1. The Path To Cleaner Buses & Trucks Cleaner Fuels Tighter New Vehicle Standards Inspection and Maintenance Other –Scrappage –Retrofit –Alternative Fuels

2. EU Emissions Standards For Heavy-duty Vehicles on ETC

3. ●Nitrogen oxides (NOx)●Particulate matter (PM) Japan 00020406081098 1 2 4 5 7 8 (g/kWh) 0 6 3 E.U. U.S. Japan 12 3.38 Limits Year 00020406081098 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 (g/kWh) 0 E.U. U.S. 12 0.18 Limits Year 0.027 2.0 International Emission Regulations: - Heavy-duty vehicles (GVW>3.5t) -

4. EURO II Vehicles & Fuels with I/M EURO III Vehicles & Fuels with I/M EURO IV Vehicles & Fuels with I/M 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent Reduction in Emissions NOx 2005 NOx 2020 PM10 2005 PM10 2020 Source: Camarsa, BAQ 2003 Impact of Clean Vehicles and Fuels On Diesel Vehicle Emissions

5. Diesel Oxidation Catalyst PAHC 2 H 2n+2 SO 2 +H 2 O Metals Soot CO + 1/2 O 2 HC + O 2 PAH + O 2 Aldehydes + O 2 CO 2 CO 2 + H 2 O Flow through monolith with catalytic coating SO 2 +H 2 O Metals Soot CO Aldehydes HC PAH SO 2 NOx CO 2 H 2 O SO 2 /SO 3 NOx

6. Diesel Particulate Filter

7. Exhaust flow catalysed filter Catalytic particulate trap cell Filter is regenerated by hot exhaust at a rate that varies with exhaust temperature (may plug if exhaust temperature stays low) PM Exhaust flow NO NO2 NO to NO 2 Catalyst NO 2 (a good oxidant) causes combustion of filtered PM (thus regenerating the filter) Continuously regenerating particulate trap (CRT)

8. NOx Reduction Options Aftertreatment NOx Technology OptionsEngine NOx Technology NOx Adsorber Urea SCR DeNOx Catalyst Advanced Diesel Combustion Engine-Out NOx Measures Reduce Size / Cost of Aftertreatment Aftertreatment Options Need to be Evaluated for Maturity and Cost Combination of Engine Out and Aftertreatment may Provide Best NOx Reduction Value Path TCTC Particulate Filter NOx AT

9. NOx Reduction Engine control measures EGRVariable geometry turbo- charger Fuel injection timing Exhaust treatment measures urea- SCR catalyst NOx adsorber Active & Passsive HC- deNOx

10. HSO V urea (NH 2 ) 2 CO Exhaust Gas Hydrolysis Catalyst (H) (NH 2 ) 2 CO + H 2 O  2NH 3 + CO 2 SCR Catalyst (S) 4NH 3 + 4NO + O 2  4N 2 + 6H 2 O 2NH 3 + NO + NO 2  2N 2 + 3H 2 O 8NH 3 + 6NO 2  7N 2 + 12H 2 O Oxidation Catalyst (O) 4NH 3 + 3O 2  2N 2 + 6H 2 O Oxidation Catalyst (V) 2NO + O 2  2NO 2 4HC + 3O 2  2CO 2 + 2H 2 O 2CO + O 2  2CO 2 Urea-Selective Catalytic Reduction Source - AECC

11. 20002002200420052006200720082010 EPA 98 NOx = 4.0 P = 0.10 EPA 04 NOx = 2.5 P = 0.10 EPA 07 NOx = 0.25 P = 0.01 EURO III NOx = 5.0 P = 0.10 Combined EURO III-IV EURO IV NOx = 3.5 P = 0.02 EURO V NOx=2.0 P=0.02 Diesel 15 ppm Diesel 50/10 ppm g/bhp-hr g/kW-hr Consent Decree 10/02 10/0510/08 Close Linkage Between Vehicle Emissions Standards and Fuel Sulfur Levels EPA EURO 15 months Caterpillar, Cummins, Detroit Diesel, Volvo, Mack Trucks/Renault Navistar

12. What To Do About Existing Vehicles?

13. Very Low Sulfur Fuel Dominates The Market

14. Measurement results indicate that Diesel PM levels have been significantly reduced. （ With cooperation from the Bureau of Construction ） Cancer- causing agents Up to - 58% Carbon (EC) - 49% Comparison of two two-day periods Mar. 11-12, 2001 (Left bars, black and yellow) Nov. 9-10, 2003 (Right bars, black and yellow) Comparison of two two- month periods Sept.-Oct. 2001 (Left bar) Sept.-Oct. 2003 (Right bar) Carbon (EC) - 30% Cancer- ausing agents - 36% Comparison of two six-day periods Sept.-Oct. 2000 (Left bar) Oct.- Nov. 2003 (Right bar) Meguro St. roadside (By Prof. Uchiyama of Kyoto University) Osakabashi Air Monitoring Station Iogi Tunnel （ Loop 8 ） （ Emissions reduced per vehicle ） Roadside Automobile tunnel WithoutWith Weather influence （ By the Research Institute for Environmental Protection ） Metropolitan in-Use Diesel Program

