Other Publications

Construction Industry Poll

California crackdown

California Crackdown, Part IV

July 01, 2010 |

California crackdown

Construction raises its hand

Voluntary diesel emission reduction programs gain steam

By Marcia Gruver Doyle and Mike Anderson

In countering the California Air Resources Board’s off-highway diesel emission rule, contractors point to programs already in place that emphasize voluntary approaches to getting emissions reductions for dirty diesel machines – including a long-standing program within California itself.

Long before the rest of the country even caught wind of California’s drive to lower emissions from diesel engines, the state was offering financial incentives for local fleet owners to retrofit or replace equipment.

Before and after: A DERA grant picked up $7,349 of the $15,300 it took to repower this 1996 Cat 928F loader owned by Cortis Excavating in Marine City, Michigan.

Initiated in 1998, the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program – usually shortened to the Carl Moyer Program – has provided grant funding for the voluntary purchase of cleaner-than-required engines, equipment and emissions-reducing technologies. “Over its first seven years, the program provided $170 million to clean up approximately 7,500 engines throughout California,” CARB says in a 2008 executive summary on the program. As a result, CARB says, the state achieved emissions reductions of about 24 tons per day of oxides of nitrogen and one ton per day of toxic diesel particulate matter. That same year, an off-road equipment replacement category was added to Carl Moyer to accelerate the turnover of older machines.

In 2004, the California legislature approved continued funding of the Carl Moyer Program up to $141 million per year statewide through the year 2015. Implementation of the program is a cooperative effort between CARB and the local air pollution/air quality management districts throughout the state.

Cost-effectiveness

“To receive funding, one must submit an application for a project that claims surplus emission reductions – emission reductions beyond required by rule or regulation,” says industry consultant Drew Delaney, an expert in air quality issues with the firm Associates Environmental. “The program aims to reduce oxides of nitrogen, volatile organic compounds and particulate matter. Projects are ranked by their cost-effectiveness, which is the cost of the project divided by the tons of annualized surplus NOx emissions reduced. VOC and PM emission reductions are given NOx-reduction equivalence factors. Historically, projects which have been funded had an average cost-effectiveness around $3,000 per ton NOx reduced.”

Although voluntary, the Carl Moyer Program does have its detractors. “In a nutshell, it sucks,” says Skip Brown, president of Delta Construction, Sacramento. “In order to qualify for the funding, you have to guarantee a minimum number of hours on off-road equipment or miles on trucks. Even during the best of times, that minimum number of hours/miles was extremely difficult if not impossible to get. If you don’t, you don’t qualify for state/local funds to upgrade to meet regulations.”

And, further irking Brown, the hours and miles must be accumulated in the specific air district, he says. “Take the equipment out of the air district and you must pay back the money,” says Brown. Also, the program will pay for the additional costs of a new engine over the cost of rebuild. What they don’t say is that they don’t want to pay for the ‘extras’ sometimes necessary,” such as custom mounting, new heat exchangers and drive train modifications. “Oh, yeah, if there is a problem later because of this, you are on your own. Downtime on jobs due to the same: ditto.”

Complex but good

Harold Bobo, purchasing agent for Central Valley earthmoving giant Altfillisch Contractors, agrees the Carl Moyer Program has become more complex during his close to 10 years of involvement, but nonetheless has found participation to be beneficial. For contractors, the program “has evolved into a contract that guarantees hours, has equipment liens, requires the contractor to destroy the old engines, requires a contract term up to seven years, and requires the contractor to make up hours if the committed hours are not met in the contract,” says Bobo. “Sometimes, these requirements become too onerous, so the contractor refuses to sign the contract. We have returned some contracts unsigned and we have participated in some contracts.”

Bobo appreciates what he terms the “cooperative” approach of the district officials who administer the program, “especially during economic times like we are in now. They have certain requirements that need to be met, but they are willing to negotiate regarding some of the issues,” he says. “Recently, local districts have had funds for repowers, but few contractors are willing to participate due to the uncertainty of the future. So, the districts are becoming creative with their programs.”