National Clean
Campaign
-------
-------
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
1. INTRODUCTION 9
2. EPA's NATIONAL CLEAN DIESEL CAMPAIGN 13
Overview 13
Verifying That Emission Reduction Technologies Work 14
Tapping Into Regional Collaborates 16
Regulating Diesel Engines and Fuels 17
3. THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005, DIESEL EMISSIONS
REDUCTION ACT PROGRAM 19
Background 19
The National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program 22
The National Clean Diesel Emerging Technologies Program 23
The SmartWay Clean Diesel Finance Program 25
The State Clean Diesel Grant and Loan Program 27
Inaugural Year Results in Impressive, Cost-Effective Reductions Across
All Sectors 28
4. RESOURCES THAT SUPPORT THE NATIONAL CLEAN DIESEL CAMPAIGN 35
Diesel Emissions Quantifier 35
Agency Guidance for Calculating Cost-Effectiveness 35
Guidance on State Implementation Plans 36
Public Outreach Materials 36
NCDC Joins Forces With International Partners 37
5. REMAINING CHALLENGES .. .. 38
Contents
-------
6. LESSONS LEARNED AND NEEDS FOR THE FUTURE 40
Lessons Learned 40
Next Steps 41
APPENDIX A: NATIONAL CLEAN DIESEL FUNDING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM,
FY 2008 GRANTS 43
APPENDIX B: NATIONAL CLEAN DIESEL EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
PROGRAM, FY 2008 GRANTS 47
APPENDIX C: SMARTWAY CLEAN DIESEL FINANCE PROGRAM,
FY 2008 GRANTS 48
APPENDIX D: STATE CLEAN DIESEL PROGRAM, FY 2008 GRANTS 49
APPENDIX E: NATIONAL PROGRAM EVALUATION CRITERIA 52
APPENDIX F: EPA REGIONAL CLEAN DIESEL COLLABORATES 54
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .. ,.. 56
REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM
-------
Executive Summary
NATIONAL CLEAN DIESEL CAMPAIGN
REDUCING emissions from diesel engines is one of the most important public health
challenges facing the country. Despite EPA's stringent diesel engine and fuel stan-
dards taking effect over the next decade, the 20 million engines already in use will
continue to emit large amounts of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and paniculate matter (PM)—both
of which will contribute to serious public health problems for years to come.
Fortunately, a variety of cost-effective technologies can dramatically reduce harmful emis-
sions, save fuel, and help our nation meet its clean air and sustainability goals. To meet
these challenges, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established the National
Clean Diesel Campaign (NCDC). NCDC consists of both regulatory programs to address new
engines and innovative nonregulatory programs to address the millions of diesel engines
already in use. EPA standards apply to new diesel engines, and because these engines can last a
long time, solutions are needed to reduce harmful emissions from the existing fleet. These innova-
tive approaches promote a variety of emission reduction strategies such as retrofitting, repairing,
replacing, and repowering engines; reducing idling; and switching to cleaner fuels.
Through a dynamic network of Regional Collaborates, whose development EPA initiated, environmen-
tal groups, industry, and government were inspired and motivated—despite their sometimes conflict-
ing perspectives—to unite behind a common goal. NCDC mobilized diverse and unusual partners with
historic differences to work together, creating broad support based on the urgency of the public health
problem and bringing new technologies into use years earlier than would otherwise have occurred.
In 2008, Congress appropriated funding for the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) Program
under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) to reduce emissions from heavy-duty diesel
engines in the existing fleet. In the first year of the DERA program, EPA awarded $49.2 million for
diesel emission reduction programs across the country.1 EPA gave priority to projects that:
• Demonstrated a clear public health benefit in areas with high population density and poor air quality.
• Fostered cost-effective strategies that maximized the useful life of a certified engine configura-
tion, verified technology, or emerging technology.
• Conserved diesel fuel.
• Used cleaner fuels.
Congress also provided $10 million for grants for cost-effective emission reduction projects for two California air quality
management districts (South Coast and San Joaquin).
Executive Summary
-------
The fiscal year (FY) 2008 funding enabled EPA to award 119 grants, which will lead to emission
reductions of approximately 46,000 tons of NOX and 2,200 tons of fine paniculate matter (PM2 5).
The PM-related emission reductions translate into a significant quantifiable public health benefit
of approximately $580 million to $1.4 billion. Additionally, projects funded under these grants
will save 3.2 million gallons of fuel per year for a cost savings to operators of more than
$8 million each year (at $2.50 per gallon). More than 14,000 diesel-powered vehicles and pieces
of equipment are cleaner as a result of the first year of this program. More than two-thirds of
these vehicles are trucks and school buses that were upgraded through EPA's sector outreach
programs such as Clean School Bus USA.
DERA directs EPA to fund two different components: a national competition and a state alloca-
tion program. The national program, with 70 percent of the funding, consists of three separate
competitions:
1. The National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program
2. The National Clean Diesel Emerging Technologies Program
3. The SmartWay Clean Diesel Finance Program
The State Clean Diesel Grant and Loan Program utilizes the remaining 30 percent of the funding.
National Clean Diesel Campaign Funding Structure
Federal Funding
Diesel Emissions Reduction Program
Nationally Administered Competitions
Allocation to States
f
t
National Clean
Diesel Funding
Assistance Program
National Clean
Diesel Emerging
Technologies Program
SmartWay Clean
Diesel Finance
Program
State Clean
Diesel Grant and
Loan Program
REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM
-------
NCDC programs deploy proven technologies much earlier than would occur otherwise, accelerate the
use of emerging technologies, and provide innovative financial incentives that make the business case for
doing the right thing for the environment. States are key partners in the success of clean diesel programs
and are given the opportunity through the state program to enhance their leadership on air quality issues.
NATIONAL CLEAN DIESEL PROGRAMS
National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program. The response to EPA's National Clean
Diesel Funding Assistance Program was overwhelmingly positive. This program allows communi-
ties to meet their most pressing needs to reduce harmful diesel emissions. Communities benefit by
activities as diverse as retrofitting school buses so that children's exposures are reduced, repower-
ing locomotives used at seaports to save fuel as well as reduce emissions in neighborhoods, and
replacing high-emitting construction equipment used to build hospitals and our nation's roads.
EPA's seven Regional Collaborates held grant competitions. In FY 2008,
applicants nationwide submitted 236 applications, requesting more than
$144 million and offering approximately $81 million in matching funds.
Demand for funding under this component of DERA exceeded available
funds by 5:1. The variety of needs and approaches reflects the diversity of
air quality challenges facing local communities across the country. After
careful evaluation and ranking, EPA awarded approximately $30 million
to 60 applicants, who provided matching funds of approximately $35
million. The high level of response to this program shows the desire communities have to clean up
their fleets. The response also shows the ability of federal dollars to attract funds from other partners
to accelerate the introduction of cost-effective clean diesel technologies.
National Clean Diesel Emerging Technologies Program. The emerging technology pro
gram, for which EPA may make available up to 10 percent of the funding, fosters the deployment
of cutting-edge technologies and encourages private-sector investment in innovation. The program
promotes the deployment of innovative technologies (those not yet verified or certified by EPA or
the California Air Resources Board) by providing funding to develop and evaluate these technolo-
gies in the field. EPA received 10 eligible applications that requested $5 million and offered more
than $1.1 million in matching funds. EPA ultimately awarded six grants totaling $3.7 million with
$1.1 million provided as matching funds. These grants will demonstrate new technologies, including
technologies that reduce NOX. This program will help expand the currently limited retrofit options
for nonroad engines, such as those used in construction equipment and on marine vessels.
SmartWay Clean Diesel Finance Program. For the first time, DERA gives EPA the authority to es-
tablish national low-cost revolving loan and other financing programs to provide funding to fleets to re-
duce diesel emissions. EPA exercised this authority by awarding grants where the recipients could provide
innovative financing methods for clean diesel technologies. For the first time, partners are able to provide
financial incentives (e.g., low-cost revolving loans, rebates, below-market rates) that stretch the federal
dollar further. A small investment of federal funds leverages significant private investment and spurs
the purchase of fuel-saving and emission reduction technologies for trucks. Under the SmartWay Clean
Executive Summary
-------
Diesel Finance Program competition, EPA received four grant applications requesting approximately $9.5
million that would leverage $44 million in outside funds, to establish innovative financing programs. EPA
awarded three grants totaling approximately $3.4 million, leveraging $19 million. These grants establish
national financing programs that provide funding to small- and medium-sized trucking companies to
purchase clean diesel technologies. These trucking companies include many small businesses that would
otherwise be unlikely to update their fleets with cleaner, more fuel-efficient equipment.
STATE CLEAN DIESEL GRANT AND LOAN PROGRAM
Recognizing that many states, such as California, Texas, Washington, Illinois, Maine, and New
York, have developed successful clean diesel programs over the years, Congress included a state-
only component in DERA to recognize the vital role played by states. In contrast to the national
competitive program, the State Clean Diesel Grant and Loan Program is a formula allocation
program. By meeting certain requirements, any state is eligible to participate. According to the
statute, if adequate appropriations are available, 30 percent of any funds appropriated for DERA
must be allocated to the states through this program.
In the first year of the state program, all 50 states elected to participate and established new clean
diesel projects. The programs responded to state needs, focusing on a variety of sectors, such as
school buses, construction, freight, refuse haulers, and transit buses. Based on funding availabil-
ity and the states' ability to provide matching funds, individual state grant amounts ranged from
$196,880 to $492,200. EPA funded the state programs with almost $13 million. Thirty-three states
matched the federal dollars by providing more than $6.3 million in matching funds altogether.
COST-EFFECTIVE RESULTS OF PROVEN TECHNOLOGICAL SOLUTIONS
In this report, EPA analyzes the overall cost-effectiveness of various diesel emission reduction
strategies. EPA compares the amount of federal grant funds used to the lifetime tons reduced
to evaluate the effectiveness of federal investments in spurring diesel emission reductions. The
Agency concludes that the innovative finance provisions are an important new approach with an
impressive ability to leverage significant additional resources.
In the first year of funding, clean diesel strategies have proven to be about as cost-effective in reduc-
ing air pollution and health impacts associated with diesel emissions as other EPA programs, as shown
in the table on page 7. Under the National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program, EPA calculated
the average cost-effectiveness of federal investment to be approximately $27,700 per ton of PM re-
duced over the lifetime of the project and just under $2,000 per lifetime ton of NOX. In the SmartWay
Clean Diesel Finance Program, the cost-effectiveness was about $9,000 in federal funds per lifetime
ton of PM and $400 in federal funds per lifetime ton of NOX. The average cost of federal invest-
ment for the state program was approximately $16,700 per lifetime ton of PM reduced and $600 per
lifetime ton of NOX. These per ton costs compare very favorably with strategies used to attain national
ambient air quality standards, such as stationary source standards that range from $1,000 to $20,000
and as high as $100,000 per ton of PM25 on an annualized basis.2'3 However, DERA projects are on
REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM
-------
average4 less cost-effective for PM than regulatory programs designed to set emissions standards for
new diesel engines, such as the 2007 Heavy-Duty Highway diesel emissions standards. EPA has esti-
mated that this regulation has a cost-effectiveness of $14,200 per ton PM and $2,100 per ton N0x.
Average Cost-Effectiveness of DERA Projects
DERA Program
National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program
$27,700
$2,000
SmartWay Clean Diesel Finance Program
$9,000
State Clean Diesel Grant and Loan Program
$16,700
Regulatory Programs
Heavy-Duty Engine and Highway Diesel Fuel Requirements
PM NAAQS RIA
$14,200
$3,000-15,000
$2,100
-
Note 1: Values reported for the DERA program are for federal funds per ton pollutant reduced over project lifetime. Lifetime tons
are not discounted. This report presents two different types of cost-effectiveness: federal funds per lifetime tons and total cost per
ton. The comparisons for the regulatory programs are in annualized costs per ton.
Note 2: Values were rounded to nearest $100. Federal funds do not include matching amounts.
Note 3: The Emerging Technologies program is designed to demonstrate new technologies. At this phase in the development of
these technologies, costs would be expected to be higher than when at a more fully mature commercial scale of deployment stage.
Therefore, the cost comparisons with the other national program components have been omitted.
The first year of implementation for the Diesel Emissions Reduction Program has been extremely suc-
cessful. By harnessing overwhelming support from environmental organizations, state and local govern-
ments, industry, technology vendors, and other groups, EPA has been able to magnify the available dol-
lars and strategically fund important emission reduction and fuel-saving projects. In total, EPA awarded
119 grants in the first year of the DERA program. More than 14,000 vehicles and pieces of nonroad
equipment in a wide array of sectors will be cleaner as a direct result of this program. New clean diesel
programs have been established in every state, and technologies have been advanced for the future.
In addition, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) provided $300 million
in new funding for the Diesel Emissions Reduction Program. EPA has already awarded more than $85
million through the State Clean Diesel Grant program, and those funds are currently at work creating
green jobs and reducing air pollution. EPA is in the process of awarding national competitive grants under
the Diesel Emissions Reduction Program with additional goals of creating and preserving jobs and pro-
moting economic recovery. In response to this competitive program, EPA received more than 600 applica-
tions requesting approximately $2 billion and offering more than $2 billion in matching funds. This clearly
demonstrates the high level of interest in clean diesel programs across the country. Implementation of the
EPAct 200B's Diesel Emissions Reduction Program is a critical step toward reaching our national clean air
goals and protecting public health and the environment for all Americans for generations to come.
