BOARD MEETING STATE OF CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD JOE SERNA, JR. BUILDING CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY CENTRAL VALLEY AUDITORIUM, SECOND FLOOR 1001 I STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 2004 9:00 A.M. TIFFANY C. KRAFT, CSR, RPR CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER LICENSE NUMBER 12277 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 ii APPEARANCES BOARD MEMBERS Dr. Alan Lloyd, Chairperson Dr. William Burke Mr. Joseph Calhoun Ms. Dorene D'Adamo Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier Professor Hugh Friedman Dr. William Friedman Supervisor Barbara Patrick Mr. Matthew McKinnon Mrs. Barbara Riordan STAFF Mr. Tom Cackette, Chief Deputy Executive Officer Mr. W. Thomas Jennings, Senior Staff Counsel Ms. Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer Ms. Kathleen Tschogl, Ombudsman Ms. Catherine Witherspoon, Executive Officer Ms. Lori Andreoni, Board Secretary Mr. Alberto Ayala, Manager, Emission Control Technology Research Section Mr. Richard Bode, Health and Exposure Assessment Branch Mr. Robert Jenne, Staff Counsel PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iii APPEARANCES CONTINUED STAFF Ms. Kim Heroy-Rogalski, Staff Air Pollution Specialist, Research Division Mr. Dane Westerdahl, Health & Exposure Assessment Branch, RD ALSO PRESENT Mr. Larry Allen, McClane Manufacturing, Inc. Mr. Sam Altshuler, PG&E Company Mr. Jack Broadbent, Bay Area AQMD Mr. Bill Bruce, B&B Small Engine Repair Mr. Steve Heckeroth, Energy Conversion Devices, Inc. Mr. Chung Liu, SCAQMD Mr. Ronald Lloyd, OEPEI Ms. Jackie Lourenco, Manager, Off-Road Controls Section, MSCD Mr. David Modisette, California Electric Transportation Coalition Dr. Jean Ospital, SCAQMD Mr. Pete Price, Price Consulting Dr. Kirk Smith, Environmental Health Sciences, U.C. Berkeley PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iv INDEX PAGE Pledge of Allegiance 1 Roll Call 1 Opening Remarks 2 Item 04-4-1 Chairperson Lloyd 4 Executive Officer Witherspoon 5 Staff Presentation 6 Q&A 11 Item 04-4-2 Chairperson Lloyd 16 Executive Officer Witherspoon 19 Staff Presentation 19 Q&A 31 Mr. Chung Liu 45 Mr. Sam Altshuler 58 Mr. Pete Price 65 Item 04-4-3 Chairperson Lloyd 68 Executive Officer Witherspoon 69 Dr. Kirk Smith 71 Q&A 98 Item 04-4-4 Chairperson Lloyd 105 Chief Deputy Executive Officer Cackette 106 Staff Presentation 107 Q&A 121 Mr. Ronald Lloyd 126 Mr. Larry Allen 146 Mr. David Modisette 150 Mr. Steve Heckeroth 157 Mr. Bill Bruce 162 Item 04-4-5 Chairperson Lloyd 167 Executive Officer Witherspoon 170 Staff Presentation 171 Mr. Jack Broadbent 181 Q&A 183 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 v Public Comment Mr. Steve Heckeroth 190 INDEX CONTINUED PAGE Adjournment 196 Reporter's Certificate 197 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 1 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Good morning. The April 3 22nd, 2004, meeting of the Air Resources Board will now 4 come to order. 5 Supervisor DeSaulnier, will you please lead us in 6 the Pledge of Allegiance. 7 (Thereupon the Pledge of Allegiance was recited 8 in unison.) 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 10 Will the clerk of the Board please call the roll. 11 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Dr. Burke? 12 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Here. 13 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Mr. Calhoun? 14 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Here. 15 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Ms. D'Adamo? 16 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Here. 17 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Supervisor DeSaulnier? 18 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Here. 19 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Professor Friedman? 20 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Here. 21 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Dr. Friedman? 22 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: Here. 23 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Mr. McKinnon? 24 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Here. 25 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Supervisor Patrick? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 2 1 SUPERVISOR PATRICK: Here. 2 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Mrs. Riordan? 3 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Here. 4 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Supervisor Roberts? 5 Chairman Lloyd? 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Here. 7 Thank you. 8 As you know, for this entire week, California has 9 been honoring the 34th anniversary of the original Earth 10 Day in 1974. And I must say, it's has been quite a 11 celebration. You will see throughout the building today 12 evidence of celebration of Earth Day. A number of really 13 exciting programs took place. 14 I think the highlight for me was on Tuesday Board 15 members and myself joined Governor Schwarzenegger and 16 Secretary Tamminen at UC Davis for the unveiling of the 17 Governor's vision for the hydrogen general in California. 18 I think he signed the Executive Order and committed the 19 state to developing a comprehensive plan to spur hydrogen 20 production by the end of the year, and then the hydrogen 21 highway network forming the backbone of the report. It 22 was really a wonderful event with numerous exhibits there. 23 We had the full range of technology, including fuel cells, 24 hybrids, hydrogen fuel blends, and direct hydrogen 25 combustion. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 3 1 I think, again, this launch is a very exciting 2 program ahead. I think it's commensurate with our work to 3 reduce air pollution to reduce dependence. This is 4 clearly not a short-term strategy. It's a long-term 5 strategy. The sooner we get started the better. We won't 6 kid ourselves this can be accomplished overnight, and we 7 can have a major penetration. But I think it's truly 8 exciting, the opportunity to work together. And already 9 we hear industries responding to the challenge and working 10 together. So we are fully committed to that, working with 11 the Secretary Tamminen looking at the Governor's 12 Environmental Action Plan. So really, really tremendously 13 exciting. 14 Then we had the Greenhouse Gas Workshop, which 15 was also on the same day, but I was not able to attend 16 that. But I know ARB staff led that in their usual way. 17 And in this case, it was an assessment of the technology 18 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles, as 19 required by the Pavley Bill 1493 of last year. This was 20 basically a presentation of the technology presented by a 21 number of people that we have worked with and our staff. 22 And my understanding was it was a very successful meeting. 23 We got the responses we expected, and certain segments of 24 society responded. But I think it was very helpful. 25 Then, yesterday, the ARB participated in a Port PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 4 1 Conference that Executive Officer Ms. Witherspoon, who you 2 can see is in pink today, she participated in also. It 3 was a multi-state conference on strategies to reduce 4 marine port emissions which was held in Seattle. And 5 another major conference coming up in Dr. Burke's 6 territory this year in the San Pedro. This is an example 7 of in some of the heightened interest and need to reduce 8 emissions related to port operations. 9 And then as I said earlier, we have ARB engineers 10 throughout the building and so -- and scientists of 11 tomorrow. So delighted to see them. 12 So with that, we'll go into the first item. I'll 13 ask my colleagues if they also have any comments on this 14 Earth Day? 15 Thank you. 16 The first agenda item is the Public Health 17 Update. 18 I would like to remind anyone in the audience who 19 wishes to testify on today's agenda items to please sign 20 up with the Clerk of the Board. Also if you have a 21 written statement, to provide 30 copies, if you can. 22 So the first item is the Monthly Public Health 23 Update. And today's update will discuss a recently 24 completed study on how air pollution effects children with 25 asthma. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 5 1 So without further ado, I'll turn it over to 2 Ms. Witherspoon. 3 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Good morning, 4 Chairman Lloyd and members of the Board. 5 Asthma rates in California are continuing to 6 rise, and researchers throughout the country are working 7 to understand what causes asthma to occur and what brings 8 on and aggravates asthma attacks, particularly in young 9 children. 10 Mr. Dan Westerdahl from our Research Division 11 will present the asthma study we are highlighting today. 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Your mic sounds a bit 13 strange. 14 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Is it treble? 15 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: There's too much 16 base and not enough treble. 17 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Well, yours 18 sounded really soft. You could hardly -- 19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Judging by the lamps in the 20 men's room, we're cutting down on energy use today. 21 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Is this mic any 22 better? 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes. 24 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Okay. I'll use 25 this mic. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 6 1 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 2 presented as follows.) 3 MR. WESTERDAHL: Good morning. 4 In today's health update I will describe and 5 interpret the results. 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Is your mic working? 7 MR. WESTERDAHL: It's on. 8 Is that better? 9 Good morning. In today's health update -- I'll 10 try not to swallow the mic. And I will describe and 11 interpret the results of the study performed to evaluate 12 the impacts of ozone and PM 2.5 on asthmatic children. 13 You've heard on numerous occasions that people 14 with existing respiratory illness, including those with 15 asthma, are at special risk of experiencing adverse health 16 outcomes if exposed to ozone and particulate matter in 17 ambient air. Further, children, especially children with 18 asthma, have been shown to suffer when air pollution 19 levels rise. They need medical health care, must limit 20 their activities, and take medication to ease their 21 symptoms. 22 --o0o-- 23 MR. WESTERDAHL: The study to be discussed today 24 follows up on general observations regarding children with 25 asthma and their response to common and fine particulate PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 7 1 material PM 2.5. The title of this paper is, "Association 2 of Low-Level Ozone and Fine Particles with Respiratory 3 Symptoms in Children with Asthma." The investigator was 4 Rochester University. 5 The specific objective in this study was to 6 determine whether exposure to pollutants with levels below 7 federal standards impact asthmatic children, and whether 8 they suffer symptoms and take more medication to relieve 9 these symptoms as ozone and PM 2.5 rise. 10 --o0o-- 11 MR. WESTERDAHL: In this perspective 12 epidemiological study, investigators recruited children 13 age 12 and younger from communities in Connecticut and 14 Massachusetts. The children were split into two groups; 15 those who routinely took maintenance medication to 16 maintain control over the asthma, and those without 17 routine maintenance medication. Both groups took rescue 18 medication often called inhalers whenever they experienced 19 asthma symptoms. 20 It was assumed those children who required 21 routine maintenance medication were more severely 22 asthmatic than those who did not take maintenance 23 medications. Health outcomes were recorded by parents and 24 included a series of respiratory symptoms commonly 25 experienced by asthmatics and the frequency of medication PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 8 1 use. 2 The concentration of ozone and PM 2.5 are low 3 during the study period, the spring and summer of 2001, 4 with a few violations of the Federal Ozone Standard and 5 none of the PM 2.5 Standard. 6 --o0o-- 7 MR. WESTERDAHL: As anticipated, children taking 8 maintenance medication were found to have more severe 9 asthma. They had more symptoms, such as chest tightness, 10 shortness of breath, cough and wheeze than children who 11 did not take routine maintenance medication. The more 12 severely asthmatic children also took more medication to 13 respond to their symptoms. 14 --o0o-- 15 MR. WESTERDAHL: Specific health findings from 16 the study are complex, but are summarized on this and the 17 following slides. 18 Those children with more asthma as defined by 19 their least occasional maintenance medication usage show 20 more wheeze and rescue medication use on days where 21 one-hour ozone levels exceeded 51 parts per billion. They 22 experience more chest tightness with one-hour ozone level 23 exceeded 63 parts per billion. When the investigators 24 considered the associated between the prior days' exposure 25 in symptoms, they found that several of the symptoms were PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 9 1 associated with both one-hour and eight-hour average ozone 2 levels. 3 In the case of wheeze, the same day one-hour 4 ozone, and chest tightness with prior day one-hour ozone, 5 the dose response relationship was seen. Each step 6 increased in level was reflected by an increased degree of 7 health outcome. Such observations enhance the credibility 8 of the study findings. Please note that these ozone 9 concentrations are considerably below either the Federal 10 or State Standards. 11 --o0o-- 12 MR. WESTERDAHL: Particulate matter did not 13 produce a large array of association with symptoms. Only 14 prior day concentrations above 19 micrograms per cubic 15 meter produced more cough, chest tightness, or shortness 16 of breath. There are almost no observations of either 17 symptoms or rescue medication use related to ozone or PM 18 2.5 exposures found in children who are classified as less 19 severely asthmatic. 20 The authors caution that levels of 2.5 were much 21 lower than expected during this study and that studies are 22 needed to further characterize how asthma in children is 23 influenced by this pollutant. 24 --o0o-- 25 MR. WESTERDAHL: This study adds important PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 10 1 information to what we already know about ozone's health 2 impact on children, especially for those with asthma. It 3 tells us that kids with asthma may be especially 4 responsive to levels of ozone. It tells us when ozone 5 levels go up, so does the use of rescue medication. 6 These medications are powerful drugs, quite capable of 7 causing harm with heavy or prolonged use. 8 The study did not attempt to determine whether 9 maintenance drugs reduce the harmful effect of ozone. It 10 is clear, however, that routine use of maintenance 11 medication does not completely prevent all the symptoms of 12 asthma or the need for medicine to relieve kids of these 13 symptoms. 14 And while researchers refer to children in the 15 study as more severely asthmatic, it is clear they 16 probably represent a large number of children with asthma. 17 Medication regimes for asthma are complex and research on 18 ozone is suggested by this work. 19 This study is the first report of ozone 20 medication findings in children. It suggests -- the 21 results will be considered in our review of the ozone 22 standard and suggest that neither the Federal nor 23 California State Standards for ozone fully protect 24 children with asthma from the symptoms seen. 25 Finally, while most findings were reported for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 11 1 ozone, not PM 2.5, the authors point out that the levels 2 were very low, and slightly higher levels could still be 3 harmful. Thank you. 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 5 Comments? 6 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: Like so many of 7 the studies that we hear about asthma, again emphasis on 8 the fact asthma is not a simple cause and effect disease 9 like some infectious disease which you can identify what 10 causes it and can predict what the outcome is going to be. 11 It's multi-factorial in so many ways. There's genetic 12 predisposition. There's the very ability in exposure to 13 pollutants, exposure to allergens, the magnitude of 14 inflammatory response, the magnitude of gluco 15 constriction. We added now the differences, some of which 16 are genetically determined, in pharmacological 17 responsiveness, the responses to drugs, and so forth. 18 The most important finding in this particular 19 study is that we may be too lenient with respect to the 20 creation or our standard setting with respect to ozone. 21 That's not the first time that I've heard this. In fact, 22 in our own ARB-supported child health study, I believe the 23 implication in that data is that we really do need to 24 re-examine what the ozone standard should be to be fully 25 protective -- or I shouldn't say fully protective. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 12 1 There's probably no such thing as fully protected. But 2 maximally effective. 3 So I think that this study contributed to that in 4 a more direct way. But it does give us thought about how 5 to pursue the issue of ozone standards in the future. I 6 think it's important in that regard. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. It was very, very 8 timely on that. 9 And also I understand that the ozone standard 10 review will be brought to us by the end of the year. 11 Dr. Burke. 12 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: I'd like to ask Dr. Friedman 13 a question. In that -- I can't see you. My contact 14 popped out, so you guys are blurring together. 15 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: There's only one 16 of me. I just look twice as big. 17 (Laughter) 18 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: In the genetic 19 predisposition to asthma, is any of that genetic 20 predisposition race based? 21 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: Well, no one 22 really knows. The ARB -- Floyd, you can remind me if I'm 23 correct in this -- is funding a study to be pursued next 24 year that's going to be looking at very specific genetic 25 markers with respect to -- is that San Francisco study PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 13 1 that we're -- 2 MR. WESTERDAHL: That's correct. 3 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: We're going to 4 be funding, which is going to try to identify the specific 5 gene loci which may be implicated in asthma. That has to 6 be clarified before one then goes on an expedition to see 7 in the population what the distribution may be of a gene 8 defect, if it turns out there's either a cluster of genes 9 or a single gene. 10 But I wouldn't be a bit surprised if there are 11 differences in populations. There are in just about any 12 genetically determined race, whether it's a question of 13 presence or absence or just the amount of variability. 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: McKinnon. 15 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I was -- I'm very 16 interested from the perspective of the environmental 17 justice stakeholders group in sort of our research 18 activities around children and otherwise how they touch 19 the environmental justice area of our work. 20 MR. JENNE: In all the -- actually, in all the 21 health studies that we're funding, we try to make sure 22 that the children in our recruit are part of that study 23 and a well representation. But as far as specific the 24 makeup -- 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Can you speak up? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 14 1 MEASURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF FRY: As far as 2 the make up the study, to make sure they're very 3 representative and the California population also that 4 they represent as well as. Is that what you're -- 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Professor Friedman. 6 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: We're having a 7 problem hearing, and I don't know if it's just volume or 8 the balance. But there is a problem. 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon, were you 10 finished? 11 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I guess -- and maybe 12 it's -- maybe we could, you know, when we do agendize 13 things, maybe we could get a fuller report. But it's my 14 understanding we've been doing studies in the Alameda 15 Corridor, in Huntington Park. And I'm also -- you know, I 16 think there's probably a number of things that are EJ 17 related. And I'm also interested in whether or not we 18 have any research proposals pending that are specifically 19 geared towards EJ issues. 20 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: Can I make a 21 response, because I was sent a potential proposal, which 22 is the first really comprehensive proposal from our new 23 scientific panel member which focuses on EJ. And I 24 suspect it's going to result in some real research 25 proposals that deals exactly with what the concern is, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 15 1 children, EJ issues, and so on. It's the first time I've 2 seen something in writing that looks like it's going to 3 hit the -- you know, really make an impression, probably 4 get funded, whether it be in pieces or in whole. So I 5 think I'm optimistic. 6 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Yeah. I had an 7 opportunity to look at that, and I understand there may be 8 even more of them. And that's sort of why I'm asking the 9 question. 10 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: If you'd like, in 11 June we will be presenting to the Board a status report on 12 environmental justice on a number of things. We can go 13 into comprehensively what research has occurred, what's 14 in-house, and these proposals that you're both referring 15 to, if that meets with your satisfaction. 16 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I would love that. 17 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Okay. We'll do 18 that. 19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Excellent idea. And the last 20 I knew, that meeting will be down in L.A. 21 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: I believe so, 22 yes. 23 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, it seems to 24 me also that from studies that we've had previously -- and 25 I'm thinking of the very large study that we're doing over PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 16 1 the multi-year, we have located elementary schools 2 throughout different areas. But if you break out some of 3 those locations, that's going to give you information that 4 has to do with environmental justice. It wasn't 5 necessarily meant to be that way. But it's going to fold 6 out of those studies. So we need to be reminded of where 7 those elementary schools are throughout Southern 8 California. 9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We'd be happy to 10 do that. That's part of the SB 25 monitoring work. 11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: What is the answer? 12 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: That we would add 13 that to the June presentation. 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: We're still having problems. 15 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: It's not the speakers, but 16 something is just not coming through. It's a very -- 17 mumbling. 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Seeing no more questions, 19 thank you very much, indeed. Thank you. 20 So the next agenda item is 04-4-2, a Report on 21 Staff's Research Efforts to Characterize the Tailpipe 22 Emissions of Diesel Versus Natural Gas Transit Buses. 23 This study is very important and one of the first 24 comprehensive scientific accounts of the comparative 25 emissions of these engines with and without advanced PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 17 1 after-treatment, which is something that has been debated 2 for some time. 3 I think it's helpful for the Board to hear this 4 information today, because later this year staff will be 5 proposing changes to the Transit Bus Rule, and some of 6 these issues will come up in those proceedings. The 7 natural gas versus diesel debate has not gone away. If 8 anything, it's gotten stronger since our last hearing on 9 the subject. 10 I personally believe this Board has a very good 11 reason to adopt a fuel-neutral approach to transit fleets 12 in 2003. And the study we are going to hear about today 13 bears that out. But I'd also like to point out a few of 14 the developments that have happened since then in 15 California may also weigh and be very important to our 16 future deliberations on that issue. It seems to me the 17 alternative fuels issue now goes beyond the transit rule 18 and beyond side-by-side comparisons for at least three 19 different reasons. 20 We now have a report on the reduction on 21 petroleum dependency, SB 2076, developed by ARB and CEC 22 that calls for gradual displacement for up to 20 percent 23 of our current petroleum demand with non-petroleum 24 alternatives by 2020. 25 Secondly, the Governor's Environmental Action PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 18 1 Plan has an explicit commitment to greater fuel diversity, 2 through a specific components -- though the specific 3 components of that plan are still being worked out. 4 Finally, our evolving work on climate change 5 tells us that low carbon fuels are part of the ultimate 6 solution to ever increasing greenhouse gasses. And I also 7 say in this context, too, when we look at natural gas, I 8 think I see more work being done and more research work 9 and look at natural gas hydrogen blends, which can get you 10 to even lower -- get to lower NOx numbers from natural 11 gas. I think that's technology which is also developing 12 to our benefit as well. 13 I think over the next several months, again, 14 under direction of Secretary Tamminen, we will be working 15 with CDC and other stakeholders to expand these findings 16 and develop an action plan improving California's fuel 17 diversity. And clearly, with the exiting gas and diesel 18 prices, this is long overdue. It's too early to say 19 exactly what that plan will contain, but I want you to be 20 aware of that process and invite your participation in 21 that dialogue as we move ahead. And we will keep the 22 public fully informed. I think it's important to get that 23 backdrop as we look at the issues today. 24 And with that, I'd like to turn it over to 25 Ms. Witherspoon to introduce the item and begin staff's PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 19 1 presentation. 2 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, 3 Chairman Lloyd. 4 The Chairman's just described the broad policy 5 landscape that's effecting staff's comparisons of diesel 6 versus natural gas and other alternative fuels, so I won't 7 say any more about that in my opening remarks. 8 But let me just say that this particular study is 9 a crucial piece of the puzzle. It was and still is the 10 most complete and most careful technical analysis of the 11 relative emissions of diesel versus natural gas transit 12 buses with and without after-treatment technology. We've 13 shared these results with interested stakeholders 14 throughout California and would like to now share them 15 with you. 16 Alberto Ayala, Manager of our Emission Control 17 Technology Research Section, will make the staff 18 presentation. 19 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 20 presented as follows.) 21 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH SECTION 22 AYALA: Thank you. 23 Can you hear me okay? Ms. Witherspoon, Dr. Lloyd 24 and members of the Board. Thank you for the opportunity 25 to offer an informational update on an internal research PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 20 1 effort that ARB staff have recently conducted. This 2 effort has generates new and relevant findings for 3 California. The information we gather offers a 4 perspective on some key technology options for reducing 5 emissions from heavy duty diesel engines. 6 --o0o-- 7 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH SECTION 8 AYALA: In this presentation, we will begin by discussing 9 the drivers for the project. I will then discuss the 10 experimental approach and, for brevity, will highlight 11 only a few key results. The presentation concludes with 12 final remarks. 13 --o0o-- 14 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH SECTION 15 AYALA: Testing began in 2001 and was completed in late 16 2002. Since then, staff have report results in a few peer 17 review publications and are working on a few more. In 18 addition, ARB staff have presented it at numerous 19 technical conference. Information has also been made 20 available at the project website. 21 --o0o-- 22 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH SECTION 23 AYALA: But before I begin, I must acknowledge a number of 24 co-investigators, including Mr. Robert Okomoto and Dr. 25 Norman Khata sitting at the table with me, that were PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 21 1 instrumental in this study. 2 Many other staff from various ARB divisions, as 3 well as colleagues from other organizations made the 4 project possible. ARB staff would like to acknowledge the 5 funding and assistance provided by the South Coast Air 6 Quality Management District, The Gas Company, and British 7 Petroleum who donated the diesel test fuel. The L.A. 8 County Metropolitan Transit authority is acknowledged for 9 their extensive support. 10 --o0o-- 11 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH SECTION 12 AYALA: Increasingly, compressed natural gas or diesel 13 particle filters, or traps, have provided manufacturers 14 with new option to meet increasingly stringent emission 15 standards. In this study, ARB investigators and our 16 collaborators took a detailed look at the exhaust profiles 17 from these alternatives. 18 The study was intended as an apples to apples 19 comparison of late model in-use heavy duty transit buses. 20 The project goal was to generate policy relevant 21 information that fills a research data gap and delivers a 22 technically defensible evaluation of available fuel type 23 and after-treatment retrofit options for transit bus 24 applications. Tailpipe emission profiles are known to 25 have a strong dependence on vehicle activity, and thus, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 22 1 driving or duty cycle effects were investigated. 2 We were also interested in a snapshot of 3 regulated and non-regulated emissions, especially those 4 exhaust components of known toxic risk significance. 5 Finally, ultra fine particle emissions defined as 6 particles less than 100 nanometers in diameter are of 7 increasing interest due to emerging evidence suggesting 8 their potential relation to adverse health effects. We 9 were interested in the size and number count of these 10 small partials in the emissions from the test buses. 11 --o0o-- 12 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH SECTION 13 AYALA: Three different transit buses, one diesel fuel, 14 and two dual by CNG, were included in the study. They 15 were all late model in-use vehicles borrowed from the 16 LANTA fleets. A total of five bus configurations were 17 tested. The diesel bus configurations corresponded to the 18 types of bus used typically by the LANTA. That is, the 19 baseline case included a oxidation catalyst. The catalyst 20 was then removed and replaced by a diesel trap. 21 All diesel tests used ultra low sulfur diesel 22 fuel donated by BP. The model year 2000 CNG bus was 23 tested with and without a catalyst. 24 The third and final bus was the newest vehicle, a 25 model year 2001 CNG bus that is equipped by the original PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 23 1 equipment manufacturer with an oxidation catalyst. All 2 three chassis were 40-passenger low-floor tested bus 3 tested in as-in conditions. 4 --o0o-- 5 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH SECTION 6 AYALA: The study benefited from the capability and the 7 staff expertise of ARB's heavy-duty emission testing 8 dynamometer facility located on the grounds of the L.A. 9 County NTA in downtown Los Angeles. This facility meets 10 the technical specifications of an engine emission 11 certification laboratory. 12 --o0o-- 13 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH SECTION 14 AYALA: The trap is a retrofit device that is prominent in 15 the Diesel Emission Risk Reduction Plan for California 16 that you approved back in 2000. The trap we tested is of 17 the catalyst base type manufactured by Johnson Matthey and 18 known as a CRT or continually regenerating trap. This is 19 a design in which an oxidation catalyst receives the 20 actual PM filter. 