1. 1 MOBILE SOURCES 101 2005 Presented by: Rob Klausmeier de la Torre Klausmeier Consulting, Inc Harold Garabedian Vermont Agency of Natural Resources

2. 2 Strategies for Reducing Mobile Source Emissions Vehicle emission standards Controlling fuel quality State and local initiatives: -Clean Air Act requirements for Non-attainment areas. -Improved vehicle maintenance (Inspection/maintenance programs) -Reformulated gasoline -Reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) -Other control strategies – Scrappage, retrofit Onboard diagnostics Modeling Vehicle Emissions What will be covered:

3. 3 Exhaust Emission Standards for On-Road Vehicles To date, much of the progress towards reducing pollution has been achieved through motor vehicle emissions standards. The State of California established the first emission standards for motor vehicles in 1966. The federal government followed suit and in 1968 began implementing the first phase of the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP).

4. 4 Terminology Review A wide variety of terms have been used for organic emissions from mobile sources and, accordingly, emission standards, including the following:  VOCs – all volatile organic compounds, including hydrocarbons and oxygenated compounds.  HC – all hydrocarbon compounds.  NMHC – non-methane hydrocarbons.  NMOG – non-methane organic gases: volatile organic compounds excluding methane. Standards for all pollutants are typically expressed in terms of grams emitted per mile traveled (g/mi.).

5. 5 Federal Requirements Federal standards from 1981 to 1993 are termed Tier 0. Current and future federal light-duty vehicle emission standards for vehicles fall into two categories: Tier I emission standards, which were phased in during the 1994 to 1996 model years; and Tier II standards, which are required by the year 2004.

6. 6

7. 7

8. 8

9. 9 Cold Weather Carbon Monoxide (CO) The CAAA require EPA to promulgate standards for cold (<20ºF) CO emissions. Under these requirements, LDVs and light-duty trucks (LDTs) must meet a 10.0 grams per mile CO standard in cold conditions under a phase-in schedule beginning in 1994.

10. 10 California Requirements California plans to phase in increasingly more stringent vehicle emission standards over the next decade because of its extremely severe ozone problem. Beginning in 1994, vehicles had to meet emission standards that fall under the general category of the California Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) Program.  Transitional Low Emission Vehicles (TLEV) –TLEV emission standards differ from Tier I standards in that the non-methane organic gas (NMOG) standard is half of the Tier I standard.  Low Emission Vehicles (LEV) – The NMOG standard is approximately 1/3 of the Tier I standard, and the NO x standard is half of the Tier I standard.  Ultra Low Emission Vehicles (ULEV) – a portion of the vehicle population must meet ULEV standards which limit vehicle emissions of NMOG and CO to approximately half the level required for LEV standards.  Super-Ultra-Low-Emission Vehicle (SULEV) --a portion of the vehicle population must meet SULEV standards which limit vehicle emissions of NMOG and NOx to approximately 20% of the level required for ULEV standards. Similar standards are also required for light-duty trucks.

11. 11 NMHCs vs. NMOGs Beginning with the introduction of TLEVs, California regulated the emissions of non-methane organic gases (NMOGs) instead of NMHCs. NMOGs include NMHCs plus oxygenated compounds such as alcohols and aldehydes. The NMOG standard was developed to allow California to adopted a fuel neutral stance, which is intended not to favor a particular fuel from a pollution limit standpoint.

12. 12 ZEVs California also will require the phase-in of zero emission vehicles (ZEVs). Originally, ZEVs had to account for 10 percent of the automakers sales volume in California by 2003. PZEVs (Partial Zero Emission Vehicles) -- California will allow manufacturers to substitute “near zero” emission technologies with NO EVAP EMISSIONS for a portion of the mandated ZEV fraction.

13. 13 Phase-in Schedule California requires manufacturers to meet a weighted average emission standard based upon vehicle sales. Except for mandated market penetration for ZEVs, manufacturers have the flexibility to produce varying numbers of TLEVs, LEVs, ULEVs, and SULEVs as long as they meet the weighted emissions average.

