MEETING STATE OF CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD LOS ANGELES AIRPORT MARRIOTT HOTEL SUITES A, B, AND C 5855 WEST CENTURY BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA FRIDAY, JUNE 22, 2007 9:00 A.M. TIFFANY C. KRAFT, CSR, RPR CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER LICENSE NUMBER 12277 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 ii APPEARANCES BOARD MEMBERS Dr. Robert Sawyer, Chairperson Ms. Sandra Berg Ms. Judith Case Ms. Dorene D'Adamo Supervisor Jerry Hill Ms. Lydia Kennard Mrs. Barbara Riordan Dr. Daniel Sperling STAFF Mr. Tom Cackette, Chief Deputy Executive Officer Mr. Tom Jennings, Chief Counsel Mr. Michael Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer Ms. Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer Ms. Kathleen Quetin, Ombudsman Ms. Catherine Witherspoon, Executive Officer Ms. Lori Andreoni, Board Secretary Mr. Bob Jenne, Senior Staff Counsel PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iii APPEARANCES CONTINUED ALSO PRESENT Council Member Joe Aguilar, City of Commerce Mr. Harry Baldwin, City of San Gabriel Ms. Barbara Baird, SCAQMD Ms. Marisol Barajas, Long Beach Alliance for Children with Asthma Dr. William Burke, Chairman, SCAQMD Mayor Michael Cacciotti, City of South Pasadena Mr. Todd Campbell, Clean Energy Mr. Frank Caponi, Los Angeles County Sanitation District Mr. Tim Carmichael, Coalition for Clean Air Ms. Jane Carney, SCAQMD Ms. Elaine Chang, SCAQMD Senator Gil Cedillo Mr. Mike Eaves, California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition Mr. David Ford, Representing Assembly Member Ted Lieu Mr. Douglas Fratz, CSPA Mr. Warren Furutani, President Board, LA Community College District Lt. Governor John Garamendi, Office of the Governor Mr. Paul Goslind, Chief Deputy Director, Department of Pesticide Regulation Mr. Sam Hall, Representing Senator Alan Lowenthal Mr. Kiran Hashi, Representative for Council Member Jan Perry, SCAQMD Board Mr. Henry Hogo, SCAQMD PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iv APPEARANCES CONTINUED ALSO PRESENT Mr. Philip Huang, Communities for a Better Environment Mary Justice Mr. Rex Laird, Farm Bureau Mr. Allan Lind, California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance Mr. Roye Love, City of Carson Environmental Commission Mr. Joseph Lucero Council Member Louie Lujan, City of La Puente Mr. Phong Ly, Representative for Assembly Member Mike Eng Mr. Bobby MacDonald, Black Chamber of Orange County Mayor Nury Martinez, City of San Francisco Council Member Barbara Messina Mr. Rick McVaigh, SJV APCD Mr. Robert Pullen Miles, Representing Jenny Oropaza Mr. Matt Miyasato, SCAQMD Ms. Rebecca Overmyer Velazquez, Northwhittier Neighborhood Watch Avocado Heights Coalition Supervisor Gary Ovitt, SCAG Ms. Monica Parrilla, LBACA/CPA Mr. Romel Pascual, Representing Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa Mr. Mark Pisano, SCAG Mayor Miguel Pulido, SC AQMD Board Ms. Cynthia Romo, Long Beach Alliance for Children with Asthma PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 v APPEARANCES CONTINUED ALSO PRESENT Ms. Tonia Reyes Uranga, SCAQMD Long Beach Mr. Jim Stewart, Sierra Club Ms. Robina Suwol, CA Safe Schools Mr. Sid Tyler, City of Pasadena Mr. Rick Tomlinson, Strawberry Commission Mr. Eric Walts, Department of Pesticide Regulations Mr. Paul Wuebben, SCAQMD Mr. Peter Yao, City of Claremont Mr. Dennis Yates, SCAQMD Mr. Joseph Yost, Consumer Specialty Products Association Ms. Jennifer Zivkovic, Representing Assembly Memger Betty Karnette PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 vi INDEX PAGE Item 7-6-3 Chairperson Sawyer 3 Executive Officer Witherspoon 4 Staff Presentation 5 Q&A 58 Lt. Governor Garamendi 77 Mayor Pulido 83 Senator Cedillo 85 Mr. Hashmi 89 Dr. Burke 91 Supervisor Ovitt 92 Mr. Pisano 95 Mr. Yates 98 Councilmember Aguilar 100 Councilmember Messina 101 Mayor Cacciotti 103 Ms. Uranga 106 Ms. Justice 109 Ms. Carney 111 Mr. Ly 114 Mr. Furutani 116 Mr. Hall 119 Ms. Zivkovic 121 Mr. MacDonald 123 Mr. Love 124 Mr. Baldwin 126 Mr. Lujan 127 Mr. Miyasato 130 Mr. Miles 136 Mr. Ford 134 Mr. Pascual 134 Mayor Yao 136 Ms. Chang 138 Mr. Hogo 141 Mr. Stewart 154 Mr. Wuebben 156 Mr. McVaigh 162 Ms. Jensvold 165 Ms. Jun 167 Mr. Caponi 168 Mr. Lind 170 Mr. Eaves 173 Mr. Walts 174 Mr. Laird 176 Mayor Martinez 178 Mr. Tomlinson 180 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 vii INDEX CONTINUED PAGE Ms. Overmyer-Velazquez 180 Mr. Yost 182 Mr. Fratz 185 Ms. Baird 187 Mr. Carmichael 189 Mr. Campbell 196 Ms. Suwol 199 Mr. Huang 200 Mr. Beeson 203 Mr. Lange 204 Ms. Lifson 205 Ms. Cevda 207 Rev. Lilly 209 Ms. Bates 211 Mr. Roberts 213 Mr. Leon 215 Ms. Saklar 219 Mr. Schuiling 221 Ms. Nicholas 224 Ms. Etem 226 Ms. Bolanos 228 Ms. Collahan 230 Mr. Dietrich 232 Mr. Cabrales 240 Mr. Goslind 244 Ms. Waita 247 Ms. Chandiok 250 Mr. Miltenberg 252 Ms. Martinez 258 Ms. Huddleston 261 Mr. Magavern 262 Mr. LaMarr 265 Ms. Affonso 267 Rev. Smart 269 Mr. Nabavi 271 Ms. Barnett 273 Mr. Sybert 275 Mr. Keener 279 Ms. Bautista 281 Ms. Fong 284 Mr. Wallerstein 287 Q&A 290 MOtion 306 Vote 306 Adjournment 308 Reporter's Certificate 309 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 1 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Good morning. The June 3 22nd, 2007, Public Meeting of the Air Resources Board will 4 come to order. 5 Please join in the Pledge of Allegiance. 6 (Thereupon the Pledge of Allegiance was 7 recited in unison.) 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 9 Will the Clerk of the Board please call the roll. 10 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. Berg? 11 Supervisor Case? 12 BOARD MEMBER Case: Here. 13 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. D'Adamo? 14 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Here. 15 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Dr. Gong? 16 Supervisor Hill? 17 SUPERVISOR HILL: Here. 18 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. Kennard? 19 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Here. 20 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Mrs. Riordan? 21 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Here. 22 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Professor Sperling? 23 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Here. 24 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Chairman Sawyer? 25 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Here. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 2 1 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Mr. Chairman, we have a 2 quorum. 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 4 Anyone who wishes to testify should sign up with 5 Board staff at the tables outside the boardroom, and has 6 the option to include his or her name on the speaker card. 7 Please see Board staff for further instructions. 8 Translation services are available in Spanish for 9 those who need it. The headsets are available in the back 10 of the hearing room on your right. And if the translator 11 could repeat that announcement. Thank you. 12 THE TRANSLATOR: Yes. Good morning. 13 (Thereupon the announcement was translated into 14 Spanish.) 15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: And we will be repeating the 16 translation announcement a little bit later after more 17 people have arrived. 18 Also, speakers, please be aware that the Board 19 will impose a three-minute time limit. Please put your 20 testimony into your own words. It's easier for the Board 21 to follow if you go straight to your main points. You do 22 not need to read your written testimony since it will be 23 entered into the record. 24 I must comment that the speakers were wonderful 25 yesterday. And the instructions are, when the red light PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 3 1 comes on, that's a signal to say, "In conclusion..." And 2 people really went along with that, and I was delighted. 3 For safety reasons, please note the emergency 4 exists to the left of the hearing room and to the rear. 5 In the event of a fire alarm, we must evacuate this room 6 immediately. When the "all clear" signal is given, we 7 will return to the hearing room and resume the hearing. 8 Today we have a single agenda item, 7-7-7, 9 consideration of the Proposed State Strategy for 10 California State Implementation Plan. 11 The 2007 Implementation Plan, or SIP, is the 12 first plan designed to show how California will meet the 13 new federal eight-hour ozone standard, which is about 30 14 percent more stringent than the one-hour standard it 15 replaces. 16 The proposed State Strategy also provides 17 emission reductions needed for PM2.5 attainment by 2014 in 18 the South Coast and which are expected to be necessary for 19 the San Joaquin Valley as well. The challenge of meeting 20 federal clean air standards in the South Coast will 21 require all of us working together to facilitate the 22 process. 23 I and other Board members have met with members 24 of the South Coast Air District and Southern California 25 Association of Governments to find workable solutions and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 4 1 have agreed to put more actions on the table. Based on 2 the cooperative spirit that we have witnessed so far, I am 3 optimistic that we can arrive at a plan that will deliver 4 clean air to the South Coast Air Basin. 5 Ms. Witherspoon, please introduce this item. 6 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, Dr. 7 Sawyer. And good morning, members of the Board. 8 The proposed State Strategy that staff is 9 presenting today is far reaching in its breadth of 10 measures and quantity of emission reductions. Staff is 11 confident that we've identified all the controls necessary 12 for attainment of the fine particle standard in 2014 and 13 most of the reductions needed for the more ambitious ozone 14 attainment with some left over in the innovative 15 technology category. 16 The proposed strategy does not just rely on new 17 engine standards. We go where the emissions are right 18 now, which is the existing legacy fleet of older diesel 19 vehicles and equipment. Those are the main target of the 20 proposed State Strategy's measures. 21 The strategy tackles all the major sources of 22 pollution including rules we are already working on like 23 the construction rule you heard last month and will 24 consider again in July for final action and the on-road 25 truck rule which staff has already begun conducting PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 5 1 workshops on. 2 Last week, the Board considered an 3 ozone-attainment plan in the San Joaquin Valley and 4 responded by promising to work with the Valley Air 5 District and all stakeholders to reach cleaner goals 6 sooner than the extended target. The State Strategy 7 you're hearing today complements the local district 8 measures and enables us to submit the ozone plan to U.S. 9 EPA for their review and approval. 10 Today we initially planned to hear the South 11 Coast Air District and SCAG's plan for ozone and fine 12 particles. But due to not-yet-finished local action 13 regarding the plan, we've rescheduled its consideration to 14 the first available meeting slot in September or October. 15 Nevertheless, the needs of the South Coast Air Basin will 16 be center stage as the Board considers the State Strategy 17 here in Los Angeles. 18 With that introduction, I'll ask Kurt Karperos, 19 Chief of the Air Quality and Transportation Planning 20 Branch, to present the proposed State Strategy. 21 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 22 presented as follows.) 23 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 24 CHIEF KARPEROS: Thank you, Ms. Witherspoon. Good 25 morning, Dr. Sawyer And members of the Board. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 6 1 It is my pleasure today to present for your 2 consideration the proposed State Strategy for the 2007 3 California State Implementation Plan. The proposed State 4 Strategy is the key emission reduction ingredient needed 5 for California to meet federal air quality standards. 6 Let me first introduce the technical staff at the 7 table today. 8 Immediately to my right is Robbie Romeligam. He 9 oversees SIP development in northern California. 10 Next to him is Sylvia Oey. She oversees SIP 11 development for southern California. 12 To my left is John Taylor. He managers the 13 identification, analysis, and quantification of the 14 emission reductions measures that are in the proposal 15 before you today. 16 Past him is Linda Murchison, Chief of the 17 Planning and Technical Support Division. 18 Next to her is Karen Magliano. She is Chief of 19 the Air Quality Data Branch, data central -- information 20 central to what we'll be talking about today. 21 And then just next to her is John DeMassa, Chief 22 of the Modeling Meteorology Branch and Planning Technical 23 Support Division. 24 --o0o-- 25 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 7 1 CHIEF KARPEROS: So with that -- ah, yes, the most 2 important person just arrived. Jeff Weir, at the end of 3 the table, has been the lead staff person on the 4 development of the SIP. 5 --o0o-- 6 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 7 CHIEF KARPEROS: The California State Implementation Plan, 8 or SIP, defines what needs to be done to bring California 9 into compliance with federal air quality standards. 10 The State Strategy for the SIP consists of 11 measures that reduce emissions from sources under state 12 and federal control. Local measures are combined with the 13 State Strategy before California's SIP is submitted to 14 U.S. EPA for approval. ARB's State Strategy includes both 15 adopted control measures and proposed new measures 16 necessary to meet the federal standards. 17 The proposed State Strategy provides 90 percent 18 of the total reductions in the 2007 SIP, primarily from 19 mobile sources. 20 ARB's mobile source measures are key to reducing 21 both ozone and PM2.5 pollution levels. We'll show you 22 later in the presentation just how important the proposed 23 new ARB actions are. 24 --o0o-- 25 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 8 1 CHIEF KARPEROS: The proposed State Strategy is 2 comprehensive, innovative, and aggressive. 3 Comprehensive because it proposes to reduce 4 emissions from all major mobile sources of pollution, and 5 it focuses on the key contributor to PM2.5 and ozone 6 pollution, nitrogen oxides, or NOx. 7 Innovative because it proposes groundbreaking 8 measures that require cleanup of existing fleets of 9 vehicles and equipment as new technologies become 10 available. We cannot simply wait for California's diesel 11 engines to be retired at the current rate. The strategy 12 also anticipates innovation and evolving technologies. 13 It is aggressive because it moves swiftly to cut 14 emissions. Most of the proposed measures are already in 15 progress, and it would reduce NOx emissions at an 16 unparalleled rate. 17 --o0o-- 18 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 19 CHIEF KARPEROS: The large chart prominently displayed 20 today next to the speaker's podium shows that the proposed 21 State Strategy is a continuance of ARB's history of 22 setting increasingly more stringent standards over time. 23 It shows key elements of our long, steady and unequaled 24 progress in reducing air pollutant emissions. 25 There is a reason for these two downward racing PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 9 1 lines. 2 --o0o-- 3 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 4 CHIEF KARPEROS: The reason is ARB actions - year after 5 year after year. 6 Each of the bands across the chart show important 7 ARB pollution reduction initiatives. Within each band are 8 specific ARB actions. The diamonds next to each action 9 show the approximate date new ARB requirements have taken 10 effect. 11 First, across the top, our over 40-year history 12 of ensuring that California's cars are the cleanest in the 13 world. 14 Below that, gasoline vapor recovery efforts to 15 drastically cut ROG emissions. 16 Next, a smog check program that help keep the 17 cleanest cars in the world cleaner longer. The Bureau of 18 Automotive Repair gets credit for implementation. ARB is 19 central to ensuring a strong smog check program. 20 Below that, diesel truck standards that have been 21 steadily racheted down to the point that in 2010, new 22 trucks will be 98 percent cleaner than when we started. 23 Next, standards that have drastically reduced 24 emissions from gasoline and diesel fuel and enabled new 25 generations of cleaner vehicle technologies. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 10 1 Then off-road engines: Construction equipment, 2 cleaner; lawn mowers, cleaner; forklifts, cleaner; 3 recreational boats, cleaner; all-terrain vehicles, 4 cleaner. 5 Finally, the pink band. We've embarked on our 6 biggest challenge yet, the cleanup of the existing fleet. 7 You can see the fleet rules the Board has already adopted 8 and the major new rules proposed as part of the State 9 Strategy. 10 The new measures proposed in the State Strategy 11 are highlighted in red. They are why the NOx line 12 continues to move steadily downward. You will hear me say 13 several times this morning that the State Strategy will 14 double the future NOx emission reduction rate. You can 15 see that here on the large chart where the NOx line turns 16 sharply downward in 2010. 17 We didn't put everything we've done on the chart. 18 But the combination of all the adopted measures and the 19 proposed measures in the State Strategy equate to a 20 reduction of 7,000 tons per day of mobile source emissions 21 statewide from 1980. 22 --o0o-- 23 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 24 CHIEF KARPEROS: And the results of ARB actions? 25 Improving air quality. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 11 1 --o0o-- 2 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 3 CHIEF KARPEROS: Here we'll start with smog levels in the 4 South Coast Air Basin in 1985: 5 Light green is good - areas that meet the 6 standards. Not much there. 7 Tan is close. 8 Light brown is getting worse. 9 Orange is close to double the standard. 10 Dark brown is more than double the standard 11 --o0o-- 12 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 13 CHIEF KARPEROS: The South Coast Air Basin, ten years 14 later, 1995. 15 --o0o-- 16 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 17 CHIEF KARPEROS: 2005. The worst levels are gone. Large 18 portions of the coastal areas meet the standard. Inland 19 area emission levels down 50 percent in the last 20 ten years. Numbers of days over the standard down 70 21 percent. Population exposure down 75 percent. 22 --o0o-- 23 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 24 CHIEF KARPEROS: Here's a look at the San Joaquin Valley. 25 This slide starts with 1990. No dark brown, but there's PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 12 1 too much light brown and some orange. 2 --o0o-- 3 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 4 CHIEF KARPEROS: Here's 1995. Getting better. 5 --o0o-- 6 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 7 CHIEF KARPEROS: And here's 2005. The number of days 8 above the standard down 60 percent and population exposure 9 down by 50 percent since 1990. 10 Certainly more needs to be done in these two 11 areas and throughout the state, and quickly. It all needs 12 to be green. 13 --o0o-- 14 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 15 CHIEF KARPEROS: This is a synopsis of the ozone progress 16 numbers I just mentioned. Since I've already gone over 17 them, let's move on to PM2.5 progress. 18 --o0o-- 19 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 20 CHIEF KARPEROS: We haven't been measuring PM2.5 levels 21 for very long. But the monitoring we've done this decade 22 shows a steady decline in annual average levels. The 23 improvement shows a strong correlation with NOx emission 24 reductions. 25 And the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 13 1 already meet the 24-hour PM2.5 standard. 2 --o0o-- 3 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 4 CHIEF KARPEROS: Here's how the South Coast is progressing 5 towards meeting the annual average PM2.5 standard. The 6 dotted red line is the standard at 15 micrograms per cubic 7 meter. 8 In 2001, the annual average was 30.1, double the 9 standard. Over the last five years, PM2.5 levels have 10 dropped steadily, almost two-thirds of the way to the 11 standard. And population exposure is down by two-thirds. 12 Much lower NOx emissions get credit for much of 13 the progress. 14 --o0o-- 15 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 16 CHIEF KARPEROS: We've seen the same kind of progress in 17 the San Joaquin Valley. In 2001, more than 50 percent 18 over the standard; in 2006, that's been cut in half; 19 levels today are now less than 25 percent above the 20 standard. 21 --o0o-- 22 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 23 CHIEF KARPEROS: Now I'll talk about SIP requirements. 24 --o0o-- 25 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 14 1 CHIEF KARPEROS: The eight-hour federal ozone standard is 2 0.08 parts per million. It is significantly more health 3 protective than U.S. EPA's previous one-hour standard. To 4 set attainment deadlines for the new standard, U.S. EPA 5 used the classification scheme in the Federal Clean Air 6 Act designed by Congress for the one-hour standard. The 7 results are nominal attainment deadlines, running from 8 2007 for areas just over the standard to 2024 for the most 9 polluted areas. 10 A confusing idiosyncrasy of U.S. EPA's 11 classification scheme is that states must meet the 12 standard one year before the attainment deadline. So for 13 all practical purposes the working attainment deadline is 14 the year before the legal deadline. So an area classified 15 as extreme with a 2024 legal deadline must meet the 16 standard by 2023. The general convention is to use the 17 one-year-before working deadline when talking about 18 attainment dates. And that's what I'll do today. 19 With the exception of the Bay Area, most 20 California urban areas exceed the federal ozone standard 21 to varying degrees. Rural areas downwind of our urban 22 center do also. Some areas that currently violate the 23 standard are expected to come into compliance shortly on 24 the strength of existing controls. Others, notably the 25 South Coast and the San Joaquin Valley, will need more PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 15 1 time. 2 --o0o-- 3 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 4 CHIEF KARPEROS: This slide shows what the SIP needs to do 5 for ozone attainment in the South Coast based on the 6 district's selection of NOx and ROG targets. Even with 7 the progress that's been made, the emission reduction 8 needs starting from today's levels are large: An almost 9 90 percent NOx reduction and over 40 percent ROG reduction 10 by 2023. These new targets reflect the increased 11 stringency of the new federal standards. 12 --o0o-- 13 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 14 CHIEF KARPEROS: Here's the same information for the San 15 Joaquin Valley. You saw these numbers last week in 16 Fresno: A 75 percent NOx reduction and a 25 percent ROG 17 reduction for ozone attainment. You can see a NOx 18 weighted strategy here reflecting both ozone and PM2.5 19 attainment needs both in San Joaquin and South Coast. 20 --o0o-- 21 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 22 CHIEF KARPEROS: The federal PM2.5 annual average standard 23 is 15 micrograms per cubic meter. The working attainment 24 deadline is 2014, one year ahead of the legal deadline, 25 the same as with ozone. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 16 1 Given the complex mix of particulate pollution in 2 California, we need to target reductions in NOx, ROG, SOx, 3 and direct PM, the later including diesel, dust, and smoke 4 particles. While NOx reductions may be the single biggest 5 part of the solution, the other pollutants are equally 6 important. 7 Unlike ozone, where much of the state exceeds the 8 standard, there are only two areas, the South Coast and 9 the San Joaquin Valley, that are non-attainment for the 10 PM2.5 standard. 11 --o0o-- 12 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 13 CHIEF KARPEROS: In California, drafting SIPs is a joint 14 effort. Local air districts write measures for stationary 15 sources and do much of the public process. The South 16 Coast Air District has specific responsibilities under 17 state law unique from other area districts to identity 18 emission reduction targets for their region. 19 ARB provides most of the emission reductions: 90 20 percent in this SIP round. After the air districts adopt 21 their local elements, ARB joins them with the State 22 Strategy to complete the SIP for submittal to U.S. EPA. 23 Their job is to review SIPs for compliance with 24 federal law. Once approved by U.S. EPA, a SIP is 25 enforceable on a state in federal court. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 17 1 As you're aware with your actions on the San 2 Diego plan in May and the San Joaquin plan last week, 3 ozone planning is moving forward. 4 PM2.5 SIPs are due in April of next year. South 5 Coast is doing a combined ozone and PM2.5 plan now. The 6 San Joaquin Valley is doing separate plans. 7 --o0o-- 8 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 9 CHIEF KARPEROS: Now, with that behind us, let me turn to 10 the heart of the matter, the proposed State Strategy. 11 --o0o-- 12 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 13 CHIEF KARPEROS: The proposed State Strategy reduces 14 emissions from all the pollutants that form ozone and 15 PM2.5, but emphasizes NOx. 16 NOx is common to both ozone and particulate 17 pollution problems. The proposed State Strategy 18 recognizes that mobile sources are the largest contributor 19 of NOx, specifically diesel engine fleets. 20 As new engines have become cleaner exam cleaner, 21 the emissions contribution from older vehicles has been 22 growing to the extent that it will soon make up the 23 majority of mobile source emissions. For example, all 24 on-road vehicles, cars and trucks, 14 years old or older 25 will produce almost 60 percent of total on-road NOx PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 18 1 emissions by 2014. 2 So the simple conclusion is that mobile source 3 NOx reductions from the state's legacy fleet of older, 4 dirtier vehicles must be the main objective of the State 5 Strategy. And it is. 6 --o0o-- 7 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 8 CHIEF KARPEROS: I said earlier that the proposed strategy 9 is comprehensive because it proposes to reduce emissions 10 from all major mobile sources of pollution. Construction 11 equipment, heavy-duty trucks, passenger vehicles, ships, 12 and locomotives emit 90 percent of mobile source NOx in 13 the South Coast. 14 Where staff saw other opportunities to reduce 15 emissions, we made sure they were on the list: 16 Recreational boats, off-road recreational equipment, 17 evaporative emission sources, and consumer products. 18 --o0o-- 19 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 20 CHIEF KARPEROS: Now I'll go through the major components 21 of the proposed State Strategy by source category, 22 starting with construction and other large off-road 23 equipment. I'll show you a graph of the impact of the 24 State Strategy on the category's emissions, describe the 25 strategy for that category, and then associate the impact PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 19 1 graph, like the one you see here, to numbers. I'll be 2 using South Coast numbers to illustrate. 3 --o0o-- 4 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 5 CHIEF KARPEROS: Now to the construction measure. As you 6 see, the State Strategy is aggressive when it comes to 7 these sources. The column on the right is the 2006 8 baseline emissions. The 2014 and 2023 columns include the 9 impact of both adopted measures and the proposed new 10 measures in the State Strategy. 11 --o0o-- 12 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 13 CHIEF KARPEROS: Adopted emission standards for new 14 off-road diesel engines are becoming increasingly more 15 stringent. Cleaner engines are available today. But the 16 cleanest engines in the most critical sizes will phase in 17 by 2015. 18 Since large diesel off-road equipment remains in 19 use for long periods of time, often 25 years or more, it's 20 important that we accelerate emission reductions from the 21 legacy fleet of large off-road equipment. 22 The proposed measure would require owners of 23 equipment larger than 25 horsepower to meet a stringent 24 average emission level across their whole fleet. This 25 provides equipment owners flexibility in how they will PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 20 1 comply, swapping older, dirtier engines with new cleaner 2 ones, purchasing used-but-cleaner equipment, and adding 3 emission control devices to older engines. 4 The proposed rule would maximize early diesel PM 5 benefits and maximize NOx reductions over time. 6 --o0o-- 7 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 8 CHIEF KARPEROS: Of course you're considering the rule 9 now, with a hearing in July. The rule impacts all fleets, 10 from the largest to the smallest owner-operator fleet. 11 Staff has worked from the outset to maximize emission 12 reductions. 13 --o0o-- 14 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 15 CHIEF KARPEROS: With the steadily more stringent off-road 16 engine requirements, emissions are already slated to be 17 cut by 47 tons per day by 2014 and 97 tons per day by 18 2023. The proposed new measures would cut another 10 1/2 19 tons per day of NOx in 2014 and 14 tons per day by 2023. 20 Together, these equate to a 40-percent reduction by 2014 21 and a 77 percent reduction by 2023. 22 --o0o-- 23 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 24 CHIEF KARPEROS: Now trucks. As you can see here, the 25 State Strategy aggressively reduces emissions from PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 21 1 heavy-duty diesel trucks. Staff is proposing to leverage 2 the new truck standards phasing in between 2007 and 2010, 3 drastically cutting NOx emissions. As you can see, the 4 benefits come early, most by 2014. 5 --o0o-- 6 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 7 CHIEF KARPEROS: Federal and state engine standards will 8 ensure that by 2010 all new diesel heavy-duty trucks are 9 90 percent cleaner than new 2006 trucks. This tremendous 10 progress is on top of a 65 percent reduction in NOx and an 11 85 percent reduction in particulate matter since 1990. 12 But since trucks last a long time, we must bring 13 newer trucks into the fleet at a faster pace to meet air 14 quality goals. 15 Staff proposes to do this through a legacy fleet 16 rule that would require truck fleet owners to meet 17 specified emission levels. Emissions would be reduced 18 through faster turnover to new cleaner engines and add-on 19 emission control devices on older trucks. The proposed 20 measure would address fleets operating in California 21 regardless of whether they are registered out of state. 22 ARB staff has begun workshops on a heavy-duty 23 truck legacy fleet rule. We'll look to maximize both 24 particulate matter and ozone benefits, as we have done 25 with the construction equipment rule. The rule is slated PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 22 1 to come before the Board in 2008. A rule that will reduce 2 emissions from existing port trucks will also be proposed. 3 Making sure that the new ultra-clean diesel truck 4 technology remains clean in use is critical to meeting SIP 5 targets. The technology is new, and durability is 6 unknown. Therefore, ARB staff proposes to evaluate the 7 in-use emissions of the 2010 and newer engines as they 8 move into use; and, if needed, develop approaches to 9 reduce excess emissions due to deterioration, tampering, 10 or mal-maintenance. Over the last months we've evaluated 11 the possibility of increasing the estimated reductions 12 from the fleet rule. We'll discuss that in a moment. 13 --o0o-- 14 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 15 CHIEF KARPEROS: Growth in goods movement, and the truck 16 travel that is an integral part of it, presents an 17 important air quality challenge. While statewide truck 18 travel is expected to grow by about 30 percent by 2023, 19 truck emissions will be drastically cut, by about 80 20 percent. 21 --o0o-- 22 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 23 CHIEF KARPEROS: Adopted measures will reduce truck 24 emissions by 107 tons per day in 2014. The new measure 25 will add 47 tons per day to that. This equates to a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 23 1 combined 63 percent reduction in NOx emissions by 2014. 2 2023 truck emissions would be 80 percent lower. 3 --o0o-- 4 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 5 CHIEF KARPEROS: Here's the impact of the State Strategy 6 on passenger vehicles, continuing the pattern of what 7 historically has been the most successful passenger 8 vehicle control program in the world. 9 --o0o-- 10 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 11 CHIEF KARPEROS: California's passenger vehicle emission 12 standards are so effective that new cars today are 99 13 percent cleaner than they were when ARB began its program. 14 But in order to reduce the emissions necessary to help 15 reach air quality goals, we need to continue to focus on 16 keeping vehicles clean over their lifetimes. 17 --o0o-- 18 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 19 CHIEF KARPEROS: The State Strategy envisions an even 20 stronger smog check program than we have today, including 21 annual inspections for older cars and those that 22 accumulate high mileage, like taxis; more stringent test 23 limits; and adding motorcycles and small diesel vehicles. 24 More attention will be paid as well to reducing 25 evaporative emissions. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 24 1 The State Strategy also proposes to increase the 2 number of vehicles that are voluntarily retired by 3 implementing a larger scrap acknowledge program. 4 --o0o-- 5 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 6 CHIEF KARPEROS: And again, just as with trucks, the State 7 Strategy will have to overcome growth in travel. We 8 project a statewide increase of about 22 percent in auto 9 travel by 2023, but a NOx emission reduction of almost 80 10 percent. 11 --o0o-- 12 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 13 CHIEF KARPEROS: The proposed new measures will reduce 14 total NOx and ROG emissions in the South Coast by 32 tons 15 per day in 2014; 14 tons per day of that is NOx, shown 16 here on the chart. The combined impacts of the adopted 17 and proposed new passenger vehicle measures is a 57 18 percent reduction in NOx emissions by 2014 and a 77 19 percent reduction by 2023. 20 --o0o-- 21 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 22 CHIEF KARPEROS: The impact of the proposed State Strategy 23 on the next two major sources categories, ships & harbor 24 craft and locomotives, has a much different dynamic than 25 the previous three categories. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 25 1 Without aggressive action, a combination of 2 tremendous growth in goods movement and little or no 3 engine controls will cause emissions to increase 4 significantly over the next two decades without the State 5 Strategy, as illustrate by the blue bars on this chart. 6 Ships are estimated to jump from the sixth to the second 7 highest NOx producer by 2023. But the proposed new 8 measures in the State Strategy will help control ship 9 emissions, illustrated by the maroon bars, and help 10 counter the effects of growth. 11 --o0o-- 12 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 13 CHIEF KARPEROS: The emission reduction plan for ports and 14 goods movement in California, adopted by the Board in 15 April of 2006, is extremely important to the State 16 Strategy and meeting air quality standards. The State 17 Strategy incorporates the measures in the goods movement 18 plan, many of which are already in the works. 19 The ship strategy reduces emissions from main 20 ship engines and auxiliary engines used when they are 21 docked at port. The strategy began with a 2005 rule that 22 phases in the use of cleaner low-sulfur fuel in ship 23 auxiliary engines. 24 Proposed new measures would require low-sulfur 25 fuel in main ship engines, increase electrification at the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 26 1 ports, reduce speeds near our shorelines, and increase the 2 use of cleaner new or retrofitted main engines. 3 Successful implementation of these measures will 4 require cooperative action at the local, state, federal, 5 and international levels. 6 --o0o-- 7 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 8 CHIEF KARPEROS: New English standards for harbor craft 9 began in 2004. Since the useful life of tugboats and 10 other commercial harbor craft is so long, benefits of the 11 new engine standards accrue slowly. So the proposed State 12 Strategy includes a regulation that would require owners 13 of existing harbor craft to replace old engines with newer 14 cleaner engines or to add emission control technologies. 15 That regulation is in the process of being developed and 16 is slated for Board consideration at the end of this year. 17 The regulation will take into account the fact 18 that craft vessels are diverse and may require various 19 combinations of emission reducing strategies. 20 --o0o-- 21 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 22 CHIEF KARPEROS: The State Strategy's proposed new 23 measures would reduce ship and harbor craft emissions by 24 50 percent in 2014 and 66 percent by 2023. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 27 1 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 2 CHIEF KARPEROS: Locomotive emissions are also projected 3 to increase without future measures. Given the federal 4 preemption, the success of the State Strategy, illustrated 5 by the maroon bars, is closely tied to federal action. 6 --o0o-- 7 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 8 CHIEF KARPEROS: ARB strongly advised U.S. EPA to adopt 9 new NOx standards to support California's attainment 10 needs. Unfortunately, U.S. EPA has proposed a 2017 11 implementation date. In light of this, ARB staff are now 12 looking to maximize emission reductions that build from 13 the practical realities of a 2017 date. The nominal 14 concept calls for an agreement with railroads to 15 accelerate the use of the cleanest possible engines in 16 California. 17 --o0o-- 18 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 19 CHIEF KARPEROS: The proposed strategy is projected to 20 decrease locomotive emissions by 24 percent in 2014 and by 21 almost 70 percent in 2023. 22 --o0o-- 23 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 24 CHIEF KARPEROS: The measures just presented provide all 25 but 14 tons of the NOx reductions we project are needed PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 28 1 from mobile sources to attain the PM2.5 standard in the 2 South Coast by 2014. In order to meet South Coast needs, 3 we propose to modify our draft State Strategy commitment 4 to achieve these additional reductions. We will pursue 5 these additional tons as each measure is developed. 6 --o0o-- 7 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 8 CHIEF KARPEROS: The proposed State Strategy includes a 9 number of other measures that would cut emissions of 10 reactive organic gases. 11 New exhaust and evaporative emission standards 12 for recreational boats and off-road recreational vehicles 13 are proposed. 14 Tanks and hoses where emissions are the result of 15 evaporation of ROG from gasoline are targeted. You 16 adopted one of the proposed rules yesterday for 17 above-ground storage tanks. 18 Two more rounds of consumer product regulations 19 are proposed. One by next year and another between 2010 20 and 2012. 21 --o0o-- 22 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 23 CHIEF KARPEROS: Continuing with ROG. Last week you 24 modified California's Reformulated Gasoline Program to 25 fully offset ROG emissions due to the increased use of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 29 1 ethanol. 2 And the proposed passenger vehicle measures, 3 strengthened smog check and expanded vehicle retirement, 4 will also reduce ROG emissions. 5 Together, the proposed new measures in the State 6 Strategy would reduce ROG emissions by 46 tons per day in 7 the South Coast in 2014. 8 --o0o-- 9 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 10 CHIEF KARPEROS: In addition to its large NOx reductions, 11 the emission reduction impact of the proposed State 12 Strategy on other pollutants is substantial. Toxic diesel 13 particulates are drastically cut: 82 percent growing to 14 85 percent reduction in diesel PM from trucks; 80 percent 15 growing to 94 percent reduction in diesel soot from ships. 16 Particle pollution reductions from trains will reach close 17 to 80 percent by 2023. 18 The State Strategy represents the full 19 integration of the Board's Diesel Risk Reduction Plan with 20 its efforts to reduce ozone and PM2.5 pollution. 21 --o0o-- 22 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 23 CHIEF KARPEROS: Sulfur oxide emissions are a precursor of 24 PM2.5 pollution. Ships are the main SOx producer in 25 California. Sulfur oxide emissions will be reduced 95 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 30 1 percent by the adopted and proposed new State Strategy 2 measures, mainly through requiring low-sulfur fuels in 3 auxiliary and main ship engines. 4 --o0o-- 5 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 6 CHIEF KARPEROS: That complete the description of the 7 individual measures in the SIP. Now I'll shift to talking 8 about the impact of the proposed State Strategy as a 9 whole. 10 --o0o-- 11 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 12 CHIEF KARPEROS: The State Strategy will reduce mobile 13 source NOx emissions by 50 percent by 2014. That's double 14 the rate of any ten-year period before. These reductions 15 are essential for meeting the PM2.5 standard in the South 16 Coast and the San Joaquin Valley. 17 --o0o-- 18 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 19 CHIEF KARPEROS: The total projected emission reductions 20 in the South Coast and the San Joaquin Valley from the 21 proposed State Strategy are here in the next few slides. 22 This is the emission reductions in the South 23 Coast. 24 Under the plan, NOx emissions will drop by 442 25 tons per day by 2014. They'll drop by 589 tons per day by PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 31 1 2023. 2 Making up the 442 tons per day by 2014 are 336 3 tons from the already-adopted programs and 136 tons from 4 new measures. 5 Similar progress is made on ROG. 6 --o0o-- 7 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 8 CHIEF KARPEROS: The last slide showed emission 9 reductions. This chart shows remaining emissions. You 10 can see the progress. However, the adopted measures and 11 the new proposed measures in the State Strategy do not 12 provide all the emission reductions needed to meet the 13 target level for ozone attainment. The light portion of 14 the column above the target line in the year 2023 is the 15 additional reductions needed. These reductions must come 16 from technological innovation. 17 --o0o-- 18 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 19 CHIEF KARPEROS: Here is the South Coast ROG emission 20 reduction progress and the remaining ROG emission 21 reductions needed from future technology. 22 --o0o-- 23 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 24 CHIEF KARPEROS: Now, let's switch to San Joaquin. 25 Under the plan, NOx emissions will be cut by 287 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 32 1 tons in 2014 and 401 tons by 2023. Making up the 287 tons 2 are 211 tons from adopted state measures and 76 tons from 3 proposed new measures. 4 The ROG reductions are more modest but are 5 sufficient to attain the ozone standard. 6 --o0o-- 7 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 8 CHIEF KARPEROS: Here's the NOx reduction progress in the 9 Valley from 2006 through 2023, and the additional tons 10 needed from innovation to reach the 2023 target. 11 --o0o-- 12 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 13 CHIEF KARPEROS: And, finally, this slide shows ROG 14 progress in the Valley. As we described to you last week, 15 we meet the ROG reduction target in 2014 without having to 16 rely on new technology. 17 --o0o-- 18 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 19 CHIEF KARPEROS: As you saw in the last four slides, even 20 with the tremendous progress from now until 2023, 21 additional emission reductions are needed to meet the 22 ozone targets. That is why the two regions have asked for 23 a bump-up to the extreme classification that provides both 24 the time and the legal framework for securing reductions 25 from technological innovation. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 33 1 Innovation needs are challenging. In the South 2 Coast, it's 241 tons per day of NOx and 40 tons per day of 3 ROG. In San Joaquin, it's 81 tons of NOx. 4 --o0o-- 5 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 6 CHIEF KARPEROS: Innovation -- in other words, tomorrow's 7 technology -- is essential to reaching our air quality 8 goals. 9 The State Strategy proposes a directed progress 10 for identifying long-term emission reductions and 11 innovative technology. The process starts with the 12 setting of emission goals for critical categories. 13 Each category's goal will serve as a general 14 target for how much cleaner that emission source category 15 will need to be for attainment purposes. 16 --o0o-- 17 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 18 CHIEF KARPEROS: Incentives will speed progress to 19 attainment for both PM2.5 and ozone. It will take money 20 to speed up the process of emission reductions through new 21 standards, natural fleet turnover, and legacy fleet 22 modernization rules. 23 --o0o-- 24 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 25 CHIEF KARPEROS: Here's an illustration of the NOx PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 34 1 reduction commitment in the South Coast. It includes 2 adopted measures, proposed new measures, and new 3 technology measures. Adopted and proposed new measures 4 account for 71 percent of the commitment. New technology 5 measures account for 29 percent. 6 I'll add that in San Joaquin Valley, adopted and 7 proposed new measures account for 83 percent of the 8 commitment, while new technology accounts for 17 percent. 9 The point here is that 1) most of the reductions 10 needed for attainment will come from current technologies; 11 2) the State Strategy identifies specific measures for 12 getting them; and 3) ARB has already adopted the 13 regulations securing over half the needed tons. 14 --o0o-- 15 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 16 CHIEF KARPEROS: With the proposed strategy, ARB is 17 clearly doing its share when it comes to reducing 18 emissions under its jurisdiction between now and 2023. 19 The black columns are the relative share in 2006 of NOx 20 emissions from local, state, and federal and international 21 sources. The white columns are the share of emissions 22 reduced by 2023. 23 ARB action will provide over 90 percent of the 24 emission reductions achieved between now and 2023. At the 25 same time, state sources are a little over 80 percent of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 35 1 total NOx emissions. 2 Sources under local control are currently about 9 3 percent of NOx emissions, and will contribute 5 percent of 4 the NOx emission reductions in 2023. 5 Federal and international sources, mostly ships 6 and locomotives, are about 10 percent of current NOx 7 emissions. But due to overwhelming growth, even with 8 aggressive State Strategy control measures, will 9 contribute only 3 percent of the reductions. 10 --o0o-- 11 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 12 CHIEF KARPEROS: If you approve the State Strategy today, 13 your action is first and foremost a commitment to reduce 14 the emissions necessary to meet federal air quality 15 standards. 16 The specifics of that commitment are enforceable 17 in a federal court. The proposed strategy contains three 18 specific commitments: 19 First, a commitment to achieve emission 20 reductions by specific dates. In the South Coast and San 21 Joaquin Valley the dates are 2014, 2020, and 2023. The 22 emission reductions are the total for all new measures 23 from each area. 24 Second, a commitment that staff will develop the 25 measures in the strategy, and if they are feasible, bring PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 36 1 them to you for your consideration by specific dates. 2 I'll show you the proposed rulemaking calendar at the end 3 of the presentation. Under the commitment, the state is 4 not bound to adopt every measure in the strategy. 5 However, if a measure is not adopted or it does not get 6 the estimated reductions, offsetting reductions would have 7 to come from elsewhere. 8 And third commitment is one to achieve the 9 reductions needed from new technology for the state's two 10 extreme areas, the San Joaquin Valley and the South Coast. 11 --o0o-- 12 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 13 CHIEF KARPEROS: I described earlier how air districts 14 adopted their local element of the SIP and forward it to 15 ARB. ARB then joins the local element with the State 16 Strategy to complete the SIP for the areas. 17 You approved the local San Joaquin Valley SIP 18 element last week. Your approval of the strategy is 19 needed today to provide the bulk of the Valley's emission 20 reductions and complete the Valley SIP. When the Valley 21 SIP is complete, staff will send it to U.S. EPA for their 22 review. 23 --o0o-- 24 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 25 CHIEF KARPEROS: The California Environmental Quality Act PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 37 1 and ARB policy require an analysis to identity any 2 potential adverse environmental impacts that may result 3 from adoption of these measures. While it's clear there 4 are overwhelming positive environmental benefits of the 5 State Strategy, identifying possible adverse impacts is 6 still important. 7 The State Strategy is a plan, not a regulatory 8 document, so detailed environmental impacts for each 9 measure will be forthcoming during the specific rulemaking 10 process. 11 The results of the analysis are contained in 12 Appendix E. 13 --o0o-- 14 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 15 CHIEF KARPEROS: Staff also did an economic impact 16 analysis of the State Strategy. The annual direct costs 17 are estimated to be approximately 4.6 billion in 2014. 18 Staff estimated a reduction in California's 19 economic output, employment, and personal income of 2/10 20 to 3/10 of 1 percent. 21 It's important to note the significant societal 22 benefits to California from the proposed State Strategy. 23 Prior analyses have estimated that the benefits of 24 California's air quality regulations exceed their costs by 25 a ratio of about three to one. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 38 1 --o0o-- 2 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 3 CHIEF KARPEROS: There are a couple of SIP administrative 4 actions that accompany the proposed State Strategy. 