2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particle Pollution Regulatory Impact Assessment (PM NAAQS RIA 10-06-06,
Chapter 3, pg. 3-14, Table 3.2): Compares other stationary and area sources for PM reduction. Report is available at www.epa.
gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html and www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/Chapter%203-Controls.pdf.
3 The Cost-Effectiveness of Heavy-Duty Diesel Retrofits and Other Mobile Source Emissions Reduction Projects and Programs
(EPA-420-B-07-006, May 2007, Appendix Table 3, pg. 13-15): Compares other mobile source programs cost-effectiveness for
NOx/VOCs. Report is available at www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/policy/general/420b07006.pdf.
4 The weighted average federal cost of DERA projects is about $25,000 per ton PM and $1,500 per ton N0x.
Executive Summary
-------
-------
1. Introduction
Reducing Diesel Emissions Garners Broad Support
FROM the farm to the interstate highway to the neighborhood grocery store, we find diesel
engines in every corner of society. Diesel engines power the movement of goods across
the nation and help construct the buildings in which we live and work. Diesel engines aid
in building the roads on which we travel and power the buses that carry millions of children to
school safely each day. While diesel engines provide the mobility and power Americans require,
are more fuel-efficient than gasoline engines, and serve as the workhorse of the nation's econo-
my, exhaust from these engines sullies our skies with pollutants that harm our health and damage
the environment.
Because of our reliance on diesel engines, reducing emissions from them is one of the most impor-
tant public health challenges facing the country. Despite the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) stringent diesel engine and fuel standards, which, for new engines beginning with engine
model year 2007, are being phased in over the next decade, 20 million engines already in use
continue to emit relatively large amounts of nitrogen oxides (N0x) and fine paniculate matter (PM25).
N0x, which contributes to both ozone and paniculate formation, as well as directly emitted PM25,
can lead to serious health conditions such as triggering asthma and worsening heart and lung dis-
ease. In addition, diesel engines emit black carbon, which might contribute to global climate change.
The problem of diesel emissions is not limited to a few discrete geographic areas or to one seg-
ment of the population. Harmful diesel emissions contribute to poor air quality in much of the
country. No fewer than 141 million Americans—nearly half the population of the United States—
live in areas that are designated as nonattainment with the eight-hour ozone standard and/or the
PM25 standard, based on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).5
Due to the sheer numbers of engines in use and the volume of pollutants they emit, the health
effects and environmental pollution stemming from diesel emissions could be substantial. Nation-
wide, in 2009 diesel emissions from mobile sources alone will account for approximately 300,000
tons of directly emitted PM25 and 6.4 million tons of NOX, which contribute to the formation of
ozone and additional fine particles. These emissions will come from approximately 20 million en-
gines operating in 2009, including approximately 13 million on-highway vehicles, 7 million nonroad
engines, and 47,000 locomotive and marine engines. (See Figures 1 and 2.) Reducing diesel emis-
sions quickly is vital to helping communities reach their public health goals.
As of December 16, 2008, there are 57 eight-hour ozone nonattainment areas (1997) that consist of 293 full or partial counties,
with a total population of almost 132 million. An additional 74 counties, where 16 million people reside, show air quality values
that do not meet the 2008 ozone standard. As of December 16, 2008, there are 39 PM25 nonattainment areas (1997) that
consist of 208 full or partial counties, with a total population exceeding 88 million. On December 22, 2008, EPA designated
nonattainment areas for the 2006 PM2 5 NAAQS. As of December 22, 2008, there are 58 PM2 5 nonattainment areas (2006) that
consist of 211 full or partial counties.
1. Introduction
-------
Figure 1. 2009 NOX Mobile Figure 2. 2009 Directly Emitted
Source Diesel Emissions PM2 5 Mobile Source
for 50 States Diesel Emissions for 50 States
(6,400,000 tons) (300,000 tons)
Nonroad Diesel
Harbor Craft
Marine Diesel
13%
C3 Marine
Highway
Diesel
Highway Diesel
36%
Harbor Craft Locomotive
Marine Diesel 9%
9%
Fortunately, a variety of cost-effective technologies can dramatically reduce harmful emissions,
save fuel, and help our nation meet its clean air and sustainability goals. In 2000, to address the
concerns of both new and existing diesel engines, EPA created the National Clean Diesel Cam-
paign (NCDC), a partnership program that incorporates traditional regulatory approaches and
innovative nonregulatory approaches to achieve results. The regulatory aspect of the program
requires new engines and their fuels to meet stringent technology-based standards to reduce the
amount of emissions released.
The innovative component of the program promotes the use of a variety of techniques to reduce
emissions, including retrofitting, repairing, replacing, and repowering vehicles and equipment;
reducing idling; and switching to cleaner fuels. To encourage these actions, NCDC cultivates the
involvement of national, state, and local partners in the public and private sectors.
In 2008, for the first time ever, Congress appropriated funding under the Energy Policy Act of
2005 (EPAct 2005) to reduce emissions from diesel engines in the nation's existing fleet. In the
first year of the program, the EPA's NCDC distributed $49.2 million to initiate diesel emission
reduction projects and programs across the country. Reflecting the goals in the statute, EPA gave
priority to projects that:
• Demonstrate a clear public health benefit and apply to areas with high population density and
poor air quality.
• Use cost-effective strategies that maximize the useful life of a certified engine configuration,
verified technology, or emerging technology.
• Conserve diesel fuel.
• Use cleaner fuels.
10 + REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM
-------
The EPAct of 2005, Title VII, Subtitle G, Section 794,
requires that the EPA Administrator submit a report
to Congress evaluating the implementation of the
Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) Program. This
report fulfills that requirement.
In the inaugural year of the program, EPA awarded
119 grants that are already achieving significant
emission reductions, as detailed in Appendices A
through F. As part of this effort, all 50 states have
begun new state clean diesel program grants. The
suite of national and state diesel emission reduction
programs is a vital part of state and local efforts to
reduce harmful air pollution. These first DERA grants
are expected to significantly reduce emissions in
communities across the country.
As shown in Table 1, the total emission reductions
are noteworthy. The FY 2008 funding for the Diesel
Emissions Reduction Program is estimated to reduce
approximately 46,000 tons of NOX and 2,200 tons
of PM2 5 over the life of the program. These emission
reductions translate into a significant quantifiable
public health benefit of approximately $580 mil-
lion to $1.4 billion in quantifiable PM-related health
benefits over the life of the program.6
In addition, the FY 2008 grants will save more than
3.2 million gallons of fuel per year, which equates
to a savings in fuel costs to operators of more than
$8 million per year (at $2.50 per gallon). This cor-
responds to 35,600 tons of carbon dioxide (C02) per
year reduced. These fuel savings calculations only
reflect the savings from idle reduction technologies
and do not reflect the improved fuel economy that
may result from engine replacements; thus the actual
fuel savings might be higher than shown.
Diesel Exhaust Health Effects
Direct emissions from diesel engines, especially PM2 5, N0x,
and sulfur oxides (S0x), contribute to health problems. In
addition, N0x contributes to the formation of ozone and
PM through chemical reactions.
PM2 5 has been associated with an increased risk of pre-
mature mortality, increased hospital admissions for heart
and lung disease, and increased respiratory symptoms.
Long-term exposure to components of diesel exhaust,
including diesel PM and diesel exhaust organic gases, are
likely to pose a lung cancer hazard. Exposure to ozone can
aggravate asthma and other respiratory diseases, leading
to more asthma attacks, the use of additional medication,
more severe symptoms that require a doctor's attention,
more lost school and work days, more visits to the emer-
gency room, increased hospitalizations, and even prema-
ture mortality. People in many areas of the United States
experience short-term (one to three hours) and prolonged
ozone exposures (six to eight hours), which have been
linked to diminished lung function, greater respiratory
symptoms, and increased hospital
visits. Repeated exposure to
ozone can increase susceptibility
to respiratory infection and lung
inflammation and can aggravate
preexisting asthma. At suf-
ficient concentrations, ozone
can even cause permanent
damage to the lungs, in-
cluding the development of
chronic respiratory illnesses.
Children, outdoor workers, those
who exercise outdoors, people
with heart and lung disease, and
the elderly are most at risk.
Many of the benefits will accrue in the first five years of the program, and the benefits are discounted using a 3 percent rate.
1. Introduction
11
-------
Table 1. Estimated Air Emission Reductions of FY 2008 NCDC Programs Over
Lifetime of Projects (Lifetime Tons)
National Clean Diesel Funding
Assistance Program
1,100
1,900
7,300
113,600
National Clean Diesel Emerging
Technologies Program
600
30
30
100
SmartWay Clean Diesel Finance
Program
9,600
400
BOO
1,600
238,200
State Clean Diesel Grant and Loan
Program
21,000
2,000
5,700
112,900
Total
46,000
2,200
4,400
14,700 464,600
Note: Values were rounded to the nearest 100 lifetime tons or to one significant figure. Sums might not add due to rounding.
Lifetime tons are not discounted.
* Hydrocarbon
Carbon monoxide
f Does not include C02 reductions from engine replacements, repowers, or vehicle replacements.
The map in Figure 3 shows the location of the projects for the first year of the program. These
projects are helping communities lower their public health risks from air pollution, accelerating the
use of proven technologies, making engines cleaner and more efficient, encouraging new cutting-
edge technologies, and utilizing new financial incentives to reach more fleets.
Figure 3. FY 2008 DERA Projects Across the Country
% Carson City Salt Lake City
• Bakersfield
f • Diamond Bar
Los Angeles
Cheyenne
Denver
Augusta
Willistonfc
Montpelier ^ Manchester
pigeon Albany ^Boston
Buffalo. NewPaltz* -• Providence
Scarsdale ^Hartford
NewTork Centereach
DesMoines '^uinxjnw-ueiroii Philadelphia East Brunswick
^ Chi-° Portage ^•"ZSe'r*""10"
Springfield " 4
. ,. *•.. Columbu
Innianapohs
Derwood District of Columbia
Topeka <
St. Louis Indianapolis
%• »»f
Jefferson City Louisville
Knoxville Ralei
Jashville Columbia
Atlanta
*Charle
Honolulu
^^
igfi*
National Program
0 State Program
12
REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM
-------
2. EPA's National Clean Diese
j
^4 First-of-Its-Kind Campaign Lives Up to Its Goals
OVERVIEW
EPA's NCDC responds to the national need to reduce harmful diesel emissions. In April 2000,
EPA began its Voluntary Diesel Retrofit Program with a few targeted projects. Using a small
sample of the existing national fleet of school buses, delivery trucks, and transit buses,
EPA demonstrated emission reduction technologies and cleaner fuels likely to be used for all new
engines seven years before the 2007 effective date for the new engine standards.
Through this initial collaboration on retrofit projects, partners realized that they had found a way
to put aside their sometimes-conflicting perspectives to unite behind a common goal. Fueled by
this initial success, NCDC mobilized diverse partners with a wide range of perspectives—such as
engine manufacturers, environmental groups, emission technology vendors, fuel suppliers, private
fleet owners, state and local governments, and transportation officials—to work together, creat-
ing awareness of the urgency of the public health problem and accelerating the use of technolo-
gies years earlier than otherwise would have occurred. EPA provided seed money and technical
expertise to create markets for new technologies and bring stakeholders together around an issue
of mutual interest.
This tiny spark caught flame. Since 2000, EPA has awarded approximately 300 demonstration
grants under the Clean Air Act for diverse sectors such as transit
and school buses and marine, construction, and freight vehicles
and equipment. These projects reduced unnecessary idling and
promoted the use of alternative and cleaner fuels, retrofitting
engines and replacing old engines or equipment with new, cleaner
versions. Each year additional partners have joined NCDC, adding
and showcasing new technologies. EPA tailored incentives to key
sectors such as school buses, marine ports, construction, freight,
transit, and agriculture. These successful demonstration projects
resulted in the use of ultra-low-sulfur fuel in parts of 20 states
well before the EPA mandate took effect. This cleaner diesel fuel
directly reduces emissions from engines and enables the use of the
most effective emission control devices. Now the use of this fuel is
widespread and fleets are experiencing maintenance and emissions
benefits of cleaner fuels.
2. EPA's National Clean Diesel Campaign
13
-------
Clean School Bus USA Is Key to a Healthier Ride for Kids
Due to the innovation and success of EPA's Clean School Bus USA,
begun in 2003 as the flagship program of the National Clean Diesel
Campaign, approximately 3 million children ride cleaner school
buses today.
JP CLEAN SCHOOL BUS
Clean School Bus USA's goal is to significantly reduce children's exposure to harmful exhaust
from diesel school buses. By establishing partnerships with local and state governments, school
transportation officials, fuel providers, and equipment and engine manufacturers, EPA created
a highly successful, incentive-based program to reduce the pollution from the nation's 400,000
oldest and dirtiest school buses and to protect the 24 million children who ride buses daily.
