History of California

1
History of CaliforniasCarl Moyer Program
WRAP Mobile Sources Forum Workshop on Developing
and Implementing a State Funded Retrofit Program
June 7, 2007
Jack Kitowski, Chief On-Road Controls Branch
2
Carl Moyer Program in a Nutshell

• Currently one of the nationslargest incentive
  programs
• Provides grants for incremental cost ofcleaner
  than required technology
• Speeds use of cleaner engines
• Mostly heavy-duty engines in mobile sources
• Must be cost-effective
• ARB and Districts work together
• ARB allocates funds, sets guidelines, oversees
  program
• Districts select projects, provide match funds

3
How We Got Here

• The road to
• establish and fund
• the program has
• been
• adventurous

4
Program Origins

• 1994 State Implementation Plan (SIP)
• Long-term clean air strategy for ozone
• Heavy-Duty Engine Measure
• Emission standards
• Incentives for cleaner heavy-duty mobile sources
• No funding for incentives at that time

5
Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards
Attainment Program

• In honor of Dr. Carl Moyer 1937-1997
• Chief Scientist for consulting firm
• Promoted concept of early and extra emission
  reductions
• Brought together government, industry,
  environmental groups

6
Program Origins (continued)

• 1998 - Bond on ballot for incentive program
• Voters did not approve
• 1998 - Legislative bills in parallel with bond
• Bills vetoed, but laid out program framework
• 1998 - Start of Carl Moyer Program
• One year of funding appropriated by Governor
• 1999 - Legislation codified Carl Moyer
  Program into State law

7
Program StructureEarly Years

• ARB and California Energy Commission
• ARB Bulk of funding engine projects
• CEC Advanced technology and
  infrastructure projects
• Funding for CEC only lasted several years
• ARB portion based on 1994 SIP measure
• Emphasis on NOx reductions fromheavy-duty mobile
  sources
• SIP creditable emission reductions

8
Guidelines

• Criteria for project selectionto assist district
  implementation
• Designed so emission reductions are creditable in
  the SIP
• Real, surplus, quantifiable, enforceable
• Guidelines include other criteria to assure
  reductions robust and creditable
• All control technology certified or verified
• Minimum operation in California
• Minimum emission reductions

9
Program Evolution

• 2000 - Advisory Board
• Diverse group
• Concluded program a success
• Include PM in program
• Continue funding (more on funding later)
• 2001 Legislation
• Spend 50 of funds in environmental justice areas
  in larger districts

10
Program Expansion2004 Legislation

• Supported by broad coalition of
  industry,government and environmental groups
• Added ROG and PM considerations
• Added new source categories
• Car scrap
• Heavy-duty fleet modernization
• Agricultural sources
• Agricultural assistance program
• Multi-district projects

11
Program Funding History

• Year-to-year appropriation by Governor and
  Legislature in early years
• 2004 - Predictable funding through 2015
• Smog check fee and tire fee - 86 M
• Local district programs 86
• ARB for multi-district projects 10
• Administration and outreach 4
• 2 Motor vehicle fee - 55 M
• Carl Moyer Program
• School bus replacement

12
Funding History
Fiscal Year Funding Source
1998-1999 25M Budget (Settlement funds)
1999-2000 19M Budget (Settlement funds)
2000-2001 44M Budget (Settlement funds)
2001-2002 16M Budget (Settlement funds)
2002-2003 20M Proposition 40
2003-2004 18M Proposition 40
2004-2005 30M Smog Check Fee Tire Fee Car Registration Fee
2005 thru 2015 140M/year Smog Check Fee Tire Fee Car Registration Fee
13
Projects FundedYears 1-6
14
Program BenefitsYears 1 - 6

• Over 6,300 cleaner engines
• Health benefits
• Ozone and PM linked with prematuredeaths,
  respiratory problems
• Diesel PM is toxic air contaminant
• Cost-effectiveness 2,600/ton NOx reduced
• Benefit to cost ratio greater than 51

• Emission reductions achieved
• 18 tons per day NOx
• One ton per day PM

15
Where We Are NowThe Road Continues

• Program entering its ninth year
• Guideline revisions, multi-district projects,
  database, conduct audits
• Heavy demand for project funding continues
• Challenges
• Finding surplus reductions
• Meeting different needs e.g., simplicity vs.
  accountability
• Innovation vouchers, fleet modernization,
  non-engine sources (agricultural)

16
1 Billion Transportation Bond

• To reduce emissions from freight movement
• Existing incentives continue
• ARB to develop guidelines and funding plan
• Goods Movement Action Plan principles
• Multiple legislative proposals to implement bond
  funding
• Governors directives

17
Key Elements in theSuccess of theCarl Moyer
Program

• Broad-based support and participation
• Clear criteria and public process for project
  eligibility
• Public health benefit primary consideration
• Sufficient funding, stable funding
• Allow local districts to tailor program to meet
  needs
• Oversight and assistance in implementation
• Process for continued change and adaptation