Report on Reductions Achieved from Incentive-Based

Emission Reduction Measures in the San Joaquin Valley 

APPENDIX A.2: 2005 Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality

Standards Attainment Program Guidelines Part II

Release Date: September 22, 2014

Hearing Date: October 23, 2014

California Environmental Protection Agency 

Air Resources Board
THE CARL MOYER PROGRAM GUIDELINES 

PART II of IV 

PROJECT CRITERIA

Approved Revision 2005 

November 17, 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter Twelve – Zero-Emission Technologies....................................................... XII-1 
I-1 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

Chapter One 

ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

This chapter addresses the project criteria for on-road heavy-duty vehicles (HDVs). It 

also contains a brief overview of the HDV emission inventory, current engine emission 

standards and regulations impacting HDVs available control technologies, potential 

projects eligible for funding, and cost-effectiveness calculations. Since the 2003 

Guidelines, the Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) has adopted many regulations that 

affect existing heavy-duty vehicles. The project criteria in this chapter have been 

updated to reflect these new regulatory requirements. The Carl Moyer Program 

provides financial incentives to pay for the incremental cost of cleaner-than-required 

HDV purchase of new vehicles, repowers, and retrofits. 

I. Introduction 

On-road HDVs encompass a large variety of vehicles such as buses, solid waste 

collection vehicles (SWCV), street sweepers, delivery trucks and more. These vehicles 

are typically categorized by weight. Vehicles greater than 8,501 pounds (lbs) gross 

vehicle weight rating (GVWR) are considered to be HDVs which can also be 

subcategorized as light heavy-duty (LHD), medium heavy-duty (MHD) and 

heavy heavy-duty (HHD) vehicles (see Table 1-1). 

Table 1-1 

Heavy-Duty Vehicle Classifications 

Vehicle Classification GVWR 

Light Heavy-duty (LHD) 8,501 < 14,000 lbs 

Medium Heavy-Duty (MHD) 14,001 < 33,000 lbs 

Heavy Heavy-Duty (HHD) 33,001 or more lbs 

HDVs can also be further categorized by use and fuel type. Regulations traditionally 

refer to the vehicle usage type such as SWCVs, urban buses, and public fleets. 

Section III of this chapter provides information on regulations that currently impact these 

vehicles. 

Fuel types for HDVs include diesel, alternative diesel fuels, compressed natural gas 

(CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), liquefied propane gas (LPG), gasoline and 

electricity. The majority of HDVs are powered by compression-ignition engines typically 

fueled with diesel fuel. This preference for diesel engines presents an air quality 

challenge since diesel emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and particulate matter 

(PM) have not been controlled to the extent that gasoline-fueled vehicle emissions 

have, particularly for light and medium-duty vehicles. Furthermore, HDVs involved in 

the transport of goods typically accrue higher annual mileage than other vehicles. 
I-2 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

Consequently, the share of total emissions from HDVs is disproportionately higher than 

their population would suggest. 

II. Emissions 

Even though the population of all HDVs, including urban buses, account for 

approximately one percent of all on-road vehicles, they emit about 55 percent of the 

on-road statewide NOx emissions, 14 percent of the statewide reactive organic gases 

(ROG) emissions and 35 percent of the statewide PM10 emissions. As shown in 

Table 1-2, the NOx, ROG and PM10 annual emissions from HDVs will decrease 

through 2010. However, it is important to note that emissions from other on-road motor 

vehicle categories will also decrease, and by 2010, HDVs will contribute an even larger 

share of the emissions from motor vehicles. In addition, daily vehicle miles traveled 

(VMT) by HDVs are projected to increase by about 11 percent from 2005 to 2010. 

Clearly, emissions from heavy-duty vehicles have to be reduced further if California is to 

achieve its air quality goals. 

Table 1-2 

Heavy-Duty Vehicle Annual Emissions* 

Vehicles Greater than 8,500 Pounds 

VMT NOx 

tpd 

ROG 

tpd 

PM10 

tpd 

2005 61,446,000 839 107 18 

2010 69,112,000 654 84 15 

 * 2005 Almanac 

III. Regulatory Requirements 

All HDVs sold in California have engines that have been certified to specific standards. 

Those standards are, in general, consistent nationwide and are discussed below. 

Urban transit buses are an exception, having more stringent requirements than other 

HDVs until the two standards align in 2007. All purchases of new vehicles funded by 

the Carl Moyer Program must be surplus to these minimum requirements. 

In addition, the ARB has developed, or is in the process of developing, additional 

regulations which will overlay these new engine standards for specific categories. 

These categories, discussed below, include transit vehicles, SWCVs, school buses, 

public fleets and private fleets. Any Carl Moyer Program project must be surplus to 

these regulations. 

A. Emission Standards 

Engine emission standards have progressively and substantially reduced NOx and PM 

emissions from HDVs. Table 1-3 lists the existing and future NOx and PM emission 

standards for heavy-duty engines as found in Title 13, California Code of Regulations 
I-3 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

Table 1-3 

Emission Standards for Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines 

(grams per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr)) 

(1) NOx plus NMHC 

(2) NOx plus NMHC with 0.5 g/bhp-hr NMHC cap 

(3) Between 2007-2009, U.S. EPA requires 50 percent of heavy-duty diesel engine family certifications to meet the 

0.2 g/bhp-hr NOx standard. Averaging is allowed, and it is expected that most engines will conform to the fleet NOx 

average of approximately 1.2 g-bhp/hr. 

(4) Optional Standard sunsets on December 31, 2006 

(CCR), section 1956.8 [ARB, 2002a]. Urban buses have a separate set of standards 

and are shown in Table 1-4 as found in Title 13, CCR, section 1956.1 [ARB, 2002b].

Table 1-4 

Emission Standards for Urban Buses 

(g/bhp-hr) 

(1) Standard applies to urban bus equipped with diesel-fuel, dual fuel, or bi-fuel engines. 

(2) NOx plus NMHC 

(3) NOx plus NMHC with 0.5 g/bhp-hr NMHC cap 

(4) Between 2007-2009, U.S. EPA requires 50 percent of heavy-duty diesel engine family certifications to meet the 0.2 

g/bhp-hr NOx standard. Averaging is allowed, and it is expected that most engines will conform to the fleet NOx average 

of approximately 1.2 g-bhp/hr. 

(5) Standard sunsets on December 31, 2006 

B. Fleet Regulation for Transit Agencies 

1. Transit Fleet Vehicles 

The fleet regulation for transit agencies was amended by the Board on 

February 24, 2005 [ARB, 2005]. This regulation impacts vehicles owned or operated by 

a transit agency. The specific transit fleet vehicles impacted are on-road vehicles 

8,501 pounds GVWR or greater powered by a heavy-duty engine fueled by diesel or 

Diesel Urban Bus Alt Fuel Urban Bus Alt Fuel Urban Bus 

Optional Standard (5)

Model Year NOx PM NOx PM NOx + NMHC PM 

2004 - 2006 0.5(1) 0.01 2.4(2) or 2.5(3) 0.01 1.8 - 0.3 0.03 - 0.01 

2007 1.2(4) 0.01 1.2(4) 0.01 - - 

2010 0.2 0.01 0.2 0.01 - - 

Heavy-Duty Vehicles Heavy-Duty Optional Standard (4)

Model Year NOx PM NOx + NMHC PM 

2004 - 2006 2.4(1) or 2.5(2) 0.1 1.8 - 0.3 0.03 - 0.01 

2007 1.2(3) 0.01 - - 

2010 0.2 0.01 - - 
I-4 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

alternative fuel that are not urban buses. Transit agencies operating only 

gasoline-powered vehicles are not subject to this regulation.

The regulation establishes a fleet average NOx standard and PM emission reduction 

requirement for transit fleet vehicles phased-in between 2007 and 2010. Transit fleet 

vehicles are subject to the heavy-duty diesel engine emission standards and not the 

urban bus engine exhaust emission standards.

A transit agency must meet NOx emission averages of 3.2 g/bhp-hr by 

December 31, 2007, and 2.4 g/bhp-hr by December 31, 2010, from its transit fleet 

vehicles. A transit agency must also reduce diesel PM emissions of its transit fleet 

vehicles by 40 percent as of December 31, 2007, and 80 percent as of 

December 31, 2010, compared to the agency’s baseline emissions as of 

January 1, 2005. 

2. Urban Bus 

An urban transit bus is a passenger-carrying vehicle powered by a heavy heavy-duty 

diesel engine with a load capacity of fifteen or more passengers and intended primarily 

for short rides and frequent stops. Urban transit buses statewide are subject to ARB’s 

Public Transit Agency Vehicle regulation amended in 2005. The regulation required 

transit agencies that own, operate or lease urban buses to choose a diesel fuel or 

alternative fuel path and follow the requirements as described for each fuel path. 

Agencies on the alternative fuel path are required to: 

• Purchase or lease alternative fuel buses that meet the current standards for 

85 percent of the annual purchases made by the agency, through 2015. 

• Only purchase new buses with an engine certified to an optional PM standard of 

0.03 g/bhp-hr or lower. 

• Agencies established before January 1, 2005 that are on the alternative-fuel path 

shall not operate an active fleet of urban buses with: 

- Average NOx emissions in excess of 4.8 g/bhp-hr, based on the engine 

certification standards of the engines in the active fleet. 

- Diesel PM emission totals exceeding: 

(1) 40 percent of the agency’s January 1, 2002 diesel PM average beginning 

January 1, 2007. 

(2) 15 percent of the agency’s January 1, 2002 diesel PM average beginning 

January 1, 2009. 

Agencies on the diesel fuel path are required to: 

• Purchase a diesel-fueled, dual-fueled or bi-fueled bus with 2004-2006 MY engines 

certified to 0.5 g/bhp-hr of NOx and 0.01 g/bhp-hr of PM or an alternative fuel bus 

with an engine certified to an optional PM standard of 0.03 g/bhp-hr or lower. 

• Agencies established before January 1, 2005 that are on the diesel fuel path shall 

not operate an active fleet of urban buses with: 
I-5 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

- Average NOx emissions in excess of 4.8 g/bhp-hr, based on the engine 

certification standards of the engines in the active fleet. 

- Diesel PM emission totals exceeding: 

(1) 40 percent of the agency’s January 1, 2002 diesel PM average beginning 

January 1, 2005. 

(2) 15 percent of the agency’s January 1, 2002 diesel PM average or equal to 

0.01 g/bhp-hr times the total number of current diesel-fueled active fleet 

buses whichever is greater beginning January 1, 2007. 

Agencies established after January 1, 2005, regardless of which path they choose, shall 

not operate an active fleet of urban buses with: 

• Average NOx emissions in excess of 4.0 g/bhp-hr, or the NOx average of the active 

fleet of the transit agency from which it was formed whichever is lower, or in the 

case of a merger of two or more transit agencies or parts of two or more transit 

agencies, the average of the NOx fleet averages, whichever is lower. 

• Diesel PM exhaust emissions exceeding the following values: 

(1) Through December 31, 2009, 0.05 g/bhp-hr times the total number of 

diesel-fueled buses in the active fleet. 

(2) As of January 1, 2010, 0.01 g/bhp-hr times the total number of diesel-fueled 

buses in the active fleet. 

C. Solid Waste Collection Vehicles 

SWCVs are on-road heavy-duty vehicles with a GVWR of 14,000 pounds or more and 

are used for the purpose of collecting residential and commercial solid waste. SWCVs 

are subject to a statewide diesel PM control measure adopted by the Board on 

September 23, 2003 [ARB, 2004]. The regulation requires each owner to use one of 

the best available control technologies (BACT) as described in the regulation on each 

engine or collection vehicle in the fleet. 

BACT, as defined by the regulation, can be summarized as an engine or power system 

certified to the optional 0.01 g/bhp-hr PM standard; an engine or power system certified 

to the 0.1 g/bhp-hr PM emission standard, used in conjunction with the highest level 

diesel emission control system (DECS); an alternative fuel or heavy-duty pilot ignition 

engine, model year 2004 – 2006 certified to the optional standard; or the highest level 

diesel emission control strategy that is verified. 

BACT compliance deadlines are phased in, and are based on a group of engine model 

years as listed in Table 1-5. It is important to note that Group 2 requirements apply to 

specific model years (MY) based on the fleet size. Compliance deadlines begin in 2004 

and continue through 2010. 
I-6 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

Table 1-5 

Implementation Schedule for Solid Waste Collection Vehicles, 

Model Years 1960 to 2006 

Group Engine Model Years 

Percentage of 

Group to Use Best 

Available Control 

Technology 

Compliance 

Deadline 

1 1988 – 2002 10 

25 

50 

100 

December 31, 2004 

December 31, 2005 

December 31, 2006 

December 31, 2007 

2a 1960 – 1987 

(Total fleet ≥ 15 

collection vehicles) 

15 

40 

60 

80 

100 

December 31, 2005 

December 31, 2006 

December 31, 2007 

December 31, 2008 

December 31, 2009 

2b 1960 – 1987 

(Total fleet < 15 

collection vehicles) 

25 

50 

75 

100 

December 31, 2007 

December 31, 2008 

December 31, 2009 

December 31, 2010 

3 2003 – 2006 

(Includes dual-fuel and 

bi-fuel engines) 

50 

100 

December 31, 2009 

December 31, 2010 

D. Upcoming Regulations 

Municipal or utility-owned on-road heavy-duty diesel-fueled vehicles, such as dump 

trucks, street sweepers, and aerial lift trucks are not currently regulated by a fleet rule. 

The Board will consider a proposed in-use diesel particulate control measure for public 

and utility fleets in December 2005 which may impact the project criteria for these 

projects. Due to low mileage, these projects are generally only eligible for small grant 

amounts. 

Private on-road heavy-duty diesel-fueled vehicle fleets such as in-use heavy-duty trucks 

are not currently regulated. The Board is tentatively scheduled to hear a proposed 

diesel particulate control measure for private fleets in 2006 which may impact the 

project criteria for these projects. 

IV. Potential Project Types 

The Carl Moyer Program can achieve emission reductions from heavy-duty vehicles 

operating in California. The project criteria are designed to ensure that the emission 

reductions expected through the deployment of low-emission engines or retrofit 

technologies under this program are surplus, real, quantifiable, and enforceable. 
I-7 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

There are four main types of HDV projects: purchase of new vehicle, repower, retrofit, 

and alternative fuels. Each of these are discussed below. 

Commercially available low-emission HDVs are considered suitable 

Carl Moyer Program projects, either as new engine/vehicle purchases or new engine 

purchases for vehicle repowers. Recent statutory changes now allow for the potential to 

fund LHD projects. Due to the uncertainty of future requests, LHD projects will be 

considered initially on a case-by-case basis. If an appreciable number of applications 

are received for LHD projects, ARB will develop specific guidance. 

Diesel engines, due to their high efficiency and long life, dominate the HDV markets. 

However, their typical lean-burn, high-compression, high-temperature operation has 

resulted in technical limitations for achieving significant NOx emission reductions. 

Alternative fuel engines, especially those fueled by CNG and LNG, have been able to 

achieve NOx emissions of about half of a conventional diesel engine. Alternative fuel 

engines, including LPG engines, are available for MHD truck applications and HHD 

engines used in trash truck applications. 

In 2010, both the alternative-fuel and diesel fuel standards will align at 

0.2 g/bhp-hr NOx. As a result, engine manufacturers have invested significant 

resources for the development of reduced-emission diesel engines and progress has 

been made, especially with the integration of advanced electronics, the use of exhaust 

gas recirculation, and after treatment devices. Today's generation of HD diesel engines 

are nearly as clean as some of the alternative-fuel engines produced prior to 2003. 

Nevertheless, it is likely that only alternative-fuel engines will meet the lower NOx 

emission standard requirements for Carl Moyer Program funding for the purchases of 

new vehicles at this time. 

The variety of alternative fuel engines available and the number sold in California has 

increased significantly. However, due to increasingly stringent emission standards, the 

number of available alternative fuel engines being certified each year has decreased. 

As engine technology matures, the number and variety of engines certified to the 

emission standards will expand. Alternative fuel vehicles have had the most success in 

the urban bus market. Presently, approximately 50 percent of all bus sales in California 

are alternative fuel vehicles and a significant number of transit agencies have focused 

exclusively on alternative fuel buses for new bus purchases. 

A. Purchase of New Vehicle 

New vehicle purchases of LNG and CNG HDVs are expected to continue to be the most 

common type of project for on-road heavy-duty vehicles under the Carl Moyer Program, 

although LPG vehicles continue to be an option. The ARB certifies engines destined for 

sale in California and provides the engine manufacturers with an Executive Order (EO) 

for each certified engine family which is used to determine eligibility for new vehicle 

purchases and engine repowers. To be eligible, the new vehicle/engine must be 

certified to one of the ARB’s current optional emission standards of 
I-8 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

1.8 g/bhp-hr NOx + NMHC or lower through 2006, regardless of fuel type or engine 

design. Beginning in January 2007, the optional standards will sunset, and projects for 

the purchase of a new vehicle must have an engine certified to 0.2 g/bhp-hr of NOx. 

The Heavy-Duty Diesel-Engine and Vehicle Standard will continue to be used as the 

baseline for determining eligibility for on-road purchases of new vehicles except urban 

buses. Engines and vehicles certified to the Heavy-Duty Otto-Cycle Engine Standard 

may also be eligible for funding if certified to a level equivalent to the current optional 

diesel standard or 30 percent less than the current diesel standard. Since new engines 

are certified throughout the year, districts are encouraged to contact ARB for the most 

current list of eligible engines. 

Purchases of new vehicles must also be beyond the requirements of ARB’s regulations. 

Thus, applicants must submit evidence of compliance with the regulations or 

documentation to support that Carl Moyer Program funds will not be used to meet 

regulatory requirements. 

Heavy-duty hybrid electric vehicle purchases are another new vehicle purchase project 

type eligible for Carl Moyer Program funding. Heavy-duty hybrid-electric propulsion 

systems combine two motive power sources: an energy storage system such as 

batteries or ultra-capacitors, and an internal combustion engine, turbine, or fuel cell 

functioning as an auxiliary power unit. An electric motor provides partial or complete 

power to the wheels. In addition, energy otherwise lost as heat during braking is 

captured through regenerative braking to charge the energy storage system. 

In order to qualify for the Carl Moyer Program, the hybrid-electric drive system must be 

certified using the "California Interim Certification Procedures for 2004 and Subsequent 

Model Hybrid-Electric Vehicles, in the Urban Bus and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Classes." 

These test procedures provide a method to quantify the emission benefits of a hybridelectric drive system which is not possible through engine certification methods. At this 

time, one gasoline hybrid-electric drive system for use in urban buses is certified to the 

optional NOx standards at 0.6 g/bhp-hr and is classified as an alternative fuel bus. 

Average Banking and Trading (ABT) engines (i.e., all Family Emission Limit 

(FEL)-certified engines) are not eligible to participate in the Carl Moyer Program for new 

vehicle purchase projects since emission benefits from an engine certified to an FEL 

level are not surplus emissions. 

B. Repower 

Vehicle repower refers to the replacement of an existing engine with a newer engine 

certified to lower emission standards. For the Carl Moyer Program, existing HDV 

engines, regardless of model year, must be repowered with an ARB certified engine, 

Model Year 1991 or newer. Engine repowers are allowed only when the highest 

available ARB verified retrofit is installed as part of the repower project. All other 

eligibility criteria must also be met. Under the Carl Moyer Program, funding is not 
I-9 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

available for projects in which spark-ignition engines (i.e., natural gas or gasoline, etc.) 

are replaced with new diesel engines. 

Replacement of an old mechanical engine with a newer mechanical engine that is 

certified to a lower NOx emission standard may be cost-effective. (Mechanical engines 

are those having mechanically-controlled injection timing. These engines are common 

in pre-1991 models). Some air districts have also expressed interest in 

mechanical-to-electronic engine repowers for on-road heavy-duty engines. Although 

substantial NOx emission reductions may occur in these types of projects, installation of 

an electronically controlled engine into a mechanical engine platform is difficult due to 

the significant differences in fuel and electrical systems. Thus, mechanical-to-electronic 

engine repower projects will be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

Another possible repower option is the use of an engine that was certified to a FEL level 

as the replacement engine. FEL engines can be funded for vehicle repower projects 

only if they are certified to a level that is below the required emission standard. Due to 

the possibility of emission credits being generated from FEL engine averaging, specific 

guidelines must be followed when calculating emission reductions. These guidelines 

are explained in the repower portion of the Project Criteria section below. 

C. Retrofit 

Retrofit involves modifications to an engine and/or fuel system such that the retrofitted 

engine does not have the same specifications as the original engine. Retrofit projects 

are allowed for all engine model years, regardless of mechanical or electronic control. 

The most straightforward retrofit projects are add-on after treatments. ARB has 

approved formal verification procedures for several retrofit kits and diesel emission 

control strategies. The verification process is ongoing, and districts are encouraged to 

contact ARB to obtain the most current list of eligible retrofits. Retrofits may also 

include engine and/or fuel system component upgrades that could be done at the time 

of an engine rebuild, resulting in a lower emission configuration. See Appendix F for 

more detailed information regarding retrofits. 

D. Alternative Fuel 

Districts have the option to fund the cost difference between conventional diesel fuel 

and an alternative fuel such as alternative-diesel fuel, CNG, LNG, and LPG with 

matching funds. The fuel purchase must be an integral part of an engine purchase, 

repower, or retrofit. 

V. Project Criteria 

Reduced-emission on-road heavy-duty vehicle projects which include the purchase of a 

new vehicle, vehicle engine replacement (repower), and engine retrofit, can be 

considered for incentive funding. The project criteria listed below for on-road 

heavy-duty vehicles provide districts, fleet operators, transit agencies, and applicants 
I-10 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

with the minimum qualifications for the Carl Moyer Program. The primary criteria for 

selection are: emission reductions, cost-effectiveness, and ability for the project to be 

completed within the timeframe of the program. Sample calculations that illustrate the 

methodology for determining emission reductions and cost-effectiveness are included in 

Appendices C and D. 

Participating districts retain the authority to impose additional requirements in order to 

address local concerns. 

A. General 

• Emission reductions obtained through Carl Moyer Program projects must not be 

required by any federal, state or local regulation, memorandum of 

agreement/understanding with a regulatory agency, settlement agreement, 

mitigation requirement, or other legal mandate. 

• Projects must meet a cost-effectiveness of $14,300 per weighed ton of NOx + ROG 

+ PM10 reduced calculated in accordance with the cost-effectiveness methodology 

discussed in this chapter. 

• No emission reductions generated by the Carl Moyer Program shall be used as 

marketable emission reduction credits, or to offset any emission reduction obligation 

of any person or entity. 

• No project funded by the Carl Moyer Program shall be used for credit under any 

federal or state emission averaging banking and trading program. 

• Projects must have a minimum project life of three years. ARB may approve a 

shorter project life on a case-by-case basis. Projects with shorter lives may be 

subject to additional funding restrictions, such as a lower cost-effectiveness limit or a 

project cost cap. 

• The contract term must extend to the end of the project life. 

• Funded projects must have at least 75 percent of the vehicle’s annual miles traveled 

in California. 

• Potential projects that fall outside of these criteria may be considered on a 

case-by-case basis if evidence provided to the air district suggests potential surplus, 

real, quantifiable and enforceable emission reduction benefits. 

• Vehicles operating under a compliance extension granted by the ARB, a local 

district, or the U.S. EPA are not eligible for funding. 
I-11 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

• Default project life for on-road projects are as follows: 

School buses > 33,000 GVWR - New 20 years 

Buses > 33,000 GVWR - New 12 years 

Other On-road - New 10 years 

Repowers + Retrofits 5 years 

Retrofits 5 years 

Applicants must provide documentation to justify a longer project life. The default 

project life does not consider upcoming regulatory requirements. Project life may be 

shorter due to regulatory requirements. 

• On-road heavy-duty diesel vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating between 

8,501 and 14,000 pounds may be considered for Carl Moyer Program funding for 

new, repower and retrofit projects on a case-by-case basis. 

• All engines in new vehicle purchases and repower projects must be certified by the 

ARB for sale in California and must comply with durability and warranty 

requirements. 

• All aftermarket emission controls (retrofits) must be verified by ARB. 

• Air districts must consult with ARB staff to determine eligibility of all projects 

considered for funding on case-by-case basis. All projects considered on a 

case-by-case basis must receive ARB approval prior to receiving program funding. 

B. Compliance Check 

After the district receives an application for any on-road repower or retrofit project but 

before the district APCO signs an agreement for funding a project, the district must 

submit information regarding the project to ARB to check for outstanding violations. The 

process for completing the compliance check is as follows: 

• The district shall email its ARB district liaison the registered owner’s name, vehicle 

identification number, California Highway Patrol number, Department of 

Transportation number or Interstate Commerce Commission number for each 

engine to be repowered or retrofitted in the project. Due to the large number of 

vehicles that could require compliance checks, districts are encouraged to submit 

this data as soon as possible after receipt of the application. 

• The liaison will forward that information electronically to the responsible parties at 

ARB. The liaison will email the district the results of the compliance check within 

seven working days. 

• If the compliance check indicates there is an outstanding violation the district shall 

inform the engine owner in writing that no disbursement may be made until the 

owner provides proof that the violation has been corrected and the fines have been 

paid. 
I-12 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

• If the outstanding violation is based on problems with the baseline engine (e.g., 

gross polluter) the new engine must be installed (instead of fixing the old engine), 

the vehicle must be operational, the engine owner must pay the violation and submit 

documentation of the violation being corrected with, or before submitting, the 

invoice. 

• During inspections, districts must also check for a sticker verifying engines subject to 

the software upgrades for diesel trucks (i.e., chip reflash) have completed the 

upgrade before receiving funding. 

C. Purchase of New Vehicle 

The following criteria apply to all on-road new vehicle purchases 

• Engines must be certified to an optional, low-emission standard of at least 

1.8 g/bhp-hr NOx + NMHC or provide at least a 30 percent reduction of NOx 

compared to the baseline NOx emission factors for the specific vehicle type to claim 

NOx reductions from the project. 

• Fleets/agencies affected by upcoming fleet regulations may use Carl Moyer Program 

funding to purchase a new vehicle if the project life expires prior to the final 

compliance date for the reductions in the regulation. For example, if a project with a 

3-year project life is funded in December 2006, the emission reductions must be 

surplus to any emission reductions that are required by any regulations that apply 

through December 2009. 

• Fleets/agencies purchasing vehicles that will be affected by upcoming emission 

standards may use Carl Moyer Program funding to purchase a new vehicle up to the 

compliance date of the new standard. 

• The Heavy-Duty Diesel-Engine and Vehicle Standard will be used as the baseline 

for determining eligibility for the purchase of a new on-road vehicle. Engines and 

vehicles certified to the Heavy-Duty Otto-Cycle Engine Standard may be eligible if 

certified to a level equivalent to the current optional diesel standard or 30 percent 

less than the current diesel standard. 

• Through 2006, the purchase of a new vehicles is eligible for the Carl Moyer Program 

if the engine is certified to an optional, low-emission standard of 

1.8 g/bhp-hr NOx + NMHC or less. 

• From 2007 to 2009, the purchase of a new vehicle is eligible for the 

Carl Moyer Program if the engine is certified to a 0.2 g/bhp-hr NOx emission limit. 

• Engines used in any ABT program are not eligible for funding. 
I-13 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

D. Repower 

The following criteria apply to all on-road repower (engine replacement) projects. 

• Repower replacement engines must be an ARB certified engine with a Model Year 

of 1991 or newer. 

• On-road engine repowers are allowed only when the highest available ARB retrofit is 

installed as part of the repower project. 

• If a repower project does not meet the weighted cost-effective limit due to a retrofit, 

then the project is only eligible for the cost up to the weighted cost-effective limit. 

• The full cost of a retrofit kit included in a repower project may be funded subject to 

the $14,300 weighted cost-effectiveness limit. 

• If no retrofit is shown to be technically feasible to the district and ARB, the retrofit is 

not required. 

• Repower projects that reduce NOx emissions must be certified by ARB to a 

NOx reduction level of at least 15 percent from the baseline engine to claim 

NOx reductions from the project. 

• Fleets/agencies affected by upcoming fleet regulations may use Carl Moyer Program 

funding for repower projects if the project life expires prior to the final compliance 

date for the reductions in the regulation. For example, if a project with a 3-year 

project life is funded in December 2006, the emission reductions must be surplus to 

any emission reductions that are required by any regulations that apply through 

December 2009. 

• Funding requests for other related repowering equipment, such as the vehicle 

transmission, will be considered on a case-by-case basis, based upon whether it is a 

necessary expense, and is at the discretion of the district. 

• The replacement engine used in vehicle repower projects may be a new, rebuilt, or 

remanufactured engine. Eligible rebuilt or remanufactured engines are those offered 

by the original engine manufacturer (OEM) or by a non-OEM rebuilder who 

demonstrates to the ARB that the rebuilt engine and parts are functionally equivalent 

from an emissions and durability standpoint to the OEM engine and components 

being replaced. Rebuild and remanufactured engines that are not re-certified to new 

emission standards, shall use the emission standards associated with the original 

engine block. 

• For repowers, replacement engines manufactured after September 30, 2002, that 

are not certified to at least the 2.4 g/bhp-hr NOx + NMHC, or 
I-14 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

2.5 g/bhp-hr NOx + NMHC with a 0.5 g/bhp-hr NMHC cap, are ineligible to 

participate in the Carl Moyer Program. 

• Engines that are certified to a FEL NOx or NOx + NMHC level that is lower than the 

required emission standard are eligible for use in vehicle repower projects. 

However, the emission level that can be used in cost-effectiveness calculations for 

these engines would be the applicable emission standards and not the FEL levels. 

• Replacement engines subject to the software upgrades for diesel trucks (i.e., chip 

reflash) must complete the software upgrade process before being installed in a 

vehicle. The cost of the software upgrade, if any, is not an eligible 

Carl Moyer Program expense. 

• Mechanical-to-electronic engine repower projects will be considered on a 

case-by-case basis. 

• Funding is not available for projects to replace spark-ignition engines (i.e., natural 

gas or gasoline, etc.) with diesel engines. 

E. Retrofit 

The following criteria apply to all on-road retrofit projects: 

• Only ARB-verified retrofits are eligible for funding. 

• Retrofit projects that reduce NOx emissions must be verified by ARB to a 

NOx reduction level of at least 15 percent from the baseline engine to claim 

NOx reductions from the project. 

• Retrofit projects that control PM must use the highest level cost-effective technology 

available for the equipment being retrofitted. The following are the diesel PM 

reductions for each ARB verified level: Level 1 (25 percent reduction), 

Level 2 (50 percent reduction), or Level 3 (85 percent reduction). 

• Fleets/agencies affected by upcoming fleet regulations may use Carl Moyer Program 

funding for retrofit projects if the project life expires prior to the final compliance date 

for the reductions in the regulation. For example, if a project with a 3-year project 

life is funded in December 2006, the emission reductions must be surplus to any 

emission reductions that are required by any regulations that apply through 

December 2009. 

• If the retrofit device reduces both NOx and PM emissions and is being installed to 

comply with a PM requirement, only the cost of the NOx reductions is eligible for 

Carl Moyer Program funding. 
I-15 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

• From 2007 to 2009, retrofits of urban buses and transit vehicles will be considered 

on a case-by-case basis. Applicants must provide documentation that the retrofit will 

not be used to off-set a new diesel urban bus purchase. 

• The cost of the retrofit, all filters and maintenance needed during the project life, 

may be paid for with Carl Moyer Program funding provided it meets the weighted 

cost-effectiveness limit. 

F. Scrap 

• Scrap requirements are described in the 2005 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, 

Part I, Chapter 2: Administration of the Carl Moyer Program. 

G. Fuel 

• Carl Moyer Program funds can not be used for fuel projects, however funds under a 

district's budgetary authority or fiduciary control (i.e. match funds) may be used to 

pay for the incremental cost of liquid or gaseous fuel, other than standard gasoline 

or diesel, which is integral to a covered emission reducing technology that is part of 

a project receiving grant funding under the Program. If all Carl Moyer Program 

criteria are met and the project is not a “fuel-only” project, the incremental cost of 

alternative fuel can be considered a qualified matching contribution from a district. 

H. Glider Kits 

• An engine repower for a glider kit (replacement cab and chassis) is eligible for 

funding. The replacement engine must be newer than the glider kit and meet the 

general program criteria above. 

• Glider kits are not an eligible expense under the Carl Moyer Program. 

I. Heavy-Duty Trucks 

Currently, most in-use heavy-duty trucks, or heavy-duty vehicles designed to carry an 

entire load such as long-haul, short-haul, delivery, and construction trucks, are not 

subject to any fleet rules. The ARB is developing a fleet rule for private heavy-duty 

vehicles that is tentatively scheduled to be presented to the Board in 2006. If approved, 

it may affect the project criteria for these projects. Eligible heavy-duty truck projects 

including new vehicle purchases, repowers, and retrofits are subject to the general 

criteria cited above. 

• Heavy-duty trucks are eligible for funding if they meet the general program criteria 

above. 

• New hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) purchases will be considered on a case-by-case 

basis if the HEV is certified to the current NOx and PM standards. 
I-16 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

J. Private Fleets 

Private on-road heavy-duty diesel vehicle fleets are not currently regulated by a fleet 

regulation. The Board is tentatively scheduled to consider a proposed diesel particulate 

control measure for these fleets in 2006 which may affect the project criteria for these 

projects. 

• Private fleet vehicles are eligible for funding if they meet the general program criteria 

above. 

K. Public and Utility Fleets 

Municipal and utility-owned on-road heavy-duty diesel-fueled vehicles are not currently 

regulated by a fleet regulation. The ARB will consider a proposed diesel particulate 

control measure for these fleets in December 2005 which may affect the project criteria 

for these projects. Due to low mileage, these projects are generally only eligible for 

small grant amounts. 

• Public and utility fleet vehicles are eligible for funding if they meet the general 

program criteria listed above. 

L. School Buses 

School buses are vehicles used for the express purpose of transporting students 

through grade 12 from home to school, school to home and to any school sponsored 

activities. 

• School buses are eligible for Carl Moyer Program funding if they meet the general 

program criteria above; however, their relatively low annual miles traveled usually 

allows for minimum grant amounts. 

M. Solid Waste Collection Vehicles 

SWCVs are on-road heavy-duty vehicles with a GVWR of 14,000 pounds or more that 

are used for the purpose of collecting residential and commercial solid waste. SWCVs 

are subject to a statewide in-use diesel particulate matter airborne toxic control measure 

(ATCM). Projects that meet the following criteria provide emission reductions that are 

surplus to the regulatory requirements and may be funded: 

• Projects are subject to the general program criteria listed above. 

• Projects will be considered on a case-by-case basis. All SWCV projects must 

submit compliance records as described in the SWCV rule to show that the funds 

will not be used to meet the rule’s requirements. The SWCV regulation requires 

owners to maintain compliance records including the following beginning 

December 31, 2004: the name of the company, address, and fleet terminal(s) names 
I-17 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

and locations; statement of compliance; a list by vehicle identification number of 

collection vehicles identifying each vehicle type, engine manufacturer, model year, 

family, and series; status as active fleet or back-up vehicle, and correlated to each 

collection vehicle; the installed diesel emission control strategy, fuel or fuel additives 

used as a diesel emission control strategy; and backup vehicle mileage. The 

companies must also identify out of which terminal the vehicles potentially receiving 

Carl Moyer Program funds operate. This information must be submitted with the 

application and will be forwarded to ARB by the districts. ARB and/or the district will 

notify applicants if any additional documentation is required. 

• During 2007-2009, new SWCV purchases must meet the new vehicle purchase 

requirements above and must be certified to 0.2 g/bhp-hr for NOx. 

• Surplus NOx reductions from retrofit projects are eligible for funding as described in 

the retrofit criteria above. 

• Purchase of new vehicles, repower, and retrofit projects for SWCVs in group 2a 

(MY 1960-1987 with a total fleet of > 15 collection vehicles) of the ATCM are eligible 

for funding through December 31, 2006 if the following are met: 

− 100 percent of the vehicles in group 2a must be in compliance with the SWCV 

ATCM and in operation by December 31, 2006. 

− 20 percent of the vehicles in group 2a would be eligible for the incremental cost 

of the new vehicle purchase, repower or retrofit project up to the weighted 

cost-effectiveness limit. 

− The maximum project life for these projects is three years. 

• Purchase of new vehicles, repower, and retrofit projects for SWCVs in group 2b 

(MY 1960-1987 with a total fleet of < 15 collection vehicles) of the ATCM are eligible 

for funding through December 31, 2007 if one of the following options are met: 

− If 100 percent of the vehicles in group 2b are in compliance with the SWCV 

ATCM and in operation by December 31, 2006, 50 percent of the vehicles in 

group 2b would be eligible for the incremental cost of the new vehicle purchase, 

repower or retrofit project up to the weighted cost-effectiveness limit. The project 

life for 50 percent of the vehicles is three years and the remaining 50 percent is 

four years. 

− If 100 percent of the vehicles in group 2b are in compliance with the SWCV 

ATCM and in operation by December 31, 2007, 25 percent of the vehicles in 

group 2b would be eligible for the incremental cost of the new vehicle purchase, 

repower or retrofit project up to the weighted cost-effectiveness limit. The project 

life for these vehicles is three years. 
I-18 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

• Purchase of new vehicles, repower, and retrofit projects for SWCVs in group 3 

(MY 2003-2006) of the ATCM are eligible for funding through December 31, 2007 if 

one of the following options are met: 

− If the project is in operation by December 31, 2006, the remaining group 3 

vehicles in the fleet do not have to show compliance with the ATCM. The project 

life for 50 percent of the vehicles is four years and the remaining 50 percent is 

four years. 

− After December 31, 2006, 100 percent of the group 3 vehicles of the fleet must 

show compliance with the SWCV ATCM and be in operation by 

December 31, 2007 in order to receive funds. Fifty percent of these vehicles 

would be eligible for the incremental cost of the project up to the weighted costeffectiveness limit. The project life for these vehicles is three years. 

N. Street Sweepers and Other Stop-and-Go Vehicles 

Stop-and-go vehicles, such as street sweepers, may be included in the public fleet rule 

scheduled to be considered by the Board in December 2005. This may affect the 

project criteria for these projects. 

• Street sweeper projects that are surplus to regulations are eligible for funding for the 

purchase of a new vehicle, repower, and retrofit projects. See the general program 

criteria listed above. 

O. Transit Fleet Vehicles (Non-Urban Buses and Transit Vehicles) 

Transit fleets include commuter service buses and or transit fleet vehicles that are not 

urban buses. These fleets are subject to a statewide in-use fleet rule that impacts 

vehicles with a GVWR of 8,501 pounds or greater and are powered by a heavy-duty 

engine fueled by diesel or alternative fuel that are owned or operated by a transit 

agency.

• Projects are subject to the general program criteria listed above. 

• Projects will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Beginning in January 2006, 

transit agencies are required to submit annual documentation of compliance with the 

transit fleet rule to ARB for all transit vehicles that are not urban buses. Districts will 

work with ARB to determine if applicants are in compliance with the regulatory 

requirements and to ensure that Carl Moyer Program funds will not be used to meet 

these requirements. Transit agencies are not required to submit any additional 

regulatory compliance information with the Carl Moyer Program application and will 

be notified if districts and/or ARB require additional documentation. 

• Through 2006, purchases of new vehicles by transit agencies are eligible for 

Carl Moyer Program funding if the engine is certified to the optional standard of 

1.8 g/bhp-hr NOx + NMHC. 
I-19 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

• From 2007 to 2009 purchases of new vehicles are eligible for funding if the engine is 

certified to 0.2 g/bhp-hr NOx. 

• Transit agency fleets established before January 1, 2007 are eligible for 

Carl Moyer Program funds for new, repower and retrofit projects through 

December 31, 2007 if documentation is provided that shows: 

1. The whole fleet has met the 3.2 g/bhp-hr NOx fleet average, and 

2. Diesel PM reductions of 40 percent compared to January 1, 2005 PM levels. 

These projects shall have a four year project life if installed and in operation by 

December 31, 2006 and a three year project life if installed and in operation by 

December 31, 2007. 

• Transit agency fleets established before January 1, 2007 are eligible for 

Carl Moyer Program funds for purchases of new vehicles, repower and retrofit 

projects if documentation is provided that shows: 

1. The whole fleet has met the 2.4 g/bhp-hr NOx fleet average, and 

2. Diesel PM reductions of 80 percent compared to January 1, 2005 PM levels or 

equal to 0.01 g/bhp-hr times the total number of transit fleet vehicles in the 

current fleet, whichever is greater. 

These projects may have the default project life. 

• Transit agency fleets established after January 1, 2007 are eligible for 

Carl Moyer Program funds for purchases of new vehicles, repower and retrofit 

projects through December 31, 2007 if documentation is provided that shows: 

1. The whole fleet has met the 2.4 g/bhp-hr NOx fleet average, and 

2. Diesel PM reductions of 50 percent compared to the fleet’s baseline when 

established. 

These projects shall have a five year project life if installed and in operation by 

December 31, 2007, four year project life if installed and in operation by 

December 31, 2008 and a three year project life if installed and in operation by 

December 31, 2009. 

• Transit agency fleets established after January 1, 2007 are eligible for 

Carl Moyer Program funds for purchases of new vehicles, repower and retrofit 

projects beginning January 1, 2008 if documentation is provided that shows: 

1. The whole fleet has met the 2.4 g/bhp-hr NOx fleet average, and 

2. Diesel PM reductions of 80 percent compared to the fleet’s baseline when 

established. 

These projects may have the default project life. 

P. Urban Transit Buses 

An urban transit bus is a passenger-carrying vehicle powered by a heavy heavy-duty 

diesel engine with a load capacity of fifteen or more passengers and intended primarily 

for intra-city operation, short rides and frequent stops. Urban transit buses statewide 
I-20 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

are subject to an in-use and new vehicle purchase regulation that requires transit 

agencies that own, operate or lease urban buses to choose a diesel-fuel or 

alternative fuel path and follow the requirements as described for each fuel path. 

• Projects are subject to the general program criteria listed above. 

• Projects will be considered on a case-by-case basis. In January of each year, transit 

agencies are required to submit annual documentation of compliance with the transit 

fleet rule to ARB for all urban buses. Districts will work with ARB to determine if 

applicants are in compliance with the regulatory requirements and to ensure that 

Carl Moyer Program funds will not be used to meet these requirements. Transit 

agencies are not required to submit any additional regulatory compliance information 

with the Carl Moyer Program application and will be notified if districts and/or ARB 

require additional documentation. 

• For urban bus new vehicle projects, only the portion not funded by the Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA) is eligible for Carl Moyer Program funding. Proper 

documentation must be provided. The full incremental cost for an urban transit bus 

that is not funded by FTA may be granted under the Carl Moyer Program. Operation 

and maintenance costs are not eligible for Carl Moyer Program funding. 

• Through 2006, alternative fuel new bus purchases are eligible for 

Carl Moyer Program funds if the engine is certified to at least the optional standard 

of 1.8 g/bhp-hr for NOx + NMHC. 

• Through 2006, diesel fuel new bus purchases are eligible for Carl Moyer Program 

funds if the engine is certified to 0.2 g/bhp-hr for NOx. 

• From 2007 to 2009 new bus purchases are eligible for funding if the engine is 

certified to 0.2 g/bhp-hr NOx. 

• All urban bus fleets established before January 1, 2005 are eligible for 

Carl Moyer Program funds for the purchase of a new bus, repower and retrofit 

projects if documentation is provided that shows: 

1. The whole fleet has met the 4.8 g/bhp-hr NOx average, and 

2. PM reductions of 85 percent compared to January 1, 2002 PM levels or equal to 

0.01 g/bhp-hr times the total number of current diesel-fueled active fleet buses, 

whichever is greater. 

