1. 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

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

3. 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.

4. Inventory of NE Air Toxics (1996)

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.