### SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION C ONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix E: Cost Effectiveness Analysis for Rules 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed

Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

### E

- 1 

# APPENDIX E

Cost Effectiveness Analysis for Proposed

Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review) and

Rule 3180 (Administrative Fees for Indirect Source Review)

December 15, 2005

### SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION C ONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix E: Cost Effectiveness Analysis for Rules 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed

Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

### E

- 2 I. INTRODUCTION

California Health and Safety Code (CH&SC) Sec tion 40920.6(a) requires the San

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (District) to conduct a cost

effectiveness analysis of the proposed control options prior to the adoption of the

proposed rules. The purpose of conducting a cost effect iveness analysis is the

evaluation of the possible economic effect of the pollution control measures (rules). The

analysis also serves a guideline in developing the control requirements for the rule.

II. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The CH&SC section cited above requires a cost effectiveness analysis for the most

likely compliance scenario, and an incremental cost effectiveness analysis on an

alternative compliance scenario. Absolute cost effectiveness of a control option for

traditional rules are typically dete rmined by taking the added annual cost (in $/year) of

the control technology or technique, divided by the emission reduction achieved (in

tons/year). The costs can include capital equipment costs, engineering design costs,

installation costs, and any cost savings, such as from decreased energy usage and

decreased maintenance costs.

Rule 9510 would require developers to reduce the following project’s operational and

area source emissions: 33.3% of NOx emissions and 50% of the PM10 emissions, over

a ten

- y ear period. Rule 9510 would also require the developers to reduce emissions

from equipment used during the construction phase by 20% for NOx and 45% for PM10

emissions compared to the statewide average. The construction emissions may be

reduced on

- site b y using newer fleets than the statewide construction average, using

add

- on controls, and/or by using clean fuels. The rules are structured to allow flexibility

in complying with the rule requirements due to various requirements and limitations

imposed by local agencies in the projects’ jurisdiction. Methods of compliance include

the following: achieving the necessary reductions entirely through on

- site emission

reduction measures; reducing, in varying degrees, partially on

- site and partially off

- site

thro ugh the off

- site emission reduction fee; reducing entirely off

- site through the

payment of an off

- site emission reduction fee. The fee for emissions not reduced in the

design of the project or with equipment controls would fund off

- site emission reduction

projects. The fee for these off

- site projects would be calculated by multiplying the

required emission reductions by a cost effectiveness factor. This rule differs from

traditional rules, in that a cost effectiveness value is predetermined and the contr ol

costs are based on that cost effectiveness value.

Cost effectiveness is a primary criterion for the District to fund emission reduction

projects. Cost effectiveness of a off

- site emission reduction project is based on the

amount of pollution (per po und or ton of a pollutant) the project eliminates for each

### SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION C ONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix E: Cost Effectiveness Analysis for Rules 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed

Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

### E

- 3 dollar spent. There are different methodologies to determine cost effectiveness for

different programs, but in general, cost effectiveness is determined by dividing the cost

of the project by the amount of emissions reduced. Several factors are used to

determine the emission reductions for a particular mitigation project, including: the age

of the vehicle or engine being replaced, project life (how long in terms of time the

emission reductions can be expected to be surplus), and activity level, which is usually

represented in annual hours of operation or mileage. Project life allows the District to

determine how many emission reductions can occur per year. This is important in

determining timelin es for emission reductions and will assist the District in attaining the

ozone and PM10 standards.

To determine the cost effectiveness for the ISR Program, District staff identified NOx

emission reduction projects that have previously been funded and th e costs associated

with each project. Table E

– 1

, Estimated NOx Emission Reductions from Current and

Historical Grant Programs by the District

summarizes the grant programs.

### SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION C ONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix E: Cost Effectiveness Analysis for Rules 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed

Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

### E

- 4 Table E

- 1

Estimated NOx Emission Reductions from Current and Historical Grant Pr ograms

Emissions Emissions Grant Funded Cost

Effectiveness* Cost

Effectiveness*

Tons Pounds Dollar

Amounts $/Pound $/Ton



### All External Projects

1992

- 1993 400 800,000 $3,665,200 $4.58 $9,163.00

1993

- 1994 525 1,050,000 $4,773,814 $4.55 $9,09 2.98

1994

- 1995 590 1,180,000 $3,594,486 $3.05 $6,092.35

1995

- 1996 650 1,300,000 $3,688,311 $2.84 $5,674.32

1996

- 1998 885 1,770,000 $6,309,952 $3.56 $7,129.89

1998

- 2004 30,419 60,838,805 $60,798,609 $1.00 $1,998.68

Total 33,46 9 66,938,805 $82,830,372 $3.26 $6,525.20



### REMOVE Program

1992

- 1993 Phase I 400 800,000 $3,665,200 $4.58 $9,163.00

1993

- 1994 Phase II 525 1,050,000 $4,773,814 $4.55 $9,092.98

1994

- 1995 Phase III 590 1,180,000 $3,594,486 $3.05 $6,092.35

1995

- 1996 Phase IV 325 650,000 $2,688,311 $4.14 $8,271.73

1996

- 1998 Phase V 360 720,000 $5,309,952 $7.37 $14,749.87

1998

- 1999 Phase VI 104 208,247 $2,556,403 $12.28 $24,551.64

1999

- 2000 Phase VII 304 607,640 $2,422,741 $3.99 $7,974. 26

2002

- 2003 Phase VIII 156 311,059 $1,210,648 $3.89 $7,784.04

Total 2,608 5,526,946 $26,221,555 $5.48 $10,959.98



### Vehicle Buy

- Back

1995

- 1996 325 650,000 $1,000,000 $1.54 $3,076.92

1997

- 1998 525 1,050,000 $1,000,000 $0.95 $1,904.76

Total 850 1,700,000 $2,000,000 $1.25 $2,490.84



### Heavy

- Duty Program

1997

- Jan 2004 29,811 59,622,859 $53,381,817 $2.28 $4,564.13



### Lt. & Med.

- Duty Vehicle Program

2001

- Jan 2003 22 43,000 $750,000 $17.44 $34,883.72



### 1999 Lawnmower Replacement Prog ram

2001

- 2002 23 46,000 $477,000 $10.37 $20,739.13

Please note that beginning in 1995

- 96 vehicle buy

- back was no longer included in the REMOVE Program.

A separate program for heavy

- duty vehicle projects was established beginning in 1997.

### SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION C ONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix E: Cost Effectiveness Analysis for Rules 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed

Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

### E

- 5 III. GRAN T PROGRAMS

This section identifies the existing grant programs and different types of projects that are

funded under those programs that are possible candidates for any off

- site emission

reduction fees collected under Rule 9510. In addition, this section identifies additional

projects that may be funded through the ISR program. The District will also consider

projects and programs for funding in addition to the ones discussed in this section, when

other projects and programs are identified.

REMOVE/REM OVE II

The Re duce Mo tor V ehicle E missions (REMOVE) Program was the first District grant

program implemented in 1992 to fund projects that reduced emissions associated with

motor vehicle trips. Due to the lengthy REMOVE evaluation committee process, the

D istrict’s Governing Board approved the revised REMOVE II Program on March 13, 2005.

The REMOVE II Program awards grant funding on a first

- come, first

- serve basis and

consists of a broad range of mobile source incentive projects. The following separate

co mponents within the REMOVE II Program have established parameters and funding

caps to achieve prudent cost effectiveness levels: E

- Mobility (Telecommunications)

Incentive Component; Public Transportation and Commuter Vanpool Passenger Subsidy

Component Bi cycle Infrastructure Component; Light and Medium Duty Incentive

Component. The components establish guidelines to maximize the emission reduction

potential for individual projects. The criterion for evaluating potential projects is ARB’s

methodology for calculating cost effectiveness and emission reductions. Additionally, the

District has established requirements for applicants to validate the emission reductions

generated by REMOVE II incentive program components.

