Third Report to Congress:

Highlights from the Diesel

Emission Reduction Program

EPA-420-R-16-004

February 2016
Third Report to Congress: Highlights from the Diesel Emission Reduction Program

Acronyms and Abbreviations

CCV Closed Crankcase Ventilation 

CO Carbon Monoxide 

CO2 Carbon Dioxide 

DERA Diesel Emissions Reduction Act 

DOC Diesel Oxidation Catalyst 

DPF Diesel Particulate Filter 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ET Emerging Technologies 

FY Fiscal Year 

HC Hydrocarbon 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NCDC National Clean Diesel Campaign 

NOX Nitrogen Oxides 

PM Particulate Matter 

Recovery Act American Reinvestment and Recovery Act 

RFP Request for Proposals 

Photo Credits

Unless otherwise noted, all photos in this report by Eric Vance, USEPA. 

Disclaimer of Endorsement

Mention of or referral to commercial products or services, and/or links to nonEPA sites does not imply official EPA endorsement of or responsibility for the 

opinions, ideas, data, or products presented at those locations, or guarantee the 

validity of the information provided. 
Third Report to Congress: Highlights from the Diesel Emission Reduction Program

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................... 1

DERA Funding Has Provided a Broad Range of Benefits .......................... 1

Cumulative Impacts and Project Locations Since 2008............................ 4

Looking Ahead ........................................................................................ 8

Section 1: DERA National Competitive Grants..........................................11

Fiscal Year 2009/2010..........................................................................11

Fiscal Year 2011 ...................................................................................12

Fiscal Year 2012 ...................................................................................13

Fiscal Year 2013 ...................................................................................14

Lessons Learned and Looking Ahead.....................................................15

DERA SmartWay Finance Grants ..........................................................15

DERA Emerging Technology Grants ......................................................17

DERA Tribal Grants ..............................................................................18

Section 2: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act................................19

Recovery Act State grants......................................................................21

Section 3: DERA State Program................................................................22

FY 2008-2011 State Grants...................................................................23

FY 2012-2013 State grants ...................................................................24

Lessons Learned and Looking Ahead.....................................................25

Section 4: DERA National Clean Diesel Rebate Program...........................26

The 2012 School Bus Replacement Rebate Program ..............................26

The 2013 Construction Equipment Rebate Program ..............................27

Lessons Learned and Looking Ahead.....................................................28

Section 5: DERA Ports Initiative ...............................................................29

Lessons Learned and Looking Ahead.....................................................30

Looking Ahead for the DERA Program ......................................................32

Appendix A: National Program Evaluation Criteria ...................................34

Appendix B: DERA Projects and Case Studies ..........................................35

Appendix C: Map of Diesel Collaboratives.................................................36
Third Report to Congress: Highlights from the Diesel Emission Reduction Program

Table of Exhibits

Exhibit 1: DERA Program Benefits and Accomplishments (FYs 2009-2013) 1 

Exhibit 2: DERA Funded Sectors 2009-2013.............................................. 4 

Exhibit 3: DERA Funding by Technology Type, 2009-2013......................... 4 

Exhibit 4: Cumulative Impacts of DERA (FY 2008-2013) ............................ 5 

Exhibit 5: Diesel Engine Turnover by Year ................................................. 6 

Exhibit 6: Diesel Exhaust Health Effects .................................................... 9 

Exhibit 7: Total DERA Funding Appropriations in this Report ..................11

Exhibit 8: FY 2009/2010 DERA Funding by Sector ..................................11

Exhibit 9: FY 2009/2010 DERA Technologies ..........................................12

Exhibit 10: FY 2011 DERA Funding by Sector..........................................12

Exhibit 11: FY 2011 DERA Technologies ..................................................13

Exhibit 12: FY 2012 DERA Funding by Sector..........................................13

Exhibit 13: FY 2012 DERA Technologies ..................................................14

Exhibit 14: FY 2013 DERA Funding by Sector..........................................14

Exhibit 15: FY 2013 DERA Technologies ..................................................15

Exhibit 16: Reducing Emissions on School Buses through Retrofits .........17

Exhibit 17: Recovery Act DERA National Funding by Sector .....................19

Exhibit 18: Recovery Act DERA National Technologies .............................20

Exhibit 19: Recovery Act DERA State Funding by Sector ..........................21

Exhibit 20: Recovery Act DERA State Technologies ..................................21

Exhibit 21: FY 2008-2011 DERA State Funding by Sector ........................23

Exhibit 22: FY 2008-2011 DERA State Technologies ................................23

Exhibit 23: FY 2012-2013 DERA State Funding by Sector........................24

Exhibit 24: FY 2012-2013 DERA State Technologies ................................24

Exhibit 25: FY 2013 DERA Ports Initiative Funding by Sector ..................29

Exhibit 26: EPA Regions and Regional Clean Diesel Collaboratives...........36
Executive Summary

1 

Executive Summary

From goods movement to building construction to public transportation, diesel 

engines are the modern-day workhorse of the American economy. Though diesel 

engines are reliable and efficient, older ones emit significant amounts of exhaust 

including particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen oxides (NOX), which can harm 

human health. Despite the recent implementation of the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency’s (EPA) most stringent emissions standards, approximately 

10.3 million older diesel engines remain in use1. EPA began awarding clean diesel 

grants in 2008 under the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA), a grant 

program created by Congress as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to reduce 

diesel exhaust from these older engines. 

EPA’s National Clean Diesel Campaign (NCDC) within the Office of Transportation 

and Air Quality administers the DERA grants. EPA awarded the first DERA grants 

in 2008, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) grants in 

2009, and grants from funds appropriated in Fiscal Years (FY) 2009 through 

2015. This Third Report to Congress covers final results from the Recovery Act 

and FYs 2009-2011 and estimated results and benefits from funding in FY 2011-

2013.2

DERA Funding Has Provided a Broad Range of Benefits 

Since 2009, the DERA program has achieved impressive outcomes and a range of 

benefits, summarized in Exhibit 1. See Exhibit 4 for cumulative impacts.

Exhibit 1: DERA Program Benefits and Accomplishments (FYs 2009-2013) 

Investment of DERA Program Emission and Fuel Reductions

$520 million funds awarded 312,500 tons of NOx 

58,800 engines retrofitted or replaced 12,000 tons of PM

Up to $11 billion in monetized health benefits 18,900 tons of hydrocarbon

Up to 1,700 fewer premature deaths 58,700 tons of carbon monoxide

81% of projects targeted to areas with air quality 

challenges 4,836,100 tons of carbon dioxide

3:1 leveraging of funds from non-federal sources 431 million gallons of fuel
Third Report to Congress: Highlights from the Diesel Emission Reduction Program

2 

Improved air quality and public health 

DERA grants have funded projects that provided immediate health and 

environmental benefits. From 2009 to 2013, EPA awarded $520 million to retrofit 

or replace 58,800 engines in vehicles, vessels, locomotives or other pieces of 

equipment. EPA estimates that these projects will reduce emissions by 312,500 

tons of NOX and 12,000 tons of PM2.5 3 over the lifetime of the affected engines. As 

a result of these pollution reductions, EPA estimates a total present value of up to 

$11 billion in monetized health benefits over the lifetime of the affected engines, 

which include up to 1,700 fewer premature deaths associated with the emission 

reductions achieved over this same period.4,5 These clean diesel projects also are 

estimated to reduce 18,900 tons of hydrocarbon (HC) and 58,700 tons of carbon 

monoxide (CO) over the lifetime of the affected engines. 

