Regulating Emissions from 

Under-fired Charbroilers

May 2012

Jeffrey Bellisario

Benjamin Mandel

Jason Perkins

Yang Ruan

Goldman School of Public Policy

University of California, Berkeley

Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, Air Quality Division
Regulating Emissions from Under-fired Charbroilers | 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary and Recommendation Overview .............................................................3

1. Introduction........................................................................................................................4

2. Regulatory History .............................................................................................................6

2.1 Regulation of Chain-driven Charbroilers.......................................................................................6

2.2 Regulation of Under-fired Charbroilers.........................................................................................6

3. The Challenge of Regulating Under-fired Charbroilers ....................................................9

3.1 Regulatory Challenges: Uncertain Rule Design ..........................................................................10

3.2 Coordination Failure: Low Stakeholder Support........................................................................11

3.3 Technological Challenges: Uncertain Costs and Stalled Innovation .......................................12

4. Study Objectives ...............................................................................................................13

5. Cost and Efficacy of Emissions Control Technologies ...................................................14

5.1 Design Constraints..........................................................................................................................14

5.2 Changing Meat Cooked..................................................................................................................15

5.3 Cooking Equipment Technologies...............................................................................................16

5.4 Emissions Control Unit Technologies.........................................................................................18

5.5 Cost Analysis....................................................................................................................................19

5.6 Impact on Restaurants....................................................................................................................21

5.7 Future Prospects..............................................................................................................................24

5.8 Administrative Costs.......................................................................................................................25

6. Options for Agency Action...............................................................................................26

6.1 Let Present Trends Continue ........................................................................................................26

6.2 Regulating the Cooking Process ...................................................................................................27

6.3 Regulating Cooking Outputs.........................................................................................................30

6.4 Non-regulatory Options.................................................................................................................31

7. Recommendations............................................................................................................33

7.1 Working Group on Restaurant Emissions..................................................................................33

7.2 Implement a Credible Technology-forcing Standard.................................................................34

Conclusion...............................................................................................................................36
Regulating Emissions from Under-fired Charbroilers | 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION OVERVIEW

This report assesses the challenges that have prevented regulators from promulgating 

effective rules to reduce particulate matter (“PM”) emissions from restaurants that use under-fired 

charbroilers in California. With lessons learned from regulatory failures over the past two decades, 

we then outline a proposal for air quality management districts (“AQMDs”) to reduce PM emissions 

from restaurants throughout California:

 The EPA should convene and lead the Working Group on Restaurant Emissions to 

tackle issues of coordination and imperfect information among various stakeholder groups

 With input from the Working Group, AQMDs should implement credible technologyforcing standards around emissions control devices for under-fired charbroilers

Several of the most populous regions in California fall short of federal guidelines for 

acceptable levels of air pollution. Particulate matter is one of the principal pollutants that these areas 

must reduce under the direction of local AQMDs. Since commercial cooking is a large source of PM 

emissions, AQMDs have focused on restaurants in efforts to curb PM emissions in recent decades. 

While regulations on chain-driven charbroilers have been successful throughout California, 

attempts to regulate under-fired charbroilers, which are more common and more polluting than 

chain-driven charbroilers, have been ineffectual. Emissions control technologies, which can filter 

emissions from under-fired charbroilers to acceptable levels, have existed for decades, but 

restaurants have been resistant to use them due to the high costs associated with installation and 

maintenance. This opposition has made it evident that regulating under-fired charbroilers by 

instating a technological standard around emissions control devices is not a cost-effective strategy.

In this report, we first assess whether there has been any progress concerning the underlying 

causes for the failure of under-fired charbroiler regulations, and find the following:

 There has been no substantial improvement in terms of the cost and efficacy of 

technological options

 Adopting emissions control technology would represent 10-14% of restaurant profits, 

which is a much higher share of profits than control devices for chain-driven charbroilers

 Lack of innovation and failure to reach economies of scale continue to impede cost 

reductions for emissions control technology

Our recommendations are geared toward making emissions control devices a more viable 

option by widening the scope of applicability of a technological standard, which will generate 

sufficient demand for manufacturers to scale up production and bring down costs. If executed 

properly, this proposal will significantly reduce PM emissions from restaurants with manageable 

burdens on the restaurant industry.
Regulating Emissions from Under-fired Charbroilers | 4

1. INTRODUCTION

Clean Air Act and Agency Involvement

Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency (“EPA”) enforces air quality standards to protect the health and welfare of the American 

public. Known as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”), these guidelines set 

forth acceptable levels of “criteria pollutants” that are allowed to be present in the air. In California, 

local air quality management districts are tasked with monitoring and managing stationary sources of 

air pollution in order to meet NAAQS standards—known as “attainment.” Unfortunately, many 

areas of California are classified as “non-attainment” for several criteria pollutants—including 

particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and carbon monoxide. As a result, local air quality 

management districts must produce and execute an EPA-approved plan for reducing the levels of 

select pollutants in the air under their jurisdiction. 

Air quality management districts (“AQMDs”) throughout California, most notably the highly 

populated areas overseen by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (“BAAQMD”), the 

South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”), and the San Joaquin Valley Air 

Pollution Control District (“SJVAPCD”) are currently classified as non-attainment zones for 

particulate matter (“PM”). They must produce and execute an EPA-approved plan for reducing the 

levels of PM in the air under their jurisdiction with required attainment of the standard by 2015.

Particulate Matter and its Public Health Impacts

PM is categorized by the size of the individual ambient pollution particle, and is often 

classified as PM2.5 or PM10 (depending on the diameter of the particulate in microns). Geographies 

with low wind speeds and regular evening thermal inversions (such as the San Joaquin Valley and 

much of the South Coast Basin in California) are also more likely to have high ambient PM levels as 

dispersion of emissions is more limited.1

The California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) has extensively studied the health effects of 

exposure to particulate matter emissions (including both PM2.5 and PM10). A consistent correlation 

has been found between elevated ambient fine particulate matter levels and an increase in mortality 

rates, respiratory infections, the number and severity of asthma attacks, and the number of hospital 

admissions.2Studies have also found that exposure to fine particulate air pollution can reduce life 

expectancy and increase the occurrence of lung cancer. 3 The elderly and children appear to be 

particularly susceptible to the effects of ambient particulate matter. Air quality data taken from a 

CARB report in 2000 attributed 5,400 premature deaths and 980,000 lost workdays in the South 

Coast Air Basin region alone to PM2.5.

4
Regulating Emissions from Under-fired Charbroilers | 5

Restaurant Emissions

The majority of ambient particulate matter comes from non-stationary sources, such as 

unpaved road dust and forest fires. Many of these sources are not easily regulated or are already 

controlled to a certain extent (i.e. electric utility coal combustion, metals processing, and on-road 

vehicles). While restaurants are a relatively small source of the ambient particulate matter inventory 

nationally (approximately 1%),5their contribution to PM emissions in California is much larger. The 

BAAQMD estimates that restaurants produce 6% of all PM emissions given their high density in the 

Bay Area, while previous studies have found that restaurant-produced PM accounts for 14% and 

21% of ambient volatile organic compounds in Fresno and Los Angeles, respectively.6

The main source of PM emitted from restaurants are charbroilers, a particular type of 

cooking technology that produce over 80% of all restaurant emissions in California. Generally, PM 

is produced when the grease from the cooking process is vaporized, thus more fatty meats will 

produce a greater amount of PM when charbroiled. Specifically, the process of charbroiling beef 

creates nearly two-thirds of all charbroiler emissions. 7 The vast majority of emissions from 

charbroiling activities are PM2.5; in addition to these miniscule particles, charbroiling also produces 

small amounts of condensable vapor and volatile organic compounds (“VOC”). These emissions are

difficult to control with existing ventilation technologies given their gaseous nature, but they do

contribute to the formation of smog and PM when condensed in the atmosphere.
Regulating Emissions from Under-fired Charbroilers | 6

2. REGULATORY HISTORY

Each of the previously mentioned AQMDs plans to reduce PM pollution by targeting 

emissions from restaurants, with up to one-third of their intended reductions coming from 

additional restaurant regulation. 

2.1 Regulation of Chain-driven Charbroilers

In a related regulatory effort, the BAAQMD, SCAQMD, SJVAPCD, and the Ventura 

County Air Pollution Control District have successfully passed and implemented rules to control 

emissions from chain-driven charbroilers, which are used primarily in fast food restaurants. These 

rules prohibit restaurants that are deemed sufficiently beef-intensive from operating chain-driven 

charbroilers in the absence of a control device (typically a catalytic oxidizer). Because chain-driven 

charbroilers are mainly used in three large restaurant franchises in California—Burger King, Carl’s, 

Jr., and Red Robin—AQMDs have largely been able to fit chain-driven charbroiler rules to an

identifiable set of impacted restaurants based on throughput. These rules apply to approximately 

80% of all chain-driven charbroilers operated within the regulating AQMDs, thus making them 

effective in controlling the bulk of chain-driven PM emissions. The existence of a readily-available 

control device technology has also facilitated these rules, as catalytic oxidizers offer fair and 

reasonable upfront costs to restaurants, easy installation atop existing chain-driven charbroilers, and 

energy conservation by utilizing exhaust heat from the broilers to power vents.

2.2 Regulation of Under-fired Charbroilers

However, a different cooking technology, under-fired charbroilers, is used at a larger and 

more diverse set of restaurants in California. More than one-third of all California restaurants use 

under-fired charbroilers; in comparison, chain-driven charbroilers are employed in only 8% of all 

restaurants in California. 8 Additionally, it has been shown that under-fired charbroilers emit 

approximately six times more PM than comparable chain-driven charbroilers.9 Regulating underfired charbroilers therefore has the potential to significantly reduce emissions from California’s 

restaurants beyond the reductions already achieved by chain-driven charbroiler regulations. Underfired charbroilers are a significant source of PM2.5 emissions (73.5% of all charbroiling emissions in 

the U.S.)10; however, regulating them has proven more challenging than the prior regulations of 

chain-driven charbroilers, as exemplified by the attempts of the BAAQMD, SJVAPCD, and 

SCAQMD illustrated below. 

Bay Area Air Quality Management District Rule 11

In November 2007, BAAQMD passed a rule requiring controls for under-fired charbroilers. 

Its “Regulation 6: Particulate Matter, Rule 2: Commercial Cooking Equipment” required restaurants 

with at least 10 square feet of total grill surface area, that cook at least 800 pounds of beef weekly, 

and that purchase at least 1,000 pounds of beef weekly to outfit any new under-fired charbroilers 

with certified control devices beginning in 2010. BAAQMD specified that a control device must 
Regulating Emissions from Under-fired Charbroilers | 7

limit emissions to one pound of PM10 per 1,000 pounds of beef cooked in order to be certified. 