The E

- Mobility Component of the REMOVE II Program provides funding for the

development or expansion of electronic telecommunications services in municipal

government and public education. The electronic technology will serve as direct

replacement of vehicle trips to public sites for conferen cing, document transactions,

general information, work functions, school instruction, and related applications. E

- Mobility

projects include: distance

- learning technology, telecommute center equipment,

teleconference systems, E

- government technology, E

- cou rt technology and related

electronic applications.

The Public Transportation and Commuter Vanpool Passenger Subsidy Component of the

REMOVE II Program, provides funding to attract new participants to public transportation

and commuter vanpools. The passe nger subsidies will serve to attract new participants to

public transportation and commuter vanpools as an alternative to single occupant vehicle

(SOV) commutes. Passenger subsidy projects include: incentives for transit bus agencies,

shuttles, commuter v

anpools, rail, and park

- and

- ride lot construction.

The Bicycle Infrastructure Component of the REMOVE II Program will fund the

development of a comprehensive bicycle transportation network. The component will

### SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION C ONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix E: Cost Effectiveness Analysis for Rules 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed

Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

### E

- 6 support the expansion and linkage of bicycle transportation facilities that promotes the

practice of commuter bicycling as a safe and viable transportation alternative.

Bicycle infrastructure projects may include the development of Class I Bicycle Paths

(construction) and Class II Bicycle Lanes (st riping).

The Light and Medium Duty Incentive Component of the REMOVE II Program will fund a

portion of the purchase cost of low

- emission light

- duty and medium

- duty motor vehicles for

public agencies. The purpose for the component is to encourage and i ncrease the

introduction of reduced emission alternative fuel vehicles. Low

- emission vehicles may

include Zero Emission Vehicles, Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicles, Ultra Low Emission

Vehicles, and Electric Bicycles based on ARB emission standards.

Heavy

- Duty Program

The Heavy

- Duty Engine Emission Reduction Incentive Program (Heavy

- Duty Program)

initially evolved from REMOVE in 1997 and the District continues to administer the

program. The Heavy

- Duty Program re places older model high polluting engines w ith

newer and cleaner burning engines. The Heavy

- Duty Program also encourages the early

introduction of on

- road and off

- road heavy

- duty motor vehicles with engines that include

reduced

- emission technologies. Eligible project types funded under this progr am include:

marine vessels, forklifts, agricultural pump engines, on

- road and off road vehicles and

equipment, agricultural harvesters, hay bailers, tractors, delivery trucks, sprayers, yard

spotters, earthmovers, line haul trucks, back hoes, dump trucks, earth movers and drills,

transit and school buses, and forklifts. This program has been expanded to assist in the

development of alternative fuel infrastructure, particulate filters on eligible diesel school

buses, and idle reduction technologies for heav y

- duty vehicles.

Emission reductions are obtained when the project applicant purchases vehicles and

engines that are cleaner than required by current emission standards or installs an

emission certified retrofit kit on an existing engine. The District pa ys the differential cost of

purchasing the lower emitting technology compared to conventional technology. Emission

reduction, calculations, and horsepower categories are used to determine an incentive

amount. Project monitoring is conducted to verify eli gibility, to ensure proper use of public

funds and to validate the emission reductions. Applicants are required to enter

into contracts with the District and are required to submit annual usage reports for five

years after the technology is purchased.

The Heavy Duty Program is primarily aimed at NOx reductions, but many projects also

achieve particulate matter (PM10) reductions. Historically, this incentive program has

been exceptionally cost effective, replacing approximately 4,484 engines 1



### .

1 SJVAPCD Heavy

- Duty Engine Incentive Program Database

### SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION C ONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix E: Cost Effectiveness Analysis for Rules 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed

Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

### E

- 7 PM10 Incentive Program

The District currently does not have an incentive program that primarily targets PM10

emissions reductions, however an incentive program will be needed for Rule 9510.

Initially, District staff surveyed the PM10 emissions inventory to d etermine the largest

sources of emissions and related factors, the extent of existing or planned control, and

types of control options that are available. District staff identified unpaved traffic

surfaces and unpaved shoulders as the most viable options for emission reduction

projects. Other potential sources include the use of PM10

- efficient street sweepers and

fireplace retrofits/replacement. The District is proposing to develop an Unpaved Road

and Traffic Surface Program that would fund or partially fund the treating or paving of

unpaved roads or unpaved shoulders within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, in time to

implement and achieve the reductions committed to for this rule. Once that program is

established, the District will continue to explore and develop other PM10 incentive

programs, such as PM10

- efficient street sweepers, fireplace retrofits/replacement,

and/or leaf blowers.

The duration of the contract will vary depending on the project. Some contracts will be

completed upon installation, while others may require reporting for 5 years. For

example, a road

- paving project would have a contract that is completed upon

installation, whereas an engine contract typically contains a 5

- year reporting

requirement. The staff report will be amended to include this information.

IV. RULE 9510 ESTIMATED COST EFFECTIVENESS

The District’s future prospects for funding the most cost effective NOx reduction projects

are currently declining. Many of engines that qualify for the Heavy

- Duty Program

incenti ve funds have been replaced or retrofitted. Diesel engines greater then 50

horsepower are being regulated by the State and the District resulting in cleaner

operating engines with lower emissions. Consequently, the most cost

- effective projects

(e.g. dies el engines manufactured before 1996) have previously been funded resulting

in projects that will cost more in the future to fund.

To determine future cost effectiveness for NOx emission reduction projects, staff

reviewed previously funded projects’ NOx co st effectiveness, the types of projects, and

the future availability of those projects. Attachment 1 compiles the necessary

information and determines the resulting cost effectiveness. The general concept for

NOx projects in Attachment 1, is that the typ es of grant applications received will move

from the heavy duty projects to lighter duty projects at a rate of 5% per year, and that

the cost of heavy duty projects will increase approximately $2000 more per ton.

Attachment 1, can be summarized as follow s:

### SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION C ONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix E: Cost Effectiveness Analysis for Rules 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed

Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

### E

- 8 NOx Cost

- Effectiveness

Year Cost to Reduce

One ton of NOx

2006 $4,650.00

2007 $7,100.00

2008 and

beyond $9,350.00

Presently, most of the Districts incentive funds have been used to fund NOx emission

reductions. In order to determine future cost effectiveness for PM10 emission reduction

projects, District staff researched PM10 emissions and reductions. Initially, the PM10

emissions inventory was surveyed to determine the largest sources of emission factors,

the extent of existing or planned cont rol, and types of control options that are available.

District staff identified unpaved traffic surfaces and unpaved shoulders as the most

viable options for emission reduction projects. Other potential sources include the use

of PM10

- efficient street sw eepers and fireplace retrofits/replacement.

Once the sources were identified, each source was analyzed in terms of emission

factors, thresholds, available control effectiveness, and costs of those controls.

