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, MARCH 23, 2006 9:00 A.M. TIFFANY C. KRAFT, CSR, RPR CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER LICENSE NUMBER 12277 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 ii APPEARANCES BOARD MEMBERS Dr. Robert Sawyer, Chairperson Ms. Dorene D'Adamo Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier Dr. Henry Gong, Jr. Ms. Lydia H. Kennard Mr. Ronald O. Loveridge Ms. Patricia Salas Pineda Mrs. Barbara Riordan STAFF Mr. Tom Cackette, Chief Deputy Executive Officer Mr. Tom Jennings, Chief Counsel Mr. Michael Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer Ms. Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer Ms. Kathleen Tschogl, Ombudsman Ms. Catherine Witherspoon, Executive Officer Ms. Lori Andreoni, Board Secretary Mr. Jeff Austin, Community Assessment and Statistical Analysis Section, PTSD Mr. Richard Corey, Chief, Research and Economic Studies Branch, MSCD Mr. Bart Croes, Chief, Research Division, RD Ms. Cynthia Garcia, Population Studies Section, RD PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iii APPEARANCES CONTINUED STAFF Mr. Paul Henderick, Air Resources Engineer, Retrofit Assessment Section, MSCD Ms. Annette Herbert, Chief, Heavy-Duty Diesel In-Use Strategies Branch, MSCD Ms. Beth Schwehr, Environmental Justice Section, PTSD Mr. Chuck Shulock, Executive Office ALSO PRESENT Mr. Nick Deluca, CogenWorks Ms. Bonnie Holmes-Gen, American Lung Association Mr. Joseph Kubsh, MECA Mr. Julian Imes, Donaldson Filtration Solutions Ms. Eileen Tutt, Cal/EPA PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iv INDEX PAGE Pledge of Allegiance 1 Item 06-3-1 Chairperson Sawyer 3 Executive Officer Witherspoon 3 Staff Presentation 5 Q&A 24 Item 06-3-2 Chairperson Sawyer 34 Executive Officer Witherspoon 35 Staff Presentation 37 Ombudsman Tschogl 49 Q&A 51 Mr. Kubsh 56 Ms. Holmes-Gen 58 Mr. Imes 61 Motion 66 Vote 67 Item 06-3-3 Chairperson Sawyer 68 Executive Officer Witherspoon 69 Staff Presentation 70 Q&A 96 Mr. Deluca 115 Item 06-3-4 Chairperson Sawyer 120 Exeuctive Officer Witherspoon 121 Staff Presentation 121 Q&A 139 Public Comment Adjournment 147 Reporter's Certificate 148 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 1 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Good morning. The March 3 23rd, 2006, public meeting of the Air Resources Board will 4 now come to order. 5 Dr. Gong, would you lead us in the Pledge of 6 Allegiance, please. 7 (Thereupon the Pledge of Allegiance was 8 recited in unison.) 9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Will the Clerk please call 10 the roll? 11 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. Berg? 12 Ms. D'Adamo? 13 Supervisor DeSaulnier? 14 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Here. 15 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Dr. Gong? 16 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Here. 17 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. Kennard? 18 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Here. 19 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Mayor Loveridge? 20 Supervisor Patrick? 21 Ms. Pineda? 22 BOARD MEMBER PINEDA: Here. 23 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Supervisor Roberts? 24 Mrs. Riordan? 25 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Here. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 2 1 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Dr. Sawyer? 2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Here. 3 And we have a quorum. 4 At this time, I would like to inform all the 5 witnesses signing up to speak today, please be aware that 6 the Board will be imposing a three-minute time limit so 7 that everyone gets a chance to speak. I would also like 8 to ask that each speaker put his or her testimony in your 9 own words. You don't have to read written testimony to 10 us. We have that for the record. It's much more 11 effective and easier for the Board to follow if you go 12 straight to the main points you wish to make. 13 I would now like everyone in the room to please 14 note the emergency exits, well marked with green signs, to 15 the right of the hearing room as well as to the rear 16 through the main entrance. If exiting through the rear of 17 the hearing room, please follow the exit signs to the left 18 just past the rest rooms. In the event of a fire alarm, 19 we are required to evacuate this room immediately. Exit 20 down the stairways and probably relocate to a site across 21 the street. When the all-clear signal is given, we'll 22 return to the hearing room and resume the hearing. 23 Now we will move to Agenda Item 6-3-1, our health 24 update. 25 Again, I would like to remind anyone in the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 3 1 audience who wishes to testify on today's agenda items to 2 please sign up with the Clerk of the Board. Also, if you 3 have a written statement, please provide 30 copies when 4 you sign up to testify. 5 The first item on the agenda this morning is our 6 regular health update. This month, staff will discuss the 7 study by Dr. Michael Jerrett at the University of Southern 8 California that suggests that we may be underestimating 9 the effect of particulate exposure on premature death at 10 least in Southern California. 11 If so, we need to amend our technical protocols 12 to get these estimates right. But first I think it's very 13 important to understand how the Jerrett study was 14 conducted, what it says, and what it doesn't say so we 15 know how robust it is and whether we can apply it to the 16 rest of California. Getting the science behind our risk 17 assessments right is important. 18 Ms. Witherspoon, would you please introduce this 19 item? 20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yes, thank you, 21 Dr. Sawyer, and good morning members of the Board. 22 The Jerrett study we are presenting today is 23 important because it's based on detailed exposure 24 measurement and mortality statistics from Southern 25 California. Up until now, we've been using national PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 4 1 studies to calculate premature death due to air pollution. 2 The national studies have the advantage of statistical 3 robustness. They hold up extremely well. But those 4 studies also average high and low particulate measurements 5 together and may be missing the impact of sustained high 6 exposures such as we have in parts of California. 7 Dr. Jerrett's study of Southern California is 8 less statistically robust, because it covers a smaller 9 population but it has the advantage of being local and it 10 shows more vulnerability to particulate matter and higher 11 mortality counts than we have previously estimated. The 12 question is, how do we interpret these results? And if we 13 believe they're real, how do we incorporate them into 14 ARB's standard setting and regulatory processes? 15 The purpose of today's presentation is to make 16 you aware of the Jerrett study and what we're doing to 17 evaluate it, including both formal and informal peer 18 review processes. We wanted the Board to know about this 19 study before next month's hearing on the goods movement 20 and emission reduction plan, because as part of the public 21 comments on that plan, we have been asked to use the 22 Jerrett study as the primary basis for measuring mortality 23 from air pollution. We aren't quite ready to do that for 24 reasons the staff will explain, but we do anticipate a 25 change in our mortality estimation methodologies later PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 5 1 this year. 2 Ms. Cynthia Garcia will make today's 3 presentation. Cynthia. 4 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 5 presented as follows.) 6 MS. GARCIA: Thank you, Ms. Witherspoon. And 7 good morning, Dr. Sawyer and members of the Board. 8 Today's health update will discuss the results of 9 an important new study on particulate matter and its 10 relationship to premature death. What makes the study 11 especially relevant is that investigators studied 12 residents of the Los Angeles basin and found a stronger 13 effect of particulate matter on premature death. 14 Before discussing the study, I'd like to briefly 15 summarize how previous results are being used to support 16 ARB's programs, including standards setting and diesel PM 17 control regulations. 18 --o0o-- 19 MS. GARCIA: An overview of my presentation 20 begins with the scientific confirmatory evidence 21 demonstrating that a reduction in particulate matter can 22 be associated with a reduction in premature death. Then I 23 will discuss how the results of this health study support 24 our programs including air quality standards and 25 regulations. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 6 1 I will review some of the key studies that 2 provide evidence of PM effects on premature death. And I 3 will end by presenting the results of the new California 4 based study by Professor Michael Jerrett and colleagues 5 that indicate we may be underestimating PM impacts on 6 premature death and discuss implications these findings 7 may have on health impact assessments. 8 --o0o-- 9 MS. GARCIA: Let me first summarize what we've 10 learned to date regarding health effects of air pollution 11 exposure. To date, substantial scientific evidence 12 supports the association between PM and ozone exposure to 13 premature death. Based on the results of health studies, 14 staff have estimated that approximately 9,000 premature 15 deaths per year are related to PM and ozone exposures 16 above our State standards for PM and ozone. 17 We have established that for people who die 18 prematurely, their life expectancy is shortened by about 19 14 years on average. In addition, U.S. EPA has estimated 20 a value of life at 7.9 million in the year 2005. EPA 21 based its estimates on 26 peer reviewed studies that 22 measured an individual's willingness to pay to obtain a 23 small decrease in the annual risk of mortality. 24 We know Californians have a disproportionate 25 share of the national exposure to particulate pollution. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 7 1 California's residents receive more than 60 percent of the 2 population weighted exposure to PM2.5 values above the 3 national standard of 50 micrograms per cubic meter, and we 4 are virtually the only state to experience violations of 5 the current 24 hour average PM2.5 national standard of 65 6 micrograms per cubic meter. 7 --o0o-- 8 MS. GARCIA: The next slides provide confirmatory 9 evidence which demonstrate that improving air quality has 10 a positive effect in reducing adverse health effects, 11 including premature death. I'd like to briefly highlight 12 for studies indicated on this slide generally for 13 intervention slides. 14 --o0o-- 15 MS. GARCIA: In 1990, the average Irish 16 government banned the marketing, sale, and distribution of 17 soft coal within the city of Dublin. The investigators 18 examined the effects of this intervention on the 19 association between ambient air quality and death rates. 20 The researchers found that the ban of coal sales resulted 21 in a 70 percent reduction in PM from black smoke and a 30 22 percent from sulfur dioxide in the following five years. 23 The result researchers found is 6 percent 24 decrease in non-trauma deaths. This decrease in total 25 non-trauma deaths was primarily driven by an estimated 10 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 8 1 to 16 percent decrease in the rates of deaths from heart 2 and lung disease respectively. These findings suggest 3 that controlled particulate air pollution can lead to 4 immediate and significant reductions in death rates. 5 --o0o-- 6 MS. GARCIA: In 1990, Hong Kong lowered the 7 sulfur content of fuel oil. The regulation resulted in an 8 average 53 percent reduction in sulfur dioxide 9 concentration from fuel combustion. As shown in the 10 slide, the annual average mortality rate for all causes of 11 cardiovascular respiratory disease declined substantially 12 after the regulation. 13 --o0o-- 14 MS. GARCIA: In the United States, we have the 15 example of the health improvement following the temporary 16 closure of a steel mill in Utah. During the period of 17 August 1986 to September 1987, the steel mill which was 18 the primary source for particulate pollution was closed 19 due to a worker strike. This graph shows the number of 20 children less than 18 years of age admitted to the 21 regional hospital for respiratory causes during the winter 22 months between 1985 and 1988. The investigators found 23 that during the 1986-87 winter season when the mill was 24 closed, hospital emissions for children were approximately 25 three times lower than when it was open, as indicated by PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 9 1 the dark red bars. Statistical analysis show this 2 decrease was associated with a disease in PM 10 levels. 3 --o0o-- 4 MS. GARCIA: Closer to home, the children's 5 health study, investigators studied the health effects of 6 relocating to areas of different levels of pollution. 7 They followed 110 children from the larger children's 8 health study who moved to six western states at least one 9 year before following up in two areas of higher or lower 10 pollution. They found that children moving to areas with 11 lower PM 10 levels experienced an increased lung function 12 growth rate. Conversely, moving to areas of higher PM 10 13 resulted in a decrease in lung function growth rate. 14 --o0o-- 15 MS. GARCIA: So how does the ARB use the 16 overwhelming scientific evidence from the many health 17 studies? Many of these studies are the basis for the 18 Board's actions to establish new State particulate and 19 ozone standards and at levels below those observed to 20 cause adverse health impacts to provide a margin of 21 safety. They also provide the scientific support for our 22 comments to U.S. EPA to follow good science in 23 establishing the national ambient air quality standards. 24 In addition, staff uses the study results to 25 estimate the health benefits of attaining standards and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 10 1 adopting our diesel PM control measures in order to cut PM 2 exposures by 85 percent by 2020. The Board has also added 3 lives saved to cost effectiveness calculations. 4 --o0o-- 5 MS. GARCIA: The ARB has also responded to the 6 scientific evidence by applying the study findings to our 7 cost effectiveness calculations. It is important to note 8 that the ARB uses its cost effectiveness evaluation to 9 help guide the decisions on the impacts of the control 10 measures. ARB measures regulatory cost effectiveness by 11 comparing the anticipated health benefits of reducing air 12 pollution to the anticipated cost of achieving those 13 reductions. These comparisons require both benefits and 14 costs to be quantified and monetized, that is, converted 15 to dollars. 16 ARB strives to reduce the uncertainty of its 17 estimates by using generally accepted methods and values 18 established by organizations such as the National Academy 19 of Science, U.S. EPA, and the World Health Organization. 20 Cost effectiveness measures are presented in the form of a 21 ratio between the value of the health benefits and 22 anticipated control costs. For example, the diesel PM 23 regulation is estimated by ARB to yield 4 to $28 of the 24 health benefits for every dollar spent on control costs. 25 Likewise, the plan to reduce goods movement emissions PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 11 1 released earlier this week will result in 3 to $8 of 2 health benefits for every dollar of control costs. 3 --o0o-- 4 MS. GARCIA: Now I would like to turn my 5 presentation to the key studies that provide the numerical 6 values we use to support our programs. 7 --o0o-- 8 MS. GARCIA: The potential for particulate air 9 pollution to cause excess deaths and disease especially 10 after severe air pollution episodes has been well 11 established since the 1960s. However, in the 1990s, three 12 landmark studies were published that addressed the 13 long-term effects of low level PM exposure on premature 14 deaths. They were the America Cancer Society Study, the 15 Six City Study, the Adventist Health Study on the Health 16 Effects of Smog, or AHSMOG. 17 Of these studies, the first two were key in the 18 U.S. EPA's decision to establish a new annual PM2.5 19 national standard. 20 In 1993, Professor Dockery and his colleagues 21 published results from the Six City Study. The 22 researchers followed over 8,000 adults living in six 23 cities for about 15 years and examined the effects of PM 24 in six cities in the eastern part of the country. They 25 reported a statistically significant increase in premature PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 12 1 death due to a long-term exposure to PM. 2 In 1995, Dr. Arden Pope and his colleagues 3 published results from the American Cancer Society study, 4 or ACS study. Investigators followed a group of over half 5 a million people in over 50 cities in the United States 6 for seven years and also reported an association between 7 long-term PM exposures and premature death. 8 The results from those two studies came under 9 intense scrutiny in 1997 when the U.S. Environmental 10 Protection Agency used them in support of a new national 11 ambient air quality standard for PM2.5. As a result and 12 due to their significance in the standard setting process, 13 an independent reanalysis was performed in 2000 by Dr. 14 Krewski and colleagues, which assured the quality of the 15 data set and validated the study's findings. 16 The reanalysis of the nationwide ACS study and 17 the Six City Study along with the results of the AHSMOG 18 study were used by ARB to support the establishment of a 19 State annual PM2.5 standard. The Krewski reanalysis study 20 results were used to qualify the health benefits that 21 would have occurred in California attained -- occurred if 22 California attained the new State annual standard. 23 --o0o-- 24 MS. GARCIA: In addition, the studies also 25 triggered excessive efforts of follow-up studies. In PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 13 1 2002, Pope and colleagues published their follow-up study 2 to the ACS. This follow-up study doubled the follow-up 3 time to more than 16 years, which tripled the number of 4 deaths in the groups as well as applied recent advances in 5 statistical analysis. These improvements from the 6 original ACS study yielded an estimated 6 percent 7 increased risk of all causes of premature death for each 8 ten microgram per cubic meter increase of PM2.5 exposure. 9 They also reported a significant increase in death from 10 lung cancer, which had not been reported in these studies 11 before. 12 This follow-up study was published while CARB was 13 finalizing its PM2.5 standard, and it was therefore too 14 late to be included in our peer review. But it was 15 submitted in public comments and has since become the 16 primary study for use in health impacts analysis such as 17 this week's Goods Movement Emission Reduction Plan. 18 --o0o-- 19 MS. GARCIA: The last six months have seen a 20 plethora of follow-up studies to the original long-term 21 effects PM study. 22 In December 2005, a follow-up to the AHSMOG study 23 was published by Chen et al, and we presented the results 24 at the December health update. 25 Just last week, a follow-up to the Six City Study PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 14 1 was published by Laden et al. And in November 2005, 2 Professor Jerrett published his paper which followed up on 3 the national ACS study, but looks only at the Los Angeles 4 residents. And that is the focus of today's health 5 update. 6 --o0o-- 7 MS. GARCIA: Professor Jerrett conducted a study 8 in collaboration with Dr. Pope and Dr. Barnett of the 9 original 1995 ACS study. Because the new study by Jerrett 10 used a subset of the 2002 follow-up ACS study cohort, it 11 is important to compare the methods and results from the 12 two studies in our discussion. The next few slides will 13 do just that. 14 --o0o-- 15 MS. GARCIA: The population used in these two 16 studies came from the American Cancer Society, ACS, 17 Cohort. The ACS Cohort was designed to investigate the 18 relation between lifestyle factor exposure and risk of 19 cancer, mortality, and survival. When the investigators 20 began recruiting subjects in 1982 for this cohort, 21 participants were age 30 or older with at least one person 22 in the household age 45 or older. 23 The participants of the ACS Cohort were given a 24 comprehensive questionnaire that included diet, smoking 25 history, occupation, education, alcohol use, weight, et PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 15 1 cetera, factors that are known to confound with the effect 2 of PM on premature death. 3 New questionnaires were sent to surviving cohort 4 members every other year to update exposure and to 5 ascertain new occurrences of cancer. The difference 6 between the two studies is that Pope conducted it at the 7 national scale, while Jerrett performed a detailed 8 analysis using data in the Los Angeles region. 9 The national study uses ACS subjects from 1982 to 10 1998, whereas the L.A. study includes subjects from 1982 11 to 2000. The total number of subjects included in the 12 national study was approximately half a million, whereas 13 the L.A. study included about 23,000 of these and reported 14 5,800 deaths. 15 In summary, the Los Angeles study by Jerrett was 16 much smaller in size than the national ACS study, 17 representing only approximately 6 percent of the total 18 national ACS study. 19 --o0o-- 20 MS. GARCIA: Both studies compare the effects 21 from PM2.5 exposures to the cohort and also added 44 22 potential confounders to the analysis. Potential 23 confounders need to be controlled for in order to isolate 24 a definite affect from PM2.5. The 44 confounders came 25 from the routine questionnaires sent to the participants. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 16 1 The difference between those two studies is that the 2 Los Angeles ACS study added additional social factors in 3 addition to the 44 confounding factors used in the 4 national ACS study. The additional social confounding 5 factory were specific to the Los Angeles cohort, such as 6 income, crime rate, and education. 7 The biggest difference was their exposure 8 calculation. The investigators from the national study 9 averaged the PM2.5 concentrations for each city and 10 assigned this exposure level to everyone in the city. The 11 investigators from the Los Angeles study used year 2000 12 data from 23 sites and modeled the values and then 13 assigned the same exposure level to everyone living within 14 a Zip Code. Each of the 267 Zip Codes were assigned 15 different PM2.5 exposure values. 16 In summary, the Los Angeles follow-up study had 17 better exposure assessment methodology and considered 18 additional confounders that are more pertinent to the Los 19 Angeles region. 20 --o0o-- 21 MS. GARCIA: This map consists of the 22 interpolation surface used in the Los Angeles ACS study. 23 The yellow color represents lower concentrations of PM2.5. 24 The more urbanized area of Los Angeles have PM2.5 higher 25 concentrations represented by the brown colors. The PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 17 1 circles are the center of the Zip Code. The graph to the 2 lower right shows the pollutant levels attributed to the 3 ACS population. Note, most of the ACS cohorts is located 4 in Los Angeles County where the concentrations assigned to 5 the majority were high, but not the highest. 6 --o0o-- 7 MS. GARCIA: I will now discuss the results for 8 death due to all causes for the Los Angeles ACS study. 9 When the investigators did not control for any 10 confounders, they observed a 24 percent relative risk 11 associated to a 10 microgram per meter increase in PM2.5. 12 These results are shown in yellow circles in this graph. 13 Since there are other factors besides PM2.5 that 14 may cause premature death, including weight, smoking, 15 diet, et cetera, they must be included to ascertain the 16 true effect from PM2.5 on premature deaths. When the 17 investigators added these confounding factors to the 18 model, the pollution effects remain significant at 15 19 percent increase in relative risk per 10 micrograms per 20 meter increase in PM. They are shown in brown circles in 21 this graph. 22 This 15 percent effect is slightly lower than the 23 publicized 17 percent, because it includes all social 24 factors in addition to the 44 original ACS confounders, 25 therefore lowering the relative risk from 17 to 15 percent PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 18 1 but increasing the confidence. 2 In addition, the investigators showed a 3 significant association between PM2.5 and death from 4 ischemic heart disease and not as significant for 5 cardiopulmonary and lung cancer. The relative risk for 6 these are between 10 to 43 percent when all 44 ACS 7 confounders plus social factors are added. The 8 statistical significance of these results are not as 9 strong as for all causes. The number of deaths due to 10 specific causes is smaller than from all causes. It is 11 expected that as the number of data points get smaller, 12 the error balance would increase, indicated by the wider 13 confidence intervals, given the researcher's less 14 confidence in the results. However, other studies have 15 corroborated that PM2.5 effect with these same health 16 outcomes. 