14. 14 Hypothetical Implementation Rates for Conventional Vehicles

15. 15 0.0430.0352010+ 0.0470.0382009 0.0500.0402008 0.0550.0432007 0.0620.0462006 0.0760.0492005 0.0850.0532004 0.0930.0622003 0.0950.0682002 0.0980.0702001 LDTs 3751 lbs. LVW - 8500 lbs. GVW All PCs; LDTs 0-3750 lbs. LVW Fleet Average NMOG (g/mi)Model Year FLEET AVERAGE NON-METHANE ORGANIC GAS EXHAUST MASS EMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE WEIGHT CLASSES (50,000 mile Durability Vehicle Basis)

16. 16 APPLICABLE EMISSION STANDARDS TO BE USED IN FLEET AVERAGE CALC’S Model YearEmission CategoryEmission Standard Value All PCs; LDTs 0-3750 lbs. LVW LDTs 3751-5750 lbs. LVW 2001 and subsequent (AB 965 vehicles only) Tier 10.250.32 2001 - 2003Tier 10.250.32 2001 - 2006 model year vehicles certified to the "LEV I" standards TLEVs0.1250.160 LEVs0.0750.100 ULEVs0.0400.050 Model YearEmission CategoryAll PCs; LDTs 0-3750 lbs. LVW LDTs 3751 lbs. LVW - 8500 lbs. GVW 2001 and subsequent model year vehicles certified to "LEV II” LEVs0.075 ULEVs0.040 SULEVs.010.01 2001 + certified to the optional 150,000 mile "LEV II" standards LEVs0.06 ULEVs0.03 SULEVs0.0085

17. 17 QUANTIFYING VEHICLE EMISSIONS Vehicle Certification Tests Federal Test Procedure (FTP) SFTP

18. 18 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE (FTP) Determines if vehicles comply with exhaust and evaporative emission standards. Exhaust Emission Test -- Consists of the following modes:  Engine off period for 12 to 36 hours at 68 to 86° F.  Cold Start test over a 3.6 mile cycle (a portion of the emissions are bagged for analysis)  Cold Stabilized test over a 3.9 mile cycle (a portion of the emissions are bagged for analysis). The driving cycle over the Cold Start and Cold Stabilized test is termed the LA4.  Engine off for 10 minutes.  Hot transient test over a 3.6 mile cycle (a portion of the emissions are bagged for analysis)  Emissions are measured using large roll dynamometers and a constant volume sampling system. FTP exhaust measurement equipment costs more than $1,000,000 per test cell.

19. 19 FTP

20. 20 COLD START AND HOT START PORTIONS OF FTP

21. 21

22. 22

23. 23 FTP EVAPORATIVE EMISSION TEST Consists of the following modes:  Hot-Soak test -- Immediately following Driving Cycle test, evaporative losses are measured for one hour using a procedure involving a sealed chamber, Sealed Housing Evaporative Determination (SHED).  Diurnal test – Again using the SHED, emissions are measured over a 3 day period as the vehicle is exposed to a diurnal temperature range of 72 to 96° F.  Running Loss Test – Running losses are measured while the vehicle is driven over the LA4.  New evaporative test cells, like exhaust test cells, cost over $1,000,000.

24. 24 FTP Evap Test

25. 25 Changes in the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) Light-duty vehicles must demonstrate compliance with emission standards using a test procedure termed the Federal Test Procedure (FTP). The FTP consists of a series of cold starts, accelerations, decelerations, idling, hot starts, and other modes that are assumed to depict typical driving behavior. Recently there has been concern that it does not accurately characterize real-world driving patterns and resulting emissions, especially HC and CO emissions.

26. 26 Changes in the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) cont. Emissions can be more than 100 times greater during acceleration modes that are not represented in the FTP. If only one hard acceleration were included in the FTP, emissions would significantly increase, perhaps by 100 percent or more. EPA and the State of California developed the Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (SFTP) to ensure that emissions are not excessive during “off FTP” conditions, such as high acceleration modes.

27. 27 SFTP

28. 28 SFTP Cycle

29. 29 MEETING FUTURE REQUIREMENTS

30. Future Powerplant Issues Emission reduction CO, HC, NOx CO 2 reduction Alternative fuels Global warming Hybrid / gasoline technology Fuel Cell technology Air pollution Gasoline technology

31. 31 EMISSION CONTROLS NEEDED TO MEET FUTURE STANDARDS Light-duty gasoline fueled vehicles will continue to use closed loop fuel metering systems and three-way catalytic converters.

32. 32 EMISSION CONTROLS (CONT.) Vehicles will have enhanced fuel and engine management systems. Compliance with future emission standards will require greater control of emissions during the cold start phase. About 60% of the total HC emissions from well-controlled vehicles are generated during the cold start portion. Most manufacturers expect to use close-coupled catalysts (CCC) to reduce cold start emissions. These catalysts are placed very close to the exhaust manifold so that they will heat up and become operational quickly, thereby reducing emissions during the cold start mode.

