ARB Publishes Latest Draft of New Regulations for In-Use Heavy-Duty Trucks
24 October 2008
The California Air Resources Board (ARB) published for public comment its latest draft version of a new regulation that, if adopted at the Board’s 11 December hearing, will further reduce emissions from the approximately one million in-use heavy-duty diesel trucks that operate in California beginning in 2010. (Earlier post.)
The regulation, which originates from the board’s diesel program, is targeted at further reductions in NOx and PM emissions, and will require truck owners to install diesel PM filters on their rigs starting in 2010, with nearly all vehicles upgraded by 2014. Owners must also turn over engines older than the 2010 equivalent to cleaner engines according to a staggered implementation schedule between 2012 and 2022.
A second regulation, which is part of the AB 32 Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan (earlier post), requires that long haul truckers install fuel-efficient tires and aerodynamic devices on their trailers that lower greenhouse gas emissions and improve fuel economy.
NOx and PM. The proposed new regulation would apply to any person, business, or federal government agency that owns or operates affected vehicles in California. Affected vehicles include heavy-duty diesel-fueled vehicles with a GVWR greater than 14,000 pounds; yard trucks with off-road certified engines; and diesel-fueled shuttle vehicles of any GVWR that have a capacity of 10 or more passengers and routinely drive an average of 10 trips per day to or from airport terminals, marine terminals, and rail based stations.
Drayage trucks and utility-owned vehicles would be subject to the regulation beginning 1 January 2021. The proposed regulation would be applicable regardless of where the vehicle is registered.
In general, the regulation would require owners to reduce PM and NOx emissions from their fleet by upgrading the vehicles to meet BACT (Best Available Commercial Technology) standards for PM and NOx. The BACT standard for PM is an engine equipped with the highest level verified emission control device for PM or an engine originally equipped with a diesel particulate filter by the engine manufacturer. The BACT standard for NOx is an engine newly manufactured in 2010 or later or a 2010 emissions equivalent engine.
A fleet may meet these performance requirements by retrofitting a vehicle with a verified device that will achieve PM or NOx reductions or both as required, replacing an engine with a newer cleaner one, or replacing a vehicle with one having a cleaner engine.
There are exceptions to the regulation, including low-use vehicles, emergency and military tactical vehicles, and personal-use motor homes. School buses would be subject only to requirements for reducing diesel particulate matter and not for engine replacement.
The state is offering truck owners more than a billion dollars in funding opportunities to help with the cost of the proposed diesel rule. Funding options include Carl Moyer grants, which are designated for early or surplus compliance with diesel regulations; Proposition 1B funds, for air quality improvements related to goods movement; and AB 118, which establishes a low-cost truck loan program to help pay for early compliance with the truck rule.
To better assist truckers, ARB is evaluating ways to integrate these programs so that truckers can get a grant and a loan at the same time, minimizing paperwork and significantly reducing the monthly payments for a new truck loan.
Diesel emissions are toxic, associated with cancer, and can also exacerbate cardiovascular and respiratory ailments. The truck NOx/PM regulation is expected to save 9,400 lives between 2010 and 2025, and greatly reduce health care costs. These benefits have a value of $48 to $69 billion. The cost of installing the trailer greenhouse-gas-reducing technologies will be quickly paid back through lower fuel use.
Without this regulation, ARB said, California will not be able to meet US EPA-mandated air quality standards and deadlines, and could subsequently lose billions of dollars in federal highway funding.
Heavy-duty big rigs are the largest remaining source of unregulated diesel emissions in California, responsible for 32% of the smog-forming emissions and nearly 40% of the cancer-causing emissions from diesel mobile sources (other diesel emitters include trains, off-road vehicles and marine engines). The rules are expected to impact more than 400,000 trucks registered in the state, as well as about 500,000 out-of-state vehicles that do business in California, and over a half million trailers.
Resources
More energy and green hpuse gasses would be saved if every new industrial and commercial building as well as appartments and home were required to have co-generation or combined-heating-colling and power. Wilst the first cost of such equipment is high, large volume will make it cheaper. It will already save money and green house gasses with more speed and lower cost than solar or wind energy and may even surpass the much hated nuclear energy, certainly in speed of adoption.
What is the efficiency of a house how many kilograms of CO2 should be allowed per person.
Instead of designing engines and furnaces to produce low NOX, they should be designed the produce the highest passible values which then can be collected and turned into fertilizer for better protein growth instead of melamine after growth to fake it. ..HG..
Posted by: Henry Gibson | 24 October 2008 at 05:25 PM
imho the most powerful part of this registration is that it applies at all vehicles that operate in the state and not just those registered. as noted in the article, the former number is half a million vehicles, which is quite significant.
Posted by: lensovet | 25 October 2008 at 01:39 AM
Most of the west and California is sparsely populated with good air qulaity. CARB wants to regulate interstate issues.
Posted by: Kit P | 25 October 2008 at 10:55 AM
Set up an attainable transition from petro-diesel to biodiesel. Requires refineries, expanded infrastructure and old energy players to get on board or get out of the way. The expansion of algal oil development is a major step forward.
Meanwhile, as half a million families rely on the trucking business in Cali - let's assure them that someone cares about their jobs. And will protect them. That should be the Governor and BOTH presidential candidates.
Posted by: gr | 25 October 2008 at 11:48 AM
I don’t know about others here, but I’ve seen some of the toxic air in southern California, and yes you can actually see the pollution that’s sometimes so thick that it’s hard to see more than a city block. They definitely need to do anything and everything to try cleaning up this kind of pollution.
Posted by: New Trucks | 26 October 2008 at 06:03 AM
Actually, having lived there for many years I can tell you that the air quality in the LA basin is FAR better than ever before. According to AQMD, (four SC counties) the number of Stage 1 ozone episodes have plummeted from 121 in 1977, to zero in 2000.
Diesel particulates are a health issue and plans to convert from petroleum based diesel to biodiesel is the best near-term solution for the trucking industry.
Posted by: sulleny | 26 October 2008 at 10:36 AM
@sulleny
I do not have a problem with folks in the LA basin trying to clean up their air. I do have a problem with folks with poor air quality dictating to us who have good air quality.
Health issues are just a pretext for folks in California to regulate others. Like I said, most places in the US have very good air quality. The root cause of California’s big city problems are simple too many people want to live there resulting in high living costs, poor schools, and lots of crime.
Furthermore, California has a very poor plan to improve air quality and reduce ghg. What California should do is ration gasoline to 30 gallons/month per family and replace half of its gas fired power plants with nukes.
My plan is very simple and does involve California dictating a additional set of regulations to some long haul truck driver living on few acres in a double wide.
Posted by: Kit P | 27 October 2008 at 06:31 AM
Kit:
For you this sounds rather Draconian. Gas rationing? What happens to millions unable to get to work?
Posted by: | 27 October 2008 at 12:44 PM
“Draconian”
Only for energy pigs who like air pollution and AGW. I do not think leaders in California are the least bit serious about solving their problems.
Posted by: Kit P | 27 October 2008 at 04:53 PM