opha-cap-alternative-fuels-municipal-purchasing

Fuelling Clean Air:Municipal Fuel Purchasing Policies thatReduce Emissions Contributing to PoorAir Quality & Climate Change

With Funding from

Prepared by theOntario Public Health Association

March 2003

Fuelling Clean Air

ReferReferReferReferReference:ence:ence:ence:ence:

Ontario Public Health Association (OPHA), Fuelling Clean Air: Municipal Fuel PurchasingPolicies that Reduce Air Emissions Contributing to Poor Air Quality & Climate Change,Prepared for the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) Clean Air Council, March 2003.

Author:Author:Author:Author:Author:

Kim Perrotta, Air Quality Coordinator, Ontario Public Health Association (OPHA)

PrPrPrPrProject Advisoroject Advisoroject Advisoroject Advisoroject Advisory Committee:y Committee:y Committee:y Committee:y Committee:

This project benefited greatly by the expertise & policy direction offered by the ProjectAdvisory Committee which included:

Rob Bromley, Health Promotion Officer, Public Health Environmental Health &Lifestyle Resources, Region of Waterloo

Paul Callanan, Manager, Environmental Health, Peel Public Health, & Program Advisor,OPHA Air Quality Program.

Ken Dack, Fleets Manager, City of Brampton

Helen Doyle, Manager, Environmental Health, York Region Health ServicesDepartment, & Program Advisor, OPHA Air Quality Program.

Sarah Gingrich, Research Consultant, Health Promotion & Environmental ProtectionOffice, Toronto Public Health, City of Toronto

Atis Lasis, Manger, Safe Environments Programme, Healthy Environments andConsumer Safety Branch, Health Canada

Eva Ligetti, Executive Director, Clean Air Partnership, & Moderator of the GTA CleanAir Council

Melinda Moriarty, Oil, Gas and Energy Branch, Environment Canada

Beatrice Olivestra, Executive Director, Friends of the Earth

Sherri Rendek, Project Manager, Clean Air Partnership

Fuelling Clean Air

ApprApprApprApprAppreciation:eciation:eciation:eciation:eciation:

The Project Advisory Committee would also like to express appreciation to the followingpeople who offered technical background information and/or comments on early drafts ofthe report:

Rishi Basak, Economist, Regulatory and Economic Analysis Branch, EnvironmentCanada

Carol Burelle, , , , , Head, In-Use Vehicle Emissions, Transportation Systems Branch,Environment Canada

Jeffrey Guthrie, Program Engineer, Oil, Gas & Energy Branch, Environment Canada

Bruce McEwen, Chief, Fuels Divisions, Environment Canada.

Greg Rideout, Head, Toxic Emissions Research and Field Studies, Emissions Researchand Measurement Division, Environment Canada.

Blair Stacey, Program Engineer, Transportation Systems Branch, Environment Canada.

Mark Tushingham, Head, Fuel Processing, Fuels Division, Environment Canada

Acknowledgements:Acknowledgements:Acknowledgements:Acknowledgements:Acknowledgements:

We would like to acknowledge the support of the Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundationthat funded the OPHA Air Quality Program in 2002/2003.

Distribution:Distribution:Distribution:Distribution:Distribution:

Copies of this report are available on the Clean Air Partnership website at www.toronto.ca/cleanairpartnership and on the OPHA website at www.opha.on.ca/resources/fuel.pdf.

Fuelling Clean Air

Executive Summary

How Fuels AfHow Fuels AfHow Fuels AfHow Fuels AfHow Fuels Affect Air Qualityfect Air Qualityfect Air Qualityfect Air Qualityfect Air Quality

Hundreds of studies, conducted in countriesaround the world, have demonstrated thatpoor air quality, which results from theburning of fossil fuels, can have a profoundimpact on human health. While air qualityis affected by a large number of airpollutants that are interacting synergistically,there are several common air pollutants thathave been clearly and consistently linked tohuman health impacts. These includeground-level ozone, fine particulate matter(PM), sulphates (SO4), carbon monoxide(CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and sulphurdioxide (SO2). Volatile organic compounds(VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) arefrequently included in this list of commonair pollutants because they are precursors ofground-level ozone.

Low sulphur fuels can improve air quality intwo distinct ways. First, they directly reduceSO2, SO4, and PM emissions from vehicletailpipes. Secondly, they increase theeffectiveness of existing emission controldevices such as oxidation catalysts, andenable the use of more advanced emissioncontrol devices such as diesel particulatefilters and NOx absorbers that are designedto reduce air pollutants such as PM, CO,VOCs, NOx and/or polycyclic aromatichydrocarbons (PAHs).

ThrThrThrThrThree Case Studiesee Case Studiesee Case Studiesee Case Studiesee Case Studies

This report examines the fuel purchasingpolicies established by three municipalitiesin Ontario to reduce air emissions from theirmunicipal operations. In the City ofToronto, the fuel purchasing practice,which has been in place since 1999, hasbeen designed to favour conventional fuels

with lower sulphur levels. This practice,which includes purchasing on-road dieselfor the City’s off-road diesel fleet, hasallowed the City to reduce SO2 emissionsfrom the City’s corporate fleet from about29.5 tonnes per year in 1999 to about 6tonnes per year in 2003. Over the threeyears that the City has been purchasing on-road diesel for its off-road fleet, it has paidbetween 2.7% less and 5.7% more per litrefor the red dyed on-road diesel than itwould for the cheapest off-road diesel.Overall, however, the City has paid about 1%more each year for its fuel to achieve theemission reductions described above.

In 2003, the Region of Waterloo will beginimplementing the top threerecommendations contained in the Region’sClean Air Plan by purchasing: 1) on-roaddiesel for the Region’s off-road diesel fleet;2a) ultra low sulphur diesel (ULSD) for theRegion’s buses; 2b) catalytic exhaustmufflers (CEM) for 86 of the Region’s 143buses; and 3) E10 (10% ethanol blendedwith 90% gasoline) for the Region’sgasoline-fuelled fleet. The use of on-roaddiesel for the Region’s off-road fleet isexpected to reduce emissions of sulphuroxides (SOx) by about 8.5 tonnes per year;while the use of ULSD in buses is expectedto reduce SOx emissions by about 2.8 tonnesper year. The retrofitting of buses withCEMs is expected to reduce emissions ofCO, VOCs, and PM by about 17 tonnes peryear. In 2003, the Region expects to payabout $0.04 (or 6.5%) more per litre for theULSD than it would for conventional on-road diesel.

The City of Brampton began purchasingB20 (20% biodiesel blended with 80% on-road diesel) for use in the City’s Corporate

Fuelling Clean Air

on- and off-road diesel fleets in 2002, andplans, in 2003, to use: 1) B20 in the City’sbus system; 2) B100 (100% biodiesel) in theCity’s Corporate on-road and off-roaddiesel fleets during the summer months; and3) E10 in the City’s gasoline fleet. By usingB20 that has been blended with on-roaddiesel in the City’s off-road diesel fleet, it isexpected that the City will reduce SO2emissions from that fleet by about 88% (orby about 1 tonne per year). The use of B20in the City’s Corporate on-road diesel fleetis expected to reduce SO2 emissions fromthat fleet by about 20%. The use of B20 isalso expected to reduce emissions of CO,PM and HC. In 2002, B20 cost the City ofBrampton about $0.04 (or 6.5%) more perlitre than conventional on-road diesel, but in2003, the City expects the cost differentialto increase to as much as $0.12 per litre (or20% more).

Lowering Emissions frLowering Emissions frLowering Emissions frLowering Emissions frLowering Emissions from Gasolineom Gasolineom Gasolineom Gasolineom GasolineFuelled VFuelled VFuelled VFuelled VFuelled Vehiclesehiclesehiclesehiclesehicles

Among the three municipalities, twoapproaches were examined for loweringemissions from gasoline fuelled vehicles:

a) favouring gasoline with the lowestsulphur levels; andb) purchasing E10 (10% ethanol blendedwith 90% gasoline).

With sulphur levels in gasoline predicted tocome down to 30 ppm in Ontario by the fallof 2003, there is no reason why anymunicipality should buy gasoline withsulphur levels greater then 30 ppm after thatdate. By purchasing gasoline that contains30 ppm sulphur many municipalities couldreduce SO2 emissions from their gasolinefuelled fleets by about 92% relative to 2001.

Executive Summary

Some municipalities may want to purchase30 ppm sulphur gasoline that has beenblended with ethanol. While the air qualitybenefits associated with ethanol’s use inCanadian gasoline remains unclear,ethanol’s production does appear to reducegreenhouse gas emissions. Currently, E10can be purchased at the same price asconventional gasoline because of tax breaks.

Lowering Emissions frLowering Emissions frLowering Emissions frLowering Emissions frLowering Emissions from Ofom Ofom Ofom Ofom Off-Roadf-Roadf-Roadf-Roadf-RoadDiesel VDiesel VDiesel VDiesel VDiesel Vehiclesehiclesehiclesehiclesehicles

From a fuels perspective, the biggest airquality impacts can be achieved by shiftingaway from the use of off-road diesel whichcontains between 1,300 and 3,700 ppmsulphur. The options considered by one ormore of the three municipalities includeshifting to:

a) conventional on-road diesel thatcontains 278 to 440 ppm sulphur;

b) ultra low sulphur diesel (ULSD) thatcontains 15 ppm sulphur; and

c) B20 (20% biodiesel with 80% on-roaddiesel) that contains up to 20% lesssulphur than conventional on-roaddiesel.

The conventional on-road diesel option(option a), which could reduce SO2emissions from a municipality’s entirecorporate fleet by as much as 90%, is theleast expensive option. ULSD could furtherreduce SO2 emissions, but would alsoincrease costs by about 6.5% beyond that forconventional on-road diesel. The B20option would reduce SO2 emissions by lessthan ULSD option, but could also reduceCO, PM and HC emissions from oldervehicles without requiring modifications,and would produce climate change benefits.

Fuelling Clean Air

Executive Summary

It can, however, increase costs by 6.5 to 20%beyond that for conventional on-road diesel.

Lowering Emissions frLowering Emissions frLowering Emissions frLowering Emissions frLowering Emissions from On-Roadom On-Roadom On-Roadom On-Roadom On-RoadDiesel VDiesel VDiesel VDiesel VDiesel Vehiclesehiclesehiclesehiclesehicles

With on-road diesel fleets, the optionsconsidered by one or more of the threemunicipalities examined include:

a) Selecting conventional diesel with thelowest sulphur levels;

b) Retrofitting buses with catalytic exhaustmufflers (CEM);

c) Using ULSD in buses and/or theCorporate fleet;

d) Using ULSD & retrofitting buses withCEMs;

e) Using B20 in buses and/or in theCorporate fleet; and

f) Using B100 biodiesel in the Corporatefleet in summer months.

Given that sulphur levels in on-road diesel inOntario ranged from 278 to 437 ppm in2001, substantial air quality benefits can begained by simply favouring the supplier withthe lowest sulphur levels, as the City ofToronto has done.

Significant air quality benefits appear to beassociated with both, the retrofitting ofolder buses with CEMs, and the rebuildingof bus engines with electronic enginecontrols. Demonstration studies suggestthat CEM retrofits can reduce emissions ofPM, CO and NOx by up to 34%, 74% and3.8% respectively, for a cost of about $3,200to $5,000 per bus. When older buses arerebuilt with electronic engine controls andretrofitted with CEMs, estimates suggestthat emissions of PM, CO and NOx can bereduced by up to 92%, 74% and 33%respectively, for a cost of $20,000 to

$50,000 per bus. This latter approach canalso reduce fuel costs and CO2 emissions byabout 8% by increasing the vehicle’s fuelefficiency by about 8%.When ULSD is used in corporate on-roaddiesel vehicles or buses run by transitauthorities, SO2 emissions can be reduced byabout 95%. More importantly, when ULSDis used in vehicles equipped with oxidationcatalysts, emissions of CO, PM, SO4 andPAHs can be reduced by an additional 35%,15%, 92% and 15% respectively. ULSD isalso essential with the use of more advancedemission control technologies such ascontinuously regenerating diesel particulatefilters (CR-DPF) which can producesignificant reductions in a broad array of airpollutants.

An analysis conducted by the U.S. EPAsuggests that B20’s use in heavy-duty on-road diesel vehicles can reduce emissions ofCO and PM by about 11% and 10%respectively, while increasing NOx emissionsby about 2%. These impacts vary however,depending upon the model year of theengine, the source of the biodiesel (eg. plantor animal based), and the properties of theconventional diesel with which the biodieselhas been blended. B20 is also expected toreduce SO2 emissions by up to 20% and toproduce substantial climate change benefits.B20 has the disadvantage of reducing fueleconomy by about 2%, and of being subjectto widely varying price swings.

Neat biodiesel (B100) has the potential toproduce significant air quality and climatechange benefits. On the other hand, B100can increase emissions of NOx by about 10%and can reduce fuel economy by between 8to 10%. It also has the disadvantage ofbeing expensive at present.

Fuelling Clean Air

Executive Summary

RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations

To reduce air emissions that contribute topoor air quality, municipalities shouldamend their fuel purchasing practices toensure that they purchase on-road diesel fortheir off-road diesel fleets, and, beginningthe fall of 2003, gasoline that contains 30ppm sulphur. They may want to considerhaving this low-sulphur gasoline blendedwith ethanol, and the on-road dieselblended with biodiesel, to produce climatechange benefits. They should also considerusing ULSD and/or B20 in their corporateon-road diesel fleets.

Municipalities should examine their transitfleets to determine the financial costs andemission benefits associated with rebuildingengines with electronic engine controls,retrofitting older vehicles with catalyticexhaust mufflers (CEMs), and using ULSD.

The GTA Clean Air Council should explore:

a) the ownership of emissions tradingcredits created as a result of fuelpurchasing policies;

b) the benefits of, and mechanisms availablefor, pooling the fuel purchases ofpartners of the GTA Clean Air Council;and

c) establishing a Green Fleets Subcommitteeto monitor developments related to fuels,vehicles and emission controltechnologies.

Fuelling Clean Air

Glossary of TermsPAHsPAHsPAHsPAHsPAHs Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons,

toxic air pollutants

PMPMPMPMPM Fine particulate matter includingPM10 and PM2.5

PMPMPMPMPM1010101010 Fine particulate matter with diameterless than 10 microns

PMPMPMPMPM2.52.52.52.52.5 Fine particulate matter with diameterless than 2.5 microns

SmogSmogSmogSmogSmog When tightly defined, includesground-level ozone and fineparticulate matter. When looselydefined, smog includes several airpollutants commonly present in theair as a result of the incompletecombustion of fossil fuels thatcontribute to human health impacts(i.e. CO, SO2, SO4, PM, ozone, NO2).

SOSOSOSOSO22222 Sulphur dioxide, a gaseous airpollutant and precursor of smog

SOSOSOSOSO44444 Sulphate, a particulate air pollutant

THCTHCTHCTHCTHC Total hydrocarbons, air pollutantsand precursors of smog

VOCsVOCsVOCsVOCsVOCs Volatile organic compounds, airpollutants and precursors of smog

BiodieselBiodieselBiodieselBiodieselBiodieselFuel derived from plant oils or animalfat that can be used with, or in placeof, conventional petroleum-baseddiesel fuel.

COCOCOCOCO Carbon monoxide, a gaseous airpollutant

COCOCOCOCO22222 Carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas

EthanolEthanolEthanolEthanolEthanolAn alcohol fuel that is commonlymade from corn or sugar but can bemade from any feedstock containingappreciable amounts of sugar. Canbe mixed with, or used in place of,gasoline.