5 California is required to submit what is called 6 an Infrastructure SIP. It demonstrates California's 7 ability to implement, maintain and enforce federal air 8 quality standards. The submittal simply updates the 9 comprehensive Infrastructure SIP we did in response to the 10 California Clean Air Act of 1970, and responds to any 11 required new elements. 12 California must also submit an Interstate 13 Transport SIP. It describes the potential for pollution 14 transport to other states and shows that California has 15 the needed programs in place to mitigate transport. Both 16 of these documents are just a few pages long. They're 17 Appendix B and C of the State Strategy. 18 --o0o-- 19 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 20 CHIEF KARPEROS: The Department of Pesticide Regulation, 21 DPR, is developing a regulation stated for December 2007 22 to require best available control technology and establish 23 regional emission caps on pesticide use. 24 The reductions from the regulation are included 25 in the San Joaquin Valley eight-hour SIP. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 39 1 DPR is requesting to increase Ventura's one-hour 2 SIP cap that is part of the original 1994 one-hour SIP by 3 one ton per day to address unanticipated acreage growth. 4 As a result of the 1994 SIP, Ventura attained the 5 one-hour standard in 2005. 6 The benefits of the regulation will be in 7 Ventura's eight-hour Ozone SIP. 8 --o0o-- 9 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 10 CHIEF KARPEROS: I'll now address various issues that have 11 arisen during the SIP process in the development of the 12 proposed strategy. 13 First, the South Coast adopted an integrated 14 ozone and PM2.5 plan on June 1st that proposed ARB commit 15 to an additional 63 tons per day NOx reductions by 2014 16 for purposes of PM2.5 attainment. The district plan also 17 recommended that ARB consider 12 new or modified measures. 18 Similar suggestions were made by various environmental and 19 health advocates. 20 The timing of ARB's consideration of the State 21 Strategy and the delay in considering the South Coast plan 22 are also a concern. 23 And, lastly, a number of comments have been 24 received regarding consumer products, the Department of 25 Pesticides Regulation's SIP element and other issues. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 40 1 We'll start with the South Coast PM2.5 attainment 2 issue. 3 --o0o-- 4 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 5 CHIEF KARPEROS: First, will the proposed State Strategy 6 reduce emissions enough for the South Coast to meet the 7 PM2.5 standard by the 2014 deadline? 8 This is a glass-full story. ARB staff believes 9 the strategy will bring the South Coast into attainment by 10 2014. 11 This is a similar chart to one we shared with you 12 at the April Board briefing on SIP develop. The column on 13 the left represents the measured level of PM2.5 in 2006, 14 20.8 micrograms per cubic meter. 15 The thick horizontal black line represents 16 attainment under U.S. EPA's modeling guidance. 17 There is uncertainty in all calculations. Air 18 quality models are no exception. The thickness of the 19 black attainment line represents the uncertainty U.S. EPA 20 recognizes in PM2.5 modeling. In short, according to U.S. 21 EPA, if future PM2.5 levels predicted by a computer model 22 fall on the black line, that shows attainment when it's 23 supported by other data. 24 The column on the right is the predicted PM2.5 25 level with the proposed State Strategy and the benefits of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 41 1 the local South Coast Air District measures. As you can 2 see, the PM2.5 prediction falls within U.S. EPA's defined 3 attainment range. 4 --o0o-- 5 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 6 CHIEF KARPEROS: The story told by ambient PM2.5 data is 7 even more compelling. 8 The columns on this chart reflect real, measured 9 ambient PM2.5 levels. They show actual pollution measured 10 in the air. 11 In 2001, measured PM2.5 levels were 30 micrograms 12 per cubic meter, twice the standard. In the last five 13 years, the state has cut PM2.5 pollution by a third. 14 Simply put, if the current measured trend holds as the 15 black line suggests, attainment by 2014 is expected. 16 Will the trend hold? Staff believes there is 17 every reason to expect it to. NOx emission reductions 18 have been the driver to the tremendous progress you see on 19 this chart. The proposed State Strategy will double the 20 historical rate of NOx emissions. That is the 21 acceleration of the NOx reductions that you see on the 22 large chart. 23 These three pieces of information together, 1) 24 future predicted PM2.5 levels falling within the official 25 attainment range; 2) the dramatic progress made so far PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 42 1 witnessed by empirical data; and 3) the proposed doubling 2 of the NOx reduction rate, are compelling evidence that 3 South Coast will meet the PM2.5 standard with the proposed 4 State Strategy. 5 --o0o-- 6 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 7 CHIEF KARPEROS: Next are the 12 measures suggested by the 8 South Coast Air District that they believe ARB should 9 adopt. Tom Cackette and Mike Scheible will cover these 10 point. 11 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Good 12 morning. 13 Mike and I are going to share this. And I'll 14 address four of them on this first slide and Mike will 15 address two, and then we'll go on to the next slide and 16 catch the other measures. 17 So I'll start with the first one -- the first 18 suggested South Coast measure, which is the first bullet, 19 to require a hundred thousand plug-in hybrid electric 20 vehicles by 2014. And in this -- in the way the South 21 Coast has defined that, these will be vehicles that have 22 all electric range. In other words battery electric 23 vehicles with a range extender. 24 The District also proposes that we have retrofits 25 of existing vehicles -- hybrid electric vehicles, such as PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 43 1 Priuses, and turn them into plug hybrid electric vehicles. 2 In may you addressed the ZEV program. And the 3 ZEV program historically has been the mechanism which ARB 4 has used to push and force new technologies into 5 commercialization. As you heard in may, the ZEV review 6 panel was quite positive about the potential of plug 7 hybrid electric vehicles to be commercialized sometime in 8 the next decade. 9 But as you also heard in May, there's some major 10 challenges remaining, including the advancements of 11 battery technology necessary to make these types of 12 vehicles commercially viable. 13 The potential we think is best determined, not 14 here as a SIP measure, but as part of the ZEV review, 15 which we will be bringing to you in December. And that 16 included your direction to look at ways of incentivizing 17 the introduction of plug hybrid electric vehicles. 18 With regard to the retrofitting proposal with 19 South Coast, we do not think this is a sound proposal. We 20 do not believe that going in and retrofitting -- major 21 retrofitting of existing vehicles is a way to proceed. 22 The second item -- the second bullet there is to 23 require on-board diagnostic retrofits. And what this 24 concept would be is that the car would automatically have 25 a cell-phone-like device that would communicate with some PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 44 1 central station and let the state know that there's a 2 problem with the car, in which case you could then send 3 the person a letter and say, "Come in and get it fixed 4 right away." It's an innovative idea. We have been -- 5 we've actually built cars like that in the past to 6 demonstrate the technology. But we have no legal 7 authority for the retrofit portion of this at all. And 8 the idea that we could do it on new vehicles, which is 9 also suggested by the South Coast, is probably technically 10 feasible. But given what the benefits calculated are, we 11 don't think it's really worth putting in a whole new major 12 system like this and rely instead on the smog check 13 program to catch these emissions. 14 The third bullet is to require more aggressive 15 turnover of trucks. This is essentially how aggressive 16 will the retrofit rule that we'll bring to you next summer 17 for both turning over and putting filters on the legacy 18 fleet of heavy-duty diesel trucks, how aggressive should 19 that be. South Coast has made several different 20 suggestions. One would be to increase the turnover rate 21 of older vehicles by at least 50 percent compared to what 22 the staff had been proposing; or to replace all the 2001 23 through 2004 trucks with 2010 engines -- 2010 engines are 24 the cleanest engines -- or replace 30 percent of the 2001 25 to 2006 trucks with these super-clean engines and retrofit PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 45 1 NOx device as well as DM devices on to those vehicles. So 2 there's several variations they've suggested. 3 Our proposal at least at its current stage -- and 4 it's certainly undergoing develop and also some learning 5 from what will happen with the construction equipment 6 rule -- is to have all of the trucks be the equivalent of 7 2004 level engines by 2014, which will generate a 75 8 percent NOx reduction and a greater than 85 percent PM 9 reduction. So it's very aggressive. It's very large 10 reductions in PM. Does not get as many NOx reductions as 11 the South Coast would like. 12 But like the construction rule, you know, there's 13 an ability to pay threshold here that we're trying to deal 14 with. And you heard that in great detail on the 15 construction rule last month. And, you know, there's a 16 line I guess about how far you can go on the economics 17 here. It's not technology driven. And the South Coast 18 proposal at least to date has not really addressed this. 19 So we're trying to address it. And what we will bring to 20 you next summer will be the most aggressive NOx control 21 that also gets, you know, a virtual elimination of the PM 22 emissions as well. 23 And the fifth bullet down, it will be the last 24 one I'll address on this slide, which is the construction 25 rule. And I don't think I really need to say much about PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 46 1 this since the Board heard this in great detail at a 2 previous Board meeting. But the South Coast proposal is 3 basically to double the turnover rate in the early years 4 of the program, which adds costs to the early years. And 5 those happen to be the years in which the costs under our 6 proposal are also the highest. So it adds a substantial 7 economic burden in the early years. 8 What we heard at the Board meeting was that we 9 needed to be sensitive to that and perhaps figure out a 10 way of leveling out some of those costs, and also to pay 11 more attention to the individual fleets and what the 12 impacts on them would be. And that's what we're doing 13 between May and when we'll bring the proposal back to you 14 in July. 15 And we will of course try to get the maximum 16 degree of NOx reduction. But it will -- undoubtedly will 17 not achieve the full reduction that the South Coast would 18 like. 19 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: I'm going to 20 address the two measures that are related to port trucks 21 and cargo handling equipment at ports. 22 As we mentioned yesterday, we are developing a 23 measure that will affect those trucks that go to ports in 24 any significant number or go to other intermodal 25 facilities such as rail yards, where the truck is taking a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 47 1 container and dropping it off. These are places where the 2 nearby communities are heavily impacted by the diesel PM. 3 Our measure is aimed at getting an order of a 90 4 percent reduction as soon as possible from the trucks in 5 this service to reduce the community risk; and while doing 6 that, to get a substantial NOx reduction. 7 The ports of L.A. and Long Beach accepted that 8 part of the measure and wanted to go further and actually 9 stress a combination of PM control and more substantial 10 NOx reduction. In order to do that, you have to basically 11 go to 2007 and newer trucks in that service. 12 We've designed our measure so it will work in 13 concert with the state bond funding, on the presumption 14 that port trucking and intermodal trucking would be a high 15 priority. And I've costed it out at several hundred 16 million dollars in order to institute the statewide 17 strategy. To do it the way that it was proposed in the 18 port plan, it would be upwards of one billion dollars, 19 depending on how it could be between -- slightly above one 20 billion to almost two billion, depending on the route 21 that's chosen. 22 We're trying to design our measure in tandem with 23 the ports' measures so that they are compatible, they 24 support each other. But basically it's a matter of 25 funding. And we don't think we can bring you a rule that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 48 1 requires that level without a funding source for your 2 consideration. 3 But clearly it will be before the Board later on. 4 And we are trying to work in a way that maximizes the 5 utility of our rule statewide and is compatible with the 6 port's plan. 7 The port plan also included a strategy that would 8 say we're going to get the cargo handling equipment 9 upgraded more quickly than required by the statewide rule 10 that this Board adopted the end of 2005. We again are 11 supportive of that strategy. Our rule will replace the 12 major emitting equipment, the yard tractors, by 2010. And 13 the port's plan would do that a little earlier. And the 14 real question is: How do you upgrade the cranes and the 15 other equipment, the mobile cranes, lifters, and other 16 things? 17 We designed our rule so that we could take 18 advantage of the off-road engines that come about in the 19 2014 time frame and 2015 time frame with much lower NOx. 20 So we don't think that there's a big NOx gain to be gained 21 by accelerating it before those engines are available. 22 But we will be working with -- again with the ports. If 23 they can bring either lease conditions or funding that 24 encourages people to do things faster, we'll be supportive 25 of that. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 49 1 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: And 2 I'll address two of the items on this and Michael address 3 the rest. 4 The first one is the second bullet down, which is 5 "require electrification of airport ground support 6 equipment." That's the baggage tugs and pushback things. 7 We talked a little bit about that yesterday. 8 South Coast is proposing that we do more 9 electrification to fulfill an MOU that was voided by the 10 airline industry. 11 And that we also lower the fleet average standard 12 that the non-electric vehicles would have to comply with. 13 The Board addressed this issue just last year in 2006 and 14 they set new standards, which will be fully in place by 15 2013. So the road map for lower emissions is pretty well 16 in place for the next -- well, through 2013. 17 The electrification goal of the MOU we showed at 18 that time had already been met. In fact, in the South 19 Coast the electrification is over 35 percent and the 20 target had been 30 percent. And as we discussed 21 yesterday, there are some limits into how much more 22 electrification can occur. But to the degree it can 23 occur, we think it will occur because the infrastructure's 24 in place and there's a larger degree of comfort with this 25 technology now by the airport operators. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 50 1 We will certainly look at the potential to 2 tighten these standards up even more. But it would have 3 to occur after the 2013 time frame, which really means 4 it's a target for the Ozone SIP and not the PM SIP. And 5 what's at stake here is -- in 2014 is something that's 6 less than a ton per day. 7 The fourth bullet down is tighter controls or 8 emission standards on pleasure craft, and also early 9 retirement of some of those pleasure craft. And what 10 we're talking about here are outboard engines, jet skis, 11 and inboard engines. 12 And South Coast would propose that 20 percent of 13 the oldest boats be scrapped and replaced with newer boats 14 by 2014 and that we tighten the exhaust standards for the 15 new engines, both the inboards and the outboard engines. 16 The Board has addressed both of these categories 17 earlier. Probably five or six years ago we addressed the 18 outboard and what we call PWCs or the jet skis. And more 19 recently the kind of ChrisCraft-type boats with inboard -- 20 larger inboard engines. Those are being implemented in 21 the sort of 2008, 2009, 2010 time frame. 22 We think that more is possible and we are taking 23 steps to do that. For example, we are developing an 24 evaporative emission control requirement for the red 25 jerrycans that you carry around to fuel the outboards and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 51 1 the jet skis, ones that don't have the fuel storage tank 2 onboard. 3 We've also initiated a catalyst demonstration 4 program for outboard engines to see whether we can tighten 5 the standard based on availability of catalyst. 6 But, again, I think the potential here for the 7 new engines is beyond -- equal to or beyond the 2014 time 8 frame and would be most beneficial for the ozone 9 attainment plan. And we'll work on that very hard. 10 With regard to the scrapping, we of course don't 11 have a large pot of money to do that. And I guess it's 12 estimated at over $50 million. But to the extent the 13 District wishes to fund this, that's certainly a possible 14 strategy. 15 And the other possible strategy is just a 16 restriction on the use of the older dirty boats. When the 17 Board adopted the standards for new boats, we've had a 18 mandatory labeling. So there's these big bright stars 19 that are now on the side of the jet skis and the outboard 20 engines -- one, two, or three stars. And the purpose of 21 those was to be able to segregate vehicles out if local 22 districts or local governments wanted to say that the 23 older engines couldn't be used. So it's a tool that they 24 could use to accomplish this without the need for a large 25 pot of money for a retrofit. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 52 1 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Okay. On the 2 locomotive strategy, staff has mentioned earlier that this 3 is an area where we must persuade others to take the 4 actions that we need in order to get emission reductions. 5 The first place we have to be persuasive is with 6 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, that has the 7 sole authority to set emission standards for new 8 locomotives. We had designed this measure based on their 9 advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, which was made 10 several years ago where they said they might set standards 11 as early as 2012. They have since actually made a 12 proposal. And their proposal says the NOx standards won't 13 occur until 2017. We're working as hard as we can to 14 influence that, to get it to be much earlier. But I think 15 it's doubtful that we'll see something that could be done 16 in the 2012 time frame. 17 Fortunately there's some other aspects of their 18 proposals that may bring us some interim NOx reductions, 19 that aren't as good as the final 90 percent, that we could 20 leverage; and then also some additional PM reductions 21 through retrofits of existing locomotives. 22 So we're going to have to work pretty hard to 23 maintain the existing commitment in the SIP to get the 24 emission reductions we've outlined based on a more 25 optimistic federal schedule. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 53 1 We also need to repeat the agreement we had with 2 the railroads that vastly accelerated the introduction of 3 the clean locomotives once they're available. The SIP 4 strategy was designed to do that over about an eight-year 5 period. I believe the South Coast strategy would like to 6 have us do that over a two or three year period. And we 7 don't think that we can get that turnover in the fleet to 8 occur as quickly as the strategy's called for. 9 On the control of transportation refrigeration 10 units, these are the units that are mounted on trailers or 11 on trucks that keep their produce cold. Or they're on 12 rail cars. We adopted a rule two and a half years ago 13 that requires the turnover and upgrade of these units. 14 The way to get NOx reductions, unfortunately, 15 is -- it would call for a retrofit. The new engine rules 16 for these don't give you the final level of NOx control 17 and there aren't retrofits available. That's why we're 18 not ready to commit to this one. 19 In terms of the SOx reductions from gasoline, 20 last week we were in Fresno and the Board adopted the 21 proposed measure on that. We will be lowering the sulfur 22 content of gasoline down to where we believe about 5 PPM. 23 We've already accounted for the NOx reductions in that 24 measure. But I believe there are some SOx reductions that 25 will help with PM attainment in the South Coast and the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 54 1 San Joaquin Valley that we should take into account and 2 take credit for in our plan. 3 The last measure is to require cleaner diesel 4 formulations. One way to do that is to use something 5 called fishertropes or solids or gas to liquid diesels 6 that are much cleaner. You can blend this in with regular 7 CARB diesel. Our assessment is that it's extremely 8 expensive because the availability of that fuel on the 9 worldwide market is small compared to demand. And so it 10 would take a fair amount of money to bid enough of it into 11 the California market to make sense. 12 However, we also identified yesterday the low 13 carbon fuel standard as a strategy to go forth. And 14 actually for biodiesel or reformulated -- that's not 15 reformulated diesel. It's basically a different way of 16 making renewable diesel in the refinery. We might have 17 options there. So I think we should look at this issue 18 more carefully as we do that rule making, to see if 19 there's a way we could -- while we get the carbon 20 benefits, we can also seek some additional -- we might get 21 some additional NOx reductions from -- on the diesel side. 22 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 23 CHIEF KARPEROS: I'll continue. 24 Environmental groups have also suggested 25 additional control measures. They've asked for stronger PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 55 1 fleet rules, more car scrappage, a better smog check 2 program, cleaner consumer products and marine vessels, rec 3 boats and fuels. 4 They also want ARB staff to quantify the emission 5 reductions for the proposed Agricultural Equipment Rule. 6 --o0o-- 7 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 8 CHIEF KARPEROS: We've received comments about the SIP 9 other than suggestions for control measures. 10 Environmental groups have expressed concern about 11 the Strategy's reliance on future technology for part of 12 the emission reductions needed for ozone attainment and 13 the specificity of the advanced technology commitment. 14 They also indicated they believe the plan's 15 reliance on adopted measures to meet the federal 16 requirements for contingency measures is flawed. 17 We've received comments from the representatives 18 of the agricultural industry supporting the substitution 19 of mobile source emission reductions as part of DPR's 20 rulemaking for Ventura County pesticide regulations. And 21 we've received very strong comment opposing the action, 22 citing the court's involvement in the matter. 23 Representatives of the consumer products industry 24 have submitted comments on the consumer product emissions 25 inventory, alternative control approaches, and the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 56 1 reactivity of consumer product emissions. 2 Finally, we received one comment that the 3 proposed strategy does not adequately deal with the 4 pollution transport, growth, and land use. 5 --o0o-- 6 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 7 CHIEF KARPEROS: Finally, the last issue I'll describe is 8 the consideration of the South Coast Plan. We've 9 postponed consideration of the plan, the ozone and PM2.5 10 plan. We did so because two SCAG measures, a critical 11 part of the issue, are incomplete. 12 The September hearing is the next available date 13 when we could bring the District's plan to you. 14 --o0o-- 15 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 16 CHIEF KARPEROS: There are two actions the staff is 17 recommending for the Board today. 18 --o0o-- 19 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 20 CHIEF KARPEROS: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the 21 proposed State Strategy for California's 2007 SIP. This 22 would include an additional commitment of 14 tons per day 23 of NOx emission reductions in the South Coast for 2014 for 24 PM2.5 attainment. It would also include minor technical 25 corrections and clarification to the April 26th draft and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 57 1 the May 7 appendices. 2 Finally, staff recommend that you approve the 3 Infrastructure SIP and Interstate Transport SIP. 4 --o0o-- 5 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 6 CHIEF KARPEROS: Finally the last few slides. 7 Adoption of the Strategy will establish a 8 rulemaking calendar for SIP measures over the next few 9 years. This rulemaking calendar is part of the proposed 10 SIP commitment. 11 --o0o-- 12 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 13 CHIEF KARPEROS: Starting with actions that happen this 14 year: 15 Cleaner in-use off-road equipment. 16 Modifications to Reformulated Gasoline Program. 17 You did that last week: 18 Cleaner Main Ship Fuel. 19 Ship Speed Reduction. 20 Shore Power for Ships. 21 And Cleanup of Existing Harbor Craft. 22 And, finally, Enhanced Vapor Recovery for 23 Above-Ground Storage Tanks. That was taken care of 24 yesterday. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 58 1 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 2 CHIEF KARPEROS: Moving to 2008: 3 Cleaner In-Use Heavy-Duty Trucks. 4 Port Truck Modernization. 5 Cleaner Ship auxiliary Engines. 6 And Cleaner Line-Haul Locomotives. 7 And, finally, a round of Consumer Products 8 Regulations. 9 --o0o-- 10 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 11 CHIEF KARPEROS: Last, in 2009 to 2012. First '09: 12 Cleaner In-Use Agricultural Equipment. 13 New Emission Standards for Recreational Boats. 14 Expanded Off-Road Recreational Vehicle Emission 15 Standards. 16 Additional Evaporative Emission Standards. 17 And, finally, a second round of Consumer Product 18 Regulation. 19 That concludes my presentation. Thank you for 20 your patience. 21 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 22 We'll start with the Board Member questions. 23 Who wants to lead off? 24 Dr. Gong. 25 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Just a quick question. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 59 1 The U.S. EPA administrator is deliberating about 2 the new ozone standard -- federal ozone standard. How 3 does that affect our state SIP, or does it, once it comes 4 out I guess from them? 5 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 6 CHIEF KARPEROS: The planning cycle -- the standard of 7 course that we're dealing with now is the existing 8 eight-hour standard. The EPA has to go through the 9 rulemaking process to set the standard. They'll have to 10 go through a classification scheme, develop implementation 11 rules. We're not expecting that for a number of years. 12 But, more practically, the program sort of is 13 distributed by -- you know, indicated by the summary 14 chart. The programs that we're proposing here in this 15 strategy would continue to reduce emissions going forward. 16 So we're already getting our first step at moving towards 17 that new standard as we work on the current standard. 18 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Does that require a revision 19 of the SIP with that or -- 20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Dr. Gong, the SIP 21 is revised every three years anyways whether the standards 22 change or not. And so as the new standard phases in with 23 the new attainment deadlines, we'll add that review to the 24 ongoing review of this SIP. 25 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 60 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. D'Adamo. 2 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Question regarding slide 3 60, the pie chart showing the percentage relied upon for 4 new technology measures. 5 Could staff estimate what percentage within that 6 section would hope to be achieved by incentive measures 7 versus new technologies that appear to be on the horizon? 8 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 9 CHIEF KARPEROS: We've done some analysis where we've 10 estimated emissions going forward with full conversion to 11 the existing and upcoming current standards. I don't 12 recall specifically what that was in the South Coast. 13 With a new standard set for the incentives and programs to 14 accelerate, even introduction to that newer standard would 15 be part of this as well. So I think, you know, arguably 16 you're looking at a mix of both for that and a mix of 17 incentives to bring forward the new technology. 18 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Well, just as an example, 19 I know that there are individuals from the Governor's 20 California Partnership that are seeking incentive dollars 21 in the San Joaquin Valley to the tune of $100 million per 22 year, which is going to be very challenging to even obtain 23 that. But somehow if they were to magically obtain the 24 $100 million, what would this pie chart look like for the 25 valley? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 61 1 And I don't know if there are comparable figures 2 that exist for South Coast. But that's basically where 3 I'm headed with the question. 4 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 5 CHIEF KARPEROS: Our analysis of the potential impact of 6 that sort of money and the full conversion of the new 7 standards would cut the advanced technology needs in half. 8 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: If you recall, 9 there was an estimate in the San Joaquin Valley that we 10 needed roughly 2.5 billion to completely purchase our way 11 out of the black box. And in this presentation as it 12 relates to the South Coast, staff showed you an estimate 13 of just to get 63 tons of NOx we needed 5 to ten billion. 14 So you can scale up to the 241 how many billions you would 15 need if you tried to go after it in a monetary way. 16 And certainly we expect to have more incentives 17 as time goes by, additional bond measures, for example. 18 But none of us are so bold as to think we'll get, you 19 know, 20, 30, 40 billion to work with. So our traditional 20 reliance on technological know-how is still very much part 21 of the future scenario. 22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Professor Sperling. 23 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Just a quick follow-up on 24 that, you know, if going to slide 72. And I guess this is 25 as much for Tom Cackette as -- and Mike Scheible. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 62 1 You know, many of these measures to accel -- are 2 basically accelerating turnover and accelerating the 3 introduction of vehicles. What funding -- in addition to 4 other state funding that could or might be available, what 5 about in the South Coast? They've historically provided 6 substantial incentive programs. Is there any -- are there 7 any proposals specifically for any of these additional 8 measures? And how effective might they be? 9 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Well, the 10 port's plan for the sources that they influence calls for 11 funding mechanisms where they would generate via tariffs 12 or gate fees or something like that as part of the lease 13 agreement's funding source for the trucks and the other 14 equipment at the port. And that's a substantial funding 15 source. But that only could be applied to the vehicles 16 that do business there, which is a relatively small 17 fraction of the basin-wide fleet. 18 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: There is an 19 existing funding source that the South Coast Air 20 District -- motor vehicle registration fees that is 21 divvied up in this region in three ways: The South Coast 22 Air District, their mobile source -- reduction committee, 23 and then local cities and counties. So over the years we 24 have provided guidance encouraging the local government to 25 use those dollars wisely in the most cost effective PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 63 1 manner. So, you know, we have certainly tried to steer 2 them towards these kinds of projects to deliver the most 3 cost-effective tons. 4 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: And, Dr. 5 Sperling, pending in the Legislature is a proposal to 6 provide an additional 20 million a year for the 7 Construction Rule. And we've estimated, unfortunately, 8 that only captures about a thousand pieces of equipment 9 per year out of the 180,000 that are subject to the rule. 10 So it's helpful, but it's not a big part of the solution. 11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I have several questions to 12 clarify my understanding. 13 First dealing with the uncertainty in the PM2.5 14 attainment requirements. What is EPA approvable? If we 15 send forward a plan without the 63 additional tons of NOx 16 that the South Coast believes are required, is that 17 approvable by the EPA? 18 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: I'll start from 19 a big picture and perhaps Legal can step in. 20 As was mentioned in the staff presentation, 21 there' a specific statute that deals with air quality 22 planning in the South Coast. And the South Coast plans 23 are designed to meet both the California Clean Air Act and 24 the Federal Clean Air Act. And then there are ground 25 rules about how the agencies interact, the state, the air PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 64 1 district, and the Association of Governments. 2 And so we have an issue that under California 3 state law we must accept the carrying capacity developed 4 by the local air district unless the Board decides to make 5 a change and go through a conflict resolution, et cetera. 6 However, under federal law, EPA is obviously not 7 constrained by state law. And to the extent they receive 8 a SIP that they feel complies with their guidance, this 9 issue of what the district believes to be the carrying 10 capacity is somewhat a legally ambiguous area. 11 But nonetheless, we are bound by state law in 12 terms of our interactions with the local district and 13 SCAG. 14 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: The short answer 15 is we believe it's federally approvable, the plan that we 16 have identified, because it falls within U.S. EPA's 17 modeling guidance. 18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: And a further question along 19 the same line. As 2014 approaches, presumably the 20 uncertainty in what's required for attainment will 21 decrease. Is there a mechanism to adjust the plan as time 22 progresses? 23 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Well, there are 24 anti-backsliding provisions that would inhibit taking 25 measures out even if you thought you were overperforming. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 65 1 And so we prefer to go with the optimistic assessment that 2 says, and is strongly buttressed by air quality data and 3 the downward emissions trend, that we have more than 4 sufficient reductions to get to the 2014 target. So we 5 wouldn't put in 63 and then take it out later. 6 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: A second area. Smog check, 7 and what is needed. It's not too clear to me what we have 8 the authority to do, what BAR has the authority to do, and 9 what new legislation is required. 10 Could you expand on that a little bit on where 11 we're headed in smog check? 12 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Of the 13 items that are listed, there's some ambiguity about what 14 the authority is. It's clear we need legal authority to 15 do annual inspections of the older vehicles. And there's 16 a bill in the Legislature that would provide that 17 authority. There's some ambiguity about whether the 18 Bureau of Automotive Repair, that implements this, has the 19 authority to add additional classes of vehicles like 20 diesels and motorcycles there. We're expecting that that 21 might just get resolved by putting it into a bill 22 somewhere and dealing with the ambiguity. 23 The other things that have been listed or 24 referenced here are already being done. Like the 25 low-pressure EVAP test has been already proposed by BAR PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 66 1 and expected to be adopted finally within months of now. 2 So that one doesn't require any legal authority. 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: And yet more. 4 In the cleaner main engine ship fuel proposal, 5 what is our authority to require that? Or is it something 6 that has to be negotiated through a memorandum of 7 understanding? 8 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: We believe we 9 have the authority to require ships to use cleaner fuel 10 and meet lower emission standards so long as we show that 11 their emissions are impacting our air quality and it's 12 technically doable. 13 We are being sued in court over that decision. 14 That decision was made as part of the auxiliary Engine 15 Rule. So applying it to the main engines is legally I 16 believe the same thing. 17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I would like to endorse the 18 SCAG proposal for electrification of rail and putting in 19 place truck-only lanes as part of the strategy. 20 Is that likely to happen or is that -- is the 21 funding of that just so great that it's not likely to 22 happen? 23 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Well, Dr. Sawyer, 24 you'll have an opportunity to do that when the South Coast 25 and SCAG plan comes to you in September. And the question PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 67 1 you just asked is exactly what the region is examining 2 right now. And the reason the plan isn't here today is 3 that SCAG circulated its proposed measure for further 4 public comment. And there is some concern in the region 5 about priorities assigned to different projects, what gets 6 funded first, what happens if these very ambitious targets 7 aren't realized for those two projects and would it create 8 greater conformity jeopardy. 9 But SCAG's view is that because they are to be 10 funding through tolls, that they are self-supporting and 11 that it is viable, they're not relying on vast amounts of 12 federal and state funding to accomplish them. But it's 13 still a tricky proposition to get it up and off the 14 ground. And many observers think it will -- if they're 15 successful, they might take a little longer than 2014 to 16 completely pull it off. 17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Is there anything that we 18 can or should be doing to support that? 19 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Well, we were 20 working closely with the Business and Transportation 21 Housing Agency and with Caltrans on the priorities -- 22 state priorities for goods movement. And we have 23 consistently supported extensive -- excuse me -- additions 24 to freight movement, because getting cargo off of trucks 25 and on to trains is advantageous from an air quality PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 68 1 perspective. So our general support of freight projects 2 would lend itself to these two. 3 I think the State of California has also been 4 very supportive of the 710 truckway and helping to relieve 5 congestion on that roadway. I believe it made the top 15 6 projects that the state was advocating in the final goods 7 movement and emission reduction plan -- or, excuse me -- 8 goods movement plan. 9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: And, finally, in hearing the 10 San Joaquin Valley plan last week, the use of operational 11 controls was discussed. 12 Are similar operational controls a good strategy 13 for the South Coast? And I don't believe I saw anything 14 like that mentioned. 15 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Between our two 16 staffs, the only operational control we've discussed at 17 any length is restricting boat use on summer high ozone 18 days, the dirtier boats. But locally there hasn't been 19 much discussion of operational controls. 20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: So is there an opportunity 21 for using operational controls to assist in meeting the 22 air quality requirements in the South Coast basin? 23 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: I stand 24 corrected. Mr. Cackette just whispered under his breath. 25 We've also talked about fireplaces as a strategy PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 69 1 to achieve the fine particle standard and to have a 2 moratorium on burning during the critical winter months to 3 avoid going over the standard. And the district has 4 proposed a partial restriction on fireplace use on 5 particulate episode days. And so that is part of their 6 local strategy. 7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Fine. Thank you very much. 8 Dr. Gong. 9 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Just a follow-up question. 10 Could you show slide 60 again. 11 Thank you. 12 Obviously NOx is a major problem. And looking at 13 the slide, I'd like to ask this perhaps naive question. 14 The new technology measures are measures that are not yet 15 realized but we anticipate? Is that the general 16 understanding about that? 17 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: That's right. 18 For example, in off-road mobile sources it would be Tier 5 19 standards, which don't exist today. We have Tier 4 that 20 we're seeking to implement through the Construction Rule. 21 But we would need another round of technology beyond Tier 22 4. 23 BOARD MEMBER GONG: And is this anticipated 24 technology 90 percent assured or with confidence or 50 or 25 what? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 70 1 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Nothing is 2 assured. We have to analyze over the next several years 3 what are the likeliest prospects for technological 4 development and then pour our energies into bringing those 5 into commercialization so that we can close this gap. 6 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Right. I guess I'm thinking 7 back on other examples of where anticipated technology did 8 not develop as anticipated, and we had a shortfall on 9 certain things. And here I see it's a significant part of 10 the pie, 30 percent. So that gives me a little bit of an 11 edgy feeling. 12 And I think Tom would like to pitch in. 13 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: I think 14 there's a range of from comfort to edgy feeling in this 15 case. In the case of putting catalysts on outboards, 16 which is one of the things that we discussed here as an 17 advanced technology. You know, that's probably fairly 18 probable that that will be successful. If you're talking 19 about whether we can come up with, you know, a Tier 5 20 truck or a Tier 5 off-road piece of equipment or can we 21 have 50 percent of the vehicles be battery electrics or 22 plug-in hybrid electrics with all electric range, you 23 know, those are more speculative at this point. 24 BOARD MEMBER GONG: I get the impression, perhaps 25 naively again, that the more money we can put into that 29 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 71 1 percent to support new technology, the higher the 2 confidence we would have, I would assume. 3 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Well, there's a 4 combination of things. Certainly money going into 5 technological innovation helps. That category also 6 includes sources we never regulated because it would cost 7 too much. Either they were categories exempted out or 8 small users exempted out. And so money allows you to go 9 back and scoop up every last unit that our rules didn't 10 capture. So that's part of it. 11 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Okay. Well, I believe in 12 technology, believe me. But we'll see. 13 Thank you. 14 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Supervisor Hill. 15 SUPERVISOR HILL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 16 Looking at and following up on Dr. Gong's 17 question. The 241 tons per day issue of slide 60, the new 18 technology measures, if you took the South Coast suggested 19 measures -- and is there a way to quantify the tons per 20 day NOx reductions of those items if we were to implement 21 every one of those? 22 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Their proposed 23 measures are for 2014. And so looking out by 2023 we have 24 most of those tons with the rate of turnover we've already 25 committed you to adopting in the Construction Rule, the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 72 1 Truck Rule, the Goods Movement Rule. There might be some 2 as we go farther out. But we'd have to go back and 3 calculate the -- 4 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: The additional 5 tons are roughly 70 according to the District's 6 accounting. 7 SUPERVISOR HILL: Seventy? 8 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Seventy tons a 9 month. 10 No, in 2014. 11 Oh. 12 No. We haven't carried -- as Katherine 13 indicated, those are 2014 tons. And then we would have 14 achieved those. It's essentially early reductions, early 15 acceleration. So we project those in the base line for 16 2023 already, take them into account. 17 SUPERVISOR HILL: Thank you. 18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. Any other questions? 19 Supervisor Case. 20 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Mr. Chairman, just a couple 21 of questions. 22 And I'm glad we're all focusing on that one slide 23 that shows that there's anticipation for new technology. 24 That was one of the most controversial components of the 25 San Joaquin Valley proposal, was the fact that deadlines PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 73 1 had to be pushed back. And it sounds like South Coast is 2 on the same trajectory, basically, to end up doing the 3 same thing. I do understand part of that is because of 4 the methodology used by the EPA as to which category 5 different air basins engines were placed initially into. 6 But again, I think we really need to be as 7 focused as possible to move forward some of those emission 8 reductions. South Coast certainly sounds concerned in 9 some of the suggestions. 10 I did pick up -- one of the suggestions was 11 requiring electrification of airports. That was one of 12 our discussions yesterday in terms of reduction of carbon 13 emission. And I still am conflicted that I -- I would 14 like to revisit that because I think we need to be more 15 broad in our basis. 16 But that being said, is there anything in the 17 South Coast proposals that would be improvements both for 18 South Coast and for the San Joaquin Valley that we might 19 be able to bring forward? Because, again, the timing 20 issue is really important for folks. And if you have a 21 problem breathing, it's even more important, because today 22 is an important day that you can breathe well. And folks 23 are concerned about having too long of a period of time in 24 which that may be even more harmful to their health. 25 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: All of the South PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 74 1 Coast suggestions are accelerations of what staff has 2 proposed. And as Mr. Scheible and Mr. Cackette went over, 3 for some of them we think they're not cost absorbable by 4 the affected industry, such as the acceleration of the 5 Construction Rule and of the Truck Rule. There is a 6 threshold at which those industries would be crushed. 7 For others, such as the dramatic expansion of 8 plug-in hybrids, we believe the technology is not there to 9 achieve 100,000 vehicle penetration before 2014. 10 So we looked carefully at all of these measures 11 before we brought you our SIP. And staff continues to 12 believe you have before you the most aggressive plan in 13 the world and the fastest achievable rate of progress 14 given all of the constraints and all of the factors that 15 we have to balance. 16 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Professor Sperling. 17 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: I'm new to the SIP 18 process, so perhaps I'm being naive. But I understand 19 what we're talking about now is just the state activities 20 to support the plan for the region; correct? 21 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: That's correct. 22 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: So are we going to hear 23 at some -- like in the suggested measures, there's nothing 24 there and there's nothing that we've talked about that 25 deals with travel, level of travel, level of usage of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 75 1 vehicles. And, you know, usually that would be a local 2 initiative. Are we going -- one, I guess, are we going to 3 hear about that at some point? Number two, are there some 4 things that can be done at the state level? You know, in 5 the old days, there were employer-based trip reduction 6 ordinances, there were these so called transportation 7 control measures where there was some state involvement in 8 that. There's now new initiatives with using information 9 technologies and telematics to reduce travel, you know, 10 car sharing, smart paratransit type things. That would, 11 you know, fall more under the jurisdiction of Caltrans, 12 BTH. But perhaps -- are we ignoring something, I guess is 13 my question, that we shouldn't be? 14 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: No, Professor 15 Sperling, those measures still exist at the local level 16 and they are pursued primarily for congestion relief. As 17 cars have become so dramatically cleaner, they pay off 18 less and less in terms of NOx and ROG reductions. But 19 they're still very much a part of local transportation 20 management and they're imbedded in SCAG's overall 21 conformity analysis and plan. 22 And we were asked by the Chairman many times over 23 the last several months could transportation control 24 measures make the difference? And we showed him the 25 numbers aren't there on the passenger vehicle side. There PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 76 1 is a question of what can you do on the heavy-duty side, 2 the freight movement side, to ease congestion, to reduce 3 emissions, to move freight on to railways. And that is 4 the focus of the administration's goods movement plan and 5 goods movement investments, to speed velocity, which 6 happily reduces emissions at the same time. 7 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: I would degree with what 8 you just said. I would add though that there's another 9 co-benefit and that's greenhouse gas reduction as well. 10 And I appreciate that, in that certainly by 2014 you're 11 not going to have much effect. By 2023 I would suggest 12 there could be some effect. You know, the Sacramento 13 Blueprint Plan has roughly I believe a 10 or 15 percent 14 reduction in VMT as a result of their land-use 15 transportation plan. And I think now with the increased 16 focus on greenhouse gases, there's going to be new 17 initiatives. So while there might not be gains in the 18 next few years, you know, we're in this for the long haul. 19 And, you know, it's kind of like what I think Chairman 20 Sawyer said yesterday about President Kennedy planting a 21 tree. 22 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: You're absolutely 23 right. And on Wednesday I attended a Caltrans symposium 24 that was all about greenhouse gas emissions and 25 transportation planning. And so the state is reaching out PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 77 1 to local governments and planning organizations to say, 2 "We need you to do VMT reductions all over again." And 3 the Air Resources Board is getting reengaged because there 4 are CO2 emissions from the land-use patterns and 5 transportation patterns. 