21 With the help of South Coast AQMD, an 22 off-the-shelf oxidation catalyst for the model year 2000 23 CNG bus was purchased and installed by JMI, the engine 24 maker. In both cases, the retrofit devices were degreened 25 before testing. This was accomplished by running the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 24 1 buses in normal ready-use service or on the dynamometer. 2 --o0o-- 3 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH SECTION 4 AYALA: We focus the study not only on criteria emissions, 5 by most importantly on a number of non-regulated emissions 6 of toxic risk significance. The partition of the exhaust 7 components into gaseous, semi volatile, and particulate 8 matter phases was determined using conventional 9 measurement techniques. Gas emission measurements 10 included NOx, NO2, CO, CO2, and total hydrocarbons, as 11 well as methane, non-methane hydrocarbon, and other 12 volatile organics. 13 In the PM phase, the filter-based approach 14 yielded total PM emissions. Inorganic elements and 15 elemental and organic carbons were also measured. Ultra 16 fine particle number and size were determined using the 17 latest instrumentation and sampling protocols. Finally, 18 the phase distribution of air emissions of polycyclic 19 aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs, and the mutagenicity of 20 emission samples as tests in a biological assay were also 21 determined. 22 --o0o-- 23 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH SECTION 24 AYALA: This slide is the first in a set of results that 25 we will present to highlight our key findings. In this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 25 1 block, we present a comparison of NOx and PM emissions 2 over the central business district cycle for CBD. The 3 cycle that captures transit bus activity patterns and one 4 of five different driving cycles used. 5 Note the PM emissions are on the order of 6 milligrams per mile, while NOx emissions are on the order 7 of grams per mile. In all cases, the differences in 8 emissions were statistically significant. Results show 9 that both the CNG bus with and without oxidation catalyst 10 and the diesel bus with a trap yield significantly lower 11 PM emissions than the baseline diesel bus. These PM 12 emissions are so low, especially with diesel trap, that 13 they start to approach background. 14 In terms of NOx emissions, the CNG bus reflects 15 an advantage over diesel. In this example, CNG NOx 16 emissions are approximately half of the diesel NOx 17 emissions. 18 --o0o-- 19 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH SECTION 20 AYALA: Understanding the benefits offered by the diesel 21 trap and the CNG fuel is greatly facilitated when 22 considering the composition of PM emission in terms of 23 elemental and organic carbon. 24 On the left, the carbon composition of the 25 emissions from the diesel baseline bus is shown as a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 26 1 function of driving cycle. During low speed, low-load 2 engine operation, such as idling, PM is dominated by 3 organic carbon. As engine speed and low increase in 4 response to demands from increasingly aggressive driving, 5 the PM composition shifts toward elemental carbon. 6 In contrast, the PM emissions from the diesel 7 trap and CNG buses are similarly characterized by organic 8 carbon, and they show a weak dependence and duty cycle. 9 The dependency of elemental carbon emissions on driving 10 condition makes it unsuitable for use as a marker for 11 diesel exhaust in ambient air. 12 --o0o-- 13 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH SECTION 14 AYALA: The continuous regeneration of PM in diesel trap 15 is facilitated by the presence of NO2 in the exhaust 16 stream. By design, the roll of the oxidation catalyst 17 proceeding the filter is to oxidize the NO2. These 18 results presented for various driving cycle show that NOx 19 emissions from the diesel trap are in the range of 20 to 20 50 grams per mile and are roughly half NO2. Without the 21 trap, the NO2 fraction is typically 10 to 15 percent of 22 the total NOx. It is noted this is unique to a 23 catalyst-based diesel particle filter and other PM 24 regeneration schemes do not necessarily have high NO2 slip 25 emissions. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 27 1 NO2 emissions have implications on ambient ozone 2 and ambient PM, suggesting the potential need for an NO2 3 limit. However, the method for determining NO2 emissions 4 from trap needs improvement. A working group under the 5 osmosis of the International Diesel Retrofit Advisory 6 Committee is addressing the issue. 7 --o0o-- 8 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH SECTION 9 AYALA: The benefits of after-treatment for both the 10 diesel and CNG buses are also demonstrated by examination 11 of some non-regulated emission results given in milligrams 12 per mile. In this example, we present the results for the 13 CD cycle for the five different bus configurations tested 14 on the left. We note that formaldehyde emissions dominate 15 the emissions from the uncontrolled CNG bus labeled as 16 CNG-1 in the middle of the plot. These formaldehyde 17 emissions from the uncontrolled CNG are nearly one gram 18 per mile driven, and they drive the total weighted risk 19 which may be comparable or slightly higher than the diesel 20 trap. 21 To the left of this result, we see the relative 22 emissions from the diesel bus. With the trap, these 23 emissions are near detection limits. To the right of 24 CNG-1, we see the oxidation catalyst effect, which offers 25 significant reductions. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 28 1 On the right plot, a similar argument can be made 2 about Benzene emissions. Both the diesel trap and the CNG 3 oxidation catalyst offer relative reductions. Notably, 4 1,3 Butadiene emissions were only detected in the exhaust 5 samples from the uncontrolled CNG. Note that Benzene and 6 1,3 Butadiene emissions are low and on the order of a few 7 milligrams per mile. For perspective, the left two 8 standards are formaldehyde and non-methane organic gasses 9 are 15 and 75 milligrams per mile, respectively. 10 --o0o-- 11 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH SECTION 12 AYALA: In the last set of results related to mass 13 emissions, we show the measurement of PAHs on the left 14 plot. PAHs are of interest because many of them are known 15 carcinogens. Note that the emissions are given in 16 micrograms per mile. The results are presented for the 17 different bus configurations in terms of the phase 18 distribution of PAHs. These emissions are dominated by 19 volatile or light PAHs, and the activities of the 20 oxidation catalyst for both the diesel and CNG buses 21 appear to offer some control. 22 --o0o-- 23 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH SECTION 24 AYALA: If we expand the results and include the PM bound 25 or heavy PAHs, we see that the heavy PAHs are emitted on PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 29 1 lower levels and that the diesel trap and the CNG 2 oxidation catalyst appear to offer some reductions as 3 well. In all cases reported, an volitical detection is 4 sufficient and robust to elucidate differences at such low 5 emission rates. 6 On the plot to the right, we show the results of 7 the biological test of the emission samples. These 8 results are some of the most intriguing findings in that 9 mutagenicity of CNG samples was measured to be higher than 10 the diesel baseline samples. And most of the activity was 11 found in the PM phase. When combined with the PM emission 12 rate, the specific mutagenic activities yields mutagen 13 emissions shown in terms of revertance per mile. We 14 suspect that lubricating oil may play a roll in the 15 potency of the CNG PM samples. In this case as well, the 16 retrofit devices appear to result in reduction of 17 mutagenicity. 18 --o0o-- 19 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH SECTION 20 AYALA: Finally, in this last slide of results, we show 21 the ultra fine particle size distribution measured for the 22 test buses, and we highlight the effect of 23 after-treatment. These are results for a 55 mile per hour 24 cruise condition. 25 On the left, we compare the diesel trap to the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 30 1 baseline diesel and the uncontrolled CNG. Our results 2 confirm those of other investigators who have reported 3 that the trap can reduce a number of ultra fine particles 4 emitted. The particle number concentration and size 5 distribution for the CNG and diesel trap appear to be of 6 the same order. 7 On the right, the plot shows CNG catalyst is able 8 to reduce the number of particles emitted. However, it 9 must be noted the particle size and number are strongly 10 influenced by a number of factors, including engine 11 operating condition. 12 --o0o-- 13 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH SECTION 14 AYALA: In summary, we have shown that the emission from 15 both CNG engines and diesel engines with traps can be 16 improved. The diesel trap was shown to reduce regulated 17 and non-regulated emissions, although the tested 18 configuration suffers from higher NOx and NO2 emissions 19 than CNG. The CNG bus emits lower NOx, but the 20 uncontrolled engine has formaldehyde emissions, which can 21 be reduced significantly by a catalyst. 22 Some of the phase segregated results, including 23 the mutagenicity and particle sizing, especially for the 24 CNG buses, may point to a possible roll of the lubricating 25 oil. Other recent research supports this hypothesis. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 31 1 In the end, the comparison of emission toxicity 2 between diesel PM and CNG PM is not straightforward. 3 Difficulty arises if one entertains, for example, the use 4 of cancer risk factors since only diesel PM has been 5 designated as a toxic air contaminant. Finally, it must 6 be noted that durability, deterioration, maintenance were 7 not considered in this study, and these factors are known 8 to have a strong influence on emission profiles. 9 Additional research is under way by other agencies, such 10 as the South Coast AQMD and DOE, with optimization and 11 demonstration of the emission control technologies we 12 discussed. 13 Thank you for your attention. 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thanks very much. 15 Dr. Friedman. 16 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: Is it that CNG 17 PM is not TAC because it hasn't been investigated to find 18 out if it is potentially a TAC? 19 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH SECTION 20 AYALA: Yeah. I think that's correct. That's right. 21 There hasn't been any focus on CNG PM that we're aware of. 22 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: So it's possible 23 the equivalency in terms of toxicity for both diesel and 24 CNG in that regard -- 25 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH SECTION PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 32 1 AYALA: I -- 2 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: We have to do 3 the study obviously. 4 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH SECTION 5 AYALA: Correct. We puzzled over those questions when 6 after examining the results, it showed up in terms of some 7 of the mutagenicity results, for example. So we pondered 8 the same question whether it is correct to assume that CNG 9 PM is going to have no risk. 10 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: Just a follow 11 up. You mentioned when you were talking about the 12 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon and CNG that the retrofit 13 devices appear to reduce mutagenicity, but you didn't tell 14 me the magnitude of the reduction. Is it a lot? Is it 15 significant? Or is it -- 16 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH SECTION 17 AYALA: If you go by the one example we presented for you 18 today, I think the reduction is significant. I think 19 you're talking maybe two or three times. However, when 20 you look at all the different configurations we tested and 21 the cycles, the average reduction may not necessarily be 22 that. However, I think in general we do see significant 23 reductions with the after-treatment at the time of 24 testing. 25 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: Okay. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 33 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon. 2 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: First of all, I want to 3 thank this Board. I think when we did the school bus 4 rule, several of us expressed discomfort about comparing 5 apples with oranges, and sort of the lack of backup 6 science in our CNG choices, and some of us were clearly 7 very fuel neutral. 8 You know, I think it shows courage on the Board 9 to make sure we have the backup to make sure we're making 10 decisions that have scientific basis and safety to the 11 public in mind. 12 I'm very curious about sort of the oil 13 explanation, because it strikes me that in either case 14 there would be oil present. Is there any comment on that, 15 or is that really something we need to look at further? 16 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH SECTION 17 AYALA: There's no question that the oil is going to be 18 present. I think the differences is that we attributed to 19 it is the oil management approach by the different types 20 of engines. 21 And I think since we completed the study, we've 22 had the opportunity to interact with other investigators. 23 We've looked at this issue. I think especially when you 24 look at the particle size distribution, it is not known 25 that the very small particles are essentially volatile PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 34 1 components that are contributed by the heavy hydrocarbons 2 in the oil. We suspect the same applies for the size we 3 saw from the CNG. 4 And to give credit to Cummins West-Port. They 5 have, since we completed the study, redesigned the engine. 6 And they are into their third generation engine. And I've 7 seen the results which shows that things can be improved. 8 So that supports the fact that the oil management strategy 9 has been improved significantly, because that's 10 essentially the approach they took. 11 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Thank you. 12 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: I'd 13 just like to add for the older designed engines, they 14 couldn't meet the current standard particulate, the 15 standard for 2007, just based on their oil emissions 16 alone. So that was the major strategy was to reduce oil 17 consumption. What you see in the natural gas from the 18 elemental carbon standpoint is that, you know, the natural 19 gas doesn't produce any direct particulate at all. The 20 heavy diesel fuel does. What you're seeing largely comes 21 from the oil burned by those engines. 22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Professor Friedman, 23 Mr. Calhoun. 24 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I was also going to 25 inquire about the lubricating oils role and whether there PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 35 1 was some way to better confirm what role it does play in 2 toxicity. And I wonder, are there studies as to what 3 ingredients or components lubricating oil? I guess you 4 refer to management, you're talking about different kinds 5 of lubricating oils. And then are some contributing more 6 than others. Apparently, this is a probability. It's not 7 a confirmed fact. 8 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH SECTION 9 AYALA: Yeah. I think it's hard to say. As we are 10 driving total PM emissions down, the relative contribution 11 of the oil to PM is going to increase. As a result, there 12 are significant activities going on since we completed the 13 study. And as you're going to hear later under public 14 testimony, there's a number of ideas people are actually 15 activity pursuing the idea. 16 I think in the next few years we are going to see 17 some very significant data sets that will help us answer 18 that. Right now it's just the hypothesis and again -- 19 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Are lubricating 20 oils -- I assume they're synthetics. 21 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH SECTION 22 AYALA: That is one of the key issues, and I think you're 23 going to hear later the fact, what would happen to the 24 signatures we are picking out if we scale them to a 25 synthetic coin. Stands to reason we should see some PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 36 1 significant difference. 2 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Thank you. 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. Calhoun. 4 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I have two questions, one 5 from the staff. 6 What about the buses that are currently being 7 sold? Do they have after-treatment on them? 8 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: The 9 diesel buses that are being sold all have particulate 10 filters on them since I think 2002, based on the rule that 11 you passed. Most of the natural gas vehicles I believe 12 also have oxidation catalysts on them now. That was not 13 true at the beginning of the study, but I believe it is 14 now. 15 Do you know if that's the case? 16 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH SECTION 17 AYALA: Yeah. That's correct. I think the market has CNG 18 engines that essentially come with after-treatment. 19 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: That 20 answer was for urban transit buses. That may not be true 21 for other categories of vehicles yet. But by 2007, of 22 course, the standards are getting so tight that 23 everything, trucks and other applications, will all 24 have -- onward applications will all have filters on them. 25 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: When Chairman Lloyd PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 37 1 introduced this particular item, he restated the Board's 2 policy of being fuel neutral. And since we've talked 3 about this particular study, does after-treatment devices 4 that you had some toxics from both. And this kind of 5 relates to the question that Dr. Friedman mentioned 6 earlier. How do you know about determining whether or not 7 you want to choose natural gas or diesel? 8 Now let me also say this, and you can practice 9 your answer. And we know that duty cycle has a lot to do 10 with whether or not one wants to choose diesel or natural 11 gas, depending on what the job is. And I was just curious 12 to know how we go about making some determination as to 13 which one will be chosen if you base it strictly on 14 toxicity. 15 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: When the Board 16 decided what to do on school buses and transit buses, the 17 decision was premised on emission results alone. And part 18 of the point of the Chairman's opening remarks is that 19 when you look at this question again, you'll need to 20 consider petroleum dependence and fuel diversity as other 21 attributes that should weigh in the decision based on 22 what's happening in California. 23 So we still think if you frame the question only 24 on emissions, with what we know today, then fuel neutral 25 policy makes good sense. But if you take these other PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 38 1 considerations into account, you may want to move away 2 from that position in later rule makings. But that will 3 be something we'll have to come up with the right metrics 4 for evaluating the fuel diversity question and the 5 petroleum dependence questions, and we should bear those 6 obligations and what sectors should we advance those 7 initiatives in, those kinds of things in order to help you 8 with those deliberations. 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Dr. Burke. 10 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Yes. I see that South Coast 11 is here supporting this study. So I just have a few quick 12 questions so my conspiracy theory monitor is not running 13 low. 14 South Coast did participate in this study; 15 correct? And how much did the study cost? 16 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH SECTION 17 AYALA: The study was largely an internal research effort. 18 So the actual expenditures were probably on the order of 19 no more than 100,000. And part of that was the fact that 20 we actually brought instrumentation that's currently in 21 our labs and hardware. 22 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: How much fuel did BP 23 contribute? 24 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH SECTION 25 AYALA: I believe what's on the order of maybe 200 or 300 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 39 1 gallons of fuel. That's all that was needed. 2 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Who tested the fuel before 3 you used it? 4 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH SECTION 5 AYALA: When BP delivered the fuel, they gave us their 6 standard fuel speck, and then we took fuel samples 7 continually throughout the testing before and after. 8 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Okay. Thank you. 9 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH SECTION 10 AYALA: Yeah. We used a commercial laboratory for the 11 fuel analysis. 12 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Just to elaborate 13 on my earlier remarks, let me also say the emissions 14 comparison depends entirely on what time you ask the 15 question and for what year. And so -- and Dr. Burke, I'm 16 just prompted to say that, from your line of questioning, 17 there are moments in time one can say that CNG is better 18 than diesel based on models available in any given year. 19 So the South Coast decision to go with the CNG 20 mandate made sense at the time it did it. As we continue 21 to all learn about the relative comparisons, there are 22 still debates on where we are on the time continuum, 23 because we're premising a lot on the advent of these 24 technologies and what's coming in '07 and 2010. Whereas, 25 if you looked at the question a few years ago, people PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 40 1 could come to different answers. 2 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: But I remember the 3 excitement the day that the L.A. Metro purchased these 350 4 or 450 buses. And there was excitement in this 5 building -- not this building, the old building. And I 6 just -- if we were encouraging them to spend that much 7 money on those buses based on something that we later find 8 out is not accurate, you know, I think that really 9 jeopardizes our credibility. 10 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: CNG for years is 11 better than diesel on NOx. And what came up later were 12 the questions on what happens on particulate and what 13 happens on toxics as they both had after-treatment. These 14 are new questions and new data. I think there was a lot 15 of sense the Air Resources Board had a strong preference 16 for CNG, so did the Energy Commission, and so did the 17 South Coast. We've just evolved to the new place given 18 the evolution of technology. 19 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: I just got the feeling today 20 there was a kind of wavering of this position; is that 21 true? 22 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Wavering on what 23 position? 24 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: That we understand that CNG 25 is better on certain pollutants than others. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 41 1 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: I think Alberto's 2 results show clearly where the advantages are of CNG 3 versus diesel. And it certainly outperforms still on NOx. 4 But as we look ahead to '07 and 2010 and what technologies 5 are rolling out, they become so close as to be hard to 6 distinguish from one another. So it's a timing 7 question. 8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I'd also like to add -- and 9 having looked at the -- and again, this is, I think, 10 supposed to be a technical presentation where we look at 11 the pros and cons. And shouldn't lose sight of the good 12 thing is that each of these fuels with the after-treatment 13 gives you significant air quality benefits. 14 But the other part, Dr. Burke, I think that 15 really came out of that first round of the study there was 16 that, you know, the uncontrolled natural gas had very high 17 levels of formaldehyde. Formaldehyde is, in fact, a 18 carcinogen. It's also very effective for the chemical 19 agent. It breaks down, and you get HO2 from that. That 20 was the concern. 21 To me, the very positive thing from that was that 22 very quickly then the industry and South Coast picked up 23 on that as with the after-treatment knocked that down. To 24 me, that was a really exciting development. 25 So now as we looked at things what could be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 42 1 potential issues, which I didn't see that because I always 2 thought when I was down in the South Coast, to be quite 3 honest with you, natural gas was clean. And I learned 4 over the years that how you burn it was important. 5 The other thing I was very impressed with a 6 couple weeks ago, I met with some executives from the oil 7 company, and they were talking about their convert. As 8 you know, a result of the Supreme Court over there, 12 to 9 13,000 of their buses run on natural gas. They all have 10 after-treatment. They wouldn't have had that 11 after-treatment had not you and us gone ahead with that 12 program and identified that as an issue. I think we've 13 really come out winners. 14 I remember a few years ago going back to MIT and 15 seeing presentations where they were using instrumentation 16 following buses with natural gas in New York and finding 17 formaldehyde fumes. This is an issue now that's been 18 solved. We now find out on the diesel side that we've got 19 to look at the NO2 problem. So, to me, this is exciting 20 to see science at work. But also want to, once you 21 identify the problem, there's after-treatment and ways of 22 coming out across it. 23 So, again, I think to me that's the important 24 part of this. And we have worked very well with South 25 Coast on this. And the fact that you adopted a stronger PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 43 1 stance on natural gas has benefited us all. I think it's 2 benefit the industry, because we have that competition. 3 As we're seeing now, we have cleaner and cleaner fuel. 4 One thing I would like to ask Alberto, I remember 5 Japanese work which raised the issue -- and I don't know 6 whether there's anything to it -- that another potential 7 contribution for getting oil in natural gas is the 8 compression itself. Is there any evidence of that as an 9 issue? 10 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH SECTION 11 AYALA: I can only relate to you anecdotal evidence, 12 because the compressor bleed is a concern to the fleet 13 manager. An interesting anecdote, when we were doing the 14 study, we were also taking CNG fuel samples for analysis. 15 The fleet manager came up to me and said, "Can you share 16 the results?" I inquired why. And he said, "Well, we are 17 concerned with compressor bleed." The engine speck can 18 only allow so much of that to get into the gaseous fuel. 19 But again, these are all anecdotal stories. I 20 haven't seen anything in the literature that addresses 21 that particular issue. 22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Can you get oil-less 23 compressors? 24 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH SECTION 25 AYALA: They exist. But I'm not sure -- I'm not familiar PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 44 1 with the pressures to that extent to know are they big 2 enough to compress the natural gas to where it needs to be 3 compressed. Perhaps later somebody in the audience can 4 address that. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon. 6 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Yeah. I was just going 7 to comment that this isn't sort of an effort. I don't 8 view it as an effort to question past decisions. It's 9 sort of like two runners in a race, and we keep looking at 10 them carefully to see which is better. And that sort of 11 changes from time to time. I think, you know, before some 12 of the clean diesel, there was probably not even a 13 question that CNG was cleaner. 14 And I guess what I appreciate about this Board is 15 its sort of rigorous honesty to keep looking at research. 16 And we call it as we see it. If one passes the other, 17 good. And if there's weaknesses of one, we point them 18 out. It may well be that if the oil -- if the oil 19 question is fixed, CNG is once again the cleaner of the 20 two. So I think the underpinning is something this Board 21 has had a reputation since its inception, is this Board 22 uses rigorous science to make sure that we make honest 23 assessments. And this was one where we sort of had a spot 24 where we weren't caught up with the science and now we 25 have. And I think it's good stuff. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 45 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I said earlier I'm very 2 excited also about the hydrogen natural gas blends, which 3 can really bring the NOx and CNG down to extremely low 4 levels, which again will be another step along the way. 5 And hearing the other night that there's work going on 6 with on board reclamation of diesel to get hydrogen which 7 can then bleed in which will help to reduce NOx. So both 8 of those, of course, involve hydrogen. So very, very 9 exciting opportunities here. 10 So with that, any more questions? 11 Thank staff, and we've got some presentation by 12 South Coast which will bring us on board on this. So with 13 that, I'd like to call up the first witness. I guess 14 Chung Liu and Jean Ospital, Sam Altshuler, and Pete Price. 15 MR. LIU: Good morning, Dr. Lloyd, Dr. Burke, and 16 members of the Board. We're very happy to be here. 17 For the record, my name is Chung Liu. I'm the 18 Deputy Executive Officer for Science and Technology 19 Advancement for the District. We are very happy to 20 cosponsor this project. We provided some of the oxidation 21 catalyst for this task, and we're taking a long the 22 process along the way. And we really appreciate the 23 research of staff. They're really working with us very 24 closely in the whole process right up to results come out. 25 They come to us, share with us, discuss with us, and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 46 1 discuss the implication of this. And this being a year 2 ago, maybe even longer than that. 3 And we are here to basically present even more 4 information of this study. And some work we did 5 participate and some we didn't participate. And we have 6 provided some written statement for you. 7 We come here sort of like this is a technical 8 issue. Dr. Lloyd opened up related to the transit rules 9 two months from now that I would like to provide some the 10 AQMD staff observation on what I just heard. We 11 understand the data, and we heard the presentation today 12 from Alberto. I didn't see anything change the advantage 13 of CNG versus diesel. CNG clearly -- I don't know why the 14 statements say that we look at a non-regulated pollutant 15 and suddenly the picture changes. I didn't see that. 16 The reason I say that is that I think Dr. Lloyd 17 said very clearly that formaldehyde was a concern, and 18 natural gas engines plus the oxidation catalyst clearly 19 take care of that problems now. So when we're talking 20 about original study started, we're talking about a 21 comparison from natural gas without any after-control 22 compared to diesel with the trap. We argue that's not a 23 fair comparison in terms of apple to apple. Even now, 24 it's not a fair comparison because natural gas only have 25 oxidation catalyst, not a trap. And we're working on the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 47 1 trap still. So I didn't see anything here to choose any 2 directions. 3 I don't know why that one of key components here, 4 NOx, clearly natural gas has advantage. Clearly, that's 5 why our mandate comes from. Ozone contribution to control 6 the PM problem here. Doesn't drive that equation. 7 So for the staff position from AQMD, we just want 8 to say we didn't see anything change the picture. You 9 can't compare natural gas and CNG plus oxidation catalyst 10 compared to diesel with the trap. 11 I think it's not a technology here. There are 12 very clean in terms of bus rule -- transit bus rule two 13 months later you have to face. I think we're talking 14 about the commitment. The diesel side didn't keep their 15 commitment when they promised they're going to deliver. 16 That's why your staff come back. It's not technology 17 driving. I think I say -- 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: You have a chance on the 19 transit rule. There is a technical presentation. 