Served disproportionately impacted communities 

Many projects have made health and environmental impacts in socially and 

economically vulnerable areas. Goods movement projects are especially beneficial 

because they tend to take place in communities that are disproportionately 

impacted by higher levels of diesel exhaust, such as those near ports, rail yards, 

and distribution centers. Clean diesel projects reduce exposure for people living 

in these communities, and the improved air quality provides immediate health 

benefits. Since the first DERA grants in 2008, EPA has increasingly focused 

attention on PM and ozone nonattainment areas to achieve maximum benefits for 

every dollar spent. For projects awarded in FY 2009 to FY 2013, 81% were located 

in areas with air quality challenges. 

Improving Air Quality and Public Health: Urban Trucking and School Bus Fleets

The Southwest Detroit Environmental Vision (SDEV) diesel project focused on decreasing 

diesel emissions through the retrofit of various diesel vehicles including the replacement 

of 24 medium heavy-duty diesel trucks and eight school buses.

SDEV received a total of $1.2 

million in grant funding to work 

with Greater Lansing Area Clean 

Cities, NextEnergy Center, and 

nine fleet partners. This project 

impacted multiple economically 

disadvantaged and underserved 

urban areas in Michigan 

(Detroit, Dearborn, Flint, 

Lansing), as well as vulnerable 

populations in suburban and 

Photo Courtesy of Southwest Detroit Environmental Vision rural areas with poor air quality.
Executive Summary

3 

Reduced climate impacts and improved fuel savings 

DERA projects covered in this report (FYs 2009-2013) are estimated to reduce 

4,836,100 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) over the lifetime of the affected engines 

and save over 431 million gallons of fuel as a result of idle reduction and more 

fuel-efficient technologies. Black carbon (BC) is a component of PM and has been 

linked to a range of climate impacts, including increased temperatures and 

accelerated snow melt. BC also contributes to adverse health impacts associated 

with PM exposure. Particles emitted by legacy mobile diesel engines are about 

75% BC, so reductions in these BC-rich sources also likely provide climate 

benefits. DERA projects provide immediate BC reductions by reducing PM 

emissions from the legacy fleet of diesel engines, including approximately 8000 

tons of PM2.5 over the lifetime of the projects covered in this report. 

Focused on goods movement and the supply chain 

DERA funding has focused on diesel pollution at intermodal hubs, such as ports 

and delivery centers, and across the nation’s transportation infrastructure that 

supplies goods. In doing so, we are modernizing the diesel powered equipment 

that moves our economy by transporting goods throughout the nation. EPA will 

continue to target specific fleets in high diesel exposure areas such as near ports 

and freight distribution hubs and other disproportionately affected communities. 

Generated economic and environmental activity. 

Clean diesel projects are cost-effective, according to EPA’s calculations of health 

benefits. Each federal dollar invested in clean diesel projects has leveraged as 

much as $3 from other government agencies, private organizations, industry, and 

nonprofit organizations, generating between $5 and $21 in public health benefits. 

DERA funding has impacted a variety of sectors and supported many clean diesel 

technologies. New clean diesel technologies help spur environmental jobs and 

innovation in the marketplace. 

Answered popular demand. 

Stakeholders have shown a tremendous amount of interest in EPA-funded clean 

diesel projects. Funding requests have exceeded availability by as much as 35:1 

for our National Clean Diesel Rebate Program and 7:1 for our national grant 

competitions since the inception of DERA. These requests highlight DERA’s 

ongoing potential to meet the nation’s need for diesel emission reductions and 

fleet turnover incentives. 

Met local needs. 

EPA is committed to engaging local communities through clean diesel projects, 

and targets projects that will be able to continue to provide benefits after the 

project period has closed. These grants have addressed local environmental and 

public health problems as DERA grant recipients tailor projects to the needs of 

each individual community. 
Third Report to Congress: Highlights from the Diesel Emission Reduction Program

4 

Cumulative Impacts and Project Locations Since 2008 

In the early years of DERA, 

many applicants requested 

funding for retrofits of onhighway vehicles, especially 

long-haul trucks and school 

buses, and use of alternative 

fuels such as B20. As the 

DERA program progressed 

and EPA’s on-highway 2007 

standards were implemented, 

applicants sought to repower 

larger vehicles, vessels and 

equipment in ports and rail 

yards. Exhibit 2 shows the 

most frequently funded 

sectors for the Recovery Act 

and FY 2009-2013. Exhibit 3

shows the most frequently 

funded technologies for the 

Recovery Act and FY 2009-2013.6

Exhibit 3: DERA Funding by Technology Type, 2009-2013 

Exhibit 2: DERA Funded Sectors 2009-2013
Executive Summary

5 

Exhibit 4: Cumulative Impacts of DERA (FY 2008-2013) 

EPA has awarded 642 grants since the start of DERA in 2008 through FY 2013. 

These grants have upgraded nearly 73,000 vehicles or pieces of equipment and 

saved over 450 million gallons of fuel. EPA estimates that total lifetime emission 

reductions achieved through DERA funding are 14,700 tons of PM and 335,200 

tons of NOX. These reductions have created up to $12.6 billion of health benefits.7

 Leading the Effort for Fleet Turnover 

DERA funding has upgraded nearly 73,000 diesel engines since 2008, but many 

engines in the legacy fleet will continue to operate over the next decade. Although 

the number of heavy polluting diesel engines is projected to decline due to fleet 

turnover and new engine standards, a significant number of legacy vehicles will 

remain on the road. For instance, EPA estimates that more than one million 

legacy fleet engines will remain in operation in 2030, see Exhibit 5. 8

DERA funding provides an incentive to fleet owners to upgrade or replace older 

equipment and accelerate the fleet turnover across the country. The replaced 

vehicles or engines are required to be scrapped or permanently disabled ensuring 
Third Report to Congress: Highlights from the Diesel Emission Reduction Program

6 

the turnover of older, dirtier engines. Since 2008, demand from fleet owners has 

exceeded DERA’s available funds. There is a need to turn over these older 

engines, a desire from fleet owners to do so, and a significant public health 

benefit. 

DERA funding is a key component of EPA’s National Clean Diesel Campaign 

(NCDC) which addresses the legacy fleet through outreach, partnerships, 

technology assessment and grants. It is the Federal program uniquely focused on 

protecting public health through lowering diesel exhaust exposure. Several other 

Federal programs include a clean diesel component, such as the Department of 

Transportation’s Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) 

Program, the U.S. Maritime Administration’s grant program and the Department 

of Energy’s Clean Cities program. CMAQ focuses on surface transportation 

projects that can contribute to congestion relief and air quality improvements, 

MARAD focuses on marine projects, and Clean Cities advances the nation’s 

economic, environmental, and energy security by supporting local actions to cut 

petroleum use in transportation. 

 

Exhibit 5: Diesel Engine Turnover by Year 

 

 

Fleet turnover and new 

standards will drive an 

estimated 88% reduction of 

heavy polluting diesel engines 

over the next 15 years; 

however, over one million will 

remain in use in 2030.
Executive Summary

7 

Focus on Cost-Effective Projects 

As part of its implementation role, over the years EPA has refined the 

requirements in the DERA Requests for Proposals (RFP) to lower the amount of 

EPA funding for individual projects where the vehicle or fleet owner derives an 

economic benefit (a more efficient engine or vehicle replacement, or fuel-saving 

technologies). In FY 2011 and earlier, EPA funded up to 75% of the cost of an 

engine repower. In FY 2012 RFP, EPA cost-share was lowered to 50% and by FY 

2013 it was decreased to 40%. Additionally, EPA stopped funding stand-alone 

cleaner fuel use, though DERA grant recipients were permitted to bundle cleaner 

fuels with retrofit technologies or engine replacements. EPA also ceased funding 

stand-alone idle reduction technologies, except on locomotives, shore power 

systems, truck stop electrification or newer school buses already equipped with 

retrofit devices, unless the technologies were bundled with verified exhaust 

control technologies. 

