1 2 3 4 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY: ) ) 5 ) AIR RESOURCES BOARD ) 6 PUBLIC MEETING ) ) 7 ) ____________________________________________) 8 9 10 11 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 12 January 27, 2000 13 9:30 A.M. 14 South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 East Copley Drive 15 Diamond Bar, California 16 17 18 19 20 REPORTED BY: 21 Scott Sawyer, CSR No. 11488 (Pages 1 - 102) 22 Terri Emery, 23 CSR No. 11598 (Pages 103 - 366) 24 Our File No. 1-62274 25 1 APPEARANCES: 2 3 4 5 CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD: 6 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D., CHAIRMAN SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER 7 MATTHEW R. McKINNON DORENE D'ADAMO 8 DR. FREIDMAN MRS. BARBARA RIORDAN 9 MR. CALHOUN SUPERVISOR PATRICK 10 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS 11 STAFF: 12 MIKE KENNY, EXECUTIVE OFFICER 13 LUCINA NEGRETE TOM CACKETTE 14 JACK KITOWSKI RENEE KEMENA 15 KATHLEEN WALSH MS. TSCHOGL 16 MS. TERRY 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 I N D E X 2 ITEM 00-1-1: 3 Status update on the Dr. Carl Moyer Memorial Air Program 4 SPEAKERS PAGE 5 Staff Presentation - Lucina Negrete 10 6 Dr. Barry Wallerstein 28 Manuel Curha, Jr. 35 7 Gary Gero 40 Jim Stewart, Ph. D. 44 8 Dave Crow 46 9 ITEM 00-1-6: 10 Report to the California Legislature on the potential 11 health and environmental impacts of leaf blowers 12 SPEAKERS PAGE 13 Staff Presentation - Dr. Nancy Steele 54 Mac S. Dunaway 73 14 William M. Guerry, Jr. 78 Barbara D. Alvarez 84 15 Lane P. Labbe 85 A.D. Jack Allen 88 16 Joan Graves 95 Diane Wolfberg 95 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: Good morning. The 2 January 27th, 2000, public meeting of the Air Resources 3 Board will now come to order. So while you're all taking 4 a seat, after that I would like to ask Mrs. Barbara 5 Riordan to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. 6 MRS. BARBARA RIORDAN: All rise, please, and 7 join me in the pledge to our flag. 8 (Whereupon the Pledge of Allegiance was recited.) 9 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: Thank you very much. 10 Would the Clerk of the Board please call the 11 roll. 12 THE CLERK: Calhoun? 13 MR. CALHOUN: Here. 14 THE CLERK: D'Adamo? 15 DORENE D'ADAMO: Here. 16 THE CLERK: DeSaulnier? 17 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Here. 18 THE CLERK: Dr. Freidman? 19 DR. FREIDMAN: Here. 20 THE CLERK: McKinnon? 21 MATTHEW R. McKINNON: Here. 22 THE CLERK: Patrick? 23 SUPERVISOR PATRICK: Here. 24 THE CLERK: Riordan? 25 MRS. BARBARA RIORDAN: Here. 4 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 THE CLERK: Roberts? 2 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Here. 3 THE CLERK: Chairman Lloyd? 4 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: Here. 5 First of all, I would like to thank 6 Dr. Burke (phonetic), Vice Chairman Al McGlover 7 (phonetic), and Dr. Barry Wallerstein for their 8 hospitality again for this wonderful auditorium. Having 9 spent nearly eight years, but not all of that here, brings 10 back many fond memories, and I'm delighted we could come 11 back and hold this meeting here. Also I would like to 12 congratulate Mary and the Staff and the Board for the 13 wonderful day they have provided for us. We have living 14 proof that it's not the smoggiest city in the U.S. 15 I would like to announce today how we plan 16 on handling the sign-ups to testify on the Board items 17 today. Please sign up in the lobby outside the hearing 18 room rather than with the Clerk. And if you have written 19 testimony, please give 20 copies to the Staff out there. 20 I would appreciate it if you would fill out the speaker 21 cards as completely as you can. This will be a help to 22 us. It will help us coordinate the speaker list and make 23 sure the meeting is as efficient as possible. Again I 24 appreciate your cooperation. 25 I would like to make one announcement in the 5 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 order change here. After the Dr. Moyer Program 2 discussion, we're going to take in the Leaf Blower 3 Report. This is to amend -- this is to accommodate some 4 people who come from the East Coast, and I'm fearful that 5 if we follow the order we might not get to them today. So 6 per their request, we will do that. I'm giving you 7 warning that if you're not an interest in that part of it, 8 you can do whatever you wish and then come back for the 9 main feature of the day. 10 The first item on the agenda today is 11 00-1-1, the status update on the Dr. Carl Moyer Memorial 12 Air Program. Again the very first Board item that I 13 presided over as incoming Chairman was the Carl Moyer 14 Program guidelines. Those guidelines, and the local 15 allocations that flowed from them, launched the statewide 16 grant program for cleaning up high-emitting diesel 17 engines. Today is our first opportunity to reflect on how 18 the program is doing and forecast what lies ahead, and 19 again this, I think, has been a very exciting program. 20 Governor Davis and the State Legislature 21 have made a substantial investment in the program. Last 22 year $25 million was appropriated in the state budget for 23 Carl Moyer grants. This fiscal year an additional $19 24 million in grant funds, plus $4 million for 25 infrastructure, research and special projects was added to 6 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 the pot. Local districts and project proponents are 2 leveraging money even farther, with a one-third match for 3 each state dollar contributed and I think everybody should 4 be congratulated for their efforts there. 5 The report is intended to address the 6 question: Should the Carl Moyer Program continue in the 7 future? I am convinced that it should, but it's not 8 entirely up to me or this board. Last year the State 9 Legislature created a special 13-memeber panel to advise 10 them in this regard and their independent report is due 11 back on March 31 of this year. 12 A number of those advisors are in the 13 audience this morning and I would like to welcome them 14 now. If you would be so kind and please stand as I read 15 off your names so the Board can recognize you. And I 16 would also like to congratulate you on your appointment. 17 I'm not exactly sure, as indicated, who is here so bear 18 with me as I run through all 30 names. 19 Two appointed by the Assembly Speaker are 20 Robert Garcia, public member. 21 ROBERT GARCIA: Robert Garcia is here. 22 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: Gordon Murley, public 23 member. 24 Then we have one appointed by the Senate Pro 25 Tem, Judy Lamare. 7 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 Appointed by Secretary Winston Hickox, Tim 2 Carmichael, the Executive Director for Clean Air. 3 John Harris, CEO of Harris Farms in the 4 Central Valley. 5 Larry Keller, Executive Director, Port of 6 Los Angeles. Welcome. 7 Kirk Marckwald, California Environmental 8 Associates, representing locomotive interests. 9 Commissioner Robert Pernell, Governor Davis' 10 appointee to the California Energy Commission. 11 Kevin Shanahan, President of Cummins West. 12 Welcome Kevin. 13 Becky Wood, Environmental Coordinator for 14 Teichert Aggregates, representing construction trades. 15 And finally our own Supervisor Mark 16 DeSaulnier, representing regional transportation 17 agencies. Again thanks for serving, Mark. 18 And Mike Kenny, who, by law, is required to 19 chair the advisory committee. But in addition to that, I 20 know that Mike is very anxious to take on that task and 21 I'm delighted that we have him heading that up. 22 We are still waiting for the last public 23 member to be appointed by the Senate Rules Committee, but 24 as you can see we have an excellent group here already. 25 Mr. Kenny, that concludes my opening 8 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 remarks. Would you please begin the Staff's 2 presentation. 3 MR. KENNY: Thank you Chairman Lloyd and 4 members of the Board. 5 The program we are discussing today is named 6 after the late Dr. Carl Moyer in recognition of his 7 dedicated efforts to obtain funding for the clean up of 8 existing diesel engines. Carl was convinced that we could 9 never regulate ourselves through the entire inventory of 10 existing diesel engines. Carl also knew that if we did 11 nothing the older, high-emitting stock would continue 12 running for decades. 13 Dr. Moyer's solution, which was embraced by 14 the State Legislature and the past two governors, was to 15 incentivize the turnover of dirty diesel engines as much 16 as fiscally possible. Carl predicted it would take at 17 least $100 million per year to reach our air quality 18 objectives, but was gratified to see a strong start. 19 The Carl Moyer Program achieves real, 20 quantifiable emission reductions in an extremely 21 cost-effective fashion. The overhead is minimal. The 22 transaction costs are low. So virtually all of the money 23 is achieving the ultimate goal. By law, ARB was to have 24 submitted this report to the Legislature by January 15th, 25 2000. We did complete a public-review draft by that 9 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 date. However, given last month's hearing calendar and 2 the holidays, we needed just a little more time to bring 3 the report before the Board for its consideration. 4 As Dr. Lloyd mentioned, the Advisory 5 Committee is performing a supplemental review and will be 6 using this report as the starting point for its 7 evaluation. I hope to learn a great deal from their 8 deliberations as to what they view as highest priority, 9 whether they think the state's spending too much, too 10 little or just about the right amount, and, most 11 importantly, where the Advisory Committee thinks we should 12 go from here. 13 With that, I would like to turn it over to 14 Lucina Negrete, Staff, Mobile Source Control Division, who 15 will make a presentation. 16 MS. NEGRETE: Thank you, Mr. Kenny. 17 Good morning Chairman Lloyd and members of 18 the Board. 19 My presentation today describes the status 20 of the Carl Moyer Air Quality Standards Attainment 21 Program, or the Carl Moyer Program. The Carl Moyer 22 Program is a NOx emissions reduction program that provides 23 the end user with a financial incentive for using cleaner 24 than required heavy-duty vehicles and equipment. This 25 program was named in memory of the late Dr. Carl Moyer in 10 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 recognition for his work in the air quality field and his 2 efforts to bring about this program. 3 Today I will start my presentation with the 4 history of the Carl Moyer Program followed by a brief 5 overview. The heart of my presentation, and the reason 6 for why we are here today, is to present our report that 7 will be submitted to the Legislature which will include a 8 discussion on the districts' progress towards funding 9 projects with the $25 million dollars allocated in the 10 first year of this program. I will also be presenting the 11 types of projects that were funded. Then I will go into 12 the estimated program benefits, describe some of the 13 program changes, and the need for continued funding. 14 To conclude my presentation, I will provide 15 you with our recommendations. 16 First, I will provide you with some of the 17 history. 18 The 1994 State Implementation Plan, or SIP, 19 called for incentives and other market-based measures to 20 reduce in-use emissions. SIP measure M4, in particular, 21 called for incentives to reduce emissions from heavy-duty 22 vehicles. Measure M4 was not fully implemented because 23 funding was needed. In 1998, through the budget process, 24 the Legislature authorized $25 million dollars for ARB to 25 implement the Carl Moyer Program. Last year the 11 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 guidelines were approved by this board, and ARB began 2 accepting district applications in April of 1999. 3 Initial funding disbursements were 4 distributed to districts in June of 1999. Later that same 5 month, an additional one-time appropriation of $23 million 6 dollars was allocated to continue the program for a second 7 year. In October of 1999 Assembly Bill 1571, or AB1571, 8 supported by both the Senate and the Assembly, was signed 9 by the Governor. 10 Now, I'll move into a brief explanation of 11 how the program works. 12 The purpose of the Carl Moyer Program is to 13 achieve near-term NOx emission reductions from heavy-duty 14 engines and to help us meet part of our SIP measure M4 15 commitments. 16 As I mentioned at the opening of my 17 presentation, the Carl Moyer Program will provide grants 18 for the incremental cost of cleaner engines. Although the 19 program is an ozone-attainment strategy and focuses on 20 getting reductions in NOx, it also gets significant 21 reductions in diesel particulate matter. 22 With diesel particulate identified as a 23 toxic air contaminant, we will propose criteria for 24 considering particulate matter reductions when selecting 25 projects. Details on these technical modifications are 12 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 currently being developed and will be presented at a board 2 meeting later this year. 3 This is basically how the program is 4 implemented: ARB gives participating districts $2 for 5 every $1 that a district provides in match funds. The 6 districts solicit the public for projects, receive 7 applications, evaluate the applications, and finally 8 select and fund the projects. 9 Projects are selected from heavy-duty 10 trucks, off-road equipment, locomotives, marine vessels, 11 agricultural pumps, forklifts and airport GSE. Projects 12 must last a minimum of five years. 13 Now that I have provided you with a brief 14 description of how the program works, I will now present 15 to you the success of this program: 16 Districts progress toward obligating the 17 initial $25 million. 18 Currently there are 16 districts 19 participating in the $25 million that was distributed in 20 June of 1999. Participating districts include both large 21 and small districts. 22 For the most part, each of the participating 23 districts modeled their programs after the approved 24 guidelines. However, each district has its unique air 25 pollution challenges. The Carl Moyer Program allows 13 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 districts flexibility to tailor their programs to meet 2 their specific air quality needs. 3 Some districts chose to focus their programs 4 on marine vessels, while others, like South Coast, with a 5 variety of sources, have focused their program on on-road, 6 off-road and marine vessels projects. 7 In the first year $24.5 million was 8 distributed to the participating districts. Within six 9 months of the program, districts received applications for 10 over $80 million in funding requests. The demand for 11 funding was three times the amount of funding allocated to 12 the Carl Moyer Program in the first year. 13 This table lists the amount of funds that 14 were received by each of nine districts, and the percent 15 of funds that each district either has already obligated 16 or will have obligated to projects by March 31, 2000. 17 Funds were distributed to each district 18 based on population, the extent of each district's ozone 19 problem, and a district's SIP measure M4 commitment. 20 The South Coast Air Quality Management 21 District, being the district with the largest population, 22 and largest ozone challenge, received over 40 percent of 23 the first 25 million. 24 This table lists the amount for the 25 remaining seven districts that participated in the first 14 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 year of funding, as well as the statewide total. 2 As you can see from both tables, most of the 3 districts will have all their funds obligated by March 31, 4 2000: About 97 percent. To date about 75 percent of these 5 funds are already contracts. 6 By June 30th, 2000, all districts must 7 provide ARB with a written report listing the amount of 8 funds obligated from the first year, the types of projects 9 funded, the cost-effectiveness, and the NOx reductions 10 from each of the projects funded. 11 Any funds not obligated by June 30, 2000, 12 will be reallocated to other districts with stronger 13 programs. 14 Now we get to the heart of the Carl Moyer 15 Program -- the types of cleaner vehicles and equipment 16 that were paid for with the first $25 million. This part 17 of the presentation includes pictures of the types of 18 projects that were funded. 19 It's important to understand that we are 20 only six months into the program and districts worked very 21 hard to expedite funding projects. The information 22 provided on the types of projects funded are preliminary 23 and many of the districts are still presenting some of 24 their projects to their boards for approval. 25 Statewide, districts have funded various 15 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 types of projects, that include alternative-fueled 2 line-haul trucks, refuse haulers, urban transit buses, 3 school buses, and tractors. 4 Some electric forklifts were also funded. 5 And finally, there have been some projects 6 that include diesel-to-diesel repowers for marine vessel 7 engines and agricultural pump engines. 8 In the Bay Area there is also a potential 9 for a dedicated CNG locomotive project. 10 We estimate that about 40 percent of the 11 funds are going to on-road alternative-fueled projects, 25 12 percent to marine vessel repowers, 20 percent to 13 agricultural pumps, 10 percent to forklifts, and the 14 remaining 5 percent to other diesel-to-diesel repowers. 15 This includes some off-road equipment and 16 on-road heavy-duty diesel engines. 17 The following slides are alternative fuel 18 engines funded through the Carl Moyer Program. This is a 19 New CNG refuse truck purchase along with a picture of its 20 engine. The South Coast Air Quality Management District 21 funded this project. 22 A project like this reduces NOx emissions by 23 approximately 11 tons for each engine at a cost of about 24 $3,800 per ton. This project also reduces particulate 25 matter. 16 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 We estimate that over 150 refuse haulers 2 will be funded statewide with funding provided in the 3 first year of the Carl Moyer Program. 4 This is a dual fuel LNG/diesel line-haul 5 truck funded by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 6 Control District. These engines were funded for Harris 7 Farms and the dual fuel engines were designed and built by 8 Power System Associates in the South Coast. A project 9 like this reduces NOx emissions by about 4 tons of NOx for 10 each engine at a cost of approximately $1000 per ton. For 11 this project, San Joaquin Valley funded 12 new vehicles. 12 This LNG fueling station was also funded by 13 San Joaquin Valley to provide fuel for the new fleet of 14 dual fuel LNG/diesel line-haul trucks shown in the 15 previous slide. San Joaquin Valley used some of its match 16 funds under its existing incentive program to fund the 17 infrastructure in support of the on-road dual fuel-line 18 haul project. 19 The South Coast Air Quality Management 20 District funded this CNG Urban Transit Bus. A project 21 like this reduces NOx emissions by approximately nine tons 22 per engine for about $770 to $2,450 per ton. 23 We estimate that over 170 buses will be 24 funded statewide. 25 San Diego County Air Pollution Control 17 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 District funded this CNG school bus. 2 Projects like this school bus are very 3 important because they reduce children's exposure to 4 emissions. With this year's funds we estimate about eight 5 school buses will be funded. 6 A project for one school bus reduces NOx 7 emissions by about three tons at a cost of approximately 8 $12,000 per ton -- the cap for cost-effectiveness under 9 the Carl Moyer Program. 10 Because school buses are used less, they are 11 not as cost-effective as other projects funded under the 12 program. To protect the health of children, the Governor 13 has included $50 million in the budget to put 14 lower-emitting school buses into service. 15 This is an electric forklift. The South 16 Coast Air Quality Management District is funding several 17 forklift projects. One electric forklift reduces NOx 18 emissions by about 5 to 15 tons for approximately $980 to 19 $5,320 per ton. We estimate that over 100 forklifts will 20 be funded in the first year. 21 Now I'll present some diesel-to-diesel 22 repower projects that were funded. 23 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control 24 District funded this agricultural pump engine repower. 25 The district funded two engines. This project reduces NOx 18 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 emissions by about seven tons per engine for a cost of 2 approximately $300 per ton. 3 Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality 4 Management District funded this agricultural pump engine 5 repower. NOx reductions from agricultural pump engines 6 range anywhere from half a ton to 38 tons of NOx per 7 engine for a cost of approximately $300 to $5,000 per 8 ton. Several of the valley districts are funding these 9 types of projects. We estimate that over 430 agricultural 10 pump engines will be funded with the first $25 million. 11 Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control 12 District funded this tugboat engine repower. This shows a 13 picture of the auxiliary engine on the left of the screen 14 and a main engine on the right. The new engine on this 15 tug will reduce NOx emissions by about 30 tons at a cost 16 of approximately $4,500 per ton. Typical 17 cost-effectiveness on these types of marine vessel 18 projects range from about $600 to $4,000 per ton. 19 Other districts, including South Coast, San 20 Diego, the Bay Area, and Ventura are funding marine vessel 21 projects, because they are very cost-effective and produce 22 very large emission reductions. Close to 40 marine vessel 23 engines will be repowered statewide with the first $25 24 million. 25 This is a picture of the Napa Valley Wine 19 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 Train powered by a dual fuel (diesel/CNG) engine. 2 Although not funded to date, the Bay Area Air Quality 3 Management District has a prospective project to fund a 4 dedicated CNG locomotive for the Napa Valley Wine Train. 5 If funded, the CNG locomotive will reduce NOx emissions by 6 about 800 tons for a cost of about $1,700 per ton. 7 This brings us to the estimated statewide 8 benefits from the first $25 million. Based on the 9 information provided to us by some of the districts, we 10 have estimated that annually about four tons per day of 11 NOx emissions will be reduced from the first $25 million. 12 These reductions will continue for a minimum of five 13 years, with some projects continuing to provide benefits 14 up to 20 years. 15 We estimate that the program will also 16 produce particulate matter reductions for about four 17 pounds per day. 18 On a project basis, cost-effectiveness 19 ranged from under $1000 per ton to the cost-effectiveness 20 limit $12,000 per ton. Overall the program was very 21 cost-effective averaging about $3000 per ton. This 22 compares favorably to a typical cost for other 23 air-pollution control programs at $10,000 per ton. 24 Now that we know that the Carl Moyer program 25 works and it is a success, where is the program headed? 20 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 First, as I mentioned in the beginning of my 2 presentation, the new bill AB1571 was signed in October 3 1999. This bill basically codified the program and made 4 some minor modifications. 5 ARB is still responsible for administering 6 the project portion of the program, however, project 7 funding has been reduced to $19 million for the second 8 year. 9 The bill added two new responsibilities: 10 The California Energy Commission is now responsible for 11 developing and administering the advanced technology 12 development and infrastructure portions of the program 13 with $4 million in funding. The intent of both of these 14 portions is to advance technology and provide 15 infrastructure in support of projects funded under the 16 general Carl Moyer Program. 17 The bill also creates a 13-member Advisory 18 Board with ARB's Executive Officer as Chairman of the 19 Advisory Board. 20 Although the bill made some minor changes to 21 the initial program, ARB and the local air districts have 22 already met the requirements of the bill by developing and 23 implementing this program along with today's update on the 24 progress for the first $25 million. Technical 25 modifications to the program as a result of the new bill 21 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 are also currently being developed and will be presented 2 at a board meeting later this year. 3 Under advanced technology development and 4 infrastructure, the Energy Commission has met the 5 requirements of AB1571 by developing and implementing both 6 portions of the program with $2 million in funding for 7 each. Both the advanced technology development and the 8 infrastructure portions complement the vehicle portion 9 administered by ARB and the districts. These programs are 10 designed to support vehicle projects funded by ARB and 11 districts under the Carl Moyer Program. 12 The Energy Commission sent out Program 13 Opportunity Notices and will accept advanced technology 14 project applications in early February 2000 and 15 infrastructure applications in late January 2000. 16 The Energy Commission is responsible for 17 evaluating and selecting the advanced technology 18 projects. They expect project selection to occur by late 19 March 2000. 20 For infrastructure the districts apply 21 directly to the Energy Commission to administer a 22 program. The Energy Commission expects project selection 23 to occur after March 31, 2000. 24 An important provision of the bill is that 25 it creates a 13-member Advisory Board. The Secretary of 22 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 Environmental Protection appointed nine members, the 2 Assembly appointed two members, and the Senate appointed 3 two members. Some of which are present today. 4 The Advisory Board must review our Staff 5 report and develop its own report with recommendations on 6 whether or not to continue funding the Carl Moyer 7 Program. The report must include sources of additional 8 funding. The Advisory Board must hold a public meeting on 9 its findings and then present a final report to the 10 Governor and the Legislature no later than March 31, 11 2000. 12 Based on districts' progress to date, we 13 believe that the program has been a success. In the first 14 year, we have seen that the program will produce real and 15 significant NOx emission reductions as well as reductions 16 in particulate matter, which is a toxic air contaminant. 17 These reductions are much-needed reductions 18 in order for us to meet the upcoming state and federal 19 ozone attainment deadlines, mitigate off-cycle emissions, 20 and most importantly reduce exposure to toxic air 21 contaminants. 22 As we presented, the demand for project 23 funds exceeds what the ARB has received for funding by 24 three times the amount of funds received for the Carl 25 Moyer Program in the first year. The demand also exceeds 23 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 the amount of funds received for the first two years. 2 With additional funding, the Carl Moyer 3 Program will continue to be a success. 4 In fact, at $30 million per year through 5 2005 the program should produce about 20 tons per day in 6 NOx emission reductions. 7 Which leads me to our recommendations. 8 Based on the demand for funding and the 9 much-needed near-term NOx reductions, Staff recommends 10 that the Carl Moyer Program continue at least through 11 2005. 12 Staff also recommends that the Board approve 13 this report to be presented to the Governor, the 14 Legislature, and the Advisory Board showing ARB's, the 15 Energy Commission's, and districts' progress for the first 16 year and the need for continued funding. 17 Finally, Staff will provide the Board with a 18 second status update on the program in January of 2001. 19 This concludes my presentation. 20 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: Thank you very much. 21 I guess with all the projects you mentioned -- by the way, 22 I got some unanimous comments from the Board, and we 23 decided that we need a site visit to the Napa Valley Wine 24 Train. 25 On a serious note, the photograph of 24 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 Dr. Moyer reminded me of a very important time in my 2 educational work, and that was working on AB234 with many 3 of you here. And Dr. Moyer's work on that and working 4 with Mike Jackson and other people was just invaluable. 5 But also in this past week, that committee was chaired 6 jointly by the Chairman of the California Air Resources 7 Board at that time, John Sharpliss (phonetic), and the 8 Chairman of the Energy Commission at that time, Charles 9 Ingarat (phonetic). And I would not like to let this time 10 go by without remembering Chuck's contributions to 11 California in stimulating newer fuels and stimulating 12 alternate fuels. I think it's a sad loss for all of us 13 that Chuck is no longer here. So I wanted to mention that 14 to you because I know many of you have worked with him. I 15 certainly did and enjoyed it, and at this time it was 16 important to remember that. 17 I would like to congratulate Speaker 18 Villaraigosa and Senator Brulte for their bipartisan 19 support to get this program before us again on a 20 continuing basis, and for all of you who have worked 21 through the Legislature on this very, very important 22 program. So we're delighted to be a part of it. I would 23 also like to congratulate the South Coast Board, Dr. Burke 24 (phonetic), and the Board, and the Staff for their 25 initiative on school buses. I thought this was excellent, 25 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 you should be congratulated, and we look forward to 2 working with you and hope it's a great success and that 3 will augment some of the work that you see on the school 4 buses. Because as you saw from that, the school bus 5 cost-effectiveness is at the higher end. So anything that 6 we can do with Dr. Burke's leadership on that is great, 7 especially working in the private sector if we can get 8 that cleaned up. 9 Do any of the Board members have any 10 questions or comments? 11 DORENE D'ADAMO: This program is so 12 impressive not only in terms of what it does for 13 incentives, but also the state and local partnerships that 14 it creates. 15 I'm just wondering, though, in light of the 16 fact that the demand has clearly exceeded the current 17 amount of funding that's available, what efforts, if any, 18 have been made to see if we can secure some matching 19 federal dollars? 20 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: Again if I can ask 21 Mr. Kenny to respond or Mr. Cackette. I presume this is 22 part of the ongoing process that Mr. Kenny will chair. 23 MR. KENNY: The one thing we did try to do 24 in regards to acquiring the matching federal dollars is 25 that, I think it was last year or the year before, 26 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 President Clinton had talked about a clean air trust fund, 2 and he had proposed $100 million to be put into that 3 fund. We did try to basically make it known both to 4 members of Congress and to essentially the Executive 5 Office that we thought that fund was something that we 6 would like to take advantage of so we could use matching 7 money for the Carl Moyer Fund. Unfortunately that fund 8 didn't get appropriated any funds at all by Congress, so 9 there was no money for that. So we don't really have any 10 matching funds at this point in time from the Federal 11 Government. 12 DORENE D'ADAMO: I think there may be some 13 opportunities here. Maybe we could explore it further 14 either by way of EPA grants or maybe even perhaps 15 earmarking funding through the appropriations process 16 through EPA or related agencies. 17 MR. KENNY: We actually have also been 18 trying to get some specific earmarks on EPA funds. One of 19 the difficulties there was that the EPA earmarks over the 20 last couple of years have been increasing, and those, as a 21 result, have resulted in a reduction of funds that can be 22 available for additional grants to the states. And the 23 primary way the grants have been coming through is 24 substantially through Section 105 Grants. And those, 25 instead of going up, are going down because of other 27 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 earmarks are occurring. We will continue to make the 2 effort, and hopefully we can find some matching funds 3 because obviously it would be put to a very good use in 4 California. 5 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: I might say that the 6 model that's being used for the Surpax Program (phonetic) 7 and the people, the bipartisan groups and the various 8 interest groups going to Washington to collect funds 9 without research programs, Mr. Acuna (phonetic), leading 10 matters has been very, very successful. Maybe we can 11 learn something from that. 12 Any other comments or questions? 13 (None.) 14 Thank you. We have four witnesses signed up 15 to testify on this item, and first we have Dr. Barry 16 Wallerstein, Executive Officer of the South Coast AQMD. 17 DR. WALLERSTEIN: Good morning, Dr. Lloyd, 18 and members of the Board. It's a pleasure to be here. I 19 have a few brief comments to highlight how this program 20 has been a tremendous success here in the South Coast 21 District. 22 As indicated for you on this first slide, in 23 terms of our local objectives, we've utilized this program 24 to support several of our board's initiatives: 25 Specifically our Environmental Justice Initiative and our 28 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 Children's Air Quality Health Agenda. In our 2 administration of the program, we have designed it so that 3 there would be a preference for clean fuels. We've 4 maximized the emission reductions using the most 5 cost-effective projects. We have done it for a series of 6 potential market niches and have promoted advanced 7 technologies. 