20 MR. LIU: Dr. Lloyd, you mentioned that it's 21 preparation for the transit rule. So I want to state 22 that. 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: On that, we'll appreciate in 24 a couple of months. 25 MR. LIU: Also I have to learn from experience. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 48 1 You say I come here to appear to be angry, so I'm going to 2 be calm down. 3 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: You need some after 4 treatment. 5 (Laughter) 6 MR. LIU: With me here is our district's Health 7 Officer, Dr. Jean Ospital, and he's going to summarize and 8 give you some slide presentation on some of the new study 9 done. Your staff is very familiar with also. So I want 10 to let him have the opportunity to give you a 11 presentation. After that, I have some remarks also. 12 Thanks. 13 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 14 presented as follows.) 15 DR. OSPITAL: Thank you, Dr. Lloyd. I feel Chung 16 has taken some of my weather here. 17 Good morning, Dr. Lloyd and Board members. My 18 name is Jean Ospital, and I'm the Health Effects Officer 19 at South Coast Air Quality Management District. And I 20 appreciate this opportunity to share some of the results 21 of transit bus studies. I'd also like to compliment the 22 Board and the staff for conducting the study. I think 23 it's very important some results that can be used to help 24 us decide which technologies can be used to reduce 25 emissions and provide healthful air quality. I also PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 49 1 appreciate that AQMD staff had the opportunity to work 2 with the ARB staff on the progress of the study and some 3 of the tests that were done. 4 --o0o-- 5 DR. OSPITAL: So today I'd like to present 6 results from a couple of other studies. Dr. Ayala in his 7 presentation mentioned that there are a number of other 8 studies going on. And in addition to that study, the one 9 I want to look at is one we call the EC Diesel Study. 10 This study was a similar study. It used similar buses, 11 was co-funded by the National Renewable Energy Lab, by the 12 Air Resources Board, British Petroleum, and South Coast. 13 It was conducted by West Virginia University, who did the 14 dynamometer testing and sampling. Desert Research 15 Institute did the chemical analysis for us. And UC Davis 16 did the mutagenicity aspect for it. And it was done on 17 multiple transit bus sites. 18 --o0o-- 19 DR. OSPITAL: Using the central business 20 district. 21 --o0o-- 22 DR. OSPITAL: This is a description of the 23 vehicles that were tested. As you can see, they're the 24 same as was presented by Dr. Ayala in terms of the engines 25 used, the model year. And in fact, the 2000 CNG model was PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 50 1 the same bus used in Dr. Ayala's study. 2 And in addition, there was another CNG bus, a 3 2001 model year. We also used the ECD 1 fuel. We also 4 used the ECD fuel, which is an earlier version of British 5 Petroleum or Arco's low sulfur diesel, and they wanted to 6 have that tested as well. And in order to look at 7 conventional diesel, we also included bus fuel with market 8 CARB diesel without after-treatment. 9 --o0o-- 10 DR. OSPITAL: So what I've done is taken some of 11 the data from the two studies, from the ECD study and the 12 ARB study, and plotted them on the same chart so we can 13 look at some of the relative effects. And as shown, 14 compared to conventional diesel or diesel without 15 after-treatment, the newer technology's low sulfur diesel 16 with trap reduced particulate emissions substantially, and 17 the CNG utilizes also very low particulate emissions. 18 And I put these on to know which study is which. 19 The blue bars are the ECD study. And the light blue or 20 blue-green bars are the Air Resources Board study. And 21 the slides I'll be presenting later are all on that same 22 order and designate the fuels and whether or not there was 23 after-treatment. 24 --o0o-- 25 DR. OSPITAL: This shows the nitrogen oxide PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 51 1 emissions. And again, it's very consistent with the two 2 studies showing that the diesel fuel buses had about twice 3 as much total NOx emissions as did the natural gas fueled 4 bus. And in addition to the split between NO2, again, the 5 ECD study found that in the particle trapped equipped 6 diesel buses, about half of the NOx was NO2. For the 7 others, it was, as Dr. Ayala mentioned, it around the 10 8 percent level. 9 --o0o-- 10 DR. OSPITAL: On this slide I show the activity 11 mutagenicity and extracts of the exhaust. Again, this was 12 using a tester strain TA 98 bacteria with S9 enzyme 13 extract added. These results contrast somewhat from the 14 ECD study and the Air Resources Board study. While it 15 shows that the after-treatment does, indeed, reduce the 16 particle associated mutagen activity, in the two tests 17 with particulate traps and low sulfur diesel, the ECD 18 study found levels of mutagenicity. And this was due to a 19 much lower activity in the vapor phase. This is the 20 phase, of course, collected that's down stream of the 21 filter in the sampling tray. 22 These two buses were different buses. We're not 23 quite sure what the reasons are for this difference. But 24 I think it deserves further study to determine what issues 25 are important in and how particulate traps might effect PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 52 1 mutagenicity activity in the emissions. 2 As Dr. Ayala said, blue oil may play a part in 3 this. And since they were different buses, perhaps the 4 oil emissions might have been different, although it did 5 not show in any of the other tests that were done. 6 --o0o-- 7 DR. OSPITAL: Dr. Ayala also mentioned that it's 8 a challenge in terms of comparing non-regulated emissions 9 or toxic air contaminants and pointed out that diesel 10 exhaust is listed as a toxic air contaminant, whereas 11 exhaust from other fuels has no such designation. 12 So what I've done here is plotted the potency 13 weight of emissions. That's using the mass weight of 14 emission of the toxics multiplied by the cancer potency 15 factor established by CalEPA's Office of Environmental 16 Health Hazard Assessment. For diesel, since diesel PM has 17 a risk factor, I used the diesel particulate emissions 18 times the diesel PM risk factor. And for natural gas 19 since this exhaust is not designated as a toxic, I used 20 the individual toxics that were measured and multiplied 21 each of those by their respective risk factor. 22 Again, consistent with what Alberto showed, the 23 CNG vehicles and the diesel vehicles with traps, have 24 substantially lower potency weight emissions than 25 conventional diesel. And the next slide just shows this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 53 1 on an expanded scale showing further emissions, but using 2 oxidation catalysts on the CNG vehicles, and the reduction 3 is due mainly to the reduction in formaldehyde emissions. 4 There was a 95 or so percent reduction in formaldehyde 5 emissions for the catalyst. 6 --o0o-- 7 DR. OSPITAL: I'd like to present some initial 8 results from another study that AQMD is co-funding. It's 9 being conducted at West Virginia University. And it's 10 designed to look at the effects of particulate traps on 11 natural gas, vehicle exhaust, and how to optimize control 12 technologies to even further reduce emissions from CNG 13 vehicles. 14 --o0o-- 15 DR. OSPITAL: This describes the vehicle and 16 engines used. It's Orion 40-foot bus equipped with a 17 Cummins C8.3G+ engine. Also as part of this, West 18 Virginia University constructed a new tunnel to dilute the 19 exhaust and take the examples. Because the flank level of 20 the tunnel when no vehicle is present is significant and 21 does contribute to some of these emissions. So they 22 developed a new tunnel dedicated to cleaning the vehicles 23 to try to minimize those effects. 24 --o0o-- 25 DR. OSPITAL: The study is using a diesel PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 54 1 particulate filter and an oxidation catalyst. This gives 2 some of the particulars of the particulate filter, 3 platinum coated substrate oxidation catalyst. 4 --o0o-- 5 DR. OSPITAL: This is a photograph of the 6 installation of the trap and the oxidation catalyst on the 7 bus. First the PM trap is installed in the downstream 8 from that, the oxidation catalyst. 9 --o0o-- 10 DR. OSPITAL: I'd just like to give a couple 11 slides on some of the emissions. This one is titled 12 "Regulated Emissions," and shows that the catalysts on 13 CNG, of course, lowers many of the emissions, the 14 hydrocarbon, particulate matter, the CO, of course, is 15 expected to do. 16 The last bar on the right with the orange stripes 17 is the bus that has the lubrizol trap and catalyst on it. 18 As you can see, it provides a further reduction in 19 emissions for organics as well as particulate matter. 20 --o0o-- 21 DR. OSPITAL: The next two slides show emissions 22 of ultra fine particles. This is a trace of emissions in 23 terms of a particle count, numbers per -- 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Jean, can we speed this up a 25 little bit here? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 55 1 DR. OSPITAL: Yes, sir. And speeding it on up, 2 you can see it's about 10 to the 5th, 10 to the 6th -- 3 --o0o-- 4 DR. OSPITAL: -- particles per cubic centimeters. 5 With the trap on the catalyst, it's reduced down to about 6 10 to the 4th particles per cubic centimeter, which is 7 background level of the West Virginia University toxicity. 8 --o0o-- 9 DR. OSPITAL: My last slide, just to summarize 10 the results, is basically similar to what you've heard 11 before. Low sulfur diesel fuel, natural gas, combined 12 with after-treatment results in very low emissions. Both 13 particulate and toxics are reduced. NOx emissions, 14 natural gas is about half of that of the diesel when you 15 do those side-by-side comparisons. Also, that the 16 after-treatment can be optimized to reduce emissions even 17 further. Thank you. 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. A very 19 excellent study there. 20 Can I just ask how much did it cost for that 21 study. 22 DR. OSPITAL: For the GPR study, I'll probably 23 ask Bob. I don't remember the total study. I think close 24 to 2 million for the total study, but there are a number 25 of other vehicles besides natural gas and diesel transit PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 56 1 buses that are also -- 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: The West Virginia one. 3 DR. OSPITAL: That's about $400,000, our 4 contribution. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Chung. 6 MR. LIU: I want to summarize the key points we 7 want to present here. Basically, the trap showing here on 8 Diesel Engine ARB Study and EC Diesel Study that really 9 have Johnson Matthey and Engelhard participation to make 10 sure that traps working to the very high extent of moving 11 efficiencies. 12 The chart shown here is 99.8 percent plots 13 removal. You don't expect that on ongoing basis in real 14 world. You need to factor into your consideration. We 15 talking about a control study and real world applications. 16 Let me give you a real world information, which 17 many of you already know. The same two company already 18 back out from ARB's verification process and deverified, 19 because they don't want to buy warranty to achieve 85 20 percent. So real world data and a control study, I just 21 wanted to factor that into your thinking. 22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Dr. Liu, with due respect, 23 that is not the issue. There are legal issues there which 24 fortunately I don't understand. But that's a separate 25 issue I think. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 57 1 MR. LIU: I agree -- 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: By the way, whose trap is in 3 the West Virginia one? Who -- 4 MR. LIU: They did themselves. But it's not 5 commercial product. 6 And I want to summarize here another thing that 7 formaldehyde is concern for natural gas. And I think the 8 data from the study already show this can be controlled to 9 very high extent by the oxidation catalyst. 10 And we're talking about NOx control, I want to 11 emphasize again, natural gas has provided very valuable 12 benchmark for diesel guys to shoot at it, but it's still 13 the one. So we're talking about it, why they cannot do 14 it. There are technologies there. They've been 15 demonstrating in Europe. Why not here? That's the issue 16 around transit. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Again, I would like to 18 congratulate Chung on sponsoring the study, because I 19 think it really helped to get the formaldehyde and also 20 your work on particulate. Appreciate it very much indeed. 21 Thanks for sharing the results with us. 22 Sam, before you go into your thesis here, I'm 23 going to cut that down substantially, because a lot of the 24 staff the Board are familiar with. Cut to the chase, I 25 think would be important. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 58 1 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 2 presented as follows.) 3 MR. ALTSHULER: Good morning, Dr. Lloyd and 4 members of the Board. Thank you for the opportunity to 5 present some thoughts. 6 In preparing for this presentation this morning, 7 we have heard Dr. Liu's presentation at numerous technical 8 meetings, but I didn't have a preview of what he was going 9 to say. So what I prepared -- I was guessing what you 10 might want to hear this morning. I think you'll find it 11 pretty much on target. 12 I'm with PG&E. I'm a professional engineer. 13 I've been working in air quality for a lot of years and 14 more recently working with the CNG diesel issues as it 15 relates to using natural gas. 16 --o0o-- 17 MR. ALTSHULER: In looking at the results of ARB 18 staff's report, there's some really key things to come up 19 with. They used some technologies here that have not been 20 used in the past. If you were to talk about PM sizing, 21 chemistry, and number count 10 years ago, it just didn't 22 exist. It presented some very unique data that has 23 applications beyond just the natural gas and diesel 24 debate. You should probably be looking at this as it 25 relates to gasoline and any other internal combustion PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 59 1 engine. 2 In addition, we heard about the NO2 issue. 3 They've taken NO2 measurements that haven't been done 4 before. Formaldehyde is relatively new, and there's some 5 issues with mutagenicity testing that haven't been done 6 before. So the ARB staff should be complimented for doing 7 a state of the art test here and opening a door on some 8 issues that are really the next generation of concerns. 9 --o0o-- 10 MR. ALTSHULER: Getting to some of the specifics 11 of what we heard, what we've learned on this. We've 12 learned there is a class of particulate matter out there 13 less than PM 1 that we don't have a lot of data on. Over 14 the last 30 years, there hasn't been a set of data of PM 15 1. We do have PM 10. We have PM 2.5. But PM 1 has been 16 largely unregulated, and it's important we get a handle on 17 that as we assess air quality. It's a unique issue as it 18 relates to reciprocating engines whether they're diesel 19 engine or spark ignition, natural gas, hydrogen, or 20 gasoline engines. 21 We also have learned that NOx is more than just 22 nitrous oxide, NO. There's a fraction of NOx, NO2, that 23 has emerged from these test results. It's very critical 24 that we understand the implications of that. We've heard 25 about formaldehyde and aldehydes as they relate to toxics PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 60 1 and ozone formation. And we've just begun testing with 2 AMES for mutagenitic compounds. 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: You've given me no assurance 4 you've cut anything so far in the presentation here. 5 MR. ALTSHULER: Well, there's two areas I want 6 the hit really strong. Why the concerns about PM 1? 7 We're hearing that it's related to lube oil consumption 8 from reciprocating engines. If you were to run a hydrogen 9 fuel reciprocating engine, you'd probably have PM less 10 than one size coming out the tailpipe of that. We know 11 about some of the health implications of PM as it relates 12 to environmental issues. 13 --o0o-- 14 MR. ALTSHULER: The inhalation of PM 1 is the 15 particle that gets deepest into the lungs. 16 --o0o-- 17 MR. ALTSHULER: We've spoken about the oil issue. 18 I want to focus here, because I think I can add some value 19 to the earlier presentations here. 20 Within an internal combustion engine, where 21 there's a diesel engine or a natural gas engine, you've 22 got about two or three pathways that you can get oil vapor 23 into the combustion chamber and out into the exhaust here. 24 You can get past the rings, down the valve guides, or in 25 through the ventilation. It's an important issue as it PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 61 1 relates to understanding the oil problems you've got. 2 Within the oil, you've got additives. You've got wear 3 elements from the engine that do get emitted that 4 ultimately probably come out in that ultra fine PM. 5 --o0o-- 6 MR. ALTSHULER: I've spoken to Alberto, and I 7 think I brought this up at other ARB meetings, there is 8 some data out there that suggests that using synthetic 9 motor oil can reduce emissions of PM as well as other 10 pollutants. This particular slide that the bar on the far 11 left represents -- PAO is the designation for a 12 poly-alpha-olefin synthetic oil. And some work that came 13 out of Europe suggests there's some dramatic reductions in 14 PM that can occur when using that oil in the engines. 15 --o0o-- 16 MR. ALTSHULER: Likewise, when using that oil, 17 with the bar on the far left shows the number count of the 18 PM would be less. 19 I present these as preliminary data. They've 20 prepared an SAE report, but I think they need to be 21 evaluated to see whether, indeed, there is a roll for 22 synthetic oils in the California marketplace. 23 --o0o-- 24 MR. ALTSHULER: I think there needs to be more 25 research looking at oils. The additives -- the additives, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 62 1 there's a zinc compound here that's longer than the 2 alphabet that is present in the oil. It's a toxic 3 compound. Does it impact public health? I don't know, 4 but it's something we can look at. The synthetic oil may 5 offer opportunities to reduce the additive package, to 6 change the additive package, and gain other emissions 7 reductions. 8 --o0o-- 9 MR. ALTSHULER: I want to focus a little bit 10 about NO2, and there's been a lot of data about NO2. 11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Sam, we've heard your 12 presentation on this before. 13 MR. ALTSHULER: Okay. There's one new item here, 14 Alan, that I think is really key that has emerged. That's 15 the number three bullet. NO2 is a direct emission -- 16 direct precursor to PM nitrate in fall and winter. One 17 gram of emitted NO2 will go to 1.7 grams of imodium 18 nitrate. I think we ought to be concerned about NO2 as a 19 direct emission, because it will get over to nitrate 20 quicker than if you directly emitted NO, which we're used 21 to dealing with. 22 And there's another issue about -- I'm jumping 23 ahead here -- about the toxicity of NO2 versus other 24 common gasses. And these are industrial standards, 25 CalOSHA as well as NIOSH. You can see that for NO2 it is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 63 1 at the lowest level of concern at 20 PPM on the level of 2 immediately dangerous to life and health, compared to 3 other gas; SO2 at 100; hydrogen cyanide at 50; H2S at 100. 4 So NO2 is a gas we should take seriously in evaluating 5 working with public exposure. 6 --o0o-- 7 MR. ALTSHULER: We've heard the issues about 8 formaldehyde and how it can be controlled. We've heard 9 issues -- we've seen excellent testing here. There's 10 opportunities to do additional testing with a different 11 fuel, different hybrid combination, different catalyst. I 12 would encourage ARB Board and staff to continue some of 13 this research. We've heard about the West Virginia 14 studies. 15 --o0o-- 16 MR. ALTSHULER: That is essentially what I'm 17 proposing. This is really an apples to apples comparison 18 of diesel technology on a natural gas engine. This is 19 Gravenstein apple versus a Gravenstein apple test 20 comparison, rather than a red delicious apple versus a 21 golden delicious. 22 --o0o-- 23 MR. ALTSHULER: In summary, I've got, I guess, 24 five summary points here that we really need to look 25 further at the PM less than one as it relates to all PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 64 1 engines and look at its relationship to motor oil. It is 2 not just is a natural gas issue. You will find it with 3 any other reciprocating engine. The NO2 issue we need to 4 continue to look at its impact on ozone PM nitrate 5 formation and human and population exposure. And the rest 6 I think I've already summarized. 7 --o0o-- 8 MR. ALTSHULER: With that, just one final slide 9 here. When we're talking about emissions in diesel 10 engines, we're really talking about the fuels. The engine 11 can be run on a variety of fuels. The original 12 configurations of diesel backed by Rudolph Diesel in the 13 1800s had it running on peanut oil. We're to the point 14 where can you run natural gas in diesel engines, and maybe 15 in the next decade or two we'll be running hydrogen in 16 diesel engines. 17 With that, Alan, thank you for your -- 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: No, again, because we heard a 19 lot of this. But I do want to congratulate you on the 20 efforts you've made in making us look at the NO2 issue, 21 and also your continuing contribution on getting us to 22 look at, which we will do, on synthetic oil. I know 23 you've researched that, Sam, and I want to recognize that 24 and encourage you to continue to use that because those 25 areas are very important, and also your research PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 65 1 recommendations. 2 MR. ALTSHULER: Thank you. Are there any other 3 questions? 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 5 And Pete, you're lucky that you went last, 6 because most of what you're going to say has already been 7 said. 8 MR. PRICE: Well, I agree with that. I wasn't so 9 lucky I went last, but I will say you can't charge the 10 Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition with conspiring with South 11 Coast, because I had no idea they were going to present 12 the West Virginia study, which is what I was going to 13 speak on. 14 I'll be very brief. My name is Pete Price, 15 representing the California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition, 16 and I know time is short. Let me boil down our comments 17 to one point, which we did want to focus on out of the 18 West Virginia study. 19 First let me say, as everyone else has, the work 20 the ARB has done on this, Mr. Alan and your colleagues, 21 has really been groundbreaking. We appreciate it. It 22 brought to light some issues that the natural gas industry 23 needed to know about and look into, and that's what we've 24 done working with South Coast and others. And it really 25 identified some issues that we needed to pay more PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 66 1 attention to, whether it's the non-regulated toxics, ultra 2 fines, NO2, a lot of those issues. 3 I won't even use my slides, but I do want to 4 point out something that South Coast did put up. And it 5 is that out of the West Virginia study -- I'm not sure if 6 you put up this slide -- but they did have a slide showing 7 their tunnel background levels for PM, which is very 8 important as we get down to these very low levels. And 9 West Virginia identified the background levels for PM in 10 their study to be Between 10,000 and 40,000 parts per 11 cubic centimeter. And then the uncontrolled natural gas 12 engine, of course, had some significantly high levels of 13 PM. But when they tested the engines at West Virginia, 14 they were -- both the oxi catalyst and the PM trap, they 15 found that the PM levels were actually below their tunnel 16 background levels at about 8,000 parts per cubic 17 centimeter. 18 People from time to time like to claim we're 19 making the air cleaner coming out than going in. That's 20 what that seems to indicate. It's just down to extremely 21 low levels when you combine those two technologies. 22 The rest of what I was going to say has been 23 covered in one part or another. So I'll let that go. 24 I'd like to make one final request on behalf of 25 the coalition, though. The work you've done has been so PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 67 1 good and so groundbreaking, we would really urge the Board 2 to publish this -- prepare it as a scientific paper for 3 peer review and let it see the full light of day among the 4 technical and scientific community. We think that would 5 be very helpful to all involved. 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: The implication there was 7 it's not. I thought I understood from Dr. Ayala that it's 8 been presented at several meetings. 9 Is that true? 10 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH SECTION 11 AYALA: That's correct, Dr. Lloyd. We've attended 12 multiple times different conferences. We have published 13 in peer review literature three separate papers. We are 14 currently working on four drafts that we hope to submit in 15 the near future. 16 So to the extent that we can, we have tried to, 17 as expeditiously as possible, release the information. 18 And this is above and beyond posting all of the 19 information on our website as it becomes available. 20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Maybe it's important to work 21 with the -- 22 MR. PRICE: Yeah, right. 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: -- coalition to make sure 24 they're aware of that. 25 MR. PRICE: We have been familiar with it through PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 68 1 the Power Point presentation, but I'll report that back. 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: It will all be made available 3 publicly, so we'll make sure that works. 4 MR. PRICE: Thank you for all your work. 5 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you for keeping your 6 comments again, because it was rather a contribution here 7 and some new data. 8 MR. PRICE: The West Virginia study is very 9 interesting. I hope you look at it. 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much indeed. 11 Any other comments or questions from the Board? 12 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: The citations for 13 the two SAE papers are also on our website. 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 15 Any other comments, questions from the Board? 16 Since it's not a regulatory item, it's not 17 necessary to officially close the record. But we will 18 move on to the next item. Thank you very much indeed. 19 I can't wait for our item coming up on the 20 transit bus rule. 21 Dr. Liu was excited today. 22 The next item the agenda today is 4-4-03, 23 presentation from Dr. Kirk Smith from UC Berkeley on 24 indoor air quality in developed countries, and its 25 significance and policy implications for the air pollution PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 69 1 risk assessment and risk reduction. 2 The Board has heard several items on indoor air 3 quality in the past few years, most recently, the results 4 of the portable classrooms study that have raised concern 5 of indoor air quality. And I know we're very anxious to 6 hear more about the study. 7 And before Ms. Witherspoon introduces the 8 speaker, I would also like to thank Dr. Smith personally. 9 I've heard him speak before. He does a tremendous job on 10 this, and we're fortunate, again, to have so many great 11 people, scientists, in from the UC system. So I'd 12 personally like to welcome you, because I know 13 Ms. Witherspoon is going to give more details. 14 DR. SMITH: Thank you. 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: She's going to give you some 16 more accolades before you -- 17 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Just a couple. 18 As the Chair indicated, the Board and staff have 19 been concerned about indoor air quality for a long time, 20 and we are moving forward on several fronts. Most 21 notably, we are examining emission reduction options for 22 reducing formaldehyde from composite wood products, and we 23 are about to release a draft report to the Legislature on 24 indoor air quality as required by Assembly Bill 1173, 25 Keeley. The 1173 Report is comprehensive and clearly PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 70 1 shows the health risks posed by indoor air pollution and 2 the need for focused risk reduction measures. We 3 anticipate bringing that report to the Board this fall 4 after public review and peer review by the University of 5 California Scientific Review Committee. 6 As a prelude to that subject, we have invited Dr. 7 Kirk Smith, a world renowned scientist in indoor air 8 quality and exposure assessment, to share his perspective 9 with us today. Dr. Smith is a Professor and Division Head 10 of Environmental Health Science at UC Berkeley and holds 11 the Brian and Jennifer Maxwell Endowed Chair in Public 12 Health. Dr. Smith is also a member of the National 13 Academy of Sciences and a core member of the World Health 14 Organizations activities to develop global air quality 15 guidelines. 16 His primary research interest is the interaction 17 of health, environment, and economics. Since the 1980s, 18 he has conducted numerous studies of both indoor and 19 outdoor air pollution throughout the world. In the course 20 of his research, he developed new conceptual approaches to 21 total exposure assessment and its use in regulatory 22 policy. Dr. Smith has written eight books and about 200 23 articles and sits on the Editorial Boards of seven 24 international journals. We feel very privileged he's able 25 to join us today to share his knowledge and perspective. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 71 1 With that, I'm very pleased to introduce Dr. 2 Smith. 3 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 4 presented as follows.) 5 DR. SMITH: Thank you. And I'm certainly honored 6 to be here. The Air Resources Board, of course, is 7 fundamental to the clean environment we have in 8 California, but is also a force around the world in 9 getting environments cleaned up in the rest of the country 10 and the rest of the world. 11 --o0o-- 12 DR. SMITH: I wanted to look -- I was asked to 13 look at indoor air pollution in a broad sense. So you'll 14 be happy to know I don't have any graphs like you've been 15 seeing dozens of. And to do this, instead of just talking 16 about policy in general, I'm going focus on the difficult 17 issue, if you -- how would you regulate indoor air 18 pollution? It's hard enough regulating outdoor, as you 19 know. 20 First of all, we might want to ask, why would you 21 want to do it? Obviously, people aren't keeling over dead 22 on indoor air pollution. We've got ways of dealing with 23 occupational settings, imperfect, but ways of dealing with 24 them. It's mainly places where OSHA is not involved, 25 inside households. But we want to make sure there's some PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 72 1 need to do it. 2 --o0o-- 3 DR. SMITH: Secondly, why not just depend on 4 regulating outdoor? Obviously outdoor penetrates indoors. 5 We've done pretty well without regulating outdoor, but we 6 have a ways to go. But nevertheless, why not depend on 7 that? 8 And then the answer to those is that we do want 9 to do it and we can't just depend on regulating outdoor. 10 How might it be done? This, of course, is the tricky 11 part. 12 --o0o-- 13 DR. SMITH: Now, you may remember one of the 14 first Chairs of the Air Resources Board, Paracelsus, who 15 lived at the time of Copernicus and Galileo and so forth 16 during the Renaissance. He's called the father of 17 toxicology and environmental health. 18 --o0o-- 19 DR. SMITH: Why is he called that? Well, he's 20 famous for this statement which is actually what he said, 21 "Poison is in everything and no thing is without poison. 22 The dosage makes it either a poison or a remedy." This is 23 usually shortened to, "The dose makes the poison," which 24 is not something he actually said, apparently, or at least 25 he wrote down. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 73 1 Now what does that mean? It means, of course, 2 that everything is toxic at some level. You can't name me 3 a thing that isn't toxic. Water and salt, several people 4 every year are killed by overdoses of water and salt in 5 this country. It's all a matter of the dose. Some 6 things -- you know, botulism toxic takes a very small 7 dose. Water takes several liters, but you can kill 8 anybody with anything. The point is the dose. 9 --o0o-- 10 DR. SMITH: Now, in the environmental health 11 arena, this is elaborated usually as the environmental 12 pathway. The idea is that we are concerned with things to 13 the right, the health effects. But we can't wait until 14 the health effects occur, because it's too late, 15 obviously. We want to prevent them in the first place. 