REPORT TO CONGRESS:
 

Highlights of the Diesel Emissions Reduction Program
 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 

Title VII, Subtitle G, Sections 791–797 

National Clean Diesel Campaign 

 

Contents 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................3
 

1. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................9
 

2. EPA’S NATIONAL CLEAN DIESEL CAMPAIGN .......................................................13
 

Overview ............................................................................................................. 13
 

Verifying That Emission Reduction Technologies Work ...................................... 14
 

Tapping Into Regional Collaboratives .................................................................16
 

Regulating Diesel Engines and Fuels .................................................................. 17
 

3. THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005, DIESEL EMISSIONS
 

REDUCTION ACT PROGRAM................................................................................19
 

Background ......................................................................................................... 19
 

The National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program........................................22
 

The National Clean Diesel Emerging Technologies Program .................................23
 

The SmartWay Clean Diesel Finance Program .........................................................25
 

The State Clean Diesel Grant and Loan Program ....................................................27
 

Inaugural Year Results in Impressive, Cost-Effective Reductions Across
 

All Sectors ...........................................................................................................28
 

4. RESOURCES THAT SUPPORT THE NATIONAL CLEAN DIESEL CAMPAIGN .................35
 

Diesel Emissions Quantifi er.................................................................................35
 

Agency Guidance for Calculating Cost-Effectiveness .........................................35
 

Guidance on State Implementation Plans ...........................................................36
 

Public Outreach Materials ...................................................................................36
 

NCDC Joins Forces With International Partners..................................................37
 

5. REMAINING CHALLENGES ...................................................................................38
 

Contents ✦ 1
 
 

6. LESSONS LEARNED AND NEEDS FOR THE FUTURE................................................40
 

Lessons Learned ..................................................................................................40
 

Next Steps ........................................................................................................... 41
 

APPENDIX A: NATIONAL CLEAN DIESEL FUNDING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, 

FY 2008 GRANTS .............................................................43
 

APPENDIX B: NATIONAL CLEAN DIESEL EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
 

PROGRAM, FY 2008 GRANTS ..............................................47
 

APPENDIX C: SMARTWAY CLEAN DIESEL FINANCE PROGRAM, 


FY 2008 GRANTS .............................................................48
 

APPENDIX D: STATE CLEAN DIESEL PROGRAM, FY 2008 GRANTS.................49
 

APPENDIX E: NATIONAL PROGRAM EVALUATION CRITERIA.............................52
 

APPENDIX F: EPA REGIONAL CLEAN DIESEL COLLABORATIVES.......................54
 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................56
 

2 ✦ REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM 
 

 

Executive Summary 

NATIONAL CLEAN DIESEL CAMPAIGN 

REDUCING emissions from diesel engines is one of the most important public health 

challenges facing the country. Despite EPA’s stringent diesel engine and fuel standards taking effect over the next decade, the 20 million engines already in use will 

continue to emit large amounts of nitrogen oxides (NOX

) and particulate matter (PM)—both 

of which will contribute to serious public health problems for years to come. 

Fortunately, a variety of cost-effective technologies can dramatically reduce harmful emissions, save fuel, and help our nation meet its clean air and sustainability goals. To meet 

these challenges, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established the National 

Clean Diesel Campaign (NCDC). NCDC consists of both regulatory programs to address new 

engines and innovative nonregulatory programs to address the millions of diesel engines 

already in use. EPA standards apply to new diesel engines, and because these engines can last a 

long time, solutions are needed to reduce harmful emissions from the existing fleet. These innovative approaches promote a variety of emission reduction strategies such as retrofitting, repairing, 

replacing, and repowering engines; reducing idling; and switching to cleaner fuels. 

Through a dynamic network of Regional Collaboratives, whose development EPA initiated, environmental groups, industry, and government were inspired and motivated—despite their sometimes confl icting perspectives—to unite behind a common goal. NCDC mobilized diverse and unusual partners with 

historic differences to work together, creating broad support based on the urgency of the public health 

problem and bringing new technologies into use years earlier than would otherwise have occurred. 

In 2008, Congress appropriated funding for the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) Program 

under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) to reduce emissions from heavy-duty diesel 

engines in the existing fleet. In the first year of the DERA program, EPA awarded $49.2 million for 

diesel emission reduction programs across the country.1

 EPA gave priority to projects that: 

• Demonstrated a clear public health benefi t in areas with high population density and poor air quality. 

• Fostered cost-effective strategies that maximized the useful life of a certified engine configuration, verified technology, or emerging technology. 

• Conserved diesel fuel. 

• Used cleaner fuels. 

1 Congress also provided $10 million for grants for cost-effective emission reduction projects for two California air quality 


management districts (South Coast and San Joaquin). 


Executive Summary ✦ 3 
 

 

The fiscal year (FY) 2008 funding enabled EPA to award 119 grants, which will lead to emission 

reductions of approximately 46,000 tons of NO

The PM-related emission reductions translate into a significant quantifiable public health benefit 

of approximately $580 million to $1.4 billion. Additionally, projects funded under these grants 

will save 3.2 million gallons of fuel per year for a cost savings to operators of more than 

$8 million each year (at $2.50 per gallon). More than 14,000 diesel-powered vehicles and pieces 

of equipment are cleaner as a result of the first year of this program. More than two-thirds of 

these vehicles are trucks and school buses that were upgraded through EPA’s sector outreach 

programs such as Clean School Bus USA. 

DERA directs EPA to fund two different components: a national competition and a state allocation program. The national program, with 70 percent of the funding, consists of three separate 

X

 and 2,200 tons of fine particulate matter (PM2.5). 

competitions: 

1. The National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program 

2. The National Clean Diesel Emerging Technologies Program 

3. The SmartWay Clean Diesel Finance Program 


The State Clean Diesel Grant and Loan Program utilizes the remaining 30 percent of the funding.
 

National Clean Diesel Campaign Funding Structure 

Diesel Emissions Reduction Program 

Federal Funding 

Nationally Administered Competitions Allocation to States
 

National Clean 

Diesel Funding 

Assistance Program 

National Clean 

Diesel Emerging 

Technologies Program 

SmartWay Clean 

Diesel Finance 

Program 

State Clean 

Diesel Grant and 

Loan Program 

4 ✦ REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM 
 

NCDC programs deploy proven technologies much earlier than would occur otherwise, accelerate the 

use of emerging technologies, and provide innovative fi nancial incentives that make the business case for 

doing the right thing for the environment. States are key partners in the success of clean diesel programs 

and are given the opportunity through the state program to enhance their leadership on air quality issues. 

NATIONAL CLEAN DIESEL PROGRAMS 

National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program. The response to EPA’s National Clean 

Diesel Funding Assistance Program was overwhelmingly positive. This program allows communities to meet their most pressing needs to reduce harmful diesel emissions. Communities benefit by 

activities as diverse as retrofitting school buses so that children’s exposures are reduced, repowering locomotives used at seaports to save fuel as well as reduce emissions in neighborhoods, and 

replacing high-emitting construction equipment used to build hospitals and our nation’s roads. 

EPA’s seven Regional Collaboratives held grant competitions. In FY 2008, 

applicants nationwide submitted 236 applications, requesting more than 

$144 million and offering approximately $81 million in matching funds. 

Demand for funding under this component of DERA exceeded available 

funds by 5:1. The variety of needs and approaches refl ects the diversity of 

air quality challenges facing local communities across the country. After 

careful evaluation and ranking, EPA awarded approximately $30 million 

to 60 applicants, who provided matching funds of approximately $35 

million. The high level of response to this program shows the desire communities have to clean up 

their fl eets. The response also shows the ability of federal dollars to attract funds from other partners 

to accelerate the introduction of cost-effective clean diesel technologies. 

National Clean Diesel Emerging Technologies Program. The emerging technology program, for which EPA may make available up to 10 percent of the funding, fosters the deployment 

of cutting-edge technologies and encourages private-sector investment in innovation. The program 

promotes the deployment of innovative technologies (those not yet verified or certified by EPA or 

the California Air Resources Board) by providing funding to develop and evaluate these technologies in the field. EPA received 10 eligible applications that requested $5 million and offered more 

than $1.1 million in matching funds. EPA ultimately awarded six grants totaling $3.7 million with 

$1.1 million provided as matching funds. These grants will demonstrate new technologies, including 

technologies that reduce NOX

. This program will help expand the currently limited retrofit options 

for nonroad engines, such as those used in construction equipment and on marine vessels. 

SmartWay Clean Diesel Finance Program. For the fi rst time, DERA gives EPA the authority to establish national low-cost revolving loan and other fi nancing programs to provide funding to fl eets to reduce diesel emissions. EPA exercised this authority by awarding grants where the recipients could provide 

innovative fi nancing methods for clean diesel technologies. For the fi rst time, partners are able to provide 

fi nancial incentives (e.g., low-cost revolving loans, rebates, below-market rates) that stretch the federal 

dollar further. A small investment of federal funds leverages signifi cant private investment and spurs 

the purchase of fuel-saving and emission reduction technologies for trucks. Under the SmartWay Clean 

Executive Summary ✦ 5 
 

Diesel Finance Program competition, EPA received four grant applications requesting approximately $9.5 

million that would leverage $44 million in outside funds, to establish innovative fi nancing programs. EPA 

awarded three grants totaling approximately $3.4 million, leveraging $19 million. These grants establish 

national fi nancing programs that provide funding to small- and medium-sized trucking companies to 

purchase clean diesel technologies. These trucking companies include many small businesses that would 

otherwise be unlikely to update their fl eets with cleaner, more fuel-effi cient equipment. 

STATE CLEAN DIESEL GRANT AND LOAN PROGRAM 

Recognizing that many states, such as California, Texas, Washington, Illinois, Maine, and New 

York, have developed successful clean diesel programs over the years, Congress included a stateonly component in DERA to recognize the vital role played by states. In contrast to the national 

competitive program, the State Clean Diesel Grant and Loan Program is a formula allocation 

program. By meeting certain requirements, any state is eligible to participate. According to the 

statute, if adequate appropriations are available, 30 percent of any funds appropriated for DERA 

must be allocated to the states through this program. 

In the first year of the state program, all 50 states elected to participate and established new clean 

diesel projects. The programs responded to state needs, focusing on a variety of sectors, such as 

school buses, construction, freight, refuse haulers, and transit buses. Based on funding availability and the states’ ability to provide matching funds, individual state grant amounts ranged from 

$196,880 to $492,200. EPA funded the state programs with almost $13 million. Thirty-three states 

matched the federal dollars by providing more than $6.3 million in matching funds altogether. 

COST-EFFECTIVE RESULTS OF PROVEN TECHNOLOGICAL SOLUTIONS 

In this report, EPA analyzes the overall cost-effectiveness of various diesel emission reduction 

strategies. EPA compares the amount of federal grant funds used to the lifetime tons reduced 

to evaluate the effectiveness of federal investments in spurring diesel emission reductions. The 

Agency concludes that the innovative finance provisions are an important new approach with an 

impressive ability to leverage significant additional resources. 

In the fi rst year of funding, clean diesel strategies have proven to be about as cost-effective in reducing air pollution and health impacts associated with diesel emissions as other EPA programs, as shown 

in the table on page 7. Under the National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program, EPA calculated 

the average cost-effectiveness of federal investment to be approximately $27,700 per ton of PM reduced over the lifetime of the project and just under $2,000 per lifetime ton of NOX

. In the SmartWay 

Clean Diesel Finance Program, the cost-effectiveness was about $9,000 in federal funds per lifetime 

ton of PM and $400 in federal funds per lifetime ton of NOX

. The average cost of federal investment for the state program was approximately $16,700 per lifetime ton of PM reduced and $600 per 

lifetime ton of NOX

. These per ton costs compare very favorably with strategies used to attain national 

ambient air quality standards, such as stationary source standards that range from $1,000 to $20,000 

and as high as $100,000 per ton of PM2.5 on an annualized basis.2, 3 However, DERA projects are on 

6 ✦ REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM 
 

 

 

average4

 less cost-effective for PM than regulatory programs designed to set emissions standards for 

new diesel engines, such as the 2007 Heavy-Duty Highway diesel emissions standards. EPA has estimated that this regulation has a cost-effectiveness of $14,200 per ton PM and $2,100 per ton NOx

. 

Average Cost-Effectiveness of DERA Projects 

DERA Program PM2.5 NOX 

National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program $27,700 $2,000 

SmartWay Clean Diesel Finance Program $9,000 $400 

State Clean Diesel Grant and Loan Program $16,700 $600 

Regulatory Programs PM2.5 NOX 

Heavy-Duty Engine and Highway Diesel Fuel Requirements $14,200 $2,100 

PM NAAQS RIA $3,000-15,000 – 

Note 1: Values reported for the DERA program are for federal funds per ton pollutant reduced over project lifetime. Lifetime tons 

are not discounted. This report presents two different types of cost-effectiveness: federal funds per lifetime tons and total cost per 

ton. The comparisons for the regulatory programs are in annualized costs per ton. 

Note 2: Values were rounded to nearest $100. Federal funds do not include matching amounts. 

Note 3: The Emerging Technologies program is designed to demonstrate new technologies. At this phase in the development of 

these technologies, costs would be expected to be higher than when at a more fully mature commercial scale of deployment stage. 

Therefore, the cost comparisons with the other national program components have been omitted. 

The fi rst year of implementation for the Diesel Emissions Reduction Program has been extremely successful. By harnessing overwhelming support from environmental organizations, state and local governments, industry, technology vendors, and other groups, EPA has been able to magnify the available dollars and strategically fund important emission reduction and fuel-saving projects. In total, EPA awarded 

119 grants in the fi rst year of the DERA program. More than 14,000 vehicles and pieces of nonroad 

equipment in a wide array of sectors will be cleaner as a direct result of this program. New clean diesel 

programs have been established in every state, and technologies have been advanced for the future. 

