1 MEETING 2 BEFORE THE 3 CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 BOARD HEARING ROOM 11 2020 L STREET 12 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2000 20 9:30 A.M. 21 22 23 24 Janet H. Nicol Certified Shorthand Reporter 25 License Number 9764 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 ii 1 APPEARANCES 2 MEMBERS PRESENT: 3 Alan C. Lloyd, Ph.D., Chairman Joseph Calhoun 4 Dorene D'Adamo Mark DeSaulnier 5 Dr. William Friedman C. Hugh Friedman 6 Matthew R. McKinnon Barbara Patrick 7 Barbara Riordan Ron Roberts 8 9 STAFF: 10 Michael Kenny, Executive Director Tom Cackette, Chief Deputy Executive Officer 11 Mike Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer 12 Kathleen Tschogl, Ombudsman Kathleen Walsh, General Counsel 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iii 1 INDEX 2 PAGE Proceedings 1 3 Call to Order 1 4 Pledge of Allegiance 1 5 Roll Call 1 6 Opening Remarks by Chairman Lloyd 2 7 AGENDA ITEM: 8 0-1-2 Continuation of a Public Hearing to 9 Consider the Adoption of a Public Transit Bus Fleet Rule and Emission Standards 10 for New Urban Buses 11 Introductory Remarks by Chairman Lloyd 2 12 Staff Presentation Mike Kenny 3 13 Roberta Hughan 4 14 Open Session to Provide an Opportunity for Members of 58 15 the Public to Address the Board on Subject Matters Within the Jurisdiction of the Board 16 Adjournment 70 17 Certificate of Reporter 71 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 1 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Good morning. The February 24th, 3 2000, public meeting of the Air Resources Board will now 4 come to order. 5 Today, in honor of her birthday, I would like to 6 ask Dee Dee D'Adamo to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. 7 (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) 8 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 9 Will the clerk of the board please call the roll. 10 MS. HUTCHENS: Calhoun 11 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Here. 12 MS. HUTCHENS: D'Adamo. 13 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Here. 14 MS. HUTCHENS: DeSaulnier. 15 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Here. 16 MS. HUTCHENS: Professor Friedman. 17 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Here. 18 MS. HUTCHENS: Dr. Friedman. 19 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: Here. 20 MS. HUTCHENS: McKinnon. 21 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Here. 22 MS. HUTCHENS: Patrick. 23 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Here. 24 MS. HUTCHENS: Riordan. 25 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Here. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 2 1 MS. HUTCHENS: Roberts. 2 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Here. 3 MS. HUTCHENS: Chairman Lloyd. 4 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Here. 5 Thank you very much. 6 As you know, our meeting today is to conclude the 7 public hearing for agenda item 00-1-2, the transit bus fleet 8 rule and proposed emissions standards for new urban buses. 9 This matter was presented before the board at the 10 January 27th meeting held at the South Coast AQMD 11 headquarters in Southern California. 12 At that time the staff made a detailed 13 presentation and we had several hours of public comment and 14 then we closed the record so that the board could begin its 15 deliberations. 16 During those deliberations the board put several 17 questions to staff. These questions were in response to the 18 testimony heard that day and the issues raised in written 19 and oral comments we received during the 45-day comment 20 period preceding the general meeting. Again, given the 21 lateness of the hour and the need for additional staff 22 analysis, I suggested that we continue the matter to today's 23 meeting. 24 It is my intention to simply pick up those 25 deliberations where we left off, leaving the record closed PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 3 1 at this time. 2 Staff have done the work we requested and are 3 prepared to answer the questions raised by the board, and I 4 think that this may be the most efficient way to proceed. 5 However, the record will be reopened following the 6 board's action. Specifically, as I stated at the last 7 meeting, the record for this item will be reopened when the 8 15-day notice period of public availability is issued. At 9 that time written comments and modifications of the original 10 staff proposal will be accepted into the record for 11 consideration prior to the final action on the regulations. 12 Again, Mr. Kenny, are you ready to begin staff 13 presentation? 14 MR. KENNY: Yes, I am. 15 Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. 16 Last month staff presented to you the proposed 17 transit bus fleet rule and emission standards for new urban 18 buses. This is a critical regulation, as it leads to air 19 quality improvement, reduced public exposure to toxic air 20 contaminants and technology advancement. 21 Today staff has given you a very brief overview of 22 the proposed regulation, primarily at your direction. 23 Staff will address some specific concerns that you 24 identified at the January board meeting. Those issues 25 include accelerating the PM retrofit requirement, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 4 1 consideration of a NOx fleet average requirement compared to 2 the 2004 diesel engine standards recommended by staff, 3 diesel hybrid electric buses and how they fit into the 4 proposal, and a local district's request that this 5 regulation allow them to require transit agencies in their 6 area to take the alternative fuel path. 7 Following discussion of these issues, staff will 8 present their recommendations and conclusions. 9 As part of that, I'd like to introduce some of the 10 MSCD staff who are seated at the table behind me and who 11 worked very hard on the particular item. 12 Bob Cross, the division chief; Jack Kitowski is 13 the chief of the On-road Control Regulation Branch; Renee 14 Kemena is the manager of the Special Projects Section; and 15 Roberta Hughan is the air pollution specialist. 16 Each of these four people have really worked 17 incredibly long hours to make this particular proposal a 18 viable one and to present it to you. 19 And with that, what I'd like to do is ask Roberta 20 to walk you through the staff recommendations and the issues 21 at this point. 22 Roberta. 23 MS. HUGHAN: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and 24 members of the board. 25 Today we are continuing our discussion on our PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 5 1 proposed public transit bus fleet rule and emissions 2 standards for new urban buses. 3 First, I'll briefly review our proposal as it was 4 presented at January's board meeting. 5 Then I'll discuss four outstanding issues that 6 you, the board, directed staff to further evaluate and will 7 provide our recommendation on each of those issues. 8 And finally I will present our conclusions. 9 The staff's original proposal provides a two-path 10 compliance approach. Transit agencies may choose either the 11 diesel path or the alternative fuel path. 12 The ultimate goal for both paths is to achieve 13 zero and near zero emission levels. The two-path system 14 provides flexibility to transit agencies in making 15 independent decisions for their region while ensuring that 16 that maximum emissions benefits are achieved. 17 Both paths provide equivalent oxides of nitrogen, 18 or NOx, reductions over the lifetime of the requirements, 19 while the alternative fuel path yields more particulate 20 matter, or PM, reductions due to inherently low in-use PM 21 emissions from alternative fuel buses. 22 While the requirements differ between the two 23 paths, each path includes more stringent emission standards 24 for new urban bus engines, requirements for zero emission 25 bus purchases, and requirements to reduce PM through PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 6 1 retrofitting older diesel buses and use of ultra-low 2 sulfured fuel. 3 At the core of our proposal are two paths to 4 compliance, one tailored for diesel buses and one for 5 alternative fuel buses. 6 Transit agencies choosing the diesel path could 7 continue to buy significant quantities of diesel buses, 8 foregoing immediate emissions reductions. 9 Beginning in 2004, these agencies would have to 10 acquire buses which meet dramatically lower emissions 11 standards for NOx and PMs. Compliance with these standards 12 would require advanced after-treatment systems, NOx 13 catalysts and particulate traps. 14 Large transit agencies on the diesel path would 15 also be the first to acquire zero emission urban bus 16 technologies, such as battery electric buses and fuel cell 17 buses. 18 In 2003, large transit agencies would be required 19 to participate in zero emission bus demonstration projects. 20 Beginning in 2008, 15 percent of those transit agencies' new 21 bus purchases would be zero emission buses. 22 For transit agencies that choose the alternative 23 fuel path, 85 percent of new bus purchases must be 24 alternative fuel, beginning with the approval of the 25 proposed regulations. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 7 1 The alternative fuel path provides immediate 2 reductions in NOx and toxic PM emissions. 3 The only alternative fuel urban bus engines now 4 available are certified to the ARB's optional reduced 5 emission standards. These standards represent a 35 to 50 6 percent reduction in NOx emissions from current standards. 7 Required new bus standards are deferred until 2007 8 on the alternative fuel path. The 2007 standards represent 9 approximately a 90 percent NOx reduction and an 80 percent 10 PM reduction from existing standards. 11 Like the diesel path, large transit fleets on the 12 alternative fuel path are required to operate zero emission 13 buses. However, purchase requirements for these fleets do 14 not begin until 2010, two years later than the diesel path. 15 At that time, 15 percent of large transit agencies' new bus 16 purchases must be zero emission buses. However, unlike the 17 diesel path, large transit fleets on the alternative fuel 18 path are not required to undertake zero emission bus 19 demonstration projects. 20 Both the diesel and alternative fuel paths include 21 requirements to retrofit existing diesel buses with 22 particulate traps to reduce PM emissions by least 85 23 percent. In the staff's original proposal these 24 requirements are phased in from 2003 to 2009. 25 Additionally, transit fleets with diesel buses, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 8 1 whether on the diesel path or the alternative fuel path, 2 would be required to use low sulfur diesel fuel with a 3 maximum 15 parts per million of sulfur by weight, beginning 4 in July 2002. 5 Low sulfur diesel fuel is required to ensure the 6 durability and efficiency of the particulate traps. Low 7 sulfur fuel may also be required when NOx after-treatment 8 systems are in place. 9 For comparison, the current California sulfur 10 standard is 500 parts per million with an average sulfur 11 level in the range of 150 parts per million. 12 Now I'll present the issues for today's 13 discussion. 14 At the January meeting the staff was directed to 15 report back to the board on four outstanding issues. Those 16 issues are the proposed PM retrofit requirements and the 17 feasibility of accelerating these requirements to achieve 18 greater emission reductions on the diesel path; the staff's 19 proposed emission standards for 2004 through 2006 model year 20 diesel engine and how they compare to an alternative 21 proposal for a fleet average standard; whether diesel hybrid 22 electric buses can qualify as an alternative fuel bus; and 23 whether the ARB will grant air districts local authority to 24 require the alternative fuel path. 25 I will now briefly discuss each of these issues PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 9 1 and present the staff's recommendations. 2 At the January meeting staff proposed retrofit 3 requirements to reduce PM emission from the in-use bus 4 fleet. Specifically the staff proposed that all pre 2004 5 diesel transit buses must be retrofitted with a device, a 6 trap, to achieve an 85 percent reduction in PM emissions. 