| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 420
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience - Special Report 264
APPENDIX F
COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF MOBILE SOURCE NON-CMAQ CONTROL MEASURES METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES AND SUMMARY OF RECENT RESULTS
Michael Q. Wang, Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory
Government agencies and private organizations often use cost-effectiveness, calculated in dollars per ton of emissions reduced, to determine which control measures should be implemented to meet overall emission reduction requirements for a given region. Different studies may, however, yield significantly different, sometimes contradictory, cost-effectiveness results for the same control measures. The results differ because studies might use different calculation methodologies or make different assumptions about the values of costs and emission reductions. In 1997, the author conducted a study to examine some of the methodological issues involved in calculating the cost-effectiveness of mobile source control measures. In that study, ways were proposed to deal with such methodological issues as using user costs or societal costs, using costs at the manufacturer or the consumer level, determining baseline emissions, using emission reductions in nonattainment or in both nonattainment and attainment areas, using annual or pollution-season emission reductions, considering multiple-pollutant emission reductions, and applying emission discounting.
The Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Research Council commissioned the author to conduct a study to reexamine mobile source control cost-effectiveness. Findings of this commissioned study are presented. In particular, mobile source control measures adopted for the near future in the United States were evaluated. Among them are the following:
The California low-emission vehicle (LEV) II program,
The federal Tier 2 light-duty vehicle (LDV) emission standards,
OCR for page 421
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience - Special Report 264
The federal Phase 1 heavy-duty engine (HDE) emission standards,
The federal Phase 2 HDE emission standards,
The California Phase 2 reformulated gasoline (RFG),
The California Phase 3 RFG,
The federal Phase 2 RFG,
Alternative-fueled vehicles (AFVs) [including vehicles fueled with compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), ethanol (EtOH), methanol (MeOH), and electricity],
Hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs),
Inspection and maintenance (I&M) programs,
Old vehicle scrappage programs, and
Remote sensing programs of detecting and reducing vehicular emissions.
The conclusion is that except for AFVs, these control measures generally have emission control costs below $10,000 per ton of emissions reduced.
INTRODUCTION
Motor vehicle emissions contribute significantly to urban air pollution problems in the United States. Consequently, control measures ranging from vehicle emission standards to measures of controlling travel demand have been adopted or proposed to help solve U.S. air pollution problems. Among the many programs of reducing mobile source emissions, the U.S. Congress established the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality.
The CMAQ program was designed to provide federal financial support to local areas to introduce control strategies primarily related to transportation demand-side management. With direction from Congress, TRB established a CMAQ evaluation committee to examine the effectiveness of the CMAQ program. The evaluation committee commissioned the author to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of non-CMAQ mobile source control measures. Findings of the commissioned study are documented in this report.
The scope of the study was limited to summarizing and reconciling the results of past studies on mobile source emission control cost-
OCR for page 422
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience - Special Report 264
effectiveness; cost-effectiveness estimates were not conducted by the author. There are two reasons. First, different studies use different methodologies and parametric assumptions concerning control costs and emission reductions for given measures. Though these differences undoubtedly reflect the uncertain nature of the given measures, they also reflect institutional positions on methodological issues. A particular study by this author, however objective, would certainly not cover the wide spectrum of various institutional positions. Second, it was initially thought that the conducting of new control cost estimates by the author could be more time- and resource-consuming than summary and reconciliation of completed studies. However, the path with the original study scope actually showed that the latter approach has been more time- and resource-consuming.
Mainly because of regulatory requirements, various government agencies have been conducting cost-effectiveness analyses for emission control programs. In theory, agencies should use the results of cost-effectiveness analyses to determine which control measures should be adopted for achieving given air quality goals. On the other hand, private organizations have been calculating cost-effectiveness in counterbalancing governmental agencies’ results and positions. There is no formal protocol for governments and industries to follow in conducting cost-effectiveness estimates. Different studies may use different methodologies and different assumptions concerning the values of costs and emission reductions, and they may consequently yield significantly different control cost results. Although an attempt is made to reconcile differences in cost-effectiveness methodologies among studies, parametric differences concerning costs and emission reductions between studies are essentially left intact. In this way, results from various studies are converted into the same or a similar methodological basis, but the results of an individual study are maintained by keeping that study’s parametric assumptions. If parametric assumptions in completed studies were changed to reflect this author’s beliefs, the results from those studies would essentially be those of this author, not those of the original investigators.
This report is organized in six sections. In the first, the mobile source control measures that were evaluated in this study are presented. The key methodological issues involved in calculating mobile
OCR for page 423
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience - Special Report 264
source cost-effectiveness are discussed in the second, and ways to deal with these issues are proposed. In the third section, cost-effectiveness results from studies completed in the past several years are summarized, and the adjustments to be applied in this study to the original studies to make results of past studies comparable are presented. Control cost-effectiveness of the mobile source control measures evaluated in this study are then summarized. General conclusions concerning mobile source emission control cost-effectiveness are presented in the fifth section. In the last section, an appendix to the main body of this report, stationary source control cost-effectiveness is summarized as a way to put mobile source cost-effectiveness results into perspective.
NON-CMAQ MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL MEASURES INCLUDED IN THIS STUDY
The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) specified control measures to reduce mobile source emissions. In particular, the CAAA directed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish new, stringent vehicle emission standards, establish fuel (gasoline and diesel) quality standards, require use of alternative transportation fuels, and implement other control measures such as vehicle I&M programs. Because of the CAAA, various mobile source control measures have been adopted and proposed. Table F-1 summarizes mobile source control measures already in place or to be in place soon.
Control measures in Table F-1 that have already been implemented include the following:
The federal Tier 1 LDV emission standards,
The California LEV I program,
The federal oxygenated fuel requirement,
The California Phase 1 RFG,
The California Phase 2 RFG,
The California low-sulfur (LS) diesel requirement,
The federal Phase 1 RFG,
The federal Phase 2 RFG, and
The federal LS diesel requirement.