6 But, again, for ROG and NOx it almost makes no 7 difference now with how clean the cars are. 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I would like to move to the 9 testimony phase now, if we can, please. 10 In repetition of the earlier announcement, 11 translation services are available in Spanish for those 12 who need it. Headsets are available at the back of the 13 hearing room. 14 And in Spanish from our translator. Sorry for 15 not warning you. 16 (Thereupon the announcement was translated into 17 Spanish.) 18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 19 The first three witnesses are Lieutenant Governor 20 Garamendi, Mayor Pulido, and Council Member Perry. 21 Lieutenant Governor Garamendi. 22 Thank you very much for joining us, Lieutenant 23 Governor. 24 LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR GARAMENDI: Mr. Chairman and 25 members of the Board. Thank you very much for the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 78 1 opportunity to appear before you and to share with you my 2 thoughts based upon considerable years of experience in 3 this entire area. 4 You have awesome responsibilities that are paired 5 with commensurate authority. Your responsibilities are, 6 in my view, very clear, to protect and improve air quality 7 in the State of California and to reduce greenhouse gases. 8 And your authority permits you to do so now and with 9 haste. 10 Previous actions by this Board have led to 11 significant improvements in California's air quality. 12 However, other actions by the Board over its history are 13 responsible for blocking the production of zero-emission 14 electric vehicles. And your recent delay in air quality 15 standards in the Central Valley will result in more asthma 16 and other health problems. 17 Today you also will face a choice: Significantly 18 strengthening air quality standards and reducing 19 greenhouse gases or delaying strong action that our public 20 and global health demand. 21 I urge you to take strong action immediately to 22 deal with the air quality and greenhouse gases issues here 23 in the State of California. 24 Yesterday as required by AB 32 you discussed the 25 immediate actions necessary to reduce greenhouse gases. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 79 1 And it appears to me that you have failed to achieve much. 2 There would be a serious problem for public health and 3 global health if today's results are also meager. 4 These issues are of utmost importance to every 5 person living in the State of California and, indeed, on 6 this globe. Our position as the major emitter of 7 greenhouse gases in the United States and ranking high in 8 the world, as well as other elements that cause the 9 deterioration of air quality in our state and neighboring 10 areas, must be dealt with. And I urge you to take the 11 strong and decisive actions to address these problems 12 today, not tomorrow or some day in the future. 13 Specifically, today you're dealing with issues of 14 air quality for the State of California, and you have 15 before you two plans: One presented by the South Coast 16 Air Quality Management District and the other your own 17 plan for the state. 18 It's my opinion that you should immediately adopt 19 the South Coast District's plan in total. This plan would 20 position the air basins of southern California to meet the 21 federal EPA standards and save as many as 5,000 lives per 22 year that might otherwise be lost prematurely to the 23 effect of particles in the air. 24 The South Coast Plan not only provides for a 25 larger reduction in particulates. It also provides you PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 80 1 with the flexibility that you will need in the days and 2 months ahead. 3 As implementation proceeds, you will have the 4 ability to fine-tune the proposals to meet reductions in 5 particulate matter for trucks, locomotives, ships, and 6 off-road vehicles of all kinds. And they create some 80 7 percent of the particulate problem here in the South Coast 8 Basin. 9 So you have a chance. Should you adopt the AQMD 10 proposal to adopt a higher standard with greater 11 reductions in particulates and still have the flexibility 12 necessary to fine-tune the total system? If you adopt the 13 statewide plan as presented rather than South Coast plan, 14 you will unlikely meet the federal EPA standards and would 15 further delay implementing measures which can save lives 16 much more immediately. This delay will allow continuing 17 increases in particulate matter in the air and a 18 corresponding increase in the number of suffering children 19 with asthma and other health problems. 20 Therefore, it is my recommendation that you do 21 two things: Adopt the South Coast plan immediately and 22 work aggressively to strengthen the statewide plan. 23 Now, if adoption today is not possible, for some reason 24 that escapes me, an acceptable alternative would be to 25 delay no more than 60 days for the purpose of combining PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 81 1 the two plans, the South Coast and the state plan. The 2 60-day delay may be tolerable. But not achieving the goal 3 of cleaning up the air and making our state healthier as 4 soon as possible is intolerable for the health and the 5 economic future of the state. 6 I also want to point out to you that your efforts 7 to meet AB 32 requirements would be advanced by adopting 8 the South Coast plan as well as strengthening the 9 statewide plan. With this approach, two critical 10 problems, particulates and greenhouse gases, can be 11 addressed simultaneously if you adopt a solid, 12 responsible, strict plan that moves us aggressively 13 towards reducing both particulates and greenhouse gases. 14 Finally, with regard to off-road construction 15 equipment and agricultural equipment, I know there's been 16 much discussion about the impossibility of meeting the 17 statewide plan by 2020. That may be debatable, and it may 18 also be true. But I think you can achieve most of the 19 particulate reduction by very carefully calibrating the 20 goals and the metrics to achieve the maximum 21 implementation with Tier 1, 2, and 3, and apparently as 22 necessary delaying the Tier 4 until a later date. 23 In the future when the new engines become 24 available -- and I suspect they'll be more available if 25 you set a tighter schedule -- Tier 4 should be implemented PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 82 1 as quickly as feasible, forcing the construction and 2 agricultural fleets to turn over more rapidly than they 3 might otherwise. This strategy may achieve the maximum 4 benefit in the early stages with the least disruption and 5 the greatest mitigation of cost. 6 Finally, if you adopt the South Coast plan now 7 and work aggressively to strengthen the state plan, you 8 will leave yourselves the flexibility you will need in the 9 months ahead to fine-tune these proposals and best meet 10 the health, environmental, and economic needs of our 11 state. Most importantly, you will continue California's 12 leadership in addressing two extremely critical problems: 13 Climate change and air quality. 14 I thank you very much for this opportunity to 15 appear before you. I know you have a hard task ahead of 16 you. And I know you're up to protecting the State of 17 California and its citizens. Thank you very much. 18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you for coming to our 19 meeting this morning. 20 LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR GARAMENDI: Thank you. 21 (Applause.) 22 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: I had a clarification from 23 staff. I wanted to make sure that I understood correctly 24 that the South Coast plan is not before us today, that in 25 fact we will be taking that up later this fall, and that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 83 1 there were some technical work that still had to be done 2 particularly with the PM2.5. 3 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: That is correct, 4 Ms. Kennard. However, what is before you are suggested 5 South Coast modifications to our plan. 6 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Thank you. 7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Mayor Pulido. 8 MAYOR PULIDO: Thank you, Mr. Chair and Board 9 members. 10 When you look at all of these numbers and what it 11 all means, I think we have some real problems here. If 12 you look at PM2.5 and you ask yourself of all the people 13 in the United States, what percentage resides here in 14 southern California that face this very high, very 15 dangerous level of toxicity? Unfortunately, that number 16 is 51 percent. Fifty-one percent of all the people in the 17 country that are exposed to this dangerous level of toxic 18 air that we breathe every day live right here in southern 19 California in our air basin. 20 So as we try to figure out what to do about it, 21 we at the air district -- South Coast Air Quality 22 Management District are very frustrated because we know we 23 need to do more. And the how to do more becomes very, 24 very imperative and important to us. 25 In a neighboring city in Orange County -- I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 84 1 represent the City of Santa Ana. In Anaheim recently the 2 mayor called me and he said, "Miguel, there's a train 3 that's been parked there for 72 hours and it's idling 4 right next to residences. And it's emitting particulate 5 matter and your people are calling complaining, 'What can 6 you do?'" 7 Well, you know, it's a mobile source, even though 8 to me a train that's parked for 72 hours is not very 9 mobile. It's a real problem. So what we've done is we've 10 embarked on a lawsuit. And we're going to appeal this to 11 the Supreme Court if we have to, because we need to do 12 more with railroads and technology that they use because 13 they're in our air basin consistently. 14 You look at the ports. They're going to go 300 15 percent between now and the year 2020. What is that going 16 to mean? Not just our streets and our freeways and our 17 railroads, but to the air that we believe. You know, air 18 is just so fundamental, and maintaining clean air is our 19 mission and we have to work together in order to 20 accomplish that. 21 Now, I want to, you know, thank Board Member 22 Kennard and Chairman Sawyer, because -- you know, we got 23 into a series of meetings and I think they were 24 productive. Our work is not done. But, you know, between 25 SCAG, yourselves and ourselves, we really got into a lot PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 85 1 more detail I believe than we initially envisioned. 2 Nonetheless, we're not there yet, not by a long shot. I 3 know you're, you know, offering some reduction. But, you 4 know, according to everything we can ascertain, we're 5 about 49 tons short of where we need to be. 6 And I just want to tell you that these decisions 7 are tough. But if in any area you can see your way to 8 allowing us to embark in those decisions, we would be 9 willing as the South Coast Air Quality Management District 10 to come up with stricter rules, tougher standards, weather 11 it's, you know, develop in-use fleet rules for private or 12 public fleets, whether it's working more aggressively at 13 the ports to -- you know, not to do the study on whether 14 or not the fuel they use is going to impact us -- I can 15 tell you it impacts us -- to work immediately with them to 16 require that as ships come into this air basin, they begin 17 to burn cleaner fuel. 18 I was, you know, honored to recently be able to 19 talk to the U.S. Ambassador -- or the Republic -- Chinese 20 Ambassador to the U.S. And when I told him about what's 21 going on here in southern California, he says, "Look, we'd 22 be happy to work with you to immediately begin to try to 23 burn cleaner fuel in all the ships that come from China." 24 And that's the type of discussion we need to engage in 25 immediately. Because if not -- you know, we know people PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 86 1 are dying in this air basin. We all know somebody that 2 has cancer. And whereas we can't say, well, it was caused 3 by this or by that, we can show you that right along the 4 freeways, right along the major routes of transit and 5 transport the rates are much higher. And it's not just in 6 one area. We can go right down through the entire air 7 basin where you can look at the data, we can do the 8 correlation, and it's not a pretty picture. 9 So, you know, please allow us to work with you. Please 10 allow us to continue to meet, to continue to try to figure 11 this out, because it is a daunting task but it's a task 12 that I believe working together we can address. And I 13 believe that we're different from San Joaquin, we're 14 different from San Diego or the Bay Area. Here in 15 southern California, we just have problems that are more 16 severe, and we need I believe approaches that are more 17 aggressive. 18 Thank you for listening. 19 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much, Mayor. 20 (Applause.) 21 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I would like to ask Senator 22 Cedillo if he would like to talk to us now. Thank you. 23 SENATOR CEDILLO: Good morning. I want to be 24 really simple and attach myself to the comments of the 25 Mayor and of the Lieutenant Governor. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 87 1 I don't need to talk to you about the science or 2 the challenges that confronts us. You're well aware of 3 those. I simply want to talk to you about the process of 4 making decisions and choices. The decisions and the 5 choices that we're asking to do are challenge, daunting. 6 A lot of complexity to them, very difficult. A lot of 7 things come into balance, a lot of matters need to be 8 weighed. But I would ask you and argue that for us the 9 most important decision is really, how do we conduct and 10 make decisions that are consistent with our ethics, with 11 our morals? What is the bottom line? What is the golden 12 rule here? At the end of the day, what is the result of 13 the decisions we make, and do they better our community? 14 And I would suggest to you, do they better our community? 15 Not just in those very vital business interests, because 16 we have to be thoughtful about that. We have to be 17 considerate. I read the articles this morning. We must 18 be balanced. But that balance really must be on, what is 19 in the best interests of the people? How do we serve 20 their health, their quality of life, what is it that 21 results at the end of the day? 22 As Mayor Pulido said, we know that the quality of 23 life is impacted and impaired in certain environments, 24 certain circumstances. You don't need to be told about 25 the demographics of the region. What you do have here, a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 88 1 district that's coming to you saying, "Do more and enable 2 us to do more." And that's compelling. And I have -- 3 with my colleagues everyday as we are at the point in 4 Sacramento of making tough decisions, on homelessness, on 5 whether or not immigrants can drive. And, by the way, if 6 we would let immigrants drive, I could suggest to you that 7 our air would be cleaner. More -- up to 20 percent of the 8 pollution is caused because immigrants have to drive older 9 cars, the most polluting. If we let them drive legally, 10 they would buy new cars and the most efficient cars. And 11 at least 20 percent of our air would be cleaner. I'm not 12 a scientist but it's kind of simple math if you think 13 about it. But that's a different issue. I'm not here -- 14 I'm deviating. I'm sorry. 15 But the point is this, is that we have -- you 16 have tough decisions to make, and I respect that. But let 17 me say to you and suggest to you that if you make the 18 decisions at the end of the day that are in the best 19 interests of the common person, the Californian who's come 20 here, who simply is seeking a better life and just simply 21 wants to work and have a better life and a better quality 22 of life -- at the end of the day if your decision take us 23 there, it's a decision you'll feel better about and it's a 24 decision that will be better for the people of California, 25 including all the interests that you have to weigh. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 89 1 And I thank you for your time, your 2 consideration, your courage, and your leadership. Thank 3 you so much. 4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 5 (Applause.) 6 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Council Member Perry. And 7 then we'll have Dr. Burke, Supervisor Ovitt, and Mark 8 Pisano. 9 MS. HASHMI: Good morning. My name's Kiran 10 Hashmi. I'm here on behalf of Councilwoman Jan Perry. 11 She had to leave to Chair the Los Angeles City Council 12 this morning in downtown L.A. at 10 a.m. 13 Councilwoman is the Chair of the Energy 14 Environment Committee for the City of Los Angeles. She's 15 also a Governing Board Member of the South Coast Air 16 Quality Management District. I will now read her 17 statement. 18 "I'm here today to strongly urge the California 19 Air Resources Board to support the 2007 Air Quality 20 Management Plan to strengthen the State Strategy and 21 commit to additional emission reductions from mobile 22 sources. The body of evidences is very clear that the 23 widespread respiratory illness in this region is traceable 24 to emissions from mobile sources. 25 "Research has already shown that fine particulate PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 90 1 matter in the South Coast Basin is responsible for 2 thousands of deaths and hospitalizations every year due to 3 respiratory illnesses. Our residents are exposed to a 4 high percentage of damaging levels of particulate 5 pollution. 6 "The State Implementation Plan is our best 7 opportunity to support a new kind of urban infrastructure. 8 It is an opportunity to make clear-cut progress towards a 9 cleaner Los Angeles. 10 "Your mobile source strategy is a policy of real 11 power. It will be the strength behind our attainment 12 drive in the South Coast for the next five to seven years. 13 It is crucial that you include more stringent control 14 measures for mobile source pollution, as it is a major 15 offender when it comes to hazardous air pollution. 16 "The health of our residents should be at the 17 foremost of our considerations. This is why I urge you to 18 in longer delay the adoption of the 2007 AQMP and that you 19 tighten your State Strategy to attain federal cleaner 20 standards. We ask that you reject half measures and take 21 action that sends a clear message that you are serious 22 about not allowing mobile sources to bring us to a 23 standstill in our fight against air pollution. Send a 24 message that your Board deserves its reputation as a clean 25 air pathfinder. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 91 1 "With your lead we can reach the federal 2 health-based clean-air standard, clearly demonstrating 3 our commitment for a clean and healthier future. 4 "Thank you." 5 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 6 (Applause.) 7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Dr. Burke. 8 And I would like to begin to enforce the 9 three-minute rule because we have a very large number of 10 speakers today. 11 Thank you, Dr. Burke. 12 DR. BURKE: Thank you. And I will be as brief as 13 possible, because I think that Mayor Pulido and the 14 Lieutenant Governor covered a great deal of the ground 15 that I wanted to cover. 16 You know, we have two actions we'd like to call 17 on you to do, if you would. Obviously one is to add the 18 49 additional tons after you take off the 14 of NOx 19 reduction to your State Mobile Source Strategy on a 20 schedule to achieve these reductions by 2014. 21 Alternately, and only if you choose to take that 22 action, we ask that you delay your approval of the State 23 Mobile Source Strategy until you conduct a rescheduled 24 hearing of the South Coast AQMP. You will be able to give 25 a fair consideration to the California air basin with the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 92 1 most urgent public health problem, and you can avoid what 2 might be to the public a predetermined perception of the 3 AQMP hearing this fall, handicapped by a predetermined 4 mobile source strategy. 5 I think that -- I was almost amazed to hear that 6 the staff of CARB thinks that our suggestions are just an 7 acceleration of the CARB staff rules. I think that if you 8 take the time, have our AQMP hearing -- EPA says that you 9 don't need to adopt this till August so you won't put San 10 Joaquin in jeopardy -- I think you'll find that we have 11 some suggestions that you might find very beneficial to 12 moving the air quality improvement in southern California. 13 Thank you. 14 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 15 (Applause.) 16 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Supervisor Ovitt. 17 SUPERVISOR OVITT: Thank you, Chairman Sawyer and 18 Board. It's indeed a pleasure to be here today. 19 I come from San Bernardino County, and we have 20 really some of the worst air that is in the South Coast 21 Basin, is what we live in each and every day. I've lived 22 there for 60 years, so I have the accumulation of that 23 that I breathe each and every day. 24 I'm also -- as well as being a member of the 25 South Coast Air Quality Management District Board, I'm PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 93 1 also the President of SCAG for this particulate year. And 2 I come to, as a representative of both of those 3 organizations and of course of my San Bernardino County, 4 to let you know how important this particular issue is to 5 us. 6 We live and breathe this air each and every day. 7 It's not just a number on a pie chart, number on a slide. 8 But it in fact is the quality of life that we are 9 subjected to as the result of these emissions. 10 My daughter is now in college. But when she was 11 in elementary school, the freeway was right next door to 12 the elementary school and to the fields outside where they 13 played. So we do live it, we breathe it. We understand 14 the health impacts. 15 As a member of SCAG, let me tell you that the 16 concern of course is that not only is this -- are these 17 impacts in health, but these are also impacts in regards 18 to non-attainment. And non-attainment could mean federal 19 sanctions, which might mean that we would lose out on 20 federal dollars in regards to the needs that we have for 21 transportation and other issues in the southern California 22 region. And let me tell you -- and I'm sure you 23 understand -- because of the goods movement, we have 24 tremendous transportation issues and congestion issues 25 that we have to overcome. Certainly, these exacerbate the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 94 1 issue of air quality and at the same time they exacerbate 2 the issues of quality of life and commuting in this fine 3 region that we live. 4 In addition to that, certainly we do have a 5 tremendous exposure of course to the PM2.5 and that 6 affects us each and everyday. 7 For the first time, I might add, there has been a 8 real marriage between the South Coast Air Quality 9 Management District and the Southern California 10 Association of Governments. We don't always degree on 11 issues. We are standing shoulder to shoulder on this 12 issue. We are here today as a member of SCAG -- as the 13 President of SCAG, I am here to let you know that we stand 14 shoulder to shoulder. We would ask that you would look at 15 and consider both the 2007 AQMP plan as well as the 16 Strategy together. We would encourage you to adopt the 17 South Coast Air Quality Management District plan that has 18 been put forward. 19 We have health risks that we do not care to 20 endure any longer. We would ask that you keep our health 21 in mind as you make this very important decision. We know 22 it's tough and it does require some courage on your part. 23 But we know you stand ready for the task. 24 And we thank you very much for your time. 25 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 95 1 (Applause.) 2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Mr. Pisano. And then we'll 3 have Dennis Yates, Council Member Aguilar, and Council 4 Member Messina. 5 MR. PISANO: Mr. Chairman and members of the 6 Board. Thank you for providing this region an opportunity 7 to appear before you to present our plan. And also thank 8 you for the cooperative effort that you've demonstrated in 9 working as Board members and staff in the three-agency 10 process to address the difficult issues in front of you. 11 With respect to the difficulty of the issues, let 12 me just note, by way of history, I have participated as an 13 executive member on every air plan prepared in our basin, 14 including, I might add, as a member of the EPA staff that 15 prepared the 1975 plan that was promulgated by the 16 administrator. I have never in all my career seen a plan 17 that's more difficult and more important to the residents 18 of this region. 19 The health impacts that your Board has -- studies 20 that your Board has brought forward as well as the 21 research of our local universities have indicated that the 22 pollutant that we're most concerned about in these plans 23 is for sure harmful, detrimental to the health of our 24 region in a way that no other plan has really 25 demonstrated. That awareness has caused our region, its PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 96 1 elected officials, to be more than sensitive and more than 2 supportive of immediate and absolute controls. 3 In the three-agency meeting at the staff level, 4 it was noted the difficulty of reducing this pollutant, 5 both in the years 2014 and in the year 2023. At that 6 meeting I noted to the staffs that this was going to 7 require extraordinary leadership in order for us to deal 8 with the pollutant that needs to be controlled, that 9 mainly has been uncontrolled for many decades, to reduce 10 these health impacts. 11 Upon reporting to my board, they said both the 12 indicated shortfall in pollutants both for the -- both 13 time periods, they noted to me, "Let's put on the table 14 what we can to meet that leadership challenge." 15 Let me just note the measures we put forward are 16 our best effort to do so. Those measures are not in 17 substitute for your measures. We need your measures and 18 we need more, if you can see the tonnage requirements. 19 Therefore, our measures should be no reason for you to -- 20 our reasons not being fully developed should be no reason 21 for you to delay your action today. 22 I wholeheartedly and my board wholeheartedly 23 supports the request of Dr. Burke that the additional tons 24 be added to your plan today and that we work out the 25 remaining issues when our plan comes forward to you for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 97 1 deliberations. 2 We thank you for your consideration. And, Dr. 3 Sawyer, the best thing that you can do to help our 4 measures is to backstop them. 5 Thank you. 6 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 7 (Applause.) 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Mr. Yates. 9 MR. YATES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Board 10 members. My name is Dennis Yates. I'm the Mayor of the 11 City of Chino. I'm a board member of the South Coast Air 12 Quality Management District. I represent the cities in 13 San Bernardino County. I also sit on the Admin Committee, 14 the Technology Committee, the Refinery Committee, and I 15 Chair the Stationary Committee. 16 I am very concerned that you are deciding the 17 state's mobile source control path without having the 2007 18 AQMP for South Coast before you at the same public 19 hearing. A weak mobile source plan could do more harm 20 than good. This could also lead to imposing an additional 21 cleanup burden on already strictly controlled stationary 22 sources. 23 Over many years your Board, our air district, and 24 our many stakeholders have collaborated to build a long 25 and successful track record. Together, we've set world PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 98 1 realized technology, forcing standards, and achieved 2 dramatic results; while our goal of healthful air 3 continues to allude us. 4 Here in 2007 we cannot wait more decades to reach 5 a public health goal that dictates life or death for 6 thousands of people each year. That is close to me. Five 7 days ago my family was informed our 12-year-old niece who 8 lives in Van Nuys is just diagnosed with Stage 4 Hodgkin's 9 lymphoma cancer in her lungs. 10 That's why we urgently need this mobile source 11 strategy to step up and flex more muscle. The South Coast 12 Board continues to believe very strongly that financial 13 responsibility for air pollution should rest with the 14 sources that create the pollution. 15 The South Coast supplementary mobile source 16 measures are intended to reemphasize two principles: Push 17 technology; and polluters must bear their fair share of 18 the cleanup effort. Our proposed control measures are 19 intended to supplement CARB's strategy. Our agencies are 20 in overall agreement on where we should aim, which is 21 toward cleaner fleets. 22 Where we differ is how clean and how quickly. 23 For the past three decades in the South Coast, or more 24 than 80 days each year, millions of South Coast residents 25 have been exposed to levels of particulate and smog that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 99 1 are way over federal standards. 2 As this doesn't include their exposure to air 3 toxics, this health emergency is what drives our sense of 4 urgency. 5 The State Mobile Source Strategy is a powerful 6 opportunity for leapfrogging instead of taking baby steps. 7 When we look at the NOx reductions we need to 8 meet the national ozone standard, it's almost 9 jaw-dropping. We must cut NOx 76 percent, or we trigger 10 automatic federal sanctions. 11 The clean up task is huge. So above and beyond 12 everything on the books, there is no margin for errors. 13 Yet, at the same time, not achieving our goal is 14 unthinkable. Together, we need to get down to hard and 15 firm actions at a stepped-up pace so that our suggested 16 supplemental measures call for firmer reduction targets at 17 a stiffened pace. 18 South Coast faces a risky tactical marathon 19 towards clean air. If we are limited to a slow start here 20 at the outset, we could fail to finish our difficult run 21 towards federal standards. 22 We ask you to work in partnership with us to 23 avoid that mistake and include stronger measures in your 24 State Strategy. 25 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 100 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 2 Councilmember Aguilar. 3 COUNCILMEMBER AGUILAR: Good afternoon. My name 4 is Joe Aguilar, recently elected to the City Council in 5 the city of Commerce. 6 The city of Commerce is surrounded by freeways 7 and railroad yards. We're probably one of the most 8 polluted areas. 9 And having worked in the park and recreation 10 field -- I started about 42 years ago. And I remember the 11 kids coming out to the parks and just playing pick-up 12 games, softball games. You name it, the kids were out on 13 the field. As the years went on, I saw less and less of 14 these kids coming out and just having pick-up games. Now 15 I'm wondering, well, maybe it's the air that they're 16 breathing. We see individuals spending more time inside 17 watching TV, playing inside of our facilities rather than 18 outside. 19 I think if all of you look at it, you know what I 20 am saying. Our little kids are not out there on the 21 fields. And why? Probably because they can't breathe 22 properly. I remember at one time you would see 23 individuals take a deep breath of air and actually feel 24 good. You try that now, and you start choking. 25 So I think we need stringent rules. We need you PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 101 1 and all of the other organizations that are doing their 2 best to clean up our air. And we need to work as a team. 3 And the cities will do everything in their power to get 4 this message across to everybody. Thank you very much. 5 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 6 Councilmember Messina, and then we'll have Mayor 7 Cacciotti, Tonia Reyes Uranga, and Mary Justice. 8 COUNCILMEMBER MESSINA: Good morning, Chairman 9 Sawyer and members of the Board. I am here on behalf of 10 SCAG. I am a member of the Regional Council. I have been 11 an elected official in the city of Alhambra for over 12 20 years. Twelve years of those were on the City Council, 13 and the last eight years I served as a School Board member 14 for our school district. 15 I'm here to address the health crisis that we are 16 all realizing. And it's interesting, because 25 years 17 ago, I started with this very same message. Because we 18 have in our community the lack of a completed freeway that 19 literally dumps right in front of one of our elementary 20 schools. And we took our message to Washington. We took 21 our message to Sacramento. And now in 2007, it's finally 22 being listened to. 23 We have an elementary school, Fremont, that I 24 said where the 710, the trucks come off. It's not just 25 cars. It's the trucks, the total 710 traffic coming into PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 102 1 that particular area. 2 I have a letter here from our superintendent to 3 testify as to the quality of the air that our students 4 have been realizing. We have approximately 1100 students 5 who suffer from asthma. Seven-hundred of those students 6 are identified as severe to moderate allergic that also 7 affect their physical condition. We have tragically seen 8 three students succumb to cardiac respiratory illness 9 these last few years. In five years, we buried three 10 fifth graders. I went to all three of those funerals. 11 Those kids play on the playground where all of this air 12 pollution from the freeway comes onto our streets. 13 I have a letter here from Dr. Steven Wong who has 14 been working with our school district for the past 15 ten years. He's a renowned doctor dealing with asthma and 16 respiratory problems. And his statement -- I won't read 17 the whole letter. He says, "As a physician and parent, I 18 would strongly recommend that all efforts be made to 19 relieve the amount of mobile air pollution on the streets 20 and highways. Hopefully with these changes, we can help 21 our children to live healthier lives." 22 I can't tell you during these past eight years 23 being on the School Board how stressful it is for parents 24 to send their kids to school every day and not know are 25 they going to come home. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 103 1 Unless you've lost a child, you cannot appreciate 2 that kind of fear. I've lost a child. I know what that 3 trauma is like. 4 So I'm begging you to please adopt the South 5 Coast Air Quality's mobile sources. Because it is, as 6 Supervisor Case said, we can't afford to put this off any 7 longer. I beg of you, please, to support that. Thank 8 you. 9 I have letters also that our students from 10 Fremont School wrote in 2000 to Governor Davis. And I 11 would like to read one comment where the student says, "I 12 walk to school. I cough so much because of the air." 13 I'd be happy to turn these letters into you. 14 These come from the kids themselves, not from us. 15 Thank you. 16 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 17 Mayor Cacciotti. 18 MAYOR CACCIOTTI: Good morning, CARB members. 19 Michael Cacciotti, Mayor of South Pasadena, one of the 20 environmentally leading cities in the San Gabrielle Valley 21 with Ms. Messina. 22 Want to thank CARB for your proposed State 23 Strategy for California today. It's implementation plan 24 is a move the right direction. 25 However, many of the mayors and leaders as you've PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 104 1 heard already in the San Gabrielle Valley feel CARB should 2 go a little bit further today to strengthen their plan to 3 achieve these federal standards. 4 Ambient air quality, we need to attain it now, 5 not later. Here's the reasons why: The health of our 6 planet, the slow down of global warming, the health of our 7 families. As we know with the USC school, also UCLA, the 8 recent studies about effects on grandparents on elderly, 9 little kids, and especially now in women over 35, it gets 10 in your arteries and actually slows it down. 11 The health of our pets -- people talk so much 12 about the health of people. What about our pets? If you 13 talk to any veterinarian -- I brought my dogs in a few 14 weeks ago -- they see even more of a severe impact on 15 pets. I've talked to veterinarians who actually performed 16 an autopsy and looked at the lungs of pets and what it's 17 done to the pets. 18 Our cities are right now actually having to 19 implement measures ourselves. Just two months ago, the 20 City of South Pasadena brought forth a low-emission 21 vehicle policy for the entire San Gabrielle portion of Los 22 Angeles County. That's 30 cities, unincorporated portions 23 of Los Angeles County, and 385 square miles. Our 24 low-emission vehicle policy, which essentially mandates 25 the preference that every new vehicle you purchase should PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 105 1 be low-emission clean air vehicles, was adopted 2 unanimously by the 31 cities in the San Gabrielle Valley. 3 Our citizens, we can no longer wait for the 4 federal government or CARB to act. We realize that 5 through energy diversity and a promotion of clean air 6 low-emission vehicles we can reduce our dependence on 7 foreign oil. And as a result of this specifically what 8 can happen? It improves our national defense, why, our 9 national security, because we're no longer spending 250 to 10 $300 billion a year purchasing foreign oil. 11 It improves their economic stability, because we 12 can take that 250 to $300 billion looking at alternative 13 type of fuels, alternative type of vehicles, clean air, 14 compressed natural gas, hybrids, the next generation of 15 plug-in hybrids, as you know, electric hydrogen fuel 16 cells, we can take that $250 billion, invest it in local 17 businesses, local economy. 18 As I said before, also enhance the health of our 19 citizens, people, and animals, and slow down the 20 escalation global warming. 21 I just returned about a month ago from my second 22 trip to China this past year. First time I went, the 23 environment, alternative fuel vehicles, emissions was not 24 on their radar. Last time -- if I can finish, wrap it up. 25 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Yes, please PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 106 1 MAYOR CACCIOTTI: Yes, sir. 2 On the last trip, spoke to about seven or eight 3 different cities. And the mayor was removed from 4 Shanghai, but I spoke to the Communist party secretary. 5 Gave him our low-emission vehicle policy. There's been 6 180 degree turn in China. There's Sino Japanese, Sino 7 Russian, Sino German, multi-billion-dollar research joint 8 ventures studying alternative fuel vehicles, low-emission 9 vehicles, clean area vehicles. They're going to catch us 10 and surpass us if we don't do something soon. 11 Thank you so much for your time. 12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 13 Ms. Reyes Uranga. 14 MS. REYES URANGA: My name is Tonia Reyes Uranga. 15 I represent the eastern cities in L.A. County on the South 16 Coast Air Quality Management District. But I also serve 17 as a Council Member in the City of Long Beach which 18 operates the Port of Long Beach. 19 And I have to say I've never thought I would see 20 the day where the port is proposing more aggressive 21 measures than the State Board. It's incredible. 22 And today, I'm here to speak in support of your 23 inclusion of the South Coast AQMD's recommended measures 24 in your mobile source strategy, especially those related 25 to goods movement and freight operations. This would PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 107 1 include expedited cleanup of heavy-duty on-road and 2 port-related trucks, cargo handling equipment, 3 locomotives, airport ground support equipment, transport 4 refrigeration units and diesel fuels. 5 I understand that these measures would demand 6 strong regulatory actions. But I believe that our 7 agencies and legislative partners can work together to 8 balance these control actions with innovative funding 9 mechanisms which include practical incentives such as tax 10 credits, high volume buy-down programs, and compliance 11 streamlining that can address potential cases of economic 12 hardship. 13 Several regions in California face common 14 planning challenges as we try to reconcile growing goods 15 movement operations alongside major metropolitan areas. 16 But the route you choose will make a critical difference 17 in the health impacts experienced by residents living in 18 environmental justice areas. For them, your decision 19 represents nothing less than fate by public policy. 20 The ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, for 21 example, play tremendous economic roles in our region, our 22 state, and our national economy and shipping gate ways and 23 creators of jobs. But at the same time, ports and freight 24 yards have serious air pollution impacts which adversely 25 affect large regional populations. We cannot ask PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 108 1 community members to wait patiently for while shipping 2 projects mushroom around them. 3 Emission cuts will demand significant resources, 4 and South Coast is already marshaling investment dollars 5 from both the public and private sectors. We have already 6 begun an ambitious new cleanup journey to help carry out 7 last year's San Pedro Bay Clean Air Action Plan. A less 8 than forceful State Strategy has the power to undercut the 9 potential gains of our port cleanup plan. And I want to 10 say that again. A less than forceful State Strategy has 11 the power to undercut the potential gains of our port 12 cleanup plan. 13 In contrast, leveraging the strength of a 14 forceful State Plan we can, for example, achieve better 15 economies of scale, as well as more consistent technical 16 practices. We can identify common barriers to progress 17 and issues of concern. And together, we can seek 18 practical and innovative solutions. We're well aware some 19 emission control measures can be relatively difficult. 20 However, those are clearable hurdles, not permanent road 21 blocks. 22 That is why we're asking your State Mobile Source 23 component to send a consistent unwavering message that can 24 be heard by technology investors, infrastructure 25 stakeholders, and most of all, the public that you're PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 109 1 serious about meeting health standards and won't ask 2 Southern Californians to accept more years of chronic 3 bronchitis, cancer, heart and lung disease than we've 4 already suffered. 5 I ask that you fully exercise your power of 6 leadership. Please approve a mobile source strategy 7 worthy of your abilities, one that shows you've heard our 8 voices today. Thank you. 9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 10 Ms. Justice, and then we will taking a ten-minute 11 break for our court reporter. 12 MS. JUSTICE: Thank you for hearing me speak. 13 PM10 comes from clay in the soil as well as 14 trucks. And it effects nine cities in the Coachella 15 Valley. PM2.5 from habitat sources should be included as 16 part of the total mobile source PM2.5 affecting people's 17 health. Correlations with NOx, et cetera, are not 18 adequate in some cases, because PM2.5 and 10 are not 19 measured coming off of these habitat lands, at least in 20 the western Coachella Valley in Riverside County. 21 PM2.5 requirements do not apply to these habitat 22 lands and do not protect the nine cities southeast of 23 them. 24 Now, in Riverside County's western Coachella 25 Valley, there is a new $1.1 million acre habitat plan PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 110 1 being considered which has thousands of acres of so-called 2 blow sand. The plan depends on strong winds to carry blow 3 sand, et cetera, to three preserves. These winds also 4 transport huge amounts of PM2.5 and PM10 200 to 400 feet 5 up in the air and over any kind of sand fences to the 6 populous southeast of the thousands of acres of blow sand 7 areas. 8 Soil samples measured by soils engineers and the 9 Army Corps of Engineers are up to 67 percent silt, which 10 is PM10, and up to 18 percent clay, which is PM2.5. If PM 11 2.5 were measured coming off that habitat, you could 12 regulate how much additional acres of blow sand so-called 13 are preserved versus lands that are developed. 14 The proponents of the habitat plan explain away 15 this excessive PM2.5 and PM10 as being made by humans 16 disturbing the clay and silt, which they say is solidified 17 and principally moved by water. An Army Corps of 18 Engineers' report says 90 percent of the PM2.5 and 10 are 19 borne by wind, not water. The new habitat plan would 20 result in approximately 80 percent of the western 21 Coachella Valley being controlled by various environmental 22 purposes, all sources, private and agencies. The fact is 23 obscured in their EIR for this habitat plan. Thank you. 24 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. And 25 thank you for reminding us that PM2.5 is directly emitted PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 111 1 and not entirely a NOx issue. 2 We will take a break at this time for ten 3 minutes. And when we return, the first three witnesses 4 will be Jane Carney, Fong Lee, and Sid Tyler. 5 (Thereupon a recess was taken.) 6 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: We will resume hearing from 7 our witnesses at this time. And I'd like to indicate that 8 we have probably about five or more hours of testimony 9 before us. So I will apply the three-minute rule very 10 strictly. We will be of course hearing everybody who 11 wants to speak to us. We will be receiving your testimony 12 in the order that you have handed in your cards. And we 13 will now resume with Ms. Carney. 14 MS. CARNEY: Thank you very much, Dr. Sawyer and 15 members of the Board. My name is Jane Carney. I'm in my 16 second term as Senate Rules Committee appointee to the 17 South Coast Air Quality Management District Board, and I'm 18 also a resident of the city of Riverside. For 25 years, I 19 lived within one mile of the famous or infamous Rubidoux 20 monitoring station. So we know about air quality 21 problems. 22 You know, where I live, we've never achieved the 23 PM10 standard. So when I hear staff's presentation that 24 we will, in fact, achieve PM2.5 on time, I hope that's 25 right. But I feel very strongly that we need to take all PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 112 1 the steps necessary to ensure that actually happens. AQMD 2 staff disagrees with that assessment and thinks additional 3 measures need to be taken in order to reach PM2.5 4 attainment. 5 I'd also like to just explain that while part of 6 my passion about this subject comes from my own personal 7 experience, part of the passion also comes from you all. 8 You are the ones who conducted the children's health 9 study. It was from your studies that we learned about the 10 deficit in the growth in lung function in children who are 11 exposed to this pollution. It was from your studies that 12 we learned that people in this basin, of all the people in 13 the state of California, 82 percent of the people exposed 14 to excessive levels of PM 2.5 are in this basin. 15 It is from your analysis we learned that this 16 results in approximately 5400 premature deaths per year. 17 So part of our passion really comes from what you tell us 18 the effects of this air pollution is. 19 And then I'd also like to mention, because we 20 also conducted public hearings and listen to people talk, 21 that a fair amount of our passion comes from what people 22 come and tell us. A major reason we got so involved with 23 locomotive emissions is because people would come from the 24 city of Commerce, a Council member from the city of 25 Commerce was here this morning, residents would come, and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 113 1 in the public comment section of our agenda, they would 2 come and tell us about what they perceived as the air 3 pollution problems in their neighborhoods. And much of it 4 was very true. 5 And that inspired us to take on some very tough 6 battles and take some very aggressive stances. And you 7 probably feel that sometimes we might almost become 8 strident. If we do, I apologize. But we are inspired by 9 this, because of our own experience, by what you tell us 10 and by what the public tells us. 11 I think our staffs have developed complex and 12 far-reaching control proposals. But there is a difference 13 between what your staff would like to see you adopt and 14 what we would like to see you adopt. We would like you to 15 adopt additional measures that would advance the timing 16 and would in some cases make the controls more stringent. 17 And I hope you will seriously look at that. 18 We're obviously very concerned about the size of 19 the black box. A 241 ton on the per day black box doesn't 20 give one a lot hope for actual attainment on a timely 21 basis. 22 And you know, we get caught up in this. EPA sets 23 these standards and sets the attainment dates. And that's 24 what we have to work for. And that's true. But the 25 health care issues are now. They're now. And so the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 114 1 longer things are delayed, the longer those health care 2 issues go on. 3 So I would just encourage you to look seriously 4 at the additional proposals that we've put forward. We 5 only put them forward because we're so concerned. As you 6 see from your staff report, the mobile sources are -- huge 7 portion, 95 percent of the emission reductions, have to 8 come from mobile sources. And so the ball is really in 9 your court. The health of people in this basin is in your 10 hands. And I hope they'll look seriously at the 11 suggestions that we've made. 12 Thank you very much. 13 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 14 Phong Ly. 15 MR. LY: Thank you, Chairman Sawyer and esteemed 16 members of the Board. 