7 The requirements would be phased in over three years, from 8 2003 to 2009, with the focus on reducing emissions from the 9 oldest, highest emitting diesel buses first. 10 Buses scheduled for retirement within two years 11 could be eligible for an exemption from the retrofit 12 requirements. 13 The proposed retrofit requirements would apply 14 equally to diesel buses on the diesel and alternative fuel 15 paths. 16 In response to the staff's proposal, environmental 17 and public health groups proposed an acceleration of the PM 18 retrofit requirements for transit agencies on the diesel 19 path. In the proposal by the environmental and public 20 health groups, tier 1 retrofits applicable to 1990 and 21 earlier model year buses would remain as proposed by staff. 22 Tier 2 retrofits applicable to 1991 through 1995 buses would 23 be accelerated, so all retrofits must be completed by 2004, 24 one year ahead of the schedule proposed by the staff. 25 Additionally, the exemption from the retrofit PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 10 1 requirements would be limited to buses scheduled for 2 retirement within one year rather than two years. 3 Tier 3 retrofits applicable to 1995 through 2003 4 model year buses would be accelerated so that all retrofits 5 must be completed by 2007, two years ahead of the schedule 6 proposed by the staff. For these retrofits, the exemption 7 from the retrofit requirement would be eliminated. 8 This graph compares the fleet average in-use PM 9 emissions based on the staff's proposal represented by the 10 red line, to the fleet average in-use PM emissions based on 11 the environmental and public health group's proposal 12 represented by the blue line. 13 As you can see, their proposal provides 14 significant early reductions in toxic particulate emissions, 15 although both proposals ultimately reach the same emission 16 levels. 17 The staff recommends accelerating the retrofit 18 requirements on the diesel path to reduce PM emissions. The 19 staff's original proposal provides a more modest retrofit 20 schedule. The retrofit equipment, traps and the low sulfur 21 diesel fuel necessary to ensure the durability and 22 efficiency of the PM traps will be available. 23 Accelerating the retrofit requirements on the 24 diesel path reduces the PM emissions gap between the diesel 25 and alternative fuel paths and reduces the public's exposure PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 11 1 to PM emissions from buses operated by transit agencies 2 choosing the diesel path. 3 We are unaware of any opposition to the proposed 4 acceleration. 5 The next issue I will discuss is the staff's 6 proposed emission standards for 2004 to 2006 model year 7 diesel urban bus engines and two alternative proposals. 8 The staff's proposed emission standards, which 9 focus primarily on NOx and PM, apply to the engine 10 manufacturers. All new diesel urban bus engines for the 11 2004 through 2006 model year would be required to meet the 12 new standards. The new standards, .5 grams for NOx and .01 13 grams for PM, would reduce NOx emissions by 75 percent and 14 PM emissions by 80 percent. 15 At the January meeting, representatives of the 16 Engine Manufacturers' Association, or EMA, proposed an 17 alternative to the 2004 standards for diesel urban bus 18 engines. They proposed that transit fleets achieve a 19 declining NOx fleet average standard over a three-year 20 period, applicable to transit fleets, to replace the 21 staff-proposed emission standards. Transit agencies could 22 meet the fleet average standard in a variety of ways. The 23 most likely strategy would be an acceleration of new bus 24 purchases and older bus retirements. 25 The EMA also proposed moving up compliance with PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 12 1 the .01 grams PM standard by a little over a year to October 2 2002. 3 Subsequent to the January meeting the EMA 4 suggested a revised alternative. This proposal would retain 5 the 2004-2006 standards proposed by staff, but would allow 6 transit fleets to implement an alternative emission 7 reduction strategy if approved by the ARB's executive 8 officer. 9 The alternative strategy would be required to 10 demonstrate NOx emission benefits equivalent to those 11 achieved with the staff's proposed 2004 standards. 12 Such a strategy could include the implementation 13 of a declining NOx fleet average standard. This alternative 14 strategy includes EMA's commitment to pull ahead from 2004 15 to October 2002 compliance with the .01 grams PM standard 16 for all diesel bus engines. 17 It also includes a commitment to implement a 18 demonstration program of buses equipped with control 19 technology designed to meet the 2004 standards. 20 This graph compares achievable NOx reduction from 21 the staff's proposal, represented by the blue line, to NOx 22 reduction under EMA's original fleet average proposal and to 23 NOx reductions under EMA's revised proposal. 24 As you can see, EMA's original fleet average 25 proposal, represented by the red line, achieved less NOx PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 13 1 reductions than the staff proposal. 2 As represented by the red squares, EMA's revised 3 proposal would provide NOx reductions equivalent to the 4 staff's proposal. 5 This graph illustrates the impact EMA's original 6 proposal and revised proposal would have on PM emissions as 7 compared to the staff's January proposal, again represented 8 by the blue line. 9 EMA's original proposal, represented by the red 10 line, achieves greater PM reductions in the 2003 to 2007 11 time frame. 12 Beginning in 2008, the staff's proposal and EMA's 13 original proposal provide equivalent PM reductions. 14 EMA's revised proposal, represented by the red 15 squares, also provides more PM reduction than the staff's 16 proposal in the 2003 to 2007 time frame. This is due to 17 EMA's commitment to comply with the .01 grams PM standard. 18 In summary, the EMA proposal you heard at the 19 January board meeting provides significantly less NOx 20 benefits and slightly more PM benefits than the staff 21 proposal. Their revised proposal still provides slightly 22 more PM benefits than the staff's proposal, but now provides 23 equivalent NOx benefits. 24 It also guarantees emission reductions that 25 otherwise might not be realized. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 14 1 If transit agencies do not purchase new buses 2 meeting the proposed 2004 standards, and instead prepurchase 3 buses or delay bus purchases or if the engine manufacturers 4 do not offer complying engines for sale, it is possible that 5 the full emission reductions of the staff's January proposal 6 may not be realized with the 2004 standards. 7 In addition, the cost of compliance could be lower 8 with EMA's proposal depending on the alternative strategy 9 approved by the ARB's executive officer. 10 Finally, as part of their revised proposal, they 11 have committed to a demonstration of the advanced 12 after-treatment technologies that would be necessary to meet 13 the proposed 2004 standards. This would be a precondition 14 of any transit district obtaining approval of an alternative 15 plan. 16 The staff recommends that the board adopt the 17 EMA's revised proposal. This proposal would be in addition 18 to the staff's proposed 2004 standards and will provide 19 transit fleets an alternative method of achieving emission 20 reductions equivalent to what could be achieved with the 21 staff's proposal. 22 The engine manufacturers' revised proposal 23 provides greater PM emission reductions than the staff's 24 proposal due to the early introduction of trap-equipped bus 25 engines and also provides for a demonstration of advanced PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 15 1 after-treatment technologies. The demonstration will help 2 establish a technical basis for more stringent standards for 3 the on-road diesel trucks and off-road equipment in the near 4 future. 5 The next issue for discussion is the proposal by 6 bus industry representatives that diesel hybrid buses 7 qualify as alternative fuel buses. 8 At the January meeting the staff proposed that 9 diesel hybrid electric buses not qualify as alternative fuel 10 buses. This would limit their use by transit agencies on 11 the alternative fuel path to no more than 15 percent of new 12 bus purchases. In contrast, industry representatives 13 propose that diesel hybrids qualify for the 85 percent 14 alternative fuel bus purchase requirement on the alternative 15 fuel path, similar to CNG hybrids. 16 A report published last week by the Northeast 17 Advanced Vehicle Consortium compared emission of current CNG 18 engines to prototype or precommercial hybrid buses equipped 19 with particulate traps on a variety of in-use test cycles. 20 In general the two hybrid buses were able to demonstrate PM 21 emissions similar to natural gas buses. NOx emissions were 22 significantly higher. 23 This recent research data confirms the promising 24 long-term potential for hybrid buses. 25 However, current regulatory test procedures using PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 16 1 an engine test do not adequately incentivize hybrid systems. 2 Current research test procedures that more accurately 3 represent in-use emissions cannot concurrently be used to 4 demonstrate certification or in-use compliance. 5 New test procedures and compliance protocol are 6 necessary. Staff is just beginning a cooperative program 7 with industry to develop such procedures. 8 The staff recommends that the board adopt the 9 original staff proposal presented at the January hearing. 10 The staff's proposal already accommodates diesel hybrids. 11 They are allowed on the diesel path and as 15 percent of the 12 bus purchases by agencies on the alternative fuel path. 13 Until we develop a compliance procedure that 14 properly measures in-use emissions of diesel hybrid buses, 15 we believe they cannot be considered alternative fuel buses. 16 We will evaluate this further and return to the board a 17 report and recommendations in 2001. 18 Finally, one critical issue to hybrid bus 19 manufacturers is the ability to qualify for clean air 20 incentive funds. This spring the staff will be considering 21 numerous technical changes to the Carl Moyer program. Among 22 the changes considered will be the methodology for providing 23 incentive funds to hybrid buses that are certified as low 24 emission through an appropriate interim hybrid bus test 25 procedure. These changes would provide for appropriate PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 17 1 financial incentives to purchasers of hybrid buses. 2 The last item I will discuss is the local 3 authority issue. The staff's original proposal allows for 4 each transit agency to choose its course of compliance, 5 either the diesel path or the alternative fuel path. It 6 does not explicitly address the authority of local air 7 districts to adopt a more stringent regulation, such as the 8 rule allowing only the alternative fuel path for transit 9 fleets within a local air district's jurisdiction. 10 As you will recall from the January board meeting, 11 the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the San 12 Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District each 13 proposed that the board provide air districts a mechanism to 14 require transit agencies to follow only the alternative fuel 15 path. The staff's proposal does not prohibit districts from 16 exercising the authority to require the 17 alternative-fuel-only path if air districts decide to do so. 18 The ARB's legal staff has concluded that the 19 California Health and Safety Code already provides specific 20 districts the authority to implement measures requiring 21 transit operators to purchase and operate low emission 22 vehicles. As such, the staff believes that a regulatory 23 action to provide districts a mechanism to require the 24 alternative fuel path is both redundant and unnecessary, 25 although a regulatory provision could facilitate a local air PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 18 1 district's adoption of the alternative-fuel-path-only 2 requirement. 