Regulatory Intact Analysis
Clean Fuel Fleet Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Mobile Sources
June, 1994
V-6-01
-------
-------
Table of Contents
Introduction . ; . . .
1
Chapter 1: Industry Overview
1 . 1 Introduction
1.2 Projected Number * of' Affected 'Fleet* Vehicles'. '.'. '.'. 4
j.. ii. i Approach
4
1.2.2 Estimates of Clean-Fuel Fleet'vehicles! .'.* 7
1.2.2.1 Light-Duty.... 7
1.2.2.2 Heavy-Duty !! !'! 8
1.2.2.3 Conclusions.' ] [ * •] [ g
1.2.3 Limitations of the Analysis.. '.'.'.'.'.'..'.'.'.'.'. 9
Chapter 2:. Program Costs
2.1 Introduction
2 .2 Estimated Costs of LDVs and*LDTS'.'.'. 12
I'l'l ™/?SI *ncremental Acquisition*Costs.'!!.* 13
2.2.2 LDV/LDT Incremental Operating Costs.... 17
2.2.3 Assumptions and Approach. 20
2.2.4 Methodology and Results."..".-.. 21
2.3 Estimated Costs of HDVs !!!!!.'! 24
2.3.1 HDV Incremental Acquisition"Costs..'.'. 25
2.3.2 HDV Incremental Operating Costs ." 26
2.3.3 Assumptions and Approach [ ] " 27
2.3.4 Methodology and Results. . 2a
2.4 Summary of Total Potential Program Costs.*.'.'.'!.'.".' 29
Chapter 3: Potential Program Benefits
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Estimated Emission Benefits of LDVs"and*LDTs!!!1 32
3.2.1 Combustion Emission Benefits \''' 32
3.2.2 Vapor Emission Benefits ."!!!."!!* 37
3.3 Estimated Emission Benefits of HDVs.!!!!!!!!!!!! 38
3.3.1 Combustion Emission Benefits !!!*"* 38
3.3.2 Vapor Emission Benefits 40
3.4 Additional Program Benefits ....!!.'.".*!.' 41
3.4.1 Potential Energy Impacts .........!!!**"* 42
3.4.3 Other Potential Impacts !!!!!!!!!"!!! 42
Chapter 4: Cost Effectiveness
4.1 Introduction ,.
4.2 Methodology '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.' 44
4.3 Cost Effectiveness Results....!.'.']!.".'.'!! 45
4.4 Summary . * 4^
Chapter 5: Conclusions 4g
-------
-------
List of Figures and Tables
FIGURE 1-1:
FIGURE 1-2:
FIGURE 1-3:
FIGURE 1-4:
FIGURE 2-1:
FIGURE 2-2:
TABLE 1-1:
TABLE 1-2:
TABLE 1-3:
TABLE 1-4:
TABLE 1-5:
TABLE 1-6:
TABLE 1-7:
TABLE 1-8:
TABLE 2-1:
TABLE 2-2:
TABLE 2-3:
TABLE 2-4:
TABLE 2-5:
TABLE 2-6:
TABLE 2-7:
TABLE 2-8:
TABLE 2-9:
TABLE 2-10:
TABLE 2-11:
TABLE 2-12:
LDV and LOT CFFVs in use.
Heavy-Duty CFFVs in use.
Total CFFVs in use.
N^^i^ Conventional Fuel Displacement
New and in use LDV/LDT CFFVs .
Total Incremental LDV/LDT CFFV Costs.
1990 Area Fuel Fractions.
Fleet
Projections
Projection!?
VQhicle Population
Vehicl« Copulation
Heavy-Duty Fleet
Light-Duty Vehicle, Light-Duty Truck, Heavy-Duty
Vehicle Fleet Population Projections. Y
Incremental Acquisition Costs For LDV/LDT
Incremental Fuel Costs For LDV/LDT
Technology Assumptions For
Technology Assumptions For
LDT Costs Under
LDT C°3ts Under
Incremental Acquisition Costs For Heavy-Duty CFFVs.
Assumptions For
Total Incremental LHDV. and MHDV Fleet Costs Under
scenario A.
Total Incremental LHDV and MHDV Fleet Costs Under
Total Incremental LHDV and MHDV Fleet Costs Under
O •
°f Pr°jected Fleet Program Incremental
TABLE 3-1 (A) : Light-Duty Emission Standards For Clean-Fuel Fleet
vehicles.
TABLE 3-l(B): Light-Duty Truck Emission Standards For Clean-Fuel
Fleet Vehicles.
-------
-------
TABLE 3-1(C):
TABLE 3-2:
TABLE 3-3:
TABLE 3-4:
TABLE 3-57'
TABLE 3-6:
TABLE 3-7:
TABLE 3-8:
TABLE 3-9:
TABLE 3-10:
TABLE 3-11:
TABLE 3-12:
TABLE 3-13:
TABLE 4-1:
TABLE 4-2:
TABLE 4-3:
Attachment A
Lifetime Emission Factors for Light -Duty Vehicles
and trucks froom MOBILESa Modelling
Number of In-Use Clean-Fuel Fleet LDVs/LDTs
r?ifr£n ^nlentories «d NMOG and NOx Benefits From
Clean-Fuel Fleet LDVs and LDTs
BSnefits Fr™ Clean-Fuel Fleet
?lelt Vehlcies Benef±t3 From Light-Duty Clean-Fuel
Medi- Heavy-Duty Emission
1998 Heavy-Duty Engine Emission Standards.
Number of In-Use Clean-Fuel Fleet LHDVs/MHDVs.
Flllt
Beneflts
Benefita From Heavy-Duty Clean-Fuel
" FUel DlaPla-d ** th. Clean Fuel
Gallons of Petroleum-Based Fuel Displaced in the
Clean-Fuel Fleet /Progr»-by -Alternative Fuels!
Clean-Fuel Fleet LDV/LDT Cost Effectiveness.
Clean-Fuel Fleet LHDV/MHDV Cost Effectiveness.
Overall Clean-Fuel Fleet Program Cost Effectiveness
-------
-------
Introduction
''*. J^ clean -Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA) remii™ *•*<*
*
Description of the Clean Fuel Fleet P
are set forth in
afie
owners in certain areas with air-qualit problems will b
b
these categories. At this time, the Denver-Boulder area
a?sorclasifiMthH Only affected CO-nonattainment ara wch is not
also classified as an ozone nonattainment area.
According to the CAA, the CFFV purchase requirements of the
morrv^hSSi7 t0H ^^^ ^d government-owned fleTts hTvlng ten or
more vehicles which are operated in a covered area and which are
n^ residence at night are not considered capable of
and LT?hr* i7 fUeled UnlSSS they are' in fact' centrallj fueled
rSrthSr^f^'T ^ject ^ the program's requirements. The
further restricts the regulations to fleet vehicles which are
-------
-------
iff one of three classes for which CFFV »-s.—4- ^-- ^-i--
rsvsr -
in 1398 olUrfl^r6^e*l^f°* C°Vered fleets are to begin
in .L»yo. For fleets of light-duty vehicles and trueki ?*<*
purchase requirements are phasld in over a three yTat pe7fod ' sue?
P-erC1eonoto°f thS vehicles Purchased in 1998 must be CTF^s 50
in 1999' *nd 7° Percent thereafter. For HDV fleetJ the
C
r . ee the
2H PUhrChaSe ^f^irement begins and remains at spercent £
meet the purchase requirements the vehicles must meet the
S™iCS V°W ^^ vehicle emission st^dards New
CFFVs may be purchased to meet these requirements or conventional
vehicles may be converted to LEVs in compliance with thlvehicle
conversion and certification regulations promulgated by EpI
As an incentive to fleet operators participatina
program the CAA specifies that fll clean-Pfuel vJhicSs
S £ v 2°V^ed fleetS are t0 be exemPt from time-of-day, day-
«32? ' Iddit^f 1t«"Po«l"baaed transP<~tation control me^ures
c?SJ ™H^ incentive and flexibility are provided by a
CFFV credit program, which permits fleet owners who exceed the
SSSLST* requirements to earn credits commensurate with the
incremental emission benefits provided. These credits can be used
or can be sold to
buvs ** ^ene5ated' for example, when a fleet owner
buys CFFVs earlier than required, buys more CFFVs than required in
?h?r?£ YTe™' °r ^UyS CFFVS Which meet tighter emission ^andards
E^is eatlf?^iremenirS'. In SUpP°rt °f these credit Provisions?
d«£in«rf *«^5 ot»9 ®misaxo.n standards for two CFFV categories
defined in the CAA, in addition to the basic LEVs: Ultra Low-
Emission Vehicles (ULEVs) and Zero-Emission Vehicles (ZEVs) The
SKS^^Vf gen«5ate and sel1 credits is expected to provide a
market-based incentive for earlier CFFV purchases and for purchases
of alternative-fuel vehicles, without decreasing the overall air
quality benefits of the fleet program. overaij. air
While the CAA provides the overall program framework described
above, the Clean Fuel Fleet Program is to be established,
administered, and enforced by the individual states which contain
the affected areas. Each state is to incorporate its plans for the
program in its State Implementation Plan (SIP) and to submit this
-------
-------
SIP revision to EPA for approval by May, 1994. Alternatively, a
state may choose to opt out of the fleet program by substituting
other measures for achieving comparable air quality improvements.
EPA's general role in. the fleet program is to establish
emission standards for the various CFFV categories and to
promulgate guidelines and regulations further defining the credit,
vehicle conversion, and TCM exemption provisions which states must
incorporate in their programs. In addition to providing guidance
for the state-implemented provisions, however, EPA has also
established a program under federal administration which is
expected to encourage voluntary purchases of Inherently Low-
Emission Vehicles (ILEVs) for fleet use. By definition, ILEVs are
vehicles which have extremely low "evaporative emissions (if any)
and which emit significantly less oxides of nitrogen (NOx) as
compared with other CFVs. Under this federal program, ILEVs
bought by covered fleets will be exempt from transportation control
ordinances which restrict the use of specific traffic lanes to
high-occupancy vehicles (HOVs). EPA believes that offering
exemptions from HOV lane restrictions in order to motivate
voluntary ILEV purchases will help to further the goals of the
Clean Fuel Fleet Program.
Organization of the Recrulatorv Support Document
The remainder, of this document analyzes the expected economic
and environmental impacts of the Clean Fuel Fleet Program. Chapter
1 presents an overview of the fleet industry and provides estimates
of the number of fleets and vehicles potentially affected by the
program. Chapters 2 and 3 analyze"the program7s potential costs
and environmental/energy benefits and Chapter 4 discusses the
overall cost effectiveness of the program. Finally, conclusions of
the analysis are presented in Chapter 5.
-------
-------
Chapter 1
Industry Overview
1.1 Introduction
The industry affected by this regulation is composed of owners
and operators of vehicle fleets. Unlike most other regulated
industries, this industry is very diverse, with the members linked
only by the fact that they own and operate fleets of vehicles.
They do not necessarily make the same product, perform the same
services, or even own or operate the same types of vehicles. Fleet
owners and operators range in size both in terms of revenue and
number of fleet vehicles, and there is not necessarily a
correlation between the size of a company and the size of its
fleet.
To provide a foundation for calculating the expected economic
and environmental impacts of the fleet program, this chapter
presents estimates of the number of fleet vehicles which will
potentially participate in the program. These population estimates
are based on an EPA analysis entitled "Estimated Number of Fleet
Vehicles Affected by the Clean Fuel Fleet Program1". This analysis
is available in the public docket and is summarized below.
1.2 Projected Number of Aff»ct*d Fleet V«hicl««
To account for changed circumstances and newly available
information, EPA has revised the fleet vehicle population estimates
provided in the original analysis cited above. The revisions
reflect a change in the nonattainment areas covered by the program,
and incorporate more accurate growth rates and updated population
data and fuel use data. A brief summary of the analysis, including
revisions, is presented below. Limitations of the analysis are
discussed in the final section of this chapter.
1.2.1 Approach
Estimates of fleet vehicle population are presented separately
for LDVs, LDTs, and HDVs, with HDVs further divided between the
light and medium subclasses (HDVs in the heavy subclass are not
included in the program). Within these vehicle classes, estimates
are provided for business and utility, state and local government,
and federal government fleet vehicles. Business and utility fleets
include leased, managed, and company-owned vehicles. Federal
Hj.S,. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile
Sources, "Estimated Number of Fleet Vehicles Affected by the Clean
Fuel Fleet Program," Memorandum from Sheri Dunatchik to Docket A-
91-25, June 11, 1991.
-------
-------
fleets are comprised of civilian, postal service, and Department of
Defense vehicles.
The approach used in estimating the number of CFFVs required
under the program was the same for each vehicle class (LDV, LOT,
HDV) . First, through sources described in the original analysis,
the total number of vehicles operating nationwide in fleets of 10
or more was derived for each vehicle class. To project the
proportion of these vehicles which operate in the covered areas,
the area fuel fraction, i.e., the amount of fuel consumed in the
affected areas as a fraction of the total U.S. fuel consumption,
was applied to the nationwide data. At the time the original
analysis was conducted, 21 areas having a total area fuel fraction
of .2945 were covered by the program. Since that time, the areas
have been redefined, increasing the number of affected areas from
21 to 22. However, the total fuel fraction for these 22 areas
actually decreased from .2945 to .2904. This occurred because,
rather than adding more total area/ some existing nonattainment
areas were divided and reclassified. Furthermore, gasoline usage
in some of the covered areas appears to have decreased2. The 22
affected areas and their respective area fuel fractions is shown in
Table 1-1.
The CAA directs that only fleet vehicles centrally fueled or
capable of being centrally fueled be required to comply with the
fleet program. To estimate the number of fleets in this category,
EPA made use of a survey of business car and truck practices, which
provided data on the percent of respondents purchasing fuel in
bulk3. For the LDV/LDT analysis, an assumption was made that
respondents purchasing fuel in bulk also provide central fueling
facilities and that their vehicles would use the facilities as
their primary source of fuel. Using these percentages as central
fueling percentages and applying them to the total fleet vehicle
estimates for the 22 covered areas yielded estimates of fleet
vehicles which are centrally fueled at their operating base
location. However, lack of information prevented EPA from
including vehicles which may be centrally fueled at a location
other than their garage site, such as a contract fueling point, and
those which are not centrally fueled but may be capable of central
fueling. Thus, projections of the number of affected fleet
vehicles may be underestimated. Similar information was not
available for heavy-duty vehicles; therefore, EPA estimated they
would have a reasonably high central fueling rate (80 percent)
2U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration Highway Statistics, 1990, Washington D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, September 1990.
3Runzheimer International, Survey and Analysis of Business Car
Policies & Costs 1989-1990. Northbrook, Illinois: Runzheimer
International Ltd., 1989.
-------
-------
considering the size and operating nature of vehicles in this
class.
Once the number of centrally fueled vehicles covered by the
program was estimated, the number of clean-fuel vehicles required
to be purchased for the fleet program could be estimated. First,
the total number of vehicles operating in covered fleets in the
years 1998-2010 was estimated by applying yearly growth rates
(taken from EPA's MOBILE4 fuel consumption model) to the projected
number of centrally fueled vehicles in fleets of 10 or more
operating in the 22 covered areas. The number of these vehicles
expected to be newly registered was determined so that the
potential number of new CFFVs could be estimated. The number of
new vehicles registered each year includes new vehicles due to
fleet growth and new vehicles due to replacement. The original
analysis specified percentages of vehicles expected to leave the
fleet (those being replaced) and enter the fleet (the replacement
plus growth), depending on the vehicle class and type. In actual
fleet practices, however, vehicle replacement and acquisition do
not necessarily happen on a rigid yearly schedule. Thus, the
revised projections of new fleet vehicles have been based on
monthly growth and replacement rates, decreasing the margin of
error in the projections. Finally, from-the estimates of newly
registered fleet vehicles, the total number expected to be new
CFFVs purchased in each year was determined by applying the CFFV
phase-in rate required by the CAA for that year.
In addition to determining the number of vehicles affected by
the program, EPA's analysis included, estimates of the amount of
conventional fuel which would be displaced in 1998-2010 assuming
that all covered fleet vehicles would operate on clean fuels rather
than using conventional gasoline or diesel fuels and meeting the
CFFV standards through advancements in technology4. Average annual
mileage estimates and average fuel economy estimates of each fleet
type (i.e., business, utility, government) and vehicle class (taken
from a variety of sources specific to each vehicle class/type as
specified in the original analysis) were applied to the total
number of CFFVs estimated to be in use each year to project the
potential number of gallons of conventional fuel which could be
displaced each year as a result of the Clean Fuel Fleet Program5.
The results of these analyses are provided below for each of the
three vehicle classes.
4In this analysis, reformulated gasoline, alcohol fuels (such
as methanol), compressed natural gas, liquified petroleum gas, and
electricity are considered "clean fuels". "Alternative fuels"
include all of these except for reformulated gasoline.
Conventional fuel displacement resulting from fleet use of
alternative fuels only (i.e., clean fuels other than reformulated
gasoline) is discussed in Chapter 3.
-------
-------
1.2.2 K«timat«» of Cl«an-Fuel Fl««t V«hicle«
1.. 2. 2.1 Light-Duty Vehicle/Light-Duty Truck Fleet
V"" - " Projections ,
Tables 1-2 and 1-3 provide estimates of the number of
LDV/LDT fleet vehicles expected to be clean fueled in the years
1998-2010. Projections are provided separately for
business/utility, state and local government, and federal
government vehicles. Also presented in the tables are estimates of
the amount of conventional fuel displaced in each year due to use
of clean fuels by fleet vehicles.
In each table, the number of covered vehicles is
presented in the column entitled "Total Vehicles". Of these, the
number expected to be newly registered is listed in the "New
Vehicles" column. "New CFFVs" represents the number of new vehicle
registrations which are required to be clean-fuel vehicles in that
year, determined by applying the phase- in rate to new vehicle
registrations. "In-Use CFFVs" is the total number of fleet CFVs
projected to be operating in each year. This includes newly
purchased fleet CFVs as well as a portion of those purchased in
previous years, based on a weighted average of replacement rates
estimated for each fleet type and vehicle class to account for
fleet turnover. The final column of each table represents the
amount of conventional fuel (millions of gallons) which would be
displaced in each year by the fleet CFV in-use population, if all
such CFFVs were operating on and meeting standards through clean
fuels rather than operating on conventional fuels and meeting
standards through technology advancements.
For business/utility fleet vehicles, the number of clean-
fuel LDVs and LDTs projected to be operating in 1998 are
approximately 47,000 and 22, 000 respectively. This will increase
to 240,000 LDVs and 114,000 LDTs by the year 2000. In the year
2010, EPA anticipates nearly 392,000 private LDVS and 331,000
private LDTa could-" potentially be operating on clean fuels.
regard, to state and local government fleets, in the
years^ "1998, 200CT, and 2010, approximately 9,000, 48,000, and
128,000- LDVa;^ respectively, are anticipated to be operating on
clean fuels;; For LOTS , approximately 3,000, 15,000, and 82,000
vehicles will be operating on clean fuels in 1998, 2000, and 2010.
For federal government LDVs and LDTs, approximately 2, 000 LDVs and
3, 000 LDTs will be clean-fuel fleet vehicles in 1998. This is
expected to rise to nearly 10,000 LDVs and 14,000 LDTs in the year
2000, and increase to 26,000 LDVs and 78,000 LDTs by 2010. The
projections only include those vehicles required to be purchased
under the fleet program, and do not include vehicles which the
federal government is purchasing under recent executive orders.
As a result of replacing conventional fleet vehicles with
-------
-------
CFFVs, an estimated 44 million gallons of conventional fuel is
expected to be displaced from clean-fuel LDVs in 1998. The
majority (84 percent) of fuel displacement would result from use of
clean fuels by privately owned fleet vehicles. In the years 2000
and 2010, conventional fuel displacement from LDVs would increase
to 227 and 410 million gallons, respectively* For LDTs,
conventional fuel displacement would be an estimated 22 million
gallons in 1998, increasing to 124 and 419 million gallons in the
years 2000 and 2010, respectively. Again, the majority (86
percent) of fuel displacement would result from use of clean fuels
by privately owned LDTs. .. '
Fleet vehicle population and fuel displacement projections for
light-duty vehicles and trucks combined is shown in Table 1-4. EPA
anticipates there will be nearly 86,000 new light-duty clean-fuel
vehicles and trucks at the start of the program in 1998, displacing
approximately 66 million gallons of conventional fuel. In the year
2000, a total of about 441,000 fleet LDVs/LDTs will be operating on
clean fuels, including approximately 209,000 new CFFVs acquired
that year. These vehicles could displace about 351 million gallons
of conventional fuel. By 2010, over 263,000 newly-registered
light-duty clean-fuel vehicles and trucks will contribute to over
one million light-duty CFFVs in operation?- potentially displacing
approximately 829 million gallons of conventional fuel.
1.2.2.2 Heavy-Duty Vehicle Fleet Projections
The fleet program covers only the light and medium
subclasses of heavy-duty vehicles (LHDVs and MHDVs). LHDVs are
generally defined as vehicles in classes lib through V weighing
8,500-19,500 Ibs. GVWR. Most of these vehicles are 8,500-12,000
Ibs. GVWR. MHDVs are generally defined as class VI vehicles
weighing 19,500-26,000 Ibs. GVWR.
Fleet vehicle population projections and fuel
displacement estimates are presented in Table 1-5 forH LHDVs and
Table 1-6 for MHDVs. For privately-owned fleets, EPA estimates
nearly 7rOOO LHDVa will, be CFFVs when the prograift takes effect In
1998. By the/yearai- 200Q and 2010, the number of private fleet
LHDVs operatingonclean fuels will have increased to 21,000 and
54,000, resp«Gtivelyv - For state and local government fleets,
approximate^ 1,400, 4/200, and 11,000 LHDVs will be clean fueled
in 1998, 20:00, and 2010, respectively. The number of federal
government fleet CEVs will be approximately 250, 750, and 1,900 in
each of those years.
. EPA anticipates there will be approximately 9,000
privately-owned clean-fuel fleet MHDVs in 1998, 27,000 in the year
2000, and 49,000 in 2010. Among state and local, government fleets,
approximately 1,800 MHDVs will be clean fueled in 1998. This
number is expected to rise to over 5,000 vehicles in the year 2000
and nearly 10,000 in 2010. The data suggest only about 300 federal
': -' - -'' 8 . . • '•'. :. . • .
-------
-------
^••;i^-;i3|
government: fleet MHDVs will be clean fueled in. 1998, potentially
rising to ««arly;-95(l-in the-year 2000 and., reaching about 1,700 in
2010. ~How federal participation in the fleet program will
likely increase-'duetto purchase-Requirements of recent executive
orders". -^ _ ~_- - ~ ~ " - * ~ ~~ -_ "* '•-•/ '-'
-s~?,^~'^f-'^r-'''?^~.'.^^!£^^'£^ "V^-^'^-^Y^v^^"?*^ " "'' '",-- i-~'-••', . "' "*• '" -"
jj*i&j$^tt^ operation ;:in
-''-''''---•^'-'ix&£*l^£$-;:mill^p;u|.aition and fuel
For'""-'. examplia^^"conventional •.' fuel
CFFV emission -
clean
A ; -more
is
-------
-------
.
^
--' '-" •• *'•-" - •--"----.- •- -~-—-'
'^?£iii^?£^^
•"•-••v^£ire£!^^:3^eii?^ ~j**yv,j. v«s-at ^fiey; ^nav-et^rawer
•^ i^3*|^pP»^^Sl«^^:^l^^4as^;ttpys>: - -135*3, '^a^aS^SfS^iM-au^
-"1^:;:':->s:*ai«eti^H1a^tessax(Siiidedb:-j;'t^enA:*htt-.: ^«^i^v.arf:''-^t^^fc^v-i^ii-i^^;iJ:-^"aS:^:&^i::;--.-;.-. ••-
9;;rco^?-da:i"$EEpr^Bpfe.
iicfe,!4n ;:^he"f -ciafei;;^ E^luii^:;Sb£^^h^ae
.... fie«t '
fe«p^
'"' *-~- -- s " ' - :- •• "~ " ~ " ""• "• -"-'"i"-- «-«•'•.*- -' • - ---
-,^-,-:i^^™«Sajw^xp>v,^^^|^o:^
-• f -^- -••»«a^^fe---*-K^--i^*^«^-^*S^^.-:.;^
_ „, -:S"^--:^^<^^i?^ay^Si^
fe^^^—R*^*.*. •'••pvaK^^^-^^'c^^f^^^^^^r^-'-. ••: \s
-- " J' *a«Ai!w"S&i^t^ r- '-"*
."..J!
Ker^^
v''
Sajg|ii^:^|Qt^ii^.'^;:v.;;^^
:
v Vff^rfffi?* 6JtefebmofeS;»^ Meefe-i^io^sfe-'ici&fe::'" R^oii^a^^^-^^^^^T^^
••• '-"v-^j^^SS^^^^SS^S .^*APlili^^l^^r-iv---^^
•.V•; ••^-::?5VTaC^1^9^-;^^^^6^4^fc,-rv--.--.-.:-:--,^~.>''.--T•"'•%::•.*«.•-. .
-------
-------
representative of fleet central fueling statistics (contract
fueling arrangements not included), (3) the lack of available data
regjarding centralfueling percentages and replacement rates used in
HBV rfleet pW-jegtions,, (4) the 'unavailability of data on'vehicles
which ritay be capable of central fueling, and (5) the neglect of
potential improvements in corporate average fuel economy ovet time.
The fleet vehicle population projections presented in this
chapter, combined with cost estimates related to clean-fuel vehicle
purchase and operation, yield estimates of the costs of the fleet
program. These vehicle-related costs and potential program costs
are presented in the next chapter.
11
-------
-------
2.1 Introduction
Chapter 2
Program Costs
*-ho ^ J ? *? XJ is not possible to project with certainty how
the clean-fuel fleet vehicle market will develop. Fleet operators
will have many factors to consider in making their purchase
decision?. For some fuels, fleet operators may be limited by tnJ
cognations that original equi/ment manufacturers
° tO ** clean-fuel f^et vehicle emission
Tn
™ K % addition, aftermarket conversion kits will" be
S0n vehclefu*l c
e
w ™H <- veh.icle/fu*l combinations, and fleet operators
will need to consider the relative cost and operating attributes of
such conversions compared to new OEM vehicles. Fuel availability
S?J?£a* Wil1
-------
I
-------
electric vehicles, maintenance costs are projected to be half those
of a conventional vehicle and are reflected in the acquisition
costs rather than in operating costs so as to simplify the
calculations, making only fuel costs necessary to be considered
when calculating operating costs. Acquisition and operating costs
were not readily available for LDTs. However, because in many
cases their engine/fuel system design and operation are similar to
LDVs, the incremental acquisition and operating costs estimated for
LDVs are also applied to LDTs in this analysis. Estimates of the
incremental acquisition and operating costs of LDVs and LDTs are
provided below.
2.2.1 Light-Duty Vehicle and Light-Duty Truck Incremental
Acquisition Costs
A summary of the incremental acquisition costs of CFVs is
provided below for vehicles fueled by alcohol, electricity,
liquified petroleum gas (LPG), and reformulated gasoline. Costs
for vehicles fueled by these alternative fuels were taken from EPA
Special Reports, the Regulatory Impact Analysis for Reformulated
Gasoline, Department of Energy Studies, and a California Air
Resources Board (CARB) Staff Report.
Alcohol-Fuel Vehicles. Some aspects of dedicated alcohol-fuel
vehicles lead to an increase in vehicle costs over conventional
vehicle costs, while other aspects result in a cost savings. For
example, reductions in emission controls, engine cooling system,
and engine size will result in cost savings, while fuel system
modifications will increase the cost. Considering both cost
savings and increases, no overall cost difference between dedicated
alcohol vehicles and conventional gasoline vehicles are expected.
On the other hand, flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) require all the
modifications for a methanol engine, without achieving the cost
benefits associated with an optimized dedicated methanol engine.
EPA has estimated that FFVs could probably achieve a differential
cost of $300 in commercial production.9 Since FFVs rather than
dedicated alcohol vehicles are likely to be produced in high
volumes by the start of the fleet program, the FFV cost of $300 is
used as the incremental acquisition cost of alcohol-fuel vehicles
in this analysis as in the proposed RIA, even though some dedicated
alcohol-fuel vehicles are likely.
CNG and LPG Vehicles. EPA expects that conventional gasoline
vehicles converted to operate on gaseous fuels (i.e., CNG and LPG)
and OEM vehicles dedicated to gaseous fuel use will both be likely
options available to fleet purchasers when the program begins. For
9"Analysis of the Economic and Environmental Effects of
Methanol as an Automotive Fuel, Office of Mobile Sources, EPA,
September 1989.
13
-------
-------
' in
uses cost estimates provded in ?he CNG lLS?i Cp°StS ^°d theref ore
and Light Truofcs," Office of Mobile Scute**, E^V Apri^O.
14
-------
-------
reported in the proposed RIA and above, but ICF Inc. also reported
that the CNG fuel price savings to be on average $0.28 compared to
a gasoline equivalent price of $1.18 per gallon. The CNG fuel
price projected, by ICF Inc. is approximately equal to $1.03 per
gallon CNG equivalent compared to the $1.31 per gallon conventional
gasoline price used in the proposed RIA and later in today's
analysis. Furthermore, this $1.03 per gallon fuel price is $.06
less than the $1.09 per gallon projected fuel price used for CNG in
the proposed RIA and later in today's analysis. Thus, in summary,
compared to the CNG costs provided in the proposed RIA and above,
this ICF Inc. data demonstrates an increase in CNG vehicle price
and a decrease in CNG fuel price. Substituting these ICF Inc. cost
numbers into the cost effectiveness analysis of CFFV LDV/LDTs
results in a 5 percent more cost effective program than would
result with the proposed cost numbers. However, at this time it is
not possible to accurately project how the CNG vehicle and fuel
market will develop by the year 2000, and thus, EPA concludes that
after examining the sensitivity of the proposed CNG vehicle cost
projection to the other reasonable estimates of future CNG cost,
the impact on cost effectiveness is not major. Thus, EPA will use
the proposed and above CNG cost projections in today's final RIA.