In addition, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) provided $300 million 

in new funding for the Diesel Emissions Reduction Program. EPA has already awarded more than $85 

million through the State Clean Diesel Grant program, and those funds are currently at work creating 

green jobs and reducing air pollution. EPA is in the process of awarding national competitive grants under 

the Diesel Emissions Reduction Program with additional goals of creating and preserving jobs and promoting economic recovery. In response to this competitive program, EPA received more than 600 applications requesting approximately $2 billion and offering more than $2 billion in matching funds. This clearly 

demonstrates the high level of interest in clean diesel programs across the country. Implementation of the 

EPAct 2005’s Diesel Emissions Reduction Program is a critical step toward reaching our national clean air 

goals and protecting public health and the environment for all Americans for generations to come. 

2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particle Pollution Regulatory Impact Assessment (PM NAAQS RIA 10-06-06, 

Chapter 3, pg. 3-14, Table 3.2): Compares other stationary and area sources for PM reduction. Report is available at www.epa. 

gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html and www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/Chapter%203--Controls.pdf. 

3 The Cost-Effectiveness of Heavy-Duty Diesel Retrofi ts and Other Mobile Source Emissions Reduction Projects and Programs 

(EPA-420-B-07-006, May 2007, Appendix Table 3, pg. 13-15): Compares other mobile source programs cost-effectiveness for 

NOx/VOCs. Report is available at www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/policy/general/420b07006.pdf. 

4 The weighted average federal cost of DERA projects is about $25,000 per ton PM and $1,500 per ton NOx

. 

Executive Summary ✦ 7
 
8 ✦ REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM
 

 

1. Introduction 

Reducing Diesel Emissions Garners Broad Support 

F

ROM the farm to the interstate highway to the neighborhood grocery store, we find diesel 

engines in every corner of society. Diesel engines power the movement of goods across 

the nation and help construct the buildings in which we live and work. Diesel engines aid 

in building the roads on which we travel and power the buses that carry millions of children to 

school safely each day. While diesel engines provide the mobility and power Americans require, 

are more fuel-efficient than gasoline engines, and serve as the workhorse of the nation’s economy, exhaust from these engines sullies our skies with pollutants that harm our health and damage 

the environment. 

Because of our reliance on diesel engines, reducing emissions from them is one of the most important public health challenges facing the country. Despite the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(EPA’s) stringent diesel engine and fuel standards, which, for new engines beginning with engine 

model year 2007, are being phased in over the next decade, 20 million engines already in use 

continue to emit relatively large amounts of nitrogen oxides (NOx

) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). 

NO x, which contributes to both ozone and particulate formation, as well as directly emitted PM2.5, 

can lead to serious health conditions such as triggering asthma and worsening heart and lung disease. In addition, diesel engines emit black carbon, which might contribute to global climate change. 

The problem of diesel emissions is not limited to a few discrete geographic areas or to one segment of the population. Harmful diesel emissions contribute to poor air quality in much of the 

country. No fewer than 141 million Americans—nearly half the population of the United States— 

live in areas that are designated as nonattainment with the eight-hour ozone standard and/or the 

PM2.5 standard, based on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).5 

Due to the sheer numbers of engines in use and the volume of pollutants they emit, the health 

effects and environmental pollution stemming from diesel emissions could be substantial. Nationwide, in 2009 diesel emissions from mobile sources alone will account for approximately 300,000 

tons of directly emitted PM2.5 and 6.4 million tons of NOX

, which contribute to the formation of 

ozone and additional fine particles. These emissions will come from approximately 20 million engines operating in 2009, including approximately 13 million on-highway vehicles, 7 million nonroad 

engines, and 47,000 locomotive and marine engines. (See Figures 1 and 2.) Reducing diesel emissions quickly is vital to helping communities reach their public health goals. 

5 As of December 16, 2008, there are 57 eight-hour ozone nonattainment areas (1997) that consist of 293 full or partial counties, 

with a total population of almost 132 million. An additional 74 counties, where 16 million people reside, show air quality values 

that do not meet the 2008 ozone standard. As of December 16, 2008, there are 39 PM2.5 nonattainment areas (1997) that 

consist of 208 full or partial counties, with a total population exceeding 88 million. On December 22, 2008, EPA designated 

nonattainment areas for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. As of December 22, 2008, there are 58 PM2.5 nonattainment areas (2006) that 

consist of 211 full or partial counties. 

1. Introduction ✦ 9
 
 

 

C3 Marine 

15% 

Nonroad Diesel 

21% 

Figure 1. 2009 NOX Mobile 

Source Diesel Emissions 

for 50 States 

(6,400,000 tons) 

Figure 2. 2009 Directly Emitted 


PM2.5 Mobile Source 


Diesel Emissions for 50 States
 

(300,000 tons) 

Nonroad Diesel 

38% 

Harbor Craft 

Marine Diesel 

13% 

C3 Marine 

24% Highway
 

Diesel
 

20%
 Highway Diesel Locomotive 36% 15% 

Harbor Craft 

Marine Diesel 

9% 

Locomotive 

9% 

Fortunately, a variety of cost-effective technologies can dramatically reduce harmful emissions, 

save fuel, and help our nation meet its clean air and sustainability goals. In 2000, to address the 

concerns of both new and existing diesel engines, EPA created the National Clean Diesel Campaign (NCDC), a partnership program that incorporates traditional regulatory approaches and 

innovative nonregulatory approaches to achieve results. The regulatory aspect of the program 

requires new engines and their fuels to meet stringent technology-based standards to reduce the 

amount of emissions released. 

The innovative component of the program promotes the use of a variety of techniques to reduce 

emissions, including retrofitting, repairing, replacing, and repowering vehicles and equipment; 

reducing idling; and switching to cleaner fuels. To encourage these actions, NCDC cultivates the 

involvement of national, state, and local partners in the public and private sectors. 

In 2008, for the first time ever, Congress appropriated funding under the Energy Policy Act of 

2005 (EPAct 2005) to reduce emissions from diesel engines in the nation’s existing fleet. In the 

first year of the program, the EPA’s NCDC distributed $49.2 million to initiate diesel emission 

reduction projects and programs across the country. Reflecting the goals in the statute, EPA gave 

priority to projects that: 

• Demonstrate a clear public health benefit and apply to areas with high population density and 

poor air quality. 

• Use cost-effective strategies that maximize the useful life of a certified engine configuration, 

verified technology, or emerging technology. 

• Conserve diesel fuel. 

• Use cleaner fuels. 

10 ✦ REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM 
 

 

The EPAct of 2005, Title VII, Subtitle G, Section 794, 

requires that the EPA Administrator submit a report 

to Congress evaluating the implementation of the 

Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) Program. This 

report fulfills that requirement. 

In the inaugural year of the program, EPA awarded 

119 grants that are already achieving significant 

emission reductions, as detailed in Appendices A 

through F. As part of this effort, all 50 states have 

begun new state clean diesel program grants. The 

suite of national and state diesel emission reduction 

programs is a vital part of state and local efforts to 

reduce harmful air pollution. These first DERA grants 

are expected to significantly reduce emissions in 

communities across the country. 

As shown in Table 1, the total emission reductions 

are noteworthy. The FY 2008 funding for the Diesel 

Emissions Reduction Program is estimated to reduce 

approximately 46,000 tons of NOX

 and 2,200 tons 

of PM2.5 over the life of the program. These emission 

reductions translate into a significant quantifiable 

public health benefit of approximately $580 million to $1.4 billion in quantifiable PM-related health 

benefits over the life of the program.6 

In addition, the FY 2008 grants will save more than 

3.2 million gallons of fuel per year, which equates 

to a savings in fuel costs to operators of more than 

$8 million per year (at $2.50 per gallon). This corresponds to 35,600 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2

) per 

year reduced. These fuel savings calculations only 

reflect the savings from idle reduction technologies 

and do not reflect the improved fuel economy that 

may result from engine replacements; thus the actual 

fuel savings might be higher than shown. 

Diesel Exhaust Health Effects 

Direct emissions from diesel engines, especially PM2.5, NOx, 

and sulfur oxides (SOx), contribute to health problems. In 

addition, NOx contributes to the formation of ozone and 

PM through chemical reactions. 

PM2.5 has been associated with an increased risk of premature mortality, increased hospital admissions for heart 

and lung disease, and increased respiratory symptoms. 

Long-term exposure to components of diesel exhaust, 

including diesel PM and diesel exhaust organic gases, are 

likely to pose a lung cancer hazard. Exposure to ozone can 

aggravate asthma and other respiratory diseases, leading 

to more asthma attacks, the use of additional medication, 

more severe symptoms that require a doctor’s attention, 

more lost school and work days, more visits to the emergency room, increased hospitalizations, and even premature mortality. People in many areas of the United States 

experience short-term (one to three hours) and prolonged 

ozone exposures (six to eight hours), which have been 

linked to diminished lung function, greater respiratory 

symptoms, and increased hospital 

visits. Repeated exposure to 

ozone can increase susceptibility 

to respiratory infection and lung 

inflammation and can aggravate 

preexisting asthma. At sufficient concentrations, ozone 

can even cause permanent 

damage to the lungs, including the development of 

chronic respiratory illnesses. 

Children, outdoor workers, those 

who exercise outdoors, people 

with heart and lung disease, and 

the elderly are most at risk. 

Many of the benefi ts will accrue in the fi rst fi ve years of the program, and the benefi ts are discounted using a 3 percent rate. 

1. Introduction ✦ 11
 

6 
 

 

Table 1. Estimated Air Emission Reductions of FY 2008 NCDC Programs Over 

Lifetime of Projects (Lifetime Tons) 

Program NOX PM HC* CO** CO2 

† 

National Clean Diesel Funding 

Assistance Program 14,800 1,100 1,900 7,300 113,600 

National Clean Diesel Emerging 

Technologies Program 600 30 30 100 — 

SmartWay Clean Diesel Finance 

Program 9,600 400 500 1,600 238,200 

State Clean Diesel Grant and Loan 

Program 21,000 800 2,000 5,700 112,900 

Total 46,000 2,200 4,400 14,700 464,600 

Note: Values were rounded to the nearest 100 lifetime tons or to one significant fi gure. Sums might not add due to rounding. 

Lifetime tons are not discounted. 

* Hydrocarbon 

** Carbon monoxide 

† Does not include CO2

 reductions from engine replacements, repowers, or vehicle replacements. 

The map in Figure 3 shows the location of the projects for the first year of the program. These 

projects are helping communities lower their public health risks from air pollution, accelerating the 

use of proven technologies, making engines cleaner and more efficient, encouraging new cuttingedge technologies, and utilizing new financial incentives to reach more fleets. 

Figure 3. FY 2008 DERA Projects Across the Country 

National Program 

State Program 

Phoenix 

Honolulu 

Juneau 

Denver 

Chicago 

Springfield 

Indianapolis 

Portage 

Pierre 

Lincoln 

Sioux Falls 

Topeka 

Jefferson City 

St. Louis 

Louisville 

Knoxville 

Nashville 

Frankfort 

Des Moines 

Madison 

Tecumseh 

Canton 

Columbus 

Charleston Richmond 

District of Columbia 

Raleigh 

Columbia 

Atlanta 

Montgomery Jackson 

St. Petersburg 

Mobile 

Savannah 

Tallahassee 

Baton Rouge 

Dallas 

Austin 

Charleston 

Lansing 

Pigeon 

Augusta 

Montpelier 

Williston 

Buffalo New Paltz Scarsdale New York 

Harrisburg Philadelphia East Brunswick 

Rockville Dover

Derwood 

Trenton 

Centereach 

Providence 

Albany Boston 

Manchester 

Detroit 

St. Paul 

Bismarck 

Minneapolis 

Cheyenne 

Santa Fe 

Oklahoma City 

Salt Lake City 

Boise 

Portland 

Salem 

Olympia 

Seattle 

Helena 

Los Angeles 

Diamond Bar 

Bakersfield 

Carson City 

Sacramento 

Hartford 

12 ✦ REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM 
2. EPA’s National Clean Diesel Campaign 

A First-of-Its-Kind Campaign Lives Up to Its Goals 

OVERVIEW 

E

PA’S NCDC responds to the national need to reduce harmful diesel emissions. In April 2000, 

EPA began its Voluntary Diesel Retrofit Program with a few targeted projects. Using a small 

sample of the existing national fleet of school buses, delivery trucks, and transit buses, 

EPA demonstrated emission reduction technologies and cleaner fuels likely to be used for all new 

engines seven years before the 2007 effective date for the new engine standards. 

Through this initial collaboration on retrofit projects, partners realized that they had found a way 

to put aside their sometimes-conflicting perspectives to unite behind a common goal. Fueled by 

this initial success, NCDC mobilized diverse partners with a wide range of perspectives—such as 

engine manufacturers, environmental groups, emission technology vendors, fuel suppliers, private 

fleet owners, state and local governments, and transportation officials—to work together, creating awareness of the urgency of the public health problem and accelerating the use of technologies years earlier than otherwise would have occurred. EPA provided seed money and technical 

expertise to create markets for new technologies and bring stakeholders together around an issue 

of mutual interest. 

This tiny spark caught flame. Since 2000, EPA has awarded approximately 300 demonstration 

grants under the Clean Air Act for diverse sectors such as transit 

and school buses and marine, construction, and freight vehicles 

and equipment. These projects reduced unnecessary idling and 

promoted the use of alternative and cleaner fuels, retrofitting 

engines and replacing old engines or equipment with new, cleaner 

versions. Each year additional partners have joined NCDC, adding 

and showcasing new technologies. EPA tailored incentives to key 

sectors such as school buses, marine ports, construction, freight, 

transit, and agriculture. These successful demonstration projects 

resulted in the use of ultra-low-sulfur fuel in parts of 20 states 

well before the EPA mandate took effect. This cleaner diesel fuel 

directly reduces emissions from engines and enables the use of the 

most effective emission control devices. Now the use of this fuel is 

widespread and fleets are experiencing maintenance and emissions 

benefits of cleaner fuels. 

2. EPA’s National Clean Diesel Campaign ✦ 13
 
Clean School Bus USA Is Key to a Healthier Ride for Kids 

Due to the innovation and success of EPA’s Clean School Bus USA,

begun in 2003 as the fl agship program of the National Clean Diesel 


Campaign, approximately 3 million children ride cleaner school 


buses today.