3 Air districts that have exercised their authority 4 to implement the alternative-fuel-only requirement would 5 gain little or no overall NOx emission benefits for their 6 region. Staff has designed the paths to provide equivalent 7 NOx reduction over the lifetime of the requirements. 8 On the other hand, air districts that do choose to 9 require the alternative-fuel-only path would reduce toxic 10 exposure from diesel PM due to the inherently low in-use PM 11 emissions of alternative fuel buses. 12 Staff recommends that the board adopt the original 13 staff proposal. Doing so would maintain the flexibility of 14 the dual-fuel compliance approach. It is important to 15 remember that the dual-fuel path approach was a key 16 principle used to gain consensus from the various 17 stakeholders affected by the proposed regulation. 18 At the January meeting the environmental and 19 public health groups commented about the need for an 20 expanded in-use compliance program to ensure that engine 21 systems, specifically diesel engine after-treatment systems, 22 are complying with the requirements of our proposed 23 regulation. 24 The environmental groups were also concerned about 25 the significant in-use PM emission differences between CNG PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 19 1 and diesel buses. They commented that the ARB should 2 investigate the current test cycle that is used to certify 3 engines and determine if a different test cycle or protocol 4 is needed to adequately characterize in-use emissions. 5 The staff agrees with both of these concerns and 6 is committed to investigating and addressing these issues. 7 The staff will report back to the board regarding its 8 findings. 9 And, finally, I want to summarize the staff's 10 recommendation on the four issues I have just discussed. 11 First, the staff recommends that the board adopt 12 the accelerated PM retrofit requirements on the diesel path 13 as proposed by the environmental and public health groups. 14 This strategy is technically feasible and will reduce the PM 15 gap between the diesel and alternative fuel paths. 16 Next, the staff recommends that the board adopt 17 the Engine Manufacturers' Association revised proposal 18 allowing alternative compliance strategy to the proposed 19 emission standards for 2004 through 2006 model year diesel 20 urban bus engine. 21 Finally, the staff recommends that the board adopt 22 the staff's original proposal maintaining the dual-path 23 flexibility, as well as the staff's original proposal to not 24 allow diesel hybrid buses to qualify as alternative fuel 25 buses. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 20 1 This concludes my presentation. 2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much indeed. 3 The board members have questions or comments? I 4 guess I'll throw it open now. 5 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: I have a very small 6 question. 7 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes. 8 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: I just have a very small 9 question. 10 With respect to the diesel hybrids and the issue 11 of measuring in-use emissions, do we -- are we set up to -- 12 is the state of the art adequate and are we set up to 13 actually get the data in a reasonable time frame so that we 14 perhaps can learn a great deal about what to do next in that 15 regard? 16 MR. CACKETTE: Yes. I don't think there's any 17 barrier other than a little time and money to developing the 18 procedure. The main barrier right now is that we just don't 19 have one in regulatory form that would adequately 20 characterize their emissions and so we couldn't really make 21 a thoughtful conclusion as to whether a hybrid is as clean 22 as an alt-fuel bus, and therefore could qualify for that 23 path. 24 So I think we can develop a procedure and find out 25 the answer, but it will take us into next year to do that. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 21 1 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: Thank you. 2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes, Professor Friedman. 3 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: First of all I want 4 to say I'm sorry that I missed the January meeting, but I 5 did read the transcript and I read it carefully and I can -- 6 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I can verify from his questions. 7 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: At the appropriate 8 moments there was humor, and I learned a great deal from it. 9 I have a couple of questions just to clarify my 10 understanding. 11 First of all, as I understand it, the 12 environmental proposal on PM retrofits is, I believe, being 13 recommended, and also the revised EMA proposal with respect 14 to the acceleration of the 80 percent newer, cleaner, 15 cleaner new bus PM standard would kick in about a year and 16 three months sooner, October of '02, rather than the first 17 of 2004. That also is being included in the staff, the 18 ultimate staff revised recommendation, am I correct? 19 MR. KENNY: Yes, you are. 20 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: And with respect to 21 diesel hybrid systems, I take it the staff wants to 22 encourage the continued development of this sort of 23 technology to the extent that it can prove itself, but on 24 the other hand doesn't feel that it is at this time based on 25 the new data anywhere near equivalent, and so there's going PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 22 1 to be continued testing and investigation, but we have -- we 2 are not chilling the opportunity for people to develop? 3 MR. KENNY: We don't think we are chilling it. We 4 think one of the key issues was how much incentive are we 5 providing to it and we do think, for example that the 6 incentive monies would be available for this particular 7 technology. We do think that both paths allow the 8 technology to develop and to be utilized and we do want to 9 essentially continue to look at the test procedures 10 associated with the technology and then come back to you 11 next year and so we think there's an opportunity there also. 12 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: I just had a comment 13 then. 14 I think this is a very creative, balanced solution 15 at this time in our history, and I think it recognizes some 16 economic realities, the needs of existing business, and 17 you've been able to cobble together apparently a fairly 18 strong consensus that will produce great benefits. 19 While I'm sure that there are many of us who would 20 like to see no emissions immediately, this is going to get 21 us on the road fairly quickly to substantially reduced 22 emissions, and I think that this is, from my vantage point, 23 a remarkable job. 24 And for one I want to commend the staff and I want 25 to commend the EMA and the fuel producers and the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 23 1 environmentalists and all of the groups and stakeholders for 2 what I've read in the extensive hearing transcript is a 3 remarkable effort to benefit the breathing public. 4 I'm really very impressed. 5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. 6 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: I applaud your 7 patience for sitting through the January 27th long day. 8 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much, Professor. 9 Supervisor DeSaulnier. 10 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: I would also like to say 11 I think staff has done an excellent job. Maybe, 12 Mr. Chairman, we should take longer in all of our 13 decision-making processes. 14 Two questions around the in-use cycle. 15 Roberta, you said sometime in the future, Mike, 16 you just said within the next year, two questions in regards 17 to that. Can you be more specific? And we heard at the 18 last meeting a concern that the in-use cycle may change our 19 estimates quite a bit and of course all of us don't want to 20 read in a year or so that we were way off and how we would 21 react to that. 22 MR. KENNY: When I was referring to the year, I 23 was actually looking at the hybrid diesels and essentially 24 the test procedures that would be needed for those. 25 In terms of the in-use issues, I think those may PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 24 1 take longer, because that's really more of a comparison 2 between the federal test procedure and the central business 3 district approach that we talked about last month, and that 4 could be essentially more than a one-year process. That 5 could take two to three years. 6 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Could you address how 7 you respond if that in-use cycle is significantly different 8 from what our estimates have in front of us? 9 MR. KENNY: I think what we need to do at that 10 point is come back to the board and let the board know that 11 in fact we are seeing higher emissions and that we have to 12 address those emissions and basically achieve additional 13 emission reductions. 14 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: And around the PM 15 retrofits, I really appreciate what we have here, but given 16 that a lot of the testimony last time was that the 17 technology was getting less expensive and more applicable 18 quicker, is this enough? I know in the discussions in the 19 Bay Area about having the diesel path, and you brought this 20 up last month, it was meant to be equivalent, the PM level, 21 it still isn't, but you're suggesting that we've closed the 22 gap enough that you're comfortable with it? 23 MR. KENNY: Yes. 24 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: You don't want to go 25 further? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 25 1 MR. KENNY: Well -- 2 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: I don't want to be 3 accused of not being a moderate. 4 MR. KENNY: I think at this point in time what we 5 do think is happening here is that is a way of actually 6 pushing the technology forward, getting the technology in 7 place, setting really the stage for other opportunities for 8 the use of that technology. 9 Last month we talked a little bit about the fact 10 this is really kind of step one in a multi-step process. 11 Obviously the ultimate step is trucks, and what this does is 12 it sets us up for essentially going after the trucks and 13 achieving the emission reductions really from the fleet that 14 has the greatest bulk of emissions. 15 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 16 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Maybe I can also ask staff, 17 clearly it shows the benefit, I guess, of staff working with 18 the various stakeholders on taking what the environmental 19 community was suggesting, has staff gone back to the 20 environmental community in this particular issue and said, 21 okay, now clearly you had a valid point, are you sure that's 22 as far as you want to go? 23 I think it's following up on Mark's questions. 24 MR. CACKETTE: Mr. Chairman, when you say this 25 specific issue, are you referring -- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 26 1 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: The PM retrofit. 2 MR. CACKETTE: We haven't had that discussion 3 about whether it could have gone even faster. I think the 4 only reservation on buses we had was to not jump start it so 5 early that we hadn't had an adequate demonstration of the 6 technology. And that's occurring now. 7 But I think where the discussion has occurred is 8 that there are other fleets, other than urban transit buses, 9 that may be very good candidates for particulate retrofits, 10 and school buses are one, trash trucks are another, there's 11 a number of them that have disproportionate impact in 12 localized areas and this may the best solution we have to 13 have early-on diesel toxic particulate control, whereas much 14 of rest of our program relies on new technology and 15 turnover. This is a way of making it happen fairly quickly. 16 And we're committed to go out and do the 17 demonstrations that are necessary, those won't take a real 18 long time, to assure that the technology works as good on a 19 trash truck and a school bus as it does on an urban transit 20 buses and then see how we can implement those programs. 