Electric Vehicles. One of the biggest obstacles to electric
vehicle (EV) involvement in the fleet program is the price
differential between EVs and equivalent gasoline vehicles. Current
electric vehicles are very costly, primarily due to the cost of the
battery. Current technology uses a nickel-iron (Ni-Fe) battery.
According to the Interagency Commission on Alternative Fuels, an
electric passenger car is expected to cost $750 less than a
conventional vehicle, but the batteries are projected to cost
$6,240, for a net vehicle price increase of $5,490. This cost will
likely decrease once these vehicles are under mass production, but
the mass production cost is impossible to predict at this time.
Maintenance costs for EVs have been projected to be about 50
percent of those for conventional vehicles. Discounted to the time
of purchase, this cost savings over the life of the vehicle, as in
the proposed RIA, yields a total incremental acquisition cost of
$3,300. It should be noted that a number of entities across the
nation and around the world are now engaged in research and
development of battery technology and other means to store
electrical energy. One option presently being considered to
address the issue of limited driving range is the hybrid electric
vehicle. Breakthroughs in such areas could substantially reduce
the price of EVs and increase their range making them more
attractive for fleet use.
- As with CNG vehicles, EPA examined the sensitivity of the
electric vehicle incremental acquisition cost above. Data from a
Sobotka and Company, Inc. report entitled "Zero Emission Vehicles:
A Review of Emissions, Costs, and Cost-Effectiveness of Emission
Reductions," and prepared for EPA under contract number 68-W9-0077
(September 30, 1992), showed the incremental acquistion cost (cost
15
-------
-------
increase over life of vehicle) of an electric vehicle to be $7,300
as compared to a conventional gasoline vehicle. In addition, data
from a recent Transportation Technologies draft report prepared for
the U.S. Department of Energy entitled "The Potential Cost to
Purchase and Use an Electric Vehicle" (March 10, 1994) showed the
incremental acquisition cost to be $14,300. These incremental
acquisition costs are from $4,000 to $11,000 higher than those
costs provided in the proposed RIA and above, and thus, these
higher costs would in turn create a less cost effective program
However, in the proposed RIA and above, EPA estimated that 5
percent of all CFFVs would be ZEVs, and EPA now believes this
projection is possibly overly conservative since it is unlikely
that ZEVs will be over 2 percent of the CFFV population. Thus, even
though electric vehicles will most likely cost more than originally
projected in the proposed RIA and above, this higher incremental
acquisition cost is offset by the conservative ZEV population
projections reported in the proposed RIA and today. Moreover, at
this time it is not possible to accurately project how the electric
vehicle market will develop by the year 2000, and thus, EPA
concludes that after examining the sensitivity of the proposed
electric vehicle cost projection to the other reasonable estimates
of future electric vehicle costs, the impact on cost effectiveness
is not major. Thus, EPA will use the-electric vehicle cost
projections that were in the proposed RIA and above for today's
final RIA.
Reformulated Gasoline-Fueled Vehiclea. Finally, with regard
to vehicles fueled with reformulated gasoline, EPA anticipates that
conventional vehicles operating on this fuel, perhaps with the use
of an electrically heated catalyst, will meet the clean-fuel
vehicle emission requirements of the fleet program. If this is the
case, the only additional cost would be that of an electrically
heated catalyst. In a Staff Report11 on proposed regulations for
low-emission vehicles and clean fuels, the California Air Resource
Board has estimated that gasoline-powered vehicles using
electrically heated catalysts will have the ability to meet LEV
standards. Their estimated cost of an electrically heated
catalyst, $170, is used as the incremental acquisition cost of
reformulated gasoline vehicles in this analysis.
EPA has examined the sensitivity of the above incremental
acquisition cost of reformulated gasoline vehicles. Since the time
of the proposed RIA, data was reported in an article in the May
1994 issue of Sierra Research's CVS News entitled, "GARB Staff
Recommends No Changes to LEV Program", that indicated that CARS has
estimated incremental acquisition cost of LEVs to now be $114. As
in the previous Staff Report, the cost of an electrically heated
X13tate of California Air Resources Board, "Proposed
Regulations for Low-Emission Vehicles and Clean Fuels," Staff
Report, August 13, 1990.
16
-------
-------
catalyst is used as the incremental acquisition cost of
reformulated gasoline vehicles in this new CARS Staff Report.
However, at this time EPA believes it is not possible to accurately
project how the.reformulated gasoline vehicle market will develop
by the year 2000, and thus, EPA concludes that after examining the
sensitivity of the proposed reformulated gasoline vehicle cost
projection to the other reasonable estimate of future reformulated
gasoline vehicle cost, the impact on cost effectiveness is not
major. Thus, EPA will use the reformulated gasoline vehicle cost
projection that was in the proposed RIA and above for today's final
RIA.
In sum, EPA estimates an incremental acquisition cost of $300
for alcohol-fuel vehicles, $2,000 for gaseous-fuel vehicles, $3,300
for electric vehicles, and $170 for vehicles fueled with
reformulated gasoline (see Table 2-1). Except for electric
vehicles, these costs assume that the vehicles are in mass
production when the program begins. This is realistic given that
the State of California LEV program and California Pilot Program
are expected to force clean-fuel technology ahead of the fleet
program. Thus, start-up costs such as certification costs can be
expected to be recovered in the years between the start of the
pilot program and the start of the fleet-program.
2.2.2 Light-Duty Vehicle and Light-Duty Truck Incremental
Operating Costs
As previously mentioned, EPA estimates no additional
maintenance costs for clean-fuel vehicles above their conventional
counterparts. For electric vehicles, a reduction in maintenance
costs was incorporated into the incremental acquisition cost.
Thus, the only factor considered here for operating costs is the
annual fuel cost.
Below, EPA projects future fuel costs for alternative fuels
and presents them in terms of a gasoline equivalent pump price.
Prices used in the analysis were based on estimates of the retail
cost of the fuel in the year 2000. The gasoline equivalent "pump
prices" for alcohol fuel, CNG, electricity, LPG, and reformulated
gasoline are discussed below and summarized in Table 2-2.
Consistent with the expectation that FFVs will likely be the
most available option to fleet owners when the program begins, a
projection of the retail price of M85 in the year 2000 is used in
this analysis to represent the cost of alcohol fuels. As in the
proposed RIA, with foreign natural gas as the feedstock, the M85
pump price is estimated at $1.12 per gallon (gasoline equivalent).
Producing methanol using a foreign natural gas feedstock and
shipping the methanol to the U.S. is expected to be cheaper than
producing methanol in the U.S. using domestic natural gas as the
feedstock. It is also anticipated to be an attractive approach to
17
-------
-------
producing methanol on a large scale for motor vehicle use.
In the case of CNG, EPA expects the opposite scenario to
occur, i.e., that domestic natural gas is more likely to be used as
a feedstock rather than foreign natural gas. A foreign feedstock
would potentially be more costly because the gas would have to be
liquified before being shipped to the U.S. and then converted back
to a^ gaseous state. As in the proposed RIA, EPA estimates CNG
could be produced from domestic natural gas at a gasoline-
equivalent price of $1.33 per gallon for a dual-fuel vehicle and
$1.09 per gallon for a dedicated vehicle in the year 2000. The
difference between the two pump price estimates is a result of the
expected efficiencies of the vehicle types. Expecting that,
whether by OEM or conversion, gaseous-fuel vehicles will more
likely be designed for dedicated rather than dual-fuel use, the
dedicated-fuel price of $1.09 is used in this analysis. Similarly,
as in the proposed RIA, the equivalent gasoline pump price of LPG
is estimated at $0.73 per gallon for FFVs and $0.62 per gallon for
dedicated vehicles, and the dedicated fuel cost of $0.62 is used in
this analysis.12
As discussed above in the incremental acquisition cost
section, EPA has examined the sensitivity of- the proposed and above
CNG acquisition and operating costs projections. In summary,
compared to the CNG costs provided in the proposed RIA and above,
ICF Inc. data demonstrates an increase in CNG vehicle price and a
decrease in CNG fuel price. Substituting these ICF Inc. cost
numbers into the cost effectiveness analysis of CFFV LDV/LDTs
results in a 5 percent more cost effective program than would
result with the proposed cost numbers. However, as discussed
earlier, it is not possible to accurately project how the CNG
vehicle and fuel market will develop by the year 2000, and thus,
EPA concludes that after examining the sensitivity of the proposed
CNG cost projections to the other reasonable estimates of future
CNG costs, the impact on cost effectiveness is not major. Thus,
EPA will use the proposed and above CNG fuel cost projections in
today's final RIA.
Also, EPA examined the sensitivity of the LPG fuel cost above.
In a recent ICF Inc. draft report entitled "Life-Cycle Costs of
Gaseous Fuel Fleet Vehicles" that was prepared for EPA (March 31,
1994), data showed the LPG fuel price to be equivalent to a
gasoline "pump price" of $1.18 per gallon (average gasoline prices
averaged across.all grades), and this price would be approximately
equal to a $1.31 per gallon LPG equivalent as compared to the $1.31
per gallon conventional gasoline price that was projected in the
12r
U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration,
"Annual Energy Outlook 1990 — Long Term Projections", January,
1990, DOE/EIA-0383(90). LPG fuel price projections are based on
this study.
18
-------
I
-------
proposed RIA and today's analysis. Thus, compared to the LPG fuel
costs provided in the proposed RIA and above ($0.62), this ICF Inc.
data, demonstrates a substantial increase in LPG fuel price.
Substituting these ICF Inc. fuel cost numbers into the cost
effectiveness analysis of CFFV LDV/LDTs results in a less cost
effective program than would result with the proposed cost numbers.
However, in the proposed RIA and today's analysis, EPA projected
the LPG population to be from 5 to 10 percent of all CFFVs, and EPA
now believes this population level is possibly overly conservative
and unlikely to occur. Thus, the increased LPG fuel price would be
offset by this conservative number of LPG vehicles projected to be
in the fleet program. Moreover, at this time it is not possible to
accurately project how the LPG fuel market will develop by the year
2000, and thus, EPA concludes that after examining the sensitivity
of the proposed LPG fuel cost projection to the other reasonable
estimate of future LPG fuel cost, the impact on the cost.
effectiveness is not major. Thus, EPA will use those LPG cost
numbers that were reported in the proposed RIA and above for
today's analysis.
As in the proposed RIA, the estimated "pump price" gasoline
equivalent of electricity produced from conventional resources
(coal, gas) is $1.12 per gallon in the year 2000 according to the
Interagency Commission on Alternative Fuels, and the estimated
retail price of reformulated gasoline in the year 2000 is $1.36,
based on a projected cost of $1.31 per gallon for conventional
gasoline13. Estimates of this nature are problematic given the
sensitivity of gasoline fuel prices to many factors outside of the
refining process.
In Table 2-2, the estimated gasoline equivalent "pump prices"
in the year 2000 for each of the fuel types are compared to the
estimated price of $1.31 for gasoline in that same year, to
determine the incremental cost of each particular fuel type. All
fuels except for reformulated gasoline represent a cost savings
when compared to the estimated price of conventional gasoline in
the year 2000. Later in this chapter, these incremental fuel costs
"13The December 13, 1993 Final Regulatory Impact Analysis for
Reformulated Gasoline estimates the incremental cost of producing
reformulated gasoline over conventional gasoline to be five cents
per gallon. Since market forces drive the cost charged at the
service station, it is difficult to predict with any certainty what
portion of the incremental production cost might be passed on to
the consumer. Consequently, this analysis uses the full five cents
as the incremental per-gallon cost to the consumer,, making the
retail pump price of reformulated gasoline $1.36 per gallon. It
could be less depending on the fuel formulation used and the degree
to which RFG is in widespread use throughout the nonattainment
areas.
19
-------
-------
are combined with in-use fleet vehicle population projections to
estimate the incremental operating costs for each vehicle/fuel
combination. The assumptions and approach used in these
calculations are discussed below.
In summary, EPA has made a number of estimations in
determining the incremental acquisition and operating costs of
clean alternative fuel vehicles. However, as discussed above, EPA
has also examined the sensitivity of these incremental acquisition
and operating costs results to other reasonable estimates of future
acquisition and operating costs and concluded that the impact on
the cost effectiveness is not major.
2.2.3 Assumptions and Approach
To estimate the potential costs of the fleet program related
to LDVs and LDTs, EPA has developed two scenarios representing
different assumptions about future fleet use of nonconventipnal
fuels. These scenarios are not in any way meant to be absolute or
official predictions of the future use of alternative-fuel vehicles
by fleet owners. Rather, they represent hypothetical situations
developed only to provide a basis for estimating potential total
costs of the fleet program, recognizing--that EPA cannot predict
with certainty what types and quantities of CFFVs will be
purchased. A description of the hypothetical scenarios used in
this analysis follows below.
Scenario I assumes a situation in which OEMs will not offer a
wide variety of nonpetroleum fuel/vehicle combinations.
Accordingly, assuming that conventional vehicles operating on
reformulated gasoline will be able to meet the CFFV emission
standards (possibly in conjunction with improved gasoline-powered
vehicle emission controls), this scenario assumes three-quarters of
the covered fleet vehicles would be fueled with reformulated
gasoline. The gaseous fuels, CNG and LPG, would be expected to
achieve some market share because of the potential for aftermarket
conversions and competitive fuel prices. Alcohol fuels and
electricity would probably get small market shares as well, likely
concentrated in the California market and states which opt-in to
the California LEV program or have other fleet programs.
Table .2-3 shows the assumed vehicle/fuel distribution for
Scenario I. As shown, 75 percent of the covered fleet vehicles
will be LEVs, 20 percent will be ULEVs, and 5 percent of the fleet
vehicles will meet ZEV standards. Further, most of the LEVs are
assumed to be fueled by reformulated gasoline, with the remainder
being flexible-fueled alcohol-fuel vehicles. A small fraction of
reformulated gasoline vehicles are assumed to be capable of meeting
ULEV standards, while all CNG and LPG vehicles are assumed to be
ULEVs. All electric vehicles are considered ZEVs.
Scenario II assumes the emergence of some driving force that
20
-------
-------
would encourage or require OEMs to offer more nonpetroleum
fuel/vehicle combinations. Some examples might be higher world oil
prices, higher corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards
(increasing the-incentive for CAFE "credits"), or national energy
legislation requiring that certain fleet operators purchase'
nonpetroleum-fuel vehicles. For this scenario, reformulated
gasoline vehicles would comprise about half of the market.
Gaseous-fuel vehicles would be expected to achieve a slightly
larger market share under this scenario because of their
competitive fuel prices. Alcohol-fuel vehicles would have the
largest share of the nonpetroleum-fuel vehicle market, because OEMs
would presumably offer a wider variety of vehicle types with
alcohol fuel. Electric vehicles would have the smallest share,
because little market penetration would be expected beyond that
required by states such as California and those states opting into
the California program.
Table 2-4 shows the assumed fleet vehicle/fuel types for this
second hypothetical scenario. As shown in the table, only 60
percent of the fleet vehicles are assumed to be LEVs, 35 percent
are assumed to be ULEVs, and 5 percent are ZEVs. Compared with
Scenario I, there is a 15 percent shift from LEVs to ULEVs. This
is a result of the assumed increased substitution of gasoline
vehicles with vehicles operating on generally cleaner alternative
fuels. As shown in the table, the majority of fleet -LEVs are again
assumed to be fueled with reformulated gasoline. The percent of
vehicles assumed to be alcohol-fueled, among both LEVs and ULEVs,
is increased under this scenario. Half of the alcohol-fuel
vehicles are now considered capable of meeting ULEV standards,
reflecting the assumption that a growing incentive for these
vehicles would justify the addition of components that would enable
more of these vehicles to meet ULEV standards. Again, all CNG and
LPG vehicles are assumed capable of meeting ULEV standards, and all
electric vehicles are ZEVs.
In the next section, the incremental acquisition and operating
costs under each of these vehicle/fuel scenarios are coupled with
CFFV estimates from Chapter 1 to project the potential total cost
of the light-duty portion of the fleet program.
2.2.4 Methodology and Results
In order to calculate the cost of the light-duty portion of
the fleet program related to clean-fuel vehicle acquisition, the
number of new fleet CFV purchases was distributed into vehicle/fuel
categories according to the percentages described above for each
scenario and then multiplied by the incremental acquisition cost of
each vehicle/fuel type. Using LEVs as an example, the number of
new CFFVs projected for a given year was multiplied by the
percentage of CFFVs assumed to be LEVs, under each scenario. This
number was then weighted among the percent of LEVs assumed to be
operating on each fuel type, and multiplied by the applicable
21
-------
-------
incremental acquisition cost of each vehicle/fuel type. The
incremental acquisition costs weighted for each fuel type were then
summed to represent the total average incremental acquisition cost
of fleet light-duty LEVs.
This same method was used to determine the incremental
operating costs for each vehicle/fuel type under each scenario.
However, the number of in-use CFFVs, rather than new CFFVs, was
used to determine annual fuel costs. In addition, the average
annual fuel consumption of each vehicle class (i.e., LDV, LOT) was
also incorporated. The average annual mileage for both LDVs and
LDTs was divided by the average miles per gallon for each class in
order to project annual per-vehicle fuel consumption of an LDV and
LDT. The average annual mileage figures for light-duty fleet
vehicles and trucks are 17,600, and 15,700, respectively. These
figures are based on information from the March 1990 issue of
Automotive Fleet14 and GSA' s Federal Motor Vehicle Fleet Report",
while information on average miles per gallon was taken from an EPA
report titled, "Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy
Trends16." To calculate the operating costs of fleet LEVs, for
example, the number of in-use CFFVs projected for a given year was
first multiplied by the percent of CFFVs assumed to be LEVs under
each scenario. The results were then multiplied by the annual per-
vehicle fuel consumption expected for that vehicle class (LDV, LDT)
to yield the estimated fuel consumption (in gallons) of LEVs under
each scenario. This figure was then weighted among the percent of
LEVs assumed to be operating on each fuel type, and multiplied by
the applicable incremental fuel cost ($/gallon gasoline equivalent
pump price) of each fuel type. These weighted costs were then
summed to represent the total incremental operating cost of fleet
light-duty LEVs.
Since at least 13 of the 22 covered areas are expected to be
supplied with reformulated gasoline in place of all conventional
gasoline before the fleet program begins , no incremental fuel cost
14Automotive Fleet, Redondo Beach, California: Bobit
Publishing Co., Vol. 29 No. 5, March 1990.
15U.S. General Services Administration, Federal Supply Service,
Federal Motor Vehicle Fleet Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, September 1990.
16U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile
Sources, "Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends
through 1990," Technical Report by Robert Heavenrich and J. Dillard
Murreir, June, ,1990.
17Nine areas are required to provide reformulated gasoline by
1995, and four of the covered fleet areas are choosing to opt-in to
the program.
22
-------
-------
is considered for the vehicles operating in these areas. Based on
the fuel fraction in these 13 areas, EPA estimates that they
represent 78 percent of the total fleet LDVs/LDTs. For fleets in
the remaining nine covered areas, an incremental fuel cost of 5
cents per gallon is applied to approximately 20 percent of the
vehicles projected to be operating on reformulated gasoline under
each scenario. This assumes the different vehicle/fuel types are
distributed equally across all of the nonattainment areas. This is
a reasonable approach since many of the areas also are involved in
the California LEV program.
The total light-duty fleet incremental acquisition costs and
operating costs under the first scenario/ as well as those costs
for the second scenario, are provided in Tables 2-5 ,and 2-6,
respectively. As noted in the tables the incremental acquisition
costs are higher under Scenario II. This reflects the increase in
the number of vehicles operating on alternative fuels under the
second scenario, and the higher incremental acquisition costs for
these vehicle/fuel types than for vehicles fueled with reformulated
gasoline. Under the first scenario/ total incremental acquisition
costs are estimated to be over $35 million for LDVs and $16 million
for LDTs in 1998. These costs are expected to rise to $85 million
and $41 million for LDVs and LDTs/ respectively, in the year 2000.
In 2010, LDV acquisition costs will increase to $100 million/ while
LDT costs will be near $60 million. Under the second scenario,
incremental acquisition costs for LDVs are estimated at $47
million/ $114 million/ and $133 million in the years 1998, 2000,
and 2010, respectively. Similarly, LDT costs are projected to be
$22 million, $55 million, and almost $80 million in those same
years.
As compared with conventional vehicles/ total estimated
incremental operating costs are expected to represent a cost
savings for each vehicle class in each year/ under both scenarios.
A greater cost savings is realized under the second scenario,
because more vehicles are assumed to shift from reformulated
gasoline to alternative fuels in this scenario. . Most of the
alternative fuel types represent a savings over conventional
gasoline/ while reformulated gasoline is estimated to be slightly
more expensive. Under the first scenario/ cost savings are
expected to range from over one million dollars in 1998, near or
above 10, million dollars in the year 2000/ reaching over 30 million
dollars in 2010 for both LDVs and LDTs. Under the second scenario,
LDVs are expected to realize an operating cost savings of $7
million in 1998, almost $36 million in 2000, and nearly $66 million
in the year 2010. Likewise, LDT operating cost savings are
estimated at about $4 million, $20 million, and $70 million in the
years 1998, 2000, and 2010.
The Overall incremental cost of fleet LDVs and LDTs is also
shown in Table 2-5 for the first scenario, and Table 2-6 for the
second scenario. As shown in Table 2-5, the overall incremental
'• : •" ':'•• • • 23 '
-------
-------
cost of _ the fleet program for LDVs operating under the first
hypothetical scenario is projected to be approximately $32 million
at the start of the program in 1998, $68 million in the year 2000,
and reaching $69, million in 2010. For LDTs, total costs are
estimated at about $15 million, $32 million, and $27 million in the
years 1998, 2000, and 2010, respectively. Combining the LDV and
LOT costs of Scenario I, as shown at the bottom of the table, total
costs are estimated to be $47 million at the start of the program
in 1998, reaching over $100 million in the year 2000, and costing
about $96 million in the year. 2010. Using a discount rate of 7
percent, the net present value (NPV) of the costs under Scenario I
for the years 1998 through 2010 is almost $709 million in 1998
dollars.
Under the\ second scenario, where more fleet vehicles are
projected to be operating on alternative fuels, the total 1998 NPV
would be less than under the first scenario. As shown in Table 2-
6, the overall incremental cost of the fleet program for LDVs is
estimated at $40 million in 1998, $78 million in 2000, and about
$68 million in 2010. For LDTs, total costs are projected to be $18
million, $35 million, and only $9 million in the years 1998, 2000,
and 2010, respectively. Costs appear to decline over the later
years because of the relationship between, new CFFVs, in-use CFFVs,
incremental acquisition and operating costs, and the clean-fuel
fleet vehicle phase-in rate. Because fleet CFVs are being
introduced at a high rate in the first three years of the program,
the overall program costs tend to increa'se sharply from 1998 to
2000. Beyond this period, in-use fleet CFVs increase at a much
sharper rate than new CFFVs. The high rate of increase of in-use
CFFVs, combined with operating cost savings, will drive the total
costs downward between 2001 and 2004. After this period, the rate
of increase of both new and in-use fleet CFVs tends to level off,
and the acquisition costs for new CFFVs cause total costs to
increase once again. These vehicle and cost factors are
illustrated in Figures 2-1 and 2-2.
The total potential LDV/LDT cost of the fleet program under
the second scenario is presented at the bottom of Table 2-6 as
well, and is estimated to be approximately $58 million in 1998,
reaching almost $113 million in 2000, and decreasing to about $77
million in 2010. Under this second scenario, the NPV of the
potential coats in the years 1998 through 2010 is estimated at $673
million in 1998 dollars, using a discount rate of 7 percent.
2.3 gstimmted Co«t« of HDV«
Similar to the overall approach used for light-duty fleets,
EPA has projected the cost of the heavy-duty portion of the fleet
program based on the incremental cost of a clean-fuel HDV over that
of its conventional counterpart. The general approach taken in
estimating HDV fleet program costs is as follows: 1) Using
incremental acquisition cost estimates of conventional vehicles
. • ' - . . '..•'• 24 -
-------
-------
capable of meeting fleet CFV standards, potential program HDV fleet
casts are calculated for a scenario which assumes only conventional
gasoline- and diesel-fuel HDVs will be purchased for the fleet
program. Based on this assumption, costs are calculated in a
manner similar to the one used for light-duty fleets. 2) Costs
are calculated for two other scenarios reflecting different
assumptions about conventional- and. rionconventional-fuel vehicle
mix and about acquisition/operation costs of nonconventional-fuel
HDVs as compared to conventional HOE acquisition costs. The costs
and assumptions used in calculating heavy-duty fleet program costs
are presented below.
2.3.1 Gasoline and Diesel H«avy-Duty Vehicle Incremental
Acquisition Costs
In fulfilling its responsibility to set a heavy-duty clean-
fuel fleet vehicle standard for non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) plus
NOx emissions, EPA conducted an analysis to determine the
technological feasibility of meeting the standard established18.
This analysis includes an assessment of the technologies available
for reducing NMHC and NOx emissions in conventionally-fueled HDVs
as well as technologies capable of meeting credit-generating (ULEV
.and ZEV) standards. The results indicate-that the clean-fuel HDV
standard for NMHC+NOx should be achievable using several different
technologies. Petroleum-fuel otto-cycle heavy-duty engines (HDEs)
should be able to comply with the standard through the transfer of
technologies already in use on light-duty vehicles. Petroleum-fuel
diesel-cycle HDEs are expected to meet the standard by adopting
technologies currently under development. This is realistic given
that the California LEV program, which .covers most of the HDE class
and begins several years before the start of the fleet program/
will act to .force technology. The analysis also concludes that
optimized (or in some cases non-optimized) alternative-fuel
technologies capable of meeting the clean-fuel standards are
already available. Furthermore, credit-generating standards may be
achievable in some cases using conventional fuel technologies and
will jnore certainly be achievable using alternative fuels.
Based or* this technology assessment, incremental acquisition
costs were estimated for ~ conventional gasoline and diesel HDVs
expedted toribfllcaipablft of meeting CFFV standards through the use of
techhology;crji*&er than the use of clean fuels themselves. Under
this approe^Ejt it follows that heavy-duty clean-fuel vehicles will
generally have the? same fuel consumption and maintenance
characteristics as their conventional counterparts. Thus, the only
incremental cost to the fleet owner will be the first cost of.
purchasing the vehicles. (One exception to this conclusion is
18a.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Regulation Development
and Support Division, "Emission Standards for Heavy-Duty Fleets,"
Regulatory Support Document, June 1994.
• •-'''•• ' - , ' •' -•••••'.'-• - - 25 . :;/ v.- . '- •' ! :
-------
-------
discussed in section 2.3.2, below.)
In developing the incremental acquisition cost estimates, four
elements.were considered: additional hardware requirements, added
manufacturing costs,, research arid development costs, and engine
certification-costs. The additional hardware and manufacturina
costs are variable costs added to the cost of each engine
purchased. Research and development costs and engine certification
costs are fixed costs paid up-front by the engine manufacturer and
then allocated to each engine over a period of time.
For reasons previously mentioned, the analysis projects that
no new hardware will need to be developed, for either otto- or
diesel-cycle HDBs to comply with the CFFV standards. Rather, the
transfer of current technology will allow these HDEs to meet the
standards. However, possible manufacturing process changes or
slightly higher component costs may be incurred when adapting these
technologies to HDEs, The analysis projects that these changes
could increase the variable production cost of heavy-duty gasoline
engines by $50.00 andheavy-dutydiesel engines by about $100.00.
Factoring in a 29 percent retail mark-up would bring the estimated
increase in manufacturing costs to $64.50 and $129.00.per engine
for gasoline and diesel engines respectively.
In addition to the increased manufacturing cost per engine,
consumers will also have to pay for the amortized cost of research
and development and engine certification, as well as the retail
price mark-up. The analysis assumes manufacturers will try to
recover the development costs over the first five years: of engine
sales. Adding these costs to the manufacturing and certification
cost per engine brings the total incremental acquisition cost
(rounded to the nearest five dollars) to an estimated $246 more per
gasoline engine and $477 more per diesel engine as compared with
engines used in conventional heavy-duty vehicles. (In comparison
to the proposed RIA, by using the conservative range of incremental
acquistion costs in today's analysis as reported in the regulatory
support document, todayf s^costs are higher-^hanr ;t&6se: repined in
the pxoposed_RTA.) -ISince development co^^^^'^a^aa^^^'b^'
recovered in the first five years- of the program^;Hhe inbtemerital
cost to the consumer for the sixth; year and beyorid vriXl oriity: be the
manufacturingrand certification cost per engine ($t78.00/$338.00).
Table 2-7' provides a summary of the incremental acquisition costs
for heavy-duty clean-fuel fleet vehicles.
2.3.2 Gasoline and Diesel Heavy-duty Vehicle Incremental
'/-,.,';••-.- 0]p«r«ting Costs \; '- '. • •. •••••.. • "; """ --•.;":. •.-,..,-"•' - ;"
As mentioned above, gasoline- and diesel-fuel HDVs meeting
fleet CFV standards are .not expected to have added fuel or
maintenance costs over conventional HDVs. Hpweyer, as described
previously in the light-duty fleet vehicle analysis, some fleets
operating in areas where reformulated gasoline is riot routinely
":' :' '•'•:" ,:'' '" •'...:•'"• ••'-.-• "•:''• 26 .•. •""•'' •, ''•- :'' :'".", •-•••.-. .V;:-'^ ";/---: .
-------
-------
supplied may have to obtain this fuel to meet heavy-duty CFFV
standards; This incremental fuel cost of five cents pertains only
to gasoline-fuel HDVs, which are estimated to be 50 percent of the
total fleet HDVs. projected in chapter one* Of these vehicles, the
cost is applicable to vehicles expected to be operating in areas
where reformulated gasoline is not required to be made available to
the public, which is approximately 20 percent. Thus, .the
incremental fuel cost of five cents per gallon is applied to
approximately 10 percent of all fleet HDVs. :
2.3.3 Assumptions and Approach
Analysis of the heavy-duty portion of the fleet program is
hindered by a lack of information available for this vehicle class.
Given the absence of available data, EPA used the following
approach.