HCHCHCHCHC Hydrocarbons, air pollutants andprecursors of smog

NONONONONOxxxxx Nitrogen oxides, gaseous andparticulate air pollutants andprecursors of smog

NONONONONO22222 Nitrogen dioxide, a gaseous airpollutant and precursor of smog

On-Road DieselOn-Road DieselOn-Road DieselOn-Road DieselOn-Road DieselDiesel fuel that is used in municipalvehicles that are licensed for use onroad (often called “clear diesel” or“low sulphur diesel”)

OfOfOfOfOff-Road Dieself-Road Dieself-Road Dieself-Road Dieself-Road DieselDiesel fuel that is used in engines andvehicles that are not licensed for useon roads (often called “red diesel”).The off-road diesel fleet ofmunicipalities can include backloaders, large lawn mowers, back-hoes, sidewalk clearers, asphaltmachines, and in a city such asToronto, ferries.

Fuelling Clean Air

Table of Contents

Executive SummarExecutive SummarExecutive SummarExecutive SummarExecutive Summaryyyyy p. 4

GlossarGlossarGlossarGlossarGlossary of Ty of Ty of Ty of Ty of Tererererermsmsmsmsms p. 8

IIIIIntrntrntrntrntroductionoductionoductionoductionoduction p. 10

IIIII Health Arguments: Low Sulphur Fuel PoliciesHealth Arguments: Low Sulphur Fuel PoliciesHealth Arguments: Low Sulphur Fuel PoliciesHealth Arguments: Low Sulphur Fuel PoliciesHealth Arguments: Low Sulphur Fuel Policies p. 11

IIIIIIIIII Sulphur StandarSulphur StandarSulphur StandarSulphur StandarSulphur Standards & Levels for Canadian Fuelsds & Levels for Canadian Fuelsds & Levels for Canadian Fuelsds & Levels for Canadian Fuelsds & Levels for Canadian Fuels p. 15

IIIIIIIIIIIIIII Fuel PurFuel PurFuel PurFuel PurFuel Purchasing Policies that Reduce Air Emissionschasing Policies that Reduce Air Emissionschasing Policies that Reduce Air Emissionschasing Policies that Reduce Air Emissionschasing Policies that Reduce Air Emissions p. 18

Case #1: City of TorontoCase #2: Region of WaterlooCase #3: City of Brampton

IVIVIVIVIV Evaluation of Non-Conventional Fuel Options &Evaluation of Non-Conventional Fuel Options &Evaluation of Non-Conventional Fuel Options &Evaluation of Non-Conventional Fuel Options &Evaluation of Non-Conventional Fuel Options &Low-Sulphur Conventional Fuel OptionsLow-Sulphur Conventional Fuel OptionsLow-Sulphur Conventional Fuel OptionsLow-Sulphur Conventional Fuel OptionsLow-Sulphur Conventional Fuel Options p. 26

A For Gasoline Fuelled Vehicles1. Favouring Gasoline with Lowest Sulphur Levels2. Purchasing Ethanol Blended Gasoline

B For Diesel Fuelled Vehicles1. On-Road Diesel for Off-Road Vehicles2. Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel (ULSD)3. Biodiesel

VVVVV SummarSummarSummarSummarSummary & Recommendationsy & Recommendationsy & Recommendationsy & Recommendationsy & Recommendations p. 36

A Reducing Emissions from Gasoline FleetsB Reducing Emissions from Off-Road Diesel FleetsC Reducing Emissions from On-Road Diesel FleetsD Recommendations:

Appendix A: BiodieselAppendix A: BiodieselAppendix A: BiodieselAppendix A: BiodieselAppendix A: Biodiesel p. 40

Appendix B: EthanolAppendix B: EthanolAppendix B: EthanolAppendix B: EthanolAppendix B: Ethanol p. 42

ReferReferReferReferReferencesencesencesencesences p. 44

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Fuelling Clean Air

IntroductionThis report represents a preliminaryexamination of fuel purchasing practicesthat can be adopted by local or regionalgovernments to reduce air emissions thatcontribute to poor air quality and/or globalclimate change. It has been prepared by theOntario Public Health Association (OPHA)for the GTA Clean Air Council with project-specific funding provided by The Clean AirPartnership and with general fundingprovided by the Walter and Duncan GordonFoundation.

The GTA Clean Air Council is an inter-governmental working group dedicated toexploring joint clean air initiatives andliaising with municipalities across Canada todiscover best practices for reducing smog.The Council currently has membersrepresenting 15 cities and towns and 4regions in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA)as well as partners from the federal andprovincial governments. At the SmogSummit convened in Toronto in June 2002,the GTA Clean Air Council partnerscommitted to “researching and developing alow sulphur fuel purchasing standard” thatcould be adopted by all GTA Clean AirCouncil partners by June 2003.

The primary goal of this report is to providethe GTA Clean Air Council withinformation, policy analysis, andrecommendations to assist in thedevelopment of a low sulphur fuel-purchasing standard. It also evaluatesethanol and biodiesel blended fuels as non-conventional fuels that might be used asalternatives to, or in combination with,conventional low sulphur fuels. This reportdoes not address any fuels or technologiesthat would require expensive modificationsto existing vehicles or infrastructure (i.e. it

does not evaluate natural gas as analternative fuel). Nor does it provide acomprehensive analysis of all fuelcombinations that are currently available onthe market. This report is divided into fivesections:

Section ISection ISection ISection ISection I provides a brief summary ofthe health impacts associated with poorair quality and the health benefitsassociated with low sulphur fuels;

Section IISection IISection IISection IISection II summarizes the regulatoryrequirements that apply to sulphur levelsin fuels and the sulphur levels inconventional gasoline, on-road dieseland off-road diesel that is currentlyrefined in or imported into Ontario;

Section IIISection IIISection IIISection IIISection III summarizes the fuelpurchasing practices established by threemunicipalities in Ontario to reduce airemissions from municipal operations;

Section IV Section IV Section IV Section IV Section IV evaluates the differentstrategies selected by the threemunicipalities for their gasoline, on-roaddiesel and off-road diesel fleets, andinvolves some discussion of ethanolblended gasoline and biodiesel blends aswell as low sulphur fuel options;

Section VSection VSection VSection VSection V provides a summary of thedifferent strategies and providesrecommendations for consideration bythe GTA Clean Air Council.

Fuelling Clean Air

I. Health Arguments: Low SulphurFuel Policies

Air Quality and Public HealthAir Quality and Public HealthAir Quality and Public HealthAir Quality and Public HealthAir Quality and Public Health

Hundreds of studies conducted in countriesaround the world have demonstrated thatpoor air quality, resulting from the burningof fossil fuels, can have a profound impacton human health. Numerous studies havedemonstrated that short-term exposure tospikes in air pollution are associated withincreases in: premature deaths, hospitaladmissions for cardiovascular andrespiratory disease, asthma symptoms, andrespiratory infections such as bronchitis andpneumonia (NAAQO, 1999a/b; TPH,2000a/b; OMA, 1998).

While the majority of air quality studies havebeen directed at acute health effectsassociated with short-term exposure toincreased levels of pollution, more recentstudies have been directed at the chronichealth effects associated with long-termexposure to lower levels of air pollution.These studies indicate that air pollutioncontributes to the development of chronicheart and lung diseases including cancerand asthma.

For example, a team of researchers thatfollowed 1.2 million adults in the UnitedStates over a 16-year period found a strongand consistent link between air levels ofrespirable particulate matter (PM2.5),sulphates (SO4) and sulphur dioxide (SO2),and deaths from lung cancer, cardio-pulmonary illnesses, and all causes of death.They concluded that air pollution in someU.S. cities presents a health risk comparableto that presented by long-term exposure tosecond hand smoke (Pope et al., 2002).

In another example, a ten year study

conducted by the University of SouthernCalifornia found that children who live inhigh ozone communities and play three ormore sports develop asthma at a rate threetimes higher than those in low ozonecommunities (Gauderman et al., 2002).

While a mounting body of evidence suggeststhat air pollution can affect all members ofsociety, children, the elderly and those withpredisposing respiratory conditions (such asasthma) or heart conditions (such ascongestive heart failure) appear to be mostvulnerable (OMA, 1998; Burnett et al.,2001).

Air Pollution BurAir Pollution BurAir Pollution BurAir Pollution BurAir Pollution Burden of Illnessden of Illnessden of Illnessden of Illnessden of Illness

The Ontario Medical Association (OMA)has estimated that the acute health effectsassociated with fine particulate matter andground-level ozone in Ontario cost at least$1 billion per year in direct costs forhospital admissions, emergency room visitsand absenteeism. These costs do not reflectthe costs associated with medication or visitsto doctors’ offices, which the OMA expectswould be significant. The OMA has furtherestimated that the pain, suffering and loss oflife associated with air pollution “costs”Ontario citizens another $9 billion per year(OMA, 2000).

Air Pollutants of ConcerAir Pollutants of ConcerAir Pollutants of ConcerAir Pollutants of ConcerAir Pollutants of Concernnnnn

While air quality is affected by a largenumber of air pollutants interactingsynergistically, there are several common airpollutants that have been clearly andconsistently linked to the health impactsidentified above. These include ground-

Fuelling Clean Air

level ozone, fine particulate matter (PM),sulphates (SO4), carbon monoxide (CO),nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and sulphur dioxide(SO2) (TPH, 2001a/b).

Ozone, NitrOzone, NitrOzone, NitrOzone, NitrOzone, Nitrogen Oxides & Vogen Oxides & Vogen Oxides & Vogen Oxides & Vogen Oxides & VolatileolatileolatileolatileolatileOrganic CompoundsOrganic CompoundsOrganic CompoundsOrganic CompoundsOrganic Compounds

Ground-level ozone is the air pollutantresponsible for most of the smog alertsdeclared in Ontario. It is a secondary airpollutant formed in the air by a reactionbetween nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatileorganic compounds (VOCs) in the presenceof sunlight. Because sunlight is needed forthe reaction, air levels of ozone are alsorelated to the weather, and are higher in thesummer months in Canada.

Fine ParFine ParFine ParFine ParFine Particulate Matterticulate Matterticulate Matterticulate Matterticulate Matter

Fine particulate matter is the solid or liquidparticles in the air that are small enough tobe inhaled, and can include acid aerosolssuch as sulphates, metal fumes, organicchemicals, pollen and smoke. Inhalableparticulate matter (called PM10) is the termused for those particles that are less than 10microns in diameter while respirableparticulate matter (called PM2.5) is the termused for those particles less than 2.5microns in size.

Recent studies suggest that respirableparticulate matter is the most damaging tohuman health because it can penetrate sodeeply into the lungs. In fact, the FederalProvincial Working Group on Air QualityObjectives and Guidelines has concludedthat the health impacts associated with PM2.5may be twice as high as those associatedwith PM10, and that the health impacts mayeven be greater for sulphates (NAAQO,1999b).

Carbon Monoxide, NitrCarbon Monoxide, NitrCarbon Monoxide, NitrCarbon Monoxide, NitrCarbon Monoxide, NitrogenogenogenogenogenDioxide, & Sulphur DioxideDioxide, & Sulphur DioxideDioxide, & Sulphur DioxideDioxide, & Sulphur DioxideDioxide, & Sulphur Dioxide

Several studies conducted on differentcontinents in recent years have suggestedthat the gaseous air pollutants also have asignificant direct impact on human health.For example, a 1998 study demonstratedthat NO2, SO2, CO and ozone wereresponsible for 4.1%, 1.4%, 0.9% and 1.8%respectively of all premature deaths in elevendifferent cities in Canada includingToronto, Ottawa, Hamilton, London andWindsor. Combined, these gaseous airpollutants were responsible for, on average,7.7% of all premature deaths in these elevencities (Burnett, 1998).

Low Sulphur Fuels ReduceLow Sulphur Fuels ReduceLow Sulphur Fuels ReduceLow Sulphur Fuels ReduceLow Sulphur Fuels ReduceEmissions in Two WaysEmissions in Two WaysEmissions in Two WaysEmissions in Two WaysEmissions in Two Ways

Low sulphur fuels improve air quality in twodistinct ways. First of all, there is a linearrelationship between sulphur levels in fuelsand SO2 emissions from vehicle tailpipes.When sulphur levels in fuels are reduced by90%, it can be crudely estimated that tailpipeemissions of SO2 will be reduced by about90%. While SO2 is a gas that has beendirectly associated with respiratory impactsin a number of studies, it is also theprecursor of sulphates, which have beenclearly and consistently associated withrespiratory and cardiovascular impacts in alarge number of studies (TPH, 2000a).Sulphates are also a significant componentof PM10 and PM2.5. The Ontario Ministry ofthe Environment estimates that 25% of PM10and 40% of PM2.5 in Ontario’s air aresulphates (TPH, 2000a).

Secondly, ultra low sulphur fuels are“enablers” that: 1) allow greater reductionsin emissions of PM, HC, VOCs and NOxwith existing emission control devices such

Section I: Health Arguments: Low Sulphur Fuel Policies

Fuelling Clean Air

GasolineGasolineGasolineGasolineGasoline On-Road DieselOn-Road DieselOn-Road DieselOn-Road DieselOn-Road Diesel OfOfOfOfOff-Road Dieself-Road Dieself-Road Dieself-Road Dieself-Road DieselAAAAAvoided Efvoided Efvoided Efvoided Efvoided Effectfectfectfectfect 30 ppm 30 ppm 30 ppm 30 ppm 30 ppm 50 ppm 50 ppm 50 ppm 50 ppm 50 ppm 400 ppm 400 ppm 400 ppm 400 ppm 400 ppm

Premature Mortality 1,352 318 756Chronic Respiratory Disease Cases 4,770 1,120 2,660Respiratory Hospital Admissions 848 200 474Cardiac Hospital Admissions 689 162 385Emergency Room Visits 4,294 1,013 2,398Asthma Symptom Days 2,086,511 492,368 1,166,348Restricted Activity Days 993,134 234,692 555,571Acute Respiratory Symptoms 7,159,671 1,687,922 3,999,816Lower Respiratory Illness (Children) 58,429 14,136 32,984

Source: HEIAP, 1997 [revised 1998]

as oxidation catalysts; and 2) are requiredfor the use of advanced emission controldevices such as diesel particulate filters(DPF) and NOx absorbers (Env Can, 2001;Panel, 1997).

Health Benefits Associated with LowHealth Benefits Associated with LowHealth Benefits Associated with LowHealth Benefits Associated with LowHealth Benefits Associated with LowSulphur FuelsSulphur FuelsSulphur FuelsSulphur FuelsSulphur Fuels

In 1997, the Health and EnvironmentalImpact Assessment Panel (HEIAP) wasstruck by the Government of Canada toassess the health benefits that would beassociated with regulations that established a“minimum national standard” for sulphurlevels in Canadian fuels. The Panelestimated the health impacts of nine sulphurscenarios using sulphates as the indicatorpollutant for all health impacts avoided.The Panel acknowledged that thismethodology likely underestimates the totalhealth benefits associated with each scenario(HEAIP, 1997).