15. New York City Retrofit Experience

16. General Regulatory Approach Retrofit mid-aged engines –Filters85% PM  –Catalysts25% PM  –Other50% PM  typical Replace older engines –Re-power –New vehicle

17. Verified Devices and Applications Type#1#1 PM  NOx  Years 1 On/off Filter5851994-2004On Filter38525-401993-2003On Filter1501991-1993On Fuel250151996-2002On Ox catalyst2251973-2003On Ox catalyst22525-801991-1998On Filter1851996-2004Off Fuel+ox cat.150201996-2002Off Ox catalyst1251994-2002Off 7/05 1 Individual devices may have a more limited model year application

18. Cost of Retrofits in California Passive filter$8500 Flow through filter$5000 Catalyst$2000 Cost benefit ratio 1 > 4:1 1 Based on trash truck rule

19. Experience With Retrofits # of Retrofits Transit bus~1000 Trash truck>1000 School bus>2000

20. EPA-Funded Retrofit Projects EPA Funded Retrofit Projects

21. Cost Estimates for Retrofit Technologies TechnologyCost per Device/System ($) Diesel Oxidation Catalysts (DOC)500 to 2,000 Diesel Particulate Filters (DPF)3,000 to 5,500 Combined Lean NOx Catalyst/DPF Systems5,000 to 10,000 EGR Systems13,000 to 15,000 SCR Systems10,500 to 50,000 Note: DPF costs are higher for active systems and systems that include backpressure monitoring.

22. Retrofit Technology Verification Program Memorandum of Agreement between EPA and CARB – EPA recognizes and accepts those retrofit hardware strategies or device-based systems that have been verified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Retrofit technologies to reduce PM and NOx emissions currently verified by EPA & CARB:Retrofit technologies to reduce PM and NOx emissions currently verified by EPA & CARB: –DPFs, DOCs, Crankcase Filtration, Emulsified Fuel, Biodiesel, EGR and SCR systems. Information about EPA’s Verification program: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/retrofit/retroverifiedlist.htm

23. Conclusions Regarding Retrofits A wide variety of retrofit options are available for all types of diesel engines to reduce HC, CO, PM and toxic emissions NOx retrofit controls are emerging- Technology development continues to expand the range of applications available for retrofit A successful retrofit program must be properly designed and implemented States as well as the Federal government are responsible for making diesel emission reductions possible

24. Retrofit Durability & Reliability

26. Natural Gas Vehicles Very Low Emissions Good Performance Lower Cost Fuel Limited Range, but Adequate for Most Applications Few Refueling Stations Higher Cost Vehicle Ford Crown VictoriaFord F-150 Honda CivicNew Flyer D40 LF Bus

27. Emissions Test Results - CRT vs. CNG CBD Cycle

28. Emissions Test Results - CRT vs. CNG NY Bus Cycle

29. NYC Conclusions Clean Diesel vs. CNG PM emissions from CRT-equipped buses appear to be about equivalent to those from CNG buses –Average PM emissions with CNG is lower on CBD cycle, but higher on NY Bus cycle –Much wider range of values with CNG, especially on NY Bus cycle CO and HC emissions from CRT-equipped buses are much lower than those from CNG buses NOx emissions are generally lower from CNG buses than from CRT-equipped buses, but show a wider range of variability Carbonyl emissions from CNG buses are much higher than from CRT-equipped buses.

30. RATP Emissions Tests: Distribution of Particulate Size Diamètre en µm Mass in µg Diameter in µm ULSD with particulate filter CNG LPG ULSD

31. Fuel Diversity Increase alternative fuel use in urban fleets. Use gas-to-liquids. Develop hydrogen infrastructure to support fuel cell commercialization.

32. SmartWay Transport (Freight Sector) Objective: –Eliminate unnecessary idling from trucks and locomotives –Target federal and state fleets for major PM reductions –Create diesel emission reduction projects at borders –Create demand for lower emission freight services Freight traffic exists on highways, at ports and on construction sites SmartWay Transport challenges trucking companies to improve the environmental performance of their fleets –Emphasis on saving fuel and greenhouse gas emission reductions as well as PM, NOx, and toxics –New SmartWay Ad Campaign launched –FY05 $5 million anti-idling grant competition