As part of the program, EPA awarded 157 grants throughout six years, totaling $31 million, to
demonstrate pollution control techniques. EPA has distributed its Key to a Healthier Ride educa-
tional materials to more than 400 school districts nationwide, reaching more than 74,000 school
bus drivers and affecting more than 83,000 diesel school buses. These school districts are also
formally recognizing bus drivers who successfully reduce school bus idling. For more informa-
tion, visit: www.epa.gov/otaq/schoolbus/index.htm.
VERIFYING THAT EMISSION REDUCTION TECHNOLOGIES WORK
Testing and evaluating the efficacy of diesel emission reduction technologies is a cornerstone of
NCDC. From the beginning, fleet owners demanded to know that the technologies they wanted or
were expected to use would work and would not harm their operations. State and local govern-
ments wanted assurance that they could rely on these strategies now and in the future to meet
their air quality goals. In response to these needs, EPA created the Retrofit Technology Verification
Program in 2002 to evaluate objectively the effectiveness of emission control technologies.
Through this program, EPA assures users that the actual emission benefits from retrofit technologies
match those claimed by the manufacturer. The Agency also evaluates technologies that assist fleets
in reducing idling. In addition, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) provides its own list of
verified emission control technologies (www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/verdev.htm), which EPA recog-
nizes. By verifying technologies, leading successful demonstrations, and operating recognition and
education programs, these agencies have helped develop markets for new, greener technologies.
Yet this was only the beginning. Congress recognized the important role the verification process plays
by making it a foundation of the implementation and integrity of the Diesel Emissions Reduction Pro-
gram. Thus, in the national grant program, EPA requires the use of technologies that have been veri-
fied or certified by EPA or CARB when federal funds are applied. Congress also wanted to continue to
spur innovation and encouraged the support and development of emerging technologies under DERA.
14
REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM
-------
In establishing its verification program, EPA realized that verifying a technology only prior to its
use is not enough. The technologies need "real world" testing to ensure that they maintain their
performance throughout their useful life. As retrofit technologies are introduced into the market in
higher volume, verifying the field performance and long-term durability of these products through
in-use testing is increasingly essential. EPA requires all manufacturers to rigorously test each verified
technology at two different stages during its useful life to confirm the percent of emissions reduc-
tion and evaluate durability. In-use testing offers confidence that verified retrofit technologies have
been proven in the real world and will maintain that performance throughout their useful lives.
As a sign of the strength of the initial tests and of the technologies themselves, results from in-
use testing are consistent with the original verified levels of emission reductions. In addition, EPA
has been able to increase the level of reduction listed on its Web site for some of the technolo-
gies, given their outstanding performance in the in-use program.
To date, EPA and CARB have verified more than 50 emission control technologies. In addition,
over the past seven years, EPA's SmartWay Transport Partnership has evaluated idle reduction
technologies through grants, engineering analysis, and peer-reviewed reports. As of March 2009,
EPA has designated six categories of idle reduction technologies as eligible for grant funding:
1) electrified parking spaces (truck stop electrification); 2) shore side power for ships, also known
as cold ironing or Alternative Maritime Power; 3) auxiliary power units and generator sets; 4) fuel-
operated heaters; 5) battery air-conditioning systems; and 6) thermal storage systems.
Clean Ports USA Helps Marine Ports Save Money
and Decrease Emissions
Due to EPA's Clean Ports USA program (part of USA
the National Clean Diesel Campaign), leading ^^^_^^^_ 5\/£ ^_^_
marine ports are saving fuel, increasing operational
efficiency, and decreasing diesel emissions. In addition, several prominent ports have developed
clean air action plans, which include greenhouse gas reduction goals, to assist them in reducing
air pollution in gateway communities.
In January 2005, EPA partnered with the American Association of Port Authorities to create
Clean Ports USA as an outreach- and incentive-based program designed to reduce emissions
from existing diesel engines operated at marine ports. EPA is working with port authorities;
terminal operators; and shipping, trucking and rail companies to promote environmentally
superior technologies through education, incentives, and financial assistance. For more
information, visit: www.epa.gov/cleandiesel/ports.
2. EPA's National Clean Diesel Campaign
-------
SmartWay Transport Partnership
SmartWay
Transport Partnership
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EPA developed the SmartWay Transport Partnership
Program to address the environmental impact of
the freight system in the United States. The Smart-
Way program is a voluntary public-private initiative
designed to improve the environmental performance
of the freight delivery system through money-saving, market-based approaches. The goal of the
program is to reduce emissions by promoting cost-effective strategies that reduce fuel consump-
tion and air pollution, using such methods as eliminating unnecessary idling, installing emission
control devices, and improving freight logistics.
The SmartWay program works hand in hand with the National Clean Diesel Campaign to
promote diesel emission reduction strategies. The SmartWay program has pioneered innovative
approaches to emission reduction, such as the creation of SmartWay-approved trucks to identify
trucks with superior environmental performance and the development of low-cost financing
for the purchase of fuel saving and emission control devices. The innovative financial strategies
offer increased access to lenders who can provide financing for SmartWay-verified technologies
and provide truck owners with low-cost financing for the purchase of SmartWay Upgrade Kits
(which include idle reduction technologies, advanced aerodynamic technologies, and low-rolling
resistance tires) or the purchase of cleaner used diesel trucks with aftertreatment devices. The
SmartWay program also recognizes partners who achieve superior environmental performance.
For more information, visit: www.epa.gov/smartway.
TAPPING INTO REGIONAL COLLABORATIVES
With the foundation of cost-effective, reliable technologies, EPA's partners wanted to reach more
fleets in more sectors to reduce harmful diesel emissions. As a next step, beginning in 2003, EPA's
regions began organizing Regional Clean Diesel Collaboratives with states, local nonprofit organi-
zations, private industry, and municipalities. (See Figure 4 for a map.) By tying into a network of
regional stakeholders, this collaborative structure is well-suited for achieving significant emission
reductions across large geographic areas. Members of these collaboratives have agreed to col-
lectively leverage additional funds and take a local approach to diesel emission mitigation. These
collaboratives play a vital role in EPA's proactive, incentive-based approach to achieving superior
environmental results. Information on the collaboratives can be found in Appendix F.
16
REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM
-------
Figure 4. Regional Clean Diesel Collaboratives
Northeast
Midwest PA 9—'
IL ,N OHMid-At
REGULATING DIESEL ENGINES AND FUELS
While cost-effective technology and strong coalitions of committed stakeholders form the back-
bone of NCDC, another important component is a series of regulations designed to reduce pollu-
tion emitted from new diesel engines and their fuels.
Under the Clean Air Act, EPA developed and implements a suite of stringent regulations to
mitigate emissions from new diesel engines and their fuels. These regulations apply to a variety
of new engines, including those in trucks, buses, construction equipment, locomotives, harbor
craft, and large ships. Over the long term, these standards will yield enormous public health and
environmental benefits.
When fully implemented, these regulatory programs will reduce NOX by about 7 million tons per
year, PM25 by more than 300,000 tons, and SOX by about 800,000 tons. By 2030, when the regu-
latory programs are fully phased in and implemented, the net public health benefits total approxi-
mately $186 billion per year, including annually preventing 26,000 premature deaths, approxi-
mately 20,000 hospitalizations, and more than 3.3 million days lost from work due to respiratory
problems as described in EPA's Regulatory Impact Assessments.
2. EPA's National Clean Diesel Campaign
17
-------
In general, these rules require stringent standards for PM and NOX, based on levels achievable
with advanced diesel aftertreatment technologies, such as diesel particulate filters (DPFs) for PM
and lean NOX traps or selective catalytic reduction (SCR) for NOX. Additionally, each of these rules
ultimately requires reducing fuel sulfur levels to 15 parts per million (ppm) to enable the use of
advanced aftertreatment technologies.
NCDC's goal is to bring these impressive benefits to the American people earlier by accelerating
the adoption of proven technologies through its strategic regulatory approach.
18
REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM
-------
BACKGROUND
THE EPAct of 2005 provides EPA new grant and loan authority to promote diesel emission
reductions and authorizes appropriations of up to $200 million per year to the Agency under
the Diesel Emissions Reduction Program provisions (for FY 2007 through FY 2011). Congress
appropriated funds under this statute for the first time in FY 2008, in the amount of $49.2 million.
This portion of the report highlights key components of the statute and explains how EPA is imple-
menting the program with state partners pursuant to Congress's direction in the statute.
DERA includes a national program and a state allocation program. The national program includes
70 percent of appropriated funds, and the state program makes available 30 percent. Under this
act, EPA can offer competitive grants and, for the first time, low-cost revolving loans to eligible
organizations and entities on a competitive basis.
To spur innovation, DERA allows for up to 10 percent of the national funds to be spent on
"emerging technologies." Additionally, not less than 50 percent of the funds available for the na-
tional program must be used for the benefit of public fleets. DERA requires that engine configura-
tions and technologies supported by the national program be verified or certified by EPA or CARB.
While the national program offers competitive grants in three categories, the state program is a
single allocation program, which means that base funding is distributed to states using a specific
formula based on participation, and incentive funding is also available for any states that match
their base funding. Funds not claimed under this program—either if states decline to participate
and/or do not match the base funding—revert to the national program. By meeting certain re-
quirements, all of the 50 states and the District of Columbia are eligible to participate.7
Under the statute, EPA provides guidance to the states about the process for applications, permis-
sible use of funds, and the cost-effectiveness of various emission reduction technologies. EPA es-
tablished an annual deadline for submitting applications, an approval process, and a streamlined
renewal process. Discretion is given to the governors for apportioning funds between grants and
loans in each state. EPA published a Federal Register notice (73 FR 12728, March 10, 2008) that
discussed how it intended to implement the state programs.
7 The District of Columbia is now an eligible entity for the State Clean Diesel Grant and Loan Program, but it was not eligible when
EPA awarded the FY 2008 state grants.
3. The Energy Policy Act of 2005
19
-------
The Energy Policy Act of 2005
Under the EPAct 2005, EPA gives priority to those diesel emission reduction programs that:
1. Maximize public health benefits.
2. Are the most cost-effective.
3. Are in areas with high population density and poor air quality (including nonattainment
areas or areas that require maintenance of national ambient air quality standards for a
criteria pollutant, federal Class I areas, or areas with toxic air pollutant concerns).
4. Are in areas that receive a disproportionate quantity of air pollution from diesel fleets,
including truck stops, ports, rail yards, terminals, and distribution centers, or that use a
community-based multi-stakeholder collaborative process to reduce toxic emissions.
5. Include a certified engine configuration or verified technology that has a long expected
useful life.
6. Maximize the useful life of any certified engine configuration or verified technology used or
funded by the eligible entity.
7. Conserve diesel fuel.
8. Utilize ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (15 ppm of sulfur content) ahead of EPA's mandate (for
nonroad or marine projects).
Relevant sections of the EPAct 2005 that govern the DERA program are found in Title VII,
Subtitle G.
Section 791, "Definitions"
Section 792, "National Grant and Loan Programs"
Section 793, "State Grant and Loan Program"
Section 794, "Evaluation and Report"
Section 795, "Outreach and Incentives"
Section 796, "Relationship to Clean Air Act"
Section 797, "Authorization for Appropriated Funds (2007-2011)"
20
With the foundations of its successful Clean Air Act demonstration programs, verification program,
sector-based focus, Regional Collaboratives, and SmartWay brand, NCDC was well-poised to
deploy cost-effective diesel emission reduction strategies even more broadly under DERA.
REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM
-------
EPA's goal for the first year of DERA funding was to establish diesel emission reduction programs
in every state and accelerate the adoption of clean diesel technologies in the existing fleet. The
EPAct 2005 statute establishes a general framework for the Diesel Emissions Reduction Program,
charging EPA to develop other details for how the total program is implemented. Ultimately, EPA
designed four programs:
1. The National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program
2. The National Clean Diesel Emerging Technologies Program
3. The SmartWay Clean Diesel Finance Program
4. The State Clean Diesel Grant and Loan Program
These programs deploy proven technologies much earlier than would otherwise occur to meet
critical local air quality needs. They accelerate the use of emerging technologies and provide inno-
vative financial incentives that make the business case for reducing diesel emissions. Furthermore,
states are key partners in the success of clean diesel programs, and the state program enhances
their leadership in reducing harmful diesel emissions.
Figure 5. National Clean Diesel Campaign Funding Structure
Federal Funding
Diesel Emissions Reduction Program
Cost-Effective, Verified and Certified Technologies to
Reduce Harmful Diesel Emissions
Nationally Administered Competitions
Allocation to States
National Clean
Diesel Funding
Assistance Program
Reducing the Most
Damaging Emissions
National Clean
Diesel Emerging
Technologies Program
Moving Innovations
From Concept to
the Marketplace
SmartWay Clean
Diesel Finance
Program
Supporting Low-Cost
Loans for High-Value
Technologies
State Clean
Diesel Grant and
Loan Program
Reaching Its Goal of
Programs in
All 50 States
3. The Energy Policy Act of 2005
21
-------
THE NATIONAL CLEAN DIESEL FUNDING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Reducing the Most Damaging Emissions
EPA received an overwhelmingly positive response to its Requests for Proposals (RFPs) under the
National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program. This program offered the majority of the fund-
ing available, through grant competitions handled by the Agency's seven Regional Collaboratives.
The Agency received 236 applications nationwide, requesting more than $144 million and offering
$81 million in matching funds. Thus, applicants requested $5 for every $1 available.