First, three scenarios were developed representing different
assumptions .about future use of nonconventional fuels. Scenario A
assumes that CFFV standards can be met by using conventional
gasoline- and diesel-fuel HDVs with some technical modifications/
as discussed in the previous section. The total costs under this
scenario were calculated as if only gasoline- and diesel-fuel HDV
costs were pertinent to the fleet program. This would be a
reasonable approximation under two different situations. First, if
nonconventional-fuel HDV costs were so exorbitant that there would
be no incentive to purchase them, then fleet HDV purchases would be
limited to gasoline- and diesel-fuel engines. Second, if
nonconventional-fuel acquisition/operation costs were approximately
the same as those of the conventional gasoline and diesel
counterparts meeting the CFFV standards, then some alternative-fuel
HDVs would likely be purchased. While the vehicle mix would change
in this case, the program costs would not be affected.
Costs were calculated separately for light and medium heavy-
duty vehicles under this scenario (Scenario A). These vehicles
were apportioned among gasoline and diesel categories based on an
estimate that 70 percent of light heavy-duty vehicles use gasoline
powered otto-cycle engines with the remainder being primarily
diesel-cycleengines (see source cited in footnote number 17) . For
medium heavy-duty vehicles, the engine mix is essentially the
opposite.
Scenario B and Scenario C provide a range of costs assuming
that nonconventional-fuel HDV costs will be competitive enough with
conventional-fuel vehicles that they will be attractive to some
fleet operators. For Scenario B, EPA assumes that 20 percent of
the vehicles are nonconventional-fuel vehicles, and that the nest
incremental acquisition and operating cost of these vehicles is no
more than 20 percent higher than the cost of a conventional HDE.
This hypothetical additional cost is assumed to be the most the
market would bear in order for clean-fuel vehicles to remain a
• . ,•' - •". • '•" --. "'•.••. ; 27 . •''•'''••'•
-------
-------
viable alternative to conventional vehicles. For Scenario C EPA
assumes 30 percent of the vehicles are nonconventional-fuel
vehicles, with purchases driven by a hypothetical combined
acquisition and-operating cost that is 5 percent below the cost of
a conventional HDB. The percent of vehicles assumed to be
operating on conventional and nonconventional fuels under each of
the three scenarios is illustrated in Table 2-8. These scenarios
are hypothetical, and are not necessarily predictions about
nonconventional-fuel vehicle use in the fleet program.
Using the projected incremental acquisition costs and the HDV
fleet population projections in Chapter 1, potential HDV program
costs are estimated for each scenario in the following section.
2.3.4 Methodology and Racults
The methodology used to calculate the cost of Scenario A is
similar to the methodology used in the light-duty analysis. The
incremental acquisition cost of gasoline and diesel HDVs ($246 for
gasoline-fuel HDVs and $477 for diesel-fuel HDVs) was multiplied bv
the number of new fleet HDVs estimated (in chapter 1) to be
purchased each year to project annual acquisition costs. The
number of gasoline in-use CFFVs estimated-to be operating in the
areas where reformulated gasoline is not required to be sold was
multiplied by the incremental cost of reformulated gasoline (5
cents) and the average annual fuel consumption of each subclass
(i.e., LHD and MHD) to determine annual operating costs. Average
annual mileage of each subclass (18,850 for LHD and 37,580 for MHD)
was divided by average miles per gallon (8.5 for LHD and 7.0 for
MHD) to project average annual fuel consumption of light and medium
gasoline-fuel HDVs.
Table 2-9 shows the results of these calculations. As shown,
the incremental cost of the heavy-duty portion of the fleet program
under this scenario is estimated to be four to five million dollars
in each year of the program. Research and development costs will
be recovered over the first five years of the program, causing
costs to drop slightly after the fifth year. The total heavy-duty
costs of the first 12 years of the program, discounted to 1998
using a discount rate of 7 percent, is estimated to be nearly 67
million dollars. This is the estimated cost of the heavy-duty
portion of the fleet program if either no clean-fuel vehicles are
purchased for compliance with the fleet program because they are
excessively costly compared to conventional HDVs, or if some clean-
fuel vehicles are used in the fleet program and their combined
total acquisition/operating costs are' approximately the same as
conventional gasoline and diesel HDVs meeting CFFV standards.
Because specific acquisition and operation cost data are not
available for clean-fuel HDVs, the total program costs under
Scenarios B and C were calculated differently from that of Scenario
A. Under Scenario B, 80 percent of the vehicles are conventional-
28
-------
I
-------
fuel vehicles, and 20 percent of the vehicles are nonconventional-
fuel vehicles with net incremental acquisition/operation costs no
greater than 20 percent higher than the cost of a. conventional HDE.
The conventional vehicle cost portion was calculated the same as
under Scenario A, except the incremental costs were applied to only
80 percent of the gasoline- and diesel-fuel HDVs rather than 100
percent. The nonconventional-fuel vehicle cost portion was
calculated as follows: EPA estimated the cost of conventional
gasoline HDEs to be approximately $4,000 and the cost of
conventional diesel HDEs to be approximately $7,000 for the light
heavy-duty subclass and $10,000 for the medium heavy-duty subclass.
Twenty percent of these conventional engine costs (i.e, $800,
$1,400, and $2,000, respectively) thus represent the net
incremental acquisition/operating cost of the respective
nonconventional HDE. Multiplying these incremental costs by the 20
percent of heavy-duty vehicles assumed to be nonconventional yields
the total nonconventional vehicle costs of this Scenario.
Combining these costs with the conventional vehicle costs yields
total program costs of Scenario B.
Scenario C costs were calculated in a similar manner, except
30 percent of the vehicles are nonconventional-fuel vehicles,
having a combined incremental acquisition/operation cost which is
five percent lower than the acquisition cost of a conventional-fuel
HDE. The results of these calculations are shown in Table 2-10 for
Scenario B and Table 2-11 for Scenario C. The total potential 1998
net present value cost for the first 12 years of the program, using
a discount rate of 7 percent, is approximately $99 million for
Scenario B and $30 million for Scenario ,C.
2.4 Summary of Total Potential Progr*" r.n*¥.m
At this time, EPA cannot accurately forecast the extent to
which nonconventional-fuel vehicles will be used for compliance
with the fleet program. Additionally, it is difficult to predict
how effective the credit program will be as an incentive for fleet
operators to purchase vehicles capable of meeting ULEV and ZEV
standards. Given these uncertainties, hypothetical scenarios
representing different assumptions about the future use of various
vehicle/fuel combinations in the fleet program were derived so that
program costs could be estimated.
Table 2-12 provides a summary of potential costs of the fleet
program based on the scenarios used in this analysis. Scenarios I
and II were developed for determining costs of LDVs and LDTs based
on differing assumptions about the extent to which nonconventional-
fuel vehicles will participate in the fleet program. Annual costs
were projected for the years 1998 through 2010 for each of the
scenarios. Using a discount rate of 7 percent, the estimated costs
of the first 12 years of the program were discounted back to 1998,
the year the program is expected to begin. As shown in the table,
the 1998 net present value^of the costs of the first 12 years of
29 , .
-------
-------
the Program is estimated to be 709 million dollars under Scenario
I, and 673 million dollars under Scenario II.
*°5 h,eavy-duty vehicles, three scenarios were developed based
on differing assumptions about vehicle mix and about costs of
alternative-fuel vehicles compared to conventional HDVs Costs
determined under Scenario A are applicable to two different market
C??dlti0ns' The first assumes no nonconventional-fuel vehicles
will be purchased for the fleet program because of their high
costs, while the second assumes some mix of nonconventional-fuel
-e
JE * * purchased, at an average per-vehicle net cost
equal to that of their conventional counterparts. Scenario B is
based on the assumption that 20 percent of the fleet vehicle mix is
made up of nonconventional-fuel vehicles, with net incremental
acquisition/operation costs 20 percent more than the acquisition
cost of a conventional- fuel HDE. Scenario C assumes 30 percent of
the fleet vehicles are nonconventional-fuel vehicles, with a net
incremental acquisition/operation cost that is five percent less
than conventional- fuel HDE acquisition costs. As was done for
light-duty, using a discount rate of 7 percent, the estimated costs
of the first 12 years of the program were discounted back to 1998
As shown in the table, the 1998 net present value is estimated to
be 67 million dollars for Scenario A,, 9-9 million dollars for
Scenario B, and 30 million dollars for Scenario C.
Based on the scenarios derived for this analysis, the Clean
?Ue™ieet Pr°9ram could potentially cost as little as $703 million
in 1998 dollars for the first 12 years of the program (Scenario II
for light-duty plus Scenario C for heavy-duty) , or could cost as
much as $808 million (Scenario I plus Scenario B) . The highest
cost estimate is only about 13 percent higher than the lowest cost
estimate, suggesting that the analysis is not overly sensitive to
the vehicle mix assumptions or to changes in estimated vehicle
costs. EPA will use the conservative estimate of $808 million as
the potential total cost of the first 12 years of the Clean Fuel
Fleet Program.
Under Executive Order 12866, EPA is required to assess the
potential impact of the regulatory action on the economy and to
determine whether or not they would be significant. A "significant
regulatory action" is one that is likely to result in a rule that
may have an annual impact on the economy of $100 million or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities. According to this $100 million criterion, this
rulemaking would be considered a "significant regulatory action"
This analysis indicates that light-duty costs alone would reach
over $100 million annually in at least some years of the program
under both of the scenarios. This rule is not expected to have any
significant adverse effects on the fleet industry. in fact, many'
benefits are expected to be realized from this program as explained
30
-------
-------
in the next chapter.
31
-------
-------
Chapter 3
Potential Program Benefits
3.1 Introduction
By encouraging the use of lower-emitting motor vehicles and
clean alternative fuels, the Clean Fuel Fleet Program regulations
will realize emission benefits in the covered ozone and carbon
monoxide nonattainment areas. Other benefits, such as accelerated
development of clean-fuel vehicle technology and stimulation of
businesses which convert conventional vehicles to vehicles able to
operate on alternative fuels, may be realized as well.
The main purpose of this chapter is to quantify the combustion
and vapor emission reductions expected to result from the Clean
Fuel Fleet Program. Emission benefits are measured by comparing
the total emissions from covered fleet vehicles to the emissions
which the same number of conventional vehicles would produce in the
absence of the fleet program. Along with vapor emission
reductions, reductions in NMOG, NOx, and CO combustion emissions
from LDVs and LDTs, and reductions in NMHC, NOx, and CO combustion
emissions from HDVs are determined in this analysis. A brief
discussion of other potential program benefits, including those
relating to oil conservation, is also provided.
3 . 2 Estimate *"* ««ion Benefits of LDVs and LDTs
3.2.1 Combustion Emission Benefits
In the proposed RIA, emission benefits of LDV and LDT CFFVs
were not modelled using the recently created LEV portion of
MOBILESa since it was not available for use, and thus, a more.
accurate emission benefits analysis is being done today using this
LEV portion of MOBILESa computer model (58 FR 29409, May 20, 1993)
as described below. In calculating emission inventories for LDVs
and LDTs, EPA has generated average lifetime emission estimates and
emission reductions for vehicles certified to meet the CFFV
emission standards by using the released version of EPA' s latest
highway motor vehicle emission factor model, MOBILESa.19 The
methodology of this analysis was based on the calculation
methodology used in the EPA technical report entitled, "Lifetime
Emissions of Clean-Fuel Fleet Vehicles," and the MOBILESa input
conditions used for today's analysis are nearly the same to those
presented in the above EPA report (refer to this technical report
19The MOBILESa computer model and Users Guide is available
through EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Technology Transfer Network Bulletin Board System (OAQPS TTNBBS) at
919-541-5742. (Voice help is available at 919-541-5384.)
32
-------
-------
and Attachment A for specific information concerning the MOBILESa
input files used in today's analysis).20
Several MORILESa runs were made under various input conditions
to produce the average emission factors for the year 2020 (lifetime
emission factors of vehicles are equivalent to the average emission
factors throughout the life of these vehicles). Choosing a point
this far in the future models a situation in which all vehicles
incorporate vehicle emission control changes made within the next
few years. Also, a Year 2020 run permits the model to calculate an
average lifetime emission factor incorporating a full range of
vehicle ages (combination of old and new vehicles).
For each emission category modelled (Tier 1, LEV, and ULEV),
specialized runs of MOBILESa were performed as though the entire
fleet of vehicles were of that category. MOBILESa accounts for the
offset between NMHC and NMOG, which is due to the fact that NMOG is
a reactivity-adjusted measurement, so that the NMHC levels reported
in MOBILESa outputs for LEVs and ULEVs are consistent with the
Clean Fuel Fleet Program NMOG emission standards. (It should also
be noted that the NMOG standards are reactivity-adjusted
measurements rather than measurements of the actual mass of
emissions produced. Thus, the emission .inventories calculated on
the basis of the NMOG standards (or adjusted NMHC emission factors
in LEV portion of MOBILESa) reflect the ozone-generating potential
of the NMOG emissions, not simply their mass.) For each vehicle
class, MOBILESa calculates in-use emission factors for each model
year, using zero-mile emission factors adjusted with appropriate
deterioration rates. Zero-mile emission factors are estimates of
the emissions produced by low mileage vehicles, based on
statistical regressions of in-use data. The deterioration rates
used in MOBILESa incorporate data from years of in-use emission
testing on higher mileage vehicles to assess the affects of such
factors as reduction in the performance efficiency of the emission
system, tampering, and lack of maintenance. Emission inventories
are calculated by multiplying the deteriorated emission factors by
the total number of annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for any
given vehicle type. The approach and methodology employed fdr
determining LDV and LDT combustion emission benefits is described
below, followed by a summary of those potential benefits.
In today's analysis, EPA has examined the sensitivity of the
emission factors used for baseline vehicles and CFFVs. The emission
inventories for baseline vehicles and CFFVs were calculated by
multiplying the lifetime emission factors for both types of
vehicles by the annual VMT associated with CFFVs, and as discussed
20U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile
Sources, Regulation Development and Support Division, Technical
Report, "Lifetime Emissions for Clean-Fuel Fleet Vehicles", October
1993, EPA-AA-SRPB-93-01.
33
-------
-------
above, these lifetime emission factors are average emission factors
for the life of a vehicle. In determining the projected number of
fleet vehicles, it was assumed that light-duty CFFVs would be in
the fleet program for three years before being replaced with new
vehicles since annual VMT for fleet vehicles is higher than non-
fleet, vehicles. Thus, even though fleet vehicles are projected to
accrue many miles per year, the sensitivity of this analysis is
based on the estimation that the lifetime emission factors
calculated in today's analysis may be higher than actual levels in
the early portion of a vehicle's useful life, and in contrast the
lifetime emission factors may be lower than actual levels in the
latter portion of a vehicle's useful life. However, since these
possibly high lifetime emission factors in the early part of a
fleet vehicle's life are offset by expected equally low lifetime
emission factors in the latter part of a fleet vehicle's life and
this sensitivity is accounted for in both baseline vehicles and
CFFVs, EPA believes the methodology used in today's analysis is an
accurate model of the emission benefits of the fleet program.
Approach
In order to estimate the potential NMOG, NOx, and CO emission
benefits from clean-fuel fleet LDVs and LOTs, emission inventories
were generated for two cases. First, emission inventories were
calculated assuming all covered fleet vehicles were conventional
vehicles (Tier 1 vehicles). Then, inventories were calculated for
all covered fleet vehicles assuming they were LEVs. (Also, all
emission inventories were calculated assuming that the vehicles
would adhere to the Enhanced Inspection Maintenance (I/M)
program.)21 The difference in the two emission inventories is
proportional to the difference in the lifetime emission factors
between conventional vehicles and LEVs, and this differential
represents the estimated light-duty emission benefit of the fleet
program. (See Attachment A for MOBILESa outputs for exhaust
emission factors used for Tier 1 vehicles and LEVs under the
baseline fuel category that pertains to LDGVs and LDGTs.) This new
approach of using emission factors generated from the LEV portion
of MOBILESa is more accurate than the proposed approach of using
the baseline and CFFV standards as the emission factors since
MOBILESa incorporates in-use date for a nationwide fleet of
vehicles.
The assumed mix of fleet LEVs, ULEVs and ZEVs does not affect
the estimated NMOG and NOx emission benefits under this
methodology. Since clean-fuel vehicle credits will generally be
"Enhanced I/M represents centralized programs using the IM240
emission test, as established in I/M final rule (57 FR 52950,
November 5, 1992).
. 34 ,
-------
-------
based on NMOG and NOx emission standards, incremental benefits in
these emissions realized by ULEVs and ZEVs above LEVs would be
offset by fewer total clean-fuel,vehicle purchases. Thus, the most
direct approach-to calculating NMOG and NOx emission reductions is
to simply assume all covered vehicles are LEVs. However, some
states may choose to base the light-duty CFFV credit values on NMOG
standards alone. In such states, incremental NOx reductions would
not be offset by the credit provisions of the program. To the
extent that this occurs, the calculation of benefits in this
analysis as if all covered fleet vehicles are LEVs will tend to
underestimate the actual NOx reduction.
This approach would also overlook any potential CO reduction
to be realized by the program, because the LEV standards do not
require a reduction in CO from conventional standards. Since ULEVs
and ZEVs are fully expected to have some part in the fleet program,
a reduction in CO emissions will, in fact, be realized. Therefore,
using the percentages of ULEVs and ZEVs projected for Scenarios I
and II outlined in Chapter 2, CO benefits have been calculated
separately and added to the total program benefits. (The same
considerations pertain to vapor emission benefits, which are
analyzed and discussed in section 3.2.2.) See attached MOBILESa
output for CO exhaust emission factors used for Tier 1 vehicles and
ULEVs under the baseline fuel category that pertains to LDGVs and
LDGTs. . (In MOBILESa, it was projected that manufacturers would use
electrically heated catalysts to meet the reduced NMOG and NOx LEV
standards when operating on reformulated gasoline, and thus, as an
indirect-cross benefit, it is expected that CO exhaust emissions
would also be reduced for LEVs. Therefore, CO emission factors in
MOBILESa reflect this expected CO emission reduction for LEVs, but
at the same time MOBILESa does not model ULEVs to have any further
CO reduction than LEVs. Due to these offsetting projections in
MOBILESa, EPA's above approach to modelling CO benefits is
appropriate.)
Methodology and Raaulta
Table 3-1 displays emission standards and MOBILESa lifetime
emission factors for conventional light-duty vehicles and trucks in
comparison to the respective LEV standards and the credit-
generating standards of ULEVs and ZEVs. As shown in Table 3-1 (A)
and 3-1(C), light-duty trucks have been separated into two groups,
consistent with those used in MOBILESa. Trucks in the LDT1 group
are those less than 6,000 Ibs GVWR, and trucks in the LDT2 group
are those greater than 6,000 Ibs GVWR. EPA has not yet
incorporated LDT2s into the LEV portion of the MOBILESa model, and
thus, as seen in table 3-1(C). LDT2s were modelled as having the
same lifetime emission factors as LDTl-s for this analysis. EPA
believes that these lifetime emission factors, for LDT2s are as
accurate as any other estimates since the inventory for LDT2s has
yet to be analyzed and the CFF Program would most likely
proportionally change LDT2s~as LDTls have been changed. Nationwide
' •• . . 35 .'."''...'•-'-•
-------
-------
data in MOBILESa suggests that 70 percent of LDTs are in LDT1 and
30 percent in LDT2. Based on 1991 fleet sales, this appears to be
the case for light-duty fleet trucks as well. (The LDT fleet
emission standards shown in Table 3-1(A) represent averages of the
standards for each of five classifications of LDTs (shown in Table
3-1(B)). Data were unavailable to more accurately apportion the
fleet LDTs to these five emission categories.)
Annual emission inventories for NMOG and NOx were calculated
by multiplying the number of fleet vehicles in each class for each
model year by its associated lifetime emission factor (see Table
3-1 (C)) and by the average.annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for
that class. The number of fleet LDVs and LDTs estimated to be
CFFVs operating in each year is shown in Table 3-2. As noted in
Chapter lr these numbers increase rapidly during the phase-in years
of the program and then level off. An average VMT of 17,600 for
LDVs and 15,700 for LDTs (from Chapter 2) is used in this analysis.
As described previously, the emission benefits of the fleet
program were determined by comparing the emission inventories for
two cases. First, in the "base case", the number of covered fleet
LDVs and LDTs estimated to be operating in each year were
considered to be conventional vehicles- (Tier 1 vehicles). Second,
emission inventories for the covered fleet vehicles were calculated
using the LEV lifetime emission factors. The difference between
the two inventories yields the amount of NMOG and NOx reductions
achieved, or the "emission benefit". (See Attachment A for
lifetime emission factors used for Tier 1 vehicles and LEVs.)
The results of these calculations are shown in Table 3-3. The
data suggest that NMOG emissions from LDVs and LDTs will be reduced
by approximately 180 tons in the first year of the program.
Similarly, a reduction of NOx emissions in that same year is
estimated at 185 tons. By the year 2000, approximately 950 tons of
each pollutant Awill be reduced by fleet LDVs and LDTs operating on
clefan fuela. ~ In^the year 201 Q,^NMOG and NOx emissions from LDV and
LDT clean-fuelfleet^ yehicies-wi,lj. each potentially be reduced by
2f 000 "tons*;v:' As sh^w^iavthe,Stable, the 1998 net present values
XNEVsT of the lightrduty NMdQ and NOx reductions realized during
the first 12; years of the program are each approximately 12,000
tons. A, 7 percent:; discount rate was used for these calculations
for consistency with the cost analysis discussed in the preceding
chapter.- ",:.;.:-^; •- ""._,;'- .'.•.„•'/,.\.-:'' ., •" ' ":;. ' *- " •
Potentiatl CO inventories were determined using the number of
light-duty ULEVs and ZEVs projected for Scenarios I and II outlined
in the . previous chapter. These inventories and benefits are
presented in Table 3-4. Under Scenario I, which assumes 25 percent
of LDVs and LDTs are ULEVs and ZEVs, CO emissions will potentially
be reduced by 1,400 tons in 1998, over 7,400 tons in the year 2000,
and by about 17,500 tons in 2010. Under Scenario II, which assumes
40 percent of the LDVs and LDTs will be ULEVs and ZEVs, the
-------
-------
potential amount of CO reductions achievable is estimated to be
almost 1,850 tons in 1998, over 9,600 tons in 2000, and nearly
22,600 tone in 2010. Using a discount rate of 7 percent, the 1998
NPV of the annual CO reductions is about 93,700 tons under Scenario
I and about 120,900 tons under Scenario II.
Summing the benefits together, t:he combined NMOG, NOx, and CO
emission reduction estimated to be achieved by the light-duty
portion of the fleet program is between 1,800 and 2,200 tons in
1998. This could potentially rise to between 9,300 and 11,500 in
the year 2000. In the year 2010, emission benefits realized by the
program from the use of clean-fuel LDVs and LDTs is estimated to be
between 21,500 and 26,600 tons.
3.2.2 Vapor EmissionB«n«fit«
In addition to combustion emission benefits, the fleet program
will also realize benefits from vapor emission reductions resulting
from use of CNG, LPG, and electric vehicles22. Some of these
benefits will be achieved by inherently low-emission vehicles
(ILEVs) purchased by fleet operators desiring to take advantage of
expanded TCM exemptions. The amount of vapor reduction
attributable specifically to ILEVs- is—analyzed in a separate
technical support document.23
Vapor emission benefits of the fleet program were determined
by multiplying the number of in-use CFFVs projected to be operating
on CNG, LPG, and electricity, by the average annual vehicle miles
traveled for each class, and by the projected vapor emission
reduction (grams/mile/vehicle) expected for each vehicle class.
The relevant number of vehicles is determined by multiplying the
projected number of in-use CFFVs by the percent of vehicles under
each of the Scenarios (20 percent for Scenario I and 30 percent for
Scenario II) estimated to be operating^ on CNG, LPG, and
electricity, As mentioned in the previous section, the average VMT
is 17, 600far LDVs andA15jr700 for LDTs. LDVa and LDTs arejejKpected
to realizes a 0>23 g/milj9 and 0.22 g/mile redaction: in- vapor
emissions / res^eiGfciveiy,>; -fibm that of a conventioital-fusi -vehicle
~"Additional vapor emission reduction will be achieved by
alcohol-fu«i vehicles. Most alcohol vehicles will be flexible-
fueled, and EPA cannot quantify the extent to which these.vehicles
will be operating on the alcohol fuel, nor the proportion of
alcohol in the fuel itself. Therefore, to be conservative, EPA is
only considering those vehicles which have contained systems for
the fuel which don't allow for evaporation.
"U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile
Sources, "Inherently Low-Emission Vehicle Program: Estimated
Emission Benefits and Impact on High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes,"
Technical Report by Lester Wyborny II, October 1992.
• -- '. ' : '" •: -.'. . ••• ,-' ."•.:•- -'•'».• -•""• 37 -. ' "" ' •'•• •'. •'.-•'. "' ^~ . ••'.-'•'
-------
-------
(see reference cited in footnote 20, for the basis of the
methodology used in determining the vapor emission benefits).
These vapor emission reductions have been changed from the proposed
levels because these values were based on a previous version of the
MOBILE model and not MOBILESa. Gaseous-fueled vehicles are
expected to have no evaporative emissions; therefore, the emission
factors used for the vapor emission benefits are those vapor
emission factors determined for conventional-fuel vehicles using
MOBILESa. (See Attachment A for MOBILESa output of evaporative
lifetime emission factors for the Tier 1 and baseline fuel/Enhanced
I/M category that pertains to LDGVs and LDGTs. These evaporative
emission factors are the sum of the hot soak and diurnal emissions,
refueling losses, resting losses, and running losses.)
The results of the calculations are shown in Table 3-5. In
the first year of the program, total vapor emissions are expected
to be reduced by almost 70 tons under Scenario I and 110 tons under
Scenario II. By the year 2000, approximately 380 tons of vapor
emission reduction will be realized under Scenario I and 560 tons
under Scenario II. In the year 2010, approximately 860 tons and
1,300 tons of vapor emissions will be reduced by use of CFFVs under
Scenarios I and II, respectively. Using a discount rate of 7
percent, the 1998 NPV of the light-duty—vapor emission reduction
realized over the first 12 years of the program are approximately
4,700 tons under Scenario I and 7,000 tons under Scenario II. More
reduction is realized under the second scenario due to the expected
increase in vehicles operating on CNG and LPG in this scenario.
3.3.1 Combustion Emission Benefits
Similar to the analysis conducted for light-duty fleet
vehicles, the environmental benefits of heavy-duty clean"fuel fleet
vehicles have been estimated by comparing total emissions from a
base case to the emissions from a scenario using clean-fuel
vehicles. The clean-fuel vehicle scenario assumes that all covered
fleet HDVs operate at the LEV emission level, and is used to
generate emission inventories of NMHC and NOx. • CO benefits
expected to be realized at the ULEV level are computed in a
separate analysis. ZEVs are not likely to be a viable option to
heavy-duty fleet owners at the time the fleet program begins and
thus CO benefits are computed only for heavy-duty ULEVs.
The heavy-duty vehicle population and mileage estimates used
for calculating the emission inventories were presented in Chapter
1. Emission factor projections, for both 1998 conventional and
clean-fuel vehicles, were obtained from the Regulatory Support
Document, "Emission Standards for Heavy-Duty Fleets," cited
earlier. The results of the emission inventories for NMHC and NOx
generated in that support document are included here along with a
brief explanation of the methods used in those projections. The
: . ;' . .'.-•' . "' . - 38 ' ' =--• '••'.•'.'
-------
-------
CO
Approach
ss^
MOBILES*
tM..1'.;
-------
-------
emission benefits, discounted at 7 percent, are about 4,100
tons/year and 16,400 tons/year for NMHC and NOx respectively.
This summary of the NMHC and NOx benefits from the use of
heavy-duty CFFVs is included here so that the total potential
emission benefits of the fleet program can be presented. A
detailed analysis of the heavy-duty portion of the fleet program,
along with a technology feasibility and cost analysis, is included
in the^support document mentioned above. Those interested in more
specific information on this class of vehicles are encouraged to
read the original document, located in the docket for this rule.
In determining CO benefits, there is no reduction in the CO
emission standard for heavy-duty vehicles meeting the minimum
clean-fuel vehicle (LEV) requirements. However, credit-generating
vehicles, i.e., those operating at the ULEV level, will include a
50 percent reduction in CO emissions from their conventional or LEV
counterparts. The CO standard for heavy-duty ULEVs is finalized to
be 7.2 g/Bhp-hr, reduced from 14.4 g/Bhp-hr for conventional
vehicles» Clean-fuel gasoline-powered engines and other
alternative-fuel engines replacing current gasoline-powered engines
will provide these benefits. However, diesel heavy-duty vehicles
are not expected to generate any incremental CO benefits since they
already certify below 7.2 g/Bhp-hr.
Table 3-10 shows the yearly CO benefits from both classes of
heavy-duty fleet vehicles under two hypothetical cases. Under Case
I, 20 percent of covered vehicles are assumed to be ULEVs and,
under Case II, 35 percent of the covered vehicles are assumed to be
ULEVs. (These cases are consistent with the percent ,of ULEVs
projected for light-duty Scenarios I and II. ZEVs are excluded
from the heavy-duty CO analysis because, as previously mentioned,
EPA does not expect heavy-duty ZEVs (electric vehicles) to be a
likely purchase option for fleet owners when the fleet program
begins.) In 1998, EPA expects CO emission benefits from ULEVs to
range from 400 to 700 tons/year for Cases I and II, respectively.
By 2003, the benefits increase to 2,500 and 4,300 tons/year,
respectively, and by 2010 they are 2,500 and 4,500 tons/year. The
net present value of the CO emission benefits, discounted at 7
percent, are 15,500 tons/year and 27,000 tons/year for Case I and
Case" II, respectively.
Summing the heavy-duty combustion emission benefits together,
the potential amount of NMHC, NOx, and CO emission reduction
achieved is estimated to be between 880 and 1,200 tons in 1998.
This could potentially rise to between 5,900 and 7,700 tons in the
year 2003. In the year 2010, combustion emission benefits realized
by the program from the use of clean-fuel HDVs remains between
5,800 and 7,800 tons.