Attachment 1 also compiles the necessary infor mation and determines the resulting cost

effectiveness for PM10 projects. There are several concepts for PM10 projects that are

incorporated in Attachment 1. Initially, the District is anticipating that it will receive a

high number of applications to tr eat or pave unpaved roads, with the most cost effective

projects coming in the first few years. The District is also expecting the cost to treat or

pave unpaved roads to increase by 75% each year for each ton reduced. The District is

anticipating receivi ng a higher number of applications for unpaved shoulders and street

sweepers, each year. Attachment 1, can be summarized as follows for PM10:

PM10 Cost

- Effectiveness

Year Cost to Reduce

One ton of PM10

2006 $2,907.00

2007 $5,594.00

2008 and

beyond $ 9,011.00

V. SOURCES OF COST DATA

District staff used cost effectiveness information derived from actual NOx emissions

reduction projects administered by the District. This data is sent to the California Air

### SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION C ONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix E: Cost Effectiveness Analysis for Rules 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed

Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

### E

- 9 Resources Board (ARB) on an annual basis. Th e following data sources were used for

the PM10 analysis:

1. Effectiveness Demonstration of Fugitive Dust Control Methods for Unpaved Roads

and Unpaved Shoulders on Paved Roads

DRI document No. 685

- 5200.1F1

Desert Research Institute

December 31, 1996

2. Meth ods to find Cost

- effectiveness of Funding Air Quality Projects: For Evaluating

Motor Vehicle Registration Fee Projects and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality

Improvement (CMAQ) Projects

California Air Resources Board

2003 Edition

3. Final BACM Technologi cal and Economic Feasibility Analysis

Sierra Research, Inc.

Prepared for the SJVAPCD

March 2003

4. Entrained Road Dust from Paved Road Travel: Emission Estimation Methodology,

Background Document

Section 7.9

California Air Resources Board

Updated July 1997

5. Unpaved Road Dust (non

- farm roads, SJV only)

Section 7.10 SJV

California Air Resources Board

Patrick Gaffney

Updated May 2004

6. Spreadsheet used for San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District PM10 SIP,

2003

Spreadsheet, “Unpaved1999Mar_13_2003Fina l.xls”

California Air Resources Board

Patrick Gaffney

7. Conversations and E

- mail correspondence with Mel Zeldin, consultant

### SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION C ONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix E: Cost Effectiveness Analysis for Rules 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed

Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

### E

- 10 Attachment 1

Anticipated Use of ISR Funds

for Determining Cost Effectiveness

For 2006

Cost Effectiveness ($/ton reduced)

Projected % of

Fund Use Likely

Minimum Cap 1 Representative

Cost

Effectiveness 2 Weighted

Representative

Factor

PM10

Unpaved Roads/Traffic

Areas 90% $1,694 $15,000 $1,819

Unpaved Shoulders 5% $11,838 $15,000 $12,907

Street Sweepers 5 % $10,000 $15,000 $12,500

Overall PM10 $1,694 $15,000 $9,075 $ 2,907

NOx

Heavy Duty Program 95% $3,000 $5,000 $4,000

REMOVE 5% $14,000 $20,000 $17,000

Overall NOx $3,000 $20,000 $10,500 $ 4,650

For 2007

Cost Effectiveness ($/ton reduced)

Projected % of

Fund Use Likely

Minimum Cap 1 Representative

Cost

Effectiveness 2 Weighted

Representative

Factor

PM10

Unpaved Roads/Traffic

Areas 75% $1,900 $15,000 $3,183

Unpaved Shoulders 20% $11,838 $1 5,000 $12,907

Street Sweepers 5% $10,000 $15,000 $12,500

Overall PM10 $1,900 $15,000 $9,530 $ 5,594

NOx

Heavy Duty Program 90% $5,000 $7,000 $6,000

REMOVE 10% $14,000 $20,000 $17,000

Overall NOx $5,000 $20,000 $11,500 $ 7,100

### SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION C ONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix E: Cost Effectiveness Analysis for Rules 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed

Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

### E

- 11 Anticipated Use of ISR Funds

for Determining Cost Effectiveness

For 2008

Cost Effectiveness ($/ton reduced)

Projected % of

Fund Use Likely

Minimum Cap 1 Representative

Cost

Effectiveness 2 Weighted

Representative

Factor

P M10

Unpaved Roads/Traffic

Areas 55% $1,900 $15,000 $5,571

Unpaved Shoulders 35% $11,838 $15,000 $13,419

Street Sweepers 10% $10,000 $15,000 $12,500

Overall PM10 $1,900 $15,000 $10,497 $ 9,011

NOx

Heavy Duty Program 85% $7,000 $9, 000 $8,000

REMOVE 15% $14,000 $20,000 $17,000

Overall NOx $7,000 $20,000 $12,500 $ 9,350

For 2009

Cost Effectiveness ($/ton reduced)

Projected % of

Fund Use Likely

Minimum Cap 1 Representative

Cost

Effe ctiveness 2 Weighted

Representative

Factor

PM10

Unpaved Roads/Traffic

Areas 55% $1,900 $15,000 $9,749

Unpaved Shoulders 35% $11,838 $15,000 $13,419

Street Sweepers 10% $10,000 $15,000 $12,500

Overall PM10 $1,900 $15,000 $11,889 $ 11,3 08

NOx

Heavy Duty Program 80% $9,000 $12,000 $10,500

REMOVE 20% $14,000 $20,000 $17,000

Overall NOx $9,000 $20,000 $13,750 $ 11,800

### SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION C ONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix E: Cost Effectiveness Analysis for Rules 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed

Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

### E

- 12 Anticipated Use of ISR Funds

for Determining Cost Effectiveness

For 2010

Cost Effectiveness ($/ton reduced)

Projected % of

Fund Use Likely

Minimum Cap 1 Representative

Cost

Effectiveness 2 Weighted

Representative

Factor

PM10

Unpaved Roads/Traffic

Areas 45% $1,900 $15,000 $14,682

Unpaved Shoulders 40% $11,838 $15,000 $1 3,419

Street Sweepers 15% $10,000 $15,000 $12,500

Overall PM10 $1,900 $15,000 $13,534 $ 13,850

NOx

Heavy Duty Program 75% $11,000 $13,000 $12,000

REMOVE 25% $14,000 $20,000 $17,000

Overall NOx $11,000 $20,000 $14,500 $ 13,250

1 The cost effectiveness cap in this column represents the cap that this program would require, not necessarily the historical cap.

2 The representative cost effectiveness is the anticipated cost effectiveness for that year. This is ba sed on district staff forecast.

### SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Append ix E

–

Attachment 1: ISR Spending Plan December 15, 2005

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed

Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

### E

- 13 

# APPENDIX E

Attachment 1

Project Spending Plan for Proposed

Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review)

December 15, 2005

### SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Append ix E

–

Attachment 1: ISR Spending Plan December 15, 2005

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed

Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

### E

- 14 I. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this document is to demonstrate that any funds collected by th e District

will meet their intended purpose of reducing emissions caused by new development in

the air basin. It provides a plan for spending any funds generated by the rule in a cost

effective and responsible manner.

Rule 9510 is projected to generate u p to $103 million between 2006 and 2008. After

2008 the District will provide a new estimate based on experience with the program and

the amount of development occurring in the San Joaquin Valley. The new estimates

may be higher or lower than the amounts currently in the rule. To demonstrate the

capability to distribute these funds to cost

- effective projects, the District has analyzed

the potential emission reduction projects available that meet requirements for being

surplus, quantifiable, and enforceab le. Once the potential projects were identified, staff

performed additional research into the cost of individual projects and the potential for

owners of the equipment, vehicles, etc. to take advantage of incentive funding.

The District plans on using existing grant programs that are available for immediate

funding of projects and to develop new programs for non

- traditional sources not eligible

for other funding sources such as DMV Surcharge Fees and California Carl Moyer

Program funds.

II. Existing Progr ams

The following existing programs and programs where the District has operated

programs in the past are described in Appendix E.