21 And one of them you know about is the Governor's 22 budget has $50 million in it to accomplish a number of 23 objectives on school buses, help get rid of some of the old 24 ones, get safer ones on the road, but also reduce their 25 emissions, and we're looking forward to some balance of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 27 1 alternative fuels school buses and perhaps particulate 2 trapped equipped older school buses as a way of minimizing 3 the toxic impact there and we'd like to do the same thing on 4 trash trucks and other urban vehicles. 5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Some of your concern about not 6 accelerating this further is based on historical experience 7 that you want to make sure the technology lives up to the 8 promise that before we do widespread distribution? 9 MR. CACKETTE: Right. And we do have some 10 demonstration programs that are in the works for urban 11 transit buses with particulate traps and there's experience 12 elsewhere in the country and the world on it, so we're 13 pretty confident there. But there's not as much experience 14 on other applications. These things do -- these traps are 15 very dependent on the application and how well they work. 16 So I just want to make sure we don't get out ahead 17 of where the technology is. 18 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Okay. Yes. Supervisor Roberts. 19 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 20 First of all, I want to attest to the fact that 21 Professor Friedman did read every word of the transcript. 22 On the flight up here I was very impressed with his 23 knowledge of everything that was said and every attempt at 24 humor in that meeting and the length of the meeting, which 25 particularly impressed him. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 28 1 I am pleased with the report. There's one thing 2 that I am concerned about though and I hear staff's 3 recommendation and I am hearing that there will be a point 4 at which we will look at the hybrids when we have the tests 5 and the data all available. It's not clear to me whether as 6 part of our motion or part of any action there will be a 7 specific directing of that to come back to us or a time 8 frame established, but I'd like to see that. 9 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think there is, Supervisor. 10 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: There is? Okay. That 11 wasn't clear to me from the comments. 12 The biggest concern I have is that in the past, at 13 least, whenever we've done anything like this, and then we 14 have something that's lingering then we hear the charge is 15 filed that we're throwing everything out and we're starting 16 to make changes and yet it seems to me that this is a 17 significant piece that we are not in a position to handle 18 today, and that may be a very appropriate part of the 19 solution and there may be a way to factor this in. 20 And I just want to make sure that that is clear to 21 everyone, no matter what side of this issue, and that we 22 would be able to have the -- to feel that we are acting as 23 we ought to when we eventually get to that step of that in a 24 year from now and that we don't forget why this was 25 postponed. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 29 1 So as long as the record clearly shows that and 2 the action clearly states that, then I think we're fine. 3 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: At least as I read one of the 4 slides here, it does say on the diesel hybrid buses, staff 5 developing in-use compliance and procedure and return with 6 updated recommendation in 2001. That's what I was referring 7 to. I don't know whether that satisfies your requirement, 8 Supervisor. 9 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Could there be as part of 10 our formal action directing that to happen? That would make 11 me feel more comfortable, so that you don't have to go 12 through, just search back through the record of some slides. 13 There's something else, there may be something else you can 14 direct me to -- 15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: The penultimate paragraph on page 16 five. 17 MR. CACKETTE: Right now the resolution says be it 18 further resolved that the board direct the executive officer 19 to develop a test procedure for evaluation of hybrid 20 electric bus emissions, and maybe what we should add there 21 is, and report back to the board during 2001. 22 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: I would feel better if -- 23 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Do we want -- can we give a date 24 in 2001, so it's not December 31st, 2001? 25 MR. CACKETTE: June, mid June or mid 2001. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 30 1 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: That's fine. 2 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: No other comments. 3 I think I want to compliment the staff and their 4 work with all the various groups here. 5 And as you note at the last meeting I had some 6 concerns. I talked to Mr. Kenny about this and I feel like 7 this is -- this is a very positive step and it's going to 8 make a difference, and I think that the dual-path approach 9 will make sense. 10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: And the other thing I will 11 comment on on hybrids, I think as we talk here, we had 12 testimony on the diesel electric hybrids, but you know we 13 all recall we had some very effective demonstrations here of 14 the ICAP program where we had propane, electric and CNG 15 electric hybrids, so and we get now fuel cell electric 16 hybrids, so all of these I think should be encouraged. We 17 happened to be focused here, but let's say a lot of those 18 others can go ahead right now. I think we know enough about 19 them to say this issue would be encouraged. 20 Yes, Mr. Calhoun. 21 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I was glad to see EMA come 22 back with a revised proposal that was acceptable to the 23 staff. I think that proposal has in it a commitment to 24 develop technology to meet the stringent standards that they 25 will be required to meet in the near future. I don't think PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 31 1 there's any question about what the engine manufacturers 2 know that unless the diesel engine is cleaned up, they're 3 going to be in big trouble and they're running a business 4 and you know what that means. 5 So I don't expect them to delay developing the new 6 technology and I think the staff proposal allows some time 7 for that to happen. 8 So I'm prepared to support the staff proposal. 9 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes, Supervisor Patrick. 10 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Yes, thank you, 11 Mr. Chairman. 12 I would say that I'm very pleased too that EMA has 13 come back with a revised proposal, because I think quite a 14 few of us were surprised at the testimony that was given 15 last time that appeared to, I guess, to back away somewhat 16 from agreements that had been made. 17 And I would also like to say that unlike the rest 18 of you who were not speaking to folks off the record, I 19 didn't speak to anybody off the record either, but we did 20 have a meeting at the San Joaquin Valley Governing Board 21 that discussed this issue at some length. We had some folks 22 that were from transit districts and such that came and 23 spoke to us. And I have a list of those people, Kathleen, 24 if you think it's important for me to read that into the 25 record, that the folks that spoke. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 32 1 MS. WALSH: I don't think it's necessary to read 2 that into the record. It's part of the record of that 3 formal hearing. 4 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Super. Yes, it was 5 definitely a part of that record and there was quite a bit 6 of discussion about whether or not the San Joaquin Valley 7 should be carved out. 8 And most of the people who spoke, with one 9 exception, wanted our board to send a letter to the staff or 10 send a letter actually to the board, which supported staff's 11 proposal as is, with no carve-out. 12 And after some discussion our board decided that 13 it was not in our best interest to send that letter. 14 So I think some of the industry members felt as 15 though it was left hanging, if you will. 16 But there were several members who spoke to the 17 flexibility that would be given to us by the carve-out. 18 At the same time, our counsel, our district 19 counsel, Mr. Phil Jay, spoke to our ability, our legal 20 ability, to pursue a different path if we so choose. I 21 think that was certainly referenced in today's discussion as 22 well. 23 So I just wanted to make certain that all of you 24 knew that this isn't -- that we went through this last 25 Thursday in Fresno and it was somewhat of a lengthy meeting PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 33 1 too, but never as long as the one in Los Angeles. They 2 would have given up long before then. 3 But I wanted you to all be aware and the public to 4 be aware that that discussion went on. 5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Comments from the board? 6 Ms. D'Adamo. 7 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I was going to, when we 8 read off the list of our ex parte communications, go over 9 that same thing as well, but since Supervisor Patrick just 10 raised that issue, I should say that later on, once we do go 11 through the ex parte communications that I had received 12 numerous telephone calls from individuals within the San 13 Joaquin Valley discussing the pros and cons of the carve-out 14 issue. 15 And I should say that I think that the additional 16 30 days in between hearings has, I think, been rather 17 helpful for me. That issue in particular was raised at the 18 last minute at the hearing, and I think that the additional 19 time gave me an opportunity to reflect upon that issue. 20 In addition, I think that where staff has turned 21 out on some of the issues that we raised, it appears that 22 the extension of time, I think, has strengthened the 23 proposal and I'm quite pleased with it. 24 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon. 25 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I just briefly want to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 34 1 commend the staff, as others have. 2 Clearly, the diesel engine is of integral part of 3 our economic life in this state. It's how we move. 4 And this is a very very evenhanded approach that I 5 hope we can replicate with other sectors. I think there's 6 real real significant progress that comes out of the 7 approach you all took. 8 Thank you. 9 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I'd like to make a few comments. 10 Again, I'd like to reinforce all I've heard, 11 particularly, staff, I know they worked extremely hard and I 12 know they were very disappointed last time when we didn't 13 come to a vote, so you come to a hiatus and then have to 14 start working and we've not been able to take comments from 15 the outside and we've all shifted off to staff, so I know 16 they have been inundated with various comments. 17 And also I'm delighted to see the tightening to 18 the particulate, that's a big issue obviously for us and 19 with the identification of diesel as a toxic air 20 contaminant, diesel particulate, that's clearly a focus from 21 public health. 22 I'll also echo my colleagues' statements vis-a-vis 23 I'm delighted to see EMA coming back with a revised 24 proposal, except I don't think it goes far enough on the NOx 25 side. As I look at this, again I'm, I guess, burdened by -- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 35 1 I understand a little bit about atmospheric chemistry, so 2 from the NOx side we have both NOx and a ozone precursor as 3 well as a precursor to particulates, and while I see this 4 happening, I also look at the graph that was presented there 5 and we go over a 15-year period, so we're getting down to 6 2015 and if we look at the progress of technology over the 7 last 10 years, I think our ability to be able to predict the 8 progress and technology has all been underestimated in that. 9 So where I'd be coming from, I'd like to maybe 10 suggest to my colleagues, then we talk about the staff that 11 we have equal or greater NOx reduction, let's push, I think 12 the engine manufacturers to actually get greater NOx 13 benefits. I think we owe that in terms of the diesel path 14 here and I think clearly we've got some work to do, but I 15 think it would be a very important message to send to do 16 everything possible to accelerate that so that as we see 17 this coming down over a period, let's see if we can't sort 18 of see the types of advances we're seeing on some of the 19 particulate reductions there. 