Focus on Communities and Improving Areas of Poor Air Quality 

In the early years of DERA funding, many projects retrofitted long-haul trucks 

and fleets for immediate emissions reductions. Now, many of these trucks and 

buses are already equipped with emission reducing technologies due to EPA’s 

emission standards for new heavy-duty engines, so project focus has shifted to 

older nonroad engines, vessels and short haul trucks. These engines can remain 

in service for decades and may predate EPA’s most recent heavy-duty and 

nonroad emission standards, which have created significant reductions in PM 

and NOX. These projects, though sometimes requiring more resources per engine 

than retrofitting trucks or buses, provide important reductions in emissions to 

local areas. 

Community-based projects are those in or near specific locations like ports, rail 

yards, or bus depots where residents are disproportionately affected by diesel 

exhaust. Since the first DERA grants in 2008, EPA has increasingly focused 

attention on PM (per the 1997, 2006 and 2012 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards) and ozone (per the 8-hour 2008 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard) nonattainment areas. Between FY 2009 and FY 2013, 81% of all 

projects took place in nonattainment and areas with relatively high concentration 

of particulate matter.9 In order to help reduce instances of asthma, heart and 

lung disease, and other respiratory ailments, EPA will continue funding projects 

in areas with air quality challenges to achieve the most meaningful improvements 

to the health and well-being of local residents. 

Streamlined Funding Mechanism: The National Clean Diesel Rebate Program 

The DERA reauthorization signed by President Barack Obama in 2011 allowed 

EPA to offer rebates in addition to grants. EPA opened the first rebate program in 

2012 to allow public and private fleet owners to replace older school buses 

currently in operation. EPA had $2 million in total funding but received over 
Third Report to Congress: Highlights from the Diesel Emission Reduction Program

8 

1,000 applications requesting more than $70 million. A lottery was used to make 

selections and applicants replaced 76 buses across the country. EPA offered a 

second round of rebate funding in 2013 to replace and retrofit construction 

equipment and provided rebates to three recipients. Outreach to the multisegmented construction sector about the rebate opportunity proved difficult, and 

may have impacted participation in the program, along with EPA’s limited ability 

to provide rebates to private fleets and relatively complex requirements necessary 

to achieve the most cost-effective results. 

Rebates have proven to be a popular funding mechanism for both public and 

private school bus fleet owners. The benefits of the rebate program include a 

streamlined application process and an accelerated project period length. The 

time from start to finish for a rebate project is approximately half the time of a 

grant project. EPA offered another school bus replacement rebate program in 

2014, the final results of which will be covered in the next Report to Congress. 

Clean Diesel Projects at Ports 

From the outset of the DERA program, the port sector has been a priority since 

communities surrounding ports tend to have disproportionately poor air quality. 

In 2013, EPA reinvigorated engagement with stakeholders about air quality issues 

facing ports. These conversations culminated in a Summit in Baltimore that 

brought together port authorities, state and local government, industry, and 

communities to discuss efforts to reduce emissions in ports. In FY 2013, EPA 

offered a ports-only Request for Proposals (RFP) to establish clean diesel projects 

at ports. EPA provided $4 million in funding for six grants to replace or retrofit 

more than 130 engines operating at or around ports. 

Looking Ahead 

As part of the President's 21st Century Clean Transportation Plan, the 

Administration is calling for major new investments in our nation’s 

infrastructure, by accelerating the integration of autonomous vehicles, lowcarbon technologies, and intelligent transportation systems that reduce climate 

emissions, increase safety, and improve transportation options for American 

families. EPA will play its part in this plan, financed through the establishment of 

a mandatory fund that will accelerate the transition to cleaner vehicle fleets by 

providing $1.65 billion over the course of 10 years and up to $300 million in FY 

2017 to renew and increase funding for the DERA Program. 

EPA will also continue to target its traditional discretionary funding for areas that 

suffer from poor air quality and will focus on projects that engage local 

communities and provide lasting benefits. EPA is especially interested in working 

with port communities and has adjusted its national RFP to prioritize projects 
Executive Summary

9 

that reduce emissions from engines involved in goods movements and freight 

industries. EPA also plans to continue to offer rebate funding and focus on fleet 

turnover for engines that pre-date EPA’s on-highway standards for PM (model 

year 2006 or older). 

Exhibit 6: Diesel Exhaust Health Effects 

 

1 EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality calculation using MOVES2014 and NONROAD. 

2 For FY 2011, the State Clean Diesel Program results are actuals and the National Clean Diesel 

Program results are estimates. For more detailed final information on the FY 2008 grants, please 

see the Second Report to Congress: Highlights of the Diesel Emissions Reduction Program, 

EPA 420-R-12-031 from December 2012. 

 

Direct emissions from diesel engines, especially PM, NOX, and sulfur oxides (SOX), as well as 

other air toxics, contribute to health problems. In addition, NOX contributes to the formation 

of ozone and PM through chemical reactions.

PM 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 symptoms, resulting in more asthma attacks, additional medication, lost 

school and work days, increased emergency room visits and hospitalizations, and even 

premature mortality. 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, resulting in the 

development of chronic respiratory illnesses. Children, outdoor workers, those who exercise 

outside, people with heart and lung disease, and the elderly are most at risk. 

The technologies used in 

DERA grants can reduce 

PM emissions by up to 

95% and NOX by up to 

90%. Each of these 

reductions makes an 

immediate and positive 

impact on public health. 

PM and NOX controls have 

been the primary focus 

for the time period of this 

Report.

For more information on health effects, see Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine 

Exhaust, which examines information regarding the health hazards associated with exposure 

to diesel engine exhaust.
Third Report to Congress: Highlights from the Diesel Emission Reduction Program

10

 

 See the Report to Congress: Highlights of the Diesel Emissions Reduction Program, EPA 420-R-09-

006 from August 2009 for the First Report on the DERA program.

3 PM2.5 will be referred to as PM for the rest of this Report.

4 When a grant is awarded, estimated emissions reductions are calculated. As the grant 

progresses, DERA grant recipients are required to submit quarterly programmatic progress 

reports to EPA. Once a grant is completed, the recipient submits a final programmatic report 

which includes an overview of the project’s implementation and a final accounting of project 

expenses and results (engines replaced or retrofitted, technologies applied, and emissions 

reduction calculations for PM, NOx and CO2). EPA, along with a contracted third party, 

evaluates the reports for consistency and accuracy. 

EPA estimates emissions reductions for each project through our web-based Diesel Emissions 

Quantifier (DEQ) using the information in the grant final reports. The DEQ uses MOVES and 

NONROAD as the basis for calculations. After the emissions reductions are calculated, the 

information is tracked internally along with all grant recipient information. Final emissions data 

for each grant is totaled for each fiscal year and program.

EPA estimates that the total present value of health benefits from the emission reductions 

between the Recovery Act and FY 2013 range from $3.0 billion to $11 billion (in 2014 dollars; 

range reflects the use of both a 3 and 7 percent discount rate and the valuation of premature 

mortality derived from either the American Cancer Society cohort study (Krewski et al., 2009) or 

the Harvard Six-Cities study (Lepeule et al., 2012)). Benefits calculated using EPA’s PM2.5 

benefit per ton values, which monetize a suite of PM-related health impacts including premature 

mortality, hospital admissions, emergency room visits, and work loss days. Please refer to the 

benefit per ton Technical Support Document for more information. US EPA, (2013). Technical 

Support Document: Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing PM2.5 Precursors from 17 

Sectors. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park. January. The 

document can be found here: www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-

10/documents/sourceapportionmentbpttsd.pdf (accessed 7/24/2015).