• Heavy

- Duty Engine Incentive Program

• REMOVE II Program

• Lawnmower Buyback Program

• Light and Medium Duty Vehicle Program

• Volun tary Accelerated Vehicle Retirement

The Heavy

- Duty Engine Incentive Program and REMOVE II Program are currently in

operation and can be used as an outlet for funds from ISR immediately. Other

programs where the District has past experience can be impleme nted quickly.

### SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Append ix E

–

Attachment 1: ISR Spending Plan December 15, 2005

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed

Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

### E

- 15 III. New Programs

Stationary Source Incentive Program

Program concept: Some control options that are in excess of current rule requirements

and best available control technology (BACT) thresholds can be implemented with the

help of incentive funding. These options typically exceed BACT cost

- effectiveness

limits or were not required by the rule due to economic impacts; however, relatively

cost

- effective control options may be available in a variety of industries.

All projects would be requ ired to demonstrate that they are:

• Surplus to all federal, state, and local requirements

• Quantifiable

–

emission reductions can be determined

• Enforceable

–

a mechanism is available to ensure that reductions occur

• Permanent

–

reductions are maintained for t he life of the credit

There are several potential ways in which stationary source operators would be

attracted to the incentive program:

• Applicant initiated

- Applicant proposing expansion or equipment replacement

approaches the District with equipment o r control technologies in excess of

requirements.

• District initiated

- District permit engineers identify control technology in excess of

BACT requirements and rule requirements during project review and suggest to

applicant the potential for going beyond requirements with the help of incentive

funding.

• Ongoing program

- The District identifies specific equipment or technologies in

excess of requirements in a grant program and open application process.

Stationary Source Project Review Process Outline:

1. For projects identified during BACT analysis required under Rule 2201, permit

engineers identify potential control technology that exceeds BACT requirements

and is surplus of all regulations.

2. The engineer contacts Emission Reduction Incentive Program (ERI P) staff to

forward cost effectiveness analysis. Note: the cost effectiveness performed for

ERIP purposes is not the BACT cost effectiveness

. 3. ERIP determines whether project meets ISR funding criteria and contacts PSD

and applicant.

4. If not, the project, as initially proposed, is processed by Permit Staff.

5. If yes, 3

- parts meeting (ERIP, PSD, Applicant) to review feasible options

(technical aspects and funding).

### SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Append ix E

–

Attachment 1: ISR Spending Plan December 15, 2005

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed

Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

### E

- 16 6. Project, as initially proposed, is on hold, waiting for ERIP and applicant final

approval/decision

. 7. Applicant determines whether the project would be feasible at their facility.

8. If not, the project, as initially proposed, is processed by Permit Staff.

9. If yes, ERIP staff initiates incentive funding application process.

10. For eligible projects, the applica nt would complete an application providing

contact information and complete project and cost information.

11. Initial project amended to incorporate new proposed control technology.

12. The application would be approved by ERIP and Permit Service Division (PSD).

13. E RIP staff would prepare a contract for the project between the applicant and the

District.

14. PSD would incorporate the new controls and emission amounts into the

applicant’s permit application.

15. PSD issues an Authority to Construct (ATC) allowing the applican t to install the

new control.

16. Compliance staff conducts an inspection, that may include a source test for some

projects, to verify the emission reductions.

17. Compliance notifies PSD and ERIP that the installation is complete.

18. ERIP approves claim for payment for the contract.

19. Finance issues payment for the project to the applicant.

20. Long term monitoring and reporting is accomplished through the normal process

for permitted equipment.

21. ERIP reports emission reductions in periodic reports to the Governing Board.

Projects may also enter the system that are initiated by operators of the permitted

sources. In these cases, PSD will conduct an assessment to determine technological

feasibility and if the project is surplus and enforceable. PSD would then turn the proj ect

over to ERIP for application processing and contracting. Project types that have the

potential for large numbers of applications may become an ongoing program

component with outreach to recruit applicants.

Example Projects

The following are examples of projects that illustrate the potential to obtain emission

reductions through a stationary source incentive program. All projects listed would

require additional research and analysis prior to offering incentives.

Example: Replace natural gas fired b oilers/burners with cleaner model.

Under District Rule 4306, boilers rated from greater than 5 up to 20 MMBTU per hour

are required to achieve a NOx emission rate of 15 ppm. If the applicant currently

operated a 30 ppm boiler, when it comes time to repla ce the boiler, he would be

required to install a 15 ppm boiler. Due to advances in technology there are now 9 ppm

ultra

- low NOx burners available. The cost is in excess of the District’s BACT threshold,

so the applicant is not required to purchase the 9 ppm boiler. The increment between

### SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Append ix E

–

Attachment 1: ISR Spending Plan December 15, 2005

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed

Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

### E

- 17 the 15 ppm boiler and the 9 ppm boiler are therefore surplus reductions. The incentive

amount would be set to cover the extra cost of installing the cleaner boiler. There are

approximately 420 units between 5 to 20 MMBT U per hour that are subject to Rule

4306. Complete new burner unit costs are in the range of $28,000 to $57,000

depending on size, based on contact with venders. The differential cost between low

emitting and high emitting burners ranges from $5,000 to $ 7,000

Another possible source of surplus reductions may occur from boilers rated from 2 to 5

MMBTU per hour and subject to proposed Rule 4307, which has a NOx limit of 30 ppm.

Some boilers that currently operate above 30 ppm may be exempt from rule retro fit

requirements now under development, so the surplus reductions for those units may be

calculated from the uncontrolled emissions of 55 ppm down to 9 ppm. The incentive

would need to cover 100 percent of the cost of the installation. There are no incre ased

operating costs expected with the 9 ppm burners. There could be more than 300 of

these exempt units eligible for an incentive. Unit costs for 2.5 MMBtu/hr 9 ppm burners

are about $41,000 based on contact with vendors.

Example: Electrification of s tationary non

- emergency IC engines.

Stationary engines are required to meet a NOx emission limit specified by Rule 4702.

Installing an electric motor in place of the engine would result in a surplus reduction for

the increment between the emission limit and the zero emission electric motor.

Depending on the current electric rate and price of fuel, there may be a cost increase

from changing to electric. The incentive would need to cover the cost of replacing the

engine with an electric motor and increase d operating costs. There are hundreds of

units installed that could take advantage of this program with sufficient incentive

amounts. Costs have not been researched.

Example: Install SCR at a flat glass melting furnace.

Glass melting furnaces are requ ired to meet NOx emission limits specified in Rule 4354

when the furnace is next rebuilt. These furnaces are rebuilt approximately every 7

years. The rule requirements can be exceeded with installation of selected catalyst

reduction. The surplus reducti ons can be achieved by using SCR instead of oxy fuel or

in addition to oxy fuel in some cases. The cost of control may exceed $10 million per

unit, but the large potential emission reductions result in relatively good cost

effectiveness. SCR has high ope rating costs and would most likely require incentives to

cover increased operating costs. There are two potential candidates for this project in

the San Joaquin Valley.

Example: Install plenum chambers or additional cyclone separators in cotton

gins.

C otton gins are required to reduce PM10 emissions produced during the ginning

process under Rule 4204. Additional controls may be possible for some gins if an

### SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Append ix E

–

Attachment 1: ISR Spending Plan December 15, 2005

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed

Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

### E

- 18 incentive were provided. Installing a plenum chamber before the required cyclone

separators may provide reductions if there is room for the equipment in the building.

After the cyclone separators there may be potential to add either cyclone separators in

or a bag house in series. Feasibility will depend on the gin configuration. There are

increase d operating costs with adding cyclone separators and bag houses that may

impact cost

- effectiveness of these options.