8 The next two slides which relate to air 9 quality, will help highlight the importance of having a 10 program such as this. As you may be aware, we recently 11 completed a yearlong study measuring air toxics levels 12 here in Southern California and then using California 13 unit-risk factors of estimated carcinogenic risk. And 14 what this shows is when one includes the risk from diesel, 15 as shown on the right side on the right pie chart, as you 16 can see diesel represents about 70 percent of our 17 carcinogenic risk here in Southern California. So 18 certainly a program, such as the Moyer Program, to help 19 accelerate the turnover of the diesel fleets and the clean 20 up of those emissions is quite important. In a similar 21 bane, if we look at the proposed Federal PM-2.5 Standard 22 and we look across our basin with the utilizing of San 23 Nickalaus Island (phonetic) on the far left as 24 representing clean air since the island is far off our 25 shore, as we move from the west to the east in San 29 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 Bernardino and Riverside counties what we find is if you 2 look at the chart, especially for Riverside, and look at 3 the green and black areas indicated, almost two-thirds of 4 the proposed federal standard would be, in essence, 5 represented by diesel-related emissions. So clearly, 6 should the Federal Government move forward with this 7 standard and we're to achieve it, more has to be done in 8 the area of diesels. 9 Your Staff did an excellent job a few 10 minutes ago pointing out that we in the South Coast and 11 across the state have been able to fund a variety of 12 vehicle and equipment types. And, in fact, we had to turn 13 people away as was indicated. We had requests for roughly 14 $50 million in funding, so we had to turn away, in 15 essence, about four proposals for each one we granted. 16 However, we were able to fund 360 vehicles, pieces of 17 equipment, and vessels. But what I think is most notable 18 here besides the array of equipment and vehicle types is 19 the cost-effectiveness. The fact that the 20 cost-effectiveness was roughly about $2,200 per ton. 21 Well, for those of us that regulate stationary sources on 22 a daily basis I can tell you that a stationary source 23 program for controlling NOx would be roughly $10,000 to 24 $15,000 a ton, so this is certainly an extremely 25 cost-effective program. 30 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 Your Staff has pointed out that one of the 2 best niches is refuse trucks, whether it's the 3 neighborhood truck that comes around picking up trash or 4 the trucks transferring it to the landfills from 5 stations. I think it's important to point out that in 6 this program we are working with large companies, national 7 companies, such as Waste Management with CNG trucks. 8 We're working with other local companies with LNG-based 9 technologies, so there's CNG and LNG. And then the 10 transit area, your Staff showed a photograph of a transit 11 bus from MTA. We've been able to work with MTA Omni Trans 12 (phonetic), and Sun Line. And I think it's also important 13 to note that when you look at the purchases that are being 14 made currently, and you calculate what percentage of our 15 fleet here for transit buses in the next few years will be 16 all fuels, it will come up to nearly 40 percent of the 17 fleet. So certainly this program has been of assistance, 18 and we're well on our way to having a very clean transit 19 bus fleet. 20 I happen to have a picture of a school bus 21 photograph here on your monitor. It's probably quite 22 clear that there's still good cargo carrying space on this 23 CNG school bus, so it's another excellent application. 24 Tug boats -- and as your Staff mentioned, we 25 have also funded fishing vessels, and this is a very, very 31 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 cost-effective area where you can get substantial NOx 2 reductions. 3 As we look to the upcoming year, between the 4 ARB contribution and the contribution from the Energy 5 Commission and our own contribution, we hope to have about 6 $13.5 million available for the second round. And, in 7 fact, we have already gone out to bid on the majority of 8 the money. It is only the marine vessel portion that we 9 haven't sent out a request for proposals. And for the 10 rest of the program, we have already received 42 proposals 11 totalling $18 million in requests, so once again the 12 requests are exceeding the monies that we have available. 13 I'd like to close and leave you with a 14 photograph and a thought. And the photograph is of a 15 billboard that ran this last year right next to LAX on the 16 405 Freeway advertising nonstop flights from Los Angeles 17 to London as you can see "From smog to fog." So when we 18 talk about a program like the Moyer Program, we are not 19 only talking about public health and improving air 20 quality, we're also talking about changing the image of 21 this community, the state, and the dramatic impacts that 22 can happen for the local economy. 23 Thank you for this opportunity, and I'd be 24 happy to answer any questions you have. 25 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: Thank you very much, 32 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 Barry. 2 Any questions, Mr. Calhoun? 3 DR. WALLERSTEIN: Dr. Wallerstein, will you 4 put the pie graph back on, please. 5 MR. WALLERSTEIN: Sure. 6 MR. CALHOUN: I think you said that 70 7 percent of the diesel toxicity -- I'm not sure exactly 8 what comment you made. 9 DR. WALLERSTEIN: Mr. Calhoun, I'd be happy 10 to take a moment to explain what this is. 11 Under our environmental justice initiatives, 12 our governing board directed us to go out and do the first 13 comprehensive monitoring of air toxics. In this case we 14 did ten years, and we did it by two means: One was to set 15 up a series of fixed stations that augmented the ARB 16 stations and our own monitoring network. We collected 17 data for a 12-month period. In addition, we took samples 18 in neighborhoods where we dropped portable models into 19 neighborhoods to check for air toxics levels of more than 20 30 substances. In addition, we improved our emissions 21 inventories and then used computer models to predict 22 toxics levels and we measured the estimated carcinogenic 23 risk based on the measurements, and then based on the 24 emission factors and the computer models, we found a very 25 good agreement. What is shown for you here on the left is 33 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 the estimation of carcinogenic risk region wide utilizing 2 the monitoring data from our street study, absent 3 estimation of diesel particulate risk and diesel exhaust 4 risk. What that shows is that the overall risk was 5 roughly 400 in a million. When we then use the state unit 6 risk factor and estimate the contribution of diesel, the 7 risk jumps from about 400 in a million to 1400 in a 8 million, and, therefore, diesel would represent roughly 70 9 percent of the overall carcinogenic risk here in Southern 10 California. 11 MR. CALHOUN: Does that take into 12 consideration the advances in technology, that is the 13 advances that are being made that the diesel manufactures 14 talk all the time about? So my question to you is have 15 you given any consideration to the advances in diesel 16 engine technology? 17 DR. WALLERSTEIN: The data that I'm sharing 18 with you here is the current snapshot of the time. In 19 fact, these levels, especially if we look at the 20 pollutants other than diesel, we see substantial 21 reductions have occurred over the last ten years; about 50 22 percent. We're currently in the process of preparing a 23 toxic air contaminant control plant that will project 24 towards the future. We think that low-sulfur fuel is very 25 important. We think there are opportunities for add-on 34 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 control devices in some niches. We think for centrally 2 fueled fleets, all fuels are here today. And we also 3 think that one has to take into consideration the 4 uncertainty about those control devices when they will 5 come onto the market how durable they will be as compared 6 to known technology such as CNG and LNG today. 7 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: Also I'd like to make 8 a comment. Barry, when you showed the slide looking at 9 the proposed PM-2.5 Standard, it's relevant to point out 10 that while we wait for the Federal Government to go ahead 11 and finalize PM-2.5, we do have a State PM-10 Standard 12 which actually is restricted as the Federal PM-2.5. So I 13 think thanks to the foresight of California, we actually 14 have a standard in the protection of public health, so we 15 shouldn't forget the state standard. 16 DR. WALLERSTEIN: You're absolutely correct. 17 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: Thank you very much, 18 Barry. 19 The next speaker is Manuel Curha, Jr. from 20 the NISEI Farmers League & CAGI. 21 MR. CURHA: Good morning, Dr. Lloyd and 22 distinguished Board Members. 23 I'm here today to first say, so I do not 24 forget, that we support the Staff's recommendations on the 25 Moyer funding and the hard work, I think, that the 35 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 Legislature and the ARB Staff have done to promote such a 2 program. I represent agriculture. I serve on the USDA 3 Air Board for Air Quality that was put into law by the 4 Congress in 1996 to oversee agriculture across the nation 5 and what it's doing with air quality. And agriculture 6 from our task force is meeting on February 15th through 7 the 17th in Louisiana to talk about other things that 8 agriculture needs to be looking at across the country. 9 And it's an idea that when I see California with some 10 positive programs to help do incentives to allow industry 11 with assistance to do air quality benefit cleanups. And 12 I'm going to talk about agriculture for a second here, and 13 I'll make it brief because I do know that I've been told 14 to keep it brief. 15 The agriculture industry is quite different 16 in California. Just to give you an example, we're a 17 28-billion-dollar industry, 84,000 farmers, and 18 approximately ten million acres of irrigated land. And 19 the San Joaquin Valley, Fresno County, is the number one 20 county in the United States, and I think we all hear about 21 what the San Joaquin Valley and what this state does for 22 food across the world. So we want to be a part of that. 23 Very much diversified. Very much seasonal in its nature. 24 Some of our crops grow 40 days, they're harvested, and 25 that's the end. 36 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 I'd like to give you an example of why we 2 support the Moyer funding. This year we just got a report 3 from the Bureau of Reclamation that they are going to cut 4 our water to 45 percent allocation to the west side of the 5 San Joaquin Valley. That takes out 1.1 million acres of 6 agricultural production with an estimated revenue of about 7 $3 billion. What it does to the west side farmers and 8 those rural communities is devastation. So how are those 9 farmers going to produce crops? They are going to have to 10 pump now verses getting canal water, which is 11 gravity-fed. So that means our farmers are going to have 12 to start pumping wells as far as 1500 feet with a 13 400-horsepower engine to pull that water now from 14 underground and start irrigating their crops to survive 15 because they have a farm loan and they borrowed money 16 already to do the cultural practices and they have to 17 figure out a way to pay that loan back. So these farmers 18 are going to start using these engines which are, in most 19 cases, 20 or 25 years old, and we know what the technology 20 was 25 years ago. But I'm very pleased in the San Joaquin 21 Valley with our air district and our board this year 22 granted 150 engines from an inventory -- and don't hold me 23 to this, please -- somewhere around 25,000 engines, plus 24 or minus 50 percent. Okay? 25 The issue is that if we can have more 37 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 incentive programs like this, this year if our farmers 2 don't get their allocation, that 1.1 million acres is 3 going to have to be irrigated by underground water by pump 4 engines, and not mostly electric. That's another issue. 5 If ARB can get PG to remove the standby charge, all of our 6 farmers would immediately put in electrical engines, but 7 the standby charge is extremely expensive for our 8 growers. 9 So what I'm saying is that the incentives 10 that ARB is doing with the Moyer fund, number one, we need 11 to increase the amount. I think that T-21, under the 12 Federal Department of Transportation, had a budget of $217 13 billion; more than the Defense, more than EPA's budget, 14 more than USDA's budget. So I believe T-21 monies that 15 gave this state, for example, somewhere of $160 million to 16 be used very clearly in air quality is not being used to 17 its maximum efficiencies. So our industry group, called 18 the Citizens Advisory Group of Industries in the San 19 Joaquin Valley, is moving forward to change the language 20 in T-21 this coming year to allow those air districts more 21 access to those dollars to help clean up mobile sources, 22 and I think that's the key. 23 I know roads and bridges are important, but 24 if we don't clean up the air quality situation, we're 25 going to have more problems. So from the agricultural 38 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 side, my farmers are doing their part. But if it wasn't 2 for the Carl Moyer money -- and we have worked hard trying 3 to make sure that we qualify for that amount. We're 4 different. We don't run an engine 365 days a year. Some 5 of our farmers run an engine three days. Some of them run 6 it for three months, and then it's off for nine months a 7 year running on an eight-hour day. So that funding, if it 8 wasn't there, we would not have done the 150 engines at 9 all. And the ones that are applying this year, I have 10 about 300 growers that are going to apply for the monies 11 with engines ranging from 250 horsepower to 400. And it's 12 going to be important this year because if we do go into 13 our ground program, as they're talking about, for the next 14 several years, that's going to be a huge impact across the 15 San Joaquin Valley, the Sacramento Basin, as well as the 16 Imperial Valley. So I think we need to increase it. We 17 need to go to the Legislature and tell them to increase it 18 and keep the Carl Moyer Program there. And I will, 19 Dr. Lloyd, make a commitment. I'm going to be in D.C. on 20 Monday just talking to a few people. But one of the items 21 on Tuesday is to meet with our senators, the two of them 22 from California. And we are moving forward to change the 23 T-21 language to give our Air Resources Board and our air 24 districts an opportunity to get a chance at that money to 25 help match what you folks are doing. And I support that, 39 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 and I would hope that we could get a letter from this 2 board supporting that we get some funding out of T-21 and 3 get that to our senators as well as to some of us so we 4 can carry that message, and we will push hard for that 5 money. We believe in the program. 6 I want to thank Mike Kenny and Peter 7 Venturini (phonetic) for their support of putting 8 agriculture in the Carl Moyer Program this year. I think 9 that's a great opportunity for the door to open and for us 10 to help you clean up the air, and we want to be a part of 11 that in a positive way. 12 Thank you very much. I've gone over my 13 speaking limit. Sorry. 14 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: Thank you very much 15 for drawing that graphic relationship to the needs of the 16 agricultural side with the emissions side and the water. 17 That was very helpful. 18 Any comments or questions from the Board? 19 (No comments or questions were made.) 20 Thank you very much. 21 Our next witness is Gary Gero from the City 22 of Los Angeles. 23 MR. GERO: Good morning, Chairman Lloyd and 24 members of the Board. I am Gary Gero with the City of Los 25 Angeles, Departmental Affairs Department, the Air Quality 40 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 Director, and I want to thank you for giving me the 2 opportunity for speaking here today. 3 The City of Los Angeles was one of the 4 original and strongest supporters of the underlying 5 legislation of the Moyer Program. It's been a long, 6 consistent supporter of the program. We firmly believe 7 that this program needs to be continued and expanded, and 8 we urge you to adopt the report that's before you today. 9 As you're aware, the South Coast AQMD has proposed a rule 10 that would regulate fleet vehicles in the South Coast 11 Basin. An in the promulgation of this rule, the district 12 has indicated that Moyer funds would be eligible to 13 entities that are regulated. The City is concerned that 14 AB1571 may not allow the use of Moyer funds when used to 15 comply with a rule or regulation, and we would, therefore, 16 ask that the Air Resources Board make a definitive 17 determination of the eligibility of using Moyer funds to 18 comply with rules and regulations such as proposed Rule 19 1190. We would also ask that you expeditiously provide 20 that determination to both the South Coast Air Quality 21 Management District and all of the other effected state 22 coalitions, including the City of Los Angeles, so that 23 that can be included in our consideration as the 24 rule-making process goes forward. 25 Related to this question of eligible use of 41 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 the Moyer funds is the potential inequity that would be 2 created if the funds could not be used for compliance. 3 For example, there are some alternative-fueled vehicles 4 that have been funded under the Moyer Program that would 5 not be eligible under Rule 1190. So it's possible that 6 Moyer Program funds could be used to offset the private 7 sector in the purchase of these types of vehicles, while 8 public agencies that are subject to Rule 1190 would not be 9 able to use Moyer funds for the exact same vehicles. We 10 would ask and urge the Air Resources Board to actively and 11 immediately engage the South Coast Air District in 12 resolving these and other inconsistencies between the 13 Moyer Program and Rule 1190. 14 In order to obtain a diversity of vehicle 15 types and ensure equitable distribution of funds within 16 the South Coast, the HMD, as Dr. Wallerstein mentioned, 17 included in the most recent round of funding a specific 18 allocation for public-sector vehicles. We would also 19 request that the Air Resources Board include an allocation 20 for public-sector vehicles. We believe that their 21 operating parameters are substantially different from 22 private vehicles, and we want to include a broad 23 distribution of vehicle types that are set aside for 24 public fleets be included. Additionally if Rule 1190 is, 25 in fact, adopted as proposed, we would ask that a 42 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 preponderance of the funds be set aside for government 2 fleets to assist in complying with that rule that would 3 require a percent conversion of the fleets. 4 In our review of the status report that is 5 before you today, we strongly agree that a secure 6 long-term source of funds for this program must be 7 identified. While we understand that this is one of the 8 items before the working group, the City of Los Angeles 9 would like to offer its assistance in this process to 10 ensure that a funding source as a group in all parties is 11 identified and secured. 12 Finally, we would ask that in addition to 13 funding clean vehicles, the Air Resources Board work to 14 identify additional funding to support the development of 15 fueling infrastructure since the success of any future 16 efforts to bring alternative-fueled vehicles into public 17 and private fleets certainly depends on having sufficient 18 publicly accessible fueling infrastructure. 19 So in closing just let me summarize by 20 saying the City is asking you to instruct Staff to make a 21 determination on the eligibility of Moyer funds for rule 22 compliance; to work closely with the AQMD to ensure 23 consistency and collaboration in your efforts; and to 24 include within future Moyer Program guidelines specific 25 allocation for public fleet vehicles. 43 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 We look forward to working with you and the 2 AQMD on identifying a funding source for the program, and 3 I thank you for your consideration today. 4 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: Thank you very much. 5 I think I have every confidence that Mr. Kenny and the 6 Staff will resolve the issues that you speak to, and I 7 think those are important clarifications made there. The 8 part you said about the use of the Moyer funds for 9 proposed 1190, I think, again, the Air Resources Board 10 passed those through the district. So the South Coast Air 11 Management District would be responsible, I think, for 12 allocating those funds. 13 Any comments or questions from the Board? 14 (No comments or questions were made.) 15 Thank you very much. 16 MR. GERO: Thank you. 17 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: Next speaker is 18 Dr. Jim Stewart, Associate Director of the Southern 19 California Council on Environment and Development. 20 DR. STEWART: Good to be here with you. I'm 21 also representing the Sierra Club, Angeles Chapter, Air 22 Quality and Energy Committee. 23 We are concerned that the Carl Moyer Program 24 needs to be greatly expanded. The $19 million, of course, 25 is just way, way, way too small. We need to really look 44 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 at the whole broad issue of how it is that we are going to 2 get to what Dr. Lloyd mentioned just a few minutes ago: 3 The state air quality standards. The particulate 4 standards need to been enforced. And one of the things 5 that I would like to ask this board is when is it that you 6 are going to enforce the state air quality standards? 7 We're talking life and death here because the studies that 8 I've looked at, and we can make available to you, show 9 that the deaths are 5 to 10,000 people per year in the 10 South Coast Air Quality Management District due to the 11 particulates. Dr. Wallerstein mentioned that 70 percent 12 of the deaths are being caused by these diesel 13 particulates. That's 5 to 10,000 people a year, plus tens 14 of thousands more that are being hospitalized and are 15 being treated for a variety of illnesses. 16 So it's up to you, you representing the 17 state, who are concerned about our life and death. It's 18 up to you to take the leadership and implement the state 19 standards now. Thank you very much. 20 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: Thank you very much. 21 Questions or comments from the Board? 22 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Dr. Lloyd, I would 23 be happy, first of all, to say that I'm pleased to 24 represent the Board and the Advisory Committee and be 25 happy to move the resolution. This is not directed at the 45 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 speaker so much as just comments in general. 2 If you prefer to stand there, of course, 3 that's your privilege. 4 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: We do have one more 5 witness. 6 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Then I'll save my 7 comments then. 8 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: Thank you very much. 9 I think Dave Crow (phonetic) has signed up, 10 the Control Officer of San Joaquin Valley. 11 MR. CROW: Good morning, Dr. Lloyd, and 12 members of the Board. Manuel Curha yielded me some of his 13 time, and since the motion has already been made I'll -- 14 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: Some of his time? 15 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: Just trying to get 16 to the next item of the agenda. That's all. 17 MR. CROW: I'll be very brief. 18 What I wanted to emphasize is what you're 19 obviously well aware of. This has been an extraordinary 20 partnership between the State of California and the local 21 districts and the public and private fleet operators 22 within the state. Our involvement in the San Joaquin 23 Valley with this type of program goes back to 1992 when we 24 utilized the DMV surcharge monies that have been made 25 available to our district by action of our board to 46 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 authorize a four-dollar levy. And then in 1996, we were 2 fortunate enough to have Dr. Moyer come on board as a 3 consultant and help us structure the program that now 4 bears his name. That program has been extraordinarily 5 effective in our valley. We, too, are well oversubscribed 6 to the folks that have an interest and are availing 7 themselves of it. 8 In addition to the NOx reductions, I think 9 it's been cited that this is clearly a very, very 10 effective program for both PM and toxic benefits. And I 11 think what's really important to understand is that given 12 the overwhelming nature of the mobile sources' 13 contributions to our problem throughout the state, but 14 particularly in our valley, this program is dirt cheap. 15 It's extraordinarily cost-effective. My counterpart, 16 Dr. Wallerstein, pointed out the cost of controls on 17 stationary sources is basically on an order of magnitude 18 beyond the cost-effectiveness of these mobile-sources 19 programs. We clearly would encourage your committee, your 20 board, to encourage the Legislature to not only continue 21 the Moyer Program, but to expand it. 22 For one moment I want to touch on money. We 23 utilized, as matched, our DMV funds that are generated 24 within the valley. That is essential not only to the 25 continuance of this program, but also to other vital 47 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 programs that are essential for us being able to meet the 2 California Air Quality Act Standards. We also touched on 3 the match, and is there any other monies that we may bring 4 into this equation to leverage the Moyer money and the 5 local DMV monies? The answer is yes. Specifically our 6 board about a year ago directed Staff to seek grant funds 7 to augment the Moyer Program, and we did so. We went to 8 each of the transportation planning agencies, of which 9 there are eight in the San Joaquin Valley, and requested 10 of them their T-21 dollars to support the program. We 11 were only asking, and we were not universally granted 12 those monies, but we did have a good deal of success. 13 Over half of the counties just last Thursday contributed 14 1.5 million to this program. Our board has appropriated 15 that money. We have commitments under this round of T-21 16 for about 3.6 million. I wouldn't say it was easy. It 17 was rather like pulling teeth. There is an emerging, 18 overwhelming awareness that the transportation 19 organizations that control T-21 need to step up and 20 participate in funding a program such as the Moyer that is 21 so cost-effective. 22 A final thought that I would like to leave 23 you with is in your Staff report we understand that you 24 are obliged for the benefit of the Legislature to mention 25 all possible funding sources to continue with the Moyer 48 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 Program, and you did so. One that was mentioned was the 2 DMV monies. I would emphasize the importance of not 3 allowing the Legislature to usurp the local DMV monies for 4 the purposes of funding Moyer. It's taking from one 5 pocket and giving to another. And if they did that, it 6 would set back our ability across the board to meet the 7 California requirements, and would remove the principal 8 sources matched that we have now for the Moyer money. And 9 also when we use the utilize the C-MACK (phonetic) money 10 from the other jurisdictions in the valley, we commit to a 11 12 percent match against their C-MACK money, and that is 12 also funded by the DMV. So I would encourage you, the 13 Board and the Advisory Committee, to strongly urge the 14 Legislature to keep their mitts off the DMV allocation to 15 each local district. 16 With that, I'll take any questions. 17 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: Any questions? 18 DORENE D'ADAMO: Did you have any concerns 19 in the report that's before us on that issue of the DMV 20 funds? 21 MR. CROW: Not to draw too much attention to 22 it, but I did want -- I think you've only given it a 23 dishonorable mention. You didn't recommend it to the 24 Legislature, and I think it got the attention that it 25 requires. But I really wanted to underscore, for your 49 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 benefit and the Advisory Committee's and the Legislature, 2 if anybody dares to go there, please run the flag up. 3 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: Thank you. I think 4 with that, we have come to the end of the public 5 testimony. 6 Are there any written comments that need to 7 be supplemented for the record, Mr. Kenny? 8 MR. KENNY: Yes, we do have one comment 9 letter from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 10 And the district concurs with the conclusions in the 11 report, and they state that the program delivers 12 cost-effective emission reductions, and that the marine 13 and locomotive projects that were submitted in the Bay 14 Area are very cost-effective. Their one comment is that 15 their board is still in the process of considering the 16 projects that were submitted and that it may take a few 17 more months than we had set aside in the report for the 18 funding decisions to be final. 19 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: I would like to thank 20 Executive Officer Ellen Garvey for lending her support and 21 working on the program. 22 Mr. Kenny, any other comments? 23 MR. KENNY: No further comments. 24 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: Since this is not a 25 regulatory item, it's not necessary to officially close 50 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 the record; however, we do have a resolution before the 2 Board for action. 3 SUPERVISOR DeSAULNIER: I apologize for 4 jumping the gun, but that was the name of the last speaker 5 that I had in front of me. And I was so anxious to tease 6 Mr. Kenny at the time that I agreed to do this, I didn't 7 realize he was going to be the Chairman of the group. So 8 we will see if Mike has any better ability of controlling 9 me than Dr. Lloyd. 10 It will be a pleasure to serve with the 11 people you mentioned, and it shouldn't be a challenge to 12 convince the Legislature of the importance, the need, and 13 I think our only challenge is to demonstrate the 14 effectiveness of the program in the first two years. As 15 you mentioned there's obviously a need, but there's a far 16 greater need, than just the $80 million that was presented 17 to their districts. 18 So if it's safe for me to do this at this 19 point, Mr. Chairman, I will move resolution 00-1. 20 MRS. BARBARA RIORDAN: I'd like to second 21 that. 22 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: All in favor say "I." 23 (Remaining members say "I.") 24 The next item that I mentioned will be the 25 Leaf Blower Report, and I want to know if the court 51 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 reporter needs a short break. 2 MR. REPORTER: Yes. 3 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: Let's take a short 4 break. 5 (Off the record.) 6 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: The next agenda item 7 is 00-1-6, report to the California Legislature on the 8 potential health and environmental impacts of leaf 9 blowers. 10 When I first learned that the State 11 Legislature was interested in reducing the health and 12 environmental impacts of leaf blowers, I thought, "We 13 should make them all zero-emitting leaf vacuums instead. 14 That would give us cleaner air and healthier workers." 15 As it turns out, emissions and noise don't 16 correlate precisely with intake versus outgo. There are 17 also genuine practical and economic constraints that tend 18 to limit users' technology options. So the perfect 19 solution is outside our grasp. However, we can still shed 20 some more light on the dimensions of the problem. 21 To help advance the public policy debate, 22 the State Legislature in Senate concurrent Resolution 19 23 directed the Air Resources Board to summarize all 24 available evidence about the potential health and 25 environmental impacts of leaf blowers. That report is 52 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 before the Board today. 2 Senate concurrent Resolution 19 chaptered 3 May 21, 1999, directs the Air Resources Board to prepare a 4 report summarizing the potential health and environmental 5 impacts of leaf blowers. It is this report that is before 6 the Board for approval today. 7 At this point, I would like to ask Mr. Kenny 8 to introduce the item and begin the Staff's presentation. 9 MR. KENNY: Thank you, Chairman Lloyd, and 10 members of the Board. 11 During the 1999 session of the State 12 Legislature, three bills were introduced regarding leaf 13 blowers. Two of these bills were held in Committee (AB 14 1433-Granlund and SB 1267-Polanco). Both would have 15 curbed local regulation of leaf blowers. If enacted, 16 these two bills would have affected the approximately 100 17 California cities that have ordinances, rules, or 18 regulations banning or restricting leaf-blower use in 19 residential areas and would have kept other cities from 20 following their lead. 21 The third measure was senate concurrent 22 Resolution 19 by the Senate Pro Tem John Burton, which 23 passed the Legislature on May 21, 1999. SCR 19 is 24 essentially a study bill. It was intended to give the 25 Legislature more information on the potential health 53 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 impacts from leaf blowers to aid in their 2 decision-making. 3 We expect the leaf-blower debate to resume 4 during the current legislative year. ARB's report does 5 not take sides in this debate, but rather lays out all 6 that is known and not known about public health and 7 environmental impacts of leaf blowers. 8 The ARB has already regulated the direct 9 exhaust emissions of hand-held utility engines so those 10 measurable effects have been dealt with. With regard to 11 the dust that is generated during leaf-blower operation, 12 there does not appear to be enough quantitative data to 13 support a clear finding of public health threat, nor a 14 simple solution that would remedy all potential dust 15 problems. 16 In preparing this report, Staff worked 17 closely with stakeholders from the portable equipment 18 industry, local government, academia, other agencies, and 19 public interest groups. 20 And with that, I would like to turn the 21 presentation over to Dr. Nancy Steele of the Mobile Source 22 Control Division, who will provide you with an overview of 23 Staff's findings. 