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,



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © 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 420
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 420
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 420
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 420
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 420
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 420
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 420
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 420
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 420
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 420
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 420
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 420
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 420
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 420
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 420
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 420
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 420
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 420
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 420
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 420
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 420
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.