Table 1 below provides the Panel’s estimates


of the health impacts that could be avoidedin seven Canadian cities over a 20-yearperiod for three of the nine sulphurscenarios assessed. The most significanthealth benefits were associated with the 30ppm gasoline standard, followed by the 400ppm off-road diesel standard, and then the50 ppm on-road diesel standard. It wasdetermined that the avoided health impactswould be greatest in the Toronto areabecause of: 1) the high sulphur levels inOntario fuels; 2) the high number of vehiclemiles travelled in the Toronto area; and 3)the large size of the population affected (4million people)(HEIAP, 1997)

The Panel estimated the economic value ofthe avoided health impacts and determinedthat, over a 20-year period, in the sevenCanadian cities, the 30 ppm gasolinescenario could produce health benefitsworth $7.2 billion, while the 50 ppm on-road diesel standard would produce healthbenefits worth $1.7 billion, and the 400ppm off-road standard could provide healthbenefits worth $4.0 billion (HEIAP, 1997).

Health Impacts Avoided with Sulphur Fuel Standards, in 7Canadian Cities, Over 20 years, Number of CasesTable 1

Fuelling Clean Air

TTTTTransporransporransporransporransportation Sector is a Significanttation Sector is a Significanttation Sector is a Significanttation Sector is a Significanttation Sector is a SignificantContributorContributorContributorContributorContributor

In Ontario, the transportation sector is thegreatest contributor of both of theprecursors of ground-level ozone and ofCO. In 2000, on-road and off-roadvehicles were responsible for about 30% ofthe VOCs, 63% of the NOx, and 66% of theCO emitted in Ontario (MOE, 2001).

While large point sources such as smeltersand coal-fired power plants are the mostsignificant sources of SO2 and PM in theprovince, the transportation sector can bean important source of these air pollutantsin an urban airshed (MOE, 2001). Forexample, within the City of Toronto, it hasbeen estimated that the transportationsector is responsible for about 60% of SO2emissions (Bell, 2003).

Fleets Responsible for SignificantFleets Responsible for SignificantFleets Responsible for SignificantFleets Responsible for SignificantFleets Responsible for SignificantPorPorPorPorPortion of Municipal Emissionstion of Municipal Emissionstion of Municipal Emissionstion of Municipal Emissionstion of Municipal Emissions

The Corporate Fleets operated by municipalgovernments can be responsible for asignificant portion of the air pollutantsemitted from municipal operations. Forexample, when the Region of Waterlooestimated the air emissions associated withRegional operations, it determined that theRegion’s on-road and off-road vehicleswere responsible for about 63% of the NOx,12% of the SOx, 97% of the CO, 96% of theVOCs, and 77% of the PM10 emitted fromRegional operations (Region of Waterloo,2002, p.13).


Fuelling Clean Air

II Sulphur Standards & Levelsfor Canadian Fuels

Sulphur Levels in GasolineSulphur Levels in GasolineSulphur Levels in GasolineSulphur Levels in GasolineSulphur Levels in Gasoline

The Sulphur in Gasoline Regulations werepassed by the federal government in June1999. These regulations will limit thesulphur content in gasoline to an average of30 ppm, with a maximum of 80 ppm,starting in January 2005. They alsoestablish an interim average limit of 150ppm for sulphur in gasoline between July2002 and December 2004 (Env Can,2002).

While sulphur levels are expected to bereduced at different rates by differentcompanies, Environment Canada expectsmost refineries in Ontario to reduce sulphurlevels in their gasoline to 30 ppm by the fallof 2003 in order to meet the requiredaverage limit of 150 ppm over the 2.5 yearinterim period (Tushingham, 2003).

In 2001, sulphur levels in gasolineproduced or imported in Ontario averaged390 ppm and ranged from 180 to 596 ppm(See Table 2 below)(Env Can, 2002).

Table 2

Imperial Imperial Shell Petro Sunoco *Petro *Olco Oil Oil Sarnia Canada Sarnia Canada Hamilton Sarnia Nanticoke Oakville Oakville

596 376 462 396 180 368 317

(Volume Weighted, Annual Average)* selected importers

Source: Env Can, 2001

Sulphur Levels (ppm) in Gasoline, by Refinery orImporter, 2001

On-Road & OfOn-Road & OfOn-Road & OfOn-Road & OfOn-Road & Off-Road Diesel Fuelsf-Road Diesel Fuelsf-Road Diesel Fuelsf-Road Diesel Fuelsf-Road Diesel Fuels

There are two types of diesel fuel used bymunicipal governments. There is the dieselfuel that is used in vehicles that are licensedfor use on roads, and there is the diesel fuelthat is used in engines and vehicles that arenot licensed for use on roads. Municipaloff-road diesel fleets can include backloaders, large lawn mowers, back-hoes,sidewalk clearers, asphalt machines, and in a

city such as Toronto, ferries. The fuel usedin on-road vehicles, which is often called“clear diesel” or “low sulphur diesel”, willbe referred to as “on-road diesel” in thisreport, while the fuel used in off-roadequipment, which is often called “reddiesel” will be referred to as “off-roaddiesel”.

Fuelling Clean Air

Table 3

Imperial Imperial Shell Petro Sunoco *Robbins * Sunoco Oil Oil Sarnia Canada Sarnia Oakville Sarnia Sarnia Nanticoke Oakville

349 356 392 278 437 289 430

(Volume Weighted, Annual Average)* selected importers


Sulphur Levels in On-Road DieselSulphur Levels in On-Road DieselSulphur Levels in On-Road DieselSulphur Levels in On-Road DieselSulphur Levels in On-Road Diesel

The Canadian federal Diesel FuelRegulations, which came into effect inJanuary 1998, required that all on-roaddiesel have sulphur levels below 500 partsper million (ppm). However, in July 2002,the federal government revoked thoseregulations, replacing them with theSulphur in Diesel Fuel Regulations. Thesenew regulations will continue the 500 ppmmaximum until the middle of 2006, atwhich time the limit will be reduced to15ppm (McEwen, 2003).

The new Regulations are designed to alignCanadian requirements for on-road dieselwith new U.S. Rules that were promulgatedin January 2001. The U.S. Rules, which

Section II: Sulphur Standards & Levels for Canadian Fuels

address the specifications for both fuels andvehicles, will require the use of high-efficiency catalytic exhaust emission controldevices, particulate filters, and othertechnologies in heavy-duty on-road vehicles,and the lowering of sulphur levels in on-road diesel from 500 ppm to 15 ppm. Theyare expected to decrease emissions of PMand NOx by 90% and 95% respectively. Inthe United States, the new Rules will bephased in between 2007 and 2010 (CleanAir Independent Review Subcommittee,2002).

In 2001, sulphur levels in on-road dieselproduced or imported in Ontario averaged360 ppm and ranged from 278 to 437 ppm(see Table 3 below) (Env Can, 2001).

Sulphur Levels (ppm) in On-Road Diesel, byRefinery or Importer, 2001

Sulphur Levels in OfSulphur Levels in OfSulphur Levels in OfSulphur Levels in OfSulphur Levels in Off-Road Dieself-Road Dieself-Road Dieself-Road Dieself-Road Diesel

Existing federal regulations limit sulphurlevels in off-road diesel fuels to a maximumof 5,000 ppm. The U.S. EPA is currentlydrafting new rules to reduce emissions fromoff-road vehicles and machinery by 95%.These new rules are expected to cut sulphurcontent in off-road diesel to 15 ppm by2010 while giving vehicle manufacturers

until 2012 to comply with the new vehicleemission standards (Pianin, 2002). InCanada, the February 2001 Notice of Intenton Cleaner Vehicles, Engines and Fuelsstated the federal government’s intention todevelop sulphur limits for off-road dieselfuel in the same time frame as the UnitedStates (McEwen, 2003).

Fuelling Clean Air

Table 4

Imperial Imperial Shell Petro Sunoco *Petro * Olco Oil Oil Sarnia Canada Sarnia Canada Hamilton Sarnia Nanticoke Oakville Oakville

1297 N/R 3676 2839 2291 2812 N/R

(Volume Weighted, Annual Average) N/R: Not Reported* importers


Section II: Sulphur Standards & Levels for Canadian Fuels

Sulphur Levels (ppm) in Off-Road Diesel, byRefinery or Importer, 2001

In 2001, sulphur levels in off-road dieselproduced or imported in Ontario averaged

2,890 ppm and ranged from 1,297 to 3,676ppm (see Table 4 below) (Env Can, 2001).

Fuelling Clean Air

III: Fuel Purchasing Policies thatReduce Air Emissions

ThrThrThrThrThree Municipalities - Overee Municipalities - Overee Municipalities - Overee Municipalities - Overee Municipalities - Overviewviewviewviewview

We have identified three municipalities inOntario that have adopted fuel purchasingpolicies or practices designed to reduce airemissions associated with the operation ofthe municipality’s fleet of vehicles.

In the City of Toronto, the fuel purchasingpractice, which has been in place for fiveyears, has been designed to favour fuels withlower sulphur levels, and has resulted in thepurchasing of on-road diesel for the City’soff-road diesel fleet.

In the Region of Waterloo, the fuel andvehicle purchasing plan is an integrated partof an overall Clean Air Plan developed in2002. Under this plan, the Region will bepurchasing: 1) on-road diesel for theRegion’s off-road diesel fleet; 2a) ultra lowsulphur diesel (ULSD) for the Region’sbuses; 2b) catalytic exhaust mufflers (CEM)for 86 of the Region’s 143 buses; and 3)E10 (10% ethanol blended with 90%gasoline) for the Region’s gasoline fuelledfleet.

In the City of Brampton, the fuelpurchasing practice involves the use of: a)B20 (20% biodiesel blended with 80% on-road diesel) in the City’s Corporate on-roadand off-road diesel fleets; and in 2003, willinvolve the use of: b) B20 in the City’s bussystem; c) B100 (100% biodiesel) in theCity’s Corporate on-road and off-roaddiesel fleets during the summer months; andd) E10 in the City’s gasoline fleet.

Case #1: City of TCase #1: City of TCase #1: City of TCase #1: City of TCase #1: City of Torororororonto — Lowonto — Lowonto — Lowonto — Lowonto — LowSulphur Fuel Corporate PurSulphur Fuel Corporate PurSulphur Fuel Corporate PurSulphur Fuel Corporate PurSulphur Fuel Corporate PurchasingchasingchasingchasingchasingPracticePracticePracticePracticePractice

OverOverOverOverOverview & Rationaleview & Rationaleview & Rationaleview & Rationaleview & RationaleIn 1999, as a means of reducing corporateemissions that contribute to poor air quality,the City of Toronto adopted a practice of“considering sulphur levels in fuel as well ascosts” when awarding contracts for theCity’s gasoline and on- and off-road dieselfuels (TPH, 2001).

The City’s Tender has been amended suchthat, refineries submitting bids to providethe City’s fuel must report their annualaverage sulphur levels for the different fueltypes. Each year, the City’s bids areevaluated both in terms of costs andpotential reductions in SO2 emissions. Foreach fuel type, contracts have been awardedto the bidder with the lowest prices wheresulphur levels are similar, and to the bidderwith the lowest sulphur levels where the costdifferential is deemed reasonable (TPH,2001).

Since 2000, the City has purchased itsgasoline from Sunoco because its gasolinehas contained about 40-60% less sulphurthan the gasoline provided by other biddingcompanies. Since 2001, the City has beenpurchasing on-road diesel for its off-roadfleet when it determined that the taxes thatapply to on-road diesel do not apply whenon-road diesel is used in off-road vehicles.

The low sulphur fuel purchasing practiceapplies to the on-road and off-roadvehicles/engines in the City’s Corporatefleet. The fuel choices made for theCorporate Fleet often influence the fuel

Fuelling Clean Air

choices made by the Toronto TransitAuthority and other agencies, boards andcommissions of the City.

Emissions Reductions and CostsEmissions Reductions and CostsEmissions Reductions and CostsEmissions Reductions and CostsEmissions Reductions and CostsThe City’s low sulphur fuel purchasingpractice is expected to reduce emissionsfrom the City’s Corporate fleet in two ways:1) By reducing emissions of SO2 andsulphate/PM from all vehicles using lowsulphur fuels; and 2) By reducing emissionsof CO, NOx and VOCs from those vehiclesthat are equipped with oxidation catalysts(i.e. most light-duty gasoline vehicles) whichoperate more efficiently when SOxemissions are reduced.

For simplicity’s sake, the City has usedestimates of SO2 emissions alone to estimatethe emissions reductions associated with itsfuel purchases over the last five years, andhas assumed that all sulphur in the fuel

Section III: Fuel Purchasing Policies that Reduce Air Emissions

would be emitted as SO2, when in fact, someportion would be emitted as other sulphurcompounds.

It has been estimated that the City’s lowsulphur fuel purchasing practice hasdecreased SO2 emissions from the City’sCorporate Fleet from about 29.5 tonnes peryear in 1999 to about 6 tonnes in 2003 (seeTable 5). The emissions reductions from theCity’s off-road fleet have been responsiblefor nearly 90% of these reductions (see Table5). Over the three years that the City hasbeen purchasing on-road diesel for its off-road diesel fleet, it has paid between 2.7%less and 5.7% more per litre for the red dyedon-road diesel than it would for thecheapest off-road diesel (Gingrich, 2003;Perrotta, 2003). Overall, however, the Cityhas paid about 1% per year more for its fuelthan it would have if it had purchased fuelfrom suppliers offering the lowest prices.

Table 5

Year On-Road Off-Road Gasoline Total % Increase in Diesel Fleet Diesel Fleet Fleet Fleet Cost Relative to

Low Cost Bid

1999 4,165 22,950 2,550 29,6652000 4,420 11,560 1,530 17,510 +1.202001 5,015 2,380 1,275 8,670 +0.852002 4,890 1,577 1,126 7,600 +1.072003 3,154 1,609 1,234 6,000 +0.92

Source: Data for 2000/2001 derived from TPH, 2001 and corrected for fuel density.Data for 2002/2003 derived from Toronto Purchasing & Material Management, 2001 & 2002

SO2 Emissions (kg), Corporate FleetToronto, 1999 - 2003

Fuelling Clean Air

Equation Used to Estimate SOEquation Used to Estimate SOEquation Used to Estimate SOEquation Used to Estimate SOEquation Used to Estimate SO22222EmissionsEmissionsEmissionsEmissionsEmissionsFor simplicity’s sake, the emissionsassociated with each bid and fuel type have


Quantities PurQuantities PurQuantities PurQuantities PurQuantities PurchasedchasedchasedchasedchasedIn 2003, the City’s fuel purchasing practiceapplied to approximately:

• 3.5 million litres of gasoline,• 6.9 million litres of diesel for its on-road

fleet, and• 2.4 million litres of diesel for its off-road

fleet (Gingrich, 2003).

TTTTTechnical Considerations/Concerechnical Considerations/Concerechnical Considerations/Concerechnical Considerations/Concerechnical Considerations/ConcernsnsnsnsnsComparing fuels based on annual averagesulphur levels at the refinery gives a goodpicture of a refinery’s output and assurancesthat a refinery can deliver the selectedproduct. However, this approach does notallow the City to award contracts based onrefineries’ promises of future reductions insulphur levels, or on improvements made inthe very recent past (Gingrich, 2003).

Fleet Management Services supported theincreased expenditure for low sulphur fuel

TTTTTotal SOotal SOotal SOotal SOotal SO22222 = [ppm S in fuel] x [litres of fuel] x [fuel density] x[MW of SO2/AW of S] x 1 kg/1,000,000 mg

WherWherWherWherWhere:e:e:e:e: Sulphur content is ppm by weight (mg S/kg fuel)Fuel density (kg/L) is approximately 0.734 for gasoline

& 0.844 for on-road diesel and off-road diesel inOntario

MW (molecular weight) of SO2 is 64AW (atomic weight) of sulphur is 321000 kg = 1 tonne

Note: Sulphur levels and fuel densities can be found in the annual reports,“Sulphur in Liquid Fuels”, published by Environment Canada.

in 1998 on the belief that lower sulphurlevels would decrease fleet maintenancecosts.