PM10 Public Agency Road and Unpaved Surface Program

The District has identified several sources of fugitive PM10 from paved and unpaved

r oads that provide significant emission reduction potential for the ISR rule. The most

promising projects are:

• Paving unpaved roads

• Paving unpaved road shoulders

• Long

- term contracts for chemical suppressants on unpaved roads

• Long

- term contracts for chemic al dust suppressants on unpaved road shoulders

• Purchase of PM10 Efficient Street Sweepers

Program Concept

The District envisions this program as a coordinated effort between the District, Valley

Transportation Planning Agencies, city and county road agen cies, and public works

departments. The funds collected for PM10 will be spent in the county of origin to the

extent possible.

The District will develop an application process and evaluation procedure for funding

road projects. Some of the key feature s are outlined below:

General Program Features

1. Each county and the cities within each county will be competing for funds

generated in the county

2. The Council of Governments/Transportation Planning Agencies may coordinate

the process of identifying funding priorities among the local member jurisdictions.

3. The primary consideration in funding priorities is cost

- effectiveness.

4. Projects must not supplant funding from any source.

5. A mix of projects with higher cost

- effectiveness may be funded as long as the

avera ge cost

- effectiveness for the year is consistent with the District’s annual

target.

6. Once a list of eligible projects is created and ranked, funding would be allocated

twice each year as fees are collected by the District.

### SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Append ix E

–

Attachment 1: ISR Spending Plan December 15, 2005

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed

Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

### E

- 19 Unpaved Roads

1. Provide a list of unpaved road segments in descending average daily trip (ADT)

sequence (same data used for compliance with Rule 8061).

2. Indicate road segments that will be paved or chemical treated in compliance with

Rule 8061.

3. If economic hardship is claimed for Rule 8061 , provide justification.

4. As a general rule, the highest ADT road segments should be paved or treated

first.

5. Other factors to consider in scoring projects:

Roads with significant truck traffic should receive added points

Roads in or near to urban areas shou ld receive added points

6. Payment will be made to the agency after the project is complete.

7. Suppressant projects would be paid annually under a continuing agreement.

8. A single project could be based on total miles of road segments from a

jurisdiction so that different roads could be done under one contract.

Paved Road Shoulder Paving Projects

1. Provide a list of unpaved road shoulders in descending average daily trip (ADT)

sequence (same list used for compliance with Rule 8061).

2. Indicate road shoulder segment s that will be paved or chemical treated in

compliance with Rule 8061.

3. Other criteria should be same as unpaved road projects

PM10 Efficient Street Sweepers

1. Provide a description of the existing street sweeping program if any, including

sweeping schedule and types of sweepers (PM Efficient or Standard)

2. Demonstrate compliance with Rule 8061 sweeper purchase requirements or

provide economic hardship justification.

3. Provide an estimate of the curb miles that will be swept by the new sweeper(s).

4. Projects propo sing natural gas vehicles may be eligible for additional funding

based on NOx and PM10 exhaust emission reductions.

Agricultural Project Incentive Program

The District has identified several potential projects for agricultural equipment and

emission sour ces not currently eligible for other funding sources. The projects must be

surplus to agricultural regulations and be able to demonstrate quantifiable emission

reductions.

Program Concept: Although many agricultural sources are now regulated, there are

some opportunities for early implementation of controls that are scheduled far enough in

the future to result in surplus reductions. In some cases, it is possible to go beyond

### SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Append ix E

–

Attachment 1: ISR Spending Plan December 15, 2005

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed

Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

### E

- 20 current regulations. For example, measures in addition to those required by th e Agricultural Conservation Management Program rule.

Agricultural Projects:

v Lower emitting almond harvester purchase

v Chippers and shredder purchases as alternative to burning

Project descriptions:

New almond harvesters that emit 35 to 70 percent less PM10 than older units are

currently available. Field

- testing results completed for the harvesters is currently under

analysis by UC Davis. Early introduction of lower emitting almond harvesters will result

in significant reductions.

Chipping and shred ding wood waste in the orchard instead of burning results in

substantial reductions of PM10, NOx, and ROG. Although Rule 4103 phases out most

burning by 2010, some will be exempt due to lack of an economic alternative to burning.

The District would purch ase chippers and shredders for growers that were unable to

implement an alternative to burning and had not selected this as a practice for their

CMP Plan.

IV. Potential Projects Lists for NOx and PM10

The following tables list potential projects along with e stimates of the number of

potential projects, costs, emission reductions and cost

- effectiveness for each type of

project. The purpose of the list is to show that sufficient projects are available at a cost

effectiveness to achieve program goals. The list is not all inclusive. There are many

Heavy

- Duty Engine Incentive Program and REMOVE II eligible projects that could also

be funded. New projects may also become available as retrofit devices are certified and

new technologies are released to the market. The conclusion that can be drawn from

this information is that projects well in excess of projected funding are available for the

ISR program.

Tables are also provided for 2006, 2007, and 2008 containing a demonstration that the

cost

- effectiveness targe ts can be met with the types of projects that are available. This

is not intended as a funding allocation system. Participation in grant programs is

voluntary and on a first come, first served basis. The District may perform targeted

outreach and may se t up funding pots for the most cost

- effective projects if necessary to

achieve emission reduction commitments.

### SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix E

–

Attachment 1: ISR Spending Pla n December 15, 2005

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed

Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

### E

- 21 NOx Project Availability

Individual

Project Cost Annual

Reduction

(t/y) Project

Life Lifetime

Reductions Project CE

$/ton Projec

ts

Available Total Cost Cumulative Cost Category

Reductions

Life (tons) Total

Reductions

t/d Cumulative

Reductions

tons Cumulative

CE

Marine Vessels (Harbor Craft) 04 repower $197,850 7.6 16 121.6 1627.5 1 $197,850 $197,850 121.57 0.02 121.6 $1,627.46

Ag Irrigation Pump Electrification $21,558 3.0 10 29.9 720.8 142 $3,061,273 $3,259,124 4247.22 0.58 4368.8 $746.00

Marine Vessels (Harbor Craft) 03 repower $69,288 3.3 16 52.8 1313.3 1 $69,288 $3,328,412 52.8 0.01 4421.6 $752.77

Ag Irrigation Pumps Portabl e Diesel Repowers $27,144 2.3 7 15.9 1705.0 50 $1,357,198 $4,685,610 796.0 0.11 5217.6 $898.05

HDD Trucks Idle Reduction $9,883 0.6 5 3.0 3316.3 320 $3,162,411 $7,848,021 953.6 0.13 6171.2 $1,271.73

Open Burning Chippers Almond $227,182 5.7 10 57.2 3971. 7 1 $227,182 $8,075,203 57.2 0.01 6228.4 $1,296.52

Off

- Road Vehicles/Equipment large ag $48,382 1.7 7 11.8 4100.2 10 $483,820 $8,559,023 118.0 0.02 6346.4 $1,348.65

Auxiliary Power Units (Transportation

Refridgeration Units) $12,518 0.4 5 1.8 6878.1 294 $3,680,348 $12,239,371 535.1 0.07 6881.4 $1,778.61

Ag non self

- propelled ICE $9,200 0.1 7 1.0 8846.2 10 $92,000 $12,331,371 10.4 0.00 6891.8 $1,789.27

On

- Road HD Vehicles

- Fleet Modernization $88,756 1.0 10 10.2 8744.4 1000 $88,755,962 $101,087,334 1015 0.0 1.39 17041.8 $5,931.72

Glass Melting Furnaces

- SCR $22,120,500 239.0 10 2390.0 9255.4 1 $22,120,500 $123,207,834 2390.0 0.33 19431.8 $6,340.52

Off

- Road Vehicles/Equipment small ag repowers $12,677 0.2 7 1.3 9981.9 20 $253,540 $123,461,374 25.4 0.00 19457.2 $6,345.27