16 Secondly, the health effects have many risk 17 factors. You can have cancer, respiratory diseases and so 18 forth. There are a number of risk factors, not just 19 environmental pollutants. 20 We want to understand what the -- how much of 21 them are caused by environmental pollutants, we have to 22 move back in this environmental chain, back through dose, 23 which tells us how much of the pollutant is actually 24 absorbed in the body, and so forth, back in the chain. 25 Now, in terms of regulation, however, our options PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 74 1 are usually at the other end in terms of source and 2 emissions. You're talking about source regulations that 3 is, perhaps, having gas versus diesel vehicles. That's 4 just looking at the source. Or you're having an emissions 5 control actually specifying the emission on the end. 6 Obviously, the source gives you some idea of the health 7 effects. You can actually get a pretty good idea in some 8 places just looking at the source of health effects. But 9 even better would be some idea of the emissions, what 10 comes out. 11 And even better, of course, is the 12 concentrations, what we measure on the tops of buildings 13 in our cities, for example. This is where we've regulated 14 outdoor air pollution. We've done this pretty well. 15 There are 3,000 monitors or something using the EPA 16 network around the country. We have a good idea what the 17 air pollution levels are in the city. 18 But in the last three or four decades with the 19 kind of expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars of 20 public moneys, the scientists have finally come to 21 recognize that most of us don't spend a lot of time on the 22 tops of public buildings where we measure the air 23 pollution. And if you're really concerned about people's 24 health, you have to be concerned about, not only where the 25 pollution is, but where the people are. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 75 1 And thus, this center measure here, exposure, 2 it's a measure of what the pollution is, but measuring the 3 pollution where the people are. This sounds like a very 4 simple idea. So simple it's hardly worth mentioning. But 5 somehow avoided -- it somehow was ignored by much of the 6 community and much of the regulation we've done for air 7 pollution. We control the air pollution. We measured it 8 on the tops of post offices or public buildings. It's 9 convenient to do it there. It's roughly where the people 10 are. 11 The problem is that exposure that people get 12 sometimes is quite different from what is measured on the 13 tops of the post office. It can be higher. It can be 14 lower, depending on the pollutant and the situation. I 15 can't say it's definitely one or the other. 16 So what I want to talk about is focusing on 17 exposure as a way of looking at pollution and what its 18 implications would be for regulation. 19 --o0o-- 20 DR. SMITH: Just to be a little bit more 21 specific, exposure indicates the degree to which the 22 pollution actually reaches the breathing zone of people. 23 So you can have a lot of pollution, but if it doesn't 24 reach people, doesn't cause health effects. Now it might 25 cause visibility effects. It might cause climate change. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 76 1 It might destroy buildings. But that's another set of 2 issues. We're focusing here on health effects. This is 3 directly related to the dose makes the poison. It's not 4 poison if it doesn't reach people. 5 Now I'm going to refer what I call Wallis' Maxim. 6 Lance Wallis of EPA is one of the US EPA's pioneer in this 7 area. He said, "To obtain the most realistic 8 understanding of pollution health effects and implication, 9 it is necessary to measure where the people are." It's 10 obvious. That hasn't been the case. 11 --o0o-- 12 DR. SMITH: Let me illustrate this. It's a 13 little complicated here, the implication of this. 14 Consider Benzene pollution in the U.S. around 1990. 15 National emissions on the left. These are what actually 16 were causing emissions, and therefore the concentration of 17 Benzene on the top of post offices and in the country. 18 Now, Benzene is a pollutant that doesn't damage 19 buildings. At the levels we're talking about, it's not a 20 concern for climate changes. It's not a concern for crop 21 damage. Doesn't effect visibility. The only concern with 22 it is health. It causes leukemia. 23 These are the sources of the concentrations in 24 the cities of the United States. Chemical plants, 25 automobiles, large outdoor sources. The indoor sources PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 77 1 that are at the top there, I don't know what they were, 2 but they're very small. They hardly count at all. 3 They're less than 1 percent of the total emissions. You 4 can ignore indoor sources if you're concerned about what's 5 happening on the top of the post office, which is what's 6 been done. 7 Exposures, on the other, the top right graph 8 there, looks quite different. Exposures are still 9 affected by outdoor sources, as can you see by the bottom 10 four categories there, but also greatly affected by other 11 sources. The top source is actually active smoking. 12 There's actually quite a bit of Benzene in tobacco smoke. 13 Environmental tobacco smoke, workers in occupational 14 settings and indoor in households mainly. Sources of 15 Benzene in indoor settings and households. So if you're 16 looking at the context of where you might want to consider 17 controlling Benzene, from the standpoint of exposure -- 18 not concentration, not emissions, you might look at the 19 top right. 20 Now some people say, "Well, you know, smokers, 21 they're dead anyway." We'll put them out somewhere and 22 let them die and just deal with the rest of us. Or if you 23 want it to be a little bit more explicit, we don't 24 consider air pollution agencies as dealing with active 25 smoking. We understand it's a serious health problem, but PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 78 1 they are dealt with by other agencies. Another way of 2 looking at it is, to some extent smokers are making a 3 voluntary choice to be exposed, but these other sources of 4 air pollution are involuntary. However you're looking at 5 it, I'm leaving out active smoking. That's so-called 6 involuntary exposures here. You can see it's dominated by 7 indoor sources, household sources in the United States at 8 this time. 9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Dr. Smith, we're 10 webcasting this presentation, and it would be helpful if 11 you could try to stay closer to the mic, because I'm 12 concerned -- the Board can hear you when you're turning 13 back, and but people outside the building may not be able 14 to hear you. 15 DR. SMITH: So in any case, what I want to point 16 out here is the landscape of interest changes dramatically 17 when you look at things in the context of exposure, 18 instead of emissions or concentration. Not only does the 19 relative importance of existing sources change, as you can 20 see there on the outdoor sources, but the set of new 21 sources comes into play. 22 This illustrates -- also reveals an entirely new 23 landscape of potential control measures. A control 24 measure for Benzene in California -- for Benzene exposures 25 has been to put springs on the doors between garages and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 79 1 kitchens in housing -- in new housing in California. This 2 doesn't affect exposures from emissions at all, of course. 3 But what it does do is when somebody drives their hot car 4 into the garage and the Benzene evaporates off from the 5 fuel system, it is less likely to go into the house and 6 expose people. 7 Here's an actual intervention that has no affect 8 on emissions or outdoor concentrations, but does affect 9 exposure. Not only does it reveal a new landscape of 10 sources, but it reveals new types of control measures. 11 And following that is potentially new levels of cost 12 effectiveness in controlling. Cost effectiveness in terms 13 of money. Cost effectiveness in terms of political will, 14 and all the other resources that go into changing things. 15 So it actually provides opportunities for controlling, for 16 protecting people's health, that don't exist if you just 17 look at it in the context of emissions and concentrations. 18 --o0o-- 19 DR. SMITH: Well, if you're going to measure 20 where the people are, where do people spend their time in 21 California? That is the result of a very large study. 22 You see it has by the time of day where adults spend their 23 time from midnight to midnight in six major 24 micro-environments of very large areas where people spend 25 a large portion of their time. No need to go into it in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 80 1 detail, but you can see the one on the left, the in-home, 2 people spend most of their time in their houses. This is 3 true everywhere in the world. We don't -- of course, 4 aren't controlling air pollution in the houses. At least, 5 the Air Resources Board doesn't directly control it 6 usually, but that is, in fact, where people are doing 7 their breathing. Now some of pollution in their house is 8 obviously outdoor pollution. But some of it is due to 9 other things as well. 10 --o0o-- 11 DR. SMITH: So exposure considers where the 12 people are, how many, where, what kind of people. 13 --o0o-- 14 DR. SMITH: It's important the type of people, 15 too, because as we know, many air pollutants affect 16 certain groups more than others. They affect the very 17 young, the very old, the chronically ill. Those kind of 18 people tend to spend even more time indoors. Their 19 exposure -- exposure of the most vulnerable groups are 20 actually even more indoors. 21 --o0o-- 22 DR. SMITH: You've probably heard presentations 23 on sources of indoor pollution. You know them from our 24 own experience. There is a range of them. There's 25 various kind of combustion, fuel combustion, and burning PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 81 1 of other things including tobacco, cleaning products, 2 furnishings, carpets, paints, radon from the ground, 3 moisture, molds. 4 --o0o-- 5 DR. SMITH: This ends up not to be just an issue 6 with Benzene, but with a range of pollutants. Here's some 7 examples. In the United States, particle air pollution, 8 which causes respiratory disease, the major emissions are 9 automobiles and industry. That's what affects the top of 10 the post office. The measure exposure, probably still 11 environmental tobacco smoke in the country, is the cause 12 of the major amount of exposure. 13 Benzene, we talked about. 14 Tetrachloride ethylene, the major source of 15 emissions is dry cleaning, and those dry cleaning 16 establishments that still use it. Emissions in the 17 outdoor environment from dry cleaning operations. But the 18 actual largest exposure is dry cleaned clothes haven't 19 been ventilated enough and people take home and stick in 20 their closets. Different kinds of control would be 21 needed, obviously, if you're looking at exposures versus 22 emissions. 23 Chloroform. Sewage plants are the largest source 24 of chloroform outdoor emissions. By far, chlorinated 25 water in the shower is the biggest source of exposure. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 82 1 Now, I'm not saying that these are dangerous 2 enough to be where we need regulation at this point. But 3 I just want to illustrate some major pollutants that we do 4 regulate are -- if you look at them from an exposure 5 standpoint, you get a very different picture. Look at 6 nitrogen dioxide, which you were hearing about. The 7 biggest sources are automobiles and industry. Biggest 8 source of exposures are gas stoves. People in their 9 houses. 10 Carbon monoxide regulations; big source is 11 automobiles outdoors. But biggest source of exposure are 12 gas stoves, indoors. Heating in those parts of the 13 country that have a lot of heating. And driving. This is 14 not the outdoor pollution, but the CO that comes into the 15 cab while you're driving under certain conditions. So you 16 can see the landscape changes if you look at exposures. 17 --o0o-- 18 DR. SMITH: Well, now some people ask -- and try 19 to answer the first question, yes, it does give you 20 something different to do. May be important about 21 exposures and therefore indoor air pollution. If you 22 change from an outdoor perspective using exposures, what 23 you end up doing is looking indoors. The important issue 24 is not indoors and outdoors. The important issue is 25 exposure. Since people spend so much time indoors, it PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 83 1 dominates their exposure in many cases. 2 As you know, the thing that drives the existence 3 of ARB and all these air pollution regulations we're 4 willing to spend so much money that we have these concerns 5 is the very good link we found between outdoor air 6 pollution and health effects. How can this be true? If 7 indoor air pollution is so important, how can we get these 8 good links between outdoor air pollution and health 9 effects? To be more explicit, if personal exposure to 10 what causes health effects and personal exposures are 11 effected by both outdoor and indoor pollution and indoor 12 pollution is often as important or more so than outdoor, 13 then why does it work so well to determine health effects 14 by examining only outdoor air pollution? 15 --o0o-- 16 DR. SMITH: Let me illustrate, this is one of the 17 famous studies, but we have dozens or hundreds of such 18 studies now showing the very good relationship between 19 daily particle PM 10 in this case along the bottom axis 20 and relative risk of death. This is some studies in Utah. 21 Look at that nice relationship. More particles, more 22 death. Straight line. And this is outdoor only. Yet, 23 these people in Utah are also being exposed to 24 environmental tobacco smoke and other sources indoors. 25 Why does this study that only looks at outdoor air PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 84 1 pollution work so well? Is it something different about 2 indoor air pollution that doesn't cause health effects? 3 Just vanish in these kind of studies. No. That's not the 4 answer. 5 --o0o-- 6 DR. SMITH: Now, this is, you know, a type of 7 indoor source you don't see to much in this country, but 8 I've worked with a lot in my own work. Here's an indoor 9 air pollution source. It produces some indoor air 10 pollution. There's outdoor air pollution. Some of that 11 penetrates indoors, and the result total exposure is due 12 to both indoor and outdoor. 13 So you look at the relationship of the outdoor 14 air pollution and how that changes with health and that 15 will result in a change in the indoor. More outdoor air 16 pollution one day will be more exposure one day. It might 17 also be different amounts of indoor exposure as well. But 18 the -- 19 --o0o-- 20 DR. SMITH: -- way the studies are done where you 21 look at changes in outdoor versus changes in health, two 22 major types of studies as you know, time series studies 23 look at it on a daily basis. Pollution goes up one day, 24 health goes up the next. There's cohort studies following 25 groups of people over long periods of time and measuring PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 85 1 their exposure. 2 Those groups all have indoor air pollution 3 exposure, but the indoor air pollution versus in a 4 different way than the outdoor. Since you're looking at 5 changes -- by the way the statistics on the indoor air 6 pollution disappears from the analysis. So you're still 7 getting a strong relationship between the changes in 8 outdoor and the changes in health. 9 If you had a way of measuring the changes of 10 indoor for a very large population, at the same time with 11 the changes in health, you'd also see the same effects. 12 But the advantage to outdoor, of course, is one monitor 13 will represent the outdoor components of people's exposure 14 for hundreds of thousands of people. They're very 15 expensive and difficult to do that for indoor. 16 --o0o-- 17 DR. SMITH: To be more explicit, an outdoor study 18 like this gives you the slope of the relationship like we 19 saw on that previous graph. It's based on differences. 20 But if you want the total risk, you need to consider 21 outdoor, but you also need to consider the indoor 22 component. So the total risk is higher, generally, 23 because most people's exposure to important pollutants are 24 higher than the outdoor levels indicates. That's not 25 always the case. Ozone is an example of a pollutant where PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 86 1 indoor exposures are less than outdoors because there are 2 no significant sources indoors. And also the ozone gets 3 destroyed coming through the wall of the house. 4 --o0o-- 5 DR. SMITH: Okay. So answer the second question. 6 It is consistent that indoor exposures are important, even 7 though outdoor air pollution studies do so well at 8 predicting health and health effects. 9 How would exposure be used instead of ambient 10 concentration in policy? Would you measure personal 11 exposure? Would you have everybody in the state wear a 12 little device that radios in their air pollution 13 measurement every day and fine them if they exceeded it. 14 No, probably that wouldn't work. First of all, it's 15 expensive and intrusive and technologically not possible 16 at this point and politically wouldn't be possible. 17 So you need to do something else to deal with 18 indoor pollutants. Now, here I'm sort of speculating now, 19 giving you some ideas about a way to think that. But I 20 don't think anybody anywhere in the world has thought this 21 through thoroughly, and certainly nobody has tried it yet. 22 One way to do that is to focus on the sources and their 23 exposure implications. 24 --o0o-- 25 DR. SMITH: This can be done through the concept PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 87 1 of intake fraction. Intake fraction is the fraction of 2 material that's released. Your releasing of a pound of 3 pollution at some source, and what fraction of that 4 actually goes down somebody's throat. In the case of air 5 pollution, the fraction breathed in by the exposed 6 population. So this fraction breathed in can range from 7 one extreme, one -- here's an example of an intake 8 fraction of one -- 9 --o0o-- 10 DR. SMITH: 100 percent of the air pollution is 11 going down this guy's throat. That's why he's turned to 12 stone, I guess. And that's one end. 13 Active smoking is hard to beat, but here's an 14 example of the extreme. 15 --o0o-- 16 DR. SMITH: But intake fractions vary by orders 17 of magnitude. Here, for example, is the main streams of 18 active smoke. This is grams inhaled per ton. So one is a 19 million grams per ton. All of it goes down your throat. 20 The other extreme is the coal-fired power plant 21 in the U.S. An average coal-fired power plant, based on 22 the study of 700 power plants, is one gram of particles 23 emitted from a power plant goes down -- every ton 24 emitted -- that is one in a million. Only one millionth 25 of what goes down in the case of active tobacco smoking. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 88 1 Now we're not concerning ourselves with tobacco smoking 2 here. 3 So let's look at things like environmental 4 tobacco smoke. The smoke released by a cigarette indoors 5 or a stove that's vented indoors like a gas stove is 6 producing, there you can see it's thousands of grams per 7 ton of emission goes down people's throats. 8 It's several orders of magnitude, factors of 9 thousands difference between the emissions from a power 10 plant, a remote, you know, stationary source, usually out 11 of town, versus something indoors right next to people. 12 Now it makes sense. If you're going to be releasing it 13 right next to where people are breathing, more of it is 14 going to go down and inside where it's trapped and goes in 15 people's throats. 16 --o0o-- 17 DR. SMITH: The point is here where a pollutant 18 is released is as important as what is released. You 19 know, the PM smaller particles are considered to be more 20 dangerous than larger particles. PM 1 may be more 21 dangerous than PM 2.5. PM 2.5 is certainly more dangerous 22 than PM 10. But how much more dangerous? Twice as 23 dangerous? Three times as dangerous? Five times as 24 dangerous? What we see, depending on where the source is, 25 can be a thousand times more dangerous per unit of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 89 1 pollution. In fact, there's this rule of one thousand 2 that's used in the air pollution business. Pollutants 3 released indoors are about a thousand times more likely to 4 reach people than pollutants released outdoors, on average 5 in U.S. conditions, most places. 6 This has a significant affect on the relative 7 importance of different pollution sources. For example, 8 although there are more than 40 times more particles 9 released from coal power plants in the U.S. than from 10 cigarettes, cigarettes don't hardly affect the outdoor 11 monitors at all, except in Los Angeles, in most places. 12 Just a 3 percent reduction in passive smoking, reduction 13 in environmental tobacco smoke exposure, would be 14 equivalent to eliminating all the coal power plants in 15 country, as far as particle air pollution is concerned. 16 Now, first of all, these are primary particles on land 17 calculates, SO2, NO2 are turning to particles. 18 Secondly, there are other reasons to control 19 power plants beside particle exposure. But it illustrates 20 the issue the very powerful difference in source 21 categories you get if you consider intake fraction or how 22 much of it goes down people's throats. 23 The interesting thing about this, of course, is 24 you wouldn't actually have to reduce the source of 25 environmental tobacco source. Just having people smoke PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 90 1 outside or at different times. There's all sorts of ways 2 you could get at this without having to change the 3 emission. 4 --o0o-- 5 DR. SMITH: Here's some calculations in 6 California done by my colleague, Bill Nazeroff at UC 7 Berkeley and his students. In California, on an annual 8 basis, their calculations, based on the intake fraction 9 approach, all vehicles in California that -- there's about 10 140 tons of carbon monoxide that goes down people's 11 throats every year. We all have a proportion of that. 12 Twelve to 40 kilograms of Benzene from vehicles and 400 13 kilograms of small particles. That causes the health 14 effects that you hear about in this ARB all the time. 15 What about -- now, California has the lowest 16 smoking rates in the industrial world today. Something we 17 can be proud of, unless you count Utah as part of the 18 industrial world. Seventeen percent of Californians 19 smoke, adult. Lowest it's ever been since the cigarette 20 came in. Something to be proud of, although still a major 21 health risk. Half of smokers die of the habit. That 22 means 8 or 9 percent of the Californians are going to die 23 of smoking. That's a big number, even so. 24 California also has some of the strictest 25 controls on environmental smoke anywhere in the world, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 91 1 restaurants, bars, offices, you know, any public building 2 and so forth. Even so, environmental tobacco smoke, while 3 it's responsible for only 8 tons of carbon monoxide, it's 4 not a major source of carbon monoxide exposure in the 5 state. 6 Thirty-five kilograms of Benzene, roughly 7 equivalent to vehicles in terms of Benzene. But look at 8 that. It's three times as much small particles. Even 9 though they have low smoking rates and strict 10 environmental tobacco smoke regulations, in customs -- 11 anybody that's traveled to other states or have been to 12 Europe or Asia, we've all forgotten the smell of 13 environmental smoke that exists in most of the world. 14 Even so, California's particle exposure is dominated by 15 this one particular source indoors. And now there are 16 other sources. I'm just showing you these calculations. 17 --o0o-- 18 DR. SMITH: Now some people will say 19 environmental tobacco smoke doesn't cause health problems. 20 Maybe it's somehow different in diesel exhaust or 21 particles from residential gas. Well, I don't want to go 22 into that. But there's plenty of evidence, different 23 kinds of evidence, but there's evidence of the health 24 effects of environmental tobacco smoke. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 92 1 DR. SMITH: Okay. Intake fraction varies because 2 emissions are a function of where and when the people 3 spend time. So there's where the people are. And what 4 the idea of intake fraction, if you try to skip the 5 concentration step, you focus on the relationship between 6 the source category -- and there is a limited number of 7 source categories, millions of individual sources, but 8 regulation and government policy has to focus on source 9 categories. It can't focus on individuals. So you need 10 to establish the categories and then establish this 11 relationship. 12 And the relationship is quite different from 13 different source categories. You ignore concentration, 14 although you might use concentration in calculations to 15 determine this relationship. It isn't part of the final 16 application of the concept. 17 --o0o-- 18 DR. SMITH: So how would this work? Instead of 19 emission regulations, could there be exposure regulations? 20 You could establish intake fractions for all major source 21 categories. Weight the emissions, multiply the emissions 22 by the intake fractions to determine the intakes that you 23 would expect from each source category, and then regulate 24 by nominal intake quantities, not emissions. This makes a 25 lot of sense, in terms of the health in terms of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 93 1 environmental pathway of the dose makes the poison. 2 There is serious problems, potentially, however. 3 Could you develop acceptable and repeatable methods to 4 determine intake fraction? We've done for many decades 5 and much money. We have developed these things for 6 emission factors for different sources, for determining 7 outdoor air pollution, for modeling, and all this kind of 8 thing. You'd have to do this for intake fractions too. 9 Those of us in the field think it could be done. But at 10 least in technically, but it would have to be politically 11 acceptable as well. 12 Would the sometimes substantial difference from 13 control priorities be politically acceptable? It might 14 mean if you're actually doing this, given that each year 15 you have a limited amount of resources to do controls, to 16 establish new regulations, you might focus more on things 17 closer to people. Wouldn't mean you'd stop regulating 18 large power plants. But the next power plant regulation 19 would be delayed, certainly, because you'd be focusing on 20 things that are closer to people, indoor sources, 21 neighborhood sources, things that had higher intake 22 fractions. Would that be politically acceptable? You 23 could actually trading. 24 I wrote a paper some years ago on the idea of 25 exposure trading. We know about emissions trading. It's PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 94 1 basically the same idea of you weight the emissions by 2 their intake fraction and then trade on the basis of 3 exposure. 4 --o0o-- 5 DR. SMITH: Now, some people think of translating 6 the entire regulatory approach from outdoors to indoors, 7 you know, the idea that you somehow monitor households and 8 then alarm goes off and then the EPA regulator comes in 9 and fines people or puts them in jail because they've got 10 particle sources in their house. Obviously that's not the 11 approach. In fact, you don't need any new regulatory. 12 All existing levers are in place. They're actually very 13 powerful levers. The problem is they're controlled by a 14 lot of different groups. 15 Just to remind you, there are compliance 16 standards. Gas stoves are a source of some of these 17 pollutants. They do have standards associated with them. 18 Not generally in the contest of exposure assessment, but 19 in the context of safety and other issues. 20 Fuel standards, diesel fuel, also apply to fuels 21 used in household. Building codes, very powerful 22 potential impact on total exposures in the state. 23 Consumers product regulations of all sorts. Rules for 24 operation in places where the vulnerable groups are. We 25 already have government rules for operation of hospitals, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 95 1 schools, nursing homes, and other places of vulnerable 2 groups. This is an obvious place to start if you're 3 concerned with things like asthma or the impact on 4 respiratory disease patients and older people and in 5 infants and so on. 6 Public information and education really has a big 7 impact on people's behavior. That largely we developed 8 much of environmental tobacco smoke. You can measure the 9 impact. It's costs a certain amount and has a certain 10 impact, just like putting in an engine control. You spend 11 more on it, get more impact. It's a lever available to 12 us, including in that lever will be eco labeling. You 13 want to label consumer products. You don't want to 14 actually prohibit them or tax them. It might be polluting 15 the product. You can require people to label them. It 16 would have an affect on their use. 17 And then you can even extend this into the 18 medical intervention. For example, prescribing air 19 cleaners, making possible -- using the FDA to actually 20 establish a medical procedure for cleaning people's air, 21 and those people go home and doing things that would 22 promote that. 23 And then there's existing regulatory levers. The 24 problem is, of course, none of these are done by the -- 25 are within the realm of the Air Resources Board. But if PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 96 1 you were going to try to get a full handle on total 2 exposure and look at the most cost effective way of 3 dealing with any particular total exposure, you might have 4 to take -- look at these things in a coherent fashion to 5 examine one or two of them or three or four and say what 6 is the best thing within the context of these levers that 7 we have available that would get at this problem, and how 8 does the cost of that compare with the next cost of the 9 next bit of air pollution control outdoors or something 10 like that. 11 This would be an interesting and not too 12 expensive kind of study to do, would be to look at 13 existing levers and see how they it might work. There is, 14 of course, the technical and economic issues, but, of 15 course, there are political and turf battle issues, as 16 well as to try to make these things coherent. 17 --o0o-- 18 DR. SMITH: So just getting near the summary 19 here, the things on the right are of the most concern: 20 Dose, health effects. Things on the left are the best 21 places to control. And the things in the middle are the 22 best places to measure to get to the idea of the link 23 between where the sources are and what the health effects 24 are. 25 We focus mainly on concentration, but we can do, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 97 1 probably, a lot better if we figure out some way of 2 dealing with exposure. When you start dealing with 3 exposure for air pollution, you start looking indoors. 4 --o0o-- 5 DR. SMITH: The bottom lines to answer my three 6 questions for health, it is not only how much is emitted 7 and how toxic it is, but how much of it actually reaches 8 people. Therefore, you have to look indoors. Pollution 9 released indoors is much more likely to reach people, 10 intake fraction. And there are ways to regulate indoor 11 air pollution without draconian or even any new methods at 12 all. But it requires a different kind of draconian effort 13 that is getting coherence and cooperation among different 14 places. 15 --o0o-- 16 DR. SMITH: Now this is an old cartoon from 17 "Punch," the British humor magazine. It shows, 18 presumably, the inventors of fire here. Angry community 19 group comes and says, "We feel it should be build away 20 from population centers." It's supposed to be a joke, but 21 of course, that's part of the issue. And certainly don't 22 want to have it indoors, if we can avoid it. And the 23 total exposure will be a combination of both indoors and 24 outdoors. So thank you. 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much indeed. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 98 1 Again, it's refreshing, as clearly Professor 2 Smith represents, the academic community since you're not 3 trying to lobby the Board, and most of your remarks were 4 made sure that the attendees also got the benefit of your 5 presentation. So it was very, very good. 6 Any comments or questions? I think you give us a 7 lot of food for thought and -- Ms. Riordan. 