17 I stand here as a representative for Assembly 18 Member Mike Eng speaking in support of the South Coast Air 19 Quality Management District 2007 Air Quality Management 20 Plan. 21 And I believe that you have a copy of the support 22 letter from Assembly Member Eng as well. 23 The California Air Resources Board needs to act 24 immediately to address the growing health and 25 environmental risk in an area which contains some of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 115 1 most polluted air in the nation. 2 CARB's own studies reveal that air pollution in 3 the South Coast air basin results in 5,400 premature 4 deaths, 2400 hospitalizations, and 980,000 lost work days 5 every year. 6 Considering that the population for L.A. County 7 will be increasing by two to three million people in the 8 next 25 years, Assembly Member Eng feels it is important 9 to adopt stricter rules for mobile air pollution resources 10 in order to accommodate for future population pressures on 11 our community's resources. 12 As the state faces stricter federal guidelines 13 for clean air, the 8-hour ozone and the PM2.5 standards, 14 the California Air Resources Board need to act now to 15 ensure that we can meet these federal goals for the 16 betterment of our community. 17 We sincerely urge you to adopt the AQMP. Thank 18 you very much for your support. 19 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 20 Sid Tyler, and then Warren Furutani, Sam Hall, 21 and Jennifer Zivkovic. Mr. Tyler. Mr. Furutani. 22 MR. FURUTANI: Mr. Chairman, members of the 23 Board, thank you very much for this opportunity to speak 24 before your important panel. My name is Warren Furutani. 25 I've been on the Los Angeles Board of Education for eight PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 116 1 years now. Currently, I'm in my third term at the Los 2 Angeles Community College Board, both of which are the 3 largest bodies in their respective areas in the state of 4 California. 5 While on the Board of Education, I represented 6 the 7th District that's dissected by the 110 freeway and 7 bordered on its eastern boundary by the 710 freeway, 8 including San Pedro, Wilmington, Carson, and other 9 communities as you go north, including what's infamously 10 called the Harbor Gateway, the very narrow band of land 11 that is used to connect the port with downtown Los 12 Angeles. 13 On the Community College Board, I represent the 14 whole district as a whole, but needless to say our nine 15 campuses are spread out throughout the Los Angeles basin, 16 including Harbor College, which is in the same area that I 17 just explained and shared with you. 18 I would be presumptuous to assume I could give 19 you the scientific background or give you the number of 20 particulates or the percentages things that I know that 21 you've studied and looked at. 22 And let me just briefly say, I appreciate the 23 fact you're willing to sit for eight hours to hear public 24 testimony. All of us that are elected officials that 25 serve on Boards have done that in the past, and we know PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 117 1 it's difficult to say awake. We know it's difficult to 2 stay focused. And I do appreciate the energy that it 3 takes for you to go through this process. 4 Also, I wouldn't want to be one in front of you 5 that tries to tell you that there's all these different 6 things that are involved other than situations we find 7 ourselves in government oftentimes. I don't care at the 8 highest level in federal government, at the lowest level 9 in terms of local government, oftentimes we find ourselves 10 in what we call a quagmire. The federal quagmire we are 11 well aware of in terms of the nation and what's going on, 12 trying to decide how to end a problem, solve a problem, 13 when to bring people back, and when to stop the dying. 14 In this situation, we're juxtaposed around a very 15 critical economic issue when you talk about transfer of 16 goods and services. And on the other hand, we're talking 17 about the health of people that live in those areas. 18 Again, numbers aside, percentages aside, I only 19 use one fundamental basis to determine the importance of 20 what you're confronting here today. And that's the 21 coughing of a child in Dominguez Elementary School in the 22 Carson/Long Beach area. Or in being on an airplane 23 landing from Sacramento on Monday, I think the second time 24 in my life we landed over the ocean rather than in the 25 opposite direction, from west to east rather than east to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 118 1 west. 2 If you live in the area where I live down in the 3 Harbor Gateway, you know that if the prevailing wind is 4 going in the opposite direction, when you get home you're 5 going to have the prevailing smells that are going to come 6 wafting across your area based on the port ships, based 7 upon the trains that are moving the goods, and based upon 8 the trucks, all of which are critical, all of which are 9 important. But doggone it, all science aside, all of the 10 other things aside, when it gets down to it, it's a 11 fundamental human issue, which is people's quality of 12 life. That's what you're dealing with. And that's what 13 you're confronted with. 14 I know as you try to sort through your quagmire 15 relative to trying to figure out how to do it, when to do 16 it, how best to do it, and at what expense to do it, I 17 think clearly you need to go down and have your hearing 18 right there at one of those elementary schools in east 19 Long Beach or west Long Beach, one of the schools that are 20 in the L.A. Unified or Harbor Community College. And you 21 know it. You've all been there. You've all seen it 22 yourself. It is getting so bad. It's getting ridiculous. 23 I think at a certain point we've just got to stop 24 and say we understand all of the science. We understand 25 all of the political juxtapositions of issues. But you've PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 119 1 got to make a decision. A decision I think fundamentally 2 has to focus on. One clear simple issue, and that's the 3 quality of life. 4 And again, if you look at the issues as you well 5 know of the increased level of asthma if you look at the 6 increased levels of cancer, if you look at the increased 7 levels of everything that are now a part of what we 8 consider everyday life in the areas on front, there's only 9 one solution you can come to and only one conclusion. I 10 would strongly recommend that you support the AQMD plan. 11 We have to take a stand. The State has to take a stand. 12 California is the Golden State. We don't want it to be 13 known as the gray state. 14 Thank you very much for this opportunity to 15 speak. 16 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 17 Mr. Hall. 18 MR. HALL: Good morning, Chairman Sawyer and 19 members of the Board. Thank you for allowing me to read 20 the following statement from Senator Alan Lowenthal. 21 I believe our role as legislators and regulators 22 is to protect public health and safety. In California, 23 and in particulate in southern California, we are facing a 24 public health crisis, and the cause is air pollution. 25 As you know, there are thousands of premature PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 120 1 deaths, hospitalizations, lost work days, and cases of 2 asthma attributable to fine particulate pollution. We 3 must do all that we can to reduce this particulate 4 pollution. 5 As the Board decides on what is the best set of 6 measures to include in the State Implementation Plan, I 7 simply request that the Board ensure that whatever plan 8 the Board adopts that it is the best plan to not only 9 ensure compliance with the Federal Clean Air Act, but also 10 the best plan to protect our communities from this toxic 11 pollution. 12 The Board should adopt the South Coast Air 13 Quality Management District's 2007 Air Quality Management 14 Plan as part of the State Implementation Plan. These 15 measures will take years to fully implement, so we must 16 start now. 17 We must choose the most protective set of 18 measures available. Because several years from now if we 19 realize we may not reach attainment, we can then say we've 20 tried everything. However, if we do not choose the best 21 set of measures available, then years from now we will be 22 held accountable. If the Board chooses a less protective 23 set of measures, we will be setting up ourselves for 24 failure. 25 Earlier this year, the Board's Executive Officer PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 121 1 asked the U.S. EPA for an extension to comply with the 2 PM2.5 attainment standard. We need to be sure that 3 whatever is adopted today is not aimed at getting that 4 extension, but instead aimed at meeting or exceeding the 5 federal standard. 6 As Chair of the Budget Subcommittee on Resources 7 and Environmental Protection, I look forward to working 8 with the Board on ensuring that we have the Proper 9 resources to meet federal attainment. Thank you. 10 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 11 Ms. Zivkovic, and then Bobby MacDonald, Roye 12 Love, and Harry Baldwin. 13 MS. ZIVKOVIC: Thank you. Good morning, Board 14 members, elected officials, staff, and members of the 15 public. Thank you for providing me with this opportunity 16 to read a statement from Assembly Member Betty Karnette 17 regarding this proposed State Implementation Plan before 18 you today. 19 As the Assembly Member representing the 20 communities that neighbor the ports of Los Angeles and Los 21 Angeles, I would like to express my concern about the 22 Mobile Source Strategy outlined in the State 23 Implementation Plan. The State must be more vigilant in 24 protecting the health of its residents through adoption of 25 a more stringent Mobile Source Strategy than is proposed PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 122 1 in the State Implementation Plan. 2 I respectfully urge the California State 3 Resources Board to strengthen the strategy with a 4 commitment to additional reductions in emissions from 5 mobile sources. These additional reductions are needed 6 for the State to meet Federal Clean Air standards. These 7 reductions are also consistent with the 2007 Air Quality 8 Management Plan adopted by the South Coast AQMD. If this 9 is not feasible at this juncture, I would urge the Board 10 to delay adoption of the State Strategy until the Board 11 considers the Air Quality Management Plan. It is my hope 12 that the Board will not delay the adoption of the AQMP 13 until October. 14 The emissions reductions outlined in the AQMP are 15 also consistent with the San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air 16 Action Plan, which is crucial to accommodating projected 17 growth at the ports. As you're aware, the South Coast air 18 basin bears the burden of a disproportionate share of the 19 PM2.5 problem in the state and the nation, which results 20 in significant health impacts for residents. Significant 21 reductions are needed for the State to meet federal 22 standards. If not met, public health impacts would be 23 exasperated and would subject the region to sanctions by 24 the federal government. The State cannot risk losing 25 these federal dollars. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 123 1 I am confident that the federal standards can be 2 attained, but the State must take greater responsibility 3 for the regulation of mobile sources. By making sound and 4 sustainable decisions, you can both help California's 5 economy and the environment in one fell swoop. Even 6 Governor Schwarzenegger believes that our economy and our 7 environment do not have to be at odds. In order to have a 8 strong economy, we must have a stable environment. 9 And in order to have a stable environment, our 10 policy decision must be balanced and sustainable and our 11 actions must be directed towards the greatest possible 12 impact. You can help make that balance a reality. I 13 respectfully urge the Board to commit to additional 14 reductions from mobile sources. Thank you. 15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 16 Mr. MacDonald. 17 MR. MAC DONALD: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and 18 Board members. My name is Bobby MacDonald, and I'm 19 President of the Black Chamber of Commerce of Orange 20 County. And I'm also the Legal Affairs Chair of the 21 Orange County Presidents' Council, which is 27 ethnic 22 chambers and business organizations in Orange County. 23 I'm speaking before you this morning regarding 24 the postponement of the AQMP 2007 Air Quality Management 25 Plan. A good environment is good for business. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 124 1 Customers, investors, suppliers all benefit from clean 2 air, because it makes the region a place that is 3 attractive to live and work. 4 The failure of the California Air Resources Board 5 to address the pollution sources they regulate, primarily 6 trucks, trains, rail yard equipment and construction 7 equipment, unfairly shifts the burden to local businesses, 8 especially small businesses. 9 The health impacts of air pollution cost 10 businesses money due to lost work days, increased health 11 premiums, and decreased productivity. 12 Please consider the AQMD's 2007 plan. Please 13 remember small businesses are the backbone of the state 14 and carry much of the burden of regulation. 15 Thank you for your time and your consideration. 16 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 17 Roye Love. 18 MR. LOVE: Good morning, Chairman Sawyer and 19 members of the Board. I'm Roy Love, Chairman of the 20 Environmental Commission for the City of Carson. 21 You certainly have a very critical decision to 22 make today. But I'm here to say that we live at ground 23 zero. I live in the city of Carson. We're just a few 24 miles from the harbor. The trains come through Carson. 25 We have the 110, the 710, the 405 freeways. And all of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 125 1 that, that concoction has created serious environmental 2 condition for us. 3 I think some of you may know or may have read 4 about the situation at Del Amo Elementary School. Two 5 times in the past session that school had to be shut down 6 because of environmental problems. Teachers were 7 complaining of even memory loss in their case, not only 8 asthma and the cancers that I hear people telling me about 9 daily. 10 But also as you know we're involved in 11 standardized tests, No Child Left Behind. There were 12 instances where kids couldn't take their exams because 13 their noses were bleeding. 14 So we have a very critical situation. And I 15 believe that requires that we do everything that we can. 16 And here there is no doubt that I think the AQMD's plan 17 will add to that. I even think we must go much further. 18 But certainly, I think we -- with all the people alive in 19 the state, asthma and all of the pain that we're suffering 20 from, I think you as a body -- and as the Lieutenant 21 Governor said, increase your flexibility. You want to 22 have some other ways to do it. None of this is really put 23 in stone. 24 And so we want you to really this day adopt their 25 plan along with the plan that we have before us. This PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 126 1 day, do that. Because it is extremely critical. I hear 2 people in the city of Carson complaining there are areas 3 where we have plenty of cancer clusters. This is ongoing. 4 And I've seen that for years. This is'nt very different. 5 One of the other jobs I have, I'm a member of the 6 Board of the Communities for a Better Environment. And so 7 we have offices in Oakland and also in Huntington Park. 8 So it is critical that you do what is necessary. And that 9 can be nothing less than to adopt both plans today, 10 because that's the only way we can assure that we take a 11 step towards ameliorating the conditions that we have. I 12 thank you. 13 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 14 Mr. Baldwin. And then Louie Lujan, Mario 15 Beltran, and Matt Miyasato. 16 MR. BALDWIN: Good morning, Chairman Sawyer. 17 Thank you for the opportunity to speak before you. 18 As you know, that has been pointed out, the South 19 Coast has a disproportionate share of problems from PM2.5 20 as compared to the rest of the nation and this state. To 21 address this problem, the AQMD is now proposing the AQMP, 22 which contains reductions as much as 63 tons a year of NOx 23 emissions beyond the CARB's strategy that they are 24 proposing right now. 25 We must take responsibility for reducing these PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 127 1 emissions. Because if not, we have a tremendous problem 2 here in the L.A. basin. 3 I currently am the Vice President of the Southern 4 California Association of Governments. And we have to 5 come up with the plans that meet the federal requirements. 6 Non-attainment of these funds would not only result in the 7 horrible health hazards that have been described more 8 today, but also would have a tremendous impact on the 9 funding for transportation funds from the federal 10 government. 11 Also to include an imposition of the federal 12 implementation plan which would be detrimental in helping 13 us address our own problems. 14 SCAG supports the AQMD's position. And the main 15 part of that position is the reduction of 63 tons a day of 16 NOx emissions. That's what we need to do to meet our 17 standards that are required to come forward. 18 We thank you for your time. And we hope that you 19 will credit the AQMD position along with your strategy and 20 to address the main problems that we have with the 21 emissions that need to be reduced for this area. 22 Thank you. 23 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 24 Mr. Lujan. 25 COUNCIL MEMBER LUJAN: Good morning, Mr. Chairman PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 128 1 and members of the Board. My name is Louie Lujan. I'm a 2 Council member in city of La Puente, California, a 3 community about 25 to 30 miles east of downtown L.A. 4 I come to you tonight not only as a member of the 5 Council, but also a member of the San Gabriel Valley 6 Council of Governments, a member also of the Coalition for 7 a Safe and Clean Environment. And also by the way, a 8 proud owner of a brand-new hybrid vehicle. So I'm doing 9 my part as well. 10 I want to start off with a scenario that 11 obviously is supported not only by myself personally, by 12 our community, as Mr. Baldwin just mentioned, by the SCAG, 13 and that is many of us see this as a crisis situation, a 14 situation in which we need not only our emotions to come 15 into play, but also our logical thought process. 16 The issue is not only a complicated issue, but 17 it's one at the very essence requires very common sense 18 solutions. And I think some of the proposals and ideas 19 being shared today address just that, common sense. 20 We can talk about the statistics all day. We can 21 talk about how 80 percent of the pollution is coming from 22 the mobile sources. But what we're here today to do is to 23 ask that you strengthen your strategy such that it is 24 consistent with the AQMD's Air Quality Management Plan and 25 to do that by adopting the AQMP's suggestions and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 129 1 solutions dealing with mobile sources specifically, 2 because we know a lot has been done with regard to the 3 stationary sources, the businesses, so forth. Items in a 4 sense don't move. They're not mobile. But we're asking 5 that you really take extra emphasis and a double look, if 6 you will, on the mobile sources. 7 We all know that even if all the stationary 8 sources were eliminated, all the buildings that pollute 9 were closed, we have to still deal with 80 percent of the 10 pollution coming from mobile sources, 80 percent. 11 Now, we all have talked about, of course, some of 12 the health effects. I'll read some of them here. We know 13 the air pollution is responsible for not only premature 14 deaths, but hospitalizations and lost work days annually. 15 That deals directly with some of the economic effects. 16 140,000 children or more have asthma problems and 17 respiratory issues. 70 percent of the airborne cancer 18 risk in our region is directly attributed not only to 19 pollution but also to diesel engines. 80 percent of the 20 emissions are not under local control. 21 I want to end with a little bit of a personal 22 story. I've seen the affects of the pollution, 23 specifically with my mother. She has severe asthma. 24 She's always had it. I can remember ever since I was a 25 little kid. I've been with her in the hospital not once, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 130 1 twice, three times, but many times. And this is something 2 that I think, again going back to my main point, is 3 something we have to look at as a common sense issue. Not 4 only does it require our intellect, but our emotions and 5 our common sense. 6 Finally, I view the big picture as an issue where 7 these are problems and issues we created as human beings. 8 And therefore, we can also solve them. This is not 9 something that we're unfamiliar with. If we can get 10 ourselves into these types of issues, we can also come up 11 with solutions to solving those in the region. Thank you 12 for your time. 13 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 14 Mr. Beltran. Mr. Beltran. Mr. Miyasato. 15 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 16 presented as follows.) 17 MR. MIYASATO: Thank you, Chairman Sawyer, 18 members of the Board. I am Matt Miyasato with the South 19 Coast Air Quality Management District. I'm the Technology 20 Demonstrations Manager there. I have a couple slides I 21 want to present to you. 22 This is in regard specifically to the plug-in 23 hybrid control measure that we have proposed. I want to 24 address a couple comments that Chief Deputy Officer Thomas 25 Cackette had made. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 131 1 It's true our plug-in hybrid control measure is 2 very aggressive, and you'll see where the triangle is 3 there we're proposing very large numbers. But I'd also 4 like to remind you there's a proposed bill in the 5 Legislature, AB 1077, that is proposing very similar 6 numbers, if not more aggressive numbers. And those are 7 designated by the yellow stars. And, in fact, that was 8 co-authored by a former CARB member, one of your 9 colleagues, Assembly Member DeSaulnier. 10 If you click the slide, this is based on the 11 hybrid electric vehicle growth you can see nationwide. 12 You can see a very steep slope. 13 --o0o-- 14 MR. MIYASATO: If you click it one more time, we 15 are proposing this growth could be duplicated in the South 16 Coast basin with your help and with the help of the South 17 Coast AQMD. 18 --o0o-- 19 MR. MIYASATO: One final click will show you what 20 is by comparison in the ZEV emissions vehicle regulations 21 for fuel cell vehicles. What we are simply suggesting is 22 there can be done a lot more with regard to that 23 discrepancy. If you go to the next -- 24 --o0o-- 25 MR. MIYASATO: -- Mr. Cackette had mentioned we PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 132 1 were basing our analysis on the all-electric range, or 2 AER. And we did, in fact, put AER in our proposal for 80 3 percent NOx reduction. But I would like to remind you, 4 that is based on initial emissions measurements that we 5 garnered with your staff at the El Monte office on plug-in 6 hybrid conversion. You notice the bars that are below the 7 zero are representing benefits in emissions. So we are 8 seeing a 79 percent benefit in NOx under one of the 9 cycles. 10 What I would simply remind you is that that is by 11 third party aftermarket converter. Just imagine what an 12 original equipment manufacturer can do. In fact, there 13 have been two original equipment manufacturers who now 14 announced publicly they are looking at the technology 15 plug-in hybrid technology and plan to have vehicles on 16 about model year 2009. We would suggest strong action by 17 your Board can help accelerate that development and 18 actually accelerate the development of that technology. 19 So the final two points I would make is that with 20 the passage of the energy bill recently in the Senate, 21 there was also strong call by the nation for petroleum 22 reduction with increasing energy efficiency. We believe 23 that plug-in hybrids obviously can provide a long step 24 toward achieving corporate average fuel economy standards 25 and increasing that. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 133 1 And finally I think what is echoed by other 2 members, witnesses that have testified is that also goes a 3 long way toward improving greenhouse gas emissions. We 4 see the plug-in hybrid technology is doing a big 5 three-fold benefit: Improve urban air quality, reduce 6 petroleum dependence, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 7 And we would ask you to please seriously consider some of 8 our measures as we move forward. Thank you. 9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 10 We'll now have Robert Miles, then David Ford, and 11 Romel Pascual. 12 MR. MILES: Robert Pullen Miles. Thank you, Mr. 13 Chairman, members of the Board. My name is Robert Pullen 14 Miles. I am a field deputy for State Senator Jenny 15 Oropeza, the 28th Senatorial District. And I would like 16 to read a little statement from the Senator. 17 I urge CARB to further enhance the proposed State 18 Mobile Source Control Strategy to ensure that expeditious 19 progress is being made and that federal deadlines for 20 attainment of clean air standards will be met. 21 I am also concerned that the CARB has decided to 22 delay the adoption of the South Coast Air Quality 23 Management District's Air Quality Management Plan until 24 October 2007, but will instead consider approval of its 25 Mobile Source Strategy for California on June 22nd, 2007. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 134 1 This means that the State agency will essentially 2 decide the fate of millions of southern Californians 3 without dealing with the urgencies of local air quality 4 needs. 5 It is critical that CARB acknowledge this 6 shortfall in the delay strategy. We must act now to 7 address southern California's current air quality and 8 health crisis. 9 This is submitted by Senator Jenny Oropeza. 10 Thank you. 11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 12 Mr. Ford. 13 Mr. FORD: Thank you, members of the Board. My 14 name is David Ford. I'm the Chief of Staff to State 15 Assembly Member Ted Lieu. In that capacity, let me 16 welcome everyone to the 53rd Assembly District. And thank 17 you for supporting our local economy. 18 And there's long been a thought when air quality 19 politics in L.A. County and in the southern California 20 area that coastal areas create the smog, but then blows 21 inland. And prevailing wind aside, let me quickly put the 22 light in that notion. 23 When the U.S. EPA did a study of the top ten most 24 polluted ZIP codes in California, four of them were here 25 in the south bay. Six of the top ten toxic release PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 135 1 emitters are here in the south bay. Six of the top ten. 2 So with the affect of that, of all the 3 sub-regions of Los Angeles County, the south bay is second 4 only to Antelope Valley in instances of childhood asthma. 5 And I'll make one further point past this. 6 California has a history of leading the way on these 7 issues and of setting very high goals for ourselves and 8 then finding ways to meet them. So what I'd urge the 9 Board today is adopt the AQMP. Go past it, if you want. 10 Challenge California. Challenge our economy. Because we 11 have a history of meeting those goals. It's what we do as 12 a state. So thank you for your time and thank you for 13 allowing me to speak. 14 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 15 Mr. Pascual, and then Peter Yao, Elaine Chang, 16 and Henry Hogo. 17 Mr. PASCUAL: Good morning, Chairman, and members 18 of the Board. My name is Romel Pascual. I'm the Social 19 Director for Environment for Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. 20 We all know that the South Coast air basin 21 experiences a disproportionate share of exposure to PM2.5 22 in excess of federal standards. And we know this has 23 significant public health impacts for all Angelinos. 24 The South Coast Air District approved the 2007 25 Air Quality Management Plan earlier this month with the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 136 1 expectation that the Air Resources Board would consider 2 this plan at this meeting to assist us in submitting the 3 ozone plan. 4 We urge ARB to take more responsibility for 5 greater mobile sources control. Any delay in adopting 6 strong and feasible measures would only continue the 7 uncertainty in the region about rules and regulations 8 forthcoming and sends a wrong message to EPA that we're 9 unclear in what measures we'd like to resolve with respect 10 to air quality problems here in the basin. 11 As ARB moves forward in the coming months to 12 complete the SIP, we urge you to make the strongest 13 commitment possible to reducing mobile sources. 14 Thank you for your attention. And thank you to 15 your commitment to air quality. 16 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 17 Mr. Yao. 18 MAYOR YAO: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and 19 members of the Board. My name is Peter Yao. I'm 20 currently the Mayor of the city of Claremont. 21 Claremont is the east most city in the Los 22 Angeles County. Claremont is proud to be a green city 23 with over 33,000 City-owned trees and over 3,000 acres of 24 City-owned park lands and wilderness and open space. Just 25 this past August, our voters approved purchasing an PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 137 1 additional 180 acres of hillside. 2 We have many LEED certified buildings. Many 3 fleet of the trucks are all low emission. And even our 4 police department drives around in Toyota hybrid vehicles. 5 Over the past 100 years, Claremont has done 6 everything we can to produce an environment that's healthy 7 and clean. And we're proud to be environmentally 8 responsible. 9 Claremont is only 14 square smiles in size, yet 10 we have two major freeways, the 210 freeway and the 10 11 freeway, going through our city. Most of our residents 12 can hear, can see, can smell, and feel the shake of all 13 the trucks loading the goods from the Los Angeles and Los 14 Angeles ports on their way to the east part of the 15 country. 16 You can see that the Claremont is assuming a 17 great deal of burden associated with the mobile pollution 18 sources. 19 I have two requests of the Board. Number one is 20 set a high standard such as those recommended by the South 21 Coast AQMP. They are achievable. As a career engineer 22 and an engineering manager, I want to assure you that 23 technology is not something to be afraid of. It's a tool. 24 Yet, it's not a tool that's waiting for an application to 25 happen. It's a tool that's driven by demands. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 138 1 Just look back not too long ago when we decide 2 that we want to put a man on the moon. Less than a decade 3 later, we have a man on the moon. 4 Today, you're setting a standard for something 5 that's going to happen 15 years from now. Set a high 6 standard. We're going to achieve it. 7 Secondly, I want to encourage you to adopt a plan 8 as soon as possible. Want to remind us that the lessons 9 that we learn about the time and value of money also apply 10 to cleaning up the air. The sooner we get started, the 11 less we have to do, and simpler the job is. Thank you 12 very much. 13 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I would like to say I share 14 your engineering optimism for being able to solve these 15 problems. 16 Ms. Chang. 17 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 18 presented as follows.) 19 MS. CHANG: Good morning, Chairman Sawyer and 20 members of the Board. It's a pleasure to be here before 21 you today. My name is Elaine Chang, Deputy Executive 22 Officer with the South Coast Air Quality Management 23 District. 24 --o0o-- 25 MS. CHANG: The State Strategies presented before PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 139 1 you will have a profound impact on our air basin for the 2 many years to come. It will represent not only how you 3 fulfil the promise you made in the 2003 AQMP designed for 4 the then one-hour ozone standard, but also many upcoming 5 air quality standards, including the just currently 6 released proposed new 8-hour ozone standard. 7 --o0o-- 8 MS. CHANG: I do not want to sound unappreciative 9 what this Board has done in the last several decades to 10 bring about air quality improvement to this air basin. If 11 you look at the last four years as part of the 2003 AQMP 12 implementation, only 33 tons of the NOx reductions out of 13 the total over 300 tons committed were adopted. We need 14 to pick up our pace. 15 --o0o-- 16 MS. CHANG: There could be disagreement between 17 two agency staffs in terms of how much NOx emissions will 18 be needed for 2014 for the PM 2.5. But there's no 19 disagreement we need a lot of NOx emission reduction for 20 proposed PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone standard. 21 --o0o-- 22 MS. CHANG: There's no disagreement where the 23 major source is coming from NOx emissions. 24 --o0o-- 25 MS. CHANG: We're pleased to hear the staff is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 140 1 proposing additional 14 tons, leaving the remaining 49 for 2 the PM 2.5 attainment strategy. We doubt that you can 3 explain away the 49 tons through weight of evidence or 4 debate when our plan comes before you. 5 But we also want to point out that in our plan 6 that we have added flexibility language that will address 7 your concern of anti-backsliding. Adding more tons now is 8 easier to make adjustment later is almost impossible to 9 add additional NOx tons if we find we need more. Just we 10 don't have enough time for fleet turnover. 11 --o0o-- 12 MS. CHANG: Also looking at the AR ozone, your 13 staff indicated there will be 241 tons in the black box or 14 technology advancement. That represents almost 60 percent 15 of the total reduction needed beyond what's already 16 adopted. 17 With our proposal adding additional tons will 18 reduce this, and we're back to where we started at 49 19 percent. 20 To answer Supervisor Hill's question, we believe 21 approximately 40 tons will be able to be chipped out from 22 the black box. 23 --o0o-- 24 MS. CHANG: Let's not forget the 24 hour PM 2.5 25 standard by 2020. Looking at the composition air quality PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 141 1 is inevitable that we will come back again for the 2 secondary PM2.5 SOx and NOx reductions. 3 --o0o-- 4 MS. CHANG: One last point, that during our 5 public review period, we have received comments from the 6 environmental community to add specificity to the black 7 box measures. 8 Our proposal to you include that additional 9 details, and we believe that the document before you, the 10 State Strategy, is missing several of the key elements for 11 EPA approve. 12 --o0o-- 13 MS. CHANG: In closing, we ask you to add 14 additional details, you'll plan to bring back black box 15 measures, and echo all the previous speakers that add 16 additional tons or you consider our plan along with the 17 State Strategy. 18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I want to thank you for the 19 work you've done with our staff on trying to arrive at an 20 effective program for the South Coast Air Quality 21 Management District and the Air Resources Board. And 22 we'll continue to work with you and your staff. 23 Mr. Hogo. 24 MR. HOGO: Good morning, Chairman Sawyer, members 25 of the Board. I'm Henry Hogo with the South Coast AQMD. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 142 1 I wanted to talk more about the 12 measures that the 2007 2 AQMP recommends -- 3 --o0o-- 4 MR. HOGO: -- to enhance the proposed State 5 Strategy. 6 --o0o-- 7 MR. HOGO: As you can see here, the 12 measures, 8 and the emission reductions associated with those 12 9 measures. In the aggregate, they add up to 70.9 tons -- 10 71 tons per day in 2014. If these measures were fully 11 implemented by 2023, it's actually about 56 tons per day. 12 Dr. Chang talked about 40 tons that are needed to 13 demonstrate attainment. But what these measures are 14 showing that you're going to get more reductions, and that 15 will help the black box. 16 We have these measures peer reviewed by leading 17 experts, actually national and internationally renowned 18 experts in mobile sources and mobile source control 19 technology. And they all stated these measures are 20 technically feasible. And we looked at the cost 21 effectiveness through our incentive programs, and we 22 believe that not only are they technologically feasible, 23 but cost effective. 24 --o0o-- 25 MR. HOGO: Want to point out that these measures PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 143 1 are a set of recommended measures. There are other ways 2 in which to achieve the needed reductions, and we look 3 forward to working with your staff on that. I want to 4 point out that at this stage, your staff's regulatory 5 activities are showing that you can achieve more tons than 6 the proposed State Strategy is targeting. 7 And here are three samples. For the on-road 8 private truck heavy-duty vehicle rule, your regulatory 9 proposal -- your staff's regulatory proposal is looking at 10 another almost 25 tons more reductions than what's 11 targeted in the SIP, the State Strategy. And in our work 12 with your staff the off-road regulation, we can see 13 another 13 tons. Even the port regulation that's 14 regulatory concept at this time we can get another three 15 tons. 16 So get about 41 tons that will go a long ways to 17 meeting the 63 tons that the 2007 AQMP is seeking. And 18 then the combination could get us to 63 tons. 19 --o0o-- 20 MR. HOGO: We know these are recommended 21 measures. There are other ways of getting to that target. 22 In the AQMP, we do provide that flexibility, as was 23 mentioned by Dr. Chang, to meet these standards. 24 --o0o-- 25 MR. HOGO: I want to conclude now with a comment PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 144 1 relative to modeling and modeling uncertainty. 2 Uncertainty can go both ways. So if we're to err, we'd 3 rather err on health protection. And in all the prior 4 plans that we developed jointly with you, we have erred on 5 health protection. 6 So we urge you to add the 63 tons per day of 7 additional NOx reduction. If not, continue this item and 8 take this up with our 2007 AQMP. Thank you. 9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 10 Ms. Riordan. 11 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chair, I just would 12 like to ask staff, on his slide three, help me to 13 understand what would your response be to that. 14 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We were just 15 talking about that. And I think there's just continued 16 misunderstandings between their staff and ours about how 17 the tons add up in our plan. 18 The more pertinent slide is slide two where the 19 South Coast is proposing dramatic changes in stringency to 20 what is in the ARB proposal. And I'm going to highlight 21 the largest one of those and tell you again why they're 22 problematic. 23 And my punch line before I do that is we want 24 additional NOx controls, too. What we're saying to you as 25 your staff is they cannot be derived from the regulations PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 145 1 we're working on. That's why we monitized the additional 2 63 tons and said, perhaps not clearly enough, the only way 3 to get those additional tons by 2014 is if we 4 collaboratively seek a massive public investment program 5 on the order of five to ten billion. 6 And the reason for that is on the heavy-duty 7 truck rule, your staff is already working on a fleet rule 8 that has all the characteristics of the fleet rules you've 9 adopted so far of the application of particulate filters, 10 the rapid turnover to NOx control-equipped trucks. And 11 this proposal to get 21 additional tons simply breaks the 12 bank of what the trucking industry could afford in the way 13 of year per year costs. 14 The same issue is true on construction equipment 15 where, as you heard in May, the staff proposal is a $3 16 billion rule. We have clarified since then that the 17 industry's estimate of 13 billion was an error. But 3 18 billion is still a lot of money, and most of the cost 19 accrue in the first few years. The South Coast proposal 20 would add a billion in the first year or two to the cost 21 of that measure. 22 And I'll leave it to your own judgment about 23 whether the industry you heard from at length can take 24 that hit. And you can certainly consider that in July. 25 The locomotive measure of eleven tons depends on PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 146 1 technology that will not be here until 2017. It's simply 2 not here. We would like to accelerate the federal 3 rulemaking. It's not within our power. And those eleven 4 tons, therefore, we view as impossible, given the signals 5 that U.S. EPA is sending. 6 So those three are the heart of the strengthened 7 ARB's statewide proposals. 8 And I should say on port trucks, which is 6.3, 9 the issue there is both additional stringency, and also it 10 consumes all of the one billion dollar bond assigned for 11 goods movement cleanup which we've been directed to 12 distribute across the sources that create goods movement 13 emissions and across the four major corridors that are 14 impacted by goods movement by the San Joaquin Valley, San 15 Diego, South Coast, and the Bay Area. 16 And so we don't think there is a full billion to 17 commit in the twin ports proposals on the order of two 18 billion the way they've conceived it. We're happy to 19 support them if they come up with the money. But we're 20 not willing to commit 100 percent of the $1 million the 21 voters for us to combat goods movement pollution. 22 We also think when the legislation finally passes 23 telling you how to spend the money, you will not be 24 authorized to give 100 percent to South Coast. It will be 25 distributed graphically in some fashion. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 147 1 So that is it. 2 And back to the punch line, we would like to work 3 collaboratively with the South Coast on a large incentive 4 program. It's the approach the San Joaquin Valley is 5 taking to accelerate attainment. We need billions more in 6 the South Coast to accelerate attainment. We don't think 7 this weight can be borne in the specific regulations that 8 we're bringing to you for adoption. 9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Henry, do you want to 10 respond? 11 MR. HOGO: Thank you. I would if I may. 12 Our proposal is a mix of regulatory activities 13 that we need the State to do, because this sets the tone 14 for what manufacturers can do in the future. And 15 manufacturers today, when we visit with them, they see 16 meeting the standards that are set today. They don't see 17 a business case for moving beyond that because of the cost 18 of the added control. 19 We need a balance between regulatory activities, 20 sending a signal that we need the cleaner technologies 21 sooner. And we're seeing that right now in the off-road 22 construction rulemaking because of the need for verified 23 control devices. They're not current because there's no 24 demand for them. So it has to be a mix of both in order 25 to achieve the reductions that we need. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 148 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Supervisor Hill. 2 SUPERVISOR HILL: I'd like to follow up, because 3 you didn't specifically answer the concerns that were 4 raised regarding those additional measures that were 5 outlined by Ms. Witherspoon. You spoke to we need to work 6 together and we need balance and all that. But 7 specifically there were issues that you suggested that she 8 indicated are not possible at this point in time by this 9 Board. 10 MR. HOGO: Let me go back to the on-road 11 heavy-duty vehicles. That number of 24.7 is an estimate 12 based on your staff's analysis of the regulatory concept 13 that was put out in April which calls for the heavy-duty 14 vehicle fleets to be meeting a 2004 standard by 2014. 15 In your staff's analysis, the full reduction is 16 about 61 tons per day. And in your staff's proposal, 17 there are 47 tons per day of targeted reduction from the 18 source category. 19 It is our understanding when this proposal came 20 out, that about eleven tons of it was due to controlling 21 excess emissions. Those eleven tons were presented to the 22 public back in October and November of last year. So we 23 assume that for fleet modernization, 36 tons are going to 24 be targeted in the State Strategy. So 36 from 61 is 24, 25 25 tons that we're talking about. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 149 1 Relative to port trucks, your staff has already 2 proposed a regulatory concept. And we model that concept 3 through the EMFAC model and found you get about 4.9 tons 4 per day of reduction. 5 So we're not talking about the port plan. We're 6 not talking about funding. We're just talking about the 7 regulatory proposals that have come out. And with those 8 regulatory proposals, you can achieve more reductions than 9 what the SIP is actually targeting at this point. 10 Let me ask, if I may, add about the locomotives. 11 We have been working with your staff very closely at 12 looking at ways of introducing the cleanest locomotives 13 possible. And through working with them, we have actually 14 received proposals that can bring Tier 4, the cleanest 15 level of locomotives, into California by 2010. And these 16 proposals are actually coming from locomotive 17 manufacturers, and the railroad industry has been involved 18 in the discussion also. 19 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Mr. Cackette. 20 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Yeah. 21 I didn't hear the off-road diesel equipment 13 tons 22 identified. It sort of implies ARB agree with that. But 23 the number that we have found is 10-point-some-tons, which 24 we presented to you in May. And there was nothing that's 25 made that double from our viewpoint. And the only way to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 150 1 make it double or come up with this kind of tons is to 2 double the fleet turnover in the early years, which we 3 talked about earlier this morning and the associated 4 billion dollar cost of doing that on a statewide basis. 5 And so I'm not sure where that one comes from. 6 The on-road truck item we did present what we 7 call the preliminary analysis of the on-road trucks. Once 8 we took it from being a concept to an actual pre-proposal, 9 and it did get more emission reductions than what was in 10 the SIP. We also went back and looked at other elements 11 of that heavy duty and sort of did a re-evaluation on it. 12 And I think there was overstating the potential emission 13 reduction. 14 What came out of that re-analysis was 14 tons, 15 which is what we think the additional emission reduction 16 we can get, either out of this category -- and we'll get 17 it on a whole. We get it from all of the different 18 categories. 19 But the 13 doesn't jive with anything that we 20 currently believe we can get from heavy-duty -- or from 21 the off-road rule an additional 13. 22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Kennard. 23 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Thank you, Chairman 24 Sawyer. 25 I'm very sympathetic and understand that our PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 151 1 staff is trying to set forward a plan that is realistic 2 and achievable and whereby the metrics and the methodology 3 are doable within the time frame. 4 But I want did make sure I understand that in 5 particular the big items here are -- the rub here is 6 related to timing of the technology, and in the case of 7 the locomotives and funding relative to the diesel, et 8 cetera. 9 So the question is really a legal question. And 10 that is if this Board should want to stretch goals and 11 raise the expectations, what would be the legal 12 ramifications of having a SIP that is not all of the -- 13 whereby today we don't know if it's fully achievable? 14 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: If -- I'm going 15 to take them one at a time. 16 If you change the assumption about the 17 construction rule, the Board is in active rulemaking and 18 the staff would have to pull the proposal, change the 19 language, make it twice as stringent, bring the new costs 20 back to you, and have you hear a different regulation than 21 is pending before you. 22 If you change the truck assumption, the same 23 would hold true for what we're already in workshop on. 24 These aren't future pending questions at some later date. 25 We are in active rulemaking right now. The actual tons PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 152 1 and the actual costs are an eye blink away. 2 On locomotives, it would become clear when EPA 3 promulgates its final regulation whether or not it was 4 conceivable to get eleven tons from Tier 4 technology. 5 The fact that companies are bidding to build prototype 6 locomotives is a far cry from OEM products that can be 7 purchased and replace the entire fleet in the basin. So 8 we would be short immediately. The litigation could ensue 9 whenever it was clear we were short and had no pathway to 10 close that gap. 11 We would scramble for any other place NOx could 12 be had. If litigation were to be brought again the Board 13 and if we could not find it, then a judge would decide 14 with pleadings from the parties what is to be done about 15 the shortfall. 16 CHIEF COUNSEL JENNINGS: If we make a legal 17 commitment and can't keep it, we'd be subject to a citizen 18 suit. And at that point, the judge would essentially take 19 over the air quality program. They would order us to get 20 the tons on a schedule that the court would set, and there 21 wouldn't be any debate about it. We can go to the court 22 and say, "Well, this just isn't technologically feasible. 23 There's no way to get the tons. We looked at everything." 24 And under the Clean Air Act, the judge wouldn't be able to 25 take that into account. The judge would say, "Get the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 153 1 tons. I don't care how you do it, or you're in contempt 2 of court." 3 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Just so I'm clear and 4 understand it, the potential plaintiffs in the scenario 5 are the very people that are asking us likely to stretch 6 the goals and expectations today; is that correct? 7 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: That's correct. 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. D'Adamo. 9 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Kind of in follow up to 10 that, just wondering if there's some -- we've said in this 11 plan that we're being innovative. So just wondering along 12 the lines of enforceability if there's some way that we 13 could push things further and be in control of our own 14 destiny and not ultimately have this within the courts. 