20 I don't know whether my colleagues would be 21 interested in seeing that. 22 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I'd like to raise a 23 question. Won't we get a handle on that with the progress 24 reports that are going to be made? I'm sure the staff will 25 be following the progress of the technology development, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 36 1 will they not? 2 MR. KENNY: If I can maybe take a shot, we would 3 have information with regard to the progress reports that, 4 as I understand the chair, what I thought I heard was 5 essentially that when we look at the .5 standard which is 6 currently in the staff proposal, and then we also look at 7 the alternative that EMA proposes, truly an alternative to 8 the .5 proposal, that if in fact we're going to provide some 9 approval of that alternative approach that in fact we have 10 to be certain that we get, you know, more than just simply a 11 equivalent NOx reductions, because there is some level of 12 uncertainty there. So what I thought I heard is that if an 13 alternative was going to be approved, it needs to show 14 greater NOx reductions. 15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think that's exactly the case. 16 I think it's -- I understand what you're saying, Joe, but I 17 think the message we need to send we really try to 18 accommodate here and I think staff again has done a 19 wonderful job, but again as I look at the 15-year period, I 20 see that we should be able to do better and I think it's 21 important to keep that pressure on there and say we're not 22 backing away from our desire to reduce NOx as well as the 23 particulate, and NOx enters into both of those. 24 And we still have many areas in the state 25 suffering under the ozone nonattainment, obviously PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 37 1 Sacramento being one of those and the Bay Area and the San 2 Joaquin Valley. 3 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I guess I'd like to ask a 4 question, Mr. Chairman, what are you suggesting, that we not 5 buy into what the staff -- 6 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: No. I'm suggesting that when 7 staff are at the point that we have equivalent or greater 8 NOx, we should actually ask that we have greater NOx on this 9 particular path, and I think what's that I'm saying. 10 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Thank you. 11 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: As I look out 15 years, I'm sure 12 we're going to do much better than this with the progress 13 I'm seeing and I think it's important to send the message 14 that we ultimately we want to get down as close as we can. 15 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: You suggesting we 16 reword this to say, instead of equivalent or better, to say 17 equivalent but preferably better? 18 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think make it stronger. 19 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Then you got to get 20 rid of the word equivalent. 21 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Or better. 22 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Better get rid of the 23 word equivalent? 24 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes. 25 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: You're suggesting that not PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 38 1 what was shown as the slide, but the text of these 2 regulations, some wording changes? 3 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: One of the slides had there 4 that -- 5 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: I recall that, but we're 6 not voting on the slides. 7 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: No, no. 8 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: I think someone needs 9 to -- 10 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Where is the language 11 in the resolution? 12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Let's see where that is here. 13 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: These all refer to 14 the .5, 0.5. 15 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: One paragraph somewhere 16 that -- 17 MR. KENNY: In the regulation it's probably the 18 best place to modify the language, it's on page eight of the 19 actual regulatory language. 20 And it's basically if you're on page eight of the 21 regulatory language it's subparagraph seven at the very top 22 there. 23 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: B. 7 B. 24 MR. KENNY: 7 B, that's correct. 25 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: You're suggesting we PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 39 1 delete the words "equivalent or"? 2 MR. KENNY: That's correct. 3 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: That's fine. 4 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Do you have any sense 5 as to -- this was an EMA proposal, so I'm wondering whether 6 you have any sense of how they -- 7 MR. KENNY: I don't have a sense as to what EMA's 8 reaction would be, but at the same time this is an 9 alternative approach, alternative to the .5 standard, and 10 this is a way then of ensuring the fact that there is an 11 alternative that's going to be used and in fact we will 12 achieve the emission reductions. 13 The one thing I could say, though, in terms of the 14 discussions with EMA, EMA was looking for some kind of an 15 alternative and although I think they would probably prefer 16 equivalent, I think they would prefer probably even "greater 17 than" to have no language at all. 18 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: And we're not saying 19 how much greater. 20 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: That's what -- 21 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: That's what bothered 22 me. 23 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I think that may create a 24 problem. I know exactly what you want, but if you don't say 25 equivalent or somehow set a basis, I think then it reads -- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 40 1 MR. KENNY: Can I make a suggestion? 2 The suggestion I would make would be that if you 3 went with "greater" and did not use the words "equivalent 4 or," that when we had the first application that came in, 5 instead of actually having us do it as a staff, we would 6 bring it to the board and the board could then provide at 7 least some level of, you know, thought or comment with 8 regard to how much greater we're looking for and that would 9 be really a precedent for all of them. 10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: This is another aspect there when 11 I think we were asking the demonstration to be brought back 12 to earlier, I was also suggesting that as in a public forum 13 we bring at least the first one back to the board so we have 14 full, open discussion of that to see what the industry is 15 bringing back and at that time I think we'll be able to see 16 the status of technology and what we're talking about, but 17 also creates the impetus there to actually try to do better. 18 I understand what you're saying and what is 19 greater, but I don't want to define that at the moment, let 20 them define. 21 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: I'm not an English 22 professor, but it has to be greater than something, you 23 can't just -- so put down .5 or put some number in. 24 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: You have to have a basis. 25 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: And then they know what PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 41 1 you're talking about. 2 MR. KENNY: Actually the .5 is already the basis. 3 So .5 is the basis, so -- 4 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: So .49. 5 MR. KENNY: Well, what would end up happening, 6 since it's more of an averaging approach, is that the 7 emission reductions that would be associated with .5 would 8 be calculated and then whatever the alternative approach is 9 that is provided would have to achieve greater emission 10 reductions than a .5 approach. 11 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: Exactly. 12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon. 13 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Yeah, I agree with the 14 chair's proposal. This is an alternative path and the 15 intention of it is to demonstrate advanced technology. So 16 if we're moving advancement of technology we don't want to 17 move to equivalent, we want to move it ahead. 18 And I really agree with that. I didn't catch that 19 earlier. 20 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I guess, Mr. Chair, I guess 21 down the road I see a problem, and the problem that I see if 22 we adopt what the staff is suggesting, that is the first 23 person that comes in for a certification may set such a 24 extremely low standard that in effect you eliminate two or 25 three other engine manufacturers. And that's the only PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 42 1 concern. 2 MR. CACKETTE: Mr. Calhoun, what would be brought 3 to the staff as an alternative, and then the first one to 4 the board under this proposal is a plan by a transit 5 district on how it would comply in a manner that is 6 equivalent or in this case greater -- with greater emission 7 reductions than if they had just bought 2004 engines. It 8 really doesn't get to certifying an engine. The plan may 9 actually be we're not going to use the advanced technology 10 buses, but we're going to modernize our fleet or we're going 11 to get rid of all of our old buses or some other method like 12 that, that is the alternative to simply buying the 2004 13 buses meeting these tight standards. 14 So what the board would be seeing would be does 15 this plan make sense, does the alternative generate real 16 emission reductions from their standpoint, is it greater, 17 are there greater NOx reductions than if they had gone and 18 bought the 2004 type buses. 19 So that's what you'd be seeing. It wouldn't 20 really affect, I don't think, a manufacturer versus 21 manufacturer situation. 22 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Okay. I have no problem 23 with it, if that's it. 24 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Supervisor Roberts. 25 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Yeah, Mr. Chairman, when PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 43 1 this comes back to us I think then we're going to have to 2 confront what does it really mean and we're going to have to 3 actually establish a definition and a standard at that time. 4 And I understand Mr. Calhoun's concern. 5 We're not in a position to do that right now. And 6 I think this is at least indicating a direction that just 7 where the bar is going to be drawn, that's why -- 8 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I understand exactly, but, again, 9 I'm hoping that at that time people will be reading into 10 this and trying to move ahead and to get as much NOx 11 reduction as soon as possible. I think that's what we're 12 trying to accomplish here. 13 I think we have a safeguard built in and, you're 14 right, it's we're sending a signal here and we're hoping 15 that it will be taken up, it will come back to us. 16 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Mr. Chairman. 17 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Sorry. Ms. D'Adamo. 18 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I'm wondering, this is a 19 new issue for me and as I understand this, this language was 20 brought to staff by EMA or this is language that was worked 21 out together with EMA? 22 MR. KENNY: Actually it was language that we as a 23 staff worked out with EMA. EMA brought us the concept. 