17 --o0o-- 18 MS. GARCIA: When we compare the results of death 19 due to all causes between the national study by Pope et al 20 2002 and the Los Angeles Study by Jerrett et al, we 21 observe that the relative risk associated with the 10 22 micrograms per meter increase in PM2.5 is approximately 23 two and a half times higher for the Los Angeles Study. 24 While the center estimate indicated by the brown 25 circle on this chart appear much larger for the Jerrett PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 19 1 study, one must keep in mind the lower and upper bounds of 2 the two results. Since they overlap, the results from the 3 two studies should be interpreted as statistically no 4 different. 5 The national ACS study is a between-city study 6 versus the Los Angeles ACS study is a within-city study. 7 There is a consensus among the leading researchers that 8 new studies such as the Jerrett et al with better exposure 9 measurements are fighting higher effects from PM2.5. When 10 we compare the PM2.5 effects on cardiopulmonary health 11 from the Los Angeles study, the result is higher than the 12 national. But the confidence bounds are much greater 13 because of the smaller sample size. However, both studies 14 find a similar central estimate of relative risk for 15 cardiopulmonary deaths between 9 and 10 percent per ten 16 microgram per meter increase in PM2.5. 17 --o0o-- 18 MS. GARCIA: In summary, Jerrett's results 19 demonstrate that the within-city gradients and exposure 20 show PM2.5 effects of premature death two and a half times 21 greater than across city studies. However, that certainty 22 range is wider than in the national ACS study since a much 23 smaller number of participants were considered. The Los 24 Angeles ACS study saw the strongest effect on the PM2.5 on 25 death from ischemic heart disease. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 20 1 --o0o-- 2 MS. GARCIA: The strengths of this study is that 3 it provides a way to examine exposure response 4 relationships under real world conditions within the 5 Los Angeles region. In addition, the investigators used 6 more accurate PM exposure measurements by attributing to 7 the ACS cohort within city pollution levels. Further, 8 this study captured a more typical mixture of air 9 pollution including freeway emissions that tend to 10 dominate California's urban ambient air pollution. 11 Finally, the study may have potentially captured 12 a vulnerable group such as the very old and those more 13 susceptible to heart disease. 14 --o0o-- 15 MS. GARCIA: The drawbacks of this study are that 16 reduced number of participants which result in large 17 confidence found behind all the results and therefore less 18 statistical robustness. By dividing the analysis into 19 specific causes of death and the geographic area into Zip 20 Codes, the sample size decreased substantially and 21 therefore the range of uncertainty became larger. In some 22 cases, the results became insignificant. 23 Further, there may be more potential confounders 24 that were not measured such as stress or other pollutants. 25 This study looked at ozone and saw no confounding, as was PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 21 1 done by Pope for the larger study. However, Jerrett et 2 al, was unable to examine the confounding effects of other 3 speciated pollutants. 4 Lastly, although this is a Los Angeles study, 5 questions remain on how representative the results are for 6 other California regions. 7 --o0o-- 8 MS. GARCIA: However, overall, the study does 9 provide strong supporting evidence for the diverse health 10 effects of PM. The study furthers our understanding of 11 the health effects of PM exposure, especially the strong 12 cardiovascular effects seen in this and other studies. 13 The study's better exposure characterization may be 14 limiting the exposure misclassification that is certainly 15 a part of other long-term studies that rely on central 16 city estimates for all metropolitan area exposures. It 17 does raise the issue of whether previous studies have 18 underestimated the health impacts of long-term PM 19 exposures on death and disease. 20 --o0o-- 21 MS. GARCIA: In summary, the more focused study 22 by Jerrett in the Los Angeles area is useful in furthering 23 our understanding of PM pollution and premature death for 24 California. Due to its significance for California, 25 further studies like this one in other large cities would PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 22 1 validate the study's findings. 2 In the next several months, staff plans to seek 3 advise from national experts on the subjects on how to 4 best blend the strengths of the Los Angeles study with 5 greater certainty offered by the larger national ACS 6 study. 7 With new PM mortality studies coming out later 8 this year, timing will be right for us to consider 9 revising our health estimates. We will make sure that our 10 approach for evaluating factors of PM mortality as well as 11 other health effects is consistent with the methodologies 12 used by other environmental agencies, including U.S. EPA. 13 We expect to have that methodology peer reviewed. 14 --o0o-- 15 MS. GARCIA: Concluding remarks. I have 16 presented to you evidence that air pollution from PM2.5 17 causes premature deaths and how using the new studies may 18 mean that more deaths could be attributed to air 19 pollution, but the range would be wider. The results of 20 the new study provides stronger evidence to increase 21 public demand for progress in obtaining the ambient air 22 quality standards which have been set to protect public 23 health. The new study provides the Board with important 24 support for attaining the standards since it confirms that 25 attaining the PM2.5 standards will lead to improved health PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 23 1 benefits. 2 Our current California standards are protective, 3 and this study does not challenge this conclusion. ARB's 4 regulations to control diesel PM emissions are on track to 5 achieving the 85 percent reduction goal in year 2020. The 6 new evidence may suggest that our roles and regulations 7 may be more cost effective than previously estimated. 8 However, until we can confer with leading experts on how 9 to best incorporate the information, it is best to inform 10 the public that our programs are working in reducing the 11 public burden from air pollution, not that more people are 12 dying, but rather air pollution may be the hidden cause of 13 deaths that were previously attributed to other causes. 14 --o0o-- 15 MS. GARCIA: This concludes my presentation. We 16 will be happy to answer any questions. Thank you very 17 much. 18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you, Ms. Garcia, for 19 such a clear presentation of what's really a rather 20 complicated subject. 21 And I would like to add my own comment that I 22 consider these new studies good news for us, because it 23 means what we're doing to reduce particulate pollution 24 will have a greater impact on improving public health than 25 we anticipated. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 24 1 Do members of the Board have questions? 2 Dr. Gong. 3 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Not particularly a question. 4 As usual, I'd just like to share some impressions. 5 This is actually a revised presentation by staff 6 that I saw previously. And I must again compliment staff 7 on a very cogent, concise, and actually straightforward 8 presentation in plain English, as I would say. Because I 9 was afraid after reading the actual articles that this 10 would be very scientifically challenging for the 11 non-scientists everywhere here in the room. But I think 12 you've laid it out very well, and obviously I'll give 13 credit to the principle investigators for all these 14 excellent surveys and studies and papers. 15 My only specific comment is that Dr. Jerrett's 16 paper is very important I think in the sense that it tells 17 us again what's going on in California, at least one area 18 of California, but a very important area of California 19 which we'll hear more about in subsequent months I'm sure. 20 This is the only paper I believe looking 21 specifically at intra-community effects. And it's taken 22 from a larger cohort study. And I hope there probably 23 will be other community studies just like Dr. Jerrett's 24 perhaps even from the same ACS study to look at similar 25 types of outcomes, because they had 51 cities total I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 25 1 believe. So they should have a number of them out there 2 that could also undergo the same analyses. 3 It would be more reassuring obviously if we had 4 more data to support the same concept of intra-community 5 differences in health outcomes such as premature deaths. 6 So I look forward to those. I'm not saying that these 7 data are incorrect or anything. I'm just saying it's like 8 everything else. He's the trailblazer here in that sense, 9 so I'd like to see others confirm that and replicate his 10 findings in other cities, in California, and elsewhere. 11 I'd also like to say that I give him credit for 12 further looking at this matter and not just letting it die 13 at differences between cities. It's like much of what 14 we've heard about the more exposure you have, the closer 15 to the exposure source such as the freeways or heavy 16 traffic, the more exposure you're going to have and the 17 more health effects you're going to have. And all of this 18 that Dr. Jerrett has come up with is I think biologically 19 plausible and clinically important to realize that 20 exposure to PM2.5 in this case can, indeed, cause 21 premature cardiovascular problems. We've seen this in 22 numerous health updates in the past. I think this again 23 underscores the focuses again on the importance of 24 particulate matter in our State policy. 25 Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 26 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you, Dr. Gong. 2 Mayor Loveridge. 3 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Let me just follow up 4 and call for something that's clear and sort of a 5 translation of research into some more public information. 6 There was a very powerful article in the L.A. Times on 7 Wednesday, March 22nd that really was -- as the editors 8 looked across the stories, it's the story on the right on 9 the front page, which means it's the editor's judgment 10 it's the most important story of the day. And it's 11 entitled, "State Air is Among Nation's Most Toxic." But 12 let me just if I can just share and maybe ask how it links 13 to what you've been talking about. 14 It said, "Despite two decades of cleaning up 15 carcinogenic fumes from cars and factories, Californians 16 are breathing some of the most toxic air in the nation 17 with residents of Los Angeles and Orange Counties exposed 18 to a cancer risk of twice the national average." 19 It says, "One in every 15,000 Californians, or 66 20 per million, is at risk of contracting cancer from 21 breathing the air over his or her lifetime, according to 22 EPA's national scale air toxic assessment which was 23 released in February and based on emissions of 177 24 chemicals in 1999, the most recent data available." 25 It said, "In the Los Angeles area, the cancer PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 27 1 threat is much higher, 93 per million in Los Angeles 2 County or one person in every 10,700, and 79 per million 3 in Orange County." Contrast this is with national 4 averages and looks at other states. 5 And then there's a couple of interesting comments 6 by a person who's probably your good friend up here, 7 Melanie Marty, who's Chief of Air Toxicology with the 8 California Office of Environmental Health and Hazard 9 Assessment. She says, "People should understand that 10 mobile sources have very large impacts on health. It's 11 not just asthma and heart disease, it's cancer too." 12 And I like her challenge at the end of the 13 article. Melanie Marty says something to the effect, 14 "Even with all the population growth in California, we've 15 made progress. If we'd done nothing, the cancer risk 16 would have been so much worse. But on the other hand, we 17 have a long way to go. We're going to have to grab the 18 bull by the horns now with mobile sources." 19 I guess the question is what horns we need to 20 grab, because it's the CARB Board she's talking about. 21 But I wondered -- it's really Henry's point. There are a 22 lot of studies around, and sometimes they're not very well 23 connected. Here's a study on a somewhat different but 24 makes the same point, clearly, effectively. And I 25 wondered if you would comment on -- this is evidently a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 28 1 fairly national important study. 2 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Well, Mayor 3 Loveridge, that study was about toxic exposure and 4 carcinogenicity, and there were quotes you didn't read in 5 there from South Coast that pointed out EPA does not count 6 diesel exposure, because EPA has not identified diesel as 7 a toxic air contaminant. So as bad as the headline is, 8 the situation is actually worse. 9 And Mr. Scheible just said we wish it was 93 per 10 million in Southern California. Our estimates are more on 11 the order of 800 per million, and in hot spots in excess 12 of a 1,000, 2,000. 13 But in terms of relating that to today's 14 presentation, one rule of thumb we use, and it's very 15 rough, is that for every cancer death we calculate in 16 California, there's ten times as much premature death from 17 particulate. And we're talking today about those 18 premature deaths as opposed to lung cancers or other kinds 19 of cancers. So it is quite dire. 20 In both cases, mobile sources are implicated and 21 off-road mobile sources. They're not the sole 22 contributors. There still are area and stationary source 23 contributors, but they're the dominant ones. And it just 24 underscores, as this presentation tried to, the importance 25 of our diesel control measures and they're even more PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 29 1 powerful than we thought. 2 And like Dr. Sawyer, one of the things that's 3 encouraging is that even though the numbers may go up, our 4 ability to mitigate them and improve people's lives is 5 also going up. So these are preventable deaths. We don't 6 have to find a cure for cancer. We need just to take the 7 emissions out of the air, and then people will live longer 8 lives. 9 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Your number is much more 10 dramatic than what's here in the story. 11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Pineda. 12 BOARD MEMBER PINEDA: I just had a brief comment. 13 And first I acknowledge the importance of the Jerrett 14 study as a non-scientist. The one thing that struck me -- 15 and I'm very, very pleased to see that we have outlined 16 future steps. While I think it's extremely important, I 17 do have a concern that we talk about California's 18 disproportionate share, and yet the study is very focused 19 on Los Angeles. And so I would certainly feel much more 20 comfortable if it were a study focused on a more 21 representative California, just so that there aren't 22 questions about it being skewed to L.A., only because this 23 will have longer-term regulatory implications. And I'm 24 not quite sure if you were to look at a more 25 representative California how this would compare to other PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 30 1 states. I mean, clearly, L.A. is a problem. I don't have 2 a sense of what the implications would be for the rest of 3 the state. 4 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: This is Bart 5 Croes. 6 We're actually considering a study of all of 7 California communities to basically replicate Jerrett's 8 work for L.A. for other major rural and urban areas in 9 California. That will take several years to complete 10 though. 11 BOARD MEMBER PINEDA: Any idea how it would 12 compare if we were not just focused on L.A.? How do we 13 compare? What are the other states that come close to 14 California if you were to look generally? And maybe I'm 15 asking for speculation. If I am, I don't want to do that. 16 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: Actually, 17 California does stand out in the magnitude of PM levels as 18 well as the large percentage of residents who are exposed 19 to high PM levels. We're actually responsible for I think 20 60 percent of the -- or almost 50 percent of the PM 21 exposure in the entire country, even though we only make 22 up about 11 percent of the population. 23 BOARD MEMBER PINEDA: Thank you. 24 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Kennard. 25 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 31 1 I actually share Ms. Pineda's concern about a 2 statewide study, and I'm happy that that might move 3 forward. But given this is Southern California based, I 4 want to understand how the South Coast is engaged and how 5 policy decisions may be made based on the study and the 6 coordination between CARB and South Coast. 7 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Well, the first 8 thing that we need to do, and we have done already, is 9 speak with leading health researchers about the validity 10 of these results. And we intend to bring to a formal peer 11 review panel all the various studies and possible 12 statistical methods for integrating the results. 13 And the word "pooling" was used on one of those 14 slides, and this gets at Ms. Pineda's question too that we 15 don't assume that L.A. is representative of every county 16 in California. And so some averaging in of high and lower 17 concentrations makes sense. And you have a larger cohort 18 and more data points, and your results are more reliable. 19 So that will go on. 20 Formal peer review is a public process. It's an 21 open meeting at which any parties may testify, and so 22 South Coast and anyone else is welcome to do that. And 23 I'm sure South Coast is aware of these results as we are. 24 Dr. John Froines, who is the head of our Scientific Review 25 Panel, is one of the commentors who brought them to our PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 32 1 attention and urged us to weave these results into the 2 Goods Movement Emission Reduction Plan. So he's been in 3 the informal peer review loop, and we'll continue talking 4 with him as we go forward. 5 I don't know how active South Coast has been. I 6 may ask Bart to comment on that. In mortality estimates 7 to date, are they members of State or national advisory 8 bodies on that subject? 9 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: Not that I'm 10 aware of. 11 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: They've been very 12 pleased with our results and use them in their own 13 regulations, and I would expect them to watch this process 14 closely. They don't bring separate medical evidence to 15 the table. I think they're just very interested parties, 16 as are all the stakeholders. 17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Supervisor DeSaulnier. 18 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 19 Why is California so disproportionate in terms of 20 the total PM? 21 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: I think it's -- a 22 lot of it has to do with our geography. We just have 23 mountains that stop the dilution of emissions and high 24 concentrations of PM. We also have dryer summers and less 25 atmospheric dispersion. So it's also we have a higher PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 33 1 concentration of residents in areas like Los Angeles. So 2 it's just unique aspects of our society as well as our 3 geography and meteorology. 4 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Are there studies to that 5 affect basically getting at the root cause of why we have 6 such a high concentration? 7 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: Yeah. There 8 certainly have been many air quality studies that do point 9 to this unique aspect of our geography and meteorology. 10 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: I'd be interested if you 11 could e-mail me or provide me with any of those. 12 Also I'd like to add my compliments to staff. I 13 didn't have to ask Dr. Gong once what you were talking 14 about. I did make a sidebar that it's one more reason to 15 move away from Los Angeles. 16 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Other members of the Board 17 would like the same information that you're sending to 18 Supervisor DeSaulnier. 19 We have no witnesses from the public. Does staff 20 have any other comments? 21 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Not at this time, 22 except to say that when we complete the peer review 23 process because we launched this in an open forum, this is 24 usually just scientific work conducted out of the scenes, 25 but we expect to bring back to you what results we'll be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 34 1 using going forward and sort of the next chosen official 2 estimate for calculating mortality later this year. 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. Since this is 4 not a regulatory item, it's not necessary to officially 5 close the record. 6 The next item on the agenda is 6-3-2, Proposed 7 Amendments to the Existing Verification Procedure for 8 Diesel Emission Control Strategies. 9 Before I became Chair of the Board, I had the 10 opportunity to serve on the Air Resources Board's 11 International Diesel Retrofit Advisory Committee, or 12 IDRAC. So I'm quite familiar with this issue and how the 13 ARB staff and its advisors have attempted to address it 14 over the past few years. 15 It's very important that we try to anticipate and 16 carefully examine the unintended consequences of our 17 regulations. And when we discover adverse effects, which 18 certainly can happen, we need to do everything we can to 19 prevent or to mitigate these effects. 20 Nitrogen dioxide from particulate traps is that 21 kind of a problem. We want to control particulate as much 22 as possible, and filters do a great job. But we don't too 23 much NO2 in the atmosphere, and we certainly don't want 24 large concentrations of it in canyons or in close 25 proximity to human beings. That's why this Board PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 35 1 established a nitrogen dioxide limit in the first place. 2 Ideally, we'd fix the NO2 problem completely and 3 move on. That's certainly the ultimate goal. But it 4 hasn't been quite that simple. Instead, we've had some 5 pollutant tradeoffs that the Board needs to consider as we 6 decide what to do next. 7 I think we also need to be mindful of the 8 learning curve it takes to get some emission control 9 technologies right. Particulate traps are here to stay, 10 but only if we nurture their introduction and make 11 retrofits a healthy market for diverse investors with 12 various products. If we are too restrictive at the 13 beginning, we will make widespread timely application more 14 difficult. 15 Ms. Witherspoon, would you please introduce this 16 item and begin the staff's presentation? 17 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, Dr. 18 Sawyer. 19 The verification procedure is how staff ensures 20 that a diesel control system will achieve real and durable 21 particulate matter reductions. To date, staff has 22 verified a variety of particulate traps, flow-through 23 filters, and diesel oxidation catalysts as well as systems 24 that simultaneously reduce NOx. These devices are used in 25 turn by industry subject to our diesel risk reduction PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 36 1 rules for trash trucks, transit buses, cargo handling 2 equipment, and other categories. Many local incentive 3 programs for diesel cleanup also require the use of 4 verified devices as a precondition for funding. 5 As you know, the Board adopted a limit on 6 nitrogen dioxide, or NO2, for particulate traps which 7 takes effect next January. Unfortunately, catalyzed 8 filters are not able to meet that limit, and there is not 9 a compliant alternative that can provide the breadth of 10 applicability needed to support the in-use fleet rules. 11 If the NO2 limit goes into effect without any changes, 12 nearly all of the approved diesel particulate filters 13 would lose their verifications, causing a major setback in 14 the health benefits we expect to realize through the 15 Diesel Risk Reduction Plan. Accordingly, we are proposing 16 to adjust the limit once again. 17 While there are some pollutant tradeoffs there, 18 staff believes the benefits from reduced diesel PM 19 substantially outweigh the potential adverse impacts of 20 slightly elevated ozone levels and excess NO2. 