15 Some way to push this further, a contingency plan or some 16 other way to hold our feet to the fire. 17 I remember earlier Mr. Cackette referring to ZEV 18 and some of the other items that are before us. I would 19 like to as a Board member maybe direct staff to be 20 aggressive in those areas and not just kind of thrust it 21 through the regular planning process. And is there a way 22 that we can do that in between the SIP and just future 23 rulemaking that's not included in the ZIP? 24 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yes, Ms. D'Adamo, 25 there is. And that's exactly the approach you took in San PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 154 1 Joaquin Valley last week, which is no matter how our legal 2 commitments are set forth in this document and the extent 3 to which we rely on the black box, the Board can instruct 4 staff to do everything in its power to beat the SIP, to 5 specify the black box measures sooner rather than later. 6 We are obligated legally to identity them within three 7 years of attainment. So you can do 20, but you can 8 instruct us to give as much substance to them as we can in 9 each triennial planning cycle. And we would be more than 10 happy to do that. 11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. Thank you. 12 Next we will have Jim Stewart, Paul Wuebben, and 13 Rick McVaigh. 14 MR. STEWART: I'm Jim Stewart, the Chair of the 15 Global Warming and Air Quality Committee for the Angeles 16 Chapter of the Sierra Club representing the 50,000 members 17 in L.A. and Orange Counties. 18 I guess it's time to have a little passion here. 19 We've been having some bureaucratic exchanges here. But 20 we're concerned. All the people of California are 21 concerned. In fact, all the people of the world are 22 concerned. Yesterday, six-and-a-half billion people 23 looked to you, you Board members, for leadership on global 24 warming. And six of you decided not to be leaders. 25 We are really concerned about your morale, your PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 155 1 ethical, and your compassion. Six-and-a-half billion 2 people are suffering from the current and future effects 3 of global warming, and you ignored them. 4 Three of you stood up. We appreciate that. It's 5 time for the rest, the other six of you, to begin to feel 6 some compassion. 7 We hope that you are going to change your heart 8 from yesterday and begin to look at this with the passion 9 that's needed, the issue. For example, you, this staff, 10 has proposed to you that we bump up the attainment status 11 so we get another four or five years before we have to 12 reach attainment. And your staff has told you how much 13 that will kill people. There's 5400 people that die each 14 year. You delay it another four years, that's another 15 22,000 people whose deaths you are responsible for. 16 Calling upon you nine Board members to say no. 17 No more deaths. This is the time when you can take the 18 responsibility and tell those bureaucrats to come back 19 with a new plan. 20 We in South Coast know what your black box means. 21 It means 22,000 coffins lowered into graves. It's time 22 for you to take action. Thank you. 23 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Dr. Sawyer, 24 there's a crucial fact we neglected to cover in the staff 25 presentation, and it's directly responsive to this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 156 1 witnesses' testimony. 2 The 5400 premature deaths per year estimated by 3 our medical studies is the current rate by the attainment 4 of the federal particulate standard in 2014, that will be 5 reduced by 70 percent. And as we press on and achieve the 6 State particulate standard, which is the metric for 7 measuring those excess mortalities, we will have 8 eliminated them. It's already lower than 5400, and we're 9 working steadily downward. 10 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 11 Mr. Wuebben. 12 MR. WUEBBEN: Good morning, Chairman Sawyer, 13 members of the Board. I'm Paul Wuebben, Clean Fuels 14 Officer at the Coast Air Quality Management District. 15 I'm here this morning to address the urgent need 16 for an ultra-low 10 PPM sulfur gasoline, recognizing that 17 this has direct relevance both to your SIP actions today 18 as well as the early action measures addressed yesterday 19 regarding greenhouse gases. 20 There were three fundamental reservations that 21 were made by your staff the last week on this question and 22 referred again this morning reaction to that, our 23 proposal. 24 One was the lack of incremental benefits to the 25 need for refinery flexibility. And their third major PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 157 1 concern is supply and cost risk of low-sulfur gasoline. 2 Let me take each of those separately. 3 Your staff is suggesting essentially that there 4 are no emission reduction benefits whatsoever from 5 changing the sulfur cap. Yet, they base that on a belief 6 that the average sulfur level in gasoline is expected to 7 decline to five parts per million. The operative words in 8 this regard are average and expectation. An average does 9 not mean that every blend, every batch, and every gallon 10 are going to meet that 10 PPM standard. Expediting an 11 outcome -- or expecting an outcome is very different from 12 the certainty of a requirement. 13 We agree that the large majority of sulfur 14 gasoline will below, very low, in fact. But what about 15 the entire distribution of the gasoline pool? That's what 16 we're really concerned about. We want to make sure that 17 every gallon meet that standard. That's especially 18 important for environmental justices areas that are 19 especially challenged by exposures. 20 California did not ask that the average led 21 content or the average MTBE content in gasoline be 22 established. They required those standards apply to every 23 single gallon. Based on our experience with permitting 60 24 percent of the state's refinery capacity, we know the 25 refineries have many options. Several options in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 158 1 particulate to reduce low sulfur. So you really can't 2 have it both ways. It's logically inconsistent to claim 3 no additional sulfur can be achieved and at the same time 4 assert there is some concerns about flexibility. 5 So let me turn now to this question about 6 flexibility. We know, for example, that sulfur levels in 7 gasoline contribute to PM sulfate. In fact, we know that 8 in certain portion of our air basin in Los Angeles, for 9 example, downtown Los Angeles, secondary sulfate formation 10 has been found to contribute 23 percent of the PM2.5 11 concentration. So there's a very important need to 12 address this. 13 As far as refinery flexibility, we've also done 14 surveys specifically of our own refiners and our basin and 15 found there is already nearly 3,000 long tons of sulfur 16 reduction capacity in place in terms of their SRPs, their 17 sulfur reduction plans, among the refiners aggregately. 18 We know there's a margin of 10 to 40 percent within some 19 of those refiners. 20 The last thing I want to do is just refer to a 21 slide I had in this presentation. And it has to do with 22 important results that Mike Walsh, McCarther fellow, has 23 done in reporting on behalf of the ICCT. As you know, Dr. 24 Lloyd is the Chairman of the group. Mr. Walsh's data 25 indicates clearly the cost for gasoline sulfur reduction PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 159 1 are far cheaper than diesel gasoline or diesel sulfur 2 reduction. And you can see that relative to the American 3 refiners, European, and Asian refiners. 4 This data is very relevant for two reasons. We 5 have the most sophisticated refineries in the nation. And 6 also we need to set a level that's at least as stringent 7 as a diesel fuel. 8 Why should gasoline sulfur levels be allowed to 9 be any higher than diesel? And the answer to that is they 10 should not be allowed to be higher than diesel. 11 So at the end of the day, refiners we believe 12 will not seek to minimize the sulfur content. The 13 evidence you heard yesterday on the effects of ozone on 14 asthma certainly reinforce in the strongest way the need 15 to take every opportunity to control sulfur. Leaving the 16 last portion of sulfur on the table at the discretion of 17 the refiners is essentially telling children that they can 18 wait. We don't think they can wait. 19 So in light of all of these facts, we think it's 20 urgent that the Board reconsider during the 15-day period 21 that's now open the adoption of a stricter sulfur cap. In 22 other words, I think we can conclude by saying that your 23 job has only been 90 percent complete. You've gotten a 24 B+. We need an A+. We need your best and fastest fast 25 ball. Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 160 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 2 Do we know what the difference between a 20 PPM 3 and 10 PPM cap would be in terms of tons of SOx? 4 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: The cap 5 doesn't effect our estimate of the tons of SOx. The thing 6 that effects our estimate over the year of the tons of SOx 7 is the overall formula. And we don't believe that the 8 average sulfur level will change whether the cap was set 9 at 10 or at 20. Because in order to make blends that beat 10 the overall performance, sulfur will have to be well below 11 ten. 12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: So the proposal would 13 accomplish nothing? 14 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: That's 15 correct, except it would minimize flexibility. But our 16 analysis that is the proposal if we just reset the cap and 17 continue the current other parameters in the way we 18 regulate gasoline would accomplish no emission reductions, 19 and we'd lose flexibility and the ability at times to get 20 imports. That's why we didn't propose it. I would have 21 not left emission reductions we would have otherwise had 22 on the table. 23 MR. WUEBBEN: If I might just quickly respond. 24 We have a fundamental disagreement here. And we have a 25 high regard for the technical credibility of staff. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 161 1 But I do say that there is a direct disagreement 2 on the point that an expectation is different than 3 certainty. There's no question about that. In believing 4 that the average level will be five, because the average 5 today is ten is not the same as setting a limit for every 6 single gallon of fuel. We've done that with respect to 7 diesel fuel. We did it with respect to led. We did it 8 respect to MTBE. Every gallon was treated the same. 9 Within the flexibility of the predicted model, 10 within the flexibility of the refinery, which are the most 11 sophisticated technological instruments ever created in 12 the industrial economy for the United States I think you 13 could say. These are the most sophisticated refineries 14 frankly in the entire world. Their sulfur reduction 15 capacity already exists. Several of them already have 16 excess sulfur reduction capacity. That means they are not 17 using the existing sulfur capacity they have. That means 18 they've got sulfur reductions left on the table. 19 And yes, there is a minor flexibility. And 20 that's where we do agree that there is a small 21 flexibility. But there is just really a direct 22 inconsistency between saying there is absolutely no 23 benefit and then also worrying about the minor cost and 24 flexibility implications of a little bit of risk exposure 25 to not being able to get imported gasoline. Because as PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 162 1 you probably know, California right now does not have 2 sufficient refining capacity to handle the entire demand 3 for gasoline product. We do import gasoline product. So 4 it's in that exposure of imports. But because Japan and 5 the UE have already pursued the low-sulfur, ultra low, 6 proposed by the international fuel charter that the world 7 is moving in that direction. 8 Essentially, what you did last week was to catch 9 up to the events of the marketplace as they exist today. 10 Since 2003, the standard level of -- the maximum level of 11 sulfur has been below the 20 PPM level. I think those are 12 a lot of reasons I think just go to the point we just 13 fundamentally disagree. 14 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you, Paul. 15 Mr. McVaigh, and then Angela Jensvold, Grace Jun, 16 and Frank Caponi. 17 MR. MC VAIGH: Thank you. I'm Rick McVaigh, the 18 Deputy Air Pollution Control Officer with the San Joaquin 19 Valley Air Pollution Control District. 20 The San Joaquin Valley, as you know, covers about 21 25,000 square miles with about three-and-a-half million 22 residents in central California. It's also the main 23 north/south goods movement through California. 24 Over the past 15 years, we've made significant 25 progress in improving air quality in central California. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 163 1 And part of that's been due to over 500 stringent rule and 2 rule amendments adopted by a District Board, but also 3 attributable to the mobile source standards that your 4 Board has put in place. 5 In spite of these tough rules and standards 6 because of our methodology and topography in the San 7 Joaquin Valley, we face great air quality challenges. Our 8 modeling shows we also need another 75 percent reduction 9 in NOx to comply with the eight-hour health-based ozone 10 standard. 11 To address this challenge, back on April 30th, 12 our governing board adopted the most aggressive ozone plan 13 ever prepared. It includes new control measures on the 14 supplement, many of which are already the most stringent 15 control measures for industrial sources in the nation and 16 also includes what you call our fast track with innovative 17 proposals and incentive measures aimed at expediting 18 attainment. 19 One of the critical components of the San Joaquin 20 Valley Plan is the mobile source control measures that 21 were proposed by the State Board staff that are here 22 before you today. And there are critical for the same 23 reason they are in South Coast, because 80 percent of the 24 NOx in the San Joaquin Valley also comes from the mobile 25 sources of air pollution. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 164 1 In the San Joaquin Valley, our science from the 2 multi-million dollar central California ozone study shows 3 its NOx reductions we also need both meet the ozone 4 standard and the particulate matter standards. 5 The ARB staff proposal that you're considering 6 will provide about 76 tons a day more of NOx reductions in 7 the San Joaquin Valley by 2014. About 61 tons a day of 8 these come from heavy-duty trucks, which is our largest 9 source of NOx emissions in the San Joaquin Valley. Those 10 reductions are essential to our effort. And of course, we 11 support them. 12 Today, we're also hearing calls for even more 13 stringent mobile source controls. And if you see me 14 nodding my head, it's because we agree 10 percent. We do 15 need to develop more stringent mobiles source controls 16 here in California. 17 But for us, the timing of this SIP submittal is 18 critical. Besides the legal requirement and the potential 19 for lawsuits and sanctions, we also have a serious 20 transportation conformity problem in the San Joaquin 21 Valley. Due to changes in the state inventory, our 22 transportation budgets are no longer adequate. Our county 23 organizations of government tell us that we need a finding 24 of adequacy on our plan in order to be able to make use of 25 the billions of dollars of voter-approved bond funding PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 165 1 next fall. And we need that by this August. Delaying our 2 submittal could have devastating impacts in the San 3 Joaquin Valley. 4 Therefore, in conclusion, I would like to say we 5 recommend that you adopt the proposed State Strategy 6 today, forward it to EPA in a timely manner along with the 7 San Joaquin Valley proposal. 8 We ask also that you re-affirm your June 14th 9 commitment that you made in Fresno to a parallel path 10 where you directed the staff to leave no stone unturned 11 looking for more ways to reduce mobile source emissions 12 beginning immediately and further strengthen the SIP. 13 Thank you. 14 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 15 Ms. Jensvold and Ms. Jun. 16 Ms. Jensvold. 17 MS. JENSVOLD: My name is Angela Jensvold. I'm a 18 teacher here, and I'm here with several of my students who 19 cared enough on their summer vacation to come to LAX and 20 testify for clean air. We're going to be speaking on 21 behalf of all them. 22 I just got back from Fort Collins, Colorado 23 grading the AP physics test. And every time we had a 24 break, I would go out onto balcony, and there was a 25 beautiful view of the Rockies against a backdrop of this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 166 1 deep blue sky. And I couldn't stop talking about it. And 2 all the teachers from Kansas and Nebraska couldn't 3 understand why I wouldn't shut up, because they take these 4 things for granted. 5 I don't, because I live in Pasadena. And when I 6 go home from work, I take the 605 north. And I can't 7 see -- many days I can't see the San Gabriel mountains, 8 which are a lot closer than the Rockies were to me in 9 Colorado. 10 And then when we were flying back, as our plane 11 was descending to go to Burbank airport, you can tell the 12 people who don't live in Los Angeles, because there was a 13 lot of murmuring and, "Oh, is that the smog?" And as you 14 descend, you have to go through this layer of 15 brownish-grayish air. 16 And I just think that's really sad that that's 17 the first impression of our city we're giving to visitors. 18 And it just can't be good for tourism. I know that it 19 effects our economy, because one of my students was taken 20 in an ambulance out of school last year for a severe 21 asthma attack. And both of her parents missed work. So 22 I'm sure you're familiar with the environmental impacts. 23 And I'm just urging you today, you have a big 24 responsibility. And I'd like you to take into 25 consideration the AQMD's Air Quality Management Plan. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 167 1 Make it as strict air quality regulation as you can. 2 This is Grace. 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 4 MS. JUN: My name is Grace Jun, and I'm a student 5 at Diamond Bar as well as a member of the Environmental 6 Club. 7 I'm here today to ask you to consider 8 incorporating the AQMP promptly into the SIP to help 9 regulate mobile source emissions which contributes up to 10 80 percent of air pollution. 11 I want to address the fallacy that improving the 12 environment is bad for the economy. Air pollution hurts 13 California's economy. Not only is it aesthetically 14 unpleasing and incredibly harmful, it takes away money 15 from counties that need it the most. The Institute for 16 Economics and Environmental Studies at CSU Fullerton 17 reported that smog in San Joaquin Valley is responsible 18 for $3.2 billion in health costs annually. These costs 19 can be saved by compliance with federal and State ozone 20 particulate standards. But in order to achieve that, we 21 must have more stringent regulations which can be achieved 22 by adopting the AQMP. 23 California suffers tremendously from the economic 24 impacts of air pollution through 9,000 hospitalizations, 25 from asthma, and is usually the number one reason for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 168 1 absenteeism in elementary schools. Air pollution costs 2 California billions of dollars a year in health care 3 expenses and lost productivity. This needs to be changed. 4 By adopting this plan, the AQMP should be the 5 first step into ridding air pollution by regulating mobile 6 sources. Please improve the quality of life for all of us 7 by incorporating the AQMP into the SIP as quickly as 8 possible. Thank you for your time. 9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 10 I'd like to express the appreciation of the Board 11 for teachers and students who come to address us 12 Mr. Caponi, and then Allan Lind, Mike Eaves, and 13 Eric Walts. 14 MR. CAPONI: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and 15 members of the Board. My name is Frank Caponi, 16 representing L.A. County Sanitation Districts. We're 17 responsible for managing half the solid waste generated in 18 the county and treating waste water for about 72 cities 19 also within the country. 20 As one of the most active permittes in the basin, 21 we have always strived to be a partner with the South 22 Coast AQMD to address challenging air quality issues. The 23 Air Resources Board has also been a vital partner with the 24 South Coast AQMP and industry over the years to achieve 25 remarkable improvements in air quality. I think the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 169 1 excellent presentation by staff earlier demonstrated a lot 2 of that. But despite all the success, we need to work to 3 achieve new and more health protective air quality 4 standards. 5 Before you today is a plan to achieve that. We 6 call on you once again to be partners with the South Coast 7 AQMP and industry to make the tough choices, recognizing 8 the unique challenges facing the basin and the 9 disproportionate share of the PM10 problems that exist 10 here that Mayor Pulido had alluded to earlier. 11 The South Coast AQMD lays out modifications to 12 achieve much needed NOx reductions that can be achieved 13 and strengthened by a mobile source emission reductions in 14 the State plan. We strongly urge the Board to consider 15 these. 16 Back in May, I testified on the off-road rule. 17 And in that testimony, I talked about how we have 18 disagreements between the South Coast and the ARB. And we 19 don't need split decisions. We need a consensus on where 20 we're going, what path we're taking. That's only fair to 21 industry to get that direction. 22 I'm sending the same message here today is that 23 we don't need discussion. We do need consensus. We need 24 firm direction. If the Board is not willing to support 25 these measures today, then I strongly urge this Board the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 170 1 delay the plan until such time that you can hear the AQMP. 2 And I understand you have time constraints and one that 3 can happen. But I urge you to try to clear your calendar 4 and try to bring that AQMP up earlier. Sooner rather than 5 later. Perhaps July. 6 There's so much at stake here if the road to 7 achieving air quality standard falls short. Not only the 8 health to the public, the potential federal sanctions, or 9 the greater impact of the basins on already very heavily 10 impacts stationary sources. 11 But what's really at stake here is the contiguous 12 partnership that has worked so well between the South 13 Coast AQMD, ARB, and industry. Thank you. 14 Mr. Lind. 15 MR. LIND: Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of 16 the Board. My name is Allan Lind. And I'm here on behalf 17 of the California Council for Environmental and Economic 18 Balance. 19 And as you know, many of our members have done 20 extraordinary efforts to help clean the air in California 21 while enhancing the economic vitality of the state. And 22 CCEEB as an organization has worked with your Board and 23 with the South Coast Air District to provide the tools 24 needed to achieve cleaner air and in a responsible 25 environmentally and economically balanced manner. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 171 1 CCEEB wishes to make four points today. And the 2 first point is frankly I think you've heard it said 3 several times earlier, kind of the imparity that the Board 4 and the largest air district in the state of California 5 find better ways to work together. Someone used the 6 analogy of a hockey puck the industry at times is getting 7 batted around between the decisions made by the Board and 8 the State Board and the local district. And we really 9 feel it's time for the two to pull together rather than 10 pull apart. 11 The second point that we want to make is that 12 CCEEB does agree in principle to the notion of an early 13 adoption of the PM2.5 SIP for the South Coast air basin. 14 We're not taking a position with respect to the tons or 15 measures that would be accounted for. But it's imperative 16 that these two plans move in lock step together in a 17 coordinated fashion and that the two Boards and their 18 staffs have the capacity to come together and make this 19 coordinated plan work. Because the uncertainty it creates 20 without having that coordinated plan just simply puts the 21 regulated communities and frankly the public at large in a 22 disadvantaged position of not fully understanding what 23 future lies before them and when that would be attained. 24 The third point we wanted to mention was that the 25 strategy we'd like to see you make an affirmative PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 172 1 statement about the importance of flexibility within the 2 State Strategy. I want to give you an example of a 3 problem we have right now with one of our members who's 4 having difficulty complying with the plan without an 5 extraordinarily expensive replacement and disposal of 6 useful equipment. 7 And fourth, we wanted to bring to your attention 8 the number of financial incentive programs that exist in 9 the state of California today. They have been developed 10 at different times and for different purposes, and there's 11 a certain lack of coordination that we now see that we 12 think needs to be harmonized and the Board is in a unique 13 position to begin that process. 14 I see my blinking light is going, so I'm going to 15 cut to the chase. 16 I guess if I could just mention with respect to 17 the problems we had with one of our compliance measures. 18 We have a project where we have some very, very low use 19 back-up generators that are affected by the most recent 20 ATCM that you adopted for portable equipment. That 21 measure -- 22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Please conclude 23 MR. LIND: In conclusion, that measure is 24 penciled out to cost us about a million dollars a ton. 25 It's just not a practical solution. I would like to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 173 1 emphasize that we appreciate the effort of your staff, and 2 we've delivered the same messages to the South Coast Air 3 District. And we are an equal opportunity critic. And we 4 hope that two boards and the staff will be able to work 5 together better in the future. Thank you. 6 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 7 Mr. Eaves. 8 MR. EAVES: Yes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman 9 and Board members. My name is Mike Eaves. I'm the 10 President of the California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition. 11 The California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition 12 supports CARB in their efforts to find a path to clean 13 air. We have supported every stringent regulation that 14 CARB has come up with in the mobile source area. We 15 support an aggressive SIP for the state. But frankly, we 16 don't feel the SIP before you represents your best efforts 17 on behalf of the citizens of California. 18 We are disappointed that the additional control 19 measures proposed by the South Coast have been dismissed 20 so lightly by staff. We think that this hearing for the 21 SIP is premature considering that the formal review of the 22 South Coast Plan has yet to take place. 23 Also regarding the open process, it is 24 unfortunate that South Coast Air Quality Management 25 District isn't given the time to articulate their proposal PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 174 1 before this Board before you take deliberations on this 2 SIP. We believe that action on this SIP should be 3 deferred until more aggressive control measures such as 4 those proposed by South Coast are implemented into the 5 plan. 6 And we believe that the interest of Californians 7 will best be served by a more aggressive SIP than 8 currently exists today. Thank you. 9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 10 Mr. Walts, then Rex Laird, Mayor Martinez, and 11 Rick Tomlinson. 12 MR. WALTS: Good afternoon. I'm speaking for the 13 Department of Pesticide Regulation. 14 Regulation of field fumigation will get the 15 reductions for the pesticide measure in the SIP through 16 limiting allowable application methods and placing a cap 17 on overall emissions on an area wide basis, as Mr. 18 Karperos mentioned. I will specifically address the 19 proposed revision to the pesticide element in 1994 SIP for 20 Ventura in Appendix H. 21 DPR supports adoption of Appendix H and further 22 requests the amount of the substitution be increased to 23 1.9 tons per day. To begin with, I want to make clear 24 that regardless of what happens with the substitution, the 25 regulation will apply in Ventura. There will be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 175 1 application method restrictions and a cap in Ventura. 2 What's at stake is where that cap will be placed and how 3 many tons. 4 Without a revision, the existing SIP as enforced 5 by a federal district court will require DPR to implement 6 a Cap in Ventura that is bad environmental and bad 7 economic policy, and I think which is counter productive 8 to the goals of the Clean Air Act. 9 In 1994, DPR committed to reduce pesticide ROG 10 emissions in Ventura by 20 percent from 1990 levels. 11 However, over the past twelve years, crop patterns in 12 Ventura have changed dramatically from low-emission crops 13 to crops that require annual fumigation like strawberries 14 and peppers. The result is a sizable increase from 1990 15 levels. 16 In addition, our current inventory is based on 17 2004 data. And more recent data indicates that strawberry 18 acreage has gone up an additional 13 percent to date since 19 2004. That increases the needed for the substitution. 20 Most growers in Ventura have already adopted the 21 best available controls. However, even with a hundred 22 percent adoption, going forward with the caps as proposed 23 in our current regulations would prevent as many as 4,400 24 acres from being fumigated. Due to land values in 25 Ventura, the likely result is conversion of agricultural PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 176 1 land to other non-agricultural uses. 2 This change in land use would create an 3 unjustifiable environmental risk. The 1994 commitment was 4 made to help Ventura attain the one-hour ozone. Ventura 5 attained that standard in 2002 I believe and ROG emissions 6 continue to decline. 7 Now although the issue is smog formation, I want 8 to point out that the substitution will not effect 9 protections in place for air toxic. In California, 10 fumigants are used under permit, and its permits have 11 restrictions to protect workers and communities from 12 exposure to air toxin risks. 13 Given the widespread adoption of best available 14 controls and the environmental risks of forcing rapid land 15 use change, the substitution is good and smart 16 environmental and public policy. Thank you. 17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 18 Mr. Laird. 19 MR. LAIRD: Dr. Sawyer, members of the Board, Rex 20 Laird, Ventura County Farm Bureau. Appreciate the 21 opportunity to appear before you this afternoon. It's my 22 privilege to read into the record a letter from the most 23 senior member of our Board of Supervisors and also the 24 Board member who has a significant amount of strawberry 25 acreage in close proximity within the district. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 177 1 "Dear Dr. Sawyer, I'm writing to support the ARB 2 staff recommendation in Appendix H to amend the 1994 SIP 3 and transfer a surplus of VOC emission credits to the 4 pesticide element. 5 "I've been advised that the Department of 6 Pesticide Regulation has proposed a regulation to reduce 7 VOCs for the one-hour ozone standard under the old 1994 8 SIP. I understand that this regulation may force as many 9 as 10,000 acres in Ventura County to stop conventional 10 farming practices and put them into risk of closing 11 operations. 12 According to the DPR press release, this may 13 result in an $80 million impact on our local economy. In 14 Ventura, we've achieved the one-hour ozone level in 2002. 15 Moreover, our farmers have indicated they have already 16 adopted the low-emission methods best available control 17 technology, or BACT, and that they support full adoption 18 of BACT. 19 "However, I've been informed even with all full 20 adoption of the BACT that DPR regulation would forbid the 21 use of conventional production practices even though those 22 practices are used throughout the state on thousands of 23 acres in Ventura county. Our growers have adopted BACT, 24 and I do not believe they should be further penalized for 25 already adopting the lowest emission methods, specifically PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 178 1 since they achieved the one-hour ozone standard in 2002. 2 I support Appendix H and the transfer of up to 1.3 TPD 3 surplus emission credits from the motor vehicle program to 4 the pesticide element. 5 "Sincerely, John K. Flynn, Member, Ventura County 6 Board of Supervisors." 7 Thank you. 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 9 Mayor Martinez. 10 MAYOR MARTINEZ: Good afternoon, Dr. Sawyer and 11 members of the Board. Thank you very much for allowing me 12 to speak today. 13 I'm here to read a letter on behalf of State 14 Senator Gil Cedillo that is also signed by 16 other State 15 legislators in the state of California. 16 "We urge CARB to further enhance the proposed 17 State Mobile Source Control Strategy to ensure that 18 expeditious progress is being made and the federal 19 deadlines for attainment of clear air standards will be 20 met. 21 "We are also concerned that CARB has decided to 22 delay the adoption of the South Coast AQMD Air Quality 23 Management Plan until October of 2007 but will consider 24 approval of its mobile source strategy in California 25 today. This means that the State Agency will essentially PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 179 1 decide the fate of millions of southern Californians 2 without dealing with the urgency of the local air quality 3 needs, which will delay addressing the existing health 4 crisis and may place additional burdens on local industry 5 and commercial businesses. 6 "As a representatives of the impacted areas, we 7 implore the California Air Resources Board to strengthen 8 their State Strategy and commit to additional emissions 9 reductions from mobile sources and needed for meeting the 10 clean standards with the adequate margins of safety." 11 I've submitted this letter on behalf of State 12 Senator Gil Cedillo which is signed by 16 State 13 Legislators, and you have it. I submitted it for record. 14 Also I'm here to speak to you as Executive 15 Director of Pacoima Beautiful. It's an environmental 16 health organization in the northeast San Fernando Valley. 17 We also ask that the Board act today to strengthen the 18 State's Strategy and commit to additional reductions. 19 Pacoima is a community with increasing asthma rates, even 20 increasing number of diesel trucks and older gross 21 polluting vehicles. As a community-based agency, we 22 commit to partnering with you to do all we can do to help 23 meet these regulations. 24 Thank you very much for allowing me to speak to 25 you today. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 180 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 2 Mr. Tomlinson, and following Mr. Tomlinson, we'll 3 have Rebecca Overmyer-Velazquez, Douglas Fratz, and Joseph 4 Yost. And following Mr. Yost, we will take a break for 5 lunch, approximately one half hour. And then we will 6 resume in half hour, probably about 1:30, 1:40. 7 MR. TOMLINSON: Thank you, Dr. Sawyer, members of 8 the Board. Rick Tomlinson with the California Strawberry 9 Commission. 10 You heard that Ventura is in compliance with the 11 one-hour ozone standard. And the Appendix H would 12 effectively allow us the time necessary to continue our 13 research efforts for the next generation of best available 14 control technology. We've already adopted best available 15 control technology throughout the region. And by 16 supporting Appendix H, it will give us the time to 17 continue for the next generation, which we are a global 18 leader in developing that technology. So we are committed 19 to continued emission reduction. Thank you, and we 20 support appendix H. 21 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 22 Ms. Overmyer-Velazquez. 23 MS. OVERYMYER-VELAZQUEZ: It's Rebecca 24 Overmyer-Velazquez. Thank you. And I'm here to represent 25 the North Whittier Neighborhood Watch Avocado Heights PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 181 1 Coalition. 2 I want to just make sure that I clarify my 3 opposition to the SIP as it's currently written. Like 4 many of the folks who have spoken today, I think it 5 doesn't go nearly far enough. We are already paying a 6 huge cost. We talk about costs. The costs are being 7 paid, and they're being paid by our decreasing health. 8 I come from a neighborhood about 35,000 people in 9 southeast L.A. County, unincorporated L.A. County. We are 10 home to many AB 2588 hot spots. We are also home to the 11 Puente Hills Landfill, the nation's largest. And we have 12 three materials recoveries facilities. We are 13 chris-crossed by the 60 and 605 freeways. We have 14 warehouses where trucks come in and out all the time. We 15 have trains, many more trains every day. Moreover, so 16 we're impacted. Like many folks, many folks who are 17 impacted already. 18 And we see what's been going on and know it's 19 getting worse. And it will get worse, because we have a 20 new rail yard that's been proposed for our neighborhood 21 that the county sanitation district wants to put in as the 22 landfill closes, and trash will be shipped out by train. 23 And that rail yard, the only one that's been planned so 24 far, will be in our neighborhood. 25 We're very concerned about mobile sources, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 182 1 extremely concerned. This is an operation that will be in 2 place operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week with 3 truck and train traffic. So yes, we are impacted. 4 And we encourage you strongly, strongly to 5 implement -- take very seriously the South Coast Air 6 Quality Management Plan. We think that has very good 7 ideas for everybody. And I thank you very much for your 8 time. Thank you. 9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 10 Mr. Fratz 11 MR. YOST: Mr. Chairman, if we may switch the 12 order, my name is Joe Yost. If Mr. Fratz can follow me, 13 I'd appreciate it, sir. 14 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. That's fine. 15 MR. YOST: My name is Joe Yost. I represent the 16 Consumer Specialty Products Association, CSPA. We're a 17 national trade association comprised of 260 member 18 companies to make a variety of consumer and commercial 19 products. These products are subject to the ARB's very 20 stringent consumer products regulations. We submitted 21 detailed written comments which I'd like to briefly 22 summarize. 23 First, CSPA has a very long history of working 24 cooperatively with ARB staff to improve air quality in 25 California. For the past 18 years, the ARB has PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 183 1 promulgated seven comprehensive sets of regulations to 2 establish nearly 200 emissions standards affecting more 3 than 80 broad categories of consumer products. Since 4 1989, CSPA and the consumer products industry have worked 5 cooperatively with ARB staff to do our part in helping to 6 improve California's air quality through a reduction of 7 VOC content of our products while maintaining the 8 beneficial and efficacious nature. 9 The ARB's actions to date have produced 10 significant improvements in the State's air quality. 11 According to the draft SIP, and I quote, "without these 12 actions, VOC emissions from these products would be 13 roughly 60 percent greater in 2010." This is a remarkable 14 accomplishment. 15 To achieve these mandated reductions, the 16 consumer products industry has spent hundreds of millions 17 of dollars to reformulate its products to meet the ARB's 18 very stringent technology-forcing standards. These 19 efforts continue today as CSPA member companies work 20 towards complying with recently adopted VOC limits that 21 will take effect over the next several years. 22 Second, the proposed SIP measures present a very 23 significant challenge. CSPA supports ARB's goal to 24 provide healthy air quality for all California residents. 25 Let the record clearly reflect the fact that the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 184 1 proposed two rulemakings to achieve 30 to 40 tons 2 additional reduction in consumer products as contained in 3 the proposed SIP is a very ambitious goal for further 4 reductions by 2014. Seeking to meet those new reduction 5 goals will require ARB to re-regulate dozens of consumer 6 product categories that have already been regulated 7 sometimes two and three times since 1990. 8 It's important to recognize that these existing 9 limits were established to achieve the maximum feasible 10 reductions as required by state law. Thus, CSPA has 11 serious concerns that the ARB and industry will be able to 12 identify technologically and commercially feasible 13 additional reductions of 30 to 40 tons per day, since this 14 goal is twice the amount combined in the past two recent 15 rulemakings that took place in since the 2000 SIP 16 revision. 17 Although this is a very difficult challenge, CSPA 18 commits to work cooperatively with ARB to evaluate 19 potential for establishing VOC limits to achieve the 20 reductions necessary to meet this very ambitious SIP 21 commitment. 22 Thank you again for the opportunity to present 23 our concerns. Very much appreciate it. 24 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 25 Mr. Fratz. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 185 1 MR. FRATZ: Good afternoon. My name is Doug 2 Fratz, and I serve as Vice President of Scientific and 3 Technical Affairs for the Consumer Specialty Products 4 Association. As Mr. Yost noted, CSPA and the consumer 5 products industry are dedicated to assisting California in 6 meeting its clean air goals. 7 I've personally been involved in this cooperative 8 effort for 20 years. The written comments we filed urge 9 that the adoption and implementation of this and future 10 SIPs be based on sound science and also seek innovative 11 regulatory approaches. 12 I'd like to outline briefly a few of our other 13 key points in our comments. We're proposing two 14 activities to proceed parallel with the initial consumer 15 products rulemaking. The first is to develop much needed 16 corrections to the consumer product VOC emissions 17 inventory. We believe that the current inventory 18 significantly overestimates the VOC emissions from 19 consumer products that are actually available to 20 participate in the formation of ambient ozone. 21 The second initiative is to investigate potential 22 alternatives to further command and control regulations. 23 We believe that alternative programs can be developed that 24 more efficiently identify and implement continuing 25 reductions in VOC emissions and ozone impacts from our PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 186 1 product. 2 We've proposed a flexible program based on the 3 current alternative control plan regulation. CSMA also 4 strongly supports the NOx-driven ozone attainment strategy 5 that's being used for this SIP. We've been involved in 6 numerous air quality modeling studies over the past decade 7 that provide clear evidence that this strategy is the only 8 way to attain the very low ozone levels now known to be 9 required for clean air. 10 We also support ARB staff's proposed process for 11 allocating the black box of long term emission reductions 12 needed for attainment, especially in the South Coast. 13 Not all reductions are equal. Some have very 14 much higher impacts on ozone reductions. We have included 15 in our comments information, data from a study that shows 16 there is a big difference between VOC emissions. And also 17 we'll be reporting to you soon a study showing that some 18 categories such as ours are very low in ozone impact, 19 especially in 2023 in the South Coast. 20 With good science and innovative regulatory 21 strategies, we believe that California can attain and 22 maintain clean air throughout the state. CSPA, the 23 consumer products industry, looks forward to continuing to 24 play a role in that success and in cooperation with you 25 and your very talented professional staff. Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 187 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 2 At this time we will take a half-hour break for 3 lunch and then resume the testimony. 4 (Thereupon a lunch recess was taken.) 5 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: We will resume the 6 testimony. And the first three speakers will be Joseph 7 Lucero, Philip Huang, and Barbara Baird. 8 Mr. Lucero. 9 Mr. Huang. 10 Ms. Baird. 11 MS. BAIRD: Good afternoon, Chairman Sawyer and 12 members of the Board. Thank you for the opportunity to 13 address you. My name is Barbara Baird. I'm the Principal 14 Deputy District Counsel from the Legal Office in the South 15 Coast Air Quality Management District. 16 And I'd like to address the question that was 17 raised by Board Member Kennard regarding the legal 18 consequences of including more ambitious measures in the 19 plan. 20 First, I'd like to point out that there are also 21 legal consequences of submitting an inadequate plan. If 22 the plan does not fully demonstrate attainment, EPA may 23 not accept the plan. EPA may not accept your staff's 24 approach of saying that, well, the modeling is close 25 enough to demonstrate attainment. Even if EPA accepts PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 188 1 this, EPA often is and could be sued in this case. If the 2 plan is ultimately held inadequate, then the region will 3 be hit with federal sanctions. This amounts to the loss 4 of billions of transportation dollars as well as punitive 5 offset ratios for new and expanding businesses. 6 So there's a risk in going in your staff's 7 direction as well. 8 Second, I'd like to respond to Mr. Jenne's 9 statement that if the staff and the Board commit to 10 measures but can't deliver, you will likely be sued, the 11 judge will take over scheduling, and the judge won't be 12 able to consider infeasibility. 13 We've been careful to address this in our plan. 14 And I'd be happy to help your staff draft language 15 accordingly. On page 437 of our plan, relative to the 49 16 tons that are still in dispute, the plan states that if 17 not all of the tons turn out to be needed and your Board 18 finds that a measure is infeasible, you can reduce your 19 commitment accordingly. 20 Now, your staff is the one that has said that 21 they are very confident these tons will not be needed. 22 You'll recall Mr. Karperos showing the line of emission 23 reductions. If they really stand behind this position, 24 they should be willing to commit, knowing that they won't 25 have to ultimately deliver under the language we've PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 189 1 addressed. 2 If these tons do turn out to be necessary and 3 they aren't in the plan, you will be in legal trouble 4 anyway, because the plan will once again be inadequate and 5 sanctions will be imposed. We think your legal risks are 6 less by making the plan aggressive enough to clearly 7 demonstrate attainment, including the SCAQMD measures. 8 And I'd be happy to answer any questions that 9 Board members may have. 10 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 11 Mr. Carmichael, Mr. Campbell, and Ms. Suwol. 12 MR. CARMICHAEL: Good afternoon, members of the 13 Board. Tim Carmichael with the Coalition for Clean Air. 14 In summary, so many problems, so little time to 15 testify. 16 In 2003, Governor Schwarzenegger committed to 17 cutting air pollution in California in half by 2010. 18 Unfortunately, we're not on track to do that, in large 19 part because this agency hasn't delivered on commitments 20 it made in the 2003 SIP. That translates into significant 21 decreased confidence among the environmental advocates 22 that you are going to deliver on undefined portions of the 23 plan that's before you today. 24 The plan that's before you today is supposed to 25 guide the state's direction on reducing air pollution for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 190 1 the next 17 years. We're very concerned that it's 2 inadequate to do that. 3 It doesn't adequately protect public health. 4 It's not a real plan. A real plan is something that you 5 can pick up, do everything that it says in the document, 6 and feel confident that you'll achieve the goals. That is 7 not what you have before you. 8 It doesn't comply with the Clean Air Act. It's 9 not federally approvable. It doesn't -- and I'll give you 10 some examples of why it's not approvable. It doesn't 11 include all feasible measures. We and many others have 12 committed lists of additional measures and strengthening 13 of measures in the plan that speak to that point. And 14 other colleagues today will speak to specifics on 15 pesticides, on locomotives, on on-road trucks, on smog 16 check, on agricultural equipment, et cetera. It 17 over-relies on the black box. 18 Unfortunately, slide 60, which received some 19 questioning from the Board earlier, was misleading. The 20 fact is 40 to 60 percent of the additional needed 21 reductions, looking forward, 40 to 60 percent of the 22 additional needed reductions are in that black box. 23 They're not defined. And that's not acceptable. It's not 24 acceptable because it doesn't meet the standard of the 25 Clean Air Act, but it's also not acceptable because it's PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 191 1 not fair to those that are going to be regulated and it's 2 not fair to those that you're looking to develop the 3 technology to assist us in this effort. Clean Air Act 4 requires sufficient definition for those. 5 But the Clean Air Act aside, there's an 6 obligation that's been raised by several people about 7 ethics and morals and the need to protect public health. 8 And this plan does not meet that standard. 9 Some additional time to strengthen this plan is 10 both legal and appropriate. It is not acceptable for you 11 to move ahead with the plan before you because it's 12 inadequate. And my colleagues -- several of my colleagues 13 will make the point -- specific points throughout the 14 afternoon to bolster this. But the bottom line is you can 15 pull this plan back, take some additional time, give clear 16 direction to staff that you want a better plan and you 17 need a better plan, and have them deliver it. And you're 18 not putting anyone else at risk. 19 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Please conclude. 20 MR. CARMICHAEL: So, in conclusion, we urge you 21 to take that step and deliver a stronger plan for 22 California. 23 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 24 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Chairman Sawyer? 25 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Yes. Mr. Sperling. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 192 1 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: I have a question for 2 you. 3 You know, there was a discussion earlier and also 4 just before about litigation and -- you know, if the SIP 5 is not adequate. And I know you and your organization 6 have been involved in -- have brought these suits in the 7 past. 8 Can you just tell us a little -- comment on what 9 the earlier discussion -- 10 MR. CARMICHAEL: The Coalition for Clean Air with 11 a couple of other organizations has in fact sued this 12 agency a couple of times in the last decade over the SIP 13 for it not being adequate, it not being strong enough. 14 And I felt Barbara Baird did a good job of responding to 15 the concerns where I felt like the staff didn't give you a 16 full enough -- your staff didn't give you a full enough 17 answer. 18 But the two keys point are: One, that it's not 19 accurate to say -- it may be accurate that the judge has 20 the authority to take this plan away from you and identity 21 a timeline and the specific reductions that you're going 22 to -- that are going to be forced upon the State of 23 California. But in reality, in practice, in at least two 24 and I think three rounds of this that we've been involved 25 with as an organization, in practice what happened was the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 193 1 judge directed that the parties sit down and resolve this, 2 and gave us a firm timeline for those discussions. And 3 EPA, ARB, and the South Coast AQMD and the environmental 4 plaintiffs sat down and negotiated a timeline for 5 additional emission reductions and specific strategies to 6 achieve those. It was not forced on anybody. It was 7 driven by a court order, but it was not -- the result was 8 not taken or created by a judge who didn't know what he 9 was doing. And it was a he in this case. 10 The second point is, the far greater risk than 11 that scenario is the one that Barbara Baird highlighted; 12 that if you don't adopt an approvable plan, the risk for 13 the State of California is huge. That over time, federal 14 transportation funds, which recently have been as much as 15 four and a half million dollars a year, will be withheld 16 because we don't have an approved clean air plan. That's 17 the much greater risk than anything that could happen 18 through a suit from the Coalition for Clean Air or, 19 frankly, from an industry group. 20 Thank you for that. 21 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Professor 22 Sperling, just, you know, staff respective, we've been 23 sued multiple times over state implementation plans. The 24 only lawsuits we have lost is when we made an explicit 25 tonnage commitment that we were unable to fulfill. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 194 1 CHIEF COUNSEL JENNE: I might also clarify 2 something that -- we also believe the risks are 3 significantly greater from putting a commitment in a plan 4 that we don't think we can meet. If the U.S. EPA were to 5 disapprove our plan, what that does is start an 18-month 6 clock. And it is only at the end of the 18 months that 7 the sanctions get imposed. So we would have time to redo 8 an attainment demonstration and resubmit the plan. 9 Also, we talk with U.S. EPA before they make any 10 determination. And we would have many months or years of 11 indication from them about whether they would find our 12 attainment demonstration to be inadequate. And we would 13 have ample opportunity to work on a new one if they 14 believe that what we were doing was not adequate. 15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 16 MR. CARMICHAEL: I generally agree. But it's 17 worth noting that same 18-month clock would apply if you 18 decide -- if you were not able to submit a plan by August 19 12th, which is the current deadline from EPA. It would 20 trigger an 18-month clock to resolve that. 21 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 22 Ms. Kennard. 23 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Thank you, Dr. Sawyer. 24 First of all, my apologies to all of you. I am 25 going to have to leave this hearing. But I did want to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 195 1 share with you my views so far based on the testimony and 2 the staff reports. 3 First of all, I'd just like an overall comment 4 and, that is, that we are all here because we are 5 committed to clean air. And that's a fundamental goal 6 that we all are trying to achieve. 7 And I am, second of all, very respectful of our 8 staff's efforts to put together a SIP that is achievable 9 and rational. 10 I actually do take offense at the allegations 11 that somehow we're not -- and "we," I mean in a broad 12 sense -- staff and the Board are not acting ethically or 13 morally in our quest to do the right thing. 14 That being said, I do want to encourage my fellow 15 Board members to defer this decision on the state SIP 16 today, and to ask our respective staffs to go forward -- 17 (Applause.) 18 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: -- and try a little bit 19 harder. Dr. Sawyer and I were involved in several 20 meetings with South Coast, with many of their Board 21 members. And our staffs got together after that and did 22 make some progress and did find some more ways that we 23 could reach our mutual goals. 24 So I think that there's more to be done, and I'd 25 like to see us defer this so that some additional work can PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 196 1 be done over this next several months so that we could get 2 closer to our mutual goals. 3 Thank you, Dr. Sawyer. 4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much, Ms. 5 Kennard. 6 (Applause.) 7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Mr. Campbell. 8 MR. CAMPBELL: Dr. Sawyer, members of the Board. 9 My name is Todd Campbell. I stand before you today as a 10 representative of Clean Energy, a company dedicated to 11 providing California with a clean low-carbon alternative 12 to petroleum-based fuels. 13 We are very proud to fuel over 200 fleet 14 customers that based on a wheel-to-wheel analysis reduce 15 greenhouse gases by as much as 23 percent for heavy-duty 16 vehicles and up to 30 percent for passenger cars. 17 Clean Energy is also working very hard with 18 federal and state legislators and regulators to further 19 innovate natural gas vehicles so that they one day can 20 take advantage of plug-in hybrid electric platforms and 21 bio-gas, vehicles that could have the potential of 22 reducing greenhouse gases by as much as 200 percent. 23 Natural gas vehicles also provide strong air 24 quality co-benefits. The Honda Civic GX is rated with an 25 advanced partial zero-emission vehicle rating. And this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 197 1 year we expect our heavy-duty applications to meet 2010 2 emission standards for heavy-duty trucks. 3 Mobile source strategies that incorporate natural 4 gas vehicles are welcoming news for California communities 5 that are continuously impacted by air quality -- or air 6 pollution. Cost-effective technologies are available -- 7 critical mobile measures available. The question is: 8 Does this agency have the political will to achieve the 9 important health goals California set out to achieve when 10 it adopted its own Clean Air Act. 11 Will this agency adopt the innovative 12 technologies that are available to them today? 13 As Ms. Witherspoon said to the Board yesterday, 14 the two largest levers CARB has are cars and fuels. 15 Mobile sources are 90 percent responsible for the mobile 16 source air toxics pollution problem. Why is this agency 17 reluctant to further enhance then its proposed state 18 mobile source control strategies to further ensure the 19 federal deadline for attainment are met? 20 Clean Energy is very concerned that the staff 21 recommends that the Board approve the agency's mobile 22 source strategy for California but to delay the South 23 Coast Air Quality Management Plan. You are being asked to 24 essentially decide the fate of millions of southern 25 Californians without focusing on the urgency of local air PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 198 1 quality needs. And if this Board decides to adopt the 2 staff recommendation, it will delay addressing the 3 existing health crisis here in the South Coast and will 4 place a significant burden on southern California 5 industrial and commercial industries. 6 Having traveled with the Governor to Canada and 7 watching him in action, I know that he understands the air 8 pollution challenges that our great state faces. I also 9 know that he relies upon you, the Air Resources Board, to 10 make the right decisions, decisions that will carry on our 11 state's 35-year year tradition of leadership in minimizing 12 the amount of automobile pollution and striving for 13 cleaner air for our citizens. 14 This was a statement that he so eloquently wrote 15 to our President in April concerning global warming. 16 However, if this agency fails to make the tough choices, 17 and you decide to accept them -- 18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Would you please conclude. 19 MR. CAMPBELL: -- what kind of message will this 20 send to the nation? What kind of message does this send 21 to the national decision makers on global warming? And 22 does it tell the world that California talks tough but is 23 afraid to act tough when the time comes? 24 I strongly urge you to adopt more stringent 25 mobile source measures and also to include the Air Quality PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 199 1 Management Plan before you adopt this plan today. 2 Thank you. 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 4 Thank you. 5 (Applause.) 6 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Suwol. And then we'll 7 have Philip Huang, Larry Beeson, and Travis Lange. 8 MS. SUWOL: Good afternoon, honorable Chairman 9 and Board. Thank you very much, first of all, for your 10 respectful attention to all the speakers today, especially 11 the students and teacher who came. That was wonderful. 12 Years ago Mr. Cackette was nice enough to talk to my son 13 when he testified, and it left a really strong impact. 14 So thank you so much. 15 I'm the Executive Director and Founder of 16 California Safe Schools. We're a children's environmental 17 health organization that created policies -- pesticide 18 policies in California that have become national and 19 international models. 20 Children, as you know, they don't have votes, 21 they don't have lobbyists, they have no war chests, and 22 they depend upon adults to protect them. 23 Please, help by strengthening the plan today and 24 working with AQMD. Delays only further exacerbate the 25 non-attainment problems. And because we work on PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 200 1 pesticides, I'm specifically addressing Appendix H. 2 Appendix H fails to support the Governor's 3 commitment to improve the clean air for all Californians. 4 It manipulates a court-ordered obligation to adopt 5 pesticide regulations. It delays air quality cleanup. 6 And it allows Ventura growers to continue to emit VOCs 7 that are linked to serious health effects and contribute 8 to ozone depletion. And it causes a disproportionate 9 amount of toxins to be released to vulnerable communities 10 and schools, many of which are right next to these 11 strawberry fields. 12 I know that earlier someone -- one of the 13 speakers had said, you know, what's at stake here? This 14 should not be an issue between strawberries versus the 15 health of all Californians. And as we all know, the 16 organic field -- the organic farmers are successfully 17 using many techniques and growing strawberries and many 18 other crops that don't require using these VOC-emitting 19 toxins. 20 So, please, I ask you -- and by asking you to 21 strengthen this plan and give all Californians better 22 health by using your authority. 23 Thank you so much. 24 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 25 (Applause.) PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 201 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Mr. Huang? 2 MR. HUANG: Dr. Sawyer and members of the Board. 3 I'm here on behalf of Communities for a Better 4 Environment. We're an environmental justice organization 5 with offices in Oakland and Huntington Park. 6 Like many of you and all of your staff, I travel 7 between northern and southern California. And every time 8 I come here I'm aware of how much worse the air quality 9 is. When I am at the office in Huntington Park I can 10 smell the VOCs, which ironically southern California staff 11 have gotten used to. And they tell me, "What is it that 12 you're noticing." That's not right. At the very least, 13 you should make sure that residents of the South Coast 14 enjoy the same kind of air quality that people who live in 15 Sacramento are afforded. 16 I'd like to talk a little bit about technology 17 forcing. There is definitely an increasing need for more 18 technology-forcing mechanisms and rules. It worked with 19 cars and light trucks. It can definitely work with the 20 heavier tractor-trailers and with ships. 21 A former professor of mine used to work at the 22 EPA and he formulated the technology-forcing concept. At 23 the time, there was discussion about weather to call it 24 technology enhancing or something more softer -- of softer 25 language. And he said, "No, it has to be technology PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 202 1 forcing." And so that's what we would like you to 2 consider. 3 Costs. You've heard a lot of discussion about 4 costs. The costs are externalized on to children, on to 5 small businesses, on to society at large in the -- in 6 terms of health care. And these costs are externalized. 7 What we're really talking about isn't costs that we're 8 going to impose upon industry. It's rather that the 9 current status quo allows for a pollution subsidy that 10 distorts the true economic picture. And as Ms. Suwol's 11 example illustrates, when we reduce pollution we kind of 12 create a different economic picture that might prioritize 13 and encourage better economic choices that are more health 14 protective. 15 Finally, I'd strongly -- I know you guys are 16 faced with a hard task. And we appreciate the work and 17 the conscientious effort that has gone into this. In that 18 spirit, I would strongly encourage each Board member to 19 add one measure or direction or detail to this SIP that 20 would strengthen the effort to achieve additional 21 reductions and would endorse. So, please, just listen to 22 what this whole array of environmental, neighborhood, and 23 public health advocates have to say and just pick one and 24 recommend it to your staff. 25 Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 203 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 2 (Applause.) 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Mr. Beeson. 4 MR. BEESON: Chairman Sawyer, members of the 5 Board. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. 6 My name is Larry Beeson. I'm the Epidemiology 7 Program Director at the School of Public Health of Loma 8 Linda University. And I'm also one of the 9 co-investigators of the EPA funded Osmox study, which is 10 one of the handful of studies looking at the long-term 11 health effects of air pollution. And this is our 30th 12 year in evaluating air pollution. 13 The Osmox study evaluated several studies. I've 14 provided you with a listing of 27 peer-reviewed scientific 15 articles that our study staff have provided in looking at 16 the health effects of air pollution and as it relates to 17 lung function, asthma, emphysema, chronic obstructive 18 pulmonary disease, cancer, heart disease, and all cause 19 mortality. 20 In some instances we have observed statistically 21 significant increased risk at or below national ambient 22 air quality standards. With the increase in population in 23 the next few years in California, with more and more 24 individuals living very near the transportation corridors, 25 where goods movement is a major contributor to the ambient PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 204 1 air pollution, we strongly encourage you to adopt the Air 2 Quality Management District's recommended implementation 3 plan. 4 Thank you. 5 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 6 Mr. Lange. And then we'll have Francene Lifson, 7 Martha Cevda, and Angelo Logan. 8 MR. LANGE: Good afternoon, Chairman Sawyer and 9 Board members. My name is Travis Lange, the Environmental 10 Services Manager for the City of Santa Clarita. 11 The city's Mayor, Marshall MaClean, was unable to 12 attend today's meeting. So I have provided copies of a 13 letter signed by the Mayor in regards to this agenda item. 14 We appreciate you having this meeting in southern 15 California and affording us the opportunity to speak on 16 this critically important issue. Santa Clarita Valley has 17 some of the worst air quality in the South Coast Basin and 18 the nation, like many of the communities you've heard from 19 today. 20 The South Coast AQMD has worked closely with the 21 city to try and improve our air quality. However, more 22 needs to be done in order to protect the citizens' lungs 23 in our community and others, now and in the future. 24 The South Coast AQMD's Air Quality Management 25 Plan outlines a serious program that will help ensure PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 205 1 meeting the requirements in the Clean Air Act that is 2 protective of human health. The City of Santa Clarita 3 supports this plan. 4 However, the proposed State Implementation Plan 5 does not provide adequate emission reductions, but instead 6 depends on weight of evidence. New technologies and 7 measures are not being implemented to help meet the 8 emissions reductions needed in our region by 2014 and 9 2023, specifically regarding mobile sources. 10 Please amend the State Implementation Plan to 11 more accurately reflect those elements outlined in the Air 12 Quality Management Plan to address particulate matter and 13 ozone air pollution more concretely. This is vitally 14 important for the health of our community and others, and 15 we look forward to working with all stakeholders to find 16 ways to protect the health of our citizens and those of 17 other communities impacted by poor air quality. 18 Thank you again for allowing me to speak today. 19 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 20 Ms. Lifson. 21 MS. LIFSON: Good afternoon, ladies and 22 gentlemen. I am Francene Lifson. I'm the Executive 23 Director of the Asthma & Allergy Foundation of America, 24 the California Chapter. 25 Nearly four million Californians suffer from PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 206 1 asthma, which you know is a chronic inflammatory lung 2 disease that results in partially reversible constriction 3 of the airways. 4 Asthma is a critical public health issue, because 5 of the impact on the quality of life, the increased 6 morbidity and mortality, and its substantial economic 7 impact. Asthma is the leading cause of children visiting 8 the emergency room. It's responsible for most of the 9 school absenteeism. And for adults, it causes missed work 10 days. 11 Mortality rates from asthma in California are 12 higher than the national average. 13 California is plagued by air pollution. In a 14 recent survey, 26 counties got an F in air quality, 15 including all of southern California. Air pollution 16 shortens our lives. 17 In L.A., improvement has been extraordinary. But 18 in spite of this progress, we still must have stronger 19 standards and better measures. 20 That's why I'm here today on behalf of our Board 21 of Directors, to urge you to strengthen the State 22 Strategy, to commit to additional emission reductions from 23 mobile sources as needed for attainment of federal clean 24 air standards and consistent with the 2007 Air Quality 25 Management Plan. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 207 1 Please do not delay. Strong action is required 2 now. Fine particulate matter spewed out by the cars, 3 trucks, locomotives, ships, planes, refineries, and other 4 sources lodges deep in the lungs and is widely considered 5 the most lethal form of air pollution. So please take 6 immediate and aggressive action and expedite the adoption 7 of the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan in July, not 8 October. 9 I thank you very much. 10 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 11 (Applause.) 12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Cevda. 13 MS. CEVDA: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. 14 My name is Martha Cevda, and I represent Work Source 15 California Career Partners. 16 As a business services specialist I meet and 17 assess the needs of small businesses throughout Los 18 Angeles County. On a daily basis I provide small 19 businesses with economic development and personnel 20 resources. 21 Of the many requests, assistance with meeting the 22 clean air standards is a priority. Small businesses are 23 the lifeline of the economy in southern California and 24 struggle financially to meet such standards. Many of 25 these businesses employ local residences, provide goods PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 208 1 and service to the local economy, and are making clean air 2 their number one priority. 3 As a voice for the small business and local 4 communities, I urge CARB to adopt AQMD's Air Quality 5 Management Plan to direct focus towards mobile source 6 control. Eighty percent of air pollution is caused by 7 mobile resources. The industrial facilities and 8 businesses are doing their fair share now. Why can't the 9 mobile resources do theirs? We can't expect this problem 10 to be tackled by putting more pressure on the stationary 11 sources. The mobile sources need to take more 12 responsibility. 13 On a personal note, my daughters, eleven-year-old 14 twins, have suffered from asthma since they were three 15 years old and I just recently lost my father to a 16 four-year battle with renal cell cancer. 17 We are breathing the nation's worst air, which 18 contributes to prolonged adverse health effects such as 19 cancer, premature deaths, and asthma. Let's give 20 businesses a chance to prosper, people a chance to live 21 longer, and the children play outside without the risk of 22 premature death. 23 Thank you very much. 24 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 25 (Applause.) PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 209 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Mr. Logan. And then we'll 2 have Romie Lilly, Arthur Derrick, and Pamela Bates. 3 If Mr. Logan on is not here, Reverend Lilly, 4 please. 5 REVEREND LILLY: Thank you, Chairman Sawyer and 6 to the Board members. I thank you for this opportunity to 7 share. 8 I want to let you know that I was not in -- have 9 not been to China, but I was in Compton this morning. And 10 so we can see that I am very familiar with what we are 11 discussing here today. 12 But I don't want to give you a lot of stats 13 because I don't know them all. But it seems like to me 14 that you need to adopt the South Coast AQMD plan and then 15 work to strengthen your own. 16 And I know that -- I offer -- I would like to 17 offer a prayer for all of you because you need to make 18 some hard decisions. And maybe you can look at the prayer 19 of St Francis of Assisi for guidance. I won't recall the 20 prayer for you, but I will share the elements. 21 First part is knowledge. People have already 22 shared with you all the information, so you have knowledge 23 of what you need to work on. 24 The second part is wisdom. That is making the 25 decision based on what's the best as we talk about the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 210 1 health of our children, who have been raised by their 2 grandparents and their parents, and struggling with the 3 issue of trying to maintain their health. And we know 4 that air pollution is causing a drag on their economy, on 5 their budget, and all of the expenses. 6 And the last part is courage. It seems that what 7 it takes here to make the right decision is courage. 8 Regardless of who or what things or what the repercussions 9 are, we have to go forward to do the right thing and to 10 adopt these plans. And don't be afraid to look for a high 11 goal. It seems like I heard some kind of compromise, an 12 idea of maybe if we don't shoot too high, that we won't 13 have a failure. And a lot of times we talk to our 14 children and we tell them to "shoot for the moon. But if 15 you miss, you'll catch the stars." And I hope that you 16 will look at trying -- 17 (Applause.) 18 REVEREND LILLY: -- to raise the level of what 19 you're trying to do. Shoot for the moon. And if you 20 miss, you'll hit the stars. I might not be here in 14 or 21 23 to share this with you again. But think about the 22 people who are living here and how their lives would be 23 enhanced if you make the right decision. 24 God bless you all. 25 (Applause.) PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 211 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 2 Mr. Derrick. 3 Ms. Bates. 4 And then we'll have Frank Smith, Martin Rubin, 5 and Terry Roberts. 6 MS. BATES: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. 7 My name is Pamela Bates. And I am one of the founding 8 members of the Concerned Citizens for the Betterment of 9 Compton, which is a grass-roots organization. 10 I've been to the Bahamas, so I know what the 11 air's like there. However, I live in the City of Compton. 12 And this is the message that I'm bringing to you today. 13 The state's proposal is inadequate to meet the 14 long-range federal standards of mobile emissions. If 15 stricter requirements are not mandated, the overall 16 adverse effects on the health of our community will 17 increase exponentially. 18 Our community and the City of Compton is bordered 19 by four freeways that are in close proximity to our homes: 20 The 710, which is the Long Beach Freeway; the 110, the 21 Harbor Freeway; the 91, which is the Artesia Freeway; and 22 the 105, which is the Century Freeway. 23 Along with the freeways, mobile emissions are 24 increased from the Metro rails, the Blue and the Green 25 lines; and the Alameda Corridor. On top of that we also PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 212 1 have the Compton Airport. 2 If that wasn't enough, amidst the opposition of 3 the community, a trucking company was built and is 4 operating next door to Walton Middle School on the main 5 thoroughfare. 6 You have to excuse me a minute. 7 As a child, my friends and I, we used to joke 8 that we wouldn't breathe anything that we couldn't see. 9 That's no longer funny to us. On one street alone, west 10 Raymond Street, the street where I live, these following 11 people have died of cancer: John Ship, Mel Parks, Heddy 12 Page, Deborah Wickfall, Eugene Baldwin, Geneva Rawsubwit, 13 Patrick Giffrin, Jeannie Johnson, Ms. Alvarez, 14 Mrs. Yeager, Mr. and Ms. Webster, Mr. and Ms. Johnston, 15 Mr. Webb, and my father Lorenzo Bates. 16 Maria Hollis is a cancer survivor. And I've 17 suffered two miscarriages. My Godfather, Mr. Joseph 18 Nayfil, died of respiratory disease. 19 I stand here before you speaking for those who no 20 longer have a voice and for those of us who are still 21 standing steadfast to tell you that this is why we no 22 longer believe -- that I can't believe what I won't -- I 23 won't breathe what I can't see is no longer funny. Please 24 consider and adopt the South Coast AQMD proposal 25 posthaste. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 213 1 Thank you. 2 (Applause.) 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you, Ms. Bates. 4 Mr. Smith. 5 Mr. Rubin. 6 Ms. Roberts. 7 MS. ROBERTS: Good afternoon. My name is Terry 8 Roberts. I'm Associate Director of Programs with the 9 American Lung Association of California. 10 I come here today from the Inland Empire, where I 11 personally live in the San Bernardino Mountains, which are 12 quite beautiful but have ozone issues. I also work in the 13 City of San Bernardino, where our office is located. 14 But I come here today representing the American 15 Lung Association of California, but also partners in the 16 San Bernardino County Asthma Coalition and all those 17 residents in the Inland Empire who are impacted by air 18 quality but were unable to make it here today. 19 I live and work in a region with some of the 20 poorest air quality in the United States. We have 21 multiple freeways which are expanding constantly to 22 accommodate the increased traffic. We have a rapidly 23 increasing amount of diesel trucks and trains going 24 through our area moving goods to our areas and other parts 25 of the world -- or the United States. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 214 1 CARB needs to strengthen its plan to be as tough 2 as the mobile source measures contained in the AQMD's Air 3 Quality Management Plan. If the plan is not strengthened, 4 the area I live and work in will not reach clean air 5 standards. Residents in the Inland Empire will continue 6 to suffer from rising rates of asthma and other adverse 7 health effects. 8 In the past seven and a half years, I've seen a 9 tremendous amount of rise in the pediatric asthma rate. 10 And right now it's about 17 percent for those children 11 living in San Bernardino County, which is quite high. 12 Approximately 80 percent of all air pollution in 13 the South Coast Basin comes from vehicles and other mobile 14 sources which, for the most part, are under CARB's and the 15 EPA's control. If CARB does not strengthen its plan -- 16 the proposed plan, air quality will only get worse in the 17 future, with the expected tripling of goods movement into 18 the region. 19 Despite significant progress, our air quality 20 remains the worst in the nation, posing a major health 21 concern for almost 17 million residents of the region. 22 This is un acceptable. The state needs to adopt tougher 23 standards than those that are proposed. 24 I hope that the Board listens to everyone today 25 and keeps one thing on their minds before making a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 215 1 decision: The people I am here representing today live 2 and work in an area impacted by poor air quality. We are 3 personally impacted by your decision. The Board should 4 not submit this subpar plan to the EPA. I urge the Board 5 to direct the staff to strengthen the plan before bringing 6 it to the Board for final approve. 7 Thank you. 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 9 (Applause.) 10 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: The next speakers are Rey 11 Leon, Jenny Saklar, and Ty Schuiling. 12 Mr. Leon. 13 Ms. Saklar. 14 Mr. Leon? 15 Yes. 16 MR. LEON: Good afternoon once again, Board 17 members, staff. My name is Rey Leon with the Latino 18 Issues Forum, a public policy and advocacy institute out 19 of the San Joaquin Valley Regional Office in Fresno. 20 And we continue to not be satisfied with this 21 plan, the SIP for the Valley, the statewide SIP. And as 22 of now, the State Implementation Plan for the San Joaquin 23 Valley Air Basin is an insufficient prescription to the 24 Valley's problem and reality. 25 In 2004 we did a survey on Latino environmental PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 216 1 health in the San Joaquin Valley and found that four out 2 of every ten residents surveyed live near a highway, and 3 close to six out of every ten live near an agriculture 4 industrial site, whether it being fields where they spray 5 pesticides or any other type of operation, and whether it 6 be pesticides, diesel-burning irrigation pumps, tractors, 7 combines, and other ag heavy machinery requiring diesels 8 surrounds many rural communities throughout the San 9 Joaquin Valley. 10 In addition to that, other diesel emission 11 sources such as labor buses and heavy-duty diesel trucks 12 penetrate farm worker towns, affecting hundreds of 13 thousand of residents with NOx on a daily basis throughout 14 the valley. And I share that because it touches the issue 15 of cumulative impact. 16 And so the traditional method in the valley 17 unfortunately has been to provide voluntary measures with 18 false expectations that the industries will take 19 responsibility over their pollution and prevent the 20 externalized costs to the public. 21 Voluntary measures will not be able to bring 22 about the reductions needed to meet attainment in any 23 region. As of yet, California's Clean Air Act 182(e)(5), 24 which is also known as the black box, has not proven its 25 merit and it is illogical to endow the black box a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 217 1 substantial portion of expected reduction. 2 This, compounded with the risk and damages to 3 human health and local economies, makes the concept 4 ever-less appealing. This tactic is, in essence, a 5 cop-out. 6 Air management and history shows us that the 7 Valley Air District and CARB have relied on the black-box 8 measures in its former SIP revisions but have not 9 functioned. It does not work. There has not been any 10 fruition from this black box. 11 So according to the statewide SIP, the heavy-duty 12 diesel trucks consists of 48 percent of all NOx emissions 13 in the valley. When ag-related equipment and irrigation 14 pumps are included, it is over 60 percent of the NOx 15 inventory created daily. 16 NOx, a precursor to PM2.5, is present very 17 strongly throughout the valley and overburdening 18 communities of working families whose area lacks effective 19 monitoring to understand the extent of the problem to 20 beginning with. 21 A carrot-and-stick approach should be implemented 22 in the methods and rules CARB and its districts adopt, 23 particularly in this SIP. This should include the 24 objective of taking irrigation pumps off of diesel fuel 25 and connecting them to the energy grid as soon as PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 218 1 possible. Also, create effective -- as I conclude -- 2 create effective enforceable measures to change out 3 heavy-duty diesel fleets and also to electrify truck 4 stops, which is something that directly or indirectly may 5 be involved with the SIP. 6 But to finish up, I would just like to be more 7 specific and say that CARB should direct staff to review 8 measures to effectively reduce PM2.5 and its precursors, 9 such as NOx, now, not wait till the PM2.5 plan. More 10 needed tonnage can be reduced in the various sectors of -- 11 particularly with agricultural equipment. To adopt an 12 inventory that relies on voluntary fleet turnover to 13 achieve a 72 percent reduction in NOx by 2023 is not 14 feasible for such a massive amount of needed reductions. 15 It is critical that CARB staff amend statewide strategy to 16 commit to specific reductions as soon as possible. 17 And in the SIP -- the statewide SIP, currently 18 there's only one sentence talking about the agricultural 19 equipment, which it's really not affecting what we need in 20 terms of the reduction for the Valley and for the State of 21 California. 22 So thank you very much. 23 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 24 (Applause.) 25 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Saklar. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 219 1 MS. SAKLAR: California Air Resources Board, good 2 afternoon. 3 The plan before you does not do the people of 4 California and especially the people of the San Joaquin 5 Valley justice. My community, my home is the San Joaquin 6 Valley -- I'm sorry, I didn't introduce myself. Jenny 7 Saklar with the Fresno Metro Ministry. 8 My community and home is the San Joaquin Valley, 9 where air pollution costs residents $3.2 billion per year 10 in health-related costs. Of utmost importance, we are 11 concerned with the regional and state clean air timeline. 12 The six proposed California bumps-ups are 13 unacceptable; and the San Joaquin Valley and South Coast 14 extreme bump-ups are a decision that will lead to greater 15 health, economic, and livelihood suffering. Delayed 16 cleanup with the ozone cleanup extension to 2024 and the 17 reliance of the black box is unjust. We need real 18 measures with defined ways that get us to clean air much 19 sooner than 2024. 20 The San Joaquin Valley is behind the statement 21 and asks -- at the regional hearing in Fresno, Modesto, 22 and Stockton, hundreds of Valley residents committed their 23 time out of their lives to oppose this plan that does not 24 give today's kindergartners clean air until high school 25 graduation. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 220 1 We heard over six hours of passionate testimony 2 for clean air sooner. And only a handful of the 94 3 speakers favored the proposed plan. Residents that were 4 able to speak out represented thousands, tens of 5 thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of valley voices 6 asking for clean air today, not clean air delay. That is 7 profound. The San Joaquin Valley is disappointed and 8 outraged by the plan adoption. 9 A number of reasonable and effective actions 10 exist that CARB can and must take to improve the State 11 Strategy before it is adopted. One is CARB's Heavy-Duty 12 Diesel Rule. We are told in the San Joaquin Valley that 13 80 percent of our pollution is outside local jurisdictions 14 and that the large bulk of this falls under CARB's 15 control. Knowing this great amount of heavy-duty NOx and 16 PM2.5 emission, CARB must do more to reduce them. 17 For example, continuous remote monitoring of 18 on-board diagnostic systems of all 2010 and later heavy 19 diesel trucks needs to be required. There also must be 20 stronger commitments to monitor and enforce non-onboard 21 diagnostic equipment heavy-duty diesel trucks. 22 Other measures CARB must direct that can take -- 23 they must direct staff to add to the plan and strengthen 24 before the plan is adopted includes cleaner in-use 25 off-road equipment, expanded smog check, expanded PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 221 1 passenger vehicle retirement, cleaner in-use agricultural 2 equipment, regulated consumer products, reduced pesticide 3 use, marine vessel and recreational boat reduction. 4 To conclude, this plan can and must be 5 strengthened before it is adopted. I ask you to send the 6 plan back to CARB staff to rework and substantially -- 7 have substantially greater and sooner ozone reductions. 8 Then, and only then, should you adopt it. 9 (Applause.) 10 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 11 Mr. Schuiling. And then we'll have Patricia 12 Etem, Birgit De la Torre, and Ernesto Nevarez. 13 MR. SCHUILING: Thank you, Chairman Sawyer and 14 members of the Board. A special greeting to Board Member 15 Riordan, who is not only a citizen of the same city, but 16 also a former president of my agency. 17 I'm Ty Schuiling, Director of Planning and 18 Programming for the San Bernardino Associated Governments, 19 the Council of Governments, and County Transportation 20 Commission for the two plus million residents of San 21 Bernardino County, many of whom are subject to some of 22 this nation's worst fine particulate and ozone pollution. 23 This past Wednesday, my Plans and Programs Policy 24 Committee unanimously directed me to provide testimony 25 today. And I've submitted a letter from County Supervisor PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 222 1 Dennis Hansberger, also President of SANBAG, as follows: 2 And I'll quote it in abbreviated form today in the 3 interests of time. 4 "Dear Dr. Sawyer: I'm writing to you in my role 5 as President of San Bernardino Associated Governments. My 6 concerns regarding the proposed State Strategy for the 7 State Implementation Plan for the federal eight-hour ozone 8 and PM2.5 standards. 9 "The SANBAG Board shares your concern with the 10 negative public health impacts which fine particulate 11 pollution and eight-hour ozone have on the residents of 12 California. Here in the South Coast Basin the efforts of 13 the South Coast Air Quality Management District have been 14 extremely effective in reducing the emissions of 15 stationary sources in the Basin. As a result, 16 approximately 80 percent of the Basin's smog is now caused 17 by vehicles and other mobile sources. 18 "The problem will be exacerbated by the 19 anticipated tripling of goods movement activity in the 20 next ten to twenty years. Even if the remaining 21 stationary sources were to be shut down, the federal air 22 quality standards for PM2.5, 24-hour PM2.5, and 8-hour 23 ozone would not be met without substantial additional 24 mobile source emission reductions. 25 "On June 1st, 2007, the Air Quality Management PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 223 1 Plan was approved by the SCAQMD. However, the combination 2 of the AQMP with the Air Resources Board's mobile source 3 strategy under review today falls short of demonstrating 4 PM2.5 attainment by 74 tons of NOx. The concern I have is 5 regarding the CARB staff proposal to address this 6 shortfall. Staff's proposal relies primarily on the 7 elimination of wood-burning stoves, commercial cooking 8 controls and dust controls following as secondary 9 mitigation measures. 10 "I would argue that prohibition of burning wood 11 would have virtually no effect on the overall air quality 12 within the South Coast Air Basin." 13 My own editorial comment, as an aside, is that as 14 a fireplace owner myself and knowing my friends who are 15 similarly in ownership of the fireplaces, we have fires on 16 windy, cold, rainy winter days, which are not PM2.5 17 episodes. 18 Moving on: "The SCAQMD has been very effective 19 in reducing pollution over the sources over which it has 20 jurisdiction. Now it is time for the ARB and the U.S. 21 Environmental Protection Agency to step up to the plate 22 and implement effective emission standards for mobile 23 sources of pollution. 24 "Much has been accomplished relative to the 25 improvement of air quality, but we must focus on mobile PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 224 1 sources of pollution in order to improve the quality of 2 life for the residents of California." 3 Again, I would urge you to give consideration 4 simultaneously with the AQMP as you move forward in 5 considering the State Mobile Source Reduction Plan. 6 Thank you. 7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 8 (Applause.) 9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Etem. 10 Ms. De la Torre. 11 Mr. Nevarez. 12 The next three speakers are Diana Meier, Linda 13 Nicholas, Yvonne Chen. 14 Ms. Meier. 15 Ms. Nicholas. 16 When I call your name in the first set, if you 17 could come up in the front, that will give me some clue 18 about whether you're here or not. 19 Ms. Chen. 20 Ms. Nicholas? 21 Please. 22 MS. NICHOLAS: Chairman Sawyer and Board members. 23 I am president of an organization called Plug in America. 24 The South Coast AQMD suggested measure to require 25 100,000 plug-in hybrid electric vehicles by 2014 is avidly PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 225 1 supported, as you might imagine, by my organization Plug 2 in America. 3 Eighty percent of our area smog problems are 4 caused, as has been said, by vehicles and other mobile 5 sources. The technology -- the most powerful technology 6 ready soonest is battery automotive technology. Plug-in 7 hybrid electric vehicles and battery electric vehicles, 8 like the one that I have been driving very successfully 9 and very cleanly for six years, should be front and center 10 of short- and long-term CARB strategies to clean our air 11 and reduce global warming gases. 12 As you know, this worked on a small scale before. 13 Thanks to CARB, and I thank you again, the original ZEV 14 mandate, zero-emission vehicle mandate, because of that 15 5,000 electric cars, one of which I drive, appeared on 16 California's highways, which have resulted in the 17 avoidance of literally billions of pounds of pollutants 18 and carbon dioxide gases. I am so honored to be part of 19 the solution that you made possible. 20 Also included in the electrification of 21 transportation, Plug in America supports electrification 22 of ports and shore-side vessels. This will also address 23 severe air quality issues as well as global warming gases. 24 I find the statistic that the South Coast air 25 basin is responsible for 82 percent of the statewide PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 226 1 exposure to air pollution amazing and horrifying. Given 2 that statistic, it is an honor to be driving one of your 3 solutions. And I sincerely hope that CARB will work hard 4 to give other people that opportunity. 5 Plug in America fully supports SIP implementation 6 as seen as possible. 7 Thank you for everything. 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 9 Ms. Etem. 10 MS. ETEM: Thank you, Mr. Sawyer and members of 11 the Board. I'm Pat Etem with Breathe California of Los 12 Angeles County, here representing also the Breathe 13 affiliates. 14 I'd like to thank CARB. And also we'd like to 15 thank the South Coast AQMD and our community partners and 16 actually the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. 17 And we appreciate the complexity and nuances of 18 collaborations, especially coming together to form a State 19 Implementation Plan. However, it's really important that 20 there's clarity in roles and responsibilities. And we 21 have concerns. Earlier today the CARB staff mentioned 22 that there are some ambiguities of authority for 23 regulating the provisions in the State Implementation 24 Plan. And before going forward with a plan, we find it 25 very important that there would be absolute minimum PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 227 1 ambiguity in the authority for regulating the State 2 Implementation Plan. 3 I'd like to draw attention actually to page 2 of 4 the Executive Summary where there is a clause that says, 5 "Until new mobile and stationary technologies become 6 available, we propose to defer the issue of how to 7 apportion long-term emission reduction obligations among 8 responsible agencies. This issue will be revisited in 9 future state implementation updates." We think it's 10 really important to have a benchmark and an interim 11 strategy to address this. That's a really important 12 component of an implementing infrastructure. 13 On page 3, there is a clause about heavy-duty 14 diesel trucks and new and in-use off-road engines. And it 15 says that the Air Resources Board may establish emission 16 standards, but must obtain a waiver or authorization from 17 the U.S. EPA before it can enforce such a regulation. So 18 we would like to also draw attention to the fact that as a 19 part of an implementation infrastructure that you have the 20 waiver protocols very much in place. And this is also 21 another area of litigation vulnerability that we think 22 that really should be in place before you move forward. 23 And lastly then I would like to say that on 24 behalf of our organizations, that we support the 2007 Air 25 Quality Management Plan of South Coast AQMD. And we PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 228 1 strongly encourage that you not move forward until there 2 are -- that you have incorporated this into the State 3 Implementation Plan. And being in an organization in the 4 South Coast Air Basin, we'd really like to draw attention 5 to the hybrid plug-in strategies, clean locomotives, the 6 Clean Port Action Plan, and also technology and sulfur 7 reductions. And it seems to me that in some of the 8 testimony by SCAQMD staff that there's unused technology 9 that has been brought forward that's in that 30 percent of 10 your pie chart. So between the unused technology and the 11 exempted-out technologies, it's really important to 12 incorporate those prior to moving forward. 13 Thank you very much. 14 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 15 (Applause.) 16 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Chen -- Yvonne Chen. 17 Then we will have Liza Bolanos, Collen Collahan, 18 and Edwin Dietrich. 19 Ms. Bolanos. 20 And if Ms. Collahan and Mr. Dietrich are here, 21 would you please come sit in the front row. 22 And then we'll have Luis Cabrales and Mati Waita. 23 Ms. Bolanos. 24 MS. BOLANOS: Liza Bolanos, Central Valley Air 25 Quality Coalition. We are a coalition of over 70 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 229 1 different organizations and 150 members from throughout 2 the state, with a focus on the San Joaquin Valley to 3 ensure the health of all Californians through stringent 4 regulations through the California Clean Air Act. 5 San Joaquin Valley has often been referred to as 6 the basket -- the breadbasket of the nation, something to 7 be very proud about. Unfortunately we've also been 8 referred to as California's toilet bowl. 9 In the San Joaquin Valley we are leaders, but not 10 always of things we are proud of. National leaders in 11 pesticide use, one of two of the most contaminated air 12 basins in the nation. And the list goes on. 13 During conversations with this Board during our 14 local State Implementation Plan, we were advocates. We 15 were highly encouraged to become more engaged on current 16 regulations that are receiving a lot of opposition from 17 industry such as the Construction Rule. We have taken 18 your advise strongly and we have begun today. 19 We respectfully ask that for heavy-duty trucks 20 staff strengthen the current rule to achieve additional 21 reductions from heavy-duty trucks. We'd like to see a SIP 22 commitment that requires smog checks of both NOx and PM 23 emissions for heavy-duty trucks. 24 In subsequent issues of the SIP CARB should 25 quantify the benefits that could be achieved through PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 230 1 desperately needed in-use monitoring measure. 2 In ag mobile equipment, it's completely 3 unacceptable that CARB is not committed to any enforceable 4 reduction measures from agriculture equipment. This is 5 key in getting the San Joaquin Valley into attainment. 6 Mobile agriculture contributes to our air 7 pollution problem in the valley, not just for particulate 8 matter but for NOx. We've been told that NOx is the key 9 to getting to clean air. We need this desperately. 10 ARB should amend the plan to commit the specific 11 reductions now. We need for the PM2.5 plan to decide on 12 any reductions. Ignores the state duty to regulate this 13 category as a part of the ozone attainment strategy. 14 Don't approve this incomplete plan. Instead 15 direct your staff to fix it before it comes back to you 16 for adoption. 17 Thank you. 18 (Applause.) 19 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 20 Ms. Collahan. 21 MS. COLLAHAN: Good afternoon. Thank you for the 22 opportunity to speak. My name is Colleen Collahan. I 23 represent the America Lung Association of California. I 24 serve the greater Los Angeles area. 25 And the kids with asthma that the American Lung PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 231 1 association serves in Los Angeles and Long Beach and in 2 other areas of L.A. County, they're suffering from the 3 continued failure to meet health protective air quality 4 standards. 5 Unfortunately, the SIP will not fully deliver 6 clean air in a timely manner for these children. It is 7 unacceptable that another generation has to grow up 8 without clean, healthy air. We need the plan to 9 demonstrate a sense of urgency in line with the health 10 epidemic caused by air pollution. 