3.3.2 Vapor Emission Benefits
40
-------
-------
Vapor emission benefits for the heavy-duty portion of the
fleet program were determined in a similar manner to light-duty
vapor emission benefits. Since minimal fuel, evaporation occurs in
diesel-powered -vehicles, potential heavy-duty vapor emission
benefits will be realized by the "replacement" of gasoline-fueled
HDVs by gaseous-fueled HDVs. The number of in-use CFFVs was thus
multiplied by the percentage of HDVs estimated to be gasoline-
powered (70 percent of LHDVs and 30 percent of MHDVs) and then
multiplied by the percent of vehicles which may be gaseous-fueled
under each of the Scenarios (0 percent for Scenario A, 15 percent
for Scenario B, and 25 percent for Scenario C) . As previously
mentioned, electric heavy-duty vehicles are not expected to be a
reasonable alternative to fleet operators when the program begins.
_The number of HDVs estimated to be gaseous-fueled was then
multiplied by the average vehicle miles traveled (18,850 for LHD
and 37,580 for MHD) and by the amount of vapor reduction expected
to be realized by these vehicles below that of a conventional-
fueled vehicle (1.78 g/mile per vehicle) so that vapor emission
benefits could be estimated. Gaseous-fueled vehicles are expected
to have no evaporative emissions; therefore, the emission factor
used for the vapor emission benefit is th^ vapor emission factor
determined for conventional vehicles using MOBILESa. (See attached
MOBILESa output for the Tier 1 and baseline fuel/Enhanced I/M
category that pertain to the HDGV (heavy-duty gasoline vehicle)
evaporative lifetime emission factors. These evaporative emission
factors are the sum of the hot soak and diurnal emissions,
refueling losses, resting losses, and running losses.) Table 3-11
contains the results of these calculations. in 1998, vapor
emissions are expected to be reduced by almost 70 tons under
Scenario B and 120 tons under Scenario C from operation of gaseous-
fueled HDVs. By the year 2003, approximately 430 tons of vapor
emission reduction will be realized under Scenario B, and 700 tons
under Scenario C. In the year 2010, approximately 460 tons and 760
tons of vapor reductions will be realized under Scenarios B and C,
respectively. Discounting the emissions by 7 percent over the
first 12 years of the program yields a 1998 NPV vapor emission
benefits of 2,700 tons under Scenario B and almost 4,500 tons under
Scenario C.
3.4 Additional Program Impacts
This section discusses the benefits that may be realized as a
result of the Clean Fuel Fleet Program, other than the exhaust and
vapor emission benefits described above. For example, use of
alternative fuels by fleet vehicles will result in displacement of
conventional gasoline and diesel fuels, thus conserving petroleum-
based fuel. Furthermore, the fleet program may stimulate the
development of certain technologies and businesses which will
facilitate the introduction of clean fuels into the market. Each
of these factors is discussed below.
41
-------
-------
3.4.1 Potential Energy Impacts
The increased use of clean alternative fuels due to the fleet
program may well cause some displacement of conventional fuels. It
is not expected that this displacement will yield a less energy-
efficient fleet. Rather, the use of alternative fuels will likely
provide energy supply benefits due to their potential use in more
efficient vehicles, and by providing an expandable energy source.
Furthermore, the use of alternate fuels will reduce U.S. dependence
on foreign oil.
This analysis attempts to quantify the amount of petroleum
conserved by displacement with alternative fuel sources. Using the
same scenarios established for the economic impact assessment in
Chapter 2, it is possible to estimate shifts in the use of fuel
types. The percentages estimated for each alternative fuel type
are taken into consideration. The alternative, fuels considered
are: alcohol fuels, CNG, LPG, and electricity. Although about half
of LPG is currently an oil refining by-product (the other half from
CNG), it is generally in excess and thus its' use as a vehicle fuel
does not require a commensurate amount of oil refining to maintain
supply. LPG can also be generated through- non-petroleum sources.
Therefore, it is considered as an alternative fuel in this
analysis.
The total gallons of conventional fuel displaced by the fleet
program (including the amount displaced by reformulated gasoline)
are presented in Table 3-12. The percent of those gallons
attributed to alternative-fuel vehicles under each scenario is
shown in Table 3-13. Scenario I projects that 25 percent of fleet
vehicles will be fueled by non-petroleum fuels. In Scenario II
that percentage, increases to 50 percent. By distributing these
percents over the number of gallons of conventional fuel displaced,
the volume of petroleum fuel conserved can be estimated. Table 3-
13 shows that, in 1998, the amount of oil conserved would fall in
the range of 36 to 73 million-gallons. By 2003, 282 to 564 million
gallons could be conserved, and by 2010 328 to 657 million gallons
of petroleum based fuel could be displaced by alternative fuels.
The April 1992 issue of DOE's "Monthly Energy Review"
indicates that, in 1991, 16.6 million barrels of oil were used each
day in the U.S. Sixty-four percent of that, or 10.6 million
barrels per day, was used in the transportation sector. On this
basis, the amount of fuel expected to be conserved by the fleet
program amounts to less than one percent of the nationwide totals.
Still, after the program has been in effect for 12, years, 3.2
billion to 6.4 billion gallons of petroleum-based fuel will have
been conserved. However, the effect is not large in the overall
sense.
3.4.2 Other Potential Impacts
42
-------
-------
In addition to the reduction in exhaust and evaporative
emxssions and the conservation of scarce petroleum resources, other
less quantifiable benefits may be realized from the Clean Fuel
Fleet Program. -For example, by providing a market for clean-fuel
vehicles, the program provides an incentive for further development
of clean-fuel (and especially alternative-fuel) vehicle technology
Similarly, since fleet operators have the option of converting
existing vehicles to CFFVs rather than purchasing new CFFVs, the
program could potentially stimulate businesses involved in
modifying conventional vehicles or providing aftermarket conversion
Kits. Furthermore, the fleet program may encourage the general
public to purchase alternative-fuel vehicles by demonstrating that
these vehicles are a viable and practical technology, by increasing
their availability, and by stimulating the development of the
necessary supporting infrastructure such as alternative-fuel supply
stations. These factors in turn could encourage automobile
manufacturers to produce more of these types of vehicles.
The cost-effectiveness of this program can be determined by
relating the emission benefits to the potential costs of the
program. This is examined in the following chapter.
43
-------
-------
Chapter 4
Cost: Effectiveness
4.1 Introduction
This chapter explains the methodology for and provides
estimates of the cost effectiveness of the Clean Fuel Fleet
Program. Consistent with past EPA analyses, cost effectiveness is
expressed here as the cost per ton of.emissions reduced.
The potential costs of the program were presented in Chapter
2. These costs were based on projections of the number and types
of fleet vehicles affected by the program, estimates of incremental
acquisition and operating costs associated with clean-fuel fleet
vehicles, and assumptions about the percent of fleet CFVs which may
operate on various clean alternative fuels. Chapter 3 quantified
the potential emission benefits to be realized by the fleet
program. Exhaust emission reductions were calculated for NMOG,
NOx, and CO for light-duty vehicles and trucks, and for NMHC, NOx,
and CO for heavy-duty vehicles. Potential reductions in vapor
emissions were also computed. In general, these benefits were
measured by comparing the total emissions from clean-fuel fleet
vehicles to the emissions which the same number of conventional
vehicles would produce in the absence of the fleet program. A
discount rate of 7 percent was used to determine the net present
value of both program costs and emission benefits during the first
12 years of the program. Using these net costs and benefits, the
cost effectiveness of the Clean Fuel Fleet Program was then
determined as described in the following section.
4.2 Methodology
For both the light- and heavy-duty portions of the fleet
program, the overall cost effectiveness was determined by simply
dividing the total 1998 NPV costs of the first 12 years of the
program by the total 1998 NPV 12-year benefits. To calculate cost
effectiveness on a per-pollutant basis, however, the costs must be
distributed appropriately among the affected pollutants. This is
a difficult task even when a relatively straightforward change is
involved in an emission-reduction program. For example, a heated
catalyst might be installed with the primary purpose of reducing CO
emissions, but could reduce the emission of other pollutants, as
well. To ascribe a specific portion of the new equipment cost to
each affected pollutant would be a complicated matter. Allocating
the costs of the Clean Fuel Fleet Program in a similar manner would
be even more complex because of the variety of relevant
vehicle/fuel combinations and the uncertainties about the specific
types of technology that might be used in clean-fuel vehicles.
Consequently, the per-pollutant cost effectiveness was
determined in this 'analysis using two different methods for
44
-------
-------
allocating the costs among the pollutants. Consistent with the
alternative-fuel vehicle assumptions used in Chapter 2, each of the
two cost allocation methods (Cases I and II, below) were applied to
the results of .Scenarios I and II for light-duty vehicles and
Scenarios A," B, and C for heavy-duty vehicles . (Note: In the
analyses described below, hydrocarbon vapor benefits estimated for
the light-duty portion of the fleet program are included in the
estimated NMOG benefits. The vapor benefits related to the heavy-
duty portion of the program are included in the estimated NMHC
benefits.)
CASK t ... . ;...-.. _ ' ' :; :".•'-•'• -• ' •''."••. . '• .'• •.-''"'.'
Under the first cost allocation method (Case I), the total NPV
costs were distributed equally among the three pollutants in each
scenario. Obviously, this method makes the program appear to be
most cost effective for the particular pollutant which is reduced
by the greatest amount (i.e., carbon monoxide) .
CASK II ; •: ".'''•.-••••'." V; ', •
In Case II, costs were weighted among the pollutants according
to the reduction of each pollutant * For- example, since CO is
reduced to a greater extent than the other pollutants, a larger
cost percentage was allocated to the CO benefit. This allocation
method yields the same average cost effectiveness for each
pollutant. Under light-duty Scenario I, in proportion to the
number of tons by which each pollutant is reduced, twenty percent
of the costs are thus allocated to NMOG benefits, 20 percent to NOx
benefits, and 60 percent to CO benefits. Under Scenario II, the
cost allocations are 15 percent, 16 percent, and 69 percent,
respectively. For heavy-duty vehicles, under Scenario A, 24
percent of the costs are allocated to NMHC emission reductions, 76
percent to NOx, and zero percent to CO under Scenario A. (Since CO
standards are the same for conventional vehicles and LEVs, Scenario
A does not provide a CO emission benefit. ) Under Scenario B, 13,
44> and: 43 percent of the costs are distributed among NMHC, NOx,
and GO respectively; Similarly, 10 percent of Scenario C costs are
assigned-to NMHC, 33 percent to NOx, and 57 percent to CO.
4.3 Co«t. ' ' '
The results of the cost effectiveness analysis are presented
in Table 4- 1 for lightrduty vehicles and Table 4-2 for heavy-duty
vehicles . Overall cost effectiveness is the total 1998 NPV cost
divided by the 1998 NPV benefit of all three pollutants combined,
and is the same for a given scenario under each of the cost
allocation methods.
CASK I . " /. • ••• '." .•< . ; .:• , _ "' : -._,'. ;-
With cost3 divided equally among the pollutants in the first
• "• • •'•-."•'"• - • '.- ''"-.' 45 " ' • :
-------
-------
case, the cost effectiveness of the light-duty program is estimated
^B« $14'400 Per ton of NMOG, $19,500 per ton of NOx,
and $2,500 per ton of CO under Scenario I. Similarly, cost
effectiveness for each pollutant under Scenario II is estimated to
$1 JoTper* £n°° f g£ t0n °f •****'. $18' 5°° P6r tonof ; NOx, and
Equalizing the costs among the benefits of the heavy-dutv
program yields a 12-year cost effectiveness under Scenario^ A of
approximately $5,500 per ton of NMHC and $1,400 per ton of NOx
The costs per ton under Scenario B are estimated at $4,800 for NMHC
and_$2,000 for both NOx and $2,100 for CO. Under Scenario C, the
S° ^?°^VeneSS ±S aPPr°*imately $1,200, $610, and $370 per ton
for NMHC, NOx, and CO, respectively.
CASK II
The second case, which weights the program costs in proportion
to the emission reduction of each pollutant, essentially averages
the cost effectiveness among the pollutants. For light-duty the
cost effectiveness is approximately $5,800 per ton per pollutant
under Scenario I and $4,400 per ton per pollutant under Scenario
II. Heavy-duty cost effectiveness is estimated at $3,300, $2,600,
and $580 per ton per pollutant under Scenarios A, B, and C,
respectively. ' *
The overall cost effectiveness of the light-duty portion of
the fleet .program is $5,800 per ton of emission reduction under
Scenario I and $4,400 per ton under Scenario II. This suggests
that the fleet program will provide a greater reduction in
emissions per dollar spent if more light-duty vehicles operate on
alternative fuels (i,e. Scenario II) . The overall heavy-duty costs
range- from $3,300 pe^r ton; under:Scenario A to $2, 600 per ton under
Scenario B to $58ps J^ toft underScenario: C. Thes* three
hypothetical scenaribs create a r^ange in the cost effectiveness of
the heavy-duty portion: of the-fleetprogram based on assumptions
about the use anoV cost of alternatively fueled HDVs. . :
In order to determine the cost effectiveness of the fleet
program as * whole> i.e, to combine the light-duty and heavy-duty
results, the NMHC benefits calculated for heavy-duty vehicles must
be regarded as equivalent to the same amount of reduction of NMOG.
This is a conservative approach, because measured NMHC will nearly
always be less than measured NMOG for a given sample. Table 4-3
shows the estimated overall Clean Fuel Fleet Program cost
effectiveness, based on this approach.
In the table, "Total I" represents the combined costs and
benefits of the particular light- and heavy-duty scenarios which
. ; •'. ....:;.. . _ •.;.•:'. . 46 : •.".'.'. / •• ;..: .•'• •,'-."'-..."
-------
-------
yielded the least favorable cost effectiveness results (i.e.,
Scenario I and Scenario B), while "Total II" combines the most
favorable light- and heavy-duty scenarios (Scenario II and Scenario
C) . These calculations indicate that the overall cost
effectiveness of the fleet program is in the approximate range of
$3,700-$5,500 per ton. For each of these combined scenarios, the
per-pollutant cost effectiveness was determined using the
allocation methods previously described as Case I and Case II.
When the net total program costs are divided evenly among the
pollutants (Case I), the high and low estimated per-ton costs for
NMOG, NOx and CO benefits are $8,600-11,600, $8,200-9,400, and
$1,600-2,500, respectively. When the net costs are apportioned
based on the magnitude of the specific pollutant reduction (Case
II), the cost effectiveness for each pollutant is the same as that
of the program overall ($3,500-$5,000 per ton).
A number of factors in this analysis tend to underestimate the
cost effectiveness of the Clean Fuel Fleet Program. First, the NOx
benefits from ILEVs were not incorporated in the cost effectiveness
analysis. Second, the analysis does not include the costs and
benefits which would accrue after the twelfth year of the program
as a result of the continuing operation of fleet CFFVs purchased
during the first 12 years of the program. For instance, the
incremental acquisition cost of a vehicle purchased in 2010 would
be included, but the benefits that vehicle would realize throughout
its fleet life would not be included. Because the post-purchase
benefits realized by these vehicles over their fleet lifetime would
outweigh their minimal operating costs, the omission of these later
costs and benefits makes the program appear less cost effective.
Taking the appropriate fleet turnover rates into account, if the
NPV costs and benefits of the light-duty fleet vehicles remaining
in operation past the year 2010 were included in the calculations,
the light-duty portion of the fleet program would actually be about
10 percent more cost effective than estimated above.
47
-------
-------
Chapter 5
Conclusions
48
-------
-------
1200
FIGURE 1-1; LDV AND LPT CFFVs IN USE
!OW
»00 -
600 -
400
4
«--'
200 - ' / •
| £
.».LDVs
LDTs
. .+. COMBINED
I4O
FIGURE 1-2; HEAVY-DUTY CFFVs IN USE
0 '-n
19W 19W 2009 2001 2002 2O« 200* 2009 2OM 2007 200* 200*' 2OIO'
CALENDAR YEAR
».LHDVs .^.MHDVs .A. COMBINED
-------
-------
1400
IN USE
. I2W (-
UJ
VJ
1000 ,-
SOD -
«oo -
0 -
I9M 19f
-^LDVs
200* 2003 200*
CALENDAR YEAR
TOTAL
1)00
FIGURE 1-4: POTENTIAL CONVENTIONAL
FUEL DISPLACEMENT
a
w
—•»-
"" ""
CALENDAR YEAR
LDVs ^.LDTs
HDVs _ GRAND TOTAL
-------
-------
a y ® ~ o s* S — s
3— 52"wc®-03
tliCllin
-!N> — 3
rnjirn rnmmmmmmrnrnrnrnmmmrnrnrnrnmmrn
O !OBtno5^JO3OJ^cntntJOco-vjc<>
-• 'I0 e 5
^ ipftt
m
m
m
>
•n
m
r-
O
CO
-------
-------
TABLE 1-2: LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE FLEET POPULATION PROJECTIONS
. BUSINESS / UTILITY LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES
, TOTAL NEW NEW IN-USE FUELDISP.
YEAR VEHICLES VEHICLES CFFVs CFFVs (MIL GAL.)
1SW* 463752SI 151,899: 47.06T
1999 470,743! 159,410: 79,705
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
478,275! 161,960
485,928
164.552
493,703! 167.185
501,603
509,629
517,783
528,068
534.486
543,038
551,727
-—560 555
169,360
172.578
175.339
178,145
180,995
183,891
186.833
189.823
47,069 I 37
126,7741 101
113.372 240.147
115,186
1 1 7,029
118,902
308.264
192
246
345.588 1 276
351.118
280
120,8041 356.736! 285
122.737
124.701
126.696
128,724
130.783
. 132J76
362.444
368,243
374,136
380.122
386,204
392.384
290
294
299
304
309
313
STATE / LOCAL GOVERNMENT UGHT-DOTr VEMCLES
YEAR
1991
1999
2000
2001
2002
2OO3
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
TOTAL
151,412
153,835
156,296
158,797
161,338
163,920
166,543
169,207
171.915
174,666
177.460
180,300
r 183.185
NEW NEW i IN-USE FUELDISP:
— ^Tssi'
31J51
32,259
32,775
33,299
33,832
34.373
34,924
35,482
36,050
36,627
37,213
K 37.808
CFFVs
s.sTy
15,875
22,581
2*942
23,309
23,682
24.061
24,446
24,837
25,235
25,639
26,049
26.466
CFFVs
5,375"
25,250
47.832
70,775
94,085
108,392
116,578
116,444
120,339
12*264
124,221
126,208
128.228
(MIL. GAL)
6
16
30
45
60
69
74
75
77
78
79
80
r 82
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT UGHT-OUTY VEMCLES
YEAR
lliW
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2006
2009
2010
TOTAL
VEHICLES
30,380
30,866
31,360
31.862
32,372
32,890
33.416
33,951
34,494
35,046
35,607
36,177
38.755
NEW NEW
VEHICLES! CFFVS
8.270
8.370
8.472
8,576
1.881
3.185
4,530
4,603
6,681 4,677
6.788 i 4,751
6,897
7.007
4,827
4.905
7.119J 4,983
7,233
7,349
7,466
5,063
5,144
5,226
IN-USE - FUELDISP.
CFFVs I (MIL GAL)
1,'8lT
5,066
9,597
14.200
18,878
21,748
23,391
23,765
24,145
24,532
24,924
25,323
7,586 5,310 25,728
a^^^^^B^K^BSKS^
3
5
8
11
12
13
14
14
14
14
15
15
-------
-------
TABLE 1-3: UQHT-OUTY TRUCK FLEET POPULATION PROJECTIONS
BUSINESS / UTILITY UOHT-OUTY TRUCKS
TOTAL
1999; 316,968
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2008
2006
2007
2008
2009
NEW NEW
VEHICLES! CFFVs
72,306 fl.691
IN-USE FUELDISP":
_ CFFVs (MIL. GAL.)
" ' "•— : jHL "-"' ' ->-- "-* *-.
21 .681 1 a
74.981 37,490 59,182: 54
328.693 77,758 54,429i 113.612 103
340.854
353,466
366,544
. 380.105
394,169
408.753
80,632
56.443
170,055 155
83,61 8 j 58,531 217,839 198
88,710 60,697
89,918
62,942.
93,245 65271
96,695
423.878 100272
439.560
455.823
20101 472.688
103.982
67.686
70,190
72,787
107,830! 75.481
1 11.8191 78273
249,016
227
268,078! 243
275,920
286.129
296,716
307,694
319,078
330.884
252
261
271
281
291
302
STATI/ LOCAL QOVIPNIUMT UQHT-OUTY TRUCKS
.. '
TOTAL
YEA" VEHICLEa
10901
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2008
2008
2007
2006
2009
2010
78224
81,118
84,119
87231
90.459
93,806
97277
100,876
104,806
108,479
112.492
116.884
NEW
VEHICLES
1 9,«0
10.007
10,377
10.781
11,159
11.572
12.000
12.444
12,904
13.382
13,877
14,390
14,923
NEW
IN-US6 FUELOISP.
CFFV» CFFVS UML.QAL.)
2,898"
5,003
7264
7.532
7,811
8.100
8.400
8,711
9,033
9,387
9,714
10,073
10,448
2,906*
7,896
15.162
22.898
30.507
38.807
47,006
55,719
64,752
71225
75,935
78.745
81,859
2
7
13
20
27
34
42
50
58
64
68
70
73
F6»i*AL(X>VOW*limuaHT-OUTY TRUCKS
YEAR
ins
199*
. . 2000
2001
2002
2009
2004
2008
2008
2007
2008
2009
2010
TOTAL
VEHICLES
J1,9Sl
74,616
77,378
80239
83206
86267
89.479
92,790
96223
99.783
103,478
107,304
111274
NEW
VEHICLES
"^§204
9,545
9,896
10,264
10,644
11,038
11,448
11,870
12.309
12,765
13237
NEW
.CFFVs
~2".78T
4.772
6,929
7,185
7,451
7.728
8.012
8.300
8.616
8,935
9266
13.727! 9,609
14.235
9.964
IN-USE
CFFV«
2.781
7,534
14.483
21,648
29.100
38,826
44,839
53,149
61,766
67,940
72.433
75.113
77.892
FUELDISP.
(MIL GAL.)
1
.- " • -4
8
12
16
20
25
30
34
38
40
42
44
-------
-------
TABLE 1-4: TOTAL UGHT-OUTY FLEET VEHICLE
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
UGHT-Ol/TY VEHICLES
YEAR
19S8
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2009
2006
2007
2006
2009
2010
! IOIAL NEW NEW
..VEHKLES VEHICLES ! CFFVs
^457121 1 — IftMajT""4 5ff32lf
655.444
! 665,931
676,587
687.413
696.413
709,568
720.941
732.477
744.198
758,108
768204
780.498
197.531
! 200.691
! 203.903
! 207.165
210,480
213.848
217,270
220.746
224278
227.867
231,512
235217
i 98.765
140,483
142.731
145.015
147,335
149.692
152.088
154,521
158,994
159.507
162.058
. IN-USE FUELDISP.
^S-FFV*— CMILGAL.)
i 58 325 ' ' "
i 157,090
297,576
i 393,239
458.551
481258
496.705
504,653
512,727
520,932
529267
537.738
1 120
I 227
299
347
361
372
379
385
391
3O7
404
UOHNXJTY TRUCKS
TOTAL
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2008
2006
2007
2006
2009
469JOS
487,187
508212
523,908
543290
563490
584236
605,852
628267
661.514
678,619
NEW
94,533
96,031
101,687
108,419
109,320
113.364
117.559
121.908
126.419
131.096
138,947
140.977
47268
68,622
71.180
73,793
76,523
79,354
82291
85.338
86,492
91.787
98,163
-2&SS
74,614
143237
214.396
277,446
324.449
357,933
384.788
412.647
435.861
456,062
472.936
490.435
QALl
68
124
187
241
281
310
332
353
373
389
403
419
TOTAL LJQHT.OUTY VIMCUS AND
ToTSr
YEAR
i
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2006
2007
2006
2009]
.2010J
1.125249
1.153,116
1.181.799
1211.318
1241.703
1272,978
1408,177
1438429
1,372.468
1.407.619
1,443.823
1.4*1.111
NEW
VEHICLES
Castles
292.064
296.722
305.580!
312.584
319,800
327212
334,829
342,684
350,897
356,983
367,489
376.194!
NEW
_CFFV«
146.030
209.108
213.891
218.806
223.856
229.046
234,379
239,856
245.486
251274
257221
263.338
IN-USE
231,704
440.813
607,637
735.997
809.707
684,628
889.441
928474
956,813
986429
1,010,871
1.036.778
FUELDISP.
185
351
486
588
642
682
711
738
764
786
807
829
-------
-------
TABLE 1-5: LIGHT HEAVY-DITTY FLEET VEHICLE
c POPULATION PROJECTIONS
BUSWiSS /UTIL»TY LIGHT I«AVY^UTY VEHKLIS
TOTAL . NEW NEW: IN-USE FUELOISPr
--VJAB.i_yiHiq.ES_VEHICLES CFFVa i •• CFFVa (MIL. GAL.)
,1998 7T.448T1- 13<7§ffl 6,899: r 8,899 ( 15
1999; 79,5751 "14,1 78 i 7,089 13:988! . 31
2000! 81, 784i 14,568 7.284 21,272 47
2001 ' 843J1 2 1 v 14,968 1 7.484 28,756! , " ~ 63
2002 86.323?-* 15.380 7.69O 36.447! 80
20031 88.697! 15.803F 7.901 44.346J- 98
2004
2005
2006
2007
200f
2009
91,136
93.642
^" 98,217
= 98,883
-M'101»582i.
" 10^,378
2010t 107.248
16,237! 8.1 18 1 45.5681 101
16,684
' 17r143
8.342
8,571
46.821
48,109
17.614 8,807! 49,432
w,318.099 9.049 50,791
103
106
109
112
- 18.5981.: 9,2981 52.188 115
19.1081 9.554 53.6231 118
S.i.- . • . . - - ..-.-.-.. '..... ; . • .
Sf ATI / LOCAL QOVMNfcKHT LH3HT HIA VY-OVTY VEHICLES
TOTAL
YEAR.
*T998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2008
2007
2008
2009!
— 201O
VEHICLES
ISviil
15,886
16,302
18,750
17.211
17,684
18.17O
18,670
' 19,184
19,711
20.2S3
^ 20.810
21.382
NEW
VEHICLES
2.751
^828
2.904
2.984
3,088
3.150
***a 9,237
3,328
3,418
3.512
-* 3,608
3,707
3.809
NEW IN-USE
CFFV»
1,375"
1.413
: 1.452
1,492
1.533
1.575
1,618
1.663
1.709
1.758
1,904
1,853
1.904
CPFV*
1.375
2.789
4.241
5.733
7,268
8,842
9,086?
9.336
9.592
9,855
10,128
10.406
10.691
FUELOISP.
(MIL. GAL.)
3
6
9
12
16
,_ 19
20
20
•-L^.-.-. 21
..... ., g^
. . -r... -, 2J
; -•- "''.. 23
23
- , — - - :-'•,-•; : . 'v- • • •, •
— riDM" nninmiM'iiTiiniiTiMiiiv nirr* \imimt i in
-2^S
•-^L ~ 199w
?S~" 2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2008
2007
2008
2009
2010
^S23|s
: 4fJrm&
2.799
~ 2J78
2.955
3.037
3.120
3,208
3,294
3,385
: 3,478
3,574
3.872
3.773
- NSW_~J NEW
VEHICLES; CFFV«
48*! 241
498 249
512 i 256
5261 263
541
556
571
587
603
819
638
654
872
270
278
285
293
301
309
318
327
338
• -^r^v « • ,« ^mm
INFUSE
CFFVr
492
748
1.011
1,282
1,580
1,603
1.647
1.692
1.739
1.787
1.836
1.888
TUELDISP.
(MIL. GAL)
1
1
2
2
3
3
•••'••- ' 3
•••-• ; " 3
3
3
•4
4
-------
-------
TABLE 1-«: MEDIUM HEAVY-OUTY FLEET VEHICLE
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
BUSINESS /UTfUTY MEDIUM HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES
- _,-'.-- ;.*-.-•-. "•-".' ' ' - ' ,-.,.' ,.' ' . - - - - •' , '
.:~-.:-- ; TOTAL : NEW
NEW ,; (N-USE FUELDiSP.
_yjAR_J/iHICLESWE>«CLES •' CFFVs ~ CFFVs (MH^<3At>
"-•••: 1998.' •• iil,22i| 18,023! 9,0f 1 •! 9bfl. 4§
1999; 109.986P -1"T7,823K 8.911
2000 108.765! 1 7,62Si 8.812
2001
2002
2003
2004'
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
."•; . 17.923] : ; ••"..'- 96
' • 26.735 1 143
107.5581 17.429f 8.714i., ' 35,45Ok-. . 190
106.364
-104.016
102.861
;: 101.719
; "100,590
99.474
;. 98^370-
17.236
17.044
16,855
16.668
16,483
16.300
16,119
b* 15.940
97.2781 15.763
8,618! -.- 44.068L' 236
8.522
8.427
8.334
8.241
8.150
8.059
7,970
7,881
52.590! 282
52.007
51.429
50,358
50.294
49.736
49.184
48638
279
276
273
270
267
264
261
STATE/ LOCAL QO VWNI«HT MiOtUM HiAVY-OUTY VlHKLia
Y6*S,i
1§9i
1999
2000
200t
2002
,2503
2004
2005
2006
2007
2006
2009
2010
TOTAL
VEHICLES
2i|l75"
21,929
21,686
21.445
21,207
20,971
20,739
20,506
20,281
20,056
19,833
19.61*
19.396
NEW
VEHICLES
3,593
3.553
3.514
3.47S
3.436
Wwfei*^**-
3.360
--*-. 3,323
3,286
3.250
3.213
3.178
3.143
NEW
CFFVi
1',70i
1.776
1,757
1,737
1,718
1,699
1.680
f-; .1.661
1.643
1,626
1.606
1.589
1.571
iN-use
r-CFFV*
i,7W
3.573
5,330
7.088
8:786
:r ^J0,48t
10.369
10,254
10.140
-. 10.027,
9.916
9.806
9.697
RJELDISP.
(MIL GAL)
9
19
28
37
47
" t,«««> > -56
f- •- 55
' 55
54
53
53
52
52
— - - '
FIDIUM. Qovmtagtir MEDIUM I«AVY-IHITV vinctp
-^.