5 EPA estimates that the emission reductions achieved over the lifetime of the affected engines will 

help avoid between 750 and 1,700 premature deaths. Estimates of premature mortality avoided 

were calculated using PM-related incidence per ton estimates presented in the benefit per ton 

Technical Support Document (referenced above). The range of premature mortality avoided is 

derived from either the American Cancer Society cohort study (Krewski et al., 2009) or the 

Harvard Six-Cities study (Lepeule et al., 2012).

6 Many grant recipients installed more than one technology on each vehicle, so the total number 

of technologies exceeds the 58,815 vehicles affected figure stated above.

7 The cumulative totals were created by adding the actual results from FY 2008 from the Second 

Report to Congress to the actual and estimated results covered in this Report from the Recovery 

Act to FY 2013.

8 The “Legacy Fleet” is defined by the DERA program as the existing pool of medium and heavy -

heavy-duty engines in 2008, the first year of appropriations for DERA, or approximately 11 

million diesel engines. This estimate was created according to the MOVES and NONROAD 

models. Data based on a projected 10 percent fleet turnover rate from EPA modeling.

9 The percentage of projects taking place in FY 2009-2013 in non-attainment areas was calculated 

using the EPA Office of Air and Radiation’s most recent National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 

which can be found at www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/criteria.html and NATA areas are places where 

all or part of the population is exposed to more than 2.0 μg/m3 of diesel particulate matter 

emissions in EPA’s 2005 National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment found at: 

www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/criteria.html. 
Section 1: DERA National Competitive Grants

11

Section 1: DERA National Competitive Grants

EPA prioritizes clean diesel projects that provide immediate health and 

environmental benefits and target areas of greatest need. The DERA legislation

emphasizes maximizing health benefits and serving areas of poor air quality, such 

as non-attainment areas for PM and ozone, and conserving diesel fuel. 

For each fiscal year, by statute, EPA sets aside 30% of funding for states to 

establish their own clean diesel programs. The remaining 70% of the annual 

appropriation is used for national competitive grant and rebate funding 

opportunities. Some of those funds may be reserved for special funding 

opportunities, such as the National Clean Diesel Rebate program, but most is 

directed to a nationwide, competitive grant program. 

Exhibit 7: Total DERA Funding Appropriations in this Report 

Recovery Act 2009/2010 2011 2012 2013

$300 million $120 million $50 million $30 million $20 million

Fiscal Year 2009/2010 

EPA received an appropriation of $60 million in both FY 2009 and FY 2010; of the 

combined total of $120 million, 

$64 million went to the 

national competitive program.1

Combining the two years’ 

appropriations streamlined the 

RFP process and provided 

applicants an opportunity to 

propose larger projects. 

EPA received over 350 

applications with applicants 

requesting five dollars for every 

one available. EPA awarded 69 

national, competitive grants. 

These grants retrofitted or 

replaced 7,700 engines and 

pieces of equipment, see 

Exhibit 8 and Exhibit 9. 

Exhibit 8: FY 2009/2010 DERA Funding by 

Sector
Third Report to Congress: Highlights from the Diesel Emission Reduction Program

12

Exhibit 9: FY 2009/2010 DERA Technologies 

DERA FY 2009/2010 grants reduced an estimated 56,500 lifetime tons of NOX; 

1,700 tons of PM; 2,800 tons of HC; 7,800 tons of CO; and 882,900 tons of CO2. 

These projects also saved 

over 78 million gallons of 

fuel. 

Fiscal Year 2011 

EPA received a $50 million 

appropriation in FY 2011 and 

directed $32 million to the 

national competitive 

program. EPA funded 47 

national competitive grants 

across the country, one of 

which was an Emerging 

Technology grant. Matching 

funding contributed was $38 

million. EPA received 235 

applications requesting $289 

million, see Exhibit 10 and 

Exhibit 11. 

Exhibit 10: FY 2011 DERA Funding by Sector

~2,070

~2,050

NOTE: Engine Shutdown, DOC + 

DFH, and Compressed Natural 

Gas units were also funded in FY 

2009/2010 but are not shown 

due to scale (< 10 units funded).
Section 1: DERA National Competitive Grants

13

DERA FY 2011 grants are estimated to reduce 37,800 lifetime tons of NOX; 1,400 

tons of PM; 2,600 tons of HC; 7,000 tons of CO; and 263,300 tons of CO2. These 

grants upgraded 2,600 engines or pieces of equipment, and the projects saved 

more than 23 million gallons of fuel. 

Exhibit 11: FY 2011 DERA Technologies 

Fiscal Year 2012 

In FY 2012, EPA received $30 million for clean diesel projects. EPA allocated 

approximately $20 million for the national competitive program and funded 26 

grants to reduce emissions 

from 868 diesel engines or 

pieces of equipment. 

Matching funding 

contributed was $39 million. 

EPA received 94 applications 

seeking nearly $132 million 

in funding, see Exhibit 12

and Exhibit 13. 

DERA FY 2012 grants are 

estimated to reduce 26,600 

lifetime tons of NOX; 800 

tons of PM; 1,100 tons of 

HC; 3,500 tons of CO; and 

100,700 tons of CO2. These 

projects also saved nearly 9 

million gallons of fuel. 

Exhibit 12: FY 2012 DERA Funding by Sector
Third Report to Congress: Highlights from the Diesel Emission Reduction Program

14

Exhibit 13: FY 2012 DERA Technologies 

Fiscal Year 2013 

In FY 2013, EPA received a total appropriation of $20 million and dedicated $14 

million for the rebate 

program, the ports-specific 

RFP, and the national RFP. 

EPA made $9 million 

available under the FY 

2013 National Clean Diesel 

Funding Assistance 

Program and received 78 

applications seeking almost 

$48 million in funding. EPA 

funded 23 competitive 

grants in FY 2013. 

Matching funding 

contributed was $23 

million. These grants 

retrofitted, replaced or 

repowered 334 engines and 

pieces of equipment, see 

Exhibit 14 and Exhibit 15. 

EPA estimates that DERA FY 2013 grants reduced 6,900 lifetime tons of NOX; 170 

tons of PM; 100 tons of HC; 1,100 tons of CO; and 91,200 tons of CO2. These 

projects also saved more than 8 million gallons of fuel. 

Exhibit 14: FY 2013 DERA Funding by Sector
Section 1: DERA National Competitive Grants

15

Exhibit 15: FY 2013 DERA Technologies 

Lessons Learned and Looking Ahead 

EPA continues to target DERA funds to maximize cost-effectiveness and make 

significant emissions reductions in areas disproportionately exposed to diesel 

exhaust. In 2012, EPA conducted an evaluation and planning process to target 

those engines in the remaining fleet that have significant useful life left but are 

heavy emitters. These engines are often found at ports and are used for goods 

movement. Each funding opportunity since has been crafted to attract and fund 

the most impactful projects, often in the goods movement sector. 

For the national competitive program, 

demand from applicants has exceeded 

program resources. For the past two fiscal 

years, over 1000 engines were not able to be 

funded from the following types of fleets: 

transit buses, short haul/delivery trucks, 

refuse haulers, locomotives, agriculture, 

construction, city/county vehicles, school 

buses, marine, ports and airports, and long 

haul trucks. 

DERA SmartWay Finance Grants 

The SmartWay Finance program competitively awarded grants to establish 

programs to provide fleet owners access to financing through the use of low-cost 

loans and loan guarantees for the purchase of fuel-saving and emission control 

technologies and vehicle replacements. SmartWay Finance grants established 

programs that assisted small- and medium-sized fleet owners in purchasing 

cleaner, more fuel-efficient trucks and equipment. 