These projects may have the default project life. 

• All urban bus fleets established after January 1, 2005 are eligible for 

Carl Moyer Program funds for the purchase of a new bus, repower and retrofit 

projects through December 31, 2006 if documentation is provided that shows: 

1. The whole fleet has met the 4.0 g/bhp-hr NOx average, and 

2. May not have a diesel PM emission total exceeding 0.05 g/bhp-hr (exhaust 

emission value) times the total number of diesel-fueled buses in the active fleet. 
I-21 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

These projects shall have a three year project life if installed and in operation by 

December 31, 2006. 

• Urban bus fleets established after January 1, 2005 are eligible for 

Carl Moyer Program funds for the purchase of a new bus, repower and retrofit 

projects if documentation is provided that shows: 

1. The whole fleet has met the 4.0 g/bhp-hr NOx average, and 

2. May not have a diesel PM emission total exceeding 0.01 g/bhp-hr (exhaust 

emission value) times the total number of diesel-fueled buses in the active fleet. 

These projects may have the default project life. 

• New hybrid electric bus (HEB) purchases will be considered on a case-by-case 

basis, if the HEB is certified to the current NOx and PM standards. 

VI. Cost-Effectiveness Calculations 

To receive Carl Moyer Program funding, each project must meet the maximum 

cost effective threshold of $14,300 per weighted ton of covered pollutants reduced. 

Only funds provided by the Carl Moyer Program and local district matching funds are to 

be used in determining cost-effectiveness. 

The emission factors in the tables of Appendix B reflect preliminary data developed by 

ARB staff as part of a comprehensive effort to update the emissions models used for 

on-road motor vehicles and off-road mobile sources. These draft data were made 

available on ARB's website in early 2005, but are subject to change as staff completes 

its analyses and the associated model development. Appropriate emission factors as a 

function of vehicle type and model year are illustrated in Appendix B. ARB staff will 

issue Carl Moyer Program Advisories to update the tables as necessary. 

The converted emission standards used in the calculations are the standards described 

in the emission standard section of this chapter that have been adjusted using the fuel 

correction factors and NOx fraction factors in Appendix B. It is important to note that 

urban buses have different standards than other heavy-duty vehicles. 

Examples

On-road project calculations are generally mileage based. However, some projects 

such as stop-and-go vehicles can use fuel-based calculations. 

For a purchase of a new vehicle, the baseline will be an engine certified to the current 

standard. The reduced technology will be an engine certified to the current optional 

standard or 30 percent less than the current standard. For repower projects, the 

baseline will be the model year of the existing engine that would have been rebuilt. The 

reduced technology will be the engine certified to at least 5.0 g/bhp-hr of NOx that will 

be installed instead of the rebuilt engine. The baseline for a retrofit project is the 
I-22 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

existing engine. The reduced technology is the verified level of emission reductions for 

the retrofit. 

A detailed description of how to calculate cost-effectiveness can be found in 

Appendices C and D. 

VII. Minimum Project Application Requirements 

A. Application 

The applicant must provide the minimum information listed in Table 1-6. 

A disclosure must also be included stating that the proposed project has not been 

funded and is not being considered for funding by another air district, ARB, or any other 

public agency. Any applicant who is found to have submitted multiple applications for 

the same project may be banned from submitting future applications to any and all 

Carl Moyer Program solicitations and may be subject to criminal sanctions. A project 

funded cooperatively by multiple air districts is eligible for funding if the project 

parameters are coordinated amongst the participating districts and the project meets all 

applicable Carl Moyer Program criteria. Applicants are allowed to re-apply for project 

funding if a previous application has been rejected and is no longer being considered for 

funding. 

Third party applications are not allowed. The owner of the engine must sign and agree 

to the application. However, a third party (e.g. engine dealer or distributor) may 

complete an application or part of an application on an owner’s behalf. Applications 

must include a signature section for third parties. The third party signature section must 

include signature and date lines, and blanks for the third party to list how much they are 

being paid, if anything, to complete the application and what source of funds are being 

used to pay them. To make the Carl Moyer Program accessible to all potential 

applicants, including applicants that cannot afford to hire third party assistance, districts 

are encouraged to provide technical assistance to applicants in completing the 

application. 
I-23 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

Table 1-6 

Minimum Application Requirements for On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicle Projects 

Applicant Information

Organization, Company or Individual Name 

Street Address 

City, County, State, Zip Code 

Primary Contact Name 

Primary Contract Phone Number 

Person with Contract Signing Authority 

Person who Filled out Funding Application 

Project Address (if different from above) 

Vehicle Information

Vehicle Type (Solid Waste Collection Vehicle, 

Street Sweeper, School Bus, Urban Bus, 

Other Transit Vehicle, Other Heavy-Heavy 

Duty Vehicle, Other Medium-Heavy Duty 

Vehicle, or Other Light-Heavy Duty Vehicle) 

Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) 

Vehicle Make 

Vehicle Model 

Model Year 

Vehicle GVWR 

Vehicle License Plate Number 

Department of Transportation Number 

 (if interstate) 

California Highway Patrol CA Number 

Projected Year of Purchase of New Vehicle 

Baseline Vehicle Fuel 

New Vehicle Vendor (optional) 

Activity Information

Percent Operation in California 

Percent Operation in District 

Project Life 

Annual Miles Traveled or Gallons Fuel Used 

Electronic Monitoring Unit (EMU) 

Will a new eligible EMU be installed as part 

 of this project? (yes/no) 

EMU Make 

EMU Model 

EMU Model Year 

EMU ID Number 

EMU Cost (optional) 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONNEW PURCHASE PROJECTS ONLY 

Engine Make 

Engine Model 

Engine Year 

Engine Serial Number 

NEW PURCHASE (cont.) 

ARB Certification Executive Order (if Engine 

Certified to Alt. NOx Standard) 

Fuel Type 

Baseline Fuel Type for Main and (if applicable) 

Auxiliary Engine 

Auxiliary Engine Make, Model, Year, Serial Number, 

Horsepower, Tier, Fuel, and Family (if applicable) 

Baseline Cost 

New Vehicle Cost 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONREPOWER PROJECTS ONLY 

Baseline Main

 Engine Family 

 Engine Make 

 Engine Model 

 Engine Year 

 Engine Serial Number 

 Fuel Type 

Reduced Emission Main

 Engine Family 

 Engine Make 

 Engine Model 

 Engine Year 

 Engine Serial Number 

 Fuel Type 

 ARB Executive Order Number 

 (If Engine Certified to Alt NOx Standard)

 Baseline and Reduced Auxiliary Engine Make, 

Model, Year, Serial Number, Horsepower, 

Tier, and Engine Family (if applicable) 

 Engine Remanufacture Cost 

 Newer Engine Cost 

 Newer Engine Installation Cost 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONRETROFIT ONLY 

Engine Family, Make, Model, Year, and (if 

applicable) Tier 

Engine Serial Number 

Fuel Type 

Retrofit Device Make and Serial Number 

ARB-Verified Retrofit Device 

Retrofit Device ARB Executive Order 

Retrofit Device Serial Number 

Verification Level (Level 1, 2 or 3) 

ARB-Verified NOx Reduction (%) 

ARB-Verified PM Reduction (%) 

ARB-Verified ROG Reduction (%) 

Retrofit Device Cost 

Cost of Retrofit Installation (optional) 

Cost of Retrofit Maintenance for Project Life 

(optional) 
I-24 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

B. Reporting and Monitoring 

Reporting and monitoring requirements for districts are described in the Administrative 

Chapter of these Guidelines. 

Fleet operators and transit agencies participating in the Carl Moyer Program are 

required to keep appropriate records during the life of the funded project as determined 

by the district and ARB. Records must contain, at a minimum, total miles traveled in 

and outside of California, fuel usage, and maintenance and repair information. Records 

must be retained and updated throughout the project life and made available at the 

request of the district or ARB. 

VIII. References 

ARB, 2002a. Air Resources Board. December 12, 2002. California Exhaust Emission 

Standards and Test Procedures for 1985 through 2003 Model Heavy-Duty 

Diesel Engines and Vehicles. http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroadhd/85-

03hddtps_levhdg02_clean_11-14.doc 

ARB, 2002b. Air Resources Board. December 12, 2002. California Exhaust Emission 

Standards and Test Procedures for 2004 and Subsequent Model Heavy-Duty 

Diesel Engines and Vehicles. 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroadhd/2004hddtps_levhdg02_clean_11-13.doc 

ARB, 2004. Air Resources Board. June 4, 2004. Diesel Particulate Matter Control 

Measure for On-road Heavy-duty Diesel-fueled Residential and Commercial Sold Waste 

Collection Vehicles. http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/dieselswcv/fro2.doc 

ARB, 2005. Air Resources Board. January 7, 2005. Staff Report: Proposed 

Modifications to the Fleet Rule for the Transit Agencies and New Requirements for 

Transit Fleet Vehicles. http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/bus04/isor.pdf 
II-1 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

Chapter Two 

HEAVY-DUTY ON-ROAD FLEET MODERNIZATION 

This chapter adds a fleet modernization source category to the Carl Moyer Program. 

Fleet modernization provides incentives to replace old high-polluting heavy-duty 

vehicles with newer, lower emission replacement vehicles. The fleet modernization 

source category provides real emission benefits by retiring the high polluting vehicle 

earlier than would have been expected through normal attrition. Carl Moyer Program 

funds for fleet modernization projects are used to offset part of the cost of the 

replacement vehicle. Project funds also pay for a diesel particulate emission reduction 

device to further reduce emissions and an electronic monitoring unit to verify miles 

traveled in California and the district. An additional vehicle replacement strategy 

included in fleet modernization is the tiered transaction. A tiered transaction project 

combines the purchase of a new vehicle certified to the optional NOx standard by one 

owner with the replacement of an old vehicle by a second owner. 

I. Introduction 

Heavy-duty diesel trucks are durable and stay in operation for an average of 18.5 years. 

Old trucks contribute disproportionately to the state’s NOx, ROG, and PM10 emissions. 

Pre-1990 heavy-duty trucks emit one and a half times as much NOx and two and a half 

times as much PM10 as a truck that meets current standards. These old trucks tend to 

be driven by relatively low-income operators and are concentrated in specific industrial 

sectors. Generally, the income generated from the old trucks operating in low paid 

vocations does not justify the purchase of a newer truck, even with the improved fuel 

economy, reduced maintenance costs, and fewer downtime expenses of a newer truck. 

These old trucks continue operating until they deteriorate to a point that it does not 

make economic sense to repair them. 

The Carl Moyer Program for on-road vehicles was designed to pay for the incremental 

purchase cost of a new vehicle that is cleaner than the required emission standards. 

However, the owners of the oldest trucks cannot afford to buy a new vehicle that 

qualifies for incentive funds. It is unlikely that the old truck owners would be willing to 

invest in a newer truck since the old truck is still operating. In addition, operators of old 

trucks do not have an incentive to sell their trucks since the market price for the old 

trucks is undervalued relative to its utility to the truck owner. Traditional scrap 

programs, which provide incentives to scrap a vehicle, may not lower emissions from 

the old, heavy-duty sector because the old, scrapped truck is likely to be replaced with 

another affordable old truck. 

Recognizing that resources were not available to get old, high polluting vehicles off the 

road, AB 1394 was passed in 2004 directing ARB to consider fleet modernization as a 

potential project under the Carl Moyer Program. As such, the Air Resources Board 

(ARB or Board) has created a source category that provides incentive funds to replace 

old vehicles that were unlikely to be removed from operation with newer, cleaner 

vehicles. The incentives provided by the Carl Moyer Program change the economics of 
II-2 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

vehicle replacement, making it economically feasible for owners who could not 

previously justify the expense. 

II. Emissions

According to ARB’s motor vehicle inventory, 1990 and older vehicles account for 

33 percent of California’s heavy-duty fleet. This equates to about 58,800 pre-1991 and 

older heavy-duty vehicles traveling over four million miles per day statewide. In 2005, 

these vehicles will emit about 107 tons of NOx and three tons of PM10 per day, as 

reflected in Table 2-1. The number of these old trucks will decrease to slightly over 

32,000 by 2010, but this gradual decline is not sufficient if California is to achieve its air 

quality goals. This is of particular concern because emissions from older trucks often 

occur in environmental justice areas, such as ports, which are heavily impacted by high 

volumes of truck traffic. 

Table 2-1 

Statewide Calendar Year 2005 

Contribution of Pollutants by On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicles 

1990 Model Year and Older* 

 Population NOx ROG PM10 

2005 58,775 107 6 3 

2010 32,155 43 3 1 

 *EMFAC2002 v2.2 (April 03) 

Using data from the United States Census Bureau 2002 Economic Census - Vehicles 

and Use Survey [U.S. Census Use Survey], ARB staff determined that in California 

there are specific industrial sectors that have the highest concentration of old vehicles. 

Most significant to the fleet modernization category are the vocations with the highest 

numbers of 1990 and older trucks in service. Approximately 60 percent of the mining 

fleet is 1990 and older; 55 percent of the trucks engaged in agriculture and forestry are 

1990 and older; and, 43 percent of the construction fleet is 1990 and older. In addition 

to these fleets, it is widely recognized that haulers moving goods from California’s ports 

and rail yards utilize the oldest trucks in the fleet. 

The concentration of old trucks in specific vocations generally occurs through a series of 

sales of the individual trucks. Trends in the industry show that fleets which normally 

utilize new trucks turn over their trucks in three to five years. The vehicles are then sold 

to operators that drive high mileage in a well-paid vocation. After several years of use, 

the vehicle is sold again, moved into a low-paid, low-mileage sector and driven until it 

deteriorates to the point where it does not make economic sense to repair it. The 

owners of the oldest vehicles tend to buy another old vehicle to replace the truck that 

has deteriorated, and do not normally purchase a new or newer vehicle. Data from the 

U.S. Census Use Survey supports this claim: four out of five newer trucks (<5 years 

old) are purchased as new vehicles, while four out of five old trucks (>15 years old) are 

purchased as used vehicles. 
II-3 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

III. Regulatory Requirements 

To help meet California’s air quality goals, the ARB has adopted engine emission 

standards and several mobile source fleet regulations that apply to on-road trucks. In 

addition, ARB is currently drafting regulations that will be considered by the Board in 

late 2005 and 2006. Recently adopted regulations demonstrate the Board’s increased 

commitment to reduce emissions from the in-use fleet. The standards and regulations, 

which may impact eligibility for all heavy-duty, on-road projects, including fleet 

modernization, are included in Chapter One. All Carl Moyer Program project emission 

reductions must be surplus to regulatory requirements. Applicants from fleet categories 

must be especially cognizant of the impact of recently adopted and upcoming 

requirements, such as solid waste collection vehicles and public and utility fleets. 

Public and private, on-road, heavy-duty, diesel-fueled vehicle fleets, such as in-use 

heavy-duty trucks, are not currently regulated. The Board will hear a proposed diesel 

particulate control measure for private fleets in 2006, which may further impact the 

project criteria for these projects. 

Fleet modernization incentives may be used for the purchase of a new vehicle. For 

standard fleet modernization projects that replace an old vehicle with a new vehicle, the 

new vehicle must be certified to more stringent emission standards than the vehicle 

being replaced. With tiered transaction projects, the new vehicle must be certified to 

ARB’s current optional NOx emission standards of 1.8 grams per 

brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr) of NOx through 2006, regardless of fuel type or 

engine design. Beginning in 2007, the optional standards will sunset and projects for 

new vehicle/engine must be certified to 0.2 g/bhp-hr of NOx. Since new engines are 

certified throughout the year, districts are encouraged to contact ARB for the most 

current list of eligible engines. 

IV. Development of the Fleet Modernization Source Category 

The ARB has long recognized the need to reduce emissions from the oldest trucks in 

the heavy-duty diesel truck sector. In 1994, the ARB proposed a concept for retiring 

heavy-duty vehicles in its State Implementation Plan for Ozone as Measure M-7. The 

measure envisioned the program could be self-sustaining through the sale of the old 

trucks for export to overseas markets. However, the M-7 measure was eventually 

withdrawn because of concern regarding the lack of funding and analyses showing that 

the old, high emitting trucks removed from the fleet were likely to be replaced with 

similar aged trucks from outside the area. 

In 2001, the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) 

received ARB’s approval to establish a fleet modernization pilot program, which was 

funded by the Sacramento Emergency Clean Air Transportation program in partnership 

with the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). The Sacramento 

program was designed to replace the oldest trucks in a fleet by scrapping the trucks and 

providing a monetary incentive to purchase newer trucks with fewer emissions. The 

SMAQMD developed the concept as an alternative to on-road repower projects. Also in 
II-4 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

2001, the Gateway Cities Coalition of Governments, located in the area surrounding the 

Port of Long Beach, initiated a fleet modernization program that mirrored the 

Sacramento program. To ensure that incentives were changing the normal purchase 

practices of operators with the oldest trucks, both pilot programs required the 

destruction of the old truck and a commitment to keep the replacement vehicle in the 

same location doing the same type of work. These requirements aimed to resolve the 

concerns raised in response to the original M-7 measure. 

A. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District Program 

The SMAQMD in partnership with SACOG administers a fleet modernization program 

for the Sacramento and surrounding air districts. This region includes El Dorado, 

Placer, Sacramento, Solano and Yolo counties. The SMAQMD pilot program was 

implemented in 2002 with the expectation that data would be gathered on the 

replacement vehicles for five years. To date, the SMAQMD program has appropriated 

approximately $10 million to replace 300 trucks. The average incentive award for the 

program is $35,000 with a cost-effectiveness of $8,000/ton of NOx reduced. It is 

estimated that the SMAQMD program has reduced 200 tons of NOx and 30 tons of 

PM10 per year. The replaced vehicles come primarily from construction and 

heavy-hauling vocations. 

B. Gateway Cities Council of Governments Program 

The Gateway Cities Council of Governments (COG) administers a program in the region 

surrounding the Port of Long Beach and the Port of Los Angeles. The COG is a joint 

powers authority whose members are the 27 cities in southeast Los Angeles County 

and the Port of Long Beach. The COG program has expended approximately 

$7.6 million on the replacement of 350 trucks. The average incentive award for the 

program is $25,000 with a cost-effectiveness of $8,400/ton of NOx reduced. It is 

estimated that the COG program has reduced 193 tons of NOx and 42 tons of PM10 

per year. The replacement vehicles are owned primarily by independent operators 

working in port related vocations. The Gateway vehicles tend to be older and have 

lower mileage than the Sacramento program. Approximately 85 percent of the program 

participants are non-English speaking. The Gateway Cities program has received 

funding from multiple sources including the ARB, the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review 

Committee, and the Port of Los Angeles. 

C. Lessons Learned 

In developing the criteria for the heavy-duty fleet modernization source category, ARB 

staff, in collaboration with a multi-agency workgroup, established parameters based on 

the legislative guidance and mandates, data from existing federal and state emission 

inventories, and data and expertise gathered from the pilot programs. This information 

has been instrumental in the development of project criteria for a robust, statewide 

program. To insure real emission reductions, the criteria includes requirements that 

assure the newly-funded truck will have the same configuration as the old truck, that it 
II-5 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

will stay in the same vocation and not move to a new location, and that the greatest 

emission reductions are realized through the use of diesel emission reduction devices. 

Rigorous qualifying criteria has been developed to assure that the replaced vehicle 

would have been operating for the project life and that the heavy-duty fleet 

modernization participants would have been unlikely to have replaced their old truck 

with a newer truck without incentive funds. The fulfillment of contract obligations is 

addressed through the use of electronic monitoring devices and monitoring and 

reporting requirements. 

V. Key Components of the Fleet Modernization Source Category

Ensuring that the emission reductions from an incentive program are real, quantifiable, 

enforceable, and surplus, is critical to the success of the Carl Moyer Program. Given 

the new niche that fleet modernization must serve, new and rigorous criteria have been 

developed to protect the integrity of the program. The major criteria include: eligibility of 

the old vehicle, vocations, model years, project life, weight class, salvage requirements, 

electronic monitoring units, funding caps, subtracting the cost of repairs, tiered 

transactions, and administrative tools. 

A. Eligibility of the Old Vehicle and Replacement Vehicle

To receive funding for fleet modernization projects, participants must show that the old 

vehicle meets the following requirements: it must be a model year 1990 or older; it must 

have California registration for the last three years; the participant must show proof of 

ownership, vocation, operation, and documentation to verify actual mileage; and the old 

vehicle must be turned over to an approved salvage yard for destruction, this includes 

requiring the engine be destroyed and the frame rails cut. The replacement vehicle 

must be model year 1999 or newer and it must be identical to the old vehicle including 

axle configuration and body type to prevent a change in vocation during the life of the 

project. New vehicles participating in tiered transaction projects are required to meet 

the optional NOx standard. 

B. Vocations

One of the goals of the fleet modernization is to ensure that participants continue to do 

the same type of work and do not drift to other vocations once they have acquired a 

newer vehicle that is capable of traveling long distances with greater reliability. This 

restriction is necessary because the movement of a fleet modernization truck to a new 

vocation would result in another old truck backfilling the original vocation. The program 

requires participants to show proof of vocation for the previous three years and maintain 

that vocation for the life of the project. 

Vocation is further emphasized by providing greater incentives to vehicles operating in 

vocations known to have the highest number of old trucks in service. Targeted 

vocations include vehicles operating in agricultural, construction, mining, forestry 

vocations, vehicles that move goods in and out of ports and rail yards, and public fleet 

vehicles in low-population areas as defined in the public fleet regulations adopted by the 
II-6 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

ARB in December 2005. Participants from the targeted vocation are eligible for a five 

year project life, rather than the standard three year project life available for other types 

of vocations. 

C. Model Years

To be eligible for the fleet modernization source category, the old vehicle must be a 

model year 1990 or older. This model year was selected for several reasons. The 

emission factors for the 1990 and older vehicle make it a high emitting vehicle at 

21.2 grams of NOx/mile and 1.32 grams of PM/mile. The EMFAC 2002 inventory 

shows that there are approximately 58,000 of these old vehicles on the road today. 

Reducing the number of these high emitting vehicles will improve air quality. The 

SMAQMD pilot program originally allowed only 1983 and older vehicles to participate in 

its program. The district then modified its pilot program to allow 1986 and older 

vehicles. Recently, the district moved the eligible model year to 1990 and older vehicles 

because it has exhausted the number of available applicants with 1986 and older 

vehicles. Districts should consider a similar strategy when establishing a fleet 

modernization category- initially targeting the very oldest trucks and then moving up the 

allowable age as the program progresses. 

Under fleet modernization, the replacement vehicle must be model year 1999 or newer. 

A 1999 model year was selected due to reduced emission factors, concern with consent 

decree engines, and affordability to participants. Dual-calibration engines manufactured 

from 1993-1998 are bound by ARB and U.S. EPA consent degrees and are not eligible 

for Carl Moyer Program funding. Districts will need to verify the engine model year for 

1999 model year vehicles because 1998 model year engines may have been installed 

and are not eligible for funding. Experience with the Gateway COG pilot program 

shows that a majority of their fleet modernization participants purchased 1999 model 

year replacement trucks. 1999 is a popular choice because it is generally the least 

expensive model qualified for fleet modernization funding. Selecting a newer, more 

expensive model year would make the fleet modernization inaccessible to program 

participants that are from low-paid vocations. 

D. Project Life

The project life for fleet modernization projects, with the exception of target vocations, is 

three-years. A three-year project life was selected because inventory data show the life 

expectancy of a 1990 on-road, heavy-duty vehicle that is still on the road is an 

additional 5.5 years. This means that 50 percent of the heavy-duty fleet 15 years and 

older would remain on the road for another 5.5 years on average, while the other 

50 percent would retire through attrition. It is expected that the old trucks volunteered 

for a fleet modernization project will be those with less remaining life. To be protective 

of air quality and ensure that real emission reductions are achieved, three years has 

been selected as an acceptable project life. This approach follows what has already 

been established in the existing regulations for the Voluntary Accelerated Light-Duty 

Vehicle Retirement Program. The light-duty program is designed to retire very old 
II-7 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

light duty vehicles. In that program the life expectancy was reduced by 50 percent to 

determine the credit value. 

Targeted vocations are allowed a five-year project life because they are known to keep 

the oldest vehicles in service for more years and would be less likely to replace their 

trucks with a newer truck than the average old truck owner. Data indicate that in these 

very limited target vocations, the normal practice for purchasing vehicles is to purchase 

vehicles of the same age or older. For these vocations, the data justifies allowing a 

five year project life. 

E. Weight Class 

The focus of the fleet modernization pilot programs has been the replacement of heavy 

heavy-duty trucks with all analysis conducted on the heaviest class of vehicles. Fleet 

modernization projects will continue to focus on vehicles having a gross vehicle weight 

rating of 33,000 pounds and greater. However, some districts have expressed an 

interest in including vehicles in the medium heavy-duty class. Districts may request 

inclusion of medium heavy-duty vehicles with a weight class rating of 

19,501-33,000 pounds on a case-by-case basis. 

F. Salvage Requirements

Fleet modernization requires that the old truck be scrapped. To ensure that the vehicle 

will not be used again, the criteria specify that a qualified salvage yard destroy the 

engine as specified in the Administration Chapter of these Guidelines and cut the frame 

rails of the old vehicle. This requirement has been established to ensure that emission 

reductions are real. It prevents the old trucks from being moved into another locale to 

continue emitting high levels of pollutants. 

G. Electronic Monitoring Units

All fleet modernization replacement vehicles must be equipped with an electronic 

monitoring unit (EMU). The EMU electronically reports vehicle miles traveled and the 

number of miles a vehicle has operated within California and district boundaries. This 

requirement has been established to verify that the replacement vehicle continues to 

operate in the same location as the old, scrapped vehicle. 

H. Funding Caps

The fleet modernization criteria sets a maximum funding amount of 72 percent of the 

value of a used, replacement vehicle and 80 percent of the invoice price of a new 

vehicle. These caps are based on the maximum loan value available through lending 

institutions. 
II-8 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

I. Subtracting the Cost of Repairs 

Fleet modernization projects are required to subtract the cost of repairs needed for the 

old vehicle from the incremental cost of the new vehicles. The cost of repairs is 

subtracted because it is assumed that repair costs are a normal business expense that 

would have been incurred by the participant had the vehicle stayed in service. The 

repair costs are identified during the inspection verifying the operating condition of the 

old vehicle. 

J. Tiered Transactions

Tiered transactions are an additional vehicle replacement strategy available through 

fleet modernization. A tiered transaction combines the emission reductions achieved 

from the purchase of a new vehicle meeting the optional NOx standard with a basic fleet 

modernization project. Combining both transactions provides additional incentives to 

offset the cost of purchasing the vehicle meeting the optional standard. However, 

linking the purchase of the new vehicle by one owner, with the retirement of an old truck 

and purchase of a replacement truck by a second participant, presents complexities that 

are not found in the basic fleet modernization transaction. Tiered transactions are a 

new concept enacted by legislation and have not been included in the pilot programs. 

Local air districts may develop and implement tiered transactions as part of their fleet 

modernization component. ARB must approve a district’s proposed tiered transaction 

component prior to implementation. 

K. Administrative Tools

The ARB must review and approve local air district fleet modernization guidelines prior 

to the district funding fleet modernization projects. This requirement has been 

established because both pilot programs show there are many administrative tools 

needed to implement fleet modernization. These include: contracts with the applicant, 

dealers and scrap yards; performance requirements; reimbursement procedures; 

pre- and post-inspections; and, monitoring and enforcement considerations. This 

requirement will help achieve ARB’s goal of establishing a robust, verifiable, 

enforceable fleet modernization component that reaches previously non-eligible sectors. 

As with all Carl Moyer Program components, districts are provided with outreach funds, 

which are approximately two percent of the Carl Moyer Program grant. In addition, 

there are a number of funding sources districts may use to cover in-kind costs. When 

using these other funding sources, districts must follow the guidelines for expending 

those other funds. 

VI. Potential Projects

As discussed, there are two types of potential projects available under the fleet 

modernization category. The first is the replacement of an old vehicle (1990 or older) 

with the new or newer vehicle (1999 or newer). The second type of project is a tiered 

transaction, which links the emission reductions achieved from the purchase of a new 
II-9 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

vehicle meeting the optional NOx standard with the retirement of an old vehicle 

(1990 and older). Under the tiered transaction project, two transactions take place: 

• A participant proposes the purchase of a new vehicle meeting the optional NOx 

standard and estimates the cost of this transaction based on a new, heavy-duty 

vehicle purchase (as discussed in Chapter One, Section V-C). 

• This same owner identifies a standard fleet modernization project that meets the 

fleet modernization criteria and estimates the cost-effectiveness of the project. 

• The combined cost-effectiveness of both transactions is used to determine 

cost-effectiveness. 

Tiered transactions could potentially be utilized by one party that purchases new 

equipment meeting the optional standard and contributes replacement vehicles to a 

fleet that has old vehicles. 

In addition to replacing an old, high-emitting vehicle with a newer, cleaner vehicle, fleet 

modernization requires the use of diesel emission control strategy (DECS) on all 

projects. An ARB-verified DECS is required on all fleet modernization vehicles. In 

selecting the appropriate DECS for the project, preference is given to the device 

providing the highest level of emission reductions. Examples of DECS include diesel 

particulate filters, diesel oxidation catalysts, and flow through filters. Incentive funds 

may be used to cover the cost of DECS maintenance and filters needed for the duration 

of the project life. 

The requirement for a DECS may be waived by the ARB. The waiver must be based 

upon the specifics of individual projects including cost, vehicle duty cycle restrictions, 

availability, and other factors. Additional details regarding the DECS requirement, 

including funding and data logging options, are included in Section VII-C. 

VII. Project Criteria 

Fleet modernization projects, which include scrapping an old, high-emitting vehicle and 

replacing it with a newer, cleaner vehicle, are eligible for incentive funding. The project 

criteria listed below provide the minimum qualifications for the Carl Moyer Program. 

Sample calculations that illustrate the methodology for determining emission reductions 

and cost-effectiveness are included in Appendix D. 

Participating districts retain the authority to impose additional requirements in order to 

address local concerns. 

A. General Criteria 

• Emission reductions obtained through Carl Moyer Program projects must not be 

required by any federal, state or local regulation, memorandum of 
II-10 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

agreement/understanding with a regulatory agency, settlement agreement, 

mitigation requirement, or other legal mandate. 

• Projects must meet a cost-effectiveness of $14,300 per weighed ton of NOx + 

ROG + combustion PM10 reduced calculated in accordance with the 

cost-effectiveness methodology discussed in this chapter. 

• No emission reductions generated by the Carl Moyer Program shall be used as 

marketable emission reduction credits or to offset any emission reduction obligation 

of any person or entity. 

• No project funded by the Carl Moyer Program shall be used for credit under any 

federal or state emission averaging banking and trading program. 

• In funding fleet modernization projects, the replacement vehicle must reduce NOx 

emissions by at least 15 percent from the old vehicle emissions. 

• Carl Moyer Program grants can be no greater than a project’s incremental cost. The 

incremental cost is the cost of the project minus the baseline cost. The incremental 

cost shall be reduced by the value of any current financial incentive that reduces the 

project price, including tax credits or deductions, grants, or other public financial 

assistance. 

• Fleet modernization projects have a minimum project life of three years. Project life 

is the number of years that a Carl Moyer Program project must operate in California 

under the conditions specified in the grant funding agreement. 

• The default project life does not consider upcoming regulatory requirements. Project 

life may be shorter due to regulatory requirements. 

• Fleet operators with vehicles in open vocation categories are eligible to receive 

funding for a maximum of five vehicles. There is no restriction on the number of 

vehicles per fleet that can be funded in targeted vocation categories. 

• Fleet modernization project life must be equal to the project contract life. 

• Vehicles equipped with glider kits are not eligible to participate in the fleet 

modernization category; this includes both old and replacement vehicles. Glider kits 

are replacement chassis and cab for on-road heavy-duty vehicles. Glider kits are 

identified with a vehicle identification number (VIN) starting with the letters “GL”. 

• Potential projects that fall outside of these criteria may be considered on a 

case-by-case basis if evidence provided to the air district suggests potential surplus, 

real, quantifiable and enforceable emission reduction benefits. 
II-11 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

• Air districts must consult with ARB staff to determine eligibility of all projects 

considered for funding on a case-by-case basis. All projects considered on a 

case-by-case basis must receive ARB approval prior to receiving program funding. 

B. Participant Requirements 

The following categories of vehicles are eligible for Carl Moyer Program funding: 

• Open Category: Vehicles from any vocation or fleet size are eligible for funding 

provided the participant submits conclusive documentation of annual mileage and 

vehicle usage in California. The maximum project life is three years. 

• Targeted Vocation Category: Vehicles operating in agricultural, construction, 

mining, port hauling, and forestry vocations, or vehicles that move goods in and out 

of ports and rail yards may apply as a targeted vocation. The participant is required 

to submit conclusive documentation of annual mileage and vehicle usage in 

California. The maximum project life is five years. 

• The old vehicle must have both engine and chassis of model year 1990 or older. 

• The old vehicle must have been registered in California for the previous three years. 

• The old vehicle must be in operational condition to qualify for funding. Operating 

condition must be determined through a California Highway Patrol’s Biennial 

Inspection of Terminals (CHP BIT) or equivalent inspection. The inspection must 

identify any needed repairs and the estimated cost of the repairs. The district will 

also verify the operating condition of the truck by a visual and operational inspection. 

If the district cannot conduct a pre-inspection, the ARB may approve one of the 

following methods on a case-by-case basis: 

− The motor carrier company may submit a completed CHP 90-Day Safety 

Inspection Form documenting the inspection and the estimated cost of any 

repairs. 

− A participating dealership or motor company may conduct the inspection of the 

old vehicle and provide pictures verifying the vehicle condition. The dealer must 

provide a completed CHP 90-Day Safety Inspection Form and documentation of 

any necessary repairs. The participant will pay the cost of the inspection. 

− Other methods as approved by ARB. 

• The participant must currently own and operate the old vehicle. If it is unclear 

whether a vehicle is owned or leased by a participant, the district will determine 

whether the vehicle is eligible. 
II-12 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

• Participants must submit documentation of annual miles traveled for the previous 

three years to determine cost-effectiveness. Examples of documentation include: 

logbooks, fuel records, and, maintenance records or tax records. 

• The participant must maintain replacement value insurance coverage for the project 

life. 

• The participant must be in compliance with air quality laws; all outstanding citations 

must be paid up. 

C. Replacement Vehicle Requirements 

All replacement vehicles must meet the following conditions before funding is awarded 

to the participant. 

• Model Year: The replacement vehicle must have both an engine and chassis model 

year of 1999 and newer. 

• The replacement vehicle must operate in the same vocation for the project life. The 

participant must stay in the contracted vocation for a minimum of 85 percent of the 

miles, as specified in the application. If a change of vocation is required to stay in 

operation, a written explanation must be provided to the district and approved by the 

ARB. 

• The annual mileage of the replacement vehicle must not exceed 150 percent of the 

baseline project mileage, except as approved by the district and ARB. 

• Engine Horsepower Requirements: The horsepower rating for the replacement 

vehicle engine must not be greater than 120 percent of the original manufacturer 

rated horsepower (baseline horsepower) for the old vehicle engine. This is 

necessary because engine horsepower is related to the emissions produced by 

heavy-duty diesel engines. Auditing of the replacement vehicle's horsepower may 

occur throughout the length of the agreement. 

− Participants must use the horsepower rating listed on the old engine tag. If the 

engine tag is not legible, a dynamometer test can be used to determine the 

horsepower rating. The results of a dynamometer test will take into account a 

15 percent loss in actual horsepower, based on transmission loss. The 

participant must pay the cost of dynamometer testing. 

− In the event the replacement engine horsepower is more than 20 percent greater 

than the old vehicle, it must be derated (reduced) to not exceed the 20 percent 

allowable increase. The 20 percent allowable increase in horsepower is 

calculated as follows: 

(Old Engine Horsepower) x (1.20) = Maximum New Engine Horsepower 

 (Example: 300 HP x 1.20 = 360 HP) 
II-13 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

− In limited situations, the district may approve a greater than 20 percent increase 

in horsepower. 

• Weight Class: Eligible vehicles must have a California heavy-heavy gross vehicle 

weight rating of 33,000 pounds. Vehicles having a California medium heavy-duty 

weight rating of 19,501-33,000 pounds may be eligible upon the request of the 

district on a case-by-case basis. The replacement vehicle must be in the same 

weight rating as the old vehicle. 

• Body and Axle Configuration: The replacement vehicle must have the same axle 

and body configuration as the old vehicle. The district may allow slight changes 

based on the latest technology. Changes must be requested and approved prior to 

the purchase of the replacement vehicle. 

• Warranty Requirements: All participants must purchase a minimum of a one-year or 

100,000-mile major component engine warranty for the replacement vehicle. The 

warranty must cover parts and labor. It is recommended that the highest grade 

warranty be purchased in order to avoid expensive repairs in the future. No 

Carl Moyer Program funds will be issued for maintenance or repairs related to the 

operation of the vehicle. The participant takes sole responsibility for ensuring that 

the vehicle is in operational condition throughout the agreement period. 

• ARB Verified Diesel Emission Control System (DECS): An ARB-verified DECS is 

required on all replacement vehicles. 

− In selecting the appropriate DECS for the project, preference shall be given to 

the DECS providing the highest level of NOx and PM10reductions. 

− The DECS must be installed prior to vehicle delivery to the participant and must 

stay in operation on the replacement vehicle for the project life. 

− The cost of the device, and all filters and maintenance of the filters needed 

during the project life, may be paid for with incentive funding provided it meets 

the cost-effectiveness limit. 

− Upon approval of the ARB, the district may waive the requirement for installation 

of the DECS. The waiver must be based upon the specifics of individual 

projects, including cost, vehicle duty cycle restrictions, availability, and other 

factors. 

− Data-logging may be conducted on the old vehicle to determine the proper DECS 

device needed for the replacement vehicle. Data-logging, which is the collection 

of exhaust temperatures, must be conducted while a vehicle is in service. The 

information gathered from the old vehicle is applied to the replacement vehicle. 

Data-logging may be paid for with incentive funding, if it meets the 

cost effectiveness limit. 
II-14 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

− The participant must maintain the DECS as specified by the manufacturer’s 

warranty requirements. The participant must provide maintenance reports to the 

district as required. 

− If an ARB-approved DECS is not available at the time the replacement vehicle is 

purchased, a DECS will be installed when a DECS compatible with the engine 

and the vehicle duty cycle has been verified by ARB, unless otherwise stipulated 

at the time of purchase by the district. 

− Vehicles outfitted with dual exhaust will be addressed on a case-by-case basis. 

The district will determine if no DECS is required, or if a DECS shall be installed 

on both exhaust tailpipes, or if the exhaust shall be converted to a single pipe 

with a DECS. 

− Additional information on retrofit systems is included in Appendix F - Retrofit 

Emission Control Systems.

• Electronic Monitoring Unit (EMU): The EMU electronically reports vehicle miles 

traveled and the number of miles a vehicle has operated within the California and 

district boundaries. An EMU is required on all replacement vehicles. 

− Installation and maintenance of the EMU may be included in the cost of the 

project. 

− If an affordable and suitable EMU is not available at the time the replacement 

vehicle is ready for delivery, the vehicle may be delivered to the applicant. The 

owner will be required to return the vehicle to the dealer when an EMU is 

available for installation. Verification of the installation must be submitted to the 

district following installation. 

− EMU data must be reported to the district for the project life. 

− If the EMU is not functioning properly as indicted by the district, the participant 

will submit mileage reports as specified the district. 

− Upon approval of the ARB, the district may waive the requirement for installation 

of an EMU. 

• Engine and Emission Control Modifications: Emission controls on the replacement 

vehicle engine cannot be modified in any manner. Unauthorized modification to 

engine performance (including changes in horsepower), emission characteristics, 

engine emission components (not including repairs with like-original equipment 

manufacturers replacement parts), or any other modifications to the engine’s 

emission control function or the EMU are not allowed. 
II-15 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

D. Tiered Transactions 

Districts may establish a tiered transaction component within their fleet modernization 

source category. Tiered transactions were added to the Carl Moyer Program with the 

enactment of AB 1394 in January 2005, but were not included in the fleet modernization 

pilot programs. As a result, there is no experience or model to guide districts in 

implementing a tiered transaction component. ARB must approve district plans for 

implementing a tiered transaction component prior to funding projects in this unmapped 

territory. 

A tiered transaction combines the emission reductions achieved from the purchase of a 

new vehicle meeting the optional NOx standard with the replacement of a 1990 or older 

vehicle. In the tiered transaction, the purchaser of a new vehicle meeting the optional 

standard identifies a standard fleet modernization project that meets the fleet 

modernization criteria, including the participation of a 1999 or newer replacement 

vehicle. A second participant acquires the replacement vehicle and scraps a 1990 or 

older vehicle. Tiered transaction programs should include the following elements; 

however, districts may request that ARB consider alternative components. 

• In determining the grant award for the purchaser of the new vehicle, the emission 

benefits and cost-effectiveness of the project must include two transactions: 

− Emission reductions from the currently applicable standard to the new vehicle 

meeting the optional standard. 

− Emission reductions from the old vehicle to the replacement vehicle. 

• The baseline cost for the new vehicle purchase is the cost of a new vehicle that 

meets the current emission standards. The incremental cost eligible for funding is 

the cost of the vehicle meeting the optional standard minus cost of the vehicle 

meeting the existing standards. This is the standard method used for new, on-road 

Moyer projects. 

− Emission reductions from the old vehicle are based on the annual mileage 

traveled by the old vehicle. 

− The participant scrapping the old vehicle is subject to all fleet modernization 

project criteria. The participant purchasing the new vehicle is subject to all 

on-road, heavy-duty project criteria. 

− The participant purchasing the new vehicle is not eligible for emission reductions 

from scrapping an old vehicle within his/her own fleet. 

VllI. Emission Reduction and Cost-Effectiveness Calculations 

To receive weighted Carl Moyer Program funding, each fleet modernization project must 

meet the maximum cost-effectiveness threshold of $14,300 per weighted ton of NOx + 
II-16 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

ROG + PM10 reduced. State and local funds used to pay for a fleet modernization 

project are to be used in determining cost-effectiveness. Any federal incentives must be 

discounted from the overall grant award. Appropriate emission factors as a function of 

vehicle type and model year are illustrated in Tables B-5 in Appendix B. Sample 

calculations for the fleet modernization category are provided in Appendix D. 

IX. Minimum Project Application Requirements 

All fleet modernization applicants must provide the minimum information listed in the 

following table (Table 2-2). 