However, no control technologies have been certified since the rule has been in effect, nor have any 

new charbroilers been purchased and installed in Bay Area restaurants that meet the size and 

purchasing requirements. The rule will extend to existing under-fired charbroilers in 2013, but the 

lack of sanctioned control devices and uncertainty surrounding the rule’s applicability to restaurants 

paint a murky picture of the outlook for implementation.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Proposal 12

In June 2009, SJVAPCD set out to amend “Rule 4692: Commercial Charbroiling,” which 

had covered only chain-driven charbroiling, as part of its commitment to reach attainment status. In 

order to expand the universe of regulated charbroilers, district staff originally proposed that the rule 

be extended to under-fired charbroilers—in addition to adding further controls on restaurants using 

chain-driven charbroilers. The proposed rule impacted restaurants that cooked more than 800 

pounds of meat weekly and required them to reduce emissions by 90%. In public hearings regarding 

this proposal, concerns regarding the financial health of restaurant stakeholders and questions about 

control costs and practicability arose. Based on vendor interviews, SJVAPCD staff responded by 

increasing cost estimates relative to the original cost estimates that were taken from the BAAQMD 

analysis. With much higher total capital costs and unverified effectiveness estimates (given that few 

technologies were installed in the field), SJVAPCD decided to remove all regulation of under-fired 

charbroilers from its amendment. District staff did include a charbroiler incentive pilot program for 

restaurants to voluntarily install under-fired technologies and also vowed to revisit the issue in 2011.

South Coast Air Quality Management District Proposal 13

In August 2009, the SCAQMD proposed its own rule to regulate emissions from under-fired 

charbroilers. The regulation would apply to restaurants that cook more than 1,250 pounds of beef 

per week, and would require an 85% reduction in PM emissions. Unlike the other AQMDs, the 

proposed SCAQMD efficiency standard applied to both filterable and condensable emissions. In 

setting an 85% threshold, the proposed rule would have limited restaurants to only one qualifying 

technological option. Consequently, this proposal received considerable opposition from both the 

restaurant and air ventilation industries and did not proceed further. 
Regulating Emissions from Under-fired Charbroilers | 8

Table 1 | California AQMD proposals for rules related to under-fired charbroilers

While each of the AQMDs cited above in Table 1 went as far as proposing new regulations

based on extensive research, only the BAAQMD rule was moved into the regulatory code. The 

SCAQMD and SJVAPCD proposals were dropped mainly in response to significant concerns from 

restaurant industry stakeholders.

There are few other examples of attempted under-fired charbroiler regulations from across 

the country. AQMDs in Hawai’i and New Jersey have studied potential regulations, but have not 

successfully implemented a rule. A charbroiling rule in Pitkin County, Colorado is often cited as the 

only charbroiler regulation to have impacted under-fired charbroiling outside of California. 

Aspen, CO Experience14

Pitkin County, Colorado and the City of Aspen passed a regulation in the 1980s to reduce 

emissions by at least 90% from all types of charbroilers. The rule was promulgated in hopes of 

phasing out open-flame charbroilers of all types. Given a high level of restaurant industry pushback, 

waivers were issued to those restaurants that moved to lower fat-content beef. New restaurants have 

also been reluctant to install solid surface grills, claiming that the taste of their food would be 

compromised. The Pitkin County Environmental Health Department has found that many of the 

new restaurants have installed controls, but they have not maintained them properly—thus 

rendering them useless in reducing emissions. While the shift to reduced fat-content beef has 

lowered PM emissions (achieving the ultimate goal of the regulation), the hoped-for adoption of 

cleaner grilling practices did not materialize. Additionally, a lack of timely and strict enforcement 

mechanisms following installation allows many restaurants to avoid the regulation altogether.

AQMD BAAQMD SCAQMD SJVAPCD

Staff Report Date November 2007 August 2009 October 2009

Final Status Rule Proposal Proposal

Applicability Must meet all 3 criteria: 

(1) > 10 sq. ft. cooking area; 

(2) purchase ≥ 1,000 lbs of 

beef/wk; and 

(3) cook > 800 lbs of 

beef/wk

Cook ≥1,250 lbs of beef/wk Cook > 800 lbs of meat/wk

Operating 

Parameters

Certify control equipment to 

reduce PM10 emission to 

1 lb/1,000 lbs of beef 

cooked

85% reduction in PM 

emissions through control 

equipment w/ manufacturer 

certification

90% reduction in PM 

emissions through control 

equipment w/ manufacturer 

certification

Impacted 

Restaurants

4% of restaurants using 

under-fired charbroilers 

(approx. 200 restaurants)

7% of restaurants using 

under-fired charbroilers 

(approx. 930 of 13,300)

30% of restaurants using 

under-fired charbroilers 

(approx. 600 restaurants)
Regulating Emissions from Under-fired Charbroilers | 9

3. THE CHALLENGE OF REGULATING UNDER-FIRED CHARBROILERS

The regulatory approaches described above in California are intended to be technologyforcing in nature (see inset box below). Given that the technologies to reduce the requisite amount 

of PM did not exist at the time the BAAQMD rule was written, it was meant to compel 

manufacturers to develop new technologies by creating a market for improved (and potentially less 

costly) controls.

Technology-forcing Standards Defined15

Regulators utilize technology-forcing standards in order to quicken the time-to-market for 

innovative technological solutions and to internalize the external costs associated with the 

production and/or use of the technology. Many technology-forcing standards have succeeded in 

creating new products or eliminating detrimental ones. For example, removing lead additives from 

gasoline, usage of catalytic converters, and innovation in hybrid and fuel cell vehicles were all driven 

by technology-forcing regulations. These types of standards can also easily fail by requiring a “leap 

of faith” from manufacturers. For example, regulations requiring the installation of airbags in 

automobiles took more than 20 year to become compulsory. Automakers fought back on the 

unproven new technological fixes and refused to make research and product development decisions 

in an uncertain regulatory environment. While airbags did eventually become required in all 

automobiles, their uptake was largely market-driven and not forced by regulation. 

Diagnosing the Technology-Forcing Rule Design Problem: BAAQMD Regulation 6, Rule 2 

While the BAAQMD is the only jurisdiction to have created a rule regulating under-fired 

charbroilers, its implementation has largely been deemed a failure as no controlled charbroilers have 

been registered under the rule. Figure 1 below outlines the major questions that the technologyforcing regulatory process has attempted to answer thus far in reducing emissions from restaurant 

charbroilers. In essence, instead of attempting to tax or limit the quantity of PM emissions from 

restaurants directly, the BAAQMD rulemaking regarding charbroilers attempts to regulate the 

operations of certain members of the restaurant industry. Specifically, this rule mandates the 

installation of emissions control technologies at certain restaurants. Although this effort clearly 

establishes what processes should be regulated and what responses are desired from the restaurant 

industry, it remains unclear exactly who should be subject to the rule and who pays the cost of 

regulatory compliance. Without clarity in this aspect, the rulemaking process has created multiple 

areas of uncertainty that have rendered it ineffective. Imperfect information, doubts about 

technological possibilities, and a lack of buy-in from numerous stakeholders have resulted in a 

regulation that has little hope of engendering compliance. 
Regulating Emissions from Under-fired Charbroilers | 10

Figure 1 | The technology-based regulatory approach: BAAQMD Regulation 6, Rule 2

These areas of uncertainty can be summarized in three general categories: rule design, 

stakeholder coordination failure, and technological doubts. The following section describes in more 

detail how a lack of certainty in these respects has undermined efforts to facilitate and encourage the 

adoption of emissions control technology for under-fired charbroilers.

3.1 Regulatory Challenges: Uncertain Rule Design

Difficulties in Setting Appropriate Thresholds

Effective rules must clearly and firmly delineate between groups subject to regulation and 

those that are not. In this respect, the BAAQMD rule has two primary flaws:

(1) Applicability thresholds were set too high, thus creating a very small or even nonexistent regulatory universe; and

(2) The rule was specified in a manner that enables would-be impacted restaurants to evade 

regulation by downsizing grills below threshold limits.

The BAAQMD staff thought it had created a rule that would incentivize innovation in the 

ventilation control manufacturing industry essentially creating a new market for under-fired 

charbroiler control technologies. However, the ventilation industry believed the rule would likely not 

impact many restaurants—either they would grill less beef or switch to a different cooking 

technology. With no expected market for their products, the control manufacturers did not even 

submit existing products for certification. Qualifying technologies have not emerged in advance of 

the 2013 requirements for existing under-fired charbroilers. Without certified technologies in place 

and without any newly built restaurants meeting the thresholds for the rule, the regulation has failed 

to force the restaurant industry to address their under-fired charbroiler emissions.
Regulating Emissions from Under-fired Charbroilers | 11

Regulatory Hurdles: Coordination, Information, and Administration

In addition to proposing rules that have failed to create a regulated universe of sufficient 

scale, the regulatory attempts in California also suffer from a lack of coordination among all 

stakeholders. Without a greater amount of information from the restaurant industry, manufacturers, 

and installers, AQMDs are forced to make uninformed estimates and to set nearly arbitrary 

thresholds that can be easily evaded. This lack of information makes it difficult for the AQMDs to 

write rules that target high emitters who can afford to install the required technology. Additionally, 

in order for an AQMD to enforce a charbroiler regulation, it must be able to effectively track the 

amount of PM that restaurants emit (both before and after a control is installed), as well as perform 

inspections to ensure that the control is being operated correctly. 

3.2 Coordination Failure: Low Stakeholder Support

Restaurant Opposition to Proposed Rules

In analyzing the failure of the proposals from the SJVAPCD and SCAQMD, cost was the 

major factor in the restaurant industry’s opposition to the under-fired charbroiler regulations. The 

restaurant industry is represented by the California Restaurant Association (“CRA”), which has been 

involved in the rule-making processes within each of the three districts. While it stands in opposition 

to any new costly regulations, it does have a cooperative relationship with the AQMDs and a voice 

in creating rules that are fair to its members.

Not only have the AQMDs produced widely varying cost estimates for each potential 

control technology, but the CRA has also presented significantly higher estimates of average total 

costs to its affected members.16 AQMDs have compiled estimates based on initial capital outlays, 

installation costs, and maintenance expenses, while the CRA has countered with the addition of 

costs related to remodeling for existing restaurants, permitting, and lost revenues due to temporary 

shutdown of the businesses.

Part of the reason that cost estimates have diverged stems from the fact that the 

manufacturers, regulators, installers, and users/maintainers of the equipment are different parties 

with little coordination. All four have different definitions of the total cost of the control system, 

thus obscuring the total cost of technology adoption.