Applicants requested funding to address their most
pressing needs, such as retrofitting school buses so that
children's exposures are reduced on their way to school,
repowering locomotives used at seaports to save fuel and
reduce emissions in neighborhoods while still delivering
freight used in every part of commerce, and replacing
high-emitting construction equipment used to build
hospitals and our nation's roads.
After screening for eligibility and carefully ranking the
applications, EPA selected 60 recipients across the coun-
try in the fall and winter of 2008—within nine months
of the program start date—and awarded $29,039,803
in federal dollars, attracting approximately $35 million in
matching funds. The federal share included $1,476,600
from unclaimed state funds (states that did not match
their base funding). Appendix E lists the ranking cri-
teria, reflecting the priorities listed on page 20. Table
2 summarizes the awards by region, and Appendix A
contains a comprehensive list of the awardees and grant
amounts.
Emissions Reduced From Nonroad
Cargo Handling Equipment at Pacific
Northwest Ports
Through its Clean Ports USA Program, EPA awarded the
Puget Sound Clean Air Agency an $850,000 grant to
fund replacements and retrofits, such as diesel particu-
late filters, of nonroad truck engines for cargo-handling
equipment at Puget Sound ports.
This grant helps the port authorities achieve the goals
in their Northwest Ports Clean Air Plan. Additionally,
the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma and the Puget Sound
Clean Air Agency are providing matching funds totaling
$318,000.
CLEANPORTSUSA
Illinois School Buses Reap the Benefits of DERA Grants
EPA's Clean School Bus USA grants to Illinois EPA's Green Fleets Program, including school buses,
totaled $678,600, plus a $654,700 match from Illinois EPA, funding a variety of clean diesel tech-
nologies, including diesel oxidation catalysts, diesel paniculate filters, closed crankcase ventila-
tion, and auxiliary power units.
The Illinois Green Fleets Program formally recognizes businesses, governmental entities, and
organizations that use clean, domestic, renewable fuel vehicles in their fleet. The program also
recognizes Illinois vehicle fleets equipped with diesel retrofits.
22
REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM
-------
Table 2. FY 2008 Awards for the National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance
Program by EPA Region
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Collaborative
Northeast
Mid-Atlantic
Southeast
Midwest
Blue Skyways
Rocky Mountain
West Coast
Total
Number of Applications
16
33
24
39
38
20
10
11
30
15
236
6
9
6
7
13
3
3
5
5
3
60
Dollars Awarded
$1,970,484
$3,268,402
$3,277,166
$3,789,289
$4,879,049
$2,719,880
$1,986,802
$1,755,645
$3,953,079
$1,440,007
$29,039,803
Public Fleets Directly Benefit From
DERA National Program Funds
Public fleets across the nation—including transit buses, school buses, refuse haulers, municipal
trucks, snowplows, and fire trucks—are emitting less pollution in towns and cities as a direct
result of the Diesel Emissions Reduction Program. In FY 2008, the Agency awarded 74 percent of
competitively awarded national funds to public fleets. Section 792 (b)(2) of the EPAct 2005 re-
quires that no less than 50 percent of the funds for the national program be spent for the benefit
of public fleets.
Many partners stepped forward to deploy clean diesel
technologies in public fleets to lead by example. Making
the public-sector vehicles that do the nation's work the
cleanest they can be creates a powerful example for
other fleets to imitate.
THE NATIONAL CLEAN DIESEL EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM
Moving Innovations From Concept to Marketplace
EPA's NCDC has been demonstrating new technologies and creating new demands for environmen-
tally superior products since its inception. To continue to encourage new technologies to meet the
needs of fleets and air quality planners, Congress recognized the need for the DERA program to
promote cutting-edge advanced technologies. EPA developed the National Clean Diesel Emerging
Technologies Program to respond to Section 792 (b)(3)(B)(i), which directs that "...the Administra-
tor shall provide not more than 10 percent of funds available for a fiscal year under this provision to
eligible entities for the development and commercialization of emerging technologies."
3. The Energy Policy Act of 2005
23
-------
In FY 2008, under the National Diesel Emerging Technologies Program, 10 applicants requested
$5 million and offered more than $1 million in matching funds. EPA awarded six grants in five
states for a total of $3.7 million in federal funds, with $1.1 million in matching funds. These funds
supported NOX reduction technologies such as SCR systems for on-highway trucks and nonroad
construction equipment, greater emission controls from a combination of diesel oxidation cata-
lysts (DOCs)/DPFs and exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) systems, and new techniques for harbor
craft, such as an emission upgrade kit for two types of marine engines. The criteria by which the
applicants were evaluated are presented in Appendix E. The new federal dollars used for these
emerging technologies are vital to spurring investment by NCDC's partners.
The National Clean Diesel Emerging Technologies Program is an opportunity to advance new,
cutting-edge technologies to reduce diesel emissions from the existing fleet. Building on EPA's
verification program, EPA developed a process by which a manufacturer can request that its
technology qualify in advance as an emerging technology. Through its collaborative network, EPA
has been encouraging new technologies to reduce NOX, save fuel, and perform better on a wider
array of conditions and vehicles, including nonroad equipment and marine vessels.
To qualify as an emerging technology, manufacturers should be in the initial stages of the verifica-
tion process with EPA or CARB and listed on EPA's Emerging Technology List. The manufacturer
must also provide an approvable application for verification (including an explanation of the en-
gineering principles of the technology and why the technology should be considered an emerging
technology) and an approvable test plan. An emerging technology must be close to being, if not
already, commercially available.
Emerging Technology
An emerging technology is defined in
Section 791 of the Energy Policy Act to be
"... a technology that is not certified or veri-
fied by the Administrator or the California Air
Resources Board but for which an approvable
application and test plan has been submitted
for verification to the Administrator or the
California Air Resources Board."
Once approved, emerging technologies are listed on
EPA's Web site. Technologies may remain on EPA's
Emerging Technology List for up to two years. During
that two-year period, EPA estimates that manufactur-
ers will be able to complete the necessary steps to
obtain full verification. Once a technology is verified
or certified, it will no longer be considered "emerg-
ing" but will then be fully eligible for projects under
the National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program
and then deployed more widely. This program will
accelerate the pace of introduction of new diesel
emission reduction strategies and will allow the DERA
program to evolve to better serve the public.
24
REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM
-------
Emerging Technology to Bring Large Reductions
in Four Pollutants
EPA awarded a grant to the South Coast Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, in
California, home to approximately 16 million people, to install selective catalytic reduction
technology (SCRT) on 1999 to 2002 heavy-duty Class 8 on-road diesel trucks, which will
reduce PM, NOX, CO, and HC emissions by at least 90, 65, 85, and 90 percent, respectively.
This project will improve the air quality of a
high-population-density nonattainment area.
At the same time, the project will produce
useful data about the effectiveness and
durability of this emerging technology.
THE SMARTWAY CLEAN DIESEL FINANCE PROGRAM
Supporting Low-Cost Loans for High-Value Technologies
Under the SmartWay Clean Diesel Finance Program, EPA received four applications requesting
$9.5 million and leveraging $44 million. Ultimately, in September 2008, EPA awarded three
competitive grants totaling $3.4 million to establish a national financing program that provides
funding to small- and medium-sized trucking companies to purchase clean diesel technologies,
including leveraging more than $19 million in additional funding.
These innovative financing programs will help smaller trucking firms lower their emissions, fuel
costs, and carbon footprint by purchasing cleaner used trucks equipped with diesel exhaust filters
and/or fuel-saving technologies. The program will also support idling and emission reduction tech-
nologies for 2,460 trucks. Appendix E presents the criteria by which the applicants were evalu-
ated. Appendix C provides additional details about the projects.
DERA provided EPA with new authority to establish national grant and low-cost revolving loan
programs to finance clean diesel projects. Administered by EPA's SmartWay Transport Partnership,
the FY 2008 RFP for this program focused on establishing low-cost loan programs for retrofit-
ting used pre-2007 highway vehicles and new or used pieces of nonroad equipment with EPA- or
CARB-verified emission control and idle reduction technologies. EPA encouraged financing pro-
posals to include strategies such as loan guarantees, equity investments that leverage additional
funds, tax-exempt or taxable bonds to create a low-cost loan program, and revolving loan funds.
3. The Energy Policy Act of 2005
-------
Using up to 10 percent of the funds available for the national program, the SmartWay Clean
Diesel Finance Program is designed to allow eligible entities to create financing mechanisms to
assist fleets with the purchase of EPA-approved fuel-saving and emission reduction technologies.
To date, EPA has offered grantees the opportunity to develop innovative financing projects instead
of issuing direct federal loans.
Loan programs are important because they enhance financial sustainability and allow the funds to
be used multiple times as the loans are repaid and additional loans can be offered to purchasers of
cleaner vehicles or technologies. They are able to leverage substantial nonfederal funds to increase
the federal dollar's effectiveness. For example, in the case of a finance program using an equity
investment, the award funds could be used to leverage additional funds from a lending institution
to increase the amount available for loans.
Although potentially far reaching, this program presents
unique challenges that are not faced in the National
Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program. Unlike public
school bus fleets, where the fleet owners have a strong
motivation to reduce emissions, most private diesel truck
and equipment owners do not have the same incentives
and may not be as receptive to installing diesel emission
reduction technologies. EPA has attempted, in previous
demonstration grants, to provide retrofit technologies to
truck operators and has received only minimal interest.
To help manage these challenges, EPA's SmartWay
program worked with a variety of stakeholders in the
trucking industry including truckers, truck dealers, truck
finance companies, and trucking associations. EPA con-
cluded that the best incentive to install retrofit technolo-
gies on older trucks is to provide lower cost financing
to purchase newer trucks already equipped with these
technologies. In fact, the assessment shows that truck-
ers will purchase cleaner diesel trucks equipped with
advanced air pollution control devices if the monthly
finance charge is $100 to $200 less than traditional
trucks without these technologies. The federal grant
funds can be used to lower the monthly finance cost by
either extending the terms of the loans or reducing the
interest rates.
Grant Offers Low-Interest Loans
for SmartWay Upgrades
Using new authority to issue grants for loans
and other innovative financing mechanisms, EPA
awarded $1.13 million to the Community Develop-
ment Transportation Lending Services, Inc. to estab-
lish a revolving loan fund for the purchase of used
trucks that have SmartWay upgrades or will receive
SmartWay upgrade kits.
The program uses the grant to provide a lower inter-
est rate than borrowers would otherwise be able to
get—in this case, 5.5 to 8.5 percent, based on each
applicant's business history, available collateral,
cash flow, credit score, and other factors. The loan
payback period is three to six years.
'SM
vvSmartWay
Transport Partnership
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
26
REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM
-------
THE STATE CLEAN DIESEL GRANT AND LOAN PROGRAM
Reaching Its Goal of Programs in All 50 States
As a telling indication of the need for and interest in diesel emission reductions throughout
the United States, all 50 states elected to participate in the FY 2008 State Clean Diesel Grant
and Loan Program. EPA apportioned a base amount of $196,880 to each state.8 In addition, as
another sign of the nationwide support for diesel emission reduction programs, 32 states were
able to match the base funding, providing more than $6.3 million, and therefore received ad-
ditional incentive funding, as allowed by DERA. For these states, EPA established a total grant of
$492,200 (with $295,320 in federal funds and
at least $196,880 in state funds).
With this money, each state established a clean
diesel program within its air agency and worked
in consultation with EPA to develop an effective
work plan and application. The projects varied
and utilized a number of emission reduction
strategies. A total of 21 states concentrated
their efforts on school buses; nine focused
on the construction sector; and other states
focused on agriculture, transit buses, marine
ports, rail, or trucking. Several states that have
never initiated a state clean diesel program
before are starting new programs. Appendix D
presents a list of projects.
EPA issued a Federal Register notice (73 FR
12728; March 10, 2008) that announced the
funding opportunity and explained the main
provisions of the State Clean Diesel Grant and
Loan Program. The state program is not a
competition but, rather, an allocation process
in which the states indicate their interest in
participating and applying for the funds, and
EPA awards a specific allocation based on the
total number of states whose applications are
approved. Any state wishing to participate
receives funding if the state submits an approv-
able work plan. Early on, the EPA Administrator
sent a letter to the governor of each state out-
lining the goals of the State Clean Diesel Grant
and Loan Program.
Provisions for State Uses of State Clean
Diesel Grant and Loan Program Funds
States had significant flexibility in their proposed work plan.
States were encouraged to use funds for EPA- and/or CARB-
verified or certified technologies, although there were
cases where emerging technologies or other cost-effective
strategies were allowed, as they advanced the goals of the
program.
States could use funds to select various state fleets or projects
for funding.
States were encouraged not to use funds for emission reduc-
tions that are mandated under federal, state, or local law
(similar to Section 792 (d)(2), "Use of Funds—Regulatory
Programs").
States could use up to 15 percent for administrative costs.
The District of Columbia is now an eligible entity for the State Clean Diesel Grant and Loan program, but it was not eligible when
EPA awarded the FY 2008 state grants.