Table 2-2 

Minimum Application Requirements for Fleet Modernization 

Applicant Information

Organization, Company or Individual Name 

Street Address 

City, State, Zip Code 

Primary Contact Name 

Primary Contract Phone Number 

Person with Contract Signing Authority 

Person who Filled out Funding Application 

Project Address (if different from above) 

Old Vehicle Information 

Vehicle Type (Solid Waste Collection Vehicle, Street 

Sweeper, School Bus, Urban Bus, Other Transit 

Vehicle, Other Heavy-Heavy Duty Vehicle, Other 

Medium-Heavy Duty Vehicle, or Other Light-Heavy 

Duty Vehicle) 

Vehicle Vocation 

Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) 

Vehicle Make 

Vehicle Model 

Vehicle Model Year 

GVWR 

Horsepower 

License Plate Number 

Registered Truck Owner 

Department of Transportation Number 

 (if interstate) 

California Highway Patrol Number 

Vehicle Fuel 

Engine Family 

Engine Make 

Engine Model 

Engine Year 

Engine Serial Number 

ARB Executive Order Number 

 (If Engine Certified to Alt NOx Standard) 

New Vehicle Information 

 (Same as Above) 

 

Retrofit Information

Retrofit Device Make 

ARB-Verified Retrofit Device Name 

Retrofit Device Serial Number 

Retrofit Device ARB Executive Order 

Verification Level (Level 1, 2 or 3) 

ARB-Verified NOx Reduction (%) 

ARB-Verified PM Reduction (%) 

ARB-Verified ROG Reduction (%) 

Electronic Monitoring Unit (EMU) 

Will a new eligible EMU be installed as part 

 of this project? (yes/no) 

EMU Make 

EMU Model 

EMU Model Year 

EMU ID Number 

Activity Information

Vehicle Vocation 

Percent Operation in California 

Percent Operation in District 

Project Life 

Annual Miles Traveled or Gallons Fuel Used 

Cost Information

Adjusted Loan Value of Replacement Vehicle 

Retrofit Device Cost 

Cost of Retrofit Installation (optional) 

Cost of Retrofit Maintenance for Project Life 

(optional) 

Cost of Retrofit Warranty (optional) 

EMU Cost (optional) 
II-17 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

A disclosure must also be included stating that the proposed project has not been 

funded and is not being considered for funding by another air district, ARB, or any other 

public agency. Any applicant who is found to have submitted multiple applications for 

the same project may be banned from submitting future applications to any and all 

Carl Moyer Program solicitations and may be subject to criminal sanctions. A project 

funded cooperatively by multiple air districts is eligible for funding if the project 

parameters are coordinated amongst the participating districts and the project meets all 

applicable Carl Moyer Program criteria. Applicants are allowed to re-apply for project 

funding if a previous application has been rejected and is no longer being considered for 

funding. 

Third party applications are not allowed. The owner of the engine must sign and agree 

to the application. However, a third party (e.g. engine dealer or distributor) may 

complete an application or part of an application on an owner’s behalf. Applications 

must include a signature section for third parties. The third party signature section must 

include signature and date lines, and blanks for the third party to list how much they are 

being paid, if anything, to complete the application and what source of funds are being 

used to pay them. To make the Carl Moyer Program accessible to all potential 

applicants, including applicants that cannot afford to hire third party assistance, districts 

are encouraged to provide technical assistance to applicants in completing the 

application. 

In addition, the following items must accompany the completed application at the time of 

submittal: 

• A copy of the old vehicle title. 

• Copies of California Motor Carrier Permits and permit applications for the last three 

years. If the participant does not have a Motor Carrier Permit, submit copies of the 

Department of Motor Vehicle registration and proof of insurance for the old vehicle 

for the last three years. 

• The participant must provide mileage verification for the previous three years. 

• Proof of vehicle vocation for the last three years. 

• The participant may be required to provide either:

− Copies of the participant’s United States Internal Revenue Service Form 2290 

(Heavy Highway Vehicle Use Tax Return) for the previous three years. 

− United States Internal Revenue Service Schedule C.

• If the old vehicle engine tag is missing, the participant may be required to provide a 

dynamometer printout of the engine horsepower from a participating engine 
II-18 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

dealership, or another means of obtaining the required information approved by the 

ARB. 

• The district may request any additional information. 

X. Administrative Requirements 

Districts must establish fleet modernization policies and guidelines before they can fund 

fleet modernization projects. Many administrative tools are needed to manage a 

reliable fleet modernization source category. This includes agreements with local 

dealerships and salvage yards, reimbursement procedures, the development of 

contracts, etc. The ARB must approve district fleet modernization policies and 

guidelines prior to district implementation of a fleet modernization category. The ARB 

will provide examples for district use. The district’s fleet modernization guidelines must 

address all of the above criteria as well as the items discussed in the following sections. 

 A. Determining Awards 

Grant award determinations must be made with the following considerations: 

• Funding awards are based on the average miles per year driven during the previous 

three years. Fleet averages can not be used. Participants must submit conclusive 

documentation of mileage including logbooks, fuel records, and maintenance 

records maintained for individual vehicles. 

• The incentive amount available for the purchase of the vehicle will be based upon 

three criteria: cost-effectiveness of the project based upon the weighted 

NOx + ROG + combustion PM10 emission benefits as calculated by the district; the 

value of the used vehicle based upon the National Automotive Dealership 

Association (N.A.D.A.) adjusted loan value or new vehicle invoice price; and, less 

any costs associated with repairs noted during the vehicle inspection. 

• The maximum reimbursement for all awards will be the N.A.D.A. adjusted loan value 

of the replacement truck or the maximum calculated incentive -- whichever is less. 

The funding amount of a used, replacement vehicle shall not exceed the value of the 

vehicle given by the N.A.D.A. commercial vehicle guide adjusted loan value. The 

funding amount of a new replacement vehicle shall not exceed 80 percent of the 

invoice price. 

• If suitable equipment is available and deemed cost-effective by the district, 

supplemental incentive funding will be provided to cover installation of a DECS 

and/or an EMU. 

• Incentive funding can only be used to pay for items essential to the operation of the 

vehicle. Optional items, such as cigar lighters and custom mud flaps, must be paid 

for at the owner’s expense. 
II-19 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

• The participant may obtain financing to assist in the purchase of a replacement 

vehicle. 

 B. Dealer Requirements 

Districts are encouraged to establish contracts with dealers that are selling replacement 

vehicles to fleet modernization participants. Experience with the pilot programs has 

shown that dealers have provided participants with needed assistance in the application 

process. Vehicle dealers are encouraged to help in the application process as much as 

possible. If districts use vehicle dealers in implementing the fleet modernization 

category, reimbursement cannot be issued until all forms are submitted and approved 

by the district. 

Participants may purchase the replacement vehicles from a private party, provided all 

required documentation is submitted. This includes warranty requirements and all other 

fleet modernization requirements. 

Vehicle dealers are expected to do the following: 

• Provide basic information about the fleet modernization category. Districts will 

provide liaison training to dealership staff. 

• Inform participants of rights and responsibilities as outlined in the district and ARB 

guidelines. 

• Help the participants complete the application. The vehicle dealers will ensure that 

the participant correctly completes the application. It is important to make sure that 

all information is filled out correctly and that the participant understands the meaning 

of the program and the contract. The district will provide all forms and certificates as 

appendices to the application. Once complete, the dealer will submit the application 

package to the district. 

To ensure that an application package is complete, the dealer will make sure that all the 

following items are complete and included in the participant’s submission to the district. 

The following must be completed before reimbursement can be made: 

• Submit a signed and complete application. 

• Provide documentation showing that the old vehicle is roadworthy. This includes 

documentation showing that the old vehicle has passed a CHP BIT inspection old 

vehicle in the past 90 days or conduct an equivalent vehicle inspection and sign as 

appropriate. The district reserves the right to audit the dealer’s record of inspection. 

• Provide invoices of all work performed on the replacement vehicle. The invoices 

must include all engine, transmission, body and other work performed on the 

replacement vehicle. Invoices must include the installation of all equipment required 

by this program: EMU (at the discretion of the district), diesel emission control 
II-20 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

system (at the discretion of the district), and engine horsepower derated, if 

necessary. 

• Submit digital photographs of the old vehicle and the replacement vehicle to the 

district. The district will specify the required digital format. Reimbursement will not 

be processed until all photographs are received and verified by the district. Before 

submitting photographs to the district, dealers must verify that photographs are 

clear. All VIN and engine serial numbers must be legible. 

 Photographs of the old vehicle must include the following views: 

− Right Side - hood down. 

− Front - hood down. 

− Left Side - hood down. 

− VIN Tag - inside vehicle or on frame rail. 

− Engine - left side. 

− Engine - right side. 

− Engine Serial Number - either tag or stamp on block. 

− License plate. 

− Rear. 

Photographs of the replacement vehicle must include the following views: 

− Right Side - hood down. 

− Front - hood down. 

− Left Side - hood down. 

− VIN Tag - inside vehicle. 

− VIN Tag - on frame rail. 

− Engine - left side. 

− Engine - right side. 

− Engine Serial Number and Engine Information – tag.

− License plate. 

− Rear. 

− Electronic Monitoring Unit (in working condition).

− Diesel Emission Control Device (if available). 

− Odometer Reading. 

− Additional modifications (if applicable). 

• Provide certification that the old vehicle will be delivered to a qualified salvage yard. 

The certification must state that the vehicle will be picked up by the salvage yard 

within 30 days of receipt of the old truck. The contract must include the make, 

model, year, VIN, engine make, engine serial number, and the date the vehicle is 

expected to be delivered. It is the dealer’s responsibility to ensure that the salvage 

actually occurs, to obtain the completed Certificate of Vehicle Destruction, and to 

ensure that the Certificate of Vehicle Destruction has been filed with the district. The 

district will not cover the salvage costs. 
II-21 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

• Provide documentation of replacement vehicle warranty and registration. 

• Provide proof of replacement vehicle financing. The financing package will enable 

the district to determine the reimbursement costs that may be accrued in case the 

participant defaults on the contracted performance requirements. 

Prior to releasing the replacement vehicle to the participant, the dealer must have 

documentation of a district pre-inspection of the old vehicle and a post-inspection of the 

replacement vehicle. Upon request of the district, ARB may waive inspection 

requirements. 

After the application and all required documentation have been approved by the district, 

the dealer must provide the district with proof of sale of the replacement vehicle. 

 C. Salvage Requirements 

Destruction of the old vehicle chassis and engine permanently removes the old, high 

emitting vehicles from service. The old vehicle must be driven to a qualified vehicle 

salvage yard for destruction. Vehicle salvage yards are required to enter into an 

agreement with the district to qualify for participation. Qualified vehicle salvage yards 

are required to be licensed by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) as an 

auto-dismantler; have a current, valid California Environmental Protection Agency 

(Cal/EPA) Hazardous Materials Generators Permit; and be in compliance with all local, 

state and federal laws and regulations. 

Funding is not available for the salvage of any old vehicle. The vehicle salvage value 

will be negotiated between the participant, the dealership and the salvage yard. The 

salvage yard operator must do the following: 

• Dismantle the old vehicle within 60 days of receipt. The destruction must be done in 

accordance with program guidelines. 

• The old vehicle’s engine must be destroyed and rendered useless as specified in the 

Administration Chapter of these Guidelines

• Cut the frame rails of the old vehicle to ensure that the vehicle will not be used 

again. 

• Take photographs of the destroyed engine as specified in the Administration 

Chapter of these Guidelines and the cut frame rails. Photographs of the destroyed 

engine block and cut frame rails must be provided to the district within ten business 

days of salvaging the vehicle. The following picture views must be taken: 

− Front of vehicle with hood down. 

− Right side of vehicle with hood down. 

− Left side of vehicle with hood down. 
II-22 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

− Serial number printed either on the tag inside in the cab or on the frame rail. 

− Engine side view. 

− Engine serial number either stamped on the block or on the tag. 

− Destroyed engine block either in-frame or out of frame as specified in the 

Administration Chapter of these Guidelines. 

− Cut frame rails. 

• File a “Non-Repairable Vehicle Certificate” with the DMV using an “Application for 

Salvage Certification or Non-Repairable Vehicle Certification”. 

• Upon request of the district, ARB may approve an alternative disposition for the old 

vehicle. 

• Upon request of the district, ARB may approve an extension to the required 

timeframe for vehicle destruction. 

 D. Pre- and Post-Inspections 

To protect the integrity of the fleet modernization source category, districts must 

conduct a pre-inspection of the old vehicle and a post-inspection of the replacement 

vehicle. Districts are encouraged to design rigorous pre- and post-inspection 

procedures. At a minimum, the inspection of the old vehicle must be conducted to 

establish that it has been in service, that it meets the described weight class and 

configuration, and that costs associated with needed repairs have been identified and 

deducted from the incentive award. The cost of repairs needed for the old vehicle will 

be subtracted from the incremental cost of the grant award. 

Post-inspection of the replacement vehicle must be conducted to verify that the vehicle 

meets the contract description, including class and configuration descriptions, DECS 

and EMU installation, and any other items deemed necessary to confirm the authenticity 

project. Upon the request of the district, the ARB may approve an alternative method of 

ascertaining the authenticity of the old and replacement vehicle. 

 E. Minimum Reporting Requirements 

Fleet modernization reporting requirements have been established to verify that project 

participants meet contract requirements and to quantify the emission reductions 

achieved through the Carl Moyer Program. Fleet modernization projects are subject to 

the following minimum reporting requirements: 

• If the participant has a California Motor Carrier Permit, a current copy must be 

submitted to the district annually. If the participant does not have a California Motor 

Carrier Permit, the participant must provide registration and proof of insurance to the 

district annually. 

• The participant must provide annual reports for the life of the project. The report on 

the replacement truck will include information such as the number of hours of 
II-23 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

operation, miles driven in the district and California, the amount of fuel consumed in 

the twelve months preceding the report date, details regarding maintenance and 

servicing, and any other items specified by the district. 

• Participants from targeted vocation categories must provide documentation of 

vocation on an annual basis. 

• If the replacement vehicle is involved in an accident, the participant must report the 

accident to district staff within 14 days. The participant will be required to provide a 

police report of the accident, a letter from the insurance company regarding the 

accident and any additional information requested by the district. The participant is 

required to repair the vehicle and return it to operation, if possible. Down time due 

to an accident will be credited toward the performance requirements as along as the 

information is reported as requested and the repairs are made as soon as possible. 

If the vehicle is totaled, the participant and the district staff must come to an 

agreement regarding any requirements that still need to be met. 

 F. Compliance Checks 

After the district qualifies fleet modernization projects for funding, but before the district 

APCO signs an agreement for funding a project, the district must submit the project to 

ARB to check for outstanding violations. The process for completing the compliance 

check is as follows: 

• The district shall email its ARB district liaison the contact name, address, 

organization or business name, DOT number, CHP number, and VIN for the project. 

• The liaison shall then forward that information electronically to the responsible 

parties at ARB. The liaison will email the district the results of the compliance check 

within 14 working days. 

• If the compliance check indicates there is an outstanding violation the district shall 

inform the applicant in writing that no disbursement may be made until the owner 

provides proof that the fines have been paid. 

• Clearance of the citation requires proof of repair or a “Statement of Facts” 

documenting that the old truck will be scrapped. The “Statement of Facts” can be 

written by the dealer or the participant explaining the old truck will be scrapped as 

required by the Carl Moyer fleet modernization program. The statement and a copy 

of the fleet modernization contract should be provided along with the penalty 

payment. Include the citation number on all documents. 

 G. Recovery of Incentive Funds

The district must establish a mechanism to assure the participant fulfills all contractual 

obligations. This includes owning and operating the replacement vehicle for the project 

life, and staying in the agreed upon vocation for the duration of the contract. 
II-24 FLEET MODERNIZATION 

Participants must meet an 80 percent minimum baseline mileage requirement for the life 

of the project and agree to repay a pro-rated portion of the incentive funding for failure 

to fulfill the minimum performance requirements. Upon request of the district, ARB may 

approve an alternate minimum baseline requirement. The district will determine the 

method of notice and achieving fund recovery. Options may include: 

• List the district as co-lien holder on the title of the replacement vehicle for the term of 

the agreement. The participant must submit a completed Uniform Commercial 

Code-1 Financing Statement Form to the California Secretary of State, with a copy 

sent to the district, within 30 days of the purchase of the replacement vehicle. The 

financing statement must have the district as the secured party and the vehicle 

should be listed as collateral. 

• The participant must be the registered owner of the replacement vehicle for the 

project life. If the replacement vehicle is sold within the project life, the new owner 

must assume the obligations under the participant’s contract with the district and 

comply with the terms and conditions of the contract. The district must approve the 

change in ownership prior to the sale. 

XI. References

ARB 2002. California Emissions Inventory Model, EMFAC2002, v2.2 (Apr03). 

ARB 2005. California Emissions Inventory Model, EMFAC2005. 

Gateway Cities Council of Governments. November 2004, Gateway Cities Clean Air 

Pilot Program: Truck Fleet Modernization Program Guidelines. 

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. May 2005. Fleet 

Modernization Impacts on Normal Vehicle Turnover - Issue Paper. 

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. Fall 2004, Version 3.0. 

The Sacramento Emergency Clean Air Transportation (SECAT) Program, Policies 

and Guidelines. 

United States Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration, 

United States Census Bureau. 2002 Economic Census Vehicle Inventory and Use 

Survey, Geographic Area Series. 
III-1 REDUCING HDV IDLING EMISSIONS 

Chapter Three 

REDUCING IDLING EMISSIONS FROM HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

This chapter addresses the project criteria for idling reduction technologies that may be 

installed on on-road heavy-duty vehicles. Projects that meet the criteria may be 

considered for Carl Moyer Program funding. This chapter contains a brief overview of 

the engine idling practices of truck operators, emission inventories, available control 

technology, emission reductions and cost effectiveness calculations. This chapter 

expands eligible idling reduction techniques to electrification projects. Information 

specific to electric auxiliary power units (APU) and other zero-emission technologies is 

provided in Chapter 12: Zero-Emission Technologies. 

I. Introduction 

Heavy-duty vehicles are employed in line-haul service carrying goods across the state 

and throughout the nation. The majority of heavy-duty vehicles are powered by diesel 

engines. Heavy-duty vehicles employed in line-haul service are typically greater than 

33,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), are grouped under a Class 8 truck 

classification, and often accrue very high annual mileage. It is not uncommon for a 

line-haul truck to accrue 100,000 miles or more annually. These heavy-duty vehicles 

(HDV) idle at low engine speeds for a significant amount of time for various operational 

reasons. The low engine efficiency at these idle speeds results in significant increases 

in fuel consumption and emissions. 

Truck idling practices vary among different fleets, operators, and geographical locations. 

Two main purposes of idling are to keep the engine and fuel warm, especially in cold 

weather, and to heat or cool the truck’s cab/sleeper compartment. Although 

technologies for reducing idling emissions from heavy-duty trucks are commercially 

available, relatively high initial costs have prevented these idling reduction strategies 

from being more widely utilized. 

The average power demand for an APU operating under extreme climate conditions is 

estimated to be approximately 2.3 kilowatts (kW) for winter conditions and 3.1 kW for 

summer conditions [Wallace, 2003; Lutsey, 2003]. Staff assumed that the diesel-fueled 

APU would provide an average of 2.7 kW power to provide sleeper berth comfort and 

electrical power for accessories. 

The Carl Moyer Program can provide incentives to reduce emissions from truck idling 

by encouraging the purchase and installation of alternative idling reduction 

technologies. These technologies not only reduce idling emissions from heavy-duty 

trucks, but can also result in fuel savings and reduced maintenance costs to truck 

operators.
III-2 REDUCING HDV IDLING EMISSIONS 

II. Emissions 

According to the Air Resources Board’s (ARB or “Board”) emission inventory, idling 

emissions from heavy heavy-duty diesel (HHD) trucks account for approximately 

29 tons per day (tpd) of nitrogen oxides (NOx), 1.6 tpd of reactive organic gases (ROG) 

and 0.7 tpd of particulate matter (PM10). This represents about 7 percent of the total 

NOx, ROG and PM10 emissions from this sector of vehicles in California. Idling 

emissions from individual trucks are significant and the idling emission rate for HHD 

diesel trucks is large. For example, a single HHD truck that idles an average of 

1,500 hours per year emits approximately: 564 pounds/year of NOx, 114 pounds/year of 

ROG and 7.6 pounds/year of PM10 from idling. 

III. Regulatory Requirements 

A. School Bus Idling 

An airborne toxic control measure (ATCM) became effective on July 16, 2003, that 

restricts idling by school buses and other special classes of vehicles at schools. The 

regulation also limited the idling of these buses and vehicles to no more than five 

minutes when within 100 feet of a school. [ARB, 2003] 

B. Heavy-Duty Vehicle Idling 

On February 1, 2005, an ATCM became effective that extended idling limitations 

beyond school buses to include diesel APUs, and heavy-duty diesel trucks over 

10,000 GVWR. The ATCM specifically limits idling of the main engine or the operation 

of diesel-fueled APU systems when health, safety or operational concerns are not an 

issue. This regulation limits the idling of HDVs to no more than five minutes if the truck 

is within 100 feet of a school or home. These requirements apply to both California and 

non-California trucks. 

In addition to statewide restrictions on idling, some local government and municipalities 

have ordinances restricting idling time for some types of vehicles. Carl Moyer Program 

funding for projects must be surplus to the requirements of both the ATCM and local 

ordinances. 

C. Idling Restrictions 

In October 2005, the Board approved a proposal that removes the exemption for idling 

of heavy duty trucks equipped with sleeper berths. This proposal prohibits heavy duty 

trucks with sleeper berths from idling more than five minutes unless certain conditions 

are met. Beginning in 2008, model year 2006 and older trucks may operate APUs 

powered by a certified diesel engine. Model year 2007 and newer trucks may only 

operate an APU for longer than 5 minutes if the exhaust of the APU powered by a 

certified diesel engine is equipped with a level 3 PM retrofit device or is routed through 

the main engine exhaust with a level 3 PM retrofit device; however, the truck must not 

be within 100 feet of a restricted area such as a school or residential area. In addition, 
III-3 REDUCING HDV IDLING EMISSIONS 

2008 and subsequent model year heavy duty trucks may idle longer than longer than 

five minutes in a non-restricted area if the main engine meets a low NOx standard of 

30 g/hr. 

The Board approval of the regulation means that beginning with the 2008 calendar year 

the baseline for calculating the benefits of truck idle reduction projects will be the 

15.1 g/hr NMHC+NOx and .087 g/hr of PM emission rate for APUs assumed in the 

idling regulation. Zero-emission or near-zero emission technologies would be eligible 

for funding using the lower emission baseline. 

IV. Potential Projects 

A. Auxiliary Power Units 

APUs are usually installed on the truck chassis outside the truck cab to provide power 

for the truck’s accessory loads and to keep the engine warm when the truck is parked. 

This allows the operator to refrain from idling the truck’s main engine. The extent of 

labor involved in the installation of an APU on the truck depends on the configuration of 

the truck engine and chassis and the plumbing of its heating/cooling system. Heating 

and cooling of the cab compartment are accomplished through either dedicated 

equipment supplied with the APU or through the truck's existing heating and cooling 

system. APUs are commercially available and meet most of the power needs of truck 

operators. Some APUs are available with an electric option for a few hundred dollars 

more. 

B. Truck Stop Electrification 

Another strategy for reducing truck idling is the retrofit of trucks with components such 

as engine block heaters, fuel heaters, electric heaters and air conditioning for 

cab/sleeper areas. This strategy requires the installation of charging infrastructure at 

truck stops and rest areas. Specific information and project criteria pertaining to truck 

stop electrification is provided in Chapter 12: Zero-Emission Technologies. 

C. Advanced Travel Center Electrification 

An alternative to truck stop electrification that does not require truck modification has 

been introduced by IdleAire Technologies. Specific information and project criteria are 

provided in Chapter 12: Zero-Emission Technologies. 

D. Direct-Fired Heaters and Thermal Storage 

Direct-fired heaters for truck heating applications are devices that use the combustion 

heat of a small internal combustion engine to provide heat directly to the truck's 

cab/sleeper area through the use of a small heat exchanger. Because it is designed to 

provide heat directly from a combustion flame, the heating efficiency of these units is 

higher than that obtained through the truck's engine due to reduced mechanical losses 

and fuel consumption. Two primary limitations of direct-fired heaters for this application 
III-4 REDUCING HDV IDLING EMISSIONS 

are that they cannot provide cooling and that they draw on the truck's battery power 

during operation. Direct-fired heater technologies continue to evolve, but they have not 

gained widespread commercial acceptance. 

Thermal storage systems provide both heating and cooling for the cab/sleeper area. 

This technology uses the heat of transformation associated with material phase change 

to provide heating and cooling to the cab/sleeper area. However, the technology cannot 

provide cooling at night unless the truck's air conditioner was used in the daytime. 

V. Project Criteria 

The project criteria for eligible idling reduction strategies for heavy-duty vehicles provide 

districts and fleet operators with the minimum requirements for participation in the 

Carl Moyer Program. The criteria have been developed specifically for idling reduction 

technologies that will be installed on a heavy-duty truck to reduce the truck's idling 

emissions. The ARB may develop additional project criteria for idling reduction 

strategies if additional technologies enter the market. 

Idling reduction technologies provide a cost-effective means to reduce idling emissions 

from heavy-duty diesel trucks. Carl Moyer Program funds can be used to pay for a 

portion of the capital cost of idling reduction equipment as well as the installation costs. 

A. General Criteria 

• Emission reductions obtained through Carl Moyer Program projects must not be 

required by any federal, state or local regulation, memorandum of 

agreement/understanding, settlement agreement, mitigation requirement, or other 

legally binding document. 

• Projects must meet a cost-effectiveness of $14,300 per weighed ton of NOx + ROG 

+ combustion PM10, reduced calculated in accordance with the cost-effectiveness 

methodology discussed in this section. 

• No emission reductions generated with funding from the Carl Moyer Program shall 

be used as marketable emission reduction credits, or to satisfy any emission 

reduction obligation of any person or entity. 

• No emission reductions from a project funded by the Carl Moyer Program shall be 

used for credit under any federal or state emission averaging, banking and trading 

program 

• Carl Moyer Program grants shall be no greater than a project’s incremental cost. 

The incremental cost is the cost of the project minus the baseline cost. The 

incremental cost shall be reduced by the value of any current financial incentive that 

reduces the project price, including but not limited to tax credits or deductions, 

grants, or other public financial assistance. 
III-5 REDUCING HDV IDLING EMISSIONS 

• Projects must have a minimum project life of three years. The ARB may approve 

shorter project life in writing for good cause on a case-by-case basis. Projects with 

shorter lives may be subject to additional funding restrictions, such as a lower 

cost-effectiveness limit or a project cost cap. 

• The contract term must extend to the end of the project life. 

• The default project life does not consider upcoming regulatory requirements. Project 

life may be shorter due to regulatory requirements. 

• Air districts must consult with ARB staff to determine eligibility of all projects 

considered for funding on case-by-case basis. All projects considered on a 

case-by-case basis must receive ARB approval prior to receiving program funding. 

• Repower projects must provide at least a 15 percent NOx emission benefit 

compared to baseline idling NOx emissions. 

• 75 percent of the APU usage must be in California. The ARB may approve 

exceptions on a case by case basis. 

• Air districts are encouraged to co-fund projects that will produce emission reductions 

in more than one air district. 

• Potential projects that fall outside of these criteria may be considered on a 

case-by-case basis is evidence provided to the air district suggests potential surplus, 

real, quantifiable and enforceable emission reduction benefits. 

• Air districts must consult with ARB staff to determine eligibility of all projects 

considered for funding on a case-by-case basis. All projects considered on a 

case-by-case basis must receive ARB approval prior to receiving program funding. 

B. APUs and Alternative Technologies 

• The engine used in an APU must meet current emission standards, be certified by 

the ARB for sale in California, and comply with all applicable durability and warranty 

requirements. 

• If an internal combustion engine APU is available with an electric plug-in option, the 

incremental cost of the plug-in option is eligible for Carl Moyer Program funding. 

• An hour-meter or other means to measure usage must be installed with an APU to 

track operation. The participant shall provide this information to ARB or the district 

upon request during the life of the project. 
III-6 REDUCING HDV IDLING EMISSIONS 

• The default load factor for the engine used in an APU shall be the maximum power 

rating of the engine, unless another load factor is proposed by the participant and 

supported by proper documentation as determined by the ARB. 

• Emission benefits must be based on the vehicle's idling time that occurs in 

California. At least 75 percent of the idling time must be in California. ARB may 

approve exceptions on a case-by-case basis. 

• The actual capital cost, up to $5,500, of an APU may be eligible for funding. 

• The installation cost of an APU, including installation of an hour-meter, up to a 

maximum of $1,700 per diesel APU and a maximum of $3,400 per alternative fuel, 

electric motor, or fuel cell APU, may be funded. 

• The full cost of a PM retrofit device may be funded provided that the 

cost-effectiveness for the overall project does not exceed $14,300. 

C. Scrap 

• Scrap requirements are described in the 2005 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, 

Part I, Chapter 2: Administration of the Carl Moyer Program. 

VI. Minimum Project Requirements 

A. Application 

In order to qualify for incentive funds, districts make applications available and solicit 

proposals for reduced-emission projects from HDV operators. The applicant must 

provide at least the following information listed in Table 3-2. 

A disclosure must also be included stating that the proposed project has not been 

funded and is not being considered for funding by another air district, ARB, or any other 

public agency. Any applicant who is found to have submitted multiple applications for 

the same project may be banned from submitting future applications to any and all 

Carl Moyer Program solicitations and may be subject to criminal sanctions. A project 

funded cooperatively by multiple air districts is eligible for funding if the project 

parameters are coordinated amongst the participating districts and the project meets all 

applicable Carl Moyer Program criteria. Applicants are allowed to re-apply for project 

funding if a previous application has been rejected and is no longer being considered for 

funding. 
III-7 REDUCING HDV IDLING EMISSIONS 

Table 3-2 Minimum Application Information Auxiliary Power Unit Projects 

Applicant Information

Organization, Company or Individual Name 

Street Address 

City, County, State, Zip Code 

Primary Contact Name 

Primary Contract Phone Number 

Person with Contract Signing Authority 

Person who Filled out Funding Application 

Project Address (if different from above) 

Vehicle Information

Vehicle Type (Solid Waste Collection Vehicle, 

Street Sweeper, School Bus, Urban Bus, Other 

Transit Vehicle, Other Heavy-Heavy Duty Vehicle, 

Other Medium-Heavy Duty Vehicle, or Other LightHeavy Duty Vehicle) 

Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) 

Vehicle Make 

Vehicle Model 

Model Year 

Vehicle GVWR 

Vehicle License Plate Number 

Department of Transportation Number 

 (if interstate) 

California Highway Patrol CA Number 

Engine Make 

Engine Model 

Engine Year 

Engine Serial Number 

ARB Certification Executive Order (if Engine 

Certified to Alt. NOx Standard) 

Fuel Type 

Auxiliary Engine Make, Model, Year, Serial 

Number, Horsepower, Tier, and Family (if 

applicable) 

APU Engine Information

Engine Make 

Engine Model 

Engine Year 

Fuel Type 

Engine Tier 

Certified APU or Alternative Technology Cost 

APU or Alternative Technology Installation Cost 

Activity Information

Percent Operation in California 

Percent Operation in District 

Project Life 

Annual Gallons Fuel Used 

Annual Hours Idled 

Electronic Monitoring Unit (EMU) 

Will a new eligible EMU be installed as part 

 of this project? (yes/no) 

EMU Make 

EMU Model 

EMU Model Year 

EMU ID Number 

EMU Cost (optional) 

Third party applications are not allowed. The owner of the engine must sign and agree 

to the application. However, a third party (e.g. engine dealer or distributor) may 

complete an application or part of an application on an owner’s behalf. Applications 

must include a signature section for third parties. The third party signature section must 

include signature and date lines, and blanks for the third party to list how much they are 

being paid, if anything, to complete the application and what source of funds are being 

used to pay them. To make the Carl Moyer Program accessible to all potential 

applicants, including applicants that cannot afford to hire third party assistance, districts 

are encouraged to provide technical assistance to applicants in completing the 

application. 
III-8 REDUCING HDV IDLING EMISSIONS 

B. Reporting and Monitoring 

The district has the authority to conduct periodic checks or solicit operating records from 

the applicant that has received Carl Moyer Program funds for emission reduction 

projects. This is to ensure that the APU is operated as stated in the program 

application. Fleet operators participating in the Carl Moyer Program are required to 

keep appropriate records during the life of the project. Records must contain, at a 

minimum, total California hours idled. Records must be retained and updated 

throughout the project life and made available at the request of the district. 

VII. References 

ARB, 2003. Final Regulation Order: Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit School 

Bus Idling And Idling At Schools. July 16, 2003. 

ARB, 2004. Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Idling Reduction. September 1, 2005. 

Lutsey, Nicholas. Fuel Cells For Auxiliary Power in Trucks: Requirements, Benefits, 

and Marketability. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis. 

UCD-ITS-RR-03-04. July 2003. 

Wallace, John Paul. Modeling of Line-Haul Truck Auxiliary Power Units in ADVISOR 

2002. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis. UCD-ITS-RR03-07. August 2003 
IV-1 TRANSPORT 

 REFRIGERATION UNITS 

Chapter Four 

TRANSPORT REFRIGERATION UNITS 

This chapter is a new source category and presents the project criteria for transport 

refrigeration units (TRU) and transport refrigeration generator sets. This chapter also 

contains a brief overview of the engine operating characteristics of transport 

refrigeration units, emission inventory, available control technology, potential projects 

eligible for funding, and emission reduction and cost-effectiveness calculation 

methodologies. Information is also provided for potential consideration of other 

alternative technologies or strategies that may offer real emission reduction of transport 

refrigeration unit operations from transport refrigeration unit diesel engines. For more 

information about zero-emission technology, consult Chapter 12: Zero-Emission 

Technologies. 

I. Introduction 

TRUs are employed in service carrying perishable goods throughout the world. TRUs 

use an internal combustion engine to run the compressor of the refrigeration system. 

TRUs and TRU generator sets operating in the United States are generally powered by 

diesel engines, typically between 9 and 36 horsepower. TRUs may be installed on 

trucks, trailers, shipping containers, and railcars to refrigerate perishable contents. 

When a refrigerated trailer becomes disconnected from the tractor, the trailer TRU will 

continue to maintain temperature. When the tractor is parked at a rest stop or shut 

down, the TRU engine continues to cycle. TRU generator sets are also attached to 

ocean-going shipping containers when they are on land, to provide electric power to the 

shipping container's refrigeration system between the port and cold storage warehouse 

or distribution center. 

II. Emissions 

There are currently about 31,000 TRUs and TRU generator sets based in California, 

and another 7,500 out-of-state refrigerated trailers and 1,700 railcar TRUs operating in 

California at any given time. The Air Resources Board (ARB or “Board”) estimates that 

emissions of diesel particulate emissions from TRUs and TRU generator sets were 

almost two tons per day or 2.6 percent of the total statewide diesel particulate matter 

emissions in 2000. Estimated NOx emissions in 2000 were about 20 tons per day. 

Based on emission projections, the diesel PM10 emissions from TRUs will decrease to 

about 1.6 tons per day in 2010 and decrease again to about 0.3 tons per day in 2020, 

because of the cumulative effects of new emission standards and ARB's in-use TRU 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM). 
IV-2 TRANSPORT 

 REFRIGERATION UNITS 

III. Regulatory Requirements 

In February 2004, the Board approved an ATCM for TRUs that set in-use performance 

standards for PM10 emissions beginning in 2008. Compliance is phased in over the 

next 12 years. 

The TRU ATCM In-Use Performance Standards and compliance dates must be 

considered when determining whether emission reductions are surplus. Table 4-1 gives 

the TRU and TRU Generator Set In-Use Performance Standards and Table 4-2 

provides a graphical representation of the implementation schedule. The region in 

Table 4-2 labeled Potential Surplus Reductions shows a window of opportunity where 

projects can achieve emissions reductions prior to the compliance date of the TRU 

ATCM [ARB, 2003]. 

Table 4-1 

TRU and TRU Generator Set In-Use Performance Standards 

Horsepower 

Category 

Engine Certification Value 

PM10 Emissions Standard 

(grams/horsepower-hour) 

Options for Meeting 

Performance Standard 

Low Emission Performance Standards

less than 25 0.30 g/hp-hr

 Use an engine that meets the 

Engine Certification Value 

 Retrofit with at least Level 2 DECS* 

(>50% PM10 reduction) 

 Use an Alternative Technology 

25 or greater 0.22 g/hp-hr

 Use an engine that meets the 

Engine Certification Value 

 Retrofit with at least Level 2 DECS 

 Use an Alternative Technology 

Ultra-Low Emission Performance Standard 

less than 25 N/A

 Retrofit with Level 3 DECS (>85% 

PM10 reduction) 

 Use an Alternative Technology 

25 or greater 0.02 g/hp-hr

 Use an engine that meets the 

Engine Certification Value 

 Retrofit with Level 3 DECS 

 Use an Alternative Technology 

* Diesel Emission Control System 
IV-3 TRANSPORT 

 REFRIGERATION UNITS 

• Table 4-2 

≥ 25 hp TRU and TRU Generator Set Engines In-Use Compliance Dates 

(Compliance date is December 31 of applicable year)

In-Use Compliance Year

MY ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12 ‘13 ‘14 ‘15 ‘16 ‘17 ‘18 ‘19 ‘20 

‘01 & Older L L L L L L L U U U U U U 

‘02 L L L L L L L U U U U U 

‘03 U U U U U U U U U U U 

‘04 U U U U U U U U U U 

‘05 U U U U U U U U U 

‘06 U U U U U U U U 

‘07 U U U U U U U 

‘08 U U U U U U 

‘09 U U U U U 

‘10 U U U U 

‘11 U U U 

‘12 U U 

‘13 

< 25 Hp 2013 and subsequent MY must meet ULETRU 7 years after MY 

L = Low-Emission TRU, U = Ultra Low-Emission TRU 

IV. Potential Projects 

TRU owners can apply for Carl Moyer Program grant funds for projects that achieve 

surplus emission reductions by repowering with cleaner certified engines, installing 

verified retrofit diesel emission control strategies, or using alternative technologies to 

reduce or eliminate NOx, ROG, and PM10 emissions. Many of the technologies 

discussed below have not yet been verified. However, they are included in this 

discussion since they could provide real emission reductions and could potentially be 

verified during the time frame covered by the Guidelines. 

A. New Purchase 

Purchase of a new TRU is eligible for Carl Moyer Program funding if the new TRU is 

cleaner than what would have normally been purchased – a diesel engine. Thus the 

incremental cost of the new purchase of alternative technologies may be eligible for 

Carl Moyer Program grants. 

B. Repower 

Repowering TRUs with cleaner certified diesel engines is one type of potential project. 

However, there may be some compatibility issues with some engines due to spatial and 

electronic control differences (e.g., the new engine is too big to fit in the available space 

or the electronic controls are incompatible). Those compatibility issues must be 

resolved prior to submitting a grant application. 

Potential 

Surplus 

Emissions
IV-4 TRANSPORT 

 REFRIGERATION UNITS 

C. Retrofit with a Diesel Emission Control Strategy

Retrofit with a diesel emission control strategy is another potential project if the retrofit is 

not required by the TRU ATCM or any other regulation. Diesel retrofit systems must be 

verified by ARB in order to qualify for Carl Moyer Program funding. Potential retrofits 

include diesel oxidation catalysts, diesel particulate filters, flow though filters and fuel 

additives. 

D. Alternative Technologies to Reduce or Eliminate NOx, ROG, and PM 

Emissions 

Alternative technologies are defined under the TRU ATCM as electric standby, 

cryogenic temperature control systems, alternative fuels, alternative diesel fuels, fuel 

cells, and other systems that reduce or eliminate diesel engine operation. Brief 

descriptions of each of these potential project types follow. 

1. Electric Standby 

Electric standby equipped TRUs allow the TRU engine to be shut off when a compatible 

electric power supply is available at a facility so TRU diesel engine emissions are 

eliminated while the TRU is plugged in at the facility. See Chapter 12: Zero-Emission 

Technologies for more information. 

2. Hybrid Electric TRU 

Hybrid electric TRUs have been available in Europe for several years. The diesel 

engine drives a generator that, in turn, powers an electric semi-hermetic refrigeration 

compressor and electrically driven fans, all controlled by an advanced microprocessor. 

This hybrid electric TRU is easily adaptable to run on electric grid power when at a 

facility, so that diesel engine operation is eliminated. The cost is higher than a 

traditional TRU, but costs less than it would to retrofit a traditional TRU with an electric 

standby system. One big advantage is that the hybrid design provides full refrigeration 

capacity for the initial chill-down. The hybrid design is also very likely to be adaptable 

for future use with fuel cell technology 

3. Cryogenic Temperature Control Systems 

Cryogenic temperature control systems heat and cool using a cryogen, such as liquid 

carbon dioxide or liquid nitrogen that is routed through an evaporator coil that cools air 

blown over the coil. Since there is no diesel engine, diesel PM10 emissions are 

eliminated. Capital costs for these types of systems are ten percent higher than a 

diesel TRU, but the facility infrastructure costs for cryogenic "fuel" storage and 

dispensing add to the capital cost. 
IV-5 TRANSPORT 

 REFRIGERATION UNITS 

4. Alternative Fuels 

Conventional diesel engines are internal combustion, compression-ignition engines. In 

contrast, engines that operate on an alternative fuel, such as compressed natural gas 

(CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), and liquid propane gas (LPG), are usually 

spark-ignited. Engines certified to operate on alternative fuels produce substantially 

lower PM10 and NOx emissions than diesel-fueled engines that are not equipped with 

exhaust after-treatment. 

5. Alternative Diesel Fuels 

Before any alternative diesel fuel can be used to comply with a diesel PM10 control 

measure or used in a Carl Moyer Program project, it must be verified through ARB’s 

Verification Procedure, which includes a special section that deals specifically with 

alternative diesel fuels. 

The Carl Moyer Program does not fund fuel-only projects however, districts may use 

matching funds to pay for the incremental cost of alternative diesel fuels if they are part 

of a Carl Moyer Program project. Recordkeeping and reporting must provide assurance 

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

6. Fuel Cells 

Compared to a conventional diesel-powered TRU, fuel cell TRUs would offer zero or 

near-zero emissions of criteria pollutants and lower greenhouse gas emissions. At this 

time, there are no fuel cells appropriately sized for use on a TRU, but electrically-driven 

TRUs could be powered by fuel cells on or off the road (e.g., at a facility). 

V. Project Criteria 

Participating districts retain the authority to impose additional more stringent 

requirements in order to address local issues. 

A. General Criteria 

• Emission reductions obtained through Carl Moyer Program projects must not be 

required by any federal, state or local regulation, memorandum of 

agreement/understanding, settlement agreement, mitigation requirement, or other 

legally binding document. 

• Projects must meet a cost-effectiveness of $14,300 per weighed ton of NOx + ROG 

+ combustion PM10 reduced calculated in accordance with the cost-effectiveness 

methodology discussed in this chapter. 
IV-6 TRANSPORT 

 REFRIGERATION UNITS 

• No emission reductions generated by the Carl Moyer Program shall be used as 

marketable emission reduction credits, or to satisfy any emission reduction 

obligation of any person or entity. 

• No project funded by the Carl Moyer Program shall be used for credit under any 

federal or state emission averaging, banking, and trading program. 

• Carl Moyer Program grants shall be no greater than a project’s incremental cost. 

The incremental cost is the cost of the project minus the baseline cost. The 

incremental cost shall be reduced by the value of any current financial incentive that 

reduces the project price, including but not limited to tax credits or deductions, 

grants, or other public financial assistance. 

• Projects must have a minimum project life of three years. ARB may approve shorter 

project life in writing for good cause on a case-by-case basis. Projects with shorter 

lives may be subject to additional funding restrictions, such as a lower 

cost-effectiveness limit or a project cost cap. 

• The contract term must extend to the end of the project life. 

• The default project life does not consider upcoming regulatory requirements. Project 

life may be shorter due to regulatory requirements.

• Air districts must consult with ARB staff to determine eligibility of all projects 

considered for funding on case-by-case basis. All projects considered on a 

case-by-case basis must receive ARB approval prior to receiving program funding. 

• Projects with more than a 5 year project life must have a contract term of at least 

5 years. 

• Emission benefits must be based on the TRU operations that occur in California. 

75 percent of TRU operations must be in California. The ARB may approve 

exceptions in writing on a case-by-case basis. 

• Air districts are encouraged to co-fund projects that will produce emission reductions 

in more than one air district. (Most TRU projects will provide multi-district emission 

reductions.) 

B. Repowers 

• For repower projects, Carl Moyer Program funds shall only be used to pay for the 

incremental costs of an eligible engine and the cost to install that engine in the TRU 

equipment. 
IV-7 TRANSPORT 

 REFRIGERATION UNITS 

• The replacement engine for repower projects used in the TRU must meet current 

emission standards and be certified by the ARB for sale in California. Compliance 

with all applicable durability and warranty requirements is required. 