Restaurants have also voiced concerns related to record-keeping requirements that would 

force establishments to register their charbroilers and closely track their usage of beef and 

maintenance of the control system. Additionally, the large and diverse set of restaurants that use 

under-fired charbroilers, including small businesses, has raised concerns that widely-cast regulations 

may have a disparate impact on operators with smaller scale, especially as it relates to potential 

installation and remodeling costs.
Regulating Emissions from Under-fired Charbroilers | 12

3.3 Technological Challenges: Uncertain Costs and Stalled Innovation

Regulatory barriers have also stymied technological innovation relating to under-fired 

charbroilers. Regulators are dependent on the manufacturers of control technologies to produce 

controls that meet the standards set in the regulatory code. Controls that meet the efficiency 

thresholds are then certified for use in restaurants. As opposed to the regulations passed for chaindriven charbroilers, the under-fired controls are more costly and difficult to install. 

The size of the under-fired charbroiler control market acts as a second barrier to innovation.

The large, national and multi-national ventilation companies have little incentive to develop a 

product that only serves a single AQMD. This lack of achievable scale also impacts the smaller 

manufacturers of controls, as they are unable to gain the economies of scale necessary to produce a 

more cost-competitive product.

Additionally, given that there is a lack of a streamlined testing and certification process that 

coordinates the efficiency requirements of the various AQMDs, large manufacturers have become 

frustrated with changing benchmarks and have opted out of the process in the past. The lack of 

coordination among the AQMDs presents confusion and redundancy problems for the 

manufacturers, also lowering the credibility of the AQMDs. 
Regulating Emissions from Under-fired Charbroilers | 13

4. STUDY OBJECTIVES 

The primary task of this report is to provide recommendations regarding under-fired 

charbroiler regulations that can be implemented by California AQMDs. As articulated by U.S. EPA, 

two central questions drive this analysis:

(1) In the universe of currently available technologies, what are the financial 

implications of requiring restaurants to install emissions controls?

(2) What steps should local air quality management districts take to reduce PM2.5

emissions, especially with respect to control technology implementation?

In answering these questions, we identify two key dimensions of under-fired charbroiler 

regulation:

(1) Analyzing the cost and efficacy of emissions control technology in the restaurant 

context and,

(2) Exploring potential strategies for agency action given the state of current technology.

Judging from the successes and challenges of previous efforts to curtail restaurant PM 

emissions, any successful regulatory strategy must address three principal concerns:

Achieving Emissions Reductions

Any regulation must significantly reduce PM emissions from under-fired charbroilers. 

Drawing upon past analyses performed by several AQMDs, we judge the effectiveness of emissions 

reduction technologies by absolute measures of control efficiency (% of PM removed), as well as by 

the cost-effectiveness of reductions, in dollars per ton of particulate matter abated ($/ton PM).

Minimizing Cost of Compliance

All viable regulatory strategies must achieve targeted emissions reductions while also 

ensuring that the costs of compliance for the restaurants lie within industry-acceptable ranges. 

Because regulatory action must not stifle restaurant industry profitability, we consider the cost of 

various emissions-control options in the context of the financial impacts on affected restaurants.

Enabling Administrative Feasibility

Given the difficulties faced by AQMDs in instituting controls for under-fired charbroilers, 

this study recognizes that successful under-fired charbroiler regulations must be practicable, not just 

for the restaurant industry but also for agencies themselves. Previous attempts to reduce charbroiler 

emissions have struggled to achieve wide impact due to informational asymmetries, political 

opposition, limited AQMD resources, and the ability of restaurants to evade enforcement. 
Regulating Emissions from Under-fired Charbroilers | 14

5. COST AND EFFICACY OF EMISSIONS CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES 

There are three ways restaurants can reduce their emissions: cooking foods that emit less

PM, switching from using under-fired charbroilers to cleaner-burning cooking equipment, or 

installing emissions control technologies to their present kitchens. For each option, there are a 

variety of technological options that merit consideration.

In this section, each strategy is described and evaluated based on its cost per unit of 

pollution reduced (measured in “$/ton PM”), its impact on restaurant operations, and the 

administrative burden its adoption poses for AQMDs. For all strategies, technological development 

has been slow because the market for low emissions cooking equipment and emissions control units 

is small. Demand is typically driven by public complaints about odor or grease, resulting in 

municipal building code and zoning regulations.

The analysis shows that switching food cooked and cooking equipment have much lower 

capital costs and installation costs than emissions control units. However, they are less acceptable 

strategies to restaurants because they require more operational changes. For example, the restaurant 

may have to alter the menu and change the business. All strategies can be difficult for government 

agencies to enforce. Emissions control units are particularly burdensome because they can be easily 

disabled after installation by restaurants seeking to avoid maintenance costs.

5.1 Design Constraints

Three design constraints limit the realm of technological possibilities in reducing emissions 

from under-fired charbroiling. The first is the way that emissions are produced from under-fired 

charbroiling and the resulting profile of the emissions. The second encompasses the restaurants’ 

operational and business needs. The third is that agencies have limited resources to monitor and 

enforce emissions reductions from restaurants.

Emissions from Charbroiling17

Emissions from under-fired charbroilers are generated when fat, marinade from meat, or oil 

fall onto the heat source. The high temperature of the heat source causes the food to combust and 

become smoke, particulate matter, condensable vapor, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)18.

Some meats and oils emit more than others for a given amount cooked. Different cooking 

technologies can also reduce the amount of PM emitted by interfering with the way the emissions 

are generated.

These emissions interfere with restaurant operations and are exhausted into the atmosphere 

by a ventilation system known as the hood that usually covers all the cooking equipment. Grease 

filters in the hood capture particles larger than 10μm in diameter. Otherwise, they would collect in 

the ductwork of the ventilation system, which is a major fire hazard. The remaining particles and 

vapors are released into the atmosphere.
Regulating Emissions from Under-fired Charbroilers | 15

The majority of the remaining particle emissions are smaller than 2.5μm in diameter, also 

known as PM2.5. The graph below shows the distribution of particle sizes from cooking a hamburger 

on an under-fired charbroiler. In fact, the vast majority of the PM is less than 1μm in diameter, 

peaking at .17μm 19. Furthermore, up to one-third of the emissions may be in the form of 

condensable vapors24. This vapor condenses and becomes PM when it exits the restaurant and hits 

the colder air outside.

Restaurant Needs

In order to be acceptable to the restaurant industry, any strategy must be affordable, easy 

and quick to maintain, and have a small financial and operational impact. Restaurants prefer to offer 

a consistent menu, and thus are typically averse to changing the types and volumes of food they 

cook. Alternative cooking technologies must preserve the flavor and visual effect of food.

20

As mentioned previously, emissions inside the restaurant interfere with restaurant operations 

and so are exhausted into the atmosphere. Larger particles are filtered because they are a fire hazard.

The rest of the PM is sometimes required to be removed because of odor and nuisance complaints 

from the public. Municipal zoning requirements often apply to mixed-use buildings such as hotels, 

airports, and stadiums or to restaurants in densely populated areas. Otherwise, the restaurant itself 

does not have a need to reduce or filter emissions. In fact, they have a preference to emit PM 

because the smell of the food serves as a kind of advertising.

21

The emissions control units must not impede the functionality of the ventilation system, and 

they must be appropriately sized for the restaurants. It is also important that the technology does 

not increase the risk of a fire. Strict maintenance may be required to control potential fire hazards.

Agency Resources

AQMDs are public sector agencies with limited resources to enforce regulations for underfired charbroilers. Because it is not easy to measure and monitor restaurant emissions directly, 

agencies must have other ways to determine the level of emissions and emissions reductions.

The BAAQMD regulation uses the type and amounts of meat cooked to identify which 

restaurants actually have high emissions. This may not be very accurate and it is also hard to verify.

The agency must also be able to ensure that restaurants actually reduce emissions. In particular, 

emissions control units that are not properly maintained are not effective, and so agencies need a 

way to make sure restaurants are keeping their installed units maintained and operational.

5.2 Changing Meat Cooked22

Some foods have higher emissions than others per pound of food cooked for a given 

cooking method. They can be compared by measuring their emissions factor, a figure representing 

the pounds of emissions produced per 1,000 pounds of meat cooked: 
Regulating Emissions from Under-fired Charbroilers | 16

Emissions Factor = 

 

Meat emits more than vegetables. Of the meats studied, beef has the highest emissions 

factor, followed by chicken, pork, and seafood. Hamburger beef has the highest emissions factor 

(32), while the emissions factor for steak is roughly half as large (17).

Figure 2 | Emissions factors of charbroiled meat 

Sources: SCAQMD

Beef is also by far the most common meat cooked in restaurants, presumably because it is 

the most popular meat for consumers. As a competitive industry, restaurants are only inclined to 

alter their menus according to consumer demand. Directly regulating the type and amounts of meat 

cooked interferes too much with the business itself. However, all of the previous regulatory attempts

use the amount of beef purchased and cooked as a threshold to identify restaurants that are required 

to install emissions control units. Regulators can also educate restaurants and consumers about the 

emissions factors of the different meats.

5.3 Cooking Equipment Technologies

For a given meat, different cooking technologies have lower emissions factors23. In general, 

deep fat frying, baking, and broiling all have lower emissions factors while woks have higher 

emissions factors24. Chain-driven charbroilers with emissions control units, clamshell griddles, and 

smokeless broilers are the three closest direct substitutes for under-fired charbroilers.

 Chain-driven charbroilers with emissions control units cook hamburgers in bulk and are 

typically used in fast-food restaurant chains such as Burger King and Carl’s Jr. The emissions 

are reduced because the food is cooked in an enclosed unit and the higher temperature 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Hamburger Steak Chicken Fish

solid and condensable PM VOC
Regulating Emissions from Under-fired Charbroilers | 17

causes more complete combustion. This also made it possible to control the emissions with 

a catalytic oxidizer, which required minimal installation, maintenance, and is also low cost.

Chain-driven charbroilers have been successfully regulated in certain California AQMDs so 

that they have an emissions factor of 1.3 with the control technology installed.25

 Clamshell griddles use two grooved metal plates that close in on each other with the food 

inserted in the middle. Griddles emit less PM because the grease from the meat does not 

come in contact with an open flame and the clamshell griddle emissions are further reduced 

because of the lower cooking time, resulting in an emissions factor of 2.2. While some 

restaurants such as McDonald’s utilize clamshell griddles, they are not a drop-in replacement 

for an under-fired charbroiler.26,27

 Smokeless broilers are a type of under-fired charbroiler with water that washes away the 

fat. However, it does not leave char marks on the meat and because of this visual effect, the 

restaurant industry has rejected including this as an emissions reduction alternative. The 

Center for Environmental Research and Technology (CE-CERT) at UC Riverside did a taste 

test and found that the taste is indistinguishable from the under-fired charbroiler, but so far 

the restaurant industry still opposes it.28

Figure 3 | Emissions factors for burgers by type of cooking equipment

Sources: CE-CERT, University of Minnesota

Although all these options cook similar foods to under-fired charbroilers, the results are not 

exactly the same and changes in restaurant operations would be necessary. The chefs may not have 

expertise with using alternative cooking equipment. Restaurant owners or chefs often have strong 

preferences against them based on nuanced differences in the flavor, texture, or visual effect. Again, 

the decisions tend to be based on meeting consumer demand. As a result, even though the prices are 

comparable to under-fired charbroilers, the restaurant industry is generally averse to regulating 

cooking equipment since they are not perfect substitutes for under-fired charbroilers. At the same 

time, regulators can educate restaurants and consumers about the emissions factors of the different 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Under-fired Clamshell Griddle Smokeless Broiler Chain-Driven w/

Controls

solid and condensable PM
Regulating Emissions from Under-fired Charbroilers | 18

cooking technologies.