24 DR. STEELE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and 25 Board members. 54 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 Today we are presenting for your approval a 2 report to the California Legislature on the potential 3 health and environmental impacts of leaf blowers. 4 In my presentation today, I will begin by 5 describing the legislative request for ARB to prepare the 6 report and the method we used to conduct the study. 7 Next I will briefly walk you through our 8 impact assessment. The first step is identification of 9 the hazards. The second step is to describe the potential 10 health effects from each hazard. And the third step is to 11 synthesize the information uncovered into a summary of 12 potential health impacts. 13 Finally I will finish with the 14 recommendations of the report. 15 SCR 19 authored by Senator Burton was 16 chaptered May 21 of 1999. In the resolution ARB is asked 17 to summarize potential health and environmental impacts of 18 leaf blowers. 19 The resolution notes that questions and 20 concerns have been raised about the potential 21 environmental impacts and health hazards associated with 22 the operation of leaf blowers. Specifically ARB was 23 requested to address potential impacts from exhaust 24 emissions, noise, and blown dust on both operators and the 25 public at large. In addition, SCR 19 asks about the 55 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 availability and use of protective equipment by leaf 2 blower operators. 3 SCR 19 directed ARB to use only existing 4 studies in preparing the report. Thus we searched for 5 published and unpublished reports, contacted experts in 6 the various related fields, and further broadened our 7 search by notifying stakeholders that we were writing this 8 report and asking for their assistance and expertise. 9 Finally ARB is asked in the resolution to 10 recommend alternatives to the use of leaf blowers and 11 alternative leaf blower technology if ARB determines 12 alternatives to leaf blowers are necessary. 13 Before I move into the findings of the 14 report, I would like to provided you with some 15 background. 16 The leaf blower was invented in the 1970s 17 and rapidly gained acceptance in California as a lawn and 18 garden tool during a severe drought that resulted in 19 prohibitions against using water to clean sidewalks and 20 driveways. In the last decade annual nationwide shipments 21 have more than doubled, growing from 800,000 in 1990 to 22 over 1.8 million units in 1997. 23 Simultaneously communities began fighting 24 the new gardening tool by restricting or banning its use. 25 Recently the City of Los Angeles banned leaf blower use 56 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 within 500 feet of a residence. Twenty California cities 2 have banned leaf blower use and about another 80 have 3 enacted usage restrictions so that about 20 percent of 4 Californians now live in a city with some kind of leaf 5 blower ordinance. 6 The issues usually mentioned by those who 7 object to leaf blowers are health impacts from noise, 8 dust, and air pollution. Many groups have formed to fight 9 leaf blowers. Many professional gardeners, however, 10 assert that the leaf blower is a time and water-saving 11 tool that has enabled them to offer gardening services at 12 a much lower cost than if they had to use rakes and 13 brooms. They say that property owners demand a certain 14 level of cleanliness and that water use is impractical or 15 illegal. That leaf blower sales remain strong despite 16 restrictions, speaks to their popularity. 17 In California our inventory estimates that 18 there are about 410,000 gas-powered leaf blowers, 99 19 percent of which are powered by small, two-stroke 20 engines. The remaining one percent are primarily large, 21 walk-behind blowers equipped with four-stroke engines. 22 Most commercial gardeners use a backpack style gas-powered 23 blower with a two-stroke engine, as shown here on the 24 left. 25 We estimate there are about 600,000 electric 57 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 leaf blowers in California, almost all of which are 2 corded. Electric leaf blower models as shown here on the 3 right are generally designed for occasional homeowner 4 use. The City of Los Angeles, however, has approved a 5 contract for manufacturing of a commercial-style cordless 6 electric leaf blower, which was developed through its 7 Department of Water and Power. 8 Now, let me turn to hazard identification. 9 In hazard identification, we have described each hazard 10 which may be chemical or physical in origin, including 11 quantifying emissions and discussing exposures. 12 As mentioned earlier, the three hazards 13 singled out by the Legislature are exhaust emissions, 14 fugitive dust, which is generated by the action of the 15 leaf blower, and noise. 16 As you may know, the ARB has authority to 17 control exhaust emissions from engines and fugitive dust. 18 Fugitive dust, however, is customarily controlled by the 19 local air districts. ARB has no authority to control 20 noise emissions. Statewide authority for noise control 21 lies with the Department of Health Services, although 22 there is presently no statewide office of noise control. 23 Control of noise has developed to the local level in 24 California and is generally regulated as a nuisance. 25 Exhaust emissions from small two-stroke 58 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 engines (not just leaf blowers) are high on a per-engine 2 basis, primarily because the engine design permits as much 3 as 30 percent of the fuel/oil mixture to exhaust 4 unburned. In addition to hydrocarbons, including unburned 5 fuel, other emissions we are concerned about include 6 carbon monoxide, fine particulate material, and toxic 7 chemicals found in unburned fuel or generated by the 8 combustion process. Air toxics include benzene, 9 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, and formaldehyde. NOx 10 emissions are relatively low from these engines and were 11 not considered as a hazard for the purposes of this 12 report. 13 At the beginning of January, we received 14 some exposure data from the industry for exhaust 15 emissions. We received the data too late to be included 16 in the body of the report, but a summary and analysis 17 entitled "Addendum to Appendix H", has been provided to 18 you. The data show that elevated concentrations of carbon 19 monoxide, benzene, and 1,3-butadiene may be emitted to the 20 breathing zone of leaf blower operators. 21 Our small off-road engine rule amended in 22 1998, controls emissions from engines used in leaf blowers 23 and other equipment below 25 horse power. Exhaust 24 emissions from these small engines have declined 25 significantly since 1990. This chart illustrates total 59 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 emissions from leaf blowers in 2000 and shows how 2 emissions will decline by 2010 as a result of existing 3 regulations. 4 Please note that the particulate matter 5 emissions shown in this slide are only engine-out 6 emissions, and do not include particulates from fugitive 7 dust emissions raised by leaf blowers. 8 Now, I'd like me to turn to fugitive dust. 9 The Legislature used the term "blown dust" to describe the 10 second hazard category, which we referred to as fugitive 11 dust in keeping with ARB terminology. Fugitive dust is 12 particulate matter that is not otherwise captured by a 13 control system. 14 Particulate matter resuspended by leaf 15 blowers is not a part of the inventory of fugitive dust 16 sources, and thus we have no official data. Staff's goal 17 here was to estimate particulate emissions, primarily the 18 PM10 and PM2.5 size fractions. 19 We developed estimates of the emissions 20 generated per hour by a leaf blower, and the total daily 21 estimated emissions for all leaf blowers. We located 22 three previous estimates, reexamined assumptions used to 23 make those estimates, identified more current data, and 24 derived new estimates for this study. 25 Using our calculated emission factors, we 60 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 estimated an inventory of potential daily emissions, using 2 hours of usage per year, in tons per day. Since leaf 3 blowers are used to clean different surfaces, however, we 4 would have liked to have data on leaf blower use on 5 various surfaces such as lawns and sidewalks. As we have 6 data for only paved roads, curbs, gutters, and shoulders, 7 we have prepared two potential emission inventories, which 8 probably represent the two extremes of the possibilities. 9 Thus, we have an estimated range of six tons per day to 10 128 tons per day of resuspended PM10, depending on the 11 surface being cleaned. 12 ARB had previously calculated a statewide 13 emission inventory for leaf blowers of 148 tons per day 14 PM10, which is higher than our highest current estimate. 15 Based on these data, the PM10 emission 16 impacts from leaf blowers could range from less than one 17 percent to five percent of the statewide fugitive dust 18 inventory. 19 There are still many questions about 20 fugitive dust resuspension by leaf blowers. We were 21 unable to answer major questions about the content of the 22 dust and size categorization. 23 A study by Ann Miguel and colleagues at Cal 24 Tech and the Huntington Memorial Hospital in Pasadena, 25 however, addresses the presence off allergens in road 61 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 dust. The authors demonstrated that paved road dust 2 contains biological material that contributes to allergies 3 and asthma, and that resuspension of dust by vehicles 4 increases the allergenic content of total suspended 5 particulate samples collected contiguously to the road 6 dust samples. As particulates resuspended by vehicles 7 should be similar in many ways to dust resuspended by leaf 8 blowers, this study provides support to complaints by some 9 people that walking through a cloud of dust blown up by 10 leaf blowers worsens their allergies and asthma. 11 The third hazard from leaf blowers is noise, 12 a physical hazard. Noise is essentially unwanted sound 13 that may or may not contribute to hearing loss. The 14 characteristics of noise are duration, intensity, 15 frequency, and overtone structure. Loudness is a function 16 of both intensity and frequency and is commonly quantified 17 using the decibel scale, shown here in comparison to some 18 common sounds and occupational regulatory limits. The 19 occupational permissible exposure limit of 90 decibels is 20 the eight-hour exposure limit at which certain regulatory 21 requirements kick in, such as a hearing protection 22 program. Also listed here in the right of the figure are 23 the ranges of sound for leaf blowers, at 50 feet away and 24 near the operator's ear. I'll be discussing leaf blower 25 loudness next. 62 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 But before I do, I want to note that the 2 decibel scale is logarithmic, meaning that 40 decibels is 3 not half as intense as 80 decibels, but 100 times less 4 intense. Instead 74 decibels is half as intense as 80 5 decibels. But, because loudness perception is a function 6 of both intensity and frequency, people usually don't 7 perceive a sound as half (or twice) as loud until there is 8 a difference of ten decibels between the two sounds. 9 We were able to obtain the loudness levels 10 for 55 leaf blower models as measured from 50 feet away. 11 Note that 30 of the 55 models are 69 to 70 12 decibels loud. The quietest blowers, at 62 to 65 decibels 13 are significantly quieter than the loudest blowers on this 14 list. 15 Unfortunately, we do not have sufficient 16 sales data for specific leaf blower models which would 17 have given us a clear picture of bystander exposure to 18 leaf blower sound. We do know, from ECHO, that their 19 quiet blower, a commercial model at 65 decibels -- they 20 may have a quieter version by now, but this is the data I 21 have -- is selling better than their loudest commercial 22 model (74 dBA). 23 What about occupational exposures? We 24 contacted relevant agencies, manufacturers, and 25 researchers, but were unable to find much data on 63 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 occupational exposures. 2 We did receive some limited, unpublished 3 data on operator exposures from a few sources, which 4 indicates that operator noise dose ranges from 90 to 106 5 decibels. The safety standard limits exposure based on 6 both loudness and time exposed, so not all workers would 7 be required to wear hearing protection at these levels. 8 At the highest level, 106 decibels, however, a worker's 9 exposure without hearing protection would be limited to 10 less than one hour. 11 SCR 19 also specifically asked ARB to look 12 into the incidents in availability of hearing protection. 13 Hearing protectors are widely available and devices range 14 from inexpensive foam earplugs to more costly and 15 protective earmuffs. We found that few people wear 16 hearing protection or breathing or vision protection. 17 Three studies investigated the incidents of personal 18 protection use among leaf blower operators. Two of the 19 studies consisted of direct observations of leaf blower 20 operators. In this chart they have been combined: Out of 21 164 total observations, four individuals, or two percent 22 of the total, were observed wearing earplugs or muffs; 23 eight, or five percent of the total, wore some kind of 24 dust mask; and 25, or 15 percent of the total wore glasses 25 or other eye protection. 64 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 In the third study, people who had hired 2 lawn and garden-care workers were asked recall whether or 3 not their workers used personal protection. The estimates 4 based on recollection of personal protection use were 5 higher than direct observations, as you can see in the 6 right-hand column, but are still quite low. 7 The second phase of the analysis was to 8 review potential health effects of the major pollutants or 9 hazards from leaf blowers. Health effects, of course, 10 range from mild to serious. Whether or not a health 11 effect is manifested, however, depends on many factors, 12 including how much of the chemical is inhaled, absorbed, 13 or consumed, how long the exposure lasts, and an 14 individual's general health or sensitivity. I'm not going 15 to summarize the health effects for these air pollutants, 16 but I will briefly discuss the health effects of noise. 17 Hearing loss is the most concrete negative 18 health outcome of noise exposure. Noise-induced hearing 19 loss generally results from repeated exposures, although 20 very loud noises can cause permanent hearing loss after 21 one exposure. The damaging effects are cumulative, and 22 significant hearing loss usually does not manifest until 23 one is much older. It has long been assumed that hearing 24 loss is a normal consequence of aging, but studies of 25 people who live in non-industrial societies have shown 65 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 that so-called age-related hearing loss is really a 2 consequence of years of exposure to loud noises. 3 In addition to hearing loss, other health 4 effects occur from noise exposure. Noise interferes with 5 communication, disrupts sleep, and causes feelings of 6 annoyance all of which results in stress. 7 The third step in the analysis to synthesize 8 and summarize potential health impacts, based on the data 9 gathered in the two previous sections. To assist in the 10 analysis, we modeled potential exposures, based on what we 11 know about emissions, and I will discuss these next. But 12 an important result of this analysis is to direct the 13 discussion and raise questions that have been uncovered in 14 the hazard identification and review of health effects 15 phases. 16 For the worker, our analysis suggests 17 concern. Bearing in mind that the worker population is 18 most likely young and healthy, and that these workers may 19 not work in this business for very long, thus reducing 20 their long-term impacts, we nonetheless are cautioned by 21 the potential for negative impacts. 22 Workers may be exposed to potentially 23 hazardous concentrations of CO and PM intermittently 24 throughout their workday, and noise exposures can be high 25 enough that workers are at increased risk of developing 66 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 permanent hearing loss. In addition, operator exposures 2 to benzene and 1,3-butadiene may also be of concern. 3 Describing the impacts on the public at 4 large is even more difficult than for workers, because 5 people's exposures, and reactions to those exposures are 6 much more variable. 7 Some bystanders are clearly annoyed by the 8 noise and dust from leaf blowers. They can be 9 interrupted, awakened, and may feel harassed to the point 10 of taking the time to contact public officials, complain, 11 write letters and set up web sites, form associations, and 12 attend city council meetings. These are actions taken by 13 highly annoyed individuals who believe their health is 14 being negatively impacted. 15 In addition, some sensitive individuals may 16 experience extreme physical reactions, mostly respiratory 17 symptoms, from exposure to the kicked-up dust. 18 Do-it-yourself gardeners who use leaf 19 blowers on their properties may also be exposed to levels 20 of carbon monoxide and particulates high enough to be a 21 problem for sensitive individuals, such as those with 22 heart disease. 23 The Legislature asked ARB to include 24 recommendations for alternatives in the report, if ARB 25 determines that alternatives are necessary. This report 67 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 makes no recommendations for alternatives to leaf blowers, 2 although we do discuss alternatives in the report, because 3 we lack important data. Further research is needed before 4 we can answer the questions raised by the Legislature. 5 We do feel, however, that potential impacts 6 could be reduced now, without waiting for further 7 studies. 8 First, those who operate these leaf blowers 9 should wear personal protective gear: Earplugs or muffs 10 and dust masks or respirators are important to protect the 11 lungs and hearing. We suggest that employers need to be 12 especially vigilant in enforcing these requirements, and 13 perhaps health and regulatory agencies should focus 14 education and compliance efforts on these workers and 15 their employers. 16 In addition, we suggest that stakeholders, 17 including those who oppose leaf blowers, should work 18 together on strategies that could reduce noise and dust 19 generation, both to improve working conditions and reduce 20 complaints of bystanders. These modest suggestions may 21 improve conditions somewhat for both leaf blower operators 22 and bystanders if people work together to implement 23 changes in the way leaf blowers are used. 24 In conclusion staff recommends that you 25 approve and forward the report, including the addendum to 68 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 Appendix H, to Legislature. This concludes my 2 presentation. 3 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: Thank you very much. 4 I'm looking for our ombudsperson, but I don't see her. 5 Kathleen, are you around somewhere? Given that, I guess I 6 will interpret that -- although this is not a regulatory 7 item, there's a great deal of public interest in this 8 item. I just want your assurance that, in fact, 9 opportunities were provided for people to give various 10 input. 11 MS. TSCHOGL: Well, I do have a great deal 12 of information about the community outreach and the 13 various workshops that were held and the outrage overall, 14 but in the interest of time, I could answer to the 15 specifics about that if you wanted to know. But the one 16 thing I wanted to add is that there are a number of people 17 who did have an interest in this project that have not 18 arrived yet, and I'm thinking that it's probably because 19 this was moved up on the agenda -- never mind. I was out 20 there looking for them, but never mind. 21 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: I think to elaborate 22 on your comment that when I moved this up in the interest 23 of people who have traveled from the East Coast, we ran 24 the risk and there was a period of time of some 25 uncertainty that local people representing the local 69 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 gardeners and the laborers and that side, that they were 2 aware of this. So what we were intending to do -- the 3 case was to hold this item open until they arrived, but 4 it's my understanding that things are back together now. 5 And if not, we will certainly keep this item open and make 6 sure we give everybody a chance to give their input on 7 this item. 8 MS. TSCHOGL: Could you hold on a second. 9 We're having a little conference here. 10 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: Yes. I'll continue 11 with Board questions. 12 Dr. Freidman? 13 DR. FREIDMAN: I appreciate your report and 14 I appreciated in particular the appeal that more data 15 needs to be generated to crystallize exactly where we want 16 to be with this. But I also think perhaps that we should 17 seek to enunciate the specific questions that can be 18 addressed by research and perhaps we, in collaboration 19 with the Research Division, should pose two or three of 20 the simplest, most direct, questions so that we can 21 actually get the data. Data is a plural. I don't know 22 what would be convincing without us brainstorming that and 23 focussing on what needs to be known. The public is mostly 24 irritated. Well, that's a psychiatric question. The leaf 25 blower operators, themselves, are liable to have major 70 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 health problems or hearing problems. Those are simple to 2 measure, but we need to be, I think, a little more 3 specific about the kinds of data that we think will be 4 needed to make some more definitive decisions. 5 MRS. BARBARA RIORDAN: Exactly. And if I 6 may, we do have an appendix that addresses research 7 needs. And our Research Division, which participated in 8 preparing this report, did put together a very rough scope 9 of work to get an idea of what we would want to do if the 10 Legislature were to give us money to do it, and how much 11 funding would be needed. And I believe we came up with 12 somewhere around 1 to $1.5 million to do a complete study. 13 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: Thank you very much. 14 Mr. McKinnon? 15 MATTHEW R. McKINNON: I really appreciated 16 the emphasis that you put on kind of the impacts on the 17 worker, and I think you fairly well covered all of the 18 areas. There's one area that you may kind of want to add 19 to the list if we spend more time on that, on this issue, 20 and that is with the non-backback type of blowers. I 21 think there's a vibration issue that could lead to 22 ergonomic injuries. I'm a do-it-yourself guy with an 23 electric one, and I have an idea that that's also a 24 problem. But I appreciated the report, and I appreciated 25 that you went into that detail on worker impacts. 71 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: Thank you very much. 2 If there are no questions from the Board, we 3 will get to our witness list. 4 MR. KENNY: Mr. Chairman, actually before we 5 start with the witness list, if I could refer back to 6 Ms. Tschogl for a moment to clarify the order of 7 witnesses? 8 ALAN C. Lloyd, Ph.D: Yes. 9 MS. TSCHOGL: The one witness that we are 10 still waiting for is Adrian Alvarez from the Association 11 of Latin American Gardeners of Los Angeles, and I haven't 12 been able to locate that person and I'm not positive that 13 he's here. 14 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: But you expect him? 15 MS. TSCHOGL: He expressed an interest in 16 being here, and I'm concerned that he might be arriving a 17 little bit later. 18 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: We will ensure that we 19 will keep it open and make sure he gets a chance to 20 testify before the Board. 21 MS. TSCHOGL: Thank you. 22 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: With that, we will 23 start our witness list. What I would like to ask people 24 to do is to limit their testimony to no more than five 25 minutes. We have about ten people signed up, and we have 72 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 a heavy afternoon ahead of us so I would appreciate your 2 cooperation in doing that. 3 The first one is Mr. Mac Dunaway of Dunaway 4 & Cross. 5 MR. DUNAWAY: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, 6 and members of the Board. First of all, I want to thank 7 you very much for advancing this item on the agenda for 8 us, some of us who were somewhat snowbound back East. It 9 provided some much needed relief in our travel plans. 10 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: Are you sure you can 11 get back? 12 MR. DUNAWAY: I'm not 100-percent sure, 13 Mr. Chairman. It's awful nice out here. I see why you 14 live here, and I am quite tempted. 15 I am Mac Dunaway. I'm here today on behalf 16 of the Portable Power Equipment Manufacturers 17 Association. PPEMA is the national trade association 18 representing manufacturers of hand-held and portable 19 equipment, like hand-held leaf blowers. The manufacturers 20 of PPEMA that make leaf blowers are Echo, Stihl, Frigidare 21 Home Products, Huskavarna (phonetic), John Deer, Kawasaki, 22 Mikita, Red Max. We have worked cooperatively with Staff 23 since they began this effort, and I want to acknowledge 24 the effort that the Staff has put into this report. It, I 25 think, was a daunting challenge, one that was not 73 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 requested. And Staff did reach out, not only to the 2 manufacturing community, but we certainly saw them reach 3 out to all the communities and all the stakeholders that 4 could be effected by this report. And I want to commend 5 them on the job that they have done in reviewing and 6 attempting to assimilate wide-ranging data and produce a 7 report in a very limited period of time. 8 We have already submitted some extensive 9 comments, some extensive written comments, on the report, 10 and I will not belabor those comments here today. What I 11 would like to do is touch on a few items briefly if I 12 could. First of all, I would like to give you an update 13 of what has occurred. At PPEMA, the organization that I 14 represent, I'd like to give you an update on what has 15 occurred with the ANSI standard, which is the voluntary 16 standard, prescribing the test procedure for measuring 17 blower sound levels for bystanders. I would like to give 18 you an update on the labelling program and where that 19 stands and where it's going, and just a few comments on a 20 couple other items with regard to the report. 21 First of all, early in Staff's review of the 22 information for the report, we provided them with a copy 23 of the American National Standards Institute B175.2 24 Standard, which is the test measurement for high standard 25 sound levels. PPEMA is the secretary of that B175 74 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 committee. The committee is very balanced. It includes 2 industry, government, as well as the public, and we 3 provided them copies of the proposed amendments to that 4 standard which were aimed at increasing the repeatability 5 and reliability of sound measurements as a whole as well 6 as establishing some new categories for labelling programs 7 for manufacturers who produce products and test them 8 pursuant to that standard. While those amendments were 9 approved very recently, they will be issued as B175.2-2000 10 and they will available to PPEMA. PPEMA sponsors a blower 11 labelling program for manufacturers that test blower sound 12 levels pursuant to the standard, and it includes both gas 13 powered as well as electrical powered blowers. The PPEMA 14 members have signed up for that program, which means the 15 overwhelming majority of blowers sold in California, as 16 well as the rest of the country, will bear sound level 17 labels. These are labels that are easily used for quick 18 reference either by consumers who purchase blowers for 19 noise-comparison purposes, noise-level-comparison 20 purposes, and certainly can be used by municipalities of 21 communities in their purchasing decisions as well. 22 PPEMA has enhanced and increased its 23 consumer education efforts with regard to the proper use 24 of blowers. Certainly in an effort to reduce the sound 25 levels associated with the use of blowers as well as the 75 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 other potential environmental impacts. Most recently with 2 regard to commercial blower use, PPEMA has committed to, 3 and is in the process of producing a training video, which 4 will be the center piece of a training program for 5 commercial users. The video focuses on the proper use of 6 blowers to reduce noise as well as blown dust, and, of 7 course, it covers all the safety precautions associated 8 with the use of blowers. The video will not only be used 9 by landscape contractors and gardeners to train their 10 employees on proper and courteous use of blowers, but it 11 will also be quite suitable for cities and municipalities 12 that may wish to require some kind of licensing or 13 certification program for commercial blower operation in 14 their jurisdiction. The video will be shot and completed 15 by the end of February, and we expect it to receive 16 widespread distribution not only in California, but in the 17 other states as well. And, again, it will be a part of a 18 comprehensive training program for commercial blower use. 19 MR. DUNAWAY: Am I finished? 20 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: As far as we are 21 concerned. You have 30 seconds for hitting highlights. 22 MR. DUNAWAY: Certainly we don't agree with 23 everything that's in the report. We support, however, the 24 basic conclusions. We believe that lack of empirical data 25 has hamstrung Staff to a large degree. PPEMA submitted -- 76 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 we submitted on behalf of the industry a 1995 study 2 conducted by Batel (phonetic) Memorial Labs, which we 3 think addresses carbon monoxide CO emissions, and we would 4 hope that you get an opportunity to take a look at that. 5 It is an attachment to the report. It is in the records, 6 I should say. 7 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: We do have one 8 question. 9 MRS. BARBARA RIORDAN: Mr. Dunaway, 10 obviously the answer is probably some sort of a hand-held 11 battery-operated electric leaf blower. That would help 12 tremendously. However, it doesn't seem that they are 13 available, and I wondered if there's any investigation 14 going on or development in research that might lead in 15 that direction amongst your members. 16 MR. DUNAWAY: I think that all of the 17 manufacturers are working very, very hard on the noise 18 issues as well as other issues associated with leaf 19 blowers. I think you've seen a significant decrease in 20 sound associated with leaf blowers over the last five to 21 six years, and I think you will continuously see some of 22 them going down. Interestingly enough, the difference 23 between sound levels of gas blowers and electric blowers 24 is minimal. As a matter of fact, there are many electric 25 blowers -- I know of electric blowers as well whose sound 77 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 levels are significantly higher than gas blowers. 2 MRS. BARBARA RIORDAN: Really? 3 MR. DUNAWAY: Yes, ma'am. It's an issue not 4 of whether what the power source is certainly when you're 5 talking about noise, but the noise level itself. How it 6 performs and what kind of noise it generates and produces, 7 and that has been our focus and hopefully it will be 8 whoever gets involved with it their focus as well. 9 MRS. BARBARA RIORDAN: Thank you. 10 MR. DUNAWAY: You're welcome. 11 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: Thank you very much. 12 Anymore questions? 13 (No more questions.) 14 Thank you very much. 15 Maybe to speed things up, I think two 16 microphones are working here. The order we have got is 17 Mr. Guerry, Ms. Alvarez, and Mr. Labbe. 18 Mr. Guerry is with the Outdoor Power 19 Equipment Institute. 20 MR. GUERRY: I'm Bill Guerry, and I serve as 21 environmental counsel to the Outdoor Power Equipment 22 Institute, whose members represent the entire spectrum of 23 manufactures of hand-held and non-hand-held products. 24 OPI's memberships includes John Deer, Huskavarna, Honda, 25 Toro, Ryobi (phonetic), Tenaka (phonetic), Lesco 78 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 (phonetic), Kawasaki, Solo (phonetic), Huffco (phonetic) 2 and Frigidare, all of whom manufacture leaf blowers. 3 These OPI members have invested millions of 4 dollars in developing cleaner and quieter leaf blowers and 5 other types of outdoor power equipment. OPI appreciates 6 the unique difficulties of the challenge imposed on 7 Dr. Steele and her staff in developing a blow report based 8 on such limited scientific data that is directly 9 applicable to leaf blowers. OPI also commends Dr. Steele 10 and her staff for appropriately qualifying the limited 11 basis of scientific data on leaf blowers and for generally 12 indicating in the report that leaf blowers do not pose a 13 known or direct hazard, at least to the general public, or 14 to residential operators. Consequently the report 15 correctly concludes that quote, "A recommendation to ban 16 leaf blowers is not warranted." OPI and its members share 17 CARB's and Cal/OSHA's goal of ensuring that all blower 18 operators wear protective equipment. For this reason, OPI 19 manufacturers include detailed safety instructions in 20 their owner manuals as well as details on the blowers 21 specifying the use of appropriate protective equipment. 22 OPI and its members fully support the industries efforts 23 to do further work in training and educating operators 24 about the need to wear protective equipment and to safely 25 operate the equipment. In order to ensure that commercial 79 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 operators are fully protected from all hazards, OPI fully 2 supports the rigorous enforcement of the Cal/OSHA 3 requirements that apply to commercial landscapers. 