Clean School Bus USA’s goal is to signifi cantly reduce children’s exposure to harmful exhaust 

from diesel school buses. By establishing partnerships with local and state governments, school 

transportation offi cials, fuel providers, and equipment and engine manufacturers, EPA created 

a highly successful, incentive-based program to reduce the pollution from the nation’s 400,000 

oldest and dirtiest school buses and to protect the 24 million children who ride buses daily. 

As part of the program, EPA awarded 157 grants throughout six years, totaling $31 million, to 

demonstrate pollution control techniques. EPA has distributed its Key to a Healthier Ride educational materials to more than 400 school districts nationwide, reaching more than 74,000 school 

bus drivers and affecting more than 83,000 diesel school buses. These school districts are also 

formally recognizing bus drivers who successfully reduce school bus idling. For more information, visit: www.epa.gov/otaq/schoolbus/index.htm. 

VERIFYING THAT EMISSION REDUCTION TECHNOLOGIES WORK 

Testing and evaluating the effi cacy of diesel emission reduction technologies is a cornerstone of 

NCDC. From the beginning, fl eet owners demanded to know that the technologies they wanted or 

were expected to use would work and would not harm their operations. State and local governments wanted assurance that they could rely on these strategies now and in the future to meet 

their air quality goals. In response to these needs, EPA created the Retrofi t Technology Verifi cation 

Program in 2002 to evaluate objectively the effectiveness of emission control technologies. 

Through this program, EPA assures users that the actual emission benefi ts from retrofi t technologies 

match those claimed by the manufacturer. The Agency also evaluates technologies that assist fl eets 

in reducing idling. In addition, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) provides its own list of 

verifi ed emission control technologies (www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/verdev.htm), which EPA recognizes. By verifying technologies, leading successful demonstrations, and operating recognition and 

education programs, these agencies have helped develop markets for new, greener technologies. 

Yet this was only the beginning. Congress recognized the important role the verifi cation process plays 

by making it a foundation of the implementation and integrity of the Diesel Emissions Reduction Program. Thus, in the national grant program, EPA requires the use of technologies that have been verifi ed or certifi ed by EPA or CARB when federal funds are applied. Congress also wanted to continue to 

spur innovation and encouraged the support and development of emerging technologies under DERA. 

14 ✦ REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM 
 

In establishing its verification program, EPA realized that verifying a technology only prior to its 


use is not enough. The technologies need “real world” testing to ensure that they maintain their 

performance throughout their useful life. As retrofit technologies are introduced into the market in 

higher volume, verifying the field performance and long-term durability of these products through 

in-use testing is increasingly essential. EPA requires all manufacturers to rigorously test each verified 

technology at two different stages during its useful life to confirm the percent of emissions reduction and evaluate durability. In-use testing offers confidence that verified retrofit technologies have 

been proven in the real world and will maintain that performance throughout their useful lives. 

As a sign of the strength of the initial tests and of the technologies themselves, results from inuse testing are consistent with the original verified levels of emission reductions. In addition, EPA 

has been able to increase the level of reduction listed on its Web site for some of the technologies, given their outstanding performance in the in-use program. 

To date, EPA and CARB have verified more than 50 emission control technologies. In addition, 

over the past seven years, EPA’s SmartWay Transport Partnership has evaluated idle reduction 

technologies through grants, engineering analysis, and peer-reviewed reports. As of March 2009, 

EPA has designated six categories of idle reduction technologies as eligible for grant funding: 

1) electrified parking spaces (truck stop electrification); 2) shore side power for ships, also known 

as cold ironing or Alternative Maritime Power; 3) auxiliary power units and generator sets; 4) fueloperated heaters; 5) battery air-conditioning systems; and 6) thermal storage systems. 

Clean Ports USA Helps Marine Ports Save Money 

and Decrease Emissions 

Due to EPA’s Clean Ports USA program (part of 

the National Clean Diesel Campaign), leading 

marine ports are saving fuel, increasing operational 

efficiency, and decreasing diesel emissions. In addition, several prominent ports have developed 

clean air action plans, which include greenhouse gas reduction goals, to assist them in reducing 

air pollution in gateway communities. 

In January 2005, EPA partnered with the American Association of Port Authorities to create 

Clean Ports USA as an outreach- and incentive-based program designed to reduce emissions 

from existing diesel engines operated at marine ports. EPA is working with port authorities; 

terminal operators; and shipping, trucking and rail companies to promote environmentally 

superior technologies through education, incentives, and financial assistance. For more 

information, visit: www.epa.gov/cleandiesel/ports. 

2. EPA’s National Clean Diesel Campaign ✦ 15
 
 

SmartWay Transport Partnership 

EPA developed the SmartWay Transport Partnership 

Program to address the environmental impact of 

the freight system in the United States. The SmartWay program is a voluntary public–private initiative 

designed to improve the environmental performance 

of the freight delivery system through money-saving, market-based approaches. The goal of the 

program is to reduce emissions by promoting cost-effective strategies that reduce fuel consumption and air pollution, using such methods as eliminating unnecessary idling, installing emission 

control devices, and improving freight logistics. 

The SmartWay program works hand in hand with the National Clean Diesel Campaign to 

promote diesel emission reduction strategies. The SmartWay program has pioneered innovative 

approaches to emission reduction, such as the creation of SmartWay-approved trucks to identify 

trucks with superior environmental performance and the development of low-cost financing 

for the purchase of fuel saving and emission control devices. The innovative financial strategies 

offer increased access to lenders who can provide financing for SmartWay-verified technologies 

and provide truck owners with low-cost financing for the purchase of SmartWay Upgrade Kits 

(which include idle reduction technologies, advanced aerodynamic technologies, and low-rolling 

resistance tires) or the purchase of cleaner used diesel trucks with aftertreatment devices. The 

SmartWay program also recognizes partners who achieve superior environmental performance. 

For more information, visit: www.epa.gov/smartway. 

SM

TAPPING INTO REGIONAL COLLABORATIVES 

With the foundation of cost-effective, reliable technologies, EPA’s partners wanted to reach more 

fleets in more sectors to reduce harmful diesel emissions. As a next step, beginning in 2003, EPA’s 

regions began organizing Regional Clean Diesel Collaboratives with states, local nonprofit organizations, private industry, and municipalities. (See Figure 4 for a map.) By tying into a network of 

regional stakeholders, this collaborative structure is well-suited for achieving significant emission 

reductions across large geographic areas. Members of these collaboratives have agreed to collectively leverage additional funds and take a local approach to diesel emission mitigation. These 

collaboratives play a vital role in EPA’s proactive, incentive-based approach to achieving superior 

environmental results. Information on the collaboratives can be found in Appendix F. 

16 ✦ REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM 
 

Figure 4. Regional Clean Diesel Collaboratives
 

ME 

VT NH 

MA 

RI 

NJ 

DE 

MD 

VA DC

OH 

KY 

MI 

SC 

NC 

FL 

AL 

WV 

GA 

TN 

IN 

AR 

MO 

OK 

KS 

IL 

IA 

WI 

MN 

NE 

SD 

MT ND

WY 

CO 

NM AZ 

UT 

NV 

CA 

OR 

ID 

WA 

AK 

MS 

TX LA 

PA 

NY 

PR 

HI 

West Coast 

Blue Skyways 

Southeast 

Midwest 

Mid-Atlantic 

Northeast Rocky Mountain 

REGULATING DIESEL ENGINES AND FUELS 

While cost-effective technology and strong coalitions of committed stakeholders form the backbone of NCDC, another important component is a series of regulations designed to reduce pollution emitted from new diesel engines and their fuels. 

Under the Clean Air Act, EPA developed and implements a suite of stringent regulations to 

mitigate emissions from new diesel engines and their fuels. These regulations apply to a variety 

of new engines, including those in trucks, buses, construction equipment, locomotives, harbor 

craft, and large ships. Over the long term, these standards will yield enormous public health and 

environmental benefits. 

When fully implemented, these regulatory programs will reduce NOX

 by about 7 million tons per 

year, PM2.5 by more than 300,000 tons, and SOX

 by about 800,000 tons. By 2030, when the regulatory programs are fully phased in and implemented, the net public health benefits total approximately $186 billion per year, including annually preventing 26,000 premature deaths, approximately 20,000 hospitalizations, and more than 3.3 million days lost from work due to respiratory 

problems as described in EPA’s Regulatory Impact Assessments. 

CT 

2. EPA’s National Clean Diesel Campaign ✦ 17
 
 

In general, these rules require stringent standards for PM and NOX

, based on levels achievable 

with advanced diesel aftertreatment technologies, such as diesel particulate filters (DPFs) for PM 

and lean NOX

 traps or selective catalytic reduction (SCR) for NOX. Additionally, each of these rules 

ultimately requires reducing fuel sulfur levels to 15 parts per million (ppm) to enable the use of 

advanced aftertreatment technologies. 

NCDC’s goal is to bring these impressive benefits to the American people earlier by accelerating 

the adoption of proven technologies through its strategic regulatory approach. 

18 ✦ REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM 
 

 

 

 

3. The Energy Policy Act of 2005, Diesel Emissions 

Reduction Act Program 

Congressional Support Buoys Programs Nationwide 

BACKGROUND 

T

HE EPAct of 2005 provides EPA new grant and loan authority to promote diesel emission 

reductions and authorizes appropriations of up to $200 million per year to the Agency under 

the Diesel Emissions Reduction Program provisions (for FY 2007 through FY 2011). Congress 

appropriated funds under this statute for the first time in FY 2008, in the amount of $49.2 million. 

This portion of the report highlights key components of the statute and explains how EPA is implementing the program with state partners pursuant to Congress’s direction in the statute. 

DERA includes a national program and a state allocation program. The national program includes 

70 percent of appropriated funds, and the state program makes available 30 percent. Under this 

act, EPA can offer competitive grants and, for the first time, low-cost revolving loans to eligible 

organizations and entities on a competitive basis. 

To spur innovation, DERA allows for up to 10 percent of the national funds to be spent on 

“emerging technologies.” Additionally, not less than 50 percent of the funds available for the national program must be used for the benefit of public fleets. DERA requires that engine configurations and technologies supported by the national program be verified or certified by EPA or CARB. 

While the national program offers competitive grants in three categories, the state program is a 

single allocation program, which means that base funding is distributed to states using a specific 

formula based on participation, and incentive funding is also available for any states that match 

their base funding. Funds not claimed under this program—either if states decline to participate 

and/or do not match the base funding—revert to the national program. By meeting certain requirements, all of the 50 states and the District of Columbia are eligible to participate.7 

Under the statute, EPA provides guidance to the states about the process for applications, permissible use of funds, and the cost-effectiveness of various emission reduction technologies. EPA established an annual deadline for submitting applications, an approval process, and a streamlined 

renewal process. Discretion is given to the governors for apportioning funds between grants and 

loans in each state. EPA published a Federal Register notice (73 FR 12728, March 10, 2008) that 

discussed how it intended to implement the state programs. 

7 The District of Columbia is now an eligible entity for the State Clean Diesel Grant and Loan Program, but it was not eligible when 

EPA awarded the FY 2008 state grants. 

3. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 ✦ 19
 
 

 

Under the EPAct 2005, EPA gives priority to those diesel emission reduction programs that: 

1. Maximize public health benefits. 

2. Are the most cost-effective. 

3. Are in areas with high population density and poor air quality (including nonattainment 

areas or areas that require maintenance of national ambient air quality standards for a 

criteria pollutant, federal Class I areas, or areas with toxic air pollutant concerns). 

4. Are in areas that receive a disproportionate quantity of air pollution from diesel fleets, 

including truck stops, ports, rail yards, terminals, and distribution centers, or that use a 

community-based multi-stakeholder collaborative process to reduce toxic emissions. 

5. Include a certified engine configuration or verified technology that has a long expected 

useful life. 

6. Maximize the useful life of any certified engine configuration or verified technology used or 

funded by the eligible entity. 

7. Conserve diesel fuel. 

8. Utilize ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (15 ppm of sulfur content) ahead of EPA’s mandate (for 

nonroad or marine projects). 

Relevant sections of the EPAct 2005 that govern the DERA program are found in Title VII, 

Subtitle G. 

Section 791, “Definitions” 

Section 792, “National Grant and Loan Programs” 

Section 793, “State Grant and Loan Program” 

Section 794, “Evaluation and Report” 

Section 795, “Outreach and Incentives” 

Section 796, “Relationship to Clean Air Act” 

Section 797, “Authorization for Appropriated Funds (2007–2011)” 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 

With the foundations of its successful Clean Air Act demonstration programs, verification program, 

sector-based focus, Regional Collaboratives, and SmartWay brand, NCDC was well-poised to 

deploy cost-effective diesel emission reduction strategies even more broadly under DERA. 

20 ✦ REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM 
EPA’s goal for the first year of DERA funding was to establish diesel emission reduction programs 

in every state and accelerate the adoption of clean diesel technologies in the existing fleet. The 

EPAct 2005 statute establishes a general framework for the Diesel Emissions Reduction Program, 

charging EPA to develop other details for how the total program is implemented. Ultimately, EPA 

designed four programs: 

1. The National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program 

2. The National Clean Diesel Emerging Technologies Program 

3. The SmartWay Clean Diesel Finance Program 

4. The State Clean Diesel Grant and Loan Program 

These programs deploy proven technologies much earlier than would otherwise occur to meet 

critical local air quality needs. They accelerate the use of emerging technologies and provide innovative financial incentives that make the business case for reducing diesel emissions. Furthermore, 

states are key partners in the success of clean diesel programs, and the state program enhances 

their leadership in reducing harmful diesel emissions. 

Figure 5. National Clean Diesel Campaign Funding Structure 

Federal Funding 

Cost-Effective, Verified and Certified Technologies to 

Reduce Harmful Diesel Emissions 

Diesel Emissions Reduction Program 

Nationally Administered Competitions Allocation to States 

National Clean 

Diesel Funding 

Assistance Program 

Reducing the Most 

Damaging Emissions 

National Clean 

Diesel Emerging 

Technologies Program 

Moving Innovations 

From Concept to 

the Marketplace 

SmartWay Clean 

Diesel Finance 

Program 

Supporting Low-Cost 

Loans for High-Value 

Technologies 

State Clean 

Diesel Grant and 

Loan Program 

Reaching Its Goal of 

Programs in 

All 50 States 

$

3. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 ✦ 21 
 

THE NATIONAL CLEAN DIESEL FUNDING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 

Reducing the Most Damaging Emissions 

EPA received an overwhelmingly positive response to its Requests for Proposals (RFPs) under the 

National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program. This program offered the majority of the funding available, through grant competitions handled by the Agency’s seven Regional Collaboratives. 