OCR for page 424
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience - Special Report 264
TABLE F-1 Mobile Source Emission Control Measures in Place or to Be in Place
Control Measure
Targeted Pollutants for Reductionsa
Implementation Year
Remark
Vehicle Emission Standards
Federal Tier 1 LDV standards
HC, CO, NOx, and PM
1994–1996
49 states
Federal Tier 2 LDV standards
HC, CO, NOx, and PM
2006–2009
49 states
Federal Phase 1 HDE standards
NOx and PM
2004
Nationwide
Federal Phase 2 HDE standards
NOx and PM
2007
Nationwide
CA LEV I program
HC, CO, NOx, and PM
1996
CA, MA, NY
CA LEV II program
HC, CO, NOx, and PM
2003
CA, NY
Fuel Quality Standards
Oxygenated fuels
CO
1992
Some states
CA Phase 1 RFG
HC, CO, NOx, and air toxics
1991
CA
CA Phase 2 RFG
HC, CO, NOx, and air toxics
1996
CA
CA Phase 3 RFG
HC, CO, NOx, and air toxics
2003
CA
CA low-sulfur diesel
HC, CO, NOx, and SOx
1993
CA
Federal Phase 1 RFG
HC, CO, NOx, and air toxics
1996
Some areas
Federal Phase 2 RFG
HC, CO, NOx, and air toxics
2000
Some areas
Federal low-sulfur gasoline
HC, CO, NOx, PM, and SOx
2004–2006
49 states
Federal low-sulfur diesel
HC, CO, NOx, and SOx
1993
49 states
Other Control Measures
Use of alternative fuels
HC, CO, NOx, PM, SOx, and air toxics
Varied
Some areas
I&M programs
HC, CO, and NOx
Varied
Some areas
Remote sensing programs
HC, CO, and NOx
Proposed
Some areas
Old vehicle scrappage
HC, CO, and NOx
Varied
Some areas
Gasoline station Stage II control
HC
Varied
Some areas
Note: LDV = light-duty vehicle; HDE = heavy-duty engine; LEV = low-emission vehicle; RFG = reformulated gasoline; I&M = inspection and maintenance; HC = hydrocarbon; CO = carbon monoxide; NOx = nitrogen oxides; PM = particulate matter; SOx = sulfur oxides.
a These are pollutants targeted by a given program. In some cases, a program reduces emissions of other pollutants besides the targeted pollutants.
Consequently, these measures have become part of the baseline control measures for evaluating new control measures such as CMAQ measures. Thus, these control measures are not, or are less, relevant to the evaluation of CMAQ measures. On the other hand, some measures in Table F-1 are not yet implemented. Furthermore, even though some of the measures are already implemented, their use could be expanded to other regions. Both groups could compete with
OCR for page 425
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience - Special Report 264
CMAQ measures to achieve emission reductions. They are evaluated in this study. Table F-2 presents the control measures selected for evaluation in this study. Each of these measures is discussed below.
California LEV I Program
In 1990, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted the LEV program for the state of California. In 1999, CARB adopted a new LEV program. To differentiate the two programs, the 1990 and 1999 programs are now referred to as the LEV I and LEV II programs, respectively. Because the LEV I program was fully implemented in 1996, it is already part of the baseline control measures. It is presented here to put the LEV II program into perspective.
TABLE F-2 Non-CMAQ Control Measures Selected in This Study and the Nature of Their Impacts
Travel Response
Congestion Mitigation
Emission Reduction
Vehicle emission standards
CA LEV II program
No
No
Yes
Federal Tier 2 LDV standards
No
No
Yes
Federal Phase 1 HDE standards
No
No
Yes
Federal Phase 2 HDE standards
No
No
Yes
Clean conventional fuels
CARFG2
Smalla
No
Yes
CARFG3
Smalla
No
Yes
FRFG2
Smalla
No
Yes
Alternative-fueled or advanced vehicles
Ethanol vehicles
Smalla
No
Yes
Methanol vehicles
Smalla
No
LPG vehicles
Smalla
No
Yes
CNG vehicles
Smalla
No
Yes
Hybrid electric vehicles
Smalla
No
Electric vehicles
Smalla
No
Yes
I&M programs
No
No
Yes
Old vehicle scrappage
Smalla
No
Yes
Remote sensing programs
No
No
Yes
a Differences in fuel prices caused by these measures may result in increased or decreased operating costs of motor vehicles, which may cause changes in travel. However, the changes induced by fuel prices are probably small, and virtually all studies ignored such changes in travel.
OCR for page 426
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience - Special Report 264
Four vehicle types were established under the LEV I program for the purpose of emission regulations: transitional low-emission vehicles (TLEVs), LEVs, ultra-low-emission vehicles (ULEVs), and zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs). Table F-3 presents emission standards for each LEV type. The LEV I program began to take effect in 1994. Together with LEV type-specific standards, the LEV I program established fleet average nonmethane organic gas (NMOG) standards and ZEV sales requirements for individual model years to control the sales mix of these vehicle types. Later, some states in the Northeast adopted part of the LEV I program.