4 We believe that workplace exposure concerns 5 have been appropriately delegated to Cal/OSHA and are not 6 an appropriate basis for a local regulation. To ensure 7 that the Legislature and the public is not misled, OPI 8 submits the following specific suggestions which clarify 9 several problematic statements in the report that could be 10 misinterpreted. First, CARB concludes that probably less 11 than ten percent of leaf blower operators wear hearing 12 protection, thus exposing them to an increased risk of 13 hearing loss. As Dr. Steele testified, there is very 14 limited credible data on the use or the nonuse of 15 protective equipment by blower operators. In fact, the 16 report's principal conclusions about protective equipment 17 are largely based on limited anecdotal information or 18 quote "observational studies." To ensure that the policy 19 regulators and legislators that review this report have 20 the benefit of a balanced perspective, we recommend 21 consideration of comments submitted by the California 22 Landscape Contractors Association, which will be 23 testifying next. 24 CLCA has submitted comments into the record 25 documenting that their members use the necessary 80 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 protective equipment, including earplugs, on the job. 2 Second, CARB repeatedly concludes in the 3 report that commercial operators may be exposed to 4 potentially hazardous concentrations of carbon monoxide 5 and particulate matter. These conclusions are primarily 6 based on a novel mixing-zone theory and the application of 7 the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM and CO. 8 The max standards are designed to provide the public from 9 routine continuous exposure to pollutants that have become 10 mixed into it and generally remain in the ambient air. We 11 are concerned that the calculation of the max for a 12 particular area, such as an area where a leaf blower is 13 being used, is questionable and should be considered with 14 close scrutiny. We had recommended that the use of the 15 OSHA short-term exposure limits would be a more 16 appropriate threshold to evaluate the short-term 17 intermittent exposure, particularly in the workplace 18 environment. 19 Third, to respond to CARB's concerns about 20 CO exposure assumptions, I would just like to highlight 21 the point that Dr. Steele made that there has been a 22 recent development with a study that is based on actual 23 exposure monitoring from an older-designed, 24 higher-emitting 1995 blower that raises at a minimum, or 25 demonstrates, that the box model mixing zone used by CARB 81 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 exaggerates likely CO exposure. 2 Finally, the last point that we are 3 concerned with is the CARB Report exaggerates the 4 estimated range of fugitive emissions from blowers by 5 indicating that blowers could emit between one and five 6 percent of the entire statewide inventory of PM10. As 7 Dr. Steele recognized in her testimony, the upper-end 8 limits for estimated PM fugitive emissions result from 9 CARB's reliance on gutter silt loadings in the absence of 10 actual data on the concentration of particulates on lawn 11 and other turf areas where blowers are typically used. 12 And we would like to highlight that we believe that the 13 organic particulates on lawns are likely to be less 14 concentrated and less likely to become airborne than the 15 silt that is typically found in gutters. 16 OPI would submit into the record a technical 17 critique that is being prepared by the OPI itself and 18 Dr. Ron Sahu which provides additional suggestions on the 19 calculation of fugitive PM10 emissions inventory. It is 20 our hope that CARB relies on this study, not only in this 21 proceeding, but in any future action in which CARB is 22 trying to estimate the total contribution of fugitive PM 23 from leaf blowers. 24 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: Thank you very much. 25 You identified a number of data gaps. Is 82 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 the Institute willing to work with CARB Staff to try to 2 fill in those data gaps? 3 MR. GUERRY: Yes, very much so. OPI 4 appreciates the long-standing constructive or active 5 working relationship with CARB, and we continue to work 6 with them closely. 7 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: Thank you. 8 Any comments or questions from the Board? 9 MATTHEW R. McKINNON: Just a brief comment. 10 I spent a few years training a few thousand 11 people in health and safety hazard identification, and one 12 of the things that I just happened to notice is how people 13 are working and whether it's safely. And I have to tell 14 you in my noticing people who work in my neighborhood 15 doing the work that we are talking about, they very, very, 16 very rarely have any safety protection, and I think you 17 disputed those numbers. My evidence is very empirical. 18 It's just what I've noticed, but I think Cal/OSHA is the 19 appropriate place for that particular issue. I think it 20 is also fair to say to you right now that if people are 21 disputing the numbers that were talked about in terms of 22 people using safety protection, they need to go back and 23 take another look because that's certainly not what I see. 24 MR. GUERRY: For the record, OPI votes 25 substantial resources currently in disseminating public 83 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 service announcements through the radio, TV, and printed 2 materials emphasizing to the public, and going to local 3 high schools, to emphasize the important, safe, and proper 4 use of outdoor power equipment. OPI will continue to be a 5 leader in the area of documenting and improving safety 6 management practices with outdoor power equipment. 7 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: Thank you very much. 8 Our next speaker is Barbara Alvarez of the 9 California Landscape Contractors Association, and after 10 that we have Mr. Lane Labbe. 11 MS. ALVAREZ: My name is Barbara Alvarez, 12 and I'm here representing the California Landscape 13 Contractors Association and I am also, myself, a small 14 landscape provider here in Southern California. I would 15 like to start by saying we support the Staff in their 16 endeavor to put together this report, being that the 17 scientific data available on the effect of leaf blowers on 18 the public and the end user is very little. I may not 19 agree 100 percent with some of the safety stats that are 20 applied here, and, again, we address the earplug use, but 21 I base that on my own personal safety conduct that I 22 mandate in my own company, so I speak for that on a 23 personal level. 24 I do realize, though, at this point that we 25 can always do better. It is something that my association 84 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 is going to focus in on. The leaf blower is a necessary 2 tool in our industry, but I do understand, and, again, our 3 organization is going to promote and work towards the 4 safety of our employees because it is absolutely necessary 5 with the use of this equipment. 6 Mac Dunaway did mention the fact of a leaf 7 blower video on safety that is being developed. The 8 California Landscape Contractors Association is working 9 along with them. We are beginning filming next week in 10 Palo Alto with Contractors Associations, but also the 11 Latin Gardener Associations up there. And, again, it is a 12 necessary tool in our industry, but as an industry we will 13 focus in on the safety and courtesy of conduct in using 14 this tool in the community. Thank you. 15 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: Thank you very much. 16 Any questions or comments? 17 (No questions or comments were made.) 18 Thank you for keeping your comments on time. 19 Our next speaker is Mr. Lane Labbe 20 representing himself, I think. 21 MR. LABBE: This is something a little 22 different for me. I was reading the paper this morning 23 and that article jumped out at me, and I felt compelled to 24 come down. I'm going to try to speak in English here 25 today because a lot of what I have heard here today 85 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 doesn't seem to be in English. I'm having a difficult 2 time understanding what some of these people are talking 3 about, but from a street level, from an individual who's 4 just an average guy in an average neighborhood -- I work 5 at home. What I've seen in the last five years has just 6 been really an escalation of the noise, the pollution, and 7 not just from leaf blowers, from other issues as well. 8 But I'm not here to speak about that here today. 9 Sometimes on Thursdays and Fridays, I'm 10 subjected to eight or ten hours a day, just constant noise 11 from leaf blowers from people on the side of me or behind 12 me. I think our neighborhoods are supposed to be places 13 for piece and quiet and serenity, and I think the leaf 14 blowers destroy that. I think the Internet is an example 15 of good technology. I think leaf blowers are examples of 16 very unfortunate technology, and I'm speaking primarily 17 with gas leaf blowers. I think that electric leaf blowers 18 are where we need to focus our energy. I think the 19 suggestion about battery-powered leaf blowers, etcetera, 20 etcetera are very well founded. 21 The last comment I would like to really make 22 is that I really believe that the -- we are talking about 23 the leaf blower operator and about earplugs and about 24 things like that, and I think that we need to focus upon 25 what we need to do for the public: Give me some 86 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 earplugs. But I believe that the leaf blower industry 2 needs to be regulated on the level of just the folks that 3 are out there every day landscaping and gardening our 4 lawns. I believe that it's completely unregulated. I 5 don't think that the industry has any idea of what these 6 guys may be doing to their machines: Altering them, 7 taking off mufflers, mixing the fuel poorly. 8 I've contacted my county authorities and 9 they have told me on several occasions there's just -- we 10 have no recourse there. There's nothing we can tell you 11 as an individual, as a citizen. There are no regulations 12 on these machines. We don't have the ability to really go 13 out in the field and regulate it from that standpoint. So 14 these are just some comments from an average guy in an 15 average neighborhood. 16 Thank you. 17 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: Thank you very much. 18 And as I said at the beginning here, it 19 seems to me in these days of high technology we should be 20 able to do better to keep this important industry going, 21 while at the same time providing both safer health for 22 them to do the job and the communities, and I think that's 23 what we are trying to do here. And, again, your 24 experience seems to be similar to Mr. McKinnon's here 25 regarding some studies. But when we get out and get some 87 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 real-world data, we can get a wide variety of diversity. 2 MR. LABBE: Well, I challenge the fact that 3 it's an important industry. What did we do before them? 4 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: Thank you. 5 Our next speaker is Mr. Jack Allen. 6 MR. ALLEN: Thank you members of the Board, 7 and I'm here on the Coalition to Ban Leaf Blowers. I 8 became involved with this as a City Attorney in Beverly 9 Hills in 1975, and with time we imposed all kinds of 10 regulations on these. And after two years of fruitless 11 efforts to enforce the regulations in cities, we have 12 gotten all the way to control them, almost to ban. And 13 since then, other cities like Santa Monica and Los Angeles 14 have consulted me. I've been involved in this thing for 15 25 years. 16 First we want to commend the Staff for the 17 comprehensiveness of the report. We think it is so 18 comprehensive that the information in there is sufficient, 19 in itself, to establish clear and convincingly that leaf 20 blowers are a health hazard. We don't think that -- I can 21 go into court right now and prove that case based on that 22 report, and I think I could get any judge or jury to agree 23 with me. 24 The problem with the report as we see it is 25 the conclusions don't agree with the facts, and the facts 88 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 are not presented in the benchmark fashion so that the 2 Legislatures can understand them. For example, in 1996 3 when the Los Angeles City Council was conducting its 4 hearings, Mr. Henry Hole (phonetic) of the Air Quality 5 Management District came before them and he told them that 6 one leaf blower operating for one hour was equal to one 7 car travelling 250 miles. You can understand that if 8 you're a layman. The AQMD came out with a report that 9 said that if you operate a leaf blower for one hour, 10 that's equivalent to 30 automobiles driving around for an 11 hour or 12 diesel trucks. Now, we can understand that. 12 And if we extrapolate that information and we take, for 13 instance, the information in the report that leaf blowers 14 are operated almost 93 hours each day, we take that and 15 multiply that by 30, and we come to the thing that 16 almost -- leaf blowers in this state each day generate 17 almost the same amount of air pollution as three million 18 cars. If we take it and look at the information in the 19 report that we have 60,000 gas-powered leaf blowers in the 20 South Coast Air Quality District and we extrapolate that 21 now, that's equal to about 300,000 cars driving. That's 22 300 commuters. 23 Even if we look at it and halve that down, 24 to say, what the 2000 standards are, that's still 150,000 25 cars. That's significant. That's a substantial amount of 89 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 air pollution, and I think we can concluded that. 2 So I would ask that the report be amended to 3 put the benchmarks in there so people can understand 4 them. Some of those figures may not be absolutely 5 correct, but your Staff has the ability to translate them 6 into those types of benchmarks. 7 We sent this letter, so I won't go to much 8 into it. I hope you all received it. 9 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: You've got about a 10 minute and a half. 11 MR. ALLEN: The measures -- well, I have to 12 tell you that, including the noise and the dust, it 13 doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that these put out 14 a lot of dust. But I have to tell you yesterday that I 15 saw a demonstration of a prototype of an electric backpack 16 blower manufactured by Echo, Inc., which we believe is 17 cost-effective. That thing eliminated the whine. I could 18 stand next to the operator and I could talk to the 19 operator and he could talk to me and we could hear it. 20 The air screen was an effective air screen, but it was low 21 enough not to blow up a big cloud, and it solved the air 22 pollution and the noise problem and everything. 23 I'm not a fan of leaf blowers because I 24 don't like the things, but this is the way technology is 25 going. There are hand-held ones being made, but the City 90 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 of Los Angeles -- and the only reason it all happened is 2 because Los Angeles banned leaf blowers finally forcing 3 the manufacturers to start looking at how they are going 4 to stay on the market, and only with the bans is this 5 going to happen. So we need it to change bad operator 6 habits. 7 Now, we talked about education. I can tell 8 you the workforce is so diverse, particularly the 9 yard-maintenance people, that you're never going to get to 10 them with an education program, much less if they even 11 listen to it and obey it. So the only way you can do it, 12 we feel, is to ban the things and get the new technology 13 in because the only way that they can create a market is 14 if they sell those and make them economical. 15 Thank you, and I appreciate your attention. 16 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: Thank you. 17 But as you recognize, this is a report to 18 the Legislature. 19 MR. ALLEN: I know, but we have suggested a 20 number of changes be made in our letter. 21 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: Are there any 22 questions or comments from the Board? 23 DORENE D'ADAMO: I was wondering if you 24 spoke with Staff regarding your recommendations to include 25 an analysis of a benchmark. 91 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 MR. ALLEN: We mailed it. Well, we included 2 it in our correspondence to them. We include these 3 benchmarks, but we recommended it. I sent them a letter, 4 and unfortunately we sent it to them and I think they just 5 got it this month. 6 DORENE D'ADAMO: This is the one dated 7 January 19th? 8 MR. ALLEN: Yes. 9 DORENE D'ADAMO: Could Staff respond to his 10 recommendation on the benchmark issue. 11 MR. KENNY: His letter we have just gotten, 12 but we will look at it. I think the key thing with 13 benchmarking stuff is to make it evenhanded, and we try 14 very hard to pick a benchmark that helps people understand 15 but doesn't inflame them one way or the other thinking the 16 sources to be either trivial or excessive. But, yes, we 17 will work with him. 18 DORENE D'ADAMO: Well, depending on the 19 timing -- and I don't know when this is due -- would that 20 be possible to provide an analysis and insert it in this 21 report? 22 MR. KENNY: Yes, we can do that. 23 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: Thank you. 24 Mr. McKinnon? 25 MATTHEW R. McKINNON: Sir, I have a comment 92 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 and a question for you. First, the comment is for about 2 150 years in this country we have been doing health and 3 safety work with very diverse populations of workers, and 4 I don't think that that should ever be allowed to be a 5 detriment in dealing with health and safety problems. 6 My question for you is in those cities where 7 they have been banned, what is the alternative? How does 8 the work get done? 9 MR. ALLEN: Well, the alternatives are they 10 are allowed to use electric blowers. Some cities have 11 banned all blowers, but most cities have just banned the 12 gasoline-powered blowers because that's -- you've got to 13 allow some alternatives if they are going to use a 14 blower. We did tests, and so did the City of Los Angeles, 15 that on a residential property a rake and broom are no 16 more time consuming than the use of a blower. That may 17 not work on maybe the Rose Bowl, which is a big problem, 18 but in residential areas that is a feasible alternative. 19 You won't get the yard-maintenance workers to agree with 20 that because they are power-tool happy. It's just a 21 matter of -- but we feel these electric blowers that are 22 coming on the market are the trick, and we feel it has to 23 be enforced, otherwise it's like the manufacturers 24 promised us for 20 years: That they were going to come 25 out with quieter leaf blowers and less problems. And it 93 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 wasn't until that ban in Los Angeles until we finally saw 2 some movement in the manufacturing area toward either less 3 noisy or new electric technology. 4 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: Any questions? 5 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Is the public testimony 6 completed? 7 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: No. 8 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Can I hold my comment 9 then? 10 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: Yes. 11 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: I thought on my list 12 since that was the last speaker -- 13 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: No, we have two or 14 three more speakers, and maybe four. 15 The next speaker is Robin Pendergast 16 (phonetic) from Echo. 17 VOICE: Mr. Pendergast had to leave on an 18 emergency, so he will not be able to testify. 19 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: Thank you very much 20 for letting me know. 21 The next person is speaking on behalf of 22 ZAP, Zero Air Pollution. It's either Diane Wolfberg or 23 Joan Graves. And then we're still looking for Mr. Veras 24 (phonetic) if he's around. 25 VOICE: I doubt that he will be able to 94 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 speak on his behalf. 2 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: Do you think he'll be 3 here today? 4 VOICE: I think he's supposed to be here. 5 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: Let's leave the record 6 open until later today to give him a chance. 7 MS. GRAVES: Thank you very much for your 8 attention. I'm Joan Graves, Chairman of Zero Air 9 Pollution, ZAP, and I'm here to say that we certainly do 10 support the Staff report. We think it's an excellent 11 document. And right now we have a video film, which is 12 about three and a half minutes long, which we would like 13 to present to you. This film was done by volunteers in 14 our community about a year ago, and the leaf blower that 15 you will see being used in this video is not the exception 16 to the rule; it is the usual machine that is used in the 17 neighborhoods. And I want to emphasize that this is not 18 an indictment of the gardeners, but rather an indictment 19 of the machine. And until we can get rid of these 20 machines, this is what you will continue to see. This is 21 what happens. This is the reality. We are ready now. 22 (Whereupon the video was shown.) 23 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: Thank you very much. 24 Next speaker is Diane Wolfberg. 25 MS. WOLFBERG: I'm also a volunteer member 95 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 of ZAP. My actual presentation is actually a reduction of 2 the report that you have been given. You have been given 3 our full report. This is a consolidation, and because 4 there's a time limit I cut this down also, so I may 5 hesitate as I skip paragraphs and my apologies. 6 We're here to report on Survey99. This is a 7 random survey of public opinion and facts regarding the 8 use of leaf blowers in residential landscape settings as 9 perceived by California residents of voting age. We 10 appreciate this opportunity to present the highlights, and 11 I thank Dr. Steele and her Staff for their thorough 12 research and a comprehensive report they have presented to 13 this Board. We support this report. 14 Because ZAP has no funds, surveys were taken 15 by unpaid volunteers at public malls, beaches, a Farmer's 16 Market, and a few were done door-to-door. When a blower 17 is used on one property, up to 14 different neighboring 18 properties can be impacted by the pollution it produces. 19 I'm personally effected by outdoor maintenance activities 20 four days a week. Odors and fumes from nine different 21 houses, and dust from three houses drift my way. I have 22 dust allergies and no air conditioning, so I often have an 23 open window five to ten feet from my neighbor's property 24 where a blower is being used. 25 There are 53 participants in Survey99: 36 96 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 owners and 17 renters who represent 38 different zip 2 codes. Forty-four percent were male. Fifty-six percent 3 were female. The median age was 45. Forty-three percent 4 had an under $51,000 household income. Fifty-seven 5 percent had over that amount. So we feel this is a 6 representative survey. 7 We were surprised to learn that 53 percent 8 of the people surveyed were actually at home when 9 maintenance work was done. Forty-seven percent of 10 participants whose maintenance was done by others hired 11 those workers themselves. 12 But workers have told me -- I had a sentence 13 about -- workers have told me they are afraid to ask for 14 raises. They say they'll be fired or they'll hire a 15 competitor who will work for less. Yet all five 16 participants who were asked for raises agreed to them. We 17 found that only one person offered a pay raise on their 18 own, which I thought was appalling. But then to find that 19 only five out of fifty-three had been asked for a raise 20 was equally appalling. Something is wrong with the 21 economics here. 22 Eighty-six percent of our participants were 23 willing to discuss a change in pay if their worker was 24 willing to stop using a leaf blower. The frequency of 25 work was usually once a week. About 80 percent said total 97 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 maintenance on their property took over 30 minutes. 2 That's doing everything. Eighty-four percent of workers 3 consisted of two to four members. Thirty-six percent of 4 the time there were two workers, and 43 percent of the 5 time there were three workers at a property. All of these 6 crew members are exposed to pollution from the blowers 7 that are used. Participants were asked what two methods 8 of leaf and debris gathering most often used on their 9 property. Fifty-three percent did not mention the blower 10 first, if at all. I believe that establishes there are 11 alternatives to leaf blowers. Somebody is doing it. 12 Ninety percent of the renters who have had 13 blowers used in the past 12 months on their properties 14 believe the blowers were used for 15 to 30 minutes. Sixty 15 percent of owners said they were used for just five to ten 16 minutes because they are not in apartment buildings. At 17 the same time that the blowers are being used, power lawn 18 mowers, edgers, and trimmers may also be operating 19 increasing the noise and air pollution at one given time, 20 or they may be used one after another lengthening the 21 pollution impact. Eighty-four percent of blowers were 22 used by hired workers and not the resident or the owners. 23 They are used on paths such as sidewalks, 24 walkways, dirt paths, carports, patios, decks, streets, 25 and parking lots. I watched a gardener work with a blower 98 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 for half an hour to blow these date palms, hundreds of 2 them, from the sidewalk onto the grass to the gutter, and 3 then they went all over the street and he had to use the 4 blower to scoop them all back into a central area. 5 Many participants thought standard glasses 6 and lightweight painter's masks were adequate protective 7 gear for blower operators. Answers to our survey 8 questions regarding this subject were skewed by this kind 9 of misunderstanding and showed the highest incidence of 10 the use of safety gear of any study that Dr. Steele had 11 ever seen in any industry, so we're not reporting on those 12 today. They were still very low, but they were very off. 13 Her report references excellent direct observation studies 14 which should be referred to for the correct facts. 15 Manufacturers' instruction manuals recommend 16 safety gear, but we can only assume that the person who 17 purchases the blower reads that advice. And even then 18 they might not understand why it's important to use it and 19 why it's important to their health, so they may not be 20 motivated to use it. And we cannot assume that the end 21 user even reads the manual. 22 The following results reflect the views of 23 all survey participants: Thirty percent listed health 24 problems in their households. And of those 30 percent, 81 25 percent suffered respiratory problems such as asthma and 99 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 dust and mold allergies. Asked if they were aware of any 2 health concerns related to blower use, 86 of all owners 3 listed several things. Fifty-nine percent of renters were 4 aware, but they just said "yes" or listed one or two 5 things. There's a whole list in there in the words of the 6 participants in the report. 7 Fifty-five percent of health issues 8 identified by the participants related to dust issues. 9 Another 16 percent related to fumes and exhaust. That's 10 over 70 percent noted air quality concerns. Only 19 11 percent noted noise. 12 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: Are you close to the 13 end? We are over in time. 14 MS. WOLFBERG: Seventy percent of 15 participants are disturbed by blowers in their 16 neighborhoods. Seventy-five percent of participants want 17 more restrictions on blowers. Sixty-two percent of 18 participants want blowers banned, and that actually 19 shocked me also. Sixty-eight percent of participants do 20 not believe that local regulations are being complied 21 with, and 65 percent do not believe they are being 22 enforced. 23 I mentioned some things that are in the 24 appendix, which you can certainly see for yourself. And I 25 would like to say that I was a participant in a study of 100 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 the Department of Water and Power in Los Angeles. I 2 participated in three time tests in order to establish how 3 much more time a rake and broom would take so that we 4 could get the facts out to the press so homeowners might 5 increase their pay if that was called for. Instead my 6 work was completed with a rake and broom faster than a 7 professional gardener could start his gas blower and 8 complete the same work, and that's the only test that I'm 9 aware of that's a real test. 10 Zero Air Pollution recommends a minimum 11 three-year moratorium on state legislation to permit the 12 completion of independent health studies specific to 13 blower use. They need to be designed, funded, completed 14 and reported on before proposed or future state 15 Legislature is considered. 16 Thank you. Sorry I ran over. 17 ALAN C. LLOYD, Ph.D: Questions or comments 18 from the Board? 19 (No questions or comments were made.) 20 Thank you very much, and thank you for your 21 report. 22 I think we do have our final witness. He's 23 not here yet. What we're going to do is we will take a 24 half-hour break for lunch. I would like the Board to come 25 back here at 20 of, and we will then finish this item and 101 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900 1 go into the Transit Bus Rule which should start no later 2 than 1:00 o'clock. We have a four- to five-hour hearing 3 on the Transit Bus Rule. This is based on the number of 4 witnesses and the Staff report. Off the record. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 102 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 818 326-5900  1 MR. ALVAREZ: From the very start of this, 2 we have been the ones who have called for cooperation and 3 for everybody to sit together and come up with a consensus 4 as to what's the best way to mitigate and to have 5 everybody satisfied and have what we need. At the moment 6 it's very difficult to express to some acceptance that 7 gardeners need a leaf blower to make a living. Without 8 it, they will find it very difficult to do the houses and 9 to bring the paycheck home. So we are faced with a lot of 10 misinformation, with a lot of (inaudible), paranoia 11 (inaudible). I have yet to see a gardener that would 12 consciously or unconsciously operate a leaf blower in such 13 a manner. It just doesn't make sense, but unfortunately 14 (inaudible) as to (inaudible) fear (inaudible) such as 15 sitting down and having a rational and objective 16 (inaudible). 17 So I'm here to plead for the gardeners so 18 that we can continue to make a living so that they don't 19 have to go to and sell oranges on the freeway, so people 20 can better their lives. So we're asking you to approve of 21 the study, even though we have some minor criticisms of 22 it, particularly with the wording. 23 We wish to stress that there's a lot of 24 nonconclusive evidence so that when Senators and 25 Assemblymen, people read this report, they can act based 103 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 upon that fact. So we're asking you to help, to 2 contribute, to have a decent dialect on this and to allow 3 gardeners to continue to work, so please approve the 4 study. And the gardeners are already doing everything 5 they can to upgrade the safety precautions, to educate 6 gardeners of the proper usage for wearing masks, ear 7 protection, and also to be considerate of the times and 8 days they operate the leaf blowers. So we're doing 9 everything that we can and we'll be glad to participate in 10 any program and seek help in fundings to educate the 11 broader masses of gardeners so they can perform their job 12 legally and in consideration of other people. 13 Thank you very much. 14 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 15 There may be some questions or comments. Just a minute. 16 Board? Yes, Supervisor Patrick. 17 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Yes. I just want to 18 make a very brief comment. Thank you for coming. 19 I think that there's an opportunity here 20 for us to help educate, for you to help educate the 21 members of your association, and I know in my own 22 circumstance I don't know that my gardener belongs to an 23 association of any kind, but I think to a certain extent 24 some of the issues that we've been discussing today are of 25 real concern to folks. 104 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 You have the one -- on the one side you're 2 concerned about worker safety. On the other side you're 3 concerned about noise and dust impacts and so forth. But 4 I do think that by working with you and other folks that 5 we can come to some kind of a compromise, if you will, or 6 something where we have a win-win situation for everybody. 7 I think it's going to take a lot of work to have that 8 happen, but I appreciate the testimony that you have given 9 and your obvious interest in working with everybody and 10 bringing everybody together for a solution that's best for 11 California, and I would like to thank you very much for 12 coming today. 13 MR. ALVAREZ: Thank you. 14 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes. 15 Mr. McKinnon. 16 BOARD MEMBER MC KINNON: I was going to ask 17 you, the association is of the workers or the workers and 18 the contractors and both, or both, or can you kind of fill 19 that in for me? 20 MR. ALVAREZ: I represent gardeners 21 exclusively. They're the people that go out every day and 22 do the lawns of people. We're not contractors. 23 BOARD MEMBER MC KINNON: Clearly the kind 24 of health and safety protective gear issue probably is 25 better addressed in kind of a Cal-OSHA format, but one of 105 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 the things that I used to do is health and safety training 2 for labor, and one of the things that concerns me is I 3 rarely see people using protective gear. So that matters 4 to me. So I made my comment and I told you that. 5 Other than that, one of the things I kind 6 of get the sense of, and I think somebody -- we had a 7 couple of people testify earlier that you can rake as fast 8 as you can use a blower, and I don't have a hard time 9 understanding that you may be able to do that once for an 10 hour or two but you can't do that for eight hours, six 11 days a week or five days a week or whatever it is. I get 12 that -- and I had some difficulty with that testimony when 13 it came -- but one of the issues that kind of cropped up 14 in there is how the workers are paid, and it seems to me 15 that part of the deal is like a productivity thing. Are 16 people paid hourly or are people paid by the job in kind 17 of a piecework fashion? 