^^f9W
_ 19W
~ 2000
soot
• 2002
: 2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2006
2009
2010
vwSJJ1"
^^1
3.869
3.826
3,784
3,742
3,700
3,659
3,619
3,579
3.539
3,500
3,461
3.422
NEW
VEHICLES
627
620
- 813
...V 606
599
593
586
579
573
587
560
554
NEW
CFFV*
317
313
310
306
303
299
296
293
299
286
283
280
277
tN-USE
CFFVs
317
630
940
1.247
1.550
1.850
1,829
1,809
1,789
1,769
1.749
1.730
1.711
FUELDISPT
(MIL.QAL.)
1
3
5
6
8
9
9
^ 9
9
9
9
9
9
-------
-------
'•'---'"" ~:'^'^"-2r^^..~~
•-•:' r-^s ••;:: jser.-:
^iiS/Saw:-5*"*™- :-
rH,-,%? •W^st|^¥-a*Epi .'•
-1- '->" -•-:' '^ ?>^:>:-f :;S
*_-''.'^SP^-"«^I%; '—';.r.-s',"^L. ' .,;- *i.
-------
-------
V)
I
o
QC
0.
O
2
U.
Ill
-------
-------
V)
I
1100
1000 t-
900 f-
soo -
"00 -
600 -
500 -
400 !-
FIGURE 2-1; NEW AND IN USE LDV/LDT TFiry
ZOO j-
loo i-
\
0
19W 199* 2000 2001 20022003 200* 3903 205200P 2001 2009 2010*
CALENDAR YEAR
^.INUSE
FIGURE 2-2: TOTAL INCREMENTAL LDV/LDT
CFFV COSTS
19M 1999 3000 2001 2003 2003 930* 2009 ZOO* 2007 2001 200» 2010
CALENDAR YEAR
__SCENARIO I ^.SCENARIO II
-------
-------
TABLE 2-1: INCREMENTAL ACQUISITION COSTS FOR LDV/LDT
•-* •
Fuel Tvoe
Alcohol
CNQ !
Electricity
LPQ
Reformulated Gaa
CFFVType
LEV ULEV ZEV
$300
$2,000
n/a
$2,000
$170
$300
$2,000
n/a
$2,000
$170
n/a
n/a
$3,300
n/a
n/a
TABLE 2-2: INCREMENTAL FUEL COSTS FOR LDV/LDT
FuelTVM
Alcohol***
CNQ
Electricity
LPQ
Reformulated Gas
Clean FueT
Co«t($/gal]
$1.12
$1.09
$1.12
$0.62
$1.36
Incremental Clean
Fuel Coat ($/gal)**
($0.19
($0.22
($0.19
($0.69
• $0.05
* Gasoline Equivalents Projected for the Year 2000
" Compared to Conventional Gasoline Cost of $1.31
•- Retail Price of M85
-------
-------
TABLE 2-3: SCENARIO I CFFV FUEL TECHNOLOGY
ASSUMPTIONS FOR LDV/LDT
; PERCS
Fuel Type i LEV
CNQ
Electricity I
LPQ jj
Reformulated Gas 'I
lOfAL
5
0
0
0
70
•NT OF VEHICLES
ULEV
Oj
ioi
or
• si
5!
75! 20 1 -
ZEV
0
0
5
0
0
TABLE 2-4: SCENARIO II CFFV FUEL TECHNOLOGY
ASSUMPTIONS FOR LDV/LDT
FueiTVD*
Alcohol
CNQ
Electricity
LPQ
Reformulated Qas
PERCENT OF VEHICLE*
LEV
10
0
0
0
50
ULEV
10
15
0
10
o
TOTAL 60 • 35
ZEV
0
6
5
0
o
-------
-------
TABLE 2-5: TOTAL INCREMENTAL FLEET LDV AND LOT COSTS UNDER SCENARIO I
LDV COST BREAKDOWN ($ MIL)
YEAR
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
ACQS.
98,765
140,483
142,731
145,015
147,335
149,692
152,088
154,521
156,994
159,507
162,058
164,652
INCREMENTAL ACQUISITION COSTS"
TO
LEV*
$13.2
$18.8
$19.1
$19.4
$19.7
$20.1
$20.4
$20.7
$21.0
$21.4
$21.7
$22.1
FAL
ULEV*
$30.5
$43.3
$44.0
$44.7
$45.5
$46.2
$46.9
$47.7
$48.4
$49.2
$50.0
$50.8
ZEV*
$16.3
$23.2
$23.6
$23.9
$24.3
$24.7
$25.1
$25.5
$25.9
$26.3
$26.7
$27.2
AGO.
TOTAL
$60.0
$85.3
$86.7
$88.1
$89.5
$90.9
$92.4
$93.9
$95.4
$96.9
$98.5
$100.0
IN-USE
157,090
.297,576
393,239
458,551
481,258
496,705
504,653
512,727
520,932
529,267
537,735
546,340
INCREMENTAL OPERATING COSTS
VEH*.
($0.2
($0.4
($0.6
($0.7
($0.7
($0.71
($0.8
($0.8)
($0.8)
($0.8)
($0.8)
($0-8
1$2^
($7.4
($13.9
($18.4
($21.5
($22.5
($23.3
($23.6
($24.0)
($24.4)
($24.8
($25.2
<$25.6'
($0.5
($1.2
($2.4
($3.1
($3.6
($3.8
($3.9
($4.0)
($4.1;
($4.1;
($4.2)
($4.3)
— teg
OPER.
($3.3
($8.8
($16.7
($22.1
($25.8
($27.1
($28.0
($28.4
($28.9
($29.3
($29.8
($30.3
OVERALL!
INCR
$32.1
$51.2
$68.6
$64.6
$62.3
$62.4
$63.0
$64.0
$65.0
$66.1
$67.1
$68.2
$69-3
LDTC
YEAR
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
OST BREAKDOWN (SMIL)
ACQS.
47,265
68,622
71,160
73,793
76,523
79,354
82,291
85,335
88,492
91,767
95,163
98,683
INCREMENTAL ACQUISITION COSTS
TO
LEV*
$6.3
$9.2
$9.5
$9.9
$10.3
$10.6
$11.0
$11.4
$11.9
$12.3
$12.8
$13.2
FAL
ULEV*
$14.6
$21.2
$22.0
$22.8
$23.6
$24.5
$25.4
$26.3
$27.3
$28.3
$29.4
$30.4
ZEV*
$7.8
$11.3
$11.7
$12^
$12.6
$13.1
$13.6
$14.1
$14.6
$15.1
$15.7
$16.3
AGO.
TOTAL
$16.6
$28.7
$41.7
$43.2
$44.8
$46.5
$48.2
$50.0
$51.8
$53.8
$55.7
$57.8
$59.9
IN-USE
27,347
74,614
143,237
214,398
277,446
324,449
357,923
384,788
412,647
435,881
456,062
472,936
490,435
INCREMENTAL OPERATING COSTS
VE
($0.0
($0.1
($0.3
($0.4
($0.5
($0.6)
($0.6)
($0.7;
($0.7)
($0.8)
($0.8)
($0.9)
($0-9'
H*.
~- ($1.5
($4.2
($8.0]
($12.0)
($15.5
($18.2)
($20.0;
.($21. 5]
($23.1
($24.4
($25.5
($26.5'
($27.4
($0.3
($0.7)
($1.4
($2.0
($2.6
($3.1
($3.4
($3.7;
($3.9)
($4.1)
($4.3]
($4.5'
OPER.
($1.8
($5.0
($9.6
($14.4
($18.7
($21.8
($24.1
($25.9
($27.8
($29.3
($30.7
($31.8
3VERALL
INCR.
$14.8
$23.7
$32.1
$28.8
$26.2
$24.7
$24.1
$24.1
$24.1
$24.4
$25.1
$26.0
LDV a
YEAR
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
ndLDT
ACQS.
146,030
209,105
213,891
218,808
223,858
229,046
234,379
239,856
245,486
251,274
257,221
263.335
COMBINED COST BREAK I
TO
LEV*
$19.6
$28,0
$28.7
$29.3
$30.0
$30.7
$31.4
$32.1
$32.9
$33.7
$34.5
$35.3
TAL
ULEV*
$45.1
$64,5
$68.0
$67.5
$69.1
$70.7
$72.3
$74.0
$75.7
$77.5
$79.4
$81.2
ZEV*
$24.1
$34.5
$35.3
$36.1
$36.9
$37.8
$38.7
$39.6
$40.5
$41.5
$42.4
$43.5
XDWNU
ACQ.
TOTAL
$88.7
$127.0
$129.9
$132.9
$136.0
$139.1
$142.4
$145.7
$149.1
$152.6
$156.3
$160.0
MIL)
IN-USE
231,704
440,813
607,637
735,997
805,707
854,628
889,441
925,374
956,813
985,329
1.010,671
1,036.775
VE
LEV*
($0.4
($0.7
($1.0
($1.2
($1.3
($1.4
($1.5
($1.51
($1.6;
($1.6;
($1.7;
($1.7!
H*.
' (Us1)
($11.5
($21.9
($30.4
($37.0
($40.7
($43.3
($45.2
($47.1
($48.8
($50.3
($51.6
NET PRESE
P-CMAIINV
" ' <$0.7)
($2.0
($3.7
($5.2
($6.3
($6.9
($7.3
($7.7
($8.0
($8.3;
($8.5'
• ($8.8'
IU0ST9
OPER.
I — i$37n
($13.9
($26.4
($36.6
($44.5
($48.9
($52.0
($54.3
($56.6
($58.6
($60.5
($62.1
^JT VALUE-IN 1998*,
OVERALL
INCR.
$469
$74.9
$100.7
$93.4
$88.5
$87.1
$87.1
$88.1
$89.1
$90.5
$92.2
$94.2
* ASSUMES DISCOUNT RATE OF 7%.
-------
I
-------
TABLE 2-6: TOTAL INCREMENTAL FLEET LDV AND LOT COSTS UNDER SCENARIO II
LDVC
YEAR
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
OSTBP
ACQS.
98,765
140,483
142,731
145,015
147,335
149,692
152,088
154,521
156,994
159,507
162,058
164,652
EAKDOWN ($ MIL)
TO
LEV*
$11.4
$16.2
$16.4
$16.7
$16.9
$17.2
$17.5
$17.8
$18.1
$18.3
$18.6
$18.9
FAL
ULEVa
$52.3
$74.5
$75.6
$76.9
$78.1
$79.3
$80.6
$81.9
$83.2
$84.5
$85.9
$87.3
ZEVa
$16.3
$23.2
$23.6
$23.9
$24.3
$24.7
$25.1
$25.5
$25.9
$26.3
$26.7
$27.2
ACQ.
TOTAL
$80.0
$113.8
$115.6
$117.5
$119.3
$121.3
$123.2
$125.2
$127.2
$129.2
$131.3
$133.4
IN-USE
157,090
297,576
393,239
458,551
481,258
496,705
504,653
512,727
520,932
529,267
. 537,735
546,340
INCMtNltN 1 AL O
VEH,.
($1.8
($3.4
($4.4
($5.2
($5.4
($5.6
($5.7]
($5.8
($5.9
($6.0)
($6.1)
($6.21
($15.9
($30.1
($39.8
($46.4
($48.7
($50.3
($51.1
($51.9
($52.8
($53.6;
($54.5'
(S55.3'
KtHATINt
($0.5
($1.2
($2.4
($3.1
($3.6
($3.8'
($3.9;
($4.0)
($4.1;
($4,1)
($4.2)
($4.3)
($4.3
i COSTS
OPER
($7.0
($18.9
($35.9
($47.4
($55.3
($58.0
($59.9
($60.8
($61.8
($62.8
($63.8
($64.8
($65.8
OVERALL
1NCR
$61 1
$77.9
$68.2
$62.2
$61.3
$61.4
$62.4
$634
$64.4
$65.4
' $66.5
LDTC
YEAR
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
OST BREAKDOWN (S MIL)
ACQS.
47,265
68,622
71,160
73,793
76,523
79,354
82,291
85,335
88,492
91,767
95,163
98.683
TO
LEV*
$5.4
$7.9
$8.2
$8.5
$8.8
$9.1
$9.5
$9.8
$10.2
$10.6
$10.9
$11.3
FAL
ULEVa
$25.1
$36.4
$37.7
$39.1
$40.6
$42.1
$43.6
$45.2
$46.9
$48.6
$50.4
$52.3
ZEVa
$7.8
' $11.3
$11.7
$12.2
$12.6
$13.1
$13.6
$14.1
$14.6
$15.1
$15.7
$16.3
ACQ.
TOTAL
$22.2
$38.3
$55.6
$57.6
$59.8
$62.0
$64.3
$66.7
$69.1
$71.7
$74.3
$77.1
$79.9
IN-USE
74,614
143,237
214,398
277,446
324,449
357,923
384,788
412,647
435,881
456,062
472,936
490.435
INCREMENTAL OPERATIC COSTS
VI
($6.4)
($1,Q
($1.9
($2.9
($3.7)
($4.4
($4.8
($5.2
($5.e;
($5.9;
($6.2)
($6.4)
<$6-6'
Ha. I
($134 ($0.3
_._ ($9.01 ($0.7
($17.3J ($1.4
($25.91 ($2.0
($33.61 ($2.6
($39.3* ($3.1
($43.31 ($3.4
($46.61 ($3.7
($49.91 ($3.9
($52.71 ($4.1
($55.21 ($4.3
($57.21 ($4.5:
1 ($59.3J (S4.7'
OPER.
"W*
($10.7
($20.6
($30.9
($40.0
($46.7
($51.5
($55.4
($59.4
($62.8
($65.7
($68.1
<$70.6
3VERALL
(NCR.
$18.2
$27.5
$35.0
$26.8
$19.8
$15.3
$12.7
$11.2
$9.7
$8.9
$8.7
$9.0
LDV A
YEAR
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
ND LDT COMBINED COST BREAKDOWN <
ACQS.
146,030
209,105
213,891
218,808
223,858
229,046
234,379
239,856
245,486
251,274
257.221
263,335
INCREMENTAL ACQUISITION COSTS
TO
LEV*
$16.8
$24.0
$24.6
$25.2
$23.7
$26.3
$27.0
$27.6
$28.2
$28.9
$29.6
$30.3
rAL
ULEVa
$77.4
$110.8
$113.4
$116.0
$118.6
$121.4
$124£
$127.1
$130.1
$133.2
$136.3
$139.6
ZEVa
$24.1
$34.5
$35.3
$36.1
$36.9
$37.8
$38.7
$39.6
$40.5
$41.5
$42.4
$43.5
ACQ.
TOTAL
$118.3
$169.4
$173.3
$177.2
$181.3
$185.5
$189.8
$194.3
$198.8
$203.5
$208.3
$213.3
$ MIL)
IN-USE
231,704
440,813
607,637
735,997
805.707
854,628
889.441
925.374
956,813
985,329
1.010,671
1,036,775
INCREMENTAL OPERATING COSTS
VI
LEV*
($1.6)
($2.8
($5.3
($7.3
($8.9
($9.8
($10.4
($10.9
($11.4
($11.8
($12.1
($12.5)
($12.8
' —HI
He.
ULEVa
($24.9
($47.5
($65.8
($80.0
($88.0
($93.6
($97.7)
($101.9
($105.5
($108.ff
($111.7)
($114.7)
srpflEsa
($2.0
($3.7'
($5.2
($6.3;
($6.9;
($7.3;
($7.7;
($8.0)
($8.3)
($8.5)
($8.8;
ffvituF
OPER.
($11.6
($29.7
($56.5
($78.3
($95.2
($104.7
($111.4
($116.2
($121.2
($125.5
($129.5
($132.9
'IN 1 99* -
3VERALL
(NCR.
$56.4
$88.6
$112.9
$95.0
$82.0
$76.6
$74.1
$73.6
$73.1
$73.3
$74.1
$75.4
$672.7
* ASSUMES DISCOUNT RATE OF 7%.
-------
-------
TABLE 2-7: INCREMENTAL ACQUISITION COSTS
FOR HEAVY-DUTY CFFVs
Years 1998-2002
Fuel Type
Diesel
Gasoline
CFV Type
LEV
$477.00
$246.00
ULEV
$477.00
$246.00
ZEV
• *
Years 2003 and beyond
FuelTyp*
Diesel
Gasoline
( CFV Type
I LEV
$338.00
$178.00
ULEV-r-
$338.00
$178.00
ZEV
. *
..*
* EPA does not forsee a significant number of ZEVs in the HDV market
-------
-------
TABLE 2-8: HDV VEHICLBFUEL TECHNOLOGY
ASSUMPTIONS FOR SCENARIOS A, B AND C
; Conventional
Fuel
Scenario A
-
Scenario B
.
,
Scenario C
100%
80 %
70%
Nonconventlonal
Fuel
1 0 %
20%
30%
i vehicle/Fuel
Price Difference
| 0%
1 +20%
1 -05 %
Not*: See text for explanation of theee three independent
hypothetical ecenarioe.
-------
-------
TABLE 2-9: TOTAL INCREMENTAL LHDV AND MHDV FLEET COSTS UNDER SCENARIO A
Year
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
LHDV Acquisitions
Gasoline
5,961
6,126
6,294
6,467
6,645
6,828
7,015
7,209
7,407
7,610
7,820
8,035
8.256
DfOSOt
2,555
2.625
2,698
2,772
2,848
2,926
3,006
3,089
3,174
3,262
3,351
3,443
3.538
MHDV Acquisitions
Gasoline
3,337
3,300
3,264
3,227
3,192
3,156
3,121
3,086
3,052
3,018
2,984
2,952
2.919
Diesel
7,787
7,700
7,615
7,530
-rt 7,447
7,364
7,282
7,202
7,121
7,043
6,964
6,887
6.810
ncremental Acq. Cost
Gasoline
$2,287,406
$2,318,722
$2,351,293
$2,384,822
$2,419,853
$1,777,116
$1,804,137
$1,832,510
$1,861,631
$1,891,909
$1,923,130
$1,955,561
$1.989.061
Diesel
$4,932,943
$4,925,168
$4,919,253
$4,913,863
$4,910,810
$3,478,088
$3,477.479
$3,478,358
$3,479,845
$3,482,853
$3,486,436
$3,491,777
$3.497.793
Operating
Cost**
$400,000
$800,000
$1,200.000
$1,550,000
$1,950,000
$2,350,000
$2,350,000
$2,350,000
$2,350,000
$2,350,000
$2,350,000
$2,350,000
$2.350.000
Overall Incremental
$7.6
$8.0
$8.5
$8.8
$9.3
$7.6
$7.6
$7.7
$7.7
$7.7
$7.8
$7.8
NET PRESENT VALUE IN 1998*. $67.2
* ASSUMES DISCOUNT RATE OF 7%. "" ~'J
- BASED ON A INCREMENTAL $0.05 PER GALLON FOR REFORMULATED GASOLINE IN AREAS THA'
DO NOT REQUIRE REFORMULATED GASOLINE. '
-------
-------
I
>
1
1
,2
o
S
i
1 ill
I i * • • . »•
i »- — 01 01 oi
i
1
m
8 § 8
r^ o i—
^
g - (»
^ *- r«*
1^*^00 0£ w,
«»«*«l 5 3 Si
•»<•«»•»«» S
II
tS 3
oo^r-.
S
A
ssassssssif:^
* aaasI a s11 as
§ S § 1 i S I f
iiSiiesili
11II. is | i
II II Illl Ill I
'HI! Hit! Ill
tO«f^««-tAC4(3ftqi^ua
Is^Sslsiiss
Sf S S S
*•» S o
of of.oi of 01 oi
t— W-»«oo)Mr-mco
oar* i-
-------
-------
o
•§
•J
J
< ,
1
>
I
i
i
»•* >w w* it ui vt v* vi -^ ^ ^ ^ ^
& ft si s x £ si s si si si si s
(0 tA to OU>OlOt&OU>U>
asai5i-- •*
in i-
fti of e»f CM" of «" CM
of of of 3 of of of of CM of CM CM" oi
S.A
V *f V
•*«^ioiaioiau>u>
iiii
o
|
«
i'
i
3
•
£
|;
3-
I
S
-------
-------
TABLE 2-12: SUMMARY OF PROJECTED
FLEET PROGRAM INCREMENTAL COSTS
Incremental Costs
Associated with LDVs
and LDTs:
Scenario 1 .
Scenario II
Program Costs
(1998NPV)
(MILS)
$709.3
.. ... :^r:.--.f •£••-•.
$672.7
Incremental Costs
Associated with LHDVs
and MHDVs:
Scenario A
Scenarios
Scenario C
Program Costs
(1998NPV)
(MIL $)
$67.2
$98.7
$30.2
-------
-------
TABLE 3-1(A): LIGHT-DUTY EMISSION STANDARDS
FOR CLEAN-FUEL FLEET VEHICLES
_
CONVENTIONAL
VEHICLE
LEV
ULEV
ZEV
EmlMton Standard* (gram/mlto)
UMoo
0.25
0.075
0.04
0.0
LDV
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.0
3.4
3.4
1.7
0.0
0.286
0.088
0.045
0.0
LDT1'
0.55
0.3
0.3
0.0
3.9
3.9
1.96
0.0
0.32
0.18
0.097
0.0
0.73
0.73
0.4
0.0
4.27
4.27
2.13
0.0
* Th* standard* for LDT1 arc an av*rag* of tn* standaiti* prepoMd tar aft LDT*<6000 b* GVWR.
and th* (tandard* for LDT2 an> an average of th« standard* propo**d for all LDTs>6000 b* GVWR
S*» Tabte 3-1 (B) for afi of th* LOT standard*.
TABLE 3-1(B): LIGHT-DUTY TRUCK EMISSION STANDARDS
FOR CLEAN-FUEL FLEET VEHICLES
CONVENTIONAL NMHC
VEMCLE CO
NOx
LBV NMOQ
CO
NOx
ULEV NMOG
CO
NOx
- ZEV NMOG
CO
NOx
Errrf .too Standard*
LDV/LDt
< 6000 GVWR
< 3750 LVW
0.25
3.4
0.4
0.075
3.4
0.2
0.04
1.7
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
LOT
< 8000 GVWR
> 3750 LVW
0.32
4.4
0.7
0.1
4.4
0.4
0.05
2.2
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
LOT
>8000GVWH
<3760ALVW
< 5750 LVW
0.25
3.4
0.4
0.125
3.4
0.4
0.075
1.7
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
a/mtt*)
LOT
->8000GVWR
> 3750 ALVW
0.32
4.4
0.7
0.18
4.4
0.7
0.1
2.2
0.4
0.0
0.0
LOT
> 8000 GVWR
> 5750 ALVW
0.39
5.0
1.1
0.196
5.0
1.1
0.117
2.5
0.6
0.0
0.0
TABLE 3-1(C): LjFE-TIME EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES
AND TRUCKS FROM MOBILES* MODELLING, grans/mite
CONVENTIONAL
VEHICLE i
LEV
i
ULEV
z
ZEV
NMHC
CO
NOx
NMHC
CO
NOx
NMHC
CO
NOx
NMHC
CO
NOx
LDV
0.94
10.6
0.94
0.83
10.6
0.83
0.8
8.92
0.83
0.0
0.0
0.0
LDT(1*2>
1.02
12.05
1 04
0.9
12.05
0.91
0.86
10.18
0.91
0.0
0.0
0.0
2. Ad)uina fttxn MO81E5. output
-------
-------
TABLE 3-2: NUMBER OF IN-USE
CLEAN-FUEL FLEET LDVs / LOTs *
Calendar
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009 :
2010
Light-duty
Vehicles
157,000
298,000
393,000
459,000
481,000
497,000
505,000
513,000
521,000
529,000
538,000
546,000
Light-duty
Trucks
27,000
75,000
143,000
- 214,000
277,000
324.000
358,000
385,000
413,000
436,000
456,000
473,000
490.000
Total
85,000
232,000
; 441,000
: 607,000
736,000
805,000
1 855,000
; 890,000
I 926,000
1 957,000
; 985,000
• 1,011,000
! 1.036.000
These figures correspond to the data presented in Table 1-4, rounded to the
nearest 1000 vehicles.
-------
-------
Q
(0
Q
Ul
Ui
Ul
I *
S
d
§
1
Ul
Ul
CO
X
o
§ _
(/)
Ul
£
i
ui
O
1
ui
ui
ffl
-------
-------
a
<
m
"- co r^ o CM
5f
a
i
g
I
^ *~ co *•• Oh^^cM^r^m
{83C oi o b
2 SOS
SifS2;sSt;raio'-<»is'
CMCMcnaot-ocp'r-TcoQ^cx
cvlco — iv.jrjr-.oicM-^toSSc
T™T~CMCMCMCOCOCOCOCO<^
SR fo S
^ CM •V (O
S S SS
3-
LO
^, en s. T-
'•-'-'-CMCMOJCgMOJ
a^SS04^
OiOOO-^^T— T—
- U> PJ
^~ CO CM ^^ CM (O *•• (O O
!S2?22'"'~
CO CO CO GO O) C7)
*- co ui oj en o r,
O rs. m co o CM ~
CM ^ h-. o co to
^uioco^ujintocor^f^co
"• OJ CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM
O O O O O C3i
CM CM CM CM CM CM]
^
-------
-------
TABLE 3-5: VAPOR EMISSION BENEFITS
FROM LIGHT-DUTY CLEAN-FUEL FLEET VEHICLES
Calendar
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
LOV
Emissions (tons/yr)
Scenario 1 1 Scenario 1
52
140
266
351
409
429
443
450
458
465
472
480
488
78
210
398
526
614
644
665
676
686
697
708
720
731
•— — —
LOT
Emissions (tons/yr)
Scenario 1
21
57
109
163
211
247
273
293
314
332
347
360
373
Scenario 1
31
85
164
245
317
371
409
440
471
498
521
540
560
Total Vapor Emission
Benefits (tons/vrt
Scenario I
73
197
375
514
620
677
716
743
772
797
820
840
861
4654
^i- — * *
Scan a r In 11
,..,=
109
296
562
771
931
1015
1074
1115
1158
1195
1229
1260
1292
6982
'Assumes discount rate of 7%
-------
-------
TABLE 3-6: LIGHT HEAVY-DUTY AND MEDIUM HEAVY-DUTY
EMISSION FACTOR ESTIMATES
1998 MODEL YEAR BASELINE EMISSION FACTORS
VEHICLE
L-H DIESEL
M-H DIESEL
L-H GASOLINE
M-H GASOLINE
ZERO MILE EFs (q
HC
0.444
0.314
0.265
0.463
NMHC
0.415
0.300
0.200
0.347
/Bhp-hr)
NOx
3.330
3.330
3.330
3.330
DR's (g/BhD-hr/1 0,000 mO
HC
0.011
0.005
0.013
0.022
NMHC
0.011
0.005
0.013
0.022
NOx
0.061
0.036
0.061
0.061
1998 HEAVY-DUTY CLEAN-FUEL FLEET VEHICLE EMISSION FACTORS
VEHICLE
L-H DIESEL
M-H DIESEL
L-H GASOLINE
M-H GASOLINE
ZERO MILE EPs (q
HC
0.310
0.221
0.189
0.324
NMHC
0.290
0.210
0.140
0.243
/Bhp-hr)
NOx
2.852
2.939
2.968
2.823
DR's (g/Bhp-hr/1 0.000 ml)
HC
0.008
0.003
0.009
0.016
NMHC
0.008
0.003
0.009
0.016
NOx
0.052
0.032
0.054
0.051
-------
-------
TABLE 3-7: 1998 HEAVY-DUTY ENGINE EMISSION STANDARDS
(ING/BHP-HR)
HC
NOx
CO
NMHC+NOx
Conventional Vehicle*
Gasoline i 01
<«14,OOOGVWR >1 4.000 GVWR
1.1' 1.9.1
4.0* ' 4.0' I
14.41 . 37.111
n/ai n/ail
Clean-Fuel Fleet Vehicles
1.311 " " o
4.0*! **' "' Q
15.511 "' 7.2! 0
* Th« HDV NOx standard is currently 5.0 g/BHP-hr. ~ "
" HDV CFFVs must me«t conventional vehicle standards for these emission categories.
-------
r
-------
TABLE 3-«: NUMBER OF IN-USE CLEAN-FUEL FLEET LHDVs / MHDVs
Calendar
Y«ar
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Light
Haavy-Outy
VahiciM
17,269
26,261
35,500
44,995
54,750
56,256
57,803
59,393
61,026
6£704
64,429
66.200
Medium
Haavy-Outy
Vahlclaa
11,124
2Z126
33.005
43,765
54,404
64,925
64,205
63,492 !
62,787 i
6&090
61,401 :
60.720 j
60.046 '
Total
19,645" :
39.395
59.266
79,265
99.399
119,675
120.461
121.295
122,180
123,118
124.105
125.149
126.246
-------
-------
TABLE 3-9: EMISSION INVENTORIES AND NMHC AND NOx BENEFITS
FROM CLEAN-FUEL FLEET LHDVs and MHDVs
Calendar
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Heaw-Dutv Emissions (tons/vrl
NMHC
Base
11,253
10,278
9,134
7,808
6,303
4,617
4,591
4,566
4,542
4,519
4,498
4,477
4.457
CFV
11,167
10,094
8,840
7,393
5,754
3,923
3,902
3,880
3,860
3,841
3,822
3,805
3.788
NOx
48,041
46,255
44,759
43,551
42,628
41,988
41,789
41,599
41,419
41,249
41,088
40,938
40.797
47,655
45,456
43,519
41,841
40,421
39,255
39,069
38,892
38,725
38,566
38,416
38,276
38.145
Emission
Benefits (tons/vrt
NMHC
86
184
294
415
548
693
689
686
682
679
675
672
NOx
385
798
1,240
1,710
2,207
2,733
2,720
2,707
2,695
2,683
2,672
2,662
NET PRESENT VALUE IN 1998*. 4092 16420
* Assumes discount rate of 7%.