• Repower projects must provide at least 15 percent NOx emission benefit compared 

to baseline NOx emission level. 

• The participant shall install an hour-meter or other means to measure usage on the 

TRU to track operating hours, and shall provide this information to ARB or the district 

upon request. 

• Potential projects that fall outside of these criteria may be considered on a 

case-by-case basis is evidence provided to the air district suggests potential surplus, 

real, quantifiable and enforceable emission reduction benefits. 

• Air districts must consult with ARB staff to determine eligibility of all projects 

considered for funding on a case-by-case basis. All projects considered on a 

case-by-case basis must receive ARB approval prior to receiving program funding. 

C. Retrofits 

• For retrofit projects, diesel emission control strategies used on TRUs must be 

verified by ARB for sale in California. Compliance with all applicable durability and 

warranty requirements is required. 

• Alternative technologies such as electric standby and pure cryogenic systems are 

not required to be verified, but ARB must review and approve such systems in 

writing on a case-by-case basis. The district shall require recordkeeping and 

reporting to assure that estimated emission reductions are achieved. 

D. Scrap

• Scrap requirements are described in the 2005 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, 

Part I, Chapter 2: Administration of the Carl Moyer Program. 

VI. Cost-Effectiveness 

To receive Carl Moyer Program funding, each project must meet the maximum 

cost-effective threshold of $14,300 per weighted ton of covered pollutants reduced. 

Only funds provided by the Carl Moyer Program and local district matching funds are to 

be used in determining cost-effectiveness. 

In general, the emission reduction benefit represents the difference in the emission level 

of a baseline engine and reduced-emission engine, retrofit, or use of alternative 

technology. TRU engine annual emissions are calculated by multiplying the emission 
IV-8 TRANSPORT 

 REFRIGERATION UNITS 

factor in grams per horsepower-hour for each pollutant by the rated hp, load factor, and 

activity (annual engine hours of operation). 

VII. Minimum Project Requirements 

A. Application 

In order to qualify for incentive funds, districts make applications available and solicit 

proposals for reduced-emission projects from distribution centers and TRU owners. 

The applicant must provide at least the following information listed in Table 4-4. 

A disclosure must also be included stating that the proposed project has not been 

funded and is not being considered for funding by another air district, ARB, or any other 

public agency. Any applicant who is found to have submitted multiple applications for 

the same project may be banned from submitting future applications to any and all 

Carl Moyer Program solicitations and may be subject to criminal sanctions. A project 

funded cooperatively by multiple air districts is eligible for funding if the project 

parameters are coordinated amongst the participating districts and the project meets all 

applicable Carl Moyer Program criteria. Applicants are allowed to re-apply for project 

funding if a previous application has been rejected and is no longer being considered for 

funding. 

Third party applications are not allowed. The owner of the engine must sign and agree 

to the application. However, a third party (e.g. engine dealer or distributor) may 

complete an application or part of an application on an owner’s behalf. Applications 

must include a signature section for third parties. The third party signature section must 

include signature and date lines, and blanks for the third party to list how much they are 

being paid, if anything, to complete the application and what source of funds are being 

used to pay them. To make the Carl Moyer Program accessible to all potential 

applicants, including applicants that cannot afford to hire third party assistance, districts 

are encouraged to provide technical assistance to applicants in completing the 

application. 

B. Reporting and Monitoring 

The district has the authority to conduct periodic checks or solicit operating records from 

the applicant that has received Carl Moyer Program funds for emission reduction 

projects. This is to ensure that the TRU is operated as stated in the program 

application. Fleet operators participating in the Carl Moyer Program are required to 

keep appropriate records during the life of the project. Records must contain, at a 

minimum, total California hours idled. Records must be retained and updated 

throughout the project life and made available at the request of the district. 
IV-9 TRANSPORT 

 REFRIGERATION UNITS 

Table 4-4 

Minimum Application Information Transport Refrigeration Unit Projects 

Applicant Information

Organization, Company or Individual Name 

Street Address 

City, County, State, Zip Code 

Primary Contact Name 

Primary Contact Phone Number 

Person with Contract Signing Authority 

Person who Filled Out Funding Application 

Project Address (if different from above) 

Project Information

TRU Application (Truck, Trailer, Shipping 

 Container, or Railcar) 

Vehicle ID Type (VIN, Railcar Recording Mark, 

 Container Number, or Company ID Number) 

Vehicle ID Number 

TRU Make 

TRU Model 

TRU Model Year 

TRU Serial Number 

TRU Horsepower Rating 

TRU Fuel Type 

TRU Engine Tier 

TRU Engine Family 

Activity Information

Will the new engine have a functioning 

 hour meter for the life of the project? 

Annual Hours of Operation or Annual 

 Gallons of Fuel Consumption 

Percent Operation in California 

Percent Operation in District 

Project Life 

Electronic Monitoring Unit (EMU) 

Will a new eligible EMU be installed as part 

 of this project? (yes/no) 

EMU Make 

EMU Model 

EMU Model Year 

EMU ID Number 

EMU Cost (optional) 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION – 

NEW PURCHASE ONLY 

Project Year of Purchase of New Equipment 

Baseline Cost 

New TRU Cost 

New TRU Vendor (optional) 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION – 

REPOWER PROJECTS ONLY 

Reduced Emission TRU Make 

Reduced Emission TRU Model 

Reduced Emission TRU Model Year 

Reduced Emission TRU Serial Number 

Reduced Emission TRU Horsepower Rating 

Reduced Emission TRU Fuel Type 

Reduced Emission TRU Engine Tier 

Reduced Emission TRU Engine Family 

TRU Remanufacture Cost – Parts 

TRU Remanufacture Cost – Labor 

TRU Repower Cost – Engine 

TRU Repower Cost – Labor 

New Engine Vendor (optional) 

New Engine Installer (optional) 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION – 

RETROFIT PROJECTS ONLY 

ARB-Verified Retrofit Device 

Retrofit Device Make 

Retrofit Device Serial Number 

Verification Level (Level 1, Level 2, Level 3) 

ARB-Verified NOx Reduction (%) 

ARB-Verified PM Reduction (%) 

ARB-Verified ROG Reduction (%) 

Retrofit Device ARB Executive Order 

Retrofit Device Cost 

Cost of Retrofit Device Installation Cost (optional) 

Cost of Retrofit Maintenance for Life of Project 

(optional) 

VIII. References 

ARB, 2003. ARB, Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for In-Use Diesel-Fueled Transport Refrigeration Units 

(TRU) and TRU Generator Sets, and Facilities Where TRUs Operate, Stationary Source 

Division, Emissions Assessment Branch, October 28, 2003. 
V-1 OFF-ROAD CI ENGINES 

Chapter Five 

COMPRESSION-IGNITION OFF-ROAD EQUIPMENT 

This chapter presents the project criteria for off-road compression-ignition (CI) 

equipment projects under the Carl Moyer Program. It also contains a brief overview of 

the current regulations, incentive projects eligible for funding, project criteria, cost 

effectiveness calculations, and minimum application requirements for off-road CI 

equipment. Updates to the project criteria in this chapter since the 2003 Guidelines 

include: 1) lowering the minimum engine horsepower (hp) to 25 hp, and 2) prioritizing 

Tier 2 or Tier 3 repowers. 

I. Introduction 

Off-road CI equipment eligible for Carl Moyer Program funding includes equipment 

25 hp (19 kilowatt) or greater such as construction and agricultural equipment. This 

also includes auxiliary engines found on off-road equipment and on-road vehicles. 

Excluded from this discussion are engines that propel or are used on locomotives, 

marine vessel propulsion and auxiliary, and most forklifts (except for class 7 forklifts) 

which are discussed in other chapters of these Guidelines. Aircraft engines are 

excluded from the Carl Moyer Program. In addition, the Carl Moyer Program does not 

apply to off-road engines used for underground mining operations, which are regulated 

by the Mining Safety and Health Administration. 

II. Emissions 

Off-road CI engines are used in a wide array of applications including agricultural 

tractors, backhoes, excavators, trenchers, and motor graders. Off-road equipment can 

be categorized broadly into equipment less than 175 hp and equipment equal to or 

greater than 175 hp. 

Table 5-1 displays statewide population and emission estimates for off-road CI engines. 

Table 5-1 

Statewide Emissions from Off-Road Compression-Ignition Engines* 

(tons per day) 

Population NOx ROG PM10 

2005 350,420 453 54 30 

2010 354,175 354 24 39 

*Includes agricultural, construction, dredging, drilling, industrial, and logging equipment. 
V-2 OFF-ROAD CI ENGINES 

III. Regulatory Requirements 

A. Off-Road Compression Engine Regulations 

The Air Resources Board (ARB or “Board”) is preempted from regulating new farm and 

construction equipment less than 175 hp. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(U.S. EPA) has sole authority to regulate this type of equipment. ARB has the authority 

to regulate new off-road equipment equal to or greater than 175 hp and non-preempted 

off-road equipment less than 175 hp. ARB and U.S. EPA have worked closely to 

harmonize the off-road CI standards. ARB is not preempted from regulating in-use 

equipment; a discussion of these regulations may be found in Section III. B of this 

chapter. 

Current off-road engine regulations contain exhaust emission standards that engines 

are not to exceed under steady state and transient conditions [ARB, 2000 and ARB, 

2004b]. In addition, the regulations include provisions that assist engine and equipment 

manufacturers in complying with emission standards through: 1) flexibility provisions for 

equipment manufacturers, 2) Averaging, Banking, and Trading (ABT) programs, and 

3) the Tier 4 Early Introduction Incentive for engine manufacturers. Since the objective 

of the Carl Moyer Program is the deployment of cleaner-than-required low-emission 

engines to achieve maximum emission reduction benefits, it is important to understand 

the regulatory provisions that allow for the sale of engines not meeting the current 

applicable emission standards. 

1. Emission Standards 

Emissions from off-road equipment between 175 and 750 horsepower were 

uncontrolled prior to 1996. Estimates of NOx emission rates from uncontrolled off-road 

engines range from 8.2 g/bhp-hr to 14 g/bhp-hr. In January 1992, the Board adopted 

exhaust emission standards for off-road diesel-cycle engines 175 hp and greater, 

effective beginning with 1996 model year engines. 

In August 1996, the U.S. EPA, ARB, and off-road diesel engine manufacturers signed a 

Statement of Principles which called for harmonization of ARB and U.S. EPA off-road 

diesel engine regulations, as appropriate, in exchange for an accelerated introduction of 

progressively more stringent standards. The U.S. EPA adopted emission standards in 

1998 and again in 2004 that provided for new NOx + non-methane hydrocarbons 

(NMHC), PM, and carbon monoxide (CO) emission standards for engines within 

different power categories in a tiered approach, commonly referred to as “Tier” 

standards. These standards are defined in Title 13, California Code of Regulations 

(CCR), sections 2423(b)(1). ARB has since amended the California exhaust emission 

standards for off-road diesel engines to harmonize with the federal requirements. 

Table 5-2 summarizes the existing and future emission standards for these engines. 
V-3 OFF-ROAD CI ENGINES 

Table 5-2 

ARB and U.S. EPA Exhaust Emission Standards for 

New Off-Road Diesel Engines ≥ 25 hp 

(g/bhp-hr) 

Maximum 

Rated 

Power 

(hp)

Tier Model Year NOx HC NOx+NMHC CO PM

25=<50 Tier 1 2000-2003 — — 7.1 4.1 0.60 

 Tier 2 2004-2007 — — 5.6 4.1 0.45 

 Tier 4 Interim 2008-2012 — — 5.6 4.1 0.22 

 Tier 4 2013 and later — — 3.5 4.1 0.02 

Tier 1 2000-2003(a) 6.9 — — — — 

Tier 2 2004-2007 — — 5.6 3.7 0.30 

50=<75 

Tier 3(b) 2008-2011 — — 3.5 3.7 0.30 

 Tier 4 Interim 2008-2012 — — 3.5 3.7 0.22 

 Tier 4 2013 and later — — 3.5 3.7 0.02 

Tier 1 2000-2003(a) 6.9 — — — — 

Tier 2 2004-2007 — — 5.6 3.7 0.30 

75=<100 

Tier 3 2008-2011 — — 3.5 3.7 0.30 

 Tier 4 Interim(c) 2012-2014 2.5 0.14 — 3.7 0.015 

 Tier 4 2015 and later 0.3 0.14 — 3.7 0.015 

Tier 1 2000-2002(a) 6.9 — — — — 

Tier 2 2003-2006 — — 4.9 3.7 0.22 

100=<175 

Tier 3 2007-2011 — — 3.0 2.6 0.22 

 Tier 4 Interim(c) 2012-2014 2.5 0.14 — 3.7 0.015 

 Tier 4 2015 and later 0.3 0.14 — 3.7 0.015 

Tier 1 1996-2002 6.9 1.0 — 8.5 0.40 

Tier 2 2003-2005 — — 4.9 2.6 0.15 

175=<300 

Tier 3(d) 2006-2010 — — 3.0 2.6 0.15 

 Tier 4 Interim(c) 2011-2013 1.5 0.14 — 2.6 0.015 

 Tier 4 2013 and later 0.3 0.14 — 2.2 0.015 

Tier 1 1996-2000 6.9 1.0 — 8.5 0.40 

Tier 2 2001-2005 — — 4.8 2.6 0.15 

300=<600 

Tier 3(d) 2006-2010 — — 3.0 2.6 0.15 

 Tier 4 Interim(c) 2011-2013 1.5 0.14 — 2.6 0.015 

 Tier 4 2013 and later 0.3 0.14 — 2.2 0.015 

Tier 1 1996-2001 6.9 1.0 — 8.5 0.40 

Tier 2 2002-2005 — — 4.8 2.6 0.15 

600=<750 

Tier 3(d) 2006-2010 — — 3.0 2.6 0.15 

 Tier 4 Interim(c) 2011-2013 1.5 0.14 — 2.6 0.015 

 Tier 4 2013 and later 0.3 0.14 — 2.2 0.015 

≥750 Tier 1 2000-2005 6.9 1.0 — 8.5 0.4 

 Tier 2 2006-2010 — — 4.8 2.6 0.15 

Tier 4 Interim 2011-2014 2.6 0.30 — 2.6 0.07 

Tier 4 2015 and later 2.6 0.14 — 2.6 0.03 

(a) ARB model years, U.S. EPA model years for Tier 1 start at 1998 for 50=<75 hp and 75=<100 hp, and 1997 for 

100=<175 hp. 

(b) Engine families in this power category may meet the Tier 3 PM standard instead of the Tier 4 interim PM standard 

in exchange for introducing the final Tier 4 PM standard in 2012. 

(c) The implementation schedule shown is the three-year alternate NOx approach. Other schedules are available. 

(d) Caterpillar, Cummins, Detroit Diesel Corporation, and Volvo Truck Corporation have agreed to comply with these 

standards by 2005. 
V-4 OFF-ROAD CI ENGINES 

2. Flexibility Provisions for Equipment Manufacturers 

Current regulations for off-road heavy-duty CI engines contain a flexibility provision that 

allows original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to use engines not meeting current 

applicable emission standards in their existing product line for new equipment. Thus, 

engines that are certified under the flexibility provisions do not comply with current 

applicable emission standards, and are not eligible as replacement engines for the 

Carl Moyer Program. The flexibility provision took effect with the introduction of Tier 2 

engines (Tier 1 for power categories less than 50 hp) and applies separately for each 

engine power category. Engine families certified under the flexibility provision must 

have previously been certified to a prior engine standard, for example Tier 1. 

There are four main elements to the flexibility program: 1) a percent-of-production 

allowance, 2) a small-volume allowance, 3) continuance of the Tier 1 allowance to use 

up existing inventories of engines, and 4) availability of hardship relief. The adoption of 

the Tier 4 emission standards added several additional components to the program 

including technical hardship allowances, retroactive use of flexibilities, delayed 

implementation, an economic hardship allowance, an early introduction incentive, and a 

labeling requirement. The percent-of-production allowance is the largest component of 

the program and allows each equipment manufacturer to use flexibility engines in its 

new product line over a seven-year period in cumulative quantities that sum up to 

80 percent of a single year’s national production at the end of the seven years. 

Except for engines used in flexibility allowances prior to January 1, 2007, flexibility 

engines will be labeled according to the requirements of Title 13, CCR, sections 2423(d) 

and 2424(c). In addition, the Executive Order (EO) for engines certified under this 

program state that the engines were certified in compliance with Title 13, CCR, 

section 2423(d). 

3. Averaging, Banking, and Trading 

Off-road engine manufacturers are allowed the flexibility to participate in an ABT 

program in lieu of only producing engines that comply with the current emission 

standards. The emission benefits from an engine certified to a lower Family Emission 

Limit (FEL) may be used to offset the emissions from engines certified to a higher FEL 

levels within the engine manufacturer’s ABT program. As a result, ABT emission credits 

are generated from the lower FEL level engine since it is certified lower than the 

required emission standards. These engines are only eligible for Carl Moyer Program 

funding as part of repower projects. In these cases, the emission factor based on the 

applicable emission standard, not the certified FEL level, will be used in emission 

calculations. The FEL emission level is identified on the EO and is located under the 

emission standard. 
V-5 OFF-ROAD CI ENGINES 

4. Tier 4 Early Introduction Incentives for Engine Manufacturers 

(“Engine Offsets”) 

Engine manufacturers may voluntarily certify engines to the Tier 4 standards prior to 

2011 in exchange for making fewer Tier 4 engines after 2011. These early introduction 

Tier 4 engines are not eligible for Carl Moyer Program funding. These engines are first 

offered to OEMs to use as part of the flexibility program (see Section III. A. 2 above). 

Should the OEM decline the engine, the engine manufacturer may use it as part of the 

“Tier 4 Early Introduction Incentive for Engine Manufacturers” created by Title 13, CCR, 

section 2423(b)(6). 

Engines used as part of the “Tier 4 Early Introduction Incentive for Engine 

Manufacturers” must be in production by September 1 of the year prior to the first model 

year when the standards would otherwise be applicable, where the model year means 

the manufacturer’s annual production period which includes January 1 of a calendar 

year or, if the manufacturer has no annual production period, the calendar year. 

Engines sold during the transitional “phase-in” model years (years where the Tier 4 

interim standards are in effect) are not considered “early” introduction engines. 

These engines will meet all federal labeling requirements but will add the following 

statement: “This engine meets U.S. EPA emission standards under 40 CFR 

1039.104(a)” and an additional statement of “meeting ARB requirements under 13 CCR 

section 2423(b)(6)”. In addition, the EO for engines certified under this program will 

reference that the engines were certified in compliance with 13 CCR section 2423(b)(6). 

B. Upcoming Regulations 

The Board approved a cargo handling equipment regulation in December 2005 that 

applies to diesel-fueled cargo handling equipment at California's ports and intermodal 

railyards. Cargo handling equipment is used to transfer goods and includes equipment 

such as yard tractors (hostlers), rubber tire gantry cranes, top handlers, side handlers, 

forklifts, loaders, and mobile cranes. Specific Carl Moyer Program project criteria are 

being identified for this equipment and will be available in early 2006. 

The ARB is also developing a control measure to reduce diesel particulate matter 

emissions from in-use, off-road, diesel-fueled, mobile equipment greater than or equal 

to 25 horsepower. This includes, but is not limited to, construction equipment, mining 

equipment, airport ground support equipment, and industrial equipment such as forklifts. 

The proposal will not cover equipment used in agricultural operations, cargo handling at 

ports and intermodal rail facilities, or equipment already covered by an in-use rule or 

agreement. This item is scheduled to be heard by the Board in 2006. If approved, it 

may affect project criteria for off-road projects. 
V-6 OFF-ROAD CI ENGINES 

IV. Potential Projects 

The Carl Moyer Program can achieve significant emission reductions from off-road 

diesel engines operating in California. All eligible projects must use certified technology 

or technology that has been verified by the ARB for real and quantifiable emission 

reductions that go beyond any regulatory requirement. The project criteria included in 

this chapter are designed to ensure that emission reductions achieved by the 

deployment of reduced-emission engines or retrofit technologies are surplus, real, 

quantifiable, and enforceable. 

Off-road projects fall into three distinct categories: 1) new purchase of equipment 

equipped with an emission certified engine, 2) repower with an emission certified 

engine, and 3) retrofit with a verified diesel emission control strategy (DECS). Based on 

past experience, most projects will likely fall under the repower category for off-road 

projects. Emerging reduced-emission technologies, such as engine retrofit or new 

engine technologies, will become eligible for program participation after ARB grants 

verification or certification for sale in California. Districts have the option to fund the 

cost difference between conventional diesel fuel and an alternative fuel such as 

alternative-diesel fuel, CNG, LNG, and LPG with matching funds. The fuel purchase 

must be an integral part of an engine purchase, repower, or retrofit project. 

Auxiliary engines on mobile equipment are considered portable engines and are 

regulated by the ARB’s Portable Equipment Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM). 

Auxiliary engines that are an integral part of the vehicle’s or barge’s main function, and 

are not covered under any district rule may be eligible for Carl Moyer Program funding. 

Because the ATCM requires that all portable engines be certified engines by 

January 1, 2010, projects must begin by January 1, 2007, to meet the minimum three 

year project life requirement [ARB, 2004a]. 

Class 7 diesel forklifts are the only diesel forklifts eligible for Carl Moyer Program 

funding and are subject to all off-road project criteria. The district must obtain and verify 

documentation of the classification of the forklift prior to funding. Class 7 forklifts 

typically have a lift capacity of over 6,000 pounds, pneumatic tires, and internal 

combustion, compression ignition engines powered almost exclusively by diesel. Many 

of the characteristics of these forklifts, including pneumatic tires for rough terrain, make 

them exclusively for outdoor use. 

A. New Purchase 

For most engine categories, the current standard is Tier 2 or Tier 3 with an optional 

Blue Sky Standard that applies through Tier 3. However, at this time, no engines have 

been certified to the Blue Sky standard. New equipment having an engine that was 

certified to any FEL level is not eligible for new purchase in the Carl Moyer Program. 

This is because the emission level from an eligible FEL engine in the new equipment 

would be considered to be at the level of the required emission standard for that engine, 
V-7 OFF-ROAD CI ENGINES 

through the averaging provision of the ABT program discussed previously. Therefore, 

the emissions from an FEL engine in the new equipment would not be surplus when 

compared to the emissions from a new engine meeting the required emission 

standards. 

For some off-road equipment such as yard tractors, it may be possible to purchase new 

equipment with a new on-road engine certified to ARB’s optional NOx emission credit 

standard instead of a new off-road engine. Where this is the case, emission benefits 

relative to the baseline engine are calculated based on on-road engine emission factors. 

If an applicant provides ARB with documentation showing that in past practice, the fleet 

has been powered by off-road engines, then the baseline emission may be calculated 

using the off-road engine emission factors. 

B. Repower 

Replacement of the in-use engine (i.e., repower) with an emission-certified engine 

instead of rebuilding the existing engine to its original uncontrolled specifications is the 

most common type of off-road project. Although this is commonly a diesel-to-diesel 

repower, significant NOx and PM benefits are achieved due to the high emission levels 

of the uncontrolled engine being replaced. Eligible engines are those that are certified 

to the current applicable emission standard or to an optional credit emission standard. 

For off-road equipment with similar modes of operation to on-road vehicles, other 

possible options include the replacement of an older uncontrolled diesel off-road engine 

with a new or rebuilt on-road engine certified to an emission standard equal to or lower 

than the Tier 2 off-road emission standard or a newer emission-certified alternative fuel 

engine. 

The Carl Moyer Program Guidelines require repower with a newer engine meeting 

current applicable emission standards (i.e., Tier 2 or Tier 3). If this is not a technical or 

practical option, as determined by the engine manufacturer, a newer emission-certified 

engine that meets the Tier 1 standards may be used. Off-road CI engines have 

undergone major design changes to meet new and more stringent emission regulations. 

Off-road engine manufacturers have made significant hardware modifications in order to 

meet the Tier 2 emission standards for engines with horsepower rating of 100 hp and 

greater. The incorporation of air-to-air aftercoolers and other auxiliary systems have 

resulted in Tier 2 engines for some applications that are physically different than the 

earlier Tier 1 engines. As a result, some existing equipment cannot accept Tier 2 

engines without extensive modifications. This may involve cutting the equipment frame 

to gain adequate space for the Tier 2 engine. In these situations, technical, cost, and 

safety considerations make a new Tier 2 engine repower infeasible. Thus, the use of a 

newer emission-certified engine meeting the earlier Tier 1 emission standard may be 

justified. Specific information on the eligibility of these projects is further described in 

the project criteria. 

In addition, ARB staff requires that all repower projects funded by the 

Carl Moyer Program install a retrofit device if one is available. ARB staff requires that 
V-8 OFF-ROAD CI ENGINES 

the highest level ARB-verified retrofit device be installed for retrofit projects if the project 

meets the cost effectiveness limit of $14,300 per weighted ton. If a Level 3 device is not 

feasible or does not meet the cost-effectiveness limit, a Level 2 device must be 

installed; if no Level 3 or Level 2 devices are feasible a Level 1 device must be installed. 

Due to limited current availability of retrofit devices for off-road engines it is likely that a 

retrofit will not be available in the near term. Repower projects are not disqualified from 

participation in the Carl Moyer Program if retrofit devices are not available, feasible, or if 

the cost of the available retrofit places the project over cost-effectiveness limit. 

Funding is not available for projects where a spark-ignition engine (i.e., natural gas, 

gasoline, etc.) is replaced with a diesel engine. 

C. Retrofit 

Retrofit refers to modifications made to an engine and/or fuel system such that the 

specifications of the retrofitted engine are not the same as the original engine, please 

refer to Appendix F for more detailed information. The most straightforward retrofit 

projects are add-on after treatments. Other retrofits include upgrades of components 

that can be accomplished at the time of engine rebuild and result in a lower emission 

configuration. To qualify for Carl Moyer Program funding, the retrofit technology must 

be verified for sale in California and must comply with established durability and 

warranty requirements. Retrofits are verified for diesel PM reductions of: Level 1 - 

25 percent, Level 2 - 50 percent, and Level 3 - 85 percent. Although retrofit technology 

options for off-road diesel engines are limited, it is possible that retrofit technologies that 

have been used to reduce NOx and PM emissions from on-road heavy-duty diesel 

engines may be used to control off-road engine emissions in some applications. More 

information on DECS, including a list of currently verified DECS, may be found at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/verdev.htm. 

V. Project Criteria

Participating districts retain the authority to impose more stringent additional 

requirements in order to address local concerns. 

A. General 

• Emission reductions obtained through Carl Moyer Program projects must not be 

required by any federal, state or local regulation, memorandum of 

agreement/understanding with a regulatory agency, settlement agreement, 

mitigation requirement, or other legal mandate. 

• Projects must meet a cost-effectiveness of $14,300 per weighed ton of NOx + ROG 

+ PM10 reduced, calculated in accordance with the cost-effectiveness methodology 

discussed in this chapter. 
V-9 OFF-ROAD CI ENGINES 

• No emission reductions generated by the Carl Moyer Program shall be used as 

marketable emission reduction credits, or to satisfy any emission reduction 

obligation of any person or entity. 

• No project funded by the Carl Moyer Program shall be used for credit under any 

federal or state emission averaging, banking, and trading program. 

• Carl Moyer Program grants can be no greater than a project’s incremental cost. The 

incremental cost is the cost of the project minus the baseline cost. The incremental 

cost shall be reduced by the value of any current financial incentive that reduces the 

project price, including, but not limited to, tax credits or deductions, grants, or other 

public financial assistance. 

• Projects must have a minimum project life of three years. ARB may approve a 

shorter project life in writing for good cause on a case-by-case basis. Projects with 

shorter lives may be subject to additional funding restrictions, such as a lower 

cost-effectiveness limit or a project cost cap. 

• The contract term must extend to the end of the project life. 

• Potential projects that fall outside of these criteria may be considered on a 

case-by-case basis if evidence provided to the air district suggests potential surplus, 

real, quantifiable, and enforceable emission reduction benefits. 

• Air districts must consult with ARB staff to determine eligibility of all projects 

considered for funding on case-by-case basis. All projects considered on a 

case-by-case basis must receive ARB approval prior to receiving program funding. 

• The certification emission standard and Tier designation for the engine must be 

determined from the Executive Order issued for that engine, not by the engine model 

year. Executive Orders for off-road engines may be found at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/offroad/cert/cert,php 

• Reduced-emission engines or retrofits must be certified/verified for sale in California 

and must comply with durability and warranty requirements. These may include new 

ARB certified engines, ARB certified after-market part engine/control devices, and 

verified diesel emission control strategies. 

• Engines participating in the ABT program that are certified to FELs higher than the 

applicable emission standards, as designated on the Executive Order, are ineligible 

to participate in the Carl Moyer Program. 

• Equipment manufactured under the “Flexibility Provisions for Equipment 

Manufacturers”, as detailed in Title 13, CCR, section 2423(d), are ineligible for 

Carl Moyer Program funding as a replacement engine.
V-10 OFF-ROAD CI ENGINES 

• Engines that are participating in the “Tier 4 Early Introduction Incentive for Engine 

Manufacturers” program, as detailed in Title 13, CCR, section 2423(b)(6), are 

ineligible for Carl Moyer Program funding. 

• Auxiliary engines on mobile equipment are eligible for Carl Moyer Program funding 

through January 1, 2007 if they are an integral part of the vehicle’s or vessel’s main 

function and are not covered by any district rule. 

• Class 7 diesel forklifts are the only diesel forklifts eligible for diesel-to-diesel repower 

in the Carl Moyer Program and are subject to all off-road project criteria. The district 

must obtain and verify documentation of the classification of the forklift prior to 

funding. 

• Funded projects must operate at least 75 percent of total equipment operation hours 

in California. 

• Default project life 

Off-road new purchase 10 years 

Off-road repower 7 years 

Off-road repower and retrofit 5 years 

Retrofit 5 years 

Applicants must provide documentation to justify a longer project life. 

B. New Purchase 

• Engines must be certified to an ARB optional NOx or NOx+NMHC emission credit 

standard for off-road diesel engines that is at least 30 percent lower than current 

applicable emission standards or for some equipment, such as yard tractors, an 

on-road engine certified to ARB’s optional NOx emission credit standard 

• Engines that are certified to FEL levels are not eligible for funding in new equipment 

purchase projects. 

C. Repower 

• For repower projects that replace uncontrolled engines in existing equipment, the 

replacement engine must be certified to either: 1) the current applicable emission 

standard except as noted below, 2) to a FEL NOx or NOx+NMHC level that is lower 

than the required emission standard, or 3) to an optional credit emission standard as 

applicable for the horsepower rating. 

• For equipment repower projects that replace emission-certified engines in existing 

equipment, the replacement engine must be certified to a NOx emission standard 
V-11 OFF-ROAD CI ENGINES 

that is at least 15 percent lower than the emission standard(s) applicable to the 

existing engine. 

• Engines used in equipment repower projects may be new, emission-certified rebuilt, 

or emission-certified remanufactured units. Eligible new engine are those offered by 

the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) or by a non-OEM who demonstrates to 

the ARB that the repower is functionally equivalent with regard to emissions, 

durability, and safety as described in Appendix G. Eligible rebuilt or remanufactured 

engines are those offered by the OEM or by a non-OEM rebuilder who demonstrates 

to the ARB that the rebuilt engine and parts are functionally equivalent from an 

emissions and durability standpoint to the original engine and components being 

replaced as described in Appendix G. Rebuilt and remanufactured engines that are 

not re-certified to new emission standards shall use the emission standards 

associated with the original engine block. 

• ARB strongly recommends that districts give priority to Tier 2 or Tier 3 repowers. 

However, ARB recognizes that in some cases repower with the current applicable 

standard is not possible. In these cases a Tier 1 repower may be allowed if the 

conditions below are met and the project meets a project cost-effectiveness cap of 

$6,000 per weighted ton of emission reductions for the repower portion of the 

project. Tier 1 repowers of specialty equipment not meeting the project costeffectiveness cap may be allowed on a case-by-case basis. 

• If repower with an engine meeting the current applicable standard is technically 

infeasible, unsafe, or cost prohibitive, the replacement must meet the most current 

practicable previously applicable emission standard. The district shall determine 

eligibility of a Tier 1 engine repower project on a case-by-case basis by obtaining a 

Tier 2/Tier 3 repower exemption using one of the two following methods: 

1. The Carl Moyer Program application may include a written statement of 

reason(s) from the engine manufacturer verifying that a particular piece of 

equipment cannot accommodate an engine meeting current standards without 

major modifications, safety risks, or exorbitant cost. The letter must include 

information on the equipment being repowered, the engine being replaced, the 

reason why an engine meeting the currently applicable standard cannot be used 

(including details on required equipment modifications with pictures of the 

equipment, engineering drawings as necessary, and cost for the Tier 2/Tier 3 

engine), and the proposed Tier 1 replacement engine. Districts must submit the 

written statement of reason(s) to ARB as an attachment to the annual report. 

2. The engine manufacturer may provide ARB with sufficient information on engine 

and/or equipment models for which Tier 2/Tier 3 repowers are available, and 

engine and/or equipment models for which Tier 2/Tier 3 repowers are not 

feasible. Engine manufacturers who are interested in pursuing this option should 

contact ARB. ARB staff will maintain a list of such engines and/or equipment 

models and make that list available to district staff. 
V-12 OFF-ROAD CI ENGINES 

• If an ARB-verified diesel emission control strategy is available for the replacement 

engine, ARB requires installation of the retrofit verified to the highest level, as 

discussed in the retrofit section of these project criteria, which still meets the 

cost-effectiveness limit of $14,300. 

• For repowers of equipment with baseline engines manufactured under the flexibility 

provision, as detailed in Title 13, CCR, section 2423(d), baseline emission rates 

shall be determined by using the latest applicable Tier emission standard for that 

engine model year and horsepower rating. Alternative emission rates will be allowed 

with documentation of the actual emission rates from the manufacturer based on the 

engine serial number. Districts must submit all documentation to ARB as an 

attachment to the annual report. 

• Replacement of an uncontrolled diesel off-road engine with a new or rebuilt on-road 

engine certified to an emission standard equal to or lower than the Tier 2 off-road 

emission standard or a newer emission-certified alternative-fuel engine is eligible for 

funding in off-road equipment with similar modes of operation to on-road vehicles. 

Other equipment may be eligible for funding on a case-by-case basis. These 

repowers must meet all other applicable project criteria. 

D. Retrofit 

• Only ARB-verified retrofits are eligible for funding. Emerging engine retrofits will 

become eligible for Program participation once ARB grants verification for sale in 

California. Non-verified technologies may be considered on a case by case basis if: 

1) an application for verification of the retrofit or add-on equipment on the proposed 

engine category is pending, or 2) for highly specialized equipment where it is unlikely 

that a retrofit would be verified. 

• Retrofit projects that control PM must use the highest level ARB-verified technology 

available for the equipment being retrofitted. The following are the diesel PM 

reductions for each verified level: 

– Level 1 - 25 percent; 

– Level 2 - 50 percent; and 

– Level 3 - 85 percent. 

• Retrofit projects that control NOx must reduce NOx emissions from uncontrolled 

engines to the current applicable emission standard. If this is not feasible, the 

project must reduce NOx to at least the applicable Tier 1 NOx emission level 

(6.9 g/bhp-hr or lower). For emission-certified engines, the retrofit technology must 

be able to reduce NOx emissions by at least 15 percent. 

• The cost of the retrofit, filters, and maintenance of the retrofit device needed during 

the project life may be paid for with incentive funding provided it meets the 

cost-effectiveness limit. 
V-13 OFF-ROAD CI ENGINES 

E. Scrap 

• Scrap requirements are described in the 2005 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, 

Part I, Chapter 2: Administration of the Carl Moyer Program. 

VI. Cost-Effectiveness 

To receive Carl Moyer Program funding, each project must meet the maximum 

cost-effective threshold of $14,300 per weighted ton of covered pollutants reduced. 

Only funds provided by the Carl Moyer Program and local district matching funds are to 

be used in determining cost-effectiveness. 

Emission reduction benefits represent the difference in the emission levels of the 

existing baseline technology relative to the newer, reduced-emission technology. 

Baseline and reduced engine emission factors are listed in Table B-12 in Appendix B. 

These factors reflect preliminary emission data based on model input values to the 

OFFROAD emission inventory model for engines greater than or equal to 25 hp. 

A detailed description of how to calculate cost-effectiveness can be found in 

Appendix C. Off-road emission reduction calculations will use either the fuel or hour 

based formula as discussed Appendix C. The equipment activity level must be based 

on actual hours reading from an hour-meter or other similarly appropriate 

documentation provided by the applicant (i.e., fuel receipts). Future annual hours of 

equipment operation for determining emission reductions must be based only on 

readings from an installed and fully operational hour-meter. A properly functioning 

hour-meter is required to support equipment activity information included in the 

application for Carl Moyer Program funding. See the Administrative Part of the 

Guidelines for additional information on this topic. In addition, specific 

cost-effectiveness criteria and sample calculations for off-road projects may be found in 

Section V of Appendix D. 

VII. Minimum Project Requirements 

These are minimum project application requirements; the district has full authority to 

require additional application, reporting, monitoring, and scrapping requirements. 

A. Application 

Districts solicit bids for reduced-emission projects from off-road diesel equipment 

operators. The applicant must provide the minimum information illustrated in Table 5-3 

below. 
V-14 OFF-ROAD CI ENGINES 

Table 5-3 

Minimum Application Information for Off-road CI Projects 

Applicant Information

Organization, Company or Individual Name 

Street Address 

City, County, State, Zip Code 

Primary Contact Name 

Primary Contact Phone Number 

Person with Contract Signing Authority 

Person who Filled Out Funding Application 

Project Address (if different from above) 

Equipment Information

Equipment Type/Function 

Equipment Make 

Equipment Model 

Equipment Model Year 

Equipment Serial Number 

Number of Main Engines on this Equipment 

Activity Information

Will the piece of equipment have a 

 functioning hour meter for the full project 

 life? (yes/no) 

Equipment Annual Hours of Operation or 

Gallons Fuel Consumption 

Percent Operation in California 

Percent Operation in Air District 

Project Life 

Electronic Monitoring Unit (EMU) 

Will a new eligible EMU be installed as part 

 of this project? (yes/no) 

EMU Make 

EMU Model 

EMU Model Year 

EMU ID Number 

EMU Cost (optional) 

 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION -- 

NEW PURCHASE PROJECTS ONLY 

Projected Year of Purchase of New Equipment 

Engine Information (for each project engine) 

New Engine Family 

New Engine Make 

New Engine Model 

New Engine Serial Number 

New Engine Horsepower 

NEW PURCHASE PROJECTS ONLY(cont.) 

New Engine Tier 

Fuel Type 

Baseline Cost 

New Equipment Cost 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION -- 

REPOWER PROJECT ONLY 

Number of Main Engines to be Repowered 

Engine Information (for each project engine) 

 Baseline Fuel Type 

 Baseline Engine Make, Model, and Year 

 Baseline Engine Horsepower 

 Baseline Engine Tier 

 Baseline Engine Serial Number 

 Engine Annual Gallons Fuel Consumption 

 or Hours of Operation 

 Reduced Engine Fuel Type 

 Reduced Engine Make, Model, and Year 

 Reduced Engine Horsepower 

 Reduced Engine Tier 

 Reduced Engine Serial Number 

 (if available) 

 Reduced Engine Family 

 Engine Baseline Cost 

 New Engine Cost 

 New Engine Installation Cost (optional) 

 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION --

RETROFITS ONLY 

Engine Make, Model, and Year 

Engine Horsepower 

Engine Serial Number 

Engine Tier 

Fuel Type 

ARB-Verified Retrofit Device Name 

Retrofit Device Serial Number 

Retrofit Device Verification Level 

ARB-Verified NOx Reduction (%) 

ARB-Verified PM Reduction (%) 

ARB-Verified ROG Reduction (%) 

Retrofit Device ARB Executive Order Number 

Cost of Retrofit 

Cost of Installation (optional) 

Cost of Maintenance for Life of Project 

(optional) 

A disclosure must also be included stating that the proposed project has not been 

funded and is not being considered for funding by another air district, ARB, or any other 

public agency. Any applicant who is found to have submitted multiple applications for 
V-15 OFF-ROAD CI ENGINES 

the same project may be banned from submitting future applications to any and all 

Carl Moyer Program solicitations and may be subject to criminal sanctions. A project 

funded cooperatively by multiple air districts is eligible for funding if the project 

parameters are coordinated amongst the participating districts and the project meets all 

applicable Carl Moyer Program criteria. Applicants are allowed to re-apply for project 

funding if a previous application has been rejected and is no longer being considered for 

funding. 

Third party applications are not allowed. The owner of the engine must sign and agree 

to the application. However, a third party (e.g. engine dealer or distributor) may 

complete an application or part of an application on an owner’s behalf. Applications 

must include a signature section for third parties. The third party signature section must 

include signature and date lines, and blanks for the third party to list how much they are 

being paid, if anything, to complete the application and what source of funds are being 

used to pay them. To make the Carl Moyer Program accessible to all potential 

applicants, including applicants that cannot afford to hire third party assistance, districts 

are encouraged to provide technical assistance to applicants in completing the 

application. 

B. Reporting and Monitoring 

Districts must abide by all reporting and monitoring requirements described in 

Part I-Program Administration. Monitoring of project progress ensures that the vehicle 

or engine is operated as stated in the program application. Fleet operators and transit 

agencies participating in the Carl Moyer Program are required to keep appropriate 

records during the life of the funded project. Records must be retained and updated for 

the duration of the project life and made available at the request of the district or ARB.

IV. References 

ARB, 2000. Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons. Public Hearing to Consider 

Amendments to Off-road Compression-ignition Engine Regulations: 2000 and Later 

Emissions Standards, Compliance Requirements and Test Procedures. 

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

ARB, 2004a. Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons. Proposed Amendments to the 

regulation for Statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program. 

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

ARB, 2004b. Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons. Public Hearing to Consider 

Amendments to the California Off-road Emissions Regulations for Compression-ignition 

Engines and Equipment. http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/offrdcie/isor.pdf
VI-1 OFF-ROAD LSI ENGINES 

Chapter Six 

 LARGE SPARK-IGNITION OFF-ROAD EQUIPMENT 

Due to the upcoming regulations for large spark-ignition (LSI) equipment that include 

forklifts, this chapter has been added to replace the Forklift Chapter in the 2003 

Guidelines. This revision of the Guidelines expands funding opportunities from only 

forklifts to all LSI equipment types. The chapter provides an overview of off-road LSI 

equipment and discusses the emissions from LSI equipment, the State and federal 

emission standards, and potential types of projects eligible for funding. 

The Carl Moyer Program funds projects that provide emission reductions that are 

surplus to any regulation. Because proposed regulations for LSI equipment are 

scheduled for consideration by the Board, staff will provide specific criteria to districts 

through a technical advisory approved by the Executive Officer once the Board has 

approved the proposed regulations. 

In the interim, districts may continue to use the 2003 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines to 

fund projects or request consideration of other projects on a case-by-case basis. 

I. Introduction

LSI engines are typically derived from automobile engines and are most commonly 

fueled by gasoline or liquefied petroleum gas. A small number are fueled by 

compressed natural gas (CNG), and some have dual fuel capability. Off-road LSI 

equipment includes the following types of equipment: large turf care equipment, 

scrubber/sweepers, airport service vehicles, and a variety of other agricultural, 

construction, and general industrial equipment. The largest group of LSI equipment in 

California is forklifts, representing almost half of the LSI inventory. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has sole authority to regulate 

new farm and construction equipment less than 175 hp. However, the Air Resources 

Board (ARB) has authority to regulate off-road equipment equal to or greater than 

175 hp, and all in-use off-road equipment and non-preempted off-road equipment less 

than 175 hp. 