5.4 Emissions Control Unit Technologies 29,30,31,32,33

Most proposals for regulating under-fired charbroilers focus on emissions control units 

because it does not impact the food or cooking process at all. They only impact restaurant 

operations through required maintenance procedures, and they only impact the business through 

monetary costs. Emissions control units are installed inside the ventilation system (the hood).

The three most popular and effective technologies are ESPs, HEPA filters, and wet scrubbers:

 ESPs, or electrostatic precipitators, charge particles using high DC voltage, causing them 

to collect on metal plates. Particles are then washed off with water. They are a fire hazard if 

they are not properly maintained because grease builds up on the metal plates. 

 High-Efficiency Particulate Arresting (“HEPA”) filters are fiber-based filters. HEPA filters 

must remove 99.97% of all particles greater than .3μm to meet a standard set by the DOE. 

However, most restaurant emissions are smaller than .3μm, so the actual effectiveness of 

HEPA filters is less than the stated effectiveness by the manufacturer. 

 Wet scrubbers have the emissions pass through an atomized stream of water mixed with 

detergent to capture the grease particles. Wet scrubber systems usually also have HEPA 

filters. This system is able to remove VOC as well as PM because the water cools the 

emissions and causes the grease vapors to condense. The lower temperature also reduces fire 

hazard.34

The development of emissions control technology has been slow because of low demand. In 

fact, ESPs and HEPA filters were first invented over 50 years ago for other applications. Wet 

scrubber systems were invented about 10 years ago and are more effective, but are not significantly 

cheaper. This is partially due to the fact that ESPs and HEPA filters are made by ventilation system

manufacturers, which sometimes offer discounts for the emissions control units when sold together 

with the hoods. Furthermore, without a rule, restaurants have no need for a more effective unit.

Hood manufacturers make most of their revenue from the hood business and the emissions control 

market is not big enough to warrant large investments into research and development for emissions 

control. As a result, costs for emissions control units have remained high, and they have not become 

much more effective at removing particles from exhaust air.
Regulating Emissions from Under-fired Charbroilers | 19

Table 2 | Summary of emissions control unit technologies

5.5 Cost Analysis

The total cost of an emissions control unit includes the capital costs, cost of installation, and 

cost of maintenance. The costs for the units vary depending on the sizes of the hoods. The hood 

sizes are indicated by the amount of airflow in cfm (cubic feet per minute). In general hoods are 

sized according to the amount of food cooked, with larger restaurants needing larger hoods. 

As seen in Figure 4 below, particularly for ESP’s, the installation costs of retrofitting the 

units for existing restaurants can be much higher than installing the units when the restaurants are 

first being constructed35. This is because significant renovations may be required in order for the 

emissions control unit to fit and be compatible with the hood. There may also be plumbing and 

electrical wiring needs36. The installation costs are extremely variable since they depend on the 

particular situation of each restaurant. That is why different technologies may cost much less for 

different restaurants. At the same time, the costs for all the technologies may be very high for some 

restaurants. In contrast, new restaurants can have these requirements incorporated in the original 

design so they cannot be considered additional costs.

Technology Manufacturers % PM 

Filtered Pros Cons

ESP

Halton

Gaylord

Smoghog

47% Off the shelf

Only filters solid PM

Generates ozone

Fire hazard

Water and detergent usage

HEPA Captive Aire 52%

Off the shelf Only filters solid PM

More affordable 

installation High maintenance

Wet 

Scrubber

CAST Inc

Molitron 85%

No fire hazard

Water and detergent usage

Made to order

Moderate maintenance 

costs

Effective for 

VOCs and 

condensable vapor

More affordable 

installation
Regulating Emissions from Under-fired Charbroilers | 20

Figure 4 | Maximum retrofit costs vs. new construction costs for emissions control units

The cost per ton of emissions abated can be calculated to compare the effectiveness of the 

different emissions control unit technologies:

Cost effectiveness = 

 

 

These calculations assume that each unit has about a 10-year lifetime and the real interest rate is 

7%.

37

Hood sizes are roughly proportional to the amount of beef that is cooked per week. Since 

the hood covers other kitchen equipment besides the under-fired charbroiler, these sizes are larger 

than what the under-fired charbroiler actually requires.38 If half the beef cooked is hamburger meat 

and the other half steak, then hood size is proportional to the tons of PM emitted annually. This 

should be an underestimate of the amount of PM emitted since the hood covers other cooking 

technologies.

39 Assuming installation and operating costs do not decrease proportionally with the 

capital cost, larger units are much more cost-effective than smaller units.

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

$8,000

$9,000

$10,000

$11,000

$12,000

$13,000

$14,000

$15,000

$16,000

$17,000

$18,000

$19,000

$20,000

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000

Air Flow of the Hood (cubic foot per minute)

Wet Scrubber Max Retrofit Wet Scrubber New

HEPA Max Retrofit HEPA New

ESP Max Retrofit ESP New
Regulating Emissions from Under-fired Charbroilers | 21

Figure 5 | Cost per ton of PM removed for emissions control units

The three emissions control technologies are comparable in price for any given hood size.

Costs of retrofitting are much higher than costs of initial construction because of highly variable 

installation costs. The wet scrubber is the most cost effective, removing more emissions per dollar 

because it is able to remove condensable vapor. The average cost-effectiveness of a regulation 

depends on the distribution of restaurants that install which control technologies.

Compared to the cost-effectiveness of reducing PM from other sources from other 

regulations, the cost-effectiveness of emissions control units for new restaurants are in the midrange, whereas retrofits are among the more expensive ways to reduce PM.40

Table 3 | Cost-effectiveness of other methods for reducing PM emissions 

Regulated Activity Avg. Cost/Ton PM Rule Cited

Street Sweeping $1,200 SC1186

Road Paving $6,000 SC1186

Composting $8,700 

SC1133

SC1133.2

Wood-burning Devices $14,000 - $27,000 SC445

Source: SCAQMD

5.6 Impact on Restaurants

Given their non-trivial capital and maintenance costs, it is important to understand how 

adopting emissions control technologies would impact the profitability of affected restaurants. In 

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000

1,000 3,000 5,000 7,000 9,000

Air Flow of the Hood (cubic feet per minute)

Wet Scrubber HEPA ESP
Regulating Emissions from Under-fired Charbroilers | 22

general, the restaurant industry is highly competitive market of differentiated small businesses. 

Nationally, 93% of all restaurants employ less than 50 people, and with 62,000 in the State of 

California alone, restaurants compete to offer a diverse array of cuisine, ambiance and dining 

experiences for potential customers.41 As a very competitive industry, restaurants move aggressively 

to contain costs in order to keep their menu prices as low as possible. Even when successful, 

average profit margins in the restaurant industry are low, typically ranging from 3-6% in California.42

As a result, restaurants have developed a reputation as a high-risk business, a perception that is 

mostly accurate. Recent restaurant business research indicates that the restaurant ownership takeover 

(i.e. failure) rate is 26% within one calendar year of opening, which increases to a cumulative figure 

of 60% in the first three years.43 Thus, special attention must be paid to the additional cost of 

regulatory compliance that new charbroiler regulations may impose. 

In line with previous studies commissioned by AQMDs, this report prepares estimates for 

the profitability of California restaurants in order to better understand the costs they would face 

in complying with new emissions control regulations. Unfortunately, because most restaurants are 

privately-held business enterprises, only a limited amount of information about the profits of 

restaurants is readily available. Two different attempts to approximate restaurant profitability are 

presented here using publicly accessible sales data. Although these estimates do not provide a 

complete picture of restaurant profitability in California, they do shed some light on the subject.

The two estimates presented here are:

(1) Industry-wide county averages, using data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2007 

Economic Census,

44 and compiled by air quality management district; and

(2) Estimates for large restaurants in relevant counties, using data from the Hoover’s 

Online sales database.45

By presenting from county-level averages and more specific estimates for large restaurants 

(those more likely to be subject to new regulations), these figures illustrate the size of restaurant 

profitability in the 21 California counties of interest in this study.

Profitability of the Average Restaurant

Using county-level sales data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2007 Economic Census and 

profit margin estimates from the National Restaurant Association (“NRA”) published in their 2010 

Restaurant Industry Operations Report, it can be seen that average restaurant sales and profitability in 

California varies depending on location and type of business. 
Regulating Emissions from Under-fired Charbroilers | 23

Table 4 | 2007 Economic Census data, organized by Air Quality Management District

2007 

NAICS 

code

Meaning of 2007 NAICS 

code

Number of 

employer 

establishments

Employer 

value of sales, 

shipments, 

receipts, 

revenue, or 

business done 

($1,000)

Average 

employer 

value of sales, 

shipments, 

receipts, 

revenue, or 

business done

Estimated 

profit 

margin

Estimated 

average 

annual profit 

per 

establishment

Bay Area Air Quality Management District

72211 Full-service restaurants 6,842 $6,374,836 $931,721 3.5% $32,610

7222 Limited-service eating places 7,271 $5,107,950 $702,510 5.9% $41,448

722211 Limited-service restaurants 5,182 $3,815,875 $736,371 5.9% $43,446

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

72211 Full-service restaurants 1,683 $1,103,461 $655,651 3.5% $22,948

7222 Limited-service eating places 2,925 $2,207,372 $754,657 5.9% $44,525

722211 Limited-service restaurants 2,230 $1,783,108 $799,600 5.9% $47,176

South Coast Air Quality Management District

72211 Full-service restaurants 11,331 $11,813,442 $1,042,577 3.5% $36,490

7222 Limited-service eating places 16,473 $12,332,379 $748,642 5.9% $44,170

722211 Limited-service restaurants 12,576 $10,238,968 $814,167 5.9% $48,036

With average revenue figures ranging from $655,651 to over $1 million, there is slight 

variation in sales across region and type of restaurant. Given this variation in profits from $23,000 to 

over $48,000, this analysis indicates that if all restaurants would be required to purchase control 

technologies, the cost of compliance may result in a heavier burden for full-service restaurants. 