8 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I was just going to 9 comment it certainly did give us a lot of food for thought 10 and a whole different dynamic that I perhaps have never 11 thought of before. So thank you very much. 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Any comments or questions? 13 Professor Friedman. 14 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: It just occurs to me 15 that doing more to regulate indoor sources that are 16 essentially private rather than public facilities runs 17 into some significant legal impediments, potentially. And 18 I'm wondering, have you considered -- as you've pursued 19 this, have you collaborated with any of the legal types -- 20 DR. SMITH: Well -- 21 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: -- in your work, 22 Doctor? 23 DR. SMITH: No, I haven't. And I think that 24 would be an issue. 25 Some of these things -- I mean, consumers PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 99 1 products, although it's individually used, the individual, 2 you know, still needs to be protected, because he 3 obviously doesn't have a choice of making his own product 4 and has to rely on the company in doing so. 5 Much of the actual improvement that's gone on has 6 been through the legal avenue, the threat of lawsuits if 7 there's some chemical in a consumer product, for example. 8 That alone has caused industries to change. 9 The question is, are they -- is there more change 10 that might occur there, if we can think of it in the 11 context of the total exposure? I've had this -- well, 12 I've had these discussions with economists who take this, 13 you know, private versus public thing even more strongly 14 than the lawyers and they'll say, "Well, this is really -- 15 people are making their own decisions. It's not the roll 16 of society to come in and make the decisions for them." 17 While outdoor pollution is a public good and 18 therefore is the -- only the public operating through its 19 agencies can do anything. But this implies that people 20 know what the risks are at the local level, which is often 21 not the case. Just making information available is 22 clearly a public roll. 23 Secondly, it flies a little bit in my own 24 judgement -- and maybe this is a political judgment. But 25 one of my heroes was C. Everett Koop, who was the Surgeon PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 100 1 General at the time the AIDS epidemic came about and 2 during the Reagan years. And he had the choice of -- and 3 there was a lot of pressure to say, "Well, this is a drug 4 addict's problem. It's a prostitute problem. It's 5 somebody else's problem. They're making the choices. 6 They're going to live with the consequences." He took 7 the -- what you might say the public health approach. He 8 said, "Every HIV virus is our enemy. We're going to stop 9 it. We're going into the drug houses. We're going to go 10 into the bath houses. We're going to go into the 11 brothels, and we're going to fix this." 12 That's sort of my feeling about, say, Benzene. I 13 don't think a parent who's child has gotten Benzene -- has 14 gotten leukemia from Benzene is going to be happier 15 somehow if the Benzene molecule came from an indoor source 16 than from an outdoor source. That is from a public health 17 standpoint, the enemy is Benzene molecules going down 18 people's throat. And if we can find a way to cost 19 effectively, and of course not being intrusive and all the 20 other important values in life in society, we could find a 21 way to reduce the number of Benzene molecules that go down 22 people's throats by some indoor -- by using these existing 23 levers to control indoor sources, I think that's a 24 perfectly valid thing to do. 25 So my answer is, yes, there are some legal PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 101 1 constraints. But I also think there's some other kinds of 2 arguments that can be used to grab a bit larger -- you're 3 never going to grab all the turf, but grab a bit more of 4 the turf to reduce health effects. 5 One of issues is you've done so well with outdoor 6 air pollution in this country that now these indoor 7 sources are getting to be a bigger part of everybody's 8 life. Compared to what pollution was like -- it's got a 9 ways to go. But compared to L.A. 30, 40 years ago, we've 10 done pretty well. 11 Well, where is the next bit of improvement going 12 to come? Well, it can come from more outdoor. But it 13 might be more cost effective to manipulate some of these 14 levers for indoor. Certainly, it's been good in 15 environmental tobacco smoke. 16 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Thank you. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much indeed. 18 I think your comments on the ETS that's going to come 19 before the Board later this year. 20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yes. We have 21 three items coming before the Board that are all pertinent 22 to this subject. The first is the identification of 23 environmental tobacco smoke as a toxic air contaminant. 24 And then if the Board chooses to make that identification, 25 it would be followed by risk management evaluations and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 102 1 potential additional control strategies to reduce passive 2 exposures. 3 The second is the Comprehensive Report on indoor 4 air quality which we're required to prepare by statute. 5 And that report does some of what Dr. Smith was 6 recommending. It identifies the largest sources of indoor 7 air pollution and some of the tools available to mitigate 8 those. And that will provide a foundation for a 9 legislative debate on where we go next, because there are 10 some statutory constraints here. 11 But we're not entirely precluded from regulating 12 in this area. We've already regulated and districts have 13 regulated wood stoves, low NOx burners on residential 14 water heaters. We regulate consumer products in the 15 indoor environment. And we're going to bring to you a 16 building products standard for formaldehyde composite wood 17 products using our air toxics control authority and see 18 whether or not we're able to pursue that. 19 We do think we have a lot of regulatory models 20 that can be extended into the indoor environment, but 21 there is some question statutorily how far we can go. But 22 staff thinks many of the recommendations Dr. Smith has 23 made are very well taken. 24 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Do we regulate at 25 this point dry cleaning coverings and so forth, the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 103 1 plastics that we bring home and -- 2 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: No. 3 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: -- go in our closet? 4 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We issue public 5 information brochures advising people to remove the 6 plastic and air the garments out outside, not leaving them 7 in enclosed cars to off-gas and not taking them in the 8 house before they're dry. But we don't regulate. Really 9 upstream districts regulate upstream what chemicals are 10 used by the dry cleaners themselves and how much of that 11 escapes to the atmosphere. 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes, Ms. D'Adamo. 13 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: When do you expect to 14 bring the building materials proposal before us? 15 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We're still 16 debating on that one. Early next year, sometime in '05. 17 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Secondly, what can be done 18 to work with the dry cleaning businesses to get the word 19 out? I'm assuming most people -- most consumers are not 20 aware of our advice. But if they could get a flier from 21 the dry cleaners when they pick up their dry cleaning, 22 unless the dry cleaners would have a problem with that. 23 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We haven't looked 24 at that, I don't think. But I'll have the staff 25 responsible for that brochure look into that possibility. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 104 1 We do now have very well organized dry cleaning 2 establishments partly in response to the South Coast 3 regulation in this area. So there's trade associations 4 that we can approach and work with to move these brochures 5 out. 6 Maybe Dr. Burke has some sense of how receptive 7 they might be. 8 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: They almost ran me out of 9 Los Angeles. That's not something you want to get into. 10 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: There might be 11 better avenues, PTA meetings, League of Women Voters, 12 other general places to distribute information that aren't 13 quite so in the face of the dry cleaners themselves. 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Well, men pick up clothes, 15 too. 16 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: I was rattling 17 off some that came to mind. 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Dr. Smith, do you have 19 anything to add on this particular, how we might work more 20 closely with the dry cleaners? That was a surprise to see 21 the exposure coming from -- 22 DR. SMITH: Well, I think the waste reduction 23 approach might be good to look at some of the chemicals 24 that are less toxic, just get rid of the whole thing. But 25 we've got a cost issue there. And I don't follow it PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 105 1 closely enough to know what the current status of that is. 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Great. Thank you again so 3 how much. We know how much in demand you are worldwide. 4 We really appreciate you spending some time with us very 5 much, indeed. 6 DR. SMITH: Thank you very much for inviting me. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: With that, I think the court 8 reporter will take a break here for ten minutes. And so 9 let's come back just before quarter of on that clock there 10 before the next item which is Agenda Item 4-4-4, Report on 11 the Potential Electrification Programs for Small Off-Road 12 Engines. 13 (Thereupon a recess was taken.) 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: The next agenda item is 15 04-4-4, a Report on the Potential for Increasing the 16 Electrification of Small Off-Road Engines. As all of my 17 colleagues will recall, the Board approved more stringent 18 exhaust and evaporative emission standards for small 19 off-road engine equipment last September. It would be 20 difficult to forget that time. Staff is still working 21 through the final details of that rule making in response 22 to the lengthy comments received on the 15-day Notice 23 Package after our September hearing. Staff is also 24 working closely with the U.S. EPA and its pending rule 25 making, since EPA is now charged with the responsibility PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 106 1 of adopting similar standards for the entire nation. 2 During our September hearing, the Board expressed 3 an interest in achieving greater electrification of these 4 engines and asked staff to evaluate the possibilities for 5 achieving that objective today. Today we're going to hear 6 the staff's report back on that subject. 7 With that, I would like to turn it over to 8 Mr. Cackette to introduce the item and begin staff 9 presentation. 10 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Thank 11 you, Dr. Lloyd and members of the Board. 12 In addition to the Board's discussion about 13 electrification last September when we did the rule 14 making, you may recall the subject also came up during the 15 South Coast Plan Review in October. As a result, we 16 committed to prepare a white paper on the potential for 17 electrifying small off-road engines by December of this 18 year of 2004. This report, if it meets with your approval 19 today, will form the basis for the white paper that we 20 will finish up at the end of the year. 21 The report includes assessment of several 22 strategies -- the report we're giving you today includes 23 assessment of several strategies suggested by air 24 pollution control districts, environmental groups, 25 industry, and ourselves, and ranks each strategy according PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 107 1 to cost, emission benefit, ease of implementation, and 2 enforceability. 3 At this time, I'd like to turn the presentation 4 over to Jackie Lourenco of the Mobile Source Control 5 Division to present the findings in our report. 6 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 7 presented as follows.) 8 OFF-ROAD CONTROLS SECTION MANAGER LOURENCO: 9 Thank you, Mr. Cackette. Good morning, Chairman Lloyd and 10 members of the Board. 11 Today, staff is presenting a few of the available 12 data on electric small off-road equipment, the potential 13 of several different strategies to increase 14 electrification of the small off-road category, and the 15 associated cost benefit and implementation issues. 16 --o0o-- 17 OFF-ROAD CONTROLS SECTION MANAGER LOURENCO: In 18 this presentation, I'll begin by reviewing some of the 19 background information regarding the small off-road engine 20 category. I'll also go over the various equipment types, 21 those that have electric counterparts. 22 Next I'll discuss the various electrification 23 strategies, and conclude with a summary of staff's 24 findings. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 108 1 OFF-ROAD CONTROLS SECTION MANAGER LOURENCO: The 2 small off-road engine category consists of engines at or 3 below 19 kilowatts, which is 25 horsepower. It includes 4 both two- and four-stroke engines that are used primarily 5 in lawn and garden and small industrial and commercial 6 equipment. 7 By definition, this category does not include 8 equipment that qualifies under the farm and construction 9 equipment preemption according to the 1990 Federal Clean 10 Air Act Amendments. 11 In September of 2003, the Board approved more 12 stringent exhaust emission standards and new evaporative 13 requirements. The new regulations will provide statewide 14 emission reductions of nearly 22 tons per day of 15 hydrocarbon plus NOx by 2010. 16 At the 2003 Board hearing, staff was directed to 17 report back to the Board on the potential of increasing 18 electric equipment sales in the small off-road engine 19 category. 20 --o0o-- 21 OFF-ROAD CONTROLS SECTION MANAGER LOURENCO: This 22 slide shows examples of some small equipment that are in 23 this category; trimmers and mowers and tillers, and that 24 sort of thing. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 109 1 OFF-ROAD CONTROLS SECTION MANAGER LOURENCO: This 2 slide illustrates the relative population fraction for 3 residential and commercial equipment. As shown for the 4 year 2000, residential equipment represents approximately 5 90 percent of the population of small off-road equipment. 6 --o0o-- 7 OFF-ROAD CONTROLS SECTION MANAGER LOURENCO: This 8 slide shows the relative emissions inventory fraction for 9 residential and commercial equipment. While the 10 residential equipment represent a majority of the 11 population, they represent only 32 percent of the 12 hydrocarbon plus NOx exhaust emissions inventory. If 13 evaporative emissions are included, residential equipment 14 represents -- 15 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Excuse me. Could 16 you lower that mic a little closer to you? 17 OFF-ROAD CONTROLS SECTION MANAGER LOURENCO: Oh, 18 I'm not loud enough? Is this better? 19 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Yes. 20 OFF-ROAD CONTROLS SECTION MANAGER LOURENCO: If 21 evaporative emissions are included, residential equipment 22 represent less than half of the hydrocarbon plus NOx 23 emission inventory. The commercial equipment represents 24 the majority of emissions, because their usage and power 25 are greater. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 110 1 --o0o-- 2 OFF-ROAD CONTROLS SECTION MANAGER LOURENCO: This 3 chart provides a further breakdown or residential lawn and 4 garden equipment. The green shaded areas represent the 5 electric portion. The blue areas represent the gasoline 6 portion. And there's a few little red spots there, and 7 those are some diesels, but there's not too many. 8 As shown, the majority of leaf blowers as well as 9 trimmers, edgers, and brush cutters are already electric. 10 There're also electric models for chainsaws, walk-behind 11 mowers, and shredders, and other lawn and garden 12 equipment. Overall, almost 40 percent of the residential 13 lawn and garden equipment are electrified. 14 --o0o-- 15 OFF-ROAD CONTROLS SECTION MANAGER LOURENCO: Many 16 types of hand-held equipment have electric-powered 17 counterparts. Electric-powered equipment does not use 18 fuel, so it has no emissions. Most of the electric units 19 currently available are small, lower weight, and lower 20 cost units primarily used in the residential market. 21 Residential string and hedge trimmers, non-backpack 22 blowers, and small chainsaws may be converted to electric, 23 as evidenced by the great number of models already 24 available. There are also corded and cordless electric 25 walk-behind mowers and battery-powered tillers and riding PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 111 1 mowers and tractors. 2 --o0o-- 3 OFF-ROAD CONTROLS SECTION MANAGER LOURENCO: This 4 slide shows price ranges and cutting paths for electric 5 string trimmers and brush cutters as compared to gasoline 6 units. Electric trimmers generally cost less than their 7 gasoline counterparts, while still performing nearly as 8 well in residential applications. 9 This slide compares hedge trimmer prices and 10 performance for electric and gas models. Again, prices 11 for the corded and corded electric are less than the 12 gasoline units. As shown, gasoline hedge trimmers have a 13 slight edge over the electric hedge trimmers when it comes 14 to performance. 15 --o0o-- 16 OFF-ROAD CONTROLS SECTION MANAGER LOURENCO: This 17 slide shows average for typical lawn mower, residential 18 mower. Electric lawn mowers typically has only enough 19 power for cutting a path up to about 19 inches. Cutting 20 path for most gasoline lawn mowers is 21 or greater. As 21 shown, the average price for a corded electric lawn mower 22 is typically less than gasoline. However, many people 23 find that the cord may be cumbersome, even though it's 24 similar to using a vacuum cleaner around the house. The 25 cordless electric mower is significantly higher in price PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 112 1 and is more comparable in price to the premium gasoline 2 mowers. 3 --o0o-- 4 OFF-ROAD CONTROLS SECTION MANAGER LOURENCO: This 5 slide compares some of the advantages and discharges of 6 electric lawn mowers with gasoline lawn mowers. For 7 advantages, electric mowers have zero omissions. They're 8 quiet, no refueling, little maintenance needs. And 9 they're fairly durable. Some of the disadvantages include 10 limited range and reduced power for corded and cordless 11 models, charging time, increased weight, and cost are the 12 issues for the cordless models. 13 --o0o-- 14 OFF-ROAD CONTROLS SECTION MANAGER LOURENCO: This 15 slide shows lifetime exhaust and evaporative hydrocarbon 16 plus NOx emissions from lawn mowers. Pre-2007 model 17 gasoline residential lawn mowers will emit about 38 pounds 18 of HC plus NOx over their average lifetime of 12 years. 19 As a result of recent changes to the regs, the 2007 and 20 later models will emit about 11 pounds over its lifetime, 21 a 68 percent reduction. And, of course, an electric lawn 22 mowers has zero emissions over its lifetime. 23 --o0o-- 24 OFF-ROAD CONTROLS SECTION MANAGER LOURENCO: 25 During the course of staff's meetings with Air Pollution PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 113 1 Control Agencies, environmental groups, and industry, 2 several strategies were discussed as having potential to 3 increase sales of electric small off-road equipment. The 4 strategies are listed here, and I'll start going through 5 each one. 6 --o0o-- 7 OFF-ROAD CONTROLS SECTION MANAGER LOURENCO: 8 First strategy I'll discuss is the lower fleet average 9 standard. In this strategy, a lower emission standard 10 could be adopted. Engine manufacturers would then have to 11 decide on the mix of technologies needed to comply with 12 the standard. 13 A portion of a manufacturer's production may be 14 electric. For example, the 2007 standard is 10 grams per 15 horsepower hour HC plus NOx. If we lowered it to 5 grams, 16 engine manufacturers could meet the standard by averaging 17 10 gram gasoline units, some electric units, and some very 18 clean new technology gasoline engines to show compliance. 19 A lower fleet average standard could ensure that 20 emissions from small engines are reduced and may increase 21 the production of electric. However, additional lead time 22 would be needed for manufacturers to develop electric 23 motors since most engine manufacturers do not currently 24 make electric motors. 25 Manufacturers could choose to exit the California PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 114 1 market instead of expending research and develop resources 2 to meet both the more stringent standards and to develop 3 electric motors. In addition, staff estimates that the 4 emissions benefit would be low and the cost effectiveness 5 could be moderate compared to other strategies. 6 --o0o-- 7 OFF-ROAD CONTROLS SECTION MANAGER LOURENCO: The 8 second strategy is a minimum percentage of zero emission 9 equipment being produced and sold in California, much like 10 the cars ZEV mandate. This strategy is similar in concept 11 to the lower fleet average standard, but the zero emission 12 mandate would be the responsibility of the equipment 13 manufacturers. For example, if we set a 10 percent 14 electric mandate, equipment manufacturers would have to 15 sell ten electric mowers for every 100. 16 --o0o-- 17 OFF-ROAD CONTROLS SECTION MANAGER LOURENCO: A 18 zero emission mandate would also ensure that a mix of 19 electric equipment is produced and offered for sale. 20 Since the majority of the equipment manufacturers do not 21 currently produce electrics, the same issues of lead time 22 and increased expenditure of research and development 23 resources exist for zero emission mandate. 24 In addition, homeowners could choose to purchase 25 commercial gasoline mowers over the electric mowers and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 115 1 make compliance more difficult for the equipment 2 manufacturers. Staff estimates emissions benefit to be 3 low and cost effectiveness may be moderate. 4 --o0o-- 5 OFF-ROAD CONTROLS SECTION MANAGER LOURENCO: The 6 third strategy was based on some discussions with South 7 Coast Management District staff where they'd like to see 8 30 percent of the new residential lawn and garden 9 equipment sold to be electric. This measure could be met 10 with regulatory or voluntary means. A regulatory approach 11 could be directed at retailers, like Home Depot, to ensure 12 that homeowners and non-commercial users purchase only 13 electric equipment. From a voluntary perspective, 14 incentives could be a good way to encourage residents to 15 purchase electric equipment. 16 --o0o-- 17 OFF-ROAD CONTROLS SECTION MANAGER LOURENCO: 18 Benefits from such a measure include a reduction in air 19 pollution and an increase in the number of electrics. 20 However, from a mandatory perspective, this measure would 21 be difficult to enforce because the burden would be on the 22 retailers to ensure that non-commercial buyers do not buy 23 gasoline equipment. As shown earlier, 40 percent of the 24 residential lawn and garden equipment is already electric. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 116 1 OFF-ROAD CONTROLS SECTION MANAGER LOURENCO: If a 2 Manufacturer Scrap Program were adopted, this would 3 require engine manufacturers to retire or scrap a 4 percentage of mowers based on its engine sales number into 5 California. 6 For example, for every 25 new engines produced 7 for sale into California, one existing lawn mower would 8 need be acquired and scrapped. To increase electric 9 sales, manufacturers may offer vouchers towards the 10 perfect purchase of a new cleaner mower to get the old 11 mower retired. The South Coast also suggested this 12 measure. 13 --o0o-- 14 OFF-ROAD CONTROLS SECTION MANAGER LOURENCO: A 15 Manufacturers Scrap Program would help to turn over the 16 fleet sooner and introduce lower emission equipment 17 faster. The Manufacturers Scrap Program could supplement 18 existing trade-in programs by providing incentive funds to 19 retire old polluting gasoline mowers in exchange for 20 discount vouchers to purchase new electric mowers. The 21 program does not guarantee electric equipment is purchased 22 unless the vouchers are for electric equipment purchases. 23 Staff estimates the emissions benefit to be low and the 24 cost effectiveness to be moderate. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 117 1 OFF-ROAD CONTROLS SECTION MANAGER LOURENCO: 2 Another strategy would be to restrict the use of 3 residential gasoline lawn mowers on weekends or only on 4 weekend days when an ozone exceedance is predicted. 5 Weekend days typically have the highest ozone levels of 6 the week, which is also when the majority of homeowners 7 get out there and mow their lawns. A weekend usage 8 restriction for gasoline mowers may encourage residents to 9 purchase electric mowers rather than be inconvenienced by 10 having to mow their lawn on a weekday. 11 --o0o-- 12 OFF-ROAD CONTROLS SECTION MANAGER LOURENCO: This 13 strategy would reduce residential air pollution when 14 needed. In light of the affectiveness of the Bay Area 15 Spare the Air Program, we would expect similar response 16 for episode events. However, a mandatory program would be 17 difficult to enforce. Such a program could significantly 18 reduce emissions on weekends when ozone levels may be 19 high. The cost effectiveness is moderate to poor 20 depending on whether corded or cordless mowers are 21 purchased as replacements. 22 --o0o-- 23 OFF-ROAD CONTROLS SECTION MANAGER LOURENCO: A 24 program could be developed to establish and promote clean 25 air marketing and ad campaigning to encourage residents to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 118 1 use zero emission or lower emission equipment when 2 possible. Some districts also have a Spare the Air 3 Program that notifies residents via radio, TV, or 4 newspaper in advance of days when air quality is forecast 5 to reach unhealthy levels and also that residents reduce 6 or avoid activities that may contribute to air pollution. 7 The program is purely voluntary. 8 --o0o-- 9 OFF-ROAD CONTROLS SECTION MANAGER LOURENCO: The 10 Bay Area found that the program was affective in reducing 11 emissions emission because of about 8 percent of the 12 residents reduced their use of gasoline equipment. 13 Promoting the use of electric statewide through a Spare 14 the Air Program can be a good way of keeping the public 15 informed about cleaner alternatives. The ads could 16 include suggestions to reduce emissions from other 17 pollution sources, too. 18 This strategy would require significant resources 19 to get the word out. If a statewide program were as 20 successful as the Bay Area's local program, the benefits 21 from lawn mowers alone could be significant. 22 --o0o-- 23 OFF-ROAD CONTROLS SECTION MANAGER LOURENCO: 24 Another voluntary strategy would be to establish and 25 promote incentives, rebates, and trade-in programs for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 119 1 electric lawn and garden equipment. Typically, these 2 programs have been organized through local districts, 3 mower manufacturers, and major mechanizers. Residents 4 offer up a used lawn mower in exchange for the vouchers 5 good towards the purchase of new electric mower. 6 --o0o-- 7 OFF-ROAD CONTROLS SECTION MANAGER LOURENCO: Past 8 local events for trade-in programs have been very popular 9 and successful. They provide high visibility for the 10 promotion of clean air and clean equipment. Trade-in 11 programs have generally targeted lawn mowers by providing 12 $200 vouchers -- up to $200 for the purchase of new 13 cordless electric mowers. These programs are only limited 14 by the amount of funding available. The emission benefit 15 of such programs is low, and the cost effectiveness is 16 moderate. 17 --o0o-- 18 OFF-ROAD CONTROLS SECTION MANAGER LOURENCO: 19 Staff has ranked the potential control measures according 20 to their feasibility. The mandatory regulatory electric 21 and usage restriction requirements were ranked as low 22 feasibility primarily because enforcement would be 23 difficult. However, these strategies may have potential 24 as voluntary measures. 25 A lower new engine fleet average standard and a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 120 1 zero emission mandate were both ranked as medium 2 feasibility because of the relatively small emissions 3 benefit and high cost. In addition, many manufacturers 4 currently do not produce electrics, thus substantial lead 5 time would be required to allow them to develop equipment 6 to remain competitive in the California market. 7 A manufacturers scrap program is also ranked as 8 medium. As a mandatory requirement, tracking down older 9 lawn mowers with the potential for being scrapped each 10 year may be difficult. If manufacturers choose to pass on 11 the cost to the consumer, prices of gasoline equipment in 12 California would increase. 13 The measures with the highest feasibility are the 14 consumer awareness and incentive programs. All of these 15 measures are moderately cost effective. They could 16 provide a relatively moderate emissions benefit. 17 --o0o-- 18 OFF-ROAD CONTROLS SECTION MANAGER LOURENCO: To 19 summarize, the potential to electrify lawn and garden 20 equipment is currently limited to residential products. 21 As previously shown, residential use accounts for less 22 than half of the small engine exhaust and evaporative 23 emissions. Within the residential categories, mowers can 24 be singled out as having the lowest electric penetration. 25 Thus, it makes sense to focus on efforts to increase mower PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 121 1 electrification, except that strategies we looked at offer 2 small emission benefits and are fairly costly compared to 3 other strategies. 4 We believe that increased consumer awareness and 5 incentive programs are the most feasible strategies to 6 pursue at this time. The only significant limitation for 7 these strategies is funding. 8 This concludes my presentation, and we will be 9 happy to answer any questions. 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much indeed. 11 Before I get into questions from that, one of the 12 things I've observed as we go after looking at different 13 categories, other categories seem to pop up. I know we've 14 talked about this with staff. I know the Secretary has 15 talked with staff. And that is most recently we've seen a 16 lot of these ads pop up with scooters. Fortunately, many 17 of them are electric. Some of them are not electric. And 18 just looking at two examples here saying these are CARB 19 approved engines. And then you've got a 6.5 go-cart, dirt 20 throwing, hill climbing, mud bogging fun for two. 21 Do we have a good handle on this growing category 22 of potential emissions? And if we could get a report back 23 to the Board, I think it would be very, very helpful. 24 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Yes. 25 We've noticed that it has been brought to our attention to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 122 1 the proliferation of these very small scooters and other 2 forms of transportation a lot of kids are using. And they 3 tend to use a engine like from a weed whipper, a trimmer, 4 a very small two stroke. 5 When we first saw it happening, some of the 6 manufacturers were using non-certified engines. And we 7 took enforcement action. And now you see in the 8 advertisements they are using CARB certified engines. 9 But in the case of the scooters and the very 10 small ones, they're still a pretty high polluting engine. 11 So we are trying to doing an internal study right now to 12 find out how popular are these. I see them go down my 13 street, but I can't tell you whether it's 100th as many as 14 there are weed whips or whether it's similar and what 15 their usage patterns are in trying to figure out what the 16 emission impact would be. And obviously, there's control 17 strategies. They could use small four stroke engines 18 instead of two stroke, which are many, many times cleaner 19 and things like that we could consider. 20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Could you give us a report 21 back? 22 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Yeah. 23 We'll give you a report back. I'm guessing in a several 24 months type time frame. We just started working on it. 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: And you and I will talk with PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 123 1 the Secretary again. I know this is something of interest 2 all the way down into El Monte, not least of which of 3 course they buzz around. They're noisy, as well as 4 potentially dirty. 