Under the provincial tax rules, off-roaddiesel must be dyed red in order to beeligible for the tax breaks that apply to fuelsused in off-road vehicles. Therefore, whenon-road diesel is purchased for use in off-road vehicles, it must be dyed red by thesupplier in order to be excluded from thetaxes that would ordinarily apply to on-roaddiesel.

Non-Conventional Fuels Being PilotedNon-Conventional Fuels Being PilotedNon-Conventional Fuels Being PilotedNon-Conventional Fuels Being PilotedNon-Conventional Fuels Being PilotedThe City of Toronto used neat biodiesel(100% biodiesel) in one of its garbagetrucks, as a pilot project in 2002, andencountered no difficulties.

The City also owns and operates a numberof natural gas vehicles.

been crudely estimated by applying thefollowing equation:

Fuelling Clean Air

In 1998, the City decided not to use ethanolblended gasoline because of concernsrespecting: 1) reduced fuel efficiency; 2)increased emissions of aldehydes; and 3)uncertainties respecting climate changeimpacts (Perrotta, 2003).

Emissions CrEmissions CrEmissions CrEmissions CrEmissions CreditseditseditseditseditsThe City is currently doing backgroundresearch on emissions trading and thecreation of emissions credits to determinehow best to address this issue within thecontext of the fuel tender.

DeparDeparDeparDeparDepartments Involvedtments Involvedtments Involvedtments Involvedtments InvolvedThis practice is implemented each year by acollaborative process between TorontoPublic Health, Purchasing and MaterialsManagement, Works & Emergency Servicesand Fleet Management Services.

ContactContactContactContactContactSarah Gingrich, Research Consultant,Toronto Public Health, [email protected]


Case #2: Region of Waterloo – FuelCase #2: Region of Waterloo – FuelCase #2: Region of Waterloo – FuelCase #2: Region of Waterloo – FuelCase #2: Region of Waterloo – Fuel& V& V& V& V& Vehicle Purehicle Purehicle Purehicle Purehicle Purchasing Planchasing Planchasing Planchasing Planchasing Plan

OverOverOverOverOverview & Rationaleview & Rationaleview & Rationaleview & Rationaleview & RationaleIn 2002, the Region of Waterloo PublicHealth Department prepared a report,“Discussion Paper for Clean Air Plan”, thatassessed the emissions impacts and costs ofvarious policy options that could be adoptedby the Region to address poor air quality.Among the eleven policies identified as“top” priorities were three directed at theRegion’s Corporate Fleet of vehicles.

It was decided that the Region should: 1)Replace gasoline with E10 (a 10% ethanol/90% gasoline blend); 2) Replace off-roaddiesel used in the Corporate fleet with on-road diesel; 3a) Purchase ultra-low sulphurdiesel (ULSD) that contains 15 ppmsulphur for the Region’s buses; and 3b)Retrofit 86 of the Region’s older buses withcatalytic exhaust mufflers (CEM). The staffhave also recommended to Council that theRegion purchase buses equipped withcontinuously regenerating diesel particulatefilters (CR-DPF) as old buses are retiredover the next 10 years (Bromley, 2003). TheRegion has captured the non-conventionalfuels in its Tender by adding an alternativefuels section.

Emissions Reductions, Costs & TEmissions Reductions, Costs & TEmissions Reductions, Costs & TEmissions Reductions, Costs & TEmissions Reductions, Costs & TechnicalechnicalechnicalechnicalechnicalConsiderationsConsiderationsConsiderationsConsiderationsConsiderations

Corporate Fleet of Gasoline VehiclesWhen the Region estimated the potentialbenefits associated with a switch to E10from conventional gasoline, it determinedthat substantial reductions could be gained,particularly with regard to CO, for a verysmall one-time cost (See Table 6).Because E10 costs the same as conventionalgasoline, the Region concluded that its usewould not increase fuel costs. However,

Fuelling Clean Air

Table 6

Options CO VOCs PM10 NOx SOx Cost tofor Various Fleets Implement

Gasoline Fleet: E10 32,908 2,351 149 1,691 65 $15,000

On-road Fleet: B20 398 120 37 +62 63 $82,000

On-road Fleet: ULSD 0 0 114 0 300 $48,000

Off-road Fleet: On-road 0 0 760 0 8,528 $76,300 Diesel

Off-road Fleet: B20 / 1,209 294 985 +401 9,055 $81,000 On-road Diesel

Off-road Fleet: ULSD 0 0 1,464 0 11,050 $114,000

Buses: ULSD 0 0 1,035 0 2,810 $321,500

Buses: CEM 14,206 2,044 499 1,881 0 $180,000

Buses: CEM & ULSD 14,206 2,044 1,536 1,881 2,810 $180,000 & $321,500

Source: Region of Waterloo, 2002

because ethanol has a tendency to “clean”fuel lines and deposit small particles on thefuel filter, the Region has anticipated thatthere will be a one-time cost of $15,000 thatwill result from the need to incorporate in-line fuel filters into existing pumps beforeE10 is used, and to replace vehicle fuelfilters after its introduction (Waterloo,2002, p. 26).

Corporate Fleet of Off-Road Diesel VehiclesWhen the Region considered replacing off-road diesel used in its off-road CorporateFleet, it considered three options: 1) Usingon-road diesel; 2) Using a B20/on-roaddiesel blend; and 3) Using ULSD thatcontains15 ppm sulphur. The Regiondecided to purchase conventional on-roaddiesel for it’s off-road fleet because thischange could produce very significant


reductions in emissions (i.e. >9 tonnes/year) for relatively little cost (see Table 6).Corporate Fleet of On-Road Diesel VehiclesWhen the Region estimated emissions-reduction options for its on-road CorporateFleet, it considered: 1) Using a B20biodiesel blend; and 2) Using ULSD. Theassessment indicated that ULSD wouldprovide greater reductions in PM and SO2while the B20 blend would provide greaterreductions in CO and VOCs (see Table 6).For the time being, the Region has decidedto stay with on-road diesel because ofconcerns about how ULSD fuel couldimpact on the fuel economy andperformance of heavy-duty diesel vehicles(Bromley, 2003).

Potential Annual Emission Reductions (kg) &Estimated Costs, Various Fuel & Vehicle Options,Region of Waterloo, 2002

Fuelling Clean Air


BusesWhen the Region estimated emissionsreductions that could be achieved with itstransit fleet, it considered four options: 1)Using ULSD; 2) Equipping 86 of 143buses with catalytic exhaust mufflers (CEM)(i.e. oxidation catalysts); 3) Equipping 86buses with CEM and using ULSD; and 4)Replacing retiring buses with new modelsequipped with continuously regeneratingdiesel particulate filters (CR-DPF).

The assessment indicated that the use ofULSD would produce significant reductionsin SOx and PM, while the CEMs wouldproduce significant reductions in CO andVOCs. Combined, the two measures wouldproduce the benefits of both (see Table 6below).

The Region has decided to: 1) PurchaseULSD for the Region’s buses which isexpected to cost about $0.035 to $0.04 perlitre more than the high grade on-roaddiesel which would have cost the Regionabout $0.62 per litre; and 2) Retrofit 86 ofthe Region’s older buses with CEM thatcost less than $5,000 each. Staff have alsorecommended to Council that the Regionensure that newly purchased buses areequipped with CR-DPF at an additionalcost of $15,000 per bus (Note: buses costabout $500,000 each) (Bromley, 2003).

Quantities PurQuantities PurQuantities PurQuantities PurQuantities PurchasedchasedchasedchasedchasedThe Region purchases about:• 450,000 litres of diesel for its on-road

diesel Corporate fleet,• 500,000 litres of diesel for its off-road

Corporate fleet,• 1 million litres of gasoline for its

Corporate Fleet, and• 4.2 million litres of diesel for its Transit

Authority (Bromley, 2003).

Non-Conventional Fuels Not SelectedNon-Conventional Fuels Not SelectedNon-Conventional Fuels Not SelectedNon-Conventional Fuels Not SelectedNon-Conventional Fuels Not SelectedBiodiesel was not selected for use by theRegion for two reasons: 1) It is expensiverelative to on-road diesel (i.e. $0.76 per litrein 2002 compared to $0.61 forconventional on-road diesel); and 2)because B20 is blended with on-road dieselthat currently has sulphur levels rangingaround 400 ppm, it cannot be used with thenew emission control devices that areentering the field. The Region decided thatit made sense to select a fuel that issupported by the new legislative andtechnological developments in this field (i.e.ULSD and CR-DPF comply with the 2007fuel and vehicle requirements)(Bromley,2003).

Emissions CrEmissions CrEmissions CrEmissions CrEmissions CreditseditseditseditseditsWhile the Region is aware that some of itsactions in the area of fuel and vehicles mightbe eligible for emissions credits, it has notaddressed the issue in the Tender. Staff atthe Region are working on the emissionstrading issues outside of the context of thefuel purchasing tender.

DeparDeparDeparDeparDepartments Involvedtments Involvedtments Involvedtments Involvedtments InvolvedThe Discussion Paper that drove thedevelopment of the Region’s fuel andvehicle purchasing policies was the productof collaboration between the Region’sPublic Health, Finance, CorporateResources, Transportation andEnvironmental Services, and PlanningHousing and Community Servicesdepartments, with assistance by TorrieSmith Associates (Region of Waterloo,2002).

ContactContactContactContactContactRob Bromley, Health Promotion Officer,Regional Municipality of Waterloo,[email protected].

Fuelling Clean Air


Case #3: City of Brampton – FuelCase #3: City of Brampton – FuelCase #3: City of Brampton – FuelCase #3: City of Brampton – FuelCase #3: City of Brampton – FuelPurPurPurPurPurchasing Practicechasing Practicechasing Practicechasing Practicechasing Practice

OverOverOverOverOverview & Rationaleview & Rationaleview & Rationaleview & Rationaleview & RationaleIn April 2002, the City of Brampton beganbuying B20 (20% biodiesel; 80%conventional on-road diesel) for use in itsCorporate on-road and off-road diesel fleet.This decision was made to reduce emissionsof smog-forming air pollutants. Thebiodiesel, made from virgin soybeans, waspurchased from Big K Fuels, who blended itwith on-road diesel purchased fromImperial oil.

The City also plans to use B20 in its TransitAuthority fleet beginning in the spring of2003 and to use neat biodiesel (B100) in itsCorporate fleet in the summer months in2003. It also plans to use E10 (10%ethanol; 90% gasoline) in its gasoline-fuelledvehicles to reduce emissions of smog-forming air pollutants and to increasevehicle performance.

The City has implemented this policy byadding an “Alternative Fuels” section to itsRFP in which it asks for bids on B100, B50and B20.

Emissions Reductions ExpectedEmissions Reductions ExpectedEmissions Reductions ExpectedEmissions Reductions ExpectedEmissions Reductions ExpectedThe City moved to a biodiesel blend in 2002for its diesel vehicles because of theemissions reductions that could be achievedwith this fuel without making expensivemodifications to vehicles or expensiveinvestments in new infrastructure. The Cityhas not attempted to calculate the emissionsreductions associated with its purchase.However, it is expected that the City’spurchase will reduce emissions in four ways:1) By using on-road diesel in its off-roadfleet, the City can reduce SO2 emissionsfrom that portion of its fleet by about 88%(i.e. the average sulphur level in on-road

diesel in Ontario is 360 ppm compared toan average of 2,890 ppm in off-road diesel);2) By blending biodiesel with on-roaddiesel, the City can reduce SO2 emissionsfrom the on-road diesel by up to 20%; 3) byusing B20, the City expects to reduceemissions of PM, HC and CO from theCorporate diesel fleet; and 4) By using E10,the City expects to reduce smog-forming airpollutants from its gasoline fuelled fleet.

CostsCostsCostsCostsCostsIn 2002, the B20 was costing the City ofBrampton about $0.04 more per litre than itwould for conventional on-road diesel.However, the price differential may increaseto about $0.12 per litre this year (i.e. fromabout $0.62 per litre for conventional on-road diesel to about $0.74 per litre for B20)because the U.S. government has recentlydropped the subsidy provided to its soy-based biodiesel industry. If that subsidy isreinstated, it is expected that prices will dropagain (Dack, 2003).

In Ontario, there is a tax break associatedwith using biodiesel. The $0.143 per litrefuel tax that currently applies to on-roaddiesel is not charged on neat biodiesel. Witha B20 blend, this tax break amounts toabout $0.03 per litre. A number oforganizations are lobbying the Ontariogovernment to increase the tax breakprovided to B20 to encourage its use andthe industry’s development (Dack, 2003).The price of B20 diesel would be reduced ifgreater volumes were purchased (i.e. if othermunicipalities pooled their fuel purchaseswith the City of Brampton).

Fuelling Clean Air

Quantities PurQuantities PurQuantities PurQuantities PurQuantities PurchasedchasedchasedchasedchasedEach year, the City of Brampton purchasesabout:

• 480,000 litres of diesel for its on-roadand off-road Corporate Fleet;

• 5.2 million litres of diesel for its TransitAuthority;

• 554,500 litres of gasoline for itsCorporate fleet.

TTTTTechnical Considerations/Concerechnical Considerations/Concerechnical Considerations/Concerechnical Considerations/Concerechnical Considerations/ConcernsnsnsnsnsThe City has encountered no technicaldifficulties with the use of B20 in its entirefleet, even though the weather conditionsthis winter have been extremely cold. Theshift in fuel has required no expensiveretrofits of vehicles, pumps or storagefacilities. It has not resulted in any increasein maintenance costs. The B20 is deliveredby truck from a terminal in Mississauga.

The City will use B100 in its Corporate fleetin the summer months only. B100 can onlybe used during warm seasons because itbecomes viscous (i.e. thick) in cold weather.B100 is also more corrosive thanconventional diesel and can produceproblems with plastic pipes and gaskets usedin older vehicles (Dack, 2003).

Emissions CrEmissions CrEmissions CrEmissions CrEmissions CreditseditseditseditseditsOwnership of emissions credits created withthis purchase have not been addressed in theTender.

Non-Conventional Fuels Not SelectedNon-Conventional Fuels Not SelectedNon-Conventional Fuels Not SelectedNon-Conventional Fuels Not SelectedNon-Conventional Fuels Not SelectedNatural gas was considered by the City butwas not selected because of the expense ofpurchasing new equipment and vehicles andbecause of the infrastructure needed tosupport this option (Dack, 2003).

Ethanol/diesel blends were not consideredbecause these fuel blends have not been


“proven” the way that B20 blends have been(Dack, 2003).

Biodiesel produced from animal productswas not selected because the City did notfeel that it had been “proven” the way thatbiodiesel produced from pure soybeans has(Dack, 2003).

DeparDeparDeparDeparDepartments Involvedtments Involvedtments Involvedtments Involvedtments InvolvedThese fuel purchases have been driven byFleet Services alone.

ContactContactContactContactContactKen Dack, Manager, Fleet Services, City ofBrampton, [email protected]

Fuelling Clean Air

IV: Evaluation of Non-Conventional Fuel Options &Low-Sulphur Conventional FuelOptions

For the purposes of this report, non-conventional fuels were considered only if:1) they have been used by one of the threemunicipalities examined; 2) they areaccessible to the Ontario market; and 3) theydo not require expensive modifications ofvehicles or infrastructure.

