDUCTION TABLES 

Table B-4 

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

NOx, ROG, and PM10 Emission Factors 

(g/mile) (a)

Model Year NOx ROG PM10 

Pre-1984 

1984 – 1986 

1987 – 1990 

1991 – 1993 

1994 – 1997 

1998 – 2002 

2003+ 

2004 – 2006 

2007+ 

17.21 

16.65 

14.60 

12.18 

10.70 

9.77 

5.39 

5.12 

0.51 

0.29 

0.29 

0.18 

0.16 

0.10 

0.08 

0.08 

0.08 

0.02 

0.792 

0.720 

0.504 

0.288 

0.216 

0.144 

0.216 

0.216 

0.024 

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

factors listed in table B-24. 

Table B-5 

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

NOx, ROG, and PM10 Emission Factors 

(g/mile) (a)

Model Year NOx ROG PM10 

Pre-1987 

1987 – 1990 

1991 – 1993 

1994 – 1997 

1998 – 2002 

2003 – 2006 

2007 – 2009 

2010+ 

21.39 

21.11 

18.23 

17.95 

17.58 

11.63 

6.36 

1.06 

1.04 

0.81 

0.54 

0.40 

0.51 

0.26 

0.23 

0.18 

1.249 

1.354 

0.562 

0.367 

0.403 

0.252 

0.028 

0.028 

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

factors listed in table B-24. 
B-6 EMISSION REDUCTION TABLES 

Table B-6 

Diesel Urban Buses 

NOx, ROG, and PM10 Converted Emission Standards 

(g/bhp-hr) 

Model Year NOx ROG PM10 

1987 – 1990(a)

1991 – 1993(a)

1994 – 1995(a)

1996 – 2002(a)

2003(a,b)

2004 – 2006(c)

2007 – 2009 

2010 

5.58 

4.65 

4.65 

3.72 

2.21 

- 

1.20 

0.20 

1.17 

1.17 

1.17 

1.17 

0.12 

- 

0.19 

0.19 

0.432 

0.072 

0.050 

0.036 

0.007 

- 

0.010 

0.010

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

fraction default values and the ultra low-sulfur diesel fuel correction factors listed in 

Appendix B, Tables B-22 and B-24, respectively. 

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

c - As of the date of publication, no diesel buses have been certified to the 0.5 g/bhp-hr 

2004-2006 model year emission standard. 

Table B-7 

Natural Gas Urban Buses 

NOx and PM10 Converted Emission Standards 

(g/bhp-hr) 

Model Year NOx PM10 

1991 – 1993 

1994 – 1995 

1996 – 1997 

1998 – 2002(b)

2003 – 2006(a,b,c)

2007 – 2009 

2010+ 

5.00 

5.00 

4.00 

2.50 

1.44 

1.20 

0.20 

0.100 

0.070 

0.050 

0.050 

0.020 

0.010 

0.010 

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

b - A majority of the natural gas urban buses have been certified to the optional 

standards. Therefore, these values are based on the optional standards. 

c - Many natural gas urban buses have been certified to optional standards below this 

level.
B-7 EMISSION REDUCTION TABLES 

Table B-8 

Conversion Factors for NOx, ROG and PM10 

Heavy-Duty Vehicle Projects 

(bhp-hr/mile) 

Model Year 

Medium HeavyDuty 

14,001-33,000 lbs. 

Heavy HeavyDuty 

33,000 lbs. + 

Urban Bus

33,000 lbs. 

+ 

Pre-1978 2.3 2.9 4.3 

1978 – 1981 2.3 2.8 4.3 

1982 – 1983 2.3 2.8 4.3 

1984 – 1990 2.3 2.7 4.3 

1991 – 1995 2.3 2.7 4.3 

1996+ 2.3 2.6 a 4.3 

a - 2.6 bhp-hr/mile is for all heavy-duty line haul trucks (class 8). 
B-8 EMISSION REDUCTION TABLES 

HEAVY-DUTY TRUCK IDLE REDUCTION 

Table B-9 

Heavy Heavy-Duty Vehicle Idling Emission Factors* 

(g/hr) 

Model Year NOx ROG PM10

Pre-1975 54.50 186.85 25.30

1975 – 1976 63.45 164.42 21.05

1977 – 1979 74.65 139.65 16.70

1980 – 1983 90.35 111.32 12.11

1984 – 1986 106.00 88.29 8.77 

1987 – 1989 121.50 70.42 6.34 

1991 – 1993 120.50 65.61 6.11 

1994 – 1997 136.00 52.26 4.43 

1998 164.50 37.77 2.62 

1999 – 2002 171.00 34.28 2.28 

2003 187.00 27.24 1.65 

2004 – 2006 191.50 25.56 1.50 

2007 – 2009 191.50 25.56 0.83 

2010+ 191.50 25.56 0.15 

*Factors are for truck idling at a RPM >800 

Table B-10 

Emission Factors for Small Off-Road Diesel Engines 

(g/bhp-hr) (a)

Horsepower Model Year NOx ROG PM10 

< 11 Pre-1995 9.30 1.26 0.720 

< 11 1995 – 1999 8.70 0.88 0.410 

< 11 2000 – 2004 5.76 0.57 0.376 

< 11 2005 – 2007 4.14 0.41 0.304 

< 11 2008 – 2020 4.14 0.41 0.152 

11 – <25 Pre-1995 6.44 1.54 0.550 

11 – <25 1995 – 1999 6.44 0.75 0.413 

11 – <25 2000 – 2004 5.49 0.54 0.306 

11 – <25 2005 – 2007 4.33 0.43 0.306 

11 – <25 2008 – 2020 4.33 0.43 0.152 

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

table B-25. 
B-9 EMISSION REDUCTION TABLES 

TRANSPORT REFRIGERATION UNITS

Table B-11 

TRU Engine Load Factors 

(Default Values) 

Horsepower Load Factor 

<25 0.64 

25 – 50 0.53 
B-10 EMISSION REDUCTION TABLES 

OFF-ROAD EQUIPMENT 

AND 

STATIONARY AND PORTABLE AGRICULTURAL ENGINES 

Table B-12 

Emission Factors for Off-Road 

Diesel Engines 

(g/bhp-hr) (a)

Horsepower Tier NOx ROG PM10 

25 – 49 Uncontrolled pre-1988 6.51 2.21 0.547 

 Uncontrolled 1988 + 6.42 2.17 0.547 

 1 5.26 1.74 0.480 

 2 4.63 0.29 0.280 

 4 Interim 4.55 0.12 0.128 

 4 Final 2.75 0.12 0.008 

50 – 74 Uncontrolled pre-1988 12.09 1.73 0.605 

 Uncontrolled 1988+ 8.14 1.19 0.497 

 1 6.54 1.19 0.552 

 2 4.75 0.23 0.192 

 3 2.74 0.12 0.192 

 4 Interim 2.74 0.12 0.064 

 4 Final 2.74 0.12 0.008 

75 – 99 Uncontrolled pre-1988 12.09 1.73 0.605 

 Uncontrolled 1988+ 8.14 1.19 0.497 

 1 6.54 1.19 0.552 

 2 4.75 0.23 0.192 

 3 2.74 0.12 0.192 

 4 Interim 2.15 0.11 0.008 

 4 Final 0.26 0.06 0.008 

100 – 174 Uncontrolled pre-1970 13.02 1.59 0.554 

 Uncontrolled 1970 – 1971 12.09 1.32 0.475 

 Uncontrolled 1972 – 1979 11.16 1.20 0.396 

 Uncontrolled 1980 – 1984 10.23 1.13 0.396 

 Uncontrolled 1985 – 1987 10.23 1.06 0.396 

 Uncontrolled post-1987 7.60 0.82 0.274 

 1 6.54 0.82 0.304 

 2 4.17 0.19 0.128 

 3 2.32 0.12 0.112 

 4 Interim 2.15 0.11 0.008 

 4 Final 0.26 0.06 0.008 

175 – 299 Uncontrolled pre-1970 13.02 1.52 0.554 

 Uncontrolled 1970 – 1971 12.09 1.26 0.475 

 Uncontrolled 1972 – 1979 11.16 1.14 0.396 

 Uncontrolled 1980 – 1984 10.23 1.08 0.396 
B-11 EMISSION REDUCTION TABLES 

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

listed in table B-25. 

Horsepower Tier NOX ROG PM10 

 Uncontrolled 1985 – 1987 10.23 1.01 0.396 

 Uncontrolled post-1987 7.60 0.82 0.274 

 1 5.93 0.38 0.120 

 2 4.15 0.12 0.088 

 3 2.32 0.12 0.088 

 4 Interim 1.29 0.08 0.008 

 4 Final 0.26 0.06 0.008 

300 – 750 Uncontrolled pre- 1970 13.02 1.52 0.533 

 Uncontrolled 1970 – 1971 12.09 1.26 0.454 

 Uncontrolled 1972 – 1979 11.16 1.14 0.382 

 Uncontrolled 1980 – 1984 10.23 1.08 0.382 

 Uncontrolled 1985 – 1987 10.23 1.01 0.382 

 Uncontrolled post- 1987 7.60 0.82 0.274 

 1 5.93 0.38 0.120 

 2 3.79 0.12 0.088 

 3 2.32 0.12 0.088 

 4 Interim 1.29 0.08 0.008 

 4 Final 0.26 0.06 0.008 

>750 Uncontrolled pre- 1970 13.02 1.52 0.533 

 Uncontrolled 1970 – 1971 12.09 1.26 0.454 

 Uncontrolled 1972 – 1979 11.16 1.14 0.382 

 Uncontrolled 1980 – 1984 10.23 1.08 0.382 

 Uncontrolled 1985 – 1987 10.23 1.01 0.382 

 Uncontrolled post- 1987 7.60 0.82 0.274 

 1 5.93 0.38 0.120 

 2 3.87 0.12 0.088 

 4 Interim 2.24 0.12 0.048 

 4 Final 2.24 0.06 0.016 
B-12 EMISSION REDUCTION TABLES 

Table B-13 

Default Load Factors for Off-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines 

Category Equipment Type Load Factor 

Agriculture 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 

Other Agricultural Equipment 0.51 

Construction Cranes 0.43 

 Crawler Tractors 0.64 

 Crushing/Processing 0.78 

 Excavators 0.57 

 Graders 0.61 

 Off-Highway Tractors 0.65 

 Off-Highway Trucks 0.57 

 Pavers 0.62 

 Other Paving Equipment 0.53 

 Rollers 0.56 

 Rubber-Tired Dozers 0.59 

 Rubber-Tired Loaders 0.54 

 Scrapers 0.72 

 Signal Boards 0.78 

 Skid Steer Loaders 0.55 

 Surfacing Equipment 0.45 

 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.55 

 Trenchers 0.75 

 Other Construction Equipment 0.62 

Cargo Handling Container Handling Equipment 0.59 

 Cranes 0.43 

 Excavators 0.57 

 Forklifts 0.30 

 Other, 

General Industrial Equipment 

0.51 

 Sweeper/Scrubber 0.68 

 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.55 

 Yard Trucks 0.65 

Stationary and Portable 

Agricultural Engines Stationary Irrigation Pump 0.65 

 Portable Irrigation Pump 0.65 

 Other 0.51 

Other All 0.43 
B-13 EMISSION REDUCTION TABLES 

LARGE SPARK IGNITION ENGINES 

Table B-14a 

Emission Factors for Off-Road LSI Engines by Model Year 

(g/bhp-hr) 

Horsepower Fuel Model Year NOx ROG PM10 

25 – 49 Gasoline Uncontrolled 

– all years 8.01 3.81 0.060 

 2001 6.91 3.00 0.060 

 2002 5.52 2.37 0.060 

 2003 4.52 1.64 0.060 

 2004 – 2006 1.33 0.72 0.060 

 2007 – 2009 0.89 0.48 0.060 

 2010+ 0.27 0.14 0.060 

 Alt Fuel Uncontrolled 

– all years 13.00 1.25 0.060 

 2001 10.40 1.05 0.060 

 2002 7.79 0.84 0.060 

 2003 5.19 0.64 0.060 

 2004 – 2006 1.95 0.13 0.060 

 2007 – 2009 1.30 0.08 0.060 

 2010+ 0.39 0.03 0.060 

50 – 120 Gasoline Uncontrolled 

– all years 11.84 2.66 0.060 

 2001 9.58 2.11 0.060 

 2002 7.32 1.56 0.060 

 2003 5.06 1.00 0.060 

 2004 – 2006 1.78 0.26 0.060 

 2007 – 2009 1.19 0.18 0.060 

 2010+ 0.36 0.05 0.060 

 Alt Fuel Uncontrolled 

– all years 10.51 1.40 0.060 

 2001 8.54 1.16 0.060 

 2002 6.56 0.92 0.060 

 2003 4.57 0.68 0.060 

 2004 – 2006 1.58 0.14 0.060 

 2007 – 2009 1.05 0.10 0.060 

 2010+ 0.32 0.03 0.060 

>120 Gasoline Uncontrolled 

– all years 12.94 1.63 0.060 

 2001 10.29 1.35 0.060 

 2002 7.64 1.07 0.060 

 2003 4.98 0.79 0.060 

 2004 – 2006 1.94 0.16 0.060 
B-14 EMISSION REDUCTION TABLES 

Horsepower Fuel Model Year NOx ROG PM10 

 2007 – 2009 1.29 0.11 0.060 

 2010+ 0.39 0.03 0.060 

 Alt Fuel Uncontrolled 

– all years 10.51 1.25 0.060 

 2001 8.53 1.05 0.060 

 2002 6.54 0.85 0.060 

 2003 4.56 0.64 0.060 

 2004 – 2006 1.58 0.13 0.060 

 2007 – 2009 1.05 0.08 0.060 

 2010+ 0.32 0.03 0.060 

LARGE SPARK IGNITION ENGINES 

Table B-14b 

Off-Road Equipment Default Load Factors 

Equipment Load Factor 

Agricultural LSI 

Agricultural Tractors 0.62 

Balers and other Ag Equip. 0.55 

Sprayers 0.50 

Stationary and Portable 

Engines 0.65 

Swathers 0.52 

Construction 

Asphalt Pavers 0.66 

Bore/Drill Rigs 0.80 

Paving Equipment 0.60 

Rollers 0.60 

Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.60 

Rubber Tired Loaders 0.55 

Skid Steer Loaders 0.60 

Trenchers 0.65 

Lawn and Turf 

Turf Equipment 0.60 

Light Commercial 

Forklift 0.30 

Other Industrial Equip. 0.50 
B-15 EMISSION REDUCTION TABLES 

AIRPORT GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

Table B-15 

Default Load Factors for LSI and Diesel Equipment 

Equipment Load Factor 

Belt Loader 0.50 

Baggage Tug 0.55 

Cargo Loaders 0.50 

A/C Tugs wide body 0.80 

A/C Tugs narrow body 0.80 

Lifts 0.50 

Ground Power Units 0.75 

Forklift 0.30 
B-16 EMISSION REDUCTION TABLES 

LOCOMOTIVES 

Table B-16 

Locomotive Emission Factorsa

(g/bhp-hr) 

Engine Model Year Type NOx ROGb PM10b

Pre-1973 

(Uncontrolled) Line-haul 11.70 0.47 0.288 

 Switcher 15.66 0.99 0.396 

1973-2001 (Tier 0) Line-haul 7.74 0.47 0.288 

 Switcher 11.34 0.99 0.396 

2002-2004 (Tier 1) Line-haul 6.03 0.47 0.288 

 Switcher 8.91 0.99 0.396 

2005 and later (Tier 2) Line-haul 4.50 0.26 0.153 

 Switcher 6.57 0.51 0.189 

a - Emission factors from U.S. EPA Technical Highlights - Emission Factors for 

Locomotives, December 1997, with fuel correction factors (FCF) applied. NOx and 

PM10 FCFs for all Carl Moyer Program categories is 0.9. 

b - HC and PM standards are less stringent than actual emission rates. Emission 

factors reflect actual emission rates per U.S. EPA document cited above. 

Table B-17 

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-17 EMISSION REDUCTION TABLES 

MARINE VESSELS 

Table B-18 

Harbor Craft Propulsion and Auxiliary Engine Emission Factors 

(g/bhp-hr) 

Horsepower Year NOx ROG PM10 

 pre-1988 12.09 1.73 0.605 

1988 - 2004 8.14 1.19 0.497 

50 – 99 

2005+ 4.22 0.54 0.320 

pre-1970 13.02 1.59 0.554 

1970 - 1971 12.09 1.32 0.475 

1972 - 1979 11.16 1.20 0.396 

 1980 - 1984 10.23 1.13 0.396 

1985 - 1987 10.23 1.06 0.396 

 1988 - 2003 7.60 0.82 0.274 

100 – 174 

2004+ 4.17 0.39 0.240a

pre-1970 13.02 1.52 0.554 

1970 - 1971 12.09 1.26 0.475 

1972 - 1979 11.16 1.14 0.396 

1980 - 1984 10.23 1.08 0.396 

1985 - 1987 10.23 1.01 0.396 

1988 - 2003 7.60 0.82 0.274 

175 – 299 

2004+ 4.17 0.39 0.160b

pre-1970 13.02 1.52 0.533 

 1970 - 1971 12.09 1.26 0.454 

 1972 - 1979 11.16 1.14 0.382 

 1980 - 1984 10.23 1.08 0.382 

1985 - 1987 10.23 1.01 0.382 

1988 - 2003 7.60 0.82 0.274 

300 – 750 

2004+ 4.17 0.39 0.160 

pre-1970 13.02 1.52 0.533 

1970 - 1971 12.09 1.26 0.454 

1972 - 1979 11.16 1.14 0.382 

 1980 - 1984 10.23 1.08 0.382 

1985 - 1987 10.23 1.01 0.382 

 1988 - 2006 7.60 0.82 0.274 

2007+ 

(1.2 < D < 5.0c) 

4.17 0.39 0.160 

2007+ 

(5 < D < 15c

) 

4.60 0.44 0.216 

2007+ 

(15 < D < 20c

) 

5.03 0.48 0.400 

2007+ 

(20 < D < 25c

) 

5.77 0.54 0.400 

>750 

2007+ 

(25 < D < 30c

) 

6.35 0.59 0.400 

a - If engine displacement < 0.9 liters/cyl, PM10 = 0.320 g/bhp-hr; If engine displacement >1.2 liters/cyl.,PM10 =0.160 g/bhp-hr. 

b – If engine displacement < 1.2 liters/cyl., PM10 = 0.24 g/bhp-hr. 

c – Engine displacement in liters per cylinder. 
B-18 EMISSION REDUCTION TABLES 

Table B-19 

Harbor Craft Load Factors 

Engine Vessel Type Factor 

Commercial 

Fishing 

0.27 

Charter Fishing 0.52 

Ferry/Excursion 0.76 

Crew & Supply 0.45 

Pilot 0.51 

Tow 0.68 

Tug 0.50 

Work 0.45 

Propulsion 

Other 0.52 

Tug 0.31 Auxiliary Other 0.43 

Table B-20 

Harbor Craft 

Fuel Consumption Rate Factors 

(bhp-hr/gal) 

Engine Displacement Fuel Consumption Rate

< 5 liters/cylinder 18.5 

> 5 liters/cylinder 20.8 
B-19 EMISSION REDUCTION TABLES 

LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

Table B-21 

Voluntary Accelerated Light-Duty Vehicle Retirement Program 

Emission Reductions for Calendar Year 2006* 

Total Pounds Per Vehicle Over 3 Year Credit Life 

 Emission Reductions (pounds) – 3 Year Credit Life 

Model Year NOx ROG** CO PM10 

65 and earlier 151 496 2,757 0.68 

66 145 471 2,552 0.67 

67 148 477 2,611 0.65 

68 156 492 2,731 0.81 

69 162 504 2,841 0.56 

70 169 438 2,971 0.99 

71 172 449 2,990 0.95 

72 177 458 3,037 0.83 

73 180 469 3,082 0.64 

74 159 401 2,859 1.20 

75 145 345 2,861 1.17 

76 130 222 2,673 1.04 

77 108 183 2,546 1.13 

78 107 186 2,493 1.10 

79 95 168 1,625 0.90 

80 85 129 1,373 1.13 

81 62 108 1,092 1.22 

82 66 101 1,085 1.36 

83 73 85 934 1.22 

84 73 74 883 1.05 

85 69 59 575 0.89 

86 71 61 527 0.91 

87 67 71 468 0.92 

88 67 65 430 0.85 

89 50 46 492 0.84 

90 38 45 529 0.81 

91 38 42 514 0.76 

92 40 41 510 0.71 

93 35 31 279 0.64 

94 19 17 21 0.54 

* Table is repeated in the Light-Duty Vehicle Chapter, Table 11-2 

** Includes exhaust and evaporative emissions 

Source: EMFAC2002, Version 2.2, statewide, annual average. Assumes average 1965 

through 2006 vehicle as replacement vehicle for vehicles retired in calendar year 2006. 

This table updates the emission reductions provided in ARB’s VAVR regulation 

consistent with the methodology in the staff report, Proposed Regulations for Voluntary 

Accelerated Light-Duty Vehicle Retirement Enterprises, released October 23, 1998, and 

approved by ARB on December 10, 1998. 
B-20 EMISSION REDUCTION TABLES 

REFERENCES

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

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

Table B-22 

NOx and NMHC Fraction Default Values 

For All Engines Except TRUs 

Diesel Engines Alternative Fuel Engines

NOx NMHC NOx NMHC 

0.95 0.05 0.80 0.20 

Table B-23 

NOx and NMHC Fractions for TRUs 

 

Horsepower Model Year NOx NMHC 

< 25 All 0.80 0.20 

25 – 50 2004 and earlier 0.80 0.20 

25 – 50 2005 to 2008 0.90 0.10 

25 – 50 2008 and later 0.95 0.05 

Table B-24 

Fuel Correction Factors for On-Road Diesel Engines 

Model Year NOx PM10 HC 

Pre- 2007 

2007+ 

0.93 

0.93 

0.72 

0.80 

0.72

0.72
B-21 EMISSION REDUCTION TABLES 

Table B-25 

Fuel Correction Factors for Off-Road Diesel Engines 

Model 

Year 

NOx PM10

Pre-Tier 1 0.930 0.720 

Tier 1+ 0.948 0.800 
APPENDIX C 

COST-EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATION METHODOLOGY
C-1 COST-EFFECTIVENESS 

APPENDIX C 

COST-EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATION METHODOLOGY 

I. Introduction 

To receive Carl Moyer Program funding, each project must meet the maximum costeffectiveness limit of $14,300 per weighted ton of surplus NOx, ROG, and PM10 (PM10 

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

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

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

surplus emission reductions. For more details see Part 1, Chapter 2: Administration of 

the Carl Moyer Program. 

II. General Cost-Effectiveness Calculations 

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

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

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

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

Annualized Cost ($/yr) 

Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions (tons/yr) 

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

provided in the following sections. 

A. Calculating the Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

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

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

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

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

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

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

calculation. 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Annual emissions of NOx for the baseline technology 

2. Annual emissions of NOx for the reduced technology 

3. Annual emissions of ROG for the baseline technology 

4. Annual emissions of ROG for the reduced technology 

5. Annual emissions of PM10 for the baseline technology 

6. Annual emissions of PM10 for the reduced technology 

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

factor or converted emission standard by the annual activity level and by other 

adjustment factors as specified for the calculation methodologies presented. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

specific source category cost-effectiveness criteria for more information. 

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

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

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

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

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

technology. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

calculated using the following activity factors on an annual basis: 

• Hours of operation, 

• Fuel consumption, or 

• Miles traveled. 

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

the source category chapters of the Carl Moyer Program Guidelines. 

1. Calculating Annual Emissions Based on Hours of Operation 

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

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

functioning hour meter. (See Part 1, Program Overview and Administrative 

Requirements, Chapter 2 Administration of the Carl Moyer Program, section VII and the 

relative source category chapter for additional information on this topic). In addition, the 

horsepower rating of the engine and an engine load factor found in Appendix B must be 

used. A default load factor of 0.43 is used for those projects where no specific 

equipment load factor is available in Appendix B. The method for calculating emission 

reductions based on hours of operation is described in formula C-4 below. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

baseline technology and reduced technology are different by more than 25 percent, the 

load factor must be adjusted following formula C-5 below. It is important to understand 

the replacement load factor must never exceed 100 percent in cases where the reduced 

technology engine is significantly smaller than the baseline technology engine. 

Formula C-5: Replacement Load Factor: 

Load Factor baseline * hp baseline/hp reduced 

2. Calculating Annual Emissions Based on Fuel Consumption 

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

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

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

Part 1, Chapter 2: Administration of the Carl Moyer Program, section VII.
C-4 COST-EFFECTIVENESS 

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

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

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

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

each unit of fuel consumed. Formula C-6 below is the formula for calculating annual 

emissions based on annual fuel consumed.

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

Factors or Converted Emission Standard (tons/yr): 

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

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

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

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

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

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

annual emissions for fuel based on-road calculations. 

Formula C-7: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Fuel Consumed using On-Road 

Emission Factors (tons/yr): 

[On-Road Emission Factor (g/mile)/Unit Conversion Factor (bhp-hr/mile)] * 

ECF (hp-hr/gal) * Activity (gal/yr) * Percent Operation in CA * ton/907,200g

3. Calculating Annual Emissions Based on Annual Miles Traveled 

Calculations based on annual miles traveled are only used for on-road projects. 

Mileage records must be maintained by the engine owner as described in Part 1, 

Chapter 2: Administration of the Carl Moyer Program, section VII, and the relative 

source category chapter. 

Calculations Using Emission Factors: There is no conversion since the emission 

factors for on-road projects provided are given in units of g/mile. Formula C-8 

describes the method for calculating pollutant emissions based on emission 

factors and miles traveled. 

Formula C-8: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Mileage using Emission Factors 

(tons/yr): 

Emission Factor (g/mile) * Activity (miles/yr) * Percent Operation in CA * ton/907,200g 

Calculating Annual Emissions Based on Converted Standards: The unit 

conversion factor found in Table B-8 in Appendix B is used to convert the units of 

the converted emission standard (g/bhp-hr) to g/mile. Formula C-9 describes the 

method for calculating pollutant emissions using converted emission standards. 
C-5 COST-EFFECTIVENESS 

Formula C-9: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Mileage using Converted Emission 

Standards (tons/yr): 

Converted Emission Standard (g/bhp-hr) * Unit Conversion (bhp-hr/mile) * Activity (miles/yr) 

* Percent Operation in CA * ton/907,200g 

4. Calculating Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant 

The final step in this portion of the calculations is to determine the annual surplus 

emission reductions by pollutant. For new purchases and repower projects, subtract the 

annual emissions for the reduced technology from the annual emissions for the baseline 

technology following formula C-10 below. 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for Repowers 

and New Purchases: 

Annual Emissions for the Baseline Technology – 

Annual Emissions for the Reduced Technology

For retrofits, multiply the baseline technology pollutant emissions by the percent of 

emission reductions that the ARB-verified reduced technology is verified to following 

formula C-11 below. 

Formula C-11: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for Retrofits: 

Annual Emissions for the Baseline Technology * 

Reduced Technology Verification Percent 

Calculations must be done for each pollutant, NOx, PM10, and ROG, giving a total of 

three calculations. 

For a repower + retrofit calculation the baseline to be used for the retrofit portion of the 

calculation will be the repower’s reduced technology emissions. For fleet modernization 

projects the baseline will be the newer vehicle emissions. 

The annual surplus emission reductions by pollutant would be used in Formula C-2 to 

calculate the annual surplus emission reductions. 

B. Determining the Annualized Cost 

Annualized cost is the amortization of the one-time incentive grant amount for the life of 

the project to yield an estimated annual cost. The annualized cost is calculated by 

multiplying the incremental cost by the capital recovery factor (CRF). The resulting 

annualized cost is used to complete formula C-12 to determine the cost-effectiveness of 

surplus emission reductions. 
C-6 COST-EFFECTIVENESS 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost ($): 

CRF * incremental cost ($) 

1. Calculating the CRF 

The CRF is the level of earnings reasonably expected by investing state funds in 

various financial instruments over the length of a Carl Moyer Program project. 

The CRF uses an interest rate and project life to determine the rate at which earnings 

could reasonably be expected if the same funds were invested over a length of time 

equaling the project life. The CRF is calculated following formula C-13 below. 

Formula C-13: Capitol Recovery Factor (CRF): 

[(1 + i)n (i)] / [(1 + i)n - 1] 

Where 

i = discount rate (4 percent) 

n = project life (at least 3 years see specific project criteria for default maximums) 

The discount rate of 4 percent reflects the prevailing earning potential for state funds 

that could reasonably be expected by investing state funds in various financial 

instruments over the length of the minimum project life of Carl Moyer Program projects. 

Table B-1 in Appendix B lists the CRF for various project lives using a discount rate of 

4 percent. Use the result from formula C-13 to complete formula C-12 to determine the 

annualized cost of a project. 

2. Calculating the Incremental Cost 

The incremental cost is determined by subtracting the cost of the baseline technology 

from the cost of the reduced technology, as described in formula C-14 below. 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost ($): 

Cost of Reduced Technology ($) – Cost of Baseline Technology ($)

Generally the cost of the baseline technology for a new purchase is the price of a new 

piece of equipment meeting the current emission standards. The cost of the baseline 

technology for a repower is the cost of rebuilding the existing engine. For retrofits, there 

is no baseline technology cost; hence the entire cost of the retrofit is eligible for funding. 
C-7 COST-EFFECTIVENESS 

For fleet modernization projects, the incremental cost is determined by adjusting the 

value given to the vehicle by the National Automotive Dealership Association 

(N.A.D.A.), as described in formula C-15 below. 

Formula C-15: Incremental Cost for Fleet Modernization Projects ($): 

When the replacement vehicle is not new: 

N.A.D.A value 

where the N.A.D.A value is the retail value of the used vehicle * 72 percent. 

When the replacement vehicle is new: 

Invoice of the New Vehicle * 80 percent 

Use the results from formula C-14 or C-15 to complete formula C-12 to determine the 

annualized cost of a project. 
C-8 COST-EFFECTIVENESS 

III. List of Formulas 

For an easy reference, the necessary formulas to calculate the cost-effectiveness of 

surplus emission reductions for a project funded through the Carl Moyer Program are 

provided below. 

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions ($/ton): 

Annualized Cost ($/yr) 

Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions (tons/yr) 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions: 

NOx reductions (tons/yr) + ROG reductions (tons/yr) + [20 * PM10 reductions (tons/yr)] 

Formula C-3: Estimated Annual Emissions by Pollutant (tons/yr): 

Emission Factor or Converted Emission Standard (g/bhp-hr) * Annual Activity * 

Adjustment Factor(s) * Percent Operation in CA* (ton/907,200g) 

Formula C-4: Estimated Annual Emissions based on hours of Operation (tons/yr): 

Emission Factor or Converted Emission Standard (g/bhp-hr) * Horsepower * 

Load Factor * Activity (hrs/yr) * Percent Operation in CA * ton/907,200g 

Formula C-5: Replacement Load Factor: 

Load Factor baseline * hp baseline/hp reduced

Formula C-6: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Fuel Consumed using Emission 

Factors or Converted Emission Standard (tons/yr): 

Emission Factor or Converted Emission Standard (g/bhp-hr) * ECF (hp-hr/gal) * 

Activity (gal/yr) * Percent Operation in CA * ton/907,200g 

Formula C-7: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Fuel Consumed using On-Road 

Emission Factors (tons/yr): 

[On-Road Emission Factor (g/mile)/Unit Conversion Factor (bhp-hr/mile)] * 

ECF (hp-hr/gal) * Activity (gal/yr) * Percent Operation in CA * ton/907,200g 

Formula C-8: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Mileage using Emission Factors 

(tons/yr): 

Emission Factor (g/mile) * Activity (miles/yr) * Percent Operation in CA * ton/907,200g 
C-9 COST-EFFECTIVENESS 

Formula C-9: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Mileage using Converted Emission 

Standards (tons/yr): 

Converted Emission Standard (g/bhp-hr) * Unit Conversion Factor (bhp-hr/mile) * 

Activity (miles/yr) * Percent Operation in CA * ton/907,200g 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for Repowers 

and New Purchases: 

Annual Emissions for the Baseline Technology – 

Annual Emissions for the Reduced Technology 

Formula C-11: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for Retrofits: 

Annual Emissions for the Baseline Technology * 

Reduced Technology Verification Percent 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost ($): 

CRF * incremental cost ($) 

Formula C-13: Capitol Recovery Factor (CRF): 

[(1 + i)n (i)] / [(1 + i)n - 1] 

Where i = discount rate (4 percent) and n = project life (at least 3 years see 

specific project criteria for default maximums) 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost ($): 

Cost of Reduced Technology ($) – Cost of Baseline Technology ($) 

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 * 72 percent. 

When the replacement vehicle is new: 

 Invoice of the New Vehicle * 80 percent 
APPENDIX D 

EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 
D-1 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

APPENDIX D 

EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicles 

II. On-Road Heavy-Duty Fleet Modernization 

III. Heavy-Duty Truck Idle Reduction 

IV. Transport Refrigeration Units 

V. Off-Road Compression Ignition Equipment 

VI. Large Spark-Ignition Off-Road Equipment (pending Board action) 

VII. Ground Support Equipment (pending Board action) 

VIII. Locomotives 

IX. Marine Vessels 

X. Agricultural Sources 

XI. Light-Duty Vehicles 

XII. Zero-Emission Technologies 
D-2 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

I. On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicles 

This section provides several examples of calculations for determining the 

cost-effectiveness of surplus emission reductions for on-road projects. 

A. General Criteria for On-Road Cost-Effectiveness Calculations 

• Funded projects must have a minimum project life of 3 years. Project life is the 

number of years that a Carl Moyer Program project will operate in California under 

the conditions specified in the grant funding agreement. 

• The default project life for on-road projects are as follows: 

School buses > 33,000 GVWR - New 20 years 

Buses > 33,000 GVWR - New 12 years 

Other On-Road - New 10 years 

Repowers + Retrofits 5 years 

Retrofits 5 years 

Applicants must provide documentation to justify a longer project life. 

• Only the minimum verified levels of NOx and PM10 emission reductions will be used 

to calculate cost-effectiveness for retrofit projects. 

• In these calculations, PM10 refers to combustion particulate matter. 

• ROG reductions cannot be counted in projects where the new engine or retrofit 

device are not verified or certified for ROG. 

• When the model year of the vehicle chassis and the model year of the existing 

engine are different, the newer of the two model years, either the vehicle or the 

engine, shall be used to determine the baseline emissions for calculations. 

• When calculating the baseline emissions for a glider kit repower project, the baseline 

for the project is the chassis year or the old engine model year, whichever is newer. 

• The incremental emission difference between the lower FEL level to the required 

emission standard cannot be used for the purpose of calculating Carl Moyer 

Program emission benefits. The maximum amount of emission reduction that can 

be claimed is the difference between the applicable required emission standard for 

the replacement engine (not the FEL level) and the baseline emission level of the 

existing engines. 

• Most on-road calculations will be based on mileage. Refuse haulers and street 

sweepers may have fuel based calculations if fuel receipts can be provided to 

document previous usage. Other vehicles may also use fuel based calculations on a 

case-by-case basis. 
D-3 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

• Refuse vehicles and street sweepers often have two engines, one for motive power 

and one for auxiliary operations. Emission benefits are calculated individually for 

each engine using fuel consumption rates for each unit if available. If individual 

engine fuel consumption information is not available, the applicant must provide and 

document an estimate for the typical activities of each engine based on best 

engineering judgment so that emissions can be determined. Factors such as fuel 

economy, typical operating loads, and hours of operation for each engine must be 

provided. 

• Table D-1 provides the source of emission factors to be used in on-road 

cost-effectiveness calculations. 

Table D-1 

On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicle Calculations 

Source of Emission Factors 

New Repower Retrofit 

Vehicle 

Type 

Baseline 

Factor 

Reduced 

Factor 

Baseline 

Factor 

Reduced 

Factor 

Baseline 

Factor 

Reduced 

Factor 

Medium 

Heavy 

Duty 

Vehicle 

B-4 B-2 or B-3 B-3 or B-4 B-3 or B-4 B-4 

% verified as 

shown on 

Executive 

Order 

Heavy 

Duty 

Vehicle 

B-5 B-2 or B-3 B-3 or B-5 B-3 or B-5 B-5 

% verified as 

shown on 

Executive 

Order 

Urban Bus 

(Alternative 

Fuel) 

B-2 or B-7 B-2 or B-3 B-7 B-7 B-7 

% verified as 

shown on 

Executive 

Order 

Urban Bus 

(Diesel) B-2 or B-6 B-2 or B-3 B-6 B-6 or B-7 B-6 

% verified as 

shown on 

Executive 

Order 

• The energy consumption factor to be used for all on-road fuel based calculations is 

18.5 bhp/hr-gal. 

• The baseline cost for retrofit projects is zero ($0). The full cost of a retrofit is 

potentially eligible for funding. 

• For retrofit projects that only take credit for NOx reductions from a Level 3 DECS 

(because the PM10 reductions are required by regulation) the baseline cost is 

one-half the project cost. 
D-4 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

• School bus calculations shall use the MHD or HHD vehicle emission factors and 

conversion factors depending on GVWR to calculate cost-effectiveness. 