3. The Energy Policy Act of 2005
27
-------
INAUGURAL YEAR RESULTS IN IMPRESSIVE, COST-EFFECTIVE
REDUCTIONS ACROSS ALL SECTORS
Receiving significant levels of funding changes the complexion of possibilities for communities
struggling with ways to reduce harmful diesel pollution. Instead of small demonstrations, entire
fleets can take advantage of proven technologies. Federal investments can attract private capital
through low-cost loans under the new DERA provisions. Financially strapped states can move
forward to maximize public health programs and improve air quality for their citizens.
In the first year of DERA funding, EPA's programs achieved what they set out to do. More than
14,000 diesel-powered vehicles and pieces of nonroad equipment became cleaner as an immedi-
ate and direct result of this work.
DERA Funding Supported Reductions Across All Sectors. As shown in Figure 6, the
FY 2008 grants supported a wide array of projects in numerous sectors, from agriculture and con-
struction to marine and seaports to rail to transit. Collectively, the power of many small actions
across the range of commercial, municipal, and private endeavors yielded significant emission
reductions.
State of Delaware Expands Its Program to Cover More
Municipal Vehicles
EPA awarded the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control with a
state clean diesel grant to retrofit 1998 Class 7 refuse haulers. Because the state put some of its
own resources toward the program, EPA allocated additional incentive funding as well. This proj-
ect is an excellent example of how the DERA funds allocated toward state programs can benefit
the air quality of each state that opts into the program.
28 + REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM
-------
Figure 6. FY 2008 National Grants—Types and Numbers
of Vehicles and Equipment
5,392
City/County Delivery
Vehicle Truck
Airports
Marine Rail
Sector Totals
Refuse
Hauler
Short
Haul
School Bus Transit Bus
DERA Funding Supported a Wide Range of Technologies and Fuels. As shown in Figure
7, the FY 2008 projects represent a wide variety of verified technologies, cleaner fuels, and certi-
fied engine configurations, such as repowers, replacements, idle reduction technologies (e.g.,
auxiliary power units [APUs], shore power, truck stop electrification), biodiesel, alternative fuels,
lower-sulfur fuels in nonroad equipment, and retrofit devices such as diesel oxidation catalysts
and diesel paniculate filters.
3. The Energy Policy Act of 2005
29
-------
Figure 7. Technologies Employed in FY 2008 DERA Grants
4,500
4,000
4,034
2 ^00 2'461
? nnn
snn
164 tlj
0 •
661
45 29
456
12 6 32
/*' ///V
y T .w .ACS /^
.^
DERA Funding Helped Reduce the Amount of Diesel Fuel Used. Table 3 shows the
impressive amount of diesel fuel conserved by the idle reduction programs DERA funded. Taken
together, the FY 2008 NCDC grants will save more than 3.2 million gallons of fuel per year, which
corresponds to reducing 35,600 tons of C02 per year. This savings equates to more than $8 mil-
lion a year in fuel savings for fleet operators (assuming $2.50 per gallon fuel). For comparison,
freight trucks and locomotives consume 35 billion gallons of diesel fuel annually. Burning this fuel
produces more than 350 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually.
Table 3. Diesel Fuel Conserved Annually by FY 2008 DERA Projects With Idle
Reduction Technologies
Program
CO., (annual tons)
National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program
8,200
Diesel Conserved
(annual gallons)
736,000
National Clean Diesel Emerging Technologies Program
SmartWay Clean Diesel Finance Program
18,700
1,683,100
State Clean Diesel Grant and Loan Program
3,800
Total
35,600
3,207,900
Note: Values were rounded to the nearest 100 or to one significant figure. Sums may not add due to rounding. Calculation of C02
does not include C02 savings from engine repowers, replacements, or upgrades.
30
REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM
-------
DERA Funding Results Are Relatively Cost-Effective. In addition to being successful in
meeting their core goal, which is to reduce emissions, EPA's clean diesel programs are also cost-
effective uses of federal funds, as shown in Table 4. As NCDC has developed over the years, clean
diesel projects have become more cost-effective as the technology has developed, as more vendors
are competing, and as stakeholders have become more experienced in implementing projects.
Table 4. Projected Cost-Effectiveness
Program Recipient
Fe
Funding Amount
Federal costs per lifetime ton
National Clean
Diesel Funding
Assistance Program
SmartWay Clean
Diesel Finance
Program
State Clean Diesel
Grant and Loan
Program
National Clean
Diesel Emerging
Technologies
Program
Federal grant
dollars per
lifetime ton for
three programs
combined
Total dollars
per lifetime
ton*** for
three programs
combined
$2,000
$400
$600
$1,000
$27,700
$9,000
$16,700
$20,600
$15,300
$7,300
$6,600
$10,500
$4,000
$2,100
$2,300
$3,100
oer lifetime ton
$300
$10
$100
$29,039,803
$3,390,000
$12,994,080
$3,776,117
$100
$34,749,839
$19,100,000**
$6,300,160
$1,130,927
$1,600
$33,300
$16,900
$5,000
$200
Note 1: Values were rounded to the nearest $100 or to one significant figure. Sums may not add due to rounding. Lifetime tons are
not discounted.
* C02 was calculated for idle reduction technologies only and does not include reductions for repowers or replacements.
** Leveraged amounts; no matching was included in the grants, and this dollar amount is not included in the figure below.
*** Where cost includes federal funding, plus match, minus administrative costs assumed to be 15 percent, excluding leveraged
amounts and the Emerging Technologies program.
Note 2: The Emerging Technologies program is designed to demonstrate new technologies. At this phase in the development of
these technologies, costs would be expected to be higher than at a more fully mature commercial scale of deployment stage.
Therefore, the costs comparisons with the other national program components shown in Table 4 have been omitted.
In a series of studies, EPA analyzed clean diesel strategies generally and evaluated the cost-
effectiveness of using add-on retrofits on buses, trucks, and nonroad equipment using a standard
set of assumptions.9 Specifically, in these studies, EPA evaluated the cost-effectiveness of retrofit-
ting school buses, freight trucks, and bulldozers with DOCs and catalyzed DPFs, two of the most
common PM emission reduction technologies for diesel engines.
The Cost-Effectiveness of Heavy-Duty Diesel Retrofits and Other Mobile Source Emission Reduction Projects and Programs (EPA-
420-B-07-006, May 2007)—Tables 3 and 4 provide comparisons of cost-effectiveness of other mobile source programs; and
Diesel Retrofit Technology: An Analysis of the Cost-Effectiveness of Reducing Particu/ate Matter and Nitrogen Oxides Emissions Erom
Heavy-Duty Nonroad Diesel Engines Through Retrofits (EPA-420-R-07-OOB, May 2007). The full reports are available on the EPA
Web site: www.epa.gov/otaq/diesel/publications.htm.
3. The Energy Policy Act of 2005
31
-------
• For nonroad equipment retrofit device cost-effectiveness:
PM: DOCs and DPFs for nonroad equipment ranged from $18,700 to $87,600 per
ton of PM25 reduced.
NOX: SCR systems and engine upgrade kits were calculated to range from $1,900 to
$19,000 per ton of NOX reduced.
• For on-highway applications, such as school buses and trucks cost-effectiveness:
PM: DOCs ranged from $11,100 to $67,700 per ton of PM25 reduced and DPFs
retrofits ranged from $12,100 to $69,900 per ton of PM25 reduced.
NOX: Truck stop electrification ranged from $1,400 to $2,000 per ton of NOX re-
duced, and APUs ranged from $2,700 to $3,500 per ton of NOX reduced.
These estimates of cost-effectiveness for retrofit devices depend on a number of factors such as
equipment activity, survival rates, effectiveness of the system, and costs.
For early retirements of vehicles and engine replacements or repowers, the new engines must
meet EPA's more stringent regulations and thus are significantly cleaner. Cost-effectiveness esti-
mates were made to support EPA's Clean Air Act regulatory programs.
• For nonroad vehicles:
PM: For EPA's Tier 1/Tier 2 standards, the cost-effectiveness is estimated at $2,000
per ton of PM25 reduced.
- NOX:
• For EPA's Nonroad Tier 4 standards, the cost-effectiveness is estimated at
$1,010 per ton (NOX + nonmethane hydrocarbons [NMHC]).
• For the locomotive and marine standards, the cost-effectiveness is $30 to $190
per ton (NOX +NMHC).
These PM-related original equipment manufacturer costs are comparable to or lower than those
of installing retrofit technologies on an existing vehicle because of economies of scale in mass
production and related factors. Depending on the age of the engine being retired, replacements
and repowers can also improve fuel efficiency. Replacements can be cost-effective strategies
for the oldest vehicles and vessels in the fleet, but there is often a significant financial barrier,
because EPA grants only offset a portion of the overall cost of the vehicle. Several of the FY 2008
grants take advantage of the very cost-effective NOX and PM reductions possible with locomotive
and marine repowers.
Similarly, EPA anticipates that as emerging technologies become commercialized and more widely
available, their cost-effectiveness too will be comparable to other verified technologies; however,
at this early stage in their development, comparisons can be somewhat misleading, so they are
not included in the analysis.
32 + REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM
-------
For comparison, for the PM NAAQS Regulatory Impact Assessment, for PM25 reductions:
• The annualized cost for electrostatic precipitators for utility boilers was $3,000 to $15,000 per
ton of PM2 5 and $1,000 to $20,000 per ton for industrial boilers.
• The cost of fabric filters for these same units ranged from $2,000 to $100,000
per ton of PM25.
• Area source controls' annualized costs are less than $100 per ton of PM25.
When analyzing the effectiveness of the federal plus matching costs of the FY 2008 DERA proj-
ects, EPA found that they were within the expected range of cost-effectiveness. The average full
program cost of the national, state, and SmartWay finance programs is about $33,300 per ton of
PM25 (including the matching amounts and assuming an upper limit on administrative costs of 15
percent, excluding leveraged amounts).
EPA analyzed the way in which federal dollars were leveraging
other funding to achieve emission reductions. The reductions
achieved over the lifetime of the FY 2008 DERA grants are being
financed in different manners. In some cases, for instance, the fed-
eral share of the grant might pay for the entire cost of the retrofit
device. In other cases, the federal share of the grant might provide
a small amount, coupled with state incentive funds or private in-
vestment. In the SmartWay Clean Diesel Finance grants and in the
other program grants that used the new loan provisions, relatively
small federal investments on a per-unit basis attracted large pri-
vate investment, especially where additional economic benefit in
terms of fuel savings or the value of a newer vehicle was involved.
For the federal competitive national program:
• National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program: The average federal cost was
estimated at $27,700 per ton of PM2 5 reduced over the lifetime of the project and just under
$2,000 per ton of NOX reduced over the project lifetime.
• SmartWay Clean Diesel Finance Program: The average federal cost was estimated at
$9,000 per ton of PM2 5 reduced over the lifetime of the project and $400 per ton of NOX
reduced over the project lifetime. Federal funds leveraged significant private sector funding and
fuel savings in this new approach.
For the State Clean Diesel Grant and Loan Program:
• The average federal cost was estimated at $16,700 per ton of PM2 5 and $600 per ton of NOX
over the lifetime of the project. State program costs are lower than national program costs
because many states have established programs that are generally more limited to specific
lower-cost vehicle categories or have leveraged amounts not captured here.
3. The Energy Policy Act of 2005
33
-------
For the three programs together:
• The grants will reduce approximately 46,000 tons of NOX and 2,240 tons of PM2 5 over the
programs' lifetimes in addition to substantial reductions in HC and other pollutants.
• The weighted average federal cost is about $25,000 per ton of PM2 5 and $1,500 per ton of
NOX reduced over the lifetime of the program.
DERA Funding Is Yielding Tangible Public Health
Benefits. The DERA programs reduce emissions that affect
people's everyday lives, especially for sensitive populations
such as children, the elderly, those with heart and lung
disease, outdoor workers, and people who exercise outdoors.
The diesel emission reductions resulting from the FY 2008
grants for NOX and PM will total approximately 46,000
and 2,200 tons, respectively, by 2031, yielding a variety of
health benefits. Fewer emissions leads to less air pollution,
resulting in fewer respiratory symptoms, reduction in the
use of medication for asthma, and fewer visits to emergency
departments or health care providers. Parents miss fewer
work days caring for their children or their own respiratory
symptoms.
• The health benefits from the FY 2008 grant projects will range from a net present value of
$580 million to $1.4 billion (2006 dollars), assuming a 3-percent discount rate throughout the
lifetime of the program.
• These benefits include an estimated 95 to 240 avoided premature deaths.10
Ozone-related health benefits, cancer risk, and other welfare effects were not quantified in this
analysis.
10 The estimates are based on the peer-reviewed studies on the relationship between PM2 5 and premature mortality from:
Pope, C.A., III, R.T. Burnett, M.J. Thun, E.E. Calle, D. Krewski, K. Ito, and G.D. Thurston. 2002. Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary
Mortality, and Long-Term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution. Journal of the American Medical Association. 287: 1132-1141.
Laden, F., J. Schwartz, F.E. Speizer, and D.W. Dockery. 2006. Reduction in Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality. American
Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 173: 667-672.