11 Our Governor promised California that he would 12 cut pollution in half by 2010. But he isn't going to be 13 able to reach that promise unless the plan is strengthened 14 and the measures expedited. 15 Governor Schwarzenegger is on the cover of this 16 Newsweek. And I found the caption interesting. It says, 17 "Save the planet or else." And I think that the "or else" 18 is something that we need to consider today. In this case 19 the implications of not reaching health protective 20 standards in a timely manner do need to be considered. If 21 CARB delays attainment of health-based standards for 22 ozone, Californians will continue to pay with their 23 health, including premature deaths, ER visits, decrease of 24 lung capacity in children, and increased incidents of 25 asthma. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 232 1 We do believe, we have faith that the South Coast 2 and San Joaquin Valley air basins can attain standards 3 before the 11-year delay. So we urge you to reduce the 4 large percentage of black-box measures and strengthen the 5 plan. 6 My colleagues in the environmental community have 7 been working on an extensive letter that provides more 8 substantive details, and that has been submitted. I'm 9 just going to briefly touch on one specific measure that 10 was mentioned in that letter. And that's in regard to the 11 smog check. 12 I urge the ARB to work very closely with the 13 Bureau of Automotive Repair. Given the past history of 14 BAR compliance with SIP requirements, we believe the SIP 15 should provide for greater ARB monitoring, enforcement, 16 and an evaluation. Regular progress reports might be a 17 good idea. So I'll stop there. 18 In conclusion, the health of millions is in your 19 hands, and we look forward to seeing continued 20 environmental leadership. 21 Thank you. 22 (Applause.) 23 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 24 Mr. Dietrich. 25 MR. DIETRICH: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 233 1 members of the Board. And thank you for this opportunity. 2 My name is Edwin Dietrich, and I'm here on behalf of the 3 Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment, a nonprofit 4 organization providing legal assistance to the grass-roots 5 environmental justice community. 6 I'm here to oppose Appendix H of the 2007 SIP, 7 which includes the proposed revision to the pesticide 8 element of the ozone plan in Ventura County. 9 I'm also here representing five separate 10 environmental organizations -- community organizations: 11 El comite para el bien destar de early mart, Association 12 of Irritated Residents, Community and Children's Advocates 13 Against Pesticide Poisoning, Ventura Coast Keeper, the 14 Wish Toy Foundation. 15 These organizations are the environmental justice 16 groups that went to federal court a few years ago to make 17 you keep the promise that you made in the 1994 SIP with 18 regard to reducing pesticide air pollution in Ventura 19 County. 20 Should you approve the staff's plan, they are 21 prepared to go to court again to enforce that same 22 promise. 23 The proposed amendment contained in Appendix H to 24 the 2007 SIP with respect to the pesticide element in 25 Ventura County would violate the court order from the case PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 234 1 El comite para el bien destar de early mart v. Heleker. 2 In that case, a federal judge ordered the ARB to implement 3 a rule that reduces emissions of reactive organic gases 4 from pesticide use. 5 The rule that staff proposes today would exceed 6 the maximum ROG emissions allowed under that order by one 7 ton per day. Thus the rule is a direct violation of the 8 court order from that case, an order which still binds 9 this agency until the court otherwise declares. 10 The rule also violates Section 110L of the Clean 11 Air Act itself, because the net effect of the proposal is 12 an increase of one ton per day in ROG emissions for 13 Ventura. 14 It also violates the California Environmental 15 Quality Act, because the staff has failed to prepare the 16 equivalent of an environmental impact report analyzing the 17 negative environmental and health effects of the new rule, 18 health effects which my fellow speakers today will 19 address. 20 I would add that the reduction in vehicle 21 emissions is not what the federal court requires. And so 22 any offset considering the reduction of vehicle emissions 23 would not satisfy the federal court order. 24 And if you fail to abide by that order, the 25 Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment and its PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 235 1 allies is prepared to go to court to enforce it. 2 And I would add to address the concerns that the 3 staff has raised today, as well as the Board itself, 4 regarding the consequences of specificity in the SIP 5 itself. I believe the proper response to any concerns 6 over the legal consequences of such specificity is not to 7 avoid specificity, because that is what's required by the 8 Clean Air Act in order to comply with the requirements of 9 that statute. Rather the proper response -- if I may 10 finish briefly -- the proper response is to include such 11 specificity and then to comply with it, because such is 12 the only way that we can attain the air quality 13 improvement that our state so desperately needs. 14 Thank you. 15 (Applause.) 16 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 17 Could staff clarify for me the issue of pesticide 18 regulation in this particulate one. As I understand, we 19 regulated this, before my time, but as part of an Ozone 20 SIP plan, because of its contributions to VOCs, I assume. 21 But clearly we're talking about something which is an air 22 toxic but also a pesticide. Does it come under our air 23 toxics rule or is it regulated as a pesticide? 24 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Bob Jenne will 25 talk about the specific case. But pesticide regulation PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 236 1 for pesticides and their pesticidal use are all under the 2 Department of Pesticide Regulation. 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: And we're precluded from -- 4 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: That's correct. 5 So the lawsuit, though we were a party to it, was 6 against the Department of Pesticide Regulation and applies 7 to their actions. 8 CHIEF COUNSEL JENNE: This was in the 1994 SIP as 9 a VOC control measure. So even though it has toxic 10 impacts, we were regulating the VOC impacts on ozone. So 11 however it was -- it was DPR's responsibility to do that. 12 They did it in this case to get the ozone reductions from 13 VOCs. 14 With regard to what the testimony you just heard 15 was, we've been involved in this case for some time. I 16 looked over the court order last night. We feel quite 17 strongly that the court order is not being violated by 18 this SIP provision in front of you today. Basically the 19 court order enforces this 1994 SIP commitment that -- for 20 the one-hour ozone standard, which has now been attained 21 in Ventura County. 22 And what we're proposing to do is to modify the 23 SIP to substitute other emission reductions. And we would 24 then submit that to U.S. EPA. And then at that point, if 25 U.S. EPA approves it, we would go to the court and request PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 237 1 them to modify their order. 2 So nothing's going to happen in the real world 3 just because you adopt a SIP provision. We're going to go 4 back to federal court and say we've changed the underlying 5 SIP, which we're entitled to do and which the court in 6 fact invited us to do if they didn't like what we 7 thought -- you know, if they didn't like what was in the 8 '94 SIP. And until the court order is changed by the 9 court nothing would happen and this will not be a 10 violation of the court order. 11 He also mentioned backsliding issues, asserting 12 that the Clean Air Act would be violated. We looked at 13 those rules quite carefully. And what's happening here is 14 we have surplus emission reductions of VOC in Ventura 15 County, beyond what we committed to in the '94 SIP. So 16 What we're proposing to do is substitute a portion of 17 those extra emission reductions we got from our motor 18 vehicle program for the pesticide commitment in '94 SIP. 19 So there isn't any backsliding because the same amount of 20 emission reductions is going to be achieved. It's just 21 from a different source with pesticides. 22 And, finally, they mentioned the CEQA issue. We 23 did do an environmental analysis of the environmental 24 impacts of this measure and concluded that there were 25 none. They are not claiming we didn't do an environmental PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 238 1 analysis. They just don't degree with our conclusions. 2 We've looked it over and we're confident that it does meet 3 the requirements of CEQA. 4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: It's a fumigant we're 5 talking about, right? And is it methyl bromide? 6 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: What's happening 7 on the ground in Ventura County is they have attained the 8 ozone standard. And so this is really just moving 9 calculations around in terms of an old SIP commitment. 10 But what's happening on the ground is more 11 strawberries and more peppers are being planted and 12 they're being fumigated. And so there are a number of 13 citizens who would like that to be constrained to be no 14 more acreage than it was previously. 15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Well, it seems like a 16 legitimate concern to constrain the use of this fumigant 17 rather than allowing it to increase. 18 Do we have a role to play by working with DPR. 19 But what is DPR's policy? Do they -- 20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Well, DPR 21 regulates the use of pesticides but doesn't constrain the 22 crops that farmers may plant. And so they adjust their 23 inventory as different choices are made to grow different 24 field crops, fruits, vegetables, et cetera. And then they 25 work all the time on integrated pest management, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 239 1 reformulation, application of pesticides in such a way as 2 to mitigate off-gassing and transfer and pesticide drift. 3 But they at no time adopt policies that say 4 there's only a fixed number of acres upon which one may 5 grow strawberries. 6 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: So they regulate by limiting 7 the application rate per acre, is that -- 8 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yes, that's 9 correct. 10 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: -- how it works? 11 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: And the 12 temperatures and the tarping and the location of farm 13 workers while the pesticides are being applied, all those 14 sorts of things. 15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: And am I correct that the 16 concerned parties are worried about the toxic nature of 17 this compound rather than its contribution to the VOC? 18 But since VOC was the tool used to regulate it, that's why 19 they're coming to us? 20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: I think that's a 21 fair characterization, yes. 22 CHIEF COUNSEL JENNE: I think they are concerned 23 about both. You know, they're concerned about both the 24 toxic aspects of the pesticide application, which DPR 25 believes is controlled by their current regulations so PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 240 1 that no toxic impacts occur. And the regulations they are 2 going to adopt will further control the emissions of the 3 toxic into the air. 4 The VOC emission reductions that we'll get is 5 also something they were concerned about. But about 6 half -- over half of the emission reductions come from 7 methyl bromide, which is very low in reactivity and 8 doesn't make appreciable amounts of ozone. 9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 10 MR. DIETRICH: If I may briefly make one 11 addition. 12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Please. 13 MR. DIETRICH: With regard to the legal arguments 14 raised by the staff, I would point the Board's attention 15 to the comment letter submitted by SRBE by Brent Newall, 16 which provide a more thorough analysis of the legal 17 arguments. 18 Thank you. 19 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I've seen that. Thank you. 20 Okay. Thank you very much. 21 Mr. Dietrich. 22 Oh, excuse me. 23 Luis Cabrales. And then we'll have Mati Waita, 24 Rishi Chandiok, and Michael Miltenberg. 25 MR. CABRALES: Thank you, Chairman, Board PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 241 1 members. My name is Luis Cabrales. I am Outreach and 2 Campaign Associate of Coalition for Clean Air. 3 I am here to express our objection to the 4 proposal in Appendix H., Which amends the 1994 Ozone SIP 5 to relax the pesticide emissions requirement in Ventura 6 County in exchange for already achieved reductions from 7 motor vehicles. 8 We are very disappointed that as part of the 2007 9 SIP ARB staff is proposing actions for the Board that 10 manipulate data, manipulate a court order obligation to 11 adopt pesticide regulation, and failed to commit to any 12 new pesticide regulation VOC reductions. 13 The proposed plan by staff -- or the proposed 14 plan presented by staff has too many inaccuracies as it is 15 to be approved as it is. 16 I want to note specifically some of our concerns 17 regarding Appendix H. And I'd like to note that the 18 representative from DPR who spoke before you earlier this 19 morning didn't address some of these issues that we have 20 already addressed to them. 21 The adjustment of the pesticide emission 22 inventory for application methods used to calculate 23 pesticides emissions reductions in Appendix H 24 substantially overestimate emissions reductions since 25 1991, and should not be used by any air basin. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 242 1 The studies used to estimate emission levels for 2 different application methods in this proposal were 3 conducted under cool weather conditions, which reduce 4 emissions. Soil temperature is in the form of variable 5 governing flukes of fumigant from soil. Higher soil 6 temperatures cause fumigants to allow gas from the soil at 7 higher rate and speed than would occur under cooler 8 conditions. 9 The fumigation DPR used to estimate emissions 10 from application methods were conducted at low and 11 moderate temperatures instead of the high temperatures 12 that are representative of the conditions in the Central 13 and Imperial Valley and Coachella Valley, where 14 fumigations are often carried out during the May-October 15 ozone season, the hotter months of the year. The field 16 studies on which emission estimates are based should be 17 representative of these conditions. 18 In addition to this, I would like to add briefly 19 that DPR's estimates of fumigant methods used in 1991 are 20 based only on informal surveys of growers and discussions 21 with county agricultural commissioners. The process DPR 22 used to obtain historical use of information is, to say 23 the least, informal and unscientific. The public needs to 24 know how these surveys were conducted. And I think you 25 deserve the respect of that information before you can PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 243 1 make a decision on this important issue. 2 In conclusion, the Board should not approve this 3 subpar plan. The Board should direct staff to 4 significantly strengthen this plan by working with a range 5 of stakeholders in developing its pesticide VOC emission 6 reduction plan. 7 Thank you very much. 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 9 (Applause.) 10 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Mr. Waita. 11 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Mr. Chair? 12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Question. Dr. Gong. 13 BOARD MEMBER GONG: A question for staff 14 actually. 15 I've read over some of the materials. And I'm a 16 little confused by the relationship between DPR and ARB 17 regarding the VOC thing. We still have to do a SIP which 18 includes these pesticides in our SIP, correct? But they 19 control the pesticides. 20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Right. And we 21 work with DPR to evaluate it every time what we need for 22 air quality and what they're able to deliver for us. So 23 in the 1994 SIP there was a commitment on the order of ten 24 tons of ROG reduction -- 10 percent reductions from 25 pesticide emissions. And that was what the litigation was PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 244 1 over, whether DPR has accomplished that or not. And so 2 the underlying emission inventory remains a source of 3 contention. 4 We also rely upon DPR for the most up-to-date 5 information on what the inventory is, what the usage 6 patterns are, and what the rate of evaporation and the 7 rest of it is. 8 So we have included in this SIP revision the 9 latest inventory numbers. And a number of the witnesses 10 you're hearing are challenging those numbers as they've 11 challenged prior emission inventory estimates from DPR. 12 The Chief Deputy Director of DPR is here, Paul 13 Goslind. His staff spoke earlier. If you have more 14 questions of DPR, he'd be happy to come to the microphone. 15 BOARD MEMBER GONG: So the bottom line, I guess, 16 is ARB uses the data that DPR provides us? 17 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We use their 18 data, but we also lean on them to help us with the 19 attainment strategy. So, you know, we urge them to adopt 20 whatever controls they can. And that remains the case. 21 They're still on the hook to deliver that 10 percent 22 reduction from the 1994 plan as enforced in the most 23 recent lawsuit. 24 I see. 25 Just as an aside -- or not an aside. But I think PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 245 1 some of the points that Mr. Cabrales brought up about the 2 scientific validity of the data they're using for their 3 baseline year, or the actual analysis, I even have some 4 questions about that. But I'm not sure if I should even 5 address this to staff, because -- 6 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Well, Mr. Goslind 7 should answer those questions -- 8 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Okay. 9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: -- if he'd come 10 up. 11 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Very good. 12 DPR CHIEF DEPUTY DIRECTOR GOSLIND: Thank you. 13 Paul Goslind, Chief Deputy Director with the 14 Department of Pesticide Regulation. 15 Kind of -- some of the testimony you've heard is 16 related to the rule that we have out right now. We have 17 our regulation -- our VOC reduction regulation out for 18 public comment right now. 19 Frankly, some of the issues you've heard related 20 to Appendix H are directly tied to some of the details 21 within our regulations that we have open right now and 22 are, frankly, somewhat unrelated to the issues we've 23 related to Appendix H. They're sort of how we're going to 24 define different methods as to whether -- how much 25 emissions come from a different type of techniques. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 246 1 That's under the main thrust of our regulation 2 where we're setting a very hard threshold cap in each of 3 the five non-attainment areas that we will not allow to be 4 exceeded. 5 Now, under that, what methods emit certain 6 amounts based upon the chemistries coming off the soil, 7 the issues some of the folks raised here are important 8 ones. And we actually have the scientific methodologies 9 going through external peer review right now. And these 10 things needed to be vetted out. 11 But the bottom line is how that all gets sorted 12 out through the process. We're going to have a regulation 13 in place by December 31 this year per the court order 14 that's going to achieve a 20 percent reduction in the five 15 non-attainment areas, including Ventura, based upon 1991, 16 and not allow anything above that. And what that's going 17 to do is it's going to cut -- even in Ventura where 18 they're using, frankly, the lowest emission methods, the 19 limit we set is not going to meet all the demand. It 20 means ag's going to go -- that ag's not going to be able 21 to remain in agriculture. 22 So that's what our proposal is. Our proposal 23 right now doesn't even take into consideration staff 24 recommendation for Appendix H. We're going forward per 25 the court order. Now, as Bob Jenne mentioned, if things PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 247 1 through Appendix H change, that may change what ultimately 2 the obligation is. But the arguments here, frankly, are 3 more applicable to what our public hearing process is 4 going to come up in July. But our regulation is 5 straightforward right now according to the 20 percent 6 reduction with a hard cap, no allowance for anything above 7 that. 8 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Thank you. 9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. One more question. 10 Pesticide regulation in California is the sole 11 province of DPR, or do local jurisdictions also have the 12 right to regulate pesticides? 13 DPR CHIEF DEPUTY DIRECTOR GOSLIND: The 14 jurisdiction remains with the state. Locals are precluded 15 from having any local restrictions except for county ag 16 commissions, which, like your air districts, are local 17 enforcement agents. Ag counties can impose and do impose 18 additional restrictions, although largely based and 19 following the state regulations and permit guidance for 20 highly restricted materials. 21 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 22 Mr. Waita. Thank you for being so patient while 23 we were educated on pesticides. 24 MR. WAITA: My name is Mati Waita. I'm a 25 Director of the Restorer Foundation, Ventura Coast Keeper. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 248 1 I want to thank you, Chairman, Board. I'm a resident of 2 Ventura County and have been there my whole life, and so 3 has many generations of my family. 4 I'm disappointed in staff's proposal to backslide 5 on pesticide reduction and breaking the Governor's promise 6 to cut pollution by 2010. Specifically, you have 7 addressed the pitfall staff ignored in Appendix H of the 8 proposal to the environment. 9 Pesticide use in Ventura County has increased, 10 causing neuro behavior, cancer risk, asthma, and lung 11 capacity. While VOC pollution from many sources has 12 reduced in Ventura County over the past decade, your staff 13 is asking you to approve a document which will offset 14 pesticide VOC reduction obligations in return for credit 15 from reductions already achieved from vehicle emissions 16 throughout the state. 17 Also, last week you approved a proposal to 18 approve Central Valley's attainment deadline by seven 19 years. That's outrageous. Your staff wants Ventura 20 residents to continue to suffer from exposure to 21 pesticides in return for emission reductions that this 22 agency is supposed to achieve anyway. 23 I'm a Ventura County Chumash Native American and 24 trace my ancestry many generations. I have seen my 25 community has been exposed to an ever-increasing amount of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 249 1 pesticides and its health effects to my family, endangered 2 wildlife and natural resources that we have depended on 3 and depend on today. 4 If this proposal as approved as is, it will 5 continue to expose Ventura residents and the wildlife to 6 an additional one ton per day of increased VOC emissions 7 from fumigants. And that's what we're talking about here 8 is the fumigants in Ventura County, not vehicle emissions. 9 We ask you to protect Ventura's residents by 10 rejecting this proposal; direct staff to strengthen the 11 plan by adding VOC reductions required by court before 12 bringing it to the Board for final approve. 13 Every day I drive through this land and see a 14 large percent of minorities working in the field for a 15 living. Put yourself in that place. We have been forced 16 to follow policies imposed on our homeland, stand by yours 17 as you make your decisions. 18 Yesterday we celebrated the solstice, the longest 19 and one of the hottest days of the year. And we celebrate 20 it to honor the clarity of mind and spirit and the wisdom 21 of our elders to have a history of their own, and for the 22 leaders that make decisions for a healthy future is what's 23 at hand here. 24 I encourage you to review this proposal and make 25 sure that whatever decisions we make are for the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 250 1 betterment of all of us, not for strawberry fields, not 2 for the kind of impact that it has for a benefit. I've 3 lived here my whole life and I've watched citrus, 4 avocados, walnuts all be replaced by strawberries. 5 And you need to put yourself in a place where you 6 could see these fumigants going into the site and also as 7 you inhale. This is what causes so much ailments. And 8 I've seen aunties and uncles and so many family members 9 have asthma, cancers, and a lot of health effects. 10 So take in consideration we're talking about 11 pesticides, not emissions from the vehicles. 12 Thank you. 13 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 14 (Applause.) 15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Mr. Chandiok. 16 MR. CHANDIOK: Yes, Rishi Chandiok. I work with 17 the Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment. Good 18 afternoon to distinguished members of the Air Resources 19 Board. 20 I belief that you are specifically distinguished 21 because you're in a position to be leaders, not just in 22 this country, but to show a glaring example to other 23 countries what is possible and what air resources boards 24 and management agencies can do. 25 I'd like to warn the Board again adopting the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 251 1 specific measures as they pertain to mobile agriculture 2 resources, because in adopting those the staff and 3 industry will therefore be thwarting whatever power and 4 whatever potential the Board has to become leaders in this 5 area. 6 I understand that there are some legal issues 7 that are up, and I will address them. However, I'd first 8 like to bring into light the fact that the proposed SIP 9 does not take into account oil and gas prices that are on 10 the rise. Basically what's happening is that considering 11 that most of the SIP's plan is to impose voluntary actions 12 on industry without considering the fact that industry's 13 looking to get rid of their more expensive vehicles and 14 more vehicles that keep eating up gas because that's just 15 going to cost them money, that hasn't been taken into 16 accounts in the SIP. 17 Now, of course if the SIP is approved and sent to 18 the EPA, groups like the Center on Race, Poverty, and the 19 Environment will look to sue. There's also state action 20 specifically under Government Code 11135 about disparate 21 impact of your decision on minorities in this state. 22 The trucks that idle, the trucks that sit around, 23 the rail cars that sit around and idle and are running 24 aren't in communities that they know the people have the 25 resources to fight back against this. They're in the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 252 1 communities where they believe the people don't have the 2 resources and the know-how to fight back again this. 3 So, frankly, there are many legal issues. But 4 because there are these legal issues, it would be better 5 to have the community involved in community negotiations 6 and talk. I mean, if there's already so much -- you know, 7 a large amount of worry that there's going to be legal 8 action afterwards, well, then defer this SIP for now, talk 9 with legal groups, and let's talk and have discussion 10 about, well, how could we have a manageable legal 11 solution. 12 So, frankly, I'd like to conclude with saying 13 that there's an old environmental justice adage that says, 14 "If you have the wrong complexion, that means you get no 15 protection." And at this point, the Board is in a good 16 position to get rid of that adage. 17 So thank you, and environmental justice for all. 18 (Applause.) 19 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 20 Mr. Miltenberg. And then we'll have Henna 21 Pithia. I think we heard from Grace Jun already. 22 Chiemela Okwandu and Miguel Lopez are the next ones. 23 Mr. Miltenberg. 24 MR. MILTENBERG: Thank you. I'll mention that 25 usually widely known by my name Michael J. I'm just an PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 253 1 individual citizen here representing myself. And I 2 appreciate the opportunity to speak. Thank you. 3 I actually wanted to raise an issue which I find 4 is missing from this report in the addendums that I looked 5 at. But it's an issue which was covered by an Air 6 Resources Board paper. This one is from February 2000. 7 Report to the Legislature on the potential health and 8 environmental impacts of -- I'm going to leave this as 9 Mystery issue X for now, because I don't want to tell you 10 what it is. I'm afraid it won't be taken seriously. I'm 11 going to describe the pertinent facts from this document. 12 On page 50 it says, "For particulate matter 13 exhaust emissions, the factor X emits 8 to 49 times the 14 particulates of a light-duty vehicle." It actually shows 15 light-duty vehicles as emitting .13 I guess grams per 16 hour. This X factor emits 6.43, 49 times the amount of an 17 SUV or a car. Undoubtedly closer to 100 times the amount 18 of a regular car. 19 I don't know if I'm allowed to ask questions. 20 But perhaps, can staff tell me what factor X is? 21 Leaf blowers. 22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: It's probably not a good 23 time for quizzes. 24 MR. MILTENBERG: Okay. It's not a quiz. People 25 should know that I'm referring to gas-powered leaf PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 254 1 blowers. And that's why I didn't want to mention it at 2 the beginning. People laugh when you bring it up. 3 Let me do the numbers. This same report 4 estimates 430,000 gas-powered leaf blowers in California. 5 I think that is a very low estimate. That was in 2000. 6 If we assume 500,000 leaf blowers now, I'm going to guess 7 that 200,000 gas-powered leaf blowers are in use by 8 gardeners every day. Times 50. That is up to 10 9 million -- the equivalent of 10 million cars being driven 10 every day. There are only 24 million cars registered in 11 California. Not every one is used every day. 12 Plus, a gardener using this professionally is 13 using it -- if he uses it 15 minutes out of every hour -- 14 and I think that estimate is low -- these are being used 15 at least two hours a day. Not every one of the 24 million 16 cars registered in California is being used two hours a 17 day. 18 We have the chance to remove an enormous source 19 of particulate, of NOx, and of greenhouse gases overnight 20 in a usage that didn't exist 25 years ago and is 21 completely unnecessary. 22 I ask you seriously, especially staff, to 23 consider this very serious issue and include it in future 24 plans for how overnight we can reduce what I guess to be 25 20 percent of our emission problems here in southern PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 255 1 California, in the entire state. 2 As I said, that's on page 50 of your February 3 2000 report. 4 Thank you very much. 5 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 6 (Applause.) 7 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Question. 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Yes, Ms. D'Adamo. 9 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: This has been an issue 10 that I've been concerned about for years, so I'd like to 11 thank the witness for bringing it up. 12 And if the staff could respond to whether or not 13 it was considered. And I don't recall seeing it on South 14 Coast's list. 15 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: The Air Resources 16 Board has already regulated the engines in leaf blowers. 17 And at the time those regulations were adopted, we 18 examined in detail whether it was possible to have 19 hand-held electric equipment. And it was cost 20 prohibitive. And so that's where the regulations left 21 off. And we weren't planning to revisit them any time 22 soon. 23 Local governments always have the option of 24 banning their use entirely, restricting the hours of 25 operation, and some have. But it's not -- I don't believe PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 256 1 we have the authority to ban their outright use in an 2 entire air basin. 3 MR. MILTENBERG: May I speak to that? 4 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I just think it might be 5 worth going back and taking a look again because of the 6 advancements in electrification. 7 The concern that I also have -- this is probably 8 more an operational issue -- is the particulates that are 9 blown from one side of the street to the next, back and 10 forth from one gardener that's at one house and then later 11 on that afternoon they blow it back. So just a lot of 12 blowing stuff around. 13 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I must say that I share what 14 I take to be Ms. D'Adamo's visceral dislike of gas-powered 15 leaf blowers. And I think that there may be particulate 16 implications because of the amount of dust that goes in 17 the air. I certainly sense that walking across Capitol 18 Park every morning, every evening. 19 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Well, we examined 20 that too. And it has not come up as a strategy for fine 21 particle attainment. What's blowing around are larger 22 particles principally and not enough to violate a PM10 23 standard. We did exam those incidences as well. 24 It's a nuisance, for sure. It's very annoying to 25 people with respiratory problems. I close my windows and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 257 1 put the recirc on if I go anywhere near a leaf blower. 2 And brooms and rakes would be better. Water of course is 3 a problem in the drought considering -- 4 MR. MILTENBERG: May I answer that? 5 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Briefly. 6 MR. MILTENBERG: I don't believe that electric 7 leaf blowers are much of a substitution for this, as they 8 also bring up particulate matter from the ground that 9 should not be brought up. And that does include 10 pesticides, also dried feces, and other chemical 11 fertilizers, et cetera. And if I understand, they are 12 small particulate. 13 The bottom line is these things put out 49 times 14 as much as a car. 15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 16 MR. MILTENBERG: Thank you. 17 Ms. Pithia. 18 Ms. Okwandu. 19 Mr. Lopez -- Miguel Lopez. 20 Ms. Betancourt -- Sylvia Betancourt. 21 I'm going to read off a whole series of names 22 here. And if your name's on this list, please come to the 23 front of the room, and that will speed up the process. 24 Virginia Field, Wale Jimott, Adrian Martinez, 25 David Zhou, Felix Aguilar, Rachel Lopez. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 258 1 Are any of those people here? 2 Thank you for staying. And identity yourself 3 when you get here. 4 MR. MARTINEZ: Chairman Sawyer, members of the 5 Board. My name is Adrian Martinez, and I'm here on behalf 6 of the Natural Resources Defense Council. 7 As all of you are well aware, California has some 8 of the most intractable air quality problems in the 9 nation. I acknowledge that leading the state to clean, 10 healthy air is no small task. And we appreciate the Board 11 and staff's hard work to date. 12 With that said, the state's strategy as currently 13 drafted falls short of cleaning the air expeditiously. 14 For this reason the Board should direct staff to 15 strengthen the plan. 16 I want to start with the question that Chairman 17 Sawyer posed at the beginning of the day pertaining to the 18 PM2.5 attainment date in the South Coast. At the outset I 19 remind the Board that there is no black box available for 20 the PM2.5 standard by 2014. This is a hard and fast 21 deadline. 22 There's currently an emissions reduction gap that 23 needs to be filled, approximately 49 tons per day, or 24 somewhere between .4 and .5 micrograms per cubic meter of 25 PM, to show attainment under the EPA-approved model that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 259 1 the South Coast has chosen. Given that the state cannot 2 rely on the black box, this gap must be filled to show 3 attainment. 4 CARB and SCAQMD have posited very different 5 approaches to bridge this gap. 6 On the one hand CARB staff suggests that 7 additional reductions are not necessary because the staff 8 believes it can use a weight-of-evidence, or as Kurt 9 described it, other data, standard to show attainment. 10 On the other hand, SCAQMD urges that the gap be 11 bridged by CARB committing to and achieving an additional 12 49 tons per day of NOx. 13 If neither agency commits to additional 14 reductions, the state will be forced to rely on this 15 weight-of-evidence standard, which is a difficult standard 16 to meet. 17 NRDC does not believe that CARB has provided 18 sufficient evidence that a weight-of-evidence standard 19 will work to meet this standard, the PM2.5 standard 20 specifically. 21 There are consequences to both approaches. The 22 risk of taking CARB's weight-of-evidence approach is that 23 during the next SIP revision we could find out that the 24 trends were not accurate, and as trade starts to double or 25 triple in the South Coast, we will not achieve the PM2.5 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 260 1 standard. That leaves far fewer years to close the gap to 2 ensure that the South Coast does not lose billions in 3 federal transportation dollars, among other public health 4 consequences. And contrary to CARB staff's glass 5 half-full argument, it would actually be a glass 6 completely empty, devoid of federal transportation 7 dollars. 8 The risk of SCAQMD's approach is that CARB might 9 be correct, that the trends in PM2.5 is going down and we 10 will meet the standard. Thus, CARB may achieve an 11 additional 49 tons per day of reductions in NOx in excess 12 of what's needed for the PM2.5 standard. 13 The upside of this dilemma is it's a reduction in 14 NOx in one of the most polluted air basins in the nation. 15 And given these choices, NRDC is fully supportive of the 16 latter. 17 There are several additional measures that should 18 be incorporated into the plan and others that should be 19 strengthened, such as heavy-duty trucks, enhanced smog 20 check, to name a few. We submitted more extensive 21 comments. And thank you for the time today. 22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 23 (Applause.) 24 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: In case you think you're 25 signed up and you don't hear your name called, I may have PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 261 1 skipped over it. So let the Clerk know and we'll put your 2 name back on the list. 3 But the next people I have scheduled to speak are 4 Mike Miller, Lori Huddleston, Agnes Tham, Bill Lamarr, 5 Bill Magavern, and Marie Hollis. 6 Mr. Miller. 7 Ms. Huddleston. 8 MS. HUDDLESTON: Good afternoon, Chairman Sawyer 9 AND Board members. I'm Lori Huddleston, representing Los 10 Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, also 11 known as Metro. 12 I'm going to provide my agencies comments on 13 SCAG's goods movement measures, particularly for the South 14 Coast plan. And it's late, so brevity's important. 15 In our current multi-agency consultations with 16 SCAG and other transportation commissions, we're working 17 together currently to refine the goods movement measures 18 that you mentioned earlier so that they will have 19 realistic schedules, realistic technologies, and realistic 20 committed funding. 21 Part of a committed funding plan would include 22 backstopping by CARB of the goods movement measures. 23 Without these realistic timelines, projects, and funding, 24 we as an agency for the County of Los Angeles are 25 concerned that transportation funding and projects PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 262 1 throughout the South Coast Region may be jeopardized. 2 So thank you for your leadership and commitment 3 to improving our air and our health, and we will continue 4 to work with our partners in the South Coast area. 5 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 6 (Applause.) 7 Ms. Tham. 8 Mr. Lamarr. 9 Mr. Magavern. 10 MR. MAGAVERN: Good afternoon, Chairman Sawyer 11 and Board members. I'm Bill Magavern representing Sierra 12 Club, California. And I'm confident that both the Board 13 and the staff of the Air Resources Board as well as the 14 Board and the staff of the South Coast Air Quality 15 Management District are committed to the cause of clean 16 air. 17 I also believe that we all need to do better for 18 the sake of our health and for the sake of our children. 19 So I want to present a few of the areas in which I think 20 we can do better. 21 First of all, pesticides. And we are concerned 22 with both the VOCs and the toxic effects. 23 The pesticide VOC emission reduction promised by 24 the '94 SIP was never realized. And now we have a 25 proposal to accommodate increased pesticide VOC emissions PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 263 1 in Ventura County. These are fumigants, including methyl 2 bromide, chloropicrin, metam sodium. They're harmful to 3 human health. They're coming mostly from strawberry 4 fields. The strawberry growers have known for over a 5 decade that they needed no get out of fumigants. And now 6 they're telling us that their fumigant use is the last 7 barrier against sprawl in Ventura County. And I don't buy 8 that. 9 It's disappointing that after all this time we're 10 hearing that instead of hearing a long-term reduction 11 strategy for pesticide VOCs. 12 In the area of heavy-duty vehicles, clearly 13 there's a huge challenge in getting the fleet to turn over 14 rapidly enough so that we've got cleaner vehicles in the 15 fleet. And that's going to take money. And months ago 16 when you had a meeting and talked about the SIP, I 17 suggested that you put together the need list and go to 18 the Governor and the Legislature and see if they would 19 step up to the challenge, since really the Governor and 20 the majority of the Legislature are committed to clean 21 air. So I hear some numbers now that will take -- it will 22 take billions. But I don't think there's yet been a 23 concrete request of the elected officials to fund that. 24 Where should the funding come from? Well, first 25 of all, a lot of it should come from the private sector. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 264 1 The Governor has called for a public/private partnership. 2 The people of California put up a billion dollars in 3 public money last November. We're still waiting for the 4 private march. Certainly the bigger companies are capable 5 of funding a lot of this. The smaller companies need 6 assistance. So let's ask the elected officials to see 7 what they can come up with to raise that money. 8 Certainly, one place to start would be a fee on 9 the containers that are being shipped through the major 10 ports in California. And I hope the administration will 11 get behind Senator Lowenthal's proposal. 12 I also think we need to do a lot more in the area 13 of transportation planning, and really want to second 14 Board Member Sperling's comments on that; that we need to 15 look towards the long term and how we're going to reduce 16 the emissions not only of the VOCs and NOx, but also of 17 greenhouse gases that are coming from the transportation 18 sector. And in addition to looking at vehicle 19 technologies and fuels, we've got to look at much smarter 20 land use and reducing vehicle miles traveled. 21 Thank you. 22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 23 (Applause.) 24 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 25 Ms. Hollis. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 265 1 MR. LaMARR: No, I'm not Ms. Hollis. 2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: You are? 3 MR. LaMARR: I'm Bill LaMarr. 4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Fine. Thank you. 5 MR. LaMARR: Good afternoon, Chairman Sawyer and 6 Board members. My name is Bill LaMarr, and I'm the 7 Executive Director of the California Small Business 8 Alliance. 9 Alliance members are major California trade 10 associations that speak with a unified voice on matters 11 involving the environment, the economy, legislation, and 12 legislation that has the potential to influence the 13 current and future business operations of their member 14 companies. 15 Approximately 20,000 companies belong to these 16 trade associations; and approximately 10,000 of them are 17 located in the South Coast Region. Nearly all of these 18 small businesses are classified as manufacturers. 19 Moreover, the operations of these businesses are subject 20 to regulations that are promulgated by local, state, and 21 federal agencies. 22 For more than a year, just like your agency, 23 Alliance members have been an integral part of the 24 discussions and the design of the latest revision to the 25 district's air quality management plan. As a part of this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 266 1 process, we recognized that there is some disagreement 2 between the two agencies about the comparative stringency 3 of the two plans. 4 Two months ago, April 23rd, to be exact, we sent 5 letters to the chairs of both agencies asking that you 6 move quickly to resolve the disputed and unsettled 7 elements of both plans before taking any action to adopt 8 them. Businesses, small and large, are one of the targets 9 of these two plans and, as such, will be required to 10 absorb much of the cost to implement whatever control 11 measures are ultimately adopted. Businesses deserve 12 greater assurance that their future actions and 13 investments to implement and comply with these plans will 14 be meaningful, technologically feasible, and cost 15 effective. 16 The quality of the air in the South Coast Basin 17 has improved over the years. And notwithstanding what 18 others have already said, this marked improvement in air 19 quality is attributable in large measure to the actions 20 and investments by businesses, particularly small 21 businesses. It's now time for other sources of pollution 22 to do their fair share to help alleviate this problem. 23 I know that you're here to consider your strategy 24 for California's State Implementation Plan and not the 25 district's AQMP. But as responsible public officials and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 267 1 in the spirit of good movement, I ask you on behalf of our 2 entire membership to give your fullest consideration to 3 the work and the science that went into the district's 4 plan for improving air quality in this region. 5 Thank you for allowing me to comment. 6 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 7 (Applause.) 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: The next five people on my 9 list are Jane Alfonso, Reverend William Smart, Donna 10 Barnett, Faramarz Nabavi, and George S. 11 Ms. Alfonso. 12 MS. ALFONSO: Good afternoon, Chairman, Board, 13 and staff. Thank you for this opportunity. I'm Jane 14 Alfonso and I'm Co-chair of the Social Concerns Committee 15 of the South Coast Interfaith Council and I'm also here 16 representing the Environmental Priorities Network, which 17 is a related organization. 18 The South Coast Interfaith Council comes to you 19 with a different perspective of faith. Many of the 20 congregations and homes of worship are in the Long Beach 21 and San Pedro area. And there actually is a crisis you've 22 heard from many of the other witnesses, the crisis of 23 health. We're also very concerned about the economic 24 justice issues. 25 In fact, we come to you with the universal tenets PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 268 1 of love your neighbor, economic justice, and creation 2 care. We're concerned about that health detriment, we're 3 concerned about global warming. 4 And we heard from Reverend Lilly earlier where he 5 shared his thoughts on the St. Francis prayer of 6 knowledge, wisdom, and courage. And I have to say that I 7 think this plan is actually a timid plan. And I would 8 like to see you -- us shoot for the stars. I think of 9 California as being a leader in our country. And I don't 10 think this plan represents that leadership. 11 Can we really say to an entire generation of 12 youths that they will live their life -- their short life 13 with bad lungs? Could you not but be moved when the woman 14 read the list of people that had died in her Compton 15 neighborhood? So I urge you to open your hearts and to 16 vote your faith. 17 And I'd also like to make the comments as a 18 personal citizen. And I'd like to say that this past 19 summer I became aware of California Air Resources Board 20 when I was watching a documentary. And your organization 21 did not fare well, especially the Chairman, a different 22 person at the time. And I just remind you that there's a 23 video. This is being filmed. And while this may not make 24 front-page news and it's buried on page three and the 25 hours and hours of public testimony are in the last few PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 269 1 paragraphs, I just want to remind you that this is going 2 down in history. And I want you to consider your 3 grandchildren. I want you to consider the relatives of 4 those people in Compton when you make any of your 5 decisions. 6 Thank you. 7 (Applause.) 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 9 Reverend Smart. 10 REVEREND SMART: To the distinguished Chairman 11 and members of this body, my name is Reverend William D. 12 Smart, Jr. I'm an organizer for the Los Angeles Alliance 13 for a New Economy, a member of the Coalition for Clean and 14 Safe Ports, and also Pastor of the Christ Liberty 15 Tabernacle. 16 I'm here today because I'm concerned about this 17 plan. And I hope that -- the draft that it's in now. And 18 I hope that you can strengthen it. 19 In the past four years I have served as an 20 organizer around the LAX Community Benefits Agreement, an 21 agreement that worked with the community to enhance and 22 get rid of a lot of the pollution at the airport. And 23 currently now I'm a part of the Coalition of Clean and 24 Safe Ports. And we're working to eradicate a lot of the 25 negative emissions coming from the trucks that do business PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 270 1 at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. And hopefully 2 you can be supportive of that effort that the ports are 3 doing down there, and as the South Coast AQMD did a couple 4 of weeks ago. 5 But my concern is, working in those two areas, I 6 have found a disproportionate amount of asthma in the 7 communities. I have watched, as many people have 8 testified, from the communities of Lennox, Inglewood, from 9 Compton, Wilmington, parts of Long Beach, parts of Los 10 Angeles, the children. I have watched these children. In 11 my pastoral responsibilities I have sat in hospital rooms 12 as people were pulled off of ventilators. I've held my 13 members' hands as people were dying. 