Ag non self

- propelled ICE

- repowers $15,500 0.2 7 1.5 10402.7 12 $186,000 $123,647,374 17.9 0.00 19475.1 $6,348.99

Small Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process

Heaters

- replacement $13,000 0.1 10 1.2 10743.8 1207 $15,691,000 $139,338, 374 1460.5 0.20 20935.6 $6,655.58

School Bus Replacement $110,000 0.3 10 3.1 35483.9 1000 $110,000,000 $249,338,374 3100.0 0.42 24035.6 $10,373.72

Locomotives $1,414,286 6.0 18.6 111.7 12664.7 10 $14,142,857 $263,481,231 1116.7 0.15 25152.3 $10,475.44

S mall Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process

Heaters

- replacement $6,000 0.0 10 0.3 18181.8 552 $3,312,000 $266,793,231 182.2 0.02 25334.5 $10,530.85

Forklifts (Electric, ICE, SI) $44,457 0.4 5 2.0 22798.7 50 $2,222,873 $269,016,104 97.5 0.01 25432.0 $10, 577.88

Airport Ground Support Equipment

- Electric

replacements $27,889 0.2 5.0 1.1 24753.5 73 $2,035,889 $271,051,993 82.2 0.01 25514.2 $10,623.57

Open Burning Chippers Figs $185,212 0.6 10 5.7 32379.7 12 $2,222,544 $273,274,537 68.6 0.01 25582.8 $10,68 1.95

Gross Polluter

- VAVR $3,000 0.1 1 0.08 37500.0 100 $300,000 $273,574,537 8.0 0.00 25590.8 $10,690.33

Old Vehicle

- VAVR $3,000 0.02 3 0.06 50000.0 5000 $15,000,000 $288,574,537 300.0 0.04 25890.8 $11,145.82

25890.8 3.55

### SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix E

–

Attachment 1: ISR Spending Pla n December 15, 2005

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed

Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

### E

- 22 PM10 Project Av ailability

Individual

Project

Cost Annual

PM10

Reduction

(t/y) Project

Life Lifetime

Reductions Project

CE

$/ton Projects

Available Total Cost Cumulative

Cost Category

Reductions

Life (tons) Total

Reductions

t/d Cumulative

Reductions

tons Cu mulative

CE

Unpaved Roads

- City and County

Paving 75 ADT roads $290,000 27.1 20 542.0 535.1 10 $2,900,000 $2,900,000 5420 0.7 5420 $535.06

Paving 25 ADT roads $290,000 9.0 20 180.7 1605.2 90 $26,100,000 $29,000,000 16260 2.2 21680 $1,337.64

Paving 10 ADT roads $290,000 3.6 20 72.0 4027.8 100 $29,000,000 $58,000,000 7200 1.0 28880 $2,008.31

Suppressants 10 year contract $140,080 3.5 10 35.0 4002.3 100 $14,008,000 $72,008,000 3500 1.0 32380 $2,223.84

Paved Roads 32380

Paving Shou lders $100,000 0.2 20 3.8 26315.8 500 $50,000,000 $122,008,000 1900 0.5 34280 $3,559.16

Suppresants on Shoulder 10 yr $48,370 0.2 10 1.6 30231.3 500 $24,185,000 $146,193,000 800 0.2 35080 $4,167.42

PM Efficient Street Sweepers $152,000 0.9 8 7.3 20821.9 15 $2,280,000 $148,473,000 109.5 0.0 35189.5 $4,219.24

Stationary Source Projects

Cotton Gin

- Install barrel cyclone

before master trash 1D3D cyclone $7,500 1.6 10 16.3 460.1 12 $90,000 $148,563,000 195.6 0.0 35275.6 $4,211.49

Cotton Gin

- Install barrel cyclone

or 1D2D cyclone before mote

system 1D3D cyclone $60,000 2.8 10 27.6 2173.9 12 $720,000 $149,283,000 331.2 0.0 35606.8 $4,192.54

Cotton Gin

- Install plenum

chamber before the unloading

system and the drying/cleaning

systems $70,000 2.8 10 27.6 2536.2 12 $840,000 $150,123,000 331.2 0.1 35938 $4,177.28

Charbroiler Replacement $6,600 0.2 10 2.4 2750.0 135.0 $891,000 $151,014,000 324 0.1 36262 $4,164.52

Other Ag Projects

Almond Harvester Purchase $145,000 3.6 10 35.7 4061. 6 260 $37,700,000 $188,714,000 9282 2.5 45220 $4,173.24

8.5

### SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix E

–

Attachment 1: ISR Spending Plan December 15, 2005

Final Draft

Staff Report for Proposed

Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

### E

- 23 NOx Cost

- Effectiveness Demonstration

NOx Project Mix in 2006 to achieve an average cost effectiveness of $4650/ton with $6,006,379 available

Project

Cost Annual

Reduction

(t/y) Project Life Life

Reductions Total No.

Projects

Available Number of

Projects

in 2006 Total cost Total

tons Project CE

$/ton

Ag Projects

Ag Irrigation Pump

Electrification $21,558 3.0 10 29.9 142 20 $431,165 598.2 721

Ag Irrigation Pumps

Porta ble Diesel Repowers $27,144 2.3 7 15.9 50 10 $271,440 159.2 1,705

Off

- Road

Vehicles/Equipment large

ag repowers $48,382 1.7 7 11.8 10 4 $193,528 47.2 4,100

Ag non self

- propelled ICE

repowers hay bayler $9,200 0.1 7 1.0 10 1 $9,200 1.0 8,846

Ag non self

- propelled ICE

repowers spray rig $15,500 0.2 7 1.5 12 2 $31,000 3.0 10,403

Off

- Road

Vehicles/Equipment small

ag repowers $12,677 0.2 7 1.3 20 3 $38,031 3.8 9,982

Open Burning

- Chipping

Almonds $227,182 5.7 4 22.9 1 1 $227,182 22.9 9,921

Open Burning

- Chipping

Figs $185,212 0.6 4 2.28 12 1 $185,212 2.3 81,233

Marine Projects

Marine Vessels (Harbor

Craft) 03 repower $69,288 3.3 16 52.8 1 1 $69,288 52.8 1,313

Marine Vessels (Harbor

Craft) 04 repower $197,850 7.6 16 121.6 1 1 $197,850 121.6 1,6 27

HD Truck/Bus Projects

HDD Trucks Idle

Reduction $9,883 0.6 5 3.0 320 0 $0 0.0 #DIV/0!

### SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix E

–

Attachment 1: ISR Spending Plan December 15, 2005

Final Draft

Staff Report for Proposed

Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

### E

- 24 NOx Cost

- Effectiveness Demonstration

NOx Project Mix in 2006 to achieve an average cost effectiveness of $4650/ton with $6,006,379 available

HD Truck/Bus Projects

Cont

Auxiliary Po wer Units

(Transportation

Refridgeration Units)

repowers $12,518 0.4 5 1.8 294 20 $250,364 36.4 6,878

On

- Road HD Vehicles

Fleet Modernization $88,756 1.0 10 10.2 1000 10 $887,560 101.5 8,744

School Bus Replacement $110,000 0.3 10 3.1 1000 9 $990,000 27.9 35,484

Locomotives Tier 0 to Tier

2 or hybrid $1,414,286 6.0 18.6 111.7 10 1 $1,414,286 111.7 12,665

Stationary Source Projects

Glass Melting Furnaces $22,120,500 239.0 10 2390.0 1 0 $0 0.0 #DIV/0!