• Applicants may claim ROG emission reductions from DECS if hydrocarbon emission 

reductions for that technology are obtained from the ARB’s retrofit website at: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/verdev.htm. For the Carl Moyer Program, ROG 

emission reductions will be credited at the 25 percent, 50 percent, and 85 percent 

reduction levels. To calculate emission reductions of ROG for the Carl Moyer 

Program, applicants should use the percentage reduction of hydrocarbons from the 

ARB’s retrofit website to determine the appropriate "level" of emission reductions. 

For example, a technology that provides a 40 percent emission reduction of 

hydrocarbons would be permitted to apply a 25 percent reduction in ROG emissions 

for determining eligibility and grant amount in the Carl Moyer Program. 

• Although electronic monitoring units are not required by the ARB, when an EMU is 

required by a district, it is an eligible expense for any category. 

• FTA provides up to an 80 percent grant for new urban bus purchases. For these 

projects the incremental cost would be the difference between the FTA grant amount 

and the cost of the reduced technology or baseline technology. 

• The cost of alternative fuel projects must be based on the total amortized cost of 

hardware (i.e., new engine or repower), and fuel, if applicable. 

• If all Carl Moyer Program criteria are met and the project is not a “fuel-only” project, 

the incremental cost of alternative fuel can be considered a qualified matching 

contribution from a district. 

B. Examples 

Example 1 – New Purchase of LNG Heavy-Duty Truck 

A trucking company proposes to purchase a new 2005 model year heavy heavy-duty 

truck equipped with a LNG engine certified to the optional standard of 1.8 g/bhp-hr NOx 

+ NMHC and 0.03 g/bhp-hr PM10 instead of a new heavy heavy-duty truck equipped 

with a diesel engine. This vehicle operates 100 percent of the time in California. 

Baseline Technology Information: 

• Baseline technology (application): 2005 diesel heavy heavy-duty on road truck 

• Cost (quote provided with application): $180,000 

• New diesel vehicle emission rates (Table B-5): 11.63 g/mi NOx, 0.26 g/mi ROG, 

0.252 g/mi PM10 

• Activity (application): 100,000 mi/yr 

• Percent operate in California (application): 100 percent 

Reduced Technology Information: 

• Reduced technology (application): 2005 heavy-duty LNG truck 
D-5 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

• Cost (quote provided with application): $220,000 

• New LNG vehicle emission standard (Table B-2): 1.44 g/bhp-hr NOx, 

0.030 g/bhp-hr PM10 

• Conversion factor to convert g/bhp-hr to g/mi (Table B-8): 2.6 bhp-hr/mi 

Emission Reduction Calculations: 

Formula C-8: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Mileage using Emission Factors 

(use for baseline calculations) 

1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions 

(11.63 g/mi * 100,000 mi/yr)(ton/907,200 g) = 1.28 tons/yr NOx 

2. Annual PM10 baseline technology emissions 

(0.252 g/mi * 100,000 mi/yr)(ton/907,200 g) = 0.028 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-9: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Mileage using a Converted 

Emission Standards (use for reduced calculations) 

3. Annual NOx reduced technology emissions 

(1.44 g/bhp-hr * 2.6 bhp-hr/mi * 100,000 mi/yr)(ton/907,200 g) = 0.41 tons/yr NOx 

4. Annual PM10 reduced technology emissions 

(0.030 g/bhp-hr * 2.6 bhp-hr/mi * 100,000 mi/yr)(ton/907,200 g)= 0.009 tons/yr PM10 

ROG emission factors not available for reduced technology therefore ROG emission 

reductions cannot be calculated. 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for 

Repowers and New Purchases 

• NOx emission benefits = 1.28 tons/yr – 0.41 tons/yr = 0.87 tons/yr NOx 

• PM10 emission benefits = 0.028 tons/yr – 0.009 tons/yr = 0.019 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

 0.87 + 20(0.019) = 1.25 weighted tons/yr 

Annualized Cost: 

Project Life: 10 years 

CRF (Table B-1) = 0.123 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost 

 $220,000 – $180,000 = $40,000 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

 $40,000 * 0.123 = $4,920/yr 
D-6 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

Cost-Effectiveness: 

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions ($/ton) 

($4,920/yr)/(1.25 weighted tons/yr) 

= $3,936/ton of weighted surplus emissions reduced 

The weighted cost-effectiveness for the example is less than $14,300 per ton of 

pollutants reduced. This project qualifies for the maximum amount of grant funds 

requested. 

Example 2 – Diesel to Diesel Heavy-Duty Truck Repower + Retrofit 

A line haul trucking company proposes to repower a 1994 heavy heavy-duty diesel truck 

with a model year 2003 certified diesel engine and retrofit the engine with a Level 3 

retrofit that is verified for both PM10 and NOx reductions. This vehicle operates 

90 percent of the time in California. 

Baseline Technology Information: 

• Baseline technology (application): 1994 diesel heavy heavy-duty engine 

• Cost rebuild (quote provided with application): $8,000 

• Baseline cost of retrofit: $0 

• Emission rates (Table B-5): 17.95 g/mi NOx, 0.40 g/mi ROG, 

0.367 g/mi PM10 

• Activity (application): 60,000 mi/yr 

• Percent operated in California (application): 90 percent 

Reduced Technology Information: 

• Reduced technology (application): 2003 diesel heavy heavy-duty engine 

• Repower cost (quote provided with application): $35,000 

• Retrofit cost (quote provided with application): $18,000 + $600 annual filter 

maintenance 

• Emission rates (Table B-5): 11.63 g/mi NOx, 0.26 g/mi ROG, 0.252 g/mi PM10 

• Retrofit verification emission levels (EO): 25 percent reduction of NOx and 

85 percent reduction of PM10. ROG is not counted since the retrofit device is not 

verified for ROG. 

Emission Reduction Calculations: 

Formula C-8: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Mileage using Emission Factors 

1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions 

(17.95 g/mi * 0.90 * 60,000 mi/yr)(ton/907,200 g) = 1.07 tons/yr NOx 

2. Annual NOx reduced technology emissions 

(11.63 g/mi * 0.90 * 60,000 mi/yr)(ton/907,200 g) = 0.69 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 

(0.26 g/mi * 0.90 * 60,000 mi/yr)(ton/907,200 g) = 0.02 tons/yr ROG 

5. Annual PM10 baseline technology emissions 

(0.367 g/mi * 0.90 * 60,000 mi/yr)(ton/907,200 g) = 0.022 tons/yr PM10 
D-7 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

6. Annual PM10 reduced technology emissions 

(0.252 g/mi * 0.90 * 60,000 mi/yr)(ton/907,200 g) = 0.015 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for 

Repowers and New Purchases 

• NOx emission benefits = 1.07 tons/yr – 0.69 tons/yr = 0.38 tons/yr NOx 

• ROG emission benefits = 0.02 tons/yr – 0.02 tons/yr = 0 tons/yr ROG 

• PM10 emission benefits= 0.022 tons/yr – 0.015 tons/yr = 0.007 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-11: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) 

for Retrofits 

0.69 tons/yr NOx * 0.25 = 0.17 tons/yr NOx

0.015 tons/yr PM10 * 0.85 = 0.013 tons/yr PM10 

Total NOx Emission Benefits 

0.38 + 0.17 = 0.55 tons/yr NOx 

Total PM10 Emission Benefits 

0.007 + 0.013 = 0.02 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

0.55 + 20(0.02) = 0.95 weighted tons/yr 

Annualized Cost: 

Project Life: 5 years 

CRF (Table B-1) = 0.225 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost 

 $35,000 + $18,000 + ($600*5) – $8,000 = $48,000 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

 $48,000 * 0.225 = $10,800/yr 

Cost-Effectiveness: 

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions ($/ton) 

($10,800/yr)/(0.95 weighted tons/yr) = 

$11,368/ton of weighted surplus emissions reduced 

The cost-effectiveness for the example is less than $14,300 per ton of weighted 

pollutants reduced. This project qualifies for the maximum amount of grant funds 

requested. 

Example 3 – Diesel Heavy-Duty Truck Retrofit 

A trucking company proposes to retrofit a 2005 heavy heavy-duty diesel truck with a 

Level 3 retrofit that is verified for both PM and NOx reductions. This vehicle operates 

80 percent of the time in California. 
D-8 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

Baseline Technology Information: 

• Baseline technology (application): 2005 heavy heavy-duty diesel truck 

• Cost (retrofits are eligible for full cost unless being installed to meet regulatory 

requirements): $0 

• New 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 (EO): 25 percent reduction of NOx and 

85 percent reduction of PM10. ROG is not counted since the retrofit device is not 

verified for ROG. 

• Retrofit cost (quote provided with application): $18,000 + $600 annual filter 

maintenance 

Emission Reduction Calculations: 

Formula C-8: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Mileage using Emission Factors

1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions 

(11.63 g/mi * 0.80 * 100,000 mi/yr)(ton/907,200 g) = 1.03 tons/yr NOx 

2. Annual PM10 baseline technology emissions 

(0.252 g/mi * 0.80 * 100,000 mi/yr)(ton/907,200 g) = 0.022 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-11: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for Retrofits 

 1.03 * 0.25 = 0.26 tons/yr NOx 

 0.022 * 0.85 = 0.019 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

 0.26 + 20(0.019) =0.64 weighted tons/yr 

Annualized Cost: 

Project Life: 5 years 

 CRF (Table B-1): = 0.225 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost 

 $18,000 + ($600*5) – $0 = $21,000 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

0.225 * 21,000 =$4,725/yr 

Cost-Effectiveness: 

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions ($/ton) 

 ($4,725/yr)/(0.64 weighted tons/yr) = 

$7,383/ton of weighted surplus emissions reduced
D-9 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

For retrofit projects that only take credit for NOx reductions from a Level 3 DECS 

(because the PM reductions are required by regulation) the baseline cost is one-half the 

project cost. 

The cost-effectiveness for the example is less than $14,300 per ton of pollutants 

reduced. This project qualifies for the maximum amount of grant funds requested. 

Example 4 –Purchase of a New CNG Street Sweeper 

A company proposes to purchase a new CNG street sweeper instead of a diesel 

sweeper. The GVWR of the new vehicle is 24,000 lbs. The CNG engine is certified to 

the optional emission standard of 1.2 g/bhp-hr for NOx+NMHC and 0.01 g/bhp-hr PM10. 

This vehicle operates 100 percent of the time in California. 

Baseline Technology Information: 

• Baseline technology (application): 2005 medium heavy-duty diesel vehicle 

• Cost (quote provided with application): $125,000 

• New diesel vehicle emission rates (Table B-4): 5.12 g/mi NOx, 0.08 g/mi ROG, 

0.216 g/mi PM10 

• Conversion factor to convert g/mile to g/bhp-hr (Table B-8): 2.3 bhp-hr/mi 

• Energy consumption factor: 18.5 bhp-hr/gal 

• Activity (application): 5,000 gal/yr 

• Percent operated in California (application): 100 percent 

Reduced Technology Information: 

• Reduced technology (application): 2005 medium heavy-duty CNG vehicle 

• Cost (quote provided with application): $160,000 

• New CNG vehicle emission standard (Table B-2): 0.96 g/bhp-hr NOx, 

0.01 g/bhp-hr PM10 

• Energy consumption factor: 18.5 bhp-hr/gal 

Emission Reduction Calculations: 

Formula C-7: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Fuel Consumed using On-Road 

Emission Factors (tons/yr) 

1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions 

(5.12 g/mi / 2.3 bhp-hr/mi)(5,000 gal/yr)(18.5 bhp-hr/gal)(ton/907,200 g) 

= 0.23 tons/yr NOx 

2. Annual PM10 baseline technology emissions 

(0.216 g/mi / 2.3 bhp-hr/mi)(5,000 gal/yr)(18.5 bhp-hr/gal)(ton/907,200 g) 

= 0.01 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-6: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Fuel Consumed using Emission 

Factor or Converted Emission Standards (tons/yr) 

3. Annual NOx reduced technology emissions 

(0.96 g/bhp-hr)(5,000 gal/yr)(18.5 bhp-hr/gal)(ton/907,200 g) 

= 0.10 tons/yr NOx 
D-10 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

4. Annual PM10 reduced technology emissions 

(0.01 g/bhp-hr)(5,000 gal/yr)(18.5 bhp-hr/gal)(ton/907,200 g) 

= 0.001 tons/yr PM10 

ROG emission factors not available for reduced technology therefore 

ROG emission reductions cannot be calculated. 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for 

Repowers and New Purchases 

• NOx emission benefits = 0.23 tons/yr – 0.10 tons/yr = 0.13 tons/yr NOx 

• PM10 emission benefits = 0.01 tons/yr – 0.001 tons/yr = 0.009 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

 0.13 + 20(0.009) = 0.31 weighted tons/yr 

Annualized Cost: 

Project Life: 10 years 

 CRF (Table B-1): = 0.123 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost 

 $160,000 – $125,000 = $35,000 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

 0.123 * $35,000 = $4,305/yr 

Cost-Effectiveness: 

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions ($/ton) 

 ($4,305/yr)/(0.31 weighted tons/yr) = 

$13,887/ton of weighted surplus emissions reduced

The cost-effectiveness for the example is less than $14,300 per ton of pollutants 

reduced. This project qualifies for the maximum amount of grant funds requested. 

Example 5 - Repower + Retrofit of Street Sweeper 

A company proposes to repower a 2001 diesel street sweeper with a 2006 CNG engine 

certified to the optional heavy-duty engine standard of 1.8 g/bhp-hr NOx + NMHC and 

0.03 g/bhp-hr PM10. The company will also retrofit the engine with a Level 3 retrofit 

that is verified for both PM and NOx reductions. This vehicle has a GVWR of 

19,000 lbs. and operates 100 percent of the time in California. 

Baseline Technology Information: 

• Baseline technology (application): 2001 diesel medium heavy-duty engine 

• Cost of rebuild (quote provided with application): $14,000 

• Emission rates (Table B-4): 9.77 g/mi NOx, 0.08 g/mi ROG, 

0.144 g/mi PM10 

• Conversion factor to convert g/mile to g/bhp-hr (Table B-8): 2.3 bhp-hr/mi 
D-11 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

• Energy consumption factor: 18.5 bhp-hr/gal 

• Activity (application): 7,667 gal/yr 

• Percent operated in California (application): 100 percent 

Reduced Technology Information: 

• Reduced technology (application): 2006 CNG medium heavy-duty engine 

• Cost (quote provided with application): $47,750 

• Converted emission standard (Table B-2): 1.44 g/bhp-hr NOx; 0.030 g/bhp-hr PM10 

• Retrofit Cost (quote provided with application): $18,000 + $600 annual filter 

maintenance 

• Retrofit verification emission levels (EO): 25 percent reduction of NOx and 

85 percent reduction of PM10. ROG is not counted since the retrofit device is not 

verified for ROG. 

• Energy consumption factor: 18.5 bhp-hr/gal 

Emission Reduction Calculations: 

Formula C-6: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Fuel Consumed using Emission 

Factors or Converted Emission Standards (tons/yr) 

1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions 

(9.77 g/mi / 2.3 bhp-hr/mi)(7,667 gal/yr)(18.5 bhp-hr/gal)(ton/907,200 g) 

= 0.66 tons/yr NOx 

2. Annual PM10 baseline technology emissions 

(0.144 g/mi / 2.3 bhp-hr/mi)(7,667 gal/yr)(18.5 bhp-hr/gal)(ton/907,200 g) 

= 0.010 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-7: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Fuel Consumed using On-Road 

Emission Factors (tons/yr) 

3. Annual NOx reduced technology emissions 

(1.44 g/bhp-hr)(7,667 gal/yr)(18.5 bhp-hr/gal)(ton/907,200 g) 

= 0.23 tons/yr NOx 

4. Annual PM10 reduced technology emissions 

(0.030 g/bhp-hr)(7,667 gal/yr)(18.5 bhp-hr/gal)(ton/907,200 g) 

= 0.005 tons/yr PM10 

ROG emission factors not available for reduced technology therefore 

ROG emission reductions cannot be calculated. 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for 

Repowers and New Purchases 

• NOx emission benefits = 0.66 tons/yr – 0.23 tons/yr = 0.43 tons/yr NOx 

• PM10 emission benefits = 0.010 tons/yr – 0.005 tons/yr = 0.005 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-11: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) 

for Retrofits 

0.23 tons/yr NOx * 0.25 = 0.06 tons/yr NOx

0.005 tons/yr PM10 * 0.85 = 0.004 tons/yr PM10 
D-12 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

Total NOx Emission Benefits 

 0.43 + 0.06 = 0.49 tons/yr NOx 

 

Total PM10 Emission Benefits 

0.005 + 0.004 = 0.009 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

0.49 +20(0.009) = 0.67 weighted tons/yr 

Annualized Cost: 

Project Life: 5 years 

 CRF (Table B-1) = 0.225 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost 

$47,750 + $18,000 + ($600 * 5) – $14,000 = $54,750 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

0.225 * $54,750 = $12,319/yr 

Cost-Effectiveness: 

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions ($/ton) 

 ($12,319/yr)/(0.67 weighted tons/yr) = 

$18,387/ton of weighted surplus emissions reduced 

The cost-effectiveness for this example is greater than the $14,300 per ton weighted 

cost-effectiveness requirement. In order to meet the $14,300 per ton weighted 

cost-effectiveness requirement, this project would only qualify for a fraction of the 

incremental cost – $42,582. This amount is determined by multiplying the maximum 

allowed cost-effectiveness by the estimated annual emission reductions and dividing by 

the capital recovery factor: 

($14,300 * 0.67)/0.225 = $42,582 

Example 6 –Purchase of a New CNG Bus 

A transit agency proposes to purchase a new 2005 CNG bus certified to the alternative 

fuel optional standard of 1.2 g/bhp-hr NOx + NMHC and 0.01 g/bhp-hr PM10 instead of 

a new CNG bus certified to the current alternative fuel standard of 2.5g/bhp-hr 

NOx+NMHC. The baseline cost for this project is based on a diesel engine. This new 

CNG bus is surplus to the ARB transit bus fleet rule. The new bus will operate 

100 percent of the time in California. 

Baseline Technology Information: 

• Baseline technology (application): 2005 CNG urban bus 

• Cost (quote provided with application): $350,000 

• Emission standard (Table B-2): 2.0 g/bhp-hr NOx and 0.010 g/bhp-hr PM10 
D-13 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

• Activity (application): 50,000 mi/yr 

• Percent operated in California (application): 100 percent 

Reduced Technology Information: 

• Reduced technology (application): 2005 CNG urban bus certified to optional 

standard 

• Cost (quote provided with application): $390,000 

• Converted emission standard (Table B-2): 0.96 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): 

4.3 bhp-hr/mi 

Emission Reduction Calculations: 

Formula C-9: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Mileage using a Converted 

Emission Standards 

1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions 

(2.00 g/bhp-hr *4.3 bhp-hr/mi)(50,000 mi/yr)(ton/907,200 g) = 0.47 tons/yr NOx 

2. Annual NOx reduced technology emissions 

(0.96 g/bhp-hr * 4.3 bhp-hr/mi)(50,000 mi/yr)(ton/907,200 g) = 0.23 tons/yr NOx 

3. Annual PM10 baseline technology emissions 

(0.010 g/bhp-hr *4.3 bhp-hr/mi)(50,000 mi/yr)(ton/907,200 g) = 0.002 tons/yr PM10 

4. Annual PM10 reduced technology emissions 

(0.010 g/bhp-hr * 4.3 bhp-hr/mi)(50,000 mi/yr)(ton/907,200 g) = 0.002 tons/yr PM10 

ROG emission factors not available for reduced technology therefore 

ROG emission reductions cannot be calculated. 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for 

Repowers and New Purchases 

• NOx emission benefits = 0.47 tons/yr – 0.23 tons/yr = 0.24 tons/yr NOx 

• PM10 emission benefits = 0.002 tons/yr – 0.002 tons/yr = 0 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

 0.24 + 20(0) = 0.24 weighted tons/yr 

Annualized Cost: 

Project Life: 12 years 

CRF (Table B-1) = 0.107 

Transit agencies receive an 80 percent grant from the Federal Transportation Agency 

for most new vehicle purchases. This grant must be subtracted before calculating the 

incremental cost. 

Transit agency’s cost for baseline technology: $350,000 * 0.20 = $70,000 
D-14 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

Transit agency’s cost for reduced technology: $390,000 * 0.20 = $78,000 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost 

$78,000 – $70,000 = $8,000 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

 0.107 * $8,000 = $856/yr 

Cost-Effectiveness: 

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions ($/ton) 

($856/yr)/(0.24 weighted tons/yr) = 

$3,566/ton of weighted surplus emissions reduced

The cost-effectiveness for the example is less than $14,300 per ton of pollutants 

reduced. This project qualifies for the maximum amount of grant funds requested. 

C. Auxiliary Engine Calculations 

To calculate the emission benefits of an auxiliary engine, see the Example #3 in the 

off-road section of this Appendix. 
D-15 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

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. 

A. General Criteria for Fleet Modernization Cost-Effectiveness 

Calculations 

• Target vocations are eligible for a five year project life. 

• Applicants may claim ROG emission reductions from DECS if hydrocarbon emission 

reductions for that technology are obtained from the ARB’s retrofit website at: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/verdev.htm. For the Carl Moyer Program, ROG 

emission reductions will be credited at the 25 percent, 50 percent, and 85 percent 

reduction levels. To calculate emission reductions of ROG for the Carl Moyer 

Program, applicants should use the percentage reduction of hydrocarbons from the 

ARB’s retrofit website to determine the appropriate "level" of emission reductions. 

For example, a technology that provides a 40 percent emission reduction of 

hydrocarbons would be permitted to apply a 25 percent reduction in ROG emissions 

for determining eligibility and grant amount in the Carl Moyer Program. 

• For these calculations, PM10 refers to combustion PM10. 

B. Examples 

Example 1 – Replacement of a Heavy-Heavy Duty Truck from a Targeted Vocation 

A participant wants to scrap an old, heavy heavy-duty truck used to haul cargo from the 

Port of Long Beach and replace it with a newer, used truck. The participant has 

provided conclusive documentation that for the last three years the old truck operated 

100 percent of the time in and around the Port area. The replacement truck will be 

equipped with a Level 1 diesel emission control system (DECS) and an electronic 

monitoring unit (EMU). The replacement truck is required to continue operating in the 

same vocation and location for the life of the project. 

Baseline Technology Information

• Baseline technology (application): 1983 heavy heavy-duty diesel truck 

• Emission rates (Table B-5): 21.39 g/mi NOx, 1.04 g/mi ROG, 

1.249 g/mi PM10 

• Activity (application): 42,000 miles/year 

• Percent operated in California (application): 100 percent 

• Vocation (application): Port hauling 

Reduced Technology Information: 

• Reduced technology (application): 2000 heavy heavy-duty diesel truck 

• Emission rates (Table B-5): 17.58 g/mi NOx, 0.51 g/mi ROG, 

0.403 g/mi PM10 
D-16 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

• Retrofit verification emission levels (EO): 25 percent NOx; 85 percent PM reduction 

• Cost (quote provided with application): $40,000 

• DECS cost (quote provided with application): $18,300 

• EMU cost: $1,150 (Includes installation and monitoring for five years) 

Emission Reduction Calculations: 

Formula C-8: Estimated Annual Emissions Based on Mileage Using 

Emission Factors 

1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions 

(21.39 g/mi * 42,000 mi)(ton/ 907,200 g) = 0.990 tons/yr NOx 

2. Annual NOx reduced technology emissions 

(17.58 g/mi * 42,000 mi)(ton/ 907,200 g) = 0.814 tons/yr NOx 

3. Annual ROG baseline technology emissions 

(1.04 g/mi * 42,000 mi) (ton/ 907,200 g) = 0.048 tons/yr ROG 

4. Annual ROG reduced technology emissions 

(0.51 g/mi * 42,000 mi)(ton/ 907,200 g) = 0.024 tons/yr ROG 

5. Annual PM10 baseline technology emissions 

(1.249 g/mi * 42,000 mi)(ton/ 907,200 g) = 0.058 tons/yr PM10 

6. Annual PM10 reduced technology emissions 

(0.403 g/mi * 42,000 mi)(ton/ 907,200 g) = 0.019 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 - 0.814 tons/yr = 0.176 tons/yr NOx 

• ROG Emission Benefits = 0.048 tons/yr - 0.024 tons/yr = 0.024 tons/yr ROG 

• PM10 Emission Benefits = 0.058 tons/yr - 0.019 tons/yr = 0.039 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-11: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for Retrofits: 

Emission benefits of the replacement truck with the DECS providing an additional 

25 percent NOx and 85 percent PM reduction 

 0.814 tons/yr NOx * 0.25 = 0.204 tons/yr NOx 

 0.019 tons/yr PM10 * 0.85 = 0.016 tons/yr PM10 

Total NOx Emission Benefits

0.176 tons/yr + 0.204 tons/yr = 0.380 tons/yr NOx 

Total PM10 Emission Benefits

0.039 tons/yr + 0.016 tons/yr = 0.055 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

0.380 tons/yr + 0.024 tons/yr + 20(0.055 tons/yr) = 1.504 weighted tons/yr

Annualized Cost

Project Life = 5 Years 

 CRF (Table B-1) = 0.225 
D-17 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

Formula C-15: Incremental Cost 

NADA Value of Replacement Truck: 

0.72 * $40,000 = $28,800 

Replacement Truck + DECS + EMU: 

 $28,800 + $18,300 + $1,150 = $48,250 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost

 $48,250 * 0.225 = $10,856/yr 

Cost-Effectiveness

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions

=($10,856/yr) / (1.504 weighted tons/yr)

= $7,218 weighted tons/yr 

In this example, the cost-effectiveness is less than threshold of $14,300 per weighted 

ton of pollutants reduced. This project qualifies for $28,800, the maximum amount of 

grant funds requested. The applicant will take out a loan to pay the remaining $12,000 

for the replacement truck. 

Example 2 – Tiered Transaction 

The owner of a 2000 model year, heavy heavy-duty truck wants to purchase a new 

2005 model year truck meeting the optional NOx standard. He has proposed a tiered 

transaction where he will buy a new truck and contribute his 2000 model year truck to 

the owner of a 1990 truck. The owner of the old truck has agreed to scrap the old, 

heavy heavy-duty truck that is used exclusively to haul agricultural commodities. The 

old truck owner has provided conclusive documentation that for the last three years the 

truck operated 100 percent of the time in the Central Valley region. The replacement 

truck will be equipped with a Level 3 diesel emission reduction system (DECS) and an 

electronic monitoring unit (EMU). The replacement truck is required to continue 

operating in the same vocation and location for the life of the project. 

 a. Fleet Modernization Transaction 

Old Vehicle Information (Baseline Technology): 

• Model: 1990 heavy heavy-duty diesel truck 

• Activity: 65,000 miles/year 

• Vocation: Agriculture (qualifies as a target vocation) 

• Percent Operation in California: 100 percent 

• Emission Rates (Table B-5): 21.11 g/mi NOx , 0.81 g/mi ROG, 1.354 g/mi PM10 

Replacement Truck Information (Reduced Technology): 

• Model: 2000 heavy heavy-duty diesel truck 

• Cost (quote provided with application): $50,000 

• Emission Rates (Table B-5): 17.58 g/mi NOx, 0.51 g/mi ROG, 0.403 g/mi PM10 

• DECS Cost: $19,100 (Level 3, 25 percent NOx + 85 percent PM Reduction) 

• EMU Cost: $1,150 (Includes installation and monitoring for five years) 
D-18 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

Emission Reduction Calculations: 

Formula C-8: Estimated Annual Emissions Based on Mileage Using Emission Factors 

1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions 

(21.11 g/mi * 65,000 mi) / (ton/907,200 g) = 1.51 tons/yr NOx 

2. Annual NOx reduced technology emissions 

 (17.58 g/mi * 65,000 mi) / (ton/907,200 g) = 1.26 tons/yr NOx 

3. Annual ROG baseline technology emissions 

 (0.81 g/mi * 65,000 mi) / (ton/907,200 g) = 0.06 tons/yr ROG 

4. Annual ROG reduced technology emissions 

 (0.51 g/mi * 65,000 mi) / (ton/907,200 g) = 0.04 tons/yr ROG 

5. Annual PM10 baseline technology emissions 

 (1.354 g/mi * 65,000 mi) / (ton/907,200 g) = 0.097 tons/yr PM10 

6. Annual PM10 reduced technology emissions 

(0.403 g/mi * 65,000 mi) / (ton/907,200 g) = 0.029 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant 

• NOx Emission Benefits = (1.51 -1.26) tons/yr = 0.25 tons/yr NOx 

• ROG Emission Benefits = (0.06 - 0.04) tons/yr = 0.02 tons/yr ROG 

• PM10 Emission Benefits = (0.097 - 0.029) tons/yr = 0.068 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-11: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions with DECS

Emission Benefits of the Replacement Truck with the DECS providing an additional 

25 percent NOx and 85 percent PM reduction 

• NOx Emission Benefits = (1.26 tons/yr * 0.25) = 0.32 tons/yr NOx 

• PM10 Emission Benefits = (0.029 tons/yr * 0.85) = 0.025 tons/yr PM10 

Total NOx Emission Benefits 

0.25 tons/yr + 0.32 tons/yr = 0.57 tons/yr NOx 

Total PM10 Emission Benefits 

0.068 tons/yr + 0.025 tons/yr = 0.093 tons/yr PM10

Formula C.2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

0.57 tons/yr + 0.02 tons/yr + 20(0.093 tons/yr) = 2.45 weighted tons/yr

Annualized Cost

Project Life = 5 Years (target vocations are eligible for 5 year project life) 

Capital Recovery Factor = 0.225 (Table B-1) 

Incremental Cost

NADA Value of Replacement Truck: $36,000 

Replacement Truck + DECS + EMU 

 = $36,000 + $19,100 + $1,150 = $56,250 
D-19 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost

Incremental Cost * Capital Recovery Factor 

 $56,250 * 0.225 = $12,656 

Cost-Effectiveness

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions

($12,656/yr) / (2.45 weighted ton/yr) 

= $5,166/ton of weighted surplus emissions reduced

 b. New Vehicle Transaction 

Baseline Technology Information: 

• Baseline Technology: 2005 heavy heavy-duty diesel truck 

• Cost (quote provide with application): $110,000 

• Emission Rates (Table B-5): 11.63 g/mi NOx, 0.252 g/mi PM10 

• Percent operation in California (application): 100 percent 

Reduced Technology Information (New, Low Emission, Optional Standard Truck):

• Reduced technology (application): 2005 heavy-duty LNG truck certified to the 

1.8 NOx + NMMC + 0.030 PM Standard 

• Cost (quote provided with application): $150,000 

• New LNG vehicle emission standard (Table B-2): 1.44 g/bhp-hr NOx, 

0.030 g/bhp-hr PM10 

• Conversion factor to convert the standard to g/mi (Table B-8): 2.6 bhp-hr/mi 

• Activity: 75,000 mi/year 

Emission Reduction Calculations: 

Formula C-8: Estimated Annual Emissions Based on Mileage Using Emission Factors 

(used for baseline calculations) 

Formula C-9: Estimated Annual Emissions Based on Mileage Using Converted 

Emission Standards (used for reduced calculations) 

1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions 

(11.63 g/mi * 75,000 mi/yr)(ton / 907,200 g) = 0.96 tons/yr NOx 

2. Annual NOx reduced technology emissions 

(1.44 g/bhp-hr * 2.6 bhp-hr/mi * 75,000 mi/yr)(ton / 907,200 g) = 0.31 tons/yr NOx 

3. Annual PM10 baseline technology emissions 

(0.252 g/mi * 75,000 mi/yr)(ton / 907,200 g) = 0.021 tons/yr PM10 

4. Annual PM10 reduced technology emissions 

(0.030 g/bhp-hr * 2.6 bhp-hr/mi * 75,000 mi/yr)(ton /907,200 g) = 0.006 tons/yr PM10 

ROG emission factors not available for reduced technology therefore 

ROG emission reductions cannot be calculated. 
D-20 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant for New Purchases 

• NOx emission benefits = 0.96 tons/yr – 0.31 tons/yr = 0.65 tons/yr NOx 

• PM10 emission benefits = 0.021 tons/yr – 0.006 tons/yr = 0.015 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

 0.65 tons/year + 20(0.015) tons/year = 0.95 weighted tons/yr 

Annualized Cost: 

Project Life: 10 years 

CRF (Table B-1) = 0.123 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost 

 $150,000 - $110,000 = $40,000 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

 $40,000 * 0.123 = $4,920/yr 

Cost-Effectiveness: 

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions ($/ton) 

= ($4,920/yr) / (0.95 weighted tons/yr) 

= $5,179/ton of weighted surplus emissions reduced 

 c. Tiered Transaction Calculations 

Annualized Cost of the Tiered Transaction 

Fleet Mod. Project Life: 5 Years (Target vocations have 5 year project life) 

CRF (Table B-1) = 0.225 

New, Low NOx Truck Project Life: 10 Years 

CRF (Table B-1) = 0.123 

Incremental Cost of the Tiered Transaction: 

(Incremental cost of the Fleet Mod Project from Section a) + (Incremental cost of the 

New, Low NOx Project from section b) 

$56,250 + $40,000 = $96,250 

Annualized Cost of the Tiered Transaction 

(Annualized Cost of Fleet Mod. Project from section a) + (Annualized Cost of New, Low 

NOx Project from section b) 

$12,656 + $4,920 = $17,576 
D-21 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

Emission Reductions

Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions of the Tiered Transaction

(Weighed Emissions Reductions of the Fleet Mod Project) + (Weighed Emission 

Reductions of the New, Low-NOx Project) 

(2.45 weighted tons/yr) + (0.95 weighted tons/yr) = 3.40 weighted tons/yr 

Cost-Effectiveness of the Tiered Transaction

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions ($/ton) 

 = ($17,567/yr) / (3.40 weighted tons/year) 

= $5,167/year of weighted surplus emissions reduced 

In this example, the cost-effectiveness is less than the threshold of $14,300 per 

weighted ton of pollutants reduced. Both tiered transaction project applicants qualify for 

the maximum amount of grant funds requested. A breakdown of the project cost 

follows: 

• Carl Moyer Program incentives for the tiered transaction project: 

Replacement truck (72 percent of $50,000 

+ full cost of EMU and retrofit) $ 56,250 

New truck (Incremental cost) $ 40,000

Total Carl Moyer Program incentives $ 96,250

• Net cost of the tiered transaction to the fleet mod. participant: 

 

 Cost of the replacement truck: $ 50,000 

 Cost of EMU and retrofit $ 20,250

 Total cost of truck/EMU/retrofit $ 70,250 

 

Carl Moyer Program Incentive -$56,250 

 Net cost to participant $14,000

• Net cost of the tiered transaction to the new low NOx truck purchaser: 

 Cost of the new, low NOx truck: $150,000 

 Value of the 2000 replacement truck: $ 50,000 

Carl Moyer Program Incentive -$ 40,000 

 Payment received for replacement truck -$ 50,000

 Net cost to participant for new truck $110,000
D-22 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

III. Heavy-Duty Truck Idle Reduction 

This section provides an example calculation for determining the cost-effectiveness of 

surplus emission reductions for heavy-duty truck idling reducing technology projects. 

A. General Criteria for Heavy-Duty Truck Idling Reducing Technologies 

Cost-Effectiveness Calculations 

• The actual capital cost, up to $5,500, of an APU may be funded. 

• The installation cost of an APU, including installation of an hour meter, up to a 

maximum of $1,700 per diesel APU and a maximum of $3,400 per alternative fuel, 

electric motor, or fuel cell APU, may be funded. 

• The cost of a PM retrofit may be funded provided the overall project cost 

effectiveness is under the limit of $14,300 

• For these calculations, PM10 refers to combustion PM10. 

• The minimum project life is three years. 

• Annual hours of equipment operation for determining emission reductions must be 

based only on readings from an installed and fully operational hour meter. A 

properly functioning hour meter is required to support equipment activity information 

included in the application for Carl Moyer Program funding. 

• Applicants may claim ROG emission reductions from DECS if hydrocarbon emission 

reductions for that technology are obtained from the ARB’s retrofit website at: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/verdev.htm. For the Carl Moyer Program, ROG 

emission reductions will be credited at the 25 percent, 50 percent, and 85 percent 

reduction levels. To calculate emission reductions of ROG for the Carl Moyer 

Program, applicants should use the percentage reduction of hydrocarbons from the 

ARB’s retrofit website to determine the appropriate "level" of emission reductions. 

For example, a technology that provides a 40 percent emission reduction of 

hydrocarbons would be permitted to apply a 25 percent reduction in ROG emissions 

for determining eligibility and grant amount in the Carl Moyer Program. 

• Default maximum project life: 

Off-road new purchase 10 years 

Off-road repower 7 years 

Repower + retrofit 5 years 

Retrofit 5 years 

Project life beyond the default maximum may be submitted with documentation for 

approval by ARB. 
D-23 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

B. Example 

Example 1 (Truck Stop Electrification (TSE) Project

A HDV truck operator proposes to install a TSE system consisting of an electrical plug, 

inverter/charger and electrical HVAC on a HDV to substitute shore power for the truck’s 

auxiliary power unit (APU). The APU operates 1,800 hours/year. 