21 I would now like to turn the presentation over to 22 Mr. Paul Henderick of the Mobile Source Control Division 23 who will describe staff's proposal and recommendations. 24 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 25 presented as follows.) PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 37 1 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER HENDERICK: Thank you. 2 Good morning, Dr. Sawyer and members of the Board. 3 Today staff would like to propose a number of 4 important amendments to the diesel retrofit verification 5 procedure. We believe these amendments are necessary for 6 California to realize the health benefits envisioned in 7 the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan. 8 --o0o-- 9 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER HENDERICK: As you know, 10 the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan was adopted in October 11 2000. One of the major objectives of the plan is to clean 12 up in-use diesel engines by applying emission control 13 retrofits and replacing older engines with new ones. 14 Staff developed the verification procedure to ensure that 15 retrofits would work properly in use. It requires 16 applicants seeking verification to conduct emissions 17 testing before verification as well as after verification 18 on units that are retrieved from the field. 19 The procedure also has specific warranty 20 requirements for all verified systems offered for sale. 21 To control emissions of nitrogen dioxide, which are 22 increased by some retrofits, the procedure includes an NO2 23 emissions limit equivalent to 20 percent of an engine's 24 total oxides of nitrogen emissions. This limit prevents 25 increases in ambient ozone and exceedances of the ambient PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 38 1 NO2 standard. The NO2 limit is the focus of staff's 2 proposal today. 3 --o0o-- 4 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER HENDERICK: Our efforts to 5 clean up the in-use diesel fleets are well underway. 6 Eight in-use regulations have been adopted for different 7 categories of diesel vehicles and equipment, and thousands 8 of retrofit devices have been installed. The number of 9 verified retrofits available to serve California has been 10 growing over the last few years, but may be significantly 11 impacted because of the NO2 limit. 12 The NO2 limit was originally effective in 2004 13 but was delayed by the Board to 2007 because none of the 14 verified diesel particulate filters could comply at the 15 time. The current 20 percent limit becomes effective this 16 January, and most filters remaining are unable to comply. 17 This situation motivated staff to re-evaluate the NO2 18 limit. A problem with the form of the limit, namely its 19 inclusion of engine-out NO2 emissions, provided additional 20 motivation. 21 --o0o-- 22 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER HENDERICK: The procedure 23 regulates NO2 because it is a pollutant that many diesel 24 retrofits generate as a byproduct of operation. In fact, 25 today's most commonly used diesel particulate filters rely PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 39 1 on NO2 to burn off the diesel PM that they remove from the 2 exhaust. Catalysts oxidize part of the nitric oxide in 3 the exhaust to form NO2. A filter that generates more NO2 4 is less likely to plug and can be used with a greater 5 range of engines and duty cycles. The disadvantage of a 6 filter that generates high levels of NO2 is that NO2 has 7 adverse air quality impacts. The purpose of the NO2 limit 8 is to mitigate these impacts. 9 --o0o-- 10 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER HENDERICK: Elevated NO2 11 emissions from diesel engines can cause increased exposure 12 to secondary nitrate PM which is classified as PM2.5, 13 ozone, and NO2. California is not in attainment of the 14 air quality standards for ozone and PM2.5, but is in 15 attainment of the NO2 ambient standard. Staff notes, 16 however, that the California ambient NO2 standard is 17 currently under review and may change. 18 Another reason we care about NO2 emissions from 19 retrofits comes from recent experience in Europe. Real 20 world data from a number of European cities are beginning 21 to show that widespread use of catalyzed diesel emission 22 control systems is contributing to increases in ambient 23 levels of NO2. 24 --o0o-- 25 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER HENDERICK: One example is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 40 1 London, England. Recent ambient data collected by over 30 2 roadside monitors show a decline in NOx and no change in 3 NO2 over the last few weeks. A study by the University of 4 Leeds found that had traffic been emitting a constant 5 fraction of its NOx as NO2, ambient levels of NO2 levels 6 would have decreased over time. 7 Also, data from roadside monitors in some 8 locations indicate significant increases in ambient NO2. 9 These changes are attributed to growing numbers of buses 10 being retrofitted with high NO2 filters and the growing 11 presence of diesel cars which have higher NO2 emissions 12 than gasoline cars. 13 --o0o-- 14 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER HENDERICK: This graph 15 shows statistics for Marylebone Road in London. 16 Significant exceedances of Europe's 20/10 annual and 17 one-hour annual standards have been observed in the years 18 2003 and 2004. In that time frame, the number of London's 19 buses retrofitted with high NO2 filters increased rapidly, 20 reaching 88 percent of the fleet by the end of 2004. 21 These buses have had a significant impact on ambient NO2 22 levels near Marylebone Road, because of high daily bus 23 flows. Staff notes that the Marylebone Road data show no 24 exceedances of the California one-hour standard of 250 PPB 25 or the federal annual standard of 53 PPP. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 41 1 --o0o-- 2 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER HENDERICK: While insight 3 can be gained from the situation in Europe, there are some 4 noteworthy differences with the situation in California. 5 At present, California has far fewer retrofitted vehicles 6 and an insignificant number of diesel cars. Both 7 populations, however, are expected to grow significantly 8 in the future. Unlike Europe, potential increases in 9 California's ambient NO2 will be mitigated by the NO2 10 emissions limit. Europe has no such restriction. As a 11 result, filters with the highest NO2 emissions are not 12 distinguished from other filters in the European market. 13 It turns out, in fact, that the filters being used in 14 Europe today are predominantly the design with the highest 15 NO2 emissions. 16 --o0o-- 17 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER HENDERICK: Fortunately 18 for California, we already have a limit on NO2 emissions 19 from diesel retrofits. Put simply, a retrofit may not 20 cause the NO2 emissions from an engine to exceed a level 21 equivalent to 20 percent of the engine's NOx emissions. 22 Staff selected this limit in 2002 because it prevented 23 increases in ozone exposure as well as exceedances of the 24 ambient NO2 standard. However, because industry did not 25 verify compliant filters in time, the Board delayed the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 42 1 original 2004 effective date to January 1st, 2007. With 2 this new deadline approaching, staff has reassessed the 3 NO2 limit and believes it needs to be revised before being 4 implemented. The reasons for revising the NO2 limit are 5 discussed next. 6 --o0o-- 7 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER HENDERICK: Staff's 8 primary motivation for revising the NO2 limit is that most 9 verified filters remain unable to meet the current NO2 10 limit and would therefore be deverified in January. 11 The exception to this is uncatalyzed filter 12 technology. Two electrically regenerated plug-in filters 13 have been verified. They do not increase NO2 emissions 14 but are typically limited for use by centrally stationed 15 fleets in which vehicles can be plugged in at night. 16 Widely applicable Level 3 technology that complies with 17 the current NO2 limit has not yet been verified. If the 18 NO2 limit is not revised, the general lack of high 19 efficiency retrofits would stall the achievement of the 20 Diesel Risk Reduction Plan's goals. 21 --o0o-- 22 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER HENDERICK: After 23 reviewing alternatives with stakeholders and analyzing 24 potential health impacts, staff proposes a new two-stage 25 NO2 limit. Beginning January 1st, 2007, staff proposes PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 43 1 that the maximum increase in NO2 emissions be limited to 2 30 percent of the engine's baseline NOx emissions. Staff 3 selected 30 percent because it is the lowest increase that 4 most verified filters can meet. 5 Two years later in 2009, staff proposes that the 6 maximum increase be reduced to 20 percent. Staff expects 7 more filters with lower NO2 levels will be verified in the 8 future and so choose a reduced limit for 2009 to minimize 9 air quality impacts. One significant difference between 10 staff's proposal and the current limit is that the 11 proposed limits regulate the increase in NO2 over 12 baseline, not the total NO2 emissions which include a 13 contribution from the engine. To directly compare the 14 two, therefore, the current limit can be expressed as a 15 maximum increase of about 10 to 15 percent on average 16 depending on the testing. 17 --o0o-- 18 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER HENDERICK: With a less 19 stringent NO2 emission limit, staff's proposal will help 20 California to control diesel PM emissions, but will also 21 increase emissions of NO2 from diesel engines. As 22 mentioned earlier, increased NO2 emissions can cause 23 increases in exposure to secondary PM, ozone, and NO2. To 24 assess these potentially increased exposures, staff 25 conducted both regional and near-source modeling and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 44 1 analyses. 2 At the regional scale, staff choose to model the 3 Southern California air basin because it has the greatest 4 potential for adverse impacts. The regional modeling 5 focused on the year 2010 and assumed widespread use of 6 retrofits. Results indicate a net decrease in exposure to 7 PM2.5 and a small increase in ozone exposure. 8 To assess exposures to NO2, staff analyzed 9 near-source scenarios involving school buses in various 10 circumstances and a freeway with heavy diesel traffic. 11 Staff found NO2 exposure to increase, but it remained 12 below the one-hour standard. 13 In addition to air quality impacts, staff also 14 estimated the effect of the proposal on the number of 15 retrofits that would remain verified. While no broadly 16 applicable filters would be able to comply with the 17 current limit, most of the filters would be able to comply 18 with the proposed 30 percent limit. 19 --o0o-- 20 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER HENDERICK: This table 21 summarizes the key air quality impact estimates. Although 22 increased NO2 emissions from retrofits can accelerate the 23 formation of secondary nitrate PM, the application of 24 retrofits to in-use vehicles and equipment still yields a 25 significant net benefit in terms of reduced exposure to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 45 1 PM2.5. The result is about 240 premature deaths avoided 2 in the Southern California air basin in the year 2010 3 alone. If no action is taken and the current NO2 limit is 4 retained, staff expects this benefit to be cut in half. 5 Concerning ozone, staff found that elevated NO2 6 levels would cause a small increase in summertime peak 7 ozone concentrations of one to two parts per billion. The 8 increased ozone exposure corresponds to one to two more 9 premature deaths in the year 2010. Near-source exposure 10 to NO2 would also increase, but not above the one-hour 11 California ambient standard. Health effects are not 12 expected at levels of exposure below the standard. 13 --o0o-- 14 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER HENDERICK: Depicted here 15 are staff's estimates for compliance of verified systems 16 with the current NO2 limit. Boxes in green indicate 17 compliance. 18 While all of the Level 1 devices comply, only two 19 of the Level 3 devices comply, which means that most 20 filters would no longer are be verified as of January 1st. 21 The two complying devices are uncatalyzed electrical 22 plug-in filters. Unfortunately, these filters have 23 infrastructure and operational constraints and therefore 24 may not be able to cover all the applications for which 25 the other filters are currently verified. The possible PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 46 1 ramifications of this include far fewer vehicles being 2 retrofit with Level 3 systems, expensive reliance on less 3 effective Level 1 systems, decreased PM reductions, and 4 failure to meet the goals of the Diesel Risk Reduction 5 Plan. 6 --o0o-- 7 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER HENDERICK: The proposed 8 30 percent limit will preserve the verification of most 9 systems. Staff estimates that nine of the verified Level 10 3 filters and two of the Level 2 systems will be able to 11 comply with the proposed 2007 limit. 12 Note that this limit is only applicable until 13 January 1st, 2009. This two-year period will allow for 14 the development and verification of additional low NO2 15 technologies, while preserving the overall objective of PM 16 emission reductions. 17 By setting the limit at 30 percent, the need to 18 control NO2 is still recognized. The highest NO2 19 producing systems would likely not comply with this limit 20 and therefore would lose their verification status as of 21 January 2007. Even so, to further decrease the impacts of 22 higher NO2 emissions, staff recommends lowering the NO2 23 limit to a 20 percent increase starting in January 2009. 24 The proposed 2009 limit would pose a challenge 25 for many of today's verified systems. Although many of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 47 1 these systems are currently noncompliant with the proposed 2 2009 limit, two more systems comply relative to the 3 current limit. We expect additional systems to verify to 4 the 2009 20 percent limit in the near future. 5 --o0o-- 6 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER HENDERICK: In addition to 7 a new limit for NO2 emissions, staff is also proposing the 8 creation of three plus levels by which to classify 9 verified systems. Systems that meet the 2009 NO2 limit 10 ahead of schedule would be designated by a plus. The plus 11 system could be used to encourage use of the lowest NO2 12 systems in incentive-based programs. It would not change 13 the definition of best available control technology, or 14 BACT, used in existing diesel cleanup regulations. 15 Note that the plus levels would only have 16 significance for the years 2007 and 2008. As of 2009, the 17 plus designation would no longer be relevant since all 18 verified systems would need to meet the 20 percent limit. 19 --o0o-- 20 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER HENDERICK: Other proposed 21 amendments would ensure more accurate and representative 22 measurements of NO2 during emissions tests. Staff 23 proposes additional pre-conditioning requirements for test 24 units and a limit on the baseline NO2 emission level for 25 test engines. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 48 1 Staff is also proposing three minor amendments 2 relating to the requirements for verification extensions 3 and design changes, the warrantee report deadline, and the 4 relationship between verification and other legal 5 requirements. 6 --o0o-- 7 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER HENDERICK: One of the 8 primary issues raised regarding staff's proposal is the 9 concept of the plus designation for lower NO2 retrofit 10 systems and how it may be interpreted and applied. 11 Staff's intention is to provide a mechanism to encourage 12 use of lower NO2 verified devices in order to maximize the 13 air quality benefits of the Diesel Risk Reduction Program. 14 Some stakeholders expressed concern that the plus 15 designation automatically defines BACT in existing diesel 16 cleanup regulations and that this could prevent use of 17 many currently available PM retrofit devices upsetting 18 implementation of these regulations. 19 Staff has confirmed that the new designation does 20 not retroactively revise the BACT definitions in existing 21 regulations and that devices without the plus designation 22 could be used to meet regulatory requirements. 23 Stakeholders also raised a concern that low NO2 24 does not necessarily mean a device is the most health 25 protective. For example, the lowest NO2 devices currently PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 49 1 verified do not reduce emissions of VOC species or toxics 2 as effectively as some higher NO2 retrofit devices. The 3 commentors suggest the limited benefits of the plus 4 designation are not outweighed by the potential adverse 5 impacts it may have on implementing the diesel retrofit 6 program. 7 --o0o-- 8 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER HENDERICK: To conclude, 9 staff believes that its proposal will enable California to 10 continue reducing exposure to diesel PM. Without the 11 proposed changes, fewer cleanup devices will be available 12 and the health benefits of the Diesel Risk Reduction 13 Program will be greatly reduced. Therefore, staff 14 recommends that the Board adopt the proposed amendments. 15 As diesel emission control technology evolves in the 16 future, staff will re-evaluate the NO2 limit. Finally, 17 staff will closely monitor ambient NO2 as more and more 18 diesel retrofits are put to use in the field. 19 Thank you for your consideration of this item. 20 We would be happy to answer any questions you may have at 21 this time. 22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you, Mr. Henderick. 23 Madam Ombudsman, do you have your report on the 24 public involvement? 25 OMBUDSMAN TSCHOGL: I do, thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 50 1 Dr. Sawyer and members of the Board, the 2 regulation before you has been developed with input from 3 the diesel emission control system industry, diesel engine 4 industry, Manufacturers of Emissions Controls Association, 5 the Engine Manufacturers Association, the California 6 Trucking Association, Southwest Research Institute, U.S. 7 EPA, and the Health Effects Institute. 8 Staff began their effort to develop this rule in 9 May 2004 which was the first NO2 working group meeting. 10 To date, this group has held eight meetings, primarily 11 teleconferences. All were held in El Monte, except the 12 last one which was held in Pasadena before the broader 13 audience of the International Diesel Retrofit Advisory 14 Committee. There was one public workshop in March 2005 in 15 El Monte. Staff has had many, many meetings and phone 16 conversations with individual manufacturers. On average, 17 ten stakeholders attended the meetings and workshops. 18 The staff report was released and posted to the 19 ARB's website on February 3rd, 2006. The public hearing 20 notice was mailed out to relevant mailing lists and 21 e-mailed to the diesel retrofit and general mobile source 22 control division list serves. The mailing list has more 23 than 2100 subscribers, and the list serve has nearly 3100 24 subscribers. 25 Thank you. This concludes my comments. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 51 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 2 Are there questions from the Board members? 3 Dr. Gong. 4 BOARD MEMBER GONG: One question. 5 Staff has given this time schedule January 1, 6 2007 and 2009. How confident is staff about the January 7 1, 2009, goals? Because we've not achieved it for 2007. 8 How much more confident are you that 2009 is also as 9 achievable or more achievable? 10 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Short 11 answer is we're somewhat confident. But given the 12 history, I wouldn't be 100 percent confident that the 13 changes will occur to meet the 20 percent number. But we 14 seem to have support for those standards by the industry. 15 So I take it that means that they're going to take the 16 steps to try to reduce the NO2 emissions. But we'll just 17 have to wait and see. 18 One of the things pointed out is that the market 19 is getting more mature. And I think the early focus and 20 one of the reasons for not meeting the current standard 21 was that the suppliers of equipment were just trying to 22 get out into the marketplace and meet the demand that was 23 created by the regulations. And there's a lot of 24 uncertainties about the application of the equipment, and 25 high NO2 made it easier for them. So the limit was PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 52 1 essentially an inherent conflict with their objective of 2 trying to meet the market demand for those devices. Now 3 that things are starting to stabilize a little bit more, 4 I'm hoping they have more time to focus on reformulating 5 some of the catalysis and reducing the emissions down to 6 NO2. 7 Also, the form of the standard that we had before 8 for some applications created an impossible situation 9 where they simply couldn't comply with some of the 10 testing. So, you know, I think the change in the standard 11 makes it more reasonable for them as well. 12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I believe that the plan is 13 to put retrofit devices on most of the diesel engines in 14 California. And how are we doing? 15 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Well, I 16 would say not most of them, because the retrofit devices 17 in general are effective for most, let's say, 1990 and 18 type newer ones, filters for 1994 and newer engines. And 19 the older ones, the effect of our regulations is to force 20 replacement or modernization with re-engining of those 21 devices. 22 So one of the reasons we said that if we kept the 23 current limit and decertified most of the filters, we 24 would lose half the benefit. The flip side is we would 25 still get some benefit because of the modernization PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 53 1 aspects, the use of less effective oxidation catalysts in 2 place of those filters. So there would still be some 3 benefit, but not nearly what we are anticipating. 4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Let me ask that question a 5 little more directly. The adverse effects are based upon 6 how many retrofit filters in place? 7 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Staff is looking 8 for that. 9 The first time we did the analysis, we had 10 100 percent or 90 percent penetration and now we've 11 dropped it to -- 12 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: I think 13 about 50. The modeling is based on that. 14 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: What percentage have we 15 accomplished so far? 16 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Of the 1.2 17 million diesel engines we've estimated are in the 18 California economy, we've adopted regulations covering 10 19 percent, 12 percent of them. And they're all phasing in 20 over multi-year periods. So there are, what, 5,000 trap 21 equipped transit buses. And how many trash trucks have 22 already been retrofitted? 23 HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL IN-USE STRATEGIES BRANCH 24 HERBERT: Thirty-five percent right now are filters on the 25 solid waste. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 54 1 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Installed. 2 HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL IN-USE STRATEGIES BRANCH 3 HERBERT: Installed. 4 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: So we have tens 5 of thousands done and a million to go. 6 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: So we're just at the 7 beginning of this program. 8 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: And 9 it's hard to say because the rules are just getting in 10 place. But what did clearly change is originally we 11 thought nine out of ten would end up with a filter. And 12 what the rules as they played out, it's much more focused 13 on replacement of the old ones and some increased use of 14 less effective oxidation catalysts. And therefore the 15 filters which are the subject of this are more expected to 16 be half or less of the total number of engines cleaned up 17 will actually use retrofit filters. 18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: And the 2007 heavy-duty 19 standards will require filters on new vehicles? 20 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Right. 21 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: What is the NO2 situation 22 with these vehicles? 23 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Those 24 will probably be relatively high NO2 generating filters. 