18 MR. ALVAREZ: Let me answer some of those 19 questions. The first is that it is true that the majority 20 of gardeners were not aware of the degree of the concerns 21 that people had with safety, but that's a function of 22 education. Our association has already made great strides 23 and improvements in educating the gardeners, and because 24 of the crisis that developed, they are very willing to 25 cooperate and educate themselves. So that's already been 106 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 advanced. 2 On the question of whether gardeners can 3 rake, like the John Henry type of thing, the rake is a 4 good thing and I will take my son out and teach him about 5 the work ethic and it's good, earn your allowance and 6 things of that nature, but gardeners are professionals. 7 They're trying to make a living and they've got to service 8 20 houses, 30 houses, we're talking mansions sometimes, 9 talking Jay Leno's house, mansions, so it's impossible to 10 do that job with a rake and make a living. 11 I don't think it's a secret that the great 12 majority of gardeners are immigrants, monolingual, 13 recently here, and it's very difficult for them to secure 14 a living wage. Unfortunately the labor pool is such that 15 they cut their own throat so that if I'm a gardener and 16 servicing a house for $80 that I have to go five times a 17 week to service, somebody in need of a job is going to 18 knock on your door, if you're my client, and I'll do it 19 for $40 in the hopes of getting that house. So the market 20 does not guarantee that the gardeners are going to make a 21 decent wage. I think that if gardeners could get paid for 22 raking they would do two houses a day and there would be 23 no hunger strikes. We would be glad to do that. Most of 24 the -- 25 MR. MC KINNON: Is it really a piecework 107 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 rather than an hourly wage? 2 MR. ALVAREZ: No, it's not an hourly wage. 3 They have to service the house and they have to be sure 4 that the client is satisfied. So it might sometimes 5 necessitate for you to go more than four or five times. 6 There's two stratus of gardeners. There's the gardeners 7 that have been going at it 20 or 25 years, they own the 8 truck and the equipment, and there's the gardener that's 9 working for that person. And the majority of gardeners 10 don't have medical insurance. They don't have the 11 benefits that most workers in the mainstream of jobs 12 enjoy. It's a difficult situation. You take away the 13 leaf blower, it's going to be more drastic than that. 14 This is something that we've been trying to 15 impress upon people that are not aware of the ins and outs 16 on a daily basis of gardeners, but unfortunately we've met 17 with a lot of incompassion, a lot of deaf ears. I have 18 yet to see anybody that's calling from the (inaudible) of 19 the leaf blowers to go to the association meetings and 20 have a true dialect with us and show real concern for the 21 gardeners. Some people decided that they just didn't want 22 to deal with it, and all we've been asking for is a fair 23 shake, due process. Treat us in the same manner that you 24 treat the diesel industry, the trucking industry. Treat 25 us with the same amount of respect. We are taxpayers, 108 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 after all. 2 BOARD MEMBER MC KINNON: I applaud you for 3 your organizing. 4 MR. ALVAREZ: Thank you. 5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Again, thank you very 6 much. I again thank you for your participation in the 7 hearing and also your comments on the report. I know that 8 Senator Burton and Senator Black want to make sure that we 9 put outreach to all the stakeholders, and you're a 10 component of that. Thank you very much. 11 MR. ALVAREZ: Thank you. 12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Any questions or comments 13 from the Board? I know Supervisor Roberts -- 14 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: We're done with the 15 public testimony? 16 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: One last aspect, do we 17 have any written statements for the record? 18 UNIDENTIFIED STAFF MEMBER: Yes, 19 Mr. Chairman. We received seven letters from individuals 20 who did not testify here today and let me summarize those 21 briefly for you, those comments. Julie Keltz (phonetic) 22 urged the Board to forward the report to the legislature 23 with the recommendation that more studies be done. 24 Additionally, her letter requests that ARB or another 25 state agency be mandated to control noise emissions. We 109 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 had several letters that were similar from John and James 2 Stokedike (phonetic), Shirley Hagstrom (phonetic), 3 Margaret Jose, Alan and Dorothy Jonas (phonetic), and 4 Pepper Edmoston (phonetic) all supported the staff 5 recommendations for additional studies and urged that the 6 report be submitted to the legislature. 7 And finally, Muriel Strand requests that 8 ARB seek authority to noise pollution, and that's the end 9 of the letters. 10 Thank you. 11 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 12 Supervisor Roberts. 13 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Thank you, 14 Mr. Chairman. 15 I want to make a couple of quick comments, 16 but let me preface it by saying that I think the people 17 that testified that are worried about the industry and the 18 job opportunities, I find myself sympathetic to those 19 concerns, but more than that this Board has always and 20 consistently had those concerns no matter what we have 21 looked into not to destroy markets and jobs, but to try to 22 work with them to bring about the changes and identify the 23 health and the pollution problems that we're trying to 24 address. 25 Having said that, I will also have to admit 110 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 to you that I'm not a big fan of leaf blowers. I'm one of 2 those people who does get annoyed, but it's mainly because 3 of the noise and that's not really our focus here today. 4 I suppose until somebody inventories a new high-tech 5 broom, we're going to have to put up with this. So I'm 6 prepared for that. 7 The problem that I'm having is I've read 8 this report and I've gone over it. Both in the staff 9 report to us, attached to the report, and in the executive 10 summary of the report, I think there is a tenor describing 11 this situation that bothers me to the extent that I think 12 there's something that needs to be modified here. 13 If you go into the body of the report, 14 though, I think the report itself is far clearer. And let 15 me say this. I'm going to cite one example and it's on 16 the first page of the executive summary at the very 17 bottom. And it talks about a number of studies that have 18 been done, and our conclusion is the implications of these 19 findings for human health, however, were not documented on 20 the basis of scientific studies. And in all of these 21 summaries, there's kind of consistency in the way that's 22 stated, and yet from prior hearings that we've had on 23 two-stroke engines, two-stroke engines consistently we've 24 identified as a major pollutant. 25 I recognize that yes, there were 111 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 regulations adopted in 1990 that this is going to be 2 stated in the body of the report that it's going to be 3 relooked at and re-examined in 2001 or 2002 -- I forget 4 which -- that there are some regulations and we're 5 projecting based on some standards and regulations that 6 we've developed that things are going to improve, that the 7 federal government is out in front on this, if I read the 8 report right, in terms of regulations that they are either 9 considering for adoption or have adopted. 10 There's some language in the report and I 11 can cite that specifically, but the summaries it seems to 12 me don't say in strong enough terms that the engines 13 themselves, the two-stroke engines, even given the 14 standards that we're talking about putting in place, are a 15 significant pollutant, and there is scientific fact for 16 that and there are health studies for that, and I don't 17 think that's said clear enough for me in these reports. 18 It's like it's lost over and that we're 19 drawing implications. The implications should be far 20 stronger, the conclusions should be far stronger, and we 21 ought to be suggesting in no uncertain terms that there is 22 work to do in this area to the legislature. 23 And I would ask, Mr. Chairman, I'd like 24 staff to respond. I'm not comfortable with sending this 25 forward in its written format that it's in now. 112 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Mr. Cross is ready to 2 respond. 3 MR. CROSS: I want to understand a comment 4 and I want to make sure I do. You're essentially saying 5 that we're not taking a clear enough distinction in the 6 report about what is very well-known about exhaust 7 emissions from the engines and all of the stuff that is 8 less well-known about dust, for example. 9 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: That's exactly 10 right. 11 MR. CROSS: I think we can do that very 12 easily and I think that's a good suggestion. That can be 13 done if the Board would like. 14 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: I think that needs 15 to be done because even if we didn't know anything about 16 dust, the engines themselves we know an awful lot about 17 and what we know is extremely negative and that's not said 18 in clear enough in terms in here. 19 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Is the Board comfortable 20 with that? Thank you. 21 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: In all fairness, 22 Mr. Chairman. 23 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Mr. Calhoun. 24 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Staff did allude to 25 this, but I'll admit that in going through the (inaudible) 113 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 bring out the various contaminants that are emitted by 2 these. 3 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you, Mr. Calhoun. 4 Since there's not -- any other comments? Since this is 5 not a regular item, it's not necessary to officially close 6 the record. However, we do have a resolution before the 7 Board and if we'll take a moment to review the resolution, 8 the Board has before it Resolution Number 00-5 containing 9 staff's recommendations. 10 I'd be happy to entertain a motion. 11 BOARD MEMBER MC KINNON: Mr. Chairman, I'd 12 like to make a motion to move the report. 13 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Wait a minute. 14 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: All in favor say "aye". 15 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Well, wait a minute. 16 I want to vote "yes" but I'm not going to vote for that 17 motion. 18 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: With your additions in 19 there. 20 MR. KENNY: Mr. Chairman, one of the 21 suggestions we might make is that we could actually add 22 into the resolution language consistent with Supervisor 23 Roberts' comments. If the Board is comfortable with that, 24 that could be actually in the body of the actual 25 resolution. 114 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 BOARD MEMBER MC KINNON: That was my 2 intention in the motion. 3 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Okay. If that's the 4 motion, I feel more comfortable, Mr. Chairman. 5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Sorry, Supervisor. So 6 that's the way we will proceed then. So the resolution 7 will include the recommendations of Supervisor Roberts 8 there. With that in mind, all in favor? Against. Thank 9 you. 10 I guess we'll take just a couple of minutes 11 while we reassemble and get the staff for the presentation 12 on the transit bus rule. 13 (Brief recess taken) 14 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think we'd like to 15 start the Agenda Item 00-1-2. This is the proposed public 16 transit bus rule. 17 Staff has been through a long and arduous 18 process bringing this item to the Board. I remember when 19 I first came on board over a year ago, it was on the 20 agenda for the following month. So you can see we've 21 really worked on this, and what started out as a narrow 22 alternative fuel rule for transit buses has actually grown 23 into a complex, multi-part regulation, which will be 24 implemented over several years. 25 This change did not happen by accident. It 115 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 was the direct result of consultation with all affected 2 parties, in-depth review of existing and emerging 3 technologies, an economic analysis and, of course, a full 4 environmental assessment. 5 What we have now is a transit rule that 6 contains the first ever zero-emission standard for 7 heavy-duty vehicle category; retrofit requirements to 8 clean up the oldest, dirtiest buses; appropriate rewards 9 for transit agencies that invested early in clean 10 technologies and a clear natural gas pathway for the 11 future; an alternative diesel pathway with additional 12 stringency that offers flexibility to transit agencies 13 while ensuring comparable emission reductions; an 14 ultra-low sulfur standard for diesel fuel, the first in 15 the country; and of course, new emission standards for 16 transit buses that pull this vehicle category to the head 17 of the pack, driving the development of exhaust 18 after-treatment controls for both nitrogen oxides and 19 particulate matter. 20 In any rule this complicated there are 21 bound to be issues and concerns. I feel that staff has 22 done an incredible job in weighing up one against the 23 other in attempting to find balance for all sides. That 24 doesn't mean that every issue has been resolved. Clearly 25 you will see today they have not, but staff has brought us 116 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 an extraordinarily well-crafted proposal and I intend, as 2 Chairman, to ensure that we maintain that careful 3 balancing act as we discuss and address issues today. 4 I want all of us to understand as we 5 consider one suggestion or another how it affects the 6 entire resolution and everything this issue is attempting 7 to achieve, and I stress that because staff has really 8 spent a long time in trying to do this and we have to 9 understand if we make changes here what that has on the 10 past. And having just come again through the MTBE issue, 11 again that's a hard lesson. This is not necessarily 12 multimedia, but is certainly multi-dimensional. 13 So this is a very complex rule. It would 14 be unwise to pick it apart and deal with changes in 15 isolation. We need to consider the whole picture. 16 Mr. Kenny, I hope you and your staff are 17 prepared to give us a broader context as we proceed 18 through the item and the public testimony. I'd also like 19 to ask each person who signed up to testify to do the 20 same. Put yourselves in our shoes and try to address how 21 it adds up for everyone. 22 As I indicated, we've got about 40 to 50 23 people signed up. I would request that you try to 24 consolidate. If necessary, I would limit testimony to 25 five minutes as I have before, and you can see that that 117 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 will bring us quite a bit into at least late afternoon, 2 and that's without questions. 3 So with that I would turn this over to 4 Mr. Kenny. 5 MR. KENNY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and 6 Members of the Board. The proposal presented for your 7 consideration today would result in near-term air quality 8 benefits by lowering emissions from existing transit bus 9 fleets and by requiring new urban bus fleets to meet lower 10 emission standards. As Dr. Lloyd noted, it would also 11 achieve significant future benefits through the 12 introduction of zero-emission buses, most likely hydrogen 13 fuel cell buses and exciting new technology which the 14 Board Members got to experience this morning. 15 The air quality improvements that would be 16 realized by this proposal, including reduced exposure to 17 toxic air contaminants, are crucial to public health. 18 Transit buses operate in the most heavily congested urban 19 areas. They are prime candidates for achieving both 20 near-term and long-term emission reductions. 21 What we are presenting today for your 22 consideration is a two-pronged effort to reduce emissions 23 from transit buses. First, the regulation would require 24 clean-up of existing transit buses throughout the state. 25 Second, future new urban buses would be cleaner. This 118 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 combination would result in emission reductions from 2 existing and new transit buses, encourage the purchase of 3 alternative-fuel buses, pioneer new emission control 4 technologies for diesel engines, require the use of low 5 sulfur fuel, and introduce zero-emission buses into 6 California transit bus service. 7 Staff have held several public workshops 8 while developing this rule. Staff have also consulted 9 directly with the transit agencies, transportation 10 agencies, the environmental community, the engine 11 manufacturers and bus manufacturers to hear their views on 12 these issues. 13 The proposed regulation provides 14 significant flexibility to transit agencies in reducing 15 emissions. Transit agencies can still choose to purchase 16 diesel buses instead of low-emission alternative fuel 17 buses. However, the regulation requires them to reduce 18 in-use bus emissions as well as purchase only reduced 19 emission diesel buses. This regulation also paves the way 20 for possible future emission reductions from smaller 21 transit buses, school buses and heavy-duty trucks. 22 With that, let me introduce Ms. Roberta 23 Hughan who will provide the staff presentation. 24 Roberta. 25 MS. HUGHAN: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and 119 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 Members of the Board. Today's overview of the proposed 2 regulation for a public transit urban bus fleet rule and 3 emission standards for new urban buses includes the 4 introduction, a summary of the proposed regulation, 5 descriptions of technology needed to comply with the 6 regulation, cost and benefits, and a discussion of some of 7 the issues. This will be followed by conclusions and 8 staff recommendation. 9 First, some background information. As you 10 know, air quality in California has improved significantly 11 in the last decades due to the work of the ARB, USEPA and 12 the Air Districts. However, we still have a way to go. 13 Many areas in the state are not in attainment with state 14 and federal ozone ambient air quality standards. Equally 15 important is the reduction of public exposure to toxic air 16 contaminants. 17 In 1998, the Board identified particulate 18 emissions from diesel-powered engines as a toxic air 19 contaminant, one that causes cancer. Currently a risk 20 management process is underway at ARB to determine the 21 best ways to reduce the cancer risk associated with diesel 22 particulates. 23 Transit buses provide worthwhile benefits 24 to society. Currently there are about 8,500 urban buses 25 operating in California. About 80 percent of these are 120 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 operated by the 16 largest transit agencies. While 2 transit buses are a small percentage of the total 3 heavy-duty fleet, they emit relatively high emissions of 4 oxide of nitrogen, or NOx, and particulate matter, or PM, 5 per diesel bus. In 2000, it is estimated that buses will 6 contribute 24 tons per day of NOx and half a ton of day 7 per day of PM statewide. 8 Transit buses are ideal candidates for 9 achieving emission reductions in urban areas where air 10 quality is likely to be poor and direct exposure to toxic 11 diesel particulates occurs to large numbers of people. 12 Alternative fuels can be used efficiently as the buses are 13 centrally fueled. Capital costs are subsidized by the 14 federal government, and air quality incentive funds are 15 available to help with funding. 16 Now is the right time to reduce emissions 17 from transit buses. We need the air quality benefits. 18 Cleaner technology is available, as you saw in the parking 19 lot this morning. Cleaner alternative and conventional 20 fuels are available to enable the use of that technology, 21 and zero or near-zero emission technology is right around 22 the corner. 23 Now moving on to the requirements in the 24 proposed regulation. Urban transit buses are heavy-duty 25 vehicles that generally weigh over 33,000 pounds. They 121 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 are the biggest buses, typically 30 feet or longer, and 2 typically carrying 40 or more passengers. This proposal 3 does not apply to trucks, school buses, shuttles, 4 paratransit or commuter buses. However, you can expect 5 USEPA and ARB to consider lower emission standards for 6 those vehicles in the future. 7 There are two paths in the fleet rule, the 8 diesel path and the alternative fuel path. Transit 9 agencies would have to choose which path to take shortly 10 after the effective date of the new regulation. ARB staff 11 is proposing this type of rule to provide flexibility and 12 incentives to transit operators. The proposal can reward 13 operators already committed to low emission alternative 14 fuel fleets and encourage other operators to make that 15 commitment. Both paths reduce emissions from new buses 16 and from the older, in-use fleet. 17 For transit agencies on the alternative 18 fuel path, 85 percent of new bus purchases must be 19 alternative fuel through 2015. The alternative fuel path 20 provides immediate reductions in NOx and toxic diesel 21 particulates. The proposal as structured as to 22 alternative fuel engines certified to optional reduced 23 emission standards would still be eligible for incentive 24 funds such as the Carl Moyer Program money that you heard 25 about this morning. 122 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 Transit agencies on the diesel path would 2 forego the immediate benefits of alternative fuels until 3 2004. However, those transit agencies would be 4 introducing advanced technology first. Larger transit 5 agencies would undertake a zero-emission bus demonstration 6 in 2003. The 2004 diesel standards would result in the 7 commercial introduction of after-treatment systems that 8 would enable other heavy-duty vehicles to meet the 9 proposed 2007 standards. 10 The ultimate goal for both paths is to get 11 to zero or near-zero emission levels, and in fact, the 12 proposal would achieve that goal. New 2007 model year 13 buses would have 90 percent lower NOx emission than 14 today's required levels and 80 percent lower particulate 15 levels; and 15 percent of new bus purchases for all 16 transit agencies with over 200 buses would have to be 17 zero-emission buses beginning in 2008 for agencies on the 18 diesel path and 2010 for the alternative fuel path. 19 This table shows emission standards that 20 are already in place, as well as proposed standards for 21 NOx and particulate, the two pollutants of greatest 22 concern. The current NOx standard is 4 grams per brake 23 horsepower hour. Note for heavy-duty engines that is how 24 engines emissions or units per work are measured. NOx 25 will be reduced by half beginning with October 2002 123 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 heavy-duty vehicles under a settlement agreement with 2 seven engine manufacturers. As you see here, the proposed 3 diesel standards in 2004 and the proposed 2007 standards 4 would reduce emissions even further. 5 Next there would be the zero-emission 6 buses. In 2003, transit agencies on the diesel path with 7 over 200 urban buses in their active fleets would be 8 required to operate three ZEBs in a demonstration project. 9 Information from these projects would be crucial to a ZEB 10 feasibility review. ARB staff would assess the 11 feasibility of ZEBs. If the conclusion is positive, staff 12 would recommend to the Board the implementation of the 15 13 percent ZEB purchase requirements described earlier. 14 As shown in the next two slides, new 15 transit buses would be getting much cleaner over the next 16 decade. The proposal also contains provisions to reduce 17 emissions from the in-use fleet. In-use bus requirements 18 include a NOx fleet average requirement, a requirement to 19 retrofit buses with particulate traps and purchases of low 20 sulfur diesel fuel, and finally requirements to introduce 21 zero-emission bus technology. 22 First, a description of the NOx fleet 23 average requirement. The proposed rule requires that all 24 transit agencies meet a maximum active fleet average 25 standard of 4.8 grams NOx by October 2002. The fleet 124 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 average is meant to ensure that agencies maintain their 2 typical turnover rate. This standard could be met by 3 retiring older buses or retrofitting or repowering newer 4 buses. Staff calculates that all but a few transit 5 agencies would be able to meet and maintain the fleet 6 average through normal bus retirement rates. Transit 7 agencies can also meet this requirement by retiring all 8 1987 and earlier urban buses. 9 Now, PM retrofits. Staff proposes that all 10 pre-2004 diesel transit buses be retrofitted with a 11 device, a trap, that demonstrates an 85 percent conversion 12 efficiency. The retrofit requirement would be phased in. 13 There are three tiers proposed in 2003, 2005 and 2009, 14 with the initial focus on the oldest, highest emitting 15 diesel buses. Buses scheduled for retirement within two 16 years may be exempt. 17 As well, there is a delay in complying with 18 these requirements proposed for small transit agencies in 19 ozone attainment areas. Low sulfur fuel is required to 20 assure the durability and efficient operation of PM 21 retrofit devices. Consequently, staff is proposing that 22 all transit agencies operating diesel buses be required to 23 purchase and use diesel fuel with a sulfur limit of 15 24 parts per million. This is required in mid-2002 to be 25 consistent with the PM retrofit requirements. In 125 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 comparison, the current California standard is 500 PPM 2 with the nominal sulfur level in the range of 150 PPM. 3 The PM retrofit benefits are significant. 4 The retrofits plus the low sulfur fuel requirement mean 5 that by the end of 2009, every diesel transit bus in 6 California would be 85 percent cleaner. 7 As you can see from this table, many of the 8 provisions are the same for both paths. Both paths have 9 the NOx fleet average, the PM retrofit and low sulfur fuel 10 requirements, and the ZEB purchase requirement. One 11 difference is that transit agencies on the diesel path 12 would be required to undertake a ZEB demonstration project 13 in 2003. 14 This graph compares the NOx benefits based 15 on certification data for the two paths. First we have 16 the average emission level of the NOx standard from 2000 17 to 2010 for diesel engines, then the same for alternative 18 fuel engines. You see the benefits are about equal. 19 This graph compares the projected in-use PM 20 emissions from diesel and CNG from 2000 to 2010. It shows 21 the benefits of the proposed PM retrofit requirements. 22 Both the diesel and CNG engines meet the required PM 23 certification standard, but this slide highlights the fact 24 that in-use CNG engines are significantly greater. 25 From a fleet-wide perspective, the diesel 126 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 path has significantly greater in-use PM emission 2 reduction. However, the retrofit requirement is able to 3 dramatically reduce the emissions, as shown here. I'm 4 sorry. I said that mistakenly. The diesel path is 5 significantly greater in-use PM emissions. 6 There are reporting requirements for 7 transit agencies. They would have to notify ARB which 8 path they have selected and report annually on bus 9 purchases. They also would have to report annually on 10 compliance with other requirements. 11 Staff proposes several modifications to the 12 current proposal. The first is to add a certification 13 procedure for the required retrofit devices. A proposed 14 change in the transit agency reporting requirements would 15 allow ARB staff to track and assist transit agencies in 16 complying with the requirements. Another proposed change 17 is to give credits for the early purchase of ZEBs. And 18 finally, there are some administrative changes. The 19 proposed modifications will be noticed and comments will 20 be sought. 21 Next will be a brief description of the 22 technology that is necessary to make this all work, to 23 show how the emission reductions would be achieved. To 24 meet the proposed 2004 emission standards, emerging 25 technologies would be introduced, particulate trap systems 127 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 could be used in conjunction with NOx after-treatment, SCR 2 or absorbers, and low sulfur diesel fuel. A diesel 3 particulate cap oxidizer system consists of a filter 4 positioned in the exhaust stream designed to collect a 5 significant extraction of the particulate emissions. You 6 saw that this morning on the Navistar school bus. 7 Several systems have demonstrated 8 reductions of PM emissions of greater than 90 percent. 9 SCR systems use a reductant, usually ammonia or urea, to 10 reduce NOx emissions. NOx emissions can be reduced by 11 more than 75 percent and PM emissions by 25 percent. Low 12 sulfur fuels are necessary to assure high efficiency and 13 durability, otherwise trap plugging and catalyst fouling 14 can occur. 15 The 2007 standards could be met by diesel 16 engines using perfected NOx after-treatment systems, PM 17 traps, low sulfur fuel and engine modifications. This 18 would be a nationwide effort as ARB staff is expecting to 19 harmonize the proposed 2007 standards with those by USEPA 20 by the same time frame. Engines powered by other fuels or 21 electricity can also meet the 2007 standards. These 22 include natural gas engines with after-treatment systems. 23 Hydrogen fuel cell, battery-electric and hybrid electric 24 CNG technologies would also meet the 2007 standards. 25 There are several zero and near-zero 128 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 emission technologies. These include hydrogen fuel cell 2 buses, battery-electric buses and electric trollies. 3 Successful demonstration of buses powered by hydrogen fuel 4 cells are currently under way. Several of those are 5 outside today. Transit agencies such as Santa Barbara MTB 6 are successfully operating some electric shuttle buses. A 7 large fleet of trolly buses is operated by San Francisco 8 Muni. 9 Now we will look at the costs and benefits 10 of this regulation. ARB has estimated the cost expected 11 to be incurred by transit agencies as a result of this 12 proposal. You can see here the PM retrofit and low sulfur 13 fuel costs. You can also see the estimated incremental 14 costs for the low-emission diesel buses needed to meet the 15 proposed 2004 and 2007 emission standards and the ZEB 16 requirements. 17 Under the proposed regulation, no transit 18 agencies would be required to buy natural gas buses. 19 However, those natural gas buses that are purchased cost 20 about $40,000 more than a comparable diesel bus. In 21 addition, the refueling infrastructure and facility 22 modifications cost up to $20,000 per bus. 23 ARB staff investigated the availability of 24 monies for transit agencies. Local transportation 25 planning agencies receive federal transportation funds, 129 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 identify local match monies, set priorities and then 2 allocate the funds. Transit agencies have to compete with 3 light rail, ferries, and other vehicles in highway 4 transportation categories for transportation funding. 5 Funds for capital expenses -- diesel bus 6 replacements are generally available, but finding the 7 money for additional capital costs -- alternative fuel 8 buses, new fueling infrastructure, building modifications 9 and so forth -- is a problem for some transit agencies. 10 They have to convince their planning agencies to 11 reprioritize the transportation funding categories and use 12 CMAQ funds for low emission buses. 13 ARB staff has made a commitment to help and 14 request for additional transportation funds at the state 15 level. A shortage of capital funds could lead to delayed 16 replacement of older buses and/or cut paths in transit 17 service. Additional money for operating costs is harder 18 to come by. Fares cover only about 20 percent of the 19 operating costs. However, ARB staff projects the 20 operating cost of CNG buses to be similar over time. Some 21 transit agencies disagree. 22 In addition to transportation funds, there 23 are air quality incentive funds available to co-fund 24 purchase of low-emission alternative fuel buses and fuel 25 infrastructure, as well as advanced technology vehicles 130 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 such as hydrogen fuel cell buses. As you have just heard, 2 the state legislature has allocated $19 million to the 3 Carl Moyer Program. These funds can be used for the 4 incremental cost of alternative fuel transit buses. The 5 California Energy Commission also has about $2 million in 6 incentive funds for refueling infrastructure. 7 A larger source is the Air District's motor 8 vehicle registration fees that are used to fund over $40 9 million in air quality improvement funds per year. 10 Significant amounts are used to co-fund the purchase of 11 alternative fuel buses and infrastructure across the 12 state. 13 Emission reductions would come from the new 14 engine standards, lower emission alternative fuel engines, 15 zero-emission buses, and PM retrofit. You can see on this 16 table the magnitude of the benefits of the regulation from 17 2006 through 2020. 18 The estimated cost-effectiveness of the 19 engine emission standards and zero-emission bus purchases 20 are shown on this table. They compare well with the 21 cost-effectiveness of mobile source and motor vehicle fuel 22 regulations adopted by ARB over the past decade. The 23 cost-effectiveness with the PM retrofit requirement is 24 also shown. This does not include the value of health 25 benefits, the reduction of cancer risk associated with the 131 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 reduction in exposure to toxic diesel particulates. 