The Agency received 236 applications nationwide, requesting more than $144 million and offering 

$81 million in matching funds. Thus, applicants requested $5 for every $1 available. 

Applicants requested funding to address their most 

pressing needs, such as retrofitting school buses so that 

children’s exposures are reduced on their way to school, 

repowering locomotives used at seaports to save fuel and 

reduce emissions in neighborhoods while still delivering 

freight used in every part of commerce, and replacing 

high-emitting construction equipment used to build 

hospitals and our nation’s roads. 

After screening for eligibility and carefully ranking the 

applications, EPA selected 60 recipients across the country in the fall and winter of 2008—within nine months 

of the program start date—and awarded $29,039,803 

in federal dollars, attracting approximately $35 million in 

matching funds. The federal share included $1,476,600 

from unclaimed state funds (states that did not match 

their base funding). Appendix E lists the ranking criteria, reflecting the priorities listed on page 20. Table 

2 summarizes the awards by region, and Appendix A 

contains a comprehensive list of the awardees and grant 

amounts. 

Emissions Reduced From Nonroad 

Cargo Handling Equipment at Pacifi c 

Northwest Ports 

Through its Clean Ports USA Program, EPA awarded the 

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency an $850,000 grant to 

fund replacements and retrofits, such as diesel particulate filters, of nonroad truck engines for cargo-handling 

equipment at Puget Sound ports. 

This grant helps the port authorities achieve the goals 

in their Northwest Ports Clean Air Plan. Additionally, 

the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma and the Puget Sound 

Clean Air Agency are providing matching funds totaling 

$318,000. 

Illinois School Buses Reap the Benefits of DERA Grants 

EPA’s Clean School Bus USA grants to Illinois EPA’s Green Fleets Program, including school buses, 

totaled $678,600, plus a $654,700 match from Illinois EPA, funding a variety of clean diesel technologies, including diesel oxidation catalysts, diesel particulate filters, closed crankcase ventilation, and auxiliary power units. 

The Illinois Green Fleets Program formally recognizes businesses, governmental entities, and 

organizations that use clean, domestic, renewable fuel vehicles in their fleet. The program also 

recognizes Illinois vehicle fleets equipped with diesel retrofits. 

22 ✦ REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM 
Table 2. FY 2008 Awards for the National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance 

Program by EPA Region 

Region Collaborative Number of Applications Number of Awarded 

Grants Dollars Awarded 

1 Northeast 16 6 $1,970,484 

2 33 9 $3,268,402 

3 Mid-Atlantic 24 6 $3,277,166 

4 Southeast 39 7 $3,789,289 

5 Midwest 38 13 $4,879,049 

6 Blue Skyways 20 3 $2,719,880 

7 10 3 $1,986,802 

8 Rocky Mountain 11 5 $1,755,645 

9 West Coast 30 5 $3,953,079 

10 15 

236 

3 $1,440,007 

Total 60 $29,039,803 

Public Fleets Directly Benefi t From 

DERA National Program Funds 

Public fleets across the nation—including transit buses, school buses, refuse haulers, municipal 

trucks, snowplows, and fire trucks—are emitting less pollution in towns and cities as a direct 

result of the Diesel Emissions Reduction Program. In FY 2008, the Agency awarded 74 percent of 

competitively awarded national funds to public fleets. Section 792 (b)(2) of the EPAct 2005 requires that no less than 50 percent of the funds for the national program be spent for the benefit 

of public fleets. 

Many partners stepped forward to deploy clean diesel 

technologies in public fleets to lead by example. Making 

the public-sector vehicles that do the nation’s work the 

cleanest they can be creates a powerful example for 

other fleets to imitate. 

THE NATIONAL CLEAN DIESEL EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM 

Moving Innovations From Concept to Marketplace 

EPA’s NCDC has been demonstrating new technologies and creating new demands for environmentally superior products since its inception. To continue to encourage new technologies to meet the 

needs of fleets and air quality planners, Congress recognized the need for the DERA program to 

promote cutting-edge advanced technologies. EPA developed the National Clean Diesel Emerging 

Technologies Program to respond to Section 792 (b)(3)(B)(i), which directs that “...the Administrator shall provide not more than 10 percent of funds available for a fiscal year under this provision to 

eligible entities for the development and commercialization of emerging technologies.” 

3. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 ✦ 23
 
 

 

 reduction technologies such as SCR systems for on-highway trucks and nonroad 

The National Clean Diesel Emerging Technologies Program is an opportunity to advance new, 

cutting-edge technologies to reduce diesel emissions from the existing fleet. Building on EPA’s 

verification program, EPA developed a process by which a manufacturer can request that its 

technology qualify in advance as an emerging technology. Through its collaborative network, EPA 

has been encouraging new technologies to reduce NOX

, save fuel, and perform better on a wider 

array of conditions and vehicles, including nonroad equipment and marine vessels. 

In FY 2008, under the National Diesel Emerging Technologies Program, 10 applicants requested 

$5 million and offered more than $1 million in matching funds. EPA awarded six grants in five 

states for a total of $3.7 million in federal funds, with $1.1 million in matching funds. These funds 

supported NOX

construction equipment, greater emission controls from a combination of diesel oxidation catalysts (DOCs)/DPFs and exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) systems, and new techniques for harbor 

craft, such as an emission upgrade kit for two types of marine engines. The criteria by which the 

applicants were evaluated are presented in Appendix E. The new federal dollars used for these 

emerging technologies are vital to spurring investment by NCDC’s partners. 

To qualify as an emerging technology, manufacturers should be in the initial stages of the verification process with EPA or CARB and listed on EPA’s Emerging Technology List. The manufacturer 

must also provide an approvable application for verification (including an explanation of the engineering principles of the technology and why the technology should be considered an emerging 

technology) and an approvable test plan. An emerging technology must be close to being, if not 

already, commercially available. 

Emerging Technology 

An emerging technology is defined in 

Section 791 of the Energy Policy Act to be 

“... a technology that is not certified or verified by the Administrator or the California Air 

Resources Board but for which an approvable 

application and test plan has been submitted 

for verification to the Administrator or the 

California Air Resources Board.” 

Once approved, emerging technologies are listed on 

EPA’s Web site. Technologies may remain on EPA’s 

Emerging Technology List for up to two years. During 

that two-year period, EPA estimates that manufacturers will be able to complete the necessary steps to 

obtain full verification. Once a technology is verified 

or certified, it will no longer be considered “emerging” but will then be fully eligible for projects under 

the National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program 

and then deployed more widely. This program will 

accelerate the pace of introduction of new diesel 

emission reduction strategies and will allow the DERA 

program to evolve to better serve the public. 

24 ✦ REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM 
 

Emerging Technology to Bring Large Reductions 

in Four Pollutants 

EPA awarded a grant to the South Coast Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, in 

California, home to approximately 16 million people, to install selective catalytic reduction 

technology (SCRT) on 1999 to 2002 heavy-duty Class 8 on-road diesel trucks, which will 

reduce PM, NOX, CO, and HC emissions by at least 90, 65, 85, and 90 percent, respectively. 

This project will improve the air quality of a 

high-population-density nonattainment area. 

At the same time, the project will produce 

useful data about the effectiveness and 

durability of this emerging technology. 

THE SMARTWAY CLEAN DIESEL FINANCE PROGRAM 

Supporting Low-Cost Loans for High-Value Technologies 

Under the SmartWay Clean Diesel Finance Program, EPA received four applications requesting 

$9.5 million and leveraging $44 million. Ultimately, in September 2008, EPA awarded three 

competitive grants totaling $3.4 million to establish a national financing program that provides 

funding to small- and medium-sized trucking companies to purchase clean diesel technologies, 

including leveraging more than $19 million in additional funding. 

These innovative financing programs will help smaller trucking firms lower their emissions, fuel 

costs, and carbon footprint by purchasing cleaner used trucks equipped with diesel exhaust filters 

and/or fuel-saving technologies. The program will also support idling and emission reduction technologies for 2,460 trucks. Appendix E presents the criteria by which the applicants were evaluated. Appendix C provides additional details about the projects. 

DERA provided EPA with new authority to establish national grant and low-cost revolving loan 

programs to finance clean diesel projects. Administered by EPA’s SmartWay Transport Partnership, 

the FY 2008 RFP for this program focused on establishing low-cost loan programs for retrofitting used pre-2007 highway vehicles and new or used pieces of nonroad equipment with EPA- or 

CARB-verified emission control and idle reduction technologies. EPA encouraged financing proposals to include strategies such as loan guarantees, equity investments that leverage additional 

funds, tax-exempt or taxable bonds to create a low-cost loan program, and revolving loan funds. 

3. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 ✦ 25
 
 

Using up to 10 percent of the funds available for the national program, the SmartWay Clean 

Diesel Finance Program is designed to allow eligible entities to create financing mechanisms to 

assist fleets with the purchase of EPA-approved fuel-saving and emission reduction technologies. 

To date, EPA has offered grantees the opportunity to develop innovative financing projects instead 

of issuing direct federal loans. 

Loan programs are important because they enhance financial sustainability and allow the funds to 

be used multiple times as the loans are repaid and additional loans can be offered to purchasers of 

cleaner vehicles or technologies. They are able to leverage substantial nonfederal funds to increase 

the federal dollar’s effectiveness. For example, in the case of a finance program using an equity 

investment, the award funds could be used to leverage additional funds from a lending institution 

to increase the amount available for loans. 

Although potentially far reaching, this program presents 

unique challenges that are not faced in the National 

Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program. Unlike public 

school bus fleets, where the fleet owners have a strong 

motivation to reduce emissions, most private diesel truck 

and equipment owners do not have the same incentives 

and may not be as receptive to installing diesel emission 

reduction technologies. EPA has attempted, in previous 

demonstration grants, to provide retrofit technologies to 

truck operators and has received only minimal interest. 

To help manage these challenges, EPA’s SmartWay 

program worked with a variety of stakeholders in the 

trucking industry including truckers, truck dealers, truck 

finance companies, and trucking associations. EPA concluded that the best incentive to install retrofit technologies on older trucks is to provide lower cost financing 

to purchase newer trucks already equipped with these 

technologies. In fact, the assessment shows that truckers will purchase cleaner diesel trucks equipped with 

advanced air pollution control devices if the monthly 

finance charge is $100 to $200 less than traditional 

trucks without these technologies. The federal grant 

funds can be used to lower the monthly finance cost by 

either extending the terms of the loans or reducing the 

interest rates. 

Grant Offers Low-Interest Loans 

for SmartWay Upgrades 

Using new authority to issue grants for loans 

and other innovative financing mechanisms, EPA 

awarded $1.13 million to the Community Development Transportation Lending Services, Inc. to establish a revolving loan fund for the purchase of used 

trucks that have SmartWay upgrades or will receive 

SmartWay upgrade kits. 

The program uses the grant to provide a lower interest rate than borrowers would otherwise be able to 

get—in this case, 5.5 to 8.5 percent, based on each 

applicant’s business history, available collateral, 

cash flow, credit score, and other factors. The loan 

payback period is three to six years. 

SM

26 ✦ REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM 
 

 

 

THE STATE CLEAN DIESEL GRANT AND LOAN PROGRAM 

Reaching Its Goal of Programs in All 50 States 

As a telling indication of the need for and interest in diesel emission reductions throughout 

the United States, all 50 states elected to participate in the FY 2008 State Clean Diesel Grant 

and Loan Program. EPA apportioned a base amount of $196,880 to each state.8

 In addition, as 

another sign of the nationwide support for diesel emission reduction programs, 32 states were 

able to match the base funding, providing more than $6.3 million, and therefore received additional incentive funding, as allowed by DERA. For these states, EPA established a total grant of 

$492,200 (with $295,320 in federal funds and 

at least $196,880 in state funds). 

With this money, each state established a clean 

diesel program within its air agency and worked 

in consultation with EPA to develop an effective 

work plan and application. The projects varied 

and utilized a number of emission reduction 

strategies. A total of 21 states concentrated 

their efforts on school buses; nine focused 

on the construction sector; and other states 

focused on agriculture, transit buses, marine 

ports, rail, or trucking. Several states that have 

never initiated a state clean diesel program 

before are starting new programs. Appendix D 

presents a list of projects. 

EPA issued a Federal Register notice (73 FR 

12728; March 10, 2008) that announced the 

funding opportunity and explained the main 

provisions of the State Clean Diesel Grant and 

Loan Program. The state program is not a 

competition but, rather, an allocation process 

in which the states indicate their interest in 

participating and applying for the funds, and 

EPA awards a specific allocation based on the 

total number of states whose applications are 

approved. Any state wishing to participate 

receives funding if the state submits an approvable work plan. Early on, the EPA Administrator 

sent a letter to the governor of each state outlining the goals of the State Clean Diesel Grant 

and Loan Program. 

Provisions for State Uses of State Clean 

Diesel Grant and Loan Program Funds 

• States had significant flexibility in their proposed work plan. 

• States were encouraged to use funds for EPA- and/or CARBverified or certified technologies, although there were 

cases where emerging technologies or other cost-effective 

strategies were allowed, as they advanced the goals of the 

program. 

• States could use funds to select various state fleets or projects 

for funding. 

• States were encouraged not to use funds for emission reductions that are mandated under federal, state, or local law 

(similar to Section 792 (d)(2), “Use of Funds—Regulatory 

Programs”). 

• States could use up to 15 percent for administrative costs. 

The District of Columbia is now an eligible entity for the State Clean Diesel Grant and Loan program, but it was not eligible when 

EPA awarded the FY 2008 state grants. 

3. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 ✦ 27
 

8 
 

INAUGURAL YEAR RESULTS IN IMPRESSIVE, COST-EFFECTIVE 

REDUCTIONS ACROSS ALL SECTORS 

Receiving significant levels of funding changes the complexion of possibilities for communities 

struggling with ways to reduce harmful diesel pollution. Instead of small demonstrations, entire 

fleets can take advantage of proven technologies. Federal investments can attract private capital 

through low-cost loans under the new DERA provisions. Financially strapped states can move 

forward to maximize public health programs and improve air quality for their citizens. 

In the first year of DERA funding, EPA’s programs achieved what they set out to do. More than 

14,000 diesel-powered vehicles and pieces of nonroad equipment became cleaner as an immediate and direct result of this work. 

DERA Funding Supported Reductions Across All Sectors. As shown in Figure 6, the 

FY 2008 grants supported a wide array of projects in numerous sectors, from agriculture and construction to marine and seaports to rail to transit. Collectively, the power of many small actions 

across the range of commercial, municipal, and private endeavors yielded significant emission 

reductions. 

State of Delaware Expands Its Program to Cover More 

Municipal Vehicles 

EPA awarded the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control with a 

state clean diesel grant to retrofit 1998 Class 7 refuse haulers. Because the state put some of its 

own resources toward the program, EPA allocated additional incentive funding as well. This project is an excellent example of how the DERA funds allocated toward state programs can benefit 

the air quality of each state that opts into the program. 

28 ✦ REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM 
Figure 6. FY 2008 National Grants—Types and Numbers 


5,500 

5,000 

4,500 

4,000 

3,500 

3,000 

2,500 

2,000 

1,500 

1,000 

500 

of Vehicles and Equipment 

5,392 

4,513 

865 774 

590 583 425 438 313 

34 29 54 

0 

Agriculture Construction Long Haul Ports & Refuse Short 

Airports Hauler Haul 

Vehicles 

City/County Delivery Marine Rail School Bus Transit Bus 

Vehicle Truck 

Sector Totals 

DERA Funding Supported a Wide Range of Technologies and Fuels. As shown in Figure 

7, the FY 2008 projects represent a wide variety of verified technologies, cleaner fuels, and certified engine configurations, such as repowers, replacements, idle reduction technologies (e.g., 

auxiliary power units [APUs], shore power, truck stop electrification), biodiesel, alternative fuels, 

lower-sulfur fuels in nonroad equipment, and retrofit devices such as diesel oxidation catalysts 

and diesel particulate filters. 

3. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 ✦ 29 
 

Direct Fired Heater 

Engine Shutdown 

Auxiliary Power Unit 

Diesel Oxidation Catalysts With CCV 

Diesel Oxidation Catalysts 

Diesel Particulate Filter 

Partial Flow Filter 

Selective Catalytic Reduction 

Other Emissions Control Devices 

Engine Repower or Upgrade Kit 

Replacement With CNG 

Hybrid Electric Replacement With DPF

Ship Shore Power 

Truck Stop Electrification 

Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel for Nonroad 

Biodiesel (B20) 

164 253 

2,461 

4,034 

3,403 

2,326 

69 48 11 

661 

45 29 12 6 32 

456 

0 

500 

1,000 

1,500 

2,000 

2,500 

3,000 

3,500 

4,000 

4,500 

Figure 7. Technologies Employed in FY 2008 DERA Grants 

DERA Funding Helped Reduce the Amount of Diesel Fuel Used. Table 3 shows the 

impressive amount of diesel fuel conserved by the idle reduction programs DERA funded. Taken 

together, the FY 2008 NCDC grants will save more than 3.2 million gallons of fuel per year, which 

corresponds to reducing 35,600 tons of CO2

 per year. This savings equates to more than $8 million a year in fuel savings for fleet operators (assuming $2.50 per gallon fuel). For comparison, 

freight trucks and locomotives consume 35 billion gallons of diesel fuel annually. Burning this fuel 

produces more than 350 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually. 

Table 3. Diesel Fuel Conserved Annually by FY 2008 DERA Projects With Idle 

Reduction Technologies 

Program CO2 (annual tons) Diesel Conserved 

(annual gallons) 

National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program 

National Clean Diesel Emerging Technologies Program 

SmartWay Clean Diesel Finance Program 

State Clean Diesel Grant and Loan Program 

Total 

8,200 

— 

18,700 

8,800 

35,600 

736,000 

— 

1,683,100 

788,800 

3,207,900 

Note: Values were rounded to the nearest 100 or to one significant fi gure. Sums may not add due to rounding. Calculation of CO2 

does not include CO2 savings from engine repowers, replacements, or upgrades. 

30 ✦ REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM 
 

 

 

 

 

 

DERA Funding Results Are Relatively Cost-Effective. In addition to being successful in 

meeting their core goal, which is to reduce emissions, EPA’s clean diesel programs are also costeffective uses of federal funds, as shown in Table 4. As NCDC has developed over the years, clean 

diesel projects have become more cost-effective as the technology has developed, as more vendors 

are competing, and as stakeholders have become more experienced in implementing projects. 

Table 4. Projected Cost-Effectiveness 

Program Projected 

NOX 

Projected 

PM2.5 

Projected 

HC 

Projected 

CO 

Projected 

CO2 * 

Program 

Federal 

Funding 

Recipient 

Matching 

Amount

 Federal costs per lifetime ton 

National Clean 

Diesel Funding 

Assistance Program 

$2,000 $27,700 $15,300 $4,000 $300 $29,039,803 $34,749,839 

SmartWay Clean 

Diesel Finance 

Program 

$400 $9,000 $7,300 $2,100 $10 $3,390,000 $19,100,000** 

State Clean Diesel 

Grant and Loan 

Program 

$600 $16,700 $6,600 $2,300 $100 $12,994,080 $6,300,160 

National Clean 

Diesel Emerging 

Technologies 

Program 

$3,776,117 $1,130,927 

Federal grant 

dollars per 

lifetime ton for 

three programs 

combined 

$1,000 $20,600 $10,500 $3,100 $100

 Grant costs*** per lifetime ton 

Total dollars 

per lifetime 

ton*** for 

three programs 

combined 

$1,600 $33,300 $16,900 $5,000 $200 

Note 1: Values were rounded to the nearest $100 or to one signifi cant fi gure. Sums may not add due to rounding. Lifetime tons are 

not discounted. 

* CO2

 was calculated for idle reduction technologies only and does not include reductions for repowers or replacements. 

** Leveraged amounts; no matching was included in the grants, and this dollar amount is not included in the fi gure below. 

*** Where cost includes federal funding, plus match, minus administrative costs assumed to be 15 percent, excluding leveraged 

amounts and the Emerging Technologies program. 

Note 2: The Emerging Technologies program is designed to demonstrate new technologies. At this phase in the development of 

these technologies, costs would be expected to be higher than at a more fully mature commercial scale of deployment stage. 

Therefore, the costs comparisons with the other national program components shown in Table 4 have been omitted. 

In a series of studies, EPA analyzed clean diesel strategies generally and evaluated the costeffectiveness of using add-on retrofits on buses, trucks, and nonroad equipment using a standard 

set of assumptions.9

 Specifically, in these studies, EPA evaluated the cost-effectiveness of retrofitting school buses, freight trucks, and bulldozers with DOCs and catalyzed DPFs, two of the most 

common PM2.5 emission reduction technologies for diesel engines. 

9	 The Cost-Effectiveness of Heavy-Duty Diesel Retrofi ts and Other Mobile Source Emission Reduction Projects and Programs (EPA420-B-07-006, May 2007)—Tables 3 and 4 provide comparisons of cost-effectiveness of other mobile source programs; and 

Diesel Retrofi t Technology: An Analysis of the Cost-Effectiveness of Reducing Particulate Matter and Nitrogen Oxides Emissions From 

Heavy-Duty Nonroad Diesel Engines Through Retrofi ts (EPA-420-R-07-005, May 2007). The full reports are available on the EPA 

Web site: www.epa.gov/otaq/diesel/publications.htm. 

3. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 ✦ 31
 
 

 

 

 

• For nonroad equipment retrofit device cost-effectiveness:
 

— 	 PM: DOCs and DPFs for nonroad equipment ranged from $18,700 to $87,600 per 

ton of PM2.5 reduced. 

— 	NOX

: SCR systems and engine upgrade kits were calculated to range from $1,900 to 

$19,000 per ton of NOX

 reduced. 

• For on-highway applications, such as school buses and trucks cost-effectiveness: 

— 	 PM: DOCs ranged from $11,100 to $67,700 per ton of PM2.5 reduced and DPFs 

retrofits ranged from $12,100 to $69,900 per ton of PM2.5 reduced. 

— 	NOX

: Truck stop electrification ranged from $1,400 to $2,000 per ton of NOX reduced, and APUs ranged from $2,700 to $3,500 per ton of NOX

 reduced. 

These estimates of cost-effectiveness for retrofit devices depend on a number of factors such as 

equipment activity, survival rates, effectiveness of the system, and costs. 

For early retirements of vehicles and engine replacements or repowers, the new engines must 

meet EPA’s more stringent regulations and thus are significantly cleaner. Cost-effectiveness estimates were made to support EPA’s Clean Air Act regulatory programs. 

• For nonroad vehicles: 

— 	 PM: For EPA’s Tier 1/Tier 2 standards, the cost-effectiveness is estimated at $2,000 

per ton of PM2.5 reduced. 

— 	NOX

: 

■	 For EPA’s Nonroad Tier 4 standards, the cost-effectiveness is estimated at 

$1,010 per ton (NOX

 + nonmethane hydrocarbons [NMHC]). 

■	 For the locomotive and marine standards, the cost-effectiveness is $30 to $190 

per ton (NOX

 + NMHC). 

These PM-related original equipment manufacturer costs are comparable to or lower than those 

of installing retrofit technologies on an existing vehicle because of economies of scale in mass 

production and related factors. Depending on the age of the engine being retired, replacements 

and repowers can also improve fuel efficiency. Replacements can be cost-effective strategies 

for the oldest vehicles and vessels in the fleet, but there is often a significant financial barrier, 

because EPA grants only offset a portion of the overall cost of the vehicle. Several of the FY 2008 

grants take advantage of the very cost-effective NOX

 and PM reductions possible with locomotive 

and marine repowers. 

Similarly, EPA anticipates that as emerging technologies become commercialized and more widely 

available, their cost-effectiveness too will be comparable to other verified technologies; however, 

at this early stage in their development, comparisons can be somewhat misleading, so they are 

not included in the analysis. 

32 ✦ REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM 
 

For comparison, for the PM NAAQS Regulatory Impact Assessment, for PM2.5 reductions: 

• The annualized cost for electrostatic precipitators for utility boilers was $3,000 to $15,000 per 

ton of PM2.5 and $1,000 to $20,000 per ton for industrial boilers. 

• The cost of fabric filters for these same units ranged from $2,000 to $100,000 

per ton of PM2.5. 

• Area source controls’ annualized costs are less than $100 per ton of PM2.5. 

When analyzing the effectiveness of the federal plus matching costs of the FY 2008 DERA projects, EPA found that they were within the expected range of cost-effectiveness. The average full 

program cost of the national, state, and SmartWay finance programs is about $33,300 per ton of 

PM2.5 (including the matching amounts and assuming an upper limit on administrative costs of 15 

percent, excluding leveraged amounts). 

EPA analyzed the way in which federal dollars were leveraging 

other funding to achieve emission reductions. The reductions 

achieved over the lifetime of the FY 2008 DERA grants are being 

financed in different manners. In some cases, for instance, the federal share of the grant might pay for the entire cost of the retrofit 

device. In other cases, the federal share of the grant might provide 

a small amount, coupled with state incentive funds or private investment. In the SmartWay Clean Diesel Finance grants and in the 

other program grants that used the new loan provisions, relatively 

small federal investments on a per-unit basis attracted large private investment, especially where additional economic benefit in 

terms of fuel savings or the value of a newer vehicle was involved. 

For the federal competitive national program: 

• National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program: The average federal cost was 

estimated at $27,700 per ton of PM2.5 reduced over the lifetime of the project and just under 

$2,000 per ton of NOX

 reduced over the project lifetime. 

• SmartWay Clean Diesel Finance Program: The average federal cost was estimated at 

$9,000 per ton of PM2.5 reduced over the lifetime of the project and $400 per ton of NOX 

reduced over the project lifetime. Federal funds leveraged significant private sector funding and 

fuel savings in this new approach. 

For the State Clean Diesel Grant and Loan Program: 

• The average federal cost was estimated at $16,700 per ton of PM2.5 and $600 per ton of NOX 

over the lifetime of the project. State program costs are lower than national program costs 

because many states have established programs that are generally more limited to specific 

lower-cost vehicle categories or have leveraged amounts not captured here. 

3. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 ✦ 33
 
 

 

For the three programs together:
 

• The grants will reduce approximately 46,000 tons of NOX

 and 2,240 tons of PM2.5 over the 

programs’ lifetimes in addition to substantial reductions in HC and other pollutants. 

• The weighted average federal cost is about $25,000 per ton of PM2.5 and $1,500 per ton of 

NOX

 reduced over the lifetime of the program. 

DERA Funding Is Yielding Tangible Public Health 

Benefi ts. The DERA programs reduce emissions that affect 

people’s everyday lives, especially for sensitive populations 

such as children, the elderly, those with heart and lung 

disease, outdoor workers, and people who exercise outdoors. 

The diesel emission reductions resulting from the FY 2008 

grants for NOX

 and PM will total approximately 46,000 

and 2,200 tons, respectively, by 2031, yielding a variety of 

health benefits. Fewer emissions leads to less air pollution, 

resulting in fewer respiratory symptoms, reduction in the 

use of medication for asthma, and fewer visits to emergency 

departments or health care providers. Parents miss fewer 

work days caring for their children or their own respiratory 

symptoms. 

• The health benefits from the FY 2008 grant projects will range from a net present value of 

$580 million to $1.4 billion (2006 dollars), assuming a 3-percent discount rate throughout the 

lifetime of the program. 

• These benefits include an estimated 95 to 240 avoided premature deaths.10 

Ozone-related health benefits, cancer risk, and other welfare effects were not quantified in this 

analysis. 