For more information about this approach, please see EPA's 2008 Technical Support Document: Calculating Benefit Per-Ton Estimates,
Ozone NAAQS Docket #EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0225-0284. The premature mortality estimates are generated using PM25 co-benefits
data from EPA's 2006 Ozone Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), NAAQS for Particulate Matter, Chapter 5 Benefit Analysis and
Results. These techniques are described in a memo to the file: Memo From Michael Wolfe, Ken Davidson, Rosalva Tapia, Kuang
Wei, and Jen Went to Jim Blubaugh, Manager, Innovative Strategies Group, EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality. March 25,
2009. Energy Policy Act of 2005 Diesel Emissions Reduction (DERA) Program FY 2008: Benefit and Cost-Effectiveness Calculation
Methodologies.
34
REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM
-------
m
ir3
Diesel Campaign
Partners Fulfill Commitments and Measure Progress
T7THILE reducing diesel emissions is the first priority, producing technical and programmatic
\A/ SLJPPort materials for stakeholders is a necessity as well. To ensure the successful imple-
V Y mentation of NCDC, EPA developed the Diesel Emissions Quantifier (DEQ) calculator;
guidance documents; public outreach materials including a dynamic Web site, an idle reduction
campaign, and a Scholastic Magic School Bus book; and a Web-based tool kit for state and local
programs.
DIESEL EMISSIONS QUANTIFIER
To help state and local governments, fleet owners, school districts, municipalities, contractors,
port authorities, and others in estimating emission reductions and cost-effectiveness for clean
diesel projects, EPA created an interactive, Web-based calculator tool called the DEQ. Users enter
specific information about a fleet, and emission and cost-effectiveness calculations are made
based on existing EPA models and guidance. The DEQ performs real-time calculations and esti-
mates project-level emissions for PM25, NOX, HC, CO, and C02. To support users of this tool, EPA
also created a user guide and held interactive training webinars.
Ultimately, the tool became a critical component of NCDC, as most grant applicants rely on it to
estimate their emission reductions. Grant applicants are required to evaluate the quantifiable and
unquantifiable benefits of the emission reductions of their proposed projects in each grant ap-
plication, using a methodology approved by EPA or the National Academy of Sciences.
AGENCY GUIDANCE FOR CALCULATING COST-EFFECTIVENESS
EPA published two peer-reviewed technical papers analyzing the cost-effectiveness of reducing
emissions from both on-highway and nonroad diesel engines. (The full reports are available at:
www.epa.gov/otaq/diesel/publications.htm.)
• The Cost-Effectiveness of Heavy-Duty Diesel Retrofits and Other Mobile Source Emission Reduction
Projects and Programs (EPA-420-B-07-006, May 2007).
4. Resources That Support the National Clean Diesel Campaign
35
-------
• Diesel Retrofit Technology: An Analysis of the Cost-Effectiveness of Reducing Paniculate Matter
and Nitrogen Oxides Emissions From Heavy-Duty Nonroad Diesel Engines Through Retrofits
(EPA-420-R-07-OOB, May 2007).
In these papers, EPA evaluated the costs and emission benefits of retrofitting school buses, freight
trucks, and bulldozers with DOCs and catalyzed DPFs, two of the most common PM emission
reduction technologies for diesel engines. The findings from these studies indicate that retrofits
can be a cost-effective way to reduce air pollution compared with other EPA programs.
GUIDANCE ON STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
EPA published guidance to help state and local air quality and transportation planners satisfy
three EPAct 2005 Section 795 provisions: 1) quantify the emission reductions from retrofitting die-
sel vehicles, engines, and equipment; 2) appropriately include the emission reductions from diesel
retrofits in state implementation plans (SIPs) to help demonstrate progress toward, attainment of,
or maintenance of NAAQS; and 3) appropriately include emission reductions from diesel retrofits
in transportation conformity or general conformity.
• Diesel Retrofits: Quantifying and Using Their Benefits in SIPs and Conformity—Guidance for State and
Local Air and Transportation Agencies (EPA-420-B-06-005, June 2006).
• Truck Guidance: Guidance for Quantifying and Using Long-Duration Truck Idling Emission Reductions in
State Implementation Plans and Transportation Conformity (EPA-420-B-04-001, January 2004).
• Locomotive Guidance: Guidance for Quantifying and Using Long-Duration Switch Yard Locomotive
Idling Emission Reductions in State Implementation Plans (EPA-420-B-04-002, January 2004).
PUBLIC OUTREACH MATERIALS
EPA has created a robust national Web site (www.epa.gov/cleandiesel) and myriad public out-
reach materials to assist partners and others with diesel emission reduction projects. In addition,
each Regional Collaborative maintains a Web site with regional priorities and resources.
As a sign of the national Web site's utility, more than 80,000 users visited the site in FY 2008.
The site is continually updated with vital new information and materials, tailored to meet
stakeholder needs. Its design includes a searchable list of demonstration projects, case stud-
ies, technology information, listservs, a trucker portal (www.epa.gov/otaq/diesel/truckers.htm),
sector-specific content (www.epa.gov/cleandiesel/ports), and other helpful links, including links to
Regional Collaborative Web sites.
The breadth of EPA's reach in communicating information about clean diesel and NCDC to the
public in FY 2008 can be measured by the following statistics:
• 100 diesel conferences supported by EPA via financial sponsorships, promotion, and participa-
tion, including the delivery of 12 major speeches by EPA's senior executives.
36 + REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM
-------
• 19 press releases issued highlighting clean diesel accomplishments and their benefit to
the public.
• 40,125 program brochures distributed to stakeholders.
• 650 Clean School Bus USA idle reduction training videos in use.
• 300 Clean Construction USA videos viewed.
• 128,000 copies of Scholastic's The Magic School Bus Gets Cleaned Up books distributed.
NCDC JOINS FORCES WITH INTERNATIONAL PARTNERS
Using funding from non-DERA sources, partnering with local governments and nongovernmen-
tal organizations, and supported by U.S. technology vendors, EPA led demonstration projects in
Mexico City, Mexico; Bangkok, Thailand; Santiago, Chile; Beijing, People's Republic of China; and
Pune, India.
EPA retrofitted about 20 vehicles in each city to demonstrate the emission reductions obtainable
with various devices. The projects helped educate government and nongovernment staff about
clean diesel technologies and aim to build the capacity so they can conduct retrofits on their own.
Following the Beijing demonstration project, the city of Beijing independently retrofitted more
than 5,000 diesel vehicles in preparation for the 2008 Summer Olympics. EPA also worked with
the U.S. Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration on a project with the Port of
Shanghai that resulted in a broader Pacific Ports Initiative, promoting cleaner diesel technologies
among key trading partners and their ports.
Also on the international front, EPA launched a cooperative
project among the Port of Rotterdam, the Port of New York
and New Jersey, a terminal operator with facilities in both
ports, and technology providers to develop hydraulic hybrid
cargo handling equipment. This technology promises to dra-
matically improve fuel economy while reducing PM and NOX.
Lastly, EPA hosted a workshop for Canadian federal and
provincial staff in June 2008. The workshop transferred
knowledge and built relationships with appropriate Cana-
dian government personnel so that they might learn from
the NCDC efforts and be better equipped to launch their
own program.
These international actions are consistent with DERA
Section 795(d), "Outreach and Incentives; International
Markets."
Tool Kit for State and Local
Government Partners
To support state, regional, and local governments
in improving air quality and public health through
diesel engine emission reduction efforts, EPA
developed a Web-based tool kit that compiles
examples of program components they could model
(www.epa.gov/otaq/diesel/slt/basicinfo.htm). The
content focuses on designing programs, communi-
cating success, identifying funding, and evaluating
program results. This tool kit is just one example of
how NCDC operates as a shared responsibility be-
tween EPA and state and local air quality agencies.
4. Resources That Support the National Clean Diesel Campaign
37
-------
5. Remaining Challenges
Adding Verified Technologies and Incentives Could
Enhance Implementation
EPA's advance work in developing guidance and materials, offering educational tools to
partners developing clean diesel programs, and communicating consistently and clearly with
partners and stakeholders was essential to the success of the first year. At the same time,
the Agency's ability to troubleshoot problems that arose and working within the collaborative and
sector networks to improve and adjust the program along the way ensured that it met its mission.
The challenges encountered in implementing the first year of this program were relatively few.
At the end of the year, however, two challenges remain:
1. The number of verified technologies for nonroad and marine engines is too few.
While the list of technologies available on EPA and CARB's lists for on-highway applications is
long, the technologies available for nonroad and marine applications are limited. The agencies
have identified a lack of laboratory facilities and field testing instruments capable of evaluating
marine technologies as the main barrier. Both agencies have been focusing their efforts on in-
creasing the availability of nonroad retrofit technologies, closely working with technology manu-
facturers to encourage additional technology verification for nonroad and marine equipment.
There are also some important gaps in diesel retrofit technologies for older heavy-duty diesel
trucks. While EPA and CARB have verified numerous heavy-duty diesel truck retrofit technolo-
gies, the low-cost devices only reduce PM emissions by a limited amount, and the more effective
devices might not work as well with the older trucks' duty cycles and business models. In some
cases, the value of the retrofit device can exceed the remaining value of an old truck. Accordingly,
EPA will continue to work with diesel retrofit manufacturers to identify cost-effective solutions for
older diesel trucks.
Responding to this need, EPA held a Retrofit Technology Verification Workshop in Washington,
D.C., on December 13, 2007. The workshop was an overwhelming success, with nearly 100
people attending, including technology vendors, original equipment manufacturers, fuel and fuel
additive makers, diesel engine technology organizations, and state and local governments such
as CARB.
38
REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM
-------
This workshop spurred additional verification activity among manufacturers. In 2008, EPA
approved seven additional technologies for nonroad applications and 13 additional technologies
for on-highway applications. In addition, EPA approved six emerging technologies (three nonroad
and three on-highway applications), which will continue in the verification process and could well
be verified within the next two years.
Despite these gains, EPA had to remove a number of technologies from its Technology Verification
List in December 2008, due to the implementation of a new, more stringent limit on the amount
of unwanted nitrogen dioxide (N02) that retrofit devices are allowed to produce. EPA anticipates
that some of the removed technologies will soon meet the new requirement and the Agency will
be able to reinstate them.
2. New incentives are needed to retire the oldest and dirtiest engines.
As EPA's Clean Diesel regulations under the Clean Air Act phase in, new engines that must meet
significantly more stringent standards are increasingly available in the marketplace. The challenge
is to create additional incentives for private fleet owners to replace their older diesel engines with
new engines that meet the new standards.
Under the current law, national program grants cannot go toward private fleet owners or to
projects for which there is a federal, state, or local mandate. First, it is a challenge to encourage
private fleets to apply, as they must partner with eligible entities, creating a barrier to participation
especially for small businesses that may own or operate the oldest and dirtiest fleets. Second, rou-
tine attrition of old vehicles is considered to be compliance activity with Clean Air Act requirements
and currently is not eligible for funding. Accordingly, early replacement projects can receive federal
grants, but not projects that might target the oldest, dirtiest engines that are already past their
useful life and should have been replaced through normal attrition but are nevertheless still in use.
These dual challenges are especially great for small business owner/operators for equipment such
as drayage trucks that serve seaports, tug and tow vessels, and construction equipment.
EPA will continue to work to identify incentives utilizing the innovative finance and loan provisions
of the statute and our SmartWay Transport Partnership, as well as to fashion additional incentives
together with our state and local government partners.
5. Remaining Challenges + 39
-------
». Lessons Learned and Needs for the Future
Continue, Improve, and Expand
Wi
NILE the DERA program has achieved significant emission reductions from diesel engines
in its first year, a tremendous amount of work remains, and substantial investments are
needed.
LESSONS LEARNED
Lessons learned from the first year include the following:
• EPA and others must continue efforts to utilize existing national and regional
networks to further improve the program results. In order to expedite the program,
EPA developed materials to communicate the program options, technologies, goals, and
schedules. Providing clear information and catalyzing networks allowed all parties to engage
in the process and move projects forward. As the programs grow, EPA must promote efforts
that allow agencies to share experiences to encourage action. To this end, EPA will work to
strengthen existing regional diesel collaboratives.
• EPA must continue to cultivate state and local leadership. All 50 states elected to
participate in the first year of the program. For some, this was just the beginning of their work
in this program area. To ensure future success, EPA must continue to work with state agen-
cies and the District of Columbia to build comprehensive clean diesel programs. The results of
the program can be seen at the state and local levels where leadership from state and local
agencies, nonprofit organizations, and private organizations engages interested fleets in the
program and works with them to achieve results. EPA must encourage more organizations to
take this role as both an environmental initiative and an economic opportunity.
• EPA and other organizations must continue to involve the private sector. The
private sector plays a key role in implementing the program. Organizations that supply eligible
technologies must continue to work to improve their technologies and identify opportunities
for fleets that are willing to take action. In addition, EPA and other agencies should encourage
private fleets in priority areas to take proper steps to address the air pollution from their fleets.
The SmartWay Transport Partnership, for example, has created a program for private fleets in
the freight sector. In exchange for making a commitment to reduce emissions and fuel usage,
EPA provides technical advice, public recognition, and the opportunity to become preferred car-
riers for SmartWay shippers. Through corporate leadership to reduce emissions and reduce fuel
40
REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM
-------
usage, the DERA program has a great opportunity for expansion. In order to accomplish this,
corporate champions must step forward and make measurable commitments.