A.A.A.A.A. For Gasoline Fuelled VFor Gasoline Fuelled VFor Gasoline Fuelled VFor Gasoline Fuelled VFor Gasoline Fuelled Vehiclesehiclesehiclesehiclesehicles

Two options have been identified forreducing emissions from gasoline-fuelledvehicles between now and January 2005when the 30 ppm standard will come intoeffect across the country:

1) Purchasing gasoline from the supplierwith the lowest sulphur levels as the Cityof Toronto has been doing; and

2) Purchasing E10 as the Region ofWaterloo and the City of Brampton planto do.

1.1.1.1.1. Favouring Gasoline with LowestFavouring Gasoline with LowestFavouring Gasoline with LowestFavouring Gasoline with LowestFavouring Gasoline with LowestSulphur LevelsSulphur LevelsSulphur LevelsSulphur LevelsSulphur LevelsFor the last four years, the City ofToronto has awarded its gasoline bid tothe company with the lowest annualaverage sulphur level at the refinery.This approach has reduced direct annualemissions of SO2 from the City’s gasolinefleet by approximately 40 to 50% or byabout 1 tonne per year. It is alsoexpected to reduce emissions of SO4,PM, CO, NOx and VOCs from theCity’s gasoline-fuelled fleet (ASEP,1997).

If, as Environment Canada expects, mostrefineries in Ontario will be achieving the30 ppm sulphur standard for gasoline bythe summer of 2003, there is no reasonfor municipalities to purchase gasolinewith sulphur levels greater than 30 ppmafter the fall of 2003 (except in the caseof extended fuel contracts). Ifmunicipalities purchase gasoline thatcontains 30 ppm sulphur, they will bereducing SO2 emissions from theirgasoline-fuelled fleets by an average of92% relative to 2001. This wouldrequire, however, developing somemechanism for ensuring that suppliersprovide gasoline that contains onaverage 30 ppm sulphur, when sulphurlevels are known to fluctuate from oneseason to the next, and whenperformance from previous years will nolonger be relevant.

2.2.2.2.2. PurPurPurPurPurchasing Ethanol Blended Gasolinechasing Ethanol Blended Gasolinechasing Ethanol Blended Gasolinechasing Ethanol Blended Gasolinechasing Ethanol Blended Gasoline

The Region of Waterloo and the City ofBrampton have elected to purchase E10(10% ethanol/90% conventionalgasoline) for their gasoline fuelled fleetsas a means of reducing emissions ofsmog-forming pollutants from theirCorporate fleets.

Ethanol is an alcohol fuel that iscommonly made from corn or sugar butcan be made from any biologicalfeedstock that contains appreciableamounts of sugar or starch. Ethanol ismost commonly blended with gasoline

Fuelling Clean Air

to form an E10 blend or an E85 blend(85% ethanol/15% gasoline). While thehigher concentrations must be used invehicles that have been modified, thelower concentrations (E5-E10) can beused in all types of vehicles and enginesthat require gasoline. E10 can also beused without expensive modifications inmost storage tanks, distribution systemsand vehicles in use today (AFDC, 2003).

Ethanol and Carbon DioxideEthanol and Carbon DioxideEthanol and Carbon DioxideEthanol and Carbon DioxideEthanol and Carbon DioxideEthanol has been promoted by manysectors because it is a renewable fuel thatcan reduce CO2 emissions thatcontribute to climate change, increasesecurity of fuel supplies, and supportlocal economies. The CanadianRenewable Fuels Association (CRFA)reports that E10 may reduce CO2emissions by 6 to10% on a life-cycle basisrelative to conventional gasoline (CRFA,2003). Environment Canada estimatesthat the reduction in CO2 emissions on alife-cycle basis are closer to 3 to 4%(Basak, 2003).

Ethanol, Emissions Reductions &Ethanol, Emissions Reductions &Ethanol, Emissions Reductions &Ethanol, Emissions Reductions &Ethanol, Emissions Reductions &TTTTTechnical Considerationsechnical Considerationsechnical Considerationsechnical Considerationsechnical ConsiderationsIn the United States, ethanol has beenadded to gasoline as an “oxygenate” thatis suppose to increase the octane of thegasoline, and improve the combustibilityof the fuel, so that it burns cleaner. TheCanadian Renewable Fuels Associationreports that E10 blends can reduceemissions of CO by 25 to 30% andVOCs by 6 to 10% while increasingemissions of aldehydes (air toxics) by 30to 50% relative to conventional gasoline(CRFA, 2003). Staff at EnvironmentCanada report that E10 does increaseemissions of the air toxic, acetaldehyde,while slightly reducing emissions of SO2and the air toxic, benzene. They have

Section IV: Evaluation of Non-Conventional Fuel Options & Low-Sulphur Conventional Fuel Options

cautioned however, that it is not clearthat ethanol will reduce VOCs and COwhen used in Canada. Apparently,ethanol can have varying impacts onemissions of VOCs and CO dependingupon the age and model of the vehicle inwhich it is used and on the properties ofthe gasoline with which it is blended. Ofparticular importance in this regard isthe vapour pressure requirementsapplied to gasoline when ethanol is used,which vary from one province toanother, and between Canada and theUnited States. Environment Canadastaff have also reported that the emissionimpacts of E10 are diminishing as morestringent vehicle emissions standardscome into effect (McEwen, 2003).

Concerns have been expressed in somequarters about how increased emissionsof aldehydes may impact on air qualityand human health. One studyconducted by the Argonne NationalLaboratory in the U.S. concluded thatE85 significantly reduces the overalltoxicity of vehicle emissions because,while it increases emissions ofacetaldehyde and formaldehyde, itdecreases emissions of benzene and 1,3-butadiene (DOE, 2002, p.50-58)(seeAppendix B for more details).Environment Canada staff havecautioned that the results of the Argonnestudy can not be applied to Canadabecause they are based on U.S. gasolinewhich has significantly differentproperties than Canadian gasoline(McEwen, 2003).

Costs, Fuel Economy & ACosts, Fuel Economy & ACosts, Fuel Economy & ACosts, Fuel Economy & ACosts, Fuel Economy & AvailabilityvailabilityvailabilityvailabilityvailabilityBoth the City of Brampton and theRegion of Waterloo found that E10could be purchased in 2003 for the sameprice as conventional gasoline.

Fuelling Clean Air

Environment Canada staff have reportedhowever, that there is some loss of fueleconomy with E10 blends (i.e. areduction of about 3%) (McEwen,2003).

Ethanol-blended gasoline has beensubjected to tax breaks from the federaland provincial governments toencourage its development. At present,the federal government waives thefederal excise tax on the ethanol portionof gasoline, which reduces the cost ofE10 by $0.01 per litre. Ontario exemptsethanol from the province’s GasolineTax Act which amounts to costreductions worth $0.147 per litre ofethanol or $0.01 per litre of E10 (Basak,2003).

In the United States, the demand forethanol has grown since the Clean AirAct Amendments of 1990 mandated thesale of “oxygenated fuels” in areas withunhealthy levels of CO. Today,approximately 1.5 billion gallons ofethanol are added each year to gasolinein the United States to increase octaneand improve the emissions quality ofgasoline (AFDC, Ethanol, 2003).

In 1998, it was reported thatapproximately 234 million litres ofethanol were being produced in Canadaeach year (Env Can, 1998). Under theClimate Change Plan, the federalgovernment has proposed increasingE10 penetration of the gasoline marketto 35% by 2010. This would increaseethanol consumption in Canada to 1billion litres per year (Basak, 2003).

B. For Diesel-Fuelled VB. For Diesel-Fuelled VB. For Diesel-Fuelled VB. For Diesel-Fuelled VB. For Diesel-Fuelled Vehiclesehiclesehiclesehiclesehicles

1.1.1.1.1. On-Road Diesel for OfOn-Road Diesel for OfOn-Road Diesel for OfOn-Road Diesel for OfOn-Road Diesel for Off-Road Vf-Road Vf-Road Vf-Road Vf-Road Vehiclesehiclesehiclesehiclesehicles

While technically one would not call on-road diesel an alternative fuel, it can beused as an alternative to off-road dieselfor off-road diesel vehicles. When off-road diesel, that contains on average2,890 ppm sulphur, is replaced with on-road diesel, that contains on average 360ppm sulphur, SO2 emissions can bereduced by about 87.5%. This reductionin sulphur levels will also producesubstantial reductions in directly emittedSO4 and PM and in the secondaryformation of SO4 and PM in theatmosphere (ASEP, 1997).

In Toronto, the use of on-road diesel inthe City’s off-road fleet has reducedannual SO2 emissions by about 9 tonnes.While this practice has increased the costof diesel for the off-road diesel fleet byas much as 5.7% one year, in 2003, itactually reduced the cost by 2.7%(Gingrich, 2003).

2.2.2.2.2. Conventional On-rConventional On-rConventional On-rConventional On-rConventional On-road Diesel withoad Diesel withoad Diesel withoad Diesel withoad Diesel withLowest Sulphur LevelsLowest Sulphur LevelsLowest Sulphur LevelsLowest Sulphur LevelsLowest Sulphur Levels

Given that sulphur levels in on-roaddiesel in Ontario ranged from 278 to437 ppm in 2001, substantial air qualitybenefits can be gained by simplyfavouring the supplier with the lowestsulphur levels, as the City of Toronto hasdone. In 2003, Toronto will reduce itsSO2 emissions by an additional 1.6tonnes by selecting conventional on-roaddiesel from the supplier with the lowestsulphur levels.


Fuelling Clean Air

3.3.3.3.3. Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel (ULSD)Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel (ULSD)Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel (ULSD)Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel (ULSD)Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel (ULSD)

Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel (ULSD) is theterm applied to conventional petroleum-based diesel that contains less than 15ppm sulphur. While ULSD has notpreviously been available in Ontario, afew companies are now willing to offer itto Ontario consumers.

Petro Canada has agreed to ship ULSDto the Region of Waterloo fromMontreal in 2003, and is upgrading itsstorage facilities at its Mississaugalocation so it can service the Ontariomarket from this location in the future(Bromley, 2003). Shell has alsoindicated to the Region of Waterloo, awillingness to offer ULSD to Ontarioconsumers. Shell would be shippingULSD to Ontario consumers by pipeline,rail and truck from its refinery inEdmonton (Bromley, 2003).

ULSD & CostULSD & CostULSD & CostULSD & CostULSD & CostThis year, Petro Canada has offered tosell ULSD to the Region of Waterloo for$0.6525 per litre (or for $0.005 per litreabove the fluctuating price set by the OilBuyer’s Guide). This price, whichincludes the product, taxes and shipping,is about $0.03 to 0.04 more per litrethan the premium grade on-road dieselthe Region was considering (i.e. $0.62per litre) and $0.04 to 0.05 more perlitre than conventional on-road diesel(i.e. $0.61 per litre) (Bromley, 2003).

ULSD & Emissions ReductionsULSD & Emissions ReductionsULSD & Emissions ReductionsULSD & Emissions ReductionsULSD & Emissions ReductionsIf ULSD is used instead of on-roaddiesel, which contains on average 360ppm sulphur, SO2 emissions from an on-road fleet could be reduced by anaverage of 96%. If ULSD is used insteadof off-road diesel, which contains on


average 2,890 ppm sulphur, S02 emissionsfrom an off-road fleet could be reduced byan average of 99.5%.

When ULSD is used, substantial reductionsare also expected in the direct release of SO4and PM from vehicles, and in the secondaryformation of SO4 and PM in theatmosphere. More importantly, however,the use of ULSD allows for betterperformance from some emission controldevices and for the use of more advancedemissions control devices, both of whichhave been designed to reduce a broad arrayof smog-forming and toxic air pollutants.

While the scope, timing, and resourcesprovided for this project do not allow forthe examination of vehicle technologies,emission control devices, and theircombined impact on emissions, it isimportant to understand that fuel choicesimpact upon the operation and performanceof emission control devices that can beretrofitted on older vehicles or installed onnew vehicles. Oxidation CatalystsOxidation CatalystsOxidation CatalystsOxidation CatalystsOxidation CatalystsAmong the emission control devices that canbe affected by sulphur emissions areoxidation catalysts. Several studies suggestthat oxidation catalysts are capable ofproducing substantial reductions inemissions of CO, HC, and PM, and slightreductions in NOx emissions, when installedon older models of diesel vehicles that arefuelled with conventional diesel. The U.S.EPA has estimated that catalytic exhaustmufflers (CEMs) (i.e. mufflers equippedwith oxidation catalysts) can reduceemissions of PM, CO, and HC by about 40to 50% and emissions of NOx by about 2.8to 4.4% when installed on heavy-duty 4-stroke diesel engines (Region of Waterloo,2002) (see Table 7).

Fuelling Clean Air

CO HC PM10 NOx CO2

Retrofit - CEM 74 71 34 3.8 N/RRetrofit - CEM &Electronic Engine 74 71 92 33 8

(N/R = Not Reported)Source: Env Canada, 1999

Environment Canada has determined thatemissions from older buses can besignificantly reduced by retrofitting themwith oxidation catalysts. In a 1999 reportprepared for Environment Canada, it isreported that emissions of PM, HC, COand NOx were reduced by about 34%, 71%,74% and 3.8% respectively when buses builtin 1984/85 were retrofitted with a CEM.In 1999, the cost to retrofit a bus with aCEM was estimated at about $2,500 to$3,000. In 2001, Environment Canadaestimated that the cost would be closerto $3,200 (Env Can, 1999; Burelle, 2003).

Environment Canada has also determinedthat emissions from older buses that do nothave electronic engines (i.e. model years1986 to 1993) can be reduced by greaterpercentages when their engines are rebuiltwith electronic engine controls andretrofitted with CEMs. In the 1999 study, itwas estimated that emissions of PM, HC,CO, and NOx would be reduced by 92%,71%, 74%, and 33% respectively when theengines were rebuilt with electronic enginecontrols and retrofitted with CEMs. It was


% Reduction in Air Emissions fromOlder Buses Equipped with CEM or CEM& Electronic Engine Controls,Conventional On-Road Diesel

estimated that these changes would costbetween $20,000 to $50,000 per bus (EnvCan, 1999). It was also estimated that thisstrategy would reduce both CO2 emissionsand fuel costs by about 8% because it wouldincrease the vehicle’s fuel efficiency by about8% (Env Can, 1999) (see Table 8).

ULSD & Oxidation CatalystsULSD & Oxidation CatalystsULSD & Oxidation CatalystsULSD & Oxidation CatalystsULSD & Oxidation CatalystsWhen ULSD is used in diesel-operatedvehicles that are equipped with CEMs, avariety of air emissions can be furtherreduced because the sulphur compounds areno longer interfering with the catalyst’sability to react with the other air emissions

Table 8

Table 7

CO HC PM10 NOx

CEM 40- 42 43 - 50 39 - 50 2.8 - 4.4

Source: Region of Waterloo, 2002

% Reduction in AirEmissions, In Heavy

Duty Diesel Vehicles with CEM, EPA

Fuelling Clean Air

CO THC PM10 NOx CO2 PAHs SO4 SO2 Carbonyl

CO THC PM10 NOx CO2 PAHs SO4 SO2 Carbonyl

ULSD 34.7 66.7 15.0 0 +0.2 15 92 91 10

Source: Lanni, 2001

% Reduction in Air Emissions from Older BusesEquipped with Catalytic Exhaust Mufflers, ULSDRelative to 250 ppm Sulphur Fuel

Table 9


in the exhaust stream. For example, a studyconducted on New York City busesindicated that when ULSD (i.e. 30 ppm)was used in buses equipped with CEMs,emissions of CO, PM, and PAHs werereduced by an additional 15 to 35%, whileemissions of total hydrocarbons (THC),SO4 and SO2 were reduced by an additional76 to 92%, relative to the same buses fuelledon diesel that contained 250 ppm sulphur

(see Table 9)(Lanni, 2001)(See AppendixA).