2 Our next step is to look at some staff 3 analyses of specific issues. Some issues identified by 4 staff include elimination of the diesel path, 2004 diesel 5 engine standards, an alternative proposal for a fleet 6 average standard, school buses, and development of an 7 in-use PM test. 8 A decision was made by ARB staff to provide 9 two paths, the diesel path and the alternative fuel path. 10 However, arguments for eliminating the diesel path can be 11 made. Lower emissions CNG technology is here now. About 12 25 percent of transit agencies statewide are already 13 replacing their diesel buses with natural gas buses. 14 There are a total of more than 1,300 in operation and 15 another 1,200 on order. Engine manufacturers have 16 certified their natural gas engines to lower standards so 17 immediate NOx reductions occur. PM emissions are also 18 lower, so public exposure to toxic diesel emissions is 19 reduced. 20 On the other hand, some transit agencies 21 are adamant that alternative fuels do not work for them, 22 citing concerns over reliability and increased costs. On 23 the diesel path there are several advantages. The 24 retrofits and low sulfur fuel requirements reduce PM from 25 all pre-2004 diesel buses by 85 percent by 2009. The 132 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 diesel path introduces advanced technology. Meeting the 2 2004 diesel engine standards would require improved 3 after-treatment systems and particulate traps. 4 The demonstration of hydrogen fuel cell 5 buses in 2003 would require near-term commercialization of 6 zero-emission technology. As well, new technology on 7 diesel buses would transfer to trucks and diesel 8 equipment. 9 ARB staff has concluded that the benefits 10 of having both the diesel and alternative fuel path 11 outweigh those of the diesel fuel path. The engine 12 manufacturers say that the 2004 lower NOx and PM standards 13 would be difficult to meet. With the small California 14 diesel bus market, they say there is little incentive to 15 invest in development of new engines to meet these 16 standards. However, ARB staff has provided two methods of 17 complying -- certifying a new engine to the new standards, 18 or lowering emissions of the 2002 engine with an SCR 19 after-treatment system and PM trap. 20 As cited earlier, an important benefit of 21 having a diesel path is the demonstration of diesel 22 after-treatment systems. A 2004 NOx fleet average 23 requirement has been proposed by the engine manufacturers 24 as an alternative to the 2004 diesel engine standards. 25 The transit agencies would be subject to this requirement. 133 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 However, ARB staff has determined that in the long-term, 2 less NOx emission benefits would result than in the staff 3 proposal. As well, under this alternative proposal, there 4 would be no demonstration of diesel after-treatment 5 system. It would also undercut the natural gas bus 6 market. Thus, ARB staff finds the advantages of the 2004 7 engine standards are greater than that of the 8 manufacturers' alternative proposal. 9 At both the federal and state levels, 10 school bus engines are regulated by the truck engine 11 standards. These engines are subject to the advanced 2002 12 NOx standard and will be subject to the expected 2007 NOx 13 and PM regulations by ARB and USEPA. School buses are not 14 part of this proposal. School districts are short of 15 funds for purchase of new alternative fuel buses and 16 refueling infrastructure or, in fact, for purchase of any 17 new buses. 18 ARB is concerned about exposure of school 19 children to toxic diesel PM. The good news is that 20 Governor Davis has proposed $50 million in the upcoming 21 budget for purchase of less polluting school buses. ARB 22 staff is committed to addressing school buses separately 23 at a later date. 24 The current certification test cycle is not 25 representative of in-use emissions from buses. Even 134 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 though all the engines meet applicable certification 2 standards, PM emissions from natural gas buses are much 3 lower in-use than those from diesel buses. ARB staff is 4 going to evaluate the feasibility of in-use compliance 5 testing. 6 Now for the conclusions followed by the 7 staff recommendation. If adopted by the Board, the 8 proposed regulation would reduce ozone precursor 9 emissions, reduce public exposure to toxic diesel 10 particulates, support continuing use of alternative fueled 11 buses, encourage technology advancement, and introduce 12 zero and near-zero emission transit buses into the 13 California fleet. 14 ARB staff recommends the adoption of this 15 proposed regulation for public transit fleet rule and 16 emission standards for new urban buses. And that 17 concludes the presentation. 18 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 19 Questions or comments from the Board. 20 Just like to reiterate the comment that 21 staff made earlier. We really appreciate the efforts of 22 the people to bring the technology into the parking lot. 23 Again, I think standing there this morning you can't help 24 but be impressed by the whole range of technology that you 25 saw out there from one, conventional fuels, clean fuels. 135 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 It was really amazing. For someone with many of you here 2 who have worked to try to advance those technologies and 3 fuels, I think it brings to me a great deal of pride and 4 enthusiasm to see what can be done. 5 So I thank you all for participating and 6 bringing the technology. There's nothing like going out 7 and kicking the tires, so to speak, and see what's going 8 on. We were picked up this morning by a natural gas bus, 9 and again, they're working extremely well. 10 Thank you all, and I know we'll hear some 11 more later on that. 12 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman. 13 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes, Supervisor. 14 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: I have a couple of 15 questions before we -- 16 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes, yes. 17 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Let me start with 18 one. What's the later date when we're going to talk about 19 school buses? 20 MR. KENNY: What we're trying to do is 21 actually come back -- because we have $50 million in the 22 budget, those monies would be available in the next fiscal 23 year budget, but we will probably come back to you in the 24 next six months with a proposal regarding what you want to 25 do with that money. In terms of an actual Board meeting 136 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 date, we actually haven't finalized that. At this point 2 in time it wouldn't realistically probably be before -- 3 June or July of this year would be my estimate at this 4 point in time. 5 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Is it possible that 6 that money could be used for retrofit instead of purchase 7 of new buses? 8 MR. KENNY: I think basically all of that 9 is open at this point, so the answer would be "yes". 10 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: So there is a 11 possibility because it seems like -- that sounds like a 12 lot of money given the number of buses there are -- 13 MR. KENNY: Right. 14 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: -- and given the 15 length of time these have been in use, that retrofit 16 program might make a lot of sense at $3,000 per bus rather 17 than putting in new buses where the impact would be fairly 18 modest. 19 I may be misunderstanding, but in one of 20 the earlier slides, it's on page 6 of our handout, we talk 21 about the diesel path and we talk about foregoing 22 immediate emission reductions. The alternative fuels path 23 is going to require that, the retrofit of diesel buses, 24 but if you take the diesel, path you don't do that? 25 MR. KENNY: No. The retrofit requirement 137 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 is applicable to both paths. What we're really talking 2 about when we talk about foregoing emission reductions is 3 that if you look at the standards that the CNG buses are 4 sort of fined to today, they're sort of fined to a 2.5 5 gram standard whereas the diesel buses are sort of fined 6 to a 4 gram standard. 7 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: So it's that 8 deferential then? 9 MR. KENNY: Yes. 10 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Is there any 11 difference with respect to the two paths and the retrofit 12 requirements? 13 MR. KENNY: No. The retrofit requirements 14 are the same for both paths. 15 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: I was hoping that 16 would be your answer. 17 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes, Mr. Calhoun. 18 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Many of these slides 19 shown by the staff pertain to technology, emerging 20 technology, and my question is this: Is the staff 21 sufficiently comfortable at this point in time with the 22 state of the technology to move ahead with these 23 particular set of numbers? 24 MR. CACKETTE: The answer is "yes". The 25 NOx, the particulate retrofit technology, which are called 138 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 particulate traps, and which could be used on new engines 2 as well, are commercially available. They're on thousands 3 of engines around the world now. The manufacturers of 4 that equipment are gearing up to produce them to meet 5 requirements like this and other environmental 6 requirements. We're real comfortable with the experience 7 on those traps. 8 On the NOx side, there's sort of two levels 9 of technology. The one you saw on the truck out there is 10 in the demonstration that will be on the road in 11 commercial service almost immediately. We expect that -- 12 we have a high confidence that that SCR urea technology is 13 viable. Behind that are some more conventional light 14 catalysts that are being developed and they're a little 15 bit further behind the curve and I think those will be 16 available if not by 2004, certainly by 2007. 17 So we've got sure technology, what I would 18 characterize as sure technology for particulate reduction, 19 quite sure technology for NOx reduction, and another 20 optional or emerging technology for NOx reduction. So 21 given that we're still at least three years away from the 22 first date the NOx technologies will have to be used, 23 we're pretty confident the industry will provide the 24 necessary technology. 25 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: On some occasions in 139 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 the past whenever we were not certain about the 2 technology, we had built into the system a technology 3 review, and I don't know if that's built into this system 4 but I don't think so, and if it isn't, do you think it may 5 be advisable to do that? 6 MR. CACKETTE: I think we do have some 7 reviews. I can't remember -- what's -- 8 MR. KITOWSKI: We do have reviews on the 9 zero emission portion which is probably, certainly the 10 most advanced portion of this proposal. We also do plan 11 on coming back to the Board very regularly with this and 12 update the Board on the item so updates on the technology 13 as well as the progress are possible. 14 MR. CACKETTE: I think another viewpoint is 15 that -- and I should have mentioned the other technology 16 which is certainly certain is the natural gas technology 17 because we have literally thousands of those buses in 18 operation in California. Particularly retrofit technology 19 too. I don't think this really has a high degree of 20 confidence in that, that I don't think there's any need 21 for any kind of review. That's used on big engines around 22 the world today. The other technology we feel pretty 23 comfortable with, and if something bad occurs, like the 24 testing program shows they don't work all of a sudden, we 25 would come back to you. I don't think there's the need to 140 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 sort of assume ahead of time that there's a reasonable 2 risk. Only on the ZEB area, which is eight years 3 downstream, do we think there's a really need for 4 technology review, but in any case we'll watch this very 5 carefully if there's a dark cloud on the horizon we come 6 back, and people that have to use the technology would 7 make sure we're aware of emerging dark clouds. 8 MR. CROSS: Tom made the comment that the 9 trap technology is commercial, and I guess I would argue 10 that the SCR technology is also commercial. It's used on 11 stationary sources all over the place and it's on 12 stationary diesel engines and marine vessels and a variety 13 of other applications. So it's not a technology which is 14 sort of ready to break. It's a known technology that's 15 been used in all kinds of stuff, and I think the 16 application of it to a (inaudible) diesel is an 17 engineering problem which is very doable as the truck up 18 there shows. 19 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: One of the things I 20 thought about when thinking about particulate traps and 21 catalysts, a lot of work has gone into that area for many, 22 many years and I always worry about the effectiveness of 23 it and that's really what kind of prompted -- 24 MR. CROSS: Joe, on the SCRs, actually that 25 stuff was developed 10 or 15 years ago. I saw a truck 141 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 with an SCR cap on it back then, and the main reason that 2 it didn't go to the floor was because it required the use 3 of an additive system, and at that time there was a belief 4 that the truckers wouldn't used use the additives. So it 5 wasn't a technology problem as much as it was an 6 implementation problem. I think in the bus area we're 7 comfortable that the additives will be used. 8 MR. CACKETTE: On the particulate traps, 9 you're absolutely right. We've had experiences with 10 particulate traps ten years ago that were not all that 11 positive, but the technology has developed amazingly since 12 then. Instead of having to have active systems to burn 13 off the accumulated soot, it now is done continuously 14 using better catalyst formations. And the experience with 15 them being on thousands of vehicles already, they're in 16 mines, being used in lots of equipment. It suggests 17 they're a pretty durable technology. 18 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Later on sometime 19 this afternoon I expect to hear from engine manufacturers 20 also and hear what they say, but I'm comfortable at this 21 point in time with the staff's commitment to these 22 reported to the Board, status of technology. 23 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. Yes, 24 Supervisor DeSaulnier. 25 BOARD MEMBER DE SAULNIER: Just a comment. 142 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 I'd like to thank staff on behalf of the Bay Area transit 2 operators and MTC for your work you put in, particularly 3 Mr. Kenny, in doing the diesel path. But in that regard 4 one thing I have some concerns about is the PM retrofit, 5 and maybe this is a question for Tom. In terms of the 6 percentages in the three tiers and the dates, what is the 7 magic to particularly your percentages in Tier 2 and Tier 8 3, and given the testimony I just heard that the 9 technology may be there and according to the written 10 testimony from (inaudible), and I assume we're going to 11 hear oral comments, that we may be able to pull out those 12 dates and those percentages maybe a little bit tighter. 13 MR. CACKETTE: We tried to approach the 14 retrofit with a bit of caution because retrofit programs 15 in the past have had some bad stories that went along with 16 them, both technically sometimes and also in terms of the 17 public reaction, so we tried to provide something that's 18 pretty soft-starting and not too fast in the first year in 19 case there are any bugs or any reactions that we didn't 20 anticipate, and we probably provide a fairly long period 21 of time so the transit districts didn't have to take every 22 single bus and buy a $3,000 trap, for example, and put it 23 all on in one year. 24 We did the dirtiest buses first and 25 retrofitted the relatively cleaner ones later. That was 143 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 sort of the philosophy behind it. We've received some 2 comments already that it isn't fast enough, similar to 3 what you've just suggested, and I don't think it would 4 be -- I don't think we've proposed the most aggressive 5 schedule that's feasible. Let me put it that way. I 6 don't think you could do it any earlier -- have the first 7 batch of them done any earlier than 1-03, January of '03, 8 because that's not that far down the line, but whether a 9 full seven years or so of phasing is necessary and whether 10 it couldn't be a front-end loaded a little bit more and 11 compressed, I think there's certainly arguments that it 12 could be. 13 BOARD MEMBER DE SAULNIER: With the in-use 14 tests, are they significantly higher particularly for 15 urban transit agencies around PM? That would raise a 16 concern for me that maybe we should be a little bit 17 tougher. 18 MR. CACKETTE: Yeah. That is the concern, 19 is that in the urban bus cycle, which is basically pedal 20 to the floor and then stop and pedal to the floor type of 21 accelerations from pick-up spot to pick-up spot, that the 22 diesel engines do put out a lot of particulate matter and 23 more (inaudible) than a truck, for example. So this 24 retrofit gets directly at it because it doesn't matter how 25 you drive the transit bus, it will take at least 85 144 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 percent of that particulate out. 2 BOARD MEMBER DE SAULNIER: Thank you, 3 Mr. Chairman. 4 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Ms. D'Adamo. 5 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Perhaps as a 6 follow-up, I'm looking at our handout. It's on page 11 7 for our handout, the slides that were shown earlier of 8 in-use PM emissions. Tom, you had indicated that perhaps 9 an accelerated retrofit program could go a little further 10 than what's being proposed. Is there some analysis that 11 you have of what could be done to close that gap, and what 12 would the chart look like to bring these bars a little bit 13 more in line with one another? 14 MR. CACKETTE: On this chart, which is at 15 the bottom chart on page 11, it's entitled "In-use PM 16 emissions/standards." That only shows part of the 17 retrofit requirements, the 2000 through 2003 model years. 18 In this scenario we're trying to simplify change over 19 time. So there's other engines that have to be 20 retrofitted. Pre-'90s, have to be retrofitted, the '91s 21 through '95s have to be retrofitted, and the '96 through 22 2003, of which these four bars are part of that, have to 23 be retrofitted. 24 So we have essentially three groups of very 25 high, high, and moderately high emission buses that are 145 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 subject to the retrofit program. And on the first group, 2 which are the real old ones, we think many transit 3 districts probably will retire the buses rather than 4 retrofit them, but at least some will be retrofitted, and 5 we propose that all of those occur by January of 2003, and 6 I don't think we feel that you can accelerate that any. 7 The second group, which is the '91 through 8 '95 model, sort of the still high particulate emitters, 9 they are given a three-year schedule with a very soft 10 start, only 20 percent in the first year. And we think 11 that could probably be started a little harder based on 12 our confidence today in the particulate traps would be 13 available at a reasonable price and probably could be 14 shortened to -- one option would be to shorten them from 15 three years to two years. And then we have a one-year 16 pause where nothing happens, and another three-year 17 phasing for today's buses, which are smoke-free to the eye 18 but still have particulate emissions, and those are 19 scheduled to be retrofitted starting in '07 through '09. 20 Again, looking at what options would be 21 available to accelerate that and move that up one year 22 when nothing happens would have a retrofit, and it could 23 probably be -- it could probably be moved up as much two 24 years and on the same schedule or it could be compressed 25 if you didn't want to move it up that far. 146 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 So after testimony gets there to this 2 point, we could try to be more specific to any proposal 3 that the Board may want to entertain or that other people 4 may testify on, and given a little bit of time we could 5 put together a chart or something that would let you see 6 what some alternatives might be. 7 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much, Tom. 8 Any other comments from the Board? I guess Madam 9 Ombudsman, will you please address the process prior to 10 today by which this item came before and share any 11 concerns with us and staff interaction (inaudible). 12 MS. TSHOGL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and 13 Members of the Board. 14 The proposal before you now is the result 15 of over a year's worth of intensive and coordinated effort 16 by ARB management, staff and stakeholders beginning in 17 December of '98 and continuing to within days of this 18 hearing and actually continuing through today. This has 19 been a very difficult regulation to develop. 20 On September 24th, 1998, the Board passed 21 Resolution 98-49 urging the use of newly available federal 22 funds to expedite the replacement of older diesel buses 23 with alternative fuel buses. Since the ARB has embarked 24 on a massive outreach effort that has included hundreds of 25 telephone conferences, site visits, committee meetings, 147 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 workshops, and multi-agency staff meetings where a wide 2 variety of stakeholders were present, many of whom are 3 here today. 4 One thing that is unique to this Board item 5 in terms of outreach is that staff made visits to transit 6 agencies statewide and throughout the country to talk to 7 them about their experiences and to get their views on the 8 benefits of alternative fuel fleets. Their visits 9 included trips to Washington D.C., New York, Cleveland, 10 Tacoma, Houston, plus the MTA in Los Angeles and RTA in 11 Sacramento. This gave the staff a broader understanding 12 of the technology, equipment and infrastructure, fleet 13 operations, and federal and state funding issues from the 14 perspective of the transit agencies. 15 As you can see from the activities I've 16 mentioned, the ARB staff has made a diligent and concerted 17 effort in regard to reaching out to all affected 18 stakeholder groups. There were compelling arguments made 19 from those who oppose the regulation, as well as those who 20 support it. My personal observations allowed me to 21 conclude that staff listened carefully to all of them. 22 The proposal before you has addressed many 23 of the stakeholder issues and strikes a reasonable 24 balance. Staff did an excellent job of presenting the 25 pros and cons of the various options. As you are aware, 148 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 many individuals are here to present their ideas 2 personally. With that, I will conclude my comments. 3 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 4 Thank you very much. I guess with that I would like to 5 begin the public testimony and call the first witness, 6 Vice Chairman of the South Coast Air Quality Management 7 District, Norma Glover. 8 MS. GLOVER: Good afternoon, Alan. I am 9 trying to lose my voice, so I hope that I get through it. 10 Sorry. I have some prepared statements that I would like 11 to make. 12 My name is Norma Glover, and I'm Vice Chair 13 of the South Coast AQMD Governing Board. On behalf of the 14 South Coast Board, I welcomed you to our facility many 15 hours ago. I appreciate this opportunity to present our 16 Board's position on ARB's proposed public transit fleet 17 rule. 18 The South Coast AQMD strongly supports 19 ARB's general efforts to reduce ozone precursors, 20 particulates, and air toxics by encouraging transit 21 agencies to acquire low-emission urban buses. The 22 proposed rule should provide NOx benefits and has the 23 potential for significant PM and toxic reductions as well. 24 As you may know, our Air District is 25 finalizing a report on community air toxic exposure, the 149 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 result of a landmark monitoring study known as "MAPES 2 (phonetic) two". That study shows that diesel exhaust, 3 among other mobile sources, is far and away the dominant 4 contributor to our cancer risk from air toxic in the south 5 coast area. 6 As an air district suffering dramatic 7 health impacts from both toxic and criteria pollutants 8 such as fine particulates, we do not believe that the 9 allowance of a diesel compliance path is necessarily in 10 the best interest of our residents. Specifically, 11 particulate and toxic reductions are not the same for the 12 two paths, and the timing of overall air qualities in the 13 near term is also not the same. 14 Our staff believes there's also some 15 uncertainty about the future availability of NOx control 16 under the diesel path as well. For these reasons, at our 17 Board meeting last Friday we took a formal position by 18 unanimous vote of the members present to make the 19 following request for an important flexibility. The 20 ability to decide locally to eliminate completely or 21 partially the diesel path proposal for new transit bus 22 purchases. As you know, such actions would still allow 15 23 percent of purchases to be diesel powered. 24 Our Board's request is further supported by 25 these additional facts: One, first new stationary 150 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 sources in the south coast are already subjected to the 2 strictest (inaudible) in air conformance in the nation. 3 It is entirely appropriate to consider applying this 4 principle to a new local source as well, especially in a 5 district with a huge impact from vehicle operations. 6 Number two, secondly, a large percentage of 7 our local transit bus fleet is already powered by natural 8 gas. Number three, and finally, as ARB has acknowledged, 9 our local air problems require special measures that may 10 not be needed in some other areas to ensure compliance 11 with federal and state Clean Air Acts. 12 Given our district's high particulate and 13 ozone levels and the clear finding that diesel causes 14 about 70 percent of carcinogenic risk, the south coast 15 must embrace the speediest possible reduction of NOx, air 16 toxics, and PM 10 and PM 2.5 from the normal source 17 sector. 18 Our stationary sources have stepped up to 19 the challenge and now we look forward to seeing how 20 transit will meet the mark. On behalf of the South Coast 21 Governing Board, I therefore request that the ARB Board 22 provide the South Coast Air Quality Management District 23 with the flexibility to decide locally to eliminate 24 completely or partially the diesel path for all new 25 transit bus purchases subject to this rulemaking. 151 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 The proposed language should be in front of 2 you, and it would be Section B. We've given this to the 3 Clerk of the Board, assuming that you have in front of 4 you. We believe this is a reasonable accommodation of the 5 need for local decision making in this specific instance 6 and the need to address urgent health impacts on our area 7 residents. 8 Thank you for your consideration. 9 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much, 10 Norma. Questions or comments from the Board? 11 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I have a question, 12 not necessarily for the speaker, but to ask staff under 13 their proposal if this would be allowable without any 14 revision to the staff proposal. 15 MR. KENNY: Supervisor Riordan, it is 16 allowable. Currently the South Coast has specific 17 legislative authority to do a fleet rule. Anything this 18 Board does today will not intrude upon that fleet 19 authority, so any action taken by this Board today can 20 still be followed up on by the South Coast Board, and if 21 they choose to adopt a fleet rule, they have the authority 22 to do so. 23 If I could, I would like to turn it over to 24 legal counsel and they can give you the provisions if you 25 would be interested in those. 152 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: That might be 2 helpful, not necessarily for my interests, but for those 3 who might be in the audience listening and wonder what 4 we're relying on for that basis. 5 MS. KRINSK: Mrs. Riordan, Members of the 6 Board, Leslie Krinsk, senior staff counsel. 7 Section 40402 of the Health and Safety 8 Code, and Subdivision G specifically, says that in order 9 to successfully develop and implement a meaningful 10 strategy for meeting and attaining the ambient standards, 11 local governments in the South Coast Air Basin must be 12 delegated additional authority from the State in the 13 control of vehicular sources. And there's a specific 14 section in Health and Safety Code 40447.5 that says 15 notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the South 16 Coast District Board may adopt regulations that do all of 17 the following: A is require operators of public and 18 commercial fleet vehicles consisting of 15 or more 19 vehicles under a single owner or lessee and operating 20 substantially in the South Coast District, when adding 21 vehicles to or replacing vehicles in an existing fleet or 22 purchasing vehicles to form a new fleet, to purchase 23 vehicles which are capable of operating on methanol or 24 other equivalently clean-burning alternative fuel and to 25 require that these vehicles be operated to the maximum 153 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 extent feasible on the alternative fuel when operating in 2 the South Coast District Board. 3 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you. 4 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 5 Questions? Ms. D'Adamo, I thought you were going to ask a 6 question. Anyone else? Thank you very much. 7 Our next speaker is the Honorable Norman 8 Mineta. Again, it's a pleasure to have you here, sir. I 9 know you've worked many years on transportation issues on 10 behalf of California back in Washington. It's a pleasure 11 to have you here. 12 MR. MINETA: Thank you very much, 13 Dr. Chairman and Members of the Board. It really gives me 14 a great deal of honor and pleasure to have this 15 opportunity to share Lockheed Martin's position. 16 Prior to my position with Lockheed Martin, 17 I was a member of the City Council in San Jose and then 18 elected Mayor, and then for over 21 years I had the 19 privilege of representing Silicon Valley in the United 20 States Congress where I served on the Science, Space and 21 Technology Committee, as well as the House Public Works 22 and Transportation Committee and chaired it in the 100th 23 Congress, and in 1991 was the principal author of the 24 Intermodal Service Transportation Efficiency Act, which 25 was known as IC, and introduced the concept of CMAQ and 154 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 transportation enhancements in terms of our transportation 2 funding. 3 Today I would like to thank the Board for 4 this opportunity to share Lockheed Martin's positions. 5 First, I would like to applaud your efforts to improve the 6 state's air quality. I say that as someone who has spent 7 many years in public light, advocating transportation 8 measures aimed at congestion mitigation and a better 9 environment for Californians and the entire nation. I say 10 that today as a representative also of a major California 11 employer that manufactures fuel efficient, emissions 12 reducing technology for transit buses and urban 13 environments. As a matter of fact, this technology is 14 currently being used in one of the toughest environments 15 of them all, in the city of New York where five buses are 16 currently in revenue service and where an additional 125 17 buses are on order. 18 Now, because of your regulatory proposal to 19 reduce emissions for transit buses, and since this policy 20 is aligned with these goals, we encourage you to continue 21 with its implementation, but in the pursuit of cleaner air 22 for all Californians, we ask that you create a regulatory 23 environment that is inclusive of all technologies and 24 means for achieving this important mission. 25 Lockheed Martin manufactures a diverse 155 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 array of aerospace, defense and commercial technologies 2 spanning land, sea and sky, and it is indeed a happy 3 confluence of events when the right thing to do in terms 4 of policy coincides with technology and good business. 5 We are the producer of "hybrid-drive", a 6 fuel neutral, environmentally friendly hybrid electric 7 propulsion system for transit systems. Hybrid-drive 8 combines an electric power source, as all of you know, 9 typically in an engine generator set or a fuel cell with 10 batteries and electric motor to propel the bus. 11 However, due to the weight, size and cost 12 impact of alternate fuel and fuel cell technologies, 13 today's hybrid-drive is commercially viable only in the 14 diesel fuel version. It still provides significant 15 environmental benefits in this form running as clean or 16 cleaner than comparable alternate fuel transit buses. 17 Again, let me state our support for 18 California Air Resources Board's goals. However, since 19 the proposed transit bus emissions technologies -- or 20 emissions regulations are weighted against the use of 21 diesel fuel, regardless of how it is packaged, we view 22 them with mixed feelings. It seems to us that seeking to 23 lower transit bus emission levels by promulgating a 24 regulation that stymies one very effective means for 25 achieving that laudable goal amounts to throwing out the 156 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 baby with the bath water. 2 First of all, the regulation as written 3 could delay the introduction of low emission, hybrid 4 electric buses in California. As written, the regulation 5 penalizes transit authorities choosing the diesel path, 6 despite any air quality improvements they will provide. 7 Wouldn't a better approach be a single rigorous emissions 8 standard that challenges the transit authorities while 9 affording them the flexibility to implement the approach 10 best suited to their local needs? 