California LEV II Program
In 1999, CARB adopted the LEV II program with more stringent vehicle emission standards and tightened vehicle grouping for emission regulation. Table F-4 presents emission standards under the LEV II program. Relative to the LEV I program, the LEV II program establishes stringent oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emission standards to achieve large NOx emission reductions (see Tables F-3 and F-4). The program establishes a new vehicle type—SULEVs (super-ultra-low-emission vehicles)—with emission standards lower than those of ULEVs. The durability for emission certification is increased from
TABLE F-3 Emission Standards of the CA LEV I Program: Passenger Cars and Light-Duty Trucks with Loaded Vehicle Weight of 0 to 3,750 lb: grams/mile (CARB 1990)
Vehicle Type
NMOG
CO
NOx
PM
Formaldehyde
50,000-Mile Standards
TLEV
0.125
3.4
0.4
N/A
0.015
LEV
0.075
3.4
0.2
N/A
0.015
ULEV
0.040
1.7
0.2
N/A
0.008
ZEV
0.000
0.0
0.0
N/A
0.000
100,000-Mile Standards
TLEV
0.156
4.2
0.6
0.08
0.018
LEV
0.090
4.2
0.3
0.08
0.018
ULEV
0.055
2.1
0.3
0.04
0.011
ZEV
0.000
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.000
OCR for page 427
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience - Special Report 264
TABLE F-4 Emission Standards of the CA LEV II Program: Passenger Cars and Light-Duty Trucks with Gross Vehicle Weight of 0 to 8,500 lb: grams/mile (CARB 1998)
Vehicle Type
NMOG
CO
NOx
PM
Formaldehyde
50,000-Mile Standards
LEV
0.075
3.4
0.05
N/A
0.015
LEV, Option 1
0.075
3.4
0.07
N/A
0.015
ULEV
0.040
1.7
0.05
N/A
0.008
ZEV
0.000
0.0
0.0
N/A
0.000
120,000-Mile Standards
LEV
0.090
4.2
0.07
0.01
0.018
LEV, Option 1
0.090
4.2
0.10
0.01
0.018
ULEV
0.055
2.1
0.07
0.01
0.011
SULEV
0.010
1.0
0.02
0.01
0.004
ZEV
0.000
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.000
150,000-Mile Standards (Optional)
LEV
0.090
4.2
0.07
0.01
0.018
LEV, Option 1
0.090
4.2
0.10
0.01
0.018
ULEV
0.055
2.1
0.07
0.01
0.011
SULEV
0.010
1.0
0.02
0.01
0.004
ZEV
0.000
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.000
100,000 miles to 120,000 miles. The LEV II program includes heavy passenger vehicles to avoid an emission regulation loophole for them. The LEV II program allows SULEVs and HEVs to earn partial ZEV (PZEV) credits to meet ZEV sales requirements. The LEV II program will go into effect in model year (MY) 2004.
Federal Tier 2 LDV Standards
In early 2000, EPA adopted the Tier 2 emission standards for passenger cars and light-duty trucks (LDTs) (EPA 2000a). The CAAA established Tier 2 vehicle emission standards, but the adopted Tier 2 emission standards are much more stringent than the CAAA-specified Tier 2 standards. Table F-5 presents EPA’s Tier 2 standards for vehicles at 100,000 miles (another set is established for vehicles at 50,000 miles). A distinguishing feature of the Tier 2 program is that it establishes different vehicle bins to allow automobile makers to certify vehicles with flexibility, as long as a corporate average NOx emission standard
OCR for page 428
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience - Special Report 264
TABLE F-5 Federal Tier 2 LDV Emission Standards: Fully in Effect in MY 2009 for Vehicles up to 10,000 lb Gross Vehicle Weight Rating: grams/mile at 100,000 miles (EPA 2000a)
NMOG
CO
NOxa
PM
Formaldehyde
Tier 1 Emission Standards
0.31
4.2
0.60
0.10
N/A
Tier 2 Emission Standards
Bin 10b, c
0.156/0.230
4.2/6.4
0.60
0.08
0.018/0.027
Bin 9b, c
0.090/0.180
4.2
0.30
0.06
0.018
Bin 8b
0.125/0.156
4.2
0.20
0.02
0.018
Bin 7
0.090
4.2
0.15
0.02
0.018
Bin 6
0.090
4.2
0.10
0.01
0.018
Bin 5
0.090
4.2
0.07
0.01
0.018
Bin 4
0.070
2.1
0.04
0.01
0.011
Bin 3
0.055
2.1
0.03
0.01
0.011
Bin 2
0.010
2.1
0.02
0.01
0.004
Bin 1
0.000
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.000
Note: N/A = not applicable.
a A corporate average NOx standard of 0.07 grams/mile will be fully in place by MY 2009.
b The high values apply to heavy light-duty trucks, while the low values apply to light light-duty trucks.
c Bins 10 and 9 will be eliminated at the end of MY 2006 for cars and light light-duty trucks and at the end of MY 2008 for heavy light-duty trucks.
of 0.07 g/mile is met. Also, instead of applying separately to passenger cars, light-duty trucks 1, and light-duty trucks 2, the Tier 2 standards apply to all three types together (with a transition period in which heavy light-duty trucks are subject to less stringent standards). The Tier 2 standards will begin to be implemented in MY 2004 and will be fully in place by MY 2009. Besides establishing vehicle tailpipe emission standards, EPA requires gasoline sulfur content to be reduced to 30 ppm beginning in 2004.
Federal HDE Emission Standards for MY 2004–2006 (Phase 1 Standards)
In 2000, EPA adopted the final HDE emission standards for nonmethane hydrocarbon (NMHC) and NOx for MY 2004–2006 (Table F-6) (EPA 2000b). The so-called Phase 1 HDE standards require
OCR for page 429
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience - Special Report 264
TABLE F-6 Heavy-Duty Engine Emission Standards: g/bhp-hr, Lifetime of 8 Years (EPA 2000b)
NMHC
NOx
NMHC + NOx
CO
PM
MY 1998-2003 standards
1.1/1.3/1.9a
4.0
N/A
15.5
0.10
Phase 1 HDE standards: MY 2004 and later
Diesel-Cycle HDE: Option 1
N/A
N/A
2.4
15.5
0.10
Diesel-Cycle HDE: Option 2
<0.5
N/A
2.5
15.5
0.10
Otto-Cycle HDE: Option 1
N/A
N/A
1.5/1.0b
15.5
0.10
Otto-Cycle HDE: Option 2
N/A
N/A
1.5/1.0c
15.5
0.10
Otto-Cycle HDE: Option 3
N/A
N/A
1.0d
15.5
0.10
Note: g/bhp-hr = grams per brake-horsepower-hour; N/A = not applicable.
a These standards are for Otto-cycle light HDEs (8,500 to 14,000 lb gross vehicle weight rating), diesel-cycle HDEs, and Otto-cycle heavy HDEs (greater than 14,000 lb gross vehicle weight rating), respectively.
b These standards are for MY 2003-2007 and 2008 and later, respectively.
c These standards are for MY 2004-2007 and 2008 and later, respectively. MY 2004-2007 heavy-duty vehicles are required to be certified with vehicle-based standards as well as with the engine-based standards in this table.
d This standard applies to MY 2005 and later.
significant reductions in NOx emissions by HDEs. In addition to these standards, EPA established new testing procedures and required onboard diagnosis systems for HDEs.