ULSD & Diesel ParULSD & Diesel ParULSD & Diesel ParULSD & Diesel ParULSD & Diesel Particulate Filtersticulate Filtersticulate Filtersticulate Filtersticulate FiltersContinuously regenerating diesel particulatefilters (CR-DPF) are an example of anadvanced emission control technology thatis both, more effective at reducing a broadarray of air emissions from diesel-fuelledvehicles, and more sensitive to sulphur

CO HC PM10 NOx CO2 PAHs SO4 SO2 Carbonyl

ULSD 90 70 90 +3.1 +10 70-80 93 88 90 - 99

% Reduction in Air Emissions of BusesRetrofitted with DPF & Fuelled with ULSD,Relative to Buses with Catalytic ExhaustMufflers

Table 10

emissions. While an oxidation catalyst is lesseffective when used with conventional on-road diesel, the diesel particulate filter(DPF) can be damaged by the SOxemissions associated conventional on-roaddiesel.

When buses in New York were retrofittedwith CR-DPF, and operated on ULSD,emissions of a number of smog-forming andtoxic air pollutants were reduced by 70 to

90% relative to those emissions from buseswhen they were equipped with CEM andfuelled with conventional on-road diesel (i.e.250 ppm sulphur)(Lanni, 2001; Chatterjee,2002)(See Table 10 below).

The Region of Waterloo has determined thatnew buses, which cost about $500,000each, can be equipped with CR-DPF forabout $10,000 to $15,000 each (Bromley,2003).

Fuelling Clean Air

3. Biodiesel3. Biodiesel3. Biodiesel3. Biodiesel3. Biodiesel

Several companies are now offeringbiodiesel to customers in Ontario. Forexample, three companies submitted bids toprovide biodiesel and biodiesel blends to theCity of Brampton; two U.S. companies,NOCO and Big K Fuels, and a Canadiancompany, Bio-Diesel Canada (Dack, 2003).

Biodiesel fuels can be derived from plant oranimal sources. Fats and oils are chemicallyreacted with an alcohol such as methanol toproduce chemical compounds known asfatty acid methyl esters. These esters arecalled biodiesel when they are intended foruse as a fuel (AFDC, 2003).

In the United States, biodiesel is being usedby the U.S. Departments of Energy andAgriculture, the U.S. Postal Service and by alarge number of school districts, nationalparks, transit authorities, public utilitycompanies, and garbage and recyclingcompanies (AFDC, 2003). In Ontario,biodiesel is being used for the CorporateFleets belonging to the City of Brampton,the Town of Caledon and Toronto Hydro(Dack, 2003).

Biodiesel & TBiodiesel & TBiodiesel & TBiodiesel & TBiodiesel & Technical Considerationsechnical Considerationsechnical Considerationsechnical Considerationsechnical ConsiderationsBiodiesel fuels can be added to, or used inplace of, conventional petroleum-baseddiesel fuels. Biodiesel is often mixed withconventional petroleum-based diesel tocreate blends. When blended inconcentrations up to 20%, biodiesel can beused in nearly all diesel equipment and iscompatible with most storage anddistribution equipment. No enginemodifications are needed. The 20% blendsare called B20 (AFDC, 2003).

Higher blends, even neat biodiesel (i.e.B100) can be used in many engines built

since 1994. Biodiesel is expected to workwell with new technologies such as catalysts,particulate traps and exhaust gasrecirculation (AFDC, 2003). However,higher blends can present difficulties in coldclimates because of viscosity (i.e. tendency tothicken in low temperatures) (OEE, 2003).

Biodiesel Fuel EconomyBiodiesel Fuel EconomyBiodiesel Fuel EconomyBiodiesel Fuel EconomyBiodiesel Fuel EconomyBiodiesel has a reduced energy contentrelative to conventional diesel fuels, whichtranslates into a reduction in fuel economy.However, as can be seen in Table 11 below,fuel economy is reduced by only 1.6 to 2.1%with B20 blends (EPA, 2002, p.44).

Biodiesel CostsBiodiesel CostsBiodiesel CostsBiodiesel CostsBiodiesel CostsB20 was costing the City of Bramptonabout $0.04 per litre more thanconventional diesel in 2002. This year, B20may cost as much as $0.72 per litre, which iscurrently $0.12 per litre more thanconventional on-road diesel. If the U.S.reinstates its subsidy, the price of biodiesel isexpected to drop again.

Biodiesel & Global Climate ChangeBiodiesel & Global Climate ChangeBiodiesel & Global Climate ChangeBiodiesel & Global Climate ChangeBiodiesel & Global Climate ChangeSince biodiesel is produced from plant oilsand animal fats, it has been promoted as ameans for reducing emissions of CO2 thatcontribute to global climate change. Whilebiodiesel does not appear to reduce CO2emissions at the tailpipe, a life-cycle analysisconducted by the U.S. government’sNational Renewable Energy Laboratory(NREL) suggests that the overall fuel cyclefor biodiesel reduces CO2 emissions by78.4% relative to conventional diesel fuel.This reduction is attributed to the fact thatalmost 94% of the carbon emitted from thetailpipe is recycled in the soybeans used toproduce it. For B20 blends, the analysisindicates that overall CO2 emissions arereduced by 15.7% relative to conventionaldiesel (DOE, 1998).


Fuelling Clean Air

Fuel Type Energy Content % Difference Relative to (btu/gallon) Conventional Diesel

Conventional Diesel 129,500Animal-based Biodiesel (100%) 115,720 -10.6Animal-based B20 (20% blend) - 2.1Plant-based Biodiesel (100%) 119,216 - 7.9Plant-based B20 (20% blend) - 1.6

Source: EPA, 2002, p.44

Difference in Energy Content, Biodiesel &Conventional DieselTable 11

Measures being considered by the federalgovernment to promote the use of biodieselas a transportation fuel were outlined in therecent October 2002 Climate Change Plan.This plan proposes that federal, provincialand territorial governments collaborate onthe policies needed to reach a target of 500million litres of domestic biodieselproduction by 2010 (Basak, 2003).

Biodiesel & SulphurBiodiesel & SulphurBiodiesel & SulphurBiodiesel & SulphurBiodiesel & SulphurA 1998 report prepared by the U.S.National Renewable Energy Laboratory(NREL) reports that neat biodiesel containsno sulphur (DOE, 1998). Therefore, the


blending, the vintage of the vehicle tested,and the testing conditions, generallybiodiesel appears to reduce emissions ofPM, CO and HC, while increasing slightlythe emissions of NOx (Env Can, 1998).The report observes that the emissionsreductions gained by combining B20 withan oxidation catalyst are very similar to theemissions reductions gained whencombining conventional diesel with anoxidation catalyst (Env Can, 1998).

Biodiesel Impacts on EmissionsBiodiesel Impacts on EmissionsBiodiesel Impacts on EmissionsBiodiesel Impacts on EmissionsBiodiesel Impacts on EmissionsBuses – 1994Buses – 1994Buses – 1994Buses – 1994Buses – 1994When the NREL compared tailpipeemissions from conventional buses poweredwith neat biodiesel (B100) and B20produced from soybeans, to those frombuses powered with conventional diesel, itfound that B20 reduced emissions of CO,PM10, THC, SOx and CO by 9 to 18%,while increasing emissions of NOx by 1.7%(see Table 12). In this analysis, it wasassumed that bus engines would becalibrated to meet 1994 vehicle emissionstandards (DOE, 1998). PM emissionstandards for urban bus engines weretightened in the U.S. in 1994 (Rideout,2003).

sulphur levels in biodiesel blends will reflectthe sulphur levels in the base fuel withwhich they have been blended. Forexample, with a B20 blend, there should be20% less sulphur than exists in theconventional diesel fuel with which it hasbeen blended.

Biodiesel Impacts on EmissionsBiodiesel Impacts on EmissionsBiodiesel Impacts on EmissionsBiodiesel Impacts on EmissionsBiodiesel Impacts on EmissionsA report prepared in 1998 on biodiesel forEnvironment Canada concluded that, whilebiodiesel’s impact on vehicle emissionsvaries depending upon the feedstock usedfor the biodiesel, the base fuel used for

Fuelling Clean Air

FuelFuelFuelFuelFuel COCOCOCOCO THC THC THC THC THC PM PM PM PM PM1010101010 NOxNOxNOxNOxNOx SOxSOxSOxSOxSOx

B20 - 9.0 - 9.25 - 13.6 + 1.7 - 17.6

B100 - 46 - 37 - 68 + 9 - 100

Source: DOE, 1998, P. 22

% Change in Emissions in ConventionalBuses, 1994 Model Year, B20 & B100Relative to Conventional Diesel (500 ppmsulphur)

Table 12


Biodiesel Impacts on EmissionsBiodiesel Impacts on EmissionsBiodiesel Impacts on EmissionsBiodiesel Impacts on EmissionsBiodiesel Impacts on EmissionsHeavy-duty On-rHeavy-duty On-rHeavy-duty On-rHeavy-duty On-rHeavy-duty On-road Diesel, 1988 -1997oad Diesel, 1988 -1997oad Diesel, 1988 -1997oad Diesel, 1988 -1997oad Diesel, 1988 -1997When the EPA conducted an analysis ofemissions data available for conventionalheavy-duty on-road diesel vehicles fuelledon B20, B100 and conventional diesel, itfound that B20 reduced emissions of THC,CO and PM10 by 10 to 21% relative toconventional diesel, while slightly increasing

categories of heavy-duty on-road dieselvehicles were significantly different. TheNOx standard was reduced significantly in1990 and 1991, while the PM standard wasreduced significantly in 1991 and 1994(Rideout, 2003).

FuelFuelFuelFuelFuel COCOCOCOCO THC THC THC THC THC PM PM PM PM PM1010101010 NOxNOxNOxNOxNOx SOxSOxSOxSOxSOx

B20 - 11.1 - 21.1 - 10.1 + 2.0 N/R

B100 - 47 - 67 - 47 + 10 N/R

(N/R : Not Reported)Source: EPA 2002

Estimated % Change in Emissions fromHeavy-Duty On-Road Diesel Vehicles, B20 &B100 Relative to Conventional Diesel

Table 13

emissions of NOx (see Table 13). Theaverage level of sulphur in the conventionaldiesel used in these vehicles was 333 ppm.Most of the emissions data was available forvehicles grouped into three modelcategories: 1994 to1997, 1991 to1993, and1988 to 1990 (EPA, 2002). The emissionstandards that applied to these three

It also found that biodiesel’s impact onemissions varies depending on three factors:1) The source of the biodiesel; 2) Theengines in which they were used (i.e. modelyears); and 3) The properties of the diesel

Fuelling Clean Air

fuel with which the biodiesel was blended(EPA, 2002)(see Appendix A for moredetails).

Biodiesel Impacts on Air TBiodiesel Impacts on Air TBiodiesel Impacts on Air TBiodiesel Impacts on Air TBiodiesel Impacts on Air ToxicsoxicsoxicsoxicsoxicsThe EPA staff also compared the impact ofbiodiesel on air toxics emitted from thetailpipes of heavy-duty on-road engines.Emissions data were available for 11 of the21 air pollutants formerly identified by theEPA as Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT).When the measurements for the 11 air toxicswere considered as a whole, and correlatedagainst the biodiesel concentration, it wasfound that total gaseous air toxics werereduced when biodiesel was added toconventional diesel fuel, although not to thesame extent that total hydrocarbons werereduced. For example, while a B20 blendcould reduce total hydrocarbon emissions(THC) by about 20%, it would only reducetotal toxics by about 3% (EPA, 2002)(seeAppendix A for more details).

Biodiesel Impacts on EmissionsBiodiesel Impacts on EmissionsBiodiesel Impacts on EmissionsBiodiesel Impacts on EmissionsBiodiesel Impacts on EmissionsLight-Duty TLight-Duty TLight-Duty TLight-Duty TLight-Duty TrrrrrucksucksucksucksucksWhile biodiesel blends appear to have asignificant impact on emissions fromconventional diesel vehicles that are notequipped with oxidation catalysts, theyappear to have a relatively minor impact onthe emissions from diesel vehicles that areequipped with oxidation catalysts. A studywas conducted on emissions from light-dutydiesel trucks equipped with catalyticconverters under four scenarios: 1) usingconventional on-road diesel (i.e. less than500 ppm sulphur); 2) using B10 (10%biodiesel); 3) using B20; and 4) using B30(30% biodiesel).

The emission rates for HC and CO werevery low for all four fuel types, which wasattributed to the presence of the catalytic

converter. The biodiesel appeared to furtherreduce emissions of CO and THC and tolower the mass of PM2.5, but it did not affectemissions of NOx, total particulate matter,or the mass of non-methane hydrocarbons.This study suggests that the oxidationcatalyst lowered the tailpipe emissions fromall four fuel types and minimized thecompositional differences between theemissions from the different fuelcombinations (Rideout,1998).


Fuelling Clean Air

V:Summary andRecommendations

A.A.A.A.A. Reducing Emissions frReducing Emissions frReducing Emissions frReducing Emissions frReducing Emissions from theom theom theom theom theGasoline FleetGasoline FleetGasoline FleetGasoline FleetGasoline Fleet

Among the three municipalities, twostrategies were employed for reducingemissions from their gasoline-fuelled fleets:

1. Favouring bids for gasoline with thelowest sulphur levels; or

2. Purchasing 10% ethanol-blendedgasoline instead of conventionalgasoline.

1.1.1.1.1. Favouring Gasoline with LowestFavouring Gasoline with LowestFavouring Gasoline with LowestFavouring Gasoline with LowestFavouring Gasoline with LowestSulphur Levels.Sulphur Levels.Sulphur Levels.Sulphur Levels.Sulphur Levels.• With sulphur levels in gasoline

coming down to 30 ppm in mostrefineries in Ontario in the fall of2003, there is no reason why anymunicipality should buy gasolinewith sulphur levels greater then 30ppm after that date.

• Gasoline that contains 30 ppmsulphur would be expected to reduceSO2 emissions from municipalgasoline-fuelled fleets by, on average,92% relative to 2001.

• Gasoline with 30 ppm sulphur canalso be expected to reduce emissionsof SO4, PM, CO, VOCs and NOx.....

2.2.2.2.2. PurPurPurPurPurchasing E10 (10% Ethanol/90%chasing E10 (10% Ethanol/90%chasing E10 (10% Ethanol/90%chasing E10 (10% Ethanol/90%chasing E10 (10% Ethanol/90%Gasoline)Gasoline)Gasoline)Gasoline)Gasoline)• Environment Canada reports that

E10 reduces CO2 by 3-4% on a life-cycle basis.

• Environment Canada reports thatthere are considerable uncertaintiesabout the air quality benefitsassociated with ethanol’s use inCanadian gasoline.

• Environment Canada reports thatethanol’s impact on emissions of HCand CO will vary with the age andmodel of the vehicle it is used in, andwith the properties of the gasolinewith which it is blended.

• E10 can be expected however, toslightly reduce emissions of SO2 andthe air toxic, benzene, and tosubstantially increase emissions of theair toxic acetaldehyde.

• E10 costs no more per litre thanconventional gasoline because of taxincentives provided by both thefederal and provincial governments,but it does slightly reduce fuelefficiency.