25 But fortunately along with that in '07 there will be a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 55 1 50 percent reduction in the total amount of NOx, which 2 means that the percentage of NO2 will go up, but the mass 3 will go down. And in 2010, it goes down a full 4 90 percent. So we think that there will be less impact. 5 You may get more NO2 fraction, but 90 percent less overall 6 NOx. So it shouldn't be as much of an impact as we're 7 seeing here. 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Are there any other 9 questions from Board members? If not, we'll move -- 10 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: I have a question. 11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Oh, excuse me. Ms. Kennard. 12 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: It's all right. 13 What is the incremental cost per engine of 14 meeting the '09 versus the '07 standard? 15 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: I don't 16 think we know what difference it would be. My guess is 17 very little. It's more of a case of reformulating the 18 catalysts and the approach that would be used to drop it 19 from 30 to 20. But I think that's maybe a good question 20 to ask. 21 MOBILE SOURCE DIVISION CONTROL CHIEF CROSS: It 22 could be cheaper. They're taking some catalysts out. So 23 the device will look the same, and they probably will 24 reduce the amount of catalyst in it. So it won't change 25 much, or it might be cheaper. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 56 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. I have requests from 2 three witnesses to speak on this issue. Joseph Kubsh, 3 Bonnie Holmes-Gen, and Julian Imes, if you could prepare 4 to speak, please. 5 MR. KUBSH: Good morning, Dr. Sawyer and members 6 of the Board. My name is Joe Kubsh. I'm the Executive 7 Director of the Manufacturers of Emission Controls 8 Association. And I'm here today to support the proposal 9 that's been put before you by staff. 10 MECA has been a strong partner in working with 11 staff on the NO2 issue since the early days of the Diesel 12 Risk Reduction Program. And it's good to see that pieces 13 of this that we strongly advocated, like the form of the 14 NO2 standard and the pre-conditioning cycle, are part of 15 what staff is putting forward to you today. 16 We also are supportive of the 30 percent 17 requirement and incremental requirement in 2007 decreasing 18 to 20 percent in 2009. We believe that's a target that 19 can be met. And it will be met by more manufacturers in 20 the time frame that staff has provided. 21 We also think it's important -- as 22 Ms. Witherspoon and Dr. Sawyer both mentioned in their 23 opening remarks, it's important to keep significant 24 diversity in the marketplace for the kinds of filters that 25 are out there to deal with the wide variety of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 57 1 applications that are present in the marketplace. And 2 having that diversity is an important part of California 3 meeting their diesel risk reduction goals of 75 percent 4 reduction of PM by 2010. 5 I want to compliment staff on the thorough job 6 they've done to look at all of the various issues 7 associated with NO2 exposure and impacts on ozone, for 8 example. I think they've done a very thorough job of 9 looking at all those issues and walking through this land 10 of compromise, if you will. And we believe they've landed 11 exactly where it should be. And we plan to be supportive. 12 Our industry has invested a lot of money already in 13 putting verified technology into the marketplace in 14 California, and we remain committed to provide the 15 solutions that are necessary to meet the requirements of 16 the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan. 17 And with that, I'd be happy to answer any 18 questions. 19 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 20 Are there questions from Board members? Could 21 you explain simply how you're going to meet the reduced 22 NO2? 23 MR. KUBSH: As Mr. Cross mentioned, there are 24 pathways available that can involve either redistributing 25 the amount of precious metal that's part of a diesel PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 58 1 particulate filter system or taking precious metal out. 2 These have implications as well as not only NO2, but also 3 the potential breadth of technologies that a given Level 3 4 filter can work on. So in cases there might be some 5 changes in the breadth of the application that would be 6 useful to meet that requirement. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 8 If there are no other questions, Bonnie 9 Holmes-Gen. 10 MS. HOLMES-GEN: Good morning, Chairman Sawyer 11 and Board members. I'm Bonnie Holmes-Gen with the 12 American Lung Association of California. And I'm going to 13 briefly give you some comments that were submitted in a 14 letter also signed by the Union of Concerned Scientists, 15 the Natural Resources Defense Council, and Sierra Club of 16 California. 17 And our basic message is that we support the 18 recommendation here today. We appreciate the staff's hard 19 work in reviewing this problem of elevated NO2 emissions 20 from retrofit devices. And while we still have many 21 concerns about the health effects of NO2 emissions, we are 22 in general agreement with the staff proposal because we 23 are concerned about the need to maintain the broadest 24 possible market for retrofit technologies, especially with 25 important regulations coming up such as controls on PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 59 1 construction equipment and other off-road engines. So we 2 see that important need. 3 We especially like the idea of the plus system as 4 a part of the verification system because it provides good 5 market signals to the manufacturers to start driving down 6 those NO2 emissions as quickly as possible. 7 And we think it's a good system because it gives 8 the ARB the flexibility to determine where these plus 9 controls are needed for specific applications in 10 geographic areas. For example, we would hope that the 11 plus technologies with the lowest NO2 emissions would be 12 used in school buses where there's a lot of concern about 13 the health effects from NO2 and PM and other pollutants on 14 children. 15 And as you outlined in your staff presentation, 16 the health concerns from NO2 are something that we have to 17 be very cognizant of. The NO2 from these applications 18 could worsen ozone conditions in Los Angeles. And if NO2 19 is being released from traps or from the engines of school 20 buses, I think you estimate about 20 school buses idling, 21 that those emissions could get dangerously near the State 22 standard. So you have to be very concerned. For that 23 reason, we are suggesting that you amend the plus rating 24 to make it even a more health protective system. And we 25 would recommend that the plus designation for traps be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 60 1 indicated for those traps that do not increase any engine 2 NO2. So this would be a little more stringent designation 3 to meet the plus requirement. 4 The current CARB proposal would allow traps that 5 meet the 2009 requirement -- the 2009 NO2 requirement 6 early to be labeled as a plus control. But we think that 7 we should just be the most health protective and say if 8 we're going to give this plus designation, it's not a BACT 9 designation, so we don't need to worry about it becoming 10 the standard for all of the retrofit devices. But if 11 we're going to provide an incentive, let's provide the 12 most health protective one and encourage manufacturers to 13 develop devices that have no NO2 emissions. So we would 14 strongly urge you to consider that revision to this 15 requirement before you today. 16 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 17 Does the Board have any questions? 18 Dr. Gong. 19 BOARD MEMBER GONG: In regard to Bonnie's last 20 request, how does the staff feel about that? Is that 21 practical? 22 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: What it would 23 mean is that only plug-in traps would qualify for the 24 plus, because they don't generate NO2. And low NO2 25 devices wouldn't qualify for the plus. And the reason to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 61 1 have a plus system at all is mostly for the incentive 2 programs. Because in our regulations, we intend to rely 3 on all the traps that are available to get 85 percent 4 particulate control. But as you saw in last month's 5 hearing on school buses, we received statutory direction 6 from the Legislature to fund only retrofit devices that 7 had the lowest NO2 increase. And so it could affect 8 allocation of funds either by statutory direction or by 9 choices districts make. And our plus would steer them 10 toward plug-in traps as opposed to low NO2 traps. That's 11 the difference. 12 MS. HOLMES-GEN: May I comment quickly that the 13 scenario that Ms. Witherspoon is suggesting is one where 14 there's -- where the plus system is made into a 15 requirement, and that's not the intention of this. That's 16 not our intention. But our intention is to drive the 17 market for as clean of -- so the traps are as clean as 18 possible. 19 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 20 Julian Imes. 21 MR. IMES: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and other 22 Board of the members. My name is Julian Imes. I'm 23 Director of Emissions Technology for Donaldson Company 24 which is located in Minnesota. We have verified product 25 with both ARB and EPA Level 1, Level 2, Level 3 and crank PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 62 1 case control. 2 I'm here today to offer comments in support of 3 the proposed revisions. We think that overall that 4 they're actually very good and a lot of work has been 5 done. We're supportive of the MECA comments. Our 6 concerns and the written comments were directed at the 7 initial staff kind of indications or guidance that level 8 plus become BACT. And we were particularly concerned with 9 the early implementation of BACT for level plus which is 10 initially indicated as of 1-1-07. I understand that 11 that's been -- what's the word? We're not looking at that 12 at this point because there's existing regulation and so 13 on, so it isn't BACT. 14 I do have some concerns on the new regulations 15 that are being developed for off-road, for example, and 16 whether this level plus would become BACT. I just think 17 if you have BACT on a standard, there becomes confusion in 18 the marketplace, uncertainty in terms of how you would 19 apply things. And there would be more assessment need for 20 BACT consideration, both for developers of products which 21 Donaldson is and for people of fleets and the industry 22 relative to cost and the technology application criteria. 23 I do want to offer one comment on this thing of 24 30 to 20 percent and how does the technology impact occur. 25 I think it is true that you can certainly do things to get PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 63 1 from 30 to 20 percent. But as you do so, Joe Kubsh 2 mentioned reducing the breadth of technology application. 3 In fact, it may increase the application temperature to 4 which you could apply some of these products. And then 5 you would have to apply something that would be more 6 expensive, more complex that would have, for example, 7 these plug-in systems. So there are implications 8 involved. 9 Finally, I'd like to conclude that we believe 10 that the plus level designation doesn't necessarily need 11 only apply to NO2 reduction. We would suggest that as an 12 example of innovative technology or PM reduction that 13 crank case control could be included as part of this 14 designation, particularly in school buses. And we offered 15 some comments previously with regard to that. 16 So we think this plus definition is a good thing. 17 We're concerned about the BACT implementation of this 18 prior to January '09. 19 And so that is basically our general comments. 20 So I conclude with that. If you have any questions, I'll 21 take them at this time. Thank you. 22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Are there any questions? If 23 not, does staff have further comment? 24 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: I do. And I gave 25 an incomplete answer to Dr. Gong in the sense that one of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 64 1 the things that concerns us about -- concerns me about the 2 plus system is that it leaves out the effect on VOCs and 3 other toxins that catalyzed particulate traps accomplish. 4 So I thought Mr. Imes would speak to the VOCs as well. I 5 think his letter did. That if we're going to get into 6 pluses and minuses, that we pay attention to all the 7 pollutants. So I want to leave that with you as something 8 to keep thinking about. 9 And then also I want to say in the strongest 10 possible language it is not staff's intent in the regs 11 we're bringing you later this year or early next year to 12 shift to a BACT standard that is driven by this plus that 13 is in the staff recommendation today, because we're going 14 to need all the traps that we have to move into the much 15 more complicated and challenging off-road market where we 16 don't have the same kind of temperature controls. We have 17 all kinds of duty cycles. We have all kinds of issues to 18 overcome. There's going to be limited transferability as 19 it stands. And if we limit it any further, we're going to 20 have all kinds of trouble getting emission reductions that 21 we wish to get. 22 So it's a signal today of what's good from an NO2 23 standpoint only. It does not address VOC. It's intended 24 to provide some guidance in the incentive programs, but it 25 is not an indication of where staff is going on BACT. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 65 1 Though others may ask you to go there, we won't be 2 recommending that when we come back to you with diesel 3 regs later this year. 4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Do Board members have any 5 further questions or comments? 6 If not, since all testimony, written submissions, 7 and staff comments for this item have been entered into 8 the record and the Board has not granted an extension of 9 the comment period, I'm officially closing the record on 10 this portion of Agenda Item Number 6-3-2. Written or oral 11 comments received after the comment period has closed will 12 not be accepted as part of the official record on this 13 agenda item. 14 Now we enter into our ex parte statement. And 15 just to remind Board members of our policy concerning ex 16 parte communications, while we may communicate off the 17 record with outside persons regarding Board rulemakings, 18 we must disclose the names of our contacts and the nature 19 of the contents on the record. This requirement applies 20 specifically to communications which take place after 21 notice of the Board hearing has been published. 22 Are there any communications that you need to 23 disclose? 24 Mr. DeSaulnier? 25 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: No. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 66 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Gong? No. 2 I have one to disclose. I met on the 10th of 3 March with Kevin Shanahan and Brad Edgar in Cleaire in 4 Oakland, California, where we discussed diesel 5 after-treatment NO2 issues and application of filters for 6 locomotives. 7 If you would take a moment to read the Resolution 8 the Board has before us. 9 CHIEF COUNSEL JENNINGS: Dr. Sawyer, if I may, I 10 would like to direct the Board's attention to one element 11 of the Resolution, and that is on page 4 there are CEQA 12 findings. And for purposes of CEQA analysis, the NO2 13 impacts are a significant adverse environemental impact, 14 so there are findings to that effect. And also a finding 15 that the PM benefits from the proposal constitute an 16 overriding consideration. 17 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, if I might, 18 it would seem to me that your opening statement was 19 clearly important to this Board and for us to listen to. 20 And with that in mind, I would like to move the 21 staff recommendations and the approval of the Resolution 22 that is before us with the recognition of the CEQA impacts 23 and the responses to those. 24 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Do I have a second? 25 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Second. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 67 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Second from Mayor Loveridge. 2 I would just add one comment. We find ourselves 3 in the situation of the real world. There are tradeoffs 4 in this area which require compromise, and that's our job 5 is to figure out what is in the -- provides the maximum 6 public good. And I think that the staff has come up with 7 a proposal which allows us to move ahead with the Diesel 8 Particulate Reduction Program. 9 Are we ready for a vote? 10 Yes. Ms. Pineda. 11 BOARD MEMBER PINEDA: I just would like to say 12 that I am associated with Toyota Motor Corporation. We 13 sell in the United States and California gasoline and 14 battery-powered vehicles. We do sell diesel fueled 15 vehicles in Europe, and I'm not sure whether any of those 16 vehicles make their way to California. So out of an 17 abundance of caution -- even if some do, I don't think 18 they would meet the threshold standard for conflict, but 19 just out of an abundance of caution and from a perception 20 standpoint, I would like to recuse myself. 21 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. And 22 since we have a quorum, that will not be a problem. 23 I'd ask the Clerk to call the roll. Or maybe 24 this is so -- I assume we're in favor. I'll take a voice 25 vote. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 68 1 All those in favor please say aye. 2 (Ayes) 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Opposed? 4 Hearing no opposition, the Resolution is adopted. 5 The next item is Update on the Governor's 6 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets and the Climate Action 7 Plan. 8 The last time this Board discussed climate change 9 was September 2004 during the adoption of the Air 10 Resources Board landmark regulations to reduce greenhouse 11 gas emissions from motor vehicles. I lost sense of that 12 sentence. Let me start over. The last time this Board 13 discussed climate change was September 2004 during its 14 adoption of the Air Resources Board landmark regulations 15 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. I 16 was not with the Board at this time, but I followed the 17 issue with great interest. I'm pleased to have the 18 opportunity to participate in the next round of activity 19 as California moves forward to address this challenging 20 issue. 21 California's particularly vulnerable to climate 22 change impacts on its water supplies, its air quality, its 23 agricultural lands, its coast line, and many other 24 resources. It's too late to turn all of these impacts 25 around, but we need to get going so they don't get PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 69 1 substantially worse. The Governor's targets for reducing 2 greenhouse gasses are very aggressive and will require 3 concerted effort by several State agencies, including this 4 Board. 5 Ms. Witherspoon, would you begin the staff's 6 presentation? 7 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yes, thank you, 8 Dr. Sawyer. 9 We have a two-part presentation for you today. 10 Eileen Tutt, Assistant Secretary at Cal/EPA, will begin 11 with an overview of the statewide efforts to combat 12 climate change. Eileen manages the activities of the 13 multi-agency Climate Action Team which has been preparing 14 a comprehensive action plan for the Governor's review and 15 approval talk. She'll talk about that plan and its major 16 findings and recommendations. 17 And Mr. Chuck Shulock of our staff will follow 18 with a presentation of what this all means for ARB. Chuck 19 was responsible for managing the development of our 20 greenhouse gas regulation for motor vehicles and has 21 continued on as ARB's lead person for all things climate 22 related. 23 The purpose of this presentation is to inform you 24 of the activities staff has been and will be undertaking 25 in pursuit of the Governor's climate protection goal. We PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 70 1 do not have specific recommendations for your 2 consideration at this point. Those will come later as 3 individual measures are brought to you for action. 4 Ms. Tutt will now begin the staff presentation. 5 Eileen. 6 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 7 presented as follows.) 8 MS. TUTT: Thank you, Catherine. And good 9 morning to the Board members. I appreciate very much the 10 opportunity to be here today and talk to you about the 11 Governor's Climate Initiative. And the Air Resources 12 Board is a key member of the Climate Action Team. And 13 we're very pleased to update you on where we are at this 14 point. 15 --o0o-- 16 MS. TUTT: Just by way of background, as many of 17 you probably already know, the Governor signed an 18 Executive Order in June of last year that established very 19 ambitious climate change emission reduction targets for 20 the state of California. They're shown here. 21 And by 2010, the state will reduce its emissions 22 down to 2000 levels. That's about a 60 million ton 23 reduction below business as usual, 10 percent below 24 business as usual. 25 By 2020, the reduction will be down to 1990 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 71 1 emission levels. That's about a 175 million ton 2 reduction, 30 percent below business as usual. 3 And by 2025, the Governor set a stretch goal of 4 80 percent below 1990 levels. Now I call it a stretch 5 goal because in 2010 and 2020 those targets were 6 established based on where we think technology can get us. 7 But in 2025, the goal is based on where the 8 science says we need to be in order to protect our planet, 9 but we don't have a path forward yet to get there. We're 10 still developing that. 11 --o0o-- 12 MS. TUTT: In the Executive Order, the Governor 13 put Cal/EPA as the lead agency in coordinating, as 14 Catherine said, this multi-agency effort to meet the 15 Governor's target. And in response to that, the Secretary 16 of Cal/EPA developed this Climate Action Team which 17 includes representatives from Business, Transportation, 18 and Housing; the Department of Food and Ag; the Resources 19 Agency; the Public Utilities Commission; the Air Resources 20 Board; the Waste Management Board; and the Energy 21 Commission. 22 And the Climate Action Team has worked together 23 over the last eight months to develop a report which 24 includes key recommendations, sort of overarching key 25 recommendations. It includes a list of about 40 emission PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 72 1 reduction strategies that the different agencies can 2 implement to get us to the Governor's targets. It 3 includes a look at a market based approach for reaching 4 the targets and reducing emissions at least cost. It 5 includes a scientific analysis of the impacts of climate 6 change on California. As Dr. Sawyer mentioned, they will 7 be significant. It looks at what are the impacts of 8 climate change in any emission reduction strategies we 9 implement on low income and minority communities. And we 10 intend to provide this report to the Governor and the 11 Legislature we're assuming in the next week. 12 --o0o-- 13 MS. TUTT: The key recommendations in the draft 14 report, there were four of them. And they were, we need 15 to have some sort of mandatory emission reporting for 16 climate change emissions. Right now, we have criteria 17 pollutants and toxics, but we have sort of spotty climate 18 change emission reporting. We need to make sure that 19 those industries that have taken early action are not 20 punished in any way for taking action. We need to invest 21 the State's money in a way that reflects our environmental 22 goals. And we recommend it in the original report, a 23 public goods charge on transportation to help fund some of 24 the strategies that are transportation related. That's 25 what was in the original report. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 73 1 Since that report was released in December of 2 last year, we've received over 15,000 comments, and a few 3 hundred of those have been very substantive. So we over 4 the last three months -- we're a little late getting the 5 report to the Governor and the Legislature. And the 6 reason for that is we had this tremendous response. All 7 the comments were due January 31st. We've been working 8 with those comments. We've distilled those that we 9 believe need to be incorporated into the final report to 10 the Governor and the Legislature. We've incorporated 11 those. We've distributed that version of the report to 12 the Climate Action Team, and now we're prepared to give 13 that report to the Governor and the Legislature. 