Federal HDE Emission Standards for MY 2007 and Later (Phase 2 HDE Standards)
EPA recently adopted the Phase 2 HDE standards for MY 2007 and later (Table F-7) (EPA 2000c). To help HDE manufacturers meet the Phase 2 HDE emission standards, EPA requires diesel fuel with a sulfur content limit of 15 ppm, compared with the current limit of about 340 ppm. The LS diesel fuel requirement could go into effect in June 2006.
California Phase 2 and 3 RFG
In 1992, California began to require use of the so-called Phase 1 reformulated gasoline (CARFG1). CARFG1 had the following composition requirements: a maximum aromatics content of 32 percent by
OCR for page 430
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience - Special Report 264
TABLE F-7 Federal Phase 2 HDE Standards (EPA 2000c)
Pollutant
Standard (g/bhp-hr)
Phase-In Schedule (%)
2007
2008
2009
2010 and on
Diesel
NOx
0.20
50
50
50
100
NMHC
0.14
50
50
50
100
PM
0.01
100
100
100
100
Gasoline
NOx
0.20
0
50
100
100
NMHC
0.14
0
50
100
100
PM
0.01
0
50
100
100
Note: g/bhp-hr = grams per brake-horsepower-hour.
volume, a maximum sulfur content of 150 ppm by weight, a maximum olefins content of 10 percent by volume, and a maximum temperature of 330°F for 90 percent distillation of gasoline (CARB 1991).
In 1996, California began to require use of the Phase 2 RFG (CARFG2). Table F-8 presents composition requirements of CARFG2. Under the CARFG2 requirement, gasoline producers are allowed to certify gasoline by meeting either the specified composition requirements (Table F-8) or predetermined emission reduction requirements with any alternative gasoline reformulation formula. Emission performance of a given alternative RFG formula would be simulated with CARB’s predictive model.
In 1999, because of concern about underground water contamination by methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), California Governor Gray Davis issued an executive order to ban use of MTBE in California’s gasoline beginning in 2003. Subsequently, CARB adopted the Phase 3 RFG (CARFG3), to go into effect beginning in 2003 (Table F-8). The differences between CARFG2 and CARFG3 are (a) elimination of MTBE and (b) reduction of gasoline sulfur content limit from 30 ppm to 15 ppm.
Federal Phase 2 RFG and Tier 2 LS Gasoline
The CAAA required use of RFG in some of the nation’s worst ozone nonattainment areas. The so-called federal Phase 1 RFG (FRFG1) took effect in January 1995. Gasoline producers could certify FRFG1
OCR for page 490
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience - Special Report 264
TABLE F-52 Stationary Source VOC Control Costs: VOC Tons ($/ton, 2000 dollars)
Control Measure
Low
High
Average
New CGT for lithographic printing
−700
−600
−400
New CGT for web offset lithography
−100
−100
−100
Carbon adsorption for whiskey fermentation
0
0
0
Switch to emulsified asphalts for road surfacing
0
0
0
Advisory programs for open burning
0
0
0
Low VOC solvents for open top/convey. degreasing
100
100
100
Stage I control in gasoline stations
0
100
200
CARB Tier 2 standard for reformulated aerosols
400
400
400
RACT for oil and NG production fields
400
400
400
New CGT control for SOCMI reactor processes
500
500
500
Low VOC coatings for rubber and plastic manufacture
1,200
1,200
1,300
Incineration at bakeries
1,800
1,800
1,800
RACT for leather products
1,900
1,900
1,900
RACT for organic acid manufacture
1,900
1,900
1,900
Incineration for charcoal manufacture
2,100
2,100
2,100
CARB limit on consumer solvents
2,200
2,500
3,000
Limits on traffic marking paints
4,600
4,700
4,900
Carbon adsorption for letterpress printing
300
1,200
5,400
Limits for mach/electr/railroad coatings
3,400
4,700
6,500
Low VOC for misc. electronic surface coating
7,200
8,300
8,800
Stripper and equipment for vegetable oil manufacture
−200
1,000
9,000
Flare for carbon black manufacture
1,100
2,000
9,200
New CGT control for SOCMI distillation
1,000
3,300
9,700
Incineration for fabric coating
9,900
9,900
9,900
Incineration for plastic parts coating
10,700
10,800
10,800
Incineration for wood furniture coating
10,700
10,800
10,800
Incineration for aircraft surface coating
10,600
10,800
10,900
Incineration for marine surface coating
10,000
10,800
11,000
Incineration for metal coil and can coating
10,500
10,800
11,100
Incineration for motor vehicle surface coating
10,500
10,800
11,100
Incineration for beverage can coating
9,500
10,800
11,500
Limits for metal furn/appli/parts coatings
3,100
5,600
11,800
Content limit for industrial adhesives
2,400
5,600
11,900
Incineration for terephthalic acid manufacture
1,100
7,000
12,900
RACT for urea resins
1,100
7,000
12,900
CA reformulation of pesticides
9,700
11,200
13,400
Limits for ind. maintenance coatings
4,600
4,900
17,700
Limits for autobody finishing
4,700
11,600
18,900
Carbon adsorption for cellulose acetate manufacture
700
11,400
25,100
Phase 1 limit for architectural coatings
4,600
5,000
26,800
Note: CGT = combustion gas turbine; RACT = reasonable available control technology; SOCMI = synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry.