Small Boilers, Steam

Generators, and Process

Heaters Replace Existing

units with new $13,000 0.1 10 1.2 1207 1 $13,000 1.2 10,744

Small Boilers, Steam

Generators, and Process

Heaters Replace Existing

units with new $6,000 0.0 10 0.33 552 12 $72,000 4.0 18,182

Off

- Road Mobile

Forklifts (El ectric, ICE, SI) $44,457 0.4 5 1.95 50 5 $222,287 9.8 22,799

Airport Ground Support

Equipment

- Electric $27,889 0.2 5 1.13 73 3 $83,667 3.4 24,753

Other Mobile

Gross Polluter

- VAVR $3,000 0.1 1 0.08 100 0 $0 0.0 #DIV/0!

Old Vehicle

- VAVR $3 ,000 0.02 3 0.06 5000 150 $450,000 9.0 50,000

Overall cost and average CE for 2006 $6,037,059 1316.7 4,585

### SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix E

–

Attachment 1: ISR Spending Plan December 15, 2005

Final Draft

Staff Report for Proposed

Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

### E

- 25 NOx Project Mix in 2007 to achieve an average cost effectiveness of $7100/ton with $14,407,974 available

Project

Cost Annual

Reduction

(t/y ) Project Life Life

Reductions Total No.

Projects

Available Number of

Projects

in 2007 Total cost Total

tons Project CE

$/ton

Ag Projects

Ag Irrigation Pump

Electrification 21,558 3.0 10 29.9 122 20 $431,165 598.2 721

Ag Irrigation Pumps

Porta ble Diesel Repowers 27,144 2.3 7 15.9 40 20 $542,879 318.4 1,705

Off

- Road

Vehicles/Equipment large

ag repowers 48,382 1.7 7 11.8 6 4 $193,528 47.2 4,100

Ag non self

- propelled ICE

repowers hay bayler 9,200 0.1 7 1.0 9 4 $36,800 4.2 8,846

Ag non self

- prop elled ICE

repowers spray rig 15,500 0.2 7 1.5 10 4 $62,000 6.0 10,403

Off

- Road

Vehicles/Equipment small

ag repowers 12,677 0.2 7 1.3 17 4 $50,708 5.1 9,982

Open Burning

- Chipping

Almonds 227,182 5.7 3 17.2 0 0 $0 0.0 #DIV/0!

Open Burning

- Chipping

Fig s 185,212 0.6 3 1.71 11 0 $0 0.0 #DIV/0!

Marine Projects

Marine Vessels (Harbor

Craft) 03 repower 69,288 3.3 16 52.8 0 0 $0 0.0 #DIV/0!

Marine Vessels (Harbor

Craft) 04 repower 197,850 7.6 16 121.6 0 0 $0 0.0 #DIV/0!

HD Truck/Bus Projects 0

HDD Trucks Idle

Reduction 9,883 0.6 5 3.0 320 0 $0 0.0 #DIV/0!

Auxiliary Power Units 12,518 0.4 5 1.8 274 40 $500,728 72.8 6,878

### SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix E

–

Attachment 1: ISR Spending Plan December 15, 2005

Final Draft

Staff Report for Proposed

Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

### E

- 26 NOx Project Mix in 2007 to achieve an average cost effectiveness of $7100/ton with $14,407,974 available

HD Truck/Bu s Projects

Cont.

On

- Road HD Vehicles

- Fleet Modernization 88,756 1.0 10 10.2 990 45 $3,994,018 456.8 8,744

School Bus Replacement 110,000 0.3 10 3.1 991 40 $4,400,000 124.0 35,484

Locomotives 1,414,286 6.0 18.6 111.7 9 2 $2,828,571 223.3 12,66 5

Stationary Source Projects 0

Glass Melting Furnaces 22,120,500 239.0 10 2390.0 1 0 $0 0.0 #DIV/0!

Small Boilers, Steam

Generators, and Process

Heaters Replace Existing

units with new 13,000 0.1 10 1.2 1206 2 $26,000 2.4 10,744

Small Boilers, S

team

Generators, and Process

Heaters Replace Existing

units with new 6,000 0.0 10 0.33 540 6 $36,000 2.0 18,182

Off

- Road Mobile

Forklifts (Electric, ICE, SI) 44,457 0.4 5 1.95 45 3 $133,372 5.9 22,799

Airport Ground Support

Equipment

- Electric 27889 0.2 5.0 1.13 70 4 $111,556 4.5 24,753

Other Mobile

Gross Polluter

- VAVR $3,000 0.1 1 0.08 100 5 $15,000 0.4 37,500

Old Vehicle

- VAVR $3,000 0.02 3 0.06 4850 350 $1,050,000 21.0 50,000

Overall cost and average CE for 2007 $14,412,3 26 1892.0 7,617

### SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix E

–

Attachment 1: ISR Spending Plan December 15, 2005

Final Draft

Staff Report for Proposed

Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

### E

- 27 NOx Project Mix in 2008 to achieve an average cost effectiveness of $9350/ton with $22,373,287 available

Project

Cost Annual

Reduction

(t/y) Project

Life Life

Reductions Total No.

Projects

Available Number of

Projects

in 2008 Total cost Total tons Project CE

$/ton Comments

Ag Projects

Ag Irrigation Pump

Electrification 21,558 3.0 10 29.9 102 18 $388,049 538.4 721

Ag Irrigation Pumps Portable

Diesel Repowers 27,144 2.3 7 15.9 20 10 $271,440 159.2 1,705

Off

- Road Vehicle s/Equipment

large ag repowers 48,382 1.7 7 11.8 2 2 $96,764 23.6 4,100

Ag non self

- propelled ICE

repowers hay bayler 9,200 0.1 7 1.0 5 5 $46,000 5.2 8,846

Ag non self

- propelled ICE

repowers spray rig 15,500 0.2 7 1.5 6 6 $93,000 8.9 10,403

Off

- Road V

ehicles/Equipment

small ag repowers 12,677 0.2 7 1.3 13 8 $101,416 10.2 9,982

Open Burning

- Chipping

Almonds 227,182 5.6 2 11.1 1 1 $227,182 11.1 20,467 Rule 4103 2010

Implementation

Open Burning

- Chipping Figs 185,212 0.6 2 1.14 11 0 $0 0.0 #DIV/0! R ule 4103 2010

Implementation

Marine Projects

Marine Vessels (Harbor Craft)

03 repower 69,288 3.3 16 52.8 0 0 $0 0.0 #DIV/0!

Marine Vessels (Harbor Craft)

04 repower 197,850 7.6 16 121.6 0 0 $0 0.0 #DIV/0!

HD Truck/Bus Projects 0

H DD Trucks Idle Reduction 9,883 0.6 5 3.0 320 50 $494,127 149.0 3,316 Idle Aire req. min

order of 50 units

### SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix E

–

Attachment 1: ISR Spending Plan December 15, 2005

Final Draft

Staff Report for Proposed

Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

### E

- 28 NOx Project Mix in 2008 to achieve an average cost effectiveness of $9350/ton with $22,373,287 available

HD Truck/Bus Projects

Cont.

Auxiliary Power Units

- Repower 12,518 0.4 5 1.8 234 40 $500,728 72.8 6,878

On

- Road HD Vehicles

- Fleet

Modernization 88,756 1.0 10 10.2 945 66 $5,857,894 669.9 8,744

School Bus Replacement 110,000 0.3 10 3.1 951 50 $5,500,000 155.0 35,484

Locomoti ves 1,414,286 6.0 18.6 111.7 7 4 $5,657,143 446.7 12,665

Stationary Source Projects 0

Glass Melting Furnaces 22,120,500 239.0 10 2390.0 1 0 $0 0.0 #DIV/0!