-------
-------
Q
I
Q
(0
Q
i
u.
si
o
DC
IL.
i
E
O
o
o
- • •
o
5
o
3
01 52
11
Ul C{
81
31
T- CM CM
CM co in to r^ cp en o CM co
T-i-CMCMCMCMCvicMCMCMO
en co co CM to
co co CM to to
-------
-------
TABLE 3-11: VAPOR EMISSION BENEFITS
FROM HEAVY-DUTY CLEAN-FUEL FLEET VEHICLES
Calendar
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
LHDV
Emissions (tons/vr)
Scenario 1
33
67
102
138
175
213
218
224
231
237
244
250
257
Scenario 1
55
112
170
230
291
354
364
374
384
395
406
417
428
MHDV
Emissions (tons/yr)
Scenario 1
37
73
110
145
181
215
213
211
208
206
204
201
199
Scenario II
=ra
62
122
183
242
301
359
355
351
347
343
340
336
332
Total Vapor Emission
Benefits ffons/vrV
Scenario 1
70
140
211
•- 283
355
428
432
435
439
443
447
452
456
2704
— ' ' ..=:
117
234
352
472
592
713
719
725
732
738
745
753
761
4506
Assumes discount rate of 7%
-------
-------
TABLE 3-12: TOTAL GALLONS OF FUEL DISPLACED
BY THE CLEAN FUEL FLEET PROGRAM (MIL GAUYR)
Calendar i| Light-Duty Light-Duty Heavy-Duty
u_~_ !••_•_•-.
-------
-------
TABLE 3-13: GALLONS OF PETROLEUM-BASED FUEL
DISPLACED IN THE CLEAN-FUEL FLEET PROGRAM
BY ALTERNATIVE FUELS (MIL GAL/YR)
CALENDAR SCENARIO!
YEAR (25%)
1998 i 36
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004 :
2005
2006
i
2007 ,
2008 \
2009
2010 '
86
148
202
247
232
291
298
305
311
318
323
328
SCENARIO II
(50%)
73
172
296
404
495
564
582
596
611
622
635
646
657
-------
-------
TABLE 4-1: CLEAN-FUEL FLEET LDV/LDT COST EFFECTIVENESS
CASE I
SCENARIO 1
SCENARIO II
NPV
COSTS
($ MIL)
$709
$673
NPV || COST
BENEFITS (TONS) || EFFECTIVENESS (S/TOM
NMOG
16,374
18,702
NOx
12,119
12,119
CO II NMOG
93,694
120,885
14,440
11,990
NOx
19,509
18,503
2,523
1,855
OVERALL*
5,805
4,434
CASE II
SCENARIO 1
SCENARIO II
NPV
COSTS
1 ($MIL)
$709
$673
NPV
BENEFITS (TONS)
NMOG
16,374
18,702
NOx
12,119
12,119
CO
93,694
120,885
C
EFFECTIVE
NMOG
5,805
4,434
NOx
5,805
4,434
OST
NESS ($/TON)
CO
5,805
4,434
OVERALL*
5,805
4,434
* The overall cost effectiveness is the total cost of the scenario divided by the total benefit of
all three pollutants combined.
-------
-------
TABLE 4-2: CLEAN-FUEL FLEET LHDV/MHDV COST EFFECTIVENESS
CASE I
SCENARIO A
SCENARIO B
SCENARIO C
NPV
COSTS
($ MIL)
$67.2
$98.7
$30.2
NPV
BENEFITS (TONS)
NMHC
4,092
6,796
8,598
NOx
16,420
16,420
16,420
CO
0
15,454
27,045
COST
EFFECTIVENESS (S/TON)
NMHC
5,474
4,841
1,171
NOx
1,364
2,004
613
CO
n/a
2,129
372
OVERALL*
3,276
2,552
580
CASE II
SCENARIO A
SCENARIO B
SCENARIO C
NPV
COSTS
($ MIL)
$67.2
$98.7
$30.2
NPV
BENEFITS (TONS)
NMHC
4,092
6,796
8,598
NOx
16,420
16,420
16,420
CO
0
15,454
27,045
COST
EFFECTIVENESS (S/TON)
NMHC
3,276
2,552
580
NOx
3,276
2,552
580
CO
n/a
2,552
580
OVERALL*
3,276
2,552
580
* The overall cost effectiveness is the total cost of the scenario divided by the total benefit of
all three pollutants combined.
-------
-------
TABLE 4-3: OVERALL CLEAN-FUEL FLEET PROGRAM
COST EFFECTIVENESS
CASE I
TOTAL 1**
TOTAL II***
NPV
COSTS
1 (SMIL)
$808
$703
NPV
BENEFITS (TONS)
NMOG
23,170
27,300
NOx
28,539
28,539
CO
109,148
147,930
COST
EFFECTIVENESS (S^TON)
NMOG
11,624
8,582
NOx
9,437
8,210
CO
2,468
1,584
OVERALL*
5,023
3,449
CASE II
TOTAL 1**
TOTAL II***
NPV
COSTS
(SMIL)
$808
$703
NPV
BENEFITS (TONS)
NMOG
23,170
27,300
NOx
28,539
28,539
CO
109,148
147,930
COST
EFFECTIVENESS (S/TOW
NMOG
5,023
3,449
NOx
5,023
3,449
CO
5,023
3,449
OVERALL*
5,023
3,449
* The overall cost effectiveness is the total cost of the scenario divided by the total
benefit of all three pollutants combined.
** Combines the costs and benefits for light-duty Scenario I and heavy-duty Scenario B.
*** Combines the costs and benefits for light-duty Scenario II and heavy-duty Scenario C.
-------
-------
ATTACHMENT A
MOBILES* INPUT & OUTPUT FILES
FOR EMISSION BENEFIT ANALYSIS
Or CLXAN-rUXL TLSST VEHICLES
1. INPUT DATA 9001.IN
2. OUTPUT ALL TISR 1 9001.TR1
3. OUTPUT ALL LBV* 9001.LEV
4. OUTPUT ALL ULEVs 9001.ULV
-------
-------
Basic
" ?r0"*>t f°E L*VIMt fil* '"-d>
TAHFLd
SPDrLO
VMTLA9
Input
"9001.IM"
IMTLAO - On. I/M program
-»*am
" Si"""1' K«*»ling vapor Recovery.
' "** "°OIrd •«"«• °«« «« "2 seenario.
~ iff-=oll»» descriptive format.
" hr" *"»llat«" <*=, co, MOX, .
4 20 19.8 31.8 20.8 27.3 20 S 07
description record
94 1
program parameter red.
Baseline Fuel... c 71.8 91.8 10.S 00 7 92
Parameter record
4 20 19.8 81.8 20.8 27.3 20.8 07
description record
94 1
* £"•* c 7l-« »1.« 10.3 0«.0 92
4 20 19. « 81. 9 20.8 27.3 20.5 07
d..oripeton record
94 1
program p*rarae«r red.
7l-8 n-s io:s °7-s
4 20 19. 9 Sl.j 20. « J7.3 20.9 07
description record
prooria peroMter rod.
4 20 19.8 Sl.S 20.8 27.3 20.8 07
description record
94 1
program parameter rod.
Onboard
Scenario
LZV
Local Area
scenario
LIV
Local Area
Scenario
LZV
Local Area
Scenario
LIV
Local Aram
Scenario
Ltv
Local
TAMTLO
aparta
VMTLA9
IMTLA8 - one Z/M program
ALaTta "¥«—
" lBt*r *W' »«•••
LA* record appw. oao. for
otrrner - iiz-ooi«
!. «
99 99 to 2221 11 09«.
98 2222
•/us
4 20 19.8 81.8 20.8 37.3 20.8 07
description record
94 I
program parameter reel.
Baseline fuel... c 71. « 91.9 10.§ Ot.7 91 1 1 l
Parameter record l
4 20 19.8 81.8 20.»y».J JO.S 07
description recore) -
94 I
program parameter reel.
'Iram.;:; record * ^ ""' 1O'«" 0«-° " l l^
d.;orip;i8=nlr.4eord' "'' "'* "
94 1
program parameter red.
Fr:?^.rVr.ioU ° 7l ••»»••«•» 07 . S „ 1 1 l
4 20 19.8 81.8 20.8 27.3 20.8 07
description reoord
94 1
program parameter rod.
pi' c "•««••«•• 0.. • ft. 1 1 l
Scenario
LZV
Local Area
Scenario
LZV
Llv
scenario
Ltv
Loc^ Are.
program parameter red. '
Indolene Fuel c 71.8 91.8 09.0 09.0 »a 1 1 l 2
Local Area
-------
-------
fariwtar raeord;
ooooooooooooooooo'
00000000000000000
i sjorta .
1 '/MTLH9 •-- .
1 MYKRTO
1
2
1
1
1
3
4 PRtrZ.O - All uoj
2 NMarixa - I«TIC,
2 , RcrtAO — print i
9« 20 9« 20 03 03 09« 1 1
Program — - --»» *AC«V
33 91 20 2221 11 09«. 12211111 ,„
9« 93 20 2221 11 0»«. AT»
9» »« 20 2221 11 0»«. ' »»•••»«
98 2222 tvzg*
VRJ onboard
daaeriptloa raeord "' seanaRto
94 2
red. L«v
. 10.S OS.7 »2 1 t 1 ideal Araa
'_ 107 seanario
94 2
program paraMtar red. L«v
Paramatar raeord ' ' 0«.o 92 1 1 3 local Araa
4 20 19.« 81.» 20.S 27.3 20,9 O7 Soaaario
94 2™ °* "e°t
-------
-------
I ».»io I/M.
MOaTllSa (2«-M*)r~»3>
OI/H program selected!
0 start year (Jeauary 1) t
Pre-1981 M» stringency ratet
rirst model year covered*
Last itodal year aoveredi
H.lv.r rat* (pra-l»*l)t
' Waiver rat* (1991 and never)i
Compliance Rat*i
Inspection typet
Inspection frequency
Vehicle type* covered:
19*1 t later MYR teat typei
outpoints, aci 210.000 cot
ril*», All Ti«r 1: "9001.TUX"
1983
20*
19<8
2020
0.%
0.%
100.*
Test only
Annual
LOSV - Ye*
LDOT1 - Ye*
LDOT2 - Yea
auov - NO
2300 rpm /
1.200 HOxt
Idle
999.000
Otton-wethana 1C emission factor* ineluda evaporative gc emission factor*.
omission factor* ar* a* at Juiyl*t of the indicated calendar year.
L«V phase-in begin* in 1994 •*»• using (12/1/92) Guidance Memo Credit*
ocal. Year: 2020 I/M Program: Ye* Aabieat Taut 87.1 / 87.1 / 87.1
Anti-tarn. Program. No operating Model 20.8 / 27.3 / 20.8
Reformulated aaai He
Oiaseline fuel... HlnlM» Tea?: 72.
Period 1 KWt 10.5 Period 2 KV*t (.7
0 Veh. Typai . LDSV LOOT! LOOTS MOT SDOT
(P) Region: Low
Altitude! 30O.
Period 2 start Yrt 1992
LDDV LOOT
All Vea
vea. Speed* i ii.l T57J — m — IT7J — m —
VMT Hist 0.375 0.207 0.08* 0.034- 0.002
ZXV Praotl 0.00 % 0.00 *
OCoapoalte Emission Pastor* (SB/Mile)
Kon-Meth ICt 1.5* 1.85 2.4* 2.04 3.S* 0.30
Exhaust 1C: 1.02 1.25 1.7* '1.40 l.tl 0.30
Cvaporat ICI 0.19 0.21 0.22 0.21 1.09
Refuel t. ICt • 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.07
Runing L 1C: 0.35 0.35 0.47 0.3* 0.9*
Rating L 1C: 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03
Exhaust CO: 13.73 14.04 21.33 17.42 22.44 1.44
Exhaust wmti 1.2* 1.47 2.0* 1.4* 3.7* 1.0*
LXV phase-in begin* ia l»»4 «»9T* u.iag (12/1/92) auidaace Mama Credit*
OCal. Yean 202O I/M Program: Ye* Ambieat Tempi 87.1 / 87.1 /
Anti-tarn. Programi Me operating Medal 20.* / 27.3 /
Reformulated Oaa: Ye* , AMI Claaai C
ored Pmase I Puel Hinimam Tempi 72. (rt
Period 1 RV»: 10.5 Period 2 RVP: 8.0 p<
0 vea. Typai LOW LOOT1 LOOTS LOO* EBOV LDDV
vea. speedai 19.8 ii.l il.l " i|.| i|.|
VMT KLx: 0.575 0.207 0.0** 0.034 0.002
ZXV Praett 0.00 * O.OO %
OCompoiita tmiaaioB Pastors (a*/KU*>
Hoa-Matk ICl 1.19 1.33 2.05 1.8* 3.0* 0.30
Exhaust ICt 0.8* 1.0* 1.4» 1.1* • l.» , 0.30
Cveporat ICl 0.15 0.17 0.1* ' 0.17 0.90
Refuel L ICt 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.0*
Runing L ICl 0.25 0.25 0.34 0.2* 0.42
Bsting L ICl 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03
txhaust COt 11.0* 12.** 18.90 14.07 17.0* 1.44
Exhaust HOXt 1.2* 1.47 2.0* 1.45 3.74 1.0*
LXV phase-in begiaa ia 1994 ••OC* uaiog (12/17*2) midaaea Mama Credit*
ocal. rear: 2020 I/M Programi Ye* Ambieat Tempi 87.1 / (7.1 /
Anti-tarn. Programi laa oporatlag Madai 20.4 / 27.3 /
Reforautated Out we
il.l ij.|
0.005 0.0*4
0.8» 2.03
0.4* 2.01
1.41 11.17
1.24 4.5*
. ...
87.1 (r) Ragloat Lev
20.* Altitude! 30O.
"•-<— — Tempt 92.
iriod 2 start Trt 1*12
LOOT * not*
il.l " il.l
0.005 0.0*4
0.8* 2.01
0.8* 2.03
1.81 11.17
1.24 4.5*
87.1 (r) Kagiant Lev
20.* Altitadat 30O.
HI
O.OO4
'.42
L.85
3* 15
0.42
24.41
0.7*
rt.
(ft
MS
TTT^
0.004
4.9O
1.75
2.73
0.42
20.9*
0.7*
rt.
_____
1.83*
1. 24*
055.
. ««A
OAI a
. U1B
0 . 334
- 0.018
14.932
1.900
All vea
— •___
1.341
1 . 088
0.17*
0.017
~ 0.2 41
0.01*
12.141
1.90O
ored Ph2 (Vapor) m*1mimi Tempi 72. (r) Maslaam Tempi 92. If)
Period 1 RVfi 10. • Period 2 RV»: 7.5 Period 2 Stan Tri 18*1
0 Vea. Typai LBOV LDOT1 UXJTJ LD4» EDOV LOOV
vea. speed*: ti.l < 11.1 11.1 — — — TiTT" il.i
VMT Mixi 0.575 0.207 0.08* 0.034 0.002
ZXV rraett ' O.OO % 0.00 »
OCompojit* Emissioa raatara (Om/Mtla)
Kon-Meta 1C: 1.3* 1.42 2.20 1.80 3.02 0.3O
Exhau*t_IC: l.Oa 1.25 1.7* 1.40 1.85 0.30
Xvaporat BCl O.I* 0.14 0.1* 0.15 0.78
Refuel L act . O.OT O.Ot 0.01 0.03 0.08
Runing L ICt O.tO 0.1* 0.24 0.20 0.3O
Rlting L.»C! 0.0* 0.01 O.OS , 0.02 0.03 '
Exhaust CO: 13.4* 13.1J 21.1* 17.4* 20.8* > 1.44
Exhaust NOXt 1.2* 1.44 2.02 1.42 3.93 1.0*
LEV pnaae-ia begiaa la 18*4 •9»C* aaiam (12/1/9J) anldaaee Mama Credita
OCal. Yean 2020 I/M Programi Yea Ambient Tempt 87.1 / 87. i /
Anti-tarn. Programi laa operating Mode: 20. 1 / 21. i /
Reformulated o«ai Ma
OC* RTO (Vapor) Hinimaa Tempt 72. (P)
Period 1 RV»t 1O.5 Period 2 KVF: 1.9 p<
0 Veh. Typai LDOV LDOT1 LOOT2 LDOT RBSV LDBV
veh. speedai T371 T5TI — ITTI — ~ TTTJ — TTT7 —
VMT Mizi 0.575 0.207 O.OO 0.034 0.002
zxv rract: o.oo % O.OO %
OComposite lmis*ioa rector* (aa/Mila)
Moa-ttata ICl 1.25 1.52, 2.07 1.8* 2.73 0.3O
Izhauat ICl 1.02 1.2S .78 1.40 . 1.85 0.30
Xvaparae.aCl 0.11 0.12 .1) 0.11 0.48
Refuel L ICt 0.01 0.02 .03 0.02 0.05
Runing L ICl O.IO 0.10 .13 0.11 0.18
Rating L ICl 0.02 O.O2 .02 0.02 0.03
LDOV tdtft
il.l U.I
O.OOf 0.0*4
0.8* 2.01
0.8* 2.01
1.81 11.17
1.2* 4.3*
87.1 (r> Regioa: Lev
20.4 Altitude: 30O.
HajLijetat Tempi 92.
riod 2 start Yrt 1992
LOOT DOV
il.l 19.4
0.005 0.0*4
0.8* 2.01
0.8* 2.01
MC
il.l
O.OO4
4.73
1.8S
2.44
0.42
24.41
0.7*
rt.
(r)
MC
il.l
O.OO4
4.44
1.85
2.17
0.42
All Vea
— —
1 . 40*
1.245
0.155
0.014
0.175
O.Ot*
14.775
1.8*4
All Veh
1.50*
1.249
0.132
0.014
0.093
0.01*
-------
I
-------
Ixhauat CO:
mxi
13.83
1.23
15.9*
1.44
21.18
2.02
17. 49
20.38
3.33
1.44
1.09
1.61
1..24
11.17.,
S.5« ,
24.41
0.78
14.773
1.991
Olndalan* Fual
0 Valu Typai
+
van. spaadai
VMT Mix: .
!IV tract!
^zat£i,nrs:: E* °p^s«»5 SoS'
"--' .,; Fariod I RV»I
•-• -later .-•-. moji.
0/373
0.00 %
ocoi.po.ita emission Factors
Non-Math 1C:
exhaust 1C:
Ivaporat 1C:
• Raf u*l t ICl
Runino; t 1C:
Rstina t ICl
exhaust CO:
Exhaust HOXt
1.52
O.8*
0.21
0.01
0.3*
0.02
13.23'
1.0*
19.4
' 0.207
0.00 %
' (Sn/Mila)
1.7*
1.10
0.23
0.03
0.3*
0.02
13.45
1.2*
9.0
LOOT*
14.4 '"'
0.08*
2.34
1.34
0.24
0.03
0.32
0.0*
20.35
1.92
97.1
20.4
Minimum Tanp: 72.
Pariod 2 RVF: 9.0
LOOT ODOV
1.94
1.23 •
0.23
0.03
0.43
0.02
14.97
1.44
' TTT
0.
3.
1.
0.
0.
gf
22.
3.
T-
034
71
19
07
44
03
48
57
/ »7.t / 87.1 (r) Rafioa: tow
/'27.3 / 20.4 Altitttdai 300. rt.
(F) Maximo. Tamp: 92.
Farlod 2 start Its 1992
LDDV LDOT «BOV
•19. i
0.002
0.30
0* 30
1.44
1.0*
ii. t iJ.< "
0.005 0.084
0.49 2.03
0. 89 2.03 •
1.41 11.17
1.24 4.34
(r>
MC
TT:
0.
3.
1.
3.
0.
24.
, 0.
I—'
004
41
83
34
42
41
78 •
All vaa
1.789
1.114
0.242
0.018
0.374
0.01*
14.444
1.734
MO»Zt»S* (24-HBZ-93)
OI/M program **l*at«dt
O lt«ct y««r (J«nu»ry 1):
7r«-1981 Mint «trtng»ncy r»t»:
rtr»t wxtol y««r ao»»r«dt
L««t modal y««i cor«r>dt
»«tw«r rat* (pr«-1981):
»«i7«t t»t« (19*1 and namrl i
Caaqpllaae* !Ut»i
Ia*p*etio» typ«r
IniMatiea fraqnaaey
v.hiol* typ«* =ov»rtdl
20*
198«
,2020
3.%
3.%
9«.»
T««t only
Annual
UJOV - Yaa
LDOCT - Yaa
LOOT2 - t»»
mar - uo
IM40 t.»t
20.00O HOSt
1981 t latar MUt t*«t typ«:
, Cutpotnta, 1C: 0.80O COi
orunctional Chaek rrof cam D«oriptloai
ochaoK start Modal ft* v.hlola ci*»» Conn4
Co»«ra4 LIXJV LDdTl UXJTJ
Inapaotiom
Anawi
Anaoat
Ananai
rraaa 19»« 1983-2020 Y«» Ya« Y
Parga lt<« H84-J02O f*m r«a y
AW 1983 1981-2020 Y.a ¥•« y
y.T? •>**•» ^^ w,
rev lyitaat djja»laa«at«i Ha Mlaaiaa; am* capat
OKott-awtau* «C •Blaaim faoeon taclud. .raporaciT* K «aa«ate« faotaza.
» M T««« only
a Ho t*at only
. »y, T««t 0«1J
catalyaC r«»o»al»:
Tailpip* l«ad
ocal. r..r: 2029 I/M rro«ra
*n«t-ea«. rrafCMt xaa
luroowoatad a**< no
Olaaallaa rual... .
P«ciod 1 KV»i 10. S
o v«h. typat . torn uran mats
uttoata* salaadar
(12/1/12) ootdaaea
Opcxatta* Nodat
yaaz.
•aw cradita
87.1 / 87.1 / 87.1
20.4 / 27,3 / 20.4
(F) (aaioat tow
Altltoaal 30O.
v*a. spaadat
VMT Him: 0.575
ztv Fraot: 0.00 *
OCoMpaaita tfeiasioa Faotoza
0.207
O.OO %
Hon-Meta «Ci
exhaust let
Ivaporat let
Rafual t Ks
RuniBa- t Ki
Rstla* t act -
. exhaust cor
exhaust "WXi
0.94
0.71
0.0*
0.01
0.1*
10.4O
• 0.94
1.0*
, 0.**
0.08
0.03
:, o-.otfc-.
o.oi.:
I j.0»
0.08)*
1.2*
, 1.0*
-0.0*
,0.01
0.10
0.0*
' 15.27
fariod 2
uxn
1.10
0.8*
0.0*t
0.03
O.O*
. 0.0*
13.01
1.14 :
7*.
8.7
mav
3.4*
1.91
1.0*
0.07"
..." 0.5*
2*!<*
Fariod 2 start Tri 19*2
All Vak
0.001
0.50
0.50
1.44
1.0*
O.OOS
0.4*
0.4*
1.11
1.24
0.084
2.0J
2.03
11. IT
4.5*
0,004
9.4*
1.89
3.19
0.4*
24.41
0.78
1.1*0
0.91*
0.1*1
0.01*
0.119
0.01*
11.7*3
1.349
*«S*3&ZStt&gii^^
ocal, taart 20**.;'-- - T-^i/pi. vzearamt z«*> Aawlaat Taap: 87.1 / 47.i / 87.1
• „;- a***-****, tngnmt r*», oparatlnf Modat 20.4 / 27.3 / 20.4
-'•'- '' • «*J.t>8a»iTil8« aa»« T«a , Arm ciaaai c .
orad f haaa 1 rart]-, K - HiiOniT.pt 72. (r) MaxUuai Tawi »*.
a v.» T»-, '^»a»y-*t^?m*t 1?:*_ »«i«l » "W»: 8.0 Fariod * start Yzi 1991
0 va». Typai HHHfj tDOTl LOOCX LOUT SDOV LDDV LOOT
IF) Rafloat tow
Altitodai 5OO.
vaa. Ipaadai
VMT Kt»t ' 0.375
ZSV rnati O.OO »
oconpeaita tadLaalaa. Faotoza
Hon-Mctb 1C:
txhaoat ICl
ivaaazat *Ci
Rafnal L let
Runia« t Ki
Rstiaf t Ki
Kxaaiut COi
txsaoat HOKr
0.7*
0.41
0.04
O.OI
0.0*
0.02
*.<•
0.84
0.2O7
0.00 »
(«fc/HUa»
0.87
0.4*
0.0*
0.0*
0.07
0.0*
9.42
l.O*
0.081
1.0*
0.90
0.0*
0.03
0.0*
0.0*
12.2*
1.3*
0.94
0.74
0.04
0.03
0.07
0.0*
10.5*
1.14
3.09
1.49
0.90
0.04
0.4*
0.03
17.0*
3.7*
0.00*
0.30
0.3O
1.44
1.0*
1.41
1.24
2.03
2.03
11.17
4.9*
0.004
4.9O
1.75
2.73
0.4*
20.9*
0.7*
1.034
0.814
0.09*
0.017
0.087
0.01*
9.728
1.345
iza aa ot.JUiy 1st oi tka ladioatad' calaadax yaar
u la 1994 «»OT« uslaa (12/1/92) Ooidaaaa kk»> cr,
tiy phaaa-ia Baalaa la 1994 'tot* usta» (1J/1/**) Ouldaaa.
OCal. Yaar i 202O i/M Izoaxaau Yea
Aati-ta>. rzaacaau Yaa
or*d ra* (Vapor)
Fariod 1 KWt 10.9
opazatla*
Credit*
87.1 / 87.1 /
20.4 / 27.3 /
I (« .
* Altit
Fariod. 2 atart
I taw
too.
92.
Yri 1991
rt.
<»»
-------
-------
0 Vak.
LDSV
LDOT1
LBOT2
LOOT'
HDGV
Van." Ipaadat
Z«v rraott
it. I
0.97S
3.00 »
o!207
. 0.00 %
nrr-
0.0**
• 19. i
0.034
T*^" n^~ rrr-
0.002 0.009 0.0*4
OConpeait* «mi«»io« raotor* «M/Milni
• non-Math
txhauat
tv«por»t
Rafual L
Kunln? L
1C:
act
ICr
aci
ac: ' .
R*tin« {.act
tx&auat cot
Ixhauat MOXi -
0.«T .
o.n ,
0.04
O.OI
. - 0.01 •"-
0.02;
10.92
0.92
0.9*.
0,81
0-.09
- 0.02 •'•"
0,0*
0.02
11.94
1.02
1.21
1.09
0.09
0.03
• 0.0«
O.02
19.19
, 1.37
1.03
o.a*
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.02
12.91
1.12
3.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
20.
3.
02
89
05
30
03
88
93
0.30 0.«» j.os
0.90 0.8* 2.01
1.44 1.S1 n.
1.09 1.24 , 8.
17 •':•
34
HC
Li.t ""
O.OO4
4. 73
1.89
2.4*
0.42
24.81
0.7*
All Van-
1.101
0.91*
o.oss
0.01*
0.018,'
11.42*
1.39*
v.h. apaadat
• VMT MUt:
- ziv meet
ocoiipaiita taiai
Nen-Matk 1C:
txhauat 1C I
Ivaparat let
Ralual L Id
Runing L sci
luting L Kt
Ixbauit cot
tzbaaat MOJO
T57S —
0.979
0.00 %
•ioa factor*
o.ai
0.71
0.09
0.01
0.04
0.02
la. 92
0,92
t9.<
0.207
O.OO %
(aayitUa)
0.93
0.81
0.03
0.02
0.04
11^94
1.02
m —
0.0**
t!os
0.04
0.01
0.04
O.O2
13.19
1.37
__^^
1.01
o!o9
0.02
0.04
0.02
12.91
1.12
T9T
a.
2.
I.
0.
0.
0.
0.
20.
3.
J
9
034
79
89
«4
09
14
O3
8*
99-
•
0.002
0.30
0.90
1.44
1.0*
— ww*
iJ.4
o.oos
a'.st
1.81
1.24
•B0V
o!o*4
2.03
2.03
11.17
4.9*
MB
•it.i "
0.004
4.44
1.89
2.17
0.42
24.81
0,7*
All V.h
—
1.083
0.918
0.072
0.014
0.042
0.01*
*7.1 (f) Kaaloa.1 Lo.
20.4 Altito«tai 900. ft.
0.0*4
0.004
Hoa-Mctk Ki
Ixkaiu« let
Ivapont tc:
R»fi»l t, let
Kunlaf L ICi
R»tta» L let
Utetue cot
O.*7
o.(2
0.0*
o.ot
0.13
0.02
10.20
0.93
0.7O
0.0*
0.01
0.10
0.02
11.80
0.9O
1.17
O.tt
0.0*
0.03
0.11
0.02
14.70
1.23
1.00
0.77 '
0.0*
0.03
0.10
0.02
12.93
1.00
3.71
1.74
1.1*
O.OT
0.44
0.03
22.4*
3.97
0.90
0.90
1.44
1.0*
0.4*
0.4*
1.41
1.24
,2.01 9.41
2.01 1.S9
3.34
0.42
11.17 24.41
4.9* . 0.7*
All V«k
1.121 '
. 0.827
0.131
0.014
0.127
• 0.01*
11.3*0
MOSiLISa (24-Mar-*3>
OI/M program lalaotadt
y««
Pt«-19*l Mm .triag.nay
first nodal y«r cor«n
La*e nod4a y««r oorcndt
»«i»«r cat* (pi»-194t)i
w«i».r r«t« (1941 u Madat 20.8 /
37.1
J7.3
97.1
20.4
If) Raaiam Lev
Altituda. 100.
i Tanctt 72.
»ario« 2 XWt 8.7
LOOT mov
ft 92.
f.ciod 2 (tare Ttt 19*2
LDOV UIOC 1DOV
1.10
0.4*
0.0«
0.01
3.49
1.91
1.0*
0.07
0.002
0.9O
0.56
O.OO*
0.4*
0.4*
0.0*4
2.01
2.01
9.42
1.8*
1.19
AU Vak
1.1*0
0.81*
0.121,
0.01*
-------
-------
Kuniaa L *C<
Rstina- L 1C <
Ixhauat cot
CxUu«t HOXI
0.12
0.02
10. SO
0.9*
0.0*
0.02
12.09
1.04
0.10
0.02
13.27
1.39
0.0»
0.02
13.01
1.14
0.59
0.03
22. 66
3.7*
1.44
1,09
1.61
1.24
11.17
8.3*
0.42
24.81
0,7*
,0.119
o.oi*
11.793
1.383
oc*i. Yaan 2020 I/M rroarm (••
Aatl^am. rrograat ¥••
Xafoonlatao: Su< Ya«
or.d rha*a i ru*i
rariod 1 KV*I 10.3
0 Vah. Typat LDOV LDCT1 LDOX2
AmBiaat Taapi 87.1 / 97.1
Oparatin? Modal 20.6 / 27.3
ASTX Cla*ai C
Minianm T«pt 72. (T)
»ariod 2 RVTI 8.0
LOOT
HDOV
LBOV
/ 87.1 (f) xaoloai Lev
/ 20.« Altitudat 500.