24 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Okay. Well, I'm just a 25 little uncomfortable about one thing, and that is that -- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 44 1 and this is a more broad issue. As I understand it, we 2 closed the record on January 27th, and I see quite a few 3 people in the audience kind of shaking their heads as we've 4 been having this discussion. I think that the people ought 5 to have an opportunity to comment on this language and what 6 the impact would be and the more broad issue is -- 7 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think they will have that 8 chance during the 15-day period. 9 MS. WALSH: That's correct. 10 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: And I would like to 11 encourage anyone that has concerns to go ahead and do that. 12 But I think the more broad issue for me is that 13 since the record was closed, I just do want to indicate that 14 I must not have been listening at the last hearing, because 15 I'm trying to remember exactly at what point I raised the 16 issue of being -- needing to list the ex parte 17 communications, and was advised that we would list those at 18 the close of today's hearing, and as a result I've had 19 numerous contacts. 20 So I'm just a little concerned about -- 21 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Again, it was my sense that we 22 didn't want to open the record today, but if it was the 23 feeling of the board that we should take more testimony, we 24 can certainly have a motion on that. 25 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I don't necessarily have a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 45 1 way to resolve that issue, it's just it's something that's 2 been troubling me, because I have been receiving telephone 3 calls and actually received a memo from Ms. Walsh indicating 4 that we should be advised against having additional 5 contacts, but that was several weeks after the close of the 6 hearing. 7 And the reason I just wanted to bring it up is 8 once again on this issue it just raised it in my mind that 9 perhaps more information, especially for board members such 10 as myself where this is pretty technical stuff, is I view it 11 as being helpful, and if there's any way to receive that 12 information, either today or at the close of the hearing, I 13 would appreciate the opportunity to receive the information. 14 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: As I understand it, though, 15 again, we will be seeing this come back to us, and so we're 16 not doing anything that's going to be irrevocable. But 17 certainly I will go to the legal part whether you can see 18 that after the 15-day comment period. 19 I will also say also, Dee Dee, if I had to do this 20 again I would have done things slightly differently because 21 it was my inexperience here that led to some of these -- 22 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I apologize if I appear to 23 be critical. 24 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: No, no, no. 25 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I just wanted to make it PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 46 1 clear as to where I was coming from that I've been receiving 2 comments and have had discussions on this one, and it's a 3 new issue, I think, for all of us, but I think additional 4 information is helpful. 5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I've been caught in the same 6 issue myself having to fend off people. 7 Mr. Kenny, do you have a comment or reflection on 8 Ms. D'Adamo's comment there? 9 MR. KENNY: My only thought on that would be 10 essentially that because we heard all the testimony at the 11 last hearing, it was appropriate to close the record at that 12 point in time and then what I thought the board was asking 13 us to do was to go back and try to provide some kind of 14 clarity for some of the issues that were raised and that's 15 what we tried to do. 16 The concept of an alternative to the .5 standard 17 was raised at the last board meeting by EMA in some of 18 Mr. Mandel's comments. We actually had some further 19 discussion as a staff with the engine manufacturers and 20 we've tried to refine sort of that proposal and that's what 21 you see before you today. 22 In terms of the proposal by the chairman to delete 23 the "equivalent or" and simply go with "greater," I think 24 that's simply a refinement, so I think it's all within the 25 context of the deliberations that are appropriate to derive PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 47 1 from the original testimony that was heard last month. 2 Your concern with regard to the ex parte contacts 3 is one in which I simply think as long as you report your 4 ex parte contacts at the end of this particular hearing, I 5 think you discharged your obligation under those 6 requirements. 7 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: I do have a question. 8 If we're going to modify staff's or further revise staff's 9 recommendation to delete "equivalent or" with the 10 expectation that it will come back to the board and that 11 before the executive officer exercises any discretion or 12 authority given under this rule to exempt transit agencies, 13 to further report to the board and any guidance the board 14 wants to give at that time, then I think the rule itself 15 gives the executive officer the authority. It doesn't say 16 with the concurrence of the board or subject to approval by 17 the board. 18 MS. WALSH: That's correct. The resolution as now 19 written is based on our normal template which is that the 20 15-day comment period opens, comments come in, they're 21 considered by staff, revisions may be made if they are 22 minor, there's a direction to the executive officer to 23 determine whether the matter should come back to the board 24 if there are significant issues raised at that time. Unless 25 that is the case, the regulation would be finalized pursuant PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 48 1 to the delegation in the resolution at that time. 2 MR. KENNY: What I would propose on that, though, 3 is that delegation not be exercised until that first 4 alternative application essentially comes in and there's an 5 opportunity for it to be presented to the board and fully 6 discussed so that in fact there's direction from the board 7 with regard to how those alternative applications should be 8 pursued in the future. There's the potential for at 9 least -- 10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Are we talking about two separate 11 issues? 12 MS. WALSH: We're talking about two separate 13 things. 14 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: He and I are talking 15 about the specific matter at hand, and you're addressing 16 Ms. D'Adamo's -- 17 MS. WALSH: That's correct. I'm sorry for the 18 confusion. 19 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: No, no. That's okay. I'm glad 20 we picked up on it. 21 MR. KENNY: We just clarified everything at once. 22 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: But I think I'm much more 23 comfortable with what you identified there, Professor 24 Friedman, and Mr. Kenny was following up on that that for 25 least the first item here it should come back to the board. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 49 1 I think I'd be more comfortable when we have a full public 2 discussion on that. We don't want all the transit districts 3 coming back, but I think we'll learn a lot when that one 4 comes back. 5 And I would agree with you on that part of it that 6 we should ensure that one comes back to the board, so we can 7 modify that language. 8 MR. KENNY: The only question I would have there 9 is what do we want to do, you want to modify the actual 10 regulatory language to reflect that the first one should 11 come back or do you want to essentially provide the 12 direction that the authority -- 13 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: You exercise your 14 authority, you bring it to us. 15 MR. KENNY: Okay. You want that in the 16 regulation, though, is what I'm asking. 17 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: I think as long -- I 18 don't know whether it's important that other people know 19 that that's what's going to happen, that is any transit 20 agency seeking exemption with an alternative system should 21 be aware and if it isn't in the rule, it ought to be 22 somewhere close to it. 23 MS. KRINSK: I suggest that if we put it in the 24 resolution, as a clause in the resolution, that is also a 25 public document that's widely read and that would suffice. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 50 1 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: That would be 2 considered by concurrence, part of the staff recommendation 3 and then that we're now about to act on? 4 As I understand it, stakeholders will have an 5 opportunity to comment and if the comments are substantial 6 the executive officer will bring it back to us? 7 MS. WALSH: That's correct. 8 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: I'll get a motion on 9 the floor. I'll move approval -- 10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think we've got to go through 11 the ex partes. 12 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Oh. 13 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes, I think so. 14 So, again, just a reminder there, while we may 15 communicate off the record with outside persons regarding 16 board rulemaking, we must disclose the name of our contacts 17 and the nature of the contents on the record. This 18 requirement applies specifically to communications that take 19 place after the notice of the board hearing having been 20 published. 21 And maybe I will start with Supervisor DeSaulnier. 22 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Not within the 45-day 23 period, Mr. Chairman. 24 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon. 25 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Just I had one just prior PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 51 1 to the 45-day period, do I -- 2 MS. WALSH: That's not. 3 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Then within the 45-day 4 period, telephone call on January 24th in my office with Ed 5 Manning with Western States Petroleum. His discussion we 6 had was very similar to their comments in writing and in the 7 hearing. 8 Then on January 25th a telephone conference call 9 with Jason Mark of the Union of Concerned Scientists; Todd 10 Campbell of the Coalition for Clean Air; Gail Feuer with the 11 Natural Resources Defense Council; and Bonnie Holmes-Gen 12 from the Lung Association, took place in my office. It was 13 a conference call. Bonnie also stopped by the office 14 briefly and met just prior. The conversation was equivalent 15 to their written comments as well as their comments in the 16 hearing. 17 That's it. 18 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Ms. D'Adamo. 19 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: All right. On the day of 20 the hearing, the 27th, I had conversations with Mark Boese 21 and David Crow with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 22 Control District. That conversation was essentially the 23 same as their testimony. 24 On the 26th of January I had a conference call 25 with Jason Mark, Union of Concerned Scientists; Todd PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 52 1 Campbell, Coalition for Clean Air; Gail Ruderman Feuer, 2 Natural Resources Defense Council; and Bonnie Holmes-Gen 3 with -- or, no, strike that. Not with Bonnie Holmes-Gen. 4 Just the three that I had listed. 5 On the 26th of January and on the 11th of February 6 I had a telephone conversation with Ed Manning, Western 7 States Petroleum Association. 8 I'm sorry. The group of environmentalists that I 9 just identified, their conversation with me, as well as Ed 10 Manning's, were identical to -- virtually identical to the 11 testimony that was presented at the hearing. 