EPA awarded four grants in FY 2009/2010 and five in the Recovery Act with more 

than $22.5 million to replace or retrofit more than 1,400 engines or pieces of 
Third Report to Congress: Highlights from the Diesel Emission Reduction Program

16

equipment. In total, EPA had selected nine projects in FY 2009/2010 and 

Recovery Act, but three projects returned funds and were closed before they 

achieved results. The FY 2009/2010 and Recovery Act Finance Grants reduced 

an estimated 19,200 lifetime tons of NOx; 600 tons of PM; 1,000 tons of HC; 

5,600 tons of CO; and 82,900 tons of CO2. These grants will save over 7 million 

gallons of fuel. 

Lessons Learned 

Grants to set up financing programs have proven to be a difficult mechanism to 

fund clean diesel projects. Finance grants generally require more administrative 

oversight and more time to establish and accomplish grant objectives, due to the 

revolving nature of loan programs. In addition, some grantees could not make the 

envisioned program work. Issues included changing economic factors (lower 

interest rates which made the grantee’s program less appealing; lower demand for 

new engines or technologies due to the slowed economy; expiration of a tax credit 

necessary for the program to succeed) and grantee administrative challenges. EPA 

deobligated $18.9 million in funding for these grants and returned it to either the 

U.S. Treasury (Recovery Act grants) or redirected the funds to other clean diesel 

DERA grants. EPA has closed all finance grants awarded from 2008 to 2010. 

Because DERA grants have not proven to be a good mechanism for establishing 

and administering low-cost financing programs, EPA is not currently anticipating 

loan future programs. 
Section 1: DERA National Competitive Grants

17

Exhibit 16: Reducing Emissions on School Buses through Retrofits2 

DERA Emerging Technology Grants 

The Emerging Technology (ET) program fostered the development of next 

generation diesel emissions reduction technologies by partnering technology 

manufacturers with fleets to test the effectiveness of the products. If the products 

proved successful in the field, they became verified technologies and available for 

wider use. The program supported projects to demonstrate and improve 

seventeen technologies. 

In total, EPA provided over $15 million in funding for emerging technology grants 

to upgrade more than 200 engines or pieces of equipment while also supporting 

technology innovation. In FY 2009/2010, EPA awarded funding to five ET 

projects. Eleven projects were selected to receive Recovery Act funding. In FY 

2011, EPA funded one ET project. 

Emerging technologies included selective catalytic reduction, diesel oxidation 

catalysts, engine shutdown, engine upgrades, auxiliary power units, diesel 

particulate filters, exhaust gas recirculation, a lean NOx catalyst, and hybrid 

replacements. The ET grants reduced an estimated 4,400 lifetime tons of NOx; 

160 tons of PM; 220 tons of HC; 1,600 tons of CO; and 2,200 tons of CO2. 

Nearly 13,000 Diesel Oxidation Catalysts (DOC) or DOC + 

Closed Crankcase Ventilation (CCV) have been installed on 

school buses with DERA funding, as well as approximately 

1,400 Diesel Particulate Filters (DPF). In 2014, EPA’s 

Technology and Assessment Center within the Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality conducted in-use testing on 

DOCs and DPFs and confirmed these technologies achieve 

verified levels of emissions reduction and remain durable in 

real world applications. Between 2008 and 2012, multiple 

manufacturers’ verified retrofit devices were procured by 

EPA and tested.

The devices were typically from prior grant projects and 

were used on school buses in normal operation for two to 

four years and accumulating up to 90,000 miles. All testing 

was performed on an engine dynamometer. Nine DPFs and 

three DOCS were tested for PM, HC, and CO. Per the tables 

on the right, DOCs alone were shown to reduce PM 

emissions up to 20%, and DPFs can reduce PM up to 99%.
Third Report to Congress: Highlights from the Diesel Emission Reduction Program

18

Lessons Learned 

While the ET program was successful in demonstrating some new products, there 

were many challenges for manufacturers and fleets with the limited DERA 

funding available. Consequently, EPA suspended the ET program as DERA 

allocations decreased. At the same time, the DERA program prioritized funding to 

areas with poor air quality given limited funding. Complexities associated with 

emerging technologies and their grant projects also made them more costly for 

the numbers of devices installed. Of the emerging technologies included on the ET 

program list, over half elected to not pursue full EPA verification or certification. 

DERA Tribal Grants 

A priority for the DERA program is to work with Tribes to reduce emissions. EPA 

began funding Tribal grants through the national competitive program in FY 

2009/2010. Between FY 2009-2013, EPA received applications requesting nearly 

$7 million in funding. By FY 2013, EPA had awarded ten tribal grants in Alaska, 

Arizona, California, Iowa, Minnesota, and Washington. These grants have 

provided $3,204,660 to retrofit or replace marine vessels, mining equipment, 

generators, municipal vehicles, and school buses. 

Lessons Learned and Looking Ahead 

Taking into consideration Tribal feedback, EPA offered a stand-alone tribal RFP in 

FY 2014 with $1 million in available funding. EPA is committed to strengthening 

partnerships with tribal communities and will likely continue to offer a standalone RFP for tribes with targeted tribal outreach. 

1 The state program automatically receives 30% of an appropriation, so the national component 

received 70% of the 2009/2010 program, 

which amounted to $84 million. The national 

competitive program received $64 million 

while the remaining $20 million went to the 

Emerging Technology and SmartWay Finance 

grant programs. In addition, some national 

funding in FY 2011 and the Recovery Act 

went to SmartWay Finance and Emerging 

Technology grants. These results are covered 

in another section.

2 McCoy, B. J., & Tanman, A. (2014). 

Emissions Performance and In-Use 

Durability of Retrofit After-Treatment 

Technologies. SAE International Journal of 

Engines, 7(4). DOI: 10.4271/2014-01-2347.

 

Photo Courtesy of Northwest Indian Fisheries 

Commission
Section 2: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

19

Section 2: American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act

In 2009, EPA received $300 

million for DERA through 

the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (Recovery 

Act), see Exhibit 17 and 

Exhibit 18.1 EPA funded 

“shovel-ready” large and 

impactful clean diesel 

projects that delivered 

immediate emissions 

reductions. More than 600 

entities applied, requesting 

$1.7 billion in project funds 

and offering $2.2 billion in 

matching funds. EPA 

awarded 89 competitive 

projects across the country, 

upgrading nearly 17,000 

pieces of equipment, see 

Exhibit 17 and Exhibit 18.2

DERA Recovery Act grants are estimated to reduce 102,500 lifetime tons of NOX; 

3,600 tons of PM; 6,000 tons of HC; 17,000 tons of CO; and 2,235,700 tons of 

CO2. These projects also saved nearly 200 million gallons of fuel. Grant recipients 

reported to the Office of Management and Budget that these projects created or 

saved approximately 3,000 jobs.3

Photo courtesy of Michael Kearns, 

City of Richmond, VA 

Photo courtesy of Mat Carlile, 

Utah Department of 

Environmental Quality 

Photo courtesy of the San 

Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District 

Exhibit 17: Recovery Act DERA National 

Funding by Sector
Third Report to Congress: Highlights from the Diesel Emission Reduction Program

20

Exhibit 18: Recovery Act DERA National Technologies 

Photo courtesy of City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 

NOTE: Cab Roof Fairing units 

were also funded under the 

Recovery Act but are not shown 

due to scale (< 10 units funded).

~4,900
Section 2: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

21

Recovery Act State grants 

As part of the Recovery 

Act, EPA funded state 

grants as well as national 

competitive DERA grants. 