10 The estimates are based on the peer-reviewed studies on the relationship between PM2.5 and premature mortality from: 

Pope, C.A., III, R.T. Burnett, M.J. Thun, E.E. Calle, D. Krewski, K. Ito, and G.D. Thurston. 2002. Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary 

Mortality, and Long-Term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution. Journal of the American Medical Association. 287: 1132-1141. 

Laden, F., J. Schwartz, F.E. Speizer, and D.W. Dockery. 2006. Reduction in Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality. American 

Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 173: 667-672. 

For more information about this approach, please see EPA’s 2008 Technical Support Document: Calculating Benefi t Per-Ton Estimates, 

Ozone NAAQS Docket #EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0225-0284. The premature mortality estimates are generated using PM2.5 co-benefi ts 

data from EPA’s 2006 Ozone Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), NAAQS for Particulate Matter, Chapter 5 Benefi t Analysis and 

Results. These techniques are described in a memo to the file: Memo From Michael Wolfe, Ken Davidson, Rosalva Tapia, Kuang 

Wei, and Jen Went to Jim Blubaugh, Manager, Innovative Strategies Group, EPA Offi ce of Transportation and Air Quality. March 25, 

2009. Energy Policy Act of 2005 Diesel Emissions Reduction (DERA) Program FY 2008: Benefi t and Cost-Effectiveness Calculation 

Methodologies. 

34 ✦ REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM 
 

 

4. Resources That Support the National Clean 

Diesel Campaign

 Partners Fulfill Commitments and Measure Progress 

WHILE reducing diesel emissions is the first priority, producing technical and programmatic 

support materials for stakeholders is a necessity as well. To ensure the successful implementation of NCDC, EPA developed the Diesel Emissions Quantifier (DEQ) calculator; 

guidance documents; public outreach materials including a dynamic Web site, an idle reduction 

campaign, and a Scholastic Magic School Bus book; and a Web-based tool kit for state and local 

programs. 

DIESEL EMISSIONS QUANTIFIER 

To help state and local governments, fleet owners, school districts, municipalities, contractors, 

port authorities, and others in estimating emission reductions and cost-effectiveness for clean 

diesel projects, EPA created an interactive, Web-based calculator tool called the DEQ. Users enter 

specific information about a fleet, and emission and cost-effectiveness calculations are made 

based on existing EPA models and guidance. The DEQ performs real-time calculations and estimates project-level emissions for PM , NO , HC, CO, and CO . To support users of this tool, EPA 2.5 X 2

also created a user guide and held interactive training webinars. 

Ultimately, the tool became a critical component of NCDC, as most grant applicants rely on it to 

estimate their emission reductions. Grant applicants are required to evaluate the quantifiable and 

unquantifiable benefits of the emission reductions of their proposed projects in each grant application, using a methodology approved by EPA or the National Academy of Sciences. 

AGENCY GUIDANCE FOR CALCULATING COST-EFFECTIVENESS 

EPA published two peer-reviewed technical papers analyzing the cost-effectiveness of reducing 

emissions from both on-highway and nonroad diesel engines. (The full reports are available at: 

www.epa.gov/otaq/diesel/publications.htm.) 

• 	 The Cost-Effectiveness of Heavy-Duty Diesel Retrofi ts and Other Mobile Source Emission Reduction 

Projects and Programs (EPA-420-B-07-006, May 2007). 

4. Resources That Support the National Clean Diesel Campaign ✦ 35
 
 

 

 

 

• Diesel Retrofi t Technology: An Analysis of the Cost-Effectiveness of Reducing Particulate Matter 

and Nitrogen Oxides Emissions From Heavy-Duty Nonroad Diesel Engines Through Retrofi ts 

(EPA-420-R-07-005, May 2007). 

In these papers, EPA evaluated the costs and emission benefits of retrofitting school buses, freight 

trucks, and bulldozers with DOCs and catalyzed DPFs, two of the most common PM emission 

reduction technologies for diesel engines. The findings from these studies indicate that retrofits 

can be a cost-effective way to reduce air pollution compared with other EPA programs. 

GUIDANCE ON STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

EPA published guidance to help state and local air quality and transportation planners satisfy 

three EPAct 2005 Section 795 provisions: 1) quantify the emission reductions from retrofitting diesel vehicles, engines, and equipment; 2) appropriately include the emission reductions from diesel 

retrofits in state implementation plans (SIPs) to help demonstrate progress toward, attainment of, 

or maintenance of NAAQS; and 3) appropriately include emission reductions from diesel retrofits 

in transportation conformity or general conformity. 

• Diesel Retrofi ts: Quantifying and Using Their Benefi ts in SIPs and Conformity—Guidance for State and 

Local Air and Transportation Agencies (EPA-420-B-06-005, June 2006). 

• 	 Truck Guidance: Guidance for Quantifying and Using Long-Duration Truck Idling Emission Reductions in 

State Implementation Plans and Transportation Conformity (EPA-420-B-04-001, January 2004). 

• 	 Locomotive Guidance: Guidance for Quantifying and Using Long-Duration Switch Yard Locomotive 

Idling Emission Reductions in State Implementation Plans (EPA-420-B-04-002, January 2004). 

PUBLIC OUTREACH MATERIALS 

EPA has created a robust national Web site (www.epa.gov/cleandiesel) and myriad public outreach materials to assist partners and others with diesel emission reduction projects. In addition, 

each Regional Collaborative maintains a Web site with regional priorities and resources. 

As a sign of the national Web site’s utility, more than 80,000 users visited the site in FY 2008. 

The site is continually updated with vital new information and materials, tailored to meet 

stakeholder needs. Its design includes a searchable list of demonstration projects, case studies, technology information, listservs, a trucker portal (www.epa.gov/otaq/diesel/truckers.htm), 

sector-specific content (www.epa.gov/cleandiesel/ports), and other helpful links, including links to 

Regional Collaborative Web sites. 

The breadth of EPA’s reach in communicating information about clean diesel and NCDC to the 

public in FY 2008 can be measured by the following statistics: 

• 100 diesel conferences supported by EPA via financial sponsorships, promotion, and participation, including the delivery of 12 major speeches by EPA’s senior executives. 

36 ✦ REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM 
 

 

• 19 press releases issued highlighting clean diesel accomplishments and their benefit to 

the public. 

• 40,125 program brochures distributed to stakeholders. 

• 650 Clean School Bus USA idle reduction training videos in use. 

• 300 Clean Construction USA videos viewed. 

• 128,000 copies of Scholastic’s The Magic School Bus Gets Cleaned Up books distributed. 

NCDC JOINS FORCES WITH INTERNATIONAL PARTNERS 

Using funding from non-DERA sources, partnering with local governments and nongovernmental organizations, and supported by U.S. technology vendors, EPA led demonstration projects in 

Mexico City, Mexico; Bangkok, Thailand; Santiago, Chile; Beijing, People’s Republic of China; and 

Pune, India. 

EPA retrofitted about 20 vehicles in each city to demonstrate the emission reductions obtainable 

with various devices. The projects helped educate government and nongovernment staff about 

clean diesel technologies and aim to build the capacity so they can conduct retrofits on their own. 

Following the Beijing demonstration project, the city of Beijing independently retrofitted more 

than 5,000 diesel vehicles in preparation for the 2008 Summer Olympics. EPA also worked with 

the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Maritime Administration on a project with the Port of 

Shanghai that resulted in a broader Pacific Ports Initiative, promoting cleaner diesel technologies 

among key trading partners and their ports. 

Also on the international front, EPA launched a cooperative 

project among the Port of Rotterdam, the Port of New York 

and New Jersey, a terminal operator with facilities in both 

ports, and technology providers to develop hydraulic hybrid 

cargo handling equipment. This technology promises to dramatically improve fuel economy while reducing PM and NOX

. 

Lastly, EPA hosted a workshop for Canadian federal and 

provincial staff in June 2008. The workshop transferred 

knowledge and built relationships with appropriate Canadian government personnel so that they might learn from 

the NCDC efforts and be better equipped to launch their 

own program. 

These international actions are consistent with DERA 

Section 795(d), “Outreach and Incentives; International 

Markets.” 

Tool Kit for State and Local 

Government Partners 

To support state, regional, and local governments 

in improving air quality and public health through 

diesel engine emission reduction efforts, EPA 

developed a Web-based tool kit that compiles 

examples of program components they could model 

(www.epa.gov/otaq/diesel/slt/basicinfo.htm). The 

content focuses on designing programs, communicating success, identifying funding, and evaluating 

program results. This tool kit is just one example of 

how NCDC operates as a shared responsibility between EPA and state and local air quality agencies. 

4. Resources That Support the National Clean Diesel Campaign ✦ 37
 
 

 

5. Remaining Challenges 

Adding Verified Technologies and Incentives Could 

Enhance Implementation 

E

PA’S advance work in developing guidance and materials, offering educational tools to 

partners developing clean diesel programs, and communicating consistently and clearly with 

partners and stakeholders was essential to the success of the first year. At the same time, 

the Agency’s ability to troubleshoot problems that arose and working within the collaborative and 

sector networks to improve and adjust the program along the way ensured that it met its mission. 

The challenges encountered in implementing the first year of this program were relatively few. 

At the end of the year, however, two challenges remain: 

1. The number of verified technologies for nonroad and marine engines is too few. 

While the list of technologies available on EPA and CARB’s lists for on-highway applications is 

long, the technologies available for nonroad and marine applications are limited. The agencies 

have identified a lack of laboratory facilities and field testing instruments capable of evaluating 

marine technologies as the main barrier. Both agencies have been focusing their efforts on increasing the availability of nonroad retrofit technologies, closely working with technology manufacturers to encourage additional technology verification for nonroad and marine equipment. 

There are also some important gaps in diesel retrofit technologies for older heavy-duty diesel 

trucks. While EPA and CARB have verified numerous heavy-duty diesel truck retrofit technologies, the low-cost devices only reduce PM emissions by a limited amount, and the more effective 

devices might not work as well with the older trucks’ duty cycles and business models. In some 

cases, the value of the retrofit device can exceed the remaining value of an old truck. Accordingly, 

EPA will continue to work with diesel retrofit manufacturers to identify cost-effective solutions for 

older diesel trucks. 

Responding to this need, EPA held a Retrofit Technology Verification Workshop in Washington, 

D.C., on December 13, 2007. The workshop was an overwhelming success, with nearly 100 

people attending, including technology vendors, original equipment manufacturers, fuel and fuel 

additive makers, diesel engine technology organizations, and state and local governments such 

as CARB. 

38 ✦ REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM 
 

This workshop spurred additional verification activity among manufacturers. In 2008, EPA 


approved seven additional technologies for nonroad applications and 13 additional technologies 

for on-highway applications. In addition, EPA approved six emerging technologies (three nonroad 

and three on-highway applications), which will continue in the verification process and could well 

be verified within the next two years. 

Despite these gains, EPA had to remove a number of technologies from its Technology Verification 

List in December 2008, due to the implementation of a new, more stringent limit on the amount 

of unwanted nitrogen dioxide (NO2

) that retrofit devices are allowed to produce. EPA anticipates 

that some of the removed technologies will soon meet the new requirement and the Agency will 

be able to reinstate them. 

2. New incentives are needed to retire the oldest and dirtiest engines. 

As EPA’s Clean Diesel regulations under the Clean Air Act phase in, new engines that must meet 

significantly more stringent standards are increasingly available in the marketplace. The challenge 

is to create additional incentives for private fleet owners to replace their older diesel engines with 

new engines that meet the new standards. 

Under the current law, national program grants cannot go toward private fleet owners or to 

projects for which there is a federal, state, or local mandate. First, it is a challenge to encourage 

private fleets to apply, as they must partner with eligible entities, creating a barrier to participation 

especially for small businesses that may own or operate the oldest and dirtiest fleets. Second, routine attrition of old vehicles is considered to be compliance activity with Clean Air Act requirements 

and currently is not eligible for funding. Accordingly, early replacement projects can receive federal 

grants, but not projects that might target the oldest, dirtiest engines that are already past their 

useful life and should have been replaced through normal attrition but are nevertheless still in use. 

These dual challenges are especially great for small business owner/operators for equipment such 

as drayage trucks that serve seaports, tug and tow vessels, and construction equipment. 

EPA will continue to work to identify incentives utilizing the innovative finance and loan provisions 

of the statute and our SmartWay Transport Partnership, as well as to fashion additional incentives 

together with our state and local government partners. 

5. Remaining Challenges ✦ 39
 
 

 

6. Lessons Learned and Needs for the Future 

Continue, Improve, and Expand 

WHILE the DERA program has achieved significant emission reductions from diesel engines 

in its first year, a tremendous amount of work remains, and substantial investments are 

needed. 

LESSONS LEARNED 

Lessons learned from the first year include the following: 

• EPA and others must continue efforts to utilize existing national and regional 

networks to further improve the program results. In order to expedite the program, 

EPA developed materials to communicate the program options, technologies, goals, and 

schedules. Providing clear information and catalyzing networks allowed all parties to engage 

in the process and move projects forward. As the programs grow, EPA must promote efforts 

that allow agencies to share experiences to encourage action. To this end, EPA will work to 

strengthen existing regional diesel collaboratives. 

• EPA must continue to cultivate state and local leadership. All 50 states elected to 

participate in the first year of the program. For some, this was just the beginning of their work 

in this program area. To ensure future success, EPA must continue to work with state agencies and the District of Columbia to build comprehensive clean diesel programs. The results of 

the program can be seen at the state and local levels where leadership from state and local 

agencies, nonprofit organizations, and private organizations engages interested fleets in the 

program and works with them to achieve results. EPA must encourage more organizations to 

take this role as both an environmental initiative and an economic opportunity. 

• EPA and other organizations must continue to involve the private sector. The 

private sector plays a key role in implementing the program. Organizations that supply eligible 

technologies must continue to work to improve their technologies and identify opportunities 

for fleets that are willing to take action. In addition, EPA and other agencies should encourage 

private fleets in priority areas to take proper steps to address the air pollution from their fleets. 

The SmartWay Transport Partnership, for example, has created a program for private fleets in 

the freight sector. In exchange for making a commitment to reduce emissions and fuel usage, 

EPA provides technical advice, public recognition, and the opportunity to become preferred carriers for SmartWay shippers. Through corporate leadership to reduce emissions and reduce fuel 

40 ✦ REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM 
usage, the DERA program has a great opportunity for expansion. In order to accomplish this, 

corporate champions must step forward and make measurable commitments. 