• Organizations must continue to develop and advance verified nonroad and ma-
rine technologies. Opportunities continue to arise in new program areas as the program
grows. Vendors must recognize these opportunities and work to create improved options to ad-
dress the multitude of emission sources covered under the legislation, especially in the nonroad
and marine sectors. EPA will expand the emerging technology and verification programs to
promote innovative technologies that reduce priority pollutants and conserve fuel.
While the verified technologies list available on EPA's and CARB's Web sites for on-highway ap-
plications is long, there are limited products verified for nonroad, marine, or older diesel trucks.
There are limited products available to reduce NOX for any category of engine. Adequate labora-
tory facilities and field testing instruments capable of evaluating PM emission reductions from
marine technologies will be needed. EPA has been working closely with manufacturers to verify
technologies and fill these gaps. The nonroad market is complicated by the number and diversity
of nonroad equipment types, by the range of horsepowers and engine types involved, and by
the varying usage and duty cycles of the equipment. There are many opportunities, however, to
provide cost-effective diesel emission reduction technologies to meet local air quality needs.
NEXT STEPS
Moving forward in the program, EPA commits to the following:
• Continue to work aggressively to reduce pollution from diesel engines across the country by
partnering with key stakeholders to promote clean diesel strategies.
• Target current PM and ozone nonattainment areas where clean diesel strategies will have the
greatest public health impact.
• Provide assistance to state and local governments in developing their own clean diesel pro-
grams.
• Continue to provide high-quality data to states that depend on the performance of diesel emis-
sion reduction strategies in their air quality plans, through in-use testing.
• Continue to work cooperatively with CARB and other states to provide a robust list of clean
diesel technology options for partners.
• Continue to confirm the emission performance of verified technologies in the field.
• Continue to develop innovative financing approaches for stretching federal dollars to achieve
maximum diesel emission reductions, especially where fuel savings can create a business case
for low-cost loans or other financial incentives.
• Develop timely educational materials to continue to build awareness of clean diesel
opportunities.
6. Lessons Learned and Needs for the Future + 41
-------
In summary, the first year of implementation for the Diesel Emissions Reduction Program has been
extremely successful. By harnessing broad support from environmental organizations, state and
local governments, industry, technology vendors, and other groups, EPA has been able to magnify
the available dollars and strategically fund important emission reduction and fuel saving projects.
In total, EPA awarded 119 grants in the first year of the DERA program. More than 14,000 vehicles
and pieces of nonroad equipment in a wide array of sectors will be cleaner as a direct result of this
program. New clean diesel programs have been established in every state and technologies have
been advanced for the future. The implementation of the EPAct 200B's Diesel Emissions Reduction
Program is a critical step toward reaching our national clean air goals and protecting public health
and the environment for all Americans for generations to come.
42
REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM
-------
LnfelfliBJuJ
Assistance Program, FY 2008 Grants
State Grant Recipient EPA Award Match Sector(s)
AL
AZ
CA
CA
CA
CA
CO
CO
CO
CT
DC
FL
GA
ID
IL
IL
Alabama State Port
Authority
City of Phoenix
CALSTART, Inc.
Kern County Superin-
tendent of Schools
Sacramento
Metropolitan Air
Quality Management
District
South Coast Air
Quality Management
District
City and County of
Denver
Colorado Department
of Public Health
Regional Air Quality
Council
Connecticut Depart-
ment of Environmental
Protection
Metropolitan
Washington Council
of Governments
City of St. Petersburg
Georgia Ports Authority
Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality
Chicago Public Schools
Illinois EPA
$750,000
$553,629
$895,827
$540,000
$553,630
$1,000,000
$200,000
$400,000
$455,645
$50,000
$598,516
$666,510
$250,000
$500,000
$373,909
$678,604
$1,580,000
$732,000
$1,015,325
$540,000
$2,581,600
$7,095,900
$87,059
—
—
—
$193,983
$5,745
$33,075
$500,000
$92,000
$654,699
Ports, Rail
Utility
Construction,
Utility, Transit Bus
School Bus
Utility, School Bus
Long-Haul Trucks
Utility, Construction
School Bus
School Bus
Utility, Construction
Construction
Utility, Construction
Ports
School Bus
School Bus
School Bus, Transit
Bus, Utility
Technology Types*
Replacement
Engine Replacement, DPF
CNG, DPF, B20Fuel
CNG Replacement
DPF, Engine Replacement
DPF
Heater
DOC, Closed Crankcase Ventilation
(CCV) System and Engine Preheater
DOC, CCV System
Diesel Oxidation Catalyst, DPF,
Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel
DPF, Repower, Engine Upgrade
DPF, B20 Fuel
DOC, CCV System
DPF, Partial Flow Filter, DOC
Retrofit (DOC, DPF)
Retrofit (DOC, DPF, CCV System),
Auxiliary Power Unit, Direct-Fired
Heater, Hybrid Replacement
' Refer to page 56 for a list of acronyms and abbreviations.
Continued on page 44
Appendix A
43
-------
Appendix A. National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program, FY 2008 Grants (continued)
State Grant Recipient EPA Award Match Sector(s) Technology Types
IN
IN
KS
KY
MA
MA
MA
MD
MD
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
MN
MO
MO
NC
NH
NJ
NY
NY
NY
Indiana Department
of Environmental
Management
Northwest Indiana
Forum Foundation Inc.
Kansas Department
of Health and
Environment
Kentucky Clean Fuels
Coalition
Massachusetts Port
Authority (Massport)
NESCAUM
NESCAUM
Maryland Environmen-
tal Services
Montgomery County
Public Schools
Lenawee Intermediate
School District
Michigan Clean Energy
Coalition
NextEnergy Center
Laker School District
Minnesota Environ-
mental Initiative
Grace Hill Settlement
House
Missouri Department
of Natural Resources
North Carolina Depart-
ment of Environment
and Natural Resources
Manchester Transit
Authority
New Jersey Motor
Truck Association
Board of Cooperative
Educational Services of
Ulster County
Capital District Trans-
portation Authority
Environmental Defense
Fund
$334,500
$164,032
$1,525,524
$473,939
$400,000
$400,000
$535,250
$361,951
$699,501
$154,381
$250,000
$250,000
$251,100
$400,000
$454,849
$726,227
$750,000
$229,703
$503,285
$130,690
$125,000
$400,000
$61,257
$173,432
$1,871,500
$2,160,000
$147,815
$100,000
—
$25,909
$7,350
—
$250,580
$650,500
$253,220
—
—
$621,550
—
$5,652
—
—
—
$2,025,000
Transit Bus
Construction
Trucks and Transit
Buses
Ports
Ports
Construction
Rail
Ports
School Bus
School Bus
Construction
Long Haul Trucks
School Bus
School Bus, Utility
School Bus
Construction
Construction
School Bus, Con-
struction, Utility
Long-Haul Trucks
School Bus
Transit Bus
Utility
Retrofit (DOC, DPF), APU
Repower
DOC w/ CCV System
Vehicle Replacement
Shore Power
DPF
Auxiliary Power Unit
DPF
DPF
DPF
Repower
APU
Bus Replacement; Idle Reduction
Technology, B20 Fuel, Heater
Retrofit (DOC, CCV System)
Crankcase Filtration System (CFS)
DOC, CCV System, APU, Engine
Shutdown
Repower, Replacement
DOC, CCV System, S-Bar Heater,
B20 Fuel
APU, Bunk Heater, DOC, DPF
Vehicle Replacement
DPF
Vehicle Replacement (Hybrid-Electric)
44
REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM
-------
Appendix A. National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program, FY 2008 Grants (continued)
State Grant Recipient EPA Award Match Sector(s)
NY
NY
NY
NY-
NJ
NY-
NJ
OH
OH
OH
OR
PA
PA
SC
SD
TN
TX
TX
TX
UT
VA
VT
Erie County Depart-
ment of Environmental
Planning
Middle Country Cen-
tral School District
Scarsdale Union Free
School District
Port Authority of New
York and New Jersey
(PANYNJ)
PANYNJ
Ohio Environmental
Council
Ohio Indiana Clean
Diesel Collaboration
Stark County Educa-
tional Service Center
City of Portland
City of Philadelphia
Pennsylvania Depart-
ment of Transportation
South Carolina Port of
Charleston
Sioux Falls School
District
Knox County
Government
North Central Texas
Council of
Governments
North Central Texas
Council of
Governments
Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality
Utah Department of
Air Quality
Port of Norfolk
Chittenden Solid
Waste District
$523,395
$359,305
$346,240
$280,500
$750,000
$394,589
$412,554
$465,364
$498,726
$750,000
$219,434
$735,002
$300,000
$163,871
$750,000
$750,000
$500,000
$400,000
$647,457
$205,523
$72,278
$361,305
$29,020
$80,500
$1,250,000
$29,571
$81,344
$89,905
$58,658
$2,250,000
$24,381
$963,502
$300,000
$23,056
$750,000
$1,500,000
—
$4,000
$1,732,600
$616,569
School Bus
School Bus
School Bus
Utility
Ports
Ports, Utility, Refuse
Haulers
Utility
School Bus
Ports, Construction
Utility
Rail
Utility, Construction
School Bus
Utility, Construc-
tion, Agricultural
Trucks
Construction
School Bus
School Bus
Ports and Rail
Utility
Technology Types
DOC, CCV System, Diesel-Fired
Engine Warm-Up Heater
Vehicle Replacement (CNG)
DOC, CCV System
DPF, Flow Through Filter, DOC
Flow Through Filter, DPF
Retrofit (DOC, DPF, CCV System);
APU
DPF
Retrofit (DPF, CCV System, DOC),
Replacement
DOC, Exhaust Retrofit, Ultra-Low
Sulfur Diesel
CNG Vehicle Replacement
APU
Engine Repower, Ultra-Low Sulfur
Diesel
Replacement
Emission Control, Ultra-Low Sulfur
Diesel
APU
Replacement
DOC, DPF, Partial Flow Filter, CCV
System
DOC and CCV System
Engine Repower
Vehicle Replacement
Appendix A
45
-------
Appendix A. National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program, FY 2008 Grants (continued)
State Grant Recipient EPA Award Match Sector(s) Technology Types
WA
Wl
Puget Sound Clean Air
Agency
Wisconsin Department
of Transportation
Total
$850,000
$750,000
$29,038,162
$318,000
$750,000
$34,749,839
Ports
Construction
Vehicle Replacement, DPF, Partial-
Flow Filter, Crankcase Ventilation
Filter, DOC
Repower
46
REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM
-------
-i**:' •Lt
APPENDIX B: National Clean Diesel Emerging
Technologies Program, FY 2008 Grants
Iji—lll
•vwra
CA
MD
TX
TX
TX
WA
Grant Recipient EPA Award Match Sector(s) Vehicle Types Technology Types
South Coast Metropolitan
Air Quality Management
District
Montgomery County
Maryland
Center for Transportation
and the Environment
Texas Transportation
Institute
University of Houston
Puget Sound Clean Air
Agency
Total
$900,000
$400,000
$300,000
$500,000
$500,000
$700,000
$3,300,000
$858,614
$88,168
—
$64,200
$119,945
—
$1,130,927
•
Delivery
Truck
Short Haul
Construc-
tion
Construc-
tion
Marine
m
Class 6 (19,501-
26,000 Ibs)
Class 8a (33,001-
60,000 Ibs)
Graders
Tractors, Loaders,
Backhoes
Marine
Selective Catalytic
Reduction (SCR)
SCR
Other Emissions
Control Devices
SCR
SCR
Engine Upgrade
For the FY 2008 National Clean Diesel Emerging Technology Program competition, EPA approved
six technologies, as shown below. These included two technologies for marine vessels and SCR
technologies for on-highway vehicles and nonroad equipment that expand technological options
to reduce NOX by approximately 65 percent. This list of EPA's emerging technologies is updated as
information is submitted from manufacturers, and EPA anticipates that the types and numbers of
technologies will continue to grow.
Manufacturer
Caterpillar, Inc.
technology
Applica
Engine Upgrade Kit
Marine
ESW Canada
DOC, CCV System
Marine
25
70
N/A
25
95
Johnson Matthey
Urea-Based SCR System, DPF
On-Highway
90
85
65
Nett Technologies, Inc.
Urea-Based SCR System
Nonroad
20
60
65
60
90
60
Tinnerman/Shadowood
Reformer, LNT, SCR, DPF
On-Highway
90
90
65
Truck Emission Control Technologies Inc.
DOC, DPF, EGR
On-Highway
50
70
40
Appendix B
47
-------
APPENDIX C: SmartWay Clean Diesel
Finance Program, FY 2008 Grants
Grant Recipient
Cascade Sierra Solutions
Everybody Wins USA Lease Program
Grant Amount: $1.13 million
Project Overview
Loan Interest Rate: 8% to 11%, includes 7% for financing cost,
1% collection fee, and 1% to 3% reservation loss.
Loan Payback Period: Three years.
Eligible Activities: Installation and leasing of EPA SmartWay or
CARB-verified emission and idle reduction technologies. The truck
owners will purchase the equipment for $10 at the end of the loan
period.
Program Goal: Establish a leasing program for the installation of
emission reduction technology and idle reduction technology on
1,700 trucks.
Community Development Transportation
Lending Services, Inc.
National Low Interest Revolving Loan Fund
Grant Amount: $1.13 million
Interest Rates: 5.5% to 8.5%, varies based on, among other
things, each applicant's business history, available collateral, cash
flow, and credit score.