11 Secondly, the proposed CARB regulation is 12 inconsistent with federal legislative precedent 13 established in the TEA-21 surface transportation 14 legislation that was enacted in 1998. We suggest that it 15 would be written to be consistent with federal legislation 16 by defining the low emission path as clean fuel rather 17 than alternative fuel. Current federal regulations class 18 five vehicles powered by hybrid electric as clean fuel 19 vehicles due to their significantly lower emissions and 20 reduced fuel consumption. 21 Thirdly, safety and environmental features 22 of all low emissions technologies ought to be made -- 23 ought to be more fully explored and fully disclosed. 24 There have been recent several reports regarding CNG 25 incidents, and we feel that the transit authorities, their 157 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 riders and the public deserve to be apprised of all risks. 2 Fourthly, the cost to implement this 3 regulation has not been thoroughly vetted. We are worried 4 that the cost analysis provided to the Board understates 5 the cost to implement the regulation while overstating 6 available funding sources. The cost of any regulation 7 must be based on solid data, particularly if the cost 8 could negate the goal of the regulation. 9 If this unfunded mandate is enacted, the 10 law of unintended consequences could apply. We believe 11 that implementation decisions should be based on a very 12 thorough analysis that takes all costs into account, 13 including the expense of additional infrastructure and 14 this analysis should be rounded out with a complete 15 summary of all procurement funding sources available to 16 transit authorities. 17 And fifthly, the impact on the state's 18 economy has not been fully explored. While this 19 regulation will provide substantial economic benefits to 20 some energy providers, no effort has been made to assess 21 the impact in terms that the regulations could add on 22 petroleum-based fuel producers, many of whom have 23 substantial production operations here in California. It 24 seems to me this is an extremely important issue given the 25 negative diesel bias that is contained in the proposed 158 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 regulations. 2 Let me in closing reiterate Lockheed Martin 3 fully supports the overall goal of this proposed 4 regulation. We find the proposed implementation troubling 5 for the following reasons: One, it could delay available 6 commercially viable low emissions pollutions; secondly, it 7 is inconsistent with federal precedent; thirdly, safety 8 has not been fully addressed; four, costs are not explored 9 adequately; and five, its impact on the state's business 10 community and economy has been overlooked. 11 Although we applaud this regulation's 12 goals, we are concerned that if not properly implemented, 13 it could be to the detriment of the state's air quality to 14 transit-dependent citizens, to the state's economy, and to 15 the public in general. This is contrary to your goal, so 16 we urge the Air Resources Board to review this dual 17 compliance path regulation and its alternate fuel and 18 diesel path definitions. 19 We believe that a more effective approach 20 would be for you to define what standards must be met, as 21 you have done very well, but to be inclusive, not 22 exclusive, of all viable means for meeting those goals. 23 In other words, define the mission then let the 24 manufacturers, transit authorities, the riders, the public 25 and the marketplace through public-private partnerships to 159 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 carry it out. 2 I would like to submit my full statement 3 for the record, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your 4 attention. 5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much 6 indeed, and I guess one of the real fun things about 7 public forums and testimony is we've had two speakers and 8 one saying we're too much pro-diesel and others we're too 9 anti-diesel, and I think that summarizes some of the 10 challenges that staff has faced, but I really appreciate 11 your very considerate comments. 12 I had a couple of questions there. I'm 13 aware of some of the issues on the alternate against 14 clean. I'm going to ask staff to say, have you looked at 15 that issue because clearly that's important if we want to 16 access some funds there. 17 MS. KEMENA: Yes. We have looked into that 18 issue, and the TEA-21 includes diesel fuel as a clean fuel 19 and, therefore, we wouldn't think it would be appropriate 20 to change the definition of the alternative fuel path to 21 be a clean fuel. 22 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: At least it would be 23 worthwhile to look into Mr. Mineta's comments there so we 24 wouldn't exclude (inaudible) diesel from access to those 25 funds. 160 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 MR. KENNY: If I could add a little bit. 2 We are willing to look at these things, but one of the 3 things that I also heard Congressman Mineta talk about is 4 essentially inconsistency with TEA-21, although there's a 5 definitional difference between what we are doing and what 6 TEA-21 did. There is an alternative (inaudible) fee. 7 What we are trying to propose to the Board 8 essentially is that we do think the two paths is the 9 appropriate way to go. We do basically allow for 10 essentially the diesel to exist on the diesel path. We 11 also allow for the diesel in smaller percentages to exist 12 on the CNG path. And so there is the opportunity for the 13 diesel hybrid electrics that Congressman Mineta talked 14 about to actually, and so there is not an exclusion here. 15 It's just that we tried to provide two clear paths with 16 two very clear set of criteria for those to be associated 17 with. 18 MR. MINETA: Mr. Chairman, as part of this 19 it also seems to me that the regulation seems to be 20 couched in conventional diesel bus technology rather than 21 in terms of, let's say, a hybrid electric vehicle. And it 22 seems to me that what all of us are probably really aiming 23 at is eventually getting to fuel cells, but it seems to me 24 it's like you've got to crawl before you walk and you've 25 got to walk before you run. And I'm not sure that within, 161 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 let's say, a limited period of time, and I would say 2 limited being five to eight years, that we will see our 3 being at fuel cells. And I think that hybrid electric 4 ought to be one of those still technologies that ought to 5 be considered as an alternative. 6 I understand the issue of PMs and NOx, but 7 we've also got to take a look at hydrocarbons. There are 8 other things we ought to look at in terms of getting a 9 good, balanced picture in terms of the environmental 10 impact. 11 The other thing that bothers me is -- and I 12 know the staff has been -- is sensitive to this, and 13 listening to -- like referred to Roberta Hughan when I was 14 in local government and Roberta was in Gilroy doing the 15 same thing, so -- in fact, we go back to good old Berkeley 16 days when she was at Stern Hall and I was at Bull's Hall. 17 So our friendship, and we know each other over a long 18 period of time. 19 And I know that she has given a great deal 20 of thought and study, as have the whole staff, but when 21 I'm trying to look at this whole issue, you look at the 22 cost of conventional buses and then CNG, and admittedly 23 hybrid electric is more than all the other technologies, 24 but there are also some great infrastructure and depo 25 costs that are involved in CNG. I know that in the City 162 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 of New York, as we were making our presentation to the 2 Mass Transit Administration there, that their concerns 3 about building fueling facilities at a cost of anywhere 4 from $3 to $5 million per fueling facility for 60 buses, 5 because they would have to keep their tanks -- only that 6 the tanks would only be able to handle for roughly about 7 60 buses in terms of a fueling cycle, plus the cost of 8 building the buildings are -- that have to be housing 9 these facilities. And in a New York City situation, Larry 10 Royder was concerned about putting in, I think I could 11 say, over $100 million dollars just in terms of 12 infrastructure for CNG. 13 So when you think about the tradeoffs that 14 are involved, then I think from a transit operator's 15 perspective, it really brings a different view on what 16 approach to take. 17 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. I didn't think 18 staff was trying to exclude hybrid electric technology and 19 rather trying to encourage there. 20 Any questions? Yes, Mr. Calhoun. 21 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I thought I heard 22 Congressman Mineta focus on one other point that I 23 wondered about, and that point pertains to performance 24 standard. In the past what we've done is set a standard 25 and when technology became available to be used for the 163 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 purpose of meeting that standard, but here we're kind of 2 heading off on two different paths. And I didn't question 3 our rationale for doing it, and I'm sure there must be a 4 good rationale for it and I'd like to hear that. 5 MR. KENNY: The rationale is one that what 6 we were originally proposing approximately a little over a 7 year ago was an alt-fuel path only and the main reason for 8 that was that it included the NOx benefits and the PM 9 benefits from an alternative fuel approach. They were 10 fairly substantial. We basically workshopped that 11 particular approach, we went through a process whereby we 12 became convinced that in fact going with the single 13 alt-fuel path wasn't the best approach. So therefore, we 14 decided to provide this dual path approach in which we 15 would still try to provide a clear signal that in fact 16 there was an alt-fuel path and we would also provide a 17 clear signal that there was a diesel path. 18 So it's one of those things where as we 19 developed this particular proposal over the last year from 20 where we started and where we are today and additional 21 facts, we sort of change the proposal from single fuel 22 only proposal to this dual approach. 23 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: In that case, let me 24 also -- I think in the past what we've tried to do is to 25 make all the standards technology neutral -- I believe 164 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 that's correct -- also fuel neutral. So what we're doing 2 here is you have an alt-fuel path and a diesel path. Now, 3 what about any other hybrid or combined path, something 4 similar to what Congressman Mineta said. Where would they 5 fit into this? 6 MR. KENNY: For example, what Congressman 7 Mineta was talking about, (inaudible) it does fit in, and 8 what we can do there is essentially it fits in on either 9 path. It can fit in obviously on the diesel path, but it 10 can also fit in on the CNG path, for example. It fits in 11 there because the CNG path is one in which we are looking 12 at 85 percent requirements for CNG, so there is a 13 remaining 15 percent that is open on that side. So it can 14 fit in there. 15 One of the concerns we have is essentially 16 allowing the CNG path to actually turn into a diesel path, 17 which is why we have that 85 percent figure there. We can 18 look at hybrid electrics with other types of fuels and see 19 if there are ways to basically fit them into each of the 20 two paths in a way that makes sense, but we're trying to 21 continue a proposal that had two paths, and one was the 22 diesel path that provided emissions reductions that we can 23 get from that path, and one is a CNG path that provided 24 emission reductions. And overall the two paths were 25 essentially equivalent, and that was a way of trying to 165 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 make sure that we weren't excluding any particular 2 technology, but we were incentivizing all technology as 3 soon as we possibly could. 4 MR. MINETA: Mr. Chairman, could I make a 5 comment? I'm not sure that I can put my hands on 6 the right one in terms of the staff report, but it seems 7 to me that the Air Resources Board has classified diesel 8 hybrid electrics the same as standard diesel buses by 9 excluding them from the alternative fuel classification. 10 And so it seems to me just by doing that that there's a 11 bias and especially because that then seems to me to put 12 this in conflict with the federal legislation that 13 classifies diesels as hybrids. 14 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think Mr. Cross was 15 going to -- 16 MR. KENNY: If I could make a comment very 17 quickly before he does that. We don't believe, number 18 one, that there is a conflict with federal legislation. 19 Number two, with regard to diesel hybrid electric, again 20 what we've done is we've excluded it from the CNG path to 21 the extent that it would qualify under the 85 percent 22 portion of that path, and that has been specifically done 23 in order to make sure the paths are separate paths that 24 have separate requirements associated with them. 25 If in fact we put the diesel hybrid 166 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 electrics on that path, then we are eliminating that CNG 2 path in a sense and we are going with a totally diesel 3 rule. That's what we've been trying to avoid. We've been 4 trying essentially to provide two paths again that have 5 two clear sets of criteria that achieve roughly equivalent 6 emission reductions. 7 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. Any other 8 questions? 9 MR. CROSS: Can I add one thing? 10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Oh, yes. 11 MR. CROSS: This is real quick. The CNG 12 path is an alt-fuel path, so basically is not diesel, but 13 it does include in it the flexibility for them to choose 14 virtually any other, quote, alternative fuels to do their 15 development on, and I think that's based on recognition of 16 the health concerns on diesel versus any other fuel. So I 17 think that with a little invention in talking to the 18 staff, there's a reasonable chance this technical problem 19 can be resolved. 20 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. 21 MR. MINETA: The other point is the 22 recognition of the 80-percent factor on the Federal 23 Transit Agency paying for 80 percent of the cost of buses, 24 which is fine, but again the 80 percent goes from the -- 25 is now going to be applied, let's say, for a $400,000 167 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 hybrid electric as compared to the $250,000 diesel, and 2 I'm not sure that in TEA-21, even though there's increased 3 amounts available there, I know on the highway side the 4 amount under TEA-21 went up by some -- maybe let's say 55 5 to 60 percent. 6 The amount that went up on the transit 7 side, much of it got earmarked, so I'm not sure that even 8 though there's an increase, there's going to be much left 9 over in terms of the 80 percent being applied to a higher 10 cost facility -- bus. 11 On the other hand, there's some issue as to 12 whether or not infrastructure and facility costs would be 13 paid for by FTA, so again that these advantages to the 14 Transit Authority in terms of trying to weigh pros and 15 cons, making sure they're comparing apples to apples as 16 they're trying to make a decision as to which way they're 17 going to go. 18 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much 19 indeed. 20 MR. MINETA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and 21 Members of the Board. 22 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. Our next 23 witness is Richard Cromwell from Sunline Transit Agency, a 24 leader in this area. Richard, from this point on, I guess 25 with the elected officials gone I'm going to have to 168 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 introduce a five-minute time frame. I know that's going 2 to provide a challenge for you here. With that, I'm also 3 going to turn this over to Mrs. Riordan while I step away 4 for a little while. 5 MR. CROMWELL: Thank you, Dr. Lloyd and 6 Board. We'll do our very best. We'll run through as fast 7 as we can. 8 Of course there are lots of choices being 9 faced in the transit industry today. We're going to have 10 to make them. This showdown between diesel and alternate 11 fuels is in my opinion simply the inevitable choice that 12 we must make. We at Sunline believe that transit can and 13 should begin now to make the path to the future rather 14 than wait for brewing regulatory and political battles to 15 settle it. My hope is we'll do everything in our power to 16 mandate a clean air future. 17 Most of you are familiar with our story, so 18 I'm going to skip through that pretty fast. The fact of 19 the matter is we're a 100-percent alternate fuel fleet, 20 natural gas since 1994, and it's been working just great. 21 And you may wonder why did we take that direction. It's 22 because our elected officials had faith in the technology 23 in the future and they wanted to be sure the area remained 24 clean. They believed providing public transit is just one 25 of our roles. Another is helping to preserve the quality 169 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 of life provided by clean air. 2 We spent a lot of time researching 3 alternate fuels. We chose natural gas for many reasons, 4 including how safe it is. And to prove the point, we 5 power a barbecue grill with a bus and cook hot dogs for 6 community events, taste pretty good too. CNG offered us 7 immediate long-term benefits, first as an engine fuel and 8 now as a gateway to hydrogen, which we believe is the fuel 9 of the future. When we looked at the pluses and minuses, 10 the economics, the public health benefits simply 11 outweighed any risks. 12 I have provided you a packet that includes 13 our study that shows indeed in a two-year setting with 14 Sacramento Transit that it is less expensive to operate a 15 CNG fleet versus a diesel fleet in a real-life environment 16 including 170 CNG buses and 73 diesel buses, savings up to 17 a million dollars a year for Sacramento and $200 million 18 from us, and the study has been certified by the Society 19 of Automotive Engineers in September of last year. 20 Our combined success can be attributed to 21 commitment from top down, bottom up, extraordinary 22 training of maintenance technicians, and a team approach 23 to problem solving. Initially the cost of CNG buses is 24 about $35,000. I know the staff has called that $40,000, 25 but our experience has showed $35,000, and I wanted to 170 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 share a thought with you regarding those incremental 2 funds, because I think it's a key issue. 3 Federal funds cover 80 percent of your 4 basic transit bus, diesel or CNG, and 90 percent of the 5 incremental cost of alternative fuel buses. So that 6 $35,000, the local share is only really $3,500. You could 7 amortize that over the life of the vehicle, which 8 according to the FTA is 12 years or 500,000 miles. 9 Realistically, though, we in transit keep buses much 10 longer, and that's why there are still so many old, 11 polluting diesel buses on the road. So using the FTA 12 conservative schedule, the cost is less than one cent per 13 mile to pay back those incremental costs of CNG buses over 14 the cost of a diesel bus, and I don't think that's much to 15 pay for good health and a clean environment, and the 16 payback is about 5.2 years. 17 One point regarding CNG is the fueling 18 infrastructure. We've heard a lot about that today. The 19 costs of moving to a new technology are just that, 20 up-front costs, and they must be considered long-term 21 expenses. We are on natural gas for the long run. Over 22 time the more vehicles that use the fueling 23 infrastructure, the lower the cost per vehicle per mile. 24 It would be inaccurate to load up the initial 25 infrastructure costs on the initial fleet of 40 buses. 171 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 Infrastructure is a substantial cost but 2 one that can be offset by making the fueling facility a 3 profit center as we have, opening it up to other 4 customers. And there are reputable firms today that will 5 pay 100 percent of the up-front infrastructure costs and 6 transit repaid through fuel prices that are comparable to 7 diesel or lower than diesel. 8 When we made the decision to go to CNG 9 fleet, it was the best choice available at the time, but 10 like many others we always believed that hydrogen was the 11 fuel of the distant future and that future now is really 12 coming into sight, as you saw today. 13 At the request of the Department of Energy, 14 (inaudible) team as lead agency on several national 15 hydrogen projects, I want to make it very clear that we're 16 not abandoning CNG. We are more committed to it than ever 17 and let me tell you why. Fuel cell vehicles need a source 18 of hydrogen, and natural gas is the cleanest, most readily 19 available source around. When we convert a fuel cell bus, 20 our existing and expanding infrastructure of CNG 21 compressing stations will be more important than ever. 22 It's no stretch of the imagination than see 23 a similar problem develop with a fuel cell bus. 24 Manufacturers will not be able to meet demand and 25 therefore transit agencies, by playing the waiting game, 172 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 will not be able to meet emission mandates because there's 2 not enough product, and darned if there won't be plenty of 3 diesel buses that are still on the road than are those 4 cleaner CNG buses that are still waiting for this distant 5 light at the end of the tunnel. 6 Those very agencies that don't want to 7 (inaudible) to CNG buses because the infrastructure is too 8 expensive will find that hydrogen infrastructure is 9 expensive as well. So far if you start analysis of CNG 10 infrastructure, that gives you one leg up to move to 11 hydrogen fuel facilities in the future. 12 Of course I must be honest here. The 13 hydrogen infrastructure may not be commercializing at the 14 same pace as vehicles. Sunline is in a very unique 15 position to take advantage of millions in funding to 16 develop generation and dispensing facilities, as you can 17 see under construction at our facility here, but this 18 level of government investment is not feasible to meet the 19 need for widespread infrastructure, which brings us back 20 to why CNG is the bridge. CNG infrastructure is critical 21 to providing the feedstock for hydrogen fuel cells. 22 Without CNG as the bridge, we could be stuck with diesel 23 for another 20 years. 24 In 1994 when we first converted to our bus 25 fleet, there wasn't a CNG station in our region. Today, 173 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 there are four, soon there will be six. It takes time to 2 build infrastructure, and we're in a position to meet the 3 future of fuel cells because we converted to CNG. We've 4 decided in our region the Coachella Valley is not going to 5 miss out on cleaner air in the time it takes for 6 infrastructure, commercialization and funding to align 7 together for hydrogen fuel cells. We are already applying 8 the many lessons learned with CNG as we build a hydrogen 9 infrastructure today. 10 And if I could close with our fancy 11 paragraph. Today there are several hundred CNG buses. 12 Besides riding on clean air buses today, trash is picked 13 up by CNG-powered refuse trucks, the mail is delivered by 14 CNG vehicles, streets are swept by CNG sweepers, children 15 ride to school in CNG buses. We also have the first CNG 16 book mobile that serves the county. Visitors are shuttled 17 from hotels in CNG vans, and others are transported to the 18 airport in CNG cabs -- 19 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Richard -- 20 MR. CROMWELL: -- alternate fuel 21 vehicles -- 22 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: -- I know that's 23 your last sentence. 24 MR. CROMWELL: You did good. Thank you 25 very much. I appreciate it. 174 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you very much. 2 You're certainly innovative at Sunline, and Coachella 3 Valley is very lucky to have all of you in that transit 4 district. Are there any questions for this witness at 5 this time, Members? No. Moving on then, and thank you, 6 Richard. 7 MR. CROMWELL: Thank you. 8 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Judy Fogel, if you 9 would come forward please, and Ellen Garvey, you're going 10 to follow her, and David Crow following Ellen Garvey. 11 Again, because it's a little difficult, and 12 I'm going to have to learn as the speakers are, the -- 13 that little buzz that I hear kind of is the five-minute 14 signal; correct? And so we just need to be aware. It 15 sounds almost like a phone ringing. It's not a phone, 16 it's the end of your presentation. Thank you. 17 (Laughter) 18 MS. FOGEL: Hi. I'm Judy Fogel, and I'm a 19 first grade teacher with L.A. Unified. And it's really 20 assuring for me to hear everybody and the new technologies 21 coming along. I spend my day with six-year-olds, so it's 22 really fun to see all the grown-ups who make decisions in 23 the state. 24 (Laughter) 25 BOARD MEMBER MC KINNON: How do we 175 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 compare? 2 (Laughter) 3 MS. FOGEL: It's fun for me. Anyway, this 4 is a letter we wrote, and I know you're not including 5 school buses in this, but I'm here to urge that you do 6 because I think if I read my numbers right, there are more 7 school buses, and this is what 30 of our teachers signed, 8 this letter urging you to please include school buses in 9 it, and I'll show you our problem. 10 Our school is located in Brentwood on 11 Brenton Green. Jim Carrey, the comedian, is our neighbor, 12 and he says it's two blocks from the "bloody knife", if 13 that rings a bell with you. It's a good neighborhood. 14 The problem is our kids are bussed in from everywhere. We 15 have what's called a rainbow. It's incredible. We have 16 about 20 percent Hispanic, 20 percent Asian, Russian, 17 Korean, Middle Eastern. Any kind of child in the world we 18 have them in our school because we manage it that way. 19 But the problem is we have 23 buses 20 bringing them in from all parts of the city and the 21 valley, and the buses we have are about 30 years old and 22 they create what one gentleman from the AQMD referred to 23 as a "line source of pollution". So you see these buses, 24 they run like an hour every morning. That is my classroom 25 right there. That's the kindergarten yard. And the 176 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 children, it's four feet from where they're playing on 2 equipment. 3 So when I hear that the State declared 4 diesel a carcinogenic contaminant, if I called my district 5 and I said a carcinogenic contaminant is bubbling up in 6 the middle of the school yard, they would close the 7 school, but because it's bubbling out of these buses, we 8 don't think too much of it. 9 I talked to the people at the district and 10 they say we don't have enough money, and yet we just built 11 a $200 million school. You probably heard about in the 12 news. It's the most expensive one in the history of the 13 nation and it's down the drain. We can't use it. All 14 that money is gone. They're saying the person in charge 15 of it, the rumor is that he has Swiss bank accounts with 16 the money he made on it. I don't know. 17 But this happens, corruption happens at the 18 local level. I'm asking for your help because Miller and 19 Cortinez (phonetic), people came into our district and 20 said the motto is avoid accountability and resist change. 21 So even though someone said the Governor gave us $50 22 million for bus changes, I assure you we won't see it for 23 ten years. I don't know what takes so long, but someone 24 from the AQMD told me we have never been able to work with 25 L.A. Unified in getting these programs to work where we 177 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 get the buses, the funding. The left hand doesn't know 2 what the right hand is doing. So I guess it's an enormous 3 district and that's a problem. 4 So I'm urging you, if would you put this in 5 with this proposal, it will force things and not drag our 6 feet like this gentleman was proposing, and I would like 7 to ask to think about who's paying your paycheck. I'm 8 here on my own time. I pay my paycheck. I took a day 9 off. He's being paid by Lockheed Martin. I assume he's 10 making money off of this. 11 I want to show you letters. From 12 six-year-olds, "Dr. Lloyd, please make the buses clean," 13 sincerely, Ilya and Hugo, age six, the cool schools of 14 Brentwood. "Dr. Lloyd, please turn the buses off," 15 sincerely, Mark and Logan. They're very aware of all the 16 black fumes coming out of these 23 buses. 17 By the way, we have 51 cases of asthma, and 18 the nurse said we get one new one a week comes in. 19 "Dr. Lloyd, please make buses so the children will not get 20 sick," sincerely Justin and Ricardo. "Dear Dr. Lloyd, I 21 feel sad when the diesel comes out from the buses. I 22 think I want to get cleaner buses that are electric," 23 sincerely Elie (phonetic) and Leslie, and "Dr. Lloyd, 24 please let the buses be clean," Stephanie and Michelle, 25 and last one, "Dr. Lloyd, please don't make diesel buses, 178 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 make clean buses." 2 So I don't care what kind of buses they 3 are, as long as they're clean. I have to wear this every 4 morning to get from my classroom to my office. I'm 5 wearing a mask. I have lung problems. I'm going to a 6 pulmonary specialist. 7 So thank you so much for your work here, 8 and I just urge to you fast track this so we can have a 9 quicker improvement in the quality of our life. 10 Thank you very much. 11 (Applause) 12 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you, 13 Mrs. Fogel, and we appreciate the effort you made to be 14 here today. Let me share with you that, as you heard, the 15 staff will bring this to us, and unfortunately it is not 16 included today. There's a number of noticing reasons that 17 we cannot act on that, but we will be acting on it, I 18 think, before the end of the year. Is that right, 19 Mr. Kenny? 20 MR. KENNY: I need to add one more thing. 21 The Governor's budget has allocated $50 million for the 22 school buses. However, that has not gone through the 23 legislative process yet, so every opportunity should be 24 taken to assist the Governor in approval to the 25 legislature for that $50 million would be very valuable. 179 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Did you hear that, 2 by chance? Afterwards, maybe Mr. Kenny, you can send one 3 of your staff members. You need to do some more lobbying 4 at a little different level. 5 Ellen Garvey, if you would come forward. 6 When people are called, please move down in front and be 7 ready to use these microphones because we need to move 8 this on, and it's without -- Mr. Crow, are you here? 9 MS. GARVEY: Thank you. Good afternoon, 10 Chairman Lloyd and Members of the Board of Directors. My 11 name is Ellen Garvey and I am the Executive Officer at the 12 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, home to many 13 wonderful things including the Napa Valley wine 14 train. Building on the discussion earlier from the 15 Chairman, I stand ready and waiting with open arms to 16 welcome the ARB Board aboard the Napa Valley wine train, 17 and if you want, you can just give me a call and I'll make 18 sure you get there. 19 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: That would be great. 20 MS. GARVEY: I'll keep my remarks this 21 morning on this -- or this afternoon rather, on this very 22 important issue brief. The Bay Area Air Quality 23 Management District supports ARB's current proposal. We 24 feel this regulation will bring direct health benefits to 25 the 6.5 million people who choose to live and work in the 180 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 nine Bay Area counties, and this is an especially 2 significant regulation because it affects the 3,000 3 transit buses that operate in the nine Bay Area counties. 4 We support compliance via the diesel or the 5 alternative fuel path as outlined a moment ago by ARB 6 staff. I think it's very important, though, to point out 7 that we will continue to encourage Bay Area transit 8 operators to purchase and to use natural gas fueled buses. 9 We firmly believe that the use of natural gas engines in 10 all heavy-duty vehicles will provide greater health 11 benefits with more assurance than will the continued use 12 of diesel engines. The Bay Area Air District will 13 continue to offer financial assistance to those operators 14 that are willing to pursue and use CNG engines. 15 I'd like to say a few words about the 16 particulate matter retrofit clause of this proposed 17 regulation. We applaud the proposal for an aggressive and 18 progressive schedule for PM retrofits to reduce exposure 19 to particulate matter from the existing transit fleets. 20 When you couple this with the requirement for the 21 ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel, these two form what we feel 22 are the fundamentally most important elements of the 23 proposal that is before us today. 24 This proposal will result in improved air 25 quality, not only for the transit operators and for the 181 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 passengers, but for those of us who spend a lot of time in 2 central business districts, at transit points in and along 3 transit corridors and bus routes. 4 I would like to say a few words about the 5 NOx portion of the regulation. The fleet average NOx 6 requirement is also important because it will ensure that 7 the dirtiest and the oldest buses are replaced in a more 8 timely fashion. Additionally, a continual investment in 9 new buses will help ensure that transit districts can 10 continue to provide their scheduled services with a high 11 degree of reliability. Better reliability is to increase 12 confidence in use of public transit by the traveling 13 public. 14 My final point relates to the issue that 15 was just discussed by the speaker before me and that is 16 school buses. We are disappointed that CARB's proposal 17 does not include school buses. However, we are very 18 sensitive to the funding needs of school districts. The 19 Bay Area Air District has over the last five years worked 20 cooperatively to replace almost 15 percent of the entire 21 school bus fleet in the nine Bay Area counties with clean 22 either CNG or electric school buses, and this school bus 23 is very similar to the one that was parked in the parking 24 lot outside earlier this morning that you may have seen on 25 your tour. The Board of Directors at the Bay Area Air 182 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 District feel so strongly about these clean school buses 2 that we have many times offered to fund 100 percent of 3 costs associated with replacing these buses. 