14 --o0o-- 15 MS. TUTT: In the report, we included, as I said, 16 a list of about 40 strategies, some of which are already 17 underway. The Air Resources Board's motor vehicle 18 regulations are going to be key to meeting the Governor's 19 target. The Energy Commission and the Public Utilities 20 Commission's efficiency measures and renewable portfolio 21 standards are also very important. We have the California 22 Solar Initiative, which was supported by this Governor, 23 the hydrogen highway. The Air Resources Board again has 24 been instrumental in building up the hydrogen highway. We 25 have the Green Buildings Initiative and Recycling and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 74 1 Waste Reduction Management Processes that are all part of 2 reduction strategies already underway in this state. 3 --o0o-- 4 MS. TUTT: The Climate Action Team report also 5 includes a list of strategies that we as a team recommend 6 be implemented in order to meet the Governor's target. 7 And that's a very broad list. I included just a few 8 examples here that gives you an idea of the diversity of 9 the strategies and the agencies that would be involved in 10 implementing these strategies. Of course, the Air 11 Resources Board would be responsible for refrigerant or 12 hydrofluorocarbon emission reductions. We have the 13 Resources Agency working on forest management and water 14 use. We have the Energy Commission and the PUC involved 15 in appliance efficiency standards and looking at how we 16 would work with the municipal utilities to improve their 17 emission reductions or climate change goals. We have the 18 Department of Food and Ag considering conservation 19 tillage. And then Business, Transportation, and Housing 20 contributing to the smart land use emission reduction 21 strategies. 22 I'd like to mention here that the Air Resources 23 Board is the agency that will deliver the greatest chunk 24 of tons to meet the Governor's 2020 target. So I know 25 that your staff will be working very diligently over the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 75 1 next two years to begin the implementation process. And 2 also the Air Resources Board was the lead in developing an 3 economic analysis that looked at what are the economic 4 impacts of implementing all these strategies and reported 5 back to the Climate Action Team that implementation of 6 climate change emission reduction strategies would 7 actually be good for California's economy. 8 --o0o-- 9 MS. TUTT: A key conclusion of the report that 10 will be given to the Governor and the Legislature here in 11 the next week is that based on the best available data 12 that we have as a group of coordinated agencies, we 13 believe that implementation of the strategies recommended 14 in the report will lead to achievement of the Governor's 15 targets. 16 --o0o-- 17 MS. TUTT: During our process, during the Climate 18 Action Team process, one of the things that came up was 19 that we needed as a state to look at a market-based 20 approach to reduce emissions at least cost. And when I 21 say market-based, I mean sort of like a cap and trade kind 22 of approach or perhaps auctioning or offsets where 23 industries outside of the cap can sell emission credits to 24 those under the cap. 25 So we look at that as a Climate Action Team, and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 76 1 one of the things -- one of the conclusions that we came 2 to is that clearly a national or international framework 3 is desirable for a market-based kind of approach. 4 However, in the absence of any kind of national action, we 5 believe that this state can be a roll model for other 6 states and perhaps the nation. 7 --o0o-- 8 MS. TUTT: In terms of design options that we 9 considered when looking at a market-based program, we 10 considered what sorts of sectors would be included under 11 the cap. We looked at how we would distribute emission 12 allowances or emission reduction credits. We looked at 13 the idea of auctioning or selling off some of those 14 credits to help fund this whole project. We looked at 15 whether or not offsets should be allowed as part of a 16 market-based program. And although we do not feel that we 17 had time in the eight months we were originally given to 18 develop a full on market-based program, we understand 19 pretty clearly where the gaps are. And we're recommending 20 in our report that we actually develop such a program over 21 the next couple of years. 22 --o0o-- 23 MS. TUTT: In the Executive Order, the Governor 24 recognized the importance of science and knowing what the 25 impacts of climate change on our state will be. And Dr. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 77 1 Sawyer mentioned some of those in his opening remarks. As 2 a Climate Action Team in response to the Governor's 3 request, we are building upon the Energy Commission, their 4 activity right now where they are actually looking at the 5 climate change effects on California. And we're building 6 on that in our Climate Action Team report. And the 7 scientist involved in this effort came up with three 8 scenarios: A high, medium, and low emission scenario and 9 what would the impacts on California be if we do nothing, 10 if we do a little bit, or if we take very ambitious and 11 aggressive action to reduce climate change emissions. I'm 12 going to quickly go through some of the findings of the 13 scientific exercise. 14 --o0o-- 15 MS. TUTT: Because again, Air Resources Board 16 contributed significantly to this effort and we appreciate 17 that role they have in the Climate Action Team. 18 For sea level, California could see up to a 19 35-inch increase in sea level. This threatens our 20 valuable coastlines and our levee system which could be 21 inundated with sea water. 22 --o0o-- 23 MS. TUTT: We are looking at in terms of our snow 24 pack, we could see up to a 90 percent reduction in snow 25 pack. That would affect water quality and availability in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 78 1 the state and also increase flood risks, one of the major 2 concerns that is currently -- we're all currently aware of 3 in the state. 4 --o0o-- 5 MS. TUTT: Increasing temperatures and these 6 water impacts will affect the agricultural industry. And 7 the range of the bull worm as shown in this side is 8 actually one of the indicators that the scientists use to 9 tell us what those impacts on agriculture would be. 10 --o0o-- 11 MS. TUTT: Under all three of the scenarios, 12 there are increased risk of catastrophic forest fires for 13 the state that would impact not only our resources in our 14 forests but also our air quality. 15 --o0o-- 16 MS. TUTT: This is the piece that the Air 17 Resources Board contributed to most greatly, and that is a 18 look at what the impacts of public health would be in all 19 these three scenarios. And, of course, what they found is 20 that heat exacerbates the number of heat-related deaths. 21 It also increases the number of days of non-attainment and 22 ozone formation. And specifically we found that, of 23 course, we wanted to look at what these impacts would be 24 on low income and minority communities. And the Air 25 Resources Board started that work and will continue that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 79 1 work. Because a lot of those communities do not have the 2 resources to respond to some of these impacts in heat 3 increase or they also tend to be more prone to asthma and 4 other illnesses that ozone formation exacerbates. 5 --o0o-- 6 MS. TUTT: Finally, California's electricity 7 supply is impacted by climate change, and that is due to 8 the impacts of different weather patterns on our 9 hydropower system. And also as temperatures increase, 10 electricity demand increases in our state. 11 --o0o-- 12 MS. TUTT: Now given the findings in the Climate 13 Action Team report, our path forward over the next 14 two years -- we have a report due to the Governor and the 15 Legislature every two years -- is that the Climate Action 16 Team will continue to work together to implement these 17 strategies that we've identified in the report. 18 We will develop a market-based option for this 19 state. We will refine the economic analysis with the help 20 of the Air Resources Board. And we will continue to look 21 at the science. And specifically we need to take a closer 22 look at how the State can best adapt to those impacts we 23 know we're going to see in order to protect our resources 24 and our economy. 25 So with that, I thank you for this opportunity to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 80 1 talk to you today. And I'm happy to answer any questions 2 at the end of our presentation. 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much, 4 Ms. Tutt. 5 Are there questions from Board members? 6 Ms. Riordan. 7 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Eileen, I'm interested if 8 there were any recommendations on understanding how to -- 9 who's going to keep track of the emissions. And I'm 10 wondering if there were any recommendations whether that 11 should be done by the government or the Climate Action 12 registry. Did that topic come up and what were your 13 recommendations? 14 MS. TUTT: That topic was discussed very 15 thoroughly, and the Climate Action Team report contains a 16 recommendation that although we believe the Registry's 17 protocols and the processes they use is very robust and 18 we'd like to build upon that, we believe that under a 19 mandatory reporting scheme, like the one we're 20 recommending, we need to bring those functions underneath 21 government or into government. 22 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: So would that sort of 23 preclude then the Registry from moving forward? I think 24 it always seems to me to have been a difficult situation. 25 And I wasn't there when it was created. But I'm thinking PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 81 1 its future. How would you see its future, if it has a 2 future? 3 MS. TUTT: Well, if the Registry's functions were 4 to come under government, I think it would be difficult 5 for them to continue, you know, and be a mandatory 6 function. I think it would be difficult for there to be 7 sort of a voluntary piece hanging out there. It really 8 would be primarily a funding issues. It's one we've 9 discussed at length, and we understand there may be 10 tradeoffs, but we don't have a specific idea of just how 11 it would happen, other than it's pretty clear it would 12 look different than it does now. And likely all of the 13 functions would fall into government. 14 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thanks. 15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Dr. Gong. 16 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Who on the ARB is 17 representing us on the CAT, by the way? 18 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Dr. Sawyer, 19 myself, Tom Cackette, Chuck Shulock, Bart Croes, and 20 various members of staff come and go. And Mike Scheible, 21 you're on there too sometimes. Okay. Many of us. 22 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Good team. Thank you. 23 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Mayor Loveridge. 24 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Thank you for the 25 excellent overview of those. I thought it was well done. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 82 1 This is just a direction. And maybe you could 2 respond to it. I've been co-chairing with the National 3 League of Cities a kind of relationship with the U.S. 4 cities and Canadian cities. And I was in Edmonton a 5 couple of years ago, and I was impressed by what Canadian 6 cities are doing. They have green plans. They have 7 regular attention to alternative energy sources, use of 8 water. There's some specific granting authority that the 9 national government has given to actually the FCM in terms 10 of programs. 11 I would ask, have you looked at that Canadian 12 effort rather than simply kind of top down as to try to 13 create some cross the country or cross the state 14 participation? I always like Ronald Reagan's concept of 15 the prairie fire. How do you -- that seems to me that 16 means not simply a few people sitting in a room making a 17 choice, but many people sort of recognizing the goal and 18 trying to reach it. So I ask that in the abstract. 19 But it seemed to me what I saw at this annual 20 conference of Canadian cities a way for cities and thus 21 people in California to be involved with the objectives 22 that you've identified. 23 MS. TUTT: One of the things that came out of our 24 public process which included nine public meetings was 25 that the cities and local government cities in Sonoma PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 83 1 County even are taking actions that actually go beyond 2 what we can do as a state. And so we support their 3 efforts. And, in fact, in the final Climate Action Team 4 report, one of the recommendations addresses the issue 5 that we need to acknowledge the efforts of the cities and 6 counties within California and help them to track their 7 emissions and emission reductions. 8 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: I would encourage you to 9 look carefully at the Canadian experience. And maybe 10 there's some research which identifies what in fact has 11 happened, some kind of cumulative consequences of that 12 attention of Canadian cities to these issues. I mean, I 13 was -- as you walked around and talked to people, it 14 struck me as this is a major approach for various kinds of 15 cultural reasons in Canada. Maybe there's a lesson or two 16 we could learn. 17 MS. TUTT: Thank you. I appreciate that advice. 18 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Regarding the strategies 19 underway and then the recommended strategies, has the CAT 20 apportioned percentage reductions for those strategies? 21 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: It's in the next 22 presentation. So, yes, there's tons assigned to each of 23 them that add up to the Governor's targets. 24 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: And then you indicated 25 that ARB will probably be the biggest player in terms of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 84 1 the reduction. Could you assign a percentage, a rough 2 percentage on the reductions that we would be responsible 3 for? 4 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We're 20 percent 5 of the first target at least. And then I'll let 6 Chuck hazard a guess at the next. 7 MR. SHULOCK: I think about 20 as well. 8 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: That's a good 9 segue to Chuck's presentation. 10 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 11 presented as follows.) 12 MR. SHULOCK: Thank you. Good morning, 13 Mr. Chairman and members. 14 Ms. Tutt has given you an overview of the 15 Governor's Executive Order and the statewide planning 16 activity being performed by the Climate Action Team. My 17 role today is to outline for you the activities that are 18 underway at the ARB in support of the Climate Action Team 19 and the Governor's goals. 20 --o0o-- 21 MR. SHULOCK: As Ms. Tutt mentioned, there is a 22 comprehensive multi-agency effort underway to assess the 23 impacts of climate change on California and develop 24 strategies to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. The 25 Climate Action Team has identified 44 strategies that have PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 85 1 the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and that 2 appear to be technically and economically feasible. 3 Eleven of these strategies are already underway, but the 4 remaining 33 need to be put in place and implemented. 5 Because the ARB is the lead State agency for air pollution 6 control, many of the strategies fall within our purview, 7 and thus there's going to be a significant ongoing ARB 8 role as work proceeds. 9 --o0o-- 10 MR. SHULOCK: ARB's work in support of the 11 Governor's goals falls into three general categories. 12 First of all, ARB will be heavily involved in the 13 development and implementation of strategies to reduce 14 greenhouse gas emissions. Here, as has been mentioned, 15 the most significant contributor is the motor vehicle 16 greenhouse gas reduction regulation adopted by the Board 17 in September 2004, but there are also ten other strategies 18 for which ARB has lead responsibility. I will outline 19 them in more detail in a moment. 20 Second, ARB will be actively involved in the 21 analysis of the economic impacts of the various strategies 22 alone and in combination. 23 Finally, ARB will continue to conduct scientific 24 research into various climate change related topics. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 86 1 MR. SHULOCK: The motor vehicle greenhouse gas 2 reduction regulations are a key component in the State's 3 drive to reduce our carbon footprint. The regulations 4 took effect January 1, 2006. As you're aware, they have 5 been challenged in both State and federal court. 6 Meanwhile, on December 21st of last year, the Air 7 Resources Board submitted to the U.S. Environmental 8 Protection Agency a request for a waiver of preemption 9 under Clean Air Act Section 209(b) regarding these 10 regulations. The U.S. EPA has not yet acted on this 11 request. Under the existing regulation, the standard 12 phase-in beginning in model year 2009 and take full effect 13 in 2016. The Climate Action Team report recommended that 14 an additional tier of more stringent standards be put in 15 place to take effect from model years 2017 and beyond. 16 --o0o-- 17 MR. SHULOCK: This slide shows the significant 18 reductions attributable to the current and possible 19 follow-up standards. As you can see, the current 20 regulation is estimated to result in a reduction of 30 21 million metric tons in 2020. As additional low greenhouse 22 gas vehicles enter the feet and older vehicles retire, the 23 reduction will grow to 51 million metric tons in 2030. 24 We have not yet conducted a detailed technical 25 analysis to help define what additional reductions might PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 87 1 be achieved by the possible follow-up standards. For 2 purposes of the Climate Action Team exercises, we assume 3 that the follow-up standards would call for a 50 percent 4 reduction in 2017 and beyond as compared to 2002 baseline 5 levels. And it's 50 percent as opposed to the 30 percent 6 reduction that's required for 2016 under the adopted 7 standards. 8 As the slide shows, the additional reduction 9 achieved by such follow-up standards in 2020 will be 10 relatively small, four million metric tons, because only a 11 few model years would be effected by that time. Even so, 12 however, the combined effect of the existing and possible 13 new standards in 2020 is significant. Together, they will 14 result in a reduction of about 34 million metric tons 15 which is slightly more than 20 percent of the reduction 16 needed to achieve the Governor's 2020 target. 17 --o0o-- 18 MR. SHULOCK: This slide illustrates some of the 19 general approaches that are available to achieve 20 additional vehicle related reductions. One possibility is 21 significant penetration of hybrid electric vehicles. As 22 you may recall, our adopted standards do not rely on any 23 use of full hybrids because the judgment of staff was that 24 this technology would not be available for widespread 25 deployment across the fleet in the 2009 through 2016 time PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 88 1 frame. Additional reductions in 2017 and later years 2 could also come from increased use of alternative fuels. 3 Potential candidates include biofuels such as biodiesel 4 and ethynyl, hydrogen, and electricity. 5 --o0o-- 6 MR. SHULOCK: Before leaving the topic of the 7 motor vehicle reductions, I thought it would be of 8 interest to note that since the time the Board improved 9 these regulations in September of 2004, the scientific 10 case for action has grown even more compelling. I asked 11 our research staff for an update, and they identified 12 three areas of interest and I will touch on them briefly: 13 Temperature trends in the lower atmosphere, further 14 evidence of glacial melting, and human activities 15 contributing to oceanic warming. 16 --o0o-- 17 MR. SHULOCK: Let's look first at temperature 18 trends. Previously reported discrepancies between the 19 amount of warming near the surface and higher in the 20 atmosphere had been used to challenge the validity of 21 climate models and the reality of human induced global 22 warming. Specifically surface data shows substantial 23 global warming, while early versions of the satellite data 24 showed little or no warming above the surface. 25 A newly issued report by the U.S. Climate Change PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 89 1 Science Program concludes that there is no longer evidence 2 of such a discrepancy. This is an important revision to 3 and update of the conclusions of earlier reports from the 4 U.S. National Research Council and the Inter-Governmental 5 Panel on Climate Change. 6 Since those reports, errors have been identified 7 and corrected in the satellite data and other temperature 8 observations. These data now show global average warming 9 in the atmosphere similar to the warming observed at the 10 surface and consistent with the results from climate 11 models, although discrepancies remain to be resolved in 12 the tropics. This recent evidence has increased 13 confidence in our understanding of observed climatic 14 changes and their causes. 15 --o0o-- 16 MR. SHULOCK: Two recent satellite studies show 17 that warming air and water are causing Antarctica to lose 18 ice faster than it can be replenished by interior snow 19 fall and are contributing the rising sea levels. One 20 study by a NASA scientist relied upon satellite and 21 aircraft data to measure the changes in the height of ice 22 sheets over a ten-year period ending in 2002. It found a 23 lose of volume in Antarctic with a slight gain in 24 Greenland where inland snows have outpaced ice flowing 25 into the sea. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 90 1 The second study by the University of Colorado 2 evaluated NASA satellite data from 2000 through 2005 to 3 detect subtle changes in the earth's gravitational field 4 that can be used to estimate the weight of water in an ice 5 shape. Though the studies differ as to how much water is 6 being lost, both authors conclude the work adds further 7 evidence that the global warming caused by humans is 8 likely to lead to higher sea levels. 9 --o0o-- 10 MR. SHULOCK: A recently published study 11 significantly strengthens earlier work linking recent 12 ocean warming to human activities. It focuses on the 13 complex vertical structure of ocean warming and shows the 14 computer models capture the structure if they are run with 15 combined changes in manmade forcings, such as well-mixed 16 greenhouse gasses, ozone, and sulfate aerosols, along with 17 natural external forcing, such as solar radiants and 18 volcanic aerosols. The study author goes on to state 19 oceanic warming not be explained by natural climate 20 variability. Rather, the author concludes the changes are 21 human-induced. 22 --o0o-- 23 MR. SHULOCK: Thus, the case for action is 24 increasingly more clear and more compelling. It was 25 against that backdrop that the Governor announced his PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 91 1 goals and the Climate Action Team identified possible 2 strategies. 3 In the next two slides, I will briefly outline 4 the specific strategies that fall within the purview of 5 the Air Resources Board. I've already discussed the 6 vehicle climate standards, so I won't say any more here, 7 other than to note the checkmark indicates that part one 8 of the strategy has already been implemented. 9 This is also the case with the recently adopted 10 diesel anti-idling regulations which will achieve 11 greenhouse gas savings along with their criteria pollutant 12 benefits. 13 Turning to new measures, staff will be exploring 14 a variety of ways to reduce emissions of HFCs which are 15 very potent greenhouse gasses. Possible measures include 16 banning the retail sale of small cans of HFCs that are 17 used for do-it-yourself refills of leaking vehicle air 18 conditioning systems. 19 We also could mandate the use of low GWP 20 refrigerants in new vehicles including medium duty as well 21 as light duty. We're considering adopting specifications 22 for commercial refrigeration units; adding an air 23 conditioner system leak check to the vehicle inspection 24 and maintenance program; and working to improve 25 enforcement of the federal ban on releasing HFCs during PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 92 1 the service and dismantling of vehicle air conditioners 2 and commercial refrigeration systems. 3 We also expect that greenhouse gas reductions are 4 available through increased electrification of transport 5 refrigeration off-road equipment such as agricultural 6 pumps and ports. 