EPA allocated $88 million 

to participating states to 

retrofit or replace 13,700 

engines or pieces of 

equipment. These projects 

reduced an estimated 

22,600 lifetime tons of NOX; 

1,400 tons of PM; 1,900 

tons of HC; 7,900 tons of 

CO; and 538,600 tons of 

CO2. These projects also 

saved more than 48 million 

gallons of fuel, see Exhibit 

19 and Exhibit 20. 

Exhibit 20: Recovery Act DERA State Technologies 

1 Total funding for projects was $294 million due to management and oversight funds.

2 Recovery Act funding also included SmartWay Finance, Emerging Technology, and State grants, 

all of which are covered in their own sections below.

3 This jobs estimate was created based on self-reported information from Recovery Act grant 

recipients according to the Office of Management and Budget’s guidance on job reporting.

 

Exhibit 19: Recovery Act DERA State Funding 

by Sector

NOTE: Hybrid Replacement units 

were also funded under the 

Recovery Act but are not shown 

due to scale (< 10 units funded).

~4,560
Third Report to Congress: Highlights from the Diesel Emission Reduction Program

22

Section 3: DERA State Program

The DERA legislation requires EPA to offer 30% 

of the annual appropriation to states to 

implement their own clean diesel programs. The 

fifty states began receiving DERA funds in 2008, 

and the District of Columbia became eligible as 

a state in FY 2009. The state agencies receiving 

and administering the DERA funds do not 

directly implement projects; instead, the 

agencies run their own funding programs to 

offer sub-grants and loans to applicants within 

their states. State agencies must select eligible 

applicants according to EPA’s requirements, but 

the selections are made entirely by the states to 

best fit state and local needs. Participating 

states received supplemental funds in 2009, 

2010, and 2011 to their original FY 2008 

awards. Supplemental funding to the original 

award allows for greater continuity for state 

projects. 

Puerto Rico became eligible for state funding in 

FY 2011, and the DERA reauthorization allowed 

Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, 

American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands to receive funds 

beginning in FY 2012. The five U.S. territories 

split funds equivalent to one state’s funding 

allotment. 

Diesel Oxidation Catalyst (DOC) 

This old diesel engine from a waste hauler was 

scrapped and replaced with a CNG engine. 

Photo Courtesy of Leonardo Academy

Protecting Children’s Health and 

Lowering PM2.5 Emissions in California

California Air Resources Board 

(CARB) was awarded a two-year 

DERA State Clean Diesel Program 

grant to install Diesel Particulate 

Filter (DPF) retrofits on 60 heavyduty school buses operating 

throughout California. This 

project was implemented using 

$660,051 in DERA grant funding 

combined with $473,949 in CARB 

matching funds and $44,599 in 

leveraged funds from the San 

Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 

Control District (SJVAPCD) and 

participating school districts. This 

project was administered through 

a partnership between CARB, 

SJVAPCD and participating fleets.

The project produced greater 

deployment of clean diesel 

technology than proposed in the 

original work plan (i.e., 60 

installed versus 54 projected 

retrofits).
Section 3: DERA State Program

23

FY 2008-2011 State 

Grants 

In total, states and 

territories received about 

$54 million in FY 2008-

2011 funds.1 EPA made 55 

initial awards, and these 

grants received 

supplemental funding in 

the subsequent fiscal 

years, see Exhibit 21 and 

Exhibit 22. These projects 

are estimated to reduce 

19,300 lifetime tons of NOX;

910 tons of PM; 1,300 tons 

of HC; 5,100 tons of CO; 

and 500,600 tons of CO2. 

Exhibit 22: FY 2008-2011 DERA State Technologies 

These projects also saved about 45 million gallons of fuel and retrofitted or 

replaced 12,000 engines or pieces of equipment. 

Exhibit 21: FY 2008-2011 DERA State Funding 

by Sector

NOTE: Biodiesel and Cab Roof 

Fairing units were also 

funded under the Recovery 

Act but are not shown due to 

scale (< 10 units funded).

~2,130

~2,100

~4,075
Third Report to Congress: Highlights from the Diesel Emission Reduction Program

24

FY 2012-2013 State grants 

After finishing the FY 2008-2011 grants, EPA decided to reduce the amount of 

time state grants remain open in order to encourage states to draw down funding 

more quickly and to streamline the grant process. EPA switched to two year 

funding increments, so the next round of state grants began in FY 2012 and 

concluded with FY 2013 

funding. In total, states 

and territories received 

about $9.5 million in 

FY 2012-2013 funds. EPA 

made 51 initial awards in 

FY 2012 and 29 

supplemental awards in 

FY 2013, see Exhibit 23

and Exhibit 24. 

 

 

 

Exhibit 24: FY 2012-2013 DERA State Technologies 

Exhibit 23: FY 2012-2013 DERA State Funding 

by Sector
Section 3: DERA State Program

25

These projects reduced an estimated 4,500 lifetime tons of NOX; 200 tons of PM; 

240 tons of HC; 1,200 tons of CO; and 86,500 tons of CO2. These projects also 

saved about 7.7 million gallons of fuel and retrofitted or replaced 1,900 engines or 

pieces of equipment. 

Lessons Learned and Looking Ahead 

After the conclusion of the FY 2012-2013 state grants, EPA began a new grant 

cycle for FY 2014-2015. Participating States began new grants if they had 

completed their work plan for FY 2013 grants. EPA conducted an analysis of the 

State grant program and found that State clean diesel projects could be more cost 

effective if they adhered to the DERA National program requirements. In 2014, 

EPA began requiring States to follow the requirements in the DERA National 

Program RFP for model years, technologies, cost-share and other factors. This 

proved difficult for some States, so some applied to EPA for and received waivers 

as they adjusted their programs to the more rigorous requirements. 

1 FY 2008 state grant results are covered in this Report to Congress because they were combined 

with later fiscal years to create one continuous project.

 
Third Report to Congress: Highlights from the Diesel Emission Reduction Program

26

Section 4: DERA National Clean Diesel 

Rebate Program

A significant change in the DERA reauthorization signed in January 2011 

provided EPA with the authority to award rebates. Rebates may be awarded to 

public institutions and some non- profit organizations, and private entities if they 

have a license, lease or contract with an eligible public organization. The National 

Clean Diesel Rebate Program was the first-ever rebate program within EPA. 

Rebates and grants differ in a variety of ways. One distinction is the simplified 

application process for rebates, which applicants prefer, compared with the 

higher administrative burden of the grant process. Rebates specify exact project 

requirements and eligibility. This allows for a more streamlined application, 

selection, and payment process. The rebate amount is specified up front and, 

once the selected applicant has completed all work, they are reimbursed with the 

rebate amount. EPA chose to use a lottery system to select school bus rebate 

winners. Winners had to meet all program requirements. 

The 2012 School Bus Replacement Rebate Program 

School buses were selected as the target fleet for 

the pilot rebate program because protecting 

children’s health is a very high priority for EPA, 

and NCDC has a long and successful history with 

the school bus sector on clean diesel projects. 

In November 2012, EPA launched the 2012 

School Bus Replacement Rebate Program, a pilot program to replace older school 

buses with newer vehicles powered by certified 2012 or newer engines. EPA set 

aside $2 million for this program, and each rebate award funded approximately 

25% of the bus replacement; fleet owners covered the remaining cost. This 

funding opportunity was aimed at school bus fleet owners with 1994 to 2003 

model year engines seeking to replace those buses with a certified 2012 or newer 

model year engine. Eligible replacement school buses may operate on ultra-low 

sulfur diesel, battery or hybrid drivetrains, or alternative fuels. Health benefits 

are achieved by scrapping the old buses and replacing them with cleaner ones. 