• Organizations must continue to develop and advance verified nonroad and marine technologies. Opportunities continue to arise in new program areas as the program 

grows. Vendors must recognize these opportunities and work to create improved options to address the multitude of emission sources covered under the legislation, especially in the nonroad 

and marine sectors. EPA will expand the emerging technology and verification programs to 

promote innovative technologies that reduce priority pollutants and conserve fuel. 

While the verified technologies list available on EPA’s and CARB’s Web sites for on-highway applications is long, there are limited products verified for nonroad, marine, or older diesel trucks. 

There are limited products available to reduce NOX

 for any category of engine. Adequate laboratory facilities and field testing instruments capable of evaluating PM emission reductions from 

marine technologies will be needed. EPA has been working closely with manufacturers to verify 

technologies and fill these gaps. The nonroad market is complicated by the number and diversity 

of nonroad equipment types, by the range of horsepowers and engine types involved, and by 

the varying usage and duty cycles of the equipment. There are many opportunities, however, to 

provide cost-effective diesel emission reduction technologies to meet local air quality needs. 

NEXT STEPS 

Moving forward in the program, EPA commits to the following: 

• Continue to work aggressively to reduce pollution from diesel engines across the country by 

partnering with key stakeholders to promote clean diesel strategies. 

• Target current PM and ozone nonattainment areas where clean diesel strategies will have the 

greatest public health impact. 

• Provide assistance to state and local governments in developing their own clean diesel programs. 

• Continue to provide high-quality data to states that depend on the performance of diesel emission reduction strategies in their air quality plans, through in-use testing. 

• Continue to work cooperatively with CARB and other states to provide a robust list of clean 

diesel technology options for partners. 

• Continue to confirm the emission performance of verified technologies in the field. 

• Continue to develop innovative financing approaches for stretching federal dollars to achieve 

maximum diesel emission reductions, especially where fuel savings can create a business case 

for low-cost loans or other financial incentives. 

• Develop timely educational materials to continue to build awareness of clean diesel 

opportunities. 

6. Lessons Learned and Needs for the Future ✦ 41 
 

In summary, the first year of implementation for the Diesel Emissions Reduction Program has been 


extremely successful. By harnessing broad support from environmental organizations, state and 

local governments, industry, technology vendors, and other groups, EPA has been able to magnify 

the available dollars and strategically fund important emission reduction and fuel saving projects. 

In total, EPA awarded 119 grants in the first year of the DERA program. More than 14,000 vehicles 

and pieces of nonroad equipment in a wide array of sectors will be cleaner as a direct result of this 

program. New clean diesel programs have been established in every state and technologies have 

been advanced for the future. The implementation of the EPAct 2005’s Diesel Emissions Reduction 

Program is a critical step toward reaching our national clean air goals and protecting public health 

and the environment for all Americans for generations to come. 

42 ✦ REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM 
APPENDIX A: National Clean Diesel Funding 

Assistance Program, FY 2008 Grants 

State Grant Recipient EPA Award Match Sector(s) Technology Types* 

AL Alabama State Port 

Authority $750,000 $1,580,000 Ports, Rail Replacement 

AZ City of Phoenix $553,629 $732,000 Utility Engine Replacement, DPF 

CA CALSTART, Inc. $895,827 $1,015,325 Construction, 

Utility, Transit Bus CNG, DPF, B20 Fuel 

CA Kern County Superintendent of Schools $540,000 $540,000 School Bus CNG Replacement 

CA 

Sacramento 

Metropolitan Air 

Quality Management 

District 

$553,630 $2,581,600 Utility, School Bus DPF, Engine Replacement 

CA 

South Coast Air 

Quality Management 

District 

$1,000,000 $7,095,900 Long-Haul Trucks DPF 

CO City and County of 

Denver $200,000 $87,059 Utility, Construction Heater 

CO Colorado Department 

of Public Health $400,000 — School Bus DOC, Closed Crankcase Ventilation (CCV) System and Engine Preheater 

CO Regional Air Quality 

Council $455,645 — School Bus DOC, CCV System 

CT 

Connecticut Department of Environmental 

Protection 

$50,000 — Utility, Construction Diesel Oxidation Catalyst, DPF, 

Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel 

DC 

Metropolitan 

Washington Council 

of Governments

 $598,516 $193,983 Construction DPF, Repower, Engine Upgrade 

FL City of St. Petersburg $666,510 $5,745 Utility, Construction DPF, B20 Fuel 

GA Georgia Ports Authority $250,000 $33,075 Ports DOC, CCV System 

ID Idaho Department of 

Environmental Quality $500,000 $500,000 School Bus DPF, Partial Flow Filter, DOC 

IL Chicago Public Schools $373,909 $92,000 School Bus Retrofi t (DOC, DPF) 

IL Illinois EPA $678,604 $654,699 School Bus, Transit 

Bus, Utility 

Retrofi t (DOC, DPF, CCV System), 

Auxiliary Power Unit, Direct-Fired 

Heater, Hybrid Replacement 

* Refer to page 56 for a list of acronyms and abbreviations. Continued on page 44 

Appendix A ✦ 43
 

Appendix A. National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program, FY 2008 Grants (continued) 

State Grant Recipient EPA Award Match Sector(s) Technology Types 

IN 

Indiana Department 

of Environmental 

Management

 $334,500 $61,257 Transit Bus Retrofi t (DOC, DPF), APU 

IN Northwest Indiana 

Forum Foundation Inc. $164,032 $173,432 Construction Repower 

KS 

Kansas Department 

of Health and 

Environment

 $1,525,524 $1,871,500 Trucks and Transit 

Buses DOC w/ CCV System 

KY Kentucky Clean Fuels 

Coalition $473,939 $2,160,000 Ports Vehicle Replacement 

MA Massachusetts Port 

Authority (Massport) $400,000 $147,815 Ports Shore Power 

MA NESCAUM $400,000 $100,000 Construction DPF 

MA NESCAUM $535,250 — Rail Auxiliary Power Unit 

MD Maryland Environmental Services $361,951 $25,909 Ports DPF 

MD Montgomery County 

Public Schools $699,501 $7,350 School Bus DPF 

MI Lenawee Intermediate 

School District $154,381 — School Bus DPF 

MI Michigan Clean Energy 

Coalition $250,000 $250,580 Construction Repower 

MI NextEnergy Center $250,000 $650,500 Long Haul Trucks APU 

MI Laker School District $251,100 $253,220 School Bus Bus Replacement; Idle Reduction 

Technology, B20 Fuel, Heater 

MN Minnesota Environmental Initiative $400,000 — School Bus, Utility Retrofi t (DOC, CCV System) 

MO Grace Hill Settlement 

House $454,849 — School Bus Crankcase Filtration System (CFS) 

MO Missouri Department 

of Natural Resources $726,227 $621,550 Construction DOC, CCV System, APU, Engine 

Shutdown 

NC 

North Carolina Department of Environment 

and Natural Resources

 $750,000 — Construction Repower, Replacement 

NH Manchester Transit 

Authority $229,703 $5,652 School Bus, Construction, Utility 

DOC, CCV System, S-Bar Heater, 

B20 Fuel 

NJ New Jersey Motor 

Truck Association $503,285 — Long-Haul Trucks APU, Bunk Heater, DOC, DPF 

NY 

Board of Cooperative 

Educational Services of 

Ulster County

 $130,690 — School Bus Vehicle Replacement 

NY Capital District Transportation Authority $125,000 — Transit Bus DPF 

NY Environmental Defense 

Fund $400,000 $2,025,000 Utility Vehicle Replacement (Hybrid-Electric) 

44 ✦ REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM 
 

Appendix A. National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program, FY 2008 Grants (continued) 

State Grant Recipient EPA Award Match Sector(s) Technology Types 

NY 

Erie County Department of Environmental 

Planning

 $523,395 $72,278 School Bus DOC, CCV System, Diesel-Fired 

Engine Warm-Up Heater 

NY Middle Country Central School District $359,305 $361,305 School Bus Vehicle Replacement (CNG) 

NY Scarsdale Union Free 

School District $346,240 $29,020 School Bus DOC, CCV System 

NYNJ 

Port Authority of New 

York and New Jersey 

(PANYNJ)

 $280,500 $80,500 Utility DPF, Flow Through Filter, DOC 

NYNJ PANYNJ $750,000 $1,250,000 Ports Flow Through Filter, DPF 

OH Ohio Environmental 

Council $394,589 $29,571 Ports, Utility, Refuse 

Haulers 

Retrofi t (DOC, DPF, CCV System); 

APU 

OH Ohio Indiana Clean 

Diesel Collaboration $412,554 $81,344 Utility DPF 

OH Stark County Educational Service Center $465,364 $89,905 School Bus Retrofi t (DPF, CCV System, DOC), 

Replacement 

OR City of Portland $498,726 $58,658 Ports, Construction DOC, Exhaust Retrofi t, Ultra-Low 

Sulfur Diesel 

PA City of Philadelphia $750,000 $2,250,000 Utility CNG Vehicle Replacement 

PA Pennsylvania Department of Transportation $219,434 $24,381 Rail APU 

SC South Carolina Port of 

Charleston $735,002 $963,502 Utility, Construction Engine Repower, Ultra-Low Sulfur 

Diesel 

SD Sioux Falls School 

District $300,000 $300,000 School Bus Replacement 

TN Knox County 

Government $163,871 $23,056 Utility, Construction, Agricultural 

Emission Control, Ultra-Low Sulfur 

Diesel 

TX 

North Central Texas 

Council of 

Governments

 $750,000 $750,000 Trucks APU 

TX 

North Central Texas 

Council of 

Governments

 $750,000 $1,500,000 Construction Replacement 

TX Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality $500,000 — School Bus DOC, DPF, Partial Flow Filter, CCV 

System 

UT Utah Department of 

Air Quality $400,000 $4,000 School Bus DOC and CCV System 

VA Port of Norfolk $647,457 $1,732,600 Ports and Rail Engine Repower 

VT Chittenden Solid 

Waste District $205,523 $616,569 Utility Vehicle Replacement 

Appendix A ✦ 45
 
 

Appendix A. National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program, FY 2008 Grants (continued) 

State Grant Recipient EPA Award Match Sector(s) Technology Types 

WA Puget Sound Clean Air 

Agency $850,000 $318,000 Ports 

Vehicle Replacement, DPF, PartialFlow Filter, Crankcase Ventilation 

Filter, DOC 

WI Wisconsin Department 

of Transportation $750,000

$29,038,162 

 $750,000 Construction Repower 

Total $34,749,839 

46 ✦ REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM 
APPENDIX B: National Clean Diesel Emerging 

Technologies Program, FY 2008 Grants 

State Grant Recipient EPA Award Match Sector(s) Vehicle Types Technology Types 

CA 

South Coast Metropolitan 

Air Quality Management 

District 

$900,000 $858,614 Delivery 

Truck 

Class 8a (33,001– 

60,000 lbs) 

Selective Catalytic 

Reduction (SCR) 

MD Montgomery County 

Maryland $400,000 $88,168 Delivery 

Truck 

Class 6 (19,501– 

26,000 lbs) SCR 

TX Center for Transportation 

and the Environment $300,000 — Short Haul Class 8a (33,001– 

60,000 lbs) 

Other Emissions 

Control Devices 

TX Texas Transportation 

Institute $500,000 $64,200 Construction Graders SCR 

TX University of Houston $500,000 $119,945 Construction 

Tractors, Loaders, 

Backhoes SCR 

WA Puget Sound Clean Air 

Agency $700,000 

$3,300,000 

— Marine Marine Engine Upgrade 

Total $1,130,927 

For the FY 2008 National Clean Diesel Emerging Technology Program competition, EPA approved 

six technologies, as shown below. These included two technologies for marine vessels and SCR 

technologies for on-highway vehicles and nonroad equipment that expand technological options 

to reduce NOX

 by approximately 65 percent. This list of EPA’s emerging technologies is updated as 

information is submitted from manufacturers, and EPA anticipates that the types and numbers of 

technologies will continue to grow. 

Manufacturer Technology Application Reductions (%) 

PM CO NOX HC 

Caterpillar, Inc. Engine Upgrade Kit Marine 25 N/A N/A N/A 

ESW Canada DOC, CCV System Marine 25 70 N/A 25 

Johnson Matthey Urea-Based SCR System, DPF On-Highway 90 85 65 95 

Nett Technologies, Inc. Urea-Based SCR System Nonroad 20 60 65 60 

Tinnerman/Shadowood Reformer, LNT, SCR, DPF On-Highway 90 90 65 90 

Truck Emission Control Technologies Inc. DOC, DPF, EGR On-Highway 50 70 40 60 

Appendix B ✦ 47
 
 

APPENDIX C: SmartWay Clean Diesel 

Finance Program, FY 2008 Grants 

Grant Recipient Project Overview 

Cascade Sierra Solutions Loan Interest Rate: 8% to 11%, includes 7% for financing cost, 

Everybody Wins USA Lease Program 1% collection fee, and 1% to 3% reservation loss. 

Grant Amount: $1.13 million Loan Payback Period: Three years. 

Eligible Activities: Installation and leasing of EPA SmartWay or 

CARB-verified emission and idle reduction technologies. The truck 

owners will purchase the equipment for $10 at the end of the loan 

period. 

Program Goal: Establish a leasing program for the installation of 

emission reduction technology and idle reduction technology on 

1,700 trucks. 

Community Development Transportation 

Lending Services, Inc. 

National Low Interest Revolving Loan Fund 

Grant Amount: $1.13 million 

Interest Rates: 5.5% to 8.5%, varies based on, among other 

things, each applicant’s business history, available collateral, cash 

flow, and credit score. 

Loan Payback Period: Three to six years, varies based on, among 

other things, business history, available collateral, and cash flow. 

Eligible Activities: Purchase used trucks to upgrade with EPA 

SmartWay or CARB-verified idle reduction and/or emission reduction technology. 