OCR for page 491
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience - Special Report 264
TABLE F-53 Stationary Source NOx Control Costs: NOx Tons ($/ton, 2000 dollars)
Control Measure
Low
High
Average
Low-emission combustion for NG-fired IC engines
0
15,500
200
Low-NOx burners for NG-fired ICI boilers
0
1,700
400
Low-NOx burners for iron and steel mills
400
400
400
Low-NOx burners for NG gas turbines
300
6,700
600
Mid-kiln firing for wet cement manufacture
600
600
600
Ignition timing retard for oil-fired IC engines
200
700
600
Low-NOx burners for oil process heater
600
600
600
Ignition timing retard for NG, diesel, LPG-fired IC engines
600
1,000
700
Mid-kiln firing for dry cement manufacture
700
700
700
Mid-kiln firing for lime kilns
700
700
700
O2 trim and water injection for NG reformers in ammonia plants
900
900
900
Low-NOx burners for LPG process heater
900
900
900
O2 trim water injection for NG space heater
900
1,000
900
Low-NOx burners for industrial NG combustion
800
1,100
900
Low-NOx burners for oil reformers in ammonia plants
1,200
1,200
1,200
Low-NOx burners for industrial oil combustion
100
2,500
1,200
SNCR for coke-fired ICI boilers
400
3,300
1,400
O2 trim water injection for NG-fired ICI boilers
0
14,900
1,400
Urea-based SNCR for dry cement manufacture
1,500
1,500
1,500
Water injection for oil-fired gas turbines
1,500
1,500
1,500
SNCR for lime kilns
1,500
1,500
1,500
SCR for coal-fired utility boilers
1,100
3,200
1,500
Low-NOx burners for oil-fired ICI boilers
100
44,000
1,600
Low-NOx burner flue gas recirculation for iron and steel mills
1,600
1,700
1,600
Low-NOx burners for industrial coal combustion
800
2,600
1,600
Low-NOx burners for diesel process heater
400
3,700
1,700
Low-NOx burners for NG process heater
0
17,000
1,900
Low-NOx burners for LPG-fired ICI boilers
0
8,900
2,400
SCR for NG, diesel, LPG-fired IC engines
1,400
2,900
2,500
SCR for oil-fired IC engines
1,400
6,000
2,600
SNCR for coal-fired ICI boilers
400
14,500
3,100
SCR for container glass manufacture
2,100
6,400
3,200
SNCR for commercial/institutional incinerators
3,400
3,400
3,400
SNCR for industrial and medical incinerators
2,900
15,200
3,400
SNCR for municipal waste combustion
3,400
3,400
3,400
NG reburn for coal-fired ICI boilers
3,600
3,600
3,600
Low-NOx burners for coke-fired ICI boilers
2,900
4,800
3,800
Low-NOx burners flue gas recirculation for oil-fired ICI boilers
1,300
6,100
3,900
Low-NOx burners for coal-fired ICI boilers
400
57,600
4,000
Low-NOx burners for diesel-fired ICI boilers
300
61,100
5,200
SCR for wet cement manufacture
5,900
5,900
5,900
SCR for oil reformers in ammonia plants
6,200
6,200
6,200
SCR for NG reformers in ammonia plants
0
27,500
9,500
Low-NOx burners flue gas recirculation for LPG-fired ICI boilers
8,700
11,300
10,000
OCR for page 492
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience - Special Report 264
Control Measure
Low
High
Average
Extended absorption for nitric acid manufacture
10,400
10,400
10,400
Low-NOx burners + SCR for iron and steel mills
11,000
12,300
11,600
SCR for dry cement manufacture
11,700
11,900
11,900
SCR for lime kilns
11,800
11,900
11,900
Low-NOx burners + flue gas recirculation for NG-fired ICI boilers
4,000
13,600
12,200
NSCR for nitric acid manufacture
10,300
24,900
12,400
SCR for coke-fired ICI boilers
5,000
44,900
13,200
SCR for oil-fired ICI boilers
100
397,900
14,700
SCR for NG-fired ICI boilers
0
2,089,500
17,400
Low-NOx burners + SNCR for oil process heater
17,600
23,900
19,700
SCR for flat glass manufacture
1,700
76,800
20,500
Low-NOx burners + SCR for oil process heater
21,100
27,300
22,300
SCR + water injection for oil-fired gas turbines
21,100
29,200
23,700
SCR for LPG-fired ICI boilers
200
140,100
26,900
SCR for NG space heater
100
392,900
28,600
NSCR for NG-fired IC engines
100
765,800
29,600
SCR + low-NOx burners for NG gas turbines
8,200
86,500
34,000
Low-NOx burners + SNCR for NG process heater
4,900
4,982,000
36,700
Low-NOx burners + SCR for LPG process heater
36,600
37,200
36,900
O2 firing for container glass manufacture
18,900
115,900
38,900
SCR for diesel fuel space heater
3,400
302,600
41,000
O2 firing for pressed/blown glass manufacture
21,700
122,700
41,500
Low-NOx burners + SCR for diesel process heater
6,700
390,800
47,400
SCR + water injections for NG gas turbines
39,400
58,300
48,900
SCR for oil- and gas-fired utility boiler
1,300
233,100
52,700
O2 firing for flat glass manufacture
12,200
642,600
53,600
Low-NOx burners + SNCR for diesel process heater
6,400
281,700
55,800
SCR for coal-fired ICE boilers
100
1,567,700
59,100
SCR for diesel-fired ICI boilers
100
12,439,800
59,900
Low-NOx burners + SCR for NG process heater
5,400
19,133,700
91,400
Low-NOx burners + flue gas recirculation for diesel-fired ICI boilers
5,900
4,976,400
176,100
SCR + steam injection for NG gas turbines
800
3,282,900
287,400
Note: IC = internal combustion; ICI = industrial, commercial, and institutional; NG = natural gas; NSCR = nonselective catalyst reduction; SCR = selective catalyst reduction; SNCR = selective noncatalyst reduction.
Tables F-53 through F-55 with the results in that section, since the tonnage in each of the tables here is not the same as in that section, except for VOC emission controls in Table F-52.