Profitability of Larger Restaurants

However, not all restaurants will need to purchase emissions-control technology, since not 

all restaurants contribute equally to the PM pollution problem. Because a greater proportion of PM 

emissions come from high-volume restaurants with large charbroilers, it is important to move past 

industry-wide statistics and construct profit estimates for restaurants of above-average size. On 

average, restaurants in the largest quintile by workforce size employ 60 people. Using data from 

Hoover’s Online sales database for restaurants in affected counties, we estimate that larger 

restaurants earn approximately $110,000 in profit every year (see Appendix C for a more detailed 

methodological explanation). These results are outlined below in Table 5:

Table 5 | Estimated sales and profit data for larger restaurants in AQMD counties

Type of Restaurant Number 

in Data Total Sales Estimated Profit*

Larger Restaurant Corporations 373 $1,285 million $51.4 million

For a Restaurant with 60 Employees** $2,749,756 $109,990 

Fast-Food Chain Companies 52 $236 million $9.45 million

For a Fast Food Restaurant with 60 Employees $2,665,231 $106,609 

Independent Family Restaurant Companies 20 $59.1 million $2.36 million

For an Independent Family Restaurant with 60 

Employees $3,060,992 $122,440

*Calculated with a 4% profit margin (CA Restaurant Association)

**Average size of restaurant staff, including part-time employees (National Restaurant Association)
Regulating Emissions from Under-fired Charbroilers | 24

Previous regulatory efforts have shown particular interest in the impact of emissions-control 

regulation on two types of restaurants: fast-food establishments and independent family restaurants.

Among large restaurants in affected counties, fast food restaurants earn slightly below the general 

average ($106,609) and independent family restaurants earn more ($122,440). 

Comparing the Cost of Technology to Restaurant Profits

Previous socioeconomic analyses of charbroiling regulation have used similar profit 

estimates to measure the impact of installation mandates on restaurant business operations. Using 

the annualized control technology cost data presented above and the profit estimate prepared for 

large restaurants in relevant AQMDs, the cost of adopting emissions control technology 

represents 10-14% of restaurant profits depending on the specific type of technology adopted, as 

illustrated below in Table 6:

Table 6 | Annualized cost of emissions control devices as a share of annual restaurant profits

Sources: Hoover’s Online, CE-CERT

Although drawn from different data sources, these findings parallel the socioeconomic study 

commissioned by the SJVAPCD in 2009, which found that the cost of installing viable emissions 

control technologies would represent 8.98-12.49% of restaurant profits.46 These figures may appear 

modest at first glance, given that installing control technologies would amount to only a tenth of 

restaurant profits. However, it should be noted that this figure is several times larger than the 

case of successful chain-driven charbroiler regulations, where the cost of installing catalytic 

oxidizers represented just 2.2% of average restaurant profits.47

5.7 Future Prospects

Increased scale may increase cost effectiveness. If more restaurants install pollution control 

technologies then the prices of the products are estimated to decrease. The prices of newer 

technologies such as wet scrubbers would be the most responsive to increased demand because of 

reduced production costs as they scale up. The production of wet scrubbers is not yet to scale and 

Technology ESP 

(Avg.)

HEPA 

(Avg.)

Wet 

Scrubber 

(Avg.)

PM Emissions Removal Rate 47% 52% 85%

Capital Cost $38,750 $42,303 $50,000 

Installation Costs $15,000 $3,700 $5,619 

Operating Costs $3,081 $7,165 $4,633 

Average Annualized Cost of 

Adoption $10,734 $15,075 $12,552 

Average Restaurant Profit 

Estimate $109,990 $109,990 $109,990 

Cost of Technology as 

Proportion of Profits 9.76% 13.71% 11.41%
Regulating Emissions from Under-fired Charbroilers | 25

so there is a potential for significant cost reductions for the capital costs.

48 If about 120 units are 

sold per year, the average annual cost would be $6,800, and the average cost-effectiveness would be 

about $14,000/ton PM removed.

South Coast is undergoing another testing phase this year. There are at least two promising 

new emissions control technologies, regenerating ceramic filters and boundary layer momentum.49

 Regenerating ceramic filters are made of honeycombed ceramic material that can be 

coated with an oxidizer, which reacts with the emissions. They are very effective according 

to CE-CERT testing. However, they usually require weekly or even daily filter replacement 

since the filtration process is a chemical reaction. If ceramic filters can be regenerated 

(cleaned) automatically at night, then this could be a very good option. 

 Boundary layer momentum is a new technology that has been submitted to CE-CERT for 

testing this year. It uses turbulent airflow to increase the size of the particulate and then uses 

inertial separation.

UV light is another new technology being offered to supplement ESP and HEPA filter 

pollution control systems in recent years but so far has not been submitted for testing.3

5.8 Administrative Costs

Without proper enforcement, restaurants seeking to avoid ongoing maintenance costs could 

easily remove parts of the emissions control unit or simply not turn them on. Since it is easy to 

disable the emissions control system, it is important for regulators to be able to easily check if 

emissions control systems are operational. One suggestion is for the control technology to install a 

diagnostic test mode. Then a visiting inspector can push a button to run the diagnostic mode, 

which will notify the inspector if there are pieces missing. Emissions control units can also include

remote communications (real-time monitoring) so that regulators can remotely check the status of 

the unit. This technology is readily available and affordable. However, regulators need to decide 

what kind of process they prefer so that the design specifications can be made available for 

manufacturers.

Summary

There are several technologies currently available on the market that can effectively reduce

PM emissions. However, to date, technological development has been slow because of the lack of 

demand in the market for pollution controls. Because of the competitive nature of the restaurant 

industry, profit margins are fairly slim and the cost of installing emissions control units is about 10% 

of restaurant profits, far above that of previous chain-driven charbroiler emissions control efforts.

Costs for new restaurants are lower and much less variable than costs for retrofits, and increased 

scale would also reduce costs and encourage technological development.
Regulating Emissions from Under-fired Charbroilers | 26

6. OPTIONS FOR AGENCY ACTION

In light of the present lack of affordable technological options, agencies can consider several 

classes of alternatives to address the high levels of PM emissions from under-fired charbroilers while 

reducing compliance costs for restaurants. In this section, we first discuss the no-policy case in 

which restaurants operate without regulatory impetus to reduce emissions. Bearing in mind the 

regulatory framework outlined above in Figure 1, we next introduce alternatives in which agencies 

regulate the cooking process and alternatives in which agencies regulate cooking outputs, followed 

by non-regulatory tactics that can shift and/or decrease compliance costs.

Our discussion of alternatives that regulate the cooking process takes into account both 

cooking and emissions control technologies, and includes the following approaches:

 Ban under-fired charbroiling as a cooking method

 Revisit a technological standard for emissions control devices

Our discussion of alternatives that regulate cooking outputs includes the following 

approaches:

 Subsidize PM emissions reductions from restaurants that use under-fired charbroilers

 Tax PM emissions from restaurants that use under-fired charbroilers

 Disburse tradable PM emissions permits to restaurants that use under-fired charbroilers

We close the section by discussing some ancillary non-regulatory tactics that should be 

considered in order to buttress the deployment of any regulatory strategy, including the following:

 Public education campaign about restaurant pollution

 “Clean Beef” labeling program

It should be stressed that these options are not all mutually exclusive and can in some cases 

be combined to maximize efficacy and take advantage of potential complementarities. 

6.1 Let Present Trends Continue

We should first consider whether restaurants that currently use under-fired charbroilers 

would curb emissions in the absence of an AQMD mandate. After all, many multi-use buildings and 

restaurants in high-end residential areas currently install emissions controls, even where no AQMD 

rules apply. In many instances, this is an artifact of a zoning or building requirement, but in other 

cases, such as in casinos, restaurants want to eliminate smoke and odors. For smaller restaurants, 

however, there is no such motivation to voluntarily use emissions control devices, which generate 

neither revenues nor appreciable cost savings to defray the high associated costs. Similarly, in the 

absence of any regulatory impetus, these restaurants will have no reason to seek alternative ways to 

reduce emissions. It is therefore evident that maintaining the status quo would fail to reduce PM 

emissions from a majority of California restaurants.
Regulating Emissions from Under-fired Charbroilers | 27

6.2 Regulating the Cooking Process

Without voluntary action to reduce restaurant emissions, agency intervention will be required 

to bring California’s air districts into compliance with national standards. One avenue for such 

regulation is to address the cooking process and the machinery it entails, which is where AQMDs 

have focused most of their efforts to date. These approaches have the advantage of being fairly 

administratively feasible, but can entail substantial compliance costs for restaurants.

Ban Under-fired Charbroiling

One option is to induce a shift toward cooking methods that pollute less by banning underfired charbroilers. As discussed above, many successful restaurants cook meat using chain-driven 

charbroilers (e.g., Burger King) or clamshell griddles (e.g., McDonald’s), and often produce very 

comparable products to restaurants that use under-fired charbroilers. Encouraging a shift away from 

under-fired charbroiling toward substitute cooking methods would lower emissions and in many 

cases approximate the same finished product.

However, alternative beef-cooking methods are primarily used in limited-service restaurants, 

whereas the restaurants that use under-fired charbroilers are often larger, full-service restaurants

(e.g., Hard Rock Café, Outback Steakhouse, Applebee’s, and T.G.I. Friday’s). One possible solution 

would therefore be to ban the purchase of new under-fired charbroilers by limited-service 

restaurants, allowing those already in operation to complete their useful service lives. Still, the 

contention that under-fired charbroilers have close substitutes even in limited-service restaurants is 

likely to be seen by restaurants as an overly simplistic perspective. Any regulations that alter or 

compromise these aspects may therefore be viewed as a movement to homogenize meat products 

and erode brand identity. Requiring a change of cooking method would thus face staunch resistance 

from restaurants as they resist large, if difficult to quantify, costs associated with making 

fundamental adaptations to their businesses.

Revisit a Technological Standard for Emissions Control Devices

Another option is to revisit a technological standard for controlling emissions from underfired charbroilers. In doing so, agencies should learn from BAAQMD’s successes and failings. 

Regulation 6, Rule 2 was a success insofar as it passed through the rulemaking process. However, its 

design was flawed from its inception, as outlined above, which has eroded the rule’s credibility with 

various types of stakeholders. 

The narrow or nonexistent scope of applicability for the BAAQMD rule highlights the need 

for lower threshold amounts. A reasonable approach is to emulate threshold levels in regulations of 

chain-driven charbroilers, which have been successful by all accounts. In contrast to the thresholds 

for beef cooking and purchasing of 800 and 1,000 pounds, respectively, for restaurants that use 

under-fired charbroilers, the BAAQMD rule set the corresponding thresholds for restaurants that 

use chain-driven charbroilers at just 400 and 500 pounds. Similarly, the latest SJVAPCD rule for 
Regulating Emissions from Under-fired Charbroilers | 28

chain-driven charbroilers set the weekly cooking threshold to 400 pounds of meat. As illustrated 

below in Figure 6, lowering meat-cooking thresholds could significantly widen the scope of 

applicability for a technological standard for under-fired charbroilers. Also, there is no grill area 

requirement for chain-driven charbroiler rules, which eliminates one avenue for regulatory evasion. 