5 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: They're 6 very noisy. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: But fortunately there seems 8 to be a significant number of electric, which again, 9 you've got a great alternative which is very, very 10 helpful. 11 Ms. D'Adamo. 12 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I'm sure I'll have other 13 questions later after we've heard from the witnesses, but 14 just wanted to let my colleagues know that this issue 15 continues to concern me greatly, even though it's not a 16 major piece of the emissions inventory, when you look at 17 all the other contributors in the state. 18 I do think that one thing that seems to be 19 missing in this staff report is that vision that we all 20 felt so gung-ho about of regarding ZEV regarding vehicles. 21 We had that vision. We felt we could push it as far as we 22 could. And maybe on the heels of ZEV there may be a 23 little reluctance. 24 And I would actually compare lawn and garden more 25 to, say, cell phones and computers. We've seen tremendous PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 124 1 change in the technology through the years. It can take 2 you just a matter of minutes to power up your cell phone 3 or your battery on your computer, whereas a few years ago 4 it took a while. And these are small pieces of equipment. 5 And I do think that even though right now that 6 while the staff report seems to -- the analysis with the 7 chart -- I'm looking for it here -- on the cost 8 effectiveness, I believe it assumes that we would, if we 9 had a fleet average or a ZEV standard, that it would only 10 target residential use, which I think in the short-term 11 obviously that is what we'd have to target because of the 12 challenge with commercial. 13 But I think we need to be looking at a long-term 14 vision here. If we can bring the costs down for those 15 cordless mowers so that it's not $450 compared to 250 for 16 an IC motor. And eventually if that charge time can be 17 significantly reduced, I can see it having application in 18 the commercial sector, such that we wouldn't have to have 19 war with all of the lawn and garden small businesses, but 20 actually make it attractive for them eventually. So I 21 think we're looking at the cost effectiveness with regard 22 to the residential sector in the short term. And we need 23 to be looking at a much bigger long-term picture. 24 So I'd like for us to continue to pursue this and 25 maybe have staff come back. Maybe as we hear from PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 125 1 witnesses, I'll have further specific questions. 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Well, I was reminded this 3 week while reading some of the clips, and maybe some of 4 you have seen this, in the Bee on Tuesday which basically 5 just reading a couple of paragraphs, 6 "Toxicology results confirm the unimaginable, 7 both children died in open air from the simple 8 act of breathing. In instances separated by 9 hundreds of miles and three years, 15 year old 10 Stacy Beckett of Ontario and 11-year-old Anthony 11 Farr of El Dorado Hills drown after inhaling 12 extremely high levels of carbon monoxide while 13 body surfing behind ski boats." 14 Again, it brought home to me, again, the need of 15 getting down to true zero emissions, which is a big 16 benefit. In this particular case it's more complicated, 17 but you just saw some of the outdoor motors, if you get in 18 the wrong spot, there can be very high levels. 19 So I certainly agree with that goal, Ms. D'Adamo. 20 I think our vision there is reinforced by that. 21 On this particular issue, I think where staff has 22 looked at and I think there are areas where the 23 electrification works supremely. I'm a personal user of 24 many of those that has worked very well. And again, we'll 25 listen to that. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 126 1 But I'm looking at some of the testimony. I'm 2 all in support of getting staff to work with the industry 3 and work with other stakeholders to highlight areas where, 4 in fact, this makes a lot of sense. In other areas I 5 don't -- because of the diversity, I don't think it makes 6 a lot of sense at this stage. But because of the 7 advancement in technologies and whatnot, that should be 8 continued to be monitored. 9 So at the moment I would like to -- again, how we 10 can work together, and I think industry has an 11 opportunity. And I've seen in writing they're willing to 12 work with us on some of those ideas. 13 But are there any other comments from my 14 colleagues before we go into the public testimony? 15 With that, I'd like to call up the first witness, 16 Ron Lloyd, no relation from OPEI, Larry Allen, and Dave 17 Modisette. 18 MR. LLOYD: No, there's no relation. 19 Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Board members and 20 staff for the opportunity to present information relating 21 to electrification of equipment in California. 22 My name is Ronald Lloyd. I'm speaking not only 23 as a representative Toro, my home company, but also on 24 behalf of OPEI, our industry association. Toro is one of 25 about a dozen companies that provide electric products out PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 127 1 of OPEI, our group members, into the California market. 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Can you put the mic a little 3 bit closer, please. That would be great. Thank you. 4 MR. LLOYD: Separately OPEI has submitted the 5 extensive written testimony that was presented to CARB 6 staff in advance of this meeting. We're waiting for 7 slides. I think most of you have paper copies, don't you? 8 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 9 presented as follows.) 10 MR. LLOYD: Here we go. Who's Toro? We're a 11 $1.4 billion sales company. We're makers of outdoor 12 beautification equipment for golf courses, golf course 13 maintenance equipment, landscape contractor products, 14 which is the commercial products we talked about, 15 irrigation products, consumers, gasoline, and electrical 16 products. 17 --o0o-- 18 MR. LLOYD: Consumer products that we make 19 currently and have made in the past are string trimmers, 20 hedge clippers, hand-held blowers, vacuums, snow throwers, 21 battery and 120 volt walk-behind mowers, as well as some 22 230 volt product for Europe. 23 Our commercial division up until this year did 24 not have any electrical products. But this year we're 25 coming out with a utility vehicle, which is a battery PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 128 1 electric, which for the most part will be used in golf 2 course environments. 3 Over the past ten years, Toro has invested in 4 excess of $35 million in R&D and product tooling. 5 --o0o-- 6 MR. LLOYD: R&D activities that Toro has done, 7 we've invested money in different types of lead acid 8 constructions, as far as batteries nickel cadmium, zinc 9 air, nickel metal hydride. We've investigated fuel cells 10 and, in fact, built a prototype. We've invested money in 11 motor and control systems technology, which in some cases, 12 depending on the motors, is a significant investment. 13 We've also invested in higher-tech charging systems which 14 allow much faster charge rates. 15 --o0o-- 16 MR. LLOYD: Electrical products that Toro has 17 dropped from its line, and some of our competitors as 18 well, we've dropped 18-inch walk-behind mowers out of our 19 line that were 24 and 36 volt battery powered products. 20 We've dropped 120 volt corded product and a 230 volt 21 product for Europe. We've also dropped battery robotic 22 mower, battery hedge clipper, battery leaf blower, corded 23 electric chainsaws, and battery riding mowers over the 24 years. 25 Basically, it was because of lack of acceptance PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 129 1 at the consumer level and in some cases, more recently, an 2 optimistic sales projection as to what we thought we could 3 sell, which then made it profitable, but in the end it 4 wasn't. 5 --o0o-- 6 MR. LLOYD: We did some customer research 7 relative to electrical products, and I've kind of tailored 8 this towards the walk-behind, which is the area staff is 9 considering. The customers perceive the electric units as 10 lower in power, and we could consider that true. 11 Lower cost than gasoline. In the 120 volt unit 12 potentially that could be. But in the case of non-corded 13 products, which are more universal for people to use, it 14 isn't. 15 Those are significantly higher in costs. They're 16 lower polluting in gasoline, obviously true. 17 Lower noise than gasoline, true. 18 Lower maintenance, false, when we come into the 19 battery products. Gasoline mower, for instance, you may 20 store over the winter, and in the spring put new gas in 21 it, start it up, and not have any issues. An electric 22 mower, especially a battery mower in particular, if you 23 take that mower partially charged, put it away for the 24 winter, bring it out in the spring, chances are, that 25 battery will no longer hold a charge. And at that point PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 130 1 you will have to replace that battery system. 2 Requires no oil, gas. That's obviously true. 3 Lighter weight than gasoline, that's false in the 4 case of battery-powered products, especially walk-behinds. 5 It's a simpler product. And again, 120 volt 6 product is simple. A battery-powered product is not 7 because of the storage devices and the charging systems 8 required for those mowers. 9 Corded products, the consumers are worried about 10 cutting cords, obviously true with a lawn mower or hedge 11 clippers. 12 --o0o-- 13 MR. LLOYD: One of the things that our customers 14 require, from Toro's standpoint, is good mulching and 15 bagging capability. Although there are a lot of customers 16 out in the world of lawn mowers that are literally only 17 making tall grass short, we have some very discriminating 18 customers. 19 Why electric mowers mower don't bag or mulch like 20 a gas one does? The illustration on the slide, the left 21 hand one shows a blade from the electric lawn mower, and 22 the right hand one is the blade from a Toro 21-inch mower. 23 Those products using the electric mowers, the blades are 24 flat for a reason. And that's to conserve the energy 25 that's available to cut grass. The flat blade doesn't PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 131 1 move air, which takes power to move air. 2 Contrary, on the other side of equation, the gas 3 mower is very high, and that allows free movement of 4 material under the deck of the lawn mower for excellent 5 mulching capability, but also the ability to move air and 6 bring the debris into a bag. 7 --o0o-- 8 MR. LLOYD: Why does Toro no longer sell electric 9 walk-behind mowers? They were too small for general 10 acceptance over gas. And what we were selling were both 11 120 volt and the battery-powered mowers in an 18-inch 12 variety. There are smaller ones than that out in the 13 market. 14 Customer performance expectations were higher 15 because the mowers carried our Toro name, but the 16 performance was just not there. 17 Battery life and storage, both before retail sale 18 and after retail sale was an issue. Our distributors once 19 they had battery-powered lawn mowers, we had to require 20 them to recharge any unsold unit in the box every six 21 months. If they failed to do that, the unit once 22 delivered had a failed battery. 23 --o0o-- 24 MR. LLOYD: The reasons they failed in the 25 marketplace, the performance didn't live up to the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 132 1 customers' expectations. The cost was too high for the 2 performance. And if the expected Toro product quality was 3 built into the product, the cost was too high. 4 The riding products did not have enough run time 5 and the performance to be competitive in the gasoline 6 marketplace. Toro Lawn Boy and the Wheel Harvest brands 7 under the Toro brand have all been participating in the 8 electric markets since about 1969, and we've made multiple 9 tries in attempting to get more penetration into the 10 electric market. 11 --o0o-- 12 MR. LLOYD: Some consumers product today, just 13 some general information. 14 String trimmers, battery-powered ones, runs 15 between 8 and 20 minutes, which for most consumers is 16 probably enough. 17 Hedge clippers, they only run about 15 minutes. 18 They require a lot more energy and you can't carry enough 19 battery with them to make them work too much. I know when 20 I clip my bushes, it takes me a lot more than 15 minutes. 21 Electric blowers, 12 minutes for a consumer is 22 probably adequate, as long as he's not blowing a lot. 23 The walk-behind, we're saying under load, some 24 are typical around 30 minutes. Some a lot less. 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Do you have vacuums? You've PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 133 1 got blowers. Do you have vacuums? 2 MR. LLOYD: Our electric blowers are both a 3 combination vacuum and blower. 4 --o0o-- 5 MR. LLOYD: Comments on the CARB electrification 6 report. Picked on one slide. It had to do with the 7 battery run time. Basically the comments that I've got on 8 there are in blue. 9 Basically, an electric lawn mower, which is the 10 yellow line on there, is limited to about 1.5 horsepower 11 input. So you're not going to get that out of it. And 12 run time is effectively unlimited, but it is cord limited 13 as far as length. 14 I agree pretty much with the run time for a 15 gasoline product. That's pretty easy to back calculate 16 from the emissions data. That would be for a small tank. 17 A larger tank unit would run longer. It does only take 18 minutes to refuel and continue to go if you've got a 19 bigger area to cut. 20 The lower two lines on there are battery units. 21 Those units, if you are unable to complete your job with 22 the battery pack that's on there, you would have to wait 23 in most cases between 12 and 24 hours for a recharge 24 before you could finish the job. 25 The other thing to consider is that the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 134 1 horsepower shown on there, even the dotted line clear up 2 to 5 horsepower, a unit, for instance, 2 horsepower 3 battery unit that would be capable of mowing grass for 4 approximately two hours would be a unit that would weigh 5 in excess of 250 pounds because of the battery packs. 6 --o0o-- 7 MR. LLOYD: This slide may not be indicative of 8 the entire market place, but it's indicative of the area 9 Toro played in. We sold 36 volt, 120 Volt, and 6 1/2 10 horsepower gas. The 6 1/2 horsepower gas unit is Toro's 11 lowest horsepower gas mower. It happens to be 22 inches 12 in width. 13 You can see the difference the 120 volt corded 14 is -- it's in a plane close with the gas model. It didn't 15 have the performance obviously. The 36 volt one was 16 significantly higher in price because of the technology 17 that had to be put in. 18 There's always a question can you supply, for 19 instance, multiple battery packs so I can mow an acre? 20 Indeed, you could. But that blue bar now would be chewed 21 up probably by another $100 and it also gives the consumer 22 the opportunity to, shall we say, fail another battery 23 because he has to remember to charge two batteries now, 24 not just one. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 135 1 MR. LLOYD: Some why is there better penetration 2 of electric mowers in Europe? Basically, in Europe, they 3 have much smaller lawns. They have smaller cutting widths 4 of mowers in general, so they fit quite nicely. Consumer 5 products are more expensive over there and leave just a 6 little bit more room for product development and dollars 7 in the product. And for corded products, there's actually 8 more power available at the outlet for corded products 9 which affords them a performance improvement. 10 --o0o-- 11 MR. LLOYD: This shows the difference in 12 performance or the availability of power out of the 13 outlets in Europe. Europe has two different currents 14 available; 10 amp and a 16 amp, depending on the country 15 you're in. Most people design products to work in the 10 16 amp so it's universal. But if we look at only the 10 amp 17 one, we have approximately a 50 percent increase over 18 what's available to us in the U.S. for power out of a 15 19 amp outlet. We are limited by the bar on the left-hand 20 side shows 1.54 and the .26 up above is derated because of 21 the U.S. Fire Code and UL allowance. 22 --o0o-- 23 MR. LLOYD: Typical 230 volt connected mowers, 24 again, from Europe, a recent survey indicated that they 25 had mowers -- or motors on them that range from 1,000 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 136 1 watts, 4.3 amps to 16 watts at just under 7 amps. Nearly 2 all of these are induction motors. I'm not sure whether 3 that means anything to people. But there are different 4 styles and types of motors that are available to all of us 5 that design them. 6 --o0o-- 7 MR. LLOYD: Some technical and motor product 8 information. Electric motors are always compared for some 9 reason in advertising to a 5 horsepower gas. This happens 10 to show -- the blue line on the bottom is our 36 -- the 11 volt torque of our 36 volt lawn mower. And the curve up 12 above is the torque of the 5 horsepower gas engine. As 13 you can see, we're looking at a substantial difference in 14 torque. 15 The vertical line at about the 2800 range on that 16 thing is about the lower limit of acceptable cutting for 17 the rotary lawn mower blade. Below which you begin to get 18 ragged cut. You begin to get stragglers. And you drop 19 much farther down, and pretty soon the blades are doing 20 nothing but knocking the grass over rather than cutting 21 it. 22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I thought you didn't make a 5 23 horsepower gas engine. The 6.5 is the smallest -- 24 MR. LLOYD: That's ours, yeah. That's all we 25 sell. But what everybody always compares it to is a 5 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 137 1 horsepower in advertising. 2 We try to stay above a 14,000 feet per minute 3 blade tip speed. And of course, that vertical line 4 changes from side to side depending on what size blade is 5 actually being swung. The 230 volt one by comparison to a 6 36 volt obviously has a higher kick in the torque, and it 7 comes on at a much lower RPM. 8 --o0o-- 9 MR. LLOYD: The 230 volt versus a 5 horse gas is 10 they have very similar curves and they're coming close to 11 an acceptable area. 12 --o0o-- 13 MR. LLOYD: Product design exercise that we did 14 on the commercial end, we looked at a greens mower that's 15 used on golf courses to cut the greens very early in the 16 morning. It's an area that, shall we say, people desire 17 quiet at 6:00 in the morning, so we were looking at 18 electric products trying to hit that market. 19 We looked at different batteries and combinations 20 for that particular product and examined battery life, 21 which is basically a warranty, if you want to call it. 22 Performance, in this case, the number of greens that we 23 could cut with that particular mower before a recharge. 24 And a weight increases over the gas model and the cost 25 over the gas model. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 138 1 A couple of things to point out. The light lead 2 acid versus the heavy is literally the amount of lead and 3 chemical capability within a battery. It's like having a 4 larger hand power battery. 5 The nickel metal hydride shows promise as far as 6 performance and weight, but unfortunately the cost is like 7 $900 above our current gas unit when we put nickel metal 8 hydride on them. 9 --o0o-- 10 MR. LLOYD: How do we get greater penetration 11 into the electric market without mandated legislation? If 12 we can make the performance equal to gas, we could 13 probably get that. Right now, that's just not possible, 14 the current 120 volt battery products, at least in the 15 consumer price range. If we can make homes with larger 16 yards more friendly to electric mowers with more outside 17 outlets, and that's the building code thing somebody else 18 brought up. If we can affect that, we can make it more 19 palatable for people to use a 50-foot cord to mow their 20 entire yard. 21 --o0o-- 22 MR. LLOYD: Legislative options, buy-back 23 programs. Government funding is just not available. 24 Nobody has got the money to put into these programs. 25 Taxing of gas products is not an acceptable solution to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 139 1 get that money, at least in our eyes. ZEV mandates, 2 they're difficult for product OEMs who don't currently 3 have electric offerings. The investment is obviously too 4 high to do this specifically for a California environment. 5 Difficult to make the customers purchase 6 electrics, even if we have them available at retail. 7 We've seen that. Toro's has participated in the market. 8 We only conceive to sell so many. Toro has participated 9 in buy-back programs in Sacramento, Phoenix, Seattle, and 10 Chicago to the tune of about 10,000 electric mowers. We 11 distribute out of the 10,000 -- I'm not sure why this was, 12 but out of that, only about 10 percent of those were 13 corded ones. The remainder were all battery-powered ones. 14 Unfortunately, by the time all the manpower, product 15 costs, and everything went into that, Toro and its 16 distributors lost about $49 a unit. 17 --o0o-- 18 MR. LLOYD: Final comments, Toro supports the 19 education process for conversion to electrics to properly 20 qualify customers' needs with available electric products. 21 Maybe the future will bring better ones. At this point it 22 doesn't look like it will. But if we can educate people 23 on how to mow their lawn, what they need to do. If 24 they've got a five acre plot, obviously nobody is going to 25 recommend a battery or a corded mower. It's just not a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 140 1 possibility. Certainly somebody with a small residential 2 lot, that is a possibility. Toro cannot support 3 regulations that impose taxes or funding mandates on the 4 sale of gasoline powered products. 5 I'd like to elaborate a little bit on the adverse 6 impact of the electric product mandates. Such mandatory 7 program are impractical and would fail to achieve their 8 objectives of CARB mandates that manufacturers must reduce 9 more electric products the market will absorb on its own. 10 Moreover, manufacturers and retailers would have to 11 increase the price of their gasoline-powered products in 12 order to subsidize the direct or indirect compliance costs 13 of having to produce, market, and sell more electric 14 products. It would be counterproductive to jeopardize the 15 older higher emitting products that do not meet the new 16 Tier 3 CARB standards. 17 At this point, I think that OPEI and Toro would 18 be more than happy to work with staff if there's any 19 ongoing activity relative to electrification. One of the 20 things we see is I don't think we understand the market 21 pressures in the California market, or at least I don't 22 believe staff does. And I think we're more than willing 23 to work with staff to find out what it would take to get 24 more units into the California market. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 141 1 MR. LLOYD: One final thought. One of our 2 electrical guys came up with this. One gallon of gasoline 3 is equivalent to about 500 pounds of lead acid batteries. 4 Interesting tidbit. 5 --o0o-- 6 MR. LLOYD: The other thought was, is that with 7 regard to high technology batteries -- and we all carry a 8 few of those, whether it be our laptop or cell phone or 9 digital cameras, we've all had these fail. They're pretty 10 pricey to replace. If you have a lawn mower that's 11 capable of doing one horsepower as opposed to the laptop 12 which only turns a hard drive, we're talking about a 13 pretty expensive replacement. I think I probably 14 stimulated some thoughts. 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Probably we've -- it's not 16 just batteries. We'd be disappointed in replacing with 17 high maintenance costs. Do you make any push mowers? 18 MR. LLOYD: Mechanical push ones, no. We make 19 real mowers for use on golf courses, but we don't make 20 push. The greens mower we were talking about -- 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I know, they go down to very 22 dull and very fine. 23 What do you think of the average lifetime of your 24 lawn mowers? 25 MR. LLOYD: Of gasoline ones or electrics? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 142 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: No, gasoline. If you looked 2 at the average lifetime of a lawn mower. 3 MR. LLOYD: Obviously, it's determined by its 4 care and feeding. If you don't take care of it, they 5 don't last as long. But with good maintenance, I would 6 say between eight and ten years is not unusual. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Ms. D'Adamo. 8 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I had a couple of 9 questions. I don't know if you ever marketed these, but a 10 lawn mower that has a battery pack that could be changed, 11 how large is the battery park? Are you talking about a 12 model that you do not have? 13 MR. LLOYD: The slide that I had that had three 14 bars of it with the price on it, if you go back and refer 15 to that one. On that particular slide, if you were to 16 take, for instance, a battery lawn mower, a 36 volt one -- 17 the battery pack we had was probably three-quarters of a 18 cubic foot. That was a fixed place battery in that 19 particular unit. To convert that over to a removable type 20 something that you could exchange and extend running 21 times, that particular run would probably go up in excess 22 of $100 to provide the infrastructure and the additional 23 batteries. 24 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: How much would it weigh 25 approximately? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 143 1 MR. LLOYD: The mower itself wouldn't weigh any 2 more. 3 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: No. No. The pack. 4 Thinking of ease of movement. 5 MR. LLOYD: You know, I don't have a number for 6 you for that. I would guess it's probably in the 7 neighborhood of 25 pounds. 8 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: What percentage of the 9 California market does your company have? Do you have any 10 idea? 11 MR. LLOYD: No, I don't. I would guess about 10 12 percent. 13 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: And what's the last model 14 year that you had of -- that you made the cordless and 15 corded electric? 16 MR. LLOYD: I believe it was two years ago. 17 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Okay. Thank you. 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Dr. DeSaulnier and 19 Mr. Calhoun. 20 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: I was curious. It just 21 seems intuitive to me, given the size of our lots and the 22 new product the home builders are building, that as a 23 market we're more like Europe in California than the 24 United States statistics you had there. Our lot sizes are 25 smaller. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 144 1 MR. LLOYD: Certainly in urban area, I agree. 2 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Do we know that or do you 3 know that? 4 MR. LLOYD: I don't know. 5 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: You couldn't separate out 6 California from your U.S. knowledge? 7 MR. LLOYD: No, I don't think I can. 8 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Okay. Thanks. 9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We don't know 10 that answer either. I asked a similar one with staff as 11 we were working on this report, and there's no readily 12 available to site to tell you how big lawns are in 13 California. But anecdotally, I have the same observations 14 you do as we continue to grow, mega house, mini lot. 15 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: In the Bay Area right now 16 they're building 3,000 square foot homes on 6- or 7,000 17 square foot lots. So feel lucky to have a small piece. 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Also another difference in my 19 experience in Europe, the grasses are actually slightly 20 finer. They're not as tough as the California ones, which 21 I think makes a difference as well. 22 MR. LLOYD: Heavily fertilized grass and 23 irrigated grass is a bad combination for electric mowers, 24 that I can tell you. 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Now, you still make corded PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 145 1 hedge trimmers and things like that and weed whackers? 2 MR. LLOYD: Yes. Absolutely. And we sell a lot 3 of those, along with the blower bag combinations. 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: We never understand -- I know 5 the blowers, but the point is it still alienates us as air 6 quality officials to have instruments which just blow 7 leaves around from one place creating PM and then to 8 transfer the problem one to another. But I reckon that's 9 not your problem. 10 MR. LLOYD: They are very popular, however. 11 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: But, Mr. Chairman, let me 12 just share with you there's such a need for, I think, 13 California to conserve on water, that's why many of us use 14 those blowers, because we just don't have the luxury of 15 the water to use. 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: What's wrong with the old 17 fashioned brush and push pan to pick them up? 18 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: A rake. 19 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Here we go now. Now 20 we're going to hear the story about walking to school 21 twelve miles in the snow. 22 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: That's fine, if you have a 23 smaller area. But, you know, I mean, I'm sorry. It 24 wouldn't work at my house. I have too much area. 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Well, we won't get into that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 146 1 debate. 2 Thank you very much indeed. 3 Larry Allen, David Modisette, Steve Heckeroth. 4 I must say, Mr. Allen, that we appreciate your 5 brochure. But clearly you weren't here in September, 6 otherwise you would have blotted out the particular 7 company that's providing power for your mowers. 8 MR. ALLEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving 9 me this opportunity. 10 My name is Larry Allen. I'm Plant Manager of 11 McLane Manufacturing. Thank you for the opportunity to 12 present our company's views of the staff's report on 13 electric and outdoor power equipment. 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Can you speak up a bit more 15 into the microphone? Appreciate it. 16 MR. ALLEN: Sure. 17 This is the first time I have spoke at any of 18 your meetings. I agree with one of the positions that the 19 staff reports, which was that the best way to get more 20 electric mowers is through a program of public information 21 and incentives, rather than new regulations. 22 I've worked at McLane for 41 years, starting in 23 1963 as an electrician, then as a production supervisor, 24 progressing to my current position as plant manager. 25 McLane is a close held family corporation founded 58 years PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 147 1 ago in Compton, California. It was started as a two-man 2 operation by Frank McLane and his brother, Jim. 3 We are the largest lawn mower manufacturer 4 located in California. Last year we sold about 50 percent 5 of our units in California. Our manufacturer facilities 6 is in Paramount, California, and employs about 140 people 7 during peak production. We provide manufacturing jobs in 8 an area of Los Angeles that does not have many economical 9 opportunities. We do offer a broad range of lawn mower 10 products for both the residential and commercial market. 11 We offer gas powered, electric, and push mowers 12 for sale to the residential market with the overwhelming 13 percentage of sales 90 percent being gas powered units. 14 With push mowers, about 9 1/2 percent, and electric 15 instituting about a half a percent. 16 Most of our units are sold to customers in big 17 box stores, such as Lowe's, Home Depot, and Sears. We 18 also -- they also are through hardware stores and lawn and 19 garden dealers. 20 In addition to lawn mowers, we also manufacturer 21 lawn edgers. We at McLane like electric mowers. In fact, 22 Frank McLane attended a South Coast Air Quality Management 23 District meeting in 1990. He invested $2 million tooling 24 and designing work to develop our electric mower. We have 25 offered them for sale for 12 years, but they are not PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 148 1 really well suited to the needs of our customers. Why? 2 First, when it comes to cutting grass, people 3 want to get it done, and they don't want to be hassled 4 with completing their task. In spite of our best efforts, 5 electrics have some basic problems. Current batteries can 6 only provide cutting capacity for about 40 to 60 minutes 7 under the best circumstance. They also have to be 8 replaced in a couple years. When malfunctions do occur, 9 there is not an established network of reliable service 10 technicians. Second, electrics have problems with the 11 most popular grasses, such as Marathons, which is now 12 being used in California. Very popular. 