B.B.B.B.B. Reducing Emissions frReducing Emissions frReducing Emissions frReducing Emissions frReducing Emissions from theom theom theom theom theOfOfOfOfOff-Road Diesel Fleetf-Road Diesel Fleetf-Road Diesel Fleetf-Road Diesel Fleetf-Road Diesel Fleet

There is no doubt that, from a fuelsperspective, the biggest emissionsreductions can be achieved by shifting awayfrom the use of off-road diesel in amunicipality’s off-road diesel fleet. Withoff-road diesel fleets, the options consideredby one or more of the three municipalitiesexamined include shifting from off-roaddiesel fuel that contains 1,200 to 3,700 ppmsulphur to:

1. Conventional on-road diesel thatcontains 278 to 440 ppm sulphur;

2. ULSD that contains 15 ppm sulphur; or3. B20 that will contain between 222 to

352 ppm sulphur (i.e. 20% less than thesulphur level in the on-road diesel withwhich it is blended).

Fuelling Clean Air

1.1.1.1.1. Using On-Road Diesel in the OfUsing On-Road Diesel in the OfUsing On-Road Diesel in the OfUsing On-Road Diesel in the OfUsing On-Road Diesel in the Off-f-f-f-f-Road fleetRoad fleetRoad fleetRoad fleetRoad fleet• The conventional on-road diesel

option can reduce SO2 emissionsfrom a municipality’s total Corporatefleet by as much as 90%.

• The fuel must be dyed red in order tobe eligible for the provincial taxbreaks of $0.143 per litre that applyto off-road diesel.

• The cost per litre can be 2.7% less to5.7% more than the cost paid for off-road diesel fuel.

2.2.2.2.2. Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel (ULSD) inUltra Low Sulphur Diesel (ULSD) inUltra Low Sulphur Diesel (ULSD) inUltra Low Sulphur Diesel (ULSD) inUltra Low Sulphur Diesel (ULSD) inthe Ofthe Ofthe Ofthe Ofthe Off-Road Fleetf-Road Fleetf-Road Fleetf-Road Fleetf-Road Fleet• This option has the advantage of

further reducing emissions of SO2,SO4, and PM, but also increases theprice.

3.3.3.3.3. Biodiesel in the OfBiodiesel in the OfBiodiesel in the OfBiodiesel in the OfBiodiesel in the Off-Road Fleetf-Road Fleetf-Road Fleetf-Road Fleetf-Road Fleet• Biodiesel is a renewable fuel that can

produce climate change benefits.• When blended with on-road diesel, it

can produce greater SO2 emissionreductions than the on-road dieseloption, but less than the ULSDoption.

• It can also reduce emissions of COand PM but these reductions aremore pronounced in vehicles builtbefore 1994.

• B20 can however, slightly increaseemissions of NOx and slightly reducefuel economy.

• B20 also appears to present someuncertainties respecting price.

C. Reducing Emissions frC. Reducing Emissions frC. Reducing Emissions frC. Reducing Emissions frC. Reducing Emissions from On-om On-om On-om On-om On-Road Diesel FleetRoad Diesel FleetRoad Diesel FleetRoad Diesel FleetRoad Diesel Fleet

With on-road diesel fleets, the optionsconsidered by one or more of the threemunicipalities examined include:

1. Selecting the conventional on-roadDiesel with the lowest sulphur levels;

2. Retrofitting buses with catalytic exhaustmufflers (CEM);

3. Using ULSD in buses and/or theCorporate fleet;

4. Using ULSD & retrofitting buses withCEMs;

5. Using B20 in buses and/or in theCorporate fleet; and

6. Using B100 biodiesel in the Corporatefleet in summer months.

1.1.1.1.1. Conventional On-Road Diesel withConventional On-Road Diesel withConventional On-Road Diesel withConventional On-Road Diesel withConventional On-Road Diesel withLowest Sulphur LevelsLowest Sulphur LevelsLowest Sulphur LevelsLowest Sulphur LevelsLowest Sulphur Levels• By indicating in the Tender that

sulphur levels will be considered aswell as cost, municipalities canchoose to select the conventional on-road diesel that has the lowestsulphur levels.

• This option can reduce emissionsfrom the on-road fleet by up to 37%and can be cost neutral.

2. Retr2. Retr2. Retr2. Retr2. Retrofits for Older Busesofits for Older Busesofits for Older Busesofits for Older Busesofits for Older Buses• The installation of catalytic exhaust

mufflers (CEMs) on heavy-duty on-road diesel vehicles for which CEMsare not standard equipment, canreduce emissions of CO, PM10 andNOx by up to 40%, 44% and 3.3%respectively.

• The installation of CEMs on olderbuses can reduce emissions of PM,CO and NOx by up to 34%, 74% and3.8% respectively for a cost of about$3,200 per bus.

Section V: Summary and Recommendations

Fuelling Clean Air

• The rebuilding of older bus engineswith electronic engine controls andinstallation of CEMs can reduceemissions of PM, CO and NOx by upto 92%, 74% and 33% respectively (i.e.model years 1986 to 1993) for a costof $20,000 to $50,000 per bus.

• This latter approach can also reducefuel costs and CO2 emissions byabout 8% as well by increasing thevehicle’s fuel efficiency by about 8%.

3.3.3.3.3. Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel (ULSD) inUltra Low Sulphur Diesel (ULSD) inUltra Low Sulphur Diesel (ULSD) inUltra Low Sulphur Diesel (ULSD) inUltra Low Sulphur Diesel (ULSD) inOn-Road Diesel FleetOn-Road Diesel FleetOn-Road Diesel FleetOn-Road Diesel FleetOn-Road Diesel Fleet• ULSD can reduce SO2 emissions by

about 95% when used in on-roadvehicles (i.e. from an average of 360ppm to 15 ppm); it will also reduceemissions of SO4 and PM.

• ULSD will cost the Region ofWaterloo about 6.5% more thanconventional on-road diesel in 2003.

4. ULSD & Retr4. ULSD & Retr4. ULSD & Retr4. ULSD & Retr4. ULSD & Retrofitsofitsofitsofitsofits• ULSD can also significantly improve

the performance of oxidationcatalysts so that emissions of smog-forming air pollutants such as COand PM, and air toxics such as PAHs,are reduced by up to 35%,15% and15% respectively, relative to buses runon conventional on-road diesel

• ULSD use is essential to the use ofmore advanced emission controltechnologies such as continuouslyregenerating diesel particulate filters(CR-DPF) that can reduce emissionsof CO, PM and PAHs by up to 90%,90% and 80% respectively, relative tobuses with CEMs and conventionalon-road diesel.

• A new bus, costing about $500,000,can be equipped with CR-DPF forabout $15,000.

• The ULSD and retrofit options havethe advantage of moving a

municipality towards fuels andvehicle technologies that will berequired for compliance with vehicleemission standards coming intoeffect between 2007 and 2010.

5. B20 Biodiesel Blend5. B20 Biodiesel Blend5. B20 Biodiesel Blend5. B20 Biodiesel Blend5. B20 Biodiesel Blend• B20 can reduce CO2 emissions by

about 16% on a life-cycle basisrelative to conventional diesel.

• B20 can reduce emissions of CO andPM by up to 11% and 10%respectively, although thesereductions vary depending upon theage and model of the vehicle, thesource of the biodiesel, and theproperties of the diesel with which itis blended.

• B20 can also reduce SO2 emissions byup to 20%.

• On the other hand, B20 can increaseemissions of NOx by about 2% anddecrease fuel economy by about 2%.

• B20 has the disadvantage of widelyfluctuating prices; in 2002, it cost theCity of Brampton about 6.5% morethan conventional diesel, but in2003, it could cost 20% more.

6. Neat Biodiesel (B100)6. Neat Biodiesel (B100)6. Neat Biodiesel (B100)6. Neat Biodiesel (B100)6. Neat Biodiesel (B100)• B100 can reduce CO2 emissions by

about 74% on a life-cycle basis,relative to conventional diesel.

• It has the potential to reduce PM,CO, HC and SOx emissions by 35 to100%.

• On the other hand, B100 canincrease emissions of NOx by about10%, and can reduce fuel economy bybetween 8 and 10%.

• B100 cannot be used in cold weatherbecause of its viscosity (i.e. tendencyto thicken).

• B100 has the disadvantage of beingextremely expensive at present.


Fuelling Clean Air

D. RecommendationsD. RecommendationsD. RecommendationsD. RecommendationsD. Recommendations

It is rIt is rIt is rIt is rIt is recommended that everecommended that everecommended that everecommended that everecommended that every municipaly municipaly municipaly municipaly municipalparparparparpartner associated with the GTtner associated with the GTtner associated with the GTtner associated with the GTtner associated with the GTA CleanA CleanA CleanA CleanA CleanAir Council:Air Council:Air Council:Air Council:Air Council:

1. Commit to purchasing: a) on-roaddiesel, or b) B20 blended with on-roaddiesel, for use in their Corporate fleet ofoff-road vehicles during the next fueltendering cycle;

2. Commit to purchasing: a) 30 ppmsulphur gasoline, or b) E10 blendedwith 30 ppm sulphur gasoline, in thenext fuel tendering cycle; and

3. Commit to examining the emissionsreductions and costs associated withpurchasing: a) ULSD, and b) B20, foruse in their Corporate fleet of on-roaddiesel vehicles.

It is rIt is rIt is rIt is rIt is recommended that the GTecommended that the GTecommended that the GTecommended that the GTecommended that the GTA CleanA CleanA CleanA CleanA CleanAir Council:Air Council:Air Council:Air Council:Air Council:

1. Commit to analyzing the financial costsand emissions benefits associated withretrofitting older buses belonging to thepartners of the GTA Clean Air Councilwith catalytic exhaust mufflers and/orelectronic engine controls, and usingULSD as a fuel;

2. Develop a strategy to address theownership of emissions trading creditscreated as a result of fuel purchasingpolicies;

3. Explore the benefits of, and mechanismsavailable for, pooling the fuel purchasesof partners of the GTA Clean AirCouncil;

4. Establish and coordinate a Green FleetsSubcommittee that monitors legislative,technological and research advancementsrelated to fuels, vehicles and emissionscontrol technologies; shares information;collaborates on projects; and makesrecommendations to the GTA-Clean AirCouncil;

5. Encourage the Ontario Ministry of theEnvironment, Environment Canada andTransport Canada to support the GreenFleets Subcommittee with expertise andresources; and

6. Distribute this report to othermunicipalities in Ontario through theAssociation of Municipalities of Ontario(AMO).


Fuelling Clean Air

Appendix A: Biodiesel

Biodiesel: Heavy-Duty On-RoadBiodiesel: Heavy-Duty On-RoadBiodiesel: Heavy-Duty On-RoadBiodiesel: Heavy-Duty On-RoadBiodiesel: Heavy-Duty On-RoadEngines: EPA Study: 2002Engines: EPA Study: 2002Engines: EPA Study: 2002Engines: EPA Study: 2002Engines: EPA Study: 2002

When the EPA conducted a comprehensiveanalysis of the impacts of biodiesel ontailpipe emissions from conventional on-road diesel engines (i.e. with no NOxabsorbers, PM traps, or exhaust gasrecirculation) relative to those associatedwith conventional diesel (i.e. 333 ppmsulphur), it found that B20 reducesemissions of HC, CO and particulate matterby 10 to 21.1%, while increasing emissionsof NOx by 2% (See Table A1 below)(EPA,2002).

EmissionsEmissionsEmissionsEmissionsEmissions % Change % Change % Change % Change % Change % Change % Change % Change % Change % Changewith B20with B20with B20with B20with B20 with B100 with B100 with B100 with B100 with B100

CO - 11 - 47HC - 21 - 67Particulate Matter - 10 - 47SOx N/R N/RNOx + 2 +10

(N/R: Not Reported)

Source: EPA, 2002

EstimatedChange inTable A1

Emissions, Heavy-Duty On-RoadDiesel Vehicles, B20 & B100 Relativeto Conventional Diesel (CD)

The EPA found that biodiesel’s impact onemissions varies depending on three factors:

1. The source of the biodiesel. Increases inNOx emissions were greater with theplant-based biodiesel fuels than with theanimal-based biodiesel fuels, whiledecreases in PM and CO were greaterwith the animal-based biodiesel fuelsthan with the plant-based biodiesel fuels;

2. The engines in which they were used(i.e. model years). The study found thatthe PM emissions reductions weregreater for the 1991-1993 engines thanfor all engine groups combined; and

3. The properties of the diesel fuel withwhich the biodiesel is blended. Whenbiodiesel fuels were combined withdiesel fuels defined as “clean”, NOxemissions increased, and the reductionsin emissions of PM, CO, and HC weredecreased, relative to those blended with“average” base fuels. The base fuelsdefined as “clean” had lower levels ofaromatics, higher cetane levels, lowerdensity, and lower distillation points thanthe base fuels defined as “average”. TheEPA has identified the influence of basefuels on emissions as an area requiringmore research (EPA, 2002).

Biodiesel Fuels ExaminedBiodiesel Fuels ExaminedBiodiesel Fuels ExaminedBiodiesel Fuels ExaminedBiodiesel Fuels ExaminedThe analysis was conducted for biodieselfuels produced from soybean, rapeseed,canola oils, tallow, grease and lard, althoughmost of the data (about 80%) applied tobiodiesel produced from plant esters. Thebiodiesel fuels were grouped into threecategories: soybean, rapeseed/canola, andall animal-based sources esters (EPA, 2002).

Fuelling Clean Air

Coefficients for basic emission correlations(i.e. those that do not consider the source ofthe biodiesel fuel, the model of engine, orthe base fuel) are listed in Table A2 below.

Coef Coef Coef Coef CoefficientficientficientficientficientNOx +0.0009794Particulate Matter -0.006384CO -0.006561HC -0.011195

Source: EPA, 2002

Coefficients for BasicEmission Correlations

Table A2

Biodiesel Impacts on Heavy Duty OfBiodiesel Impacts on Heavy Duty OfBiodiesel Impacts on Heavy Duty OfBiodiesel Impacts on Heavy Duty OfBiodiesel Impacts on Heavy Duty Off-f-f-f-f-Road VRoad VRoad VRoad VRoad Vehicles and Light-Duty Vehicles and Light-Duty Vehicles and Light-Duty Vehicles and Light-Duty Vehicles and Light-Duty VehiclesehiclesehiclesehiclesehiclesWhile the EPA staff expect biodiesel fuels toimpact on emissions from heavy-duty off-road vehicles in a manner similar to that seenwith heavy-duty on-road vehicles, theyreported that there was insufficient data foroff-road engines with which to substantiatethis expectation (EPA, 2002).

EPA staff were unable to draw anyconclusions about biodiesel’s impact onemissions from light-duty on-road and off-road engines because there was insufficientdata on emissions for these types of engines(EPA, 2002, p.83).

Biodiesel Impacts on Gaseous Air TBiodiesel Impacts on Gaseous Air TBiodiesel Impacts on Gaseous Air TBiodiesel Impacts on Gaseous Air TBiodiesel Impacts on Gaseous Air ToxicsoxicsoxicsoxicsoxicsThe EPA staff also compared the impact ofbiodiesel on air toxics emitted from thetailpipes of heavy-duty on-road engines.Emissions data were available for 11 of the21 air pollutants formerly identified by theEPA as Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT).

The 10 MSAT for which emissions datawere not available included six metals,dioxin/furans, polycyclic organic material(POM), diesel particulate matter & dieselexhaust organic gases (DPM & DEOG),and MTBE (EPA, 2002).

