Innovations for diesel vehicles stalled < Previous page

The trucking industry isn't opposed to retrofits. It just doesn't want to pay all of the costs, said Ganduglia, who has retrofits on 15 trucks.

"They work fine," he said. "I'm not quite sure why they say there's a problem from the industry. The only issue the industry has is the cost. We'll put them on all day if somebody wants to pay for it."

Nevertheless, Jeff Findley, the air district's incentives program manager, asserts that diesel owners are worried about maintenance costs and fuel economy.

And he said that past incentive projects using an earlier type of retrofit on diesel school buses flopped so badly that the operators "actually wanted to take the devices off."

The Southwest Transportation Agency, which runs buses for 15 Fresno County school districts, used $532,000 in air district money to retrofit 30 buses with particle filters.

Kirk Hunter, its chief executive officer, calls it "an absolute waste of money" and says the funds should be spent on new buses instead. The devices clog and seem to be aggravating engine wear, he said.

But Sam Armentrout, director of student transportation for the Madera Unified School District, which installed the same devices, has a different view: "They work well. The nuisance that goes along with the maintenance of them is worth it" for the benefit of reducing pollution.

The devices that Ganduglia and the two school bus operators used were mainly traps for small particles of diesel soot. They don't do nearly as much to reduce NOx as the more advanced device Roberts is trying to get approved.

Other companies are developing devices similar to the one Roberts has. One person who's sold on their promise is Alvin Valeriano, who worked in the air district's planning division until last spring.

Even allowing that entrepreneurs like Roberts may overstate their claims, Valeriano said, "I came to the conclusion that SCR could knock out NOx by 80%."

Valeriano said he discussed that conclusion with Nester -- only to learn that his boss didn't share his enthusiasm.

"He said it was an idea whose time had not come yet," Valeriano said.

"I said, 'Our job is to find ways to deploy this.' He said, 'I see you feel strongly. But I hope you're not disappointed if nothing comes of it.' "

Nester said his reaction to Valeriano's pitch was based partly on the lack of state air board and EPA verification. Beyond that, he said, he and other district staff members sensed that the SCR technology was still too immature to be widely accepted by truck owners and operators.

"I hope that the time does come for it," Nester said. "I would like to see a quick and cheaper way of getting NOx reductions from diesel trucks. But it's not there at this point in time."

Acceptance by truck owners is crucial to the district's plan because of its reliance on incentives. In the past, the district has targeted stationary sources, such as irrigation pumps, using a "carrot-and-stick" approach. It coupled enforceable emission limits with incentives for early compliance.

With diesel vehicles, however, there is no stick -- just a carrot. The district maintains that federal and state laws bar it from issuing enforceable rules on mobile sources.

Some critics think the district is interpreting those laws too broadly.

The relevant section of the law says that it applies to setting standards for "new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines." It says nothing about whether states and districts can regulate vehicle use after manufacture.

< Previous page

Continued on the next page >