School bus fleet owners showed a tremendous demand for rebates. During the 

one month open application period, EPA received over 1,000 applications from 

school bus fleet owners requesting more than $70 million to replace over 2,800 

buses across the nation. EPA conducted a random lottery to select twenty-eight 
Section 4: DERA National Clean Diesel Rebate Program

27

applicants to replace 76 buses with rebates totaling $2 million. EPA announced 

these selectees in January 2013. Matching funding contributed was $6 million. 

Selected applicants were notified and given 90 days to submit purchase orders to 

EPA to ensure they were making adequate progress on replacing the buses. Those 

selected applicants that did not submit the purchase order within 90 days were 

replaced with applicants from the waitlist. In total, selectees had to replace and 

scrap the old buses within 9 months of their selection. After submitting the 

appropriate paperwork, they received their EPA rebate. 

In total, the school bus rebate program is estimated to have reduced 11 tons of 

PM, 215 tons of NOX, 18 tons of HC and 78 tons of CO. 

The 2013 Construction Equipment Rebate Program 

EPA selected the construction sector for its FY 2013 round of rebates with $2 

million in available funding. EPA chose construction equipment, part of the 

nonroad sector, after offering rebates to on-road school buses the previous year. 

In November 2013, EPA opened the application period for the 2013 Construction 

Equipment Funding Opportunity. EPA accepted applications until January 2014. 

This funding opportunity allowed public fleets and private fleets to retrofit Tier 2 

or Tier 3 emissions standard construction equipment engines with Diesel 

Particulate Filters (DPFs) or to replace engines with engines certified to cleaner 

emissions standards. In order to maximize health benefits, the construction 

equipment had to operate in priority counties—areas with air quality challenges. 

In order to be eligible, projects had to be located in: PM 2.5 or 8-Hr Ozone 

Nonattainment Areas or 8-Hr Ozone Maintenance Areas, areas that participate in 

EPA’s Ozone Advance Program or PM Advance Program, and/or counties where 

all or part of the population is exposed to more than 2.0 μg/m3 of diesel 

particulate matter emissions as determined by the 2005 National-Scale Air Toxics 

Assessment. 

Selected applicants had twelve months from the date of selection to take delivery 

and install the new Diesel Particulate Filters or to replace the engine. Those 

replacing engines also had to provide proof of scrappage for the old engine to 

ensure that it was taken out of use. 
Third Report to Congress: Highlights from the Diesel Emission Reduction Program

28

EPA received nineteen applications requesting over $1.3 million in rebate funding. 

However, some applicants experienced issues with technology applicability or 

their portion of the cost-share. In the end, EPA awarded $52,000 to 3 applicants 

to install one DPF and two engine replacements. The rebates reduced an 

estimated 11 tons of NOX; 1 ton of PM; 1 ton of HC; and 6 tons of CO. 

Lessons Learned and Looking Ahead 

Fleet owners across a variety of sectors were very enthusiastic about the pilot 

rebate program. All of the DERA program’s stakeholders praised the program for 

inducing fleet owners to replace older dirtier engines. Without the rebate, many of 

these owners would not have been able to afford the replacement. 

The construction program did not receive the same response as the school bus 

program, and there are a few likely reasons. EPA wanted to prioritize equipment 

operating in areas of poor air quality as well as those model years most costeffective to upgrade or replace. Selected applicants who wanted to install diesel 

particulate filters needed to spend two weeks data-logging to make sure their 

engine was appropriate for DPF installation. The complexity, location 

requirement, and added steps were deterrents for potential applicants so EPA 

received fewer applications than the more straightforward requirements for school 

bus replacements. Another impediment is likely that most heavy-duty diesel 

equipment is operated by private entities; however, DERA cannot directly fund 

private fleet projects unless the private entity has a contract or lease with a public 

entity 

Given the success of the School Bus Replacement Rebate Program and the 

importance of children’s health, EPA will likely fund more school bus rebates in 

the future. These rebates make a visible impact in communities across the 

country by providing children with healthier rides to school. 
Section 5: DERA Ports Initiative

29

Section 5: DERA Ports Initiative

Ports play a significant role in the nation’s transportation system and goods 

movement supply chain. Many ports are located in areas with high percentage of 

low income and minority populations who are often disproportionately impacted 

by diesel emissions associated with port activities. Ships and harbor craft are 

usually the largest contributors of diesel pollution at ports. Marine engines, cargo 

handling equipment, drayage trucks, and locomotives are also contributors of 

diesel pollution at ports. Port authorities, terminal operators and fleet owners, 

drayage truckers, and rail operators all have a role in helping to reduce diesel 

emissions at ports and surrounding communities. Reducing exposure to diesel 

exhaust in and around ports is important for public health and the environment. 

In 2013, EPA initiated “A National Conversation on Ports” to exchange views and 

develop a shared understanding of the challenges and opportunities of ports and 

port communities. These meetings allowed EPA to hear directly from those whose 

lives are most closely tied to ports. These meetings culminated in the National 

Port Stakeholders Summit held in April, 2014. 

Since 2008, fleets operating at marine and inland water ports have been a target 

fleet for DERA funding. EPA set aside $4 million for the FY 2013 Ports RFP. This 

was the first time DERA funding had been used in a sector-specific RFP. Eligible 

entities included public port authorities with jurisdiction over transportation or 

air quality at a marine or inland water port located in an area of poor air quality.1

Community groups, local 

governments, terminal 

operators, shipping carriers, and 

other business entities involved 

in port operations were 

encouraged to partner with port 

authorities. EPA received eight 

applications requesting more 

than $9 million in funding. EPA 

funded six projects that replaced 

drayage trucks, retrofitted cargo 

handling equipment, repowered 

a switcher locomotive, replaced 

older shuttle carriers with 

hybrids, and installed marine 

shore power infrastructure, see 

Exhibit 25. Matching funding 

contributed was $7.8 million. 

Exhibit 25: FY 2013 DERA Ports 

Initiative Funding by Sector
Third Report to Congress: Highlights from the Diesel Emission Reduction Program

30

DERA FY 2013 Ports RFP projects reduced an estimated 3,100 lifetime tons of 

NOX; 100 tons of PM; 150 tons of HC; 300 tons of CO; and 30,100 tons of CO2. 

These projects also saved more than 2.6 million gallons of fuel. 

Lessons Learned and Looking Ahead 

Ports are critical for commerce and are a keystone for economic growth in the 

U.S. However, they often can be a growing source of pollution, including 

greenhouse gases and air pollution. Over 41 million people in the U.S.--roughly 

one in eight--are exposed to air pollution coming from port operations, and as a 

result, are at higher risk of developing asthma, heart disease, and other health 

problems. A high concentration of legacy fleets operate in and around ports. 

Diesel emissions from these fleets pose a number of health risks to the 

neighboring population. Equipment and vehicles used at ports also contribute to 

our nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. Ports can significantly reduce these 

harmful emissions by implementing newer technologies and changing key 

practices. 

Ports and goods movement remain a priority for the EPA and the DERA program. 

This funding has been instrumental in furthering emissions reductions through 

clean diesel projects located at ports and goods movement hubs. 

In addition, EPA has launched a Ports Initiative designed to support ports, 

communities and other stakeholders in taking on this challenge and finding 

common sense solutions that protect local communities and port workers from 

 Photo Courtesy of Virginia Maritime Association Cleaning Up Emissions from Port Harbor Craft

This project, awarded to the Virginia Maritime 

Association, will upgrade and replace two very 

old Tier 0 (unregulated) marine propulsion 

engines in one tug boat with EPA Tier 3-certified 

marine engines. This tug boat, the G.M. 

McAllister, is a 110-foot marine tug boat that 

operates out of Newport News, VA.

This vessel is used primarily for ship docking 

assistance, as well as general harbor services. 