33. 33 EMISSION CONTROLS (CONT.) When LEV standards were first proposed, experts believed that electrically heated catalysts (EHC) would be needed. These catalysts contain an electric heating element that is used to preheat the catalyst prior to start-up. Now EHCs do not appear to be necessary. To date, all only one vehicle has been certified without them.

34. 34 SULEV STD 120kmile 1200cell Catalyst Quick Warm-Up system and Lean Air/Fuel ratio at start-up ACCORD-ULEV ULEV STD 50kmile 1/10 PRISM 1/4 NOx NMOG TECHNOLOGY ROAD MAP TO SULEV

35. 35 CURRENT AND FUTURE HEAVY- DUTY ENGINE STANDARDS How emissions are regulated – g/hp-hr (work) instead of g/mi.

36. 36 Emission Standards for Heavy- Duty Engines (HC+NOx g/hp*hr)

37. 37 Emission Standards for Heavy- Duty Engines (PM g/hp*hr)

38. 38

39. 39 Emission Standards for Non-Road Vehicles In 1991, EPA released a study documenting that emission levels across a broad spectrum of nonroad equipment were higher than expected. The EPA study showed that emissions from nonroad engines are a significant source of oxides of nitrogen (NOx), volatile organic compound (VOC), and particulate matter (PM) emissions. In some areas of the country, emissions from nonroad engines represent a third of the total mobile source NOx and VOC inventory and over two-thirds of the mobile source PM inventory.

40. 40 Phase-In of Nonroad Diesel Engine Standards 19961998200020022004200620082010 Tier 1 Tier 3 Tier 2 Similar to highway 2004 Similar to highway 1998

41. 41 NOx Defeat Devices Manufacturers of heavy-duty engines were accused of using NOx defeat devices. A defeat device is defined as a system or strategy that deactivates the emission control system in response to an engine operating condition outside of the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) These defeat devices increased NOx emission when vehicles were operated outside of the transient test cycle, e.g highway operating conditions.

42. 42 8b HDDV NOx Emission Factors Average NOx Emission Factors for an 8b Diesel Vehicle

43. 43 Advanced Technologies Alternative Fuels Hybrid New Propulsion Systems Electric Vehicles Fuel Cells

44. 44 REFER TO THE FOLLOWING PRESENTATIONS: TOYOTA NAMVECC PRESENTATION GLOBE NAMVECC PRESENTATION

45. 45 FUEL QUALITY Gasoline Fuel Properties Gasoline parameters affecting vehicle emissions: –Volatility (Reid Vapor Pressure, RVP) – big impact on evaporative emissions; moderate impact on exhaust HC emissions. –% Sulfur – Big impact on exhaust HC, CO, and NOx emissions. –% and type of oxygenate – moderate impact on exhaust HC and CO emissions. Potential negative impact (emissions increase) on NOx emissions. –% Benzene – Big impact on evaporative and exhaust toxic emissions. –Distillation parameters: E200, E300 –% Aromatics –% Olefins

46. 46 Effects of Oxygen on Exhaust CO Emissions Tesh Rao USEPA--Assessment and Modeling Division MOBILE6 Workshop June 29-30, 1999

47. 47 RESULTS: SUMMARY OF CO EFFECTS FROM USE OF OXY FUELS FOR MATCHED RVP BLENDS AT 75 F (PRE-TIER 1)

48. 48 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS FOR TIER 1 AND LEV VEHICLES Auto/Oil testing program included 6 certified Tier 1 vehicles and 6 prototype advanced technology vehicles (LEV-type) tested on a non-oxygenated and a oxygenated fuel CRC tested a total of 12 LEV vehicles. Two sets of two fuels had similar levels of sulfur (30 and 150 ppm) while being non-oxy and oxy fuels.

49. 49 Average CO Emissions from Auto/Oil Testing Program Very small CO effects upon addition of oxygen for both sets of data About a 1% decrease in CO emissions for Tier 1 and a 1% increase in CO emissions for AT vehicles

50. 50 Average CO Emissions from CRC Testing Program on LEVs Regardless of mileage or sulfur level, CO emissions generally increase slightly upon addition of oxygenate to fuel Thus, w/o additional data, it is concluded that oxygen’s effect on CO emissions are zero.

