Continuation of Board Hearing November 15, 2007 California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board 

## Regulation for Commercial Harbor Craft

2 

# Overview

♦ Proposed Harbor Craft Regulation ♦ Questions and staff analysis ♦ Summary of staff analysis3 

## Proposed Commercial Harbor Craft Regulation Overview

4 

## Key Elements of Proposal

♦ 

### Existing ferries, excursion vessels, tugboats, and towboats required to replace older engines with new certified engines ♦ 

### New vessels and replacement engines must install new certified engines ♦ 

### Monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements5



## October Board Hearing Questions and Staff Analysis



# Should Proposal be Modified? ♦ 

### Should replacement of Tier 0 engines be accelerated? ♦ 

### Should replacement of ferry Tier 0 engines be accelerated? ♦ 

### How do we recognize early investment in Tier 1 engines? ♦ 

### Is more flexibility needed for owners required to repower multiple vessels in single year? 67



# Accelerate Replacement of Tier 0 Engines
♦

### Three options: – Accelerate replacement of Tier 0 engines in entire State to South Coast schedule – Accelerate replacement of Tier 0 engines statewide, but on a slower schedule than South Coast – Accelerate replacement of Tier 0 ferry engines

8 

# Factors Considered

♦ Tier 3 PM standard 50% cleaner than Tier 2 ♦ Tier 3 NOx standard 20% cleaner than Tier 2 ♦ Later model (1995-1999) Tier 0 engines are cleaner (25-30%) than older Tier 0 ♦ Installation capacity for repower limited ♦ As schedule compacts, more owners have to repower multiple vessels in same year ♦ Recognition of early investment in Tier 19



## Tier 3 Engines Emit 50% Less PM than Tier 2

PM Emission Factors

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Older Tier 0 1984-1994 Newer Tier 0

1995-1999 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3PM (g/bhp-hr) NOx Emission Factors

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Older Tier 0 1984-1994 Newer Tier 0

1995-1999 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3NOx (g/bhp-hr)

10 

## Tier 3 Engines Provide 25% Greater PM Benefit and 20% Greater NOx Benefit Category 1 Engines (90% of All CHC engines)

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Engine Life (years)PM Emission Factor 1995-1999 Tier 0 emission level

Tier 2 emission level Tier 3 emission level11



## Accelerate Statewide Schedule
♦ Tier 0 engines replaced by Tier 2 instead of Tier 3 – Lose 25% of Tier 3 PM reductions over engine life, 20% of Tier 3 NOx reductions ♦ Strains or exceeds repower capacity in several years ♦ More operators have to repower multiple vessels in same year ♦ Net benefit of rule is less

12 

## Accelerate Replacement of Tier 0 Ferry Engines ♦ Accelerate replacement of 1996-1999 MY ferry engines to 2014 ♦ Still ensures newer Tier 0 engines will be replaced with Tier 3 engines ♦ Maintains minimum 15 year life outside of South Coast ♦ Could accelerate reductions by 1 to 2 years with no loss of long term benefits ♦ Estimate <10 ferries impacted13



# Multiple Vessel Compliance in

Single Year
♦ 

### Current proposed regulation provides flexibility for vessels with compliance dates 2012 and beyond – Alternative Control of Emissions – Use funding options for early reductions ♦ 

### However, vessels with early compliance dates (2009-2010) have little opportunity for using this flexibility

14 

# Potential Flexibility Option
♦ 

### Allow phased compliance for fleets with multiple vessels requiring compliance in 2009 and 2010 ♦ 

### Minimum of 25% each year if 2009 compliance date ♦ 

### Minimum 33% each year if 2010 compliance date ♦ 

### All repowers to be completed by 201315



## Other Questions Posed by Board Members

♦ 

### What funding opportunities are available for excursion vessels? ♦ 

### What about small fleet economic impacts? ♦ 

### Any new information on ferry aftertreatment technology? ♦ 

### What is impact on greenhouse gas emissions?

16 

## Excursion Vessel Funding Opportunities
♦ 

### Typical excursion vessel enginereplacement qualifies under Moyer costeffectiveness criteria ♦ 

### Moyer Program is over subscribed ♦ 

### Ferry and tug engine replacements more cost-effective17



## Small Fleet Economics ♦ 

### Single vessel owners: – 32% of ferries/excursion vessels – 10% of tugboat vessels – 37% of towboat vessels ♦ 

### No clear size cutoff that would preserve most of the emission reduction ♦ 

### Excursion vessel likely to have greater economic impact than other vessels ♦ 

### Estimate 5 to 10% increase in ticket price needed to cover the cost of compliance

18 

## Ferry Aftertreatment Technologies ♦ 

### Staff re-evaluated available data ♦ 

### European experience – SCR on large ferries – ocean going vessel size – SCR on one “fast ferry” – seeking additional information ♦ 

### United States experience

– New York Staten Island Ferry – large ferry – Blue and Gold Ferry Auxiliary Engines DPF – New York private ferry fleet experience19



## Impact on Greenhouse Gas

Emissions

♦ 

### Small reduction due to accelerated engine replacement ♦ 

### Small reduction in CO2 due to improved efficiency of new engines without aftertreatment (~1% reduction) – About 0.007 Million tons

20 

## Summary of Staff Analysis

♦

### Accelerating statewide schedule possible, but would strain capacity and forego emission reductions ♦ 

### Opportunity to accelerate Tier 0 ferry engine replacement without loss of long term benefits ♦ 

### More flexibility for multi-vessel compliance in first two years (2009 & 2010) is needed