Annual Baseline Idling Hours at truck stop in California: 1,800 

Idling Power Requirement: 2.7 kilowatts = 1.99 hp

Idling Substitution Rate: 100% 

Conversion factor: 1 ton = 907,200g 

Estimated cost of electrical plug, inverter/charger

 and electrical HVAC: $10,000 

Estimated Installation Cost: $4,000 

Amount Requested: $8,900 

The truck idling emission rates for 2007 are: 191.5 gm/hr of NOx, 25.6 gm/hr of ROG 

and 1.5 gm/hr of PM (Table B-9). 

The APU idling emission factors for 2008 and subsequent years are: 

5.76 gm/bhp-hr for NOx, .57 gm/bhp-hr and 0.376 gm/bhp-hr for PM 

(Table B-10). 

Formula C-3: Estimated Annual Emissions by Pollutant (tons/yr): 

Truck emissions in 2007 are: 

NOx: (191.5 gm/hr)(1800 hrs/year)/(907,200 gm/ton) = 0.38 ton/yr 

ROG: (25.6 gm/hr)(1800 hrs/year)/(907,200 gm/ton) = 0.051 ton/yr 

PM: (1.5 gm/hr)(1800 hrs/year)/(907,200 gm/ton) = .003 ton/yr 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) 

Baseline – Reduced (TSE is the reduced so emissions = 0) 

NOx = 0.38 ton/yr - (0.0 ton/yr) = 0.38 ton/yr 

ROG = 0.051 ton/yr - (0.0 ton/yr) = 0.051 

PM : (0.003 ton/yr) – (0.0 ton/yr) = 0.003 ton/yr 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions: 

Annual Weighted Surplus Emissions Reductions in 2007: 

(0.38) + (0.051) + (20)(0.003) = 0.461 ton/yr 

Formula C-3: Estimated Annual Emissions by Pollutant (tons/yr): 

APU emissions in 2008 are baseline: 4.14 gm/bhp-hr of NOx, 

0.41 gm/bhp-hr of ROG and 0.152 gm/bhp-hr of PM (Table B-10) 

NOx (4.14 gm/bhp-hr)(2 hp)(1800 hrs/yr)/(907,200 gm/ton) = 0.02 ton/yr 

ROG (0.41 gm/bhp-hr)(2 hp)(1800 hr/yr)/(907,200 gm/ton = 0.002 ton/yr 
D-24 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

PM: (0.152 gm/bhp-hr)(2 hp)(1800 hrs/yr)(907,200 gm/ton) = 0.001 ton/yr 

Reduced emissions in 2008 are the APU baseline values due to TSE = zero emissions 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions: 

Annual Weighted Surplus Emissions Reductions in 2008 are 

(0.02 ton/yr) + (.002 ton/yr)) + (20)(0.001 ton/yr) = 0.032 ton/yr 

2009 is same as 2008 

Average over three years is: 

((0.461) + (0.032) + (.032))/(3) = 0.175 tons/yr 

Cost and Cost-Effectiveness Calculations 

The annualized cost is based on the installation cost of the electrification package, the 

expected life of the project (3 years), and the interest rate (3%) used to amortize the 

project cost over the project life. The maximum amount that can be funded by the 

Carl Moyer Program fund is determined as follows: 

Electrification Capital Cost : $10,000 

Electrification Installation Cost: $4,000 

CMP Amount Requested: $8,900 

Formula C-13: Capitol Recovery Factor (CRF): 

 [(1 + 0.04)3 (0.04)]/[(1 + 0.04)3 – 1]= 0.361 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost ($): 

Annualized Cost (0.361)($8,900)= $3,213/yr 

Cost-Effectiveness (Based on weighted average emissions reduction) 

 ($3,213/year)/(0.175 tons/year)= $18,360/ton. 

Amount that would qualify: 

 ($14,300)*(0.175)/(0.35) = $7,150

Project starts in 2008: 

Annual Weighted Surplus Emissions Reductions in 2008 are 

(0.02 ton/yr) + (.002 ton/yr)) + (20)(0.001 ton/yr) = 0.032 ton/yr 

And this is the same for 2009 and 2010 for a three year project life. 

So the cost effectiveness is: 

 ($3,213/year)/(0.032 tons/year)= $100,093/ton 

Amount that would qualify: 

 ($14,300)*(0.032)/(0.361) = $1,268
D-25 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

IV. Transport Refrigeration Units 

This section provides two examples of calculations for determining the 

cost-effectiveness of surplus emission reductions for TRU projects. 

A. General Criteria for TRU Cost-Effectiveness Calculations: 

• TRU emission reduction calculations will use either fuel-based or hour-based 

formula for cost-effectiveness calculations. 

• Annual hours of equipment operation for determining emission reductions must be 

based only on readings from an installed and fully operational hour meter. A 

properly functioning hour meter is required to support equipment activity information 

included in the application for CMP funding. 

• TRU engine emissions increase with load. Load factors have been determined for 

TRU engines and have been found to vary by engine horsepower category. 

Table B-11 shows the default load factors assigned for use in the Carl Moyer 

Program. 

• Baseline and reduced engine emission factors are listed in Table B-12 Appendix B. 

• Applicants may claim ROG emission reductions from DECS if hydrocarbon emission 

reductions for that technology are obtained from the ARB’s retrofit website at: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/verdev.htm. For the Carl Moyer Program, ROG 

emission reductions will be credited at the 25 percent, 50 percent, and 85 percent 

reduction levels. To calculate emission reductions of ROG for the Carl Moyer 

Program, applicants should use the percentage reduction of hydrocarbons from the 

ARB’s retrofit website to determine the appropriate "level" of emission reductions. 

For example, a technology that provides a 40 percent emission reduction of 

hydrocarbons would be permitted to apply a 25 percent reduction in ROG emissions 

for determining eligibility and grant amount in the Carl Moyer Program. 

B. Examples 

Example 1 – Repower 

A TRU owner proposes to purchase and install a new engine in an existing trailer TRU 

that uses a 1999 model year TRU Tier 1 engine rated at 37.8 hp. From records, the 

owner knows the existing TRU engine has operated an average of 1,300 hours per 

year. The owner anticipates this operating trend will continue for the next three years. 

He doesn’t know what the TRU engine load factor is for his operations. Both the old 

and new operations occur 100 percent in California. The replacement engine will be a 

2006 model year Tier 2 engine rated at 37.8 hp. The cost of the new certified engine 

will be $4,000; the cost to replace the existing engine with a remanufactured 1999 

model year engine is $3200. Installation and engineering costs for the repower will be 
D-26 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

$700 greater than replacement with a remanufactured engine due to the need to modify 

motor mounts. 

Baseline Technology Information: 

• Baseline technology (application): 1999 engine 

• Emission factors (Table B-12): 5.26 g/bhp-hr NOx, 1.74 g/bhp-hr ROG, 

0.480 g/bhp-hr PM10 (Tier 1) 

• Engine rated HP (application): 37.8 hp 

• Default load factor (Table B-11): 0.53 

• Annual hours of operation (application): 1,300 hours 

Reduced Technology Information: 

• Reduced technology (application): 2006 engine 

• Emission factors (Table B-12): 4.63 g/bhp-hr NOx, 0.29 g/bhp-hr ROG, 

0.280 g/bhp-hr PM10 (Tier 2) 

• Reduced engine rated HP (application): 37.8 hp 

• Default load factor (Table B-11): 0.53 

Emission Reduction Calculations: 

Formula C-4: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Hours of Operation (tons/yr) 

1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions 

(5.26 g/bhp-hr)(37.80 hp)(0.53)(1,300 hrs/yr)(1 ton/907,200 g) 

= 0.15 tons/yr NOx 

2. Annual NOx reduced technology emissions 

(4.63 g/bhp-hr)(37.80 hp)(0.53)(1,300 hrs/yr)(1 ton/907,200 g) 

= 0.13 ton/yr NOx 

3. Annual ROG baseline technology emissions 

(1.74 g/bhp-hr)(37.80 hp)(.53)(1,300 hrs/yr)(1ton/907,200 g) 

= 0.05 tons/yr ROG 

4. Annual ROG reduced technology emissions 

(0.290 g/bhp-hr)(37.80 hp)(0.53)(1,300 hrs/yr)(1 ton/907,200 g) 

= 0.01 ton/yr ROG 

5. Annual PM10 baseline technology emissions 

(0.480 g/bhp-hr)(37.8 hp)(0.530)(1,300 hrs/yr)(1 ton/907,200 g) 

= 0.014 tons/yr tons/yr PM10 

6. Annual PM10 reduced technology emissions 

(0.280 g/bhp-hr)(37.80 hp)(0.530)(1,300 hrs/yr)(1 ton/907,200 g) 

= 0.008 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for 

Repowers and New Purchases 

• NOx emission benefits = 0.15 tons/yr - 0.13 tons/yr = 0.01 tons/yr NOx 

• ROG emission benefits = 0.05 tons/yr - 0.01 tons/yr = 0.04 tons/yr ROG 

• PM10 emission benefits = 0.014 tons/yr - 0.008 tons/yr = 0.006 tons/yr PM10 
D-27 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions: 

0.01 + 0.04 + 20(0.006) = 0.17 weighted tons/yr 

Annualized Cost: 

Project Life: 3 years 

CRF (Table B-1): = 0.360 

Formula C -14: Incremental Cost: 

$4,000 + $700 - $3,200 = $1,500 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

$1,500 * 0.360 = $540/yr 

Cost Effectiveness: 

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions ($/ton): 

($540yr)/(0.17 weighted ton/yr) 

 = $3,176/ton of weighted surplus emissions reduced 

This project would qualify for a $1,500 Carl Moyer Program grant, covering all of the 

capital and installation costs of the project. 

Example 2 – Retrofit 

A TRU owner decides to retrofit a 34 hp model year 2001 TRU Tier 1 engine with a 

verified Level 3 active diesel particulate filter (DPF) system that uses a fuel-borne 

catalyst (FBC). The capital cost for the DPF system with FBC dosing unit is $2,800, 

including installation. The owner reports operating the TRU 2,000 hours per year. The 

project would commence by January 1, 2007. The applicant is willing to commit to a 

three year project life. 

Surplus emissions from early compliance: 

Model year 2001 TRU engines must comply with the TRU ATCM's LETRU In-Use 

Performance Standard (Level 2 – 50 percent PM reduction) by the end of 2008. Model 

year 2001 TRU engines must also comply with the TRU ATCM’s ULETRU standard 

(Level 3 – 85 percent PM reduction) by the end of 2015. Therefore, all of the emission 

reductions in 2007 and 2008 would be surplus. And, in the third year of the project, 

2009, the surplus emissions would be 35 percent (85 percent minus 50 percent) of the 

baseline engine emissions. The ARB test data shows ROG reductions of 55 percent 

from use of the DPF. For the Carl Moyer Program, the applicant may count a 

50 percent ROG reduction for the cost-effectiveness calculation. 

Baseline Technology Information: 

• Baseline technology (application): 34 hp model year 2001 TRU engine 

• Baseline engine rated HP (application): 34 hp 

• Default load factor (Table B-11): 0.53 (assumed to stay constant before and after 

project) 

• Annual hours of operation (application): 2,000 hr/yr 
D-28 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

• Emission factors (Table B-12): 1.74 g/bhp-hr ROG, 0.480 g/bhp-hr PM10 

Reduced Technology Information: 

• Reduced technology (application): Level 3 active diesel particulate filter (DPF) 

system that uses a fuel-borne catalyst (FBC). 

• Retrofit verification emission level (EO): 50 percent ROG, 85 percent PM10 

• Cost (quote provided by applicant): $2,800 for DPF system with FBC dosing 

including installation. 

• Annual hours of operation (application): 2,000 hr

Emission Reduction Calculations

Formula C-4: Estimated Annual Emissions based on hours of Operation (tons/yr) 

1. Annual ROG baseline technology emissions 

(1.74 g/bhp-hr)(0.53)(2,000 hr)(1 ton/907,200 g) = 0.07 tons/yr ROG 

2. Annual PM10 baseline technology emissions 

(0.480 g/bhp-hr)(34.00 hp)(0.530)(2,000 hrs/yr)(1 ton/907,200 g) 

= 0.019 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-11: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for Retrofits 

 Estimated emission reductions are: 

2007: 0.07 tons/yr * 0.50 = 0.04 tons/yr ROG 

2008: 0.07 tons/yr * 0.50 = 0.04 tons/yr ROG 

2009: 0.07 tons/yr * 0.50 = 0.04 tons/yr ROG 

2007: 0.019 tons/yr * 0.85 = 0.016 tons/yr PM10 

2008: 0.019 tons/yr * 0.85 = 0.016 tons/yr PM10 

2009: 0.019 tons/yr * 0.35 = 0.007 tons/yr PM10 

 

Average PM10 Reductions = (0.016 tons/yr PM10 + 0.016 tons/yr PM10 + 

0.007 tons/yr PM10)/3 = 0.013 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

0.04 + 20(0.013) = 0.30 weighted tons/yr 

Annualized Cost: 

Project Life: 3 years 

CRF (Table B-1): = 0.360 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost 

 $2,800 – $0 = $2,800 

(Note: Annual operating costs above normal (e.g., cost of FBC) cannot be paid for with 

Carl Moyer Program funds, but air districts may elect to pay for these with matching 

funds.) 
D-29 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

 0.360 * $2,800 = $1,008/yr 

Cost-Effectiveness: 

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions ($/ton) 

($1,008/yr)/(0.30 weighted ton/yr) 

=$3,360/ ton of weighted surplus emissions reduced

The cost-effectiveness is below the $14,300 threshold. This project would therefore 

qualify for a $2,800 Carl Moyer Program grant covering all of the capital costs and 

installation costs of the project 
D-30 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

V. Off-Road Compression-Ignition Engines 

This section provides four examples of calculations for determining the 

cost-effectiveness of surplus emission reductions for off-road compression-ignition 

projects. 

A. General Criteria for Off-Road Compression-Ignition Engine 

Cost-Effectiveness Calculations 

• Off-road emission reduction calculations will use either fuel-based or hour-based 

formula for weighted cost-effectiveness calculations. 

• Annual hours of equipment operation for determining emission reductions must be 

based only on readings from an installed and fully operational hour meter. A 

properly functioning hour meter is required to support equipment activity information 

included in the application for CMP funding. 

• For applications or equipment not listed in Table B-13 in Appendix B, a default load 

factor of 0.43 must be used. 

• The replacement load factor should never exceed 100 percent in cases where the 

replacement engine is significantly smaller than the existing engine 

• Baseline and reduced engine emission factors are listed in Table B-12 of 

Appendix B. 

• For off-road equipment capable of operation with a new certified on-road engine 

instead of a new off-road engine (i.e., yard hostlers, yard goats), emission benefits 

from the baseline engine will be based on an on-road engine. If an applicant 

provides sufficient documentation to show that past practices involve predominantly 

the use of off-road engines in yard hostlers, then an off-road engine emission factor 

baseline can be used. 

• For new purchases of off-road equipment powered by an on-road engine, emission 

benefits relative to the baseline engine are calculated based on on-road engine 

emission factors. If an applicant provides ARB with documentation showing that in 

past practice, the fleet has been powered by off-road engines, then the baseline 

emission may be calculated using the off-road engine emission factors. 

• For calculations based on fuel consumption, use the default energy consumption 

factor (ECF) of 18.5 bhp-hr/gallon. 

• Default project life 

 Default 

Off-road new purchase 10 years 
D-31 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

Off-road repower 7 years 

Off-road repower and retrofit 5 years 

Retrofit 5 years 

Project life beyond the default project life may be submitted with documentation for 

approval by ARB. 

• Applicants may claim ROG emission reductions from DECS if hydrocarbon emission 

reductions for that technology are obtained from the ARB’s retrofit website at: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/verdev.htm. For the Carl Moyer Program, ROG 

emission reductions will be credited at the 25 percent, 50 percent, and 85 percent 

reduction levels. To calculate emission reductions of ROG for the Carl Moyer 

Program, applicants should use the percentage reduction of hydrocarbons from the 

ARB’s retrofit website to determine the appropriate "level" of emission reductions. 

For example, a technology that provides a 40 percent emission reduction of 

hydrocarbons would be permitted to apply a 25 percent reduction in ROG emissions 

for determining eligibility and grant amount in the Carl Moyer Program. 

B. Examples 

Example 1 – Repower with a Tier 2 Engine and Retrofit with a Level 3 DECS 

A construction company wants to repower an uncontrolled scraper with a Tier 2 engine. 

The baseline engine is a 300 hp 1987 Caterpillar 3306 that operates for 1,500 hours per 

year and would cost $11,500 to rebuild. The applicant is proposing to install a 300 hp 

2004 Caterpillar C9 that costs $80,000. This equipment operates 100 percent of the 

time in California and has a project life of 5 years. A Level 3 diesel particulate filter has 

been verified for use on a 2004 Caterpillar C9 engine and has a cost of $15,000. Since 

installation of a retrofit device is required for off-road projects if available and feasible, 

the cost-effectiveness of the project including the installation of the DECS must be 

determined. 

Baseline Technology Information: 

• Engine: 1987 Caterpillar 3306 

• HP (application): 300 

• Hours of operation (application): 1,500 

• Cost of rebuild (quote provided with application): $11,500 

• Load factor (Table B-13): 0.72 

• Emission factors (Table B-12): 10.23 g/bhp-hr NOx; 1.01 g/bhp-hr ROG; 

0.382 g/bhp-hr PM10 

Reduced Technology Information: 

• Engine: 2004 Caterpillar C9 (Executive Order U-R-001-0247; Engine family 

4CPXL08.8HSK) 

• HP (application): 300 

• Hours of operation (application): 1,500 

• Cost of new engine (quote provided with application): $80,000 
D-32 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

• Load factor (Table B-13): 0.72 

• Emission factors (Table B-12): 3.79 g/bhp-hr NOx; 0.12 g/bhp-hr ROG; 

0.088 g/bhp-hr PM10 

• Percent operating in California (application): 100 percent 

• Retrofit: Level 3 verified reductions: 85 percent PM10 

• Cost of retrofit (quote provided with application): $15,000 

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 

3.79 g/bhp-hr *300 hp*0.72*1500 hr*(ton/907,200 g) = 1.35 tons/yr NOx 

3. Annual ROG baseline technology emissions 

1.01 g/bhp-hr *300 hp* 0.72*1500 hr*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.36 tons/yr ROG 

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 

0.382 g/bhp-hr *300 hp*0.72*1500 hr*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.136 tons/yr PM10 

6. Annual PM10 reduced technology emissions 

0.088 g/bhp-hr *300 hp*0.72*1500 hr*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.031 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for 

Repowers and New Purchases 

• Emission benefits NOx = 3.65 tons/yr - 1.35 tons/yr = 2.30 tons/yr NOx 

• Emission benefits ROG = 0.36 tons/yr - 0.04 tons/yr = 0.32 tons/yr ROG 

• Emission benefits PM10 = 0.136 tons/yr - 0.031 tons/yr = 0.105 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-11: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for Retrofits 

 0.031 tons/yr PM10 * 0.85 = 0.026 tons/yr PM10 

Total PM10 Emission Benefits 

 0.105 tons/yr + 0.026 tons/yr = 0.131 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

2.30 tons/yr + 0.32 tons/yr + 20(0.131 tons/yr) = 5.24 weighted tons/yr

Annualized Cost: 

Project Life: 5 years 

CRF (Table B-1): = 0.225 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost 

$95,000 - $11,500 = $83,500 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

 0.225 * $83,500 = $18,788 
D-33 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

Cost-Effectiveness: 

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions ($/ton) 

($18,788/yr)/(5.24 weighted tons/yr) 

= $3,585/tons of weighted surplus emissions reduced

Example 2 – New Purchase 

An applicant wants to purchase a new yard tractor with an LNG 250 hp on-road engine 

certified to ARB’s Heavy Duty Optional Standard (2004 Cummins C Gas Plus 8.3 L) at a 

cost of $96,800. The applicant has provided documentation that they would normally 

have purchased a yard tractor with a 2004 250 hp Tier 2 off-road diesel engine at a cost 

of $61,250. The annual hours of operation is 1,250 hours, the equipment operates 

100 percent of the time in California, and has a project life of 10 years. The default load 

factor is 0.43. 

Baseline Technology Information: 

• Engine: 2004 Tier 2 off-road diesel engine 

• HP (application): 250 

• Annual hours of operation (application): 2,000 

• Default load factor: 0.43 

• Cost of new equipment (quote provided with application): $61,250 

• Emission factors (Table B-12): 4.15 g/bhp-hr NOx; 0.12 g/bhp-hr ROG; 

0.088 g/bhp-hr PM10 

Reduced Technology Information: 

• Engine (application): 2004 Cummins C Gas Plus (Executive Order A-021-0362) 

• HP (application): 250 

• Annual hours of operation (application): 2,000 

• Default load factor: 0.43 

• Cost of new equipment (quote provided with application): $96,800 

• Converted emission standards (Table B-2): 1.44 g/bhp-hr NOx; 

0.030 g/bhp-hr PM10 

• Percent operating in California (application): 100 percent 

Emission Reduction Calculations: 

Formula C-4: Estimated Annual Emissions based on hours of Operation (tons/yr) 

1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions 

4.15 g/bhp-hr *250 hp*0.43*2,000 hr*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.98 tons/yr NOx 

2. Annual NOx reduced technology emissions 

1.44 g/bhp-hr *250 hp*0.43*2,000 hr*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.34 tons/yr NOx 

3. Annual PM10 baseline technology emissions 

0.088 g/bhp-hr *250 hp*0.43*2,000 hr*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.021 tons/yr PM10 

4. Annual PM10 reduced technology emissions 

0.030 g/bhp-hr *250 hp*0.43*2,000 hr*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.007 tons/yr PM10 
D-34 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

ROG emission factors not available for reduced technology therefore ROG emission 

reductions cannot be calculated. 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for 

Repowers and New Purchases 

• Emission benefits NOx =0.98 tons/yr - 0.34 tons/yr = 0.64 tons/yr NOx 

• Emission benefits PM10= 0.021 tons/yr - 0.007 tons/yr = 0.014 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

0.64 tons/yr + 20(0.014 tons/yr) = 0.92 weighted tons/yr 

Annualized Cost: 

Project Life: 10 years 

CRF (Table B-1): = 0.123 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost 

$96,800 - $61,250 = $35,550 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

 0.123 * 35,550 = $4,373/yr 

Cost-Effectiveness: 

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions ($/ton) 

($4,373/yr)/ (0.92 weighted tons/yr) 

= $4,753/tons of weighted surplus emissions reduced

Example 3 – Auxiliary Engine Repower 

An applicant wants to repower the auxiliary engine of a street sweeper with a Tier 2 

engine. The baseline engine is a Tier 1 200 hp engine that consumes an estimated 

4,500 gallons fuel per year and would cost $7,000 to rebuild. The applicant is proposing 

to install a 200 hp Tier 2 engine that costs $35,000. This equipment operates 

100 percent of the time in California and has a project life of 7 years. No retrofit device 

has been verified for this engine or equipment. 

Baseline Technology Information: 

• Engine (application): Tier 1 off-road diesel engine 

• HP (application): 200 (not used for calculation, but used to determine appropriate 

emission factors) 

• Annual fuel consumption (application): 4,500 

• Cost of rebuild (quote provided with application): $7,000 

• Energy consumption factor: 18.5 bhp-hr/gal 

• Emission factors (Table B-12): 5.93 g/bhp-hr NOx; 0.38 g/bhp-hr ROG; 

0.120 g/bhp-hr PM10 
D-35 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

Reduced Technology Information: 

• Engine (application): Tier 2 off-road diesel engine 

• HP (application): 200 (not used for calculation, but used to determine appropriate 

emission factors) 

• Annual fuel consumption (application): 4,500 gallons 

• Cost of new equipment (quote provided with application): $35,000 

• Energy consumption factor: 18.5 bhp-hr/gal 

• Emission factors (Table B-12): 4.15 g/bhp-hr NOx; 0.12 g/bhp-hr ROG; 

0.088 g/bhp-hr PM10 

• Percent operating in California (application): 100 percent 

Emission Reduction Calculations: 

Formula C-6: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Fuel Consumed using Emission 

Factors or Converted Emission Standard (tons/yr) 

1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions 

5.93 g/bhp-hr *18.5 bhp-hr/gal *4,500 gal*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.54 tons/yr NOx 

2. Annual NOx reduced technology emissions 

4.15 g/bhp-hr *18.5 bhp-hr/gal *4,500 gal*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.38 tons/yr NOx 

3. Annual ROG baseline technology emissions 

0.38 g/bhp-hr *18.5 bhp-hr/gal *4,500 gal*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.03 tons/yr ROG 

4. Annual ROG reduced technology emissions 

0.12 g/bhp-hr *18.5 bhp-hr/gal *4,500 gal*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.01 tons/yr ROG 

5. Annual PM10 baseline technology emissions 

0.120 g/bhp-hr *18.5 bhp-hr/gal *4,500 gal*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.011 tons/yr PM10 

6. Annual PM10 reduced technology emissions 

0.088 g/bhp-hr *18.5 bhp-hr/gal *4,500 gal*(ton/907,200 g) = 0.008 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for 

Repowers and New Purchases 

• Emission benefits NOx = 0.54 tons/yr - 0.38 tons/yr = 0.16 tons/yr NOx 

• Emission benefits ROG = 0.03 tons/yr - 0.01tons/yr = 0.02 tons/yr ROG 

• Emission benefits PM10 = 0.011 tons/yr -0.008 tons/yr = 0.003 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

0.16 tons/yr + 0.02 tons/yr + 20(0.003 tons/yr) = 0.24 weighted tons/yr 

Annualized Cost: 

Project Life: 7 years 

CRF (Table B-1): = 0.167 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost 

$35,000 - $7,000 = $28,000 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

 0.167 * $28,000 = $4,676 
D-36 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

Cost-Effectiveness: 

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions ($/ton) 

($4,676/yr/ (0.24 weighted tons/yr) 

= $19,483/tons of weighted surplus emissions reduced

The cost-effectiveness for this example is greater than the $14,300 per weighted ton 

cost-effectiveness requirement. In order to meet the $14,300 per weighted ton 

cost-effectiveness requirement, this project would only qualify for a fraction of the 

incremental cost $20,551. This amount is determined by multiplying the maximum 

allowed cost --effectiveness by the estimated annual emission reductions and divided 

by the capital recovery factor: 

($14,300 * 0.24)/0.167 = $20,551 

Example 4 – Retrofit of a Tier 1 Engine with a Level 2 DECS 

A Level 2 diesel oxidation catalyst with emulsified fuel has been verified for use on a 

yard tractor with a Tier 1 110 hp 2002 Case 4TA-390 engine. The cost of installing the 

retrofit is $2,000 and is verified for 50 percent reductions of PM10 and 15 percent 

reductions of NOx. The yard tractor consumes 5,000 gallons of fuel per year. There is 

an incremental cost for the fuel of $0.20/ gallon that is eligible for funding with match 

funds by the district. The incremental cost was calculated with information provided 

from the applicant (i.e. quote from distributor). Retrofit projects have a maximum project 

life of 5 years. 

Baseline Technology Information: 

• Engine: 2002 Case 4TA-390 

• Gallons consumed (application): 5,000 gal/yr 

• Cost: $0 

• Energy consumption factor: 18.5 bhp-hr/gal 

• Emission factors (Table B-12): 6.54 g/bhp-hr NOx; 0.304 g/bhp-hr PM10 

 

Reduced Technology Information: 

• Level 2 verified reductions: 15 percent NOx; 50 percent PM10 

• Cost of retrofit (quote provided with application): $2,000 

• Percent operating in California (application): 100 percent 

Emission Reduction Calculations: 

Formula C-6: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Fuel Consumption using Emission 

Factors or Converted Emission Standard (tons/yr) 

1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions 

6.54 g/bhp-hr * 5,000 gal* 18.5 bhp-hr/gal *(ton/907,200 g) = 0.67 tons/yr NOx 

2. Annual PM10 baseline technology emissions 

0.304 g/bhp-hr * 5,000 gal * 18.5 bhp-hr/gal *(ton/907,200 g) = 0.031 tons/yr PM10 
D-37 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

Formula C-11: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for retrofits 

• 0.67 tons/yr * 0.15 = 0.10 tons/yr NOx 

• 0.031 tons/yr * 0.50 = 0.016 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

0.10 tons/yr + 0 tons/yr + 20(0.016 tons/yr) = 0.42 weighted tons/yr 

Annualized Cost: 

Project Life: 5 years 

CRF (Table B-1): = 0.225 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost 

$2,000 - $0 = $2,000 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

0.225 * $2,000 = $450 

Cost-Effectiveness: 

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions ($/ton) 

($450/yr)/(0.42 weighted tons/yr) 

= $1,071/tons of weighted surplus emissions reduced

Calculations with incremental cost of fuel paid for with district funds (if district 

chooses to provide funding for increased fuel cost)

5,000 gal/ yr * 5 years project life * $0.20/gal = $5,000 

District may pay up to $5,000 for incremental cost of fuel. 

Annualized Cost: 

Project Life: 5 years 

CRF (Table B-1): = 0.225 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost 

($2,000 + $5,000) - $0 = $7,000 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

0.225 * $7,000 = $1,575 

Cost-Effectiveness: 

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions ($/ton) 

($1,575/yr)/(0.34 weighted tons/yr) 

= $4,632/tons of weighted surplus emissions reduced
D-38 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

VI. Large Spark-Ignition Off-Road Equipment 

Example calculations will be included once project criteria are developed. 
D-39 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

VII. Ground Support Equipment 

Sample calculations will be added once project criteria are developed. 
D-40 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

VIII. Locomotives 

This section provides four examples of calculations for determining cost-effectiveness of 

surplus emission reductions for locomotive projects. 

A. General Criteria for Locomotive Cost-Effectiveness Calculations 

• Baseline emissions for a locomotive engine repower are based upon federal 

emission requirements for engine remanufacture (see Chapter VIII, Section III) and 

the corresponding emission rates in Table B-16. Baseline costs for a locomotive 

engine repower equal the actual remanufacture cost or $50,000, whichever is 

greater. 

• For the purposes of the Carl Moyer Program, an alternative technology switcher is 

defined as a hybrid (e.g., Green Goat) or multiple engine switcher in which an 

existing locomotive chassis is significantly refurbished with a new engine, batteries, 

electronic controls, and/or other equipment. An alternative technology switcher must 

meet Tier 2 locomotive emission standards for PM and hydrocarbons and be 

30 percent cleaner than Tier 2 locomotive emission standards for NOx. An 

alternative technology switcher project is considered a new locomotive purchase. 

• Baseline emissions for an alternative technology switcher project reflect Tier 0 

emission rates for Class I locomotives and uncontrolled emission rates for Class III 

locomotives. The cost of an alternative technology switcher eligible for Carl Moyer 

Program funding shall not exceed 60 percent of the total cost of the new switcher for 

Class I locomotives, and 80 percent of the total cost of the new switcher for Class III 

locomotives. 

• Baseline emissions and costs for a new locomotive purchase project which is not an 

alternative technology switcher reflect Tier 2 emission rates and the cost of a new 

Tier 2 locomotive, respectively. 

• Locomotive repower projects must achieve a 15 percent NOx reduction beyond 

existing emission levels. 

• All locomotive purchase and repower projects (except alternative technology 

switchers) must include purchase and installation of an automatic engine start-stop 

(AESS) ILD to reduce unnecessary engine idling if the locomotive is not already 

equipped with such a device and AESS installation is technically feasible. 

• If not already required by a rule, regulation, MOU, or other legal mandate, the 

purchase and installation cost of an AESS is eligible for Carl Moyer Program 

funding, subject to the following limitations: 

− The Carl Moyer Program may provide actual equipment costs up to a 

maximum of $8,000 for a locomotive-specific AESS. 
D-41 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

− The Carl Moyer Program may provide the lower amount of actual installation 

costs of the AESS, up to a maximum of $3,400. 

− AESS emission reductions are calculated by applying the ILD factors in 

Table B-17 to the reduced engine emissions. 

• Because of uncertainty in locomotive load factors, locomotive project activity must 

be based upon annual fuel consumption. 

• The energy consumption rate for a locomotive engine is 20.8 bhp-hr per gallon. The 

energy consumption rate for an on- or off-road engine used in a locomotive 

application is 18.5 bhp-hr per gallon. 

• Class I freight locomotive projects in all air districts other than the South Coast must 

have a minimum project life of ten years. All other locomotive projects have a 

minimum project life of three years. 

• The maximum project life for a locomotive project is 20 years. 

• The baseline emission rates used to determine emission reductions and 

cost-effectiveness for locomotives subject to the South Coast MOU reflect the Tier 2 

locomotive emission factors for line-haul and switch locomotives identified in 

Table B-16. 

• Benefits of an AESS are reflected by applying the ILD factor to the newer locomotive 

engine only if: 1) the project locomotive is operated by a Class 3 railroad or Amtrak; 

2) the baseline engine does not have a functioning AESS; and 3) a functioning 

AESS is to be installed on the project locomotive. The ILD factor is never used to 

calculate the cost-effectiveness of new locomotive purchase projects or for Class 1 

locomotive projects (since Class 1 locomotives are required to install an AESS as 

part of the Statewide Locomotive MOU). The ILD emission reduction factor is found 

in Table B-17. Example 1 utilizes the ILD factor to calculate the costeffectiveness of a Class 3 locomotive repower. 

• For alternative technology switcher projects, fuel consumption for the new 

locomotive may differ from baseline fuel consumption if the new locomotive fuel use 

is sufficiently documented to ARB and air district staff. 

B. Examples 

Example 1 – Switch Locomotive Engine Repower (Class III Railroad) 

A Class III railroad operator opts to replace an existing 1971 model year switch 

locomotive engine with a new 2006 model year Tier 2 locomotive engine. The existing 

locomotive consumes 40,000 gallons of fuel per year. The cost to rebuild the existing 

engine is $48,000, while the cost to purchase and install the new engine is $350,000. 