13 There are a couple of possible alternatives 14 raised in your staff's report that concerns McLane. I 15 believe a regulatory approach to increasing the use of 16 electrics is a bad idea and could well have serious 17 negative affects on our company. The staff talks about 18 some kind of zero emission mandate or even a fleet 19 advantage requirement. But that don't really make sense, 20 because we have trouble selling electric mowers we make 21 today. If you were to say, "Well, 5 or 10 percent of the 22 units we sell have to be electric," I believe you would 23 be, in effect, confiscating 5 or 10 percent of our current 24 sales. We would be hurt more than many of our 25 competitors, because we are a California-based lawn mower PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 149 1 manufacturer. 2 A large percentage of our sales are in California and 3 would be subject to such quota. 4 We are trying to operate a competitive 5 manufacturing business in an economically hard-pressed 6 area of Los Angeles. We don't need any new regulations 7 that could hurt us and that have not been well understood 8 before they are started. I would be happy to answer any 9 questions that I possibly could. 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. And 11 again, congratulations on being in California creating 12 jobs, too. 13 And I think you heard from the sentiments in the 14 beginning, at least this is a report -- an informational 15 report, and I don't see any sentiment to come up with 16 regulations here. And I welcome the opportunity to work 17 with you. 18 And also I welcome the previous speaker to 19 actually work with OPEI very closely so we can explore 20 this, because we have to get to lower and lower emissions. 21 What I'm sensing here, there is a willingness to try to 22 working together, look at areas where it makes sense. 23 Other areas, it doesn't make sense. 24 MR. ALLEN: I like for anything and for any 25 information in trying to get our sales in the push mower, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 150 1 the frontal non-gasoline push mower. It seems to work 2 good. But, you know, then again, we only have about 9 1/2 3 percent of sales in that. But that's been pretty good. 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: You make push mowers? 5 MR. ALLEN: Yes. We make push mowers. And our 6 push mowers are a little bit different than some that are 7 out there. Ours has the throw catcher in front. And it 8 was manufactured basically off of the big mower that we 9 use now. Whereas, these imports that are coming from 10 overseas and around, it's 69 or $70 mower and is not that 11 good of a mower at all, as you know. But that mower has 12 to compete in price with that. So that's the difficulty 13 for sales. 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: How many blades do you have 15 on your reel? 16 MR. ALLEN: On that we have five, seven, and ten. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: No. On the push mowers. 18 MR. ALLEN: It's recommend you only have five for 19 less clippings as you push it. So it's a little bit 20 easier. 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon. 22 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Sir, I'd just wanted to 23 show you the respect that a California manufacturer ought 24 to get at this Board. Thanks for coming. 25 MR. ALLEN: Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 151 1 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 3 Dave Modisette, Steve Heckeroth, and Bill Bruce. 4 MR. MODISETTE: Thank you, Chairman Lloyd and 5 members of the Board. Dave Modisette with the California 6 Electric Transportation Coalition. 7 My first comment is that, you know, 8 unfortunately, we really haven't had enough time to, kind 9 of, fully evaluate both the technical parts of the report 10 and the policy recommendations. As you can see from the 11 front of the report, it was only released on April 2nd, so 12 we had about 20 days to look at it. When we come before 13 the Board, we like to have strong policy recommendations 14 that are backed up by emissions analysis. And 15 unfortunately, there just hasn't been the time to do that. 16 You know, I will give you some preliminary 17 comments today. But I think that, you know, what I'd like 18 to see the Board do, if it's at all possible, would be to 19 withhold final consideration and final direction to the 20 staff for 30 to 60 days just so we can come back to you 21 with some more concrete recommendations that are backed up 22 by hard emissions analysis. 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I thought what we were doing, 24 Dave, was even better than that by basically directing 25 staff to work with you and the industry to look at areas PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 152 1 of opportunity. 2 MR. MODISETTE: Well, I guess it wasn't clear to 3 me, you know, just what was going to happen after this. 4 There was mention of a follow-on report by the end of the 5 year, but I just -- I'm not sure what the content of that 6 is going to be and just how that's going to be developed. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Okay. We'll get to that. 8 But I thought that was the white paper. So I thought that 9 this is up and running if we can get the full cooperation 10 with the industry, work together, I think it's an exciting 11 opportunity. So carry on. 12 MR. MODISETTE: I guess, to begin with, I want to 13 remind the Board why you asked for this report in the 14 first place. And I think that's because a number of 15 environmental groups in our organization, you know, in 16 September pointed out to the Board that the regulatory 17 framework that you adopted for the lawn and garden area 18 excludes the cleanest technologies. It's kind of ironic. 19 It excludes the ZEV technologies. That's because it's an 20 engine standard, and obviously ZEV technologies don't have 21 engines. So just, kind of, the nature of the structure of 22 the regulatory framework meant that, iconically, the 23 cleanest technologies are excluded. 24 So, I mean, I thought the fundamental question to 25 be addressed by the staff report was how can we include PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 153 1 these technologies in our regulatory framework and do so 2 in a way that accurately reflects their environmental 3 benefits, the different environmental benefits between the 4 IC technologies and ZEV technologies. I don't think the 5 staff report adequately addresses that fundamental 6 question. 7 Now we do think that including the ZEV 8 technologies into this regulatory structure will have 9 additional emission benefits from what the staff projected 10 back in September. But even if it did not, I think you 11 would still want to include those technologies in the 12 framework because what you're doing is you're providing 13 businesses in California, manufacturers, with compliance 14 flexibility. We're not saying that Toro or anyone else 15 has to make electric equipment. What we're saying is if 16 manufacturers want to make electric equipment, and clearly 17 some do, because there's more than 7 million pieces of 18 electric equipment out there today, those manufacturers 19 that do want to do that should be rewarded and encouraged 20 because that's a good thing for our air quality. 21 So let's just take a step back for a minute and 22 say, what is the staff report and the off-road inventory 23 really telling us? Well, the first thing it's telling is 24 that our air pollution problem from a lawn and garden 25 sector is much worse than we previously thought. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 154 1 And just to remind the Board that, you know, 2 we've added hundreds of tons of pollution into the 3 emission inventory from the lawn and garden sector. We 4 added 94 tons of hydrocarbons, over 500 tons per day of 5 carbon monoxide, over 3 tons of NOx, and over 2 tons of 6 TBM. That's the first thing. 7 The good news is that there's a lot more electric 8 equipment out there than we thought. We thought there was 9 going to be several hundred thousand pieces of electric 10 equipment. It turn out there's over 7 million pieces of 11 electric equipment with the market share in the 12 residential sector of 38 percent. That's a pretty good 13 market share for something that's had absolutely no 14 regulatory encouragement. All that market share is due to 15 just, you know, straight market drivers. 16 So we're not for that electric equipment. Our 17 air pollution problem would be much, much worse than it is 18 today. So we think this presents a real opportunity to 19 try to get some regulatory encouragement for more of this 20 electric equipment, because again, the regulatory 21 encouragement just has not been there to date. 22 So what we asked ourselves was, let's step back 23 and take a broad overview. We've got 38 percent of the 24 residential market today that's electric. What if we were 25 able to increase that to, let's say, 58 percent; 20 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 155 1 percent more. That kind of seemed to us to be a 2 reasonable target. Again, we didn't have much time to do 3 this analysis. But when we looked at that, just a back of 4 the envelope calculations, was we could reduce NOx and 5 hydrocarbon emissions by 7 tons per day, not a small 6 number. I know it's not a huge number, but 7 tons is 7 7 tons. 8 So, you know, given this opportunity, if we 9 really thought that the staff analysis of options was -- 10 to tell you the truth, it was rather timid we thought. 11 Let me give you some examples. They did look at a fleet 12 average. But they didn't look at the entire fleet as we 13 just tried to do. They looked at one technology that 14 looked at lawn mowers and said, "What if we could increase 15 the lawn mower percentage from 15 percent to 10 percent 16 more, up to the total of 25 percent?" And the answer that 17 came back was, "Well, it's less than one ton per day." 18 But this is a situation where if you ask a small question, 19 you get a small answer. 20 Similarly with a scrap program. They did look at 21 a scrap program. The scrap program was for every 25 new 22 mowers that are sold, a manufacturer scraps one old mower. 23 Now, that seemed to us to be kind of a small scrap 24 program. We looked at a more aggressive scrap program, at 25 a program where for every two new mowers the manufacturer PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 156 1 sells, they scrap one old mower. The result of that is a 2 reduction of between 7 and 14 tons per day this decade. 3 So the overall staff conclusions is that the most 4 effective way to get additional penetration in this area 5 is for air districts to do more informational programs. 6 Is that true? I don't think we know the answer to that 7 yet. At least our analysis suggests that's probably not 8 the case. 9 Now don't get me wrong. We support additional 10 information programs. We think they're very valuable. 11 They're cost effective. But are they the most effective 12 way to do this? I don't think so. Plus, as I said, I 13 think that even if there were no additional emission 14 reductions in this area, you'd still want to include the 15 ZEV technologies within the regulatory structure to 16 provide compliance flexibility for California companies. 17 That's the end of my testimony. 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you, Dave. I just 19 appreciate those comments. And again, we hope you will 20 work with staff, because it's my understanding on the 21 white paper this will come forward. 22 One area that Barbara's comment reminded me -- 23 Mr. Riordan's comment reminded me earlier also in talking 24 about water. It may be, as we look ahead with the 25 continuing water shortage, this is an area lawn mower use PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 157 1 may go down because of nature, unfortunately or 2 fortunately, depending on how you look at that. 3 But we hope that you and the association will 4 work with staff and the industry to look at appropriate 5 applications there. And as you say, I was pleasantly 6 surprised at the amount of use already. 7 MR. MODISETTE: Thank you. 8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 9 Steve Heckeroth and Bill Bruce. 10 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 11 presented as follows.) 12 MR. HECKEROTH: My name is Steve Heckeroth. I 13 thank you very much for this opportunity to speak to you 14 today, especially because it's Earth Day. Thirty-four 15 years ago, I helped organize the first Earth Day event in 16 1970 at the campus where I was attending school. During 17 that event, I learned that fossil fuel was a limited 18 resource and that it also had the problem of causing air 19 pollution. So since that time, I've dedicated my life to 20 reducing our dependence on fossil fuel. And I was very 21 encouraged in 1990 when this Board came up with the zero 22 emission mandate. 23 --o0o-- 24 MR. HECKEROTH: And because of that, I started 25 working on several different things. One was an electric PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 158 1 tractor, because I have five acres of a land where I grow 2 most of our own food. And I tried horses, and I found 3 that it took about 13 acres of land to feed a horse to 4 plow the fields and stuff. They're very land expensive. 5 --o0o-- 6 MR. HECKEROTH: Electric trackor, to me, made a 7 lot of sense, because the biggest problem with electric 8 vehicles is battery weight. But in an electric tractor, 9 we need weight for traction, as this slide demonstrates. 10 This was at the County Fair, and they needed to put that 11 cement block on the back to get enough traction to run the 12 loader. 13 --o0o-- 14 MR. HECKEROTH: So I went about converting a few 15 electric tractors, and I was soon dubbed the largest 16 electric tractor manufacturer in the world. That was by 17 the Maharishi Transcendental meditation guy who was 18 building a university in Central India. And he researched 19 the entire world because he wanted to power the university 20 strictly off of solar energy. And he found my website, 21 and he called me up, and I went back to Holland where he 22 has his facility and consulted with him on how to build 23 electric tractors. And he's continued to pursue electric 24 tractor development. 25 There was the first conversion I did in this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 159 1 slide. And this was at an event where there was about 2 5,000 people, and this trailer contained all the food for 3 that event, for a three-day event. And there was a big 4 Bronco that pulled this trailer up to the event, but it 5 couldn't get the trailer up the hill because the front 6 wheels were popping off the ground. And I was hauling 7 with this in this event. It was for Real Goods. So 8 they're very interested in renewable energy. 9 I was hauling -- they camped on the site, and I 10 was hauling things back and forth for people with a 11 trailer and this electric tractor. And as I went by, they 12 were arguing about how they were going to get this up the 13 hill. So they sort of laughed at me when I said I could 14 haul it up for them. The guy who's driving the Bronco 15 says, "If that will haul that up the hill, I'll buy one of 16 those." 17 So I hooked it up, and the tongue weight was 18 heavy enough to give me all the traction I needed. And 19 everybody was very surprised that it just went right up 20 the hill, because electric motors have maximum torque at 21 zero RPM. So they have much more torque at low speeds 22 than any gas motor will, even diesel motors. 23 --o0o-- 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Steve, can you move along? 25 MR. HECKEROTH: I've only got about five slides. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 160 1 So this one shows rototilling. It does work for 2 rototilling. 3 --o0o-- 4 MR. HECKEROTH: This was -- I started a company 5 to build these. 6 --o0o-- 7 MR. HECKEROTH: I also put an inverter on board, 8 so you can have AC power as a mobile source of AC power. 9 I built one for Ford, New Holland, and took it back there. 10 They tested it. I think they were impressed. They put me 11 on a few courses, and it operated -- it performed really 12 well. 13 --o0o-- 14 MR. HECKEROTH: The problem that I ran into with 15 conversions was the battery weight ended up on the front 16 wheels. So I made a ground up model that had a joystick 17 control that you could move the seat around on the 18 tractor. You could put it in frontward position or 19 backward or you could remote control it. And the Japanese 20 were particularly interested in it for mine sweep 21 applications, because you could remote control an electric 22 vehicle a lot easier than a gas vehicle. And they were 23 trying to get rid of all the landmines all over the world. 24 This was right before their economy went down, and they 25 didn't have any money for these programs. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 161 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: That's probably not relevant 2 to us today. California. 3 MR. HECKEROTH: Okay. California. 4 This is me mowing a field in California. 5 --o0o-- 6 MR. HECKEROTH: And this tractor has a zero 7 radius steering. And as I said, it -- 8 --o0o-- 9 MR. HECKEROTH: -- can move -- the seat can be 10 moved around. Here it is with a solar photovoltaic shade 11 canopy in planting and harvesting applications, which are 12 very slow speed. It can operate purely off of solar 13 energy. 14 I'd like to close by saying I have three electric 15 mowers, a Ryobi, a Toro, and a new Black and Decker. And 16 I charge them off my seven kilowatts of photovoltaics, as 17 well as all the other electric applications that you can 18 now use. 19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: So the Toro, is that a cord 20 or cordless? 21 MR. HECKEROTH: They're all cordless. And they 22 work fine for my applications, especially when you've got 23 two of them. You can pick up where the last one left off. 24 But I've been very happy with them. You can carry on a 25 conversation while you're mowing. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 162 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. I know 2 we're going to hear a little bit later, too. 3 Questions or comments? Thanks you, Steve. 4 Bill Bruce. 5 MR. BRUCE: My name is Bill Bruce. Thank you for 6 the opportunity to speak to you. 7 I own an outdoor power equipment dealership. I'm 8 kind of the end just before the purchaser. We've been 9 this business ten years in Santa Cruz. I've got nine 10 employees, including myself. We're a typical small engine 11 servicing dealership. We deal with even the big box 12 stores, things like that, which come to us for service as 13 well as sell premium outdoor power equipment, Toro being 14 one of those, those kinds, as opposed to Black and Decker 15 and some of the other ones that typically go out of the 16 hardware stores. 17 When I first heard about this, it seemed a lot 18 worse. After hearing -- that's the reason I drove from 19 Santa Cruz to here. 20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I couldn't understand why you 21 say oppose here, because I didn't see what you would be 22 opposing. 23 MR. BRUCE: Like I say, I heard about. And I 24 thought -- what I heard was different from when I've seen. 25 So that's a little better. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 163 1 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Our reputation proceeded us. 2 (Laughter) 3 MR. BRUCE: Probably 45 percent of my business is 4 servicing. I do sell new stuff, but servicing outdoor 5 power equipment, half of that is commercial. 6 I currently stock electric string trimmer, a 7 blower, several hedge trimmers, and a battery-powered 8 hedge trimmer. I sell a fair amount of those, but it's 9 still less than 1 percent of my business. 10 The last time I had an electric mower available 11 to me -- and I would stock one today. But the last time I 12 had one was three years ago, that I could purchase and 13 resell. I sold 200 mowers that year, five of which were 14 electric. And in some ways, I like the electric better. 15 It's not going to come back because I had a problem with 16 the person putting the wrong gas in it or things like 17 that. There is definitely less maintenance and less 18 problem. 19 But Santa Cruz tends to be more rural, and that's 20 a big thing I'm noticing as we're talking about lot sizes 21 definitely. So it's going to change regionally definitely 22 with all of this. Santa Cruz is having -- they're not 23 allowing you to put lawn in in a lot of their public 24 buildings, places like that, and I'm not sure about homes 25 so far. But they're doing that. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 164 1 And also the biggest problem I see is if customer 2 comes into my shop looking for a gas-powered mower, I'm 3 not going to be able to change his mind to convince him to 4 do something else, or even brand specific. If they come 5 in, you can guide them trying try to get them -- it 6 behooves me to get them that something that works for 7 their applications. So I have -- changing their mind is 8 not easy a lot of the time. They're pre-conceived notions 9 are hard to do. 10 You've asked several things about push reels. 11 And I do have one of those as well, a non-powered mower. 12 The biggest promise with those is the height of cut. 13 There's a lot of fescue there in Santa Cruz, so it's 14 taller. They don't cut high enough for those. 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: And they're too light or they 16 don't cut high enough. 17 MR. BRUCE: They don't cut high enough. They cut 18 the lawn too short, and it doesn't grow. I only have 19 experience in Santa Cruz County. In places like the 20 valley, it's not a problem. 21 But those were my comments. That was my -- 22 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. And 23 thanks for coming. 24 Any comments? 25 Ms. Riordan. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 165 1 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Yes. Just to point out to 2 staff, I hope we have his name and address and we can keep 3 him apprised of some of our study work groups. Because I 4 think it's very important to have people who have some 5 direct experience with the buyer. I think your input is 6 very helpful to us. Thank you. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much indeed. 8 MR. BRUCE: Thank you. 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: That's the last of our 10 witnesses there. 11 I would like discussion again -- just wrapping up 12 from my viewpoint, thank staff very much. I think very 13 informational. As you said at the beginning, this can 14 form the basis for the white paper this year. I would 15 like to suggest, like I said earlier, that we work with 16 the different stakeholders, work with Dave, work with the 17 manufacturers, work with McLane. But also we have an 18 opportunity here with working with OPEI. Our last 19 experience wasn't so good. We have an opportunity now to 20 change that and work closely together. And I'm very 21 pleased with the testimony that Dave said they're willing 22 to do that. 23 I think you hear from us we need the emissions 24 reductions. We need those. But we're trying to do it in 25 a sensible way. And you have the experience in looking at PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 166 1 where it makes sense and where it doesn't make sense. And 2 so I look forward to that opportunity and the opportunity 3 of working closely together. 4 So on that -- also on that note, I know that we 5 had committed, when we looked at our regulations on the 6 off-road side, that we would work in cooperation with OPEI 7 and also with EPA on a safety study. I'd like to ask 8 staff what's the status of that, because I think that was 9 an important element. We didn't see, obviously, a safety 10 element of that. But we also recognize that there was an 11 issue that was brought up and that we agreed to work with 12 EPA and with the industry to really put that to bed or to 13 make sure it got the attention that it deserved. 14 So Tom. 15 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: As a 16 brief update, there's two activities going on. As part of 17 the whole bond amendment activity, EPA was directed to 18 adopt a national rule for small engines. And as part of 19 that rule, which I think they have a target of one year, 20 is to look at safety issues. So they're going to be doing 21 a study. We're tied into. That's a more immediate 22 short-term study. 23 And we are planning on having, with industry 24 participation, an evaluation of any safety issues that 25 remain of pre-production mowers. So that would occur in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 167 1 roughly a year in front of 2007. But when we actually see 2 the product that is going to have the catalysts on them 3 and have the evaporative control systems on them, we can 4 evaluate along with the fire marshals and fire chiefs 5 whether there's anything that remains of concern there. 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Great. Appreciate that. 7 Comments from my colleagues on the Board? 8 Thank you very much. I think I captured the 9 sentiments I heard there to go ahead, but look for 10 opportunities, and see if we can work together. 11 So with that, we move ahead to the next agenda 12 item, which is one of Supervisor DeSaulnier's favorite, I 13 think, Update to the Board on the Status -- and Ms. 14 D'Adamo -- of Ozone Transport Mitigation in California. 15 We'll have a moment while staff turns over. 16 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Mr. Chairman, are other 17 people hearing strange bells and -- 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: No. 19 (Laughter) 20 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: That's what I was afraid 21 of. I think the mothership is calling me back. 22 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Something we 23 learned today for the first time is that our microphones 24 are sensitive to cell phones. And that when they're on, 25 they cause that buzzing interference sound. When they're PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 168 1 close so it -- and for the first time, I brought a cell 2 phone today, which I've never done before. And I know 3 that Dr. Burke had one. 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: We kicked him out. 5 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: The Thomas 6 Properties asked us to turn them off while we're sitting 7 near our microphones. 8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I don't think that's the only 9 reason. 10 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: It's one of the 11 reasons. I though a guard downstairs was leaning against 12 the button and turning the switch on to make those MASH 13 announcements they make all time in the building, but 14 that's not it. And I don't know where the beep is coming 15 from. The beep is the 1-800 number when people call in 16 while we're web casting, and they're either submitting a 17 comment or asking a question. 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I see. 19 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Or just to call 20 on. And when they hang up, does it beep again? 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Well, I was reminded when the 22 Board adopted new transport mitigation requirements last 23 year, we asked staff to return with a status report. I'm 24 pleased that very positive steps have been taken over the 25 last several months. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 169 1 I'd specifically like the acknowledge the efforts 2 of Board Member D'Adamo, Supervisor Patrick, and 3 Supervisor DeSaulnier in bringing together representatives 4 of the San Joaquin Valley, Sacramento, and Bay Area 5 regions. Similarly, I would like to recognize the effort 6 of Ms. Riordan and Supervisor Roberts in facilitating a 7 similar agreement regarding the distribution of Moyer 8 Funds among districts in Southern California. 9 CAPCOA has been extremely helpful as well and 10 took on the task of diligently working through 11 implementation issues. These multiple coordination 12 efforts reflect the fact that transport is a shared 13 responsibility. The regulation we're discussing today 14 addresses district jurisdiction, but ARB's statewide 15 measures also play an important roll in reducing transport 16 impacts and, of course, the same applies the federal 17 measures. 18 Finally, I want to recognize our scientific 19 understanding of transport will continue to improve. 20 California's regional ozone studies have provided an 21 important foundation, and more work is underway. Last 22 week, with U.S. EPA finalized the first designation for 23 federal eight-hour ozone standard which triggers 24 development new air quality plans. Further transport 25 analysis will be part of this planning process. And, of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 170 1 course, the SEACOS modeling development will also play a 2 big roll in the looking at transport. 3 And I think that's an excellent entree also to 4 wish our ambassadors going to Washington to look for 5 money, Supervisor Patrick, Lynn Terry, and others there, 6 we wish you godspeed. Come back with plenty of money 7 again. Your record in getting money for the study has 8 been outstanding and has demonstrated and actually shown 9 up in the work we've been able to develop on the model, 10 which is, I think, pioneering work in that area. So while 11 it's not in the script, I wish you that today going back. 12 So with that, I'd like to turn this over to 13 Ms. Witherspoon to introduce the item and begin the staff 14 presentation. 15 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, Dr. 16 Lloyd. 17 It's always a pleasure when staff gets to work 18 directly with Board members outside this hearing room. 19 And we had an opportunity to do a lot of that in 20 implementing last year's transport mitigation regulation. 21 I also like to second your remarks about the 22 vital contribution that CAPCOA and individual air 23 districts made. CAPCOA took it upon itself to develop a 24 comprehensive inter-district protocol for addressing 25 transport issues so that the kind of disputes we've PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 171 1 experienced in the past could be resolved at the lowest 2 possible level. The CAPCOA transport protocol is broader 3 than our transport mitigation regulation and should 4 certainly help in facilitating its implementation. At 5 this time, I'll ask Kim Heroy-Rogalski to begin the staff 6 presentation. 7 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 8 presented as follows.) 9 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HEROY-ROGALSKI: Thank 10 you, Ms. Witherspoon. And good afternoon, Chairman Lloyd 11 and members of the Board. 12 Today, I'll be presenting a status report on 13 ozone transport mitigation. 14 --o0o-- 15 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HEROY-ROGALSKI: The 16 amendments to the transport mitigation regulation this 17 Board adopted last spring have spurred a year of 18 noteworthy progress. ARB Board members have lead meetings 19 with elected officials and air district management to 20 address transport issues. The California Air Pollution 21 Control Officers Associations has been active in 22 developing a list of feasible control measures and a 23 protocol to help districts handle transport. 24 --o0o-- 25 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HEROY-ROGALSKI: Here is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 172 1 an outline of what I'll talk about. First, I'll review 2 how ozone transport is handled in California state law. 3 Then I will recall related Board action and discussion 4 from the past three years. Then, most importantly, I'll 5 describe this past year's progress in addressing the 6 transport issue. I will conclude by discussing the future 7 of transport assessment in mitigation. 8 --o0o-- 9 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HEROY-ROGALSKI: 10 California state law directs ARB to coordinate air quality 11 planning with California air districts. ARB must 12 periodically assess ozone transport and establish 13 mitigation requirements for upwind districts commensurate 14 with their contribution to downwind air quality. 15 Districts must develop plans to attain the state's ambient 16 ozone standard and update them every three years. Upwind 17 district plans must contain sufficient control measures to 18 satisfy the mitigation requirements. 19 --o0o-- 20 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HEROY-ROGALSKI: This 21 Board has heard three items on ozone transport mitigation 22 in the past three years. First, in April 2001, staff 23 presented the latest update to ARB's transport assessment. 