II. Emissions 

Uncontrolled LSI engines can emit more than 12 grams per brake horsepower-hour 

(g/bhp-hr) of oxides of nitrogen plus hydrocarbons (NOx + HC). Statewide, the 

NOx + HC emissions from LSI equipment are approximately 70 tons per day. 

The equipment categories shown in Table 6-1 represent the largest contribution to the 

overall off-road LSI inventory and are the focus of the proposed LSI regulation. 

Although these three categories account for only 60 percent of the off-road LSI 

equipment population in 2004, they account for more than 80 percent of the NOx + HC 
VI-2 OFF-ROAD LSI ENGINES 

Table 6-1 

Statewide Emissions from Off-Road LSI Equipment 

(tons per day) 

Equipment 2004 2010 2020 

Category NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG 

Industrial Forklifts 40.4 11.8 19.9 5.3 15.6 3.4 

Airport Ground 

Support Equipment 3.3 0.6 1.5 0.3 1.0 0.2 

Sweeper/Scrubbers 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 

Total 44.5 12.6 21.7 5.7 16.8 3.7 

off-road LSI emission inventory. As shown in Table 6-1, most of those emissions are 

from forklifts, 80 percent of which are in large fleets. 

III. Regulatory Requirements 

A. Emission Standards 

In 1998, the ARB adopted LSI regulations that addressed the State's obligations under 

the 1994 State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP is California’s federally required 

plan describing how the State will reduce emissions and meet federal clean air 

standards. 

That regulation required all new LSI engines over 25 horsepower sold in California to be 

certified to a standard of 3.0 g/bhp-hr of NOx + HC. This was to be phased in from 

2001 to 2004. In 2002, U.S. EPA adopted a more stringent standard requiring that new 

LSI engines meet a 2.0 standard of g/bhp-hr of NOx + HC beginning in 2007. 

B. Proposed Regulation 

In order to achieve California’s clean air goals, the 2003 SIP calls for further reductions 

from new and in-use LSI engines. 

1. Emission Standards 

The ARB staff has developed a proposal that would provide more low emission options 

for equipment purchases. Staff is proposing to require 2007 model year engines to 

meet a 2.0 g/bhp-hr standard and 2010 and subsequent model year engines to meet a 

0.6 g/bhp-hr standard. ARB staff is also proposing NOx + HC optional standards so that 

new 2007 engines can be certified to 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 1.0, and 1.5 g/bhp-hr. For model 

years 2010 and beyond, new engines could be certified to 0.1, 0.2, and 0.4 g/bhp-hr. 
VI-3 OFF-ROAD LSI ENGINES 

2. Fleet Rules 

As part of the staff proposal, equipment fleets would have to meet average emission 

requirements. Large and mid-size fleets of forklifts, airport ground support equipment 

(GSE), sweeper/scrubbers (with a displacement greater than one liter), and non-GSE 

industrial tow tractors would have specific emission averages to meet. 

Table 6-2 lists the proposed standards required of manufacturers as well as proposed 

compliance dates for fleets. The proposed averages that fleets would be required to 

meet would be based on the total number of pieces of equipment in the fleet. 

Equipment with hour-meters documenting usage of less than 251 hours per year would 

be exempt from the fleet average emission level requirements. 

Table 6-2 

Current and Proposed Emission Standards and Fleet Average Requirements 

(g/bhp-hr of NOx + HC) 

LSI Fleet Type 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2016 

Current Standards 

(CA and U.S. EPA) 3.0 2.0 

Proposed Standards 3.0 2.0 0.6 

Proposed 

Optional Standards 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 1.0, and 1.5 0.1, 0.2, and 0.4 

Proposed Fleet Average 

Large Fleet Forklift 2.4 2.4 1.7 1.7 1.1 1.1 

Proposed Fleet Average 

Mid-size Fleet Forklift 2.6 2.6 2.0 2.0 1.4 1.4 

Proposed Fleet Average 

Non-forklift 3.0 3.0 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.5 

Proposed Fleet Average 

Small Fleet 3.0 

Proposed Fleet Average 

Ground Support Equipment 3.0 

Proposed Agricultural Crop 

Preparation Services Fleets 12 11.1 10.2 9.3 8.4 7.5 6.6 5.7 3 

IV. Potential Projects 

The ARB encourages replacement of LSI equipment with zero-emission equipment 

where feasible. Information about zero-emission strategies is provided in Chapter 12. 

Below are brief descriptions of potential projects. Off-road projects fall into three 

categories: 1) new purchase of an emission certified engine, 2) repower with an 

emission certified engine, and 3) retrofit with ARB-verified technology. 
VI-4 OFF-ROAD LSI ENGINES 

A. New Purchase 

New or expanding facilities purchasing LSI equipment with engines that are certified to 

30 percent below the current standard may qualify for funding if the emission reductions 

are shown to exceed any regulatory requirements or LSI regulations adopted by ARB. 

This could be accomplished by purchasing equipment that is electric or certified to an 

optional low emission standard. 

Since replacing an older electric forklift with a newer electric model would not reduce 

emissions, projects with "electric to electric" replacements are excluded. Purchase of 

new CNG LSI equipment may also be eligible if it is certified to meet optional low 

emission standards. 

B. Repower 

Repower refers to the replacement of an existing engine with a newer engine certified to 

lower emission standards. This is an alternative to rebuilding an existing engine to the 

original higher emitting specifications the existing engine. The replacement engine 

must include all the emission control components that an engine certified to the 

standard would have as stated in the Executive Order. There may be some limits to 

repowering of LSI equipment because installing a newer engine design into existing 

equipment may not always be feasible. The baseline emissions for these projects 

would be the emission rate of the existing engine. The baseline cost would be the cost 

to rebuild. Repower projects may qualify for funding if the emission reductions are 

shown to exceed any regulatory requirement or LSI regulations adopted by ARB. 

Repowers of certified engines must provide at least a 15 percent emission reduction 

from the baseline engine and repowers of uncontrolled engines must meet the current 

emission standard. 

C. Retrofit 

Retrofit refers to modifications or additions made to an engine and/or fuel system such 

that the specifications of the retrofitted engine are not the same as the original engine. 

Data has shown that existing LSI engines retrofitted with closed loop, catalyst-based 

emission systems could achieve emission reductions similar to those achieved from 

new engines designed with catalysts. Retrofits for LSI equipment will likely incorporate 

advanced automotive-inspired emission control technologies that dramatically reduce 

emissions while meeting operational requirements. (See Appendix F for more 

discussion on retrofits.) This technology has been in use for about 10 years on a variety 

of LSI equipment. A retrofit would usually be installed at the time of engine rebuild or a 

regularly scheduled maintenance. To qualify for Carl Moyer Program funding, the 

emission control technology must be verified for sale in California. The ARB has an 

interim verification procedure which manufacturers use to verify their emission control 

systems for LSI equipment. 
VI-5 OFF-ROAD LSI ENGINES 

To be eligible to receive Carl Moyer Program funds, emission reductions must exceed 

any regulatory requirement or LSI regulations adopted by ARB. Typically under the 

Carl Moyer Program, retrofit projects are allowed if they provide at least 15 percent 

reductions in emissions. However, under the proposed LSI regulations only retrofits 

that reduce emissions by 25 percent or more will be verified. Hence, only retrofits that 

reduce emissions on uncontrolled LSI engines by 25 percent would be for 

Carl Moyer Program funding. Retrofit systems for installation on emission-certified 

engines must by verified to a 2.0 g/bhp-hr of NOx+HC level or lower. 

 

The eligible cost would be the complete emission control system and installation costs. 

It must be installed according to the criteria stated in the interim verification letter or 

Executive Order as applicable. 

Since nearly half of the LSI equipment in California is forklifts, some information on 

forklift classes is presented below. The Industrial Truck Association (ITA) has defined 

seven classes of forklifts. These classes are defined by the type of engine, work 

environment (indoors, outdoors, narrow aisle, smooth or rough surfaces), operator 

positions (sit down or standing), and equipment characteristics (type of tire, maximum 

grade, etc.). Several classes are further divided by operating characteristics. 

Classifications are described in Table 6-3. 

Table 6-3 

Forklift Classes 

Class Lift Code Engine Type Type/Use 

1 1 Counterbalanced rider, stand up 

1 4 Three-wheel, sit down 

1 5 Counterbalanced rider, sit down 

1 6 Counterbalanced rider, sit down 

2 Narrow aisle truck 

3 

Electric 

Hand or hand/rider truck 

4 Rider, sit down, generally suitable for 

indoor use on hard surfaces 

5 

Internal 

Combustion Rider, sit down, typically used 

outdoors, on rough surfaces or steep 

inclines 

6 

Internal 

combustion 

and Electric 

Ride on unit with the ability to tow at 

least 1,000 pounds; designed to tow 

cargo rather than lift it (e.g. an airport 

tug) 

7 

Internal 

combustion 

(primarily 

diesel) 

Rough terrain forklift truck for outdoor 

use; almost exclusively powered by 

diesel engines 
VI-6 OFF-ROAD LSI ENGINES 

Class 1 forklifts (lift codes 5 and 6) can be used in many of the same work applications 

as the class 4 or 5 forklifts because they are similar in design and specification. 

Increasing the use of class 1 forklifts relative to class 4 and 5 forklifts would reduce NOx 

emissions of the fleets. 

Class 6 trucks are ride-on vehicles designed to tow at least 1,000 pounds. Airport tugs 

are an example of a Class 6 truck. See Chapter 7 for a description of Ground Support 

Equipment. 

Class 7 consists of rough terrain forklifts for outdoor use. See Chapter 5 for project 

funding criteria for Class 7 forklifts which are usually powered by diesel engines. 

V. Proposed Project Criteria 

Since all Carl Moyer Program projects must be surplus to any regulations, specific 

project criteria that define project eligibility for the LSI source category must be based 

on LSI regulations that are adopted by the Board. After Board approval of the LSI 

regulation, staff will develop criteria for those projects that provide emission reductions 

beyond the approved regulatory requirements. Staff recommends that the Board grant 

the Executive Officer the authority to approve LSI project criteria in a technical advisory. 

In the interim, forklift projects would be allowed as approved under Chapter 12 

(Zero-emission Technologies) for electric forklift replacements and the 2003 Carl Moyer 

Program Guidelines. During this interim period additional LSI projects may be 

considered on a case-by-case basis. 

 

On September 6, 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Senate Bill 467 (Lowenthal) 

which requires the ARB to revise the Carl Moyer Program Guidelines to include projects 

in which an applicant turns in off-road equipment powered by an internal combustion 

engines and replaces that equipment with new zero-emission technologies. This 

legislation will take effect on January 1, 2006. ARB staff will evaluate how to 

incorporate the requirements of this legislation into the Carl Moyer Program in 2006. 

VI. Minimum Project Requirements 

These are minimum project application requirements; the district has full authority to 

require additional application, reporting, monitoring, and scrapping requirements. 

A. Application 

Districts solicit bids for reduced-emission projects from off-road equipment operators. 

The applicant must provide the minimum information illustrated in Table 6-4 below. 
VI-7 OFF-ROAD LSI ENGINES 

Table 6-4 

Minimum Application Requirements for LSI Projects 

Applicant Information

Organization, Company or Individual Name 

Street Address 

City, State, Zip Code 

Primary Contact Name 

Primary Contact Phone Number 

Person with Contract Signing Authority 

Person who Filled Out Funding Application 

Project Address (if different from above) 

Equipment Information

Forklift will be for: existing operation or facility, 

facility expansion, or new facility operations 

(select one) 

Does the applicant rent/lease forklift to 

 others? 

Equipment Make 

Equipment Model 

Equipment Model Year 

Equipment Serial Number 

Maximum Rated Lift Capacity (pounds) 

Forklift Class 

Activity Information 

Will the piece of equipment have a 

 functioning hour meter for the full project 

 life? (yes/no) 

Annual Hours of Operation or Gallons Fuel 

Consumption 

Percent Operation in California 

Percent Operation in District 

Project Life 

Electronic Monitoring Unit (EMU) 

Will a new eligible EMU be installed as part 

 of this project? (yes/no) 

EMU Make 

EMU Model 

EMU Model Year 

EMU ID Number 

EMU Cost (optional) 

 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - 

NEW PURCHASE ONLY 

Engine Family 

Engine Make 

Engine Model 

Engine Year 

Fuel Type 

Engine Serial Number 

Engine Tier 

Baseline Equipment Cost 

New Equipment Cost 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - 

REPOWER ONLY 

Baseline Engine Information

 Fuel Type 

 Engine Make, Model and Year 

 Engine Serial Number 

 Engine Horsepower 

 Engine Tier 

 Engine Remanufacture Cost 

Reduced Engine Information

 Fuel Type 

 Engine Make, Model and Year 

 Engine Serial Number 

 Engine Horsepower 

 Engine Tier 

 Newer Engine Cost 

 Newer Engine Installation Cost 

 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - 

RETROFIT ONLY 

ARB-Verified Retrofit Device Name 

Retrofit Device Make 

Retrofit Device Serial Number 

Verification Level (Level 1, Level 2, Level 3) 

ARB-Verified NOx Reduction (%) 

ARB-Verified PM Reduction (%) 

ARB-Verified ROG Reduction (%) 

Retrofit Device ARB Executive Order 

Retrofit Device Cost 

Cost of Retrofit Device Installation Cost 

(optional) 

Cost of Retrofit Maintenance for Life of Project 

(optional) 
VII-1 AIRPORT GSE 

Chapter Seven 

AIRPORT GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

This chapter describes the airport ground support equipment (GSE) category under the 

Carl Moyer Program. It also gives a brief overview of the requirements for fleets. It 

discusses different types of equipment, current emission standards, available control 

technology, and potential incentive projects eligible for funding. 

All Carl Moyer Program projects must be surplus to any regulation. Because 

regulations for GSE equipment with spark-ignition engines are currently scheduled for 

consideration by the Board in late 2005, this chapter does not present criteria districts 

would use in selecting a project to fund. Staff will present specific criteria to districts 

through a technical advisory approved by the Executive Officer once the Board has 

approved the proposed regulations for large spark-ignition (LSI) equipment. In the 

interim, projects would be allowed as approved under the 2003 guidelines. 

I. Introduction 

Airport vehicles and ground support equipment are used to transport passengers as 

well as baggage and freight, to support maintenance and repair functions, and to 

provide power to various service functions. Airport GSE includes aircraft pushback 

tugs, baggage and cargo tugs, carts, forklifts and lifts, ground power units, air 

conditioning units, belt loaders, and other equipment. Vehicles and equipment at 

airports fall into two broad categories. Land-side vehicles and equipment are used on 

the passenger/entry side of the airport. Air-side vehicles are used principally (at least 

half of the time) on the tarmac. For the purposes of the Carl Moyer Program, this airport 

GSE chapter is only to be used to evaluate air-side equipment. Land-side vehicles and 

equipment may be considered under the on-road vehicles (Chapter 1) and off-road 

vehicles and equipment (Chapters 5 and 6) project criteria of the Carl Moyer Program. 

Airport GSE is typically powered by gasoline, diesel or propane. Airport GSE can also 

be powered by electric motors having zero exhaust emissions. Electric GSE is 

commercially available from a number of manufacturers, and interest in the use of 

electric equipment is increasing. Currently, there are no federal or California regulations 

that require the use of electric GSE. There are airports throughout the United States, 

however, with a very high percentage of electric GSE. For example, Denver 

International Airport was designed for all electric GSE. Also, Logan International Airport 

in Boston has made considerable progress in switching to electric GSE equipment. 

Airport GSE are used from the moment an aircraft lands until it takes off. GSE perform 

a variety of functions such as towing, powering, and servicing aircrafts. There is great 

diversity in the type of equipment used, as well as in the variety of engines that power 

GSE. Table 7.1 below lists the commonly used types of GSE. Airport GSE can be 

owned by airlines, airports, cargo handlers, mail and parcel companies or management 
VII-2 AIRPORT GSE 

companies. Most airlines own or maintain the GSE they use, or have full service 

leasing from equipment management companies. Airports usually own the buildings 

and other stationary infrastructure on site and lease them to the airlines. The 

installation and cost of improvements, including electric equipment and vehicle 

infrastructure, are usually subject to the approval of the airport's property management. 

Costs can either be borne by the airport or passed on to the airlines. There is also a 

growing trend for airports to own the ground power units and charge the airlines for the 

time of usage. 

Table 7-1 

Types of Airport GSE 

Baggage Tug 

Belt Loader 

Forklifts, lifts & cargo loaders 

Ground Power Unit 

Aircraft Tug (narrow & wide body) 

Airstart Unit 

Air Conditioner 

Deicer 

Cart & Lavatory Cart 

Fuel Trucks 

Utility Trucks (lavatory, maintenance, 

water & service) 

Bobtail 

II. Regulatory Requirements 

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and ARB have adopted 

emission standards that will be phased in for new GSE equipment powered by off-road 

internal combustion (IC) engines. Internal combustion engines used in GSE can be 

powered by either compression-ignition (CI or “diesel”) engines or by spark-ignition (SI) 

engines using gasoline, compressed natural gas (CNG), or propane fuel. GSE is 

regulated under ARB and U.S. EPA's emission standards for off-road equipment. 

ARB has the authority to regulate new off-road CI equipment equal to or greater than 

175 hp and non-preempted off-road CI less than 175 horsepower. In January 1992, the 

Board adopted exhaust emission standards for off-road diesel engines 175 hp and 

greater, effective beginning with 1996 model year engines. 

In August 1996, the U.S. EPA, ARB, and off-road diesel engine manufacturers signed a 

Statement of Principles, which established a progressive set of emission standards and 

called for harmonization of ARB and U.S. EPA off-road diesel engine regulations. The 

U.S. EPA adopted emission standards in 1998 and again in 2004 that provided for new 

oxides of nitrogen (NOx) + non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC), PM, and carbon 

monoxide (CO) emission standards for engines within different power categories to be 
VII-3 AIRPORT GSE 

effective in a tiered approach, commonly referred to as Tier standards. ARB has since 

amended the California exhaust emission standards for off-road diesel engines 

(originally adopted in 1992) to include non-preempt engines below 175 horsepower and 

to harmonize with the federal requirements. Please refer to Chapter 5: 

Compression-Ignition Off-Road Equipment for more discussion on these requirements. 

In 1998, the ARB adopted regulations for off-road LSI engines sold in California. The 

regulations require new LSI engines 25 horsepower and greater to be certified to an 

emission standard of 3.0 g/bhp-hr of NOx+HC. This standard was phased in between 

2001 and 2004. The U.S. EPA followed in 2002, adopting the same NOx+HC standard 

beginning in 2004. At the same time, the U.S. EPA also adopted a standard of 

2.0 g/bhp-hr NOx+HC, beginning in 2007. ARB is currently developing a proposal that 

includes new emission standards and fleet requirements for LSI engines and 

equipment. This proposal is scheduled for Board consideration in late 2005 and would 

govern the development of project criteria for GSE. Please refer to Chapter 6: 

Off-Road Large Spark Ignition Equipment for more discussion on the off-road LSI 

equipment category and emission requirements. 

In 2002, the ARB and several airlines entered into a Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) aimed at introducing cleaner GSE, with an emphasis on electric GSE, into the 

South Coast Air Basin. Under the agreement, all major airlines operating at five airports 

in the South Coast Air Basin (LAX, Ontario, Orange County, Burbank, and Long Beach) 

would begin to incorporate lower-emission GSE into their fleets. GSE projects that are 

surplus to the emission reductions required under the MOU are eligible for funding 

under the Carl Moyer Program. After the original publication of these Guidelines, the 

airlines exercised their option to terminate the MOU. The South Coast Air Quality 

Management District should coordinate with ARB staff prior to funding GSE projects. 

III. Potential Projects 

A cost-effective strategy to reduce emissions involves the purchase of electric GSE, 

which has no exhaust emissions. Electric GSE is commercially available for a number 

of equipment types, including belt loaders, baggage tractors, aircraft tugs, lifts, and 

ground power units. Several airlines and airports have conducted electric GSE 

demonstration programs and fleet conversion programs. Further discussion of electric 

GSE experiences can be found in Chapter 12: Zero-Emission Technologies and a 

report by Arcadis, Geraghty & Miller [ARB, 1999]. 

Airport GSE emissions can also be decreased by retrofitting the equipment with a PM 

filter, diesel oxidation catalyst or a three-way catalyst. For instance, catalysts have 

been added to SI GSE to meet the current LSI emission standards. In addition, to 

reduce emissions GSE can be repowered with a new, cleaner IC engines. 

The Carl Moyer Program will fund the purchase of electric GSE, as well as GSE 

repower and retrofit projects if this equipment is not subject to any existing or planned 

regulations, funded through another incentive program, or used to generate credits of 
VII-4 AIRPORT GSE 

any type. In addition, projects that are surplus to the emission reductions required under 

the South Coast MOU are eligible for funding. The most promising categories are those 

where electric equipment has been used and demonstrated and are readily available 

from commercial vendors. This includes electric baggage tugs, belt loaders, and aircraft 

tugs. These equipment categories also represent a significant portion of the statewide 

GSE population and have some of the highest average annual hours of usage. 

Purchase of electric GSE instead of IC-engine GSE would yield significant emission 

benefits. Therefore, the Carl Moyer Program guidelines would continue to target these 

categories. Other promising projects include lifts and cargo loaders. Carts, lavatory 

carts and air-start units each represent a smaller fraction of the GSE equipment 

inventory. Fuel, utility, water, and service trucks are not covered under the current 

airport GSE guidelines, but may be considered under the on-road vehicle category 

(Chapter 1). 

IV. Project Criteria 

Since potential GSE projects could involve either CI or SI engines, eligibility criteria for 

GSE would be dependent on the base engine of the GSE and any regulatory 

requirements, including fleet requirements, applicable to the GSE category. For 

projects involving CI GSE, please refer to Chapter 5. For LSI GSE, specific project 

criteria will be developed based on the outcome of the proposed regulation for LSI 

engines and equipment currently scheduled for Board’s consideration in late 2005. 

Staff recommends that the Board grant the Executive Officer authority to approve GSE 

project criteria in a Carl Moyer Program advisory. Until the Board adopts the upcoming 

LSI regulation, districts may continue to fund GSE projects using the 2003 Carl Moyer 

Program Guidelines. In addition, airport GSE used at non-commercial airports would be 

eligible for funding. During this interim period, additional GSE projects may be 

considered on a case-by-case basis. 

Airport GSE projects funded by the Carl Moyer Program must meet a cost-effectiveness 

of $14,300 per weighed ton of NOx + ROG + combustion PM10 reduced calculated in 

accordance with the cost-effectiveness methodology discussed in the Guidelines. 

On September 6, 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Senate Bill 467 (Lowenthal) 

which requires the ARB to revise the Carl Moyer Program Guidelines to include projects 

in which an applicant turns in off-road equipment powered by an internal combustion 

engines and replaces that equipment with new zero-emission technologies. This 

legislation will take effect on January 1, 2006. ARB staff will evaluate how to 

incorporate the requirements of this legislation into the Carl Moyer Program in 2006. 
VII-5 AIRPORT GSE 

Table 7-2 

Minimum Application Requirements for Ground Support Equipment 

Applicant Information

Organization, Company or Individual Name 

Street Address 

City, State, Zip Code 

Primary Contact Name 

Primary Contact Phone Number 

Person with Contract Signing Authority 

Person who Filled Out Funding Application 

Project Address (if different from above) 

Equipment Information

Equipment Type (A/C tugs – narrow body, 

 AC tugs – wide body, belt loader, 

 baggage tug, cargo loaders, ground 

 power units, or lifts) 

Equipment Operator (airline, airport, 

 equipment management company, or 

other) 

Equipment Make, Model and Year 

Equipment Serial Number 

Projected Year of Purchase of New GSE 

Baseline GSE Fuel 

New GSE Vendor (optional) 

Activity Information 

Will the piece of equipment have a 

 functioning hour meter for the full project 

 life? (yes/no) 

Annual Hours of Operation or Gallons Fuel 

Consumption 

Percent Operation in California 

Percent Operation in District 

Project Life 

Electronic Monitoring Unit (EMU) 

Will a new eligible EMU be installed as part 

 of this project? (yes/no) 

EMU Make 

EMU Model 

EMU Model Year 

EMU ID Number 

EMU Cost (optional) 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - 

NEW PURCHASE ONLY 

Engine Family 

Engine Make, Model, Year 

Fuel Type 

Engine Serial Number 

Engine Tier 

Baseline Equipment Cost 

New Equipment Cost 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - 

REPOWER ONLY 

Baseline Engine Information

 Fuel Type 

 Engine Make, Model and Year 

 Engine Serial Number 

 Engine Horsepower 

 Engine Tier 

 Engine Remanufacture Cost 

Reduced Engine Information

 Fuel Type 

 Engine Make, Model and Year 

 Engine Serial Number 

 Engine Horsepower 

 Engine Tier 

 Newer Engine Cost 

 Newer Engine Installation Cost 

 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - 

RETROFIT ONLY 

ARB-Verified Retrofit Device Name 

Retrofit Device Make 

Retrofit Device Serial Number 

Verification Level (Level 1, Level 2, Level 3) 

ARB-Verified NOx Reduction (%) 

ARB-Verified PM Reduction (%) 

ARB-Verified ROG Reduction (%) 

Retrofit Device ARB Executive Order 

Retrofit Device Cost 

Cost of Retrofit Device Installation Cost 

Cost of Retrofit Maintenance for Life of Project 

V. References 

ARB, 1999. Assessment of Airport Ground Support Equipment Using Electric Power or 

Low-Emitting Fuels (Final Report), Final Report to Air Resources Board. Arcadis 

Geraghty & Miller, July 20, 1999. 
VIII-1 LOCOMOTIVES 

Chapter Eight 

LOCOMOTIVES 

This chapter presents program criteria for locomotive projects, and provides an 

overview of the locomotive industry, locomotive emissions, current emission control 

requirements, and types of incentive projects eligible for funding. The chapter also sets 

requirements for installation of an idle-limiting device (ILD) on project locomotives, and 

defines criteria for hybrid and multiple engine switcher projects. 

I. Introduction 

Locomotives move more than 40 percent of the freight in the United States, on a 

ton-miles basis [Association of American Railroads, 2004]. Most locomotives operating 

today are diesel-electric, using a diesel engine to drive a generator, which in turn drives 

the locomotive wheels. Locomotive engines have very long useful lives, with the 

capability of being rebuilt numerous times. 

Locomotives provide line-haul, short-haul, switcher, and passenger service. Each of 

these locomotive types has discrete functions and characteristics: 

• Line Haul - Line-haul locomotives typically transport goods between major urban 

centers, sometimes up to 3,000 miles apart. Line-haul locomotives operate at higher 

speeds than other locomotives and generally utilize engines with 3,000 or greater 

horsepower. Because reliability is important for line-haul operators, these 

locomotives tend to be newer and well-maintained. 

• Short-Haul - Short-haul locomotives perform a combination of line-haul and railyard 

service. Typically, they use 2,000 to 3,800 horsepower engines, and move freight 

regionally or locally. For the purposes of the Carl Moyer Program, short-haul 

locomotives are treated the same as line-haul locomotives. 

• Switcher - Switch locomotives separate and move railcars from track to track or 

transfer cars to and from regional carriers. Typically, they use 1,500 to 2,300 

horsepower diesel engines, travel short distances at low speeds, make numerous 

stops, and idle frequently for long periods of time. Switcher locomotives are 

generally remanufactured from aging line-haul locomotives. Switchers are typically 

the oldest and most poorly maintained locomotives. 

• Passenger - Passenger locomotives haul passengers rather than freight, and are 

typically used in high speed, line-haul type operations. The average passenger train 

is about 10 years old and has a 3,000 to 3,600 horsepower engine. 
VIII-2 LOCOMOTIVES 

II. Emissions 

Locomotives are a significant source of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and particulate matter 

(PM) emissions. Line haul and short-haul locomotives emit over 90 percent of 

locomotive NOx and PM emissions in California, while switchers and passenger 

locomotives are responsible for about six and two percent of locomotive emissions, 

respectively. Although switch locomotives generate less overall emissions than 

line-haul locomotives, their emissions tend to be concentrated at and around railyards, 

and can pose greater health concerns for nearby communities. 

About 25 percent of the State’s locomotive NOx and PM emissions occur in the Mojave 

Desert Air Basin (See Table 8-1, below). The bulk of these emissions are generated by 

the hauling of freight from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach through Barstow to 

points east. Barstow is home to the second largest rail yard west of the Mississippi 

River; the largest is the Roseville Rail Yard in the Sacramento Valley. Locomotives in 

the South Coast Air Basin contribute about 20 percent of statewide locomotive 

emissions, while the locomotives in the San Joaquin Valley and Sacramento Valley 

each account for about 15 percent. 

Table 8-1 

Locomotive Emission Inventory

(Annual average tons per day in 2005) 

Region NOx PM 

Mojave Desert Air Basin 39 1.3 

South Coast Air Basin 33 1.0 

San Joaquin Valley 24 0.7 

Sacramento Valley 23 0.7 

Bay Area 11 0.3 

Rest of the State 32 1.1 

Total 162 5.1 

Based on ARB’s CCOS Emissions Inventory (Version 2.12) 

III. Regulatory Requirements 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), with its sole authority to set 

emission standards for new and remanufactured locomotives, has adopted phased-in 

locomotive emission standards [Federal Register, April 16, 1998]. Federal locomotive 

emission standards contain two primary provisions: 1) remanufacture emission limits 

applicable to railroads whenever they remanufacture or rebuild their locomotive 

engines, and 2) emission standards for new locomotives applicable to locomotive 

manufacturers. 
VIII-3 LOCOMOTIVES 

 A. Locomotive Remanufacture Emission Standards 

Regulation of remanufactured locomotives is critical because locomotives are generally 

remanufactured five to ten times during their service lives. U.S. EPA’s locomotive 

remanufacture emission standards therefore provide a mechanism to reduce emissions 

from the existing fleet. Federal locomotive remanufacture emission standards require 

locomotives originally manufactured in 1973 or later to meet the emission limits listed in 

Table 8-2 whenever they are rebuilt or remanufactured. Locomotives originally 

manufactured before 1973 are exempt from the federal locomotive remanufacture 

requirements. 

Table 8-2 

Federal Exhaust Emission Standards for Locomotives 

for New Engines and at Time of Remanufacture 

(g/bhp-hr) 

Duty-cycle Gaseous and Particulate Emissions 

HC CO NOx PM 

Tier 0 (1973 – 2001 model years)

Line-haul/ 

Passenger 

1.00 5.0 9.5 0.60 

Switcher 2.10 8.0 14.0 0.72 

Tier 1 (2002 – 2004 model years) 

Line-haul/ 

Passenger 

0.55 2.2 7.4 0.45 

Switcher 1.20 2.5 11.0 0.54 

Tier 2 (2005 and later model years) 

Line-haul/ 

Passenger 

0.30 1.5 5.5 0.20 

Switcher 0.60 2.4 8.1 0.24 

U.S. EPA locomotive remanufacture requirements also include an exemption for small 

railroads -- line-haul railroads with fewer than 1,500 employees, and switch railroads 

with fewer than 500 employees. Surface Transportation Board (STB) freight railroad 

classifications, based on annual revenues, provide an equivalent mechanism for 

distinguishing between large and small railroads in California. STB railroad 

classifications, and the applicable U.S. EPA remanufacture requirements, are as 

follows: 

• Class I Railroads - Class I freight railroads are carriers with annual revenues greater 

than or equal to $266.7 million. Locomotives owned and operated by Class I 

railroads in California must meet the U.S. EPA remanufacture emission limits in 

Table 8-2. The Union Pacific Railroad (UP) and the Burlington Northern & Santa Fe 

Railroad (BNSF) are the only Class I freight railroad companies operating in 

California. 
VIII-4 LOCOMOTIVES 

• Class II Railroads - Class II railroads are carriers with annual revenues between 

$21.3 and $266.7 million. Class II railroads are exempt from federal locomotive 

remanufacture requirements. Currently, there are no Class II railroads 

headquartered in California. For the purposes of the Carl Moyer Program, a Class II 

railroad locomotive must meet the same project criteria as a Class III railroad 

locomotive. 

• Class III Railroads - Class III railroads are carriers with annual revenues less than 

$21.3 million. Class III railroads in California are largely exempt from federal 

locomotive engine remanufacture requirements. As a result, many older, 

unregulated locomotives continue to operate at Class III railroads. 

• Military and Industrial Railroads – Over 100 military and industrial locomotives 

owned by non-railroad companies operate in California. These locomotives are 

generally much smaller in size and horsepower than locomotives used by larger rail 

yards, are confined to small yards or industrial plants, and are typically 40 to 60 

years old. Military and industrial locomotives are largely exempt from federal 

locomotive remanufacture requirements. For the purposes of the 

Carl Moyer Program, military and industrial locomotives must meet the same project 

criteria as a Class III railroad locomotive. 

• Passenger Service Railroads – Amtrak is California’s only passenger locomotive

operator not considered a small railroad by federal regulations. Amtrak is therefore 

the state’s only passenger railroad subject to federal locomotive remanufacture 

requirements. Amtrak locomotives are currently required to meet all Tier 1 and 

Tier 2 emission limits, but are not subject to Tier 0 remanufacture requirements for 

their 1973 through 2001 model year locomotives until 2007. 

The practical impact of the federal small railroad exemption from locomotive 

remanufacture requirements is that UP, BNSF, and Amtrak locomotives must meet 

federal remanufacture emission limits, while other railroads can remanufacture to 

uncontrolled emission levels. 

 B. Emission Standards for New Locomotives 

The second component of federal locomotive standards took effect in 2000, applies to 

locomotive manufacturers, and requires all new locomotives to meet the tiered emission 

standards in Table 8-2. Because these standards apply to locomotive manufacturers, 

all railroads, regardless of size, must purchase locomotives meeting Tier 2 emission 

limits when purchasing a new locomotive. In practice, however, only Class I railroads 

purchase new locomotives, while Class III railroads typically purchase existing in-use 

locomotives. 
VIII-5 LOCOMOTIVES 

C. Upcoming Regulations 

In May 2004, U.S. EPA issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, signaling 

its intent to pursue more stringent standards for new and existing locomotives 

[U.S. EPA, 2004]. The standards are likely to be modeled after 2007 and 2010 on-road 

and off-road diesel engine standards, and to be based on the application of catalytic 

after-treatment technology. The new locomotive standards could be phased in 

beginning as early as 2011. 

 D. South Coast Locomotive Memorandum of Understanding 

The Air Resources Board (ARB or “Board”) and U.S. EPA have an enforceable 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with UP and BNSF railroads to implement a 

locomotive fleet average emissions program in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The 

purpose of the South Coast MOU is to expedite the introduction of new, lower-emitting 

locomotive engines in the SCAB. The agreement commits UP and BNSF railroads to 

achieve a 5.5 g/bhp-hr locomotive fleet average NOx emission rate in the SCAB by 

2010. The railroads can also get credit towards their 2010 fleet average target by 

exceeding the fleet average emissions targets between 2005 and 2009. 

In order to ensure Carl Moyer Program funding achieves surplus emission reductions, 

railroads subject to the South Coast MOU must meet the following minimum project 

criteria: 

• Locomotive projects in the SCAB may not be included in the MOU fleet average 

emission rate compliance demonstration. 

• The project baseline emission rate for all locomotives in the SCAB subject to the 

South Coast MOU shall be equivalent to the Tier 2 emission rates identified for 

line-haul and switch locomotives in Table B-16. 

• Class I freight railroad locomotive projects in all air districts, with the exception of the 

South Coast, must have a minimum project life of ten years. 

This last requirement helps ensure that a cleaner locomotive funded in another air 

district cannot be exchanged for a dirtier locomotive in the SCAB at the completion of 

the project life to demonstrate compliance with the South Coast MOU. Allowing such an 

exchange, even at the end of the project life, could result in higher overall emissions 

since the locomotive exchanged into the participating air district could be dirtier than the 

original project locomotive. 

 E. Statewide Locomotive Memorandum of Understanding 

In June 2005, ARB signed a Statewide MOU with UP and BNSF railroads. The MOU 

requires UP and BNSF to install an ILD on over 99 percent of their intrastate 

locomotives between June 30, 2006 and June 30, 2008. The Statewide MOU also 

requires 80 percent of the diesel fuel dispensed to UP and BNSF locomotives in 

California to be low-sulfur diesel by the end of 2006. This agreement complements an 
VIII-6 LOCOMOTIVES 

ARB intrastate locomotive fuels regulation, adopted in November 2004, which requires 

all intrastate diesel locomotives to use California reformulated low-sulfur diesel fuel by 

January 1, 2007. The Statewide MOU also requires that railroads conduct health risk 

assessments at California’s rail yards and consider additional long-term strategies to 

reduce idling PM emissions and health risks. Because the Statewide MOU requires 

virtually all UP and BNSF locomotives have ILDs, ILD projects for UP and BNSF 

locomotives are not eligible for Carl Moyer Program funding. 

IV. Potential Projects 

Projects eligible for Carl Moyer Program incentive funding include repower or retrofit of 

an existing locomotive engine, purchase of a new reduced-emission engine or 

locomotive, or installation of an ILD. Hybrid and multiple engine switch locomotive 

projects have also received Carl Moyer Program funding in recent years and are eligible 

for funding. Other technologies that offer real emission reductions may also be 

considered on a case-by-case basis. Funding for projects considered on a 

case-by-case basis shall be contingent on a clear demonstration that the project shall 

achieve surplus, real, quantifiable, and enforceable emission reductions. 

 A. Repower 

A locomotive engine repower involves replacing an existing locomotive engine with a 

newer, lower-emitting engine. Locomotive repower projects must achieve at least a 15 

percent NOx reduction beyond existing emissions levels. Repower projects for 1973 

and later year Class III locomotives must achieve at least Tier 0-equivalent emission 

rates if a remanufacture kit certified by U.S. EPA to meet Tier 0 or lower emission levels 

is available. Baseline emissions for locomotive repower projects reflect federal 

emission requirements for engine remanufacture (e.g. Tier 0 through Tier 2 emission 

rates for Class I locomotives, and uncontrolled emissions for pre-1973 locomotives and 

Class III locomotives). Baseline costs for repower projects reflect the cost to 

remanufacture the project engine or $50,000, whichever is greater. All locomotive 

repower projects must include installation of an automatic engine start-stop (AESS) idle 

reduction device if the project locomotive is not already equipped with such a device 

and installation is technically feasible. 

B. Retrofits 

Retrofits involve hardware modifications to the engine or exhaust system to reduce 

emissions. Potential retrofit projects involve the addition of an ARB-verified retrofit 

device, or installation of a U.S. EPA-certified remanufacture emission kit. For most 

Carl Moyer Program categories, a retrofit device must be ARB-verified in order to be 

considered for funding. To date, however, very few retrofit technologies have been 

verified to reduce emissions from a locomotive. Retrofit technologies generally develop 

first for on-road sources, and are later refined for use on off-road engines. Because of 

the lack of retrofit devices verified for use on a locomotive engine, ARB will consider 

funding a locomotive after-treatment retrofit device which is not yet ARB-verified for use 
VIII-7 LOCOMOTIVES 

on locomotives on a case-by-case basis. Applicants for funding on a case-by-case 

basis must meet the applicable project criteria identified in Section V of this chapter. 

In recent years, engine manufacturers have also developed U.S. EPA-certified engine 

remanufacture kits for use on locomotives. To be eligible for Carl Moyer Program 

funding, remanufacture kits must be U.S. EPA certified to achieve at least Tier 0 

locomotive emission standards on the project locomotive engine. Remanufacture kit 

projects must also achieve at least 15 percent NOx reductions from the project 

locomotive if taking credit for NOx emission reductions. Kits which utilize fuel injection 

timing retard must be clearly demonstrated to not increase in-use PM or hydrocarbon 

emissions to be eligible for funding. Individual engine parts or other locomotive 

components are not eligible for funding except as part of a complete U.S. EPA-certified 

engine remanufacture kit. 

C. Idle-Limiting Devices 

Locomotive operators idle their engines to maintain battery charge, warmth of the 

engine coolant, fuel, oil, and water, and comfortable temperatures inside the operator 

cabs. Locomotives also idle to ensure the engine is readily available (avoiding 

unnecessary starting and shutting-down), and because of habitual practice. Installation 

of an ILD can significantly reduce emissions from locomotives, which typically spend 

40 to 60 percent of their operating time in the idle duty cycle. 

The ILD technologies on the market today vary in operational requirements and 

predictability of idling reductions. The AESS provides an automatic, fully integrated 

mechanism to reduce idling and does not rely upon a locomotive operator or require 

additional engines or infrastructure. An AESS typically uses a central computer to 

monitor vital engine parameters, such as battery charge, water temperature, and brake 

pressure, and automatically shuts off the engine after a set time. This technology is 

generally applicable to more locomotive types and operating conditions than other ILD 

devices. 

Other ILDs include diesel driven heating systems (DDHS), stationary power plug-in 

units, and locomotive auxiliary power units (APU). These ILD technologies can reduce 

locomotive idling time under certain conditions. For example, a DDHS is particularly 

effective in colder climates, while a stationary power plug-in unit is feasible only for 

site specific locomotives where plug-in technology can be permanently located. Costs 

for these ILDs range from $4,000 to $12,000 for a shore power plug-in unit, $8,000 to 

$15,000 for an AESS, and $25,000 to $35,000 for an DHSS or APU. 

Because an AESS unit can provide significant and predictable air quality benefits at a 

relatively low cost, locomotive repower projects without a functioning ILD must include 

installation of an AESS, if feasible, to receive program funding. The 

Carl Moyer Program shall pay actual equipment costs up to a maximum of $8,000 for 

the AESS and actual installation costs of the AESS up to $3,400. The award cap 

reflects the fact that AESS installation significantly reduces locomotive operating costs 
VIII-8 LOCOMOTIVES 

and has a typical capital payback period of one to three years. Other ILD technologies 

may be considered for program funding on a case-by-case basis if an AESS device 

cannot be installed on the project locomotive. 

D. Alternative Technology Switch Locomotives 

In recent years, several diesel-electric hybrid switch locomotives have been funded 

through the Carl Moyer Program. Hybrid switch locomotives significantly reduce PM 

and NOx emissions, idling time, and fuel use compared to conventional switchers. 

These locomotives use the same basic concept as a gas-electric hybrid automobile -- a 

battery pack powers the locomotive, while a small diesel engine runs as needed to keep 

the batteries charged. Hybrid locomotives typically utilize an aging locomotive frame 

and replace the existing large diesel engine, generator, and analog controls with a small 

diesel generator, battery pack, and computerized control module. The batteries can 

provide up to 90 percent of the locomotive horsepower at full load, while the remaining 

power comes from a 300 to 800 horsepower diesel engine. In addition to driving the 

locomotive, the added weight of the battery pack provides additional traction to propel 

the locomotive. 

Switch locomotive projects which involve replacing the main engine with multiple 

heavy-duty truck or off-road engines have also become more common. Multi-engine 

locomotive projects also typically involve significantly refurbishing an existing locomotive 

frame with new batteries, electronics, and controls. The replacement engines typically 

have a much lower horsepower rating and lower emissions than the engine they 

replace. For the purposes of the Carl Moyer Program, hybrid and multiple engine 

switchers, as described above, are defined as alternative technology switchers. 

Switch locomotive purchase practices are unique. Few new locomotives are 

manufactured and purchased by the railroads for use in switcher service. Instead, as 

line-haul locomotives get older and less reliable, they are remanufactured for switching 

service and moved to a rail yard. In many cases, Class III railroads will purchase older 

switchers when they are retired by Class I railroads. Because railroads do not typically 

purchase newly manufactured switcher locomotives, an alternative technology switcher 

is considered a new locomotive purchase for the purpose of the Carl Moyer Program. 