Maxijuai Txtpi 12.
P«riod 2 Start Yrt 1991
ft.
All Vah
Vah. spaadai
i>. s li.i 14.1
:zv rrastt o.oo % o.oo %
OCenpoaita Imiaaion factor* (OB/Mila)
Non-Math ICl 0.79 0.97 1.09 0.94 3.0*
Exhauat ICl 0.61 0.8* 0.90 0.76 1.6*
Evaporat ICl 0.0* 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.90
Rafual L 1C1 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.0*
Runing L ICl 0.0* 0.07 0.0* 0.07 0.41
Ritina L 1C: 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03
Zxhauat COl 8.6* 9.82 12.2* 10.3* ' 17.0*
Cxhauat NOXl 0.94 1.04 1.39 1.14 3.7*
LIV phaaa-ia baaiaa ia 19*4 u»ina (12/1/9J) ouldaaea Maa» cradlt*
ocal. Yaari 2020 I/M Froaraan Yaa Anbiaat Tan*)i *7.1 /
Anti-tarn, rroaraax Yaa oparatiaa; Madai 29.1 /
Rafooralatad Oaai Bfc>
orad fhl I vapor) Hloiwa* Taapt 72. (
Pariod 1 KVTt 10.J Pariod 2 KWt 7.9
0 Vak. Typat LOSV LDOtl LOOK LOST ttOV
Vak. Spaadat U.I U.I U.I "~^~~ U.I
VMT Mill 0.979 0.207 o!o*9 o!o34
zrv rtaeti o.oo % o.oo %
oconpoaita cadaaioa raetor* (<3B/MUa)
Noa-Matk ICl 0.87 0.9* 1.21 1.03 3.01
txhauat ICl 0.71 0.81 1.09 0.8* 1.89 -
zvaporae ici • o.o* 0.09 0.09 o.ot 0.7*
Rafual L ICl 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.0*
Xuaiaf L ICl 0.07 0.0* 0.0* 0.0* - 0.30
Ratiaf L 1C I 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 O.OJ
Ixhauat COl 1O.9Z 11. »« 19.19 12.91 20.1*
txhauat HOXt 0.92 1.01 1.37 1.11 ' 3.9)
OCal. Yaari 202O , t/M frofraau Yaa Aatoiaat Taaa)i »7.1 /
Aati-taa. rroaramt faa Oparatia* Madai 2O.4 /
. RafooaalataaV Oast a»
OCA KT9 (Vapor) MieiaMk Taaaii 72. (
rariod 1 RVtt 10.9 Pariod 1 KV*t «.»
0 Vak. Typai LDOV LDOT1 LDOT1 LOOT . SOOV
vafc. Spaadat 14.4 U.I li.l • U.I
VMT Mizi 0.379 0.207 0.0*9 0.034
zrv rzaett o.oo • o.oo %
OCcMtpaaita taiaaioa raetor* (Ok/MU*)
Hoa-Matk ICl 0.*3 0.93 1.10 1.01 1.79
Ixhauat ICl 0.71 0.81 1.09 0.8* 1.89
Kraporat ICl 0.03 0.09 0.04 0.09 0.84
Rafual L ICt 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.09
Kundna L ICI 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04. O.I*
Mtiaa L ICl 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.03
Zxhaaat COl 1O.92 11.** 19.19 12.91 2O.4*
Cxhanat HOXI 0.91 1.01 " 1.37 1.12 3.99
0.30
0.30
1.44
1.09
;
87.1 /
27.3 /
r)
F<
LOOV
U.|
0.001
0.90
0.30
1.44
1.09
•
87.1 /
27.3 /
r>
n
LDOV
U.I
0.001
0.9O
0.3O
1.44
1.0*
0.8* 2.03 ,
0.8* 2.03
1.41 11.17
1.24 (.3*
87.1 tr> Kaqloai Low
20.4 Altitodci 900.
Muiatai Taafii 92.
iriod 1 ftart Yri 1992
LOOT , tDSPf
TTTt — tl.l ,
0.003 0.0*4
0.49 2.03
0.4* 2.03
"1741 11.17
1.24 (.3*
47.1 (r) lUfioai Lev
20.* Altitndai 900.
Maxlaam taaaii 92.
iriod 2 Mart tit 19*2
LOO* IDOV
U.I U.I
O.OOf 0.0*4
0.4* 2.03
0.6* 2.03
1.41 11.17
1.24 4.3*
4.90
1.79 •
• 2.73
0, 42
20.99
0.78
rt.
ir>
MS
^1 j
0.004
4.73
' l.*9
2.4*
0.41
24.41
O.7*
re.
(r»
HC
^1 1
O.OO4
4.44
1.89
2.17
0.42
24.41
0.7*
1.034
0.814
0.09*
0.017
0.087
0.018
9.729
1.369
All vak
'
1.1O1
0.91*
0.0*9
0.01*
0.0**
0.01*
11.429
1.393
All vak
'-
.0(3
.91*
.072
.01*
.041
.01*
11.42*
1.W3
la 19*4 uia« (13/l/*2> anioaaoa MBM Cradit*
I/M rrofnau YM Aaallaat Taaa>i (7.1 / 87.1 / (7.1 (r) lUftaaji Lav
Aati-«aB. rrovrajM XM oparatia* Modal 20.4 / 27.3 / 20.* Altittjdai SOO. rt.
Rafonaalata* Oaal Ma •
MlaianaB Taaa>t 72. (r> nailaiaa Taaa>t 92.
-------
-------
1 9«Jic I/M.
Output »il«j, Ail IMVm: "9001.
MOBILI3a (28-Mar-»3)
OI/H program selected* "
0 start year 1Jaauery 1)i
ST.-1991 MYR stringency -ratei
rtrst Tuwel year eoveredi
Last model year eoTeradi
Haider rat* lpre-1981)i
waiver rate (1981 and timer) i
Compliance Rate:
Inspection type:
Inspection frequency
Vehicle typea coverao.1
1981 < later MYR teat typet
cutpointa, acs 220.000 cot
1983
20*
2020
, 0.%
0.»
100. »
Test Only
Annual
LOSV - Yea
LOGTl - Yea
LDST2 - Yea
HDOV - No
2300 rpm /
i.:oo
rdla
999.000
OKon-nathana K eniaaion factor* include evaporative ac'emission factors.
ocal. Yaart 2020
OBaaeline ruel...
0 Veh. Typei
I/M Progremi Yes
Anti-tarn. Programi Mo
Reformulated Sast tea
Period 1 RVft 10.3
LDGV LOOT! LDOT2
tea calendar year.
Guidance nemo Cradita
Ambieat Tempi 87.1 / 97.1 / 87.1
Operating Model 20.8 / 27.3 / 20.4
IT) Regioni Low
Altitudei 300. rt.
Minima Tsjaat 72.
Period 2 RVTi 8.7
LOOT aBSV
ir> Maximum Tempt 92. (r)
Period 2 Start Yrt 1992
LDDV LOOT ZDDV MC
All vek
VMT Mixt 0.573 0.207
2SV rraott 0.00 %. 0.00 %
OCoapoaite Imiaaioa rectors «aa/MUo)
0.002
0.005
0.0(4
Hoa-Meta act 1.47 1.73 2.4* 1.9* 3.89 0.30 0.8* 203
Ixhauat act 0.90 1.13 1.7* 1.32 1.91 0.30 0 89 I'ol
tvaporat act 0.19 0.21 0.22 0.21 1 09
Refuel L act 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.03 0 07
Ruaing t act 0.33 0.35 0.47 0.3* o'.St
Rstiag 1 aci 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03
Ixhauat COi 12. 0< 14.15 21.33 18.30 22.8* 1.44 1.81 11 17
Ixhauat HOXi 1.15 1.35 . 2.0* 1.3* 3.78 l.o* i.ll ".S*
L«y phase-in begins ia 1994 »»OT« using (12/1/92) duldaaee Memo Credit*
OCal. Year! 2020 I/M Program! Yea Ambient Tempt 87.1 / 87.1 / 87.1 (r> Reeioet Lo.
Anti-tarn. Program! Mo operating Model 20.8 / 27.3 / 20.* Altitude, 30O.
Reformulated Seat Yea AST* Claaai c ~*««eai a»».
ored Phase 1 ruel Mialmm Tempi 72. (?) Maximum Tempi 92
Pariod 1 KV»i 10.5 . Period 2 «w»i ».o Period 2 start Yri 1991
0 Veh. Typei LDOV LDOTl LOOTS LOOT nXJV LDOV LBO*^ aDOV
Vfjtl. Sp*ACdelt • l^r^T™^ l^F^^^^™ Ty^F~ m -esBBBBBBaaamma. i , i _ i i,a ^emiemimaeM veeiweaiemm*
Son-Math ICl 1.2* 1.30 2.20 1.71 3.02 0.30 0.4* 2.03
Ixhauat act 0.90 1.13 1.7* 1.32 1.83 0.30 0 8» 2 03
tvaporat act 0.13) 0.14 0.1* 0.13 0.78
Refuel L act O.Ot O.OJ 0.03 0.03 0.08
Runing L act 0.1*) 0.1* 0.24 0.2O 0.30
Rating L act 0.0* O.OJ 0.02 0.02 0 03
Exhaust COi H.»7 14.0* 21.lt 14.1* 20.8* 1.44 1.41 11.17
ixhaust HCntt 1.13 1.32 2.02 1.33 3.93 1.09 I. It ,.3t
LIV phase-in begiaa la 19*4 •HOT* ualae; (12/1/92) Ouldance inn: credits
OCal. Yean 2020 t/M Progremi Yea Ambient Tempi 97. l 97.1 / §7.1 (r> Regioat Low
.Aati-tme,. Program! »o Operating Modei 20. s / :7.3 / :o.« Altltudet 300.
Reformulated Oaai »a
oc* M« (Vapor) Mialmiam Tempt 72. (PI Maxima* Tempt 92.
Period 1 KVTi 10. 5 Period 2 RVP: ».9 Period 2 Start Yri 1*»2
0 Veh. Typei . LDGV LDOTl UXJT2 LDOT SDGV LDDV LOOT BJDV
3.42
1.85
3.15
0. 42
24. <1
0.7*
rt.
MC
IT7J —
0.004
4.90
1.73
2.73
0.42
20.9*
0.7*
rt.
(r)
MC
im —
0.004
4.73
1.85
2 . 44
0.42
24.81
0.7*
rt.
if)
MC
1.730
1.15*
0.221
o.ou
0.334
0.01*
13.380
1.813
All Vek
1.483
1.00*
0.179
0.017
0. 241
O.Olt
11.027
1.813
All Vek
1.320
1.13*
0 • 139
0 . 01 C
0.011
13.433
1.79*
All Veh
veh. apeedai ii.l
VW Mix. 0.373 0.207 0.0*9
ZXV rraeti 0.00 % 0.00 *
OCoBpoaite baiaaioa raotora (Ok/Mile)
Soa-Metk act- 1.14 1.4O 2.07
Ixhauat ICl 0.9O 1.13 1.7*
Ivaporat act 0.11 0.12 0.13
Refuel L ICt 0.01 0.02 0.03
Runlna: L act 0.10 o.io 0.13
0.002 . 0.00*
1.80
1.32
0.13
0.02
0.11
2.73
1.85
0.58
0.03
0.18
0.30
0.30
0.4*
0.4*
2.03
2.03
4.44
1.8*
2.17
1.417-
1.15*
0.132
0.01*
0.095
-------
-------
Rating L «Ci
Exhaust Opt
lxh*u»t HOXJ
0.02
11.97
1.11
0.02
14. OS
1.32
0.02
21. IS
2.02
0.02
18.18
1.33
0.03
20.98
3.93
LEV ph.,.-ln b.,i«. la 1994 .MOT- Mitt, (12/1/92) suidanc. H«£
ocal. Y.ar: 2020 I/M Pro^ramt raa Ambiant Tampi 37.1
Anti-tarn, programt wo Oparatin, Modai 20.8
Xaformulatad Saat HO
OIndolana ruai
0 v«h. Typai
*
'/•h. Spaads i
VMT Mix:
IEV rract:
QCOTUpCSita K»^
Non-Math aci
Exhaust act
Eviporat ac:
Safual L HC!
tuning It act
Rstino- L ac:
Exhaust CO:
Exhaust HOX:
1 cnhancad I/t
Pariod I RVTt
LDOV LOOT1
0.573
0.00
1.42
0. 79
0.21
0.01
0.39
0.02
11.42
1.00
19. e
0.207
» 0.00 %
1.64
0.99
0.23
0.03
0.3S
0.02
13. S3
1.17
9.0
LDGT2
TTT3 —
0.08*
2.34
1.54
0.24
0.03
0.32
0.02
20.35
1.32
Minimum
Pariod
LDOT
1.J7
1.16
0.23
0. 03
0. 43
0.02
13.70
1.38
Tamp't 7 2 .
2 RVP : 9.0
RDOV
it. i
0.034
3.71
1.7«
1 > 19
0. 07
0 . 64
0. 03
22.48
3.37
1.44
1.09
C radio
/ 97.1 /
/ 27.3 /
I. SI
1.24
11.17
S.34
«7.1 (f) Ragiont Low
20. S Altitudat 300.
ID Maximum T
Pariod 2 stare
LDDV LDDT
19. «
0.002
0.30
0.30
1.44
1.09
tJ.4
o.oos
.O.S9
O.S9
1.S1
1.24
ampt 92.
Yr: 1992
aoDV
0.084'
2.03
2.03
11.17
8.34
0
24
0
rt
.42
.SI
.78
in
HC
IT
0
3
1
3
0
24
0
.004
.61
.33
.34
.42
.SI
.78
0.013
13.433
1.797
All Vah
1.694
1.041
0.242
0.018
0.374
0.018
13.142
I. 960
MOlILESa l2S-Mar-93)
OI/M program aalactadt
0 start yaar (January 1):
Pra-1981 MYK stringaney ratal
First nodal yaar covaradl
Last modal yaar eovaradt
waivar rata (pra-1981):
ffaivar rata ('1981 and name) t
Complianca Ratai
Inspection typat
Inspaotion Craquancy
Vahlola typaa covaradl
199<
20%
198S
2020
3.t
3.»
98.*
Taat Only
Annual
LD5V - Taa
LOST1 - ra*
UJOT2 - Yaa
aoov - HO
IM240 tart
20.000 HOZI
1981 i latar ttn taat typa:
Cutpolnta, let 0.300 COt
orunctioaal chaek Program Daaoriptiont
Ochack start Modal IT. vahiela claaaaa Cmarad
(Jaal) Covarad LDOV LOOVi LDOT2 DOV
Znap«otion
rra
Praia 199* 1983-2020 Yaa
Purcja 199« 1989-2020 Yaa
AT* 1981 1981-2020 Yaa
OAir pump lyataai diaatolaawata t
rual lalae raatrietoc UriM
tan diiablaawaet
PCV >y>taa
Yaa
Yaa
Y.a
Ya» Ha Taat Only Annual
Yaa No Tact Only Annual
Yaa Ho Taat Only Annual
Ho Catalyst raanarala t
Yaa Tailpip* laad aapoait taatt
No traporatira syrtaai dlaaBlaaMatai
Mo Hiaain, ,aj) oap«i
:-«Mthana 1C aaa»ioa faetOM iaelud* a^aporatln 1C aa>i«aioa factor*.
94.0*
94.0*
Yaa
Ho
Ho
No
ni 7 Ph"»-iB »•«*'>• la !»*« •*«« u«ln« (12/1/92) auldaaca Mama cradita
ocal. faari 2020 I/M Program! Yaa Ambiaat Tampi 37.1 / J7.l / 37
Anti-tarn. Program! Yaa Operating Modai 20. S / 27.3 / 20
Razormulatad aaai Ho
OSasalina rual... Mi nimai Tampi 72. If)
0 Vah. Typai
+•
VMI Miii
zxv rractt
Pariod 1 KVFi
LOOV LOOT!
19.1
0.375
0.00 »
l».i
0.207
O.OO %
OCatpoaita Imiaaioa raotora (QaWatlla
(Ion-Math let
Exhaust ICt
Evaporat let
Ratual L act
Runing L let
Rsting L ICt
Exhaust cot
Exhauat HOXt
LEV phasa-in
0.81
o.so
0.0*
0.01
0.12
0.02
3.92
0.31
0.90
0.3*
0.0*
0.01
0.0*
0.02
10.1*
0.91
10.5
LSOTI
rn —
0.08*
)
1.21
. l.OS
0.0*
0.01
0.10
0.02
15.27
1.3*
Pariod
LOOT
1.01
0.80
0.0*
0.01
0.0*
0.02
11. S*
2 RVP! 9.7
EDSV
H.J
0.034
3.69
1.91
1.01
0.07
0. 3*
0.01
22. S4
. 3.78
.1 IF) Ragiont tow
* Altitudat 30O
MaxlMna ¥••«• t9 .
Pariod 2 start
LDOV LOOT
19.1
0.002
0.30
0.30
1.44
1.09
H.l
o.oos
0.4*
0.6*
1.31
1.24
Yrt 19*2
1DOV
H.l
0.0*4
2.01
2.01
11.17
3.3*
rt
C)
1C
rr
0
3.
1.
3.
0.
24.
0.
I—
004
42
95
15
42
31
78
All Vaa
1.101
0.82*
0.121
0.01*
0. 115
0.01*
10.411
1.478
tora ara aa at Jaly lat at taariadleatad calandar yaar. ~~~ ~~~~ "~ ^^~~~"~ ~~ — — ____
baa***) la 19*4 'tat* oalaaj (12/1/92) suidanca Hamo cradits
OCal. Yaari 2020 I/M
Aatl-tam.
orad Phasa 1
0 Vah. Typat
4.
Vah. spaadat
VWT Mlxt
ZXV rractt
OComposlta Km
Hon-+4ath ICt
Exhauat 1C i
Evaporat let
RaCual L ICt
Runing L ICt
Rsting L let
Exhauat COt
Exhaust MOXt
LEV phasa-la
naraaaaii
rual
trogrami
tta«t Oaai
Yaa
Yaa
Yaa
Ambiaat
Operating
ARM
Tamp 37.1 /
Moda 20. S /
Clasa c
97.1 / 87
27.3 / 20
1 (T} Ragloat Low
4 Altitudat 300
KiniJitam Tamo 72. ir) u.<1.« r.
rarioal 1 KV»I
LOOT L&m
o!s73
O.OO %
issloa ractors
0.70
0.51
0.04'
0.01
0.09
0.02
. 7.2*
0.81
oagiaa in 19*4
ocal. Yaari 2020 I/M
0.207
O.OO %
10.5
LOOT*
19.4
0.0**
Pariod
LOOT
2 KVT 9.0
1DSV
0.034
Pariod 2 start
LDOV LOOT
rn —
0.002
TT7I —
0.003
aspi 92.
Yrt 1»»2
mov
H.t
0.084
rt.
(D
MC
All Vak
li.l
0.004
IQa/MUa)
0.74
0.3*
0.04
0.02
0.07
0.02
1.2S
0.91
July lat
•sror* u
rroarmmi
Anti-tarn, rrovramt
Ratormolatad Oast
orad »h2 (V.p.
«>
1.0*
0.90
0.0*
0.01
0.0*
0.02
12.2*
1.3*
0.38
0.6*
0.0*
0.01
0.07
0.02
9.48
1.04
of tka ladioatad'
•iaa; (12/1/92) 9ul
Yaa
Yaa
Ho
Amkiaat
oparatlaa
KLaiaw
3.39
1.53
0.90
O.OS
0.42
0.03
17.09
3.74
0.30
0.50
1.44
1.09
3.69
0.69
1.41
1.24
2.03
2.01
11.17
4.3*
4.
1.
2.
0.
20.
0.
90
73
73
42
9*
7*
0.994
0.734
0.09*
0.017
0 087
0.01*
3. SOS
1.47*
calandaz yaar.
daaea Mamo cradita
Tampt 37.1 /
Hodat 20.6 /
Taaatt 72. II
87.1 / 17.
27.3 / 20.
)
1 IF) Xaajl
ami Lam
4 Altltudai 9OO.
MuiMam ra
m*>i 92.
rt.
(F)
-------
-------
0 vah. Typai
P.riod 1 RVP:
LDOV' LDOT1
. i • ^— -^^-•—
v.h. Spaadai i?.«
vwr Mix: 0.373
3IV Tract: 0.00 %
ocorapoait. Biissloa raatora
Son-Math EC:
Jxhaust 3C:
Evvporat ac:
P.fual L HC:
Runina L ac:
Rjtina L aci
Exhaust CO;
Exhaust MOX:
LIV phasa-in
OCal. Y.ar: 2
0.75
0.40
0.0*
0.01
0.07
0.02
3 . 39
0.31
10.3
LDOT2
P.riod
LOOT
1.9.6 19.4
0.207 0.099
0.00 %
(SM/Mila)
•e.34
0.59
0.05
•3.02
O.OS
0.02
10.09 .
0.90
1.21
1.05
0.03
0.03
0.08
0.02
13.15
1.37
0.95
0.30
0.05
0.03
0.08
0.02
ll.il
1.04
2 RVT: 7.3 Pariod. 2 Start Yr: 1992
UDOV LDDV LOOT BDDV
0.034
3.02
1.33
0.13
0.09
0.30
0.03
20.38
3.93
B.glns in 1994 'MOT* using (12/1/92) Ouidanoa Masjo
020 I/M
Anti-tax*.
R.f omuls
oc». RJTO (Vapor)
0 vah. Typai
v.li . Spaads t
VMT Mixi
ZXV rrauti
Paric
LDOV
, i j
19.9
0.373
0.00 %
OConpoaita mission ractora
Hon-Meth act
Ixhauat act
Cvaporat aci
Rafual L aci
Runina L act
Rstina L ac:
Cxhauat COl
Ixhauat MOXi
LIV phasa-in
0.72
O.SO
0.03
0.01
0.04
0.02
3.89
0.91
bagina in 1994
OCal. Yaar: 2020 ' I/H
Anti-tan.
RaforsMila
Program!
Prograxu
itad Gaai
id 1 RVpi
LOST1
0.207.
O.OO %
(S»/M«a)
0.91
0.99
O.OS
0.02
0.04
0.02
10.09
0.89
Taa
Taa
Ho
10.5
LDOT2
TTT3
0.089
1.18
1.05
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.02
15.15
1.37
Aabiant Taapl 87.1
Op. rating Modal 20.6
Miniauai
Pariod
LOOT
0.92
0.80
O.OS
0.02
0.04
0.02
11.81
1.04
i Taitpt 72.
2 RVT; 9.9
aosv
T573
0.034
2.73
1.85
0.9*
O.OS
0.19
0.03
20.88
3.93
•HOT* unina (12/1/92) suldaaca Maaso
Program
Proazaaii
tad OAa i
Yaa
Ya*
Mo
Olndolana rual
0 Vah. Typai
Vah. Spaadai
VMT Mixi
ZXV rractl
OCoapoaita «*.
Hon-Hath ICi
Ixhauat act
ivaporat aci
Rafual L act
Runina L act
Rstina L aci
Exhaust COf
exhaust HOXt
Pario
LDOV
19.4
0.375
0.00 %
Laaion ractora '
0.7*
0.33
0.09
0.01
0.13
0.02
8.39
0.72
d 1 RV»I
LDOT1
ITT?
0.207
0.00 »
lOa/Ktla)
0.81
0.90
0.0*
0.03
0.10
O.OZ
9.79
0.79
9.0
LDOT2
TTT?
0.0*9
1.17
0.92
•0.0*
0.01
0.11
0.02
14.70
1.23
Aabiaat
oparatiag
Minisvaa
P.riod
LOOT
0.93
0.70
0.09
0.03
0.10
0.02
11.2*
0.92
Taap: 87.1
Modal 20.9
Taayi 72.
2 RV?i 9.0
aoov
im —
0.034
3.71
1.78
1.19
0.07
0.9*
0.03
22.4*
3.37
ifTi
0.002
0.30
0.30
1. 44
1.09
Cradita
/ 87.1 /
/ 27.3 /
ir>.
P«
LDOV
TTT3 —
0.002
0.30
0.30
1.44
1.09
cradita .
/ 87.1 /
/ 27.3 /
(r)
p<
LDOV
TTT3 —
0.002
0.30
0.50
1.44
1.09
13TS
0.003
0.49
0.59
1.61
1.24
0.034
2 .03
2.03
11.17
6.38
87.1 (T} Xagioai Low
20.8 Altitudat 300.
Maxlxtum T
iriod 2 start
LOOT
0.005
0.99
0.99
1.91
1.24
97.1 (r) xa?
astpi 92.
Yri 1992
aoov
19.6
0.0(4
2.03
2.03
11.17
9.34
ioai Low
20.9 Altitudai 3OO.
Maxijana T
iriod 2 start
U»T-
19.4
o.ooa
0.49
0.99
1.91
1.24
aasai 92.
Trt 1991
aoov
it.!
0.0*4
2.03
2.01
11.17
8.3*
HC
All Vah
19.6
0.004
4.
1.
2
0 .
24.
0.
rt.
(r)
HC
0.
4.
1.
2.
0.
24.
0.
rt.
(f >
HC
T7T
0.
3.
1.
3.
0.
24.
0.
73
93
40
42
41
78
f—
004
44
95
17
42
41
7*
.—
004
41
85
34
42
41
78
1.012
0.327
0 . 085
0 01 6
o ' rti «
10.297
1.469
Ml V«b
0, 974
0.827
0. 072
O.Ola)
0 . 042
0 . 018
10.297
1.4<8
All V*»h
1 . 04*
0.731
.0.133
O.Olt
0.127
0.019
10. Ot*
MOBILXSa, (28-Ma.r-93>
OI/M proaraa lalaetadt
0 start yaar (JaAU«ry 1) t
Pra-1981 K»* itrinaaney ratal
rir*t nodal yaac covaradl
Laat taodal yaar covaradl
Kaivaz rata lpra-1981)i
ffaivar rata (19*1 and nawax)I
Ccnpliaae4i Ratal
tnsp«ctioa typ«t
Inapaction fraquaney
Vabicia typaa covaradt
199*
20%
198*
2020
3.%
3.%
9*.%
Taat Only
AnnuavL
LOOV - Yaa
LDOT1 - Yaa
LBOTI - Yaa
1DOV - Ho
IM240 taaC
20.0OO HOmi
1981 I latar MTC ta»t typaii
Cutpointa, 1C: 0.90O CO!
orunetional chaofc Proa^am oaaoripti.oat
OChack Start Model Yra v.aiola Cl*aaa» Corarad
(Jmnl) cov«x«at . LDOV LDOT1
Inapaetion
Typa rraa eapa:
•atiaaioa factors iaolodai araporativa ac ualssion factors.
Rata
94.0%
94.0%
98.0%
T.a
Ho
Ho
OEjkissionfactors«ra as of Julylst ot tha indlcatad cal.ndar y..r.
LIV phasa-ln 5.gins in 1994 usiaa 112/1/92) Suldanca naam cr.dits
OCal. Taar: 2020 r/M Prograaii Yaa Aaubiant T~tpi 97.1 / 47.1
Anti-taai. Prograaii Yaa 3paratina Modal :0.4 / 27.3
R.fomulatad Gaai Mo
OSaaalina rual... Mitlixusa TaBp: 72.
-------
-------
Refuel L act 0.01 0.03 0.03
Runing L (Ci 0.12 0.0* 0.10
Rating L ICl . 0.02 0.02 0.02
Zxhauat COl 3.84 4.58 15.27
Exhauat NOXI 0.2* 0.38 1.39
LIV phase-in begin* la 19*4 u*ing (12/1/92)
OCal. Year: 2020 I/M Program! Yea
Anti-Cam. Programi Ye*
Reformulated sail Ye*
Orad Phaia 1 ruel
Period 1 RVft 10.9
0 V«h. Type! LDOV LDGT1 LOOT2
^rfrS! IjoN *s:?r% l°;°8S
Non-«eth act 0.28 0.29 1.0*
Ixhauit ac: 0.10 0.12 0.90
Evaporat ICl 0.04 0.04 0.04
Refuel L.act o.oi 0.02 0.03
Runing L act 0.09 0.07 0.0(
Rating L act 0.02 0.02 0.02
Exhauat COt 3.07 3.45 12.28
Exhauat HOTt 0.24 0.38 1.39
Ltv pha>a-in begin* in 1994 u»ing (12/1/92)
OCal. Yean 2020 I/M Programi Ye*
Anti-tarn. Programi Yea
Reformulated 3a*t Da
ored Ph2 (Vepor)
Period 1 KVtl 10.5
0 Vah. Typai LDOV LDOTt LOOT3
+
Veh . 5|iear1* t 19.4 19.4 19.4
VMt Mixt 0.979 0.207 0.08*
zxv rraoti o.oo % o.oo %
OCcnpoiit* Imi**ion raetora
. O.J3
0.39
0.04
0.03
0.07
0.02
4.23
0.48
Suidaao* I
operating
Hinimian
Period
LOOT
0.97
0.41
O.OS
0.01
0.0*
0.02
7.72
0.47
2 RVPt 8.0
HDOV
' T"ST"T~—
19.4
0.034
3.09
1.S8
0. 90
0.04
0.42
0.03
17.0*
3.74
Mama Credit*
Tempi 87.1
Modai 20.4
Tempt 72.
2 RV»! 7.9
aoov
o!o34
3.02
1.85
0.78
0.04
0.3O
0.01
20.1*
3.91
/
/
87.1 /
27.3 /
37.
20.
/
/
Pi
LDDV
19.4
0.90
0.50
1.44
1.09
87.1 /
27.3 /
iric
. 1 (r) Region! Low
4 Altitude i
Maximum Tempi
>d 2 Start Yrt
300.
92.
199Z
LOOT SDDV
87.
20.
(P)
19. e 19.
0.005 0.
0.4* 2.
0.4* 2.
1.41 11.
1.24 4.