Figure 6 | Distribution of Bay Area restaurants by weekly beef-cooking amounts 

Source: BAAQMD

Agencies should also consider calibrating a threshold to the size of a restaurant’s fume hood, 

which may be correlated with the amount of meat it cooks. If this is the case, fume hood size would 

capture information about meat cooking tendencies and would be less vulnerable to manipulation by 

restaurants; whereas restaurants can underreport or artificially depress the amount of meat they 

purchase and cook, their fume hoods are invariant and must be large enough to accommodate a 

restaurant’s peak cooking load. If CE-CERT tests confirm this relationship, then calibrating a rule to 

restaurants with sufficiently large fume hoods could provide for a more enforceable rule.

Refining the scope of applicability for a technological standard will broaden the universe of 

impacted restaurants and increase the potential for emissions reductions. But another important 

consequence of wider impact is that it would generate technology-forcing outcomes to make the use 

of emissions control devices a more viable option. With demand bolstered by a credible standard, 

more manufacturers will submit their devices to CE-CERT for certification, making it likely that 

AQMDs can certify several designs for use in their standards and effectively providing regulatory 

haven to solidify demand guarantees. Certified device manufacturers can then scale up production 

and drive down costs to reasonable levels and further diminish compliance costs for restaurants.

Even with reduced compliance costs, it is important to consider how restaurants may 

respond to the additional burden if they are subject to new rules. Whereas restaurants have 

heretofore taken a “delay until further clarity emerges” approach in response to regulatory 

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Percentage of Restaurants

Pounds of Beef Cooked Per Week
Regulating Emissions from Under-fired Charbroilers | 29

uncertainty, 50 a technology-forcing standard can offer resolution that will impel firms to act in 

response. The adaptation strategies available to restaurants are shown below in Figure 7:

Figure 7 | Restaurant adaptation decision tree in response to a technology-forcing standard

A restaurant that falls subject to, and complies with, a technology-forcing standard can 

absorb compliance costs in a number of ways, including cost-cutting measures such as decreasing 

employee wages, postponing acquisitions/expansions or other investments, or spending a portion of 

retained earnings. However, a compliant restaurant need not necessarily bear the entire cost of 

regulation – in response to higher expenses, restaurants can pad revenues by raising prices on their 

food, effectively passing the burden along to consumers. 

To the extent that a technology-forcing standard is effective in driving down the cost of 

compliant technologies, the distribution of restaurant adaptation outcomes should tend away from 

business closure – on one hand, fewer restaurants will opt to exit the market rather than complying, 

and on the other hand, restaurants that attempt to comply will be less likely to fail under the added 

financial duress of compliance. Note also that one available strategy for restaurants is to evade 

thresholds so that they are not subject to the standard, such as replacing an under-fired charbroiler 

with a different cooking mechanism such as a chain-driven or flameless broiler.

The implementation of a technology-forcing standard as outlined herein can refine past 

attempts at regulations of under-fired charbroilers by expanding the scope of applicability, 

decreasing the cost of compliance by generating economies of scale in the production of control 

devices, and allowing the burden of regulation to be shared by restaurants and consumers without 

Impetus Applicability Compliance Adaptation
Regulating Emissions from Under-fired Charbroilers | 30

excessive government cost.

6.3 Regulating Cooking Outputs

In addition to exploring regulatory strategies that target the cooking process, regulators 

should consider options that directly address the pollution from restaurants. These types of options 

have the advantage of lessening compliance costs for restaurants, but tend to do so at the expense of 

administrative ease.

Subsidize PM Emissions Reductions

Since restaurants have previously mounted effective opposition to proposed regulations on 

the basis of stifling upfront costs, agencies might consider offering financial incentives to reduce 

their initial expenses. In this way, agencies can ease the burden for restaurants wishing to aid 

AQMDs in their efforts to improve air quality. 

SJVAPCD launched a charbroiler incentive pilot program in 2009 in hopes of advancing 

retrofits of under-fired charbroilers with PM emissions control devices. The program was intended 

to cover 60-90% of capital costs of such installations at up to 10 restaurants. However, SJVAPCD 

received no applications for funding during the one-year window in which the incentive was 

available. In hindsight, restaurants had little financial incentive to participate, as would-be 

participants would still have been left with considerable operation and maintenance expenses. From 

a compliance standpoint, restaurants may have felt seized the chance for a subsidized installation if a 

credible technological standard had been imminent, but with such uncertainty surrounding the 

passage of a rule in SJVAPCD, the incentive program provided no such “early-adopter discount.”

An emissions reduction subsidy that remains agnostic regarding the method of reduction 

would stand a better chance for success. By crediting restaurants for each ton of PM reduced below 

a baseline amount, irrespective of how they achieve these reductions, AQMDs can extend incentives 

to other methods of emissions reductions and decrease compliance costs for restaurants. However, 

the need to assess a pre-subsidy baseline level of PM emissions for each restaurant might create the 

perverse incentive for restaurants to emit more PM beforehand, in order to later capture the largest 

subsidy without actually reducing emissions levels very much from typical levels.

Tax PM Emissions

Similar to the agnostic emissions reductions subsidy, an emissions tax has the advantage of 

letting restaurants decide how best to reduce emissions. In this scheme, AQMDs would set a tax rate 

for any PM emitted by the restaurants above a certain threshold, and then restaurants could make 

strategic decisions regarding how to bear the tax burden or avoid penalty by reducing emissions. 

Still, agencies would be left with the difficult task of setting an appropriate tax rate; if set too low, 

the tax will not have the desired impact, and if set too high, then the tax will be too stifling for 

restaurants to handle. Even assuming an appropriately calibrated tax rate, agencies would still face 
Regulating Emissions from Under-fired Charbroilers | 31

the legal challenge of obtaining the authority to assess taxes on restaurants, as well as the 

administrative challenge of collecting the tax proceeds.

Disburse Tradable PM Emissions Permits

Both an emissions reduction subsidy and an emissions tax would allow restaurants to decide 

how best to cut emissions to fit into a pre-specified emissions budget. Establishing a market for 

tradable emissions permits goes even further to reduce compliance costs for restaurants by allowing 

them to decide not only how to fit into an emissions budget, but also how large this budget can be. 

Under this scheme, if a restaurant does not wish to cook less beef or explore technological options, 

it could purchase emissions permits to offset its activities. Less polluting restaurants would benefit 

from this scheme by selling excess permits from their initial allotments.

When comparing the administrative burden posed by tradable emissions permits relative to a 

subsidy or a tax, it is not clear that a tradable permits system is easier to administer. While 

enforcement could be accomplished by random inspection rather than exhaustive complete 

inspections, the added onus of designing a marketplace and placing initial permit allocations may 

offset this benefit.

Summary of Direct Emissions Regulations

Any of the above strategies to regulate the output (i.e., pollution) from cooking rather than 

the cooking process should, in theory, produce similar results to a well-designed technological 

standard in terms of aggregate emissions reductions. That is, with well-functioning markets for 

restaurant food and for various technological options that reduce emissions—in addition to perfect 

information among the various stakeholders—restaurants should arrive at a very similar mix of 

compliance and adaptation strategies that result in equivalent emissions reductions. However, the 

assumptions behind this equivalence do not hold in this particular regulatory landscape, in which 

one leading option for reducing emissions—control devices—is not cost-competitive.

The options that directly address emissions rather than the process of cooking de-emphasize 

the use of expensive control devices, essentially limiting their prospects for viability down the road. 

By encouraging restaurants to take alternative approaches to reduce emissions, agencies would do 

little to foster adequate demand that control technologies require to merit serious consideration for 

widespread use in restaurants. By effectively failing to incorporate control devices into the universe 

of reasonable compliance paths, these strategies to regulate cooking outputs are unlikely to achieve 

substantial emissions reductions.

6.4 Non-regulatory Options

In conjunction with any of the above regulatory options, agencies should employ nonregulatory strategies to strengthen their position in the rulemaking process. Opposition by the 

restaurant industry has derailed or at least weakened all past attempts to pass proposed regulations 
Regulating Emissions from Under-fired Charbroilers | 32

for under-fired charbroilers in California, due in part to a political battle in which AQMDs were 

swimming upstream with little external support.

Public Education Program for Consumers

The public is largely unaware that restaurants are a significant source of local air pollution. In 

the South Coast Air Basin, for example, commercial cooking accounts for 10% of total direct 

emissions of PM2.5, the second-largest contributor to direct PM emissions behind only dust from 

paved roads (see Appendix D). Without knowledge about this fact, however, the public is skeptical 

of the need for rules that impose costs on restaurants and is sympathetic to the restaurant industry. 

More public awareness about PM emissions from restaurants could gain AQMDs and health 

departments some political traction throughout the rulemaking process to counterbalance pressure 

applied by the restaurant industry.

“Clean Beef” Labeling Program

By providing strategic business positioning to restaurants that adopt emissions-reducing 

measures, such as through a “clean beef” label, restaurants may be able to realize increased sales and 

profits. A “clean beef” program would allow beef-cooking restaurants that meet certain specified 

emissions standards to receive a “clean beef” certification. This recognition could then be used by 

restaurants in advertisements and on menus—similar to logos used for organically-grown food or 

vegan items—to provide a comparative advantage in public interfacing.
Regulating Emissions from Under-fired Charbroilers | 33

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

Revisiting Regulatory Barriers

As outlined above, previous regulatory efforts have run aground on the issue of cost—

AQMDs have struggled to set thresholds and design credible rules that clearly signal how the cost of 

compliance should be paid for and how costs can be reduced through innovation and scaling up 

demand. Our regulatory recommendations focus on two key aspects of this problem: 

(1) Gathering more useful information through a working group model; and

(2) Implementing a credible technology-forcing standard to increase compliance.