24 Staff noted we now have a good understanding of the 25 fundamental transport relationships among California PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 173 1 regions. After hearing the assessment, Board members 2 discussed how ARB might strengthen the mitigation 3 requirements. 4 --o0o-- 5 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HEROY-ROGALSKI: In July 6 2001, staff presented several possible concepts. The 7 Board directed staff to craft a regulatory proposal. The 8 proposal was to require upwind districts to update no net 9 increase threshold permitting requirements and to adopt 10 all feasible measures. 11 The Board also heard extensive testimony related 12 to enhanced smog check, the state's most rigorous form of 13 smog economic, and how it could be required in the Bay 14 Area in order to mitigate transport. 15 --o0o-- 16 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HEROY-ROGALSKI: In 17 2002, the smog check issue was resolved through 18 legislation. Assembly Bill 2637, signed into law in 19 September 2002, required enhanced smog check in the Bay 20 Area. The Bureau of Automotive Repair launched enhanced 21 smog check with test-only stations and dynamometer testing 22 in the Bay Area in July 2003. Having enhanced smog check 23 in the Bay Area settles one of the most contentious 24 Northern California transport issues and is benefiting air 25 quality in the Bay Area region and downwind. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 174 1 --o0o-- 2 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HEROY-ROGALSKI: In May 3 2003, the Board strengthened the transport mitigation 4 regulation. Now, upwind districts must adopt all feasible 5 measures, regardless of their own attainment status and 6 must lower their no net increase thresholds to be as 7 stringent as those of their downwind neighborhoods. 8 --o0o-- 9 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HEROY-ROGALSKI: No net 10 increase thresholds are part of a district's Stationary 11 Source Permitting Program. New or modified sources with 12 emissions for, or the potential to emit above the 13 threshold, must off set emissions increases with 14 reductions such there is no net increase in emissions. 15 The new no net increase threshold requirement 16 affects the Bay Area and broader Sacramento area 17 districts. By the end of this year, these districts must 18 lower their no net increase threshold to be equivalent 19 with those of their downwind neighbor, the San Joaquin 20 Valley. Development of these necessary rule amendments is 21 now underway. 22 --o0o-- 23 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HEROY-ROGALSKI: After 24 the May 2003 transport mitigation amendments, CAPCOA 25 rapidly mobilized to define all feasible measures. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 175 1 District worked with ARB staff to identify which district 2 rules met the all-feasible measure criteria. 3 CAPCOA approved its potential all feasible 4 measures list for stationary sources for distribution in 5 December 2003. It's meant to supplement ARB's 1999 6 stationary source performance standard document. The 7 CAPCOA list is an important tool for district staffs to 8 use in preparation of air quality plans. 9 --o0o-- 10 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HEROY-ROGALSKI: There's 11 also been significant progress over the last year in 12 improving coordination among district affected by 13 transport. The CAPCOA Board earlier this year adopted 14 transport protocol for districts. In Northern California, 15 Air Resources Board members are leading an air agency 16 group focused on long standing transport issues. This 17 group has recently completed a rules comparison effort. 18 In Southern California, transport linked 19 districts have been cooperating on their air quality 20 plans. The 2003 South Coast SIP, which this Board adopted 21 last October, contains rulemaking commitments that will 22 benefit air quality in the South Coast and its downwind 23 neighbors. The 2004 Southeast Desert Ozone SIP, currently 24 in the works, will rely on these South Coast reductions to 25 show attainment in 2007. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 176 1 Neighboring districts throughout the state have 2 also been working together to share incentive funds. The 3 Carl Moyer Program provides incentive funds for cleaner on 4 and off-road engines and equipment. In this past year, 5 neighboring districts linked by transport have been 6 working together to share Moyer funding. In Southern 7 California, our Board members Barbara Riordan and Ron 8 Roberts have been helping facilitate an agreement to 9 redirect Mohave District Moyer funds to neighboring 10 districts, including San Diego. 11 In Northern California, the Sacramento Yolo, 12 Solono, San Joaquin and Monterey Districts are working 13 through CAPCOA to fund projects with mutual benefits and 14 upwind San Francisco Bay Area and downwind. 15 I will now describe some of these regional 16 coordination efforts further. 17 --o0o-- 18 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HEROY-ROGALSKI: The 19 CAPCOA transport protocol sets up a voluntary framework 20 for districts to use to coordinate on transport issues and 21 planning and rule development to meet both the state and 22 federal ozone standards. It's consistent with ARB 23 regulations, but provides more detail on expected district 24 actions. It clarifies that if any district in California 25 has a rule for a source category, then all upwind PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 177 1 districts should try to adopt a rule for that category 2 that gets at least the same percentage control within the 3 same time frame. 4 The protocol also calls on districts to make a 5 good faith effort to implement transportation control 6 measures adopted by other California districts. To 7 facilitate this, CAPCOA is developing a reference document 8 on transportation related strategies. The protocol also 9 suggests that upwind and downwind districts cooperate to 10 allocate emission control responsibilities. The protocol 11 encourages upwind and downwind district executive modeling 12 and planning staffs to meet periodically. 13 Finally, it outlines a dispute resolution 14 procedure to resolve inter-district disputes at the lowest 15 level possible. 16 --o0o-- 17 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HEROY-ROGALSKI: Over 18 the past year, Air Resources Board Members D'Adamo, 19 DeSaulnier, and Patrick have lead meetings with elected 20 officials and district executive staff from the Bay Area, 21 Sacramento, Yolo, Solono, and San Joaquin Valley Air 22 Districts and U.S. EPA to discuss transport issues. The 23 meetings have provided a productive executive level forum 24 for discussing and resolving transport related issues. 25 For example, as I'll discuss further, the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 178 1 coordinating group last year directed staff to evaluate 2 and compare stationary source rules for a number of source 3 categories about which there had been disagreement. The 4 group heard results of the successful evaluation effort at 5 its February 2004 meeting. The group also had an update 6 on the CAPCOA transport protocol and on the resolution of 7 Moyer allocation issues in Northern California. The group 8 plans to continue its fruitful dialogue. Its next meeting 9 is scheduled for May 21st. 10 Now I'd like to tell you a little more about the 11 Northern California rules evaluation effort. District and 12 ARB staff analyzed eleven source categories. For each 13 category, staff did a detailed comparison of each rule 14 element, emission limits, exemptions, et cetera. 15 --o0o-- 16 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HEROY-ROGALSKI: I 17 missed a slide. Sorry about that. 18 Where differences among rules were found, staff 19 reached consensus on which districts had the potential to 20 reduce emissions by changing the rules. District staff 21 made commitments to undertake rule development or further 22 evaluation. Through a collaborative process, staff was 23 able to reach consensus on a number of long standing rule 24 disputes. 25 Now that I've told about the process in transport PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 179 1 mitigation that's occurred over the past year, I'd like to 2 take a moment to look forward at the future of transport 3 assessment and mitigation. 4 --o0o-- 5 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HEROY-ROGALSKI: Over a 6 decade of technical work has provided a good understand of 7 the fundamental ozone transport relationships among 8 California regions. Future transport analysis will take 9 advantage of two regional field studies that together 10 cover nearly all the states, the 1997 Southern California 11 Ozone Study and the 2000 Central California Air Quality 12 Study. These studies will allow for better 13 three-dimensional characterization of transport. The 14 regional air quality models developed from the studies 15 will let us examine transport from a broad regional 16 perspective. These models are already being used to 17 develop plans to meet the Federal one-hour ozone standard. 18 They're helping us assess the benefits of upwind and 19 downwind control strategies. 20 --o0o-- 21 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST HEROY-ROGALSKI: As I've 22 just described, the last year has seen considerable 23 progress in addressing long standing ozone transport 24 issues. The key to the future is maintaining this 25 momentum and translating it into real emission reductions. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 180 1 The Bay Area and broader Sacramento districts need to 2 adjust their no net increase thresholds. All upwind 3 districts need to adopt all feasible measures as required 4 by the transport regulation. 5 ARB staff is focusing on all feasible measure 6 requirement as we review the current round of district 7 California Clean Area Act Plans. The district commitments 8 to evaluate and pursue specific measures in these plans 9 will also help upwind and downwind areas as they begin to 10 develop 2007 SIPS for the Federal eight-hour ozone and PM 11 2.5 standards. 12 Finally, ARB has an ambitious rulemaking calendar 13 for the next few years. These new measures added to ARB's 14 existing program will help reduce emissions all across the 15 state in both upwind and downwind districts. 16 This concludes my presentation. And we'll be 17 happy to answer any questions. 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much indeed. 19 Any comments or question? 20 We have one person signed up, Jack Broadbent, 21 head of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 22 Again, it's a pleasure, Jack, to welcome you. I 23 think it's your first appearance here. Jack and I worked 24 together at the South Coast AQMD and had a great 25 relationship. And I think it's wonderful that you're PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 181 1 heading up this. Congratulations, and we really welcome 2 you to head up the largest district in the north here 3 working with our colleague, Supervisor DeSaulnier. 4 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: It's been a burden for 5 Jack, but he's bearing under it. He's also a constituent. 6 He lives in my supervisorial district, so I have to be 7 respectful. 8 How are you today, Jack? One of the best paid 9 constituents. 10 MR. BROADBENT: Thank you. Well, good afternoon, 11 Mr. Chairman. And thank you for that introduction. And 12 yes, this is my first time I think I've been able to 13 address the Board in this capacity. I've been able to 14 speak to you in the past in other positions. 15 Again, my name is Jack Broadbent. I'm Executive 16 Officer for Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and 17 appreciate the opportunity to speak to the transport issue 18 here and discuss Bay Area Air Quality Management 19 District's roles. 20 We've submitted a letter for you that pretty 21 much, I think, spells out where the district is on this 22 particular issue. I wanted to first start off by 23 recognizing the efforts of the Board members that have 24 really been instrumental in bringing together what I now 25 have learned to become the name of that group. I didn't PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 182 1 know it had a name. But it's Northern California Air 2 Quality Coordinating Group. Board Members DeSaulnier, 3 Patrick and D'Adamo, I appreciate all of your efforts to 4 bring us together. I think there's been a great deal of 5 success in that effort. 6 Let me start off by really just indicating that 7 the Bay Area Air Quality Management District recognizes 8 that air pollutants generated in the Bay Area can affect 9 air quality in the downwind regions. We are extremely 10 committed to helping both define the problem, but also 11 address our relative contributions to the downwind 12 regions. And specifically with regard to characterizing 13 the issue, we at the Bay Area District are investing 14 significant resources in developing and enhancing our 15 photochemical modeling resources and tools to be able to 16 define the downwind impacts. 17 And with regard to mitigating these impacts, we 18 are in the process of defining control measures for our 19 2004 Air Quality Management Plan. This plan will be a 20 comprehensive ozone plan update that will demonstrate 21 maintenance with the Federal one-hour ozone standard for 22 which we just recently had three years of data for. It 23 will make progress towards the eight-hour standard by 24 which we are defined as a marginal non-attainment area. 25 And also very importantly to point here, we'll make PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 183 1 progress towards the state standards and helping our 2 downwind neighborhoods as well. 3 We expect to release this draft plan in the 4 summer and for our Board's consideration in the fall. So 5 I believe this Board will be seeing it soon thereafter. 6 In the meantime, we've made a lot of work, I 7 believe. We've participating in the development of the 8 CAPCOA transport protocol. That's part of your package. 9 We're working extensively with the downwind neighbors to 10 develop a funding protocol for the Carl Moyer money. 11 That's also been, I think, one of our success stories as 12 well. 13 In summary, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, 14 we are committed to addressing the transport issue. I 15 think our actions speak to that. And you'll see that 16 effort continue in the future. Be glad to answer any 17 questions you may have. 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much, Jack. 19 And thanks for your cooperation. 20 Ms. D'Adamo. 21 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Jack, I just want to 22 compliment you. It's been a long time since I've been 23 working on these issue. And the Bay Area has come along 24 way. And it's been a pleasure to work with you at the EPA 25 and now over at the district, enduring Mark. But it's PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 184 1 also been -- 2 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Did you say enduring or 3 endearing Mark? 4 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Depending on the day. 5 It's also -- this group has just been wonderful 6 to work with, because we've gotten a chance to meet other 7 Board members from other districts. And as long as we're 8 all at the table and talking, I think good things will 9 result. And that's what we've seen so far. 10 So good work. I wish some of the other air 11 districts were here to hear the compliments as well, 12 especially CAPCOA. I know Doug Quetin did quite a bit, 13 and I really want to thank you staff. 14 MR. BROADBENT: Mr. Chair, I did want to mention 15 that Norm did convey to me his comments. He agrees 16 completely with everything I just said. 17 (Laughter) 18 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Actually my question was 19 going to be, what did you do with Norm? 20 MR. BROADBENT: He did want to convey very 21 similar remarks and is very appreciative of the 22 collaborative effort to date. 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I did see him come in. I 24 guess he left. 25 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: I'm not sure he's PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 185 1 capable, but we appreciate him trying. 2 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Ms. D'Adamo, I do know that 3 Doug Quetin had some very serious back surgery, and I 4 think he's recovering well. But we would also like to 5 express our tribute to him and also wish him the very best 6 and a speedy recovery. So thank you very much. 7 Yes, Ms. Riordan. 8 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, just from my 9 perspective, watching this evolve for a period of time, I 10 want to congratulate all who worked on it. And it's been 11 very nice to see you all come together and really resolve 12 it. 13 Now, one thing I did note -- and I knew that 14 Mr. Broadbent was a good choice for this position, 15 Mr. DeSaulnier. But why did you take our general counsel? 16 That was probably your second best choice, too. I think 17 that was very smart of you. 18 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: She's really enjoying 19 herself. You should see her office, beautiful view. 20 There's a spa. The jacuzzi's right down the hallway. 21 She's taking every advantage of Zen meditation that we 22 offer. 23 And I will say, Jack, he learned so much at South 24 Coast. I wish Bill was here, and with EPA. But I think 25 part of his success here was he went to see the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 186 1 Transcendental Maharishi that was talked about earlier. 2 Mr. Chairman, I appreciate everyone's comments. 3 And particularly to my two colleagues, it's no small 4 statement that we've gotten this far. And Jack is a big 5 part of that, and so is Norm, and everyone who's been part 6 of it. It was so acrimonious. Those of us that sat 7 through the ozone attainment plan when two bus loads came. 8 Thank you, Congressman Cardoza. They got him -- no, he 9 got to Congress for more than that. 10 But when you think of how far we've come, and 11 90 percent of it was just better communication and 12 appreciation for one another's needs and responsibilities. 13 But also I think the Bay Area and smog check we have 14 accepted that we have a responsibility on an ethical level 15 to our downwind neighbors. And I think the really 16 important thing of this is the group meetings -- we don't 17 have meetings for the sake of meetings. But this has to 18 be sustainable. It has to go on, because it would be so 19 easy for us to go back to where we are before and just 20 play the blame game, waste both political, legal, and 21 financial money throwing bombs at one another rather than 22 just working through it. It was really a very worthwhile 23 experience, I'm looking forward to continued drives to 24 Modesto and Sacramento. 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Again, I think it's a tribute PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 187 1 to all of you here to be able to work together and solve 2 this. 3 And Supervisor Patrick. 4 SUPERVISOR PATRICK: I'd just like to weigh in on 5 behalf of the Valley Air District and let you know how 6 very much we appreciate your hard work. And I think a lot 7 of this is CARB'S staff's hard work, because I know you've 8 been holding everybody's feet to the fire and getting 9 things actually written down, and the various districts 10 are agreeing that what's in writing, you know, means 11 something and is the truth, instead of the fingerpointing 12 and they're not doing their part, and just memorializing 13 agreements and so forth I think has really meant a lot to 14 everybody. 15 And when I think of some of the first efforts we 16 had at this, they were pretty pitiful. And so I think we 17 really have come an awful long way. And Mark DeSaulnier, 18 of course, knows of whom I speak when I say pitiful. But 19 anyway, we're -- 20 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: I do. But for the five 21 people who keep calling in on the web casting, I did want 22 to make a comment. If Charlie Peters gets ahold of this 23 phone number, we're really in trouble. He's going to be 24 calling every 30 seconds. 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I did see him the other day, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 188 1 and apparently he was kicked out of one of our workshops. 2 I saw him as he left. 3 I would say, Jack, the one plea here is build up 4 your legal counsel so she doesn't have to work as long, 5 gets paid more, you are starting to build up your modeling 6 group by taking one of our people who was sent down to the 7 valley and sent back again, please try to limit your 8 looking to the east as you build up some modeling 9 expertise. Look south, please. 10 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Actually, we do have 11 applications back in the hallway for staff. 12 You know, Alan, we both interrupted Supervisor 13 Patrick. She was just starting to compliment us. 14 SUPERVISOR PATRICK: I just think it's been a 15 great process. It's been a lot of hard work. And so my 16 compliments to the Bay Area District and to Sacramento and 17 Larry Green from Yolo Solono, to our district folks, and 18 to my colleagues, and especially to CARB staff, because it 19 would not have happened without all of you. So thanks 20 very much. I think it's a good process and it needs to 21 continue. 22 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Your APCO was also very 23 helpful. He was. 24 SUPERVISOR PATRICK: Thank you. 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Good job. Thank you very PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 189 1 much indeed. 2 I guess this is not a regulatory item. It's not 3 necessarily to officially close the record. But before 4 you all leave, we do have one public comment period. And 5 we welcome back Steve Heckeroth. 6 And some background on this is the fact to 7 provide the Board with a brief update on solar 8 photovoltaic technologies and provide information on a new 9 pilot project in response to the Governor's solar 10 initiative. The Governor in his State of the State 11 Address pledged to dramatically increase the use of solar 12 technology in residential applications. CalEPA and the 13 ARB are working with ECD Ovonics and the Sacramento 14 Habitat for Humanity to install a solar system on the home 15 in Oak Park near downtown Sacramento. ECD Ovonics is 16 donating the photovoltaic roofing system. The Sacramento 17 Municipal Utility District donated the inverter and 18 electrical components. 19 Yesterday with help from CARB, SMUD, and 20 Sacramento Habitat for Humanity and local solar 21 contractors, Team Solar and Davis Ace Hardware, this 22 system was installed on a home in Oak Park. Steve has 23 extensive experience in finding ways to reduce reliance on 24 fossil fuel, as you know, from the first Earth Day. 25 I would also like to acknowledge the tremendous PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 190 1 work by our own staff, by Jerry Martin, who made the first 2 contact, and Jim Fisher. Both have done outstanding work 3 and brought this to my attention. I know the Secretary 4 has wholeheartedly endorsed this. And I recognize, you 5 know, the Board may want to get away, but this is really a 6 success story and maybe the first of many. But it shows 7 what can be done, and we really thank ECD and Steve for 8 this donation. Thank you. 9 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 10 presented as follows.) 11 MR. HECKEROTH: Thank you, Dr. Lloyd. I don't 12 have much else to say besides that. 13 I did want to just mention that when more energy 14 strikes the earth's atmosphere every day than has ever 15 been generated by people. And we have to know a lot about 16 the sun in order to take advantage of that. But more 17 important than photovoltaics is just learning how to use 18 the sun's energy. And orienting homes, we can save a lot 19 more than energy than we can create by photovoltaics. 20 --o0o-- 21 MR. HECKEROTH: I'll skip through that part of it 22 and talk about the difference between centralized 23 generation and -- 24 --o0o-- 25 MR. HECKEROTH: -- distributed generation. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 191 1 Centralized, you need to buy the land, and there's just a 2 lot of issues that in the future will keep centralized 3 generation from being the place of choice to generate our 4 power. Distributed generation means we can have it on our 5 roof. We can create all the electricity we need right off 6 our roofs. 7 --o0o-- 8 MR. HECKEROTH: And there's plenty of roofs 9 around to generate that electricity. We used to think 10 that we had to dedicate so many square miles of desert to 11 provide electricity from the sun. But we have enough roof 12 area to do that so why take up any more room. 13 This is what I call applied photovoltaics. It's 14 a typical installation with framed modules mounted on 15 racks on a roof and they've got some aesthetic issues. 16 There's another way to do it, and that's called building 17 integrated photovoltaics. 18 --o0o-- 19 MR. HECKEROTH: That's product that we installed 20 on the Habitat for Humanity house. The CEC and the 21 utilities have recognized the importance of providing 22 incentives for photovoltaics, and they offer -- the CEC 23 offers a $3.20 cents per watt rebate to anybody who 24 installs a photovoltaic system. And the Sacramento 25 municipal utility district has their PV Pioneer Program, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 192 1 which is still going. And they both also have commercial 2 programs. 3 --o0o-- 4 MR. HECKEROTH: So there's plenty of reason for 5 the Governor to promote solar. And I think largely he's 6 re-energized the whole solar infrastructure and kept it 7 going right now with his solar initiative that he 8 announced in the State of the State Address. 9 --o0o-- 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: We recognize Jim Fisher. 11 MR. HECKEROTH: Yeah, there he is. 12 I think this all started with Jerry Martin, 13 actually. He had the idea of doing a solar project under 14 the umbrella of both the CalEPA and the Air Resources 15 Board to try and eliminate pollution and rely on more 16 renewables and non-polluting sources. And I think he 17 tasked Jim Fisher with trying to make it happen. And Jim 18 Fisher got ahold of me, and together we put it all 19 together. And the thing that really made it happen was 20 ECD Ovonics donating the system and SMUD also donating the 21 balance system. 22 --o0o-- 23 MR. HECKEROTH: I'll just run through the 24 installation process really quick. It installs just like 25 a regular roofing product. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 193 1 --o0o-- 2 MR. HECKEROTH: And all the wiring is done under 3 the ridge caps, so it's all very easy to gain access and 4 very easy to wire up. 5 --o0o-- 6 MR. HECKEROTH: And it's protected under the 7 ridge cap. 8 This is the balance of system. There's the 9 inverter which changes the DC power coming off the array 10 to AC line voltage. And it powers all the needs of the 11 home first, and then if there's any excess, it turns the 12 meter backwards. 13 --o0o-- 14 MR. HECKEROTH: Which is pretty amazing to me. 15 And this is the finished installation. We 16 actually put it up in about four hours yesterday. And 17 we're seeing it today. And we have a little short video 18 clip just showing some of the installation process. There 19 was about 12 volunteers from Habitat, from Team Solar, 20 from Davis Ace Hardware. And Jim was there. And we just 21 put it up. 22 Let's see if we can get the video up. If you 23 have any questions, maybe we could answer them now while. 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: How much does this typically 25 cost for the roof, Steve? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 194 1 MR. HECKEROTH: The total installation is usually 2 between eight -- for residential installation, 8 and $12 3 per watt. So this was a 1 1/2 kilowatt installation, 4 which on this small house may provide all the electricity 5 they need. So that would be about a $13,000 installation. 6 Normally -- 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: That wouldn't take care of 8 air conditioning, though? 9 MR. HECKEROTH: No. They have an all-house fan, 10 which keeps temperatures really comfortable most all of 11 the year. There may be a few days out of the year when 12 you can't get by with an all-house fan. It draws the hot 13 air out of the attic and sucks all the hot air out of the 14 house, and the cool air has an inlet. So it satisfies the 15 problem. 16 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: You've probably said this, 17 and I wasn't listening that carefully. I was looking at 18 the pictures. Do they have a back up? In case something 19 should happen, and this fails for a moment, do they have 20 some back up? 21 MR. HECKEROTH: Well, actually they rely on the 22 utility. You use the utility in a net metering 23 arrangement as your battery. So whenever you're not 24 producing -- that's a new noise. Whenever you're not 25 producing, you're just using the utility as normal. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 195 1 Whenever you are producing, you're turning your meter 2 backwards. 3 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I see. All right. 4 MR. HECKEROTH: Initially, photovoltaics started 5 with off grid systems because line extensions were so 6 expensive. In those cases, there's a battery back up. I 7 have all three systems at my place. I have a battery 8 backup system for the house and a net metered system for 9 the rest of the land. 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: That's great. Are we going 11 to get -- there it is. Oh, no. 12 MR. HECKEROTH: I'd like to invite anybody who's 13 interested on the Board to come on out to the site on 42nd 14 Street and view what can be done. 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon. 16 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I was approached, I don't 17 know, a year, year and a half ago by a very skilled 18 manufacturing plant maintenance worker who was laid off. 19 He was looking for training as a contractor in this area. 20 And we found something at Cabrillo College, and then it 21 turned out they had sort of cancelled the program. Are 22 you aware of any work force development in this area? And 23 I'd be real interested. 24 MR. HECKEROTH: Yeah. I've trained over 130 25 installers myself. I trained four people yesterday, so PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 196 1 it's really pretty straightforward. Anybody that's an 2 electrician can very easily learn to install solar. 3 This product is sort of a combination roofing 4 product and electrical product. So you need a little 5 background in both in order to be really competent at 6 putting it up. But anybody with contracting experience, 7 building experience, or electrical experience can pick it 8 up fairly quickly. 9 And there are quite a few other schools. There's 10 Solar Energy International out of Colorado does trainings. 11 There's a company Sun Wise that's doing a training next 12 month at the Real Goods site, the Solar Living Center in 13 Hopland. There's also a number of the distributors that 14 run trainings just whenever there's enough people 15 interested. DC Power in Hopland -- Healdsburg running 16 trainings also. And I can give you -- my information is 17 on the slides. 18 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I'll e-mail you. 19 MR. HECKEROTH: Sure. 20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much. 21 Congratulations, Jim and Jerry, too that's good. 22 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I notice Jerry sent Jim up 23 on the roof. That's called delegation. 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Is your house next, Jerry? 25 With that, I'd like to call the April 22nd PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 197 1 meeting of the Air Resource Board to a close, and we'll 2 see you next month. Thank you very much indeed. 3 (Thereupon the California Air Resources Board 4 adjourned at 1:50 p.m.) 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 198 1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 2 I, TIFFANY C. KRAFT, a Certified Shorthand 3 Reporter of the State of California, and Registered 4 Professional Reporter, do hereby certify: 5 That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 6 foregoing hearing was reported in shorthand by me, 7 Tiffany C. Kraft, a Certified Shorthand Reporter of the 8 State of California, and thereafter transcribed into 9 typewriting. 10 I further certify that I am not of counsel or 11 attorney for any of the parties to said hearing nor in any 12 way interested in the outcome of said hearing. 13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 14 this 5th day of May, 2004. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 TIFFANY C. KRAFT, CSR, RPR 24 Certified Shorthand Reporter 25 License No. 12277 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345