1 (T) Region i
4 Altitodat
Maximtae TemBt
T
084
03
01
17
54
Lo*
500.
M-
Period 2 Start Yrt 19*2
LDOV LOOT ICBV
0.002
0.50
0.50
1.44
1.0*
19.4 19.
0.009 0.
0.4* 2.
0.4* 2.
1.41 11.
1.24 4.
4
084
03
03.
17
9*
rt.
(f)
MC
TT:
0.
4.
1.
2 .
0.
20.
• 0.
rt.
(T)
MC
ITT
0.
4.
I.
*
0.
24.
0.
1
004
90
75
73
42
99
78
1
004
73
85
.«
41
7*
Ail
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
All
o
o
Q
g
g
S
1
Veh
.921
.401
. 098
.017
. 087
.018
.223
.038
Veh
• 820
• 433
* 045
010
• 066
• 018
.233
.038
tluidaaoe Mama Credit*
Ambleat
operating
Minimum,
Pariod :
LOOT
Veh. speed* i 19.4 1*.4 19.4
VMT Mixi 0.379 0.207 0.0(«
ZtV rraoti 0.00 % 0.00 %
ocompo«it* tmiaaion rector* (am/Mile)
Hon-*4eth ICt 0.24 "'0.24 1.18
Ixhauat ICl 0.12 0.14 1.09
xvaporat act 0.03 o.os 0.04
Refuel L Kt 0.01 0.02 0.03
Runing L act 0.04 0.04 0.04
Rating L act 0.02 0.03 0.02
Exhauat cot 3.81 4.94 15. IS
Xxhaoat »OXt 0.29 0.37 1.17
Ltv phaae-ia bagia* ia 19*4 naiag; (12/1/92)
ocal. Yean 2020 I/M Programs Y«a
Anti-tarn. Progimmt Yo*
Reformulated 3a*l ami
OIndolaaa ruel
Pariod 1 KV»t 9.9
0 vek. Typai IDO* Loan UJeTi
+ . — -
veh. speedai 11. J 11. 1 U.I
VMT MiJtl 0.97» 0.207 O.OIf
2ZV rraoti O.OO * 0.00 %
OCompoait* tmi«*lam fa 441818 (ae/Mlle>
Hon-Meth act 0.1* 0.3S 1.17
Xxhauat act • 0.14J 0.12 0.92
Ivaporat ICl 0.0» 0.0* 0.0*
Refuel L act O.OI 0.03 0.01
Ruaing L act 0.13 0.10 0.11
R.ting L act 0.02 0.02 0.02
Exhaa*t COl 3.4* 4.41 14. 7O
Exhauit NOXI 0.22 0.31 1.23
0.94
0.41
O.OS
0.03
0.04
0.02
7.72
0.47
Tempt 87.1
Modal 20.*
Tempi 72.
i RV»! 4.9
aoov
TTTJ
0.034
2.79
1.89
0.4*
0.05
0.14
0.01
20.88
3.99
/
/
87.1 /
27.3 /
87.
20.
(T}
P<
LDOV
TTT8 —
0.002
0.30
0.30
1.44
1.0*
trio
1 (r) Ragloai
4 Altltodai
Maximum Tempt
•a 2 start Yrt
LOOT as
ITT3 — r»T
O.OOS 0.
0.4* 2.
0.4* 2.
1.41 11.
1.24 4.
Low
9OO.
92.
1992
OV
T~
0(4
03
03
17
8*
rt.
...
MC
T77
0.
4.
1.
2.
0.
24.
0.
|—
004
44
85
17
42
41
7*
All
0
o
o
o
o
o
4
1
V.h
. 382
.435
.072
. 042
.018
. 233
.038
auidaaoe Mama Credit*
Ambieat
Operating
Minimum
Pariod :
LOOT
0.4O
0.34
0.0*
0.01
0.10
0.02
7.4*
O.<0
Tempt 87.1
Modal 20.4
Tempt 72.
t «V»t 9.0
. aoov
rm —
0.034,
3.71
1.74
1.19
0.07
0.44
0.03
22.48
3.57
I
1
87.1 /
27.3 /
87.
20.
1 (r) Kagioai
4 Altitodai
(r) Maximo* Tammi
P«
LDDV
T77S —
0.002
0.30
0.30
1.44
1.0*
iria
d 2 staxe Yri
Lo»
300.
92.
1*92
LOOT aoov
i». < IT:
0.009 0.
0.4* 2.
0.4* 2.
1.41 11.
1.24 .4.
T—
084
03
01
17
54 '
1%.
(P)
MC
tr:
0.
3.
i.
3.
0.
24.
0.
7^
004
41
as
34
42
78
All
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
V.fc
.704
. 4O«
. 133
.018
. 127
-Oil
.135
.987
-------
-------
I laala I/H.
MOIILXS* <24-4tar-93>
Or/M program «al«ctadt
0 start yaar (January 1):
Pra-lS81 M*K atringaney ratal
rlrJt modal yaar covaradt
L*«t modal yaar covaradt~
Haivar rata (pia-U»l) i
naivac ra'a (19*1 and nawar)t
contplianca Ratal
Inipaetion typat
Inspaction fraquancy
Vaaiela typaa covaradt
1991 • latar MXX taat typ«i
cutpointj, 1C: 220.000 coi
Output -Fil*j, All OL«V«: "9001.ULV
1993
20%
1558
2020"
0.%
0.%
100.%
T««t Only
Annual
LDOV - Yaa
LDCT1 - raa
LOOTS - raa
HDOV - HO
2300 rpm /
1.200 H0*l
Idla
991.000
.OHon-Mthana 1C amiision factor* Ineluda .vaporatlva le'amijaioa factor..
ucu. raari 2020
Olaaalina rual.. .
0 vah. Typai
Vah. Spaada t
VMT Mixt
ziv rractt
I/M Program!
Anti-tarn. Program!
Raformulatad Out
Pariod 1 RVFt
LOSV LDOTl
O.S7S
0.00 %
OCompoaita Imiaaion factor*
Non-Math ICt
txhauat let
Ivaporat ICi
Rafual L act
Runing L act
Rsting L let
txhauat . COt
Ixhaiut KOXl
1.44
0.87
0.19
0.01
0.33
0.02
12.0*
1.13
LIV phaia-in bagia* in 1994
ocal. Yaar i 2020
Orad Pha«a 1 rual
9 Vah. Typct
+
vah. spaadat
VMT Mixt
ZIV Fractt
OCoapoalta imiaaic
Son-Math ICi
txhauat ICi
tvaporat ICt
Rafual L 1C;
Runing L let
Rating L ICi
Ixhauat cot
Ixhauat NOXt
0.207
0.00 %
1.70
1.10
0.21
0.03
0.33
0.02
14.13
1.33
•WOT* u*
I/M Programi
Anti-tan. Programi
Raformulatad saat
Pariod 1 RVFt
LDSV LO3T1
i9.4
0.373
0.00 *
ra ractora
1.17
0.74
0.13
0.01
0.23
0.02
9.4*
1.13
iH
0.207
0.00 %
(Om/Mlla)
1.3*
0.92
0.17
0.02
0.23
0.02
11.31
1.33
Jni» 1.4 ,
ra«
No
No
10.3
LBST2
0.01*
2.4*
0.22
0.03
0.47
0.02
21.31
2.0*
Ameiant Tampt 87.1 / 87.1 / 87.1 (F) Ragiont Low
oparating Moda i 20.4 /27.3V 20.4 Altitudat 300.
Minimum Tamat 72. (F) ' Maximum Tampi 92.
Pariod 2 RVFt 9.7 rariod 2 start Trt 19*2
LOOT RDOV LDOV LOOT «DDV
m1 nr;
0.034 0.
1.93
1.2*
0.21
0.03
0.3*
0.02
14. 3O
1.3*
ing (12/1/92) auidan
Yaa
•a
ra»
1O.3
Loan
Ht j
o!o*»
2.03
1.49
0.1*
0.03
0.3*
0.02
14.90
2.04
Ambiait T«
operating Mo
ASTM Cla
Minima* Tat
3.49
1.91
1.09
0.07
0.39
0.03
22.44
3.7*
apt 87.
aat 20.
aai c
apt 72
Pariod 2 RVFt (.
LOOT BD3V
— — — •
1.3*
1.0*
0.17
0.01
0. 2*
0.02
12.9*
1.3*
^ jt ^
fl!o34
3.0*
0.9O
0.04
0. 42-
0.01
17.0*
3.74
4
002
0.30
0.30
1.
I.
44
0*
T9T1
o.oos
0.4*
1.41
1.24
0.0*4
2.03
2.01
11.17
4.3*
Ft.
(F)
MC
it.l
0.004
3.42 .
1.33
3.13
0. 42
24.41
0.7*
All Vah
1.723 .
1.133
0.221
0.01*
0.334
0.01*
13.380
1.911
i Cradita
t / 87.
4 / 27.
• (»)
1 /
3 /
«T:r (F) Raglomt to*
20.4 Altitudat 3OO.
liaitanai Ti
0 Pariod 2 xtut
LDOV LOOT
IT
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
1 —
002
30
30
44
0*
11 i
o!oo*
0.4*
0.4*
1.41
1.24
aaa)! 92.
rrt 1992
mov
H,l
0.0*4
2.01
2.01
•
11.17
4.34
Ft.
(F)
MC
\ A J
19 . a
0.004
4.90
1.73
2.73
0.'42
20.9*
0.7*
All Vah
__ __
1.442
0.9**
0.17*
0. 017
0.241
0.01*
11.027
1.813
LIV phaaa-in bagina in 19*4 -HOT* uaiag (12/1/92) Ouiduoa Mam* Cradita
""" */•« Program! raa AmbiaM Tam*>i *7.l / 87.1 / 87.1 (F) Kagiomt Lev
lo oparating Hodat 20.4 / 27.3 / 20.4 Altitude! 3OO.
ocai. Yaart 2020
orad Fh2 (Vapor)
0 Vah. Typ«t
1 KWi 10.9
UXJCT LOOW
Kinimm Ta.pt 72.
fariod 2 RV»i 7.3
LOO* BXJV
IF)
92.
rrt 19»2
Vah. Spaad*!
VMT Hix:
ZIV Fractt
0.373
O.OO »
OCcnpoaita tmliaioa ractora
Non-Math 1C t
Ixhauat ICi
Ivaporct 1C i
Rafual L let
Runing L ICi
Rating L ICi'
Ixhauat COt
txhauat tfOXt
1.22
0.»7
0.1*
O«l*t-~
0.0*
11. »T
l.iJ
ii.l
0.207
O.OO •
H.i
o.ot*
ITT"
0.034
O.OO2
o!oos
li.i
0.0*4
TT
0.
T—
004
— — —
(Om/MU«>
1.47
1.10
0.14
0.02
0.1*
0.02
14. OS
1.32
2.20
1.74)
0.1*
0.01
0.24
0.0*
21.1*
2.02
1.4*
1.2*
0.13
0.01
0.20
0.02
18.1*
1.31
3.02
1.83
0.78
0. 04
0. JO
0.03
20.98
3.93
0.30
0.30
1.44
1.09
0.4*
0.4*
1.81
1.24
2.01
2.01
11.17
9.3*
4.
1.
2.
0.
24.
0.
73
83
44
42
41
7*
1.493
1.131
0.133
*% i i«
v . 179
0.01*
13.433
1.79*
LIV pba.a-tn b*giu im 1994 'WOf tula* (12/1/92) auidanca Hamo Cradita
ocal. raari 2020
OCX RT9 (Vapor)
0 vah. Typat
vah. 5paadat
VMT Mixt
zrv Fraett
OCoapoalta Smiaaii
Hon-Math Ki
txhanac act
Ivaporat l^t
Rafual L Kt
Runing t let
Rating L ICt
I/M
Anti-tarn.
Raformulj
Program!
rrogramt
itad aaat
Pariod 1 RV»t
LDOV U30T1
19.4 ~ "
0.373
O.OO %
» Factor*
1.11
0.«7
0.11
0.01
0.10
0.02
19.4
0.207
O.OO %
(Om/Mtla»
1.3*
1.10
0.12
0.02
0.10
0.02
1mm
Bo
Ha
10.3
LD
17
42
All Vah
1.392
1.131
0.132
0.01*
0 > 093
0.011
-------
I
-------
txh«u.)t coi
fxfaaqjt HOXf
11.97
1.13
14
1
.03
.32
21.1*
2.02
18.18
1.33
. 20.38 • 1.44
3.95 1.09 "
1.81 11.17 24
1.24 , 8.5* 0
.81
.78
OCal P?l'Ir7i?olrin' ** ?£*.'*"* Mi"» 'l2/l/«> Sui^o.li.^'c'r.dit.
ocal. raar. 2020 t/H rrogrnt Yaa Asbiant T«p, 37. i / ,7.1 / 37.! (r> Ragioni LOW
^ESuEHS1, £ «*•«**••• «—• 20.8 / 27.3 / 20.9 Al^uda",1 -1oV rt.
Olndolan. rual " • , Minima Ta«p, 72. ,r. «axiau« ta«o, 92
o -,., _ Lo^-r^r- 2iS» "sg • -w-. «/•- - ir^v^a "1
VMT Mixt
ziv rzact!
19
0
' 0
OConipojlta eai»iion
Hon-Hath 1C i
Cxhauat HC:
Ivaporat Kt
Rafual L BCl
Runing L SCt
Kjting L BCl
Cxhauat cot
Cxhauat HOXi
1 cnhanead iVk.
.1
0
0
0
0
0
11
1
.9
.373
.00 »
Factor*
.39
.77
.21
.01
.39
.02
.82
.00
0.
0.
(<*>
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
13.
1.
,f^
207
00 %
I/Mil.)
62
98
23
03
39
02
83
17
19.
0.
2.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
20.
1.
^
08*
38
34 .
24
03
32
02
95
82
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0,
19.
34
14
23
03
43
02
70
0.
3.
1,
0.
0.
22.
3.
034 0.002
71 0.30
78 0.30
19
07
8*
03
4* - 1.44
37 1.0*
1*.« 19.9 TT.
0.003 0.084 . 0.
0.8* 2.03 3.
0.89 2.03 1.
3.
0.
1.81 11.17 .24.
• 1-24 8.3* 0.
7—
004
81
93
34
42
81
78
13. 433
1.797
All Vah
1.672
1.019
0.242
0.018
0.374
0.018
13.142
1.860
MOKLISa (28-«ar-93)
OI/M program «alaetadt
0 start yaar (January 1)i
Fra-1981 ttn rtringaney ratal
rtcit modal yaar cov«radi
talt aodal yaar eovaradi
»ai»ar rata (pra-19»l)t
waitrar rata (1S«1 and navarM
cc«plianca Ratal
Inipaetloa typat
Inipaotioa fraqaaaoy
v.biol* typaa coraradl
1999
20%
198*
2020
3.%
3.%
98.%
Taat Only
Annual
LOOV - raa
LDGT1 - Yaa
UK3T2 - Yaa
ItKJV - Ha
IH240 taa«
20.000 WOxt
1991 • latac ttn. tare typai
outpoint*, ici o.aoo cot i
orunotional Caae* rrogra* Oaaoripeio*!
OCbaek start Modal Yr» vaklola Claaaa* Corarad
(Jaal) Covarad LO8V loatl LOOM H3OV
2.000
tn»paotio
fraaa 1999 19«3-202O Ya»
Fur?a 1994) 1988-2020 Yaa
AT* 19(3 19*1-2020 Yaa
OAlr poai> >y>tam diaablaaHatai
rual Inlae raatrtetor di*a61a
(OK dttablaaaKti
FCV lyitaa dliablaanatai
OMon.
0
Aaaoml
Annual
Yaa Yaa. l*s Ta«c only
Yaa Yaa Ma taat Omly
Yaa Yaa Ha Taat Only
M> Catalyrt rawralai
atai Yaa Tailpipa l*ad dapoatt taati
M> IraporatlTa *yatam dlaablaai
Ma tttaaiaa; oaa oap«i
99.0*
9«.0»
9«.0%
Yaa
Ma
Ma
kaaa 1C i»io. factor..
OKmiaaiea. factor* ara aa of July Imk. ef feaa iadica^a^"5ST
ocil PYaar7la "***" ia l"* *"Or* Mia» (l»/l/*2) Oat.
Anti-tan, rragraau Yaa oparating
Karorxralatad oaat Ha
Oaaaallaa rual.
rariad l nvrt 10.3
o vah. Typai LDOV LDOTI LDOW
/ 27.3 /
87.1 (r) Kagioat tow
20.4 Altltndat 300.
Vak. Spaadat TTTt—
VMT MIX! O.S7S 0.207
2tv rraett 0.00 % O.OO %
OCoapoaita IBiaaioa ractora (Oai/MU«»
Hon-t»ata aci
txhanat Kt
Cvaporat let
Kafual L ICt
Runing L let
mting L *ei
txhauat COt
Cxhauat HOXi
0.80
0.37
0.0*
0.01
0.12
0.02
8.92
0.83
0.8*
0.9»
0.0*
0.03
0.0*
0.02
10.i«
0.91
0.08»
1.20
I.OS
0.0*
0.03
0.10
o.oa
IS. 27
1.3*
0.9*
0.77
0.0*
0.03
0.0*
0.02
11. (»
1.0*
3. ft
1.91
1.0*
0.07
0.5*
0.03
22.9*
3.7*
0.30
0.30
1.44
1.0*
0.4*
0.4*
1.91
1.24
2.01
2.01
11.17
8.5*
9.42
1.85
3.IS
3.42
24.41
0.7*
All vak
1.07*
3.801
0.121
0.01*
0.113
a. 01*
10.411
• 1.47*
^"^^^?T^^^^!;^*S^^/^^^a^"'1*.-w'?r.dita
QCal. Yaart 2O3O V/M •.—.^^H^. ir*~ . ^^ ^ _. _ _ -^-~
orad rhaaa 1 rual
o vah. rypat
Z/M
farlo* t »»»t
uxm
Ya«
Yaa
Yaa
10.»
LOOTS
oparating Modat
1 Claaat
rariad 2 RVT:
87.1
20.4
C
72.
8.0
87.1 / 87.1
27.3 / 20.8
(D
.
cxav
LDDV
(T) Kagloat Law
Altitudai 30O.
92.
19(1
rariod 2 stazt Yrt
vah. spaadai
VMI Kixi 0.571
ztv rracti o.oo »
ocoKpoaita CMi».loa raotora
won-Matk «Ci
Cxhauat ici
Cvaporat 1C;
Rafual L let
Runing L Kt
Kiting L Kt
Ixhanat COt
Cxhauat next
0.87
0.4*
0.0*
0.01
0.0*
0.02
7.2*
0.93
0.207
O.OO %
(OB/KUa)
0.73
0.33
0.6*
0.02
0.07
0.02
*.29
0.91
0.0**
1.09
0.90
0.0*
0.03
0.0*
0.02
12.2*
1.3*
0.034
0.002
o.oo*
0.34
0.8*
0.0*
0.03
0.07
0.02
9.4*
1.0*
3.09
1.68
0.90
0.0*
0.42
0.03
17.0*
3.7*
.81
24
0.0*4
2.03
2.03
11.17
8.3*
4.90
1.73 •
2.73
0.42
20.**
0.7*
0.934
0.713
0.09*
0.017
0.0*7
0.01*
8. 90S
1.47*
LXV paaaa-ia
OCal. Yaaxi 2020
orad rn2 (Vapor)
' ** °* JttJLT 1J* "' taa isdleata4 oaJLaadu y«ar.
!• 1M4 «»OT» aalaa} (U/l/92) Ouioaaoa Maa» Cradlta
t/M rrevrawli Yao »aaUaa« Twapt 17.1 / 87.1 / 87.1
Aatl-taai. rraozaau Yae
Karoaolatad Oaai Ma
rariad 1 KVTi 10.5
oparatiaa:
20.8/27.3/20.* Altitudai 300. r«.
aaai 92. (F)
'arlod 2 Mazt Yri 19*1
-------
I
-------
o v*jh. Typ«i > LOW LDQTI
*
V*lla • 3p*J*>
OI/H program .alaatadl
0 Start yaar (January 1)i
Pra-1981 HYR itringanoy ratal
rlr.t modal yaar ooraradi
Laat modal yaar co-raradt
wairar rata (pra-19*l)i
ffatvar rata U9«l and aamr) i
Compliance Ratal
Inapaetiom typal
£n.paotioa fraqoaaay
vabiola typaa eeraradi
1981 4 latar KTK taat typai tKS4a tact
cutpotat*, ici o.aoe cat 2o.04» momt
OFunotional Chaok Program Oaaorlpttomc
ochaek start Modal Yra Vaklel* eiwwaw Corarad
IJanl) Co
20%
1986
2020
3.%
3.%
94.%
Taat oaly
Anaul
LIXJV - r«a
UMRl - Yaa
LOOT* - Yaa
Xofpaetiom
rypa Praq
Praaa 1994
purga 19** 1*«*>-MM Yaa
ATT 1983 im-40t*> Ya»
OAlr pump .yrtam rltiatllamaatai
rual inl.e —-*rtrt««f -tt«a«tla
ISR diiablamaatl
PCV ly.tam dt«akl<
Ho
Taat only
Taat only
Taat Only
Annual
Annual
Annual
Ya» Yaa
Yaa Yaa
Yaa Yaa
Bo
mtai 1'aa Tailpipa l.ad aapo.lt taati
*> ITaporatira ayatam dliablamaatai
gaa oapai
OKoa-mataam* K .aa.aiam faoCara iaalod* avaporattva K amta.toa faotora.
Rata
94.0%
96.0%
94.0%
Yaa
Ho
Ho
M
oimtMtoa caetora ax* aa o< July lai ol tba ladieatad ealandar yaar.
LtV pha.«-in baaiaa ia 19*4 ualaa; (12/1/92) autdasea ttamo Cradlti
ocal. Yaari 2020
OSa.aliaa Pual..
0 Vaa. Tvpai
vak.
VMT Mtxi
ZIV Praoti
:/M Program! Yaa
Anti-tarn. Program! Yaa
Rafoanlatad 9aat no
Parted 1 KV*|
LOOV LDOT1
10.5
LIXTR
Ambiaat Taapi
oparating Modal
Minimum Tampi
Parted 2 KVTi
LOST 1C
87.1
20.4
(P) Ragtoai
Altitudai
72.
8.7
Parted 2 start Yri
V LDD*
Lo*
30O.
n.
1992
0.575
0.00 %
ocompoatta tmtaatem raotora
Hen Mata ICl 0.2*
Zxaaoat 1C: o.o*
Iv.por.c ici o.o*
Rafaal L ICi 0.01
0.207
O.OO %
(Om/MUa)
0.2*
0.07
0.0*
0.03
1.2*
l.Oi
0.0*
0.03
0.5*
0.37
0.0*
0.03
3.6*
1.91
1.0*
0.07
0.30
0.30
0.6*
0.6*
0.0*4
2.01
2.03
Pt.
MB All Vak
U.I
O.OO4
3.42
1.61
3.11
0.464
0.392
0.121
0.01*
-------
-------
Kuala? L ac:
R«tia» L act
txhauat CO:
Exhaiut HOXi
0.12 0.09
0.02 . , 0.02:
3.84 4.3*
0.2* 0.39
0.19
9.92
13.27
LtV phaia-ia baaiaa la 1994 Miaa; (12/1/92)
ocal. raar: 2020 I/M rrograat raa
Aatl-ta». Program: Va« '
Rafomiatad Saat Yaa
orad Phaia 1
0 vah. Typa:
'VKT Mix:
ZtV rract:
. OConpoaita fm
Hen-Math act
Ixhauat ac:
cvaporat ac:
Rafual L act
Runina L act
Rating L ac:
Ixhauat cot
Cxhauat HOXI
rual
Pariod 1 KVTt
LDOV LDOTl
0.373 0.207
0.00 % 0.00 »
19.3
LDOT2
9.09
= 0 . 02
7.79
0.88
Suidanea
Anbiaat
Opa rating
Mlniaaai
Pariod
LOST
m
0.099
9. 39
9. 93
22.88
3. 78
1.44
1.09
Maan cradit*
Taapt 37.1 / 87.1 /
Modal 20.8 / 27.3 /
Claia: c
Taapt 72.
2 KVTt 8.0
HDCV
o!934
87
20
1.81 11.17
1.24 8.38
.1 ir) mgiont LO*
.8 Altitudai 300
(r) Mariana Taapt 92.
Pariod 2 Start rrt 1992
LDOV LOOT .BDDV
ii.i
0.002
m rn —
0.005 0.084
0.42
24.81
0.7*
rt.
C)
. MC
19. i
0.004
- 0
.113
9.91*
8.327
1.93*
All
Vah
l»»ion ractora (OB/Mila) , .
0.24 0.24
0.09 0.04
0.08 0.98
0.01 0.02
0.09 0.07
0.02 0.92
3.07 3.89
0.28 0.3*
0.90
0.0*
0.03
0.0*
0.92
12.2*
1.39
LEV phaaa-ia bagina IB 1994 uaiaa; (12/1/92)
OCal. Yaart 2929 I/M Program fat
Anti-taa. Program: tarn
Raforaulatad Gaat No
orad rk2 (Vapor)
9 vah. Tvpat
Vah. Spaadat
VMT ttLxt
Z*V rract i
OCoapoaita Cai
Hon-Hath act
ixhauat act
Ivaporat act
Rafual L 1C!
Kuala* L act
Katiaf L act
Ixhauat cot
txhauat MOSt
Parlod 1 KVTt
LDOV Leon
im — im —
9.575 0.207
0.00 % 0.00 *
10.5
LDOT2
19.<
0.0*9
0.49
0.31
0.94
9.93
9.97
9.92
8.23
9.8*
suidaaca i
Aabiaat
oparating
3.99
1.8*
9 . 90
0. 04
0. 42
0. 93
17.9*
3.78
0.50
0.30
1.44
1.09
«aao cradits
Taapt 97.1 / 87.1 /
Hodat 29.8 / 27.3 /
Mialana Taapt 72.
Pariod 2 KVT: 7.5
LOOT' . SDOV
— — —
im —
9.934
0.89 2.03
0.89 2.03
1.81 11.17
1.24 8.5*
97.1 (F) Raaiont Lev
20.4 Altitudai 500.
ir» Maxima* Taa*» 92.
rariod 2 Start Yrt 1992
LOOV LOOT aoov
ITTJ —
0.002
14 | 4 1 J
*'»• t9t a
0.009 0.0*4
4.90
1.73
2.73
0.42
20.94
0.78
rt.
ME
i j j
19.8
0.004
0
'0
0
0
0
0
3
1
All
.382
.382
.09*
.017
.087
.01*
.225
.03*
Vak
••ion raetors (Sm/KUa)
0.22 0.22
0.0* 0.07
0.08 9.95
0.01 9.92
9.97 9."9*
0.92 9.03
3.81 4.54
0.25 0.37
1.21
1.05
9.09
0.03.
0.0*
0'.02
19.19
1.37
Lav pha»a-ln baola* in 1994 uaiaa; (12/1/92)
ocal. raart 2020 I/M Program: Taa
Aatl-taa. rroqraat Yaa
Katoraulatad Oaat Ho
OCA RTO (Vapor)
0 Vak. Typat
Vak. spaadai
VMT Mixt
ztv rraott
OCoapoaita Kai
Hon-Hath act
Ixhauat act
Evaporat act
Katual L act
Rualaa; L act
Ratiag L act
Ixhatut cot .
txhatut tract
LtV phaaa-ia
••i.
Parlod 1 KVTt
LDOV toon
i*.4 1J.4
0.375 0.207
0.00 » 9.00 *
aa raetora (aa/Mila)
9.1* 0.20
0.0* 0.07
0.05 0.09
0.01 0.02
0.04 0.04
0.92 9.02
3.81 4.54
0.25 0.37
10.5
UXJT2
|5.|
0.09»
1.1*
1.05
0.94
0.03
0.04
0.02
19.19
1.37
9.53
9.37
9.93
0 . 03
9.0*
0.03
7.72
0.47
Suldaaao M
Aabiaae
Oparatiaf
MlnijauB
3.01
1.85
0. 7*
9.0*
0.30
9.03
20.8*
3.93
9.50
9.5O
1.44
Was cradit*
Taa*)t «7.1 / 87.1 /
Modal 20.* / 27.3 /
Taa»i 72.
Pariod 2 KVTi 8.9
LDOV aoov
-^— —
0.4*
0.37
9.99
9.92
9.04
0.02
7.72
0.47
TTTI —
9.934
2.75
1.8*
9.8*
9.99
9.1*
9.03
20.8*
3.95
O
•7.
20.
0.** 2.03
9.8* 2.03
i.'«r~ 11.17
1.24 4.5*
1 (r) ttavfloai Low
( Altitadat 30O.
4.73
1.85
2.4*
0.42
24.41
9.7*
rt.
IW\
Pariod 2 ttart rrt 1993
LDOV LOOT tDOV ME
ii.|
O.OO2
0.50
0.50
1.44
1.0*
0.005 9.0*4
9.4* 2.03
0.8* 2.93
1.41 11.17
1.24 8.3*
TT"T™"
19.8
0.004
4.44
1.95
2.17
24.41
0.7*
0.379
9.390
9
0
089
01*
9.084
9.91*
8.233
1.03*
All
9.
9.
9.
9 .
0.
0.
8.
I.
Vak
337
39O
072
91*
942
01*
233
03*
ST an aa oc July lat of tka iadioataal nala.i 72.
KVTt 9.9
acov
tT7T~'
0.034
3.71
1.78
1.19
0.97
0. 84
0.03
22.49
3.57
/ *7.l /
/ 27.3 /
(r)
»7.
20.
1 (f) »a«tomi Lev
« Altltavat 3OO.
MasiAi^ ¥«••• av
rariod 2 start rrt 19*1
LDOV LOOT aOOV
11. |
0.002
0.3O
0.30
1.44
1.09
^•( | TT7T"" "
0.90* g.'g*4
0.4* 2.93
0.8* 2.93
1.81 11.17
1.24 8.94
rt.
(rt
ME
I J J
iv. a
0.004
5.81
1.89
3.34
9.42
24.41
9.7*
All
9.
9.
9.
gp
9 .
9.
. • 8.
9.
Vak
845
34*
133
01*
127
01*
159
9*7
-------
------- |