Of the 40 stationary VOC control measures in Table F-52, 24 have control costs below $10,000 (average values in the table) per ton of
OCR for page 493
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience - Special Report 264
TABLE F-54 Stationary Source PM10 Control Costs: PM10 Tons ($/ton, 2000 dollars)
Control Measure
Low
High
Average
Scrubber for phosphate rock calcining
100
300
200
Soil conservation for agricultural tilling
200
200
200
Watering of beef cattle feedlots
400
400
400
Paved road vacuum sweeping
100
1,700
500
Unpaved road controls
0
8,700
1,900
Grain elevators
2,900
2,900
2,900
Agricultural burning control
2,200
9,800
4,000
Dust control for construction activities
4,300
4,300
4,300
Fabric filters for coal-fired utility boiler
400
13,700
5,200
Coal cleaning
0
113,300
5,500
Surface mining
200
21,700
5,700
Primary metal-material handling
100
54,600
5,900
Mineral production-material handling
0
131,500
10,500
Mineral production-fuel combustion
300
915,300
16,400
Fabric filters for ore processing
0
79,700
17,700
Baghouse for coke manufacture
5,100
54,800
18,700
Baghouses for iron and steel manufacture
9,000
34,100
20,800
Fabric filter for coal-fired ICI boiler
0
571,300
30,700
Fabric filter for oil-fired ICI boiler
500
8,733,200
51,100
Fabric filter for gas-fired ICI boiler
0
8,418,800
82,900
Kraft process
0
1,992,500
212,600
Fabric filters for NG-fired utility boiler
2,000
3,017,900
688,700
Note: ICI = industrial, commercial, and institutional; NG = natural gas.
TABLE F-55 Stationary Source SOx Control Costs: SOx Tons ($/ton, 2000 dollars)
Control Measure
Low
High
Average
FGD scrubbers for pulp and paper industry
1,000
526,000
5,500
FGD scrubbers for chemical manufacture
300
86,200
8,800
FGD scrubbers for ICI boilers
1,300
231,700
27,300
FGD scrubbers for primary metal production
200
437,000
38,500
FGD scrubbers for mineral production-fuel combustion
1,100
480,400
41,700
FGD scrubbers for petroleum industry
100
552,600
43,100
Note: FGD = flue gas desulfurization.
OCR for page 494
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience - Special Report 264
VOC emissions reduced; 14 have control costs between $10,000 and $20,000; and 2 have control costs between $25,000 and $27,000. Note that a negative control cost number in the table means that the monetary benefit of a given control measure exceeds the cost of the control measure. On the other hand, Table F-50 shows that except for AFVs, mobile source control measures have control costs below $10,000/ton. Mobile source control measures appear to be competitive with stationary VOC control measures.
Table F-53 presents 76 stationary NOx control measures. Among them, 44 have control costs below $10,000 (average values in the table) per ton of NOx emissions reduced; 10 have control costs between $10,000 and $20,000 per NOx ton; and the remaining 22 have control costs above $20,000 per NOx ton. In comparing these results with those in Table F-50, the results under the 1:0:1 weighting factor set in Table F-50 should be used, since this set treats 1 NOx ton the same as 1 VOC ton. Table F-50 shows that 8 of the 16 mobile source control measures have emission control costs below $10,000; 2 have control costs between $10,000 and $20,000; and the remaining 6 have control costs above $20,000. Mobile and stationary control measures are competitive with each other in terms of NOx control costs. However, both mobile and stationary control measures have higher NOx control costs than VOC control costs.
Table F-54 shows costs for 22 stationary PM10 control measures. Among them, 12 have PM10 control costs below $10,000 per PM10 ton; 4 have control costs between $10,000 and $20,000; and the remaining 6 have control costs above $20,000 (with 2 having control costs above $200,000 per PM10 ton). On the other hand, among the five mobile PM10 control measures included in Table F-51, only two have control costs below $20,000. The other three have control costs between $88,000 and $250,000 per PM10 ton. Though it appears that control of mobile source PM10 emissions is more costly than control of stationary PM10 emissions, one needs to be cautious with such an interpretation. Of the PM10 emissions reduced, stationary control measures may reduce emissions of large-size PM (e.g., PM2.5 to PM10), while mobile source control measures may reduce fine PM (e.g., PM2.5 and smaller). Assessments have shown that fine PM is more damaging to health than is large-size PM. Mobile source fine PM emission control could
OCR for page 495
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience - Special Report 264
be as cost-effective as or more cost-effective than stationary fine PM emission control. In addition, Table F-54 (and Tables F-52 and F-53) shows that many of the stationary control measures are for large stationary facilities, which are usually located outside of populated areas. On the other hand, motor vehicles are concentrated in populated areas, and large populations are exposed to their emissions. The geographic locations of mobile and stationary source emissions imply that mobile source emissions may cause more damage to health than do stationary source emissions. This could justify implementation of some mobile source control measures, which could have higher control costs than stationary source control measures.
Table F-55 presents control costs for stationary SOx control measures. The table shows that scrubbers can be expensive in reducing SOx emissions, considering the value of $4,800/ton of SOx emissions that was used by EPA in evaluating its Tier 2 vehicle standards (see the section on review of past studies).
Table F-56 presents Pechan’s results for seven mobile source control measures. For mobile source control measures reducing emissions of multiple pollutants, Pechan combined emissions of VOC, NOx, and PM10 according to their contributions to ambient PM10 concentrations. This requires detailed air quality modeling, and it is conceivable that each control measure could have different weighting factors.
TABLE F-56 Mobile Source Emission Control Costs ($/ton, 2000 dollars)
Control Measure
Low
High
Average
Enhanced I&M programs
500
1,000
800
FRFG2 for off-road vehicles
200
32,600
5,300
FRFG2 for on-road vehicles
4,500
30,500
7,700
Off-road HDDV retrofit program
10,000
16,800
11,400
On-road HDDV retrofit program
30,700
30,900
30,700
Fleet ILEV
7,900
91,300
27,000
Tier 2 standards for LDGT
6,800
64,400
42,900
Notes: These control measures reduce emissions of VOC, NOx, and PM10. They were combined by Pechan according to their contributions to ambient PM concentrations. Note also earlier discussion in the text regarding comparability of results in this table with those in Table F-50.