Purchase used trucks that are upgraded with EPA SmartWay or 

CARB-verified idle reduction and/or emission reduction technology. 

Program Goal: Establish a revolving loan fund for the purchase of 

used trucks that have SmartWay upgrades or will receive SmartWay 

upgrades. 

Service Fee: 2% to 3%. 

Owner-Operator Independent Drivers 

Association Foundation 

Innovative Financing 

Grant Amount: $1.13 million 

Loan Interest Rate: Varies based on market Solid Waste Alternative Program rate. 

Eligible Activities: Purchase and installation of emission reduction 

and idle reduction technologies verified by EPA and/or CARB. 

Program Goal: Offer rebates to selected applicants/truck owners 

to install emission reduction and/or idle reduction equipment on 

their trucks. The first rebate to the truck owner will be for the cost 

of the equipment installation. Then, every six months, depending 

on idle/fuel use reductions demonstrated, the truck owner will 

receive additional rebates until 40% of the total cost of the equipment is paid. 

48 ✦ REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM 
 

APPENDIX D: State Clean Diesel Program, 

FY 2008 Grants 

State Grant Recipient 

Total Federal 

Funding 

Allotment 

Sector(s) Technology Types 

AK Alaska Department of 

Environmental Conservation $295,320 Construction Research, Retrofit 

AL Alabama Department of 

Environmental Management $196,880 Rail Repower 

AR Arkansas Department of 

Environmental Quality $295,320 

School Bus, Long 

Haul Trucks, 

Construction 

Retrofi tted, Idle Reduction 

AZ Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality $196,880 Short Haul Truck Stop Electrification 

CA California Air Resources Board $295,320 Long Haul Trucks Retrofi t 

CO Colorado Department of Public 

Health and Environment $196,880 School Bus Retrofit 

CT Connecticut Department of 

Environmental Protection $295,320 School Bus, Long 

Haul Trucks Idle Reduction 

DE 

Delaware Department of 

Natural Resources and 

Environmental Control 

$295,320 Refuse Hauler Retrofit 

FL Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection $295,320 Long Haul Trucks, 

School Bus Retrofi t, Idle Reduction 

GA Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources $295,320 School Bus, 

Construction Retrofi t 

HI Environmental Health 

Administration $196,880 School Bus, Utility Retrofi t 

IA Iowa Department of Natural 

Resources $196,880 School Bus Replacement 

ID Idaho Department of 

Environmental Quality $196,880 School Bus Retrofit 

IL 

IN 

KS 

Illinois Environmental 

Protection Agency 

Indiana Department of 

Environmental Management 

Kansas Department of Health and 

Environment 

$295,320 

$295,320 

$295,320 

Long Haul Trucks 

Long Haul Trucks 

Long Haul Trucks 

Idle Reduction 

Retrofi t 

Replacement, Idle Reduction 

Appendix D ✦ 49
 
 

Appendix D. State Clean Diesel Program, FY 2008 Grants (continued) 

State Grant Recipient 

Total Federal 

Funding 

Allotment 

Sector(s) Technology Types 

KY Kentucky Division for Air Quality $196,880 School Bus Retrofi t 

LA Louisiana Department of 

Environmental Quality $295,320 Marine Repower 

MA Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection $295,320 Refuse Hauler, 

Rail, Utility Retrofi t, Replacement 

MD Maryland Department of the 

Environment $295,320 Transit Bus Retrofit 

ME Maine Department of 

Environmental Protection $295,320 School Bus, Long 

Haul Trucks Idle Reduction 

MI Michigan Department of 

Environmental Quality $295,320 School Bus Retrofi t 

MN Minnesota Pollution Control 

Agency $295,320 School Bus, Long 

Haul Trucks Retrofi t, Idle Reduction 

MO Missouri Department of Natural 

Resources $295,320 Long Haul Trucks, Utility Replacement, Idle Reduction 

MS Mississippi Department of 

Environmental Quality $295,320 Utility Vehicle, 

School Bus Retrofi t 

MT Montana Department of 

Environmental Quality $295,320 School Bus, 

Transit Bus Retrofi t, Repower 

NC 

North Carolina Department of 

Environment and Natural 

Resources 

$295,320 

Transit Bus, 

School Bus, Rail, 

Construction, 

Refuse Haulers 

Retrofi t, Idle Reduction, 

Repower 

ND North Dakota Department of 

Health $196,880 School Bus 

School Bus, 

Replacement 

NE Nebraska Department of 

Environmental Quality $196,880 

Refuse Hauler, 

City/County 

Vehicle, Transit 

Bus, Construction 

Retrofi t 

NH New Hampshire Department of 

Environmental Science $196,880 Transit Bus, Construction, Utility Retrofi t 

NJ New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection $295,320 Construction, 

School Bus Retrofi t 

NM New Mexico Environment 

Department $196,880 School Bus Retrofit 

NV Nevada Division of Environmental 

Protection $295,320 School Bus Retrofit 

NY New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation $295,320 Marine Replacement 

OH Ohio Environmental Protection 

Agency $295,320 School Bus Retrofit 

OK Oklahoma Department of 

Environmental Quality $295,320 School Bus Retrofit 

50 ✦ REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM 
Appendix D. State Clean Diesel Program, FY 2008 Grants (continued) 

State Grant Recipient 

Total Federal 

Funding 

Allotment 

Sector(s) Technology Types 

OR Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality $295,320 School Bus Retrofit 

PA Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection $295,320 Ports, Airports Repower 

RI Rhode Island Department of 

Environmental Management $196,880 Ports, Airports Retrofit 

SC South Carolina Department of 

Health and Environmental Control $295,320 School Bus, Construction Retrofi t, Repower 

SD 

South Dakota Department of 

Environment and Natural 

Resources 

$196,880 School Bus Retrofit 

TN Tennessee Department of 

Environment and Conservation $196,880 Long Haul Trucks Idle Reduction 

TX Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality $295,320 School Bus Retrofit 

UT Utah Department of 

Environmental Quality $295,320 School Bus Retrofit 

VA Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality $196,880 Utility Vehicle Retrofit 

VT Vermont Department of 

Environmental Conservation $196,880 School Bus Retrofi t, Idle Reduction 

WA Washington State Department of 

Ecology $295,320 School Bus Retrofit 

WI Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources $295,320 Refuse Hauler, Construction Retrofi t, Repower 

WV West Virginia Department of 

Environmental Protection $196,880 Transit Bus Replacement 

WY Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality $196,880 School Bus Repower 

Total $12,994,080 Match $6,300,160 

Appendix D ✦ 51
 
 

 

APPENDIX E: National Program 

Evaluation Criteria 

F

OR the National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program, all grant competitions used criteria and points similar to those summarized in the table below, consistent with the priorities 

described in Section 792 of the Energy Policy Act, Subtitle G (see page 20), and with 

Agency policy. 

National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program 

For the National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program, the seven EPA Regional Collaboratives 

described in Appendix F held grant competitions, following Agency policy. Regions evaluated each 

Regional RFP following the same general criteria, supplementing with regional priorities worth 10 

points in the final criterion. 

EPA devoted the majority of the funding available to the National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance 

Program and allocated it to its 10 regional offices to award as competitive grants in support of 

clean diesel projects. EPA distributed funds across the regions based on a funding formula that 

included a base amount and considered population, diesel emission inventories, and other factors 

consistent with the objectives listed in the statute Section 792. 

EPA’s regions addressed certain regional priorities in their competitions, while following a model 

RFP to ensure that all of EPA’s actions adhered to the statutory requirements and EPA policy. 

National Clean Diesel Emerging Technologies Program 

For the National Clean Diesel Emerging Technologies RFP, EPA employed similar criteria to those 

in the table below; however, EPA required that the projects propose to use technologies on EPA’s 

Emerging Technology List by the closing date of the RFP. Criterion 9 was not applicable. 

SmartWay Clean Diesel Finance Program 

For the SmartWay Clean Diesel Finance RFP, EPA used criteria similar to those in the table below; 

however, Criterion 9 was not applicable. 

52 ✦ REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E. National Program Evaluation Criteria (continued) 

Criteria Points 

1. Project Summary/Approach: EPA will evaluate the quality and extent to which the narrative 

proposal includes a well-conceived strategy for addressing the program priorities from the statute 

and a well-conceived, logical strategy for achieving the anticipated environmental results associated with the proposed project in a timely manner. 

25 

2. Programmatic Priorities: The Agency will evaluate the quality and extent to which the proposed project addresses the programmatic priorities. 10 

3. Past Performance—Programmatic Capability and Reporting on Environmental 

Results: The Agency will evaluate the applicant’s technical ability to successfully complete and 

manage the proposed project, taking into account the applicant’s past performance in successfully completing and managing federally funded assistance agreements. 

10 

4. Environmental Results—Outcomes and Outputs: The Agency will evaluate the effectiveness of the applicant’s plan for tracking and measuring its progress toward achieving expected 

project outputs and outcomes. 

15 

5. Budget/Resources: The Agency will evaluate whether the proposed project budget is appropriate to accomplish the proposed goals and measurable environmental outcomes. 10 

6. Clear Description of the Target Fleet: Applicants will be evaluated on the degree to which 

detailed information on the fleet (vessel[s], vehicle[s], and/or equipment) is provided on the Applicant Fleet Description Spreadsheet and the eligibility of technology for the fleet. 10 

7. Leveraging Resources and Partnering: Applicants will be evaluated based on the extent to 

which they demonstrate how they will coordinate the use of EPA funding with other federal and/ 

or nonfederal sources of funds to leverage additional resources to carry out the proposed projects 

and/or how that EPA funding will complement other activities. 

15 

8. Staff Expertise/Qualifi cations: Applicants will be evaluated on staff expertise/qualifications, 

staff knowledge, and resources or the ability to obtain them, to successfully achieve the goals of 

the proposed project. 

5 

9. Regional Signifi cance: For the National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program, a factor for 

regional significance was added. 10 

Appendix E ✦ 53
 
 

APPENDIX F: EPA Regional Clean 

Diesel Collaboratives 

B

EGINNING in 2003, EPA’s regions began organizing Regional Clean Diesel Collaboratives 

with their states, local nonprofit organizations, private industry, and municipalities. The 

collaboratives listed below play a vital role in EPA’s incentive-based approach to achieving 

superior environmental results. By tying into a network of regional stakeholders, this collaborative structure is ideal for achieving significant emission reductions across a large geographic area. 

Regional initiatives and state programs provide immediate and significant environmental results 

by working collaboratively with businesses, government and community organizations, industry, 

and others. 

Northeast Diesel Collaborative 

www.northeastdiesel.org 

The Northeast Diesel Collaborative is a local initiative that builds on a foundation of voluntary 

action. Developed with EPA Regions 1 and 2, the initiative encourages participants to engage 

in projects that will reduce transportation-related air pollution to help address the high asthma 

rates in the Northeast. The program partners with the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use 

Management (NESCAUM). 

Mid-Atlantic Clean Diesel Collaborative 

www.dieselmidatlantic.org 

The Mid-Atlantic Clean Diesel Collaborative is a partnership among leaders from federal, state, 

and local governments; the private sector; and environmental groups in Delaware, Maryland, 

Virginia, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. 

Midwest Clean Diesel Initiative 

www.epa.gov/midwestcleandiesel 

EPA Region 5’s Midwest Clean Diesel Initiative is a cooperative, public–private effort to reduce 

diesel emissions along major transportation corridors from various sectors including trucking, 

locomotive, construction, and ports, with an emphasis on urban areas in the Midwest. 

Southeast Diesel Collaborative 

www.southeastdiesel.org 

The Southeast Diesel Collaborative is a voluntary, public–private partnership involving leaders 

from federal, state, and local governments; the private sector; and other stakeholders throughout 

the Southeast working to reduce diesel emissions. 

54 ✦ REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM 
Rocky Mountain Clean Diesel Collaborative 

www.epa.gov/region8/air/rmcdc.html 

The Rocky Mountain Clean Diesel Collaborative is a partnership of federal, state, and local 

governments; nonprofit organizations; the private sector; and environmental groups in Colorado, 

Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. The collaborative was established in 

November 2006. 

Blue Skyways Collaborative 

www.blueskyways.org 

The Blue Skyways Collaborative was created to encourage voluntary air emission reduction in 

North America’s heartland. Through partnership with nonprofit and environmental groups; private 

industries; and international, federal, state, and local governments, Blue Skyways strives to improve air quality. 

West Coast Diesel Collaborative 

www.westcoastcollaborative.org 

EPA Regions 9 and 10 were instrumental in creating the West Coast Diesel Collaborative. This 

initiative is a partnership among leaders from federal, state, and local government; the private 

sector; and environmental groups in California, Oregon, Idaho, Washington, Alaska, Canada, and 

Mexico, committed to reducing diesel emissions along the West Coast. 

Appendix F ✦ 55
 
 

 

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

APU Auxiliary Power Unit NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

CARB California Air Resources Board 

NCDC National Clean Diesel Campaign 

CCV Closed Crankcase Ventilation 

NESCAUM Northeast States for Coordinated 

CFS Crankcase Filtration System Air Use Management 

CNG Compressed Natural Gas NMHC Nonmethane Hydrocarbon 

CO Carbon Monoxide NO2

 Nitrogen Dioxide 

CO2

 Carbon Dioxide NOX

 Nitrogen Oxides 

DEQ Diesel Emissions Quantifier PM2.5 Particulate Matter (Fine) 

DERA Diesel Emissions Reduction Act PPM Parts Per Million 

DOC Diesel Oxidation Catalyst RFP Request for Proposal 

DPF Diesel Particulate Filter RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis 

EGR Exhaust Gas Recirculation SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection SCRT Selective Catalytic Reduction 

Agency Technology 

EPAct Energy Policy Act SIP State Implementation Plan 

FY Fiscal Year SOX

 Sulfur Oxides 

HC Hydrocarbon ULSD Ultra-Low-Sulfur Diesel 

LNT Lean Nitrogen Oxides Trap 

56 ✦ REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM 

United States 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Transportation and Air Quality 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

EPA-420-R-09-006 

August 2009 

www.epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyclable—Printed with vegetable oil based inks on 100% postconsumer, process chlorine free recycled paper.