12 Then on the 16th of February, a telephone 13 conversation with Shawn Stevenson with the Fresno County 14 Farm Bureau. He informed me of his opposition to the, 15 quote, unquote, carve-out provision or carve-out. 16 On the 25th of January, a telephone conversation 17 with Kirk Lyndsay, a board member with the California 18 Trucking Association, also informed me of his opposition to 19 the carve-out. 20 On the 3rd of February I had a conversation, 21 telephone conversation, with Chris Riordan, executive 22 director of the Central Valley Manufacturers' Council, who 23 informed me of his organization's opposition to the 24 carve-out. 25 Had two telephone discussions with Jerry PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 53 1 O'Bannion, one on the 4th of February and one on the 16th of 2 February, Merced County Board of Supervisor and board member 3 of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 4 The conversation with Mr. O'Bannion was about the proposal 5 in general. He did not express an opinion one way or the 6 other. 7 Then on the 11th of February, had a conversation, 8 telephone conversation, with Kenni Friedman, Modesto City 9 Council, and also board member of the San Joaquin Valley Air 10 Pollution Control District. She informed me of her 11 opposition to the carve-out. 12 Thank you. 13 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. 14 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: None. 15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Professor Friedman. 16 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: I have none to 17 report. 18 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I have one to 19 report. 20 I spoke with, on January 24th, Bob Nixon, who 21 represents Sempra Energy. It was in regards to a letter 22 that was addressed to the chairman on the 24th, and it 23 essentially is part of the record already. It's been 24 submitted. 25 That's all. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 54 1 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Mr. Calhoun. 2 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Mr. Chairman, on the 3 morning of the hearing, on the 27th of January, I spoke to 4 Dr. Wallace Dean of the South Coast Air Quality Management 5 District, and Dave Crow of the San Joaquin Valley APCD, and 6 that conversation was essentially the same as the testimony 7 that they presented at the hearing. 8 I received a -- subsequent to our last meeting I 9 received a telephone call from Dave Smith of Arco regarding 10 a meeting, but we never had that meeting. 11 So I haven't had any discussions other than that. 12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Supervisor Patrick. 13 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Thank you. Yes, I have 14 four to report. 15 The first was January 20th, Bob Nixon, the local 16 government affairs manager of Sempra Energy and his -- that 17 conversation mirrored December's written submission, which 18 was dated January 24th. 19 On January 25th, Dave Crow from the San Joaquin 20 Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, he's the air 21 pollution control officer, and that mirrored his testimony 22 at the January meeting. 23 On the 27th of January I received a memo from Bob 24 Nixon, again from Sempra Energy, which was entered into the 25 written -- all the written papers from our initial meeting, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 55 1 and that was a memo asking me to make a motion allowing 2 local air districts to opt out of the diesel path, where the 3 local air districts feel the need for further reductions in 4 particulate matter. 5 And then the only off-the-record conversation that 6 I had after the January meeting was Suzanne Noble from WSPA, 7 wanted to know how written comments would be handled given 8 the unusual nature of this last 30 days. And I had just 9 spoken to Kathleen about it and so I explained how Kathleen 10 suggested that she would go about doing that. 11 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Supervisor Roberts. 12 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 13 don't have anything to report. 14 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I have three on January 11th. 15 Met with the Engine Manufacturers' Association, John Duerr 16 from Detroit Diesel, Bob Jorgensen from Cummins, Jed Mandel, 17 Tim French and Joe Suchecki from EMA, again talking about 18 the fleet average NOx emissions and retrofit requirements. 19 Phone call on January the 11th with Gail Ruderman 20 Feuer, from NRD; and Angela Johnson from Environmental 21 Civics, program director, California League of Conservation 22 Voters; and John White from the Sierra Club. We discussed 23 the maximizing pollution benefits at the local districts, so 24 we could at least allow serious particulate matter in 25 nonattainment area to adopt an alternate fuel path only, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 56 1 close the diesel loophole in terms of typing the standards 2 there, develop real-world emissions program and additional 3 issues which incorporate all transit buses 30 foot and 4 larger and talking about the developing a school bus rule in 5 2000. 6 Another phone call which involved Jason Mark, 7 David Allgood, Todd Campbell, Bonnie Holmes-Gen, Paula 8 Forbis, along similar lines, similar issues. They're 9 talking about the need to push the alternative fuels path 10 there and also talk a little bit about the carve-out 11 program. 12 That was it. 13 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Mr. Chairman, I neglected 14 to also mention that I received approximately 35 letters 15 since the last hearing date. They were faxed or mailed to 16 me directly at my Modesto office, and I provided copies to 17 the clerk of the board this morning. 18 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Okay. 19 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Ditto. I received a -- I 20 didn't even count them. I gave the whole stack. And I 21 received about 20 calls a day saying what's your fax number. 22 And for the record my fax number is here at the ARB. 23 Thank you. 24 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Mr. Chairman, I 25 didn't understand that the receipt of written correspondence PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 57 1 or e-mails that once one recognized the subject were not 2 read, but were discarded, in light of the memo from 3 Ms. Walsh, was required to be reported. I didn't keep track 4 of them. I didn't keep them. I was advised, as I 5 understand it, that we were -- the record was closed and we 6 were not to consider, and so when I said none, I meant no 7 oral conversations, no meetings, no in-person discussions. 8 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think, Professor Friedman, you 9 had a motion. 10 Do I have a second? 11 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: I would move approval 12 with the changes that we've discussed. 13 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: Second. 14 BOARD MEMBER C.H. FRIEDMAN: Of the regulatory 15 amendments. 16 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Second by Dr. Friedman. 17 Any discussion? 18 All in favor say aye. 19 (Ayes.) 20 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Any negatives. 21 (No response.) 22 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 23 Colleagues, here again, I appreciate you all 24 attending today. 25 And thank you Dr. Friedman, for reading -- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 58 1 MS. HUTCHENS: You have an open comment period. 2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I understand. I haven't finished 3 my comments yet. 4 Again, I think as we move ahead here, we will all 5 decide that we need to get lower and lower emissions, but at 6 this juncture I think that we've crafted a very careful 7 rule, as you indicated, Professor Friedman, here, and so I 8 congratulate staff again. Thank you very much for all your 9 efforts and I guess we'll see you again in the future. 10 Thank you. 11 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: I hope so. 12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: On this issue. 13 We now have an open comment period, by the way, so 14 we're not quite finished yet, and we have two people signed 15 up to testify in the open comment period. 16 So I'd like to call on Joanna Caul, representing 17 myself and citizen of Shasta County. Joanna Caul. 18 Then Russ Wade. Russ Wade and Joanna Caul. 19 MS. CAUL: Thank you for taking the time to listen 20 to me. 21 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Good morning. 22 MS. CAUL: I'll try to be very short. 23 About two years ago -- can you hear me? 24 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Pull the microphone just a 25 little closer. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 59 1 MS. CAUL: Can you hear me now? 2 Okay. About two years ago I lived in Sacramento. 3 I retired and I moved up to Shasta County to live with my 4 youngest daughter. 5 I was ecstatic at -- 6 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Excuse me. Maybe the people 7 could continue discussions out in the outside room, please. 8 Just give us a minute. 9 MS. CAUL: I was ecstatic to think that now I had 10 the time to get involved in things that I had been 11 interested in all my life and never had the time to do, such 12 projects as expanding recycling projects, protection of the 13 environment and so forth. Things that since my early teens 14 I had been interested in. 15 My kids tell me that I was recycling before there 16 was the word recycling. They're right. 17 But what they don't realize is that recycling has 18 been done forever up until currently, and the American 19 Indian to the peasants in Europe, nothing was wasted. They 20 used it. Mother Earth was respected because they knew that 21 their lives and their children's lives depended on it. They 22 didn't squander, they didn't waste. And throw-away is a 23 word that just got in our dictionary. 24 As I got involved, I watched the board of 25 supervisors' decisions, both as supervisors and members of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 60 1 the air board, particularly in the areas affecting 2 environment. 3 In an area as ours where the air flow brings us 4 everybody else's pollution, as well as our own, we should be 5 leaning backwards to protect our air from degrading any 6 further. 7 Our board just doesn't seem to see it that way. 8 Therefore, I'm asking for you to formally put on 9 your agenda to investigate to divest the Shasta County board 10 of supervisors of their role as our air board. 11 We would appreciate this very much. 12 Thank you. 13 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 14 Mr. Kenny, do you have any comments? 15 MR. KENNY: I think what we can do is we can talk 16 with Mr. Kussow up in the air district there and find out 17 what the problems are and maybe we can also spend some time 18 with the witness and try to get a sense as to what the 19 issues are and then we can try and see if we can resolve 20 some of them. 21 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: That would be very helpful. 22 And thank you for coming. 23 We have Russ Wade. 24 MR. WADE: Thank you very much for your time. 25 And I realize your ears are probably tired, so if PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 61 1 you'll bear with me, I'm going to -- I do have a litany of 2 complaints about the board of supervisors. Technically they 3 follow the rules, but their intent is to subvert the rules, 4 and that's happened to us continually. 5 And most of the things that in fact me as a 6 citizen appearing before the board, I was in a meeting where 7 one of the supervisors is advising us as concerned citizens 8 to get a life. So that's the type of attitude that we, you 9 know, that we are receiving up there. 10 And I'm sure you guys are bumping up against this 11 all the time. It's jobs, growth, let's pave over the planet 12 until there's nothing left. 13 And I'm going to start in on what I feel has been 14 taking place up in Shasta County. 