7 Methane emissions from manure management 8 practices can potentially be reduced through the use of 9 digesters. Staff will develop emission factors, research 10 control technology options and cost, and work with the 11 districts, industry, and other interested parties to 12 identify possible implementation approaches. 13 --o0o-- 14 MR. SHULOCK: Following up on voluntary measures 15 being undertaken by the semi-conductor industry, staff 16 also will pursue reductions in PFC emissions from 17 semiconductor manufacturing. 18 In the fuels area, it is clear that low carbon 19 fuels are an essential component of any long-term 20 strategy. The Energy Commission in partnership with the 21 ARB is currently developing recommendations to encourage 22 the use of biofuels, including biodiesel and ethynyl 23 blends. Staff is working to ensure that the State fuel 24 strategy achieves the maximum greenhouse gas and energy 25 diversity benefits while fully protecting ambient air PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 93 1 quality. 2 In the heavy-duty vehicle arena, staff will 3 participate in studies intended to identify possible 4 greenhouse gas emission reduction technologies and will 5 review possible implementation approaches. Improved 6 management practices can reduce venting and leaks in oil 7 and gas systems and thereby reuse methane emissions. 8 Staff will further investigate the potential for 9 reductions from this source. 10 One of the key benefits of a hydrogen economy is 11 its potential for significant greenhouse gas reductions. 12 And as you are aware, ARB is aggressively pursuing 13 implementation of the Governor's hydrogen highway network. 14 In the near term, the greenhouse gas benefits to 15 be achieved in the early stages of the hydrogen highway 16 are already included in the tons that we claim for the 17 motor vehicle greenhouse gas regulation. So to avoid 18 double counting, there are no additional tons claimed for 19 the hydrogen highway for 2010 or 2020. Over the long 20 term, however, the hydrogen highway will become one of the 21 key contributors to the Governor's 2050 goal. 22 As you can see, with the exception of the motor 23 vehicle standards, most of the reductions to be achieved 24 through these measures are relatively small. But that is 25 what will be needed to successfully address this global PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 94 1 problem; a broad-based approach that comprehensively 2 minimizes reductions from all sectors. 3 --o0o-- 4 MR. SHULOCK: In addition to developing and 5 implementing reduction strategies, ARB will play a key 6 role in the ongoing economic analysis of the Climate 7 Action Team Program. As Ms. Tutt mentioned, staff in the 8 ARB economic analysis unit conducted a preliminary macro 9 economic analysis which was released in December of last 10 year. That preliminary analysis concluded that the 11 recommended strategies in the aggregate will benefit the 12 California economy in the form of increased jobs and 13 increased personal income. A more refined analysis will 14 be completed later on. This will update the cost and 15 savings estimates and look more closely at the impact of 16 individual measures. Meanwhile, ARB staff will also help 17 support the analysis of market-based alternatives 18 mentioned earlier by Ms. Tutt, such as cap and trade. 19 --o0o-- 20 MR. SHULOCK: The last area where ARB will be 21 undertaking significant activity is in our research 22 program. Here there are three priorities. First, we want 23 to improve our ability to characterize the impact of 24 climate change on California. This involves looking at 25 issues such as how regional climate change will affect PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 95 1 biogenic emissions, meteorological conditions, and other 2 factors which ultimately have an important impact on 3 regional air quality. 4 --o0o-- 5 MR. SHULOCK: The second ARB research priority is 6 the development of improved tools to assess the economic 7 impacts of greenhouse gas reduction strategies. This will 8 include an evaluation of the life cycle impacts of 9 potential measures and a careful look at market-based 10 approaches. 11 Finally, ARB will be conducting studies to 12 directly support the identification and implementation of 13 individual strategies. For example, work is needed to 14 better characterize commercial refrigeration systems and 15 potential control measures in that sector. 16 --o0o-- 17 MR. SHULOCK: I'm sure even this quick overview 18 has been sufficient to show you that ARB has taken on a 19 significant workload to support the Climate Action Team 20 and help achieve the Governor's goals. We do not want 21 this new activity to come at the expense of existing work 22 underway to address other high priorities such as PM 23 reduction, goods movement, air toxic controls, and all of 24 the other critical air quality problems facing the state. 25 Therefore, ARB requested and the Department of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 96 1 Finance and the Governor have approved the inclusion of 2 new resources in the Governor's proposed 2006-2007 budget. 3 This budget has not yet been through the legislative 4 hearing process, so it's not yet clear if the request will 5 ultimately be included in the adopted budget. 6 For the moment, however, the Governor's budget 7 includes 15-and-a-half new positions for ARB primarily to 8 further develop and implement the various strategies that 9 I outlined above. A small component would be assigned to 10 economic analysis. The request also includes $3.25 11 million in one-time contract funds to pursue the 12 identified research priorities. 13 The climate change issue is complex and 14 challenging. You, the Board, Cal/EPA, and the Governor 15 have all shown great leadership in charting a course for 16 action. And staff looks forward to continuing to work on 17 this issue. 18 That concludes our presentation, and again we'd 19 be happy to respond to any questions. 20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you, Mr. Shulock. 21 Are there any questions from the Board? 22 Supervisor DeSaulnier. 23 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: First, I want to 24 congratulate Chuck for your new designation as all things 25 climate change by the Executive Officer, and remind you PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 97 1 that at one time you were all things ZEV, from zero 2 electric vehicles to this. Great report by both of you. 3 I hope though that as we go further, one thing 4 that we learn from the ZEV, and Mayor Loveridge referred 5 to this, since many local governments are entering this 6 field just to support it, that as you look horizontally 7 within the State organization, you also have a template to 8 look vertically at local government in particular. So 9 when some of these strategies -- many of them we're 10 already trying to implement at local government in terms 11 of green buildings, more efficient fleets that, Chuck, you 12 and I have worked on in the past, that there's a vehicle 13 also to the air districts. Because I know South Coast is 14 very active and the Bay Area is active. I know Sonoma 15 County has a long history in this area. I hope you do 16 have a template that way. 17 And, secondarily, some of the reading I've had 18 visive some of the business interests in the state and 19 specifically the Chamber of Commerce, how do we get them 20 to become engaged in the process? And maybe specifically 21 around some of the initiates both the Governor has had and 22 some of our legislative leaders in new technology, the 23 opportunity for California to be a leader from an economic 24 standpoint. 25 So I guess the two questions are, are we ready to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 98 1 work with local government, and is there a template in 2 place including air districts? And then secondarily, the 3 strategy to make the business community more involved, or 4 is that something that's developing? 5 MS. TUTT: We are preparing to be ready to work 6 with local governments. And we have -- and I think we 7 will look at the Canadian government example as well, 8 because I think that will be very helpful. And the second 9 was? 10 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: About dealing with the 11 business community. 12 MS. TUTT: I will say this. We have met with the 13 Chamber and we have another meeting with the Chamber and 14 Air Resources Board to go over the economic analysis. And 15 surprisingly, there are members of the Chamber who are in 16 support of the Governor's targets and in support of the 17 report. 18 So the Chamber's participation in our meetings 19 has kind of been, I would say, certainly not supportive 20 but also they haven't come out in open opposition. 21 They've just said things like, "You need to take more 22 time," or, "You need to refine your economic analysis." 23 They've given us suggestions on how to improve the report. 24 And we are taking that into account. 25 We also have a large business segment that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 99 1 supports the activities of the Climate Action Team. The 2 sustainable Silicone Valley group supports us. We have 3 DuPont on board. We have BP. We have a number of Fortune 4 500 companies that have come forward as part of this 5 effort. And so we do have business support. And although 6 we don't have the Chamber's support, I wouldn't call them 7 necessarily opposed. They're opposed to pieces, and they 8 have suggestions. 9 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: I think that's great. 10 And I know this is a very aggressive visionary 11 long-term process. But just thinking back, Chuck, years 12 ago we were back in Detroit around the ZEV mandates. I 13 think it's really important that we set an example, and we 14 are. And that's why I bring up the comment about local 15 government, and I think Ron's in terms of culture. 16 Because when we went back I don't how many years ago, one 17 of the complaints from auto manufacturers was that there 18 weren't that many ZEV cars in both the State fleet and the 19 local government fleet. So whether it's the fleets or 20 green building, the more we can set an example in 21 government, I think the better we are. 22 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 23 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Kennard. 24 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: I had a question. The 25 budget process is not only volatile, but also very PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 100 1 vulnerable. Is there a backup plan in case these 2 positions in the budget is not approved? 3 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Well, the backup 4 plan is always trying to do more with less. And we've 5 been through budget contractions in the last few years, 6 and we're growing again. I think we showed you earlier 7 this year the Governor's entire budget has on the order of 8 50, 60 new positions for ARB in many categories, and this 9 is just one. So I think we'll grow regardless. 10 What's going on in the budget process is they've 11 held the Governor's entire Climate Change Proposal, which 12 is additions for many departments, in abeyance until the 13 release of the Governor's plan, which has been delayed. 14 As Eileen indicated, it's been next week, next week, next 15 week for a few weeks. So you're hearing breaking news. 16 And when that report comes out, that will settle 17 some of the Legislature's questions. I expect there to be 18 more give and take. There are multiple pieces of 19 legislation that would put in statute the Governor's 20 targets that would define who shall collect emission 21 inventories, whether there will be mandatory reporting, 22 whether there will be public goods charges, many other 23 topics. 24 We made a plea in our pre-hearing, whatever you 25 decide to do on the large policy issues, give us our PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 101 1 money, and let us get to work, because we can deliver tons 2 on these specific control strategies while you're sorting 3 out policy for the State of California. And that might 4 have been disloyal to some of our brethren, but we're 5 going to keep pursuing that line of argument. 6 I think in the end, they're going to negotiate a 7 package that has policy principles the Legislature cares 8 about and has funding for State government agencies to 9 move ahead. 10 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. D'Adamo. 11 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: The slides 11 and 12, 12 first of all, this was a very useful presentation. And it 13 looks like we've got our work cut out for us. 14 But I'm just wondering on the near-term 15 strategies in 2010, some of these categories indicate 16 reductions, but they don't have check marks by them. Are 17 we going to have some of these items coming up any time 18 soon? For example, 2.7. 19 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Go to slide 12, 20 please, because -- I'll come back to that one in a second. 21 We already have underway a biofuels strategy with 22 the California Energy Commission that is looking at ways 23 of increasing the penetration of biodiesel and ethynyl in 24 very short order. And that is due to the Governor March 25 31st and will frame some of the Administration's PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 102 1 positions. 2 And I'll have staff speak about the PFCs on this 3 slide, what the nature of that measure is, and can it be 4 pulled off that quickly. 5 MR. SHULOCK: There's a voluntary agreement that 6 has been put together by the semiconductor industry that 7 calls for reductions of this magnitude. And what this 8 strategy would do is put in place a model rule for 9 adoption at the districts to lock that in and make it an 10 actual requirement rather than a voluntary program. So 11 the basic underpinnings appear to be in place on that one. 12 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: And go back to 13 slide 11, the 2.7 for HFC reduction. As you might 14 remember from the adoption of the greenhouse gas 15 regulation, there was a lot of dialogue about what's going 16 on with mobile air conditioning systems, and we had a 17 mobile air conditioning summit to talk about that. Chuck 18 mentioned earlier private use of air conditioning 19 chemicals that we could ban as one way of getting at this 20 target. And the ban could take effect very quickly and 21 just simply phase that use out. And it would be 22 enforcement driven whether we got as many tons as we think 23 we got. And then there's also a lot of activity going on. 24 Chuck, aren't you going to an international 25 conference, or one of our staff members, on what's PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 103 1 happening with 151 and chemical substitution? 2 RESEARCH AND ECONOMIC STUDIES BRANCH CHIEF COREY: 3 This is Richard Corey with the Research Division. We have 4 attended annually the Mobile Air Conditioning Summit, the 5 international summit of auto and other representatives in 6 terms of exploring technologies to reduce emissions, HFCs 7 included, from AC systems. We work with them through the 8 development of the regulation and continue that 9 collaboration. And that includes the consideration of 10 improved containment as well as alternative refrigerants 11 such as 152a as well as CO2. 12 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: What would be the 13 enforcement mechanism? I'm just a little concerned, 14 seeing 2010 is not too far away. 15 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Let me 16 address a couple things on this. One is this is a more 17 comprehensive measure. It does not involve just mobile, 18 but it also involves commercial refrigeration and those 19 kinds of things, changing the refrigerant in those. And 20 most of the sub-elements that we think we can do here also 21 require some legislative action to authorize them. So 22 your question about whether we can get them done in 2010, 23 there are a couple of hurdles that have to be overcome 24 first. 25 But our commitment is to get started right away PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 104 1 and develop the scientific and factual and economic base 2 so that we can go ahead and do these regulations and 3 parallel to that seek the authority that we need from the 4 Legislature. 5 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: And then the other 6 question is whether or not any other states have expressed 7 an interest in taking on such an aggressive plan. 8 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Before the 9 Governor adopted targets for California, a number of 10 states had stepped out, most notably New York, adopting 11 their own. And some of them were more stringent than what 12 our Governor ultimately adopted. And part of the reason 13 for that is those are states with more heavy industry and 14 more options in the near term to do things like shift away 15 from coal-fired power plants into cleaner electrical 16 generation and to get massive reductions. 17 And so we had to go through a process of what is 18 the most stringent goal California could achieve? Because 19 we have the advantage and disadvantage of being very 20 energy efficient already as a state, and our strategies 21 look different than other states. What California did 22 that's innovative is set the stretch goal 50 years out at 23 where the science tells us we need to go. And so I would 24 say all states are interested in the strategies that work. 25 Whoever figures it out first, the rest will copy. We have PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 105 1 the West Coast Climate Collaborative -- is that the name 2 of it, Eileen? 3 MS. TUTT: It's the West Coast Governor's 4 Association. 5 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: With mostly 6 climate oriented coordination on electricity strategies 7 and mobile strategies, for example, having IdleAire 8 electrification type devices on Interstate 5 running 9 through the three states. We've been kicking around 10 whether or not the three states should have a regional 11 trading network if our state moves into trading, things of 12 that nature, poor electrification up and down the coast. 13 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: How about more 14 specifically on the vehicle climate change regulations? 15 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Twelve states 16 have opted into our standards constituting a third to 40 17 percent of the U.S. motor vehicle market. 18 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Last question on biogenic 19 emissions. What specifically are you -- is the research 20 staff going to be looking at on that? 21 RESEARCH AND ECONOMIC STUDIES BRANCH CHIEF COREY: 22 This is again Richard Corey with the Research Division. 23 At this point, that's a concept that was 24 identified, a research concept getting at the impact that 25 changes in meteorology, temperature included, will have on PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 106 1 exacerbating biogenic emissions and the impact those 2 emissions have in turn on air quality making achieving of 3 standard and so forth more difficult with respect to the 4 share biogenic could increase by virtue of enhanced 5 emissions. 6 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: What I know about biogenic 7 emissions is more the agricultural field. Is that what 8 you're looking at in particular, or just all types of 9 plants? What do you expect to find? 10 RESEARCH AND ECONOMIC STUDIES BRANCH CHIEF COREY: 11 I expect to find terpanes and certain biogenic emissions 12 that are particularly reactive and play a large share with 13 respect to photochemistry that we tend to focus on with 14 respect to that analysis and look at particularly in 15 populated rural areas, regional areas. 16 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: The biogenic 17 research done to date, as I understand it, has tried to 18 isolate the relative rate of VOC offgassing from different 19 crop types, putting them in smog chambers, but I don't 20 know that they've done as much temperature gradients of 21 how much those change in different temperature regimes. 22 So that's the difference. And it would be all crops and 23 forests and the rest of it. 24 MR. SHULOCK: And one other aspect to it is 25 change in coverage. As if temperature changes and then PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 107 1 different plants come in to cover different areas, there 2 could be changes in just what exists in large areas of the 3 state, and that could have implications as well. 4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Mayor Loveridge. 5 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Three quick things. 6 One, I agree with Mark's comments, particularly 7 the vertical as well as horizontal look. 8 Second, just a more narrow question, but hybrids. 9 They're on the shelf. They're available. Driving a Prius 10 is a great experience. Where are they? And particularly 11 with the whole -- there's a new kind of initiative that's 12 sort of centered -- Austin, Texas has raised it. The 13 South Coast can be a part of it. But every muni in the 14 country is now part of this sort of looking at the plug-in 15 technology which is seemingly available. Where are we in 16 terms of hybrids and plug-ins? And I don't see it on the 17 list. 18 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Well, 19 first of all, where hybrids would be on the list is one of 20 the technologies to be considered in the second phase of 21 the 1493 Pavley greenhouse gas standards. Where we are 22 pragmatically at this point is that the number of hybrid 23 electric vehicles available is increasing. I think this 24 year is something like 27 total models will be out. 25 There's a growing sales of those. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 108 1 There are some evidence of stumbling blocks. I 2 noticed an article that Ford said it had to start offering 3 incentives to move the Escape hybrid. I think there's 4 some of the situations where Toyotas are in great demand 5 and not many of them on the lots. 6 But the projections that those who focus on 7 what's the future of a given model, you know, show the 8 number of hybrids is in the 10 percent or less range of 9 all cars sold in the next five to seven or eight years. 10 It's one of these things where any new technology is not 11 going to go to 100 percent quickly. 12 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: With some government 13 procurement policies, we could push hybrids in ways 14 that -- I mean, it was nice riding it down in San Diego 15 the hybrid to the dinner. I mean, why aren't we putting 16 greater emphasis particularly on trying to encourage the 17 use of hybrids, particularly through procurement policy? 18 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Mayor Loveridge, 19 you're seeing partly an artificial distinction going on 20 here. At the time when we adopted the greenhouse gas 21 standards, we kept them separate and apart from our LEV 22 standards, understanding there would be litigation. 23 Also we had a statutory constraint on cost 24 recovery over the life of the standards. And that put us 25 roughly -- not absolutely, but roughly at a thousand PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 109 1 dollar incremental cost per car, which off-the-shelf 2 technologies can deliver. And hybridization at the moment 3 is considered a $3,000 item. 4 So we built a greenhouse gas reg that's not 5 reliant on hybrids, but which we expect hybrids to 6 partially serve for compliance. And then we would be more 7 explicitly mandating hybridization in the second phase of 8 the greenhouse gas regulation. 9 Now, closer to home and closer to now, we've just 10 begun the expert panel for the ZEV/LEV regulation and will 11 be bringing to you next year a report on the status of our 12 light-duty regulations and what if any adjustments ought 13 to be made to our gold standard which is currently 14 hydrogen fuel cells are silver, which is hybrids and 15 natural gas vehicles, and bronze, et cetera. And at any 16 point in time, we are open to discuss possible incentives 17 that are not regulatory. We consider our regulation the 18 principle driver, but the State passed legislation letting 19 hybrids into diamonds lanes and is going through an 20 evaluation that's wildly popular. Different cities offer 21 free parking for hybrids. 22 We have various fleet programs under evaluation. 23 We're trying to change the Energy Act. That's a little 24 harder. Our Energy Policy Act, because hybrids don't 25 count in satisfying those national mandates, and that's PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 110 1 been a barrier in placing hybrids in the State fleet. And 2 also State contracts have been a barrier. Toyota doesn't 3 want to sell to the State of California, because they 4 could sell them for more to individual consumers on 5 waiting lists, so we weren't able to buy Priuses, for 6 example. But we're working on many different aspects. 