The G.M. McAllister operates for approximately 

1,300 hours per year and consumes 

approximately 160,000 gallons of fuel annually. 

This project will lower particulate matter, NOx 

and carbon dioxide emissions.
Section 5: DERA Ports Initiative

31

harmful air emissions while also reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that 

contribute to climate change. EPA is organizing a group of industry, community, 

State and local government experts, under the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee, 

dedicated to providing EPA with advice and insight on strategies and solutions 

that will advance emissions reductions to protect the air in communities near 

ports. Throughout this process stakeholders have expressed the importance of 

the DERA program in reducing emissions from the legacy fleet of diesel engines. 

Recommendations from this group are expected in 2016. 

1 Areas of poor air quality included areas:

1. Designated as particulate matter or ozone nonattainment areas;

2. Where all or part of the population is exposed to more than 2.0 μg/m3 of diesel particulate matter emissions in 

EPA’s 2005 National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment; and/or

3. That participated in EPA’s Ozone or PM Advance Program.

 
Third Report to Congress: Highlights from the Diesel Emission Reduction Program

32

Looking Ahead for the DERA Program

Even with implementation of EPA’s stringent standards for new on-highway and 

nonroad engines, EPA estimates that approximately one million engines from the 

legacy fleet will still remain in use in the year 2030. These engines will continue 

to affect the environment and public health and will not be touched by fleet 

turnover. Some of these engines will be decades old, pre-dating modern engine 

technology, yet still in use. In fact, EPA estimates that in 2025, mobiles sources 

will still make up about 45% of total NOX sources, with the legacy fleet portion 

about 15%. In addition, the legacy fleet will contribute about 20% of the direct PM 

emissions from mobile sources in the year 2025. The DERA program is designed 

to target removal and replacement of these remaining engines of the legacy fleet 

to protect public health and the environment. 

EPA estimates that DERA funding has reduced 14,700 tons of PM and 335,200 

tons of NOX since the first grants in 2008. These emission reductions have saved 

billions in health care costs. DERA projects have retrofitted or replaced nearly 

73,000 engines in the nation’s legacy fleet. Diesel engines are long-lasting and 

many pre-date the EPA’s stricter emissions standards. DERA funding helps to 

address these engines that emit higher levels of diesel exhaust and contribute to 

poor air quality. DERA helps promote fleet turnover, which can have major health 

benefits for communities surrounding ports, rail yards, distribution centers, and 

schools. The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act is currently authorized through 

2016. 

Photo courtesy of Sara Bartholomew, USEPA
Looking Ahead for the DERA Program

33

As the program looks ahead to the challenges of cleaner movement of goods 

through the nation’s supply chain, reducing black carbon pollution, and assisting 

environmentally challenged communities, DERA will continue to follow its guiding 

principles for all future implementation: 

• Target areas and populations with disproportionate levels of exposure to 

diesel exhaust while maximizing cost-effectiveness. 

• Prioritize children’s health with a goal of every child riding to school in a 

bus that meets the latest on-highway standards. 

• Target projects that reduce emissions from engines involved in goods 

movements and freight and frequently found operating at ports. 

• Increase greenhouse gas and black carbon reductions from DERA projects 

while continuing to reduce particulate matter and other criteria pollutants. 

• Design each DERA program opportunity to fund the most beneficial 

projects and maximize cost-effectiveness. 

• Continue to reduce pollution from diesel engines by partnering with key 

stakeholders. 

• Provide assistance to state and local governments in the development of 

their own clean diesel programs. 

• Continue verifying performance of emission reduction technologies in the 

field. 

• Maximize health benefits from clean diesel projects. 

 
Third Report to Congress: Highlights from the Diesel Emission Reduction Program

34

Appendix A: National Program Evaluation 

Criteria

• Project summary and overall approach 

• Results – Outcomes and Outputs 

• Programmatic priorities 

o Location 

o Diesel reduction effectiveness 

o Maximization of public health benefits 

o Utilization of community based multi-stakeholder collaborative 

process 

o Conservation of diesel fuel 

• Regional Significance 

• Past performance – Programmatic capability and reporting on results 

• Staff expertise/qualifications 

• Budget/resources 

• Past expenditure of awarded grant funds 

• Applicant fleet description 

For the Recovery Act grant competition, EPA used the same criteria but also took 

job creation/retention and “shovel-ready” projects into consideration. 

For more detailed information about the Request for Proposals, please see 

www.epa.gov/cleandiesel/clean-diesel-national-grants#rfp. 
Third Report to Congress: Highlights from the Diesel Emission Reduction Program

35

Appendix B: DERA Projects and Case Studies

Complete list of DERA and ARRA-funded national competitive projects: 

FY2012-2015 www.epa.gov/cleandiesel/clean-diesel-national-grants#dera2

FY2008-2011 www.epa.gov/cleandiesel/clean-diesel-national-grants#dera1

Complete list of Tribal projects: 

www.epa.gov/cleandiesel/clean-diesel-tribal-grants#projects

Complete list of Ports RFP projects: 

FY2014 www.epa.gov/ports-initiative/funding-projects-improve-air-qualityports#awarded2014

FY2013 www.epa.gov/ports-initiative/funding-projects-improve-air-qualityports#awarded2013

Complete list of State Allocations: 

FY2012-2015 www.epa.gov/cleandiesel/clean-diesel-state-allocations#alloc2

FY2008-2011 www.epa.gov/cleandiesel/clean-diesel-state-allocations#alloc1

Complete list of Rebates: 

FY2015 School Bus www.epa.gov/cleandiesel/clean-diesel-rebates#2015sb

FY2014 School Bus www.epa.gov/cleandiesel/clean-diesel-rebates#2014sb

FY2013 Construction www.epa.gov/cleandiesel/clean-diesel-rebates#2013co

FY2012 School Bus www.epa.gov/cleandiesel/clean-diesel-rebates#2012sb 
Third Report to Congress: Highlights from the Diesel Emission Reduction Program

36

Appendix C: Map of Diesel Collaboratives

Exhibit 26: EPA Regions and Regional Clean Diesel Collaboratives 

Northeast Diesel 

Collaborative 

EPA Region 1:

Connecticut, Maine, 

Massachusetts, New 

Hampshire, Rhode 

Island, Vermont and 10 

Tribal Nations 

EPA Region 2: New 

Jersey, New York, Puerto 

Rico, the U.S. Virgin 

Islands and 8 Tribal 

Nations 

Mid-Atlantic Diesel 

Collaborative

Region 3: Delaware, 

District of Columbia, 

Maryland, Pennsylvania, 

Virginia and West 

Virginia 

Southeast Diesel 

Collaborative

Region 4: Alabama, 

Florida, Georgia, 

Kentucky, Mississippi, 

North Carolina, South 

Carolina, Tennessee and 

6 Tribal Nations 

Midwest Clean Diesel 

Initiative

Region 5: Illinois, 

Indiana, Michigan, 

Minnesota, Ohio, 

Wisconsin and 35 Tribal 

Nations 

Blue Skyways 

Collaborative

Region 6: Arkansas, 

Louisiana, New Mexico, 

Oklahoma, Texas and 66 

Native Tribes 

Region 7: Iowa, Kansas, 

Missouri, Nebraska and 

9 Tribal Nations 

Rocky Mountain Clean 

Diesel Collaborative

Region 8: Colorado, 

Montana, North Dakota, 

South Dakota, Utah, 

Wyoming and 27 Tribal 

Nations 

West Coast 

Collaborative 

Region 9: Arizona, 

California, Hawaii, 

Nevada, Pacific Islands 

and 148 Tribal Nations 

Region 10: Alaska, 

Idaho, Oregon, 

Washington and 271 

Native Tribes