The cost to purchase an automatic engine start-stop ILD is $8,000, while installation of 
D-42 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

the device costs $3,000. 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-16): 15.66 g/bhp-hr NOx, 0.99 g/bhp-hr ROG, 

0.396 g/bhp-hr PM10 

• Activity (application): 40,000 gal/year 

• Energy consumption factor = 20.8 bhp-hr/gal 

Reduced Technology Information:

• Engine model year (application): 2006 

• Emission rate (Table B-16): 6.57 g/bhp-hr NOx, 0.51 g/bhp-hr ROG, 

0.189 g/bhp-hr PM10 

• Activity (application): 40,000 gal/year 

• Energy consumption factor = 20.8 bhp-hr/gal 

• ILD emission reduction factor (Table B-17): 0.90 

Emission Reduction Calculations:

Formula C-6: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Fuel Consumed using Emission 

Factors or Converted Emission Standard (tons/yr): 

1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions 

(15.66 g/bhp-hr*40,000 gal/yr*20.8 bhp-hr/gal)*(ton/907,200g) 

= 14.36 ton/yr NOx 

2. Annual NOx reduced technology emissions 

(6.57 g/bhp-hr*40,000 gal/yr*20.8 bhp-hr/gal*0.90)*(ton/907,200g) 

= 5.42 ton/yr NOx 

3. Annual ROG baseline technology emissions 

(0.99 g/bhp-hr *40,000 gal/yr*20.8 bhp-hr/gal)*(ton/907,200g) 

= 0.91 ton/yr ROG 

4. Annual ROG reduced technology emissions 

(0.51 g/bhp-hr*40,000 gal/yr*20.8 bhp-hr/gal *0.90)*(ton/907,200g) 

= 0.42 ton/yr ROG 

5. Annual combustion PM10 baseline technology 

(0.396 g/bhp-hr*40,000 gal/yr*20.8 bhp-hr/gal)*(ton/907,200g) 

= 0.363 ton/yr PM10 

6. Annual combustion PM10 reduced technology emissions 

(0.189 g/bhp-hr*40,000 gal/yr*20.8 bhp-hr/gal *0.90)*(ton/907,200g) 

= 0.156 ton/yr PM10 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for Repowers 

and New Purchases 

• NOx emission benefits = 14.36 tons/yr – 5.42 tons/yr = 8.94 tons/yr NOx 

• ROG emission benefits = 0.91 tons/yr - 0.42 tons/yr = 0.49 tons/yr ROG 

• PM10 emission benefits= 0.363 tons/yr - 0.156 tons/yr = 0.207 tons/yr PM10 
D-43 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

8.94 tons/yr + 0.49 tons/yr + 20(0.207 tons/yr) = 13.57 weighted tons/yr

Annualized Cost: 

Project Life: 10 years 

CRF (Table B-1): = 0.123 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost 

($350,000 + $11,000) - $50,000 = $311,000 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

 0.123 * $311,000 = $38,253/yr 

Cost-Effectiveness:

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions ($/ton) 

($38,253/yr)/(13.57 weighted tons/yr) 

= $2,819/tons of weighted surplus emissions reduced

Example 2 – Line-Haul Locomotive Engine Repower (Class I Railroad) 

A Class I railroad operator opts to replace his existing 1976 line-haul locomotive engine 

with a new 2006 model year Tier 2 locomotive engine. Based on the fuel receipts, it is 

determined that the existing and new locomotive engines will consume 75,000 gallons 

of fuel per year. The cost to rebuild the existing engine is $65,000, while the cost of the 

new engine plus installation is $390,000. The railroad will commit to a 20 year project 

life. Emission reductions are calculated as follows: 

Baseline Technology Information:

• Locomotive model year (application): 1976 

• Emission rate (Table B-16): 7.74 g/bhp-hr NOx, 0.47 g/bhp-hr ROG, 

0.288 g/bhp-hr PM10 

• Activity (application): 75,000 gal/year 

• Energy consumption factor = 20.8 bhp-hr/gal 

Reduced Technology Information:

• Engine model year (application): 2006 

• Emission rate (Table B-16): 4.50 g/bhp-hr NOx, 0.26 g/bhp-hr ROG, 

0.153 g/bhp-hr PM10 

• Activity (application): 75,000 gal/year 

• Energy consumption factor = 20.8 bhp-hr/gal 
D-44 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

Emission Reduction Calculations:

Formula C-6: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Fuel Consumed using Emission 

Factors or Converted Emission Standard (tons/yr): 

1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions 

(7.74 g/bhp-hr * 20.8 bhp-hr/gal * 75,000 gal/yr) *(ton/907,200g) 

= 13.31 ton/yr NOx 

2. Annual NOx reduced technology emissions 

(4.50 g/bhp-hr * 20.8 bhp-hr/gal * 75,000 gal/yr) *(ton/907,200g) 

= 7.74 ton/yr NOx 

3. Annual ROG baseline technology emissions 

(0.47 g/bhp-hr * 20.8 bhp-hr/gal * 75,000 gal/yr) *(ton/907,200g) 

= 0.81 ton/yr ROG 

4. Annual ROG reduced technology emissions 

(0.26 g/bhp-hr * 20.8 bhp-hr/gal * 75,000 gal/yr) *(ton/907,200g) 

= 0.45 ton/yr ROG 

5. Annual combustion PM10 baseline technology 

(0.288 g/bhp-hr * 20.8 bhp-hr/gal * 75,000 gal/yr) *(ton/907,200g) 

= 0.495 ton/yr PM10 

6. Annual combustion PM10 reduced technology emissions 

(0.153 g/bhp-hr * 20.8 bhp-hr/gal * 75,000 gal/yr) *(ton/907,200g) 

= 0.263 ton/yr PM10 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for 

Repowers and New Purchases 

• Emission benefits NOx = 13.31 tons/yr - 7.74 tons/yr = 5.57 tons/yr NOx 

• Emission benefits ROG = 0.81 tons/yr - 0.45 tons/yr = 0.36 tons/yr ROG 

• Emission benefits PM10 = 0.495 tons/yr - 0.263 tons/yr = 0.232 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

5.57 tons/yr + 0.36 tons/yr + 20(0.232 tons/yr) = 10.57 weighted tons/yr

Annualized Cost: 

Project Life: 20 years 

CRF (Table B-1): = 0.074 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost 

$390,000 - $65,000 = $325,000 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

0.074 * $325,000 = $24,050/yr 

Cost-Effectiveness:

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions ($/ton) 

($24,050/yr)/(10.57 weighted tons/yr) 

= $2,275/tons of weighted surplus emissions reduced
D-45 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

Example 3 – Hybrid Switch Locomotive Purchase (Class I Railroad) 

A Class I railroad has the opportunity to purchase a locomotive frame refurbished with 

an 800 horsepower Tier 2 certified off-road engine. Because the project is a hybrid 

locomotive project, and involves significantly refurbishing the existing locomotive frame 

with a new battery and other equipment, the project is considered a new locomotive 

purchase. A typical switcher with activity similar to that of the new locomotive 

consumes 45,000 gallons fuel per year. The applicant provides documentation to 

demonstrate the new advanced technology switcher will reduce fuel consumption by 

33 percent. The cost of the locomotive project is $1.1 million. The project life is 

10 years. Emission reductions are calculated as follows: 

Baseline Technology Information:

• Baseline locomotive model year: none 

• Baseline emission rates (reflect locomotive Tier 0 emission factors, Table B-16): 

11.34 g/bhp-hr NOx, 0.99 g/bhp-hr ROG, 0.396 g/bhp-hr PM 

• Activity (application): 45,000 gal/year 

• Energy consumption factor = 20.8 bhp-hr/gal 

Reduced Technology Information:

• Engine model year: 2006 

• Reduced emission rates (reflect off-road Tier 2 emission factors, Table B-12): 

3.87 g/bhp-hr NOx, 0.12 g/bhp-hr ROG, 0.088 g/bhp-hr PM10 

• Activity (application): 30,000 gal/year 

• Energy consumption factor = 18.5 bhp-hr/gal 

Emission Reduction Calculations:

Formula C-6: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Fuel Consumed using Emission 

Factors or Converted Emission Standard (tons/yr): 

1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions 

(11.34 g/bhp-hr * 45,000 gal/yr * 20.8 bhp-hr/gal) *(ton/907,200g) 

= 11.70 ton/yr NOx 

2. Annual NOx reduced technology emissions 

(3.87 g/bhp-hr * 30,000 gal/yr * 18.5 bhp-hr/gal) *(ton/907,200g) 

= 2.37 ton/yr NOx 

3. Annual ROG baseline technology emissions 

(0.99 g/bhp-hr * 45,000 gal/yr * 20.8 bhp-hr/gal) *(ton/907,200g) 

= 1.02 ton/yr ROG 

4. Annual ROG reduced technology emissions 

(0.12 g/bhp-hr * 30,000 gal/yr * 18.5 bhp-hr/gal) *(ton/907,200g) 

= 0.07 ton/yr ROG 

5. Annual combustion PM10 baseline technology 

(0.396 g/bhp-hr * 45,000 gal/yr * 20.8 bhp-hr/gal) *(ton/907,200g) 

= 0.409 ton/yr PM10 
D-46 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

6. Annual combustion PM10 reduced technology emissions 

(0.088 g/bhp-hr * 30,000 gal/yr * 18.5 bhp-hr/gal) *(ton/907,200g) 

= 0.054 ton/yr PM10 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for Repowers 

and New Purchases 

• Emission benefits NOx = 11.70 tons/yr – 2.37 tons/yr = 9.33 tons/yr NOx 

• Emission benefits ROG = 1.02 tons/yr - 0.07 tons/yr = 0.95 tons/yr ROG 

• Emission benefits PM10 = 0.409 tons/yr - 0.054 tons/yr = 0.335 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

9.33 tons/yr + 0.95 tons/yr + 20(0.335 tons/yr) = 16.98 weighted tons/yr

Annualized Cost: 

Project Life: 10 years 

CRF (Table B-1): = 0.123 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost 

$1,100,000 * 0.60 = $660,000 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

 0.123 * $660,000 = $81,180/yr 

Cost-Effectiveness:

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions ($/ton) 

($81,180/yr)/(16.98 weighted tons/yr) 

= $4,781/tons of weighted surplus emissions reduced

Example 4 – Multiple Engine Switcher Purchase (Class III Railroad) 

A Class III railroad operator has the opportunity to purchase a switch locomotive with 

three Tier 3 certified 700 horsepower off-road engines. Because this is a multiple 

engine switcher 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 multiple engine switcher is $975,000. The project life is 

5 years. Emission reductions are calculated as follows: 

Baseline Technology Information:

• Locomotive model year: none 

• Locomotive emission rate (uncontrolled, Table B-16): 15.66 g/bhp-hr NOx, 

0.99 g/bhp-hr ROG, 0.396 g/bhp-hr PM10 

• Activity (application): 45,000 gal/year 

• Energy consumption factor = 20.8 bhp-hr/gal 
D-47 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

Reduced Technology Information:

• Engine model year: 2006 

• Emission rates (reflect off-road Tier 3 emission factors, Table B-12): 

2.32 g/bhp-hr NOx, 0.12 g/bhp-hr ROG, 0.088 g/bhp-hr PM10 

• Activity (application): 45,000 gal/year 

• Energy consumption factor = 18.5 bhp-hr/gal 

Emission Reduction Calculations:

Formula C-6: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Fuel Consumed using Emission 

Factors or Converted Emission Standard (tons/yr): 

1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions 

(15.66 g/bhp-hr * 45,000 gal/yr * 20.8 bhp-hr/gal) *(ton/907,200g) 

= 16.16 ton/yr NOx 

2. Annual NOx reduced technology emissions 

(2.32 g/bhp-hr * 45,000 gal/yr * 18.5 bhp-hr/gal) *(ton/907,200g) 

= 2.13 ton/yr NOx 

3. Annual ROG baseline technology emissions 

(0.99 g/bhp-hr * 45,000 gal/yr * 20.8 bhp-hr/gal) *(ton/907,200g) 

= 1.02 ton/yr ROG 

4. Annual ROG reduced technology emissions 

(0.12 g/bhp-hr * 45,000 gal/yr * 18.5 bhp-hr/gal) *(ton/907,200g) 

= 0.11 ton/yr ROG 

5. Annual combustion PM10 baseline technology 

(0.396 g/bhp-hr * 45,000 gal/yr * 20.8 bhp-hr/gal) *(ton/907,200g) 

= 0.409 ton/yr PM10 

6. Annual combustion PM10 reduced technology emissions 

(0.088 g/bhp-hr * 45,000 gal/yr * 18.5 bhp-hr/gal) *(ton/907,200g) 

= 0.081 ton/yr PM10 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for Repowers 

and New Purchases 

• Emission benefits NOx = 16.16 tons/yr – 2.13 tons/yr = 14.03 tons/yr NOx 

• Emission benefits ROG = 1.02 tons/yr – 0.11 tons/yr = 0.91 tons/yr ROG 

• Emission benefits PM10 = 0.409 tons/yr – 0.081 tons/yr = 0.328 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

14.03 tons/yr + 0.91 tons/yr + 20(0.328 tons/yr) = 21.50 weighted tons/yr

Annualized Cost: 

Project Life: 5 years 

CRF (Table B-1): = 0.225 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost 

 $975,000 * 0.80 = $780,000 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

0.225 * $780,000 = $175,500/yr 
D-48 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

Cost-Effectiveness:

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions ($/ton) 

($175,500/yr)/(21.50 weighted tons/yr) 

= $8,163/tons of weighted surplus emissions reduced
D-49 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

IX. Marine Vessels 

This section provides three examples of calculations for determining the 

cost-effectiveness of surplus emission reductions for marine vessel projects. 

A. General Criteria for Marine Vessel Cost-Effectiveness Calculations 

• Engines on marine vessels with wet exhaust systems are eligible for Carl Moyer 

Program funding if the project vessel meets all other applicable program 

requirements. The wet exhaust systems themselves are not eligible for Carl Moyer 

Program funding. A wet exhaust factor of 0.80 must be applied to the baseline and 

reduced emission propulsion and auxiliary engine emission calculations for all 

projects on vessels with wet exhaust systems. 

• Projects must have a minimum project life of three years. 

• The maximum project life for marine vessel projects (equivalent to the average 

engine life reported by U.S. EPA) is as follows: 

Engine displacement <5.0 liter/cyl. 16 years 

Engine displacement >5.0 liter/cyl. 23 years 

Auxiliary engines 17 years 

B. Examples 

Example 1 – Tugboat Propulsion Engine Repower 

A tugboat operator wishes to replace a 1975 model year 1,200 horsepower tugboat 

propulsion engine during the normal overhaul period with a 2006 model year 

1,200 horsepower engine. Both engines have a displacement of 7.0 liters per cylinder. 

The operator documents that the vessel consumes 95,000 gallons of fuel annually 

within California Coastal Waters. The cost to rebuild the old engine is $100,000. The 

cost to purchase and install the new engine and new GPS unit on the vessel are 

$250,000 and $2,500, respectively. The operator commits to a 5 year project life. 

Emission reductions are calculated as follows: 

Baseline Technology Information: 

• Baseline technology (application): 1975 

• Engine horsepower (application): 1,200 hp 

• Engine emission rate (Table B-18): 11.16 g/bhp-hr NOx, 1.14 g/bhp-hr ROG, 

0.382 g/bhp-hr PM10 

• Activity (application): 95,000 gal/yr 

• Engine displacement (application): 7.0 liters/cylinder 

• Fuel consumption rate (Table B-20): 20.8 bhp-hr/gal 

Reduced Technology Information: 

• Reduced technology (application): 2005 

• Engine horsepower (application) = 1,200 hp 
D-50 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

• Engine emission rate (Table B-18): 7.60 g/bhp-hr NOx, 0.82 g/bhp-hr ROG, 

0.274 g/bhp-hr PM10 

• Activity (application): 95,000 gal/yr 

• Fuel consumption rate (Table B-20): 20.8 bhp-hr/gal 

Emission Reduction Calculations: 

Formula C-6: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Fuel Consumed using Emission 

Factors or Converted Emission Standards (tons/yr) 

1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions 

(11.16 g/bhp-hr)(95,000 gal/yr)(20.8 bhp-hr/gal)(ton/907,200 g) 

= 24.31 ton/yr NOx 

2. Annual NOx reduced technology emissions 

(7.60 g/bhp-hr * 95,000 gal/yr * 20.8 bhp-hr/gal)(ton/907,200 g) 

= 16.55 ton/yr NOx 

3. Annual ROG baseline technology emissions 

(1.14 g/bhp-hr * 95,000 gal/yr * 20.8 bhp-hr/gal)(ton/907,200 g) 

= 2.48 ton/yr ROG 

4. Annual ROG reduced technology emissions 

(0.82 g/bhp-hr * 95,000 gal/yr * 20.8 bhp-hr/gal)(ton/907,200 g) 

= 1.79 ton/yr ROG 

5. Annual PM10 baseline technology emissions 

(0.382 g/bhp-hr * 95,000 gal/yr * 20.8 bhp-hr/gal)(ton/907,200 g) 

= 0.832 ton/yr PM10 

6. Annual PM10 reduced technology emissions 

(0.274 g/bhp-hr * 95,000 gal/yr * 20.8 bhp-hr/gal)(ton/907,200 g) 

= 0.597 ton/yr PM10 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for 

Repowers and New Purchases 

• NOx emission reductions = 24.31 tons/yr – 16.55 tons/yr = 7.76 tons/yr NOx 

• ROG emission reductions = 2.48 tons/yr – 1.79 tons/yr = 0.69 tons/yr ROG 

• PM10 emission reductions = 0.832 tons/yr – 0.597 tons/yr= 0.235 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

7.76 + 0.69 +20(0.235) = 13.15 weighted tons/yr 

Annualized Cost: 

Project life = 5 years 

CRF (Table B-1) = 0.225 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost 

($250,000 + $2,500) - $100,000 = $152,500 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

($152,500 * 0.225) = $34,312/yr 
D-51 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

Cost-Effectiveness: 

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Surplus Emission Reductions 

($34,312/year)/(13.15 weighted tons/yr) 

= $2,609/ton of weighted surplus emissions reduced 

Example 2 – Fishing Vessel Auxiliary Engine Repower

A charter fishing vessel owner wishes to repower a 125 horsepower 1985 auxiliary 

engine with a new 2005 model year 200 horsepower engine. The new engine has a 

displacement 1.3 liters per cylinder. The vessel owner has documented that the vessel 

auxiliary engine operates for 900 hours annually in California waters. The cost to 

rebuild the existing engine is $2,600. The cost to purchase and install a new engine 

and GPS unit is $52,500. The applicant will commit to a 10 year project life. Emission 

reductions are calculated as follows: 

Baseline Technology Information: 

• Baseline technology (application): 1985 

• Engine horsepower (application): 125 hp 

• Engine emission rate (Table B-18): 10.23 g/bhp-hr NOx, 1.06 g/bhp-hr ROG, 

0.396 g/bhp-hr PM10 

• Activity (application): 900 hr/yr 

• Engine load factor (Table B-19): 0.43 

Reduced Technology Information: 

• Reduced technology (application): 2005 

• Engine horsepower (application) = 200 hp 

• Emission rate (Table B-18): 4.17 g/bhp-hr NOx, 0.39 g/bhp-hr ROG, 

0.160 g/bhp-hr PM10 

• Activity (application): 900 hr/yr 

• Engine displacement (application) = 1.3 liters per cylinder 

• Load adjustment (Formula C-5: Replacement Load Factor): 

= 0.43*(125 hp/200 hp) = 0.27 

Emission Reduction Calculations: 

Formula C-4: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Hours of Operation (tons/yr) 

1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions 

(10.23 g/bhp-hr * 900 hr/yr * 125 hp * 0.43)(ton/907,200 g) 

= 0.55 ton/yr NOx 

2. Annual NOx reduced technology emissions 

(4.17 g/bhp-hr * 900 hr/yr * 200 hp * 0.27)(ton/907,200 g) 

= 0.22 ton/yr NOx 

3. Annual ROG baseline technology emissions 

(1.06 g/bhp-hr * 900 hr/yr * 125 hp * 0.43)(ton/907,200 g) 

= 0.06 ton/yr ROG 

4. Annual ROG reduced technology emissions 

(0.39 g/bhp-hr * 900 hr/yr * 200 hp * 0.27)(ton/907,200 g) 

= 0.02 ton/yr ROG 
D-52 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

5. Annual PM10 baseline technology emissions 

(0.396 g/bhp-hr * 900 hr/yr * 125 hp * 0.43)(ton/907,200 g 

= 0.021 ton/yr PM10 

6. Annual PM10 reduced technology emissions 

(0.14 g/bhp-hr * 900 hrs/year * 200 hp * 0.27)(ton/907,200 g) 

= 0.008 ton/yr PM10 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for 

Repowers and New Purchases 

• NOx emission reductions = 0.55 tons/yr – 0.22 tons/yr = 0.33 tons/yr NOx 

• ROG emission reductions = 0.06 tons/yr – 0.02 tons/yr = 0.04 tons/yr ROG 

• PM10 emission reductions = 0.021 tons/yr – 0.008 tons/yr= 0.013 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

0.33 tons/yr + 0.04 tons/yr + 20(0.013 tons/yr) = 0.63 weighted tons/yr

Annualized Cost: 

Project life = 10 years 

CRF (Table B-1) = 0.123 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost 

$52,500 - $2,600 = $49,900 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

($49,900 * 0.123) = $6,137/yr 

Cost-Effectiveness: 

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions ($/ton) 

 ($6,137/year)/ (0.63 weighted tons/yr) 

= $9,741/ton of weighted surplus emissions reduced 

Example 3 – Fishing Vessel Propulsion Engine Repower 

(Wet Exhaust System) 

A commercial fishing vessel owner wishes to repower a 1973 250 horsepower 

propulsion engine with a new 2006 model year 250 horsepower engine. The existing 

and replacement engines both have a displacement of 1.4 liters per cylinder. The 

vessel has a wet exhaust system. The vessel owner has documented that the vessel 

propulsion engine consumes 24,000 gallons of fuel annually in California waters. The 

cost to rebuild the existing engine is $3,250. The cost to purchase and install a new 

engine is $51,300. The vessel will be outfitted with a new GPS unit for $2,300. The 

applicant will commit to a 5 year project life. Emission reductions are calculated as 

follows: 

Baseline Technology Information: 

• Baseline technology (application): 1973 

• Engine horsepower (application): 250 hp 
D-53 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

• Engine emission rate (Table B-18): 11.16 g/bhp-hr NOx, 1.14 g/bhp-hr ROG, 

0.396 g/bhp-hr PM10 

• Activity (application): 24,000 gal/yr 

• Engine displacement (application): 1.4 liters/cylinder 

• Fuel consumption rate (Table B-20): 18.5 bhp-hr/gal 

• Wet exhaust emission factor (default): 0.80 

Reduced-Emission Technology Information: 

• Reduced technology (application): 2006 

• Engine horsepower (application): 250 hp 

• Emission rate (Table B-18): 4.17 g/bhp-hr NOx, 0.39 g/bhp-hr ROG, 

0.160 g/bhp-hr PM10 

• Activity (application): 24,000 gal/yr 

• Engine displacement (application): 1.4 liters per cylinder 

• Fuel consumption rate (Table B-20): 18.5 bhp-hr/gal 

• Wet exhaust emission factor (default) = 0.80 

Emission Reduction Calculations: 

Formula C-6: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Fuel Consumed using Emission 

Factors or Converted Emission Standard (tons/yr) 

1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions 

(11.16 g/bhp-hr * 24,000 gal/yr * 18.5 bhp-hr/gal * 0.80)(ton/907,200 g) 

= 4.30 ton/yr NOx 

2. Annual NOx reduced technology emissions 

(4.17 g/bhp-hr * 24,000 gal/yr * 18.5 bhp-hr/gal * 0.80)(ton/907,200 g) 

= 1.63 ton/yr NOx 

3. Annual ROG baseline technology emissions 

(1.14 g/bhp-hr * 24,000 gal/yr * 18.5 bhp-hr/gal * 0.80)(ton/907,200 g) 

= 0.45 ton/yr ROG 

4. Annual ROG reduced technology emissions 

(0.39 g.bhp-hr * 24,000 gal/yr * 18.5 bhp-hr/gal * 0.80)(ton/907,200 g) 

= 0.15 ton/yr ROG 

5. Annual PM10 baseline technology emissions 

(0.396 g/bhp-hr * 24,000 gal/yr * 18.5 bhp-hr/gal * 0.80)(ton/907,200 g) 

= 0.155 ton/yr PM10 

6. Annual PM10 reduced technology emissions 

(0.160 g/bhp-hr * 24,000 gal/yr * 18.5 bhp-hr/gal * 0.80)(ton/907,200 g) 

= 0.063 ton/yr PM10 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant for Repowers and 

New Purchases 

• NOx Emission Reductions = 4.30 tons/yr – 1.63 tons/yr = 2.67 tons/yr NOx 

• ROG Emission Reductions = 0.45 tons/yr – 0.15 tons/yr = 0.30 tons/yr ROG 

• PM10 Emission Reductions = 0.155 tons/yr – 0.063 tons/yr 

= 0.092 tons/yr PM10 
D-54 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

2.67 + 0.30 +20(0.092) = 4.81 weighted tons/yr 

Annualized Cost: 

Project life = 5 years 

CRF (Table B-1) = 0.225 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost 

($51,300 + 2,300) - $3,250 = $50,350 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

$50,350 * 0.225 = $11,328/yr 

Cost Effectiveness: 

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Surplus Emission Reductions 

($11,328/year)/(4.81 weighted tons/yr) = 

$2,355/ ton of weighted surplus emissions reduced 
D-55 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

X. Agricultural Sources 

This section provides three examples of calculations for determining the 

cost-effectiveness of surplus emission reductions for agricultural source projects. 

A. General Criteria for Agricultural Source Cost-Effectiveness 

Calculations 

• Projects must have a minimum project life of three years. ARB may approve a 

shorter project life on a case-by-case basis. Projects with shorter lives may be 

subject to additional funding restrictions, such as a lower cost-effectiveness limit or a 

project cost cap. 

• The default project life when determining project benefits for new purchases to 

repowers shall be ten years for electric motors and for engines with documentation. 

The default project life for engines without documentation shall be seven years. 

A longer project life may be used with approval by ARB staff, however, sufficient 

documentation must be provided to ARB that supports the selected project life 

based on actual remaining useful life. 

• In these calculations PM10 refers to combustion particulate matter. 

• Emission reduction calculations may be based on hours of operation or on fuel 

usage. 

• Baseline and reduced technology emission factors are listed in Tables B-12 and 

B-14a of Appendix B. 

• Load factors for selected equipment categories are in Tables B-13 and B-14b of 

Appendix B. 

• For emission reduction calculations based on fuel usage, an energy consumption 

factor must be used. The default energy consumption factor for stationary 

agricultural irrigation pump engines greater than 50 hp is 17.56 bhp-hr/gal. 

B. Examples 

Example 1 - Repower (diesel to diesel) Based on Hours 

Baseline Technology Information: 

• Baseline technology (application): 1977 John Deere JD6466A 

• Engine horsepower (application): 182 hp 

• Activity (application): 3,000 hours per year 

• Load factor (Table B-13): 0.65 

• Emission factors (Table B-12): 11.16 g/bhp-hr NOx; 1.14 g/bhp-hr ROG; 

0.396 g/bhp-hr PM10 
D-56 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

• Baseline rebuild cost (quote provided with application): $3,500 

Reduced Technology Information: 

• Reduced technology (application): 2005 John Deere 6068HF275-225 

• Engine horsepower (application): 184 hp 

• Activity (application): 3,000 hr/yr 

• Load factor (Table B-13): 0.65 

• Emission factors (Table B-12): 4.15 g/bhp-hr NOx; 0.12 g/bhp-hr ROG; 

0.088 g/bhp-hr PM10 

• New engine cost (quote provided with application): $20,320 (includes hour meter) 

Emission Reduction Calculations: 

Formula C-4: Estimated Annual Emissions Based on Hours of Operation (tons/yr) 

1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions 

(11.16 g/bhp-hr * 182 hp * 0.65 * 3,000 hrs)(ton/907,200 g) = 4.37 tons/yr NOx 

2. Annual NOx reduced technology emissions 

(4.15 g/bhp-hr * 184 hp * 0.65 * 3,000 hrs)(ton/907,200 g) = 1.64 tons/yr NOx 

3. Annual ROG baseline technology emissions 

(1.14 g/bhp-hr * 182 hp * 0.65 * 3,000 hrs)(ton/907,200 g) = 0.45 tons/yr ROG 

4. Annual ROG reduced technology emissions 

(0.12 g/bhp-hr * 184 hp * 0.65 * 3,000 hrs)(ton/907,200 g) = 0.05 tons/yr ROG 

5. Annual PM10 baseline technology emissions 

(0.396 g/bhp-hr * 182 hp * 0.65 * 3,000 hrs)(ton/907,200 g) = 0.155 tons/yr PM10 

6. Annual PM10 reduced technology emissions 

(0.088 g/bhp-hr * 184 hp * 0.65 * 3,000 hrs)(ton/907,200 g) = 0.035 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for 

Repowers and New Purchases 

• NOx emission benefits = 4.37 tons/yr – 1.64 tons/yr = 2.73 tons/yr NOx 

• ROG emission benefits = 0.45 tons/yr – 0.05 tons/yr = 0.40 tons/yr ROG 

• PM10 emission benefits = 0.155 tons/yr – 0.035 tons/yr = 0.120 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

 2.73 tons/yr + 0.40 tons/yr + 20(0.120 tons/yr) = 5.53 weighted tons/yr 

Annualized Cost: 

Project life: 7 years 

CRF (Table B-1): 0.167 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost 

$20,320 - $3,500 = $16,820 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

0.167 * $16,820 = $2,809/yr 
D-57 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

Cost-Effectiveness: 

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

($2,809/yr)/(5.53 weighted tons/yr) 

= $508/tons of weighted surplus emissions reduced 

The cost-effectiveness for this project is less than $14,300 per weighted ton of 

emissions reduced. This project qualifies for the maximum amount of grant funds 

requested. 

Example 2 - Repower (diesel to diesel) Based on Fuel Use 

Baseline Technology information:

• Baseline Technology (application): 1979 Cummins NTC 220 

• Engine horsepower (application): 220 hp 

• Annual fuel consumption (application): 8,000 gal/yr 

• Energy consumption factor (default): 17.56 bhp-hr/gal 

• Emission Factors (Table B-12): 11.16 g/bhp-hr NOx; 1.20 g/bhp-hr ROG; 

0.396 g/bhp-hr PM1010 

• Rebuild cost (quote provided with application): $2,500 

Reduced Technology information:

• Reduced Technology (application): 2005 Case I-H PX190 

• Engine horsepower (application): 190 hp 

• Energy consumption factor (default): 17.56 bhp-hr/gal 

• Annual fuel consumption (application): 8,000 gal/yr 

• Emission Factors (Table B-12): 4.15 g/bhp-hr NOx; 0.12 g/bhp-hr ROG; 

0.088 g/bhp-hr PM1010 

• New engine cost (quote provided with application): $16,500 (includes hour meter) 

Emission Reduction Calculations: 

Formula C-6: Estimated Annual Emissions Based on Fuel Consumed using Emission 

Factors or Converted Emission Standard (tons/yr) 

1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions 

(11.16 g/bhp-hr * 17.56 bhp-hr/gal * 8,000 gal)(ton/907,200 g) = 1.73 tons/yr NOx 

2. Annual NOx reduced technology emissions 

(4.15 g/bhp-hr * 17.56 bhp-hr/gal * 8,000 gal)(ton/907,200 g) = 0.64 tons/yr NOx 

3. Annual ROG baseline technology emissions 

(1.20 g/bhp-hr * 17.56 bhp-hr/gal * 8,000 gal)(ton/907,200 g) = 0.19 tons/yr ROG 

4. Annual ROG reduced technology emissions 

(0.12 g/bhp-hr * 17.56 bhp-hr/gal * 8,000 gal/yr)(ton/907,200 g) = 0.02 tons/yr ROG 

5. Annual PM10 baseline technology emissions 

(0.396 g/bhp-hr * 17.56 bhp-hr/gal * 8,000 gal)(ton/907,200 g) = 0.061 tons/yr PM10 

6. Annual PM10 reduced technology emissions 

(0.088 g/bhp-hr * 17.56 bhp-hr/gal * 8,000 gal/yr)(ton/907,200 g) = 0.014 tons/yr PM10 
D-58 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for 

Repowers and New Purchases 

• NOx emission benefits = 1.73 tons/yr – 0.64 tons/yr = 1.09 tons/yr NOx 

• ROG emission benefits = 0.19 tons/yr – 0.02 tons/yr = 0.17 tons/yr ROG 

• PM10 emission benefits = 0.061 tons/yr – 0.014 tons/yr = 0.047 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

 1.09 tons/yr + 0.17 tons/yr + 20(0.047 tons/yr) = 2.20 weighted tons/yr 

Annualized Cost: 

Project life: 7 years 

CRF (Table B-1): 0.167 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost 

$16,500 - $2,500 = $14,000 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

0.167 * $14,000 = $2,338/yr 

Cost-Effectiveness: 

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

($2,338/yr)/(2.20 weighted tons/yr) 

= $1,063/tons of weighted surplus emissions reduced

The cost-effectiveness for this project is less than $14,300 per weighted ton of 

emissions reduced. This project qualifies for the maximum amount of grant funds 

requested. 

Example 3 – Natural Gas Repower Based on Hours 

Baseline Technology information: 

• Baseline Technology (application): 1980 Detroit Diesel 8V71 

• Engine horsepower (application): 220 hp 

• Activity (application): 2,000 hours per year 

• Load factor (Table B-13): 0.65 

• Emission Factors (Table B-12): 10.23 g/bhp-hr NOx; 1.08 g/bhp-hr ROG; 

0.396 g/bhp-hr PM10 

• Rebuild cost (quote provided with application): $6,000 

Reduced Technology information: 

• Reduced Technology (application): 2005 Cummins GTA 8.3 

• Engine horsepower (application): 200 hp 

• Activity (application): 2,000 hr/yr 

• Load factor (calculated using Formula C-5): 0.65 * (220 hp/200 hp) = 0.72 

• Emission Factors (Table B-14a): 1.58 g/bhp-hr NOx; 0.13 g/bhp-hr ROG; 

0.060 g/bhp-hr PM10 
D-59 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

• New engine cost (quote provided with application): $29,000 (includes hour meter) 

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 * 220 hp * 0.65 * 2,000 hrs)(ton/907,200 g) = 3.23 tons/yr NOx 

2. Annual NOx reduced technology emissions 

(1.58 g/bhp-hr * 200 hp * 0.72 * 2,000 hrs)(ton/907,200 g) = 0.50 tons/yr NOx 

3. Annual ROG baseline technology emissions 

(1.08 g/bhp-hr * 220 hp * 0.65 * 2,000 hrs)(ton/907,200 g) = 0.34 tons/yr ROG 

4. Annual ROG reduced technology emissions 

(0.13 g/bhp-hr * 200 hp * 0.72 * 2,000 hrs)(ton/907,200 g) = 0.04 tons/yr ROG 

5. Annual PM10 baseline technology emissions 

(0.396 g/bhp-hr * 220 hp * 0.65 * 2,000 hrs)(ton/907,200 g) = 0.125 tons/yr PM10 

6. Annual PM10 reduced technology emissions 

(0.060 g/bhp-hr * 200 hp * 0.72 * 2,000 hrs)(ton/907,200 g) = 0.019 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for 

Repowers and New Purchases 

• NOx emission benefits = 3.23 tons/yr – 0.50 tons/yr = 2.73 tons/yr NOx 

• ROG emission benefits = 0.34 tons/yr – 0.04 tons/yr = 0.30 tons/yr ROG 

• PM10 emission benefits = 0.125 tons/yr – 0.019 tons/yr = 0.106 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

 2.73 tons/yr + 0.30 tons/yr + 20(0.106 tons/yr) = 5.15 weighted tons/yr 

Annualized Cost: 

Project life: 7 years 

CRF (Table B-1): 0.167 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost 

$29,000 - $6,000 = $23,000 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

0.167 * $23,000 = $3,841/yr 

Cost-Effectiveness: 

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

($3,841/yr)/(5.15 weighted tons/yr) 

= $746/tons of weighted surplus emissions reduced 

The cost-effectiveness for this project is less than $14,300 per weighted ton of 

emissions reduced. This project qualifies for the maximum amount of grant funds 

requested. 
D-60 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

XI. Light-Duty Vehicles 

This section provides an example calculation for determining the cost-effectiveness of 

surplus emission reductions for light-duty vehicle projects. 

A. General Criteria for Light-Duty Vehicle Cost-Effectiveness 

Calculations 

• Emission reductions from VAVR programs shall be calculated in accordance with the 

methodology specified in the ARB’s VAVR regulations. Emission reductions, by 

model year of vehicle retired, are shown in Table 11-2. (The table is also included in 

Appendix B, Tables for Emission-Reduction and Cost-Effectiveness Calculations, at 

Table B-21.) 

• The project life for a vehicle retirement project is three years as specified in the 

ARB’s VAVR regulation. 

• In calculating cost-effectiveness, the total cost is the full cost paid by the district 

using State funds (i.e, the total paid to the enterprise operator to retire a vehicle, not 

just the amount paid to the vehicle owner). 

• Cost-effectiveness is calculated without interim rounding to the annualized cost or 

the annual weighted surplus emission reduction. 

• For these calculations, PM10 refers to combustion PM10. 

B. Examples 

Example 1 - Voluntary Accelerated Vehicle Retirement Project 

A district pays $750 to retire a 1980 model year light-duty vehicle during calendar year 

2006. Please note that the cost of $750 is the total cost paid by the district with 

Carl Moyer Program or AB 923 funds to the enterprise operator to retire the vehicle, not 

just the amount paid to the vehicle owner. 

Emissions Reduction Calculations: 

Table B-21 lists the emission reductions over the 3 year project life in pounds. 

• NOx emission benefit 

= 85 pounds over 3 years (from Table B-21) 

= (85 lb)/[(3 yrs)*(2000 lb/ton)] = 0.0142 tons/yr NOx 

• ROG emission benefit 

= 129 pounds over 3 years (from Table B-21) 

= (129 lb)/[(3 yrs)*(2000 lb/ton)] = 0.0215 tons/yr ROG 
D-61 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

• PM10 emission benefit 

= 1.13 pounds over 3 years (from Table B-21) 

= (1.13 lb)/[(3 yrs)*(2000 lb/ton)] = 0.000188 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

 0.0142 + 0.0215 + 20*(0.000188) = 0.0394 weighted tons/yr 

Annualized Cost: 

Project life: 3 years 

CRF (Table B-1) = 0.360 

Total cost: $750 

Formula C-12: Annualized cost

0.360 * $750 = $270/yr 

Cost-Effectiveness: 

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions ($/ton) 

($270/yr)/(0.0394 weighted tons/yr) 

= $6,850/weighted ton of surplus emissions reduced 
D-62 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

XII. Zero-Emission Technologies 

This section provides several examples of calculations for determining the 

cost-effectiveness of surplus emission reductions for zero-emission projects. 

A. General Criteria for Zero-Emission Technology Cost-Effectiveness 

Calculations 

Electrically Driven Agricultural Pumps

• Agricultural pumps that use an electric motor may use a 10 year project life for 

calculating cost effectiveness. 

• All electric-driven agricultural pumps must have a functioning kilowatt-hour meter, or 

other method approved by the local air district, to monitor usage. 

• Participants in the PG&E/SCE rate incentive programs must use Tier 3 engine 

emission factors for calculating reduced technology emissions. 

• Participants in the PG&E/SCE rate incentive programs may use one-half the rebuild 

cost for calculating incremental cost. 

• Participants in the PG&E/SCE rate incentive programs who are replacing a baseline 

Tier 2 engine still under contract with the Carl Moyer Program may use zero rebuild 

cost in calculating incremental cost. 

• For these calculations, PM10 refers to combustion PM10. 

• The minimum project life is three years. 

Electric Idle Reduction

• The actual capital cost, up to $5,500, of an APU may be funded. 

• The installation cost of an APU, including installation of an hour meter, up to a 

maximum of $3,400 per electric motor or fuel cell APU may be funded. 

B. Examples 

Example 1 – Replacing a Diesel Pump Engine with a Electric Pump Motor: Not 

Participating in PG&E/SCE Incentive Program 

An applicant wants to purchase a 2005 GE 5K445FT328, 100 hp (75 kW) electric pump 

motor to replace a 1991 Caterpillar 3116, 155 hp diesel pump engine with uncontrolled 

emissions. The motor costs $26,700; otherwise the applicant would have to rebuild the 

diesel engine at a cost of $7,000. On average, the applicant currently operates the 
D-63 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

diesel pump engine at 65 percent of the maximum load rating for 2,000 hours each 

year. The pump operates 100 percent of the time in California. 

