California Low Emission Vehicle (LEV II) Program in the Northeast Coralie Cooper Transportation Program Manager Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management December 19, 2003

Presentation Overview Summary of emissions reductions of the LEV II Program over the Tier 2 program. Summary of modeling approach. Conclusions.

Summary of Emissions Reductions: LEV II compared to Tier 2 Annual Emissions Benefits of the LEV II Program in 2020 State HC reduced (tons) % HC Reduction Over Tier 2 Toxics[1] reduced % Toxics Reduction Over Tier 2 CO2 reduced (tons)* % CO2 reduced NY 10,020 15% 502 25% for each toxin 2,500,000 2.25% MA 3,300 17% 185 900,000 VT 510 14% 29 19% for each toxin 120,000 Total 13,830 Average Reduction 15.3% 716 Average Reduction 23% 3,520,000 Average Reduction 2.25% [1] Toxics include benzene, 1,3 butadiene, formaldehyde and acetaldehyde * annual tons reduced equal to industrial process or agricultural emissions for the New England states.

Inventory of NE Air Toxics (1996)

California LEV Benefits (cont.) LEV program will continue to require the most stringent emissions standards in the nation. CA is considering development of LEV III standards, while the federal program will not change for a decade or more. CA is also developing motor vehicle GHG emissions standards. Both human health and ecological risks were to be assessed. The ecological risk assessment has not yet been completed.

Summary of Modeling Approach Tier 2 allows manufacturers to certify vehicles to 1 of 11 standards. NESCAUM study assumed most vehicles certified to “bin 5.” EPA certification data for 2003 and 2004 confirm this approach. Near zero evaporative standard for partial ZEV vehicles. Assumed LEV same as Tier 2. Benefits in the NESCAUM study are conservative because of the assumption that all Tier 2 vehicles meet LEV II evaporative standards, even though LEV II standards are 60% more stringent than Tier 2.

Conclusions NESCAUM study demonstrates a significant HC and toxics benefit with adoption of LEV II in lieu of Tier 2. The study demonstrates a modest CO2 reduction from LEV II adoption. It does not take into account any CO2 reductions that would result from the GHG standard implementation Future changes to the California program (LEV III, GHG regulations) will further increase the emissions reductions realized in LEV II states.