OCR for page 496
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience - Special Report 264
Considering the mechanism of PM formation in the atmosphere, it is likely that Pechan’s implicit weighting factors could be between the base case and the NOx-important weighting factor sets established in this study (Table F-12). Thus, the results in Table F-56 are compared with the results under those two weighting factor sets in Table F-50.
Tables F-50 and F-56 show that I&M programs and RFG could be cost-effective. Table F-50 does not include heavy-duty diesel vehicle (HDDV) retrofits, so those results in Table F-56 cannot be compared. The fleet ILEV (inherently low-emission vehicle) program in Table F-56 was meant to be CNG vehicles. Table F-50 shows much lower control costs for CNG vehicles ($4,550/ton under the base case weighting factors and $2,300/ton under the NOx-important weighting factors) than does Table F-56 ($27,000/ton). The Tier 2 standards in Table F-56 were the standards specified in the CAAA, which were less stringent than EPA’s final Tier 2 standards. However, even with less stringent Tier 2 standards, Pechan’s cost estimates were much higher than EPA’s cost estimates.
The above sections show the cost-effectiveness of mobile and stationary source control measures. The cost-effectiveness result of a given control measure does not indicate by how much the particular measure can reduce emissions, which is beyond the scope of this study. To provide some hints about the potential magnitude of emission reductions achievable by the control measures evaluated in this study, Table F-57 presents emission inventory data for 1999 in the United States. The table indicates major emission sources for a given pollutant. One can examine the control measures evaluated in this study together with the emission inventory data in the table to determine whether a given control measure targets major emission sources. If so, the control measure should be able to provide a large quantity of emission reductions.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was funded by the Transportation Research Board of the National Research Council. The author is grateful to directions and guidelines from the Committee for the Evaluation of the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program of the Transportation Research Board. In particular, the author thanks Nancy Humphrey, the project manager, and Alan Krupnick and Ken Small,
OCR for page 497
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience - Special Report 264
TABLE F-57 U.S. Annual Emissions from Different Sources (thousands of tons in 1999) (EPA 2001)
VOC
CO
NOx
PM10
SOx
Electric utility fuel combustion (total)
56
445
5,715
221
12,698
Coal
29
239
4,935
194
11,856
Oil
5
18
202
5
657
Natural gas
9
94
385
1
12
Others
1
33
26
7
115
Industrial fuel combustion (total)
178
1,178
3,136
236
2,805
Coal
7
109
542
74
1,317
Oil
8
52
214
43
757
Natural gas
60
342
1,202
43
576
Others
35
341
118
60
135
Other fuel combustion
670
3,699
1,175
568
588
Chemical & allied product manufacturing
395
1,081
131
66
262
Metal processing
77
1,678
88
147
401
Petroleum & related industries
424
366
143
29
341
Other industrial processes
449
599
470
343
418
Solvent utilization
4,825
2
3
6
1
Storage and transportation
1,240
72
16
85
5
Waste disposal & recycling
586
3,792
91
587
37
Transportation (total)
8,529
75,151
14,105
753
1,299
Light-duty vehicles
4,633
43,497
4,497
95
228
Heavy-duty vehicles
664
6,492
4,094
201
135
Off-road vehicles
3,232
25,162
5,515
458
936
Miscellaneous sources
716
9,387
320
NA
12
Grand total
18,145
97,441
25,393
3,045
18,867
Note: Subtotals for a group may not add to the total of the group because not all subcategories for the group are presented in this table.
two committee members, for their helpful comments and suggestions. The author is solely responsible for the contents of this report.
REFERENCES
Abbreviations
CAIMRC California Inspection and Maintenance Review Committee
CARB California Air Resources Board
EIA Energy Information Administration
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
NPC National Petroleum Council
NRC National Research Council
OCR for page 498
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience - Special Report 264
Alberini, A., D. Edelstein, W. Harrington, and V. McConnell. 1994. Reducing Emissions from Old Cars: The Economics of the Delaware Vehicle Retirement Program. Discussion Paper 94-27. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C., April.
Ando, A., V. McConnell, and W. Harrington. 2000. Costs, Emissions Reductions, and Vehicle Repair: Evidence from Arizona. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, Vol. 50, No. 4, April, pp. 509–521.
Beaton, S. P., G. A. Bishop, Y. Zhang, L. A. Ashbaugh, D. R. Lawson, and D. H. Stedman. 1995. On-Road Vehicle Emissions: Regulations, Costs, and Benefits. Science, Vol. 268, May 19, pp. 991–993.
CAIMRC. 2000. Smog Check II Evaluation. Sacramento, Calif., June 19.
CARB. 1990. Proposed Regulations for Low-Emission Vehicles and Clean Fuels, Staff Report. Sacramento, Calif., Aug. 13.
CARB. 1991. Proposed Regulations for California Phase 2 Reformulated Gasoline, Technical Support Document. Sacramento, Calif., Oct. 4.
CARB. 1993. Mobile Source Emission Reduction Credits, Guidelines for the Generation and Use of Mobile Source Emission Reduction Credits. Stationary Source Division and Mobile Source Division, Sacramento, Calif., Feb. 19.
CARB. 1994. Staff Report: 1994 Low-Emission Vehicle and Zero-Emission Vehicle Program Review. Mobile Source Division, El Monte, Calif., April.
CARB. 1996. Facts About Cleaner-Burning Gasoline. Stationary Source Division, Sacramento, Calif., March.
CARB. 1998. Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons, Proposed Amendments to California Exhaust and Evaporative Emission Standards and Test Procedures for Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks and Medium-Duty Vehicles “LEV II.” Mobile Source Control Division, El Monte, Calif., Sept. 18.
CARB. 1999. Proposed California Phase 3 Reformulated Gasoline Regulations: Proposed Amendments to the California Reformulated Gasoline Regulations, Including a December 31, 2002 Prohibition of Using MTBE in Gasoline, Adoption of Phase 3 Gasoline Standards, a Phase 3 Predictive Model, and Other Changes, Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons. Sacramento, Calif., Oct. 22.