Baseline Technology Information: 

• Engine (application): 1991 Caterpillar 3116, diesel off-road engine (uncontrolled) 

• Engine HP (application): 155 hp 

• Load factor (default for agricultural pumps): 0.65 

• Activity (application): 2,000 hours per year 

• Cost rebuild (quote provided with application): $7,000 

• Emission factors (Table B-12): 7.60 g/bhp-hr NOx; 0.82 g/bhp-hr ROG; 

0.274 g/bhp-hr PM10 

Reduced Technology Information: 

• Engine (application): 2005 GE 5K445FT328, electric motor 

• Engine HP (application): 100 hp (75 kW) 

• Activity (application): 2,000 hours per year 

• Percent operate in California (application): 100 percent 

• Cost of new equipment (quote provided with application): $26,700 

• Emissions: 0 g/bhp-hr NOx; 0 g/bhp-hr ROG; 0 g/bhp-hr PM10 

Emission Reduction Calculations: 

Formula C-4: Estimated Annual Emissions Based on Hours of Operation 

1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions 

(7.60 g/hp-hr *155 hp * 0.65 * 2,000 hrs)/(907,200 g/ton) = 1.69 tons/yr NOx 

2. Annual NOx reduced technology emissions = 0 tons/yr 

3. Annual ROG baseline technology emissions 

(0.82 g/hp-hr *155 hp * 0.65 * 2,000 hrs)/(907,200 g/ton) = 0.18 tons/yr ROG 

4. Annual ROG reduced technology emissions = 0 tons/yr 

5. Annual PM10 baseline technology emissions 

(0.274 g/hp-hr *155 hp *0.65 * 2,000 hrs)/(907,200 g/ton) = 0.061 tons/yr PM 

6. Annual PM10 reduced technology emissions = 0 tons/yr 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for 

Repowers and New Purchases 

• Emission benefits NOx = 1.69 tons/yr - 0 tons/yr = 1.69 tons/yr NOx 

• Emission benefits ROG = 0.18 tons/yr - 0 tons/yr = 0.18 tons/yr ROG 

• Emission benefits PM10 = 0.061 tons/yr - 0 tons/yr = 0.013 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

 1.69 + 0.18 + 20(0.061) = 3.09 weighted tons/yr 

Annualized Cost: 

Project Life: 10 years 

 CRF (Table B-1) = 0.123 
D-64 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost 

 $26,700 – $7,000 = $19,700 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

$19,700 * 0.123 = $2,423/yr 

Cost-Effectiveness: 

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

($/weighted ton) 

($2,423/yr)/(3.09 weighted ton/yr) 

= $784/weighted ton of surplus emissions reduced

The cost-effectiveness for the example is less than $14,300 per weighted ton of 

pollutants reduced. This project qualifies for the maximum amount of grant funds 

requested. 

Example 2 – Replacing a Diesel Pump Engine with a Electric Pump Motor: 

Applicant Is Participating in PG&E/SCE Incentive Program 

An applicant wants to purchase a 2005 GE 5K445FT328, 100 hp (75 kW) electric pump 

motor to replace a 1991 Caterpillar 3116, 155 hp diesel pump engine with uncontrolled 

emissions. The motor costs $26,700; otherwise the applicant would have to rebuild the 

diesel engine at a cost of $7,000. On average, the applicant currently operates the 

diesel pump engine at 65 percent of the maximum load rating for 2,000 hours each 

year. The pump operates 100 percent of the time in California. The applicant is eligible 

and has been accepted in the PG&E/SCE rate incentive program. 

Baseline Technology Information: 

• Engine (application): 1991 Caterpillar 3116, diesel off-road (uncontrolled) 

• Engine HP (Application): 155 hp 

• Load factor (default for agricultural pumps): 0.65 

• Activity (application): 2,000 hours per year 

• Cost to rebuild (quote provided with application): $7,000 

• Emission factors (Table B-12): 7.60 g/bhp-hr NOx; 0.82 g/bhp-hr ROG; 

0.274 g/bhp-hr PM10 

Reduced Technology Information: 

• Engine (application): 2005 GE 5K445FT328, electric 

• Engine HP (application): 100 hp (75 kW) 

• Activity (application): 2,000 hours per year 

• Percent operate in California (application): 100 percent 

• Cost of new equipment (quote provided with application): $26,700 

• Emissions: Applicant can only claim emission benefits from baseline to a comparable 

Tier 3 engine. 
D-65 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

Electric motor: 0 g/bhp-hr NOx; 0 g/bhp-hr ROG; 0 g/bhp-hr PM 

Tier 3 155 hp diesel engine (Table B-12): 2.32 g/bhp-hr NOx; 0.12 g/bhp-hr ROG; 

0.112g/bhp-hr PM10 

Emission Reduction Calculations: 

Formula C-4: Estimated Annual Emissions Based on Hours of Operation 

1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions 

(7.60 g/hp-hr * 155 hp * 0.65 * 2,000 hrs)/(907,200 g/ton) = 1.69 tons/yr NOx 

2. Annual NOx Tier 3 technology emissions 

(2.32 g/hp-hr * 155 hp * 0.65 * 2,000 hrs)/(907,200 g/ton) = 0.52 tons/yr NOx 

3. Annual ROG baseline technology emissions 

(0.82 g/hp-hr * 155 hp * 0.65 * 2,000 hrs)/(907,200 g/ton) = 0.18 tons/yr ROG 

4. Annual ROG Tier 3 technology emissions 

(0.12 g/hp-hr * 155 hp * 0.65 * 2,000 hrs)/(907,200 g/ton) = 0.03 tons/yr ROG 

5. Annual PM10 baseline technology emissions 

(0.274 g/hp-hr * 155 hp * 0.65 * 2,000 hrs)/(907,200 g/ton) = 0.061 tons/yr PM10 

6. Annual PM10 Tier 3 technology emissions 

(0.112 g/hp-hr * 155 hp * 0.65 * 2,000 hrs)/(907,200 g/ton) = 0.025 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for 

Repowers and New Purchases 

• Emission benefits NOX = 1.69 tons/yr- 0.52 tons/yr = 1.17 tons/yr NOx 

• Emission benefits ROG = 0.18 tons/yr - 0.03 tons/yr = 0.15 tons/yr ROG 

• Emission benefits PM10 = 0.061 tons/yr - 0.025 tons/yr = 0.036 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C.2 – Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

 1.17 + 0.15 + 20(0.036) = 2.04 weighted tons/yr 

Annualized Cost: 

Project Life: 10 years 

 CRF (Table B-1) = 0.123 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost 

$26,700 – ($7,000/2) = $23,200 *Applicant may use one-half rebuild cost for 

baseline, as per criteria 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

$23,200 * 0.123 = $2,854/yr 

Cost-Effectiveness: 

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

($/weighted ton) 

($2,854/yr)/(2.04 weighted ton/yr) 

= $1,399/weighted ton of surplus emissions reduced
D-66 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

The cost-effectiveness for the example is less than $14,300 per weighted ton of 

pollutants reduced. This project qualifies for the maximum amount of grant funds 

requested. 

Example 3 – Replacing a Diesel Pump Engine with a Electric Pump Motor: 

Applicant Is Participating in PG&E/SCE Incentive Program and 

Replaced Engine Is a CMP-Funded Tier 2 Engine 

An applicant wants to purchase a 2005 GE 5K445FT328, 100 hp (75 kW) electric pump 

motor to replace a Tier 2 155 hp diesel pump engine. The motor costs $26,700. On 

average, the applicant currently operates the diesel pump engine at 65 percent of the 

maximum load rating for 2,000 hours each year. The pump operates 100 percent of the 

time in California. The Tier 2 engine was purchased with Carl Moyer Program funds 

three years ago, and is still under contract. The engine has not reached its rebuild 

interval. The applicant is eligible and has been accepted in the PG&E/SCE rate 

incentive program. 

Baseline Technology Information: 

• Engine (application): 2004 Tier 2 diesel off-road 

• Engine HP (application): 155 hp 

• Load factor(default for agricultural pumps): 0.65 

• Activity (application): 2,000 hours per year 

• Cost rebuild (quote provided with application): $0 

• Emission factors (Table B-12): 4.17 g/bhp-hr NOx; 0.19 g/bhp-hr ROG; 

0.128 g/bhp-hr PM10 

Reduced Technology Information: 

• Engine (application): 2005 GE 5K445FT328, electric 

• Engine HP (application): 100 hp (75 kW) 

• Activity (application): 2,000 hours per year 

• Percent operate in California (application): 100 percent 

• Cost of new equipment (quote provided with application): $26,700 

• Emissions: Applicant can only claim emission benefits from baseline to a comparable 

Tier 3 engine. 

Tier 3 155 hp diesel engine (Table B-12): 2.32 g/bhp-hr NOx; 0.12 g/bhp-hr ROG; 

0.112g/bhp-hr PM10 

Emission Reduction Calculations: 

Formula C-4 - Estimated Annual Emissions based on Hours of Operation 

1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions 

(4.17 g/hp-hr * 155 hp * 0.65 * 2,000 hrs)/(907,200 g/ton) = 0.93 tons/yr NOx 

2. Annual NOx Tier 3 technology emissions 

(2.32 g/hp-hr * 155 hp * 0.65 * 2,000 hrs)/(907,200 g/ton) = 0.52 tons/yr NOx 

3. Annual ROG baseline technology emissions 
D-67 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

(0.19 g/hp-hr * 155 hp * 0.65 * 2,000 hrs)/(907,200 g/ton) = 0.04 tons/yr ROG 

4. Annual ROG Tier 3 technology emissions 

(0.12 g/hp-hr * 155 hp * 0.65 * 2,000 hrs)/(907,200 g/ton) = 0.03 tons/yr ROG 

5. Annual PM10 baseline technology emissions 

(0.128 g/hp-hr * 155 hp * 0.65 * 2,000 hrs)/(907,200 g/ton)= 0.028 tons/yr PM10 

6. Annual PM10 Tier 3 technology emissions 

(0.112 g/hp-hr * 155 hp * 0.65 * 2,000 hrs)/(907,200 g/ton)= 0.025 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for 

Repowers and New Purchases 

• Emission benefits NOX = 0.93 tons/yr- 0.52 tons/yr = 0.41 tons/yr NOx 

• Emission benefits ROG = 0.04 tons/yr - 0.03 tons/yr = 0.01 tons/yr ROG 

• Emission benefits PM10= 0.028 tons/yr - 0.025 tons/yr = 0.003 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

 0.41 tons/yr + 0.01 tons/yr + 20(0.003 tons/yr) = 0.480 weighted tons/yr 

Annualized Cost: 

Project Life: 10 years 

 CRF (Table B-1) = 0.123 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost 

$26,700 – $0* = $26,700 *Applicant may use a rebuild cost of $0 since the project is 

still under Moyer contract and has not reached a rebuild 

interval. 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

$26,700 * 0.123 = $3,284/yr 

Cost-Effectiveness: 

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

($/weighted ton) 

($3,284/yr)/(0.480 weighted ton/yr) 

= $6,842/weighted ton of surplus emissions reduced

The cost-effectiveness for the example is less than $14,300 per weighted ton of 

pollutants reduced. This project qualifies for the maximum amount of grant funds 

requested. 

Example 4 – Electric Idle Reduction Package Replaces Main Diesel Engine Idling 

An applicant wants to purchase an electric package that includes an electric HVAC, a 

large alternator, and inverter/charger and a lead acid battery pack. These units will 

replace all idling that uses the truck’s main propulsion engine. The package costs 

$10,000 and another $2,000 for installation. The applicant currently idles his 1999 MY 

truck engine an average of 1,250 hours each year. 
D-68 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

Baseline Technology Information: 

• Main engine model year (application): 1999 

• Annual hours of idling (application): 1,250 

• Main Engine idling emission rate (Table B-9): 171.00 g/hr NOx, 34.28 g/hr ROG, 

g/hr 2.28 PM10

Reduced Technology Information: 

• 110 VAC, 60 Hz HVAC (8300 BTU) ; 270 A alternator; 

lead acid battery pack; inverter/charger (application) 

• Annual hours of idling (application): 1,250 

• Percent operate in California (application): 100 percent

• Cost of new equipment (quote provided with application): $10,000 

• Cost of installation (quote provided with application): $2,000 

• Electric emission rates: 0 g/bhp-hr NOx; 0 g/bhp-hr ROG; 0 g/bhp-hr PM10 

Emission Reduction Calculations: 

Formula C-4: Estimated Annual Emissions based on Hours of Operation 

1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions 

(171.00 g/hr * 1,250 hrs)/(907,200 g/ton) = 0.24 tons/yr NOx 

2. Annual NOx reduced technology emissions = 0 tons/yr NOx 

3. Annual ROG baseline technology emissions 

(34.28 g/hr * 1,250 hrs)/(907,200 g/ton) = 0.05 tons/yr ROG 

4. Annual ROG reduced technology emissions = 0 tons/yr ROG 

5. Annual combustion PM10 baseline technology emissions 

(2.28 g/hr * 1,250 hrs)/(907,200 g/ton) = 0.003 tons/yr PM10 

6. Annual combustion PM10 reduced technology emissions = 0 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) for 

Repowers and New Purchases 

• Emission benefits NOX = 0.24 tons/yr - 0 tons/yr = 0.24 tons/yr NOx 

• Emission benefits ROG = 0.05 tons/yr - 0 tons/yr = 0.05 tons/yr ROG 

• Emission benefits PM10 = 0.003 tons/yr - 0 tons/yr = 0.003 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

 0.24 tons/yr + 0.05 tons/yr + 20(0.003 tons/yr) = 0.350 weighted tons/yr 

Annualized Cost: 

Project Life: 5 years 

 CRF (Table B-1) = 0.225 

Formula C-14: Incremental Cost 

 Capital cost: $10,000 CMP will pay up to $5,500, as per guideline criteria 

Installation cost: $2,000 

$5,500 + $2,000= $7,500
D-69 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost 

$7,500 * 0.225 = $1,688/yr 

Cost-Effectiveness: 

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

($/weighted ton) 

($1,688/yr)/( 0.350 weighted ton/yr) 

= $4,823/weighted ton of surplus emissions reduced 

The cost-effectiveness for the example is less than $14,300 per weighted ton of 

pollutants reduced. This project qualifies for the maximum amount of grant funds 

requested. 

Example 5 – Purchase of TRU with Electric Standby Option 

The TRU owner proposes to purchase a TRU that is equipped with electric standby in 

lieu of one without this option. This would virtually eliminate TRU engine operation 

while the TRU is at the facility. The TRU owner has submitted records that show his 

fleet of facility-controlled TRUs has operated an average of three hours per day of TRU 

engine run time while at the facility. The incremental cost of the E/S option is $2,000. 

Facility infrastructure would cost $5,000. TRUs operate at the facility 360 days per 

year. The new TRU would be equipped with a 2006 engine rated at 36.2 hp to maintain 

cooling when the truck is not at the facility. 

Baseline Technology

• Engine rating = 36.2 hp 

• Model year = 2006 

• Default load factor = 0.53 

• Emission factors (Table B-12): 4.63 g/bhp-hr NOx, 0.29 g/bhp-hr ROG, 

0.280 g/bhp-hr PM10 

Reduced Technology

• Electric standby = zero emissions 

• Annual TRU engine activity replaced with electric standby = 

(3 hrs/day)(360 days/yr) = 1,080hr/yr 

Emission Reduction Calculations: 

Formula C-4: Estimated Annual Emissions based on hours of Operation (tons/yr) 

1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions 

(4.63 g/bhp-hp)(36.2 hp)(0.53)(1,080 hrs/yr)(1 ton/907,200g) 

= 0.10 tons/yr NOx 

2. Annual NOx reduced technology emissions 

(0 g/bhp-hr)(36.2hp)(0.53)(1,080hrs)(1 ton/907,200g) 

= 0 ton/yr NOx 

3. Annual ROG baseline technology emissions 

(0.29 g/bhp-hr)(36.20hp)(.53)(1,080 hrs/yr)(1ton/907,200g) 

= 0.007 tons/yr ROG 
D-70 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

4. Annual ROG reduced technology emissions 

(0 g/bhp-hr)(36.2hp)(0.53)(1,080hrs)(1 ton/907,200g) 

= 0 ton/yr ROG 

5. Annual PM10 baseline technology emissions 

(0.280 g/bhp-hp)(36.2 hp)(0.530)(1,080 hrs/yr)(1 ton/907,200g) 

= 0.006 tons/yr tons/yr PM10 

6. Annual PM10 reduced technology emissions 

(0 g/bhp-hp)(36.2 hp)(0.530)(1,080 hrs/yr)(1 ton/907,200g) 

= 0 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by pollutant (tons/yr) for Repowers 

and New Purchases 

• NOx emission benefits = 0.10 tons/yr - 0 tons/yr = 0.10 tons/yr NOx 

• ROG emission benefits = 0.007 tons/yr - 0 tons/yr = 0.007 tons/yr ROG 

• PM10emission benefits = 0.006 tons/yr - 0 tons/yr = 0.006 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-2, Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions: 

0.10 tons/yr + 0.007 tons/yr + 20(0.006 tons/yr) = 0.227 weighted tons/yr 

Annualized Cost: 

Project Life: 3 years 

CRF (Table B-1): =0.360 

Incremental Cost: =$2,000 

Formula C- 12-Annualized Cost 

0.360 * $2,000 = $720/yr 

Cost Effectiveness: 

Formula C-1 Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions ($/ton): 

($720/yr)/(0.227 weighted tons/yr) 

= $3,172/ton of weighted surplus emissions reduced 

The $5,000 cost for electric power plugs cannot be funded by the Carl Moyer Program 

because it is considered infrastructure. The air district may pay for this with district 

match funds. 

This project qualifies for the $2,000 cost of the E/S option. 
APPENDIX E 

DESCRIPTION OF CERTIFICATION AND VERIFICATION 

EXECUTIVE ORDERS
E-1 CERTIFICATION AND VERIFICATION 

APPENDIX E 

DESCRIPTION OF CERTIFICATION AND VERIFICATION 

I. New Engine Certification 

The Air Resources Board (ARB) certifies engines destined for sale in California and 

provides the engine manufacturers with an Executive Order (EO) for each certified 

engine family. An example of an EO is shown in Figure E-1. The EO includes general 

information about the certified engine such as engine family, displacement, horsepower 

rating(s), intended service class, and emission control systems. It also shows the 

applicable certification emission standards as well as the average emission levels 

measured during the actual certification test procedure. For the purpose of the Carl 

Moyer Program, the certification emission standards are used to calculate emission 

reductions. The certification emission standards are shown in the row titled “(DIRECT) 

STD” under the respective “FTP” column headings for each pollutant. For instance, the 

Cummins 8.3 liter natural gas engine illustrated in Figure E-1 was certified to a 

combined oxides of nitrogen plus non-methane hydrocarbon (NOx+NMHC) emission 

standard of 1.8 g/bhp-hr, a carbon monoxide (CO) emission standard of 15.5 g/bhp-hr, 

and a particulate matter (PM) emission standard of 0.03 g/bhp-hr. 

In the case where an EO shows emission values in the rows labeled “AVERAGE STD” 

and/or “FEL”, the engine is certified for participation in an averaging, banking, and 

trading (AB&T) program. AB&T engines (i.e., all FEL-certified engines) are not eligible 

to participate in the CMP for new vehicle purchase projects since emission benefits from 

an engine certified to an FEL level are not surplus emissions. 
E-2 CERTIFICATION AND VERIFICATION 

Figure E-1 

Sample Executive Order 

ARB Executive Order

for Heavy-Duty On-Road Engines
E-3 CERTIFICATION AND VERIFICATION 

II. Retrofit System Verification

The ARB’s verification procedures provide a way to thoroughly evaluate the emission 

reduction capabilities and durability of a variety of emission control strategies as part of 

a retrofit in-use program. It ensures that emission reductions achieved by a control 

strategy are both real and durable and that production units in the field are achieving 

emission reductions which are consistent with their verification. 

The ARB has a verification procedure for in-use strategies to control emissions from 

diesel engines (diesel emission control systems or DECS). The verification procedure 

requires a minimum PM reduction of at least 25 percent. If a diesel emission control 

strategy also reduces NOx emissions by at least 15 percent, that reduction can also be 

verified. Emission control strategies for diesel engines are verified based on a tiered 

verification classification shown in Table E-1 below. It is the responsibility of the diesel 

emission control strategies manufacturer to provide data to verify emission reduction 

claims. The ARB issues Executive Orders for verified emission control strategies 

destined for sale in California. An example of an EO for a retrofit emission control 

system for diesel engines is shown in Figure E-2. 

Applicants may claim ROG emission reductions from DECS if hydrocarbon emission 

reductions for that technology are obtained from the ARB’s retrofit website at: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/verdev.htm. For the Carl Moyer Program, ROG 

emission reductions will be credited at the 25 percent, 50 percent, and 85 percent 

reduction levels. To calculate emission reductions of ROG for the Carl Moyer Program, 

applicants should use the percentage reduction of hydrocarbons from the ARB’s retrofit 

website to determine the appropriate "level" of emission reductions. For example, a 

technology that provides a 40 percent emission reduction of hydrocarbons would be 

permitted to apply a 25 percent reduction in ROG emissions for determining eligibility 

and grant amount in the Carl Moyer Program. 

Table E-1 

Verification Levels for Diesel Emission Control Strategies 

Pollutant Emission Reduction Classification 

< 25% Not Verified 

> 25% Level 1 

PM > 50% Level 2 

> 85%, or 

< 0.01 g/bhp-hr 

Level 3 

< 15% Not Verified NOx 

> 15% Verified in 5% Increments 
E-4 CERTIFICATION AND VERIFICATION 

ARB staff has also developed an interim retrofit verification procedure for large 

spark-ignition engines (LSI). This interim procedure can be used to verify retrofit 

systems to reduce NOx and HC emissions from spark-ignition engines until the interim 

procedure is formally adopted by the ARB. Emission control strategies for LSI engines 

are verified based on a tiered verification classification shown in Table E-2 below. 

Table E-2. LSI Emission Control System Verification Levels 

Classification Percentage Reduction 

(HC+NOx)

Absolute Emissions 

(HC+NOx) 

LSI Level 1 (1) > 25% (2) Not Applicable 

LSI Level 2 (1) > 75%(3) 3.0 g/bhp-hr (3) 

LSI Level 3a (1) > 85% (4) 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 g/bhp-hr 

LSI Level 3b (5) Not Applicable 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 g/bhp-hr 

Notes: 

 (1) Applicable to uncontrolled engines only 

(2) The allowed verified emissions reduction is capped at 25% regardless of 

actual emission test values 

 (3) The allowed verified reduction for LSI Level 2 is capped at 75% or 

3.0 g/bhp-hr regardless of actual emission test values 

(4) Verified in 5% increments, applicable to LSI Level 3a classifications only 

(5) Applicable to emission-controlled engines only 
E-5 CERTIFICATION AND VERIFICATION 

Figure E-2 

Example of an EO for a Retrofit Emission Control System 
E-6 CERTIFICATION AND VERIFICATION 
E-7 CERTIFICATION AND VERIFICATION 
APPENDIX F 

RETROFIT EMISSION CONTROL STRATEGIES 
G-1 RETROFITS 

APPENDIX F 

RETROFIT EMISSION CONTROL STRATEGIES 

All retrofit systems must be verified by ARB in order to qualify for Carl Moyer Program 

funding. Potential compression-ignited (diesel) engine retrofits include diesel oxidation 

catalysts, diesel particulate filters, flow though filters and fuel additives. Potential 

spark-ignited engines include closed-loop fuel control, three-way catalyst, fuel injection, 

or any combination thereof. 

I. Compression-Ignited (Diesel) Engines 

A. Diesel Oxidation Catalysts 

A diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC) reduces carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (HC), 

and the soluble organic fraction (SOF) of diesel PM through catalytic oxidation. 

Negligible reductions of the solid particle portion of PM also occur. Exhaust gases are 

not filtered, as with a diesel particulate filter (DPF) so the solid particles escape. A DOC 

reduces total PM emissions up to 30 percent. PM emission reductions at this higher 

end are typically associated with engines that emit "wet" PM (i.e., particles that have a 

higher percentage of SOF, unburned or partially burned fuel, adsorbed onto the particle 

surface). Older engines or engines that have less efficient fuel combustion typically 

produce PM with higher SOF. Engines that more efficiently combust the fuel would 

have less SOF adsorbed on the soot particle, so the PM emission reductions would be 

less on a percentage basis. 

B. Passive Diesel Particulate Filters 

A DPF uses a porous substrate to filter out PM particles from the exhaust. DPFs must 

"regenerate" or be cleaned periodically to remove the collected particulate matter. A 

passive DPF has a catalyst coating on the filter surfaces that lowers the PM ignition 

temperature, allowing the collected PM to burn off. Emissions of HC and CO are also 

reduced by catalytic oxidation. This approach is called "passive" regeneration because 

no outside source of energy or intervention is required for regeneration, making it very 

attractive due to its simplicity. 

C. Active Diesel Particulate Filters 

Active DPFs use an external source of energy or external intervention to increase the 

exhaust temperature to the point where PM oxidation can occur, achieving a 

regeneration. Additional heat may be added to the exhaust using electrical power, 

microwaves, or injecting fuel. Another approach uses periodic, short-duration use of an 

intake throttle to reduce the amount of excess air, so the exhaust temperature rises as a 

result of not having to heat the excess air. The temperature of the filter and collected 

PM increases until the PM burns off, at which point the throttle re-opens. Active DPFs 
G-2 RETROFITS 

systems can initiate regeneration when the backpressure on the filter reaches a 

specified level or the operator can initiate a regeneration when a warning light indicates 

backpressure has exceeded a set point. For applications where the engine-out PM is 

relatively high, or the exhaust temperature is relatively cool, active regeneration 

systems may be more effective than a passive DPF. Emission reductions of HC and 

CO can also occur in active DPFs, and to a greater extent if the DPF system uses lightly 

catalyzed surfaces or fuel-borne catalysts to assist in achieving regenerations. 

D. Flow-Through Filters 

Unlike the DPF, in which only the exhaust gases can pass through the substrate, the 

flow-though filter (FTF) does not physically "trap" and accumulate PM. Instead, exhaust 

flows through a medium (such as a wire mesh or metal foils) that has a high density of 

tortuous flow channels, thus giving rise to turbulent flow conditions that favor PM 

oxidation. The medium is typically treated with an oxidizing catalyst that is able to 

reduce emissions of PM, HC, and CO, or the FTF is used in conjunction with a fuel 

borne catalyst (FBC). The filtration efficiency of the FTF is typically lower than that of a 

DPF because unburned PM is not "trapped", but the FTF is less likely to plug under 

unfavorable conditions, such as high PM emissions or low exhaust temperature. 

E. Fuel Additives 

A fuel additive is designed to be added to fuel or fuel systems so that it is present 

in-cylinder during combustion. Fuel additives can reduce the total mass of PM 

emissions, with variable effects on CO, NOx and gaseous HC production. A fuel-borne 

catalyst (FBC) is an additive that is used with diesel fuel to aid in soot removal by 

decreasing the ignition temperature of the carbonaceous exhaust. FBCs can be used 

with passive and active filter systems to improve fuel economy, aid system 

performance, and decrease mass PM emissions. FBC/DPF systems have been verified 

for on-road use in California in medium duty and heavy-duty engines. In addition, 

FBC/DPF systems are in wide spread use in Europe in both on-road and off-road, 

mobile and stationary applications. Use of FBCs with DOCs or FTFs may not be 

verified for use in California since catalytic particle emissions occur and the 

consequences of such emissions are unknown. 

II. Spark-Ignition Engines 

Retrofit refers to modifications or additions made to an engine and/or fuel system such 

that the specifications of the retrofitted engine are not the same as the original engine. 

Retrofits for LSI equipment will likely incorporate advanced automotive-inspired 

emission control technologies that dramatically reduce emissions while still meeting 

operational requirements. These have already been in use on a variety of LSI 

equipment for about 10 years. To qualify for Carl Moyer Program funding, the retrofit 

technology must be verified for sale in California and must comply with established 

durability and warranty requirements. 
G-3 RETROFITS 

A. Three-Way Catalyst 

Three-way catalytic converters have helped manufacturers to meet progressively 

lower-emissions standards. Manufacturers have installed three-way catalysts on 

automobiles for more than 25 years. Advanced three-way catalysts will likely be 

components in new LSI retrofit kit, and have been shown to be robust in research 

demonstrations for the 2001 LSI regulation. 

LSI catalyst volumes are much lower than light duty vehicles - between 40 to 

60 percent of engine displacement. Precious metal loading of the catalytic converter in 

a current LSI application is typically half of that in automotive applications. LSI catalysts 

in retrofits will likely use multi-layered wash coats that increase precious metals 

performance to achieve lower emissions. Due to confined space on forklifts, the 

three-way catalysts are made such that they can be a direct fit replacement of the 

original vehicle silencer. Other LSI equipment will most likely be adaptable to catalyst 

additions. 

B. Closed-Loop Fuel Control System 

Central to automotive emission control systems is the closed-loop fuel control system. 

Since 1980, automotive emission control systems have used a closed-loop fuel control 

system to help reduce emissions. This technology has increasingly been applied to LSI 

retrofit technology in the last 10 years. A closed-loop fuel control system uses sensors 

to monitor exhaust gas concentrations, and feed this information back to an electronic 

control module, which in turn keeps the air to fuel mixture at an optimum level. The 

sensors (usually oxygen sensors) deteriorate over time, causing the system to lose 

emissions reduction ability, but equipment with sensors have indicator lights that can 

alert the operator of an sensor failure so that they can replace the oxygen sensors as 

needed. 

C. Fuel-Injection System 

To help ensure more precise metering of fuel and optimum combustion, carburetors will 

likely be replaced by sequential fuel injection or a more sophisticated regulator/mixer. 

Today's advanced systems must maintain an extremely tight stoichometric air to fuel 

balance during nearly all engine operations because wide fluctuations from the 

stoichiometric position will result in less ability to reduce NOx and hydrocarbons.
APPENDIX G 

DESCRIPTION OF FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENCY OF 

NON-ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURER REPOWERS 

AND REBUILT ENGINES FOR USE IN REPOWERS 
G-1 NON-OEM REPOWER AND REBUILD 

Appendix G 

Description of Functional Equivalency of Non-Original Equipment Manufacturer 

Repowers and Rebuilt Engines for use in Repowers 

A repower or an engine rebuild may be performed by the original equipment 

manufacturer (OEM) or a non-OEM. An original equipment manufacturer, for the 

purposes of the Carl Moyer Program, means any person engaged in the manufacturing 

or assembling of new vehicles or equipment for resale under its own brand name. 

These manufactures provide the original product design and materials for the 

equipment assembly and manufacture and are directly responsible for manufacturing 

and modifying the products, making them commercially available, and providing the 

warranty. 

I. Non-Original Equipment Manufacturer Repowers 

The Carl Moyer Program provides funding opportunities for equipment repowers with a 

lower emission engine; like-to-like repowers are not eligible for funding. In accordance 

with the Carl Moyer Program guidelines, a non-OEM repower must be “functionally 

equivalent” to an OEM repower with regard to emissions, durability, and safety. A 

non-OEM repower consists of removing an existing engine and replacing it with a lower 

emission certified engine, however the installer does not use the procedures and/or 

parts specified by the OEM in their repower documentation. The non-OEM repower 

must also maintain the emission performance of the replacement engine in operation. 

A. Requirements to Establish Functional Equivalency 

The following actions are necessary and sufficient for Carl Moyer Program applicants to 

follow when demonstrating functional equivalency. 

The Carl Moyer Program applicant must: 

• Submit to the Air Pollution Control Officer/Executive Officer of the governing air 

district a list of OEM and non-OEM parts to be used in the repower and the 

corresponding components that they replace (if replacing parts). 

• Submit a letter of qualification from the installer who will perform the work. 

• Submit a detailed description of the work to be performed on the equipment 

including necessary engine mapping and drawings and engineering analyses to 

demonstrate safety and durability. 
G-2 NON-OEM REPOWER AND REBUILD 

The following further explain these requirements: 

1. List of Functionally Equivalent Parts 

Carl Moyer Program applicants proposing to perform non-OEM repowers must submit 

to the Air Pollution Control Officer/Executive Officer of the governing air district the 

following information for each repower: 

• The serial number, make, model year and configuration of both the original engine 

and the replacement engine. 

• The component parts list (CPL) or arrangement numbers for both the original engine 

and the replacement engine, including the exhaust and cooling systems if modified 

during the repower. 

• The original equipment (OE) number and description of parts replaced. 

• The replacement part identification number. 

• A statement that all non-OEM replacement parts are functionally equivalent to the 

corresponding OE parts. 

The applicant or the non-OEM installer must also comply with any request from the ARB 

or Air Pollution Control Officer/Executive Officer of the governing air district for any 

additional information, including sample parts for inspection and records required by 

section 2221 (b) of title 13 of the California Code of Regulations. 

2. Letter of Qualification 

Any Carl Moyer Program applicant proposing to perform a non-OEM repower must 

submit a letter of qualification from the installer addressed to the Air Pollution Control 

Officer/Executive Officer of the governing air district. The letter should describe the 

installer’s operations and experience. It must include the following: 

• The name and address(es) of the installer. 

• The length of time the installer has been operating. 

• The number of employees and how many are actually involved in installing engines. 

• The type of heavy-duty equipment it repowers. 

• The number of items it normally repowers annually.

• Background and experience of the owners including education, training and 

certifications; previous heavy-duty engine repowers experience; and any experience 

with an OEM or its franchised dealers. 

• Whether the business specializes in any particular type or make of heavy-duty 

equipment. 

• Whether it has performed work under the Carl Moyer Program; any other state or 

local program; or for any Federal, state or local agency. 

• Whether it has ever been investigated for malpractice or tampering with heavy-duty 

engines and if so, the results of the investigation. 
G-3 NON-OEM REPOWER AND REBUILD 

The letter must be signed by the owner of the business and must include the following 

statement: 

“I affirm that the repower described in the Carl Moyer Program application will use only 

OE parts or non-OE parts from the parts list submitted to the air district. The 

replacement engine will be functionally equivalent from a durability standpoint to one 

offered by the OEM in the same power category and will maintain the emissions 

performance of the replacement engine in operation. Furthermore, the repowered 

equipment will maintain all safety specifications of the original equipment.”

After review of the letter, the air district or ARB may request additional information. 

3. Description of Work to be Performed 

 

The Carl Moyer Program applicant must submit an additional letter describing the 

proposed work or work already performed on the equipment. The letter must confirm 

that the parts used are equivalent to the CPL parts or corresponding arrangement 

number parts. In addition, the letter must include details on required equipment 

modifications with pictures of the equipment and engineering drawings as necessary. 

The letter must also state that the repowered equipment is functionally equivalent from 

a durability standpoint to one offered by the OEM in the same power category and that 

the emission performance of the engine is maintained in operation. Any test data that 

substantiate these emission claims shall be attached or included in the letter. 

 

B. Other Restrictions and Considerations 

The ARB or the district may require emission testing on any piece of equipment, 

whether repowered by an OEM or non-OEM. Emissions testing may be specified prior 

to approval of a project as a condition of the grant, but normally will not be specified 

unless ARB has reason to believe that a proposed repower will not be functionally 

equivalent from an emissions and durability standpoint to an OEM repower. Emissions 

testing may also be required after the project has been completed, in cases where there 

is evidence of malpractice or tampering. Engines that do not achieve the stated 

emission levels may be denied all or part of the requested funding. In cases where the 

money has already been disbursed, the applicant will be responsible for providing an 

acceptable engine or for reimbursing the state for Carl Moyer Program funds expended. 

In addition, other penalties may apply. 

II. Non-Original Equipment Manufacturer Rebuilt Engines for Use in Repowers 

The Carl Moyer Program provides funding opportunities for equipment repowers using 

rebuilt engines. In accordance with the Carl Moyer Program guidelines, a non-OEM 

rebuilt engine must be “functionally equivalent” to an OEM rebuilt engine with regard to 

emissions and durability. 
G-4 NON-OEM REPOWER AND REBUILD 

A. Requirements to Establish Functional Equivalency 

The following actions are necessary and sufficient for Carl Moyer Program applicants to 

follow when demonstrating functional equivalency. 

The Carl Moyer Program applicant must: 

• Submit to the Air Pollution Control Officer/Executive Officer of the governing air 

district a list of non-original equipment parts or to be used in the rebuilt engine and 

the corresponding components that they replace. 

• Submit a letter of qualification from the rebuilder who will perform the work. 

• Submit a detailed description of the work to be performed on the engine. 

The following further explain these requirements: 

1. List of Functionally Equivalent Parts 

Carl Moyer Program applicants proposing to use non-OEM rebuilt engines must submit 

to the Air Pollution Control Officer/Executive Officer of the governing air district the 

following information for each rebuilt engine: 

• The serial number, make, model year and configuration of the original engine. 

• The component parts list (CPL) or arrangement numbers for the original engine. 

• The original equipment (OE) number and description of parts replaced. 

• The replacement part identification number. 

• A statement that all non-OEM replacement parts are functionally equivalent, as 

defined in the equivalency provision by section 2421 (a)(13) of title 13 of the 

California Code of Regulations, to the corresponding OE parts. 

The applicant or the non-OEM replacement part manufacturer must also comply with 

any request from the ARB or Air Pollution Control Officer/Executive Officer of the 

governing air district for any additional information, including sample parts for inspection 

and records required by section 2221 (b) of title 13 of the California Code of 

Regulations. 