14 I've only been here ten years. I had two 15 children born in this area. Both of them have asthma. I 16 have watched many times. I have buried some people dying 17 from lung cancer. And while I've lived in North Carolina, 18 Alabama, New York, Washington DC pastoring -- and in 19 Tennessee, I've never seen it like it here. 20 I think you have an obligation to really 21 strengthen this plan. I think if there's ever a time to 22 act, it's now. 23 I would ask you, if not you, this Board, then 24 who? If not now, when? If not us, who should stand for 25 us and our children? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 271 1 Thank you. 2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 3 Mr. Nabavi. 4 George S. 5 Please identity yourself. 6 MS. NABAVI: My name is Faramarz Nabavi, and I'm 7 a lifelong resident of California, born and raised here. 8 I'm not representing any organization, but rather speaking 9 as an affected citizen. 10 As has been well documented, particulate matter 11 has an especially potent impact on children, crippling the 12 development of their lungs, condemning them to a lifetime 13 of asthma and other respiratory problems and premature 14 death. And I'm one of them. 15 When I was four years old, my parents moved to a 16 home located directly next to an active rail line. Until 17 that point in time no one in my family had any respiratory 18 problems. During the period of time we lived there I 19 suffered from two episodes of severe respiratory illness, 20 both of which resulted in over a month of missed 21 attendance of school during those formative years. 22 My father first had to get prescription 23 medication for asthma, with episodes progressively getting 24 so severe that at one point he was hospitalized in 25 emergency room. And my mother developed severe allergies PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 272 1 that have persisted to this day. 2 After leaving that location, I continued to need 3 asthma medication. I've suffered permanent damage to my 4 lungs, having a lifelong reduced level of lung capacity 5 and significantly increased susceptibility and incidents 6 of respiratory illness. 7 There's no doubt that diesel emissions, 8 particularly from trucks, buses, ships and, in my case, 9 trains constitute the largest component of cancer risk 10 attributable to air pollution, estimated to be 71 percent 11 of the total. 12 Epidemiologists estimated that lifetime exposure 13 to particulates in the South Coast Air Basin poses a risk 14 so high that one in three southern Californians could 15 suffer from cancer as a result. 16 Delays are not acceptable. Action must be taken 17 immediately. I'm here to demand the following measures: 18 Number one: A mandatory retrofit of all 19 diesel-fueled vehicles with particulate traps. Any 20 vehicle that uses diesel that does not have a particulate 21 trap should be banned from use or entry in this state. 22 Number two: Enforcement of air pollution 23 measures should be backed by criminal as well as civil 24 penalties. We don't slap fines on the wrists of serial 25 murderers. We send them to jail. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 273 1 Number three: Corporations found to have 2 multiple severe violations of air pollution limits should 3 be subject to a three-strikes rule; whereupon the third 4 violation in three years, that corporation would be barred 5 from doing business in the State of California. 6 Number four: Reliance on unspecified black-box 7 measures to achieve pollution reduction goals is 8 unacceptable and should be replaced with specific measures 9 based on existing proven technology. 10 I take the matter of air pollution very 11 seriously, and specifically diesel pollution. Your 12 current plans provide too much delay in addressing diesel 13 pollution and do not outline potential legislation for 14 criminal enforcement. Your action is condemning thousands 15 of Californians like myself to signs of early death. 16 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 17 (Applause.) 18 Donna Barnett. 19 MS. BARNETT: Thank you. My name's Donna 20 Barnett. I'm here representing myself. And I'm here to 21 encourage you to adopt the strictest air quality measures 22 possible and AQMD's plan, because people here are sick and 23 many are dying. 24 I myself was diagnosed with cancer at 24. I come 25 from a very healthy family. I have lived within half a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 274 1 mile of the freeway most of my life, and I'm going to do 2 something about that. I don't recommend living near a 3 freeway, especially if you're in southern California. 4 I have many friends here that are coming down 5 with cancer. We all live on the west side. We're in 6 Santa Monica, Brentwood, west L.A. 7 Recently a friend died of lung cancer who never 8 smoked. Now, she was in her sixties. And I mentioned 9 this to a friend of mine, and she went on to tell me about 10 five other women in their forties living in Santa Monica 11 and on the west side that recently died of lung cancer. 12 And I want to mention, because I went through 13 this with my friend's mother who just died, how painful 14 lung cancer is. It is one of the worst cancers to die 15 from. You're in terrific pain, need constant morphine. 16 And you end up not being able to drink, eat, and in my 17 friend's mother's case, she withered away to about 40 18 pounds before she died. 19 It's a horrible problem here. And there's no 20 reason that I can see that you don't adopt the strictest 21 standards and measures possible. I've worked in PR for 22 many years representing a lot of companies in technology 23 sector. And I've been constantly amazed at how smart 24 these people are at creating new technologies. And I 25 can't help but think that if you create the right PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 275 1 legislation now, you're going to get some of the best 2 minds in California and the world getting to work to make 3 things happen. And I don't know what those technologies 4 are myself. That's not my specialty. I would just like 5 to see laws enacted today that are going to make the 6 difference in how people work towards a cleaner California 7 and a cleaner world. And you guys have the power. So I 8 hope you use it. 9 (Applause.) 10 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 11 George S. 12 MR. SYBERT: Did they pass out my handouts yet? 13 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I don't know. 14 MR. SYBERT: I would ask for my -- 15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: It' coming. 16 MR. SYBERT: -- time to wait until that gets 17 passed out. 18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. Would you please 19 proceed. 20 MR. SYBERT: Okay. My name is George Sybert. I 21 come here on behalf of all the American citizens in this 22 country. Chairman Sawyer and distinguished Board members, 23 thank you for your time for meeting with us today. 24 I would like to address particulate matter 25 emissions from aircraft, in specific. I would like to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 276 1 draw your attention to the aircraft contrails fact sheet. 2 This describes aircraft contrails as defined by the EPA. 3 Contrails are line-shaped clouds produced by 4 aircraft engine exhaust, typically an engine cruise 5 altitude several miles above the Earth's surface. They do 6 affect the cloudiness of the Earth's atmosphere. However, 7 they might affect the Earth's temperature and climate. 8 If you turn to page 5. The Clean Air Act directs 9 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to establish 10 and -- to establish aircraft and aircraft emission 11 standards for any pollutant that could reasonably endanger 12 public health and welfare. 13 The EPA establishes emission standards for 14 aircraft and the FAA of the U.S. Department of 15 Transportation administers and enforces those standards. 16 Currently there are no regulations addressing 17 contrails and their atmospheric effects. 18 I'd like to get on the public record today that 19 something is going on in our society that is not being 20 discussed. I'm talking about persistent contrails, also 21 known as chem trails. These chem trails are different 22 than contrails and they are heavy in particulate matter, 23 which is what we're here addressing today. 24 An ordinary contrail is short lived. 25 Newly-formed ice trails will -- and by their own PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 277 1 definition, will quickly evaporate as exhaust gases are 2 completely mixed into the surrounding atmosphere. The 3 resulting line contrail will extend only a short distance 4 behind the aircraft. 5 A persistent contrail, also known as a chem 6 trail, results in line-shaped chem trails extending large 7 distances behind the aircraft for several miles. And they 8 spread out beyond imagine. 9 They have a heavy effect on the atmosphere, and 10 that has not been addressed. And it really needs to be 11 addressed. And as a part of global warming, changes in 12 cloudiness are important because clouds help control the 13 temperature of the Earth's atmosphere. Changes in clouds 14 result during human activities are important because they 15 contribute to long-term changes in the earth's climate. 16 I'd like to direct your attention to the second 17 part of my handout titled "Republican Kessinich Rewrites 18 Bill HR 2977," in which -- let me see -- Kessinich 19 introduced this in January of -- or, no, in 2001, and this 20 is a bill to specifically -- to preserve the cooperative 21 peaceful use of -- 22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Would you please conclude. 23 MR. SYBERT: Okay. So this is a bill that limits 24 exotic weaponry in space. And it details the use of chem 25 trails, particle beams, electromagnetic radiation and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 278 1 plasma. They made him rewrite it into Bill HR 3616 in 2 January -- no, that's 2002, in which they took out all 3 mention of chem trails and electromagnetic radiation. 4 Basically they're spraying us with a -- 5 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: We have a copy of what 6 you're describing, and that will be good for the record. 7 MR. SYBERT: Okay. 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: So if you could conclude, 9 please. 10 MR. SYBERT: The issue here is that we are being 11 sprayed by particulate matter by aircraft. We are told 12 that they are ice trails condensing off of jet exhaust. 13 This is basically nonsense. And I came from Central 14 Valley this morning, in which the skies were clear. By 15 the time we got down here, the sky was covered by a 16 whitish-gray particulate matter. This is not smog. 17 And I would encourage you all to do your own 18 research and to read through the bills that were 19 introduced to the house by Republican Kessinich. 20 Thank you for your time. 21 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 22 Our final -- the final five people on my list are 23 Matt Keener, Lydia Bautista, Sharon Neeley, Gizelle Fong, 24 and Barry Wallerstein. 25 Matt Keener. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 279 1 MR. KEENER: Yes, that's right. Matt Keener. 2 I'm with the American Lung Association. And I'm here 3 representing the staff -- the professional staff, the 4 volunteers, the researchers, the medical doctors, the 1.8 5 million that we have on our mailing list here in 6 California alone, the 70,000 who visit our website every 7 month here in California alone. These people are very 8 concerned with the air quality in California. 9 You know, I talk to people and I say, you know, 10 "I'm with the American Lung Association." And they say, 11 "Oh, what do you do there?" And I say, "I fight for clean 12 air." And they sort of stop and say, "Oh I never knew 13 that." Then the second thing they say is, "Oh, but of 14 course, that makes sense. You're concerned with lung 15 disease." And I say, "That's right." 16 We're really concerned with preventing lung 17 disease. And the number one issue on our minds today here 18 in California, and nationally, but especially here in 19 California, is air quality. Because we all know we have 20 some of the worst air quality in the nation here in 21 California. And you've heard from people all day today, 22 all kinds of numbers, all kinds of statistics. I won't 23 belabor them. But I will say this: You have, as people 24 have said, an historic opportunity today as a body and as 25 individuals, each one of you individually. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 280 1 I'm sorry I was late today. The reason I was 2 late is I was at the adoption proceeding at the children's 3 family court to adopt my one-year-old baby boy. A very 4 proud moment. 5 (Applause.) 6 Thank you. 7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Congratulations. 8 MS. KEENER: He has asthma. He was hospitalized 9 in January. Five of the scariest days of my wife and my 10 life. 11 My father is dying of cancer. 12 You know, I look to my baby boy and I look to my 13 father and I look to you all, I look to this Board, and I 14 ask you, now no longer as an official representative of 15 the American Lung Association, now just as a citizen, as a 16 human being, human being to human being, do not be where 17 my father is, dying of cancer, and cursing himself because 18 he wishes he had done more. There was more he could have 19 done. 20 I understand what you have to do is a very 21 complex task. But when you get to that place in your 22 life, don't let your legacy be that you just did what you 23 had to do. Reach out now, stretch yourselves, do the 24 absolute maximum. If there's any doubt in your mind, go 25 to the health side of the equation. If you're not PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 281 1 concerned with health, if you're only concerned with 2 business -- hey, I understand that too -- go to the health 3 costs. They are staggering. They far outweigh what we're 4 going to make from spewing more pollution. 5 Thank you very much. 6 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 7 (Applause.) 8 Ms. Bautista. 9 MS. BAUTISTA: Good afternoon, Chairman Sawyer, 10 members of the Board, staff, and all the breathers that 11 are left in the room. My name is Lydia Bautista. I'm 12 with the Coalition for Clean Air, a statewide 13 environmental nonprofit, based in Sacramento, but also 14 with offices in Fresno and in Los Angeles. 15 And I'm also a San Gabriel Valley native. And I 16 grew up in the San Gabriel Valley during the time when 17 smog -- the epicenter of smog was really there. I can 18 recall a day trying to walk home from high school and not 19 being able to breathe. So clean air's very personal to 20 me. 21 Now, today I have a niece and two nephews and 22 they live in Riverside, in Mira Loma specifically, and 23 they suffer with asthma. But I know that I'm not alone in 24 having these personal connections with this unnecessary 25 suffering. And I know -- I'm confident that there are PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 282 1 many of you on the dais that have those similar 2 connections to this, again, unnecessary suffering of 3 asthma and other respiratory illnesses. 4 Just last week many of us met in Fresno. And 5 before the dais was an opportunity to review a plan which 6 testimony after testimony had shown was an incomplete 7 plan. And though we appreciate the efforts on the dais to 8 actually make a commitment, but not the exact commitment 9 that we were looking for, but to at least ensure that not 10 every -- that every stone was not left unturned, and that 11 we were collecting all that money into that piggy bank, 12 the piggy bank of air pollution reductions that we all 13 needed to make. And I think there was agreement from 14 folks in the dais and the audience that the plan that was 15 before you last week wasn't incorporating all those 16 reductions. 17 And yet here today once again there's another 18 plan before you, another incomplete plan that's also 19 not -- failed to incorporate all the reductions that are 20 available to it. And with all due respect, you know, I 21 take -- I really have to disagree with any 22 characterization that this plan is complete or aggressive. 23 Because in the face of all this testimony and all the 24 science and all that we know about air pollution and the 25 way that it's harming people, how can we be proud by using PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 283 1 words such as "aggressive" about a plan that's really 2 failing to achieve even the minimal federal health-based 3 standards as soon as needed. Instead, what we're faced 4 with is delays. 5 And so with all the testimony that you've heard 6 today from doctors, from residents, from people that 7 you've met with even before today, with the recognition of 8 all the science, we ask you, please incorporate the 9 amendments that we've submitted in writing, you know, all 10 the emissions that are available from heavy-duty trucks, 11 from the agricultural equipment -- again, I remind you 12 that there's zero commitment currently in the plan at all. 13 Consumer products, which hasn't been raised 14 today, but that's another area where the Air Resources 15 Board can really take a leading role in helping to reduce 16 pollution from that source. 17 Pesticide use, you've heard many folks speak to 18 that issue. 19 Marine vessels, the ships. For those who have 20 grown up or live near the harbors, this is a huge source; 21 and even for those of us that are not right next to the 22 harbors. 23 So -- my time is running out. But that's just a 24 sample of some of the things that are missing in this 25 plan. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 284 1 So I ask for you today, let's take the necessary 2 time to strengthen the plan. Let's strengthen it for all 3 the regions. And let's ensure that we're adopting a truly 4 aggressive and complete plan. 5 Thank you. 6 (Applause.) 7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 8 Ms. Fong. 9 MS. FONG: Good afternoon. My name is Gizelle 10 Fong and I represent Communities for Clean Ports, a 11 nonprofit public education campaign based in Los Angeles. 12 I'm also a resident of Long Beach and a mother of 13 two small children. And every night my daughter wakes 14 herself up coughing. 15 California's ports and the goods movements, the 16 trucks, trains, ships, and cargo-handling equipment, are 17 responsible for 75 percent of all diesel particulate 18 matter and 30 percent of all NOx emissions in this state. 19 And the industry is projected to quadruple by 2020. If 20 CARB is to have a chance at meeting the federal clean air 21 standards and not losing federal funding and meeting 22 Governor Schwarzenegger's air quality and greenhouse 23 goals, then you need dramatic emission reductions from the 24 goods movement industry. The ports of Los Angeles and 25 Long Beach are trying to do their part and so is the South PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 285 1 Coast AQMD. 2 But as the state's lead air regulators, CARB 3 needs more aggressive plans to reduce port and goods 4 movement pollution. Specifically marine vessels and 5 trucks are two of the largest pollution sources from the 6 ports and goods movement system. And cargo-handling 7 equipment contributes roughly 25 percent of PM and NOx 8 pollution at the ports. 9 So aggressive regulations and actions to clean up 10 these main polluters will have a significant impact on air 11 quality. We urge CARB to strengthen their proposed rules 12 for emissions from heavy-duty trucks, cargo-handling 13 equipment, and ships, especially since there are available 14 and cost-effective cleaner technologies and alternative 15 fueled vehicles. 16 We specifically recommend: 17 One: Requiring the cleanest available heavy-duty 18 trucks at the time of purchase. Each truck should meet 19 the EPA's highest, cleanest air standards for NOx and 20 diesel particulate matter. And fleet averaging should not 21 be used to create the appearance of additional clean 22 trucks on the road. 23 Number two: Smog checks are currently required 24 for passenger vehicles and should also be required from 25 heavy-duty trucks to ensure that both smog and particulate PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 286 1 matter are being monitored from the significant pollution 2 source. 3 Number three: Requiring the cleanest available 4 cargo-handling equipment, such as yard tractors, at the 5 time of purchase. CARB should require compliance with the 6 cleanest available standard regardless of fuel type. 7 Number four: Accelerate CARB's timeline for 8 implementing dockside electrical power, otherwise known as 9 cold ironing, for ships, given the magnitude of pollution 10 that ships emit now and the protected doubling of their 11 pollution without controls. The proposal for cold ironing 12 must be backed by an accelerated timeline and specific 13 benchmarks to ensure that it happens. 14 And Number 5: Strengthen the commitment to 15 require 1,000 parts per million sulfur marine fuels in 16 ships' auxiliary and main engines by 2010 by requiring 17 clear steps towards demonstration now. 18 We urge CARB to require cleanest available 19 technology and alternative fuels and to discontinue 20 unfairly supporting dirtier diesel equipment through a 21 policy misleadingly called fuel neutrality. Cleanest 22 available technology and cleanest available standards for 23 heavy-duty trucks, cargo-handing equipment are both 24 technologically feasible and cost effective. CARB itself 25 found cold ironing at California ports both PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 287 1 technologically feasible and cost effective. 2 For far too long people in the state have been 3 getting sick and dying prematurely from the goods movement 4 pollution. And all California taxpayers have been footing 5 the bill for the $50 billion in air pollution costs that 6 CARB estimates. Goods movement is a big profitable 7 industry and California should not have to subsidize it 8 any more. 9 Thank you. 10 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 11 (Applause.) 12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Dr. Wallerstein. 13 MR. WALLERSTEIN: Thank you, Dr. Sawyer, members 14 of the Board. I'm Dr. Barry Wallerstein. I'm the 15 Executive Officer at the South Coast Air Quality 16 Management District. 17 It's been a very long hearing. And from your 18 facial expressions as we've watched you for six hours, I 19 know you have intently been listening to all those that 20 have appeared before you. And as you reflect back on the 21 testimony, I think you would probably agree that almost 22 every speaker that came to this microphone asked you to 23 strengthen the plan. The Lieutenant Governor, members of 24 the State Legislature, mayors including the Mayor of Los 25 Angeles representative, city council members, a school PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 288 1 board president, business trade associations, 2 environmental and health groups, interfaith groups, and 3 maybe most importantly, individual residents that took 4 from their busy schedules and came here to appear before 5 you. 6 You also heard from seven of our governing board 7 members today, seven of the eleven. And had Mayor 8 Loveridge been able to be here today, he would have 9 endorsed what you heard from our board members. He voted 10 to support their request when it was considered at the 11 local level. Our Board is absolutely uniform in terms of 12 its request before you. 13 I think you also heard something new today, that 14 just a few days ago the U.S. EPA issued guidance that said 15 the eight-hour ozone plans are not going to be considered 16 late as long as they are provided to EPA prior to August 17 15th. So there is no absolute urgent action that you have 18 to take today relative to those plans. 19 You also heard that the air quality modeling for 20 the South Coast plan that is going to come to you will not 21 demonstrate attainment without an additional 49 tons. But 22 the only way to submit that to EPA is to use a 23 weight-of-evidence test which our technical staff does not 24 believe will pass muster when reviewed by the U.S. EPA 25 staff. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 289 1 You also heard concerns expressed about the lack 2 of specificity in the black-box measures. We have to tell 3 you that we concur with that. 4 Regarding the 49 tons, they've been peer reviewed 5 in terms of the measures we brought forward. We had Joe 6 Calhoun, a former member of your Board and a technical 7 expert in mobile sources, look at it. Mike Jackson at 8 TIAX, Chris Weaver of EEEC, and a number of other experts. 9 And there is substitute language provided in the plan 10 should you want to substitute some other measure and make 11 another adjustment. 12 Your decision will decide the state's ability to 13 attain the PM2.5 standard in 2015; one that will come 14 before you for 2019 in a new plan submittal three years 15 from now, that if you don't do it right now, you'll have 16 no chance of achieving; and of course the eight-hour ozone 17 standard. 18 You heard that the SCAG measures in question are 19 not submitted as part of an emission reduction strategy, 20 and therefore are not a reason to delay considering our 21 plan. 22 Lastly I'd like to just quickly address Board 23 Member Kennard's suggestion. If for any reason today 24 you're not prepared to approve an additional 49 tons into 25 the mobile source strategy, we would support her PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 290 1 recommendation that you delay adoption of the mobile 2 source strategy for a month, ask the staffs to get 3 together -- and you have our full commitment that we will 4 roll up our sleeves, work cooperatively with your staff -- 5 and attempt to reach a better consensus on how to improve 6 the plan. 7 And with that I thank you very much for your 8 attention. 9 (Applause.) 10 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 11 Ms. Witherspoon, does staff have further 12 comments? 13 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: No, we'll wait 14 for Board member questions. 15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Let me note that since this 16 is not a regulatory item, it's not necessary to officially 17 close the record. 18 I would like to give you my thought on the 19 process and where we are and where we should go. First of 20 all, I would note that I'm old enough -- perhaps maybe not 21 uniquely in this room but perhaps -- to have experienced 22 air pollution in this basin at its absolute worst. I 23 commend the South Coast Air Quality Management District 24 and the Air Resources Board for having reduced pollution 25 during my lifetime by about 80 percent. And this was PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 291 1 during a period of substantial growth and continued growth 2 in this basin. 3 I, as my fellow Board members, am fully committed 4 to getting the remaining 20 percent. There's no question 5 that our responsibility is to the health of the people in 6 this basin and to the people of California. 7 Our staffs had been working on the development of 8 an effective adoptable plan. Ms. Kennard and I have been 9 following this process closely, as have Supervisor Wilson 10 and Mayor Pulido of the South Coast air quality Management 11 District Board. And I thank both of them for their 12 contribution to the process. 13 We instructed our staffs to go back to bring more 14 tons to the table, and they did so. The South Coast Air 15 Quality Management District brought PM2.5 tons from 16 charbroiling and wood-burning regulations. Our staff 17 brought additional NOx tons. But not enough to meet the 18 requirements of the implementation plan. 19 It does not serve the health of the people of 20 California to have our staffs continue this disagreement. 21 And I think that we certainly, as I heard Dr. Wallerstein 22 said, we want to commit our staff to working this out. 23 I concur with Ms. Kennard that the proper 24 approach now is not to take action at this time but to 25 keep this item open and to take it up when it is adoptable PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 292 1 and consistent with an approvable SIP for the South Coast 2 Air Quality Management District. 3 I also would like to have staff reassure us about 4 the Ventura County fumigant issue. I am somewhat 5 convinced by the backsliding argument, even though it's a 6 very convoluted regulatory issue that's involved here. I 7 want to make absolutely certain that by doing what has 8 been proposed that there is not a backsliding issue which 9 we've become a party to. 10 And I certainly would like to hear from my fellow 11 Board members on how they feel about where we should be 12 going from here. 13 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman? Excuse me, 14 are you -- 15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Yes. Mrs. Riordan. 16 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Let me lead off. 17 I would support your approach. I think that we 18 have an opportunity to do more. And perhaps with your 19 oversight and the oversight of the other members of 20 that -- I wouldn't call it a committee. But it was what, 21 an arbitration opportunity? 22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Working group. 23 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: A working group. With 24 your oversight, I think we could perhaps make some good 25 progress. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 293 1 The issues that have been discussed today are 2 issues that are important to again all of us. I am not as 3 concerned about the specificity of those items that we 4 find in the new technology requirement, sometimes referred 5 to as the black box -- I wish we could come up with a 6 better word for that, or a definition -- because we've 7 used that and that's been an argument in the past to my 8 colleagues from many years back when we initially began 9 the SIP process. And so that is something that I have, 10 you know, not as much certain. 11 But I do have the hope that we can identity some 12 improvements. We may not reach total -- you know, total 13 numbers. But we can perhaps do a little bit better. And 14 so I certainly would support what you're doing. 15 And like you, Mr. Chairman, I've lived here long 16 enough to see this air quality improve dramatically. 17 Those of you who are younger in the audience, you know, 18 you have no idea what it was like many, many years ago. 19 And there is significant improvement, despite the growth 20 that we have seen in the South Coast Air Basin. So I'm 21 very pleased with what we have been able to do 22 collectively as an Air Resources Board and as the South 23 Coast Air Quality BOARD. 24 So with that said, I'll support you. 25 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Case. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 294 1 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Mr. Chairman, I support 2 holding back this plan for a length of time, that we work 3 with staff and look at the South Coast proposals. I think 4 there is a good argument for strengthening the plan. 5 I do have a question in regards to impacts to 6 other air quality districts. In particular as a member of 7 the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control Board, it was 8 very well impressed upon those board members that if we 9 didn't get that plan done in a timely manner, it had 10 direct impacts. 11 And I also spoke with our Executive Director of 12 the Council of Governments for transportation planning 13 purposes. And it was also impressed upon me, without 14 timely movement through the process -- and I believe that 15 was a June element for the San Joaquin Board and a July 16 element for this Board -- then they run into conformity 17 problems starting in August, which means they may miss the 18 opportunity we all want to share with the voters' approval 19 of transportation funding for all of our transportation 20 issues. 21 What happens with that? Does it hold everybody 22 up in the state? Does it hold one hostage over another? 23 What are the impacts and what are the potential 24 mitigations. 25 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: There is indeed a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 295 1 conformity problem in the San Joaquin Valley. And ideally 2 the state SIP would be submitted before August when that 3 becomes critical. 4 If instead it's held until we hear South Coast 5 plan -- and staff would recommend to you September -- the 6 July calendar is overloaded since the construction rule 7 was continued to July -- then they'll go a month in 8 arrears and have a conformity lapse during that month. We 9 will do everything we can to expedite EPA's review of the 10 draft State Strategy and to assure them that, if anything, 11 it will be stronger, not weaker when they get the final. 12 But EPA is a stickler on process and dotted i's and 13 crossed t's. So they will not issue the legal document 14 San Joaquin is looking for until they have the state SIP 15 in their hands. 16 BOARD MEMBER CASE: I guess my only comment to my 17 colleagues here is to be mindful as we move this forward 18 that it does harm one area that wants the same opportunity 19 as other areas of the state to deal with congestion; and 20 the fact that the Highway 99 corridor is dealing with 25 21 to 35 percent truck travel that's carrying goods often 22 through the area to reach the two urban centers of the 23 state without a benefit to those who live in the Central 24 Valley. 25 But I still feel strongly, Mr. Chairman, as you PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 296 1 suggested, we really do need to continues a little bit 2 longer to look what we can do to incorporate the South 3 Coast proposals to the SIP. I think that also will have a 4 long-term benefit to the San Joaquin plan. And moving us 5 forward in the name of health is a really important thing 6 to do for all of us. 7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Supervisor Hill. 8 SUPERVISOR HILL: Thank you, Doctor. 9 It's unfortunate that out of the 100 speakers 10 today, six were speaking in favor of it and 94 I think 11 were speaking against it, which only is -- is not 12 indicative of really the staff's efforts, and I want to 13 make that clear, and the hard work that they went through 14 and I think the scientific integrity with which they did 15 their work. And I sure appreciate that. And as public 16 officials, you don't always weigh -- or you shouldn't 17 weigh the number of speakers that are for or against a 18 particular issue or project in one day. You look at 19 what's the best science or the best facts of the 20 situation. 21 Saying that, last week, you know, I supported the 22 San Joaquin SIP because I could see a way out of the 23 pollution hole that the Valley was in and is in. I can't 24 see this here. I think the black box -- and, Barbara, 25 forgive me for the word -- but I think it's too big. I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 297 1 think the hole's too deep. Maybe we should call it the 2 deep hole in the future. But I think that hole is too 3 deep. And the solutions in the plan are just too limited. 4 I agree with the Chair's suggestion. I think 5 working together with South Coast and with the staff could 6 bring us to some resolution of these issues. And with the 7 time pressure and I think that this -- of that one month 8 that we're talking about, I think that could bring us 9 closer. I would not be prepared today to vote in favor of 10 the SIP if it were brought forward to a vote. 11 I think Ms. Alfonso said it -- and I'll just 12 paraphrase it. She said this is not for us, it's for 13 those generations that we'll never know. And I think 14 that's what's important about what we're doing today. 15 So I would support you, Doctor. 16 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: To be clear, I think we're 17 talking about a three months. 18 SUPERVISOR HILL: Is it three month? 19 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Well, it's the 20 September hearing. July is a two-day hearing already. 21 And we go dark in August and all the staff is on vacation. 22 And then September would be the first opportunity to take 23 it up. 24 SUPERVISOR HILL: And that does fit into the time 25 frame this's allowed? I thought that exceeded the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 298 1 margin -- 2 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Well, it exceeds 3 the margins of the San Joaquin Valley. It's a month after 4 EPA's delayed deadline for submittal. They have given a 5 grace period from June 15th to August 15th. But it's 6 still, you know, close enough. 7 SUPERVISOR HILL: Still within the time frame. 8 Okay. Thank you. 9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. D'Adamo. 10 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I'd like to follow up on 11 Supervisor Case's questioning about San Joaquin Valley. 12 What would the penalty be? Do we have an idea if 13 there would be a penalty? Or it's just a delay in review 14 with no monetary consequences? 15 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 16 CHIEF KARPEROS: The region -- the transportation planning 17 agencies in the region have a window in this fall to 18 update their plans to -- in anticipation of the monies 19 that are available dealing with the transportation issues 20 going forward. They need of course the new information. 21 They need this new plan to move forward to EPA, so that 22 they can do those analyses. If we delay the submittal of 23 the state plan, they would lose that window this fall. 24 They'd have to come back probably late 2008 to incorporate 25 what they would like to put in the planning cycle this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 299 1 year. 2 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I'm curious about what 3 that means in the real world for the valley, because I 4 know they're competing with other regions of the state and 5 always do feel sort of that disadvantage. 6 So I'm very comfortable in sending this plan 7 back. But I'm uncomfortable -- well, I don't know if I'd 8 use that strong of a word -- just nervous about the 9 consequences on transportation planning for the valley. 10 In other words, if they don't have the 11 information for planning purposes, would this affect them 12 when they go to apply for C-MAC dollars? Would it affect 13 bond submittal requests matching dollars for other federal 14 projects? I'm just not familiar enough with -- 15 AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 16 CHIEF KARPEROS: One of the things that we could do to try 17 to lessen the pressure in the valley is request U.S. EPA 18 to parallel process the plans. That allows them once we 19 actually do submit them to them to move more quickly on 20 their findings that the transportation information that 21 the local agencies need is then reviewed by technical 22 staff. And you're left more with the administrative 23 process of documenting that approve. 24 We can also explore with the transportation 25 agencies with more refinement what their window is this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 300 1 fall for redoing some of their transportation plans and 2 see if we can't optimize the timing of pushing the plan 3 forward. 4 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Okay. I'd appreciate 5 that. 6 And I think so much has already been said. And I 7 just want to thank the Chairman and Ms. Kennard for 8 working closely with South Coast. And we made a 9 commitment last week in Fresno to beat the SIP, and this 10 is where it starts. So let's go back, see what more we 11 can find. 12 Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. 13 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Supervisor Case. 14 BOARD MEMBER CASE: And just to clarify that. 15 It's my understanding the conformity finding is 16 based on the emissions inventory that's coming from the 17 ARB, and that's one of the concerns, that there's a new 18 update coming down the pipeline and everything has to be 19 redone. If that's the case, is there an opportunity that 20 we take this back up next month, in July -- is there an 21 opportunity to do any of that? Because my understanding 22 again is that the deadline is at the end of July. 23 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: As we headed in 24 to the hearing we suspected that you'd get a lot of the 25 testimony that you heard today and that you would want to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 301 1 strengthen the SIP. So staff had the view that you should 2 approve the state plan as a minimum to go with the San 3 Joaquin Valley plan and then add to it when the South 4 Coast plan comes before you and when we report back in 5 December after we've turned over every rock in the San 6 Joaquin Valley and the whole -- the SIP analysis. 7 If you're not comfortable doing that, of 8 approving this at a minimum, then the next best thing is 9 for us to try to convince EPA to treat the draft plan as 10 complete enough for them to start their review so that 11 upon the day they receive the final, they're ready to 12 issue their completeness. But it still puts the valley a 13 month behind where they want to be -- a little more than a 14 month behind where they want to be. 15 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I don't think we want an 16 unintended consequence, a detrimental something for the 17 San Joaquin Valley. 18 Let's think about this for a minute. 19 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: So what you're telling us is 20 you really don't know what the implications are for -- 21 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: I'm telling you 22 it would be far better to approve this at a minimum so 23 that the San Joaquin Valley plan is not jeopardized, and 24 then add to it. And I'm trying to come up with something 25 that is reasonably satisfactory if that's not the will of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 302 1 the Board. But EPA will not act on draft documents. 2 So, you know, you could eat up some of their 3 processing time. But you can't get the decision that the 4 valley wants. And so if we brought it back to you in 5 July, you still have a very tight hearing. We'd only have 6 time for a vote only. We wouldn't have time to go through 7 the entire South Coast plan and the dispute about the 8 attainment, carrying capacity and all of that stuff, which 9 we need to do when the South Coast plan comes back or 10 comes to you for a final action. 11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Well, I would make two 12 observations. I think the Board wants to send a strong 13 statement that we want to take stronger action than is in 14 the state SIP at the present time. We don't want to 15 jeopardize the San Joaquin Valley situation. But it 16 sounds like we probably aren't going to. Is that -- 17 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Well, it is 18 going to delay by three months. And, you know, this whole 19 issue of competitiveness for funding is a real one. And 20 it is clear, EPA will not issue -- they need a formal 21 budget -- conformity budget adequacy determination. And 22 that is a legally binding action. And they will not issue 23 it until there is a final adopted SIP. That much is 24 clear. 25 So that means the earliest we would be able to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 303 1 get that to them would be at the end of September. So 2 that would be the delay. 3 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I can't tell what this 4 means in terms of dollars. I can just say, as a resident 5 of the San Joaquin Valley for over 15 years, this is a 6 very significant problem for the valley in competing again 7 other regions of the state, against other regions of the 8 country. There is a serious equity issue here. So if we 9 we're talking about a delay but no real impact on the 10 dollar amount, fine. If it could impact dollar amounts 11 and further exacerbate the inequity that already exists, 12 I'm concerned about that. 13 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: The latter is 14 true. The San Joaquin Valley counties wish to put 15 projects into their transportation plans that are not 16 there now and bid for funding for those projects. They 17 cannot amend their transportation plans without a finding 18 of conformity with the approved SIP. 19 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Is there an opportunity to -- 20 I know the time frame is really tight. And I really am 21 reluctant to move forward with this SIP under the 22 circumstances and also the message that gets sent that 23 it's not important, because it really is important. At 24 the same time, it is a huge disequity problem for the 25 Central Valley, which has a way of getting left behind way PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 304 1 too frequently. And because the San Joaquin Valley has 2 reached the point of being certainly equal with South 3 Coast in the cost of air pollution to its resident, can we 4 have something brought back at our next meeting that at 5 least allows us to relook at that opportunity if it's so 6 harmful to the valley? My mind may change back to that 7 potential for the SIP. But today is a hard day to do that 8 because I really want to see some strengthening to it. 9 These proposals we're looking at are not brand new. There 10 have got to be some there we could incorporate into the 11 new SIP. 12 But I think it's just patently unfair to a whole 13 region of the state that would put money in the kitty, so 14 to speak, and not even have the opportunity to get even 15 their share back out. They need the same things every 16 place else in the state needs. 17 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: I have a new 18 idea. Let's notice continuation of this hearing on the 19 July agenda. In the meantime staff will clarify exactly 20 what jeopardy San Joaquin is in. And if need be, you can 21 act at the July hearing to move the SIP forward in 22 whatever shape it's in at that time. We'll still plan on 23 hearing the South Coast plan at our September hearing -- 24 it will take a whole day -- and continuing dialog on the 25 SIP at this time. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 305 1 But in July you'll have an opportunity to act, if 2 necessary, for the San Joaquin Valley's needs. Does 3 that -- 4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Well, if we were to do that, 5 it sounds like the SIP we would adopt in July would 6 probably not be adequate to meet the South Coast needs and 7 we'd have to commit ourselves to revising the SIP in 8 September to bring it in line with the South Coast Air 9 Quality Management District SIP. Is that what you're 10 saying? 11 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Well, we could do 12 whatever we do in a month's time. But it would do it -- 13 we could in a month's time. But it would probably be a 14 lot like the SIP that's before you today. And the 15 difference would be, we would have a much crisper answer 16 for you of exactly what's going to happen in the San 17 Joaquin Valley if you don't act in July. 18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I think out of fairness we 19 should let Dr. Wallerstein comment. 20 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: While he's coming up 21 there, it seems to me that you would know better if you 22 had some contact with EPA and had the opportunity to then, 23 you know, go through the issues. And I think that it 24 would be that we would get a clearer picture of what the 25 real ramifications are and what maybe the unintended PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 306 1 consequences might be of continuing over this item until 2 September. 3 I mean that would be just my gut-level feeling. 4 You really need to talk to EPA. 5 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Dr. Wallerstein. 6 MR. WALLERSTEIN: Yes, Dr. Sawyer. 7 Actually we think Catherine's idea of continuing 8 this hearing, having a dialogue with U.S. EPA and Federal 9 Highways regarding the implications, and your local 10 transportation planning agency in the Valley, is the right 11 approach. 12 Our gut instinct is there's a way to deal with 13 this and not in any way have an adverse effect on the 14 Valley. But that would at least allow us to consult with 15 the federal agencies and in July be able to give you a 16 definitive answer, and then you could take it from there. 17 And in the interim, we -- again, we'll work as 18 hard as we can with your staff to resolve the differences. 19 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. Having heard that, I 20 think I would entertain a motion to continue to July the 21 consideration of the statewide SIP. 22 SUPERVISOR HILL: I'll make the motion. 23 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Second. 24 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: All those in favor please 25 indicate by saying aye. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 307 1 (Ayes.) 2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Opposed? 3 Okay. We will continue this in July. 4 I would like to make a few other comments right 5 at the end. 6 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Mr. Chairman, if I might, I 7 beg your indulgence. 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Yes, please. 9 BOARD MEMBER CASE: But I'm going to miss an 10 airplane if I don't depart at this point. 11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Please go. We're concluded. 12 Thank you very much. 13 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Thank you for a very 14 informative couple of days. And I look forward to our 15 continued work. 16 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I want to thank the people 17 who came to testify today. I think for the last two Board 18 meetings we've really benefited from hearing from the 19 people who have been affected by our pending regulations. 20 I also would encourage as many of you as possible 21 to come to Sacramento in July to participate in the 22 construction rule hearing. That is the next big item on 23 bringing that blue curve down rapidly. And we want to 24 hear from all of you at that time. 25 Due I have a motion to adjourn? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 308 1 BOARD MEMBER GONG: So moved. 2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Second? 3 SUPERVISOR HILL: Second. 4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: All those in favor? 5 (Ayes) 6 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Opposed? 7 We stand adjourned. 8 (Thereupon the California Air Resources Board 9 adjourned at 4:27 p.m.) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 309 1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 2 I, TIFFANY C. KRAFT, a Certified Shorthand 3 Reporter of the State of California, and Registered 4 Professional Reporter, do hereby certify: 5 That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 6 foregoing hearing was reported in shorthand by me, 7 Tiffany C. Kraft, a Certified Shorthand Reporter of the 8 State of California, and thereafter transcribed into 9 typewriting. 10 I further certify that I am not of counsel or 11 attorney for any of the parties to said hearing nor in any 12 way interested in the outcome of said hearing. 13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 14 this 6th day of July, 2007. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 TIFFANY C. KRAFT, CSR, RPR 24 Certified Shorthand Reporter 25 License No. 12277 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345