Baseline project emissions and costs for alternative technology switchers also reflect 

differing Class I and Class III regulatory requirements and purchase practices. Since 

Class I railroads are required to meet federal locomotive remanufacture emission 

standards for 1973 and newer locomotives, a new Class I switcher would typically emit 

at Tier 0 emission rates. Class III railroads -- which are not subject to federal 

requirements and typically purchase older, in-use locomotives -- typically remanufacture 

to uncontrolled emission levels. Baseline emissions for hybrid and multiple engine 

switcher projects at Class I and Class III railroads therefore reflect Tier 0 and 

uncontrolled emission rates, respectively. 
VIII-9 LOCOMOTIVES 

The Carl Moyer Program may fund up to 60 percent and 80 percent of the total cost of 

an alternative technology switcher for Class I and Class III railroads, respectively. 

Project funding caps reflect the differential cost of a typical switcher purchased by 

Class I and Class III railroads, as described above. Funding caps have also been set in 

recognition that an alternative technology switcher achieves significant fuel cost savings 

over its lifetime relative to a traditional switch locomotive. 

U.S. EPA requires new switchers with an aggregate engine power rating greater than or 

equal to 1,006 horsepower to be certified to meet federal locomotive emission 

standards. An alternative technology switcher with federal locomotive certification must 

be evaluated based upon its certified locomotive emission rate. If federal locomotive 

certification is not required or not yet complete, the switcher may be evaluated and 

considered for Carl Moyer Program funding based upon the project engine’s on- or 

off road engine certification. However, alternative technology switchers must meet all 

federal certification requirements before program funding can be distributed to the 

project participant. Federal locomotive certification must demonstrate the locomotive 

emits NOx at a rate at least 30 percent below the Tier 2 locomotive emission standard. 

V. Project Criteria 

These criteria provide the minimum requirements for all Carl Moyer Program locomotive 

projects. Participating districts retain the authority to impose additional requirements in 

order to address local concerns. 

A. General 

• Emission reductions obtained through Carl Moyer Program projects must not be 

required by or used to comply with any federal, state or local regulation, 

memorandum of agreement/understanding with a regulatory agency, settlement 

agreement, mitigation requirement, or other legally binding document. Inclusion in a 

rail yard or port emission reduction plan, lease agreement, or other voluntarily 

adopted strategy does not exclude a locomotive project from funding eligibility, if 

such a project is not otherwise required. 

• No emission reductions generated by the Carl Moyer Program shall be used as 

marketable emission reduction credits, or to offset any emission reduction obligation 

of any person or entity. 

• No project funded by the Carl Moyer Program shall be used for credit under any 

federal or state emission averaging banking and trading program. 

• Locomotive operators utilizing an alternative emission control plan (AECP) to comply 

with California’s locomotive low-sulfur diesel fuel requirements shall not be eligible 

for Carl Moyer Program funds. 
 VIII-10 LOCOMOTIVES 

• Beginning January 1, 2007, all diesel locomotive projects must use ARB low-sulfur 

diesel fuel. Emission reductions and costs associated with use of ARB low-sulfur 

diesel shall not be included in project cost-effectiveness calculations. 

• Projects must meet a cost-effectiveness of $14,300 per weighed ton of NOx + ROG 

+ combustion PM10 reduced calculated in accordance with the cost-effectiveness 

methodology discussed in this chapter. 

• Carl Moyer Program grants can be no greater than a project’s incremental cost. The 

incremental cost is the cost of the project minus the baseline cost. The incremental 

cost shall be reduced by the value of any current financial incentive that reduces the 

project price, including tax credits or deductions, grants, or other public financial 

assistance. 

• The contract term for all locomotive projects must be equivalent to the project life. 

The project life is defined as the number of years used to evaluate project 

cost-effectiveness. 

• Class I freight locomotive projects in air districts other than the South Coast must 

have a minimum project life of ten years. All other locomotive projects have a 

minimum project life of three years. ARB may approve a shorter project life on a 

case-by-case basis. Projects with shorter lives may be subject to additional funding 

restrictions, such as a lower cost-effectiveness limit or a project cost cap. 

• The maximum project life for a locomotive project is 20 years. 

• Because of uncertainty in locomotive load factors, locomotive project activity must 

be based upon fuel consumption. 

• Seventy-five percent of estimated annual miles traveled and annual fuel 

consumption must occur in California. 

• The energy consumption rate for a locomotive engine is 20.8 bhp-hr per gallon. The 

energy consumption factor for an on- or off-road engine used in a locomotive 

application is 18.5 bhp-hr per gallon. 

• Carl Moyer Program funds cannot be use to pay for labor or parts used during 

routine maintenance. 

• Class I locomotives subject to the South Coast MOU are eligible for 

Carl Moyer Program funding only if such locomotives are excluded from the fleet 

average emission rate calculations which demonstrate compliance with the MOU 

provisions. The baseline emission rates used to determine emission reductions and 

cost-effectiveness for these locomotive projects reflect the Tier 2 emission rates for 

line-haul and switch locomotives identified in Table B-16. Locomotives subject to 
 VIII-11 LOCOMOTIVES 

the South Coast MOU which receive Carl Moyer Program funding are ineligible to 

receive fleet average emission credits. 

• Military and industrial locomotives and locomotives owned or operated by Class II 

railroads use the same Carl Moyer Program criteria as Class III railroad locomotives. 

• Locomotive engine emissions, if based on emission testing, must be determined 

following the most current and approved U.S. EPA emission testing procedures for 

locomotives. 

• All locomotive new purchase or repower projects must include an electronic 

monitoring unit (EMU) to track activity and geographic location. Eligible EMUs 

include a geographic positioning system (GPS) unit, transponding device, automated 

vehicle locator (AVL), or other similar device. The EMU must be capable of 

providing complete digital information regarding total activity both within the air 

district and the State of California; this information shall be reported to air districts 

annually for the project life. The full purchase, installation and data summarization 

or transmittal costs associated with the EMU is eligible for Carl Moyer Program 

funding, and may be included when calculating project cost-effectiveness. 

• For all liquefied natural gas-diesel or other dual fuel locomotive projects, an EMU 

must be used to electronically monitor activity and fuel consumption by fuel type. 

• Potential projects which fall outside of these criteria may be considered on a 

case-by-case basis if evidence provided by the air district suggests potential surplus, 

real, quantifiable, and enforceable emission reduction benefits. 

• Air districts must consult with ARB staff to determine eligibility of all projects 

considered for funding on case-by-case basis. All projects considered on a 

case-by-case basis must receive ARB approval prior to receiving program funding. 

B. New Purchase 

• Purchase of a new locomotive must achieve federal Tier 2 locomotive emission 

standards for PM and hydrocarbon emissions, and a NOx emission rate at least 

30 percent below Tier 2 locomotive emission standards. 

• For the purposes of the Carl Moyer Program, an alternative technology switcher is 

defined as a hybrid (e.g., Green Goat) or multiple engine switcher in which an 

existing locomotive chassis is significantly refurbished with a new engine, batteries, 

electronic controls, and/or other equipment. An alternative technology switcher 

project is considered a new locomotive purchase and must meet all emission criteria 

for a new locomotive purchase. Other switch locomotives may be considered for 

funding as an alternative technology switcher on a case-by-case basis. 
 VIII-12 LOCOMOTIVES 

• Baseline emissions for an alternative technology switcher project reflect Tier 0 

emission rates for Class I locomotives and uncontrolled emission rates for Class III 

locomotives. The cost of an alternative technology switcher eligible for 

Carl Moyer Program funding shall not exceed 60 percent of the total cost of the new 

switcher for Class I railroad switchers, and 80 percent of the total cost of the new 

switcher for Class III railroad switchers. 

• Baseline emissions and costs for a new locomotive purchase project which is not an 

alternative technology switcher reflect Tier 2 emission rates and the cost of a new 

Tier 2 locomotive, respectively. 

• An alternative technology switcher with federal locomotive certification must be 

evaluated based upon its federally certified locomotive emission rate; alternatively, if 

federal locomotive certification is not required or not yet complete, the project may 

be evaluated and considered for funding based upon its on- or off-road engine 

certification. If not federally certified, locomotives may on a case-by-case basis 

utilize NOx emission rates associated an ARB determination of an Ultra-Low 

Emission Locomotive under the South Coast MOU. Locomotives must meet all 

federal certification requirements before funding can be distributed to the project 

participant. 

C. Repower 

• Locomotive repower projects must achieve at least a 15 percent NOx reduction 

beyond existing emission levels. 

• Baseline emissions for a locomotive engine repower are based upon federal 

emission requirements for engine remanufacture (see Section III of this chapter) and 

the corresponding emission rates in Table B-16. Baseline costs for a locomotive 

engine repower equal the actual remanufacture cost or $50,000, whichever is 

greater. 

• 1973 and later model year Class III locomotives must achieve at least Tier 0 

emission levels, if Tier 0 remanufacture kits are available. 

• Alternative-fueled engines must be ARB- or U.S. EPA-certified to achieve a reduced 

emission level in a locomotive application. Alternative-fueled engines not certified to 

achieve a reduced emission limit in a locomotive application may be eligible for 

funding on a case-by-case basis. 

D. Retrofit 

• A retrofit device must be ARB-verified to reduce emissions from the project engine in 

order to be eligible for funding. Non-verified technologies may be considered on a 

case by case basis if: 1) an application for verification of the retrofit or add-on 

equipment on the proposed engine category is pending, 2) the retrofit or add-on 
 VIII-13 LOCOMOTIVES 

equipment has been verified or certified by ARB or U.S. EPA for use on a similar 

engine category, or 3) project emission benefit, durability, and applicability have 

been or shall be demonstrated through in-situ testing. 

• Retrofits considered for funding on a case-by-case basis must be clearly 

demonstrated to achieve the expected emission reductions for the full project life, 

function properly under the project locomotive engine duty cycle, and to not harm the 

locomotive engine. 

• Remanufacture emission kits must achieve at least a 15 percent NOx reduction and 

be U.S. EPA certified to achieve at least Tier 0 locomotive emission standards on 

the project locomotive engine. Emission kits must be demonstrated not to increase 

in-use emissions of NOx, ROG, or PM emissions. Individual engine parts or other 

locomotive components are not eligible for funding except as part of a complete 

U.S. EPA certified engine retrofit kit. 

E. Idle-Limiting Device 

• All locomotive purchase and repower projects (except alternative technology 

switchers) must include purchase and installation of an AESS ILD to reduce 

unnecessary engine idling if the locomotive is not already equipped with such a 

device and AESS installation is technically feasible. 

• If not already required by a rule, regulation, MOU, or other legal mandate, the 

purchase and installation cost of an AESS is eligible for Carl Moyer Program 

funding, subject to the following limitations: 

− The Carl Moyer Program may provide actual equipment costs up to a maximum 

of $8,000 for a locomotive-specific AESS. 

− The Carl Moyer Program may provide the lower amount of actual installation 

costs of the AESS, up to a maximum of $3,400. 

− AESS emission reductions are calculated by applying the ILD factors in 

Table B-17. Appendix D provides details regarding use of the ILD factors. 

− All ILDs must comply with applicable durability and warranty requirements. 

F. Scrap 

• Scrap requirements are described in the 2005 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, 

Part I, Chapter 2: Administration of the Carl Moyer Program. 

VI. Cost-Effectiveness 
 VIII-14 LOCOMOTIVES 

To receive Carl Moyer Program funding, each project must meet the maximum 

cost-effective threshold of $14,300 per weighted ton of covered pollutants reduced. 

Only funds provided by the Carl Moyer Program and local district matching funds are to 

be used in determining cost-effectiveness. Emission reduction benefits represent the 

difference in the emission levels of the existing baseline technology relative to the 

newer, reduced-emission technology. Baseline and reduced engine emission factors 

are listed in Table B-16 in Appendix B. These factors represent U.S. EPA emission 

factors from U.S. EPA Technical Highlights – Emission Factors for Locomotives

[December 1997], with fuel correction factors applied. 

As mentioned earlier, an AESS ILD is required for all locomotive repower or new 

purchase projects (other than alternative technology switchers) if feasible. An ILD 

Factor, identified in Table B-17, is used to account for the air quality benefits of reduced 

idling. 

A detailed description and examples of how to calculate cost-effectiveness can be found 

in Appendix D. Locomotive emission reduction calculations will use the fuel- based 

formula as discussed in Appendix C. 

VII. Minimum Project Application Requirements 

The minimum application requirements for locomotive projects are described below. Air 

districts have full authority to require additional application, reporting, and monitoring 

requirements. 

A. Application 

Districts solicit bids for reduced-emission projects for locomotives. The applicant must 

provide the minimum information listed in Table 8-3. A disclosure must also be included 

stating that the proposed project has not been funded and is not being considered for 

funding by another air district, ARB, or any other public agency. Any applicant who is 

found to have submitted multiple applications for the same project may be banned from 

submitting future applications to any and all Carl Moyer Program solicitations and may 

be subject to criminal sanctions. A project funded cooperatively by multiple air districts 

is eligible for funding if the project parameters are coordinated amongst the participating 

districts and the project meets all applicable Carl Moyer Program criteria. Applicants 

are allowed to re-apply for project funding if a previous application has been rejected 

and is no longer being considered for funding. 
 VIII-15 LOCOMOTIVES 

Table 8-3 

Minimum Application Requirements for Locomotive Projects 

Applicant Information

Organization, Company or Individual Name 

Street Address 

City, County, State, Zip Code 

Primary Contact Name 

Primary Contact Phone Number 

Person with Contract Signing Authority 

Person who Filled Out Funding Application 

Project Address (if different from above) 

Locomotive Information

Railroad Class (Class 1 or Class 3) 

Locomotive Type (Line Haul, Traditional Switcher, 

Alt. Technology Switcher, Passenger) 

Locomotive Make 

Locomotive Model 

Locomotive Horsepower 

Locomotive Serial Number 

Fuel Type 

Engine Make 

Engine Model 

Engine Year 

Engine Serial Number 

Activity Information

Does the project locomotive already have a 

functioning automatic engine start-stop (AESS) 

ILD installed? (yes/no) 

Annual Gallons Fuel Consumption 

Percent Operation in California 

Percent Operation in District 

Project Life 

Electronic Monitoring Unit (EMU) 

Will a new eligible EMU be installed as part 

 of this project? (yes/no) 

EMU Make 

EMU Model 

EMU Model Year 

EMU ID Number 

EMU Cost (optional) 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION – 

NEW PURCHASE PROJECTS ONLY 

Projected Year of Purchase of New Locomotive 

New Locomotive Cost 

Locomotive Vendor (optional) 

Alt. Technology Switcher New Purchase Information

What type of engine(s) does the new switcher use? 

(on-road or off-road/stationary) 

Engine Make, Model, Year, Horsepower, and Serial 

Number (for each engine) 

ARB Certification Executive Order, if any 

(on-road engine(s) only) 

Engine Family and Tier 

(off-road/stationary engine(s) only) 

New Switcher Fuel Consumption (if different from 

baseline) 

Has this locomotive been certified by U.S. EPA? 

 If yes: 

U.S. EPA certified locomotive NOx emission rate 

(g/bhp-hr) 

U.S. EPA certified locomotive HC emission rate 

(g/bhp-hr) 

U.S. EPA certified locomotive PM emission rate 

(g/bhp-hr) 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION – 

REPOWER PROJECTS ONLY 

Reduced Emission Engine Make 

Reduced Emission Engine Model 

Reduced Emission Engine Serial Number 

Reduced Emission Engine Horsepower 

Engine Rebuild Cost 

New Lower Emission Engine Cost 

New Lower Emission Engine Installation Cost 

New Engine Vendor (optional) 

New Engine Installer (optional) 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION – 

LOCOMOTIVE IDLING LIMITING DEVICE OR 

ENGINE REMANUFACTURE KIT ONLY 

For AESS ILD Projects 

 AESS Make 

 AESS Model 

 AESS Year 

 AESS ID Number 

 AESS Capital Cost 

 AESS Installation Cost 

For Engine Remanufacture Kits 

 Remanufacture Kit Make 

 Remanufacture Kit Model 

 U.S. EPA Certified Locomotive Emission Level 

(Tier 0, Tier 1, or Tier 2) 

 Remanufacture Kit Cost 
 VIII-16 LOCOMOTIVES 

Third party applications are not allowed. The owner of the engine must sign and agree 

to the application. However, a third party (e.g. engine dealer or distributor) may 

complete an application or part of an application on an owner’s behalf. Applications 

must include a signature section for third parties. The third party signature section must 

include signature and date lines, and blanks for the third party to list how much they are 

being paid, if anything, to complete the application and what source of funds are being 

used to pay them. To make the Carl Moyer Program accessible to all potential 

applicants, including applicants that cannot afford to hire third party assistance, districts 

are encouraged to provide technical assistance to applicants in completing the 

application.

B. Reporting and Monitoring 

Air districts must abide by all reporting and monitoring requirements described in 

Chapter 1 – Program Administration. Monitoring of project progress ensures that the 

vehicle or engine is operated as stated in the program application. Records must be 

retained and updated for the duration of the project life and made available at the 

request of the air district or ARB. 

VIII. References 

Association of American Railroads, 2004. Association of American Railroads, 2004, 

Overview of U.S. Freight Railroads. 

Federal Register, April 16, 1998. Federal Register, Part II - Environmental Protection 

Agency, Emission Standards for Locomotives and Locomotive Engines Final Rule; 40 

CFR Parts 85, 89 and 92; April 16, 1998. 

U.S. EPA, 2004. U.S. EPA Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the Control of 

Emissions of Air Pollution from New Locomotive Engines and New Marine 

Compression-Ignition Engines Less Than 30 Liters Per Cylinder; 

Docket OAR-2003-0190. 
IX-1 MARINE VESSELS 

Chapter Nine 

MARINE VESSELS 

This chapter presents program criteria for marine vessel projects, and provides an 

overview of types of marine vessels, current emission control requirements, and 

available emission reduction technologies. The chapter also expands eligibility for 

Carl Moyer Program marine vessel projects to marine vessels with wet exhaust 

systems, and utilizes a single set of emission factors for propulsion and auxiliary 

engines, consistent with federal emission standards. 

I. Introduction 

Marine vessels eligible for Carl Moyer Program funding include harbor craft and 

oceangoing ships, but exclude recreational vessels such as personal watercraft. 

Historically, harbor craft have received the vast majority of Carl Moyer Program funding 

for marine vessels. However, oceangoing vessels remain eligible for funding if they 

operate in California Coastal Waters enough to generate cost-effective emission 

reductions and the proposed project meets all applicable Carl Moyer Program criteria. 

A map of California Coastal Waters can be found in Figure 9-1. 

 A. Harbor Craft 

Harbor craft include tugboats, fishing vessels, work boats, crew boats, ferries, 

Coast Guard vessels, and some military vessels. These vessels generally stay within 

California Coastal Waters and often leave and return to the same port. Tugboats 

generally have the most powerful engines, averaging about 1,300 horsepower. 

Commercial fishing and work boats, at the other end of the spectrum, average a little 

over 200 horsepower [ARB, 2003]. Beginning on January 1, 2007, all fuel sold to 

harbor craft statewide will be required to meet Air Resources Board (ARB or “Board”) 

low-sulfur diesel fuel standards. This ARB requirement goes into effect on 

January 1, 2006 in the South Coast Air Basin. 

 B. Oceangoing Ships 

Oceangoing ships usually travel internationally and include container ships, bulk 

carriers, general cargo ships, tankers, military ships, auto carriers, cruise ships and 

ocean-going tugboats. Oceangoing ships generally run on one or more 750 or greater 

horsepower engines. Most oceangoing ships run their main propulsion engines on a 

mixture of residual and distillate fuel (heavy fuel oil). Diesel gas turbine propulsion 

engines and auxiliary engines on ocean-going ships often run on cleaner marine gas oil 

(MGO). 
IX-2 MARINE VESSELS 

 C. Propulsion Engines 

Both propulsion and auxiliary marine vessel engines are eligible for Carl Moyer Program 

funding. For the purpose of the Carl Moyer Program, a propulsion engine is defined as 

an engine that powers the vessel through the water or directs the movement of the 

vessel. About two-thirds of harbor craft in California have one propulsion engine, while 

the remaining vessels have two or more engines [ARB, 2003]. Unlike most recreational 

vessel engines, harbor craft engines typically push the vessel through the water rather 

than hydroplaning, endure heavy use, and operate up to 6,000 hours a year. Harbor 

craft propulsion engines are therefore designed for prolonged operation at high loads. 

Ocean-going vessels may be propelled by diesel piston engines, steam turbines, or 

diesel-fueled gas turbines. In addition, diesel piston or turbine engines on oceangoing 

vessels may be used to drive generators to create electric power for propulsion. 

 D. Auxiliary Engines 

Auxiliary engines are used to power on-board equipment such as electrical lights, 

refrigeration units, and radios. For the purposes of the Carl Moyer Program, an 

auxiliary engine is defined as a marine vessel engine that is not the propulsion engine 

whose fuel, cooling, or exhaust systems are an integral part of the vessel or require 

special mounting hardware. All other engines are considered portable and may be 

eligible for funding under the Off-Road Compression Ignition project criteria (See 

Chapter 5). 

About 40 percent of harbor craft in California have auxiliary engines; almost half of 

these vessels are equipped with more than one engine [ARB, 2003]. Harbor craft 

auxiliary engines range from 4 to 400 horsepower, with ferries, tug boats, and 

commercial work boats having the highest horsepower auxiliary engines. 

II. Emissions 

Marine vessels are a significant source of airborne particulate matter (PM) and oxides of 

nitrogen (NOx), particularly at and around the State’s major maritime ports. The Ports 

of Los Angeles and Long Beach are among the busiest in the world, and emissions from 

marine vessels serving the ports impact air quality in surrounding communities and the 

South Coast Air Basin. At the Port of Los Angeles, for example, marine vessels are 

responsible for about two-thirds of port-related NOx emissions and over 80 percent of 

port-related PM emissions -- locomotives, heavy-duty trucks, and cargo-handling 

equipment contribute the bulk of remaining emissions [Port of Los Angeles Air Quality 

Task Force, 2005]. As trade with the Pacific Rim countries continues to grow, marine 

vessel emissions are projected to increase significantly. 

As shown in Table 9-1, emissions from ocean-going ships are far greater than 

emissions from harbor craft. The majority of California’s commercial marine vessel NOx 

and PM emissions (excluding emissions in the outer continental shelf) occur in the 
IX-3 MARINE VESSELS 

South Coast Air Basin. The San Francisco Bay Area, home to the Port of Oakland, is 

responsible for another 20 percent of the State’s total marine vessel emissions. 

Table 9-1 

Marine Vessel Emissions 

(Statewide, Annual Average, tpd) 

Pollutant 

by Vessel Type 2005 2010 2015 2020 

NOx 

 Harbor Craft 24 25 25 25 

 Ocean-going Ships 119 132 156 181 

Total 143 157 181 206 

PM 

 Harbor Craft 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 

 Ocean-going Ships 10.3 11.3 13.0 14.9 

Total 11.6 12.6 14.4 16.2 

ROG 

 Harbor Craft 3 3 3 3 

 Ocean-going Ships 6 7 8 10 

Total 9 10 11 13 

Based on the 2005 ARB Emission Inventory Almanac. Numbers may not total due to rounding. 

PM tends to be a localized pollutant, having the greatest impact in proximity to where it 

is emitted. PM emissions from vessels which spend much of their time further off-shore, 

such as fishing vessels, may therefore have less of a human health impact than 

emissions from vessels which operate closer to shore. At this time, however, PM 

emission standards for marine vessel engines are not differentiated by vessel type 

based upon the potential for human exposure. ARB staff will evaluate whether PM 

emissions from certain vessels should be discounted based on exposure potential in 

future Carl Moyer Program Guideline revisions. 
IX-4 MARINE VESSELS 

Figure 9-1 

California Coastal Water Boundaries 

III. Regulatory Requirements 

Most marine vessels in operation today have uncontrolled engines, since marine vessel 

emission standards have only recently begun being phased-in. Harbor craft began 

being subject to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) emission standards 

beginning in 2004, while new oceangoing vessels have recently become subject to 

federal and international emission standards. 

 A. Harbor Craft Emission Standards

Unlike other Carl Moyer Program categories, marine vessel propulsion and auxiliary 

engine emission standards are based upon cylinder displacement rather than 

horsepower. Basing standards on displacement rather than horsepower is intended to 

help ensure that each engine is not subject to multiple standards, since marine engines 

can be tuned for different power output. 

U.S. EPA harbor craft emission standards, adopted in 1999, apply to new 

diesel-powered engines with a displacement of up to 30 liters per cylinder. The 

standards apply to both propulsion and auxiliary engines and take effect between 2004 

and 2007, depending upon the engine size [Federal Register, 1999]. Table 9-2 

provides more information regarding federal harbor craft engine standards. 
IX-5 MARINE VESSELS 

Table 9-2 

U.S. EPA Marine Propulsion and Auxiliary 

Engine Emission Standards 

(g/kW-hr)* 

Displacement 

(liter/cyl) 

Starting 

Date 

NOx+THC** PM 

D < 0.9 2005 7.5 0.40 

0.9 < D < 1.2 2004 7.2 0.30 

1.2 < D < 2.5 2004 7.2 0.20 

2.5 < D < 5.0 2007 7.2 0.20 

5 < D < 15 2007 5.8 0.20 

15 < D < 20 

(P < 3300 kW) 

2007 7.8 0.27 

15 < D < 20 

(P > 3300 kW) 

2007 8.7 0.50 

20 < D < 25 2007 9.8 0.50 

25 < D < 30 2007 11.0 0.50 

* grams per kilowatt-hour. 

** NOx plus total hydrocarbon emissions. 

In May 2004, U.S. EPA issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, signaling 

its intent to pursue more stringent standards for new and existing harbor craft engines 

[U.S. EPA, 2004]. The standards are likely to be modeled after 2007 diesel off-road and 

2010 heavy-duty diesel on-road engine standards, and be based on the application of 

catalytic after-treatment technology. The new standards could be phased in as early as 

2011 and require a 90 percent reduction from previous limits. 

ARB staff is also developing a rule that may require the Best Available Control 

Technology (BACT), such as after-treatment devices or accelerated turnover, to reduce 

emissions from existing harbor craft fleets. The rule is scheduled to be considered for 

adoption by the Board in mid- to late-2006. If the rule is adopted, ARB shall publish an 

advisory describing how the rule impacts Carl Moyer Program funding eligibility. 

 B. Oceangoing Vessel Emission Standards 

International oceangoing vessels fall under the regulatory jurisdiction of the International 

Maritime Organization (IMO). In 1997, the IMO established NOx emission standards for 

diesel-powered propulsion and auxiliary engines over 130 kW (174 hp) on new 

ocean-going ships. The IMO standards have been ratified by the requisite number of 

nations and became enforceable in May 2004. Engine manufacturers have generally 

produced IMO-compliant engines since January 1, 2001, however, since the standards 

were retroactive to that date upon ratification. 
IX-6 MARINE VESSELS 

Table 9-3 

International Maritime Organization NOx Emission Standards 

Engine Speed (rpm) NOx (g/kW-hr) NOx (g/bhr-hr) 

n < 130 17.0 12.7 

130 < n < 2000 45n(-0.2) (convert from g/kW-hr)

n > 2000 9.8 7.3 

n = IMO rated engine speed (crankshaft revolutions per minute). 

U.S. EPA also adopted NOx emission standards for new oceangoing vessel engines in 

2003 [U.S. EPA, 2003]. The federal standards are virtually equivalent to the IMO 

standards but apply only to vessels flagged or registered in the United States beginning 

in 2004. U.S. EPA has also committed to adopt more stringent standards for 

oceangoing vessel engines by April 2007. The IMO and U.S. EPA standards do not 

include PM or reactive organic gas (ROG) emission limits, leaving marine vessels 

largely unregulated for these pollutants. 

An ARB rule requiring oceangoing vessel auxiliary engines run on MGO or marine 

diesel oil (MDO) while at dock or in California Coastal Waters is also under 

development. Use of MGO or MDO in place of dirtier heavy fuel oil can achieve up to 

80 percent emission reductions from oceangoing vessel auxiliary engines. The draft 

rule is scheduled to be considered by the Board in December 2005 and could require 

implementation beginning in mid-2006. 

Finally, ARB staff is developing a rule to require ships that visit California frequently to 

implement emission reduction strategies. The rule will be considered for adoption by 

the Board sometime in 2006. ARB will publish an advisory once these rules are 

adopted describing how each rule impacts Carl Moyer Program funding eligibility. 

 C. Voluntary Emission Standards—The Blue Sky Series Program 

In order to provide engine manufacturers with an incentive to produce engines that are 

cleaner than those required by regulations, the federal government developed the 

Blue Sky Series Program. U.S. EPA’s voluntary Blue Sky Series Program permits 

manufacturers to certify their engines to more stringent emission standards than 

required. New marine vessel purchase projects must meet the federal Blue Sky 

Standards to qualify for Carl Moyer Program funding. To date, no marine vessel 

propulsion engines have been certified to meet the Blue Sky standards, and no marine 

vessel new purchase projects have been funded through the Carl Moyer Program. 
IX-7 MARINE VESSELS 

Table 9-4 

“Blue Sky Series” Voluntary Emission Standards 

(g/kW-hr) 

Cylinder Displacement (D, dm3

) NOx+THC PM 

Power ≥ 37 kW & D < 0.9 4.0 0.24 

0.9 < D < 1.2 4.0 0.18 

1.2 < D < 2.5 4.0 0.12 

2.5 < D < 5.0 5.0 0.12 

5.0 < D <15 5.0 0.16 

15 < D < 20 & Power < 3300 kW 5.2 0.30 

15 < D < 20 & Power < 3300 kW 5.9 0.30 

20 < D < 25 5.9 0.30 

25 < D < 30 6.6 0.30 

IV. Potential Projects 

The vast majority of Carl Moyer Program marine vessel projects thus far involve harbor 

craft, rather than oceangoing vessels. Harbor craft projects have been more common 

due to several factors – their emissions tend to occur solely within California Coastal 

Waters, vessel activity is more predictable, and engine replacement is extremely 

cost-effective. 

Marine vessel projects that could potentially qualify for incentive funding under the 

Carl Moyer Program include the purchase of a new reduced emission marine vessel, a 

marine vessel repower, or a marine vessel retrofit. Shore power projects to reduce 

marine vessel auxiliary engine emissions may also be eligible for Carl Moyer Program 

funding and are discussed in Chapter 12. Projects to replace gasoline-fueled engines 

with diesel engines are not eligible for funding. 

 A. New Purchase 

New marine vessels with propulsion engines certified to U.S. EPA’s Blue Sky Series 

emission limits are eligible for Carl Moyer Program funding. While no marine vessel 

propulsion engines currently meet the Blue Sky Standards, engines meeting certification 

emission limits may become commercially available as engine technologies continue to 

advance. 

 B. Repower 

To date, most Carl Moyer Program marine vessel projects have involved replacing or 

“repowering” an old harbor craft engine with a newer, cleaner engine. Most of these 

projects have involved replacing an older mechanical engine with a newer electronically 

controlled engine. For all Carl Moyer Program engine repowers, the replacement 

engine certified emission rate must provide at least a 15 percent NOx reduction relative 

to the baseline engine. If the replacement engine is significantly modified or 
IX-8 MARINE VESSELS 

re-configured in any way during the project life, emissions testing must be conducted to 

determine its new emission rates. 

Engine repowers for marine vessels equipped with a wet exhaust system are eligible for 

Carl Moyer Program funding. Since a wet exhaust system reduces air emissions from 

both the baseline and the newer, cleaner engine, repower projects on marine vessels 

with these systems may result in slightly fewer emission reductions compared to 

repowers of vessels with dry exhaust. An analysis of emissions data from California 

harbor craft indicates wet exhaust systems reduce PM and NOx emissions from 

propulsion and auxiliary engines by 1 to 19 percent. In order to ensure emission 

reductions projects on vessels with wet exhaust systems are not overstated, a 

conservative 20 percent NOx and PM emission reduction factor must be applied to both 

the baseline and reduced emission engine (See marine vessel Example Calculation 3 in 

Appendix D for more information). The Carl Moyer Program does not provide funding to 

repair or replace any component of the wet exhaust system itself. 

 C. Retrofits 

Potential marine vessel retrofit projects involve the addition of an ARB-verified diesel 

particulate filter, diesel oxidation catalyst, or selective catalytic reduction technology. A 

retrofit device must typically be verified by ARB in order to be considered for funding. 

To date, however, very few retrofit technologies have been verified to reduce emissions 

from marine vessels. Retrofit technologies generally develop first for on-road sources, 

and are refined for use on off-road engines. Because of the lack of retrofit devices 

verified for use on a marine vessel engine, a marine vessel retrofit device which is not 

yet verified may be considered for funding on a case-by-case basis. Applicants for 

funding on a case-by-case basis must meet the applicable project criteria described in 

Section V of this chapter. 

In recent years, engine manufacturers have also developed engine remanufacture 

retrofit kits certified by the IMO to meet IMO NOx emission standards. To be eligible for 

Carl Moyer Program funding, a remanufacture retrofit kit must be certified by the ARB, 

U.S. EPA, or the IMO to reduce emissions from the project vessel engine. NOx 

emissions must be reduced by at least 15 percent to take credit for NOx emission 

reductions. Remanufacture kits which employ fuel injection timing retard are only 

eligible for funding if it is demonstrated that PM emissions from the project vessel shall 

not increase. If the retrofit kit certification does not specify a specific percent reduction 

or emission rate for NOx, PM, or ROG, emissions testing must be conducted annually 

for the life of the project to ensure the retrofit does not increase emissions of these 

individual pollutants. Individual engine parts or other vessel components are not eligible 

for funding unless as part of a complete certified engine remanufacture kit. 

 D. On-Board Testing 

Because of the high variability in marine engine emission rates, districts may utilize 

on-board testing to determine baseline marine vessel emission rates for the purposes of 
IX-9 MARINE VESSELS 

Carl Moyer Program cost-effectiveness calculations, if testing follows approved test 

procedures. Constant speed propulsion engines should be tested on the International 

Organization for Standardization’s (ISO) 8178- E2 test cycle and constant speed 

auxiliary engines on the ISO 8178-D2 test cycle. Variable speed auxiliary engines and 

variable speed propulsion engines used with variable-pitch propellers (or electrically 

coupled propellers) should be tested on the ISO 8178-C1 duty cycle. All other engines, 

including those used with fixed-pitch propellers, should be tested on the ISO 8178-E3 

Marine Propeller Law Heavy Duty operating cycle. When on-board testing is conducted 

in accordance with approved procedures, these results must be used when calculating 

emission reductions. The maximum acceptable values of baseline NOx, ROG, and PM 

emission factors derived from in-situ source testing are 20 g/bhp-hr, 2.0 g/bhp-hr, and 

1.0 g/bhp-hr, respectively. If emission testing is not feasible, the applicant can use the 

default baseline emission factors presented in Appendix B. 

V. Project Criteria 

These criteria provide the minimum requirements for all Carl Moyer Program marine 

vessel projects. Participating districts retain the authority to impose additional 

requirements in order to address local concerns. 

 A. General 

• Emission reductions obtained through Carl Moyer Program projects must not be 

required by any federal, state or local regulation, memorandum of 

agreement/understanding with air quality regulators, settlement agreement, 

mitigation requirement, or other legal mandate. Inclusion in a port emission 

reduction plan, lease agreement, or other voluntarily adopted strategy does not 

exclude a marine vessel project from Carl Moyer Program funding eligibility, if such 

project is not otherwise required. 

• No emission reductions generated by the Carl Moyer Program shall be used as 

marketable emission reduction credits, or to offset any emission reduction obligation 

of any person or entity. 

• No project funded by the Carl Moyer Program shall be used for credit under any 

federal or state emission averaging banking and trading program. 

• Marine vessels and engines utilizing an alternative compliance plan to comply with a 

rule, requirement, or other mandate shall not be eligible for Carl Moyer Program 

funds. 

• A marine vessel engine receiving any type of emission reduction credit or offset is 

ineligible for Carl Moyer Program funding. 

• Beginning January 1, 2007, all harbor craft with diesel engines must use ARB 

low-sulfur diesel fuel to be eligible for Carl Moyer Program funding. Emission 
IX-10 MARINE VESSELS 

reductions and costs associated with use of ARB diesel shall not be included in 

project cost-effectiveness calculations. 

• Only marine vessel engines with a United States Coast Guard Documentation 

Number or IMO/Lloyd’s Number are eligible for Carl Moyer Program funding. This 

information must be included in the project application. 

• Projects must meet a cost-effectiveness of $14,300 per weighed ton of NOx + ROG 

+ combustion PM10 reduced calculated in accordance with the cost-effectiveness 

methodology discussed in this chapter. 

• Carl Moyer Program grants can be no greater than a project’s incremental cost. The 

incremental cost is the cost of the project minus the baseline cost. The incremental 

cost shall be reduced by the value of any current financial incentive that reduces the 

project price, including tax credits or deductions, grants, or other public financial 

assistance. 

• The contract term for all marine vessel projects must be equivalent to the project life. 

The project life is defined as the number of years used to evaluate project 

cost-effectiveness. 

• Projects must have a minimum project life of three years. ARB may approve shorter 

project life on a case-by-case basis. Projects with shorter lives may be subject to 

additional funding restrictions, such as a lower cost-effectiveness limit or a project 

cost cap. 

• The maximum project life for marine vessel projects (equivalent to the average 

engine life reported by U.S. EPA) is as follows: 

Maximum 

Project Life

Engine displacement <5.0 liter/cyl. 16 years 

Engine displacement >5.0 liter/cyl. 23 years 

Auxiliary engines 17 years 

• Only marine vessel activity in California waters may be used to determine project 

emission reductions. For the purposes of the Carl Moyer Program, California water 

boundaries are based upon each air districts' emission inventory boundary. If a local 

district has not established an emission inventory boundary, the ARB and district 

staff will determine an appropriate boundary for use in project evaluation. 

• Non-captive California fleets and vessels may be considered for funding on 

case-by-case basis if their operation in California coastal waters can be properly 

documented. 
IX-11 MARINE VESSELS 

• Marine vessels which are not self-propelled (e.g. barges) are not eligible for 

Carl Moyer Program funding. 

• Project marine vessels must be equipped with a functioning tamper proof electronic 

monitoring unit (EMU) to track activity and geographic location. The EMU must be 

turned on and functional when the project engine is running to record all vessel trips 

and activity. If the EMU is battery powered, the battery life must be long enough to 

ensure the EMU is charged and functional each time the project vessel is operated. 

Electronic information from the EMU regarding total and percent of activity (fuel use 

or hours of operation) within the air district coastal boundary and California Coastal 

Waters must be reported to air district annually. The cost of a new unit, as well as 

installation and data summarization and transmittal costs, may be included in the 

Carl Moyer Program grant and in the project cost-effectiveness calculations if not 

required by any rule, statute, MOU, or other mandate. 

• Carl Moyer Program funds cannot be expended on costs for labor or parts used 

during routine maintenance. 

• Funding is not available for projects where spark-ignition engines (i.e. natural gas or 

gasoline, etc.) are replaced with diesel engines. 

• Engines on marine vessels with wet exhaust systems are eligible for 

Carl Moyer Program funding if the project vessel meets all other applicable program 

requirements. The wet exhaust systems themselves are not eligible for 

Carl Moyer Program funding. A wet exhaust factor of 0.80 must be applied to the 

baseline and reduced emission propulsion and auxiliary engine emission 

calculations for all projects on vessels with wet exhaust systems. 

• Potential projects which fall outside of these criteria may be considered on a 

case by-case basis if evidence provided by the air district suggests potential surplus, 

real, quantifiable, and enforceable emission reduction benefits. 

• Air districts must consult with ARB staff to determine eligibility of all projects 

considered for funding on a case-by-case basis. All projects considered for funding 

on a case-by-case basis must receive ARB approval prior to receiving program 

funding. 

 B. New Purchase 

• A new marine vessel must meet the U.S. EPA Blue Sky Series Standards identified 

in Table 9-4 to be eligible for funding. All propulsion and auxiliary engines on new 

marine vessel purchase projects must also achieve at least a 30 percent NOx 

emission reduction from baseline levels. 
IX-12 MARINE VESSELS 

 C. Repower 

• A replacement engine or retrofit must provide a 15 percent minimum NOx emission 

reduction relative to the baseline engine. 

 D. Retrofit 

• A retrofit device must be ARB-verified to reduce emissions from the project engine in 

order to be eligible for funding. Non-verified technologies may be considered on a 

case by case basis if: 1) an application for verification of the retrofit or add-on 

equipment on the proposed engine category is pending, 2) the retrofit or add-on 

equipment has been verified or certified by ARB for use on a similar engine 

category, or 3) project emission benefit, durability, and applicability have been or 

shall be demonstrated through in-situ testing. 

• Retrofits considered for funding on a case-by-case basis must be clearly 

demonstrated to achieve the expected emission reductions for the full project life, to 

function properly under the project vessel engine duty cycle, and to not harm the 

vessel engine. 

• To be eligible for Carl Moyer Program funding, an engine remanufacture retrofit kit 

must be certified by the ARB, U.S. EPA, or the IMO to reduce emissions from the 

project vessel engine. NOx emissions must be reduced by at least 15 percent to 

take credit for NOx emission reductions. Engine remanufacture kits must also not 

increase NOx, PM, or ROG emissions from the project vessel. If the engine 

certification does not specify a specific percent reduction or emission rate for NOx, 

PM, or ROG, emissions testing must be conducted annually for the life of the project 

to ensure the retrofit does not increase emissions from these individual pollutants. 

Individual engine parts or other vessel components are not eligible for funding 

unless as part of a complete certified engine remanufacture kit. 

E. Scrap 

• Scrap requirements are described in the 2005 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, 

Part I, Chapter 2: Administration of the Carl Moyer Program. 

VI Cost-Effectiveness Calculations 

To receive Carl Moyer Program funding, each project must meet the maximum 

cost-effective threshold of $14,300 per weighted ton of covered pollutants reduced. 

Only funds provided by the Carl Moyer Program and local district matching funds are to 

be used in determining cost-effectiveness. Emission reduction benefits represent the 

difference in the emission levels of the existing baseline technology relative to the 

newer, reduced-emission technology. Baseline and reduced engine emission factors 

are listed in Table B-18 in Appendix B. Harbor craft emission factors represent off-road 
IX-13 MARINE VESSELS 

engine emission factors for uncontrolled engines, and harbor craft emission standards 

for controlled engines. Fuel correction factors have been applied to all emission factors. 

A detailed description of how to calculate cost-effectiveness can be found in 

Appendix C. Marine vessel emission reduction calculations will use either the fuel- or 

hour-based formula as discussed in Appendix C. Examples of cost-effectiveness 

calculations can also be found in Appendix D. 

VII. Minimum Project Application Requirements 

These are minimum project application requirements. Air districts have full authority to 

require additional application, reporting, and monitoring requirements. 

 A. Application 

Districts solicit bids for reduced-emission projects for marine vessels. The applicant 

must provide the minimum information illustrated in Table 9-5. 

A disclosure must also be included stating that the proposed project has not been 

funded and is not being considered for funding by another air district, ARB, or any other 

public agency. Any applicant who is found to have submitted multiple applications for 

the same project may be banned from submitting future applications to any and all 

Carl Moyer Program solicitations and may be subject to criminal sanctions. A project 

funded cooperatively by multiple air districts is eligible for funding if the project 

parameters are coordinated amongst the participating districts and the project meets all 

applicable Carl Moyer Program criteria. Applicants are allowed to re-apply for project 

funding if a previous application has been rejected and is no longer being considered for 

funding. 