7 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: On the plug-in -- I 8 mean, Toyota doesn't like it either. But it seems to me 9 that the plug-in offers an interesting technology. And 10 you really have a rather major site up now that's 11 occurring. And it seems to me ARB should be part of that 12 look at plug-in. 13 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: We are. 14 We're a co-sponsor of a major study that looked at the 15 economics and viability of plug-in hybrids that was done 16 with EPRI and I think it was Ford and maybe Toyota was 17 participating in it as well. So that sort of set the 18 scientific and economic base for these vehicles. 19 No car company has expressed any plans other than 20 in a sprint or delivery van from DaimlerChrysler to 21 produce a plug electric vehicle. And I think the reason 22 that they're saying that is that the incremental cost is 23 relatively high. They have to have bigger batteries, et 24 cetera. 25 Where we're going to address that proactively is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 111 1 in the next ZEV review in early next year. There's a lot 2 of pressure outside of the car companies, as you indicate, 3 as everything from former CIA heads to, you know, people 4 in the electric industry, et cetera, who think this is an 5 excellent technology where you could basically have our 6 battery electric vehicles at least for 20 miles of our 7 driving every day that are plugged in at night. And when 8 you go beyond that, the engine takes the car on gasoline 9 or some other fuel the rest of the way. 10 So how those play into the mix with hydrogen 11 vehicles with pure battery electric vehicles under our ZEV 12 mandate is an issue that will come in front of the Board 13 next year. 14 Skipping back to the regular hybrids that are 15 being sold today, I guess if you look around, most 16 governments are buying them today. You've got them in the 17 State fleet. You look around here for County fleets and 18 City fleets around here, you see Priuses and Hondas and 19 Ford Escapes all over the place. So there are I think 20 proactive movements by local governments and State 21 government to buy vehicles. 22 When Dr. Sawyer was testifying to a select 23 Committee on alternative fuels the other day, the Chairman 24 of that Committee -- and there were five legislative 25 members there -- said how many are driving hybrid electric PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 112 1 vehicles? And every one of them put up their hands. 2 Admittedly, they were a select group who have an interest 3 in this. But you can see it's starting to happen. 4 But the one point I want to make is that they're 5 not that many in percentage terms of total vehicles that, 6 in fact, are government fleet vehicles. So while it's a 7 leadership position that demonstrates a trend, you know, 8 you're going to get -- if everybody drove them, it's going 9 to be a few percent of all vehicles. 10 The most significant thing that's been done to 11 encourage the use of larger numbers of hybrid electric 12 vehicles other than the marketplace themselves is the ZEV 13 mandate. The percentage of vehicles under most 14 manufacturer's compliance plan gets over 10 percent. Over 15 one in every ten vehicles has to be hybrids early in the 16 next decade. So, of course, that issue is sort of up for 17 review by the Board in early '07 as well. But that's a 18 significant driver to make sure that -- and that's further 19 than what most people think. Most of these people who 20 project the future of given technologies think they will 21 get on market forces alone. So that's the big variable 22 here. 23 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Just two last things. 24 City of Austin I know for example has decided to 25 put $40 million into this kind of plug-in technology and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 113 1 are taking one of the leads. 2 And just the last comment is that California has 3 really stepped up on this, and I think it's really an 4 important historic initiative. I was thinking again of 5 the prairie fire notion. And the Mayors are holding -- I 6 know Richard Daley has called for a major green conference 7 in May, and the mayors are coming. 8 But I just ask the question maybe the State ought 9 to take a kind of prairie fire initiative and hold the 10 kind of conference where the Governor can host other 11 Governors and what's happening in other states and best 12 practices and best research could be unveiled. So maybe 13 just a good thing for the Governor to do I think and good 14 thing for California to take leadership in this. 15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Pineda. 16 BOARD MEMBER PINEDA: Just very briefly, I want 17 to say I'm very, very pleased that CARB will play an 18 important and appropriate role in this effort. 19 I do have a couple of questions. Actually, one 20 other comment, and that is in addition to the Chambers of 21 Commerce, I really do encourage CARB to continue the 22 outreach which I think CARB has done a very good job of 23 doing with the industries that will be impacted. I think 24 it is critical they are at the table and working towards 25 solutions. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 114 1 My question has to do with the scientific 2 research. And not having read the study, I thought it was 3 interesting there was a finding that warming cannot be 4 explained by natural climate variability, concludes 5 oceanic warming is human induced. And while I am strong 6 believer that we are contributing to the warming, I think 7 that the scientific research is absolutely critical, 8 particularly in terms of credibility. 9 What is the budget allocation for scientific 10 research? I wasn't sure if the 3.5 million -- 11 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Well, let me just 12 clarify quickly. That was not our research. 13 BOARD MEMBER PINEDA: I understand that. 14 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: So the global 15 budget is huge. And ours is very focused on air quality 16 linkages to climate and temperature effects. 17 BOARD MEMBER PINEDA: But what will our budget be 18 for that research that we do? 19 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Well, we have a 20 one-time infusion of $3.5 million imposed. 21 BOARD MEMBER PINEDA: That's what the 3.5. I 22 wasn't sure if that was addition -- 23 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We spend a modest 24 amount every year. We have climate change as a category 25 in our research budget. Probably spend a few hundred PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 115 1 thousand every year. I know we spent 400,000 on the 2 scenario analysis for the Governor's Climate Action Team. 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Supervisor DeSaulnier, did 4 you want to -- we have a single speaker for this subject, 5 Nick Deluca. 6 MR. DELUCA: Good morning. And thanks for the 7 opportunity to speak. My name is Nick Deluca, speaking on 8 behalf of CogenWorks, which is a coalition of electrical 9 cogenerators in California. We believe that cogeneration 10 is an important but at risk part of the greenhouse gas 11 reduction solution. 12 The Public Utilities Commission right now is in 13 the midst of proceedings to set or not set the rules and 14 regulations that will implement State policy on 15 cogeneration and guide cogenerators and utilities in 16 contract negotiations, which is the critical issue now, 17 because the first generation of cogeneration contracts 18 that were a positive outgrowth of the energy crisis of the 19 '70s is coming up for renewal now. And at this point, 20 there's no assurance those contracts will be renewed. 21 That matters because our roughly 770 cogenerators 22 in California provide about almost 20 percent of our 23 electricity needs, 9,000 megawatts roughly. 24 Now, that's something we know. But what a lot of 25 people don't know is that cogeneration also provides PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 116 1 substantial environmental benefits. Because cogeneration 2 is the use of a single fuel, usually natural gas, to 3 produce two forms of energy, generally electricity and 4 heat, and that efficiency, that two-for-one energy 5 production reduces air pollution now by the equivalent of 6 taking five million cars off our roads every year. 7 Specifically, a study commissioned by the 8 California Energy Commission found that cogeneration 9 reduces CO2 emissions by more than 26 million tons each 10 year and nitrogen oxide by 7600 tons. Those are the 11 emission equivalent reductions we get from cogeneration 12 today. And that's what we'd be putting back into the air 13 if we lose cogeneration and we return to separate 14 production for heat and electricity. 15 And not surprisingly, I think one recommendation 16 in the Climate Action Team's draft report that seems not 17 to have been the subject of controversy was their call for 18 the expansion of cogeneration to help meet the State's air 19 quality goals in the future. 20 But what I'd like to call your attention to is 21 something that's happening today. For now, cogeneration 22 continues to provide an important opportunity to make 23 efficient use of scarce power resources while benefiting 24 air quality. But as the Energy Commission has pointed 25 out, we won't be able to keep those reductions in place, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 117 1 and we could lose an opportunity to reduce emissions even 2 further by expanding the use of cogeneration without 3 action by the Public Utilities Commission. We know it 4 needs to be addressed. 5 As the Energy Commission puts it, cogenerators 6 still struggle with major barriers to market entry. Many 7 of the state's larger cogeneration systems still run under 8 the terms of contracts signed during the early '80s 9 following the national energy crisis of the late 1970s. 10 These projects could shut down in the near future as their 11 contracts expire. 12 We also know what needs to be done. The CEC has 13 written that blueprint, and we join with them in calling 14 on the Public Utilities Commission to take three steps. 15 First, the PUC needs to bring transparency to 16 utility prices so that electricity producers, utilities, 17 and rate payers all get a fair deal. 18 Second, the PUC must establish an open and 19 standardized contract process that ensures utilities deal 20 squarely with cogenerators. 21 And third, the PUC should set annual targets for 22 the use of cogeneration so all of us can continue to 23 benefit from clean, efficient cogenerated power. 24 Together, those steps take California's 25 statements of support from various agencies dealing with PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 118 1 environmental and energy issues. Take those statements of 2 support out of the rhetorical realm and put them into 3 practice that preserves the environmental and energy 4 benefits of cogeneration and your voices individually and 5 as a Board would be invaluable in support of cogeneration, 6 and we would welcome them. 7 Thank you. And I left written comments with the 8 Clerk as well. 9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 10 I'd like to make a comment that I've also heard 11 this week from the agricultural community. They're 12 concerned about the future of biogenerators because of the 13 pricing mechanism. Do we have any interaction with the 14 Public Utility Commission? 15 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We do. And we'd 16 work very cooperatively with them on measures that were in 17 our air quality interest such as shifting agricultural 18 pumps back onto the rig, where they had shifted off to use 19 diesel, and working the price calculations in such a way 20 that the cost of air pollution was factored in and allowed 21 them to meet their statutory requirements for lowest price 22 power and return to the rate payer and all the other -- I 23 don't know all the technical requirements. But they have 24 serious constraints. 25 And this is the first I've been hearing of this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 119 1 particular issue. But we talked to -- I looked at Eileen 2 during the gentleman's testimony. We talk to PUC and CEC 3 every week practically. So we certainly can raise this 4 with them. And I don't know if it's shear economics 5 that's causing the problem. They do have a climate change 6 goal now for the procurement of power. And to the extent 7 that cogen and biopower meet that target, that should make 8 them more competitive. But it might be just the 9 differential between very efficient combined cycle power 10 plants and less efficient small units that cost more than 11 the State's willing to pay or able to pay. But we'll have 12 to find out what it is. 13 MS. TUTT: I would just add, Dr. Sawyer, that we 14 are aware there are sort of barriers in the way of some of 15 our distributed generation efforts, including 16 cogeneration. And we have been working with the Energy 17 Commission and the PUC to overcome those barriers. 18 It's also a concern of the Business, 19 Transportation, and Housing Agency. So I think to the 20 degree the Air Board, the Cal/EPA, the Business, 21 Transportation, and Housing Agency all work together with 22 the PUC and the CEC to address these issues via the 23 Climate Action Team and other efforts, we will find some 24 solution. But we are aware there are barriers there that 25 need to be overcome. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 120 1 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Just also to 2 remind you of a policy established by this Board. You 3 adopted standards for distributed generation that said 4 over time it should be as clean from an air pollution 5 standpoint as central station power. And in time, that 6 will become a barrier as well to what may be deployed. 7 And we'll have to revisit that and integrate CO2 into that 8 calculation. But that's a factor. 9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Does staff have any further 10 comments? 11 If not, since this is not a regulatory item, it's 12 not necessary to officially close the record. 13 Even though our court reporter is clearly a woman 14 of steel and has said she's quite willing to go on, I 15 think it's inhuman to ask her to do that. So I'd like to 16 take a five-minute break at the present time. 17 (Thereupon a recess was taken.) 18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: The last agenda item today 19 is 6-3-4, a staff presentation on new tools for providing 20 public access to air quality information. 21 I'm pleased to see how much progress has been 22 made in recent years regarding public access to 23 information. Transparency is very important for every air 24 quality program. And the data we use should be readily 25 available and understandable. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 121 1 Ms. Witherspoon. 2 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, Dr. 3 Sawyer, and now for some show and tell. 4 Over the past few years, ARB has developed a 5 number of Internet tools to make air quality information 6 more accessible to the public. Today, staff is going to 7 present to you two major projects we recently completed. 8 The first one provides real time air quality monitoring 9 data. The second one maps emissions sources within 10 California communities. Both of these tools enable the 11 public to view air quality and emissions data on a 12 neighborhood level and are an important part of ARB's 13 environmental justice program. 14 I will now ask Jeff Austin and Beth Schwehr of 15 the Planning and Technical Support Division to give a 16 joint staff presentation. 17 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 18 presented as follows.) 19 MR. AUSTIN: Thank you, Catherine. Good 20 afternoon, Chairman Sawyer and members of the Board. 21 Today, we will be presenting an information item 22 regarding ARB's tool and approaches for providing public 23 access to the many kinds of valuable information available 24 regarding California's air quality with special focus on 25 two tools: For air monitoring data and for the emissions PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 122 1 that contribute to air pollution. 2 --o0o-- 3 MR. AUSTIN: ARB has a goal of providing and 4 expanding public access to our program information. This 5 includes using both technology approaches and 6 community-based outreach. Promoting greater public 7 awareness and participation in our programs is a high 8 priority for ARB, and extensive resources have been 9 devoted over the past several years in many of our program 10 groups toward these goals. 11 In particular, today's presentation focuses on 12 some of our new technological tools to improve the public 13 access to two of our program areas: Ambient air quality 14 and emissions information. 15 One of our goals in these areas is to provide a 16 community-based perspective. We have designed Internet 17 based tools to allow the public to find the data for their 18 particular neighborhood. 19 --o0o-- 20 MR. AUSTIN: Today's presentation will highlight 21 specific tools. For air quality data, our AQMIS system 22 provides real time data on ambient air quality and 23 meteorology. For emission data, our CHAPIS system maps 24 the sources and emissions that contribute to air pollution 25 levels. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 123 1 For health status data in communities such as 2 disease incidents, we are adding new links on our website 3 to health statistics published by other agencies, such as 4 the Department of Health Services. Today's presentation 5 will include brief demonstrations of these tools. 6 --o0o-- 7 MR. AUSTIN: The ARB's web pages have several 8 different options for accessing the AQMIS and CHAPIS 9 tools. One is through our air quality and emissions page. 10 Another is through the ARB databases page. And another is 11 through our community health page. 12 --o0o-- 13 MR. AUSTIN: ARB developed the community health 14 web page a few years ago to provide a central gateway to 15 help members of the public find information for their 16 community across ARB's various program areas. Here you 17 see the main community health page. It provides a central 18 starting point that has links to the tools we're 19 discussing today. It has a link to the AQMIS system for 20 air quality data and maps, and it has a link to the CHAPIS 21 emission maps. 22 --o0o-- 23 MR. AUSTIN: We will now briefly discuss and 24 demonstrate our air quality data and mapping tools. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 124 1 MR. AUSTIN: AQMIS stands for the Air Quality and 2 Meteorological Information System. The system provides 3 data in real time so that the public can have immediate 4 access to local air quality and meteorological data. The 5 data are in the form of hourly average measurements, and 6 all the data are available within 45 minutes after the 7 hour they were collected. Most data are available within 8 20 minutes after the hour. Right now, we're receiving 9 data for around 200 ARB and district air quality 10 monitoring sites. Key pollutants are ozone and 11 particulate matter, but AQMIS also provides data on other 12 pollutants of interest, as well as meteorology data which 13 is important for applications like smoke management. 14 --o0o-- 15 MR. AUSTIN: This map shows the location of air 16 quality monitoring sites that report data to AQMIS. Air 17 quality data are provided by local districts, ARB's 18 Monitoring and Laboratory Division, and the National Park 19 Service. Each of the data suppliers has its own data 20 format and way of getting data to AQMIS. Part of the 21 challenge of running AQMIS is keeping up with all the 22 format changes, technology changes, new sites, and 100 23 other details that need to be right in order to keep the 24 data flowing. Since the data are straight from the 25 instrument and haven't been seen by human eyes before PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 125 1 they're transmitted, AQMIS has automated screening 2 routines to review the quality of the data before they're 3 posted to the website. 4 --o0o-- 5 MR. AUSTIN: The real time data provided by AQMIS 6 are valuable for many applications. AQMIS provides 7 up-to-date air quality information and statistics to 8 planners, analysts, and the general public that parallels 9 and supplements air quality alert programs such as Spare 10 the Air and Don't Light Tonight. It also provides 11 meteorology data to support decisions on where and when it 12 is appropriate to burn as part of our smoke management 13 program. It supports real time emergency response models 14 by supplying meteorological and air quality information. 15 Finally, it supports a wide variety of other air quality 16 and tracking efforts, such as providing ozone trend data 17 for recent years. 18 --o0o-- 19 MR. AUSTIN: Now I'm going to show you some 20 samples from the AQMIS website. Let's start with the 21 AQMIS home page. In the box on the left, there are four 22 choices of ways to look at data. There's latest ozone air 23 quality, which shows you ozone statistics for the last 24 week grouped by geographic area. There's recent years 25 ozone air quality, which compares ozone statistics from PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 126 1 recent years by area. There's the query tool which allows 2 you to select what parameter statistics and time frame you 3 want to see. And then there's the interactive map page. 4 --o0o-- 5 MR. AUSTIN: To give you an idea of how the 6 website works, let's say I'm interested in checking out 7 the air quality in Sacramento County. The page we're 8 looking at shows current ozone readings for the Sacramento 9 area for one day. This happens to be a couple of weeks 10 ago. Air monitoring sites are listed on the left in blue, 11 and we're looking at eight hours' worth of data for the 12 middle the day. The whole day won't fit on one screen. 13 The numbers in red are the highest values so far for the 14 day. You can click on the name of an air monitoring site 15 to zoom in on detail for that site. In fact, if you keep 16 following the links, you can get to additional 17 information, such as photos of the site. 18 --o0o-- 19 MR. AUSTIN: Next is a sample report for the last 20 week with the Sacramento metropolitan area at the top of 21 the list. It shows the highest one-hour concentration and 22 eight-hour average concentration for ozone for the current 23 day so far, yesterday, the last seven days, and this year. 24 Everything that shows up in blue is a link that you can 25 click on to get more detail. Here almost every item on PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 127 1 the page is a link. 2 To put the current data that we just looked at in 3 context, you can look at the annual ozone study for the 4 last few years. The years that show up in red here 5 contain preliminary data. The years that show up in blue 6 are 100 percent data for record, that is data that's been 7 reviewed and officially submitted. 8 This page shows the number of statistics that 9 provide information on how the air quality in an area 10 compares to the State and federal standards, such as the 11 number of exceedance days, peak one-hour and eight-hour 12 average concentrations, and the design values which are 13 calculated values used to determine attainment status of 14 an area. Here again you can click on almost every item on 15 the page to get more detail. 16 --o0o-- 17 MR. AUSTIN: As another way of displaying data, 18 AQMIS also provides an interactive map page. It's zoomed 19 in on Sacramento right now and it's showing ozone. 20 Monitoring sites show up here as green dots. 21 They're color coated with green representing low 22 concentrations, shading up into yellow and red as the 23 concentration goes up. 24 Next to the dots are numbers showing the current 25 concentrations. On the left are tools for zooming, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 128 1 selecting which variable to look at, changing the date, 2 and so on. 3 On the right, you can turn map features on and 4 off, such as location of schools, parks, and airports. 5 Some of the districts have their own websites with similar 6 map displays. Sacramento, the South Coast, and the San 7 Joaquin Valley Districts have their own map pages. What's 8 unique about the AQMIS map page is it brings data together 9 from various districts and the ARB in one place. AQMIS is 10 especially useful for smaller districts that don't have 11 their own data website. 12 --o0o-- 13 MR. AUSTIN: The current version of AQMIS became 14 operational a year and a half ago, and we're continuing to 15 expand its coverage and add capabilities. Among the 16 improvements for planning are expanding the number of data 17 sources, creating additional summaries like the ones we 18 just saw, developing more sophisticated map features, and 19 creating advanced tools to serve the needs of specialized 20 users, such as wind displays for meteorologists. 21 This concludes the part of our presentation on 22 air quality data. Next we'll move on to emission mapping 23 tools. 