2. Letter of Qualification 

Any Carl Moyer Program applicant proposing to use a non-OEM rebuilt engine must 

submit a letter of qualification from the rebuilder addressed to the Air Pollution Control 

Officer/Executive Officer of the governing air district. The letter should describe the 

rebuilder’s operations and experience. It must include the following: 

• The name and address(es) of the rebuilder. 

• The length of time the rebuilder has been operating. 

• The number of employees and how many are actually involved in rebuilding engines. 
G-5 NON-OEM REPOWER AND REBUILD 

• The type of heavy-duty parts it rebuilds (full engines, fuel systems, blocks, etc.). 

• The number of items it normally rebuilds annually.

• Background and experience of the owners including education, training and 

certifications; previous heavy-duty engine rebuild experience; and any experience 

with an OEM or its franchised dealers. 

• Whether the business specializes in any particular type or make of heavy-duty 

engine or parts. 

• Whether it has performed work under the Carl Moyer Program; any other state or 

local program; or for any Federal, state or local agency. 

• Whether it has ever been investigated for malpractice or tampering with heavy-duty 

engines and if so, the results of the investigation. 

The letter must be signed by the owner of the business and must include the following 

statement: 

“I affirm that the rebuilt engine described in the Carl Moyer Program application will use 

only OE parts or non-OE parts from the parts list submitted to the air district. 

Furthermore, the rebuilt engine will be functionally equivalent from an emissions and 

durability standpoint to the OEM engine it is replacing.”

After review of the letter the air district or ARB may request additional information. 

3. Description of Work to be Performed 

 

The Carl Moyer Program applicant must submit an additional letter describing the 

proposed work or work already performed on the rebuilt engine. The letter must confirm 

that the parts used are equivalent to the CPL parts or corresponding arrangement 

number parts and that the rebuilt engine has the same configuration as the original 

engine. In addition, any re-calibrations or adjustments performed on the engine or 

engine components must be set forth in detail, as well as any work performed on parts 

that were taken out of the engine and re-inserted. 

The letter must also state that the rebuilt engine is functionally equivalent to an OEM 

rebuilt engine with regard to emissions and durability. Any test data that substantiate 

these emission claims shall be attached or included in the letter. 

 

B. Other Restrictions and Considerations 

The ARB may require emission testing on any engine, whether rebuilt by an OEM or 

non-OEM rebuilder. Engine testing may be specified prior to approval of a project as a 

condition of the grant for all rebuilders rebuilding under the grant, but normally will not 

be specified unless ARB has reason to believe that a proposed rebuilt engine will not be 

functionally equivalent from an emissions and durability standpoint to the OEM engine it 

is replacing. Engine testing may also be required after the project has been completed, 

in cases where there is evidence of malpractice or tampering. Engines that do not 

achieve the stated emission levels may be denied all or part of the requested funding. 
G-6 NON-OEM REPOWER AND REBUILD 

In cases where the money has already been disbursed, the applicant will be responsible 

for providing an acceptable engine or for reimbursing the state for Carl Moyer Program 

funds expended. In addition, other penalties may apply. 
THE CARL MOYER PROGRAM 

GUIDELINES 

2006 Project Criteria for Light-Duty Vehicles 

 Initial Release Date: October 20, 2006 

 Adopted: December 7, 2006

 

 

California Environmental Protection Agency

Air Resources Board
2006 Project Criteria XI-1 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

Chapter Eleven 

LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES

This chapter addresses the project criteria for on-road, light-duty vehicle projects. The 

chapter contains a brief overview of the light-duty vehicle emission inventory, current 

engine emission standards, available control technologies, potential projects eligible for 

funding, and emission reduction and cost-effectiveness calculations. 

I. Introduction 

Light-duty vehicles include passenger cars, pick-up trucks, sport utility vehicles (SUVs), 

and vans. In 2005, the estimated number of light-duty vehicles in California was over 

21 million vehicles. Although emissions from light-duty vehicles are decreasing with the 

implementation of stricter emission control standards, light-duty vehicles are still major 

contributors to California’s air pollution, and incentive programs offer a way to reduce 

emission from the existing fleet. 

II. Emissions 

The oxides of nitrogen (NOx), reactive organic gas (ROG), and particulate matter 

(PM10) emissions from the light-duty fleet are shown in Table 11-1. 

Table 11-1 

Statewide Emissions from On-Road Light-Duty Vehicles 

(tons per day) 

 Population NOx ROG PM10 

2005 21,500,000 574 583 29 

2010 23,700,000 388 405 32 

Source: ARB 2006 Almanac Emission Projection Data (http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/emissiondata.htm) 

Older, light-duty vehicles (pre-1990 model years) account for 56 percent of the ROG 

and 41 percent of the NOx emissions from all light-duty vehicles in 2005, despite 

accounting for only 19 percent of the vehicle population and less than 13 percent of the 

vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Generally, these older vehicles emit more pollutants 

because of less stringent emission standards and increased wear and tear on drive train 

and emission control components. Even well maintained, older vehicles tend to be 

higher emitting than newer ones because they lack advanced emission controls. 

III. Regulatory Requirements 

California’s emission controls for light-duty vehicles date back to the 1960s. New 

control technologies and cleaner fuels have enabled more restrictive emission 

standards over the years. 
2006 Project Criteria XI-2 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

Since the 1990s, the Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) regulations have been the 

cornerstone of the ARB’s program to reduce emissions from light-duty vehicles. The 

LEV program, implemented in 1994, established four tiers of low emission standards 

and provided manufacturers with the option of certifying their vehicles to any mix of 

these standards as long as they complied with an average non-methane organic gas 

annual fleet requirement. The fleet average requirement gradually decreased each year 

between 1994 and 2003, resulting in the introduction of a greater number of cleaner 

vehicles each proceeding model year. The LEV II regulation set even more stringent, 

declining fleet average emission requirements for 2004 through 2010 and lowered the 

NOx emission standards. As a result of the ARB’s LEV program, a new 2005 model 

year car is on average 99 percent cleaner than an uncontrolled car. 

California also has requirements to ensure vehicles’ emission control systems continue 

to work throughout their lives. Under the Smog Check program, vehicles are tested 

biennially to ensure that they stay clean as they age. A Smog Check includes a tailpipe 

emissions test and a visual inspection of the emission control system. For vehicles 

equipped with on-board diagnostic (OBD II) systems (model years 1996 and later), the 

inspection also includes a check of the malfunction indicator light to ensure that no 

problems have been detected with the vehicle’s emission control system. 

IV. Potential Projects: Voluntary Accelerated Vehicle Retirement and 

Voluntary Repair of Vehicles 

Light-duty vehicle projects were added to the Carl Moyer Program with legislative 

changes signed into law in 2004 (AB 923). The ARB has identified two types of lightduty vehicle projects that are eligible for funding under the Carl Moyer Program: 

voluntary accelerated vehicle retirement (VAVR or vehicle scrapping) and voluntary 

repair of vehicles (VRV). Both programs can reduce excess emissions from older, high 

emitting vehicles. Some districts may choose to run only a VAVR program or only a 

VRV program; others may choose to run VAVR and VRV programs in coordination, so 

vehicle owners have the option of choosing between vehicle repair and retirement. 

The ARB originally adopted project criteria for VAVR programs in the 2005 Carl Moyer 

Program Guidelines [ARB 2005]. This revision expands vehicle scrapping opportunities 

by adding criteria for the optional use of remote sensing devices (RSD) or other 

technologies to identify high emitting vehicles for participation in VAVR programs and 

establishing project criteria for VRV programs. 

RSD typically uses infrared and/or ultraviolet spectroscopy to measure the 

concentrations of air pollutants in vehicle exhaust while the vehicle is in use on the 

roadway. Concentrations of ROG, NOx, and CO are recorded along with a photo of the 

license plate. Studies have shown that RSD can be an effective tool in identifying high 

emitting vehicles [BAR, 2001; U.S. EPA; Stedman, 1994; and Stedman]. 
2006 Project Criteria XI-3 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

A. VAVR Background 

The goal of VAVR programs is to retire older, more polluting vehicles earlier than their 

expected lifetime, thereby eliminating the emissions associated with their operation. 

VAVR programs are strictly voluntary programs overseen by the ARB and administered 

by local air districts. Private enterprise operators are contracted by the district and are 

responsible for evaluating, approving, and disposing of qualified light-duty vehicles. 

Real emission reductions can be achieved as vehicles are still fully operational and 

have a useful life remaining. Therefore, to qualify for a VAVR program, a vehicle must 

meet registration, functionality, and equipment eligibility criteria. To accommodate car 

collectors and others with potential interest in vehicles offered for retirement, VAVR 

programs provide the public with an opportunity to purchase vehicles in whole or in part 

before the vehicle is retired. Vehicles accepted into the program must be retired by 

crushing the vehicle to such a degree that it and its parts are rendered unusable. 

The California Health and Safety Code (sections 44100-44122, in part) establishes the 

framework for VAVR programs. As required in State law, the ARB has adopted a 

regulation governing VAVR programs that includes market-based, privately-operated 

VAVR enterprises and the generation of emission reduction credits. [ARB, 1998 and 

ARB, 2001] The VAVR regulation now provides for the optional use of technologies to 

identify high emitting vehicles [ARB, 2006]. 

In addition to district administered VAVR programs, BAR’s Smog Check Program 

includes a voluntary vehicle retirement element. As part of BAR’s Consumer 

Assistance Program, owners of qualifying vehicles that fail the biennial Smog Check are 

given the option of voluntarily retiring their vehicle rather than repairing it. District-run 

VAVR programs complement BAR’s Smog Check Program. District programs generate 

emission reductions that are surplus to those obtained through the Smog Check. BAR’s 

program covers vehicles that have failed their biennial Smog Check while the district 

programs cover vehicles that have passed their biennial Smog Check or are between 

biennial inspections (i.e., “off-cycle” from Smog Check). 

Two types of VAVR programs are allowed which we refer to as “conventional VAVR 

programs” and “high emitter VAVR programs,” respectively. In conventional VAVR 

programs, any older vehicle may be retired provided it meets the minimum eligibility 

requirements. Emission reductions are achieved because these older vehicles, even 

ones that meet their Smog Check standards, emit more pollutants than the newer 

vehicles that replace them upon retirement. To estimate the emission reductions, the 

retired vehicle’s emissions are not directly measured, so it is assumed that the retired 

vehicle produces the average emissions of its model year. In addition, because a 

replacement vehicle’s emissions are not measured and the vehicle chosen as a 

replacement is not specified, it is assumed that the replacement vehicle produces the 

emissions of a “fleet average” vehicle. The Carl Moyer Program Guidelines include a 

look up table which lists emission reductions by model year of vehicle retired. 
2006 Project Criteria XI-4 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

In high emitter VAVR programs, RSD or other technologies are used to identify the 

highest emitting vehicles in the fleet for possible participation. By targeting only the 

highest emitting vehicles, the programs can achieve extra emission reductions relative 

to conventional VAVR programs. The conventional VAVR emission reduction tables 

cannot be used to estimate the reductions for this type of program because the tables 

do not reflect the fact that only the highest emitting vehicles would be targeted for 

voluntary participation. The Carl Moyer Program Guidelines provide the method for 

calculating the emission reductions for high emitter VAVR programs. 

Districts interesting in running VAVR programs with Carl Moyer Program funds would 

have the option of choosing which type of program to operate. 

B. VRV Background 

Funding voluntary emission-related repairs can reduce emissions from the existing fleet. 

Vehicle repair projects must achieve surplus emission reductions to receive funding 

under the Carl Moyer Program. Vehicle owners routinely pay for repairs on their own 

vehicles. Simply shifting the cost of repairs from the owner to the State does not, in and 

of itself, result in surplus emission reductions. Surplus emission reductions are 

achieved only by funding repairs that would not have occurred otherwise or by 

accelerating repairs so they occur earlier than they would have otherwise. 

Distinguishing repairs that would only occur with State funding from those that would 

have happened in the absence of funding (“anyways reductions”) is a challenge. To 

ensure emission reductions are surplus to the Smog Check program, vehicles must be 

outside of their biennial Smog Check window in order to participate. 

It is also important that incentive-based repair programs do not discourage vehicle 

owners from keeping up with routine vehicle maintenance. Only vehicles identified 

through remote sensing, high emitter profile, or equivalent technologies are eligible for 

VRV. VRV programs would not be open to “walk ins” (i.e, vehicles not identified as 

possible high emitters) because this would create a disincentive for people to keep up 

with routine vehicle maintenance. 

Also critical to the success of vehicle repair projects is ensuring that emission control 

system failures are correctly diagnosed and repaired so that real emission reductions 

are achieved. To address this, project criteria require systematic diagnosis and repair in 

accordance with standard industry protocols to ensure that vehicles are correctly and 

efficiently repaired. 

During the development of these Guidelines, some stakeholders suggested that Statefunded voluntary repair programs be available only to low income vehicle owners 

because they are least financially able, and therefore least likely, to make the repairs in 

absence of State funding. ARB staff acknowledges this concern. However, it’s been 

ARB policy with respect to the Carl Moyer Program to provide a broader level of 

guidance sufficient to ensure that emission reductions are real, quantifiable, 

enforceable, and surplus. The ARB leaves decisions on how Carl Moyer Program funds 
2006 Project Criteria XI-5 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

should be distributed to the air districts administering the program at the local level. 

ARB staff agrees that this is an issue that air districts should consider as they design 

VRV programs. 

C. New Elements: Light-Duty Vehicle Carl Moyer Program Projects 

The following section provides background on the new elements of the Carl Moyer 

Program Guidelines for light-duty vehicle programs.

 

• Provisions for high emitter VAVR programs which utilize technologies such as 

RSD to identify possible high emitting vehicles. 

• A method to calculate the extra emission reductions for retiring vehicles identified 

as high emitters. 

• Project criteria for VRV programs. 

1. Identifying High Emitting Vehicles for VAVR or VRV 

High emitter VAVR or VRV programs would incorporate RSD, high emitter profiles, or 

equivalent technologies to identify candidate vehicles. However, emission reduction 

estimates are not based on these measurements. Instead, the vehicle’s emissions are 

based on a confirmatory Smog Check test which would be used to establish the 

vehicle’s baseline emissions. At this time, ARB staff does not believe that a split 

second RSD measurement is quantitatively reflective of a vehicle’s emissions over a 

driving cycle. 

To be eligible for high emitter VAVR or VRV programs, an identified vehicle’s 

confirmatory Smog Check test would need to exceed the pass/fail emission standard 

(cutpoint) for the model year and vehicle class. For the purposes of this program, a 

high emitting vehicle is defined as one that fails the Smog Check test. Vehicles whose 

emissions are below the pass/fail emission standard could still be voluntarily retired and 

receive the emission reductions for conventional VAVR programs. For vehicles that are 

not testable on the acceleration simulation mode (ASM) testing equipment, a two speed 

idle (TSI) Smog Check may be substituted. 

2. Calculating Emission Benefits of High Emitter VAVR 

The same fundamental approach that is used for conventional VAVR programs to 

estimate emission reductions is used for retiring high emitting vehicles. However, the 

input variables would be different, reflecting the fact that the retired vehicle has been 

identified as a high emitting vehicle and its emissions have been measured. Unlike 

conventional VAVR programs, which assume retired vehicles pass Smog Check, high 

emitting vehicles identified off-cycle would presumably fail their next Smog Check. 

Consequently, the emission rate of the retired vehicle would change over the credit life. 

It would be higher before the vehicle’s next biennial Smog Check, but after the 

Smog Check, its emissions would be lower because it would have had to be repaired in 

order to stay on the road. 
2006 Project Criteria XI-6 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

For the first year of the three year credit life, a retired vehicle’s baseline emissions 

would be equal to the confirmatory Smog Check ASM reading converted to a federal 

test procedure (FTP) based gram per mile emission rate using conversion equations 

developed from the 2004 Evaluation of the California Enhanced Inspection and 

Maintenance (Smog Check) Program. [ARB/BAR, 2004; ARB/BAR, 2005] 

For years two and three of the credit life, its emissions would have been lower because, 

had it not been retired, it would have presumably failed its Smog Check and been 

repaired to pass Smog Check. ARB staff proposes that the retired vehicle’s baseline 

emissions for years two and three be equal to the Smog Check pass/fail emission 

cutpoint pollutant concentrations for the vehicle class and model year, converted to an 

FTP based gram per mile emission rate. This approach assumes retired vehicles are 

one year away, on average, from their next biennial Smog Check. Some vehicles may 

fail the Smog Check test for only one pollutant. If a vehicle’s emissions at time of 

retirement were below the Smog Check pass/fail cutpoint for a pollutant, the emissions 

for that pollutant would be equal to its measured emissions at the time of retirement 

because the Smog Check program would not have forced any reduction of the passing 

pollutant. 

ARB staff recommends using the average VMT of the model year of the vehicle retired 

as with conventional VAVR. Staff considered the alternative of estimating an individual 

vehicle’s VMT based on the difference in odometer reading between its last two Smog 

Checks. This approach was suggested when the VAVR regulation was last updated in 

2002. At that time, ARB staff concluded that the Smog Check odometer data were not 

sufficiently reliable because a portion of these data are inaccurate. However, as part of 

the flexibility provided in the Guidelines, districts have the option of using actual mileage 

if that proves feasible in the fleet of vehicles being retired. 

Emissions of the replacement vehicle would be equal to the average emissions of the 

light-duty fleet, and the VMT of the replacement vehicle would be equal to that of the 

retired vehicle as with conventional VAVR. This reflects the fact that owners are not 

required to document how they replace the vehicles they retire. However, some air 

districts and other stakeholders have expressed interest in allowing programs which 

provide additional incentives for owners who document that they have purchased a 

vehicle certified to the ARB’s LEV or cleaner emission standard. In this case, the 

replacement vehicle’s emission rate would be the average emission rate of a LEVcertified vehicle of the model year purchased, based on the ARB’s motor vehicle 

emission model. 

3. Repair Requirements 

A guiding principle for the vehicle repair requirements is that vehicles must be 

systematically diagnosed and repaired by licensed Smog Check technicians in 

accordance with accepted industry protocols and all laws and regulations governing 

automotive repair to ensure that repairs are durable and real emission reductions are 
2006 Project Criteria XI-7 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

achieved. Systematic diagnosis and repair is the key to successful repair programs. 

Quick and inexpensive repairs which temporarily mask more serious problems do not 

result in long lasting emission reductions. 

ARB staff has based its repair criteria on the protocols used in BAR’s Consumer 

Assistance Program. The ARB encourages air districts to pay careful consideration to 

the need for systematic diagnosis and repair protocols as they develop contracts with 

the Smog Check stations to perform the testing, diagnosis, and repair services. The 

contracts should include the appropriate detail in the scope of work to ensure that 

stations follow systematic diagnosis and repair protocols. 

4. Evaporative Emission Reductions 

RSD does not measure evaporative emissions, and high emitter profiles do not predict 

the likelihood of evaporative Smog Check failures. Vehicles identified as high exhaust 

emitters do not necessarily have high evaporative emissions as well. ARB staff is 

providing districts the option of including an evaporative emission element in their higher 

emitter VAVR or VRV programs. Districts may conduct evaporative emission testing of 

vehicles identified as exhaust high emitters if they choose. 

One challenge associated with testing vehicles’ fuel evaporative systems is that the test 

equipment is still under development. BAR is in the process of developing regulations 

to add a low pressure fuel evaporative test to the Smog Check program, but at this time, 

no equipment has been certified by BAR. However, several manufacturers’ equipment 

are undergoing certification. Only equipment that has been submitted for certification 

may be used in programs that test for evaporative emissions. If vehicles fail the low 

pressure evaporative, they would be eligible for extra evaporative emission reduction 

credits if retired or could receive repairs of evaporative controls. 

Calculating the emission reductions associated with retiring or repairing vehicles 

identified as evaporative high emitters presents a challenge because the low pressure 

evaporative testing equipment does not directly measure a mass-based emission rate. 

Consequently, the emission benefits cannot be measured directly. Staff has based the 

emission reductions on pilot studies by the ARB and others that quantified in the 

laboratory the benefits of repairing vehicles which failed the low pressure evaporative 

test. (See Environmental Impacts of Implementing A Low Pressure Evaporative Test in 

the California Smog Check Program, released November 29, 2005, 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/smogcheck/evap_report.pdf.) [ARB, 2005] The report 

presents baseline evaporative emission rates and average control factors for repairs 

from which ARB staff estimated an average emission reduction. 

During the final workshop on these revisions, one commenter suggested that vehicles 

identified as “liquid leakers” during the confirmatory Smog Check test should also 

qualify for extra emission reductions if retired or if those leaks are repaired. ARB staff 

agrees but has not yet developed a proposed method for calculating benefits. ARB staff 
2006 Project Criteria XI-8 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

will work with air districts to appropriately quantify these emission reductions if they are 

a part of a district’s VAVR or VRV program. 

5. PM Emission Reductions 

Identification of PM high emitters is not a standard part of VAVR or VRV programs. 

RSD and high emitter profiles have not been demonstrated as tools to identify PM high 

emitters, and vehicles identified as having high ROG or NOx exhaust emissions do not 

necessarily produce high PM emissions as well. The ARB supports the goal of reducing 

PM emissions from the light-duty fleet and is funding research into measuring PM 

emissions in light-duty vehicles. A further challenge in quantifying PM emissions is that 

the Smog Check ASM test does not measure PM. 

ARB staff acknowledges that the South Coast AQMD will attempt to evaluate methods 

for identifying and quantifying PM high emitters as part of its high emitter retirement and 

repair program. ARB staff supports assigning extra PM emission reductions for 

retirement or repair once a viable, technologically supportable method of quantifying PM 

benefits is demonstrated. 

The Guidelines include broad provisions for PM high emitter programs. If a district 

program includes a PM component, the program plan must specify the procedure and 

analytical approach that would be used to measure PM. The plan must also outline how 

the district intends to evaluate and validate that its proposed method of measure PM 

emissions in the field correlates with scientifically accepted methods of measuring PM 

emissions in the laboratory. However, because of the uncertainties in measuring PM, 

districts may not rely on the extra emission reductions from retiring PM high emitters to 

show that the program is cost-effective at this time. 

6. Credit Life 

The current VAVR program uses a three year credit life. Surveys conducted since the 

regulation was adopted in 1998 support the three year credit life. These surveys 

conducted in the Bay Area and South Coast indicate that owners estimated their 

vehicles would have lasted on average 3-3.5 years if they had not been retired. The 

South Coast data are from the 1999 time frame. However, Bay Area survey data are 

available from as recently as 2004-2005. Some have argued that regional differences 

may support a longer credit life. On the other hand, a high emitting vehicle may actually 

have a shorter life due to its need for potentially costly repairs. At this time, ARB staff 

does not have data that would support changing the credit life. 

For VRV projects, the credit life is one year because, on average, vehicles are one year 

away for their next biennial Smog Check. To ensure that emission reductions are 

surplus to the Smog Check program, the credit life of the repair is the period of time 

between the repair and the vehicle’s next scheduled Smog Check. At that time, the 

Smog Check program would have forced the reductions to occur, so they would no 

longer be surplus. 
2006 Project Criteria XI-9 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

The one year credit life for repairs is an exception to the three year minimum project life 

in the Carl Moyer Program, reflecting the unique nature of vehicle repair projects. The 

ARB has set a three year minimum project life for other source categories to ensure 

emission reductions are surplus, particularly for projects funded in advance of regulatory 

compliance deadlines where engine owners know they will need to repower or replace 

their equipment. Vehicle repair is unique because, in absence of being identified via 

RSD or other technology, motorists may not know their vehicles need repairs until the 

time of their next Smog Check. By accelerating repairs a year before the Smog Check 

program would have required them, surplus reductions are achieved. 

7. Cost-Effectiveness for High Emitter VAVR and VRV

For the Carl Moyer Program, the ARB considers program costs to be those directly 

related to repowering, replacing, or retrofitting an engine. All other costs are considered 

administrative. Administrative funds are not included in the program cost-effectiveness 

calculations but must be accounted for relative to the administrative limits associated 

with each funding source. 

Costs directly related to identifying potential high emitting vehicles and the costs to 

repair or retire vehicles are program-related. These include the actual costs of remote 

sensing measurements; the costs of contacting potential participants, the costs of the 

Smog Check tests required to confirm candidate vehicles’ emissions; and the cost of 

diagnosing vehicles for repairs. ARB staff considers funds spent on outreach, data 

analysis, and development of data analysis tools such as databases to be 

administrative costs. 

Evaluating the cost-effectiveness presents unique challenges not seen in other 

Carl Moyer Program source categories. For all other categories, potential grant 

recipients submit applications in advance. During the application period, each project is 

evaluated to ensure that it meets the Carl Moyer Guidelines’ project criteria and costeffectiveness limits. Projects that are identified as cost-effective may then be eligible to 

receive funding. For VAVR and VRV programs, a different dynamic exists. 

The nature of these voluntary programs does not allow an opportunity to fully assess 

the cost-effectiveness during an application period. Costs are incurred up front to 

identify and diagnose high emitting vehicles. However, the benefits cannot be fully 

estimated in advance because they depend on the participation rate and the mix of 

vehicles retired or repaired. The cost-effectiveness can only be calculated after the fact. 

In addition, the nature of repair programs may lead to stranded costs that do not result 

in emission reductions. A Smog Check technician must take time to diagnose a vehicle 

to assess whether it is a good candidate for repair. Technicians may find that some 

vehicles are either not repairable or would be prohibitively expensive to repair. While no 

emission reductions would be achieved from these vehicles, funds would be expended 

in conducting the diagnosis. These stranded costs must be accounted for. 
2006 Project Criteria XI-10 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

For VAVR and VRV programs, the costs to identify high emitting vehicles and diagnose 

them are distributed across the successfully repaired vehicles. Therefore, VAVR and 

VRV programs would individually need to meet the Carl Moyer Program costeffectiveness limit. This reflects the unique nature of these programs and should not be 

considered a precedent applicable to other source categories. Cost-effectiveness for all 

other source categories would continue to be fully evaluated in advance on an engine 

by engine basis. 

8. Flexibility in Program Design 

Air district representatives have encouraged the ARB to provide flexibility for districts to 

develop specialized programs to address unique, local circumstances. They’ve noted 

that districts may be overly limited in designing programs if the program criteria are too 

prescriptive. ARB staff agrees that districts need flexibility, provided they incorporate 

sufficient controls to ensure the emission reductions are real, quantifiable, enforceable, 

and surplus. ARB staff has attempted to incorporate this flexibility into the Guidelines. 

Some stakeholders have voiced the concern that a “one size fits all” approach may not 

work for the calculation methodology. ARB staff has provided a calculation 

methodology that works in most cases. However, if a district implements a narrowly 

focused program, the variables specified in the ARB’s guidance may not be appropriate 

to reflect the district’s program. Districts have the option of proposing modifications to 

the calculation methodology, where necessary, to reflect unique elements of their 

program. Any proposed modifications must be included in the district’s program plan. 

The onus is on the district to document that the proposed modifications are technically 

sound and justified. The district must have ARB approval to use an alternative 

methodology. 

V. Project Criteria for VAVR and VRV 

This section provides the project criteria for VAVR and VRV programs funded through 

the Carl Moyer Program. Unless noted, the criteria apply to both VAVR and VRV 

programs. VAVR programs must also comply with all provisions of the regulations 

found in Title 13 California Code of Regulations, Division 3, Chapter 13, Article 1, 

section 2601 et seq. 

These criteria provide districts with the minimum qualifications for the Carl Moyer 

Program. Districts retain the authority to impose additional requirements to address 

local concerns. 

A. General Requirements 

• Emission reductions obtained through Carl Moyer Program projects must not be 

required by any federal, state, or local regulation; memorandum of 
2006 Project Criteria XI-11 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

agreement/understanding with a regulatory agency; settlement agreement; 

mitigation requirement; or other legal mandate. 

• Projects must meet a cost-effectiveness of $14,300 per weighed ton of NOx + ROG 

+ combustion PM10 reduced calculated in accordance with the cost-effectiveness 

methodology discussed in this chapter. 

• No emission reductions generated by the Carl Moyer Program shall be used as 

marketable emission reduction credits or to offset any emission reduction obligation 

of any person or entity. 

• Potential projects that fall outside of these criteria may be considered on a 

case-by-case basis if evidence provided to the ARB suggests potential surplus, real, 

quantifiable, and enforceable emission reduction benefits. 

• Air districts must consult with ARB staff to determine eligibility of all projects 

considered for funding on case-by-case basis. All projects considered on a 

case-by-case basis must receive ARB approval prior to receiving program funding. 

• Programs utilizing funding under the Carl Moyer Program shall comply with all 

applicable provisions of the Carl Moyer Program Guidelines including 

“Administration of the Carl Moyer Program.” 

B. Vehicle Eligibility Requirements 

• Participation shall be entirely voluntary for vehicle owners. 

• The vehicle must be a gasoline-powered passenger car or light-duty truck up to 

8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight. 

• The vehicle must be currently registered with the Department of Motor Vehicles 

(DMV) as an operating vehicle and must have been registered for at least 

24 consecutive months prior to the final date of the sale to a VAVR enterprise or the 

date of repair to an address, or addresses, within the district in which the VAVR 

enterprise or VRV program is operated. Smog Checks must be performed as 

required by the DMV in order for the vehicle to be considered registered. 

1. A vehicle may also be eligible if the owner of the vehicle placed the vehicle in 

planned non-operational status per Vehicle Code section 4604, et seq., for a total 

of 2 months during the continuous 24 month registration period, occurring at least 

3 months prior to the date of sale to the VAVR enterprise or the date of repair. 

2. A vehicle may also be eligible if the registration has lapsed for a period not to 

exceed 180 days during the previous 24 months and all appropriate registration 

fees and late penalties have been paid to the DMV, provided that the vehicle is 
2006 Project Criteria XI-12 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

registered for at least 90 days immediately prior to its date of sale to a VAVR 

enterprise or date of repair. 

• The vehicle to be retired shall be driven to the VAVR enterprise purchase site or 

VRV repair station under its own power. 

• The vehicle to be retired shall not be operating under a Smog Check repair cost or 

economic hardship waiver. 

• Vehicles whose emission control systems have been tampered with, as defined in 

Title 16 California Code of Regulations, Division 33, Chapter 1, Article 5.5, section 

3340.41.5, are not eligible until such tampering has been completely corrected. 

Additional Requirements for VAVR Programs Only

• If a vehicle volunteered for retirement is within 60 days of its next required 

Smog Check inspection, the vehicle shall pass the Smog Check inspection without 

receiving a repair cost waiver or economic hardship extension prior to acceptance by 

a VAVR enterprise operator. 

• If a vehicle volunteered for retirement is within 61-90 days of its next required 

Smog Check inspection, the district shall verify that the vehicle has not failed a 

Smog Check inspection during this time frame. 

• The vehicle shall pass functional and equipment eligibility inspections as specified in 

the ARB’s VAVR regulation. 

Additional Requirements for High Emitter VAVR or VRV Programs

• Only vehicles identified as potential high emitting through a technology such as RSD 

or a high emitter profile database approved by the ARB and operated in accordance 

with the VAVR regulations found in Title 13 California Code of Regulations, Division 

3, Chapter 13, Article 1, section 2601 et seq. are potentially eligible for VRV 

programs or to receive extra emission reduction credit for VAVR programs. 

• A vehicle must receive a confirmatory Smog Check ASM test to establish its 

baseline emissions. To be eligible for a VRV program or to receive extra emission 

reduction credit from a VAVR program, a vehicle’s ASM test must exceed the 

pass/fail emission standard for the model year and vehicle class as defined in Title 

16, Division 33, Chapter 1, Article 5.5, Section 3340.42 of the California Code of 

Regulations. The emission standards are listed on BAR’s web site at: 

http://www.smogcheck.ca.gov/ftp/pdfdocs/asm_ph43.pdf. 

− Vehicles not testable under the ASM test may be given a TSI Smog Check test to 

determine eligibility. 
2006 Project Criteria XI-13 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

− If the vehicle’s emissions are below the pass/fail emission standards, the vehicle 

is not considered a high emitting vehicle. These vehicles could still be voluntarily 

retired and receive the emission reductions from a conventional VAVR program 

but do not quality for a VRV program. 

− For pre-1974 model years, the pass/fail emission standards for the 1974 model 

may be used for purposes of qualifying vehicles for the program. 

− The Smog Check test must be conducted by a BAR-licensed technician and 

must be conducted in accordance with BAR regulations and procedures. 

Additional Requirements for VRV Programs Only

• All repairs must be completed at least 91 days in advance of the vehicle’s next 

biennial Smog Check. 

• Vehicles covered under their manufacturer’s warranty period are not eligible. 

Warranty requirements are found in Title 13 California Code of Regulations, Division 

3, Chapter 1, Article 6, section 2035 et seq. and Article 1, section 1961. 

− Manufacturer warranties generally cover vehicles for a period of 3 years or 

50,000 miles whichever first occurs, with high-priced parts covered for a period of 

7 years or 70,000 miles whichever first occurs. 

− For 2004 model year and newer vehicles certified to optional 150,000 mile 

emission standards, the high-priced part warranty is extended to 8 years or 

100,000 miles whichever first occurs. 

• Vehicles registered to a non-profit organization, fleet, or business are not eligible. 

• A vehicle may only be repaired once in its lifetime through a VRV program. 

C. Program Plan Requirements 

• A district shall submit a program plan to the ARB for approval prior to initiating a 

VAVR or VRV program. 

• The district must receive written approval of the plan from the ARB’s Executive 

Officer (EO) prior to implementing a VAVR or VRV program. 

• The program must follow the plan, and any substantive changes must be 

pre-approved by the EO. 

• A district’s program plan must at a minimum include: 

1. The name, title, and telephone number of the district contact for the program. 
2006 Project Criteria XI-14 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

2. An evaluation of environmental justice considerations including, but not limited to, 

outreach addressing community needs. 

3. An estimate of the number of vehicles that may be retired and/or repaired and an 

estimate of the cost-effectiveness of the program along with all assumptions and 

calculations that were used to derive the estimate (recognizing that the ultimate costeffectiveness will depend on the mix of vehicles actually retired/repaired). 

4. A copy of the contract with the VAVR enterprise operations, repair stations, and any 

other contractor(s) who will be responsible for running the program. 

5. A description of the methods that will be used and a timetable for monitoring and 

auditing enterprise operations and/or repair stations. 

6. A copy of the statement of certification that a VAVR enterprise operator has 

demonstrated compliance with all applicable provisions of the VAVR regulation. 

7. The methodology and sample records for verifying that a vehicle is eligible for 

inclusion in the VAVR program including confirmation of compliance with any 

Smog Check requirements. 

8. The protocol for informing the public of the availability of eligible vehicles for sale 

(applies to VAVR programs only). 

9. A sample of the records that will be required of the VAVR enterprise operator and/or 

repair stations. 

10. A description of elements of the district program that are stricter than the minimum 

requirements listed in the guidance, if applicable.

Additional Requirements for High Emitter VAVR and VRV Programs

• The plan must also include: 

1. A detailed description of the operation of the technology including but not limited 

to set up, typical operation, location and location criteria, calibration, and 

maintenance. 

2. A detailed description of the type and model of all equipment and software used 

to identify high emitting vehicles. 

3. A copy of the standard operating procedures or protocols for that technology 

including maintenance of the technology including equipment and software. 

4. The specific criteria to be used in the application of the technology to identify a 

high emitting vehicle. 

5. Documentation that personnel who will be operating the technology are trained 

and qualified for such operation. 

6. A detailed description of the methodology that will be used to calculate extra 

emission reductions, including any deviations from the ARB’s recommended 

method. 

7. If a district intends to include an evaporative testing element in its program, the 

plan must specify the test equipment. 

8. If a district intends to include a PM testing element in its program, the plan must 

specify the test equipment and test protocol. 
2006 Project Criteria XI-15 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

9. A scope of work for the business(es) that will be performing the vehicle testing 

and repairs including the general diagnosis and repair protocols to ensure costeffective and durable repairs (for VRV programs only). 

10. An itemized breakdown of estimated project costs including, but not limited to, 

the funds allocated to: identifying high emitting vehicles (e.g. RSD data 

collection costs); vehicle retirement including the number of vehicles to be 

retired; the funds allocated to vehicle repair and the number of vehicles to be 

repaired; data analysis; and outreach to and solicitation of vehicles owners. 

D. Recordkeeping and Reporting 

• For each vehicle retired or repaired, the district shall retain records of the following 

information. This information must be included in the annual report to the ARB: 

1. Vehicle Identification Number (VIN). 

2. Vehicle license plate number. 

3. Vehicle model year. 

4. Vehicle odometer reading. 

5. Vehicle make and model. 

6. Name, address, and phone number of legal vehicle owner(s). 

7. Name and business address of the VAVR enterprise operator or of the business 

conducting the repair. 

8. Emission reduction claimed. 

9. Date of purchase of vehicle by enterprise operator. [VAVR only] 

10. Date of vehicle retirement. [VAVR only] 

11. Amount paid for each repair and nature of each repair. [VRV only] 

12. Date of repair. [VRV only] 

13. Pre and post-repair Smog Check test results [VRV only] 

14. Data identifying vehicle as potential high emitting vehicle for VAVR or VRV 

participation. [High Emitter VAVR or VRV only] 

15. Confirmatory Smog Check test results and date of Smog Check test. [High 

Emitter VAVR or VRV only] 

• For VAVR programs, the VAVR enterprise operator must maintain the following 

records. The records are not required to be part of the annual report, but must be 

available for review, if requested: 

1. Reproduction of California Certificate of Title and registration, as signed-off by 

the seller at time of final sale to the VAVR enterprise. 