Third party applications are not allowed. The owner of the engine must sign and agree 

to the application. However, a third party (e.g. engine dealer or distributor) may 

complete an application or part of an application on an owner’s behalf. Applications 

must include a signature section for third parties. The third party signature section must 

include signature and date lines, and blanks for the third party to list how much they are 

being paid, if anything, to complete the application and what source of funds are being 

used to pay them. To make the Carl Moyer Program accessible to all potential 

applicants, including applicants that cannot afford to hire third party assistance, districts 

are encouraged to provide technical assistance to applicants in completing the 

application. 
IX-14 MARINE VESSELS 

Table 9-5 

Minimum Application Requirements for Marine Vessel Projects 

Applicant Information

Organization, Company or Individual Name 

Street Address 

City, County, State, Zip Code 

Primary Contact Name 

Primary Contact Phone Number 

Person with Contract Signing Authority 

Person who Filled Out Funding Application 

Project Address (if different from above) 

MARINE VESSEL REPOWER 

Equipment Type (Commercial Fishing, Charter 

Fishing, Crew and Supply, Ferry Excursion, Pilot, 

Tow, Tug, Work, or Other) 

Number of Propulsion Engines to be Repowered 

Number of Auxiliary Engines to be Repowered 

Vessel Name 

Vessel Make 

Vessel Model 

Vessel Year 

U.S. Coast Guard Documentation Number 

 (IMO/Lloyd's Number if oceangoing vessel) 

Does the project vessel utilize a wet exhaust 

system? (yes/no) 

Engine Information – Needed for Each 

Project Engine (Propulsion and/or Auxiliary)

Baseline Engine Make 

Baseline Engine Model 

Baseline Engine Year 

Baseline Engine Serial Number 

Baseline Engine Horsepower 

Baseline Engine Displacement (ltr/cyl) 

Baseline Engine Fuel 

Will the vessel engine have a functioning hour 

meter for the full project life? (yes/no) 

Engine Annual Hours of Operation or Gallons 

Fuel Consumption 

Newer Engine Make 

Newer Engine Model 

Newer Engine Year 

Newer Engine Serial Number (if available) 

Newer Engine Horsepower 

Newer Engine Displacement (ltr/cyl) 

Activity Information

Vessel Berthing Location (if any) 

Percent Operation in California Waters 

Percent Operation in District Waters 

Vessel Annual Hours of Operation or Gallons Fuel 

Consumption 

Does Vessel Remain in Port Only? (yes, no) 

Project Life 

Electronic Monitoring Unit (EMU) 

Will a new eligible EMU be installed as part 

 of this project? (yes/no) 

EMU Make 

EMU Model 

EMU Model Year 

EMU ID Number 

EMU Cost (optional) 

Cost Information– Needed for Each 

Project Engine (Propulsion and/or Auxiliary)

Cost to Rebuild Existing Engine 

New Engine Purchase Price 

New Engine Installation Cost 

New Engine Vendor (optional) 

New Engine Installer (optional) 

 B. Reporting and Monitoring 

Air districts must abide by all reporting and monitoring requirements described in 

Chapter 1 – Program Administration. Monitoring of project progress ensures that the 

vessel or engine is operated as stated in the program application. Records must be 
IX-15 MARINE VESSELS 

retained and updated for the duration of the project life and made available at the 

request of the air district or ARB. 

VIII. References 

ARB, 2003. California Air Resources Board 2003 Harbor Craft Survey. 

Federal Register, 1999. Federal Register - Environmental Protection Agency, Control of 

Emissions of Air Pollution From New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 

37 kW, December 29, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 249). 

Port of Los Angeles Air Quality Task Force, 2005. Port of Los Angeles Air Quality Task 

Force, Port of Los Angeles No Net Increase in Air Emissions Final Report, June 24, 

2005. 

U.S. EPA, 2003. U.S. EPA, Control of Emissions From New Marine CompressionIgnition Engines at or Above 30 Liters Per Cylinder, Federal Register 9745-9789, 28 

Feb 2003. 

U.S. EPA, 2004. United States Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. EPA Advanced 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from New 

Locomotive Engines and New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines Less Than 30 

Liters Per Cylinder (Docket OAR-2003-0190). 
X-1 AGRICULTURAL SOURCES 

Chapter Ten 

AGRICULTURAL SOURCES 

This chapter presents the project criteria under the Carl Moyer Program for stationary 

and portable agricultural engines and for non-engine agricultural projects (e.g. dairies). 

Previous versions of the Carl Moyer Program Guidelines only allowed funding for 

stationary agricultural irrigation pump engines; eligible projects now include other 

non-mobile agricultural engines and non-engine sources. Information about mobile 

agricultural use equipment (e.g. tractors) can be found in Chapter 5: Compression 

Ignition Off-Road Equipment. This chapter also contains an overview of agricultural 

sources of air pollution, current regulations, potential project types, and application 

requirements. For information about electric-powered agricultural equipment, please 

consult Chapter 12: Zero-Emission Technologies. 

I. Introduction 

The agricultural industry contributes greatly to the economy and identity of California. 

Approximately 78,500 farming operations within California produce 13 percent of the 

nation's gross farming receipts, while representing only 4 percent of the total farms in 

the nation. Agricultural marketings from California's farmers and ranchers reached 

$27.8 billion in 2003 [CASS, 2003]. 

Until the enactment of Senate Bill 700 (SB 700, Florez) in 2003, the agricultural industry 

in California was largely exempt from air pollution regulations. Local air districts are 

currently adopting regulations to reduce air pollution from agricultural engines as well as 

other agricultural sources. 

Since 1998, the Carl Moyer Program has provided significant funding for repowers or 

retrofits of internal combustion engines powering irrigation pumps, and for engine 

replacement of self-propelled farm equipment. Recent legislative changes extended the 

Carl Moyer Program to additional agricultural sources of air pollution. 

II. Emissions 

Emissions attributed to agricultural use of off-road vehicles are included in the 

emissions estimates found in the Chapter 5: Compression Ignition Off-Road 

Equipment. Currently available estimates for other agricultural sources are discussed 

below. 

As part of the airborne toxic control measure (ATCM) for stationary diesel engines, ARB 

staff worked with the local districts and the agricultural community to create an estimate 

of emissions from stationary diesel-fueled engines used in agricultural operations [ARB, 

2003]. ARB staff was unable to project the emissions for future years with any degree 
X-2 AGRICULTURAL SOURCES 

of certainty because of the limited data available. The emissions estimates for 

stationary agricultural use of diesel engines are shown in Table 10-1. 

Table 10-1 

Statewide Emissions from Agricultural Use of Stationary Diesel Engines for 2001 

(prime engines, tons per day) 

Population NOx ROG PM10 

5,338 21.1 4.3 1.5 

No emissions estimates for stationary spark-ignited (SI) agricultural use engines are 

available because the population of stationary SI engines in agricultural operations is 

not known. 

Emission estimates for livestock operations were developed for the recent regulatory 

process for creating a definition for large confined animal facility (CAF) [ARB, 2005b]. 

The emission estimates (found in Table 10-2) are based on current best available data 

as of March 2005. The emission factors used to develop livestock emission estimates 

will be refined as additional research studies are completed. 

Table 10-2 

Statewide ROG and PM10 Emissions from Livestock for 2004 

(tons per day) 

 ROG PM10 

Dairies 35.7 8.3 

Other livestock 10.1 11 

III. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements 

A. SB 700 

In 2003, SB 700 amended and added air pollution control requirements in the California 

Health and Safety Code (sections 39011.5, 39023.3, 40724, 40724.5, 40724.6, 

40724.7, 40731, 42301.16, 42301.17, 42301.18, 42310, and 44559.9) to include 

requirements for agricultural sources of air pollution. Some of the key requirements of 

this legislation are listed below: 

• The legislation defined “agricultural source of air pollution” as a source or group of 

sources used in the production of crops or raising of fowl or animals located on 

contiguous property and under common ownership or control. Four categories of 

emission sources are identified as part of this definition: 

− Large CAFs. 

− Internal combustion engines, including portable and off-road engines, unless 

used to propel instruments of husbandry. 
X-3 AGRICULTURAL SOURCES 

− Sources subject to requirements of Title V, the federal operating permitting 

program for major stationary sources. 

− Sources of emissions otherwise subject to district regulation. 

• The legislation removed language exempting agricultural sources from air quality 

permits in the Health and Safety Code in its entirety. As a result, agricultural 

operations may be required to obtain air permits from local districts. 

• The legislation established specific agricultural source permitting and exemption 

requirements for local districts. 

• The legislation required certain districts to adopt by regulation a set of measures to 

reduce emissions from agricultural sources in federal particulate matter 

non-attainment areas. 

• The legislation required the ARB to establish a definition for a “large” CAF, and 

required certain districts to adopt rules requiring large CAFs to obtain permits and 

implement emission mitigation measures. 

B. Stationary Diesel Engines ATCM 

In February 2004, the Board adopted an ATCM for stationary compression ignition (CI) 

engines greater than 50 horsepower [ARB, 2003]. The Board amended the ATCM in 

May 2005 [ARB, 2005a]. The control measure requires new CI engines for agricultural 

operations, including those used to repower agricultural equipment, to meet ARB and 

federal new off-road engine PM certification standards for engines of the same 

horsepower and model year. The only exception to this requirement is for the 

installation of Tier 2 engines through January 1, 2008, purchased with 

Carl Moyer Program funds. 

ARB staff is currently working on the development of in-use stationary diesel agricultural 

engine requirements to be considered by the Board in 2006. 

C. Portable Diesel Engine ATCM 

An ATCM for portable diesel engines was adopted by the Board in February 2004 [ARB, 

2004]. The control measure requires all diesel-fueled portable engines 50 horsepower 

and greater to be certified to Tier 1, 2, or 3 federal and state off-road engine emission 

standards by 2010. The ATCM also requires fleets of portable engines 50 horsepower 

and greater to meet weighted particulate matter emission standards that become more 

stringent in 2013, 2017, and 2020. 

D. Large Confined Animal Facility Definition 

In response to the requirements of SB 700, the Board approved a definition for large 

CAF on June 23, 2005 [ARB, 2005b]. The definition (shown in Table 10-3) is based on 
X-4 AGRICULTURAL SOURCES 

headcount of livestock categories and takes into consideration the federal ozone 

attainment status of districts as well as livestock population and operational practices of 

facilities. A recordkeeping component requires the owner or operator of a large CAF to 

keep a daily record of animals at the facility and to submit the information to the local air 

district consistent with applicable local rules. 

Table 10-3 

Large Confined Animal Facility Definition by Livestock Category 

(facilities at or exceeding threshold are considered large) 

Livestock Category Non-Attainment Areas* Attainment Areas* 

Dairy 1,000 milk producing cows 2,000 milk producing cows 

Beef Feedlots 2,500 beef cattle 5,000 beef cattle 

Other Cattle 

Operations 

7,500 calves, heifers, or 

other cattle 

15,000 calves, heifers, or 

other cattle 

Chickens – Broilers 650,000 1,300,000 

Chickens – Egg 

Layers 650,000 1,300,000 

Turkeys 100,000 200,000 

Swine 3,000 6,000 

Sheep and Goats 15,000 30,000 

Horses 2,500 5,000 

Ducks 650,000 1,300,000 

Rabbits, Pheasants, 

Llamas, Others 30,000 60,000 

*Federal 1-hour ozone designation as of January 1, 2004 

By July 1, 2006, air districts in federal ozone non-attainment areas must adopt rules 

requiring large CAFs to submit a mitigation plan to reduce air contaminants to the extent 

feasible. Each air district in a federal ozone attainment area must adopt a similar rule 

by July 1, 2006, unless its district board makes a finding in a public hearing that large 

CAFs will not contribute to violations of state or federal standards. Large CAFs have six 

months from the date of adoption of the district rule to submit their mitigation plans to 

the district; the districts have an additional six months to approve submitted plans. One 

year after submitting their plans (July 1, 2008), large CAFs must comply with the 

requirements of their mitigation plans. 

E. Local Air District Rules 

Because most Carl Moyer Program projects affect mobile sources that are subject to 

statewide regulation, few district rules affect Carl Moyer Program funding. However, 

future district rules impacting agricultural sources must be considered when determining 

whether projects provide reductions surplus to regulatory requirements. 

Internal combustion engines: Prior to the adoption of SB 700, most air districts 

specifically exempted agricultural engines from prohibitory rules for stationary internal 
X-5 AGRICULTURAL SOURCES 

combustion engines greater than 50 horsepower. As a result, stationary agricultural 

engine emissions were largely uncontrolled. These districts have amended (or will 

amend) their internal combustion engine rules to remove the agricultural operation 

exemption. In these districts, stationary internal combustion engines used in agricultural 

operations are now required (or will be required) to meet the emission standards/limits, 

permitting conditions, and compliance requirements of the local district. 

Large Confined Animal Facilities: As outlined in the previous section, local air districts 

in federal ozone non-attainment areas are required to adopt rules developed to mitigate 

emissions from large CAFs. Local air districts in federal ozone attainment areas are 

also required to develop rules to mitigate large CAF emissions unless their district 

boards make a finding in a public hearing that large CAFs will not contribute to 

violations of state or federal standards. A number of air districts have or are preparing 

to adopt regulations to meet these requirements. 

Fugitive Dust Control: A number of air districts require agricultural operations to reduce 

fugitive dust emissions through local rules. Local rules for particulate matter dust 

control generally require agricultural operations to implement a variety of 

practice-specific options to reduce particulate matter. These practices may include 

methods to reduce the movement of soil during land preparation, cultivation, and 

harvesting, suppression of dust on unpaved roads, alternatives to burning, and 

reduction of agricultural chemical applications. 

IV. Potential Projects 

Potential Carl Moyer Program projects for agricultural sources fall into three broad 

categories: 

• Mobile source projects. Criteria for the projects may be found in 

Chapter 5: Compression Ignition Off-Road Equipment. 

• Stationary and portable agricultural engines. 

• Non-engine agricultural sources. 

The Carl Moyer Program seeks cost-effective emission reductions from stationary and 

portable agricultural engines operating in California. Criteria are designed to ensure 

that the emission reductions expected through the deployment of electric motors, 

reduced-emission engines, or retrofit technologies under this program are real, surplus, 

enforceable, and quantifiable. In addition, at each district’s discretion, eligible projects 

may be subject to funding or cost-effectiveness caps. 

Portable diesel engine repower projects must begin by January 1, 2007, to meet the 

three year project life requirement due to the requirement of the diesel-fueled portable 

engines ATCM that all diesel-fueled portable engines be certified engines by 

January 1, 2010 [ARB, 2004]. 
X-6 AGRICULTURAL SOURCES 

A. New Purchase 

The only Carl Moyer Program eligible project for a new agricultural stationary or 

portable equipment purchase is a new electric motor. For the purposes of determining 

emission reductions, the new electric motor will be compared to an off-road diesel 

engine certified to the current off-road emission standards. 

B. Repower 

 1. Repower with Electric Motors 

Replacement of uncontrolled or older engines in agricultural operations with electric 

motors provides significant emission benefits. Diesel and SI engines may be repowered 

with electric motors. In addition, selected costs for necessary peripheral equipment 

associated with the motor (e.g., control panel, motor leads, service pole with guy wire, 

connecting electric line) may be included in determining the grant amount awarded. 

In June 2005, the Public Utilities Commission approved a reduced electricity rate and 

line extension allowance for Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) and Southern California 

Edison (SCE) to be used for conversion of stationary agricultural internal combustion 

engines to electric. Individuals enrolling in the PG&E and SCE incentive programs may 

receive funds through the Carl Moyer Program for an electric motor replacing an internal 

combustion engine, regardless of whether they are currently under Carl Moyer Program 

contract. Because of the limited enrollment timeframe, ARB will allow grantees 

currently under contract to negotiate new contracts if they choose to participate in the 

utilities’ incentive programs. Please refer to Chapter 12: Zero-Emission Technologies 

for specific information on these projects. 

 2. Repower with Emission-Certified Engines 

Stationary and portable agricultural engines may be repowered with new off-road 

engines certified to the current applicable off-road emission standards. This provision 

applies to repowers with diesel and SI engines. Diesel engines may be replaced with 

cleaner diesel or SI engines. SI engines may only be replaced with cleaner SI engines; 

projects replacing SI engines with diesel engines are not eligible for 

Carl Moyer Program funding. Emission reductions must be surplus to state or district 

rules and any permit conditions. Cost-effectiveness calculations are based on the 

rebuild cost of the engine being replaced. 

 3. Repower with SI Engines Exceeding Local District 

Requirements 

Very few power systems using SI engines for stationary and portable applications have 

been certified to meet applicable emission standards. These power systems are 

typically assembled by third parties and are not required to be certified because they 

are used in stationary applications. Because under certain conditions SI engines can 
X-7 AGRICULTURAL SOURCES 

be significantly cleaner than diesel engines, Carl Moyer Program funds may be used to 

fund purchases of non-certified SI engines in some cases. This provision is available 

until January 1, 2008. This will allow ARB and the districts an opportunity to assess the 

emission performance and durability of non-certified SI engines in the field. The 

emission reductions provided by a non-certified SI engine must be surplus to any local 

district rules. Emission reduction calculations will be based on the rebuild cost of the 

engine being replaced. 

Non-certified SI engines purchased through the Carl Moyer Program will be required to 

have best available emission control components, and will be subject to source testing 

and monitoring requirements as described in the Project Criteria or local district 

requirements, whichever is more stringent. The costs associated for testing and 

monitoring may not be included in the grant award. 

C. Retrofit 

A retrofit involves modifications to the engine and/or fuel system such that the retrofitted 

engine does not have the same specifications as the original engine. Retrofit projects 

that reduce NOx may be applicable to certain diesel or SI engine families. Emission 

control technologies that have been verified for use to reduce NOx and PM10 emissions 

in other applications for on-road or off-road diesel or SI engines may be applicable to 

stationary and portable agricultural engines. A NOx retrofit for an uncontrolled diesel 

engine must be verified to reduce emissions to the applicable new engine tier standard 

or less for a given engine size and not increase particulate matter. An 

emission-certified stationary or portable engine may use a retrofit kit that is verified to 

reduce NOx or NOx + non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) emissions by at least 

15 percent from the applicable emission standard. Uncontrolled SI engines may use a 

retrofit kit verified to reduce emissions to the currently applicable standard for large 

SI equipment, or if not feasible, with a retrofit kit verified to reduce emissions to at least 

3.0 g/bhp-hr. The emission reductions provided by a retrofit kit must be surplus to the 

local district rule. Emission reduction calculations will be based on the emission rates of 

the existing engine being retrofitted. 

Additional information on retrofit emission control strategies is provided in Appendix F. 

D. Non-Engine Projects 

Recent legislative changes have extended the Carl Moyer Program to non-engine 

agricultural sources of air pollution. The Board has directed the Executive Officer to 

develop and approve project criteria for non-engine agricultural sources where 

technology is available to ensure the emission reductions are real, surplus, quantifiable, 

and enforceable. No specific project criteria are included at this time due to the limited 

data available on specific control technologies. ARB staff will continue to work closely 

with the districts and interested stakeholders to monitor technological developments to 

determine when and if it is it appropriate to develop project criteria for non-engine 

sources. 
X-8 AGRICULTURAL SOURCES 

Potential control technologies and regulatory options will be evaluated for suitability 

under Carl Moyer Program requirements. During these evaluations, ARB staff will 

consider: 

• Whether the technology provides real, quantifiable, and enforceable emission 

reductions. 

• The availability of standardized testing procedures that will quantify emission 

reductions from these technologies. 

• Availability of baseline emission factors. 

• Potential multi-media issues. 

While engines have a statewide certification or verification process to prove the 

emission levels are achieved in practice, there is no comparable statewide process for 

stationary and area-wide sources. In developing statewide project criteria for 

non-engine technology, ARB staff will need to consider how to ensure that emission 

reductions are achieved. 

If non-engine agricultural projects include reductions of non-combustion PM, the criteria 

will include a weighting factor for non-combustion PM for use in the cost-effectiveness 

formula. 

The following sections provide background on some potential non-engine agricultural 

projects. 

 1. Livestock Operations 

Air emissions of concern from livestock include ammonia, nitrous oxide, methane, 

carbon dioxide, volatile organic compounds (VOC), hydrogen sulfide, and particulate 

matter. The emissions can come from animal housing, storage areas for manure and 

wastewater, cropland where manure is applied, and directly from the cows. Livestock 

emissions are most significant in the San Joaquin Valley and the South Coast Air Basin. 

The South Coast Air Quality Management District adopted Rule 1127 - Emission 

Reductions from Livestock Waste in 2004. This rule requires dairies to clear manure 

from corrals more frequently and send the manure to an emissions-controlled compost 

facility, an anaerobic digester, or to agricultural land where manure is approved for 

spreading as fertilizer.

The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District recently approved a VOC 

emission factor to be used for permitting San Joaquin Valley dairies. The District 

reviewed important classes of VOC constituents and key dairy processes individually 
X-9 AGRICULTURAL SOURCES 

before approving a total dairy emission factor of 19.3 lbs/year/head. The District will 

consider regulations to reduce emissions from dairies in the near future. 

With the upcoming SB 700 deadlines for approving large CAF mitigation plans, there is 

a need for a rapid, objective assessment of which technologies are most likely to be 

successful in California’s unique economic, regulatory, and environmental conditions. 

The Dairy Manure Technology Feasibility Assessment Panel, created and hosted by the 

ARB, was convened in February 2005 to carry out this work. Members were drawn 

from government, industry, academia, and environmental and conservation groups. 

The Panel evaluated technologies for their potential to reduce environmental impacts 

resulting from air emissions and from releases of nutrients, salts, and pathogens to the 

environment. The Panel is assessing the ability of the technology to prevent releases of 

contaminants and is considering their efficacy in reducing environmental impacts, 

energy production (if any), economic performance (including saleable products 

produced by the technology), quality of supporting data, and the development status. 

The Panel’s draft report is scheduled for release in early 2006. 

In general, potential technologies may be classified into categories including: 

• Thermal conversion (including combustion and gasification). 

• Solid-liquid separation (including dehydration). 

• Composting. 

• Anaerobic digestion. 

• Aerators/mixers. 

• Nitrification/denitrification. 

• Covers. 

• Microbials, enzymes, and other additives. 

• Feed management. 

• Trapping nutrients in biomass (e.g. crops, plants in constructed wetlands, 

algae, fish). 

• Combination systems (such as wastewater treatment plants). 

It is likely that no single technology will solve all of the problems associated with dairy 

manure and each dairy will likely require its own unique combination of technologies to 

address the specific problems of that area. Research still needs to be done on VOC 

emissions to quantify amounts emitted from each portion of the dairy, and reactivity of 

the chemical species to form ozone. Without this information and a lack of standard 

testing procedures, it is difficult to assess how various technologies will reduce these 

emissions, reduce ozone formation, and improve air quality. 

 2. Other Projects 

Non-combustion particulate matter reductions can be achieved through the use of 

chemical dust suppressants, road paving, and harvesting equipment with catch-frame 

technology to eliminate the need for sweeping. For some of these projects, multimedia 

impacts must also be considered. 
X-10 AGRICULTURAL SOURCES 

Another potential project is the evaluation of irrigation pump efficiency. Improvement in 

pump efficiency through parts replacement and repair has the potential for emission 

reductions of NOx, ROG, and PM by reduced work by the engine or motor for water 

output. 

V. Project Criteria 

The project criteria below have been designed to provide districts and potential 

applicants with a list of minimum eligibility requirements for Carl Moyer Program 

funding. Criteria focus on emission reductions, cost-effectiveness, and the ability for a 

project to be completed within the timeframe of the program. Additional information 

about funding electric motors for irrigation pumps is available in 

Chapter 12: Zero-Emission Technologies. 

Participating districts retain the authority to impose additional requirements in order to 

address local concerns. 

A. General 

• Projects that replace non-mobile agricultural engines with electric motors should be 

encouraged. After electric motors, priority should be given to engine repowers with 

certified engines, and then to engine retrofits and non-certified engines, if applicable. 

• Emission reductions obtained through Carl Moyer Program projects must not be 

required by any federal, state or local regulation, memorandum of 

agreement/understanding with a regulatory agency, settlement agreement, 

mitigation requirement, or other legal mandate. 

• Projects must meet a cost-effectiveness of $14,300 per weighed ton of NOx + ROG 

+ combustion PM10 reduced calculated in accordance with the cost-effectiveness 

methodology discussed in this chapter. 

• No emission reductions generated by the Carl Moyer Program shall be used as 

marketable emission reduction credits, or to offset any emission reduction obligation 

of any person or entity. 

• No project funded by the Carl Moyer Program shall be used for credit under any 

federal or state emission averaging banking and trading program. 

• Carl Moyer Program grants can be no greater than a project’s incremental cost. The 

incremental cost is the cost of the project minus the baseline cost. The incremental 

cost shall be reduced by the value of any current financial incentive that reduces the 

project price, including tax credits or deductions, grants, or other public financial 

assistance. 
X-11 AGRICULTURAL SOURCES 

• Projects must have a minimum project life of three years. ARB may approve shorter 

project life on a case-by-case basis. Projects with shorter lives may be subject to 

additional funding restrictions, such as a lower cost-effectiveness limit or a project 

cost cap. 

• The contract term must extend to the end of the project life. 

• Potential projects that fall outside of these criteria may be considered on a 

case-by-case basis if evidence provided to the air district suggests potential surplus, 

real, quantifiable, and enforceable emission reduction benefits. 

• Air districts must consult with ARB staff to determine eligibility of all projects 

considered for funding on a case-by-case basis. All projects considered on a 

case-by-case basis must receive ARB approval prior to receiving program funding. 

• An engine must be rated at greater than 25 hp, which is equivalent to an electric 

motor greater than 19 kW. 

• Projects must operate at least 75 percent of total equipment hours in California. 

• The default project life when determining project benefits for new purchases or 

repowers shall be ten years for electric motors. The default project life for engines 

without documentation shall be seven years. A longer project life may be used with 

approval by ARB staff, however, sufficient documentation must be provided to ARB 

that supports the selected project life based on the actual remaining useful life. The 

default project life does not consider upcoming regulatory requirements. Project life 

may be shorter due to regulatory requirements. 

B. New Purchase 

• Engine purchases for new 2005 or later model year agricultural stationary or 

portable equipment can only be electric motors.

C. Repower 

• A repower of an uncontrolled or emission certified (1996+ model year) diesel engine 

must be with one of the following: 

− A new electric motor. 

− A new off-road diesel engine certified to the current applicable emission 

standards. 

− A new off-road spark-ignited (SI) engine certified to the current applicable 

emission standards. 

− A new SI engine that exceeds local district emission requirements and is subject 

to and complies with local district permitting, monitoring, record keeping and 

reporting requirements. This criterion will sunset on January 1, 2008. 
X-12 AGRICULTURAL SOURCES 

• A repower of an uncontrolled SI engine must be with one of the following: 

− A new electric motor. 

− A new off-road SI engine certified to the current applicable emission standards. 

− A new SI engine that exceeds local district emission requirements and is subject 

to and complies with local district permitting, monitoring, record keeping and 

reporting requirements. This criterion will sunset on January 1, 2008. 

• A repower of an emissions-controlled SI engine must be with one of the following: 

− A new electric motor. 

− A new off-road SI engine certified to the current applicable emission standards. 

− A new SI engine that meets or exceeds local district emission requirements and 

is subject to and complies with local district permitting, monitoring, record 

keeping and reporting requirements, provided that the new engine provides a 

NOx emission reduction of at least 15% from the baseline engine NOx 

emissions. This criterion will sunset on January 1, 2008. 

• Electric motors may replace diesel or SI engines. The applicant must have 

documentation of payment to the local utility company for power installation. This 

requirement of documentation also applies to new installations. 

• Off-road diesel engines must be certified for sale in California and must comply with 

durability and warranty requirements. 

• The use of a non-certified SI engine shall be subject to approval by ARB staff. 

Emissions testing of a non-certified SI engine shall be conducted using an 

ARB-approved source testing procedure, such as ARB Test Method 100. 

• Non-certified SI engines shall be required to include currently available emission 

control components such as closed-loop fuel control systems, and three-way 

catalysts. 

• Non-certified SI engines shall be subject to source testing with an ARB-approved 

testing procedure following local district requirements. 

• Non-certified SI engines must be emission tested using a portable analyzer every 

1,000 hours of operation and at least annually, or following local district monitoring 

requirements, whichever is most stringent. The emission tests shall measure NOx 

and hydrocarbon emissions. An alternative monitoring schedule may be used upon 

approval by ARB staff. 

• The costs associated with source testing and monitoring requirements for 

non-certified SI engines are not eligible for funding. 
X-13 AGRICULTURAL SOURCES 

D. Retrofit 

• A retrofit of an uncontrolled diesel engine that reduces NOx must be with a retrofit kit 

that is verified to reduce NOx or NOx+NMHC emissions to the applicable new 

engine Tier standard or less for a given engine size. 

• A retrofit of an uncontrolled SI engine that reduces NOx must be with a retrofit kit 

that is verified to reduce NOx+NMHC emissions to the currently applicable standard 

for off-road large spark-ignited equipment. If this is not feasible, the project must 

reduce NOx+NMHC emissions to at least 3.0 g/bhp-hr or less. 

• A retrofit of an emission-certified (1996+ model year) off-road diesel engine that 

reduces NOx must be with a retrofit kit that is verified to reduce NOx or NOx+NMHC 

emissions by at least 15 percent from the applicable NOx or NOx+NMHC emission 

standard. 

• Reduced-emission retrofit kits must be verified following California test procedures 

and must comply with durability and warranty requirements. 

E. Scrap 

• Scrap requirements are described in the 2005 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, 

Part I, Chapter 2: Administration of the Carl Moyer Program. 

VI. Cost-Effectiveness 

To receive Carl Moyer Program funding, each project must meet the maximum 

cost-effective threshold of $14,300 per weighted ton of covered pollutants reduced. 

Only funds provided by the Carl Moyer Program and local district matching funds are to 

be used in determining cost-effectiveness. 

Cost-effectiveness methodology and sample project calculations are provided in 

Appendices C and D. Emission reduction benefits are calculated by comparing the 

emission levels and operating parameters of the baseline engine and the replacement, 

reduced emission engine or motor. The emission reductions and cost-effectiveness of 

an agricultural engine project may be calculated based on annual hours of operation or 

annual fuel consumption. 

VII. Minimum Project Requirements 

A. Application 

The minimum application information for stationary and portable agricultural engine 

projects is in Table 10-4. Districts may request additional information from the 

applicant. 
X-14 AGRICULTURAL SOURCES 

Table 10-4 

Minimum Application Information for Stationary and Portable 

Agricultural Engine Projects 

Applicant Information

Organization, Company or Individual Name 

Street Address 

City, County, State, Zip Code 

Primary Contact Name 

Primary Contact Phone Number 

Person with Contract Signing Authority 

Person who Filled Out Funding Application 

Project Address (if different from above) 

Equipment Information

Equipment Type (portable, stationary, 

 other) 

Equipment Make 

Equipment Model 

Equipment Year 

Equipment Serial Number 

Baseline Equipment Fuel 

New Equipment Vendor (optional) 

Activity Information

Will the new engine have a functioning 

 hour meter for the life of the project? 

Annual Hours of Operation or Annual 

 Gallons of Fuel Consumption 

Percent Operation in California 

Percent Operation in District 

Project Life 

Electronic Monitoring Unit (EMU) 

Will a new eligible EMU be installed as part 

 of this project? (yes/no) 

EMU Make 

EMU Model 

EMU Model Year 

EMU ID Number 

EMU Cost (optional) 

 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION – 

NEW PURCHASE PROJECTS ONLY 

New Electric Motor Make 

New Electric Motor Model 

New Electric Motor Serial Number 

New Electric Motor Family 

New Electric Motor Year 

New Electric Horsepower (converted from kilowatts) 

Projected Year of Purchase of New Equipment 

Baseline Cost 

New Reduced Emission Equipment Cost 

New Electric Motor Vendor (optional) 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION – 

REPOWER PROJECTS ONLY 

Existing and Newer Engine/Motor Make 

Existing and Newer Engine/Motor Model 

Existing and Newer Engine/Motor Year 

Existing and Newer Engine/Motor Serial Number (if 

available) 

Existing and Newer Engine/Motor Fuel Type 

Existing and Newer Engine/Motor Horsepower 

Existing and Newer Engine/Motor Tier 

Existing and Newer Engine/Motor Family 

Is this project participating in the PG&E AG-ICE 

 or the SCE TOU-PA-ICE Incentive Programs? 

Is this project engine a currently covered by a Moyer 

Program contract? 

Engine Rebuild Cost 

New Reduced Emission Equipment Cost 

New Engine Vendor (optional) 

New Engine Installer (optional) 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION – 

RETROFIT PROJECTS ONLY

ARB-Verified Retrofit Device 

Retrofit Device Serial Number 

ARB-Verified NOx Reduction (%) 

ARB-Verified PM Reduction (%) 

ARB-Verified ROG Reduction (%) 

Retrofit Device Executive Order 

Verification Level (Level 1,2 or 3) 

Retrofit Device Cost 

Cost of Retrofit Installation (optional) 

Cost of Retrofit Maintenance for Life of Project (optional) 
X-15 AGRICULTURAL SOURCES 

A disclosure must also be included stating that the proposed project has not been 

funded and is not being considered for funding by another air district, ARB, or any other 

public agency. Any applicant who is found to have submitted multiple applications for 

the same project may be banned from submitting future applications to any and all 

Carl Moyer Program solicitations and may be subject to criminal sanctions. A project 

funded cooperatively by multiple air districts is eligible for funding if the project 

parameters are coordinated amongst the participating districts and the project meets all 

applicable Carl Moyer Program criteria. Applicants are allowed to re-apply for project 

funding if a previous application has been rejected and is no longer being considered for 

funding. 

Third party applications are not allowed. The owner of the engine must sign and agree 

to the application. However, a third party (e.g. engine dealer or distributor) may 

complete an application or part of an application on an owner’s behalf. Applications 

must include a signature section for third parties. The third party signature section must 

include signature and date lines, and blanks for the third party to list how much they are 

being paid, if anything, to complete the application and what source of funds are being 

used to pay them. To make the Carl Moyer Program accessible to all potential 

applicants, including applicants that cannot afford to hire third party assistance, districts 

are encouraged to provide technical assistance to applicants in completing the 

application. 

B. Reporting and Monitoring 

Owners of stationary and portable agricultural engines participating in the 

Carl Moyer Program are required to keep appropriate records during the life of the 

project. During the project life, the district has the authority to conduct periodic checks 

or solicit operating records from the recipient of Carl Moyer Program funds. This is to 

ensure that the engine is being operated as stated in the project application. The 

recipient must maintain and update operating records throughout the project life and 

have them available to the district upon request. Annual records must contain, at a 

minimum, total actual hours of operations or estimated amount of fuel used from actual 

fuel receipts. Actual hours of operations are acceptable for an engine equipped with a 

non-reset hour meter. 

Monitoring may be required to comply with district requirements and to ensure the 

program incentives are being applied toward the project as specified in the application. 

To ease the tracking of the equipment over the life of the project, a district registration 

certificate may be issued to the equipment owner. 

VIII. References 

ARB, 2003. Air Resources Board. Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons, Airborne 

Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines. 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/statde/isor.pdf 
X-16 AGRICULTURAL SOURCES 

ARB, 2004. Air Resources Board. Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons, Airborne 

Toxic Control Measure for Diesel-fueled Portable Engines. 

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

ARB 2005a. Air Resources Board. Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for 

Proposed Revisions to the Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Compression 

Ignition Engines. 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/statde05/isor.pdf 

ARB, 2005b. Air Resources Board. Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons, Public 

Hearing to Consider the Large Confined Animal Facility Definition. 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/lcaf05/isor.pdf 

CASS, 2003. California Agricultural Statistics Service. California Agricultural Statistics, 

2003. California Agricultural Overview. 

http://www.nass.usda.gov/ca/bul/agstat/indexcas.htm
XI-1 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

Chapter Eleven 

LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES

This is a new chapter that addresses the project criteria for on-road, light-duty vehicle 

projects under the Carl Moyer Program. The chapter contains a brief overview of the 

light-duty vehicle emission inventory, current engine emission standards, available 

control technologies, potential projects eligible for funding, and emission reduction and 

cost-effectiveness calculation methodologies. 

I. Introduction 

Light-duty vehicles include passenger cars and light-duty trucks such as pick-up trucks, 

sport utility vehicles (SUVs), and vans. In 2005, the estimated number of light-duty 

vehicles in California is over 21 million vehicles. This number is expected to increase to 

over 23 million vehicles by 2010. Light-duty vehicles are major contributors to 

California’s ozone and particulate matter air pollution. Although emissions from 

light-duty vehicles are decreasing with the implementation of stricter emission control 

standards, light-duty vehicles contribute about half of the ozone producing emissions 

from all on-road vehicles. 

II. Emissions 

The oxides of nitrogen (NOx), reactive organic gas (ROG), and particulate matter 

(PM10) emissions from the light-duty fleet are shown in Table 11-1. In addition to these 

pollutants, light-duty vehicles emit toxic air contaminants and carbon monoxide (CO). 

Table 11-1 

Statewide Emissions from On-Road Light-Duty Vehicles 

(tons per day) 

 Population NOx ROG PM10 

2005 21,500,000 574 583 29 

2010 23,700,000 388 405 32 

Older, light-duty vehicles (pre-1990 model years) account for 56 percent of the ROG 

and 41 percent of the NOx emissions from all light-duty vehicles in 2005 despite 

accounting for only 19 percent of the vehicle population and less than 13 percent of the 

vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Generally, these older vehicles emit more pollutants 

because of less restrictive emission standards and increased wear and tear on drive 

train and emission control components. Additionally, the subset of older vehicles that 

are not well maintained has a higher probability of being high emitters. As a result, 

older vehicles tend to be major contributors to ozone and particulate matter air pollution 

in California. 
XI-2 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

III. Regulatory Requirements 

California’s emission controls for light-duty vehicles date back to the 1960s. Emission 

standards have become more restrictive over the years, enabled by new control 

technologies and cleaner fuels. 

Since the 1990s, the Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) regulations have been the 

cornerstone of the ARB’s program to reduce emissions from light-duty vehicles. The 

LEV program, implemented in 1994, established four tiers of low emission standards 

and provided manufacturers with the option of certifying their vehicles to any mix of 

these standards as long as they complied with an average non-methane organic gas 

annual fleet requirement. The fleet average requirement gradually decreased each year 

between 1994 and 2003, resulting in the introduction of a greater number of cleaner 

vehicles each proceeding model year. The LEV II regulation, adopted in 1998, set even 

more stringent, declining fleet average emission requirements for 2004 through 2010 as 

well as lowering the NOx emission standards. 

Figure 11-1 shows the progressively more stringent emission standards for new 

light-duty vehicles from 1970 through 2010. As a result of the ARB’s LEV program, a 

new 2005 model year car is on average 99 percent cleaner than an uncontrolled car. 

California also has requirements to ensure vehicles’ emission control systems continue 

to work throughout their lives. Under the Inspection and Maintenance Program 

(Smog Check), vehicles are tested biennially to ensure that they stay clean as they age. 

A Smog Check includes a tailpipe emissions test and a visual inspection of the emission 

control system. For vehicles equipped with on-board diagnostic (OBD II) systems 

Emission Standards for New Light-Duty Vehicles

1970-2010

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1970

19721974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

19861988

1990

1992

1994

19961998

2000

20022004

200620082010

ROG + NOx Emissions (g/mi)

Figure 11-1 
XI-3 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

(model years 1996 and later), the inspection also includes a check of the malfunction 

indicator light to ensure that no problems have been detected with the vehicle’s 

emission control system. 

IV. Potential Projects 

Under the general heading of light-duty vehicle projects, the ARB has identified two 

programs that are eligible for funding under the Carl Moyer Program: voluntary 

accelerated vehicle retirement (VAVR) and voluntary vehicle repair (VVR). Both 

programs have the potential to decrease excess emissions from older, high emitting 

vehicles. These Guidelines will focus on implementing the VAVR program under the 

Carl Moyer Program. The ARB staff will continue to assess how to incorporate VVR 

into the Carl Moyer Program and anticipates providing guidance on VVR in 2006. As 

part of this assessment, the ARB staff will also evaluate extending the guidance to 

medium-duty vehicles. 

A. VAVR Programs 

The goal of VAVR programs is to retire older, more polluting vehicles earlier than their 

expected lifetime, thereby eliminating air pollution emissions associated with their 

operation. VAVR programs are strictly voluntary programs overseen by the ARB and 

administered by local air districts. Enterprise operators are contracted by the district 

and are responsible for evaluating, approving, and disposing of qualified light-duty 

vehicles. Real emission reductions can be achieved as vehicles are still fully 

operational and have a useful life remaining. Therefore, to qualify for a VAVR program, 

a vehicle must meet registration, functionality, and equipment eligibility criteria. To 

accommodate car collectors and others with potential interest in vehicles offered for 

retirement, VAVR programs provide the public with an opportunity to purchase vehicles 

in whole or in part before the vehicle is entered into the VAVR program. Vehicles 

accepted into the program for emission reductions must be retired by crushing the 

vehicle to such a degree that the vehicle and its parts are rendered unusable. 

B. Legislative and Regulatory History of VAVR 

Vehicle scrapping programs were first introduced in California in the early 1990s. In the 

1994 State Implementation Plan (SIP), the ARB included a measure calling for a vehicle 

scrapping program in the South Coast Air Basin. Senate Bill 501 (Calderon, 1995) 

directed the ARB to adopt a regulation governing VAVR which would include 

market-based, privately-operated VAVR enterprises and the generation of emission 

reduction credits. (See California Health and Safety Code sections 44100-44122, in 

part.) The ARB adopted VAVR regulations in 1998 and amended these regulations in 

2002 [ARB, 1998 and ARB, 2001]. In 1998 and 1999, the ARB conducted a pilot 

program for retiring light-duty vehicles in the South Coast Air Basin. While the results of 

the pilot program were encouraging, funding limitations did not permit expansion of the 

program to achieve the emission reductions called for in the SIP. 
XI-4 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

The 2003 SIP did not contain an explicit commitment to vehicle retirement because 

sufficient funding for such programs had not been secured. However, the SIP did 

acknowledge the need to provide incentives for VAVR programs in the long term. 

Legislative changes to the Carl Moyer Program enacted with the signing of 

Assembly Bill 923 (Firebaugh, 2004) added light-duty vehicle projects to the list of 

allowable projects and provided additional means of funding VAVR programs to reduce 

NOx, ROG, and PM10 emissions. 

C. District VAVR and the BAR Vehicle Retirement Programs 

Four districts have recently operated or continue to operate VAVR programs including 

the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (AQMD), San Diego Air Pollution Control 

District (APCD), Santa Barbara APCD, and South Coast AQMD. Between 2000 and 

2003, these districts scrapped over 21,000 vehicles or over 5,000 vehicles per year. 

In addition to district VAVR programs, the Bureau of Automotive Repair’s (BAR) 

Smog Check Program includes a voluntary vehicle retirement element. As part of 

BAR’s Consumer Assistance Program, owners of qualifying vehicles that fail the 

biennial inspection are given the option of voluntarily retiring their vehicle rather than 

repairing it. BAR offers $1,000 in exchange for the vehicle. 