51. 51 CONCLUSIONS For pre-1981 MY vehicles, Oxygenated Fuels have significant CO benefits. For Tier 0 vehicles (1981-1994 MYs): –Normal Emitters: Average 4.5% CO reduction per wt% oxygen –High Emitters: Average 5.3% CO reduction per wt% oxygen Tier 1 and cleaner normal-emitting vehicles show no benefits from Oxygenated Fuels.

52. 52 Low Sulfur Gasoline Fuel sulfur content has been shown to have a significant impact on emissions from catalyst equipped vehicles particularly with regard to emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx). EPA has established nationwide limits on fuel sulfur.

53. 53 Tier 0 Normal Emitter Composite Emission Effects Based on Regression Coefficients CO HC NMHC NOx

54. 54 Tier 1 Normal Emitter Composite Emission Effects Based on Regression Coefficients HC NMHC CO NOx

55. 55 LEV Normal Emitter Composite Emission Effects Based on Regression Coefficients NOx CO HC NMHC

56. 56 LEV Truck Composite Emission Effects Based on Regression Coefficients CO NOx HC NMHC

57. 57 SAMPLE RESULTS: % INCREASE IN COMPOSITE EMISSIONS WHEN SULFUR IS INCREASED FROM 30 to 330 ppmW

58. 58 SAMPLE RESULTS: % INCREASE IN RUNNING EMISSIONS WHEN SULFUR IS INCREASED FROM 30 to 330 ppmW

59. 59 CONCLUSIONS Low emission vehicle technology (both LEV and ULEV) is much more sensitive to fuel sulfur than earlier generation technology.

60. 60 Gasoline Fuel Properties – The Complex Model The Complex Model estimates the impact of changes in fuel properties on exhaust and evaporative emissions. It is a useful tool for evaluating the impact of reductions in fuel sulfur content on vehicle emissions. In addition, it provides a means of estimating the impact of fuel properties on toxic emissions as it outputs toxic emission factors for the key toxic compounds; benzene, 1,3butadyene, etc. The state of California has developed a similar model that estimates the impact of fuel properties on toxic and criteria pollutants.

61. 61 FUEL QUALITY Diesel Fuel Properties Cetane number - Cetane number is a measure of how readily a fuel self ignites under the conditions in a diesel engine. Fuels with high cetane numbers ignite readily, making engines easier to start under cold conditions, and creating less noise during combustion. % Sulfur - To control PM emissions from diesels and to allow after treatment devices, EPA plans to limit diesel sulfur content to 15 ppm. Currently, EPA has limited the sulfur content of diesel fuel used in on- highway vehicles to 500ppm by weight.

62. 62 Diesel Fuel Properties cont. % Aromatics - Increased aromatic content is correlated with higher particulate emissions. Aromatic hydrocarbons have a greater tendency to form soot in burning than other hydrocarbon species, and the poorer combustion quality also appears to in­crease particulate SOF emissions. Distillation parameters - A low 10% boiling point is associated with a significant content of relatively volatile hydrocarbons. Fuels with this characteristic tend to exhibit somewhat higher HC emissions than others. A relatively high 90% (T 90 ) boiling point was considered to be associated with higher particulate emissions.

63. 63 Effect of Diesel Fuel Properties on Emissions

64. 64 Effect of Diesel Fuel Properties on Emissions, cont

65. 65 Why Sulfur? Some Data On Fuel Effects NOx PM Percent improvement in NOx and PM (Technology enablement)

66. 66 REFER TO EPA DIESEL PRESENTATIONS

67. 67 Attainment Requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Nonattainment areas are classified according to the severity of their exceedance. EPA has grouped ozone nonattainment areas into five categories: marginal (0.121 – 0.138 ppm), moderate (0.138 – 0.160 ppm), serious (0.160 – 0.180 ppm), severe (0.180 – 0.280 ppm), and extreme (>0.280 ppm).

68. 68 The CAAA specify timetables for demonstrating reasonable further progress (RFP) and final attainment. Moderate and worse ozone nonattainment areas must demonstrate 15 percent reductions from baseline emission levels of volatile organic compounds (VOC s) by 1996. Serious, severe, and extreme regions must demonstrate 3 percent VOC reductions on a yearly basis beyond 1996 until the attainment date. NO x reductions may be substituted for VOC reductions, depending on air quality modeling results and ambient air quality data. Serious Ozone NAAs have an attainment date of 1999, severe areas have a date of 2007. These dates can be extended if overwhelming transport is demonstrated.