The 11 air toxics included in the analysis areall gaseous air toxics. When themeasurements for the 11 air toxics wereconsidered as a whole, and correlatedagainst the biodiesel concentration, it wasfound that total gaseous air toxics arereduced when biodiesel is added toconventional diesel fuel, although not to thesame extent that HC are reduced. Forexample, while a B20 blend could reducetotal hydrocarbon emissions by about 20%,it would only reduce total toxics by about3% (EPA, 2002).

When the 11 air toxics were consideredindividually, the analysis suggested thatemissions of acetaldehyde, ethylbenzene,formaldehyde, naphthalene and xylenedecrease with increasing concentrations ofbiodiesel in the fuel blend (EPA, 2002).There was insufficient data to determinehow biodiesel concentrations impact on airemissions of acrolein, n-Hexane, styrene,benzene, 1,3-butadiene and toluene (EPA,2002).

Appendix A: Biodiesel

Fuelling Clean Air

Appendix B: Ethanol

Ethanol: U.S. DOE Assessment ofEthanol: U.S. DOE Assessment ofEthanol: U.S. DOE Assessment ofEthanol: U.S. DOE Assessment ofEthanol: U.S. DOE Assessment ofAir Emissions: 1996Air Emissions: 1996Air Emissions: 1996Air Emissions: 1996Air Emissions: 1996

Emissions testing was conducted on 21variable-fuel E85 1992 and 1993 ChevroletLumina sedans using a 50% ethanol blend(E50), an 80% ethanol blend (E85), andgasoline that meets the California Phase 2Reformulated Gas (RFG) requirements.

Ethanol: DOE Assessment of AirEthanol: DOE Assessment of AirEthanol: DOE Assessment of AirEthanol: DOE Assessment of AirEthanol: DOE Assessment of AirTTTTToxics: 2002oxics: 2002oxics: 2002oxics: 2002oxics: 2002

The EPA estimates that 60% of totalbenzene emissions, 56% of 1,3-butadieneemissions, 39% of acetaldehyde emissions,and 33% of formaldehyde emissions in theUnited States are from mobile sources(DOE, 2000, p.5). When the ArgonneNational Laboratory compared several

The results suggested that E85 producessubstantial reductions in the emissions ofCO, HC, NOx, benzene and 1,3-butadiene,slight reductions in emissions of CO2,substantial increases in formaldehyde, and20 fold increases in emissions ofacetaldehyde (see Table B1). The fueleconomy of E85 appeared to be equivalentto that provided by the Phase 2 RFG (DOE,1996).

AirAirAirAirAir % Change% Change% Change% Change% ChangeEmissionsEmissionsEmissionsEmissionsEmissions with E85with E85with E85with E85with E85

CO - 12 to 24Non-methane HC - 20 to 22NOx - 25 to 32Carbon Dioxide Slight ReductionBenzene - 79Formaldehyde + 20Acetaldehyde +19491,3-Butadiene - 80

Source: DOE, 1996

% Change in Tailpipe Emissions for VehiclesOperated on E85 Relative to Phase 2Reformulated Gasoline (RFG)

Table B1

conventional and non-conventional fueltypes and vehicles for their release of thesefour air toxics, they found that the use ofE85 significantly reduces emissions ofbenzene, 1,3-butadiene, and combinedtoxics relative to U.S. conventional gasoline,while significantly increasing emissions offormaldehyde and acetaldehyde (see TableB2) (DOE, 2002, p.50-58).

Fuelling Clean Air

AirAirAirAirAir 85% Ethanol 85% Ethanol 85% Ethanol 85% Ethanol 85% EthanolEmissionsEmissionsEmissionsEmissionsEmissions Blend Blend Blend Blend Blend

Benzene - 851,3-Butadiene - 70Formaldehyde + 230Acetaldehyde +1431Combined Toxics - 50

Source: DOE, 2002

Changes in Toxic Air Emissions with Alcohol FuelDuring Operation of Light-Duty GasolineVehicle, Relative to Conventional Gasoline

Table B2

Air EmissionsAir EmissionsAir EmissionsAir EmissionsAir Emissions EPEPEPEPEPA CurA CurA CurA CurA Cureeeee

Benzene 8.3 x 10-6

1,3-Butadiene 2.8 x 10-4

Formaldehyde 1.3 x 10-5

Acetaldehyde 2.2 x 10-6

Source: DOE, 2002, p. 60

EPA Cancer Unit Risk Estimatesfor Toxic Air EmissionsTable B3

Appendix B: Ethanol

These tests were directed at light-dutygasoline vehicles. The gasoline defined as“conventional” in this study contained 0.4%(wt) oxygenate (MTBE), 339 ppm ofsulphur, 1.5% benzene, and 32% aromatics(DOE, 2000, p.40). Note that Canadiangasoline typically has significantly differentproperties that U.S. Gasoline (e.g. noMTBE, less than half the benzene [0.6%average], 25 ppm sulphur post 2004.)

When the emissions for the four air toxicswere translated into benzene-equivalentemissions using the EPA Cancer Unit Risk

Estimates (CURE), it was concluded thatE85 could reduce the overall toxicity ofvehicle emissions by about 50% relative to avehicle operated with conventional gasoline(see Table B3)(DOE, 2000).

This conclusion reflects the fact that 1,3-butadiene emissions, that are significantlyreduced when E85 is used in vehicles, areabout 100 times more toxic thanacetaldehyde emissions, and about 10 to 30times more toxic than emissions offormaldehyde, both of which aresignificantly increased when E85 is used(DOE, 2000, p.60).

Fuelling Clean Air

ReferencesAlternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC),(2003). Biodiesel General Information.United States Department of Energy.www.afdc.doe.gov/altfuel/bio_general.html.

Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC),(2003). Ethanol General Information.United States Department of Energy.www.afdc.nrel.gov/altfuel/eth_general.html.

Atmospheric Science Expert Panel Report,(1997). Atmospheric Science Expert PanelReport – Joint Industry/Government Study- Sulphur in Gasoline and Diesel Fuels.August, 1997. (200 pages plus appendices)

Basak, Rishi, (2003). PersonalCommunication, Economist, Regulatoryand Economic Analysis Branch,Environment Canada.

Bromley, Rob, (2003). PersonalCommunication. Health PromotionOfficer, Public Health EnvironmentalHealth and Lifestyle Resources, RegionalMunicipality of Waterloo.

Burelle, Carol, (2003). PersonalCommunication. . . . . Head, In-Use VehicleEmissions, Transportation Systems Branch,Environment Canada

Burnett, Richard, Marc Smith-Doiron, DaveStieb, Mark Raizenne, Jeffrey Brook, RobertDales, Judy Leech, Sabit Cakmak, DanielKrewski (2001). “Association betweenOzone and Hospitalization for AcuteRespiratory Diseases in Children Less than2 Years of Age”, American Journal ofEpidemiology. Vol.153, No.5, 2001.

Burnett R., Cakmak and Brook (1998).The Effect of the Urban Ambient AirPollution Mix on Daily Mortality Rates in11 Canadian Cities, Canadian Journal ofPublic Health. May-June 1998.

Burnett, Richard (1999). Effects ofParticulate and Gaseous Air Pollution onCardiorespiratory Hospitalization.Archives of Environmental Health. March1999.

California Air Resources Board (CARB) &California Environmental ProtectionAgency (CEPA), (1998). Initial Statementof Reasons for Rulemaking: ProposedIdentification of Diesel Exhaust as a ToxicAir Contaminant. Prepared by the Staff ofthe Air Resources Board and the Office ofEnvironmental Health Hazard Assessment.June 1998.

Canadian Renewable Fuels Association(CRFA), (2003). “Emissions Impact ofEthanol”. www.greenfuels.org/

Chatterjee, Sougato et al., (2002).“Performance and Durability Evaluation ofContinuously Regenerating ParticulateFilters on Diesel Powered Urban Buses atNY City Transit – Part II”, Society ofAutomotive Engineers. 2002-01-0430, 1page.

Clean Diesel Independent ReviewSubcomittiee, (2002). Meeting TechnologyChallenges for the 2007 Heavy-DutyHighway Diesel Rule. Report to the CleanAir Act Advisory Committee, Washington,D.C., October 30, 2002, 15 pages.

Dack, Ken. (2003). PersonalCommunication. Manager, Fleet Services,City of Brampton, Ontario.

Fuelling Clean Air

Environment Canada, (2002). Sulphur inLiquid Fuels 2001. Prepare by LorriThompson, Oil, Gas and Energy Branch,Environment Canada. July 2002, 53 pages.

Environment Canada, (2001). Trucks andAir Emissions. Prepared by Gordon Taylorfor the Transportation Systems Branch, AirPollution Prevention, Environment Canada.

Environment Canada, (1999). ProposedBus Engine Rebuild Program A CanadianAlternative. Prepared by Jack Patriache,Patriarch & Associates, for TransportationSystem Branch, Environment Canada.

Environment Canada, (1998). Use ofHigher than 10 Volume Percent Ethanol/Gasoline Blends in Gasoline PoweredVehicles. Prepared by Dr. Chandra Prakashfor Transportation Systems Branch, AirPollution Prevention Directorate,Environment Canada.

Gauderman, James, Frank Gilliland, HitaVora, Edward Avol, Daniel Stram, RobMcConnell, Duncan Thomas, FredLurmann, Helen Margolis, EdwardRappaport, Kiros Berhane, John Peters,(2002). “Association between Air Pollutionand Lung Function Growth in SouthernCalifornia Children”, Respiratory andCritical Care Medicine. Vol.166, No.1,2002.

Gingrich, Sarah. (2003). PersonalCommunications. Research Consultant,Health Promotion & EnvironmentalProtection Office, Toronto Public Health,City of Toronto.

Health and Environmental ImpactAssessment Panel, (HEIAP), (1997). JointIndustry/Government Study: Sulphur inGasoline and Diesel Fuels, Prepared by Dr.G. Thurston, Dr. D. Bates, Dr. R. Burnett,Dr. F. Libfert, Dr. B. Ostro, Dr. B. Hale, Dr.A, Krupniack, Dr. R. Rowe, D. Ireland, B.Jessiman, June 1997, Revised in March1998. (82 pages plus Appendices).

Lanni, Thomas et al., (2001).“Performance and Durability Evaluation ofContinuously Regenerating ParticulateFilters on Diesel Powered Urban Buses atNY City Transit”, Society of AutomotiveEngineers. 2001-01-0511, 14 pages.

McEwen, Bruce. (2003). Chief, FuelsDivision, Environment Canada.

NAAQO (1999b). National Ambient AirQuality Objectives for Particulate Matter.Addendum to the Science AssessmentDocument. Report by the FederalProvincial Working Group on Air QualityObjectives and Guidelines. EnvironmentCanada, October 1997; Revised April 1999NAAQO (1999a). National Ambient AirQuality Objectives for Ground Level Ozone.Science Assessment Document. Report bythe Federal Provincial Working Group onAir Quality Objectives and Guidelines.Environment Canada, July 1999.

Office of Energy Efficiency and RenewableEnergy (OEE), (2003). Renewable Diesel.United States Department of Energy.www.ott.doe.gov/renewable_ diesel.html.

Ontario Medical Association (OMA),(2000). The Illness Costs of Air Pollutionin Ontario.

References

Fuelling Clean Air

Ontario Medical Association (OMA),(1998). Health Effects of Ground-LevelOzone, Acid Aerosols & Particulate Matter.May 1998.

Ontario Ministry of the Environment(MOE), (1996). Towards a Smog Plan forOntario: A Discussion Paper. June 1996.

Ontario Ministry of the Environment(MOE), (2001). Air Quality in Ontario in1999.

Ontario Ministry of the Environment(MOE), (2002). Personal Communicationwith Ron Bell. December 2002.

Perrotta, Kim (2003), Personalcommunication. Formerly EnvironmentalEpidemiologist, Toronto Public Health,City of Toronto.

Pianin, Eric, (2002). “New Rule in Worksfor Diesel Emissions”, The WashingtonPost. December, 30, 2002.

Pope, Arden, Richard Burnett, MichaelThun, Eugenia Calle, Daniel Krewski,Kazuhik Ito, George Thurston, (2002).“Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality,and Long-term Exposure to Fine ParticulateMatter”, American Medical Association.Vol. 287, No.9, March 2002.

Region of Waterloo, (2002). DiscussionPaper for Clean Air Plan. October 23,2002. 60 pages.

Rideout, Greg, (2003). PersonalCommunication. Head, Toxic EmissionsResearch and Field Studies, EmissionsResearch and Measurement Division,Environment Canada.

References

Rideout, Greg & Peter Howes, (1998).Untitled. Prepared by Emissions Researchand Measurement Divisions, EnvironmentCanada, for Transportation SystemsDivision of Environment Canada, HealthCanada, and Ontario Soybean GrowersMarketing Association. ERMD 98-26718.

Stacey, Blair. (2003), Program Engineer,Transportation Systems Divisions ofEnvironment Canada.

Toronto Public Health (TPH), (2001). AirQuality and the Low Sulphur FuelPurchasing Practice. Prepared for theToronto Board of Health, February 2001, 7pages.

Toronto Public Health (TPH), (1998). AirQuality and A Federal Standard for Sulphurin Fuel. Report to the Toronto Board ofHealth.

Toronto Public Health (TPH), (2000a). AirPollution Burden of Illness in Toronto -Summary Report. Report for TorontoBoard of Health, May 18, 2000.

Toronto Public Health (TPH), (2000b).Toronto’s Air: Let’s Make it Healthy.Toronto, Ontario: December 2000.

Toronto Purchasing & MaterialManagement (TPPM), (2001). Tender forGasoline & Diesel. Prepared for TorontoAdministration Committee, October 2001.

Toronto Purchasing & MaterialManagement (TPPM), (2002). Tender forGasoline & Diesel -2003. Prepared forToronto Administration Committee,October 2002.

Fuelling Clean Air

Tushingham, Mark, (2003). Personalcommunication. Head, Fuel Processing,Fuels Division, Environment Canada.

United States Department of Energy(DOE), (2000). Fuel-Cycle Emissions ForConventional and Alternative Fuel Vehicles:An Assessment of Air Toxics. ArgonneNational Laboratory, TransportationTechnology R&D Center, Operated by theUniversity of Chicago for the US DOE,August 2000, 71 pages.

United States Department of Energy(DOE), (1998). An Overview of Biodieseland Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles. NationalRenewable Energy Laboratory (NREL),Operated by Midwest Research Institute forthe US DOE, May 1998, 46 pages.

United States Department of Energy(DOE), (1996). Federal Test ProcedureEmissions Test Results from EthanolVariable-Fuel Vehicle Chevrolet Luminas.Prepared by K. Kelly, B. Bailey, T. Coburnof the National Renewable EnergyLaboratory, W. Clark of the AutomotiveTesting Laboratories, and P. Lissiuk of theEnvironmental Research and DevelopmentCorporation, and Presented at the Societyfor Automotive Engineers, May 6-8, 1996,19 pages.

United States Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA), (2002). A ComprehensiveAnalysis of Biodiesel Impacts on ExhaustEmissions, Draft Technical Report.Assessment and Standards Division, Officeof Transportation and Air Quality, October2002, 118 pages.

References

Ontario Public Health Association468 Queen St. East, Suite 202

Toronto, Ontario M5A 1T7www.opha.on.ca

tel: (416) 367-3313 / 1-800-267-6817 (Ont.)fax: (416) 367-2844

e-mail: [email protected]

opha-cap-alternative-fuels-municipal-purchasing

Documents

air emissions

opha air quality program

toronto public health

air quality coordinator

clean air partnership

health canada eva ligetti

health promotion officer

project advisory committee