7.1 Working Group on Restaurant Emissions

In order to gather more useful information about the costs faced by restaurants in adopting 

control technologies—and about the technological standards and enforcement policies that would 

achieve PM reductions at the lowest overall cost—the U.S. EPA should take the lead in forming the 

Working Group on Restaurant Emissions, which can focus on regulating emissions from underfired charbroilers. Regulatory bodies in other states have attempted to bring together air quality 

management experts in working groups to tackle PM emissions; however, these efforts have

typically not involved private sector and non-profit organizations.51 Suggestions for the composition 

of the Working Group are presented in Table 7 below:

Table 7 | Proposed stakeholder membership in Working Group on Restaurant Emissions

Group Example Organizations Role Individual Goals

U.S. EPA Region 9 Air Division Coordination, rule design Achieving PM targets

AQMDs BAAQMD, SCAQMD, SJVAPCD Information gathering,

rule design Achieving PM targets

Local public health 

boards

Alameda County Environmental 

Health Department, Los Angeles 

County Department of Public Health

Enforcement assistance, 

information on PM health 

problems

Sustaining quality of 

restaurant oversight

Environmental health 

groups

Bay Area Clean Air Task Force 

members, Southern California Public 

Health Association

Building public awareness Achieving PM targets

Emissions control 

technology 

manufacturers

Captive Aire, CAST (Crest 

Distributing), Gaylord

Technology information 

and capital cost estimates Increasing demand 

Building trades 

contractors and subcontractors

Commercial Kitchen Consulting,

Air Cleaning Technology,

Prime Efficiency Equipment

Technology information 

and installation cost 

estimates

Increasing demand

Restaurant industry 

representatives

California Restaurant Association, 

Golden Gate Restaurant Association

Restaurant information, 

negotiating rule design for 

maximum efficiency

Minimizing regulatory 

impact on members

Consumer advocacy 

organizations Consumer Federation of California Providing consumer input

Public health and 

minimizing consumer 

burden
Regulating Emissions from Under-fired Charbroilers | 34

Goals for the Working Group

U.S. EPA, in its advisory and coordination role relating to air quality standards, would be the 

natural leader of this working group. Ideally, U.S. EPA would help guide and manage the 

participation of AQMDs, who presently do not possess the information necessary to design credible 

and enforceable rules. At minimum, the issues that should be addressed through this framework are:

 Restaurant industry operations information 

 Restaurant renovations and retrofits 

 Bringing down the cost of technology

 Designing lowest-cost enforcement mechanisms

 Input from environmental health and consumer advocacy groups52

Taken together, obtaining more complete information about these important issues will help 

AQMDs put proper thresholds and enforcement mechanisms in place, and in general lead to more 

credible and effective rule design processes. Ideally, this process will gather enough information to 

enable AQMDs to adopt credible technology-forcing standards that bring down the cost of 

emissions-control technology adoption for California restaurants. 

7.2 Implement a Credible Technology-forcing Standard

With guidance from the Working Group on Restaurant Emissions, we recommend that the 

EPA work in conjunction with local AQMDs to draft new technology-forcing standards. An 

effective rule would prohibit the use of under-fired charbroilers without an approved control device 

at restaurants that cook more than a certain amount of meat per week, no sooner than five years 

after the standard is published. 

The standard must use a lower threshold than has been used in the past for under-fired 

charbroilers in order to expand the number of restaurants to which the standard would apply. 

Moreover, incorporating other types of meat besides beef will increase the emissions reduction 

potential of such a standard. However, it is up to the Working Group to calibrate the threshold, 

based on a sound understanding of restaurant business dynamics, contractors’ installation 

considerations, and manufacturers’ capacity to innovate and bring costs down. Additionally, the 

Working Group should closely follow the ongoing testing at CE-CERT to consider whether a fume 

hood size threshold is better suited than a meat-cooking threshold to this sort of regulation. By 

more carefully calibrating thresholds, our proposed standard will broaden the scope of applicability 

and more effectively curb restaurant emissions.

The standard must also be set to go into effect with a minimum of five-years lead time to 

allow the market for control devices to mature by the time regulations go into effect. Control device 

manufacturers must be given adequate time to respond to the veritable demand guarantee provided 

by the standard, so they can reach scale in production and bring down costs to reasonable levels. 

This technology-forcing aspect is crucial, as it bears promise for reducing compliance costs enough 
Regulating Emissions from Under-fired Charbroilers | 35

for restaurants to be able to install control devices on a large scale without significant adverse 

financial impact.

Finally, the governmental stakeholders of the Working Group will already be familiar with 

the administrative requirements posed by this sort of technology-forcing standard, since it is simply 

a refinement of what has been proposed several times throughout California in recent history. The 

largest added administrative burden would be for the EPA to coordinate and convene the disparate 

stakeholders who will compose the Working Group, but this should be a small price to pay to finally 

achieve emissions reductions from California’s restaurants.
Regulating Emissions from Under-fired Charbroilers | 36

CONCLUSION

In order to meet planned PM reduction targets over the next few years, California’s air quality 

management districts wish to design, implement, and enforce credible rules that reduce emissions 

from restaurant-operated under-fired charbroilers. Although technologies do exist to mitigate these 

emissions, restaurants presently have little—if any—incentives to adopt emissions-control 

technologies under the current regulatory approach. In order to facilitate information-sharing among 

stakeholder groups, encourage the adoption of emissions-control technology by restaurants, and 

initiate innovation and cost reductions for emissions control technologies, this report recommends 

the formation of a U.S. EPA-led working group of stakeholders that will work toward the

implementation of a technology-forcing emissions-control standard by relevant AQMDs. 

 

1 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District – Final Staff Report for Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4692 

(Commercial Charbroiling), dated October 8, 2009.

2 California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board – The Health Impacts of Coarse Particulate Matter, 

dated January 25, 2007.

3 South Coast Air Quality Management – Staff Report District Rule 1138 (Control of Emissions from Restaurant 

Operations), dated August 2009.

4 California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board – The Health Impacts of Coarse Particulate Matter, 

dated January 25, 2007.

5 Roe, Spivey, et al. “National Emissions Inventory for Commercial Cooking.” E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. and U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. April 20, 2004.

6 Bay Area Air Quality Management District – Staff Report for Regulation 6, Rule 2: Commercial Cooking Equipment, 

dated November 2007.

7 McDonald, et al. “Emissions from Charbroiling and Grilling of Chicken and Beef,” J. Air & Waste Management Assoc., 

vol. 53: 185-194, 2003.

8 Public Research Institute, Potepan, Michael, “Charbroiling Activity Estimation, Draft Report,” prepared for California 

Environmental Protection Agency, California Air Resources Board, June 30, 2001.

9 University of California Riverside, College of Engineering, Center for Environmental Research and Technology, Final 

Report: Further Development of Emission Test Methods and Development of Emission Factors for Various

Commercial Cooking Operations, Contract No. 96027, July 1997.

10 Roe, Spivey, et al. “National Emissions Inventory for Commercial Cooking.” E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. and U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. April 20, 2004.

11 Bay Area Air Quality Management District – Regulation 6, Rule 2: Commercial Cooking Equipment, adopted 

December 5, 2007.

12 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District – Final Staff Report for Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 

4692 (Commercial Charbroiling), dated October 8, 2009.

13 South Coast Air Quality Management – Staff Report District Rule 1138 (Control of Emissions from Restaurant 

Operations), dated August 2009.

14 Whitcomb, Jannette: City of Aspen & Pitkin County Environmental Health Department. Telephone interview. March 

9, 2012.

15 Gerard, D. and Lave, L. (2007) ‘Experiments in technology forcing: comparing the regulatory processes of US 

automobile safety and emissions regulations’, Int. J. Technology, Policy and Management, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp.1–14.

16 Amalia Chamorro (California Restaurant Association), in discussion with the authors, April 4, 2012.

17 Bill Welch (CE-CERT, UC Riverside), in discussion with the authors, March 3, 2012.

18 Bay Area Air Quality Management District – Staff Report for Regulation 6, Rule 2: Commercial Cooking Equipment, 

dated November 2007.

19 Bill Welch. “Research Assistance in Expanding Rule 1138.” CE-CERT. April 20, 2012.

20 Bill Welch (CE-CERT, UC Riverside), in discussion with the authors, March 3, 2012.

21 Ibid.

22 South Coast Air Quality Management District – Staff Report for Proposed Rule 1138, dated October 10, 1997.
Regulating Emissions from Under-fired Charbroilers | 37

 

23 Bill Welch (CE-CERT, UC Riverside), in discussion with the authors, March 3, 2012.

24 Kuehn, Thomas, et al. “Characterization of Effluents From Additional Cooking Appliances.” University of Minnesota. 

April 30, 2008.

25 SCQAMD – Staff Report for Proposed Rule 1138, dated October 10, 1997.

26 Bill Welch (CE-CERT, UC Riverside), in discussion with the authors, March 3, 2012.

27 Kuehn, Thomas, et al. “Characterization of Effluents From Additional Cooking Appliances.” University of Minnesota. 

April 30, 2008.

28 Bill Welch (CE-CERT, UC Riverside), in discussion with the authors, March 3, 2012.

29 Bay Area Air Quality Management District – Regulation 6, Rule 2: Commercial Cooking Equipment, adopted 

December 5, 2007.

30 South Coast Air Quality Management – Staff Report District Rule 1138 (Control of Emissions from Restaurant 

Operations), dated August 2009.

31 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District – Final Staff Report for Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 

4692 (Commercial Charbroiling), dated October 8, 2009.

32 Bill Welch (CE-CERT, UC Riverside), in discussion with the authors, March 3, 2012.

33 Don Fisher (Fisher-Nickel, inc. PG&E Food Service Technology Center), in discussion with the authors, April 3, 

2012. 

34CAST inc. also offers an energy management system, which is a type of peripheral technology that can reduce 

restaurant operations costs. It lowers the speed of the airflow in the hood when the kitchen equipment is not in use.

This would reduce the energy usage of the hood by about half, saving a restaurant about $1000/1000cfm depending on 

electricity prices. However, it can be installed independently of an emissions control unit, so it is not included in cost 

estimates. Dan Hopkins (CAST Inc.), in discussion with the authors, April 2012.

35 Ray Schmidt (Halton Company), in e-mail correspondence with the authors. April 7, 2012.

36 Amalia Chamorro (California Restaurant Association), in discussion with the authors, April 4, 2012.

37 Bay Area Air Quality Management District – Regulation 6, Rule 2: Commercial Cooking Equipment, adopted 

December 5, 2007.

38 Bay Area Air Quality Management District – Regulation 6, Rule 2: Appendix D. Applied Development Economics. 

October 2007.

39 Tracy Goss (SCAQMD), in discussion with the authors, April 17, 2012. 

40 South Coast Air Quality Management – Staff Report District Rule 1138 (Control of Emissions from Restaurant 

Operations), dated August 2009.

41 National Restaurant Association, Restaurant Industry Operations Report: 2010 Edition, Washington, DC (2010). Available at 

http://www.restaurant.org/esdpdf/2010_ops_report_under15.pdf. 

42 Amalia Chamorro (California Restaurant Association), in discussion with the authors, April 4, 2012.

43 H.G. Parsa, John T. Self, David Njite and Tiffany King, “Why Restaurants Fail,” Cornell Hotel and Restaurant 

Administration Quarterly, Vol. 46, No. 3 (August 2005), 304-322. 

44 Bureau of the Census, 2007 Economic Census, Washington D.C: Bureau of the Census, 2007. Available at 

http://www.census.gov/econ/census07/. 