Small Boilers, Steam

Generators, and Process

Heaters Replace Existing

units with new 13,000 0.1 10 1.2 1204 60 $780,000 72.6 10,744

Small Boilers, Steam

Generators, and Process

Heaters Replace Existing

units with new 6,000 0.0 10 0.33 534 60 $360,000 19.8 18,182

Off

- Road Mobile 0

Forklifts (Electric, ICE, SI) 44,457 0.4 5 1. 95 42 5 $222,287 9.8 22,799

Airport Ground Support

Equipment

- Electric 27889 0.2 5.0 1.13 10 5 $139,444 5.6 24,753

Other Mobile 0

Gross Polluter ID & Replace

-

VAVR $3,000 0.1 1 0.08 95 50 $150,000 4.0 37,500

Old Vehicle

- VAVR $3,000 0.02 3 0.06 4500 500 $1,500,000 30.0 50,000

Overall cost and average CE for 2008 $22,385,473 2391.7 9,359

### SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix E

–

Attach ment 1: ISR Spending Plan December 15, 2005

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed

Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

### E

- 29 NOx Cost Effectiveness Demonstration

Year Nox

Projected Revenue NOx CE $/ton

2006 $6,006,379 4,650

2007 $14,407,974 7,100

2008 $22,373,287 9,350

Total $42,787,640

### SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix E

–

Attachment 1: ISR Spending Plan December 15, 2005

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed

Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

### E

- 30 PM10 Cost

- Effectiveness Demonstration

Project Mix in 2006 to achieve an average cost effectiveness of $2907/ton with $5,941,908 available

Project

Cost Annual

Reduction

(t/y) Project Life Life

Reductions Total No.

Proje cts

Available Number of

Projects

in 2006 Total cost Total

tons Project CE

$/ton

Unpaved Roads

Paving 75 ADT roads $290,000 27.1 20 542 10 2 $580,000 1084.0 535

Paving 25 ADT roads $290,000 9.0 20 180.7 90 2 $580,000 361.3 1,605

Pa ving 10 ADT roads $290,000 3.6 20 72.0 100 4 $1,160,000 288.0 4,028

Suppressants 10 year contract $140,080 3.5 10 35.0 100 6 $840,480 210.0 4,002

Paved Roads

Paving Shoulders $100,000 0.2 20 3.8 500 14 $1,400,000 53.2 26,316

Suppr esants on Shoulder 10 yr $48,370 0.2 10 1.6 500 16 $773,920 25.6 30,231

PM Efficient Sweeper Purchase $152,000 0.9 8 7.3 25 2 $304,000 14.6 20,879

Cotton Gins

Install barrel cyclone before

master trash 1D3D cyclone $7,500 1.6 10 16.3 12 2 $ 15,000 32.6 460

Install barrel cyclone or 1D2D

cyclone before mote system

1D3D cyclone $60,000 2.8 10 27.6 12 2 $120,000 55.2 2,174

Install plenum chamber before

the unloading system and the

drying/cleaning systems $70,000 2.8 10 27.6 12 2 $140,0 00 55.2 2,536

Other Ag Equipment

Almond Harvester Purchase $145,000 3.6 10 35.7 260 0 $0 0.0 #DIV/0!

Average CE in 2006 Overall cost and

CE for 2006 $5,913,400 2179.7 2,713

### SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix E

–

Attachment 1: ISR Spending Plan December 15, 2005

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed

Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

### E

- 31 Project Mix in 2007 to achieve an average cost effectiveness o f $5594/ton with $20,861,575 available

Project

Cost Annual

Reduction

(t/y) Project Life Life

Reductions Total No.

Projects

Available Number of

Projects

in 2007 Total cost Total

tons Project CE

$/ton

Unpaved Roads

Paving 75 ADT roads $2 90,000 27.1 20 542 8 0 $0 0.0 #DIV/0!

Paving 25 ADT roads $290,000 9.0 20 180.7 88 5 $1,450,000 903.3 1,605

Paving 10 ADT roads $290,000 3.6 20 72.0 96 22 $6,380,000 1584.0 4,028

Suppressants 10 year contract $140,080 3.5 10 35.0 94 16 $2,24 1,280 560.0 4,002

Paved Roads 0

Paving Shoulders $100,000 0.2 20 3.8 486 55 $5,500,000 209.0 26,316

Suppresants on Shoulder 10 yr $48,370 0.2 10 1.6 484 50 $2,418,500 80.0 30,231

PM Efficient Sweeper Purchase $152,000 0.9 8 7.3 23 12 $1,824,000 87.4 20,879

Cotton Gins

Install barrel cyclone before

master trash 1D3D cyclone $7,500 1.6 10 16.3 10 2 $15,000 32.6 460

Install barrel cyclone or 1D2D

cyclone before mote system

1D3D cyclone $60,000 2.8 10 27.6 10 2 $120,000 55.2 2,174

Install plenum chamber before

the unloading system and the

drying/cleaning systems $70,000 2.8 10 27.6 10 2 $140,000 55.2 2,536

Other Ag Equipment

Almond Harvester Purchase $145,000 3.6 10 35.7 260 2 $290,000 71.4 4,062

Average CE in 20 07 Overall cost and

CE for 2007 $20,378,780 3638.1 5,602

### SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix E

–

Attachment 1: ISR Spending Plan December 15, 2005

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed

Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

### E

- 32 Project Mix in 2008 to achieve an average cost effectiveness of $9011/ton with $33,883,309 available

Project

Cost Annual

Reduction

(t/y) Project Life Life

Reductions Total No.

Projects

Available Number of

Projects

in 2008 Total cost Total

tons Project CE

$/ton

Unpaved Roads

Paving 75 ADT roads $290,000 27.1 20 542 8 1 $290,000 542.0 535

Paving 25 ADT roads $290,000 9.0 20 180.7 83 5 $1,450,000 903.3 1,605

Paving 10 ADT roads $290,000 3.6 20 72.0 74 10 $2,900,000 720.0 4,028

Suppressants 10 year contract $140,080 3.5 10 35.0 78 5 $700,400 175.0 4,002

Paved Roads 0

Paving Shoulders $100,000 0.2 20 3.8 431 175 $17,500,000 665.0 26,316

Suppre sants on Shoulder 10 yr $48,370 0.2 10 1.6 434 160 $7,739,200 256.0 30,231

PM Efficient Sweeper Purchase $152,000 0.9 8 7.3 11 11 $1,672,000 80.1 20,879

Cotton Gins 0

Install barrel cyclone before

master trash 1D3D cyclone $7,500 1.6 10 16.3 8 2 $15,000 32.6 460

Install barrel cyclone or 1D2D

cyclone before mote system

1D3D cyclone $60,000 2.8 10 27.6 8 2 $120,000 55.2 2,174

Install plenum chamber before

the unloading system and the

drying/cleaning systems $70,000 2.8 10 27.6 8 2 $140,000 55.2 2,536

Other Ag Equipment

Almond Harvester Purchase $145,000 3.6 10 35.7 258 6 $870,000 214.2 4,062

Average CE in 2008 Overall cost and

CE for 2008 $33,396,600 3698.6 9,029

### SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix E

–

Attachment 1: ISR Spending Plan December 15, 2005

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed

Ru le 9510 and Rule 3180 

### E

- 33 PM10 Cost

- Effectiveness Demonstration

Year PM1 0 Projected

Revenue PM10 CE $/ton

2006 $5,941,908 2,907

2007 $20,306,433 5,594

2008 $33,883,309 9,011

Total $60,131,650

### SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix E

–

Attachment 1: ISR Spending Plan December 15, 2005

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed

Ru le 9510 and Rule 3180 

### E

- 34 This page intentionally blank.