Loan Payback Period: Three to six years, varies based on, among
other things, business history, available collateral, and cash flow.
Eligible Activities: Purchase used trucks to upgrade with EPA
SmartWay or CARB-verified idle reduction and/or emission reduc-
tion technology.
Purchase used trucks that are upgraded with EPA SmartWay or
CARB-verified idle reduction and/or emission reduction technology.
Program Goal: Establish a revolving loan fund for the purchase of
used trucks that have SmartWay upgrades or will receive SmartWay
upgrades.
Service Fee: 2% to 3%.
Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association Foundation
Innovative Financing
Grant Amount: $1.13 million
Loan Interest Rate: Varies based on market Solid Waste Alterna-
tive Program rate.
Eligible Activities: Purchase and installation of emission reduction
and idle reduction technologies verified by EPA and/or CARB.
Program Goal: Offer rebates to selected applicants/truck owners
to install emission reduction and/or idle reduction equipment on
their trucks. The first rebate to the truck owner will be for the cost
of the equipment installation. Then, every six months, depending
on idle/fuel use reductions demonstrated, the truck owner will
receive additional rebates until 40% of the total cost of the equip-
ment is paid.
48
REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM
-------
APPENDIX D: State Clean Diesel Program,
FY 2008 Grants
AK
rant Recipien
Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation
Federal
nding
>tment
$295,320
Sector(s)
Construction
Technology Types
Research, Retrofit
AL
Alabama Department of
Environmental Management
$196,880
Rail
Repower
AR
Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality
$295,320
School Bus, Long
Haul Trucks,
Construction
Retrofitted, Idle Reduction
AZ
Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality
$196,880
Short Haul
Truck Stop Electrification
CA
California Air Resources Board
$295,320
Long Haul Trucks
Retrofit
CO
Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment
$196,880
School Bus
Retrofit
CT
Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection
$295,320
School Bus, Long
Haul Trucks
Idle Reduction
DE
Delaware Department of
Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
$295,320
Refuse Hauler
Retrofit
FL
Florida Department of
Environmental Protection
$295,320
Long Haul Trucks,
School Bus
Retrofit, Idle Reduction
GA
Georgia Department of Natural
Resources
$295,320
School Bus,
Construction
Retrofit
HI
Environmental Health
Administration
$196,880
School Bus, Utility
Retrofit
IA
Iowa Department of Natural
Resources
$196,880
School Bus
Replacement
ID
Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality
$196,880
School Bus
Retrofit
Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
$295,320
Long Haul Trucks
Idle Reduction
Indiana Department of
Environmental Management
$295,320
Long Haul Trucks
Retrofit
KS
Kansas Department of Health and
Environment
$295,320
Long Haul Trucks
Replacement, Idle Reduction
Appendix D
49
-------
Appendix D. State Clean Diesel Program, FY 2008 Grants (continued)
State
KY
LA
MA
MD
ME
Ml
MN
MO
MS
MT
NC
ND
NE
NH
NJ
NM
NV
NY
OH
OK
Grant Recipient
Kentucky Division for Air Quality
Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection
Maryland Department of the
Environment
Maine Department of
Environmental Protection
Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality
Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency
Missouri Department of Natural
Resources
Mississippi Department of
Environmental Quality
Montana Department of
Environmental Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural
Resources
North Dakota Department of
Health
Nebraska Department of
Environmental Quality
New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Science
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
New Mexico Environment
Department
Nevada Division of Environmental
Protection
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency
Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality
Total Federal
Funding Sector(s)
$196,880
$295,320
$295,320
$295,320
$295,320
$295,320
$295,320
$295,320
$295,320
$295,320
$295,320
$196,880
$196,880
$196,880
$295,320
$196,880
$295,320
$295,320
$295,320
$295,320
School Bus
Marine
Refuse Hauler,
Rail, Utility
Transit Bus
School Bus, Long
Haul Trucks
School Bus
School Bus, Long
Haul Trucks
Long Haul Trucks,
Utility
Utility Vehicle,
School Bus
School Bus,
Transit Bus
Transit Bus,
School Bus, Rail,
Construction,
Refuse Haulers
School Bus
School Bus,
Refuse Hauler,
City/County
Vehicle, Transit
Bus, Construction
Transit Bus, Con-
struction, Utility
Construction,
School Bus
School Bus
School Bus
Marine
School Bus
School Bus
Technology Types
Retrofit
Repower
Retrofit, Replacement
Retrofit
Idle Reduction
Retrofit
Retrofit, Idle Reduction
Replacement, Idle Reduction
Retrofit
Retrofit, Repower
Retrofit, Idle Reduction,
Repower
Replacement
Retrofit
Retrofit
Retrofit
Retrofit
Retrofit
Replacement
Retrofit
Retrofit
50
REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM
-------
Appendix D. State Clean Diesel Program, FY 2008 Grants (continued)
State
OR
PA
Rl
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VA
VT
WA
Wl
WV
WY
Grant Recipient Funding Sector(s)
Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection
Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management
South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control
South Dakota Department of
Environment and Natural
Resources
Tennessee Department of
Environment and Conservation
Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality
Utah Department of
Environmental Quality
Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality
Vermont Department of
Environmental Conservation
Washington State Department of
Ecology
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection
Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality
Total
$295,320
$295,320
$196,880
$295,320
$196,880
$196,880
$295,320
$295,320
$196,880
$196,880
$295,320
$295,320
$196,880
$196,880
$12,994,080
School Bus
Ports, Airports
Ports, Airports
School Bus,
Construction
School Bus
Long Haul Trucks
School Bus
School Bus
Utility Vehicle
School Bus
School Bus
Refuse Hauler,
Construction
Transit Bus
School Bus
Match
Technology Types
Retrofit
Repower
Retrofit
Retrofit, Repower
Retrofit
Idle Reduction
Retrofit
Retrofit
Retrofit
Retrofit, Idle Reduction
Retrofit
Retrofit, Repower
Replacement
Repower
$6,300,160
Appendix D
-------
FOR the National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program, all grant competitions used crite-
ria and points similar to those summarized in the table below, consistent with the priorities
described in Section 792 of the Energy Policy Act, Subtitle G (see page 20), and with
Agency policy.
National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program
For the National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program, the seven EPA Regional Collaborates
described in Appendix F held grant competitions, following Agency policy. Regions evaluated each
Regional RFP following the same general criteria, supplementing with regional priorities worth 10
points in the final criterion.
EPA devoted the majority of the funding available to the National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance
Program and allocated it to its 10 regional offices to award as competitive grants in support of
clean diesel projects. EPA distributed funds across the regions based on a funding formula that
included a base amount and considered population, diesel emission inventories, and other factors
consistent with the objectives listed in the statute Section 792.
EPA's regions addressed certain regional priorities in their competitions, while following a model
RFP to ensure that all of EPA's actions adhered to the statutory requirements and EPA policy.
National Clean Diesel Emerging Technologies Program
For the National Clean Diesel Emerging Technologies RFP, EPA employed similar criteria to those
in the table below; however, EPA required that the projects propose to use technologies on EPA's
Emerging Technology List by the closing date of the RFP. Criterion 9 was not applicable.
SmartWay Clean Diesel Finance Program
For the SmartWay Clean Diesel Finance RFP, EPA used criteria similar to those in the table below;
however, Criterion 9 was not applicable.
52
REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM
-------
Appendix E. National Program Evaluation Criteria (continued)
Criteria
1. Project Summary/Approach: EPA will evaluate the quality and extent to which the narrative
proposal includes a well-conceived strategy for addressing the program priorities from the statute
and a well-conceived, logical strategy for achieving the anticipated environmental results associ-
ated with the proposed project in a timely manner.
25
2. Programmatic Priorities: The Agency will evaluate the quality and extent to which the pro-
posed project addresses the programmatic priorities.
10
3. Past Performance—Programmatic Capability and Reporting on Environmental
Results: The Agency will evaluate the applicant's technical ability to successfully complete and
manage the proposed project, taking into account the applicant's past performance in success-
fully completing and managing federally funded assistance agreements.
10
4. Environmental Results—Outcomes and Outputs: The Agency will evaluate the effective-
ness of the applicant's plan for tracking and measuring its progress toward achieving expected
project outputs and outcomes.
15
5. Budget/Resources: The Agency will evaluate whether the proposed project budget is appropri-
ate to accomplish the proposed goals and measurable environmental outcomes.
10
6. Clear Description of the Target Fleet: Applicants will be evaluated on the degree to which
detailed information on the fleet (vessel[sj, vehicle[s], and/or equipment) is provided on the Ap-
plicant Fleet Description Spreadsheet and the eligibility of technology for the fleet.
10
7. Leveraging Resources and Partnering: Applicants will be evaluated based on the extent to
which they demonstrate how they will coordinate the use of EPA funding with other federal and/
or nonfederal sources of funds to leverage additional resources to carry out the proposed projects
and/or how that EPA funding will complement other activities.
15
8. Staff Expertise/Qualifications: Applicants will be evaluated on staff expertise/qualifications,
staff knowledge, and resources or the ability to obtain them, to successfully achieve the goals of
the proposed project.
9. Regional Significance: For the National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program, a factor for
regional significance was added.
10
Appendix E
53
-------
APPENDIX F: EPA Regional Clean
Diesel Collaboratives
BEGINNING in 2003, EPA's regions began organizing Regional Clean Diesel Collaboratives
with their states, local nonprofit organizations, private industry, and municipalities. The
Collaboratives listed below play a vital role in EPA's incentive-based approach to achieving
superior environmental results. By tying into a network of regional stakeholders, this collabora-
tive structure is ideal for achieving significant emission reductions across a large geographic area.
Regional initiatives and state programs provide immediate and significant environmental results
by working collaboratively with businesses, government and community organizations, industry,
and others.
Northeast Diesel Collaborative
www.northeastdiesel.org
The Northeast Diesel Collaborative is a local initiative that builds on a foundation of voluntary
action. Developed with EPA Regions 1 and 2, the initiative encourages participants to engage
in projects that will reduce transportation-related air pollution to help address the high asthma
rates in the Northeast. The program partners with the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use
Management (NESCAUM).
Mid-Atlantic Clean Diesel Collaborative
www.dieselmidatlantic.org
The Mid-Atlantic Clean Diesel Collaborative is a partnership among leaders from federal, state,
and local governments; the private sector; and environmental groups in Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia.
Midwest Clean Diesel Initiative
www.epa.gov/midwestcleandiesel
EPA Region B's Midwest Clean Diesel Initiative is a cooperative, public-private effort to reduce
diesel emissions along major transportation corridors from various sectors including trucking,
locomotive, construction, and ports, with an emphasis on urban areas in the Midwest.
Southeast Diesel Collaborative
www.southeastdiesel.org
The Southeast Diesel Collaborative is a voluntary, public-private partnership involving leaders
from federal, state, and local governments; the private sector; and other stakeholders throughout
the Southeast working to reduce diesel emissions.
54
REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM
-------
Rocky Mountain Clean Diesel Collaborative
www.epa.gov/region8/air/rmcdc.html
The Rocky Mountain Clean Diesel Collaborative is a partnership of federal, state, and local
governments; nonprofit organizations; the private sector; and environmental groups in Colorado,
Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. The collaborative was established in
November 2006.
Blue Skyways Collaborative
www. b I uesky ways .0 rg
The Blue Skyways Collaborative was created to encourage voluntary air emission reduction in
North America's heartland. Through partnership with nonprofit and environmental groups; private
industries; and international, federal, state, and local governments, Blue Skyways strives to im-
prove air quality.
West Coast Diesel Collaborative
www.westcoastcollaborative.org
EPA Regions 9 and 10 were instrumental in creating the West Coast Diesel Collaborative. This
initiative is a partnership among leaders from federal, state, and local government; the private
sector; and environmental groups in California, Oregon, Idaho, Washington, Alaska, Canada, and
Mexico, committed to reducing diesel emissions along the West Coast.
Appendix F + 55
-------
,. v *
. : .:
APU Auxiliary Power Unit
CARB California Air Resources Board
CCV
Closed Crankcase Ventilation
CFS Crankcase Filtration System
CNG Compressed Natural Gas
CO Carbon Monoxide
C02 Carbon Dioxide
DEQ Diesel Emissions Quantifier
DERA Diesel Emissions Reduction Act
DOC Diesel Oxidation Catalyst
DPF Diesel Paniculate Filter
EGR Exhaust Gas Recirculation
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
EPAct Energy Policy Act
FY Fiscal Year
HC Hydrocarbon
LNT Lean Nitrogen Oxides Trap
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality
Standards
NCDC National Clean Diesel Campaign
NESCAUM Northeast States for Coordinated
Air Use Management
NMHC Nonmethane Hydrocarbon
N02 Nitrogen Dioxide
NOX Nitrogen Oxides
Paniculate Matter (Fine)
Parts Per Million
2.5
PPM
RFP Request for Proposal
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction
SCRT Selective Catalytic Reduction
Technology
SIP State Implementation Plan
S0y Sulfur Oxides
A
ULSD Ultra-Low-Sulfur Diesel
56
REPORT TO CONGRESS: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM
-------
-------
National Clean Diesel Campaign
ased inks on 100% postconsumer, process chlorine free recycle
------- |