69. 69 State Implementation Plans (SIPs) SIPs outline specific state or local emission control measures that will be implemented to reduce ambient concentrations in order to attain the NAAQS. Depending on the degree of nonattainment for ozone, SIPs may require adoption of the following controls: Refueling control measures (Stage II and onboard vapor recovery); New or enhanced inspection/maintenance programs; Clean Fuel Fleet program; Transportation control measures; and Federal reformulated gasoline (RFG).

70. 70 Improved Air Quality =

71. 71 Refueling Measures The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 required states with serious or worse ozone non-attainment areas to implement Stage II refueling emission control systems. The amendments also require onboard refueling emission control systems on 1998 and newer model year vehicles (whereby refueling emissions are collected and consumed in the vehicle).

72. 72 Refueling Emissions Onboard Vapor Recovery

73. 73 Gasoline Distribution and Marketing: Uncontrolled --

74. 74 Gasoline Distribution and Marketing: Controlled --  Stage I  Stage II 

75. 75 Gasoline Distribution and Marketing: Emissions Vs. Control Actions

76. 76 Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) The CAAA require the use of reformulated gasoline in the nine worst ozone nonattainment areas. Phase I RFG had to demonstrate a 15% reduction in ozone precursor emissions and toxics. In the 2000, VOC and toxics percentage reduction requirements increased to 25% and 20%, respectively, with the introduction of Phase II gasoline.

77. 77 I/M Inspection/Maintenance, or I/M as it is commonly referred to, is an air pollution control strategy whereby vehicles are inspected for indications that they are emitting excessive quantities of pollutants. Enhanced I/M programs are a key part of most SIPs. I/M programs will be discussed after OBD

78. 78 Scrappage / Retrofit Scrappage programs try to encourage owners of old high emitting vehicles to scrap them and replace them with newer vehicles that pollute less.

79. 79 Retrofit programs attempt to reduce emissions by retrofitting emission control devices: Promising retrofit kits are being developed for heavy-duty diesel powered vehicles. Retrofit does not make a lot of sense for gasoline powered vehicles. Refer to EPA Retrofit Presentation

80. 80 Clean Fuel Fleet Program The Clean Fuel Fleet Program requires the use of “clean-fuel vehicles” in serious, severe, and extreme ozone and CO nonattainment areas with 1980 populations of 250,000 or more (currently 21 areas). “Clean-fuel vehicles” are any vehicles certified to meet the clean-fuel vehicles emissions standards of Title II. States can accelerate the phase-in of clean-fueled vehicles by adopting a more aggressive schedule or they can opt out by demonstrating equivalent reductions elsewhere. Most states have elected the latter approach.

81. 81 Alternative Fuels Ethanol Natural Gas Propane Electricity Hydrogen

82. 82 Alternative Fuels Ethanol, Natural Gas & Propane – ‘More of the same’ – rely upon ICE Electricity and Hydrogen – Not new primary sources of energy, but ‘new’ ways to provide energy for transportation. e.g. Battery electric vehicles and Fuel cell vehicles

83. 83 Non-Road Strategies Airport equipment Construction equipment Lawn and garden Locomotives

84. 84 Comparison of Airports’ NO x Emissions (in tons/1,000 ops) Dallas/Ft. Worth13.1 – 15.6 Denver8.6 – 10.0 San Francisco8.8 Los Angeles7.4 – 8.5 Greensboro6.0 – 6.9 Lambert (St. Louis)6.2 Charlotte5.1 Logan4.9 – 5.4 SeaTac3.6 – 4.1 San Jose2.8 – 3.1 Range of values based on different years and operational levels.

85. 85 Refer to EPA and California Airport Emission Control Studies

86. 86 ConformityEfficiency Transportation PlanningTravel Management Plans Commuter ChoicePublic Transit Bike PathsPedestrian Friendly Design

87. 87 Transportation Control Measures The CAAA requires states to implement transportation control measures (TCMs) that will maintain vehicle miles traveled (VMT) at levels consistent with the modeling assumptions in the state implementation plan. TCMs can be used to limit VMT growth in order to hasten attainment if they are enforceable. Limitations on VMT growth are not required, if other control measures will result in attainment. To date, most states have not adopted new comprehensive TCMs. VMT per person is lower in New York City and Boston Metropolitan areas than elsewhere in the US and NE due availability and acceptance of public transportation systems.

88. 88

89. 89

90. 90

91. 91