2. Reproduction of the applicable certificate of functional and equipment eligibility; 

3. Reproduction of the applicable Notice to Dismantler (DMV Registration 42 form). 

4. Reproduction of written documentation from the DMV verifying that a vehicle 

meets the vehicle registration requirements of the ARB’s VAVR regulations. 

5. If the retired vehicle was within 60 days of its next required Smog Check 

inspection, a reproduction of documentation that the vehicle passed its 

Smog Check inspection. 
2006 Project Criteria XI-16 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

• Districts and enterprise operators shall retain these records for the life of the project 

plus an additional 3 years. 

E. Calculating Emission Reductions 

1. Conventional VAVR Program Emission Reductions 

• Emission reductions from VAVR programs shall be calculated in accordance with the 

methodology specified in the ARB’s VAVR regulations. Emission reductions, by 

model year of vehicle retired, are shown in Table 11-2 (at the end of the chapter). 

• The project life for a vehicle retirement project is 3 years. 

2. High Emitting VAVR Program Emission Reductions 

The emission reductions for high emitting VAVR programs are calculated as follows: 

Emission Reductions = [ERretired * VMTretired - ERreplacement * VMTreplacement] * Liferetired

Where: ERretired = Emission rate of retired vehicle 

VMTretired = Vehicle miles traveled of retired vehicle 

ERreplacement = Emission rate of replacement vehicle 

VMTreplacement = Vehicle miles traveled of replacement vehicle 

Liferetired = The remaining life of the retired vehicle 

a. Exhaust Emissions of Retired Vehicle 

• For year 1 of the 3 year project life, the baseline ROGex, NOx, and CO emission 

rates are equal to the pollutant concentrations measured in the confirmatory ASM 

Smog Check test converted to an FTP-based gram per mile emission rate using the 

conversion listed in Table 11-3 (at the end of the chapter). 

− For vehicles exempt from Smog Check (pre-1976 model years), the emissions 

measured at time of retirement are the baseline emissions for the full 3 year 

credit life. 

• For years 2 and 3 of the 3 year project life, the baseline ROGex, NOx, and CO 

emission rates are equal to the lesser of the two following values: 

− The Smog Check pass/fail emission cutpoint pollutant concentrations for the 

model year and vehicle class converted to an FTP based gram per mile emission 

rate using the conversion equations in Table 11-3. 
2006 Project Criteria XI-17 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

− The pollutant concentration measured in the ASM test at the time of retirement, 

converted to an FTP based gram per mile emission rate using the conversion 

equations used in Table 11-3. 

• The VMT is the average VMT of the vehicle’s model year based on the ARB’s motor 

vehicle emission model. The average VMT for each model year is listed in Table 11-

4. 

b. Exhaust Emissions for the Replacement Vehicle 

• If the vehicle owner is not required to document how the retired vehicle is replaced, 

the replacement vehicle emissions are assumed to equal fleet average emission rate 

calculated using the ARB’s motor vehicle emission model. 

For vehicles retired in 2007, the replacement vehicle emission rates are: 

ROG 

Exhaust 

g/mile 

ROG Evap 

Running Loss 

g/mile 

ROG Evap 

Hot Soak 

g/trip 

ROG Evap 

Diurnal+Resting 

g/day/vehicle 

CO 

Exhaust 

g/mile 

NOx 

Exhaust 

g/mile 

PM10 

Exhaust 

g/mile 

0.344 0.248 0.296 1.85 6.20 0.573 0.015 

For vehicles retired in 2008, the replacement vehicle emission rates are: 

ROG 

Exhaust 

g/mile 

ROG Evap 

Running Loss 

g/mile 

ROG Evap 

Hot Soak 

g/trip 

ROG Evap 

Diurnal+Resting 

g/day/vehicle 

CO 

Exhaust 

g/mile 

NOx 

Exhaust 

g/mile 

PM10 

Exhaust 

g/mile 

0.310 0.232 0.285 1.77 5.69 0.542 0.016 

Note: Emission rates calculated using EMFAC Working Draft 2B (June 2006). Numbers are subject 

to change pending final version of emission inventory model. 

• If a VAVR program is set up to provide extra incentives for the purchase of a LEVcertified or cleaner replacement vehicle and if the owner documents that the 

replacement vehicle is certified to a LEV or cleaner emission standard as defined in 

the ARB’s LEV regulations (Title 13, Division 3, Chapter 1, Article 1, Sections 1960.1 

and 1961 of the California Code of Regulations), the replacement vehicle emissions 

are assumed to equal the average emission rate of a vehicle certified to the LEV 

emission standard for the model year purchased as a replacement, based on ARB’s 

emission model. 

For vehicles retired in 2007, the replacement LEV emission rates by model year are: 

LEV 

Model 

Year 

ROG 

Exhaust 

g/mile 

ROG Evap 

Running Loss

g/mile 

ROG Evap 

Hot Soak 

g/trip 

ROG Evap 

Diurnal+Resting

g/day/vehicle 

CO 

Exhaust

g/mile 

NOx 

Exhaust 

g/mile 

PM10 

Exhaust 

g/mile 

1997 0.108 0.084 0.151 0.651 3.979 0.354 0.019 

1998 0.102 0.073 0.130 0.566 3.843 0.347 0.018 

1999 0.097 0.062 0.109 0.495 3.679 0.334 0.016 

2000 0.092 0.050 0.086 0.412 3.494 0.321 0.015 

2001 0.086 0.036 0.063 0.325 3.269 0.305 0.013 

2002 0.081 0.028 0.046 0.267 3.057 0.305 0.012 

2003 0.071 0.023 0.035 0.224 2.659 0.270 0.010 
2006 Project Criteria XI-18 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

For vehicles retired in 2008, the replacement LEV emission rates by model year are: 

LEV 

Model 

Year 

ROG 

Exhaust 

g/mile 

ROG Evap 

Running Loss

g/mile 

ROG Evap 

Hot Soak 

g/trip 

ROG Evap 

Diurnal+Resting

g/day/vehicle 

CO 

Exhaust

g/mile 

NOx 

Exhaust 

g/mile 

PM10 

Exhaust

g/mile 

1997 0.112 0.095 0.173 0.725 4.094 0.358 0.021 

1998 0.106 0.084 0.151 0.645 3.976 0.354 0.020 

1999 0.101 0.074 0.130 0.568 3.821 0.342 0.018 

2000 0.096 0.062 0.109 0.494 3.658 0.329 0.016 

2001 0.091 0.050 0.086 0.408 3.466 0.315 0.014 

2002 0.088 0.036 0.062 0.324 3.321 0.322 0.014 

2003 0.081 0.029 0.046 0.269 3.033 0.301 0.012 

2004 0.053 0.023 0.035 0.224 1.989 0.185 0.011 

Note: Emission rates calculated using EMFAC Working Draft 2B (June 2006). Numbers are subject 

to change pending final version of emission inventory model. 

• The VMT of the replacement vehicle is equal to the VMT of the retired vehicle. 

c. Evaporative Emission Reductions 

• Evaporative emission reductions are calculated using the methodology for 

conventional VAVR programs if no evaporative testing is conducted on the retired 

vehicle. The reductions, based on the retired vehicle’s model year, are listed in 

Table 11-2. 

• Districts may, at their option, conduct evaporative testing on vehicles identified as 

exhaust high emitting vehicles to determine whether they are evaporative high 

emitting vehicles as well. 

− Low pressure fuel evaporative testing must be conducted using equipment that 

has been submitted to BAR for certification. 

− Evaporative testing must be conducted in accordance with the manufacturer’s 

standard operating procedures and the protocols for low pressure fuel 

evaporative testing developed by BAR. 

− Only vehicles that fail the low pressure fuel evaporative test are eligible to 

receive extra emission reductions as a high evaporative emitter. 

− For vehicles identified as high evaporative emitters, the emission reductions for 

retirement are equal to the evaporative emission reductions for conventional 

VAVR listed in Table 11-2 plus the average emission reductions for repairing 

evaporative system failures estimated by ARB staff in its evaluation of the low 

pressure evaporative test, 14.5 pounds of ROG per vehicle per year. 
2006 Project Criteria XI-19 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

d. Particulate Matter Emission Reductions 

• PM exhaust emission reductions are calculated using the methodology for 

conventional VAVR programs. The reductions are based on the retired vehicle’s 

model year and are found in Table 11-2. 

• If a viable method to measure and correlate PM emissions from vehicles is 

demonstrated and validated, districts have the option of measuring the PM 

emissions of vehicles identified as possible high emitters and quantifying the extra 

emission reductions of retiring PM high emitting vehicles, subject to ARB approval. 

• If a district intends to attempt to identify and quantify emission reductions from 

retiring PM high emitting vehicles, the district’s program plan must specify the 

analytical approach that would be used to measure PM emissions. 

3. VRV Emission Reductions 

• Emission benefits are calculated from the difference between the pre and post-repair 

Smog Check test where the post-repair test is a full test, not a “fast pass” test. 

• The pre and post repair Smog Check testing should be as close to the time of repair 

as possible. 

• To calculate pre- and post-repair emission rates, the pollutant concentrations 

measured in the ASM test are converted to an FTP based gram per mile emission 

rate using the conversion equations listed in Table 11-3. 

• The VMT is the average VMT of the vehicle’s model year based on the ARB’s motor 

vehicle emission model. Average VMT for each model year is listed in Table 11-4. 

• The life of the emission credit for exhaust and evaporative repairs is one year. 

• The mass emission reduction is equal to the gram per mile emission reduction 

multiplied by the VMT multiplied by the one year credit life. 

Emission Reductions = [ERpre-repair - ERpost-repair ]* VMT * Life 

Where: ERpre-repair = Emission rate of vehicle prior to repair, based on prerepair Smog Check converted to gram per mile rate using 

ASM-FTP conversion 

 ERpost-repair = Emission rate of vehicle after repair, based on post-repair 

Smog Check converted to gram per mile rate using ASMFTP conversion 

 VMT = Vehicle miles traveled of vehicle 

 Life = Life of repair = 1 year 
2006 Project Criteria XI-20 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

• For vehicles identified as high evaporative emitters via the low pressure evaporative 

test and repaired, emission reductions are equal to the average emission reductions 

for repairing evaporative system failures estimated by ARB staff in its evaluation of 

the low pressure evaporative test, 14.5 pounds of ROG per vehicle per year. 

4. Modifications to Calculation Methodology for VAVR and VRV 

• Air districts retain the option of proposing modifications to the calculation 

methodology, where necessary, to reflect unique elements of their program. 

Districts must provide technical justifications to support any proposed modifications 

to the default methodology in their program plan. The district must receive written 

approval from the ARB to use a modified methodology. 

− If a district receives approval to use a modified calculation methodology, 

emission reductions for all vehicles retired or repaired must be calculated in 

accordance with that approved methodology. 

F. Cost-Effectiveness Calculations 

• Cost-effectiveness must be calculated in accordance with the methodology 

described in Appendix C of The Carl Moyer Program Guidelines – Approved 

Revision 2005. 

• State funds used to pay for the administrative costs of VAVR and VRV programs are 

not included in the cost-effectiveness calculations, but must be accounted for 

relative to the administrative limits associated with each funding source. 

Administrative costs include funds spent on outreach, data analysis, and 

development of data analysis tools such as databases. 

Additional Requirements for High Emitter VAVR and VRV Programs

• The district must include the State or DMV funds expended on program-related 

costs to identify and retire/repair high emitting vehicles in the cost-effectiveness 

calculations. 

− Program-related costs are the costs directly linked to conducting RSD 

measurements, Smog Check tests, diagnosing vehicles, and the costs to retire 

vehicles or repair vehicles. 

− Broad programmatic costs (e.g. the cost of RSD) which cannot be attributed to 

retiring a specific vehicle shall be distributed proportionally across each vehicle 

repaired or retired. 

− All State funds used to pay for diagnosing and attempting to repair vehicles that 

are ultimately deemed unrepairable or are unsuccessful in lowering emissions 

below the Smog Check emission standards must also be included into the cost-
2006 Project Criteria XI-21 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

effectiveness calculations. These costs shall be distributed across each vehicle 

successfully repaired. 

− The program cost-effectiveness shall be calculated separately for VAVR and 

VRV programs and for each year of program funding. The results shall be 

reported in the district’s annual and final report for that year of funding. 

• If the district has a cap on the amount it pays for repairs, vehicle owners may 

contribute their own funds to pay for repairs that exceed the district cap. Funds 

contributed by vehicle owners are not included in the cost-effectiveness calculation. 

G. Offering Vehicles/Parts to the Public (VAVR only)

• The enterprise operator must inform the district of the vehicles that are ready for 

dismantling. 

• The district must provide a detailed description of the vehicle to interested parties 

including collectors and enthusiasts. 

• The enterprise operator must wait a minimum of 10 days before submitting a Notice 

to Dismantle to the DMV. 

• If an interested person contacts the enterprise operator, the enterprise operator must 

hold the vehicle for an additional, minimum of 7 days. 

• Non-emission-related and non-drive train parts from the vehicle may be sold at the 

sole discretion of the enterprise operator. 

• Engine, emission-related parts, transmission, and drive train parts must be removed 

from the vehicle and destroyed after the 10 day waiting period but prior to offering 

the remaining parts for sale. (Emission-related and drive train parts are defined in 

the VAVR regulation.) 

• If a vehicle or its emission-related or drive train parts are sold instead of retired, no 

emission reductions will be generated, and no Carl Moyer Program funds may be 

used for retiring the vehicle. 

H. Repair Requirements (VRV only) 

• Vehicles must only be diagnosed and repaired by Smog Check technicians licensed 

by BAR at Smog Check stations licensed by BAR. 

• The Smog Check technicians and Smog Check stations must comply with all 

California laws and regulations governing automotive repair. 
2006 Project Criteria XI-22 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

• The legal owner of the vehicle must provide written approval in advance authorizing 

the diagnosis and all repairs. The owner must be provided a final invoice detailing 

the cost of parts, labor, and tax for the repair in accordance with the Automotive 

Repair Act. 

• Only emission-related repairs are fundable through a VRV program. 

• Stations and technicians must follow a systematic diagnostic approach, in 

accordance with standard industry protocols, that obtains relevant data about the 

engine and emission control system on the vehicle, based on the type of emissionrelated Smog Check failure. 

− The systematic approach includes a diagnostic routine that provides sufficient 

data to diagnose and repair emission failures in a cost-effective and efficient 

manner. Data may include, but, are not limited to, compression readings, leak 

down percentages, intake manifold vacuum readings, scan tool data, condition of 

grounds, other electrical connections along with wiring, oxygen sensor testing, 

and other industry accepted factory testing procedures. Diagnostic and repair 

procedures specified by the vehicle manufacturer should take precedence over 

generic procedures. 

− The diagnosis must ensure the vehicle’s engine is in good mechanical condition 

before performing repairs. This should include an inspection of basic engine 

operation (i.e., fuel control, individual cylinder contribution, cylinder seal, internal 

engine noises, oil burning, etc.) and a comprehensive visual inspection. All 

defects must be noted. 

− Diagnostic strategies must have the goal of maximum emission reductions for 

repair funds spent. Technicians must not perform diagnostic strategies and 

repairs that would result in short term emission reductions or minimal reductions. 

• The technician must document all serviceable and defective emission related parts 

and systems found during the diagnosis and repair process and must provide the 

documentation to the district. The district must retain a copy. The ARB 

recommends that districts provide a standardized diagnostic form to aid technicians 

in recording basic diagnostic information. 

− An example of a standardized diagnostic form, from BAR’s training course for 

Smog Check technicians, is provided in Figure 11-1 (at the end of the chapter). 

− It may not be necessary to fill out the diagnostic data form completely because all 

the tests listed may not be appropriate for every vehicle. 

− The diagnostic form should be considered a guide, not a list of the complete 

diagnosis required. The ARB recognizes that each vehicles diagnosis is unique. 

Other tests may be required to completely diagnose emission failures. 
2006 Project Criteria XI-23 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

• If the technician discovers tampering during the pre-repair test or during the 

diagnosis, the technician must stop performing the test, diagnosis, or repair and 

contact the district to inform them of the tampering. Tampered vehicles are not 

eligible for participation in a VRV program until such tampering has been completely 

corrected. 

• If a vehicle repair requires the replacement of the catalytic converter, the 

replacement catalytic converter must either be a new aftermarket catalytic converter 

that has been certified by the ARB for use on OBDII-equipped vehicles or an original 

equipment manufacturer (OEM) catalytic converter. Because of significant concerns 

about verifying catalytic converter durability, no used, recycled, salvaged, rebuilt, or 

remanufactured aftermarket or OEM catalytic converter may be installed under the 

Voluntary Repair of Vehicles program. 

• To receive emission credit under the Carl Moyer Program, the repair of the vehicle 

must bring the vehicle’s emissions into compliance with the Smog Check emissions 

standards for the model year and vehicle class. Repairs that leave a vehicle’s 

emissions greater than the ASM emissions standards are not creditable. 

• The invoice for the repair must clearly detail each repair and associated cost, in 

accordance with all applicable automotive repair laws and regulations, before the 

invoice is paid. The invoice must include all repairs performed on the vehicle. 

• The district must designate a qualified staff person or third party unaffiliated with the 

Smog Check station to handle complaints or disagreements that may arise between 

the vehicle owner and the repair station. The contact information for that person 

must be made available to all vehicle owners who participate in the program. 

− The district should maintain a record of disputes and their resolution for use in 

evaluating and improving the program. 

Evaporative Repairs

• Districts may, at their option, conduct evaporative testing on vehicles identified as 

potential exhaust high emitting vehicles and brought in for repairs. 

• Low pressure fuel evaporative testing must be conducted using equipment that has 

been submitted to BAR for certification. Stations must follow testing and repair 

procedures prescribed in policy or regulations adopted by BAR. 

• Evaporative testing must be conducted in accordance with the manufacturer’s 

standard operating procedures and the protocols for low pressure fuel evaporative 

testing developed by BAR. 
2006 Project Criteria XI-24 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

• Only vehicles that fail the low pressure fuel evaporative test are eligible for 

evaporative repairs. 

• Evaporative repairs must bring the vehicle’s emissions into compliance with the low 

pressure fuel evaporative test to be creditable. 

Particulate Matter Repairs

• If a viable method to measure PM emissions from vehicles is demonstrated, districts 

have the option of measuring the PM emissions of vehicles identified as possible 

high emitters and quantifying the emission reductions of repairing PM high emitting 

vehicles, subject to ARB approval. 

• If a district intends to attempt to identify and quantify emission reductions from 

repairing PM high emitting vehicles, the district’s VRV program plan must specify the 

analytical approach that would be used to measure and quantify PM emissions. 
2006 Project Criteria XI-25 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

Table 11-2 

Voluntary Accelerated Light-Duty Vehicle Retirement Program 

Emission Reductions for Calendar Year 2007 

Total Pounds Per Vehicle Over 3 Year Credit Life 

 Emission Reductions (pounds) – 3 Year Credit Life 

Model Year TotalROG* NOx CO PM10 ROG exh ROG evap

65 and earlier 506 158 2,999 0.74 279 227 

66 472 152 2,771 0.81 239 233 

67 479 154 2,823 0.77 243 236 

68 487 159 2,889 0.83 249 239 

69 498 163 2,967 0.99 255 243 

70 431 167 3,056 1.04 261 170 

71 436 169 3,053 1.13 270 166 

72 442 172 3,059 1.06 279 163 

73 448 173 3,070 0.97 284 165 

74 386 152 2,821 1.20 264 122 

75 320 137 2,656 1.03 207 113 

76 215 110 2,246 0.75 104 111 

77 173 93 2,203 0.63 90 83 

78 177 92 2,191 0.88 91 86 

79 161 82 1,455 0.86 77 84 

80 124 74 1,211 0.69 59 65 

81 105 56 934 1.16 45 59 

82 102 59 920 1.04 44 58 

83 92 62 795 0.91 34 58 

84 99 62 752 0.93 32 67 

85 92 57 490 0.86 24 68 

86 89 57 446 0.89 23 66 

87 80 55 407 0.80 22 58 

88 72 55 371 0.77 22 50 

89 51 44 424 0.71 24 27 

90 49 34 450 0.68 25 24 

91 44 35 438 0.63 25 19 

92 42 36 434 0.60 25 17 

93 32 34 253 0.55 18 14 

94 19 22 40 0.49 7 12 

* Includes exhaust and evaporative emissions 

Source: Calculated using EMFAC Working Draft 2B (June 2006). Numbers are subject to change 

pending final version of emission inventory model. Assumes average 1965 through 2007 vehicle as 

replacement vehicle for vehicles retired in calendar year 2007. 
2006 Project Criteria XI-26 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

Table 11-2 (continued) 

Voluntary Accelerated Light-Duty Vehicle Retirement Program 

Emission Reductions for Calendar Year 2008 

Total Pounds Per Vehicle Over 3 Year Credit Life 

 Emission Reductions (pounds) – 3 Year Credit Life 

Model Year TotalROG* NOx CO PM10 ROG exh ROG evap

65 and earlier 503 159 2,993 0.73 278 226 

66 470 152 2,760 0.69 240 230 

67 478 155 2,812 0.70 244 234 

68 487 159 2,879 0.72 250 237 

69 497 163 2,956 0.75 257 240 

70 431 167 3,047 1.23 263 168 

71 439 170 3,047 0.84 272 167 

72 443 171 3,050 0.88 281 162 

73 450 173 3,063 0.79 285 165 

74 388 155 2,835 1.39 267 122 

75 324 143 2,686 0.98 210 114 

76 212 109 2,209 0.79 103 110 

77 171 92 2,160 0.67 88 83 

78 173 92 2,144 0.66 89 85 

79 160 82 1,436 0.91 76 84 

80 122 74 1,195 0.74 58 64 

81 104 56 928 1.00 45 59 

82 102 60 912 0.92 43 58 

83 93 63 791 0.84 34 58 

84 100 63 751 0.84 32 68 

85 95 57 499 0.89 25 70 

86 94 58 466 0.90 24 70 

87 85 57 428 0.83 24 62 

88 77 56 395 0.80 23 54 

89 56 45 445 0.77 25 31 

90 54 36 470 0.76 26 28 

91 49 37 460 0.72 27 22 

92 47 38 456 0.66 27 20 

93 37 36 278 0.60 20 18 

94 25 25 73 0.56 10 15 

* Includes exhaust and evaporative emissions 

Source: Calculated using EMFAC Working Draft 2B (June 2006). Numbers are subject to change 

pending final version of emission inventory model. Assumes average 1965 through 2008 vehicle as 

replacement vehicle for vehicles retired in calendar year 2008. 
2006 Project Criteria XI-27 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

Table 11-3 

ASM-FTP Correlation Equations1

Pre-1990 Model Year Correlation Equations

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)^.5 ) - 3.72989 

co_term = ln( (ASM1_CO*ASM2_CO)^.5 ) + 2.07246 

no_term = ln( (ASM1_NO*ASM2_NO)^.5 ) - 5.83534 

MY_Term = model_year - 1982.71 

wt_term = ln( vehicle_weight in pounds) 

TRK = 0 if vehicle is a passenger car and 1 if vehicle is a light-duty truck 

 

1

 Conversion equations developed by Eastern Research Group and Sierra Research and used in the ARB 

and BAR’s 2004 Evaluation of the California Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance (Smog Check) 

Program. 
2006 Project Criteria XI-28 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

1990 and Newer Model Year Correlation Equations

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)^.5 ) - 2.32393 ; 

co_term = ln (ASM1_CO*ASM2_CO)^.5 ) + 3.45963 ; 

no_term = ln (ASM1_NO*ASM2_NO)^.5 ) - 3.71310 ; 

MY_Term = model_year - 1993.69; 

wt_term = ln( vehicle_weight in pounds) 

TRK = 0 if vehicle is a passenger car and 1 if vehicle is a light-duty truck 

For cases in which the HC or NO ASM scores are zero, they are set to 1 ppm; 

for cases in which the CO ASM score is zero, it is set to 0.01%. 

Definitions: FTP_HC = Estimated hydrocarbon FTP emission rate in grams per mile 

FTP_CO = Estimated CO FTP emission rate in grams per mile 

FTP_NO = Estimated NOx FTP emission rate in grams per mile 

ASM1_HC = Measured ASM 5015 mode hydrocarbon concentration in ppm 

ASM2_HC = Measured ASM 2525 mode hydrocarbon concentration in ppm 

ASM1_CO = Measured ASM 5015 mode CO concentration in percent 

ASM2_CO = Measured ASM 2525 mode hydrocarbon concentration in percent 

ASM1_NO = Measured ASM 5015 mode NOx concentration in ppm 

ASM2_NO = Measured ASM 2525 mode NOx concentration in ppm
2006 Project Criteria XI-29 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

Table 11-4 

Average Vehicle Miles Traveled by Model Year 

Model Year 

Annual VMT* 

in 2007 

Annual VMT* 

in 2008 

1965 and older 5,173 5,118 

1966 5,250 5,164 

1967 5,350 5,264 

1968 5,485 5,400 

1969 5,635 5,550 

1970 5,786 5,698 

1971 5,910 5,823 

1972 6,048 5,955 

1973 6,132 6,039 

1974 6,163 6,068 

1975 6,312 6,212 

1976 6,376 6,269 

1977 6,475 6,364 

1978 6,544 6,433 

1979 6,636 6,520 

1980 6,701 6,586 

1981 6,794 6,676 

1982 6,893 6,771 

1983 6,998 6,870 

1984 7,172 7,042 

1985 7,306 7,168 

1986 7,497 7,360 

1987 7,600 7,456 

1988 7,763 7,615 

1989 7,943 7,787 

1990 8,108 7,942 

1991 8,317 8,143 

1992 8,538 8,346 

1993 8,787 8,582 

1994 9,022 8,801 

1995 9,252 9,010 

1996 9,540 9,280 

1997 9,834 9,552 

1998 10,176 9,866 

1999 10,546 10,205 

2000 10,912 10,529 

2001 11,328 10,897 

2002 11,824 11,324 

2003 12,411 11,819 

2004 13,150 12,426 

2005 13,983 13,064 

2006 13,999 

*Average vehicle VMT calculated using EMFAC Working Draft 2B (June 2006). Numbers are subject to 

change pending final version of emission inventory model. 
2006 Project Criteria XI-30 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

Figure 11-1 

Sample Diagnostic Data Form2

DIAGNOSTIC DATA FORM 

The following chart is designed to assist the CAP station technician in the diagnosis and repair of failing CAP vehicles. Each vehicle 

and its emission failure(s) are unique and may require further tests than those listed below. Not all vehicles may require these tests. 

Factory test procedures take precedence over any generic test. 

WRITE YES (Y), NO (N) OR READING/EXPLAINATION. DO NOT CHECK 

CAP ID# Year / Make / Model Vehicle License # Technician # Date 

Work order # 

Confirm basic engine condition: 

Engine condition: any smoking, knocking, head gasket leaks or any other degraded engine condition(s)? ______________________ 

(*As needed*) compression test, cylinder balance test, leak down test results (whichever test was appropriate) 

#1 _________ #2 _________ #3 _________ #4 _________ #5 _________ #6 _________ #7 _________ #8 _________ 

Base timing ___________ Total timing advance ___________ Coolant Temp ___________ Vacuum readings __________ 

Ignition system: overall condition, are there any misfires? (HC failures) What is the specific component of the ignition system that 

needs to be replaced / repaired? List below 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Fuel pressure within specs? Y/N _________ results__________________________________________________________________ 

Air Injection System (if applicable) Is AIS functioning correctly? Y/N______ if no, why ___________________________________

EGR system (if applicable) Is system functioning correctly? Y/N _____________ Is valve getting vacuum? Y/N ______________ 

Does engine stumble/die when valve is manually raised? Y/N _____________ Is EGR valve defective? Y/N ___________________ 

Is system restricted? Y/N:__________ Is system plugged? Y/N __________ Other:________________________________________ 

Are there any Factory Technical Service Bulletins (TSBs), recalls/warranties related to the emission failure? ____________________ 

Are there any Diagnostic Trouble Code(s) stored? If yes, are they emission related? If yes, record code(s) ______________________ 

If vehicle is OBDI did you clear the codes and did they return? If vehicle is OBDII what is recorded in “Freeze Frame Data”? 

Is vehicle failing for monitors? __________________________________________________________________________________ 

Oxygen Sensor: Low Voltage: ____________mV High Voltage: ____________mV Rise time: ____________mS 

NOTE: min/max/rate of change measured while artificially manipulating air/fuel mixture full rich & full lean. 

Average voltage: ____________ Is O2 sensor functioning correctly? ___________________________________________________ 

Is vehicle in fuel control? Y/N____________ If no is O2 biased? Rich Y/N ____________ Lean Y/N ___________ 

Will computer respond to an artificial O2 signal? Y/N, if no, why? 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

What are fuel trim numbers under test conditions? ___________________________________________________________________ 

Cross-reference the failed emission(s) with the related failed test. 

Final Diagnosis / What component(s) or system(s) need to be repaired or replaced and why 

CATALYTIC CONVERTER DIAGNOSTIC ROUTINE 

Factory diagnostic/testing procedures take precedence over generic tests. 

Cat tests are valid or useful to the extent the vehicle is in fuel control. CAT tests require certain conditions be created by upstream 

systems in order to be valid. Fuel control is not just a varying O2S and/or fuel metering device. Fuel control is defined as the vehicle’s 

ability to control fuel in response to the O2S input signal keeping the air/fuel ratio at 14.7 to 1 (stoichiometric). CAT replacement is 

generally the last repair approved. 

Do not request a CAT with other repairs associated with its efficiency. 

DO NOT REQUEST A CAT ON A VEHICLE THAT IS NOT IN FUEL CONTROL. 

RECORD ON THE WORK ORDER “THE VEHICLE IS IN FUEL CONTROL”. 

O2 snap test CO2 cranking test Pre CAT / Post CAT (intrusive test) Factory specific temperature test 

O2% ____ % HC: _______ ppm Pre CAT: ________ Post CAT: _______ temp in _____ temp out _____ 

CO2: _______ CAT efficiency: _____% 

Two CAT tests are more conclusive than one. A generic temperature test alone is not acceptable. Temperature tests are best used to 

confirm another test. An intrusive test is an optional test to confirm the effectiveness of the reduction portion of the catalyst. 

 

2

 Sample diagnostic form from BAR’s training course to licensed Smog Check technicians. Not all fields may be relevant 

for district VRV program. Districts may design their own forms if they choose. 
2006 Project Criteria XI-31 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

VI. References 

ARB, 1998. Air Resources Board, Proposed Regulations for Voluntary Accelerated 

Light-Duty Vehicle Retirement Enterprises, October 23, 1998. 

ARB, 2001. Air Resources Board, Proposed Amendments to Air Resources Board 

Voluntary Accelerated Vehicle Retirement Regulations – Minimize the Differences 

Between ARB and BAR VAVR Regulation and Allow Parts Recycling and Resale of 

Non-Emission-Related and Non-Drive Train Parts, November 30, 2001. 

ARB, 2005. Air Resources Board, Environmental Impacts of Implementing A Low 

Pressure Evaporative Test in the California Smog Check Program, November 29, 2005. 

ARB, 2006. Amendments to the Air Resources Board’s Regulations for Voluntary 

Accelerated Light-Duty Vehicle Retirement Enterprises, December 7, 2006. 

ARB/BAR, 2004. Technical Support Document for Evaluation of the California 

Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (Smog Check) Program: April 2004 

Draft Report to the Inspection and Maintenance Review Committee, June 2004. 

ARB/BAR, 2005. April 2004 Evaluation of the California Enhanced Vehicle Inspection 

and Maintenance (Smog Check) Program: Report to the Legislature, September 2005. 

BAR, 2001. Bureau of Automotive Repair, Remote Sensing Device High Emitter 

Identification with Confirmatory Roadside Inspection, Final Report 2001-06, 

August 30, 2001. 

Stedman. Donald H. Stedman and Gary A. Bishop, Department of Chemistry and 

Biochemistry, University of Denver, Colorado, Emissions-Based Mobile Source 

Inventory Methods. 

Stedman, 1994. Donald H. Stedman, On-Road Remote Sensing of CO and HC 

Emissions in California, February 1994, ARB Contract No. A032-093. 

U.S. EPA. Julian W. Jones, C. Ted Ripberger, and Niranjan Vescio, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, FINAL 

REPORT An Investigation of Remote Sensing Devices for Chemical Characterization of 

Motor Vehicle Exhaust. 
1 

Carl Moyer Program Advisory: 06-001 

Minimum Specifications for Electronic Monitoring Units 

This page updated January 30, 2006 

This advisory provides guidance on the minimum required specifications for electronic 

monitoring units (EMU) required to be installed on fleet modernization, locomotive, and 

marine projects funded using the 2005 revised Carl Moyer Program Guidelines. 

With the recent revisions to the Carl Moyer Guidelines, marine*, locomotive and fleet 

modernization projects require the installation of an EMU. Although not required by the 

Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, districts may choose to require the installation of an 

EMU system with each new engine for other source categories. The full purchase of 

the EMU (including warranty, data retrieval, compilation, and transmission to the district, 

and the installation cost) is eligible for Carl Moyer Program funding, and may be 

included when calculating project cost-effectiveness. The following are minimum 

specifications for the districts to follow. Districts may allow projects with EMUs installed 

that meet these minimum specifications to complete all reporting through the electronic 

data system. A district may require additional specifications and/or more stringent 

specifications at its discretion. 

Minimum Specifications

When is the EMU required to operate? 

The EMU must be powered at all times during vehicle/equipment operation. If the EMU 

is battery powered, the battery life must be long enough to ensure the EMU is charged 

and functional each time the vehicle/equipment is operated. 

What will the EMU track? 

The EMU must track the geographic position and either the operated hours or the 

mileage traveled, or both, of the vehicle/equipment. 

All data must be recorded while the vehicle/equipment is in operation. The 

vehicle/equipment position must be updated upon startup and at least once every 30 

minutes during vehicle/equipment operation. The time-to-first-fix should be no longer 

than five minutes. 

 

*

 Installation of an EMU is not required for Year 8 funded marine projects. South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (AQMD) has agreed to conduct a pilot for year 8 funds that would require EMUs 

compliant with the minimum specifications listed here be installed on South Coast AQMD marine projects. 

ARB will use the information gained from South Coast AQMD's experience procuring EMUs for Year 8 

funded marine projects to update the minimum EMU specifications listed here with regard to marine 

projects for Year 9 projects. 
2 

How must the EMU store and transmit collected data?

The collected data must be provided to the district on a periodic basis, or, at the 

discretion of the district, the data may be transmitted directly to the district in real-time. 

The EMU must include either the capability to automatically transmit the stored data 

from the vehicle/equipment, or enable downloading of the stored data through a port in 

the device. If the storage method is used, the EMU must have the capacity to store as 

much data as is necessary to ensure that data is not over-written prior to any scheduled 

data retrieval. At the discretion of the district, the stored data may be encrypted, or 

otherwise protected, and require a password distributed only to the district and ARB. 

What data must be recorded? 

The EMU must store the time, date, position, elapsed time since last recorded position, 

elapsed operated hours since last recorded position, and accrued mileage since last 

recorded position (required for fleet modernization projects). The positional data stored 

and transmitted must either be accompanied by software which will code raw positional 

data using the following codes, or directly transmit the positional data pre-coded into 

these zones; 

1. Whether or not the position is in the district boundary (including district coastal 

boundary for marine projects). 

2. Whether or not the position is in California (including its coastal waters). 

3. Whether or not the position is outside California (including its coastal waters). 

4. Other zones within the district, or other districts in California, may be specified at 

the discretion of the district. 

How often must the collected data be provided to the district? 

Periodically (preferably on a monthly basis, but at least quarterly for fleet modernization 

projects and annually for all other projects), the data must be downloaded and 

transmitted to the district in an electronic format specified by the district. 

What information must be provided to the district? 

For each vehicle/equipment the submitted data shall include at least: 

− Grant ID number. (Optional)

− Vehicle ID, Equipment ID, or Vessel ID. 

− Date of download. 

− Total accumulated miles and/or hours operated by coded zone described above. 

All data collected must be reported regardless of whether hours or miles or both 

were recorded. 

− Date and time that any failure or malfunction of the EMU occurred. 

− Time periods, if any, that the EMU was not operational. 

− Fuel consumption. This is optional, and is not required to be monitored by the 

EMU. However, liquefied natural gas-diesel and other dual fuel locomotive 

projects, marine projects, and other fuel based projects are required to monitor 

and report fuel consumption in their annual reports, as specified in the revised 

Carl Moyer Guidelines. 
3 

How long must the collected data be submitted to the district? 

Data collected must be submitted to the district for the lesser of five years or the project 

life. As noted above, districts may allow projects with EMUs installed to complete all 

reporting through the electronic data system. For the remainder of the projects life, if 

any, reporting may continue to be completed through the electronic system, although 

this is not required. However, reporting must continue to be completed as required in 

the revised Carl Moyer Guidelines. 

How rugged must the EMU be? 

The EMU must be tamperproof and be rugged enough to withstand the operating 

environment of the vehicle/equipment for the expected life of the project, if installed per 

the manufacturer’s instructions. 

What are the warranty requirements? 