15 First of all, there's been a huge waste of public 16 monies. I don't believe that you need to spend $20,000 to 17 study whether or not pollution blows up and is trapped in 18 our box canyon up there. It is. And that was done. 19 And then there are I guess the DMV grants that go 20 up to all the different counties, the mission statement 21 being to reduce vehicle emissions. Murals, bus stops, 22 videos, bicycle maps, that kind of bull just doesn't cut it. 23 It isn't going to clean up the air. 24 We, one of the members of my group went to a board 25 meeting in which Michael Kussow, the air pollution control PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 62 1 officer, is advising the Shasta County of board of 2 supervisors to get businessmen to lobby against the new 2.5 3 federal standards for particulates. 4 The only reason that there's a toxic project they 5 want to put on the people up at the end of this box canyon, 6 Knopf Corporation, the only reason a proper environmental 7 impact report was done was because of the activism of our 8 group. 9 I'm going to close and I'm going to read you a 10 prophecy. 11 As far as I'm concerned it's all of us. 12 And this is from the Dead Sea Scrolls. 13 And up in front of the heavenly host sits a member 14 of us, a member of the human race, and there's a sacred 15 book, and the heavenly hosts are advising the member to open 16 the book, because we need to be warned. 17 And I open the first seal, and I saw, and I beheld 18 the angel of the air, and between her lips flowed the breath 19 of life. And she knelt over the earth and gave to man the 20 winds of wisdom. And man breathed in and when he breathed 21 out the sky darkened, the sweet air became foul and fetid 22 and clouds of evil smoke hung over the earth. 23 And I hung my head in shame. 24 And every time I fly over this country, I'm 25 embarrassed that I haven't done more. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 63 1 Thank you. 2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 3 I think if there's no other business, the February 4 meeting of the California Air resources Board will now 5 adjourn. 6 A reminder to staff, we had a question this 7 morning, that the April meeting will be in San Diego, is 8 that right? 9 MR. KENNY: That's correct. 10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Oh, is somebody else signed up? 11 (Person from the audience makes a comment.) 12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Kathleen, do I have to reopen? 13 MS. WALSH: You should just reflect that the 14 hearing is still open, you're taking one more comment. 15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Okay. The hearing is still open 16 and I'll take one more comment. 17 MR. RICE: Thank you. Appreciate your time. My 18 name is Michael Rice and I'm from Butte County. Currently a 19 dealer up there in that area. 20 And my expertise or -- isn't the greatest of 21 expertise, because I'm learning the technology as I sell. 22 One of the things that I'm working on is reduction 23 of NOx, soot, particulate matter. 24 And the product that I'm working with is something 25 that you all should already be familiar with. We've been PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 64 1 testing since 1994 and last year 1999. 2 This is through National Fuel Saver Corporation, 3 platinum vapor injection. 4 I would like to understand a little bit where CARB 5 is going with this. I understand that there is some 6 executive orders already written up on this and why they 7 haven't pursued further testing. The company was gone 8 through extensive testing with the federal government. 9 There's an extensive write-up on by the 7th US Mines 10 Symposium which brings the issue of particulate matter and 11 the reduction of NOx and there's been an SAE report also 12 completed on the platinum injection. 13 Through the studies that I've done on the 14 equipment that is out there at this point in time, 15 especially like with the particulate traps, magnets, there's 16 many different types of systems. There's additives that 17 manufacturers or the oil companies have tried to come up 18 with or they're changing the chemistry of the fuel to 19 hopefully get a cleaner burn. They're currently testing the 20 LNG gas down in Coalinga with Harris Ranch, because I guess 21 they were fined in that area, that county was fined for 22 heavy emissions. 23 And all these different products, I don't feel, 24 have gone through the extensive testing as platinum vapor 25 injection has, and the PVI or National Fuel Saver PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 65 1 Corporation has been through the court systems, the federal 2 government's even said themselves that the manufacturers 3 are -- they have proven that the product does actually more 4 than what the manufacturer had claimed. 5 They won many lawsuits in the courts and have 6 proven their system time and time again. 7 In retrospect to cost expense, which I'm sure is a 8 very big issue, especially statewide, since it's our tax 9 dollars that are paying for it, these programs, testing 10 programs, or new equipment, this line, this product that had 11 been put out is drastically lower than some of these new 12 items that are trying to be brought into the testing. 13 The emissions clean wise are higher than most of 14 these new units that they're trying to use or the 15 manufacturers are trying to change in retrospect to like the 16 EGR valve systems, return systems. They have gone through 17 20 years of proving grounds and yet I keep hearing we've got 18 some better things that we might have to try out and keep 19 testing and keep testing. 20 Well, I would like to know how many years of 21 testing do we have to keep proving before you guys decide 22 that we finally found our solution? 23 I think the solution has been shown and proven 24 time and time again, yet we keep wanting to spend millions 25 of dollars of our taxpayers' money to try more programs or PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 66 1 change out the fuels. 2 MTBEs, that's another big issue. I believe CARB 3 was warned that the MTBEs were going to be very bad for us, 4 yet they went with it anyway, and now taxpayers are having 5 to pay for it because of that mistake. 6 How long do we have to keep making these mistakes 7 or keep pushing these programs before we finally decide, 8 hey, here we go. 9 It's the oil companies that are pushing or paying 10 or that, you know, you guys to keep trying new systems. Who 11 has got their hands in whose pockets? 12 You know, I don't understand why I as a taxpayer 13 have to watch and listen to the politics of this over and 14 over again and everybody wants to argue about, well, I've 15 got the best solution, I've got the best solution. 16 Well, why don't we take the real numbers, put them 17 up side by side or run testing side by side that doesn't 18 cost the taxpayer millions of dollars for years of testing 19 before you finally decide that this is the right product? 20 Is CARB going to allow outside vendors to work 21 with possibly side by side with a state-ran test against 22 another product with control data testing that's required by 23 CARB for the emissions? 24 Those, all those tests can be met through oil 25 samples also. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 67 1 And is that going to be open for us to have a 2 chance to do that or are we going to have to be thrown into 3 the loop and said, well, because you don't have the money 4 to -- I think the Carl Moyer program they want us to -- I'm 5 nervous. 6 They're asking for I believe it's either the 7 manufacturers or the vendors to have shared costs of the 8 program. So if there's like a million dollars then the 9 Resources Board would provide 500,000 and I guess the 10 outside company have to probably provide 500,000 to meet or 11 so. I don't know if that's what you want to spend more 12 money or can we take something that's already ready to go 13 and been tested and show our results? 14 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Again, I appreciate your 15 comments. And you are talking about a very complex area, 16 the staff spends a lot of time looking at it. And I 17 understand your particular perspective, but I think I've 18 been on your end of things too, trying to look at fuel 19 additives, fuels, and what not or devices which will help us 20 get there. 21 The advantage is that the Air Board has set up a 22 very strict testing comparative system and you can be rest 23 assured that they've got the public's health at heart, and 24 have to give these a fair trial, and I think we get lots of 25 different results obtained under different situations and it PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 68 1 becomes very very difficult sometimes to understand that. 2 MR. RICE: Sir, I do know that down in LA County 3 Mayor Bradley used air transit bus systems to run this, and 4 did quite an extensive testing ground and proving grounds 5 for the emission reductions, and I believe also last year 6 there was a special test done on heavy duty diesel. 7 What's happened to that? 8 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think all I can suggest there 9 is that you send that to staff and they'll be happy to 10 evaluate it and also talk to our ombudsperson there, 11 because, again, I understand where you're coming from, but 12 recognize that staff gets these claims many many times, and 13 they try to obviously do the best job they can and all those 14 issues and the improvements and what not are brought before 15 the board. 16 So I think you will find that staff is trying to 17 do an objective job. 18 And I know that you're involved with a situation 19 of you've got a particular product there, but as you 20 prefaced your initial comments that you're beginning to 21 learn a lot about NOx, particulate, the whole thing, rest 22 assured, we have people here who have been dealing for 10, 23 20, 30 years on these issues. And I know it can be 24 frustrating from your viewpoint, but on the other hand when 25 they look at these issues, I mean they do an excellent job PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 69 1 and they have to look at these things on a holistic basis, 2 and you don't get improvement of one pollutant and 3 degradation of another. All that has to be taken into 4 account. 5 And the point, your point about MTBE, well, that's 6 a proper, if you like, thing to bring up, but I think it's 7 not relevant to your discussion on that, by the way. 8 MR. RICE: On the testing, though, see, what I 9 keep hearing is we'll just look at it. We'll look at it. 10 Well, how long do they have to look at something? You have 11 the federal government through court and through the courts, 12 even test, have the test to even be proven that it didn't do 13 what it did. But the manufacturers were trying to make the 14 claim that, no, it wouldn't do it. So through even the 15 courts they've even proven it out. 16 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: What I think we've got to do is 17 continue the discussion with staff. We can't have that type 18 of dialogue in this case. It's not meaningful. 19 So we appreciate you very much in coming, but deal 20 with staff on that. I think Mr. Kenny and staff and will be 21 only too happy to talk about those issues. 22 MR. RICE: Mr. Kenyon? 23 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Mr. Kenny. 24 Thank you very much. 25 Also, your local air pollution control officer, I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 70 1 would think, also could be helpful in this occasion. I 2 think he's pretty knowledgeable in some of these advances 3 and that would be helpful. 4 MR. RICE: Thank you. 5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 6 With that, I guess we do adjourn, officially 7 adjourn, the meeting for February. Thank you very much. 8 (Thereupon the meeting was adjourned 9 at 11:18 a.m.) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 71 1 CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 2 3 I, JANET H. NICOL, a Certified Shorthand Reporter 4 of the State of California, do hereby certify that I am a 5 disinterested person herein; that I reported the foregoing 6 meeting in shorthand writing; that I thereafter caused my 7 shorthand writing to be transcribed into typewriting. 8 I further certify that I am not of counsel or 9 attorney for any of the parties to said meeting, or in any 10 way interested in the outcome of said meeting. 11 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 12 this 3rd day of March 2000. 13 14 15 16 Janet H. Nicol 17 Certified Shorthand Reporter License Number 9764 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345