24 At this point, I'll turn the presentation over to 25 Ms. Beth Schwehr. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 129 1 --o0o-- 2 MS. SCHWEHR: Thank you, Jeff. And good 3 afternoon, Chairman Sawyer and members of the Board. I 4 will continue now with a discussion and demonstration of 5 our emissions mapping tool, CHAPIS. 6 --o0o-- 7 MS. SCHWEHR: CHAPIS stands for the Community 8 Health Air Pollution Information System. CHAPIS evolved 9 out of ARB's Community Health and Environmental Justice 10 Program outreach. Community members were very interested 11 in mapping the sources of emissions in their neighborhood. 12 It was important to find a way to combine all the kinds of 13 emissions sources on the maps, everything from 14 transportation related sources to industrial and 15 commercial facilities and widely used consumer products 16 and paints. So CHAPIS was designed to cover the emissions 17 from all of these sources. 18 CHAPIS was launched about two years ago after a 19 multi-year effort and close collaboration with the local 20 air districts and CAPCOA, the California Air Pollution 21 Control Officers Association, to ensure high quality in 22 the data used for the maps. 23 --o0o-- 24 MS. SCHWEHR: CHAPIS provides maps of the 25 locations of sources and the amounts of their emissions PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 130 1 for both smog-forming criteria pollutants and toxic air 2 pollutants that are released into the air by the routine 3 activities at the sources. 4 CHAPIS uses interactive web-based mapping 5 capability. It utilizes powerful geographic information 6 system, or GIS, computer tools so that users can zoom into 7 their neighborhood and see the various sources of air 8 pollution emissions near them. 9 The information in CHAPIS includes all types of 10 emission sources. These include the mobile sources; cars, 11 trucks, off-road equipment; and area-wide sources such as 12 consumer products and paints using gridded emissions on 13 the map, which I'll explain shortly. And CHAPIS includes 14 the individual, industrial, and commercial facilities, 15 such as power plants refineries, chemical plants, and so 16 on. 17 CHAPIS provides maps that allow users to quickly 18 see and explore the spacial relationships among sources. 19 It also lets users drill down to get the underlying 20 tabular data in the ARB's emission inventory database. 21 --o0o-- 22 MS. SCHWEHR: I'll be showing a series of screen 23 shots to show the CHAPIS functionality. The company names 24 have been masked on the slide to keep the presentation 25 general. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 131 1 And I'll just mention that CHAPIS also has 2 background text, help pages, and a tutorial for first-time 3 users. 4 To begin using the CHAPIS map, we start by 5 selecting an area of interest. We can enter a Zip Code or 6 pick a county, air basin, air district, or various local 7 regions. Here we started by choosing Los Angeles County. 8 --o0o-- 9 MS. SCHWEHR: This is the main CHAPIS map window. 10 It has various buttons or zooming and panning around the 11 map and many other functions. I'll highlight a few today, 12 but there are others such as selecting by type of industry 13 that we don't have time to cover. 14 Our next step is to pick a pollutant of interest. 15 CHAPIS covers all the smog-forming criteria pollutants, 16 such as nitrogen oxides, organic gasses, and PM10. CHAPIS 17 also covers about 50 toxic pollutants. These include the 18 top cancer, chronic, and acute chemicals reported under 19 the Air Toxic Hot Spots Program, and also the top 20 chemicals emitted in very large quantities and many other 21 toxic pollutants of interest. 22 In this example, I've chosen the pollutant 23 reactive organic gas, or ROG. Then the next step is to 24 now zoom in to a tighter view by using the mouse to click 25 and drag a rectangular box over a small area on the map. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 132 1 --o0o-- 2 MS. SCHWEHR: Now the CHAPIS map has zoomed into 3 this local area. As we zoom in, the map allows more types 4 of data and more detail to be seen. The black triangles 5 represent individual, industrial, and commercial 6 facilities that emit reactive organic gas, the pollutant 7 that we choose. The larger triangles represent greater 8 yearly emissions of ROG. The map shows locations of 9 schools, hospitals, airports, roads, parks, and other 10 landmarks. 11 --o0o-- 12 MS. SCHWEHR: One of the capabilities in CHAPIS 13 is the ability to measure distances between features on 14 the maps. For example, we can ask what sources of air 15 pollution emissions are within a mile radius of this 16 school using this yellow circle. Now we might like to 17 identify what the emitting facilities are that fall inside 18 the circle. 19 We've designed CHAPIS to have a hover capability 20 to quickly see the names of facilities on the map. As the 21 user hovers the mouse over a triangle for a facility, the 22 name of the business appears instantly in the label area 23 above the map. Hovering over a different triangle shows 24 the name of that facility. It's a quick way to see what 25 the features are. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 133 1 --o0o-- 2 MS. SCHWEHR: Alternatively, the user can click 3 on each facility triangle to drill down and get more 4 detail. The user is linked directly to ARB's full 5 emission inventory database and passed directly to the 6 data for the specific facility they clicked on the map. 7 So the CHAPIS map provides a quick visual way into our 8 existing database. We have database query tools that 9 retrieve the detailed data reported for that facility, 10 including its full address, its industry type, and all of 11 the reported emissions from the facility. 12 Also, if the facility has been in the Air Toxic 13 Hot Spots Program, its prioritization, scores, or risk 14 levels are also reported. From here, the data can be 15 downloaded to the user as a file. 16 --o0o-- 17 MS. SCHWEHR: Next we'll look at how CHAPIS 18 includes the mobile and area-wide sources on the map using 19 the concept of gridded emissions. Mobile sources like 20 cars and trucks and area-wide consumer products and paints 21 are not inventoried at specific points like facilities 22 are. The emissions are widely disbursed, and so they are 23 estimated using top-down averaging methods, such as 24 regional traffic data or county-wide paint scales. So 25 they are stored as county totals in the ARB's emission PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 134 1 inventory. That wouldn't be very helpful on a map. 2 However, we can statistically apportion the 3 county totals to smaller areas using appropriate data. 4 For example, the usage of consumer products can be 5 allocated based on relative population in the local census 6 tracts. Cars and trucks follow a road network. So to 7 display mobile and area emissions on a map, we create a 8 master grid system consisting of one kilometer squares 9 over the state. 10 Within each grid square, we sum up all the 11 emissions of ROG, our selected pollutant, that are in the 12 square. That includes any individual facility triangles 13 that fall inside the square, all the motor vehicles 14 emissions for roads in that square, and all the consumer 15 emissions for census tracks in that square. Then we color 16 code the grid squares. So the more ROG emissions, the 17 darker the color of the grid square. This approach allows 18 a way to combine the emissions from all these types of 19 scores on a common map view. 20 --o0o-- 21 MS. SCHWEHR: Sometimes users want to analyze a 22 whole neighborhood covering the entire map area they're 23 viewing. So we have designed a tool called calculate 24 combined statistics that summarizes all the emissions in 25 the map view. It summarizes the data in two ways. The PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 135 1 bar graph at the top shows the relative contribution of 2 each source type over the region. Here, the first bar 3 shows that the on-road vehicles contribute the most to the 4 total ROG emissions. The total is shown in the last bar. 5 Below that, there's a list of all the individual 6 industrial facilities on the map that emit ROG, and 7 they're sorted in order by the highest emissions. 8 --o0o-- 9 MS. SCHWEHR: The last functionality I'll mention 10 today is that the CHAPIS map includes the locations of the 11 ambient air monitoring sites. So when the user clicks on 12 an air monitor from the CHAPIS map, they are linked to 13 AQMIS, which Mr. Jeff Austin just discussed. As you can 14 see, one of our goals with CHAPIS is to provide a visual 15 map interface or gateway that allows users to see what's 16 in their neighborhood and then link to the corresponding 17 data across ARB's various data sets. 18 --o0o-- 19 MS. SCHWEHR: Our future directions for CHAPIS 20 build on this idea of a visual gateway. Our goal is to 21 expand the CHAPIS maps to add more emission sources such 22 as small facilities like gasoline stations and dry 23 cleaners and to provide links to additional data and ARB 24 studies. 25 We also have plans to overlay demographic data PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 136 1 from the U.S. Census Bureau which I'll show in a moment. 2 And, recently, we have been working to incorporate 3 multi-media data. That is, not only data on air, but also 4 data from our sister agencies regarding water quality and 5 waste disposal sites which I'll also show in a moment. 6 --o0o-- 7 MS. SCHWEHR: Here's a sample of our prototype 8 for overlaying census demographic data in CHAPIS. Many 9 stakeholders in our Environmental Justice Program have 10 requested visual tools that combine air pollution emission 11 data with socioeconomic data, such as ethnicity or poverty 12 levels. So in this sample, underneath is the CHAPIS color 13 grid for emissions, in this case for benzene. Then we 14 overlay a crosshatch display for each census track that 15 meets a chosen socioeconomic parameter that the user 16 selects based on U.S. Census data. In this example, the 17 crosshatches show those census tracks in which 40 percent 18 or more of the population is reported as below the federal 19 poverty level. Combining emission data and census data in 20 this way on the map allows new opportunities for visual 21 analysis of patterns which are of interest to EJ and other 22 stakeholders. 23 --o0o-- 24 MS. SCHWEHR: Finally, here's an example of a 25 multi-media map. It integrates data from other media PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 137 1 including water, soil, and solid waste information. In 2 this example, we've combined many sources of federal, 3 State, and local data. For example, there is U.S. EPA 4 data for sites being evaluated for possible Super Fund 5 inclusion. There's California state and local agency data 6 on spills and leaks to water, hazardous waste generators, 7 and site cleanup projects and solid waste disposal sites. 8 One of our long-term goals is to work 9 collaboratively with our sister agencies to integrate such 10 data. Our CHAPIS mapping tool may be able to provide an 11 interface to help users see the spacial relationships 12 among these sites and to link to other agency's databases 13 for additional information. 14 --o0o-- 15 MS. SCHWEHR: The last topic today is regarding 16 new resources and web links for health status data and 17 information. 18 --o0o-- 19 MS. SCHWEHR: Community members have asked ARB 20 for an easier way for them to find information on overall 21 health status in their community, so our goal is to 22 provide easier community access to health summaries using 23 spacial tools such as showing the incidents of a certain 24 disease by Zip Code. Our goal is to promote public 25 accessibility to the health data. We want to help ensure PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 138 1 that the community can find the various summaries of 2 health data resources and services that are published by 3 other agencies. We would make a commitment to maintain 4 and update the links that we provide to other agencies and 5 their studies. 6 Our web pages will make it clear that the disease 7 data are not necessarily associated with air pollution 8 effects. But rather, it is our goal to provide a sort of 9 central clearinghouse for the community to find all sorts 10 of health status data. 11 --o0o-- 12 MS. SCHWEHR: Here's an example of an ARB web 13 page that will provide links to various health data 14 statistics at other agencies, such as the Department of 15 Health Services and others. 16 Some of the available types of data include death 17 rates by Zip Code, asthma surveys, hospitalization data, 18 and various birth weight and related data. There are also 19 links to interactive health maps at other agencies, such 20 as the National Cancer Institute, covering various cancer 21 and reproductive health data. Community members have 22 requested more centralized access to these types of health 23 data tools with ARB's help, so we are adding ARB web pages 24 with links to these resources. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 139 1 MS. SCHWEHR: In conclusion, we have highlighted 2 today a few of ARB's many tools and approaches to 3 improving public access to data and the transparency of 4 our programs and our priorities. The advanced 5 technologies used in tools like AQMIS and CHAPIS reflect 6 our ongoing commitment to utilize all available resources 7 to provide the best data and tools to all our 8 stakeholders. 9 The implementation of these tools has itself 10 resulted in improved data quality as more focus is placed 11 on it by seeing it on the maps. We are committed to 12 continuing to improve the data and tools we provide. And 13 we are continuing to expand the capabilities of these 14 tools to address additional user needs in collaboration 15 with the local districts, the regulated community, and 16 public stakeholders. 17 Thank you for this opportunity, and we'd be happy 18 to respond to any questions. 19 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Mr. Austin and Ms. Schwehr, 20 thank you very much for your exciting presentation. 21 Supervisor. 22 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Equally impressed as 23 someone who has spent many an afternoon in the ozone 24 season looking at the Bay Area air quality's website and 25 trying to find out whether we were going to be in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 140 1 attainment or out of attainment and whether the monitoring 2 site in my supervisorial district was going to be the 3 cause of that. 4 But two things. One thing on the stationary 5 source side and air quality side. One of the things that 6 Jack Broadband and I have been talking about, our Spare 7 the Air Program in the Bay Area, we were talking about 8 doing episodic voluntary but perhaps even regulatory 9 things around the refineries and large stationary sources. 10 And these are the kind of tools we can use to encourage 11 that. 12 And then secondarily on the mobile source side, I 13 remember when I was wandering around Japan with 14 Mr. Schulock in his life as all things ZEV, they had a 15 wonderful program in Yokohama where they actually had 16 everything that's sort of visionary. They had a station 17 car, city car, ZEV, but they also had sensors on the side 18 of the car, and they were using their GIS system to do two 19 things. One is to inform you of what the air quality was 20 outside in real time, which is very confusing, because 21 they're also telling you where to drive in Japanese. So 22 they're telling you which turn to take on the GIS at the 23 same time they're telling you in Japanese what the 24 pollution was like. And it was a federally funded 25 program. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 141 1 But that leads me to the second part of I think 2 there's a wonderful opportunity in terms of telematics as 3 cars roll out with more GIS systems. And this may be 4 around CMAC funding. But, for instance, in Europe where 5 they have real time parking information for people in 6 congested areas or, you know, that kind of information. 7 In the Bay Area, we have our 511 program. But the next 8 iteration will be through Caltrans is to provide for more 9 information about congestion which of course its 10 implications and potentially through CMAC funding to do 11 something about that. So just a thought. 12 Caltrans is doing a lot of work in this area, and 13 I know that U.C. Berkeley and the transportation schools 14 are doing a lot of work. If there's an opportunity for us 15 to cross breed as -- pardon the use of language -- but I 16 guess cross media is the nomenclature. But there's 17 opportunities to do that kind of thing and provide that as 18 incentives for future CMAC funding. It seems to me that 19 would be a great opportunity. 20 But good presentation. And for two of us who are 21 aware this room is wireless, we'll go on right now and see 22 if we can find out any information. 23 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I have Dr. Gong. 24 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 25 I was equally impressed by the presentations and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 142 1 actually the capabilities. This all came about within a 2 year ago or so. 3 MS. SCHWEHR: Both systems have been developed 4 over the course of about a five-year horizon. 5 BOARD MEMBER GONG: When did it come live? 6 MS. SCHWEHR: AQMIS was launched about a year and 7 a half ago. CHAPIS was launched almost two years ago. 8 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Two points I just wanted to 9 call your attention to. 10 I was impressed by your real time data 11 acquisition for AQMIS. And I was very impressed by the 12 fact that you said I believe that the data is real time 13 more or less, and it's actually 20 minutes, 40 minutes, 50 14 minutes old actually and that it's accurate and valid. So 15 you're saying that if I just push the button I can see the 16 data. It's accurate. I can trust it. It won't change in 17 one month or two months. 18 MR. AUSTIN: There are limitations. The data on 19 AQMIS are preliminary. And the data providers will 20 provide an indication of whether it's valid or not. If 21 there's an instrument malfunction, they'll tell us that. 22 And we will not display it. 23 There's another level of screening that takes 24 place. There are statistical routines that we designed to 25 try to catch things like calibration spikes in the morning PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 143 1 that would create high value. We're doing the best that 2 we can. We can't catch 100 percent, but I feel we're 3 doing pretty well. 4 BOARD MEMBER GONG: That's impressive. 5 Because I remember years ago we couldn't -- we 6 were accessing for research purposes -- I can't remember 7 if it was AQMD or ARB stations, and we can't use the data 8 because it was too fresh. And we'd have to wait months, I 9 guess, before the agency would release the data. So I'm 10 very impressed with that. But as you said, it's not 11 100 percent valid or accurate. But okay. I think you've 12 made leaps of improvement with that. 13 The other quick question was about the health 14 data. And as you mentioned that there's a disclaimer that 15 it's not necessarily cause and effect. You're just giving 16 the health data. But I don't see it on the slides that 17 you showed. Is it somewhere in there? Because that 18 disclaimer should be there not to imply to any reader, 19 observer -- 20 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 21 Dr. Gong, this is Richard Bode. 22 We used to have that disclaimer on. I think it 23 shows above here. I don't think it showed above on this 24 page. It's there. 25 BOARD MEMBER GONG: It's there, okay. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 144 1 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 2 Because the links are to different agencies, and that data 3 is not -- it hasn't been analyzed for air quality impacts 4 but it's basically a resource for different health 5 agencies on data. 6 BOARD MEMBER GONG: So it's just different data 7 sets and you're just putting them all in one spot to link 8 up. But again, I think it's important not to imply to any 9 reader of this that there are cause and effect basically. 10 It's not necessarily cause and effect. 11 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 12 Right. We'll make sure that caveat is on that page. 13 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Make it big. 14 BOARD MEMBER GONG: With my vision, I need it. 15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: My predisposition of course 16 is to view this as a research tool. But as Chair of the 17 Board, I'll try not to do that. 18 And I'm interested in whether you have a sense or 19 not of who is accessing the site. And as a follow-up to 20 that, what you can do to make it more friendly for people 21 who might be terrified by the amount of information that 22 is there. 23 MS. SCHWEHR: We register regularly from 100 to 24 200 hits a month, and we know that some of that is 25 district use. We also get -- we have a place where people PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 145 1 can respond if they have a feedback for us, and we get 2 e-mails from folks we know. But we are also seeing the 3 general public using it. We don't know the exact split 4 among the different users, but we are seeing a pretty 5 broad use. 6 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: As I think the staff knows, 7 I really want to push educational outreach into the 8 schools. And it seems like this would be a tremendous 9 opportunity to design science projects to get all levels 10 of the educational system making use of such a wonderful 11 resource. 12 BOARD MEMBER GONG: One more. 13 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Dr. Gong. 14 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Thank you. 15 I noticed in some of those slides there's so many 16 school flags. I did read that correctly; right? The blue 17 schools? 18 MS. SCHWEHR: Uh-huh. 19 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Have any community groups to 20 your acknowledge used any of this for whatever purpose? 21 MS. SCHWEHR: Specifically regarding the schools? 22 I know community group members do use the site. I don't 23 know if they're using it with regard to the schools. 24 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Such as the ports of L.A. 25 You zoomed in on that area. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 146 1 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Not as many as we 2 would like, Dr. Gong. And Dr. Sawyer's comment made me 3 start thinking about how we might train more community 4 groups to use our site. Because as late as last week or 5 beginning of this week we're getting complaints, you're 6 not doing anything on cumulative emissions. And I knew 7 this presentation was coming, and it's right there. We 8 are trying to develop the pictures, the understanding, and 9 then translate data back into regulatory concepts and 10 policies. 11 But it's hard to find a little bit on our 12 website. We have so much going on at the Air Resources 13 Board that our newest activities push off prior work. So 14 we get people call us up and say, "Where is the button for 15 such and so? Restore it." Because there's a lot of 16 demand for that button, and then things get buried deeper 17 down. So we've got to figure out a way to have our site 18 be more navigable. Generally everything is on there. But 19 I think people do have trouble finding it. And we need to 20 do some concentrated outreach and show it to people and do 21 tutorials on how to use it. I think probably 22 environmental organizations are using it more than 23 community members, which is too bad, because we build it 24 for community members. 25 BOARD MEMBER GONG: I was just going to comment, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 147 1 this is ideal for now for them to get full disclosure of 2 what's going around in their communities. Again, with the 3 caveat not everything is cause and effect in terms of 4 health data. So I would certainly strongly encourage the 5 outreach and educational programs for the communities as 6 well as for the other groups. 7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: There are no witnesses to 8 speak on this topic. Since this is not a regulatory item, 9 it's not necessary to officially close the record. And I 10 think we've reached the end of our day. And I would 11 entertain a motion to adjourn. 12 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: So moved. 13 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: And second? 14 BOARD MEMBER PENADA: Second. 15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: All in favor of adjourning. 16 (Ayes) 17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: We're adjourned. 18 (Thereupon the California Air Resources Board 19 adjourned at 12:33 p.m.) 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 148 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 4th day of April, 2006. 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