The EMU must have a full repair or equivalent replacement warranty for 5 years. If the 

project life is less than five years, the warranty may equal the project life. It the project 

life is longer than 5 years the contract may also contain an option for the participant to 

extend the warranty beyond the minimum amount (with district approval). This 

extended warranty may be included when calculating cost-effectiveness for Carl Moyer 

funding eligibility. The reporting must continue to be completed through the electronic 

system for the extent of the warranty. 

What data must be provided in the event the EMU fails? 

The EMU must accurately track vehicle/equipment position and activity during the 

operation of the vehicle/equipment. If the unit fails to record as described above for a 

period exceeding five (5) percent of the annual reporting period the participant is 

required to submit as part of the annual report documentation of the vehicle/equipment 

activity during the missing time period. 

Can these minimum specifications be modified by the district? 

It will be the responsibility of the district to assure that participants install, operate and 

report data using the EMU in accordance with these specifications and the requirements 

contained in the revised Carl Moyer Guidelines. On a case-by-case basis, and with 

ARB’s approval, for projects in which an EMU meeting these specifications is either not 

available for the vehicle/equipment, or results in additional costs exceeding 

ten (10) percent of the project cost (excluding the cost of the EMU), some of these 

specifications may be modified or deleted, or monitoring and reporting may be allowed 

using prior ARB approved methods. The district must justify the request for such an 

exemption, including a demonstration that a reasonable effort (such as an RFP or other 

means) was made to contract with a supplier for an EMU meeting the minimum 

specifications. 
4 

What about projects in which an EMU is already installed on the 

vehicle/equipment? 

On a case-by-case basis, for projects in which an EMU is already in place on the 

vehicle/equipment, at the option of the participant and the district, that EMU may be 

utilized and some of these specifications may be modified or deleted, as approved by 

ARB. In such cases, it will be the responsibility of the participant to provide information 

on the specifications of the EMU system and to maintain the EMU system in working 

condition for the lesser of five years or the project life. 

 
-1-

Carl Moyer Program Advisory: 06-002 

Clarifications to 2005 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines 

This page updated March 10, 2006 

On November 17, 2005, the Air Resources Board (ARB) approved revisions to the Carl 

Moyer Program Guidelines. The ARB staff issued the approved revision of the 

2005 Guidelines on January 6, 2006. In February 2006, the Air Resources Board staff 

conducted district training sessions on the new Guidelines. The district training sessions 

and initial implementation of the project criteria identified typographical errors and areas in 

which the intent was not clear. In order to provide clarification on these issues, this 

advisory provides ARB staff’s interpretation of some provisions of the 2005 Carl Moyer 

Program Guidelines to assist the districts with local implementation of the Program. 

Part I, Chapter Two: Administration

Which Guidelines should districts use for Year 7 and Year 8 funds? 

For Year 7, districts may choose to use either the 2003 Guidelines or the 2005 Guidelines. 

However, districts must use the same Guidelines for all of one fiscal year’s funding. For 

Year 8, districts must use the 2005 Guidelines. 

 

Can the $2 motor vehicle fee be used as match?

Yes, the $2 motor vehicle fee authorized under AB 923 can be used as match. However, 

only projects funded for mobile sources that meet the criteria of the Carl Moyer Program 

are eligible as match. 

Please clarify how interest income should be treated.

Interest income from Carl Moyer Program funds must be used to fund projects that meet 

current Carl Moyer Program Guidelines. Districts are required to report the interest income 

annually. Projects funded from interest income must be reported in the annual report and 

the final report of the year from which the interest is obligated to a project. 

Can project proponents apply for other grant funding? 

This is discussed on page II-25, D. Project Applications in the second paragraph. The 

intent of this paragraph was not to prohibit applicants from submitting multiple applications. 

Instead district forms must include a statement from the applicant as to which, if any, other 

grant programs have been applied to for project funding. If grant funding is received from 

another entity, the applicant must comply with Section 44283(g) of the Health and Safety 

Code, which states: 

“for purposes of determining any grant amount pursuant to this chapter, the 

incremental cost of any new purchase, retrofit, repower, or add-on equipment shall be 

reduced by the value of any current financial incentive that directly reduces the project 

price, including any tax credits or deductions, grants, or other public financial 
-2-

assistance. Project proponents applying for funding shall be required to state in their 

application any other public financial assistance to the project.” 

Any project proponent who is found to have received multiple funding for the same project 

without providing written notification to the appropriate district(s) of the amounts awarded 

shall, at a minimum, be disqualified from funding for that engine from all sources and may 

also be banned from submitting future applications to any and all Carl Moyer Program 

solicitations. In addition, as a violation of law, including but not limited to the Business and 

Professional Code, ARB and/or the districts may levee fines and/or seek criminal charges. 

Can a district make payment to an engine distributor or dealer rather than to the 

project applicant? 

Paragraph VIII.C.2. Itemized Invoices, on page II-30 of the administrative guidelines 

provides flexibility to the districts in this regard. Payment may be made to the engine 

distributor or dealer if such payment arrangements are specified in the contract between 

the district and the project proponent. 

Please clarify Paragraph VIII, G, Page II-32, Administrative Guidelines, regarding the 

ability to seek fines. 

Section 43016 of the Health and Safety Code authorizes ARB to seek remedies for 

violations of “any order, rule, or regulation adopted pursuant to this part”. The intent of this 

language is to disclose to the applicant that ARB can apply fines or seek other remedies if 

necessary to assist districts with enforcement. The districts can also seek remedies by 

enforcing the contract terms through contract law and provisions of the Business and 

Professions Code. 

Can a district charge the project applicant a fee for engine inspection(s)?

No. Performing engine inspections is part of the administration of the Carl Moyer Program. 

The cost to the district of performing such inspections may be covered by the program 

administration funding provided to each district. 

Clarifications in Chapter Two 

Page II-11. Section E. Obligation. The second bullet reads as follows: 

• The Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO) or designated district staff, if given the 

authority by the governing board, approves a contract. 

ARB would also consider the selection of a project by the APCO or designated staff, if 

given the authority by the governing board, as obligated funds. 
-3-

PART II: PROJECT CRITERIA 

How should a district document if there are no diesel retrofits verified (for an 

off-road project), or if a retrofit is not technically feasible (for on-road or off-road 

projects)? 

For off-road diesel equipment repowers, an ARB-verified diesel emission control strategy 

is required if one is available. Districts should consult the ARB verification website to 

determine if there is a retrofit available. Districts should document their determination in 

the project file. If there is a significant delay between the time the district checked the 

website and the time funds are obligated to the project, district may opt to re-check the 

website. If no retrofit is available, districts must inform their ARB liaison by e-mail. No 

ARB approval is necessary to proceed with the project. For both on-road and off-road 

repower projects, a retrofit is not required if there is a technical reason the retrofit cannot 

be installed. If this is the case, the district should document this determination in the 

project file, and inform their ARB liaison by e-mail. No ARB approval is necessary to 

proceed with the project. 

Chapter One: Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles

What effect does the Public Fleet Rule have on the ability to fund projects in this 

sector?

The Air Resources Board adopted the Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure for OnRoad Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles operated by Public Agencies and Utilities at its 

December 8, 2005 Board Hearing. The rule mandates municipal and utility vehicle owners 

reduce diesel PM emissions from their affected vehicles through the application of Best 

Available Control Technology on these vehicles by specified implementation dates. The 

Board adopted the proposed regulations with some modifications. Therefore, a 15-day 

notice will be forthcoming. Once the regulation is complete, ARB will issue an advisory for 

funding Carl Moyer Program projects subject to the Public Fleet rule. In the interim, 

districts should work with their ARB liaison to determine project eligibility. 

Clarifications in Chapter One 

Page I-14, E. Retrofit. The third bullet reads: 

• Retrofit projects that control PM must use the highest level cost-effective technology 

available for the equipment being retrofitted.... 

This is a typographical error. The highest level technology available must be applied 

regardless of cost-effectiveness. The Carl Moyer Program will only pay for the portion of 

the project that is cost-effective. 

Page I-18, M. Solid Waste Collection Vehicles. The last sentence of the first sub-bullet, 

under the first bullet, reads: 

“The project life for 50 percent of the vehicles is four years and the remaining 50 percent is 

four years.” 
-4-

This is a typographical error. The underlined “four” should be replaced with “three.” 

Clarifications to Appendices Related to Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles 

 

Page D-4. The first bullet reads: 

• School bus calculations shall use the MHD or HHD vehicle emission factor and 

conversion factors depending on GVWR to calculate cost-effectiveness. 

This is incorrect. School bus calculations shall only use the MHD vehicle emission factors 

and conversion factors when calculating cost-effectiveness. 

Chapter Two: Fleet Modernization

Are there different requirements for school buses participating in the fleet 

modernization program? 

Not at this time. ARB staff is currently working with local air districts and other groups to 

evaluate a fleet modernization program that is specifically tailored to the unique operating 

characteristics of school buses. If ARB staff determines that a unique program is 

warranted, a Carl Moyer Program Advisory will be issued to describe this program. 

Clarifications in Chapter Two 

Page II-9. VI. Potential Projects. When selecting the appropriate DECS for a given 

project, the selection must be based on criteria developed by the respective district. This 

procedure contains criteria outlining the methodology/preference for the selection of the 

highest level of emission reductions. 

Page II-11. B. Participant Requirements. Second bullet. The Target Vocation Category 

includes public fleet vehicles in low-population areas as defined in the public fleet 

regulation adopted by the ARB in December 2005. 

Page II-13. C. Replacement Vehicle Requirements. Under “ARB Verified Diesel 

Emission Control System (DECS),” the district selection process is the same as described 

earlier under “Potential Projects.” 

Page II-16. Table 2-2, Minimum Application Requirements for Fleet Modernization. The 

subcategory titled “New Vehicle Information” is replaced with “Replacement Vehicle 

Information.” 

Chapter Three: Reducing Idling Emissions from Heavy-Duty Vehicles

Are APU engines less than 25 horsepower eligible for Carl Moyer Program funding? 

Yes. 
-5-

Clarifications in Chapter Three 

Page III-3. The second paragraph identifies the baseline for calculating the benefits of 

truck idle reduction projects beginning with the 2008 calendar year as 15.1 g/hr 

NMHC+NOx and 0.087 g/hr of PM. In order to use these emission rates in calculations, 

the fuel correction factor and ROG conversion factor must be applied. The converted 

emission rates to use for calculation purposes are: ROG = 0.9 g/hr, NOx = 13.6 g/hr, and 

PM = 0.070 g/hr. 

Page III-6, Section B, APUs and Alternative Technologies. These project criteria were not 

updated to reflect the ARB’s adoption of an idling reduction ATCM in October 2005. Only 

the incremental cost and the incremental cost of installing an APU that is cleaner than 

required by the regulation is eligible for funding. 

Clarifications to Appendices Related to Reducing Idling Emissions 

Page D-22. Section III, Heavy-Duty Truck Idle Reduction. This section was not updated to 

reflect the ARB’s adoption of an idling reduction ATCM in October 2005. The section 

should be replaced with the attachment to this Advisory. 

Chapter Four: Transport Refrigeration Units

Are TRU engines less than 25 horsepower eligible for Carl Moyer Program funding? 

Yes. 

Chapter Five: Compression-Ignition Off-Road Equipment

How does the Carl Moyer Program handle auxiliary engines?

The Carl Moyer Program allows funding for auxiliary engines on mobile equipment that are 

considered an integral part of the vehicle’s main function. ARB regulates these auxiliary 

engines through the ATCM for Diesel Particulate Matter from Portable Engines. This 

ATCM is applicable to all portable engines having a maximum rated horsepower of 50 bhp 

and greater and fueled with diesel, except for those specifically excluded in Title 17, 

California Code of Regulations Section 93116.1 (b). These engines are eligible for Carl 

Moyer Program funding until January 1, 2007 if the engine was registered in ARB’s 

Portable Engine Registration Program prior to January 1, 2006. 

How will the cargo handling rule affect funding in this category? 

In December 2005, the Board approved a regulation on mobile cargo handling equipment 

at ports and intermodal rail yards. Once the regulation is complete, ARB will issue an 

advisory for funding Carl Moyer projects subject to the Cargo Handling rule. Until this 

advisory is released, district staff should contact their ARB liaison with all questions 

regarding project eligibility. 
-6-

Clarifications in Chapter Five 

Page V-3, Table 5-2. Footnote (a) reads: 

(a)ARB model years, U.S. EPA model years for Tier 1 start at 1998 for 50=<75 hp and 

75=<100 hp, and 1997 for 100=<175 hp. 

This footnote should also note that Tier 1 starts at 1999 for 25 =<50 hp. Footnote (a) 

should also be added to the Tier 1 model year range for 25=<50 hp. 

Clarifications to Appendices Related to Compression-Ignited Off-Road Equipment 

Page D-33, Example 2. The default load factor shown in this example is 0.43. The correct 

default load factor is 0.65. 

Chapter Eight: Locomotives

Page VIII-13. The following bullet is needed for clarification in Section D, 

• Only engine remanufacture kit parts (plus installation costs) which are integral to 

achievement of the U. S. EPA certified emission level are eligible for Carl Moyer 

Program funding. Baseline costs for engine remanufacture kits shall reflect the typical 

cost to remanufacture the project engine in a manner consistent with existing regulatory 

requirements (i.e., to uncontrolled emission levels for Class III railroads. Class I 

railroads’ required emission level depends upon the locomotive model year). 

Chapter Nine: Marine Vessels

Are electronic monitoring units (EMU) required on marine vessel projects? 

Installation of an EMU is not required for Year 8 funded marine projects. South Coast Air 

Quality Management District (AQMD) has agreed to conduct a pilot for year 8 funds that 

would require EMUs compliant with the minimum specifications listed in Advisory 06-001 

be installed on South Coast AQMD marine projects. ARB will use the information gained 

from South Coast AQMD's experience procuring EMUs for Year 8 funded marine projects 

to update the minimum EMU specifications listed here with regard to marine projects for 

Year 9 projects. Please consult Advisory 06-001 for more information. 

Clarifications in Chapter Nine 

Page IX-10. The first complete bullet reads: 

• Only marine vessel engines with a United States Coast Guard Documentation Number 

or IMO/Lloyd’s Number are eligible for Carl Moyer Program funding. This information 

must be included in the project application. 

The U.S. Coast Guard Documentation Number can also be on the vessel, and would be 

acceptable. 
-7-

Page IX-10. The following bullet is needed for clarification:

• Marine vessel project criteria and guidelines apply to marine vessel engines 

>50 horsepower. Refer to the off-road engine project criteria and guidelines for marine 

engines between 25 and 50 horsepower (Table 5-2, page V-3). 

Clarifications to Appendices Related to Marine Vessels 

Page B-17, Table B-18. 2005 and 2006 model year marine vessel engines between 300 

and 750 horsepower and cylinder displacement >2.5 liters per cylinder should use the 

following emission factors when calculating cost-effectiveness: 7.6 g/bhp-hr NOx, 0.82 

g/bhp-hr ROG, and 0.274 g/bhp-hr PM. 

Chapter Ten: Agricultural Sources

Page X-14, Table 10-4, Minimum Application Information for Stationary and Portable 

Agricultural Engine Projects. In the section entitled “Equipment Information,” only the 

“Equipment Type” is required. The section entitled “Electronic Monitoring Unit” should be 

deleted. 

Chapter Twelve: Zero Emission Technologies

Is ancillary equipment for electrification of agricultural pumps, such as variable 

frequency drives and soft start technology, an eligible expense under the Carl 

Moyer Program? 

At the discretion of the district, ancillary equipment may be eligible expenses under the 

Carl Moyer Program if the district determines that the equipment is necessary for the 

project. 

Clarifications in Chapter Twelve 

Page XII-7. The first bullet reads: 

• The cost-effectiveness limit for electric forklifts is $7,000 per weighted ton of reduced 

emissions. 

This cost-effectiveness limit was only intended to apply to electric forklifts with a lift 

capacity between 3,000 and 6,000 pounds. The cost-effectiveness limit for electric forklifts 

with a lift capacity above 6,000 pounds is $14,300 per weighted ton of reduced emissions. 

Clarifications to Appendices Related to Zero-Emission Projects 

Page D-67. Example 4. This example was not updated to reflect the ARB’s adoption of an 

idling reduction ATCM in October 2005. Please refer to the calculation in the attachment 

to this Advisory for an example of an electric idle reduction project. 
-8-

Attachment 

I. Heavy-Duty Truck Idle Reduction 

This section provides an example calculation for determining the cost-effectiveness of 

surplus emission reductions for heavy-duty truck idling reducing technology projects. 

A. General Criteria for Heavy-Duty Truck Idling Reducing Technologies 

Cost-Effectiveness Calculations 

• The incremental cost, up to $5,500, of an auxiliary power unit (APU) may be funded. 

• The incremental installation cost of an APU, including installation of an hour meter, up 

to a maximum of $3,400 per electric motor or fuel cell APU, may be funded. 

• The cost of a PM retrofit may be funded provided the overall project cost effectiveness 

is under the limit of $14,300 

• For these calculations, PM10 refers to combustion PM10. 

• The minimum project life is three years. 

• Annual hours of equipment operation for determining emission reductions must be 

based only on readings from an installed and fully operational hour meter. A properly 

functioning hour meter is required to support equipment activity information included in 

the application for Carl Moyer Program funding. 

• Applicants may claim ROG emission reductions from DECS if hydrocarbon emission 

reductions for that technology are obtained from the ARB’s retrofit website at: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/verdev.htm. For the Carl Moyer Program, ROG 

emission reductions will be credited at the 25 percent, 50 percent, and 85 percent 

reduction levels. To calculate emission reductions of ROG for the Carl Moyer Program, 

applicants should use the percentage reduction of hydrocarbons from the ARB’s retrofit 

website to determine the appropriate "level" of emission reductions. For example, a 

technology that provides a 40 percent emission reduction of hydrocarbons would be 

permitted to apply a 25 percent reduction in ROG emissions for determining eligibility 

and grant amount in the Carl Moyer Program. 

• Default maximum project life: 

Off-road new purchase 10 years 

Off-road repower 7 years 

Repower + retrofit 5 years 

Retrofit 5 years 

Project life beyond the default maximum may be submitted with documentation for 

approval by ARB. 
-9-

B. Example 

Example 1 – Electric APU Project 

A HDV truck operator proposes to install an idle reduction system consisting of an 

electrical plug, inverter/charger and electrical HVAC on a HDV to provide shore power for 

the truck. The APU operates 1,800 hours/year. 

Annual Baseline Idling Hours at truck stop in California: 1,800 

Idling Power Requirement 2.7 kw = 1.99 hp 

Idling Substitution Rate: 100% 

Conversion factor: 1 ton = 907,200g 

Cost of electrical plug, inverter/charger and electrical HVAC: $10,000 

Installation Cost: $4,000 

Capital Cost of Diesel APU $6,000 

Installation Cost of Diesel APU $2,000 

Incremental Cost $6,000 

Amount Requested $6,000 

The truck idling emission rates for 2007 are: 191.5 g/hr of NOx, 25.6 g/hr of ROG and 

1.5 g/hr of PM (Table B-9). 

The APU idling emission factors for 2008 and subsequent years are: 

13.6 g/hr for NOx, 0.9 g/hr and 0.070 g/hr for PM 

Formula C-3: Estimated Annual Emissions by Pollutant (tons/yr): 

Truck emissions in 2007 are: 

NOx = (191.5 g/hr)(1800 hrs/year)/(907,200 g/ton) = 0.38 ton/yr 

ROG = (25.6 g/hr)(1800 hrs/year)/(907,200 g/ton) = 0.051 ton/yr 

PM = (1.5 g/hr)(1800 hrs/year)/(907,200 g/ton) = .003 ton/yr 

Formula C-10: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by Pollutant (tons/yr) 

Baseline – Reduced (electric idle reduction is the reduced technology so emissions = 0) 

NOx = 0.38 ton/yr - (0.0 ton/yr) = 0.38 ton/yr 

ROG = 0.051 ton/yr - (0.0 ton/yr) = 0.051ton/yr 

PM = 0.003 ton/yr – (0.0 ton/yr) = 0.003 ton/yr 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions: 

Annual Weighted Surplus Emissions Reductions in 2007: 

(0.38 ton/yr) + (0.051 ton/yr) + (20)(0.003 ton/yr) = 0.461 ton/yr 

Formula C-3: Estimated Annual Emissions by Pollutant (tons/yr): 

APU emissions in 2008 are baseline: 13.6 g/hr of NOx, 

0.9 g/hr of ROG and 0.07 g/hr of PM 

NOx = (13.6 g/hr)(1800 hrs/yr)/(907,200 g/ton) = 0.03 ton/yr 

ROG = (0.9 g/hr)(1800 hr/yr)/(907,200 g/ton = 0.002 ton/yr 

PM: = (0.07 g/hr)(1800 hrs/yr)(907,200 g/ton) = 0.0001 ton/yr 
-10-

Reduced emissions in 2008 are the APU baseline values because the electric idle 

reduction has zero emissions. 

Formula C-2: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions: 

Annual Weighted Surplus Emissions Reductions in 2008 are 

(0.03 ton/yr) + (.002 ton/yr)) + (20)(0.0001 ton/yr) = 0.034 ton/yr 

2009 is same as 2008 

Average over three years is: 

((0.461 ton/yr) + (0.034 ton/yr) + (.034 ton/yr))/(3) = 0.176 tons/yr 

Cost and Cost-Effectiveness Calculations 

The annualized cost is based on the incremental cost of the electrification package, the 

expected life of the project assumed to be 3 years, and the interest rate (4%) used to 

amortize the project cost over the project life. The maximum amount that can be funded 

by the Carl Moyer Program fund is determined as follows: 

CMP Amount Requested: $6,000 

Formula C-13: Capitol Recovery Factor (CRF): 

 CRF = 0.360 (from Table B-1) 

Formula C-12: Annualized Cost ($): 

Annualized Cost (0.360)($6,000)= $2,160/yr 

Cost-Effectiveness (Based on weighted average emissions reduction) 

 ($2,160/year)/(0.176 tons/year)= $12,273/ton. 

If the project starts in 2008: 

Annual Weighted Surplus Emissions Reductions in 2008 are: 

(0.03 ton/yr) + (.002 ton/yr)) + (20)(0.0001 ton/yr) = 0.034 ton/yr 

This is the same for 2009 and 2010 if the project has a three year life. 

So the cost-effectiveness is: 

 ($2,160)/(0.034 tons/year)= $63,529/ton 

Amount that would qualify: 

 ($14,300)*(0.034)/(0.361) = $1,347
1 

Carl Moyer Program Advisory: 06-003 

2005 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines – Revised Emission Factors for Medium 

Heavy-Duty and Large Spark Ignited Equipment 

This page updated September 25, 2006 

On November 17, 2005, the Air Resources Board (ARB) approved revisions to the Carl 

Moyer Program Guidelines. The ARB staff issued the approved revised 2005 

Guidelines on January 6, 2006. Advisories are subsequently issued as necessary to 

clarify or modify details within the approved Guidelines. 

This advisory corrects errors in the tables describing the emission factors for medium 

heavy-duty engines and large spark ignited (LSI) engines. This advisory also provides 

emission factors for LSI engines that are certified to optional standards and for LSI 

retrofits. 

The following table replaces Table B-4 in Appendix B. 

Revised Table B-4 

Medium Heavy-Duty Vehicles 14,001-33,000 lbs GVWR 

NOx, ROG, and PM10 Emission Factors 

(g/mile) (a) 

Model Year NOx ROG PM10 

Pre-1984 

1984 – 1986 

1987 – 1990 

1991 – 1993 

1994 – 1997 

1998 – 2002 

2003 

2004 – 2006 

2007-2009 

2010+ 

17.21 

16.65 

14.60 

12.18 

10.70 

9.77 

5.39 

5.12 

2.79 

0.51 

0.29 

0.29 

0.18 

0.16 

0.10 

0.08 

0.08 

0.08 

0.05 

0.02 

0.792 

0.720 

0.504 

0.288 

0.216 

0.144 

0.216 

0.216 

0.024 

0.024 

a - Emission factors were converted using the ultra low-sulfur diesel fuel correction 

factors listed in table B-24. 
2 

The following table replaces Table B-14a in Appendix B. 

Revised Table B-14a 

Emission Factors for Off-Road LSI Engines by Model Year 

 (g/bhp-hr)

Horsepower Fuel Model Year NOx ROG PM10 

25 – 49 Gasoline Uncontrolled – pre-2004 8.01 3.81 0.060 

 Controlled 2001-2006 1.33 0.72 0.060 

 Controlled 2007-2009 0.89 0.48 0.060 

 Controlled 2010+ 0.27 0.14 0.060 

 Alt Fuel Uncontrolled – pre-2004 13.00 0.90 0.060 

 Controlled 2001-2006 1.95 0.09 0.060 

 Controlled 2007-2009 1.30 0.06 0.060 

 Controlled 2010+ 0.39 0.02 0.060 

50 – 120 Gasoline Uncontrolled – pre-2004 11.84 2.66 0.060 

 Controlled 2001-2006 1.78 0.26 0.060 

 Controlled 2007-2009 1.19 0.18 0.060 

 Controlled 2010+ 0.36 0.05 0.060 

 Alt Fuel Uncontrolled – pre-2004 10.51 1.02 0.060 

 Controlled 2001-2006 1.58 0.11 0.060 

 Controlled 2007-2009 1.05 0.07 0.060 

 Controlled 2010+ 0.32 0.02 0.060 

>120 Gasoline Uncontrolled – pre-2004 12.94 1.63 0.060 

 Controlled 2001-2006 1.94 0.16 0.060 

 Controlled 2007-2009 1.29 0.11 0.060 

 Controlled 2010+ 0.39 0.03 0.060 

 Alt Fuel Uncontrolled – pre-2004 10.51 0.90 0.060 

 Controlled 2001-2006 1.58 0.09 0.060 

 Controlled 2007-2009 1.05 0.06 0.060 

 Controlled 2010+ 0.32 0.02 0.060 
3 

The following Table B-14c is added in Appendix B. 

Table B-14c 

Emission Factors for Off-Road LSI Engines Certified to Optional Standards 

 (g/bhp-hr)

Horsepower Fuel 

Optional 

Standard NOx ROG PM10 

25-50 Gasoline 1.50 0.67 0.36 0.060 

 1.00 0.44 0.24 0.060 

 0.60 0.27 0.14 0.060 

 0.40 0.18 0.10 0.060 

 0.20 0.09 0.05 0.060 

 0.10 0.04 0.02 0.060 

 Alt Fuel 1.50 0.98 0.05 0.060 

 1.00 0.65 0.03 0.060 

 0.60 0.39 0.02 0.060 

 0.40 0.26 0.01 0.060 

 0.20 0.13 0.01 0.060 

 0.10 0.07 0.00 0.060 

50-120 Gasoline 1.50 0.89 0.13 0.060 

 1.00 0.59 0.09 0.060 

 0.60 0.36 0.05 0.060 

 0.40 0.24 0.04 0.060 

 0.20 0.12 0.02 0.060 

 0.10 0.06 0.01 0.060 

 Alt Fuel 1.50 0.79 0.05 0.060 

 1.00 0.53 0.03 0.060 

 0.60 0.32 0.02 0.060 

 0.40 0.21 0.01 0.060 

 0.20 0.11 0.01 0.060 

 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.060 

>120 Gasoline 1.50 0.97 0.08 0.060 

 1.00 0.65 0.05 0.060 

 0.60 0.39 0.03 0.060 

 0.40 0.26 0.02 0.060 

 0.20 0.13 0.01 0.060 

 0.10 0.06 0.01 0.060 

 Alt Fuel 1.50 0.79 0.05 0.060 

 1.00 0.53 0.03 0.060 

 0.60 0.32 0.02 0.060 

 0.40 0.21 0.01 0.060 

 0.20 0.11 0.01 0.060 

 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.060 
4 

Calculating Retrofit Emission Reductions. 

Manufacturers of LSI retrofit systems may verify to a percent emission reduction or 

absolute emissions. If a retrofit system is verified to a percent reduction, the emission 

factors will be that verified percent of the appropriate emissions factors in Table B-14a. 

If a retrofit system is verified to an absolute emission number, use Table B-14d for the 

emission factors.

The following Table B-14d is added in Appendix B. 

Table B-14d 

Emission Factors for Off-Road LSI Engine Retrofits 

Verified to Absolute Emission Number 

 (g/bhp-hr)

 

Level 3a or 3b 

any horsepower NOx ROG PM10

Gasoline 3.0 g/bhp-hr 1.78 0.26 0.060

 2.5 g/bhp-hr 1.48 0.22 0.060

 2.0 g/bhp-hr 1.19 0.18 0.060

 1.5 g/bhp-hr 0.89 0.13 0.060

 1.0 g/bhp-hr 0.59 0.09 0.060

 0.6 g/bhp-hr 0.36 0.05 0.060

 0.5 g/bhp-hr 0.30 0.04 0.060

Alt Fuel 3.0 g/bhp-hr 1.58 0.10 0.060

 2.5 g/bhp-hr 1.32 0.09 0.060

 2.0 g/bhp-hr 1.05 0.07 0.060

 1.5 g/bhp-hr 0.79 0.05 0.060

 1.0 g/bhp-hr 0.53 0.03 0.060

 0.6 g/bhp-hr 0.32 0.02 0.060

 0.5 g/bhp-hr 0.26 0.02 0.060
-1-

Carl Moyer Program Advisory: 06-004 

Revised Criteria and Clarifications to School Bus Fleet Modernization Projects 

2005 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines 

This page updated November 30, 2006 

On November 17, 2005, the Air Resources Board (ARB) approved revisions to the Carl 

Moyer Program Guidelines. The ARB staff issued the approved revised 2005 Guidelines 

on January 6, 2006. Advisories are subsequently issued as necessary to clarify or modify 

details within the approved Guidelines. 

The Carl Moyer Program fleet modernization project criteria, as presently structured, were 

developed generically for all heavy-duty vehicles and were not specifically designed for 

school bus projects. ARB staff re-evaluated those criteria to give air districts and school 

districts more flexibility in funding school bus fleet modernization projects. This advisory 

presents the revised project criteria that are to be used only when evaluating school bus 

fleet modernization projects. The revised criteria presented in this advisory for school bus 

fleet modernization projects are intended to supplement the existing fleet modernization 

criteria in the 2005 Carl Moyer Guidelines. When evaluating school bus fleet 

modernization projects, district staff must use the criteria contained in the 2005 Carl Moyer 

Guidelines, unless specifically superseded by the criteria in this advisory. 

Revised Criteria for School Bus Projects:

The following requirements in the 2005 Carl Moyer Guidelines are revised for school bus 

fleet modernization projects: 

Section VII.B.

• Project Life – The current fleet modernization program limits the project life to 5 

years for targeted vocations and 3 years for other vocations. Based on school bus 

data available to ARB staff, the maximum allowable project life for school buses 

participating in a fleet modernization program is as follows:

o Pre-1977 model year (MY) school buses: Five years

o Model year 1977 and newer school buses: Eleven Years

The model years shown above refer to the model year of the old school bus that 

is being replaced, not the new replacement school bus. 

• Eligible Model Years for School Bus – Heavy-duty vehicles model year 1990 

and older are eligible to be replaced under the Carl Moyer fleet modernization 

program. This requirement is waived for school bus fleet modernization 

projects. Thus, existing school buses of any model year may participate in the 

fleet modernization program, provided cost-effectiveness and other specified 

criteria are met. 
-2-

Section VII.C.

• Engine warranty – The current fleet modernization program requires the 

applicant to purchase a minimum of a one-year or 100,000-mile major 

component engine warranty for the replacement vehicle. This requirement is 

waived for school bus fleet modernization projects.

• Electronic monitoring units – The current fleet modernization program 

requires the replacement vehicle to be equipped with an electronic monitoring 

unit (EMU) to report vehicle miles traveled and the number of miles a vehicle 

has operated within California and district boundaries. However, it also has a 

provision that allows a district to waive the requirement for installation of an 

EMU, upon approval of the ARB. For school bus fleet modernization projects, 

ARB approval is automatically given for districts to waive the EMU requirement. 

Section X.A.

• Maximum award – The current fleet modernization program limits the maximum 

funding amount to 80 percent of the cost of a replacement vehicle when the 

replacement vehicle is a brand new vehicle and to the National Automotive 

Dealership Association (NADA) adjusted loan value when the replacement 

vehicle is a used vehicle. These requirements are waived for school bus fleet 

modernization projects. Thus, the full cost of the replacement vehicle could be 

funded, provided the cost-effectiveness criterion is met. 

New Criterion for School Bus Projects:

The following is a new requirement applicable only to school buses. This requirement is 

added to assure that school buses being replaced through the Carl Moyer fleet 

modernization program are actually being used to transport children to and from school. 

Since the California Highway Patrol (CHP) conducts annual safety certification inspections 

on school buses, the old school bus must be CHP-safety certified in order to be eligible to 

receive funding. This requirement is consistent with the Lower-Emission School Bus 

Program Guidelines. 

Section VII.B.

• California Highway Patrol (CHP) safety certification requirement – All 

school buses participating in the Carl Moyer fleet modernization program must 

have a current CHP safety certification as of December 31, 2005, and at the 

time funding is awarded to replace the bus (i.e., the school bus cannot have a 

lapsed CHP safety certification), and must be currently registered with the 

Department of Motor Vehicles. 

Clarifications of Criteria for School Bus Fleet Modernization Projects

What emission factors are to be used for School Buses? 

All Carl Moyer school bus projects must use the emission factors for medium heavy-duty 

vehicles as shown in Table B-4 of the Carl Moyer Program Advisory 04-003. 
-3-

What particulate matter (PM) weighting factor is to be used for School Buses? 

The PM weighting factor to be used for all school bus projects is the 20 times factor 

allowed in the 2005 Carl Moyer Guidelines. 

Can old school buses be sold out of the country instead of destroyed? 

The fleet modernization program has a provision that allows a district to request an 

alternative disposition of the old vehicle. 

Sample Calculation

Example – Replacing a 1980 MY School Bus with a New 2007 MY School Bus 

The replacement school bus will be delivered from the manufacturer, equipped with a PM 

trap as standard equipment. The air district does not require installation of an EMU with 

the replacement school bus. 

Baseline Technology Information: 

• Baseline technology: 1980 MY school bus 

• Emission rates (Table B-4, 2005 Carl Moyer Guidelines): 

17.21 grams/mile (g/mi) oxides of nitrogen (NOx) 

0.29 g/mi reactive organic gases (ROG), 

0.792 g/mi PM10 

• Activity: 13,000 miles/year (mi/yr) 

• Percent operated in California: 100 percent 

Reduced Technology Information: 

• Reduced technology: 2007 MY school bus 

• Emission rates (Table B-4, 2005 Carl Moyer Guidelines): 

 2.79 g/mi NOx, 0.05 g/mi ROG, 0.024 g/mi PM10 

• Cost (quote provided with application): $115,000 

Emission Reduction Calculations: 

Formula C-8, 2005 Carl Moyer Guidelines: 

Estimated Annual Emissions Based on Mileage Using Emission Factors 

1. Annual NOx baseline technology emissions 

(17.21 g/mi * 13,000 mi)(ton/ 907,200 g) = 0.247 tons/year (tons/yr)NOx 

2. Annual NOx reduced technology emissions 

(2.79 g/mi * 13,000 mi)(ton/ 907,200 g) = 0.040 tons/yr NOx 

3. Annual ROG baseline technology emissions 

(0.29 g/mi * 13,000 mi) (ton/ 907,200 g) = 0.0042 tons/yr ROG 

4. Annual ROG reduced technology emissions 

(0.05 g/mi * 13,000 mi)(ton/ 907,200 g) = 0.0007 tons/yr ROG 

5. Annual PM10 baseline technology emissions 

(0.792 g/mi * 13,000 mi)(ton/ 907,200 g) = 0.0113 tons/yr PM10 

6. Annual PM10 reduced technology emissions 

(0.024 g/mi * 13,000 mi)(ton/ 907,200 g) = 0.0003 tons/yr PM10 
-4-

Formula C-10, 2005 Carl Moyer Guidelines: Annual Surplus Emission Reductions by 

Pollutant (tons/yr) for Repowers and New Purchases: 

• NOx Emission Benefits = 0.247 tons/yr - 0.040 tons/yr = 0.207 tons/yr NOx 

• ROG Emission Benefits = 0.0042 tons/yr - 0.0007 tons/yr = 0.004 tons/yr ROG 

• PM10 Emission Benefits = 0.0113 tons/yr - 0.0003 tons/yr = 0.011 tons/yr PM10 

Formula C-2, 2005 Carl Moyer Guidelines: Annual Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions 

0.207 tons/yr + 0.004 tons/yr + 20(0.011 tons/yr) = 0.431 weighted tons/yr

Annualized Cost

Project Life = 11 Years 

 CRF (Table B-1, 2005 Carl Moyer Guidelines) = 0.114 

Formula C-12, 2005 Carl Moyer Guidelines: Annualized Cost

 $115,000 * 0.114 = $13,110/yr 

Cost-Effectiveness

Formula C-1: Cost-Effectiveness of Weighted Surplus Emission Reductions

= ($13,110/yr) / (0.431 weighted tons/yr)

= $30,418 weighted tons/yr 

In this example, the cost-effectiveness is more than the threshold of $14,300 per weighted 

ton of pollutants reduced. This project qualifies for a maximum grant of $54,063 

($14,300/$30,418 x $115,000), which is approximately 50% of the new school bus cost.