45 For more information, visit http://www.hoovers.com/about/100000489-1.html

46 See San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, “Appendix D: Final Draft Socioeconomic Impact 

Analysis Report for Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4692,” August 20, 2009, available at 

http://www.valleyair.org/workshops/postings/2009/09-17-09/4692/r4692_appd_ph2.pdf. Our findings use similar 

methodology as previous reports, including 10-year payback cycles, a 10% interest rate on loans, and include capital, 

installation and on-going operating costs. It should be noted, however, that this figure does not include one important 

cost faced by restaurants in installing control technology: lost sales due to closure. Restaurants may have to temporarily

close while they make retrofits to their ventilation system and as a consequence would lose revenue. Also, installation 

costs would vary across restaurants, since restaurants located in older buildings may have to undertake more robust 

structural upgrades to accommodate emissions control technology.

47 SJVAPCD, “Appendix D: Final Draft Socioeconomic Impact Analysis Report,” August 2009. 

48 Dan Hopkins (CAST Inc.), in discussion with the authors, April 2012.

49 Bill Welch (CE-CERT, UC Riverside), in discussion with the authors, March 3, 2012.

50 Alfred Marcus, Alberto Aragon-Correa and Jonathan Pinkse. (2008) “Firms, Regulatory Uncertainty and the Natural 

Environment,” California Management Review, Vol. 54 No. 1: 11. See also Dorothy Thornton, Robert Kagan and Neil 

Gunningham, “Compliance Costs, Regulation, and Environmental Performance: Controlling Truck Emissions in the 

U.S.,” Regulation & Governance, 2:275-292. 
Regulating Emissions from Under-fired Charbroilers | 38

 

51 See New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, “A Collaborative Report Presenting Recommended Air 

Quality Strategies for Further Consideration by the State of New Jersey: Homes and Restaurants Workgroup,” October 

31, 2005, available at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/baqp/rapt/final_hr_workgroup_report.pdf. 

52 See Appendix E for more detailed information about the questions that the working group should explore. 
Regulating Emissions from Under-fired Charbroilers | 39

 

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Restaurant Emissions Composition and Emissions Factors 

The primary sources about restaurant emissions from different foods and cooking 

technologies are studies done by CE-CERT, which is a lab at UC Riverside, and Thomas Kuehn at 

the University of Minnesota. We interviewed Bill Welch at CE-CERT, who did an extensive study 

on restaurant emissions in 2000. He is also involved in the new study that is being conducted this 

year. The research from Thomas Kuehn’s lab at the University of Minnesota is documented in a file 

called “Characterization of Effluents from Additional Cooking Appliances” (2008), also known as 

ASHRAE 1375-RP. The tests are consistent with the research results at CE-CERT. 

Figure A.1 | Average particle size distribution

Source: CE-CERT52

Table A.1 | Raw data for Figure 3 (emissions factors of charbroiled meat)

Hamburger Steak Chicken Fish

Solid and Condensable PM 32.65 17.19 10.48 3.3

VOC 3.94 3.94 1.82 0.38

Table A.2 | Raw data for Figure 4 (emissions factors for burgers on different cooking equipment)

Type of Cooking Technology

Emissions 

Factor

Under-fired 32.65

Clamshell Griddle 2.2

Smokeless Broiler 1

Chain-Driven w/ Controls 1.29

Chain-Driven Charbroiler 7.42
Regulating Emissions from Under-fired Charbroilers | 40

 

Appendix B: Calculating Costs of Technologies 

Primary sources on different emission control technologies are the staff reports of the 

BAAQMD, SCAQMD, and SJVAPCD, correspondence with manufacturers Halton and CAST Inc., 

and information from CE-CERT. 

Table B.1 | Assumptions for Figure 4 (maximum retrofit costs vs. new construction costs for 

emissions control units): ESP and wet scrubber cost estimates

Cubic Feet 

per Minute 

(cfm)

ESP 

Retrofit ESP New

Wet 

Scrubber 

Retrofit

Wet 

Scrubber 

New

% PM Removed 47% 47% 85% 85%

Installation Costs 30000 0 5619 0

Maintenance Costs 3081 3081 4633 4633

Capital Cost 2000 22500 22500 20000 20000

Capital Cost 3000 30000 30000 31288 31288

Capital Cost 4000 35000 35000 40000 40000

Capital Cost 4800 40152 40152 50000 50000

Capital Cost 8000 55000 55000 80000 80000

The assumptions for HEPA filter costs are a bit different because maintenance costs vary 

more than the capital costs simply because the replacement filters need to be larger. We estimate 

that maintenance costs are $6165 per year for a 2000cfm unit and increase $1000/1000cfm. Capital 

Costs should vary as well, but we were not able to get better quotes for how much the costs vary for 

different sizes. 

Table B.2 | Assumptions for Figure 4 (maximum retrofit costs vs. new construction costs for 

emissions control units): HEPA filter cost estimates

Cubic Feet per 

Minute (cfm)

HEPA 

retrofit HEPA new

% PM Removed 52% 52%

Capital Cost $42,303 $42,303

Installation Costs $7,100 $0

Maintenance Costs 2000 $6,165 $6,165

Maintenance Costs 3000 $7,165 $7,165

Maintenance Costs 4000 $8,165 $8,165

Maintenance Costs 4800 $8,965 $8,965

Maintenance Costs 8000 $12,165 $12,165
Regulating Emissions from Under-fired Charbroilers | 41

 

Capital recovery calculation for the annual equivalent costs for the emissions control units is 

as follows: 

 ( )

 ( )

 

Table B.3 | Raw data for Figure 4 (maximum retrofit costs vs. new construction costs for 

emissions control units)

CFM

Wet 

Scrubber 

Max Retrofit

Wet 

Scrubber 

New

Wet 

Scrubber 

Future

HEPA 

Max 

Retrofit

HEPA 

New

ESP Max 

Retrofit ESP New

2000 $8,281 $7,481 $5,745 $12,715 $12,188 $10,556 $6,284

3000 $9,888 $9,088 $6,147 $13,715 $13,188 $11,624 $7,352

4000 $11,128 $10,328 $6,457 $14,715 $14,188 $12,336 $8,064

4800 $12,552 $11,752 $6,813 $15,515 $14,988 $13,069 $8,798

8000 $16,823 $16,023 $7,881 $18,715 $18,188 $15,183 $10,912

Calculation for the tons PM per day per restaurant are as follows:

 (

 

 

) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table B.4 | Assumptions (pounds of beef cooked per week vs. hood size)

CFM Pounds of Beef 

Cooked per Week

Tons PM 

day/restaurant

2000 500 0.00089

3000 800 0.00142

4000 1000 0.00178

4800 1250 0.00223

8000 2000 0.00356

Cost-effectiveness calculation is as follows for a given hood size.

( )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Regulating Emissions from Under-fired Charbroilers | 42

 

Table B.5 | Raw data for Figure 4 (cost per ton of PM removed for emissions control units)

CFM Wet 

Scrubber

Wet 

Scrubber 

Future

HEPA ESP

2000 $28,540 $20,806 $73,712 $55,149

3000 $21,475 $13,913 $49,770 $38,839

4000 $19,426 $11,692 $42,776 $33,403

4800 $17,604 $9,869 $36,115 $28,644

8000 $14,869 $7,135 $27,308 $21,364
Regulating Emissions from Under-fired Charbroilers | 43

 

Appendix C: Notes on Large Restaurant Profitability Estimate

According to the NRA’s Restaurant Operations Report survey, which classifies restaurants by 

sales volume, establishments with annual sales in excess of $2 million comprise the highest 

classification category. Another important measure for restaurant size is the number of employees at 

each location. Nationally, according to the NRA, restaurants employ an average of 25 total 

employees (full and part time included). 

Since this analysis seeks to focus on the largest of large restaurants, data was obtained 

through the Hoover’s Online database for single-location restaurant corporations with over $2 

million in annual sales who also have more than 25 employees. Because this database includes 

estimated total sales for a company by incorporation, not by specific source, the data were cleaned 

to remove restaurant corporations whose sales statistics would be inflated by non-restaurant sources 

(e.g. golf courses and hotels). In addition, since even ‘single-location’ restaurant corporations may 

have several actual restaurants, this analysis computes an average profit figure for restaurants by 

calculating profit levels for a restaurant with 60 employees. (On average, restaurants with sales over 

$2 million have a total of 60 employees--full and part-time included.) By doing this, one standard 

measure for the profit level of a large restaurant in the 21 California counties of concern can be 

calculated. The profitability of fast food restaurants (large PM sources) and independent family 

restaurants (whose sustainability is of interest) are also of particular concern.
Regulating Emissions from Under-fired Charbroilers | 44

 

Appendix D: Sources of Particulate Matter Emissions

Figure D.1 | Top ten sources of PM2.5 emissions in the South Coast Basin, 2002

Source: SCAQMD
Regulating Emissions from Under-fired Charbroilers | 45

 

Appendix E: Questions for Working Group Consideration

Restaurant Industry Operations

Questions: Which restaurants are contributing the most to the PM problem? How can rule 

thresholds be set in order to distinguish between high-emissions restaurants who can afford 

to adopt technologies and those who may be driven out of business by new regulations? 

Present Status: Right now, rulemaking activities are guided by scant information and broad 

generalizations about the restaurant industry, despite prior attempts at gathering survey data. 

A better understanding of the composition and nature of the restaurant business practices 

and realities would greatly improve the credibility and efficacy of new regulations. 

Restaurant Renovations and Retrofits 

Questions: How often and on what scale do restaurants perform renovations and updates to 

their HVAC systems? According to both contractors and restaurants, how much do actual 

installation costs vary by individual restaurant?

Present Status: Installing control technologies would be less costly if combined with other 

periodic renovations, about which AQMDs and technology manufacturers have imperfect 

information. A more thorough understanding of the variability and timing of installation 

costs and lost sales due to restaurant renovations is needed. 

Bringing Down the Cost of Technology

Questions: How much of a spike in demand for control-technology would be needed in 

order to bring average costs down? What technological advancements might be possible 

with increased financial incentives for manufacturers to pursue innovation?

Present Status: Given the unclear and seemingly intransigent state of regulations, controltechnology manufacturers are not aggressively pursuing cost reductions and innovation 

strategies, which with more demand for their products could become worthwhile. 

Designing Lowest-Cost Enforcement Mechanisms

Questions: How can compliance be credibly enforced at the lowest cost to regulatory bodies 

and with the least administrative burden on restaurants? 

Present Status: With unclear and uneven enforcement resources and policies, restaurants are 

not given an incentive to maintain control-technologies even when they are adopted. By 

reaching out to public health boards, which already inspect restaurants for compliance 

sanitation codes, and by working with manufacturers on remote communications technology 

and restaurants on recordkeeping, AQMDs should be able to shape an enforcement strategy 
Regulating Emissions from Under-fired Charbroilers | 46

 

that encourages compliance. 

Input from Environmental Health and Consumer Advocacy Groups

Questions: What input do non-profit advocacy groups previously uninvolved in charbroiler 

regulation activities have regarding these rules? 

Present Status: Opening dialogue with these groups may help increase public awareness of 

charbroiling as a PM source, and ease the regulatory effort as the social cost of charbroiling 

emissions is better known.