District VAVR programs work outside of BAR’s Smog Check Program to ensure that 

district programs generate emission reductions that are surplus to the those obtained 

through the Smog Check. BAR’s program covers vehicles that have failed their biennial 

Smog Check while the district programs cover vehicles that have passed their biennial 

Smog Check or are “off cycle” for Smog Check (i.e., not due for their biennial 

inspection). To ensure that the two programs do not compete with one another, 

vehicles that are within 60 days from their next required Smog Check must pass the 

Smog Check inspection under the VAVR regulation. If the vehicles are between 61 to 

90 days of the next Smog Check, the district must verify that the vehicle has not failed 

the Smog Check inspection before the vehicle can be accepted. Additionally, the 

vehicle cannot be operating under either a BAR repair cost waiver or economic hardship 

extension. 

D. Remote Sensing 

Studies by the ARB, BAR, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), and 

the University of Denver, Colorado, among others, have shown that remote sensing 

devices (RSD) can be effective tools in identifying high emitting vehicles [BAR, 2001; 

U.S. EPA; Stedman, 1994; and Stedman]. 

Remote sensing typically uses infrared and, at times, ultraviolet spectroscopy to 

measure the concentrations of air pollutants in vehicle exhaust while the vehicle is in 

use on the roadway. Concentrations of ROG, NOx, and CO in parts per million or 

percent are recorded along with the vehicle’s speed and rate of acceleration and a 

photo of the license plate. 
XI-5 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

The option of using RSD is included to identify high emitting vehicles that can then be 

contacted for participation in voluntary early retirement programs. Staff is taking a 

two-step approach to integrate RSD into the Carl Moyer Program and the VAVR 

regulation. As a first step, the ARB would authorize an RSD-based “High-Emitting 

Vehicle Identification, Repair, and Scrapping Program” to be run by the South Coast 

AQMD starting in Spring 2006. Then, the ARB would use the data from this program to 

revise the VAVR regulation and provide additional Carl Moyer Program guidance in 

2006 to fully incorporate RSD. The revisions would codify the use of RSD; establish 

protocols for quantifying emission reductions; and determine the appropriate application 

of Moyer funds to RSD-based VAVR programs. As part of this guidance, the ARB 

would evaluate what elements related to the use of RSD would be eligible for funding 

under the Carl Moyer Program consistent with legislative requirements and Board 

direction. After the ARB revises the regulation and Carl Moyer Program guidance, any 

district may develop and implement an RSD-based VAVR program. 

The South Coast project will mark the first time an RSD-based VAVR program has been 

implemented. Because the methodology for calculating the emission reductions 

associated with retiring or repairing high-emitting vehicles has not been established and 

the level of vehicle owner participation cannot be predicted in advance, the 

cost-effectiveness of the program cannot be fully established in advance. 

Carl Moyer Program funds can only be used for projects that meet the $14,300 per 

weighted ton cost-effectiveness limit. By undertaking this introductory RSD program, 

the South Coast Air District is taking some risk if the program ultimately exceeds the 

cost-effectiveness limit. 

V. Project Criteria 

Light-duty vehicle projects will initially be limited to VAVR programs that meet the ARB’s 

VAVR regulations. As noted above, the Guidelines also provide for an RSD 

implementation program in the South Coast. The project criteria listed below provide 

districts with the minimum qualifications for the Carl Moyer Program. 

The criteria listed below highlight many, but not all, of the requirements of the ARB’s 

VAVR regulation. VAVR programs must meet all of the requirements of the regulation. 

Districts starting VAVR programs using Carl Moyer Program funding should reference 

these Guidelines as well as the regulation. Where the Carl Moyer Program Guidelines 

go beyond the requirements of the regulation, it is noted below. Participating districts 

retain the authority to impose additional requirements to address local concerns. 

A. General Requirements 

• Emission reductions obtained through Carl Moyer Program projects must not be 

required by any federal, state, or local regulation; memorandum of 

agreement/understanding with a regulatory agency; settlement agreement; 

mitigation requirement; or other legal mandate. 
XI-6 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

• Projects must meet a cost-effectiveness of $14,300 per weighed ton of NOx + ROG 

+ combustion PM10 reduced calculated in accordance with the cost-effectiveness 

methodology discussed in this chapter. 

• No emission reductions generated by the Carl Moyer Program shall be used as 

marketable emission reduction credits or to offset any emission reduction obligation 

of any person or entity. 

• Projects must have a minimum project life of three years. The ARB may approve 

shorter project life on a case-by-case basis. Projects with shorter lives may be 

subject to additional funding restrictions, such as a lower cost-effectiveness limit or a 

project cost cap. The contract term must extend to the end of the project life. The 

default project life does not consider upcoming regulatory requirements. 

• Potential projects that fall outside of these criteria may be considered on a 

case-by-case basis if evidence provided to the ARB suggests potential surplus, real, 

quantifiable, and enforceable emission reduction benefits. 

• Air districts must consult with ARB staff to determine eligibility of all projects 

considered for funding on case-by-case basis. All projects considered on a 

case-by-case basis must receive ARB approval prior to receiving program funding. 

• Participation in a light-duty VAVR program shall be entirely voluntary for vehicle 

owners. 

• VAVR programs shall comply with all provisions of the VAVR regulations found in 

Title 13 California Code of Regulations, Division 3, Chapter 13, Article 1, section 

2601 et seq. 

• VAVR programs seeking funding under the Carl Moyer Program shall comply with all 

applicable provisions of the Carl Moyer Program Guidelines including 

“Administration of the Carl Moyer Program.” 

• Funding of program administrative costs, including advertising or outreach, shall be 

limited to the amount allowable under statute. 

B. Vehicle Eligibility Requirements 

• The vehicle to be retired must be currently registered with the Department of 

Motor Vehicles (DMV) as an operating vehicle and must have been registered for at 

least 24 consecutive months prior to the final date of the sale to a VAVR enterprise 

to an address, or addresses, within the district in which the VAVR enterprise is 

operated. Smog Checks must be performed as required by the DMV in order for the 

vehicle to be considered registered. 
XI-7 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

1. A vehicle may also be eligible if the owner of the vehicle placed the vehicle in 

planned non-operational status per Vehicle Code section 4604, et seq., for a total 

of 2 months during the continuous 24 month registration period, occurring at least 

3 months prior to the date of sale to the VAVR enterprise. 

2. A vehicle may also be eligible if the registration has lapsed for a period not to 

exceed 180 days during the previous 24 months and all appropriate registration 

fees and late penalties have been paid to the DMV, provided that the vehicle is 

registered for at 90 days immediately prior to its date of sale to a VAVR 

enterprise. 

NOTE: These eligibility requirements are stricter than the ARB’s current VAVR 

regulation but are consistent with the requirements of Health and Safety Code 

section 44094. 

• The vehicle to be retired shall be driven to the VAVR enterprise purchase site under 

its own power and shall pass a functional and equipment eligibility inspections as 

specified in the ARB’s VAVR regulation. 

• The vehicle to be retired shall not be operating under a Smog Check repair cost 

waiver. 

• If a vehicle volunteered for retirement is within 60 days of its next required 

Smog Check inspection, the vehicle shall pass the Smog Check inspection without 

receiving a repair cost waiver or economic hardship extension prior to acceptance by 

a VAVR enterprise operator. 

• If a vehicle volunteered for retirement is within 61-90 days of its next required 

Smog Check inspection, the district shall verify that the vehicle has not failed a 

Smog Check inspection during this time frame. 

C. Calculating Emission Reductions 

• Emission reductions from VAVR programs shall be calculated in accordance with the 

methodology specified in the ARB’s VAVR regulations. Emission reductions, by 

model year of vehicle retired, are shown in Table 11-2. (The table is also included in 

Appendix B, Tables for Emission-Reduction and Cost-Effectiveness Calculations, at 

Table B-21.) 

• The project life for a vehicle retirement project is three years as specified in the 

ARB’s VAVR regulation. 

D. Offering Vehicles/Parts to the Public 

• The enterprise operator must inform the district of the vehicles that are ready for 

dismantling. 
XI-8 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

• The district must provide a detailed description of the vehicle to interested parties 

including collectors and enthusiasts. 

• The enterprise operator must wait a minimum of 10 days before submitting a Notice 

to Dismantle to the DMV. 

• If an interested person contacts the enterprise operator, the enterprise operator must 

hold the vehicle for an additional, minimum of 7 days. 

• Non-emission-related and non-drive train parts from the vehicle may be sold at the 

sole discretion of the enterprise operator. 

• Engine, emission-related parts, transmission, and drive train parts must be removed 

from the vehicle and destroyed after the 10 day waiting period but prior to offering 

the remaining parts for sale. (Emission-related and drive train parts are defined in 

the VAVR regulation.) 

• If a vehicle or its emission-related or drive train parts are sold instead of retired, no 

emission reductions will be generated, and Carl Moyer Program funds may to be 

used for retiring the vehicle. 

E. Recordkeeping 

• For each vehicle retired, the district shall retain the following information: 

1. Vehicle Identification Number (VIN). 

2. Vehicle license plate number. 

3. Vehicle model year. 

4. Vehicle odometer reading. 

5. Vehicle make and model. 

6. Name, address, and phone number of legal owner selling vehicle to the 

enterprise operator. 

7. Name and business address of inspector conducting the vehicle’s eligibility 

inspection, if the VAVR enterprise operator contracts with an ARB-approved 

inspection entity to perform the vehicle functional and equipment eligibility 

inspection. 

8. Date of purchase of vehicle by enterprise operator. 

9. Date of vehicle retirement. 

10. Emission reduction claimed. 
XI-9 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

• The VAVR enterprise operator shall maintain the following: 

1. Reproduction of California Certificate of Title and registration, as signed-off by 

the seller at time of final sale to the VAVR enterprise. 

2. Reproduction of the applicable certificate of functional and equipment eligibility; 

3. Reproduction of the applicable Notice to Dismantler (DMV Registration 42 form). 

4. Reproduction of written documentation from the DMV verifying that a vehicle 

meets the vehicle registration requirements of the ARB’s VAVR regulations. 

5. If the retired vehicle was within 60 days of its next required Smog Check 

inspection, a reproduction of documentation that the vehicle passed its 

Smog Check inspection. 

• Districts and enterprise operators shall retain these records for the life of the project 

plus an additional three years. 

NOTE: This requirement is stricter than the ARB’s current VAVR regulation which 

requires that records be maintained for the life of the project but is consistent with 

the Carl Moyer Program administrative requirements.

F. Criteria for South Coast AQMD RSD/Scrapping/Repair Project 

• The South Coast AQMD may operate an RSD-based high-emitting vehicle 

identification, repair, and scrapping program. 

• Prior to project implementation, the district shall submit a detailed project plan for 

approval by the ARB’s Executive Officer (EO). 

1. The plan shall include a detailed protocol describing the installation, calibration, 

and operation of RSD that will be used to identify high emitters along with the 

methodology for processing of the data collected. 

2. The plan shall include itemized, estimated project costs including, but not limited 

to, the funds allocated to vehicle repair and the number of vehicles to be 

repaired; the funds allocated to vehicle retirement and the number of vehicles to 

be retired; and the costs allocated to RSD data collection, data analysis, 

outreach, and solicitation of vehicle owners. 

3. The plan shall include a sample of the letter that the South Coast AQMD intends 

to send to vehicle owners soliciting their voluntary participation in the project. 

4. The project must follow the plan, and any substantive changes must be 

pre-approved by the EO. 

• The South Coast AQMD shall permit the ARB to perform emissions testing on a 

subset of the retired vehicles selected by the ARB prior to dismantling. 

• As part of the Carl Moyer Program reporting requirements, the South Coast AQMD 

shall report on each vehicle retired or repaired under this program. 
XI-10 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

• The ARB may conduct periodic auditing of the program, and the South Coast AQMD 

shall provide any required information concerning the program. 

• If vehicle records are missing, incomplete, or chronically late, the ARB may disallow 

emission reduction credit for that vehicle. 

• The ARB has not yet established the methodology for calculating the extra emission 

benefits from retiring high-emitting vehicles identified using RSD. Because of this, 

the emission reductions achieved under this project shall be calculated in 

accordance with a new methodology that will be established during the next revision 

of the VAVR regulation. 

• An acceleration simulation mode (ASM) Smog Check test must be run on all 

vehicles being retired or repaired during this introductory RSD/scrapping/repair 

project to help establish the emission reduction calculation methodology. 

VI. Emission Reduction and Cost-Effectiveness Calculations 

For VAVR projects, the emission reduction benefits represent the difference in the 

emission levels of the retired vehicle and the replacement vehicles. The ARB approved 

the methodology for calculating emission reductions associated with VAVR at its 

December 1998 Board meeting [ARB, 1998]. Emission reductions, by model year of 

vehicle retired, calculated in accordance with the approved methodology are listed in 

Table 11-2. The table lists the reductions over the full three year life of a vehicle 

retirement project. The methodology for retiring high-emitting vehicles identified via 

RSD has not yet been established. 

A detailed description of how to calculate cost-effectiveness can be found in 

Appendix C: Cost-Effectiveness Calculation Methodology and Appendix D: Example 

Calculations. 
XI-11 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

Table 11-2 

Voluntary Accelerated Light-Duty Vehicle Retirement Program 

Emission Reductions for Calendar Year 2006* 

Total Pounds Per Vehicle Over 3 Year Credit Life 

Emission Reductions (pounds) – 3 Year Credit Life

Model Year NOx ROG** CO PM10 

65 and earlier 151 496 2,757 0.68 

66 145 471 2,552 0.67 

67 148 477 2,611 0.65 

68 156 492 2,731 0.81 

69 162 504 2,841 0.56 

70 169 438 2,971 0.99 

71 172 449 2,990 0.95 

72 177 458 3,037 0.83 

73 180 469 3,082 0.64 

74 159 401 2,859 1.20 

75 145 345 2,861 1.17 

76 130 222 2,673 1.04 

77 108 183 2,546 1.13 

78 107 186 2,493 1.10 

79 95 168 1,625 0.90 

80 85 129 1,373 1.13 

81 62 108 1,092 1.22 

82 66 101 1,085 1.36 

83 73 85 934 1.22 

84 73 74 883 1.05 

85 69 59 575 0.89 

86 71 61 527 0.91 

87 67 71 468 0.92 

88 67 65 430 0.85 

89 50 46 492 0.84 

90 38 45 529 0.81 

91 38 42 514 0.76 

92 40 41 510 0.71 

93 35 31 279 0.64 

94 19 17 21 0.54 

* Table is repeated in Appendix B, Table B-21 

** Includes exhaust and evaporative emissions 

Source: EMFAC2002, Version 2.2, statewide, annual average. Assumes average 1965 through 2006 

vehicle as replacement vehicle for vehicles retired in calendar year 2006. 

This table updates the emission reductions provided in the ARB’s VAVR regulation consistent with the 

methodology in the staff report, Proposed Regulations for Voluntary Accelerated Light-Duty Vehicle 

Retirement Enterprises, released October 23, 1998, and approved by the ARB on December 10, 1998. 
XI-12 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

VII. Minimum Project Application Requirements 

Districts must submit a VAVR plan to the ARB, consistent with the Carl Moyer Program 

Guidelines. The district must receive written approval of the plan from the ARB’s EO 

prior to implementing the VAVR program under the Carl Moyer Program. The district 

must also follow all other Carl Moyer Program reporting requirements. 

The district plan must at a minimum include: 

1. The name, title, and telephone number of the district contact for the VAVR program. 

2. An evaluation of environmental justice considerations including, but not limited to, 

outreach addressing community needs. 

3. An estimate of the number of vehicles that may be retired and an estimate of the 

cost-effectiveness of the program along with all assumptions and calculations that 

were used to derive the estimate (recognizing that the ultimate cost-effectiveness 

will depend on the mix of vehicles actually retired). 

4. A sample of the enterprise operation contract. 

5. A description of the methods that will be used and a timetable for monitoring and 

auditing enterprise operations. 

6. A copy of the statement of certification that an enterprise operator has demonstrated 

compliance with all applicable provisions of the regulation. 

7. The methodology and sample records for verifying that a vehicle is eligible for 

inclusion in the VAVR program including confirmation of compliance with any 

Smog Check requirements. 

8. The protocol for informing the public of the availability of eligible vehicles for sale. 

9. A sample of the records that will be required of the enterprise operator. 

10. A description of changes to the VAVR program that are more stringent than those 

listed in the statewide regulation (if a district chooses to adopt requirements beyond 

those required). 

11. Any additional information necessary to explain or clarify how the district plan 

complies with the VAVR regulation and the Carl Moyer Program. 

The annual report shall contain, for each vehicle retired, at a minimum: 

1. Vehicle Identification Number (VIN). 

2. Vehicle license plate number. 

3. Vehicle model year. 

4. Vehicle odometer reading. 

5. Vehicle make and model. 

6. Name, address, and phone number of legal owner selling vehicle to the enterprise 

operator. 

7. Name and business address of inspector conducting the vehicle’s eligibility 

inspection, if the VAVR enterprise operator contracts with an ARB-approved 

inspection entity to perform the vehicle functional and equipment eligibility 

inspection. 

8. Date of purchase of vehicle by enterprise operator. 

9. Date of vehicle retirement. 
XI-13 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

10. Emission reductions claimed. 

VIII. References 

ARB, 1998. Air Resources Board, Proposed Regulations for Voluntary Accelerated 

Light-Duty Vehicle Retirement Enterprises, October 23, 1998. 

ARB, 2001. Air Resources Board, Proposed Amendments to Air Resources Board 

Voluntary Accelerated Vehicle Retirement Regulations – Minimize the Differences 

Between ARB and BAR VAVR Regulation and Allow Parts Recycling and Resale of 

Non-Emission-Related and Non-Drive Train Parts, November 30, 2001. 

BAR, 2001. Bureau of Automotive Repair, Remote Sensing Device High Emitter 

Identification with Confirmatory Roadside Inspection, Final Report 2001-06, 

August 30, 2001. 

U.S. EPA. Julian W. Jones, C. Ted Ripberger, and Niranjan Vescio, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, FINAL 

REPORT An Investigation of Remote Sensing Devices for Chemical Characterization of 

Motor Vehicle Exhaust. 

Stedman. Donald H. Stedman and Gary A. Bishop, Department of Chemistry and 

Biochemistry, University of Denver, Colorado, Emissions-Based Mobile Source 

Inventory Methods. 

Stedman, 1994. Donald H. Stedman, On-Road Remote Sensing of CO and HC 

Emissions in California, February 1994, ARB Contract No. A032-093. 
XII-1 ZERO-EMISSION TECHNOLOGIES 

Chapter Twelve 

ZERO-EMISSION TECHNOLOGIES 

This is a new chapter that highlights some of the available zero-emission technologies 

eligible for Carl Moyer Program funding. It provides more detail on zero-emission 

technologies and, for some project types, provides additional project criteria. It also 

describes emission reduction and cost-effectiveness calculation methodologies. This 

chapter is a supplement to other chapters in these Guidelines: it does not replace or 

supersede any other criteria. 

I. Introduction 

A. Benefits of Zero-Emission Projects 

Zero-emission technology is a key element of California's long-term plan for attaining 

health-based air quality standards. Electric motors are the most commercially viable 

zero-emission technology available today. In general, replacing internal combustion 

engines with electric motors provides major reductions in oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and 

particulate matter (PM10). Zero-emission technologies also have a number of societal 

benefits that are not quantified in the Carl Moyer Program. These include reductions in 

toxic air contaminants, greenhouse gases, petroleum consumption and noise pollution. 

In addition, electricity production does not have as many “upstream” emission impacts 

as the production of combustible fuels. Refining, storage and delivery all have 

associated emissions from routine operations and accidents (e.g., fuel spills). 

Furthermore, unlike other technologies with emission control devices that may lose 

effectiveness over time, with zero-emission equipment there is no emission rate 

deterioration. Electric equipment will remain emission-free throughout its useful life. 

Although the purchase price of electric equipment can be higher than comparable 

internal combustion engine equipment, owners and operators generally realize 

significant fuel and maintenance cost savings. The higher purchase price is sometimes 

recouped through these savings during the life of the equipment. Higher salvage values 

and longer lives can provide electric equipment with an economic advantage compared 

to internal combustion engine equipment. In addition, electric equipment operators 

sometimes derive indirect benefits from privileges like access to restricted areas, use of 

carpool lanes and even public relations benefits. 

Yet, despite these attributes and the fact that electric technologies may be well-suited 

for a multitude of applications, there have been relatively few zero-emission projects 

funded by the Carl Moyer Program. Many prospective buyers still perceive electric 

equipment to be an unfamiliar, risky technology or are deterred by the higher initial 

investment. The Carl Moyer Program can address both of these issues, first by serving 

as a source of information regarding electric technologies and, second, by providing 

grants to help offset increased costs. Zero-emission projects should become 
XII-2 ZERO-EMISSION TECHNOLOGIES 

increasingly competitive within the Carl Moyer Program. New regulations, tighter 

emission standards, increasing petroleum prices, and technology advances are helping 

to make zero-emission technologies more competitive. As regulatory requirements 

continue to decrease baseline emission levels, Carl Moyer Program applicants need to 

find cleaner technologies to qualify for funding. 

The Air Resources Board (ARB) requires districts to encourage zero-emission projects. 

This encouragement can be demonstrated in a number of ways. Districts operating on 

a “first-come-first-served” basis may rotate zero-emission projects to the top of the list, 

regardless of when the applications were submitted. Districts that solicit projects and 

rank them by cost-effectiveness may choose to fund zero-emission projects first, 

regardless of their cost-effectiveness (as long as the project does not exceed $14,300 

per weighted ton). Alternatively, districts may earmark a percentage of their allocation 

for zero-emission projects or increase outreach efforts that target zero-emission 

projects. Any of these strategies are acceptable, as well as other means of 

encouragement. Districts’ policies and procedures must describe how they plan to 

encourage zero-emission technologies. 

B. Types of Zero-Emission Projects 

To date, the Carl Moyer Program has funded approximately 231 electric forklifts, 

55 hybrid-electric buses, 7 electric motor driven agricultural pumps, and 4 electric 

battery hybrid locomotives. In addition, 30 truck stop spaces are scheduled to be 

equipped with IdleAire systems to reduce truck idling under the Carl Moyer Program. In 

all of these projects, the NOx-only cost effectiveness is very favorable. These projects 

will be even more cost-effective when reactive organic gases (ROG) and combustion 

PM are taken into account with the new weighted cost-effectiveness formula. 

Zero-emission projects have an inherent emissions advantage because there is no NOx 

versus PM trade-off (as with some diesel projects) and no additional cost for controlling 

PM or ROG. 

In addition to agricultural pumps, buses, locomotives, and forklifts, there are several 

other applications where zero-emission technologies are capable of replacing 

combustion engines. Marine ports, airport ground support equipment (GSE), and 

industrial equipment are all good candidates for zero-emission technology. In addition, 

electric motors can substitute for idling trucks and engines used for truck refrigeration 

units. All these applications are eligible for the Carl Moyer Program funding, and 

zero-emission technologies are the cleanest option. 

In the following section, we discuss the availability and provisions for using zero and 

near-zero emission technologies. For new applications of zero-emission technologies 

not addressed elsewhere in the Guidelines, such as truck parking space electrification, 

we outline the parameters for Carl Moyer Program eligibility. Although many of these 

projects will be assessed on a case-by-case basis at this time, our intent is to provide a 

general framework for evaluation. As with all projects, emission reductions must be 
XII-3 ZERO-EMISSION TECHNOLOGIES 

surplus, real, quantifiable, and enforceable and the project must meet the 

cost-effectiveness threshold of $14,300 per weighted ton of reduced emissions. 

Most Carl Moyer Program projects can simply substitute an electric motor for an internal 

combustion engine. In those cases, the same criteria and methodologies apply as for a 

typical repower or new purchase, except as noted in the criteria section of this chapter. 

All relevant regulations and MOUs discussed or referred to in the respective chapters 

also apply to zero-emission projects. The only difference is that the new or replacement 

piece of equipment has no emissions. 

II. Regulatory Requirements 

Regulatory requirements that apply to the baseline equipment are included in the 

respective chapters pertaining to the category of equipment under consideration. 

Because there are no regulatory requirements for Carl Moyer Program categories that 

mandate zero-emission technologies, emission reductions resulting from using such 

technologies will always be surplus. 

III. Potential Zero-Emission Projects 

A. Electrically-Driven Agricultural Equipment 

Agricultural equipment, such as pumps, provides an ideal application and the potential 

for wide-scale deployment of a zero-emission technology. Statewide, several thousand 

internal-combustion engines are used for pumping water for agricultural purposes. To 

date over 2,000 pumps have been replaced using Carl Moyer Program funds, all but a 

few of those replacements were with diesel engines. Farmers are reluctant to purchase 

electrically driven pumps for several reasons but the high cost of installing infrastructure 

and unpredictable electricity rates have been the primary deterrents to purchasing 

electric motor pumps. In addition, farmers usually have to pay substantial fixed charges 

for electricity even when the electric pump is not used. Because of these issues, most 

farmers opt for diesel pumps. 

A new utility company incentive program coupled with Carl Moyer Program funding 

provides an opportunity to go electric. Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) and Southern 

California Edison (SCE) have developed a rate-based incentive program that helps 

make electric motor irrigation pumps cost-competitive with diesel pumps. These new 

incentive rates, which have been approved by the Public Utility Commission, are 

structured with the intent to achieve cost parity between owning and operating 

electrically driven agricultural pumps and diesel pumps capable of equal output. The 

rates were developed with a diesel price assumption of $1.15 per gallon. The rates are 

guaranteed to remain fixed (with the exception of a one and one half percent annual 

increase) until the year 2015. With current diesel prices more than double the assumed 

$1.15 price, electrically driven pumps should prove a viable economic option to 

diesel-powered pumps. The PG&E and SCE incentive programs are 

first-come-first-served programs that are accepting applications through July 31, 2007. 
XII-4 ZERO-EMISSION TECHNOLOGIES 

Applicants must obtain prior approval from the district before purchasing an electric 

motor under the PG&E and SCE incentive programs. 

The PG&E and SCE incentive programs also provide funding to partially or fully offset 

the cost of extending power lines to the pump sites and eliminate the fixed demand 

charge, so customers do not have to pay a fee for the months that the pump is not 

operated. Carl Moyer Program funding coupled with the PG&E and SCE incentive 

programs can provide lower electricity rates, price stability, infrastructure subsidies and 

waived demand charges, making electric motor pumps a very attractive option. 

In order to qualify for the PG&E or SCE incentive program, the applicant must replace 

an internal combustion engine (excluding those fired with natural gas) used for irrigation 

pumping which was installed and operational prior to September 1, 2004. In addition, 

the replaced engine must be destroyed or, if purchased with Carl Moyer Program funds, 

surrendered, destroyed, relocated or removed as instructed by the ARB and the local air 

district. All Tier 1 engines originally funded by the Carl Moyer Program that are 

replaced through the PG&E or SCE incentive program must be destroyed as described 

in the Administration Chapter (Chapter Two, Part I of the Approved Carl Moyer Program 

Guidelines). If a Tier 2 engine currently under Moyer contract is relocated to replace a 

dirtier engine within the air district, then the dirtier engine must be destroyed. Districts 

should conduct pre-inspections to ensure the dirtier engine is operational, and 

post-inspections to ensure that the replacement Tier 2 engine is properly installed and 

functioning. 

Districts may allow the sale of Tier 2 engines that are replaced through the PG&E or 

SCE incentive program if documentation is provided to establish the chain-of-custody of 

the engine, and the sale price. If the district allows the sale of Tier 2 engines, all 

proceeds from the sale must be divided between the applicant and the district based 

upon the ratio of original funding provided for the purchase of the Tier 2 Moyer engine. 

Funds returned to the district must be spent on Moyer eligible projects (funds may be 

used to offset the added cost of the pre- and post-inspections). If the Tier 2 engine 

cannot be relocated or sold within 60 days of the electric service being energized, it 

must be destroyed. If the engine is sold out of California, documentation that the engine 

will not be used in or re-sold into California must be provided to the district. 

Because the PG&E and SCE incentive programs are a limited time offer, ARB staff will 

allow pump engines currently under Carl Moyer Program contract to be replaced with 

electric motors under the incentive programs, with the contract to be revised to reflect 

the use of an electric motor. The remaining project life of the initially funded engine 

project would be added to the project life for the new electric motor pump project. The 

increased project life would be used in the cost-effectiveness calculation, and the 

contract duration will be increased accordingly. 

For replacement agricultural pump engines not currently funded by the 

Carl Moyer Program, applicants are allowed to use one-half of the normal rebuild cost 

for the baseline cost. Normally, Carl Moyer Program participants apply for grants at the 
XII-5 ZERO-EMISSION TECHNOLOGIES 

time an engine needs to be rebuilt. In these cases, the grower would pay the base 

rebuild cost, while the Program would fund the incremental cost of a repowering with a 

newer, cleaner engine. Because the PG&E and SCE incentive programs are a limited 

time first-come, first-served offer, some growers may choose to replace their engines 

with an electric motor before the normal rebuild interval for their engine. Because it will 

be difficult to determine where each individual engine is in its rebuild cycle, it is 

assumed that all engines taking advantage of the PG&E and SCE incentive programs 

are halfway through their rebuild cycle – and that the applicant’s base cost would be half 

the rebuild cost. 

Carl Moyer Program applicants using the PG&E and SCE incentive programs will also 

have to make adjustments to the emission reduction calculations. Because to date 

virtually no electric agricultural pump projects have been funded through 

Carl Moyer Program grants, the PG&E and SCE incentive programs take credit for the 

emission reduction between a Tier 3 engine and an electric motor. As a condition of the 

PG&E and SCE incentive programs, these emission reductions must be donated to the 

Carl Moyer Program for clean air. The emission reduction benefit between the replaced 

engine and a Tier 3 engine, may be included in the cost-effectiveness calculation to 

determine the grant amount. An example of this calculation is provided in Appendix D. 

Project Criteria for Electrically Driven Agricultural Equipment 

• Purchases of new 2005 or later model year agricultural equipment can only be 

electric motors. 

• Priority must be given to projects that replace stationary agricultural engines with 

electric motors. 

• Agricultural equipment that use an electric motor may use a default 10 year project 

life for calculating cost-effectiveness. 

• Costs for necessary peripheral equipment associated with the motor (e.g. control 

panel, motor leads, service pole with guy wire, and connecting electric line) may be 

included in the grant award amount. 

• District match funds may be used for infrastructure purchase and installation. 

• District match funds may be used to offset the higher cost of electricity relative to 

diesel fuel, if applicable. In this case, the fuel cost difference will be accounted for 

when calculating the cost-effectiveness of the project. 

• All electric-driven equipment must have a functioning kilowatt-hour meter, or other 

method approved by the local air district, to monitor usage. 
XII-6 ZERO-EMISSION TECHNOLOGIES 

 B. Marine Shore-Side Provided Power 

In addition to being the largest source of air pollution in many districts, ports are often 

situated in environmental justice areas. For these reasons, ports are a primary focus for 

emission reduction strategies throughout the state. Governor Schwarzenegger has 

directed state and regional air agencies to work together with the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, industry and community stakeholders to address port-related sources 

of air pollution. 

The largest emission source at ports is marine vessels. One strategy for reducing 

marine vessel emissions is “cold ironing” where ships plug into shore-side power while 

docked, rather than continuously running their diesel engines to generate electricity. 

Cold-ironing requires the proper electrical supply connections from the shore — lines, 

transformers, switching gear, cables, etc. — and the necessary hook-ups on the ship. 

Cold ironing, long used for naval vessels, has recently been implemented in the 

non-military sector in Juneau, Alaska and at the Port of Los Angeles. Four 

specially-equipped cruise ships plug into shore-side power in Juneau during hotelling 

operations, while a container vessel plugs in at the electrified berth in Los Angeles. In 

addition, the Port of Long Beach has begun work to provide dockside electricity to 

accommodate two retrofitted oil tankers and work has begun in Seattle to convert a 

berth for cruise ships. Other ports in the U.S. and worldwide are also considering 

cold-ironing. Early results of ARB’s shore-electrification feasibility study indicate that 

cold-ironing is a cost-effective measure to reduce pollutants from a variety of ships — 

namely, cruise ships, container ships, and refrigerated bulk ships — at several 

California ports. 

Most marine projects in the Carl Moyer Program deal with harbor craft. Cold ironing 

projects go beyond harbor craft and include cruise ships, tankers, and freighters. 

Because cold ironing is a nascent technology, it is difficult to specifically identify the 

exact components that will be eligible for Carl Moyer Program funding. Because each 

cold ironing project will be unique, each must be considered for grant funding on a 

case-by-case basis. The cost-effectiveness and grant amount will depend on a number 

of issues such as interface compatibility, operating voltage, energy needs and electricity 

availability at the dock. However, evidence must be submitted to the air district to prove 

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

cost-effectiveness limit is not exceeded. Applications will be evaluated based on factors 

including, but not limited to, frequency and duration of port visitations, energy usage at 

the dock, seasonal operating variances and regularity of travel routes. 

 C. Forklifts and Other Large Spark-Ignition Equipment 

The Carl Moyer Program has two general emission control strategies for forklifts -- 

(1) purchase of new electric forklifts instead of new internal combustion engine (ICE) 

forklifts; and (2) retrofit or repower of internal combustion forklifts that do not lend 
XII-7 ZERO-EMISSION TECHNOLOGIES 

themselves to electric substitution. Specific project criteria for funding large 

spark-ignition (LSI) engines are not yet formalized in these Carl Moyer Program 

Guidelines pending the Board’s action on the staff’s proposed regulations for LSI 

engines and equipment. However, staff proposes the following changes regarding 

electric forklift projects: 

• The cost-effectiveness limit for electric forklifts is $7,000 per weighted ton of reduced 

emissions. 

• Leased forklifts are eligible for funding if the lease term is three years or more. 

Chapter Six provides additional background discussion on this project category and 

potential criteria that could be used to establish funding eligibility under the Carl Moyer 

Program for both strategies. Until the Board adopts the LSI regulation, districts may 

continue to fund forklift projects using the 2003 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines. During 

this interim period, additional zero-emission LSI projects may be considered on a 

case-by-case basis. 

D. Airport Ground Support Equipment 

Electric GSE have several attributes that make them appeal to users. Participants of 

demonstration and fleet conversion programs like the way that electric GSE handle and 

appreciate the fact that they are more “task specific”. Battery weight often provides 

valuable ballast needed to lift heavy objects or push airplanes; usage is often conducive 

to charging cycles; there are no odors; and no liquid fuel required in the aircraft staging 

area. Most importantly, electric GSE can be cost-effective and generally have relatively 

short payback periods. Electric GSE are commercially available and commonly used 

for a number of equipment types including belt loaders, baggage tractors, aircraft tugs, 

lifts, ground power units, cargo loaders, lavatory carts and air-start units. However, the 

higher capital cost of electric equipment is often a deterrent to prospective buyers. 

Carl Moyer Program funds can be used to offset this initial capital investment. 

As discussed in Chapter Seven, there are currently no regulations requiring the use of 

electric ground support equipment (GSE) at airports but there is a Memorandum of 

Understanding that involves five airports in southern California (Los Angeles, Ontario, 

Orange County, Burbank, and Long Beach). The Carl Moyer Program will fund the 

purchase of new electric GSE instead of new GSE powered by internal combustion 

engines if this equipment is surplus to the MOU; is not used to meet the requirements of 

any regulation, including the upcoming large-spark ignition regulation; is not funded 

through any other incentive program; and is not used to generate credits of any type. 

 E. Idling Reduction Technologies 

Truck drivers idle their propulsion engines for a number of reasons but the main 

purpose is for interior climate control -- heating and cooling the cab/sleeper 

compartment of the truck. A pilot survey on truck idling trends conducted in Northern 
XII-8 ZERO-EMISSION TECHNOLOGIES 

California indicates that 67 percent of idling is to provide heating and 83 percent for air 

conditioning [Brodrick et al., 2001]. Therefore, devices capable of providing heating and 

air conditioning without operating the propulsion internal combustion engine may 

substantially reduce emissions associated with truck idling. Such devices are eligible 

for funding in the Carl Moyer Program. 

Idling emissions, as well as fuel consumption, can be reduced by installing an available 

zero-emission idling control technology such as an on-board non-internal combustion 

engine device; by using a site-specific off-vehicle technology such as IdleAire; or by 

combining on and off-vehicle technologies. 

Available zero-emission on-vehicle technologies include generators or upgraded 

alternators coupled with inverter/chargers and electric heating ventilation and air 

conditioning (HVAC) systems. On-board battery packs or fuel cells are also an option. 

Off-vehicle technologies include grid-supplied electricity at truck stops and advanced 

truck stop electrification (e.g., IdleAire). The use of these devices, in lieu of operating 

the heavy-duty engine at idle, will result in significant NOx reductions. Reductions in 

PM and ROG are also expected but to a lesser extent depending on the type of 

alternative idle reduction device/strategy used. 

In October 2005, the Board will consider a proposal that would limit idling of heavy-duty 

trucks equipped with sleeper berths. This proposal would prohibit heavy duty trucks 

with sleeper berths from idling more than five minutes unless certain conditions are met. 

If the Board approves the staff recommendations, the baseline for calculating the 

benefits of truck idle reduction projects would be a certified diesel APU. Zero-emission 

technologies would be eligible for funding using the lower emission baseline. 

1. Idling Reduction Technology Options 

Because the vast majority of truck idling occurs away from truck stops, the most 

effective idle reduction technologies are those that are available to meet operator needs 

at any location idling occurs. The costs of these technologies vary widely, although the 

initial capital investment can typically be recovered within one to three years from 

reduced fuel and maintenance savings. Still, truck owners and operators have not been 

receptive to these solutions because of their higher initial cost. 

Another on-board idle reduction system utilizes electric heating, ventilation, and air 

conditioning (HVACs) instead of internal combustion engine-driven HVACs. These 

electric HVACs can be powered directly from the grid, a fuel cell, or from energy stored 

in battery packs. The battery packs can be charged from the grid, from the truck’s 

alternator, or from a small on-board gen-set. Fuel cells are an emerging zero-emission 

technology that may also substitute for idling truck engines or auxiliary power units in 

the future. 

Carl Moyer Program funds could be used to help defray the initial cost of equipping the 

truck with the necessary idle-reducing electric equipment. The Carl Moyer Program 
XII-9 ZERO-EMISSION TECHNOLOGIES 

would pay up to $5,500 toward electric equipment and up to $3,400 for its installation. 

In order to be eligible for funding, 75 percent of the applicant’s usage must take place 

within California. 

2. Truck Stop Electrification 

Installation of electric power infrastructure at truck stops, or truck stop electrification 

(TSE), is gaining support as an idling reduction strategy. Under this option, trucks 

would be provided with 110 volt alternating current (AC) electrical power at truck stops 

to run the electric air conditioning, heating and onboard appliances. The electric supply 

can also be used to charge on-board batteries for electricity use away from the truck 

stop. Truck stops would need to be equipped with electrical outlets throughout the 

parking spaces and trucks would need to be equipped, at a minimum, with 

inverter/chargers and electrical power connections. If fitted with batteries, the truck 

could use electricity away from the truck stop. The inverter/charger is used to charge 

the truck batteries and to convert the truck’s 12 volt direct current (DC) batteries to 

120 volt AC power for all onboard appliances. Currently, AC power inverters that are 

built into the truck are offered as a factory option by Freightliner, Volvo and 

International. The cost for inverter/chargers is approximately $1,400, a 600-700 Ah lead 

acid battery pack (good for about 8-15 hours of HVAC and appliance operation) costs 

approximately $8,000. 

As discussed above, the Carl Moyer Program would pay up to $5,500 toward electric 

equipment on-board the truck and up to $3,400 for its installation. TSE infrastructure 

installation at truck stops costs approximately $2,000 per truck parking space. District 

matching funds may be used to offset this cost. 

3. Advanced Truck Stop Electrification 

An alternative to the TSE system that does not need truck modifications has been 

introduced by IdleAire Technologies. This system provides heating and air conditioning 

to the truck, as well as electrical power for on-board appliances. It also provides basic 

services such as telephone and internet access and cable or satellite television. The 

unit is connected to the truck through a console mounted to the truck window using a 

template insert. The console contains all the necessary connections and controls, 

including a card reader for the billing system. The infrastructure cost is approximately 

$17,000 per parking space but may vary depending on the number of parking spaces 

installed. 

Several advanced truck stop electrification projects have been installed with state and 

local funding. Carl Moyer Program funds may be used for installing advanced truck 

stop electrification systems (e.g., IdleAire systems). In these cases, a partial payment 

would be made upfront to help offset the initial capital investment. The remainder of the 

grant amount would be paid out in installments based on system utilization. The 

amount of the initial payment and subsequent installments will be determined on a 

case-by-case basis. 
XII-10 ZERO-EMISSION TECHNOLOGIES 

The truck idling reduction projects described are just a few of many zero-emission idle 

reduction strategies. Other technologies and projects may also be eligible for 

Carl Moyer Program funding on a case-by-case basis. As with all projects, emission 

reductions must be surplus, real, quantifiable, and enforceable and the project must 

meet the cost-effectiveness threshold of $14,300 per weighted ton of emission 

reductions. 

 F. Transportation Refrigeration Units 

Electric standby transportation refrigeration units allow the engine to be turned off when 

a compatible electric power supply is available to operate the transportation refrigeration 

unit (TRU). Diesel engine emissions are eliminated while the TRU is plugged in at the 

facility. TRU manufacturers currently offer an electric standby option on most models 

but very few trucks operating in the United States – less than one percent of trucks with 

TRUs – opt for these units. Electric standby TRU models are common in Europe where 

approximately 90 percent of all truck TRUs have some type of electricity plug-in 

capability. As currently designed, however, the electric motors are only sized to hold a 

temperature set point and may not have sufficient power to pre-cool large trailer 

enclosures. This technology does not reduce emissions when the vehicle is away from 

an electricity source. 

Electrically-driven TRUs could, in the long term, be powered by fuel cells. This would 

allow the TRU to operate emission-free while enroute or when stopped at a facility, 

regardless of the availability of electricity. As previously mentioned, fuel cell technology 

for this application is not currently market-ready. 

Zero-emission TRU projects will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Criteria for 

other TRU projects are discussed in Chapter Four: Transport Refrigeration Units. 

 G. Other Zero-Emission Projects 

This chapter addresses some of the most likely zero-emission technology projects. It is 

by no means a complete list of zero-emission technology projects. Other zero-emission 

technology projects either require no special consideration (e.g., an internal combustion 

engine is directly replaced with an electric motor) or are described in the appropriate 

chapters (e.g., electric TRUs and power plug-in units to reduce locomotive idling). 

Zero-emission technology projects not specifically addressed in this chapter or 

elsewhere in the Guidelines may be considered for Carl Moyer Program funding on a 

case-by-case basis. As with all projects, emission reductions must be surplus, real, 

quantifiable, and enforceable and the project must meet the cost-effectiveness 

threshold of $14,300 per weighted ton. 

ARB staff will continue to work closely with interested stakeholders to monitor 

technological developments in effort to determine when it may be appropriate to 

develop or modify criteria for zero-emission projects. If necessary, ARB will issue 
XII-11 ZERO-EMISSION TECHNOLOGIES 

advisories to inform prospective applicants and districts of any new policy developments 

regarding Carl Moyer Program projects using zero-emission technologies. 

On September 6, 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Senate Bill 467 (Lowenthal) 

which requires the ARB to revise the Carl Moyer Program Guidelines to include projects 

in which an applicant turns in off-road equipment powered by internal combustion 

engines and replaces that equipment with new zero-emission technologies. This 

legislation will take effect on January 1, 2006. ARB staff will evaluate how to 

incorporate the requirements of this legislation into the Carl Moyer Program in 2006. 

IV. References 

Brodrick, C .J., N. P. Lutsey, Q. A. Keen, D. I. Rubins, J. P. Wallace, H. A. Dwyer, and 

S. W. Gouse III, Truck Idling Trends: Results of a Pilot Survey in Northern California, 

Society of Automotive Engineers, Technical Paper Series 2001-01-2828, Warrendale, 

PA, 2001.