CARB. 2000. Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons, Proposed Amendments to the California Zero Emission Vehicle Program Regulations. Mobile Source Division, Sacramento, Calif., Dec. 8.
Dill, J. 2000. Vehicle Scrappage Programs. Presented at the NRC CMAQ Review Committee Meeting, Berkeley, Calif., Oct. 13.
Dill, J. 2001. Design and Administration of Accelerated Vehicle Retirement Programs in North America and Abroad. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1750, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., pp. 32–39.
E. H. Pechan and Associates. 1997. Additional Control Measure Evaluation for the Integrated Implementation of the Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards, and Regional Haze Program.
OCR for page 499
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience - Special Report 264
Prepared for Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., July 17.
EIA. 2000. Estimated Number of Alternative-Fueled Vehicles in Use in the United States. www.eia.doe.gov. Feb. 29.
EPA. 1994. Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives; Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline; Final Rule. Federal Register, Feb. 16.
EPA. 1997a. Regulatory Impact Analyses for the Particulate Matter and Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Proposed Regional Haze Rule. EPAOAQ 0041187. Innovative Strategies and Economics Group, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, N.C., July 16.
EPA. 1997b. Regulatory Impact Analyses for the Particulate Matter and Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Proposed Regional Haze Rule, Appendix A: Emissions and Air Quality. EPAOAQ 0041605. Innovative Strategies and Economics Group, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, N.C., July 16.
EPA. 1999. Regulatory Impact Analysis—Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and Gasoline Sulfur Control Requirements. EPA420-R-99-023. Washington, D.C., Dec.
EPA. 2000a. Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and Gasoline Sulfur Control Requirements; Final Rule. Federal Register, Feb. 10.
EPA. 2000b. Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from 2004 and Later Model-Year Heavy-Duty Highway Engines and Vehicles; Revision of Light-Duty On-Board Diagnostics; Notice of Final Rulemaking. Washington, D.C., July.
EPA. 2000c. Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards; Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements; Final Rule. Federal Register, Dec. 21.
EPA. 2001. National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1999. EPA454-R-01-004. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, N.C., March.
Greene, D. L., and P. N. Leiby. 1993. The Social Costs to the U.S. of Monopolization of the World Oil Market. Report ORNL-6744. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn., March.
Hadder, G. R. 1995. A Comparison of Estimates of Cost-Effectiveness of Alternative Fuels and Vehicles for Reducing Emissions. ORNL/TM-13110. Center for Transportation Analysis, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn., Nov.
Hahn, R. W. 1995. Choosing Among Fuels and Technologies for Cleaning Up the Air. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 532–554.
Harrington, W., and V. D. McConnell. 1993. Cost-Effectiveness of Remote Sensing of Vehicle Emissions. Discussion Paper QE93-24. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C., Sept.
Harrington, W., V. D. McConnell, and A. Ando. 1999. The Enhanced I&M Program in Arizona: Costs, Effectiveness, and a Comparison with Pre-
OCR for page 500
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience - Special Report 264
Regulatory Estimates. Discussion Paper 99-37. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C., June.
Harrington, W., V. McConnell, and A. Ando. 2000. Are Vehicle Emission Inspection Programs Living Up to Expectations? Transportation Research D, Vol. 5, pp. 153–172.
Krupnick, A. J., and M. A. Walls. 1992. The Cost-Effectiveness of Methanol for Reducing Motor Vehicle Emissions and Urban Ozone. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 373–396.
Lareau, T. J. 1994. Improving Cost-Effectiveness Estimation: A Reassessment of Control Options to Reduce Ozone Precursor Emissions. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C., Aug.
Lave, L. B., and H. L. Maclean. 2001. Are Hybrid Vehicles Worth It? IEEE Spectrum, March, pp. 47–50.
McCubbin, D. R., and M. A. Delucchi. 1999. The Health Costs of Motor-Vehicle-Related Air Pollution. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Vol. 33, Part 3, pp. 253–286.
NPC. 1993. U.S. Petroleum Refining: Meeting Requirements for Cleaner Fuels and Refineries, Volume V—Refining Capability Appendix. Washington, D.C., Aug.
NRC. 2000. Ozone-Forming Potential of Reformulated Gasoline. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Schimek, P. 2001. Reducing Emissions from Transit Buses. Regional Science and Urban Economics, Vol. 31, pp. 433–451.
Sierra Research, Inc. 1991. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of CARB’s Proposed Phase 2 Gasoline Regulations. Prepared for Western States Petroleum Association, Sacramento, Calif., Nov. 18.
Sierra Research, Inc. 1994. The Cost-Effectiveness of Further Regulating Mobile Source Emissions. Prepared for American Automobile Manufactures Association, Sacramento, Calif., Feb. 28.
Sierra Research, Inc. 1998. Evaluation of VOC and NOx Control Measures. Prepared for Western States Petroleum Association, Sacramento, Calif., April.
Wang, Q., C. Kling, and D. Sperling. 1993a. Light-Duty Vehicle Exhaust Emission Control Cost Estimates Using a Part-Pricing Approach. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, Vol. 43, pp. 1461–1471.
Wang, Q., D. Sperling, and J. Olmstead. 1993b. Emission Impacts, Life-Cycle Cost Changes, and Emission Control Cost-Effectiveness of Methanol-, Ethanol-, Liquefied Petroleum Gas-, Compressed Natural Gas-, and Electricity-Powered Vehicles. Research Report UCD-ITS-RR-93-7. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Davis, Davis, May 9.
Wang, M. Q., D. J. Santini, and S. A. Warinner. 1994. Methods of Valuing Air Pollution and Estimated Monetary Values of Air Pollutants in Various U.S. Regions. Report ANL/ESD-26. Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill., Dec.
Wang, M. Q. 1997. Mobile Source Emission Control Cost-Effectiveness: Issues, Uncertainties, and Results. Transportation Research D, Vol. 2, pp. 43–56.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
emission reductions
Items in cart [0]