4 We therefore will be supporting before the 5 legislature Governor Davis's $50 million allocation for 6 clean school buses. These funds will be a significant 7 source of much needed new revenue to help school districts 8 clean up their fleets and to protect the health of our 9 children. 10 In closing, I congratulate the ARB on this 11 very important action and I pledge my support for future 12 extensions of this effort. That concludes my 13 presentation, and I would be happy to answer any questions 14 that you have. 15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much, 16 Ellen. Any questions or comments from the Board? 17 BOARD MEMBER DE SAULNIER: I'm just worried 18 about the Napa Valley wine train. I should mention to my 19 colleagues that there is a state law that you're not 20 familiar with that prohibits public officials from taking 21 free trips on trains, and I know that because a colleague 22 made the mistake of taking a trip on the Napa Valley wine 23 train and he's a former elected official. 24 (Laughter) 25 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: We never assumed it was 183 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 free. 2 BOARD MEMBER DE SAULNIER: Certainly, 3 Mr. Chairman, we would open our hands and arms. 4 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Again, thanks. Good work, 5 Ellen. 6 Next speaker is Dave Crow, San Joaquin 7 Valley APCD, and after that we've got Mr. Cunha, and after 8 that Stephanie Williams. 9 MR. CROW: Good afternoon, Chairman Lloyd 10 and this Board. I will try to be brief in my comments. 11 First of all, I would like to applaud your 12 Board and your staff for the tremendous amount of effort 13 they put into what you said at the outset is a very 14 important and complex proposal, and we are supportive of 15 that effort. It has been overdue, frankly, and I think 16 that you have taken the first major step in California. 17 I want to help put in context what it means 18 in the San Joaquin Valley. The central part of 19 California, as you know, failed to meet the November 1999 20 attainment dates for ozone under federal law, and as a 21 consequence of that, within the next 30 to 60 days we are 22 going to be reclassified to severe non-attainment for 23 ozone. 24 It was just in October that we appeared 25 before your Board in Sacramento to talk about the progress 184 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 we had made with the California Clean Air Act. At that 2 time you provided us with conditional approval and said go 3 back to work. We have 18 additional rules on stationary 4 sources that we must develop in short order in the San 5 Joaquin Valley. Last Thursday, Mike Kenny, your Executive 6 Officer, appeared in front of our Board and spent the 7 better part of an hour (inaudible) the size of the task 8 that lies ahead of us in the San Joaquin Valley. 9 It is our obligation now under federal law 10 to achieve attainment for federal ambient air standards 11 for ozone by the year 2005. The reality of that means 12 that by the year 2003, our monitoring stations have to not 13 have exceeded the federal ambient air standards, and for 14 three consecutive years leading to 2005 we have to be able 15 to demonstrate attainment to the ozone standard. So from 16 perspective, we are very much on the fast track. We're 17 not as worried about ten years down the line as we are 18 worried about today, tomorrow and the next 2002, 2005 time 19 frame. 20 Having said that, clearly a partnership is 21 called for. The State of California has led the world in 22 mobile source emission reductions and we believe that 23 that's appropriate and we would hope you would continue to 24 champion the cause. 25 We find ourselves in the position where 185 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 locally within the San Joaquin Valley, our Board has a 2 long history of stepping up and providing needed financial 3 incentives to those who wish to move ahead on their own 4 volition with cleaner technologies. City of Bakersfield, 5 for example, has taken full advantage of the CMAQ dollars 6 and is moving to a 100-percent conversion to their get 7 fleet to natural gas. We have other examples of that 8 taking place in the San Joaquin Valley. 9 I think that from our perspective it is 10 absolutely imperative that our local governing board, that 11 is made up of 11 elected officials from eight counties 12 from the L.A. County line to the Sacramento County line, 13 has its ability to operate in the manner that's needed to 14 meet the federal ambient air standards, and I would 15 encourage your Board to give them maximum flexibility. 16 They will move as they must on a stationary 17 source. Most of us are well aware that stationary source 18 controls after 30 years are A, very costly; and B, in 19 terms of tons of reductions expected to achieve fall in 20 comparison to what we could achieve on the mobile side. 21 We are to the point now where I would 22 encourage your Board to allow the San Joaquin Valley and 23 (inaudible) the Air Pollution Control Board to make its 24 own determinations as time goes by looking at 25 circumstances, looking at what's admittedly a technology 186 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 forcing retrofit as it relates to the use of paths, to be 2 able to evaluate that path and the effectiveness of the 3 progress being made there, and to be able to, as was 4 articulated by the South Coast representative, use their 5 judgment. 6 If it is imperative that we get additional 7 NOx reductions, more time than is laid out in your staff 8 report, I think our Board ought to have that opportunity. 9 And I think that is going to be key. 10 We're looking at a 2005 attainment date. 11 We are the first in California, with one exception, to 12 meet that federal standard and we simply cannot afford to 13 not make the federal standard in the San Joaquin Valley. 14 We don't have the option of another (inaudible). We face 15 the consequence of sanctions in the federal Clean Air Act 16 that are formidable and they would be daunting on an 17 economy that already (inaudible) 50 percent chronic 18 unemployment. 19 So with that, I would ask you to provide an 20 opportunity to a modification of the rule cited by South 21 Coast and also (inaudible) the San Joaquin Valley. I 22 think also we need to ask ourselves there is money 23 available for local governments to step up and take the 24 cleanest track possible. They also, I think, need to put 25 themselves in the same position as industry and say we 187 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 want to do not only the right thing as leaders in the 2 community, but we're not going to ask to do the cheapest 3 thing. 4 There is a cost that comes with cleaning up 5 the air. There is now funding available, along with Moyer 6 I might add, that made it a matter of state policy and 7 inability to fund diesel transit buses with Moyer, and I 8 think you set that policy over a year ago. So I would 9 encourage you to take that step and try for the similar 10 language that was offered by South Coast. 11 I'd be happy to answer questions. 12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 13 MR. CROW: I've got to go now. The phone 14 just rang. 15 (Laughter) 16 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. Any questions? 17 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: This is really a 18 question for Mr. Kenny. Mr. Kenny, does the district have 19 the same opportunities as South Coast or do they need some 20 sort of legislative consideration? 21 MR. KENNY: They don't have the same 22 specific legislative authority that exists for the South 23 Coast. However, there are legislative provisions in the 24 California Clean Air Act that we think they possibly could 25 use those to basically pursue their own path. The one 188 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 other thing that I would add is essentially Mr. Crow 2 talked about the need for additional NOx reductions. One 3 of the key things that we had tried to do with the 4 proposal that we presented to the Board today is to 5 provide a proposal with equivalents between the two paths 6 in terms of emission reductions. There is a question with 7 regard to the equivalence on the PM path. However, there 8 is not a question with regard to equivalence on the NOx 9 path, and the NOx reductions are essentially equivalent 10 with regard to what we are proposing to the Board. 11 MR. CROW: Through the Chair, if I might, 12 two responses. 13 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you. 14 MR. CROW: It was said in the earlier staff 15 presentation that there are really no benefits until 2004 16 under the diesel path. As I mentioned, that is in the 17 middle of when we already have to be demonstrating cleaner 18 air by a 2005 deadline. 19 The other thing is the ambiguity as to 20 whether or not we have authority under state law to 21 exercise our own fleet rule. What I'm asking for is a 22 categorical opportunity under the auspices of the CARB 23 regulation to allow our local Board that local 24 determination based on technologies and commitments that 25 are made throughout the valley. 189 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. Yes, 2 Supervisor Patrick. 3 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Yes. I want 4 Mr. Kenny to elaborate on what do you mean when you say if 5 we were to choose our own path? What path would we, would 6 I, as a governing Board Member, and my colleagues in the 7 San Joaquin Valley, what path is it that we would choose? 8 MR. KENNY: What I'm referring to 9 essentially is if you look at the South Coast authority, 10 there is specific authority to adopt a fleet rule. The 11 San Joaquin Valley does not have such specific authority, 12 but the statutory provisions in the Clean Air Act do at 13 least provide the opportunity for the San Joaquin Valley 14 to make an argument that they could adopt a fleet rule. 15 So the San Joaquin Valley, for example, 16 could potentially pursue the same choices that the South 17 Coast could pursue with regard to making a determination 18 by its governing Board as to whether or not they wanted to 19 go with a fleet rule, which potentially was alt-fuel only. 20 Again, it's a little bit different 21 situation than exists with regard to the South Coast 22 because in the South Coast that authority is very clear. 23 It is not as clear in the San Joaquin Valley, and again I 24 can defer to essentially legal counsel and they can talk 25 about some of the ambiguities associated with that. 190 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 MS. KRINSK: I'll read you the specific 2 sections in the California Clean Air Act that could be 3 considered to authorize San Joaquin Valley to adopt a 4 fleet rule. 5 We're talking about the plans that need to 6 be submitted to demonstrate attainment and it says, "Each 7 district with moderate air pollution shall, to the extent 8 necessary to meet the requirements of the plan, include 9 the following measures in its plan," and it goes through 10 measures for moderate areas. Then for serious areas it 11 says, "In addition to measures required in moderate areas, 12 measures to achieve the use of a significant number of low 13 emission motor vehicles by operators of motor vehicle 14 fleets," and since the districts clearly can't require 15 tail pipe emission reductions, it seems that they could 16 regulate transit fleet operators. At least it would be a 17 good argument. 18 MR. CROW: If I might respond to the Chair, 19 and it's not my place to debate, but I think what we look 20 for is clarity and the ability to move expeditiously. You 21 have at your disposal, as you craft this regulation, to 22 make that option categorically clear to the San Joaquin 23 Valley. 24 What was just offered would suggest that 25 we, in the modification of our state plan, would opt to go 191 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 with the fleet rule as just described. That would then 2 later require your approval of that state plan. While we 3 all like interesting debates, I would yield to the CARB to 4 make that kind of decision in this time frame and then 5 allow our Board to focus not to focus on statutory 6 authority, but on the efficacies of control measures that 7 are online as it relates to different fuels and focus on 8 what needs to be done locally to expedite our achieving 9 this in a very tight time frame. 10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes, Ms. D'Adamo. 11 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I just have a couple 12 of questions of staff. I know we started to talk about 13 this earlier, and maybe this would be a good segway into 14 it on the accelerated path for diesel retrofits. Dave 15 brings up that he doesn't expect that the diesel path is 16 going to be real helpful to the Air District until -- what 17 did you say? 2004? 18 MR. CROW: 2004 is the time frame. 19 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: And I'm remembering 20 when you were before us a couple of months ago on review 21 of your plan and at that time you did commit to working in 22 a more aggressive fashion on the stationary side, but at 23 the same time you made a plea to the Board that we work 24 with you wherever possible on achieving additional 25 reductions on the mobile source side, which you pointed 192 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 out is also a very serious problem in the valley because 2 of growth and commute patterns. 3 So could staff elaborate on an accelerated 4 path just really in terms of the deadlines so that he can 5 get where he needs to go a little bit sooner? 6 MR. KENNY: Well, I think if we -- the 7 difference here is that essentially what I think Mr. Crow 8 was talking about, some kind of accelerated NOx reductions 9 schedule, and when we're talking about the accelerated PM 10 path, we are looking at essentially trying to achieve 11 additional PM reductions and those are going to be of some 12 benefit with regard to an ozone strategy, but really what 13 I think Mr. Crow is looking for are additional NOx 14 benefits, and that's why I made the comment about the fact 15 that with regard to the two paths, we are looking at 16 equivalency between the two paths on NOx, which is really 17 the key element as applied to ozone. 18 MR. CROW: The rules that we appeared 19 before -- go ahead. 20 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: So in that instance 21 it wouldn't make a difference whether or not they had the 22 authority or with regards to this carve-out provision? 23 MR. KENNY: It makes a difference to the 24 extent that the governing Board of the San Joaquin Valley 25 can make a choice to, for example, implement a fleet rule 193 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 which achieves both NOx and PM reductions, in our belief, 2 on their own without any action by this Board. They would 3 be correcting the fact that any plan that is adopted by 4 the governing Board would come to this Board for review 5 and approval, but that is the standard process for all 6 plans that are adopted in the state by any governing Board 7 throughout any portion of the state. 8 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: But in terms of the 9 difference between NOx and PM, whether they have the 10 authority implied in statute or whether we adopt a rule, 11 it wouldn't make any difference on the reductions prior to 12 2004 because you're saying that the reductions that he's 13 looking for are in NOx and it wouldn't be any different 14 whether -- 15 MR. KENNY: Correct. If we were to do an 16 accelerated PM reduction program, that would not get him 17 the kind of NOx reductions he's looking for. He would 18 need to basically do a fleet rule which would be focused 19 on NOx to get the reductions he wants. 20 MR. CROW: If I -- just a quick follow-up 21 to that. The rules that we talked about in October before 22 your Board for the most part are VOC rules, and as 23 Mr. Kenny points out, we need large NOx reductions and 24 it's on the mobile side where we would have that 25 opportunity. 194 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 And I have to emphasize that all I am 2 requesting of your Board is the option to our Board. I'm 3 not prejudging in any fashion how they would choose to 4 exercise that option. They may leave it intact as you 5 have it proposed before you, but if circumstances dictate, 6 that they would have a local prerogative of moving ahead 7 in a different fashion. 8 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much, Dave. 9 I have been requested to have a short break now for the 10 court reporter to take a rest, so we'll take a ten-minute 11 break. Reassemble at 3:15. 12 (Brief recess taken) 13 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think we're ready to 14 resume. 15 Manuel Cunha, second time. 16 MR. CUNHA: Thank you very much, 17 Mr. Chairman and Board Members and, of course, the CARB 18 staff. I'm here today on behalf of agriculture and we 19 have a couple questions. We support the direction in 20 which I think CARB is trying to head down a path on both 21 programs, the diesel path as well as the clean fuel path. 22 We have to look at the most economic means. 23 Agriculture is greatly concerned along with 24 other industries. If we are to continue as industries to 25 keep putting controls on stationary sources to get those 195 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 extra NOx and we don't allow and to go after those other 2 sources, before you know it we're going to be removing 3 industries out of the San Joaquin Valley, and that's where 4 I'm focusing now. 5 The agriculture industry and stationary 6 sources and many others have been a major player of doing 7 the regulations, getting the attainments that we need to 8 do, but over the last several years, we've kind of left 9 the buses, the public transportation sort of out there 10 doing their thing with their planning departments or their 11 own cogs. 12 It is a concern when today I hear of a 13 young lady presenting about how many school buses that 14 don't have this. I do know that in our county, Fresno, 15 many of our schools submitted applications for the CMAQ 16 monies and were turned down, and I'm referring to TEA-21 17 monies. I think we need to stiffen the rule a little bit 18 in that if you are classified as an extreme or severe air 19 district, I think those TEA-21 monies that Congress 20 allocated to deal with air quality should be made directly 21 for air quality and not gone for roads or stop signs 22 because what's happening is that the cogs are making their 23 decisions on the basis of what they think they need in 24 each of their little cities, and air quality, a very 25 simple issue, is not being addressed. 196 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 I am greatly concerned when my farmers are 2 voluntarily now putting in engines on their farms, working 3 with the Air Districts, also doing unpaved roads with 4 various types of applications to control PM, particulate 5 matter, and yet I don't see my public fleet of garbage 6 trucks, buses, doing much at all. 7 I commend Kern County, Barbara Patrick. 8 You have done a great job with your transportation 9 department in the fuels area, and I commend your county 10 for that. 11 I'm greatly concerned about Fresno County. 12 The largest city in the San Joaquin Valley has negated to 13 look at clean buses and health, but yet the District has 14 to continually crack down and continue on going after 15 stationary sources. We are ratcheted to the max on many 16 industries that are at their max. If there is any more 17 ratcheting on regulation, they will probably have to 18 abandon their industry and move out of the area. 19 So I would hope that CARB allows -- and I'm 20 going to use the word "clean fuels" -- clean fuels that 21 meet the requirements. I am not going to say to get rid 22 of sulfur because I am not for that. We have to use 23 diesel, diesel -- excuse me, diesel in our various 24 industries. I'm concerned about the rule the word 25 "fleet". If the San Joaquin Valley is going to develop a 197 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 fleet rule, the way that the definition is read in the 2 Health and Safety Code, it goes after heavy-duty trucks. 3 And I have a concern about that because there is a 4 regulation dealing with trucks and that's what CARB's 5 responsibility is, and from that I would hope it doesn't 6 go to off-road farm tractors. 7 We already are in requirements of 8 maintaining a '96 regulation on tractor engines coming 9 into California. So I would want to be very careful that 10 if we're going to grant a fleet rule, that it only deal 11 with the issue today, and that is buses. 12 And I know we're going to get involved 13 deeply as an industry group about the Governor's $50 14 million for buses, and that that money has some strings 15 definitely attached to the funding of schools, that if you 16 want money from the State of California, you're going to 17 have to deal with your school buses as well and not put 18 it into a bike lane or a stop sign or a turnout, and yet 19 we're letting the buses do what they want. And when my 20 farmers have to do more economical things and when my 21 farmer sees a school bus or a bus downtown just spilling 22 out stuff and here he has to do something which only runs 23 that engine for 30 days and this bus runs for ten months, 24 maybe on an all-year school system it's run for 12 months, 25 something's wrong with the system. 198 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 And I'm concerned about the 2004. I hope 2 that our district is able to get to that level, and if 3 they do, that will be great, but I think the school buses 4 and fleet buses are going to have to be a part of this 5 program and mandated. 6 So recommendation is for CARB -- it's over 7 with -- to -- 8 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: No, CARB is not over with. 9 (Laughter) 10 MR. CUNHA: Not CARB -- that some 11 stipulations be put on how we use TEA-21 monies for those 12 Air Districts that are severe or extreme, that there be 13 strings tied to that money and not used for a stop sign 14 when it should be used for public fleets, garbage trucks 15 or buses. I think that's the error in the language, and 16 we're going to work hard in federal Congress to change 17 some of that. And again, we're going to need CARB's 18 support to do that, but I think we've got to take some of 19 the responsibility and not leave it just to our planning 20 commissions to do what they want because it's no longer 21 that type of a program. 22 Thank you very much. Sorry for the over 23 time. 24 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. Questions or 25 comments? Thank you very much. Next speaker is Stephanie 199 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 Williams, then we're going to take a couple out of order, 2 Maggie Perales and Joseph Perales who have to leave early. 3 Hello, Stephanie. 4 MS. WILLIAMS: Good afternoon. I'm here 5 today to address just a single issue. After some of the 6 comments today, I provide for the record on our Rule 1190 7 for the South Coast AQMD which pertain only to trucks and 8 really wouldn't have much to do with the bus rule today, 9 but I would like them as part of the record. 10 What we would like to address today is the 11 single issue related to the bus rule regarding the 12 standard for diesel fuel. We have supported a national 13 diesel fuel standard, and our members would like to see 14 the cleanest fuel possible brought nationally to carriers 15 so that we can create a level playing field for California 16 truckers. We're concerned that by putting a number in 17 this rule, that that would set a precedence that could be 18 different from what the federal government does, and I 19 understand there's a resolution that's been put forward 20 that would say what we looked at at a place in time, but I 21 want to stress the competitive disadvantage that carriers 22 that are based in California are under when there is a 23 fuel island created for just companies who live here and 24 not everyone who operates here. 25 60 percent of the trucks that are 200 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 registered in California are from out of state. They're 2 allowed to come here from other states and they can carry 3 a cheaper fuel, which puts our companies at a disadvantage 4 and slows down fleet turnover. When you're not buying 5 these new clean trucks, you're not getting the emission 6 benefits that might be in the models. We want there to be 7 a balance between the federal government standard, the 8 state government standard, be that higher if it comes out 9 higher, and lower in sulfur if it comes out lower. 10 Thank you. 11 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you, Stephanie. Any 12 questions or comments? Thank you very much. 13 MS. PERALES: Good afternoon, Members of 14 the Board. Thank you for accommodating my time 15 constraints and thank you for allowing me to express my 16 comments. For the most part -- my name is Maggie Perales. 17 I represent SUVA/La Causa. We're a community-based 18 environmental organization, and for the most part we 19 support the proposed transit bus rule with two comments. 20 And the first comment is I think it's very 21 important that you include school buses in this rule, for 22 the very fact that our children are the most sensitive 23 population in the community. The assessments that you do, 24 they don't for one minute take into account that these 25 exposures are exposures to children, children that are in 201 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 developmental stages in their lives. Not only that, but 2 we have to remember the population in our community that 3 is compromised immune systems and elderly people. So I 4 think it's important you take into consideration the 5 school buses as well. 6 And secondly, again I think it's a good 7 proposal to a point. I think you're falling just short of 8 the finish line, ladies and gentlemen, and that is because 9 you have the flexibility and it's and/or. We know, you 10 know, diesel pollution causes cancer. You've seen the 11 alternatives. They're ready to go to work. They're here 12 and they're available. 13 And we talk about cost-effectiveness and we 14 talk about quality of life, but let's talk about that in 15 terms of human beings and the effect that diesel emissions 16 have on communities such as mine, Bell Gardens and City of 17 Commerce, where our elementary school is located right 18 next to the 5 freeway, Santa Ana Freeway. How many buses 19 and diesel engines go by there every day? The exposure 20 that these children are getting is astronomical, and it's 21 enormous and it's not fair. 22 So I'm saying that you're falling short of 23 the finish line because we need to phase out diesel fuel. 24 We need to get rid of it. DTT, we found out that was bad, 25 that was cancer causing and they phased that out. In 202 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 1988, AQMD, they found that in our school there was 2 extremely high levels of chrome six, and two years prior 3 to that ARB classified it as a carcinogenic chemical. 4 They had the facts but they failed to do anything about 5 it. 6 History can't repeat itself. We're here 7 today. You have the facts, ladies and gentlemen. You 8 know diesel causes cancer and you have the opportunity to 9 make a decision that will benefit the people, the 10 communities, not just us, but everybody. And all the time 11 I hear cost-effectiveness. Nobody thinks -- thought to 12 ask us about the cost we're going to pay to send my 13 brother to a school where he ended up dying because of a 14 lack of implementation from AQMD. They had the 15 information but they didn't do anything about it, and now 16 25 people in our community have died from cancer and my 17 brother was one of them. 18 And that is why I am here today and I don't 19 get paid. I'm here because I care and we need to make a 20 change, and it needs to be a change for the better of 21 society as a whole. And I think by phasing out diesel 22 emissions or diesel pollution, diesel fuel is the way to 23 do that. You have your alternatives and you know they 24 work, and from what I have seen it proves to be 25 cost-effective. So I don't see why -- where the 203 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 hesitation lies. 2 I think it's very important that you do 3 this. And you said earlier, Dr. Lloyd, put ourselves in 4 your shoes and you put yourselves in my shoes. Well, my 5 life has dealt with the death of my youngest brother. He 6 died at the age of 14, and I hear companies complaining 7 that it's too strict and what if we go out of business. 8 Well, you know what? You can start over. My brother's 9 life, those 25 people that have died, they can't start 10 over, sir. 11 So when I say put yourself in my shoes, I 12 invite each and every one of you to come to my community 13 and see firsthand what diesel emission is doing to our 14 community. And if I was in your position, I would ask 15 myself what is my job? Is my job to be a mediator between 16 industry and community, or am I here to make sure that the 17 air that the people of California breathe is as safe as 18 possible? And that's the question you should be asking 19 yourselves and not giving flexibility here or there. 20 We know diesel causes cancer. Let's phase 21 it out. We've got the alternatives at the door. Let's 22 utilize it and let's make this a safer place to be and 23 let's also take a stand. This Board should take a stand 24 and set an example that maybe the rest of the nation will 25 follow and this can truly be a good world. 204 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 Thank you for your time. 2 (Applause) 3 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much for 4 your comments. Again, our job is to protect public 5 health, and I'll say a few more comments maybe after your 6 colleague has spoken. 7 MR. PERALES: Yes. My name is Joe 8 Perales. I'm a co-founder of SUVA/La Causa, and that's in 9 Bell Gardens, Commerce area, here in the Los Angeles area 10 and we founded it because the people in and around the 11 city did not know that there was contaminations there. 12 And we're here to hear today's presentation of the Air 13 Board's rule. And we support your rule, sir, with one 14 exception, that we would like to have the diesel fuel line 15 dismissed out of it, namely because of the pollution that 16 it does cause. 17 Now, as it is that I know of, they said 18 last year they found it was a known carcinogen. How long 19 has diesel fuel been pumping out pollutants? Since diesel 20 engines were invented. So we have an accumulative effect 21 of diesel pollution over the years, but it wasn't until 22 last year that they said it was a known carcinogen. 23 Carcinogen; for some reason or another, you guys don't 24 want to say cancerous. You say there's a barracuda in 25 the water, nobody says nothing. You say there's shark in 205 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 the water, everybody turns around. 2 People are dying out there and they're 3 dying because of pollution and I'm glad that you guys are 4 moving towards this and I support this wholly. I ask you 5 to please, if you could, take -- strike that diesel fuel 6 out of your rule. 7 We don't need it because OPEC is going to 8 handle your strengths. OPEC is raising the price of oil 9 now. Natural gas is in North America, South America. The 10 southern states of the United States are full of natural 11 gas. Canada has tons of natural gas. Alaska has tons of 12 natural gas. We cannot be detained by OPEC of what the 13 price of our oil or of our fuel. If you stick with diesel 14 fuel, you've got a price that goes up and down and we're 15 going to pay them what we should have for ourselves. 16 Again, I thank the Board for hearing and us 17 and putting us ahead. I, too, also work for a living. I 18 missed a day of work to get down here and speak my peace 19 for my city, City of Bell Gardens and City of Commerce. 20 And I thank everybody. 21 (Applause) 22 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much for 23 coming, and I really appreciate you taking that. 24 MR. PERALES: Did you have any questions? 25 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I was just going to make 206 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 some comments. I don't know if the Board had any 2 questions. I would like to make a couple of comments. 3 Again I reiterate I appreciate you and your 4 colleague taking the time to come down here, and I realize 5 it's a long journey for some of you. I would like to make 6 a couple of comments. 7 Our responsibility is to protect public 8 health. We take that very seriously. However, recognize 9 we have many, many vehicles on the road and we are trying 10 to strike a balance between some of the economic side and, 11 in fact, protecting public health. And you have a lot of 12 these vehicles on the road with many of years of useful 13 life, so similar to you they have jobs. What we've been 14 concentrating on is to set emission standards which act to 15 protect the public health, and I think you can see today 16 the variety of technologies. 17 You were highlighting diesel there, and I 18 think we're all well aware, so is the industry, and 19 they're responding very strongly. You saw the bus out 20 there with Navistar and you could see that you cannot see 21 the emissions. And you've got that coupled with Arco 22 producing a cleaner diesel fuel. So as a result we'll be 23 able to capture the benefits of that fuel and at the same 24 time protecting your health and everybody else's from 25 those diesel particulates. So I think that's what we're 207 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 trying to concentrate on there, as well as pushing the 2 other technologies to lead all of us to clean air. 3 A study that both the Air Resources Board 4 did in conjunction with the South Coast Air Quality 5 Management District showed that as you drive your cars, or 6 as you drive your school bus, the concentrations inside 7 those vehicles are basically a reflection of the tail pipe 8 that's in front of you. So you might be driving a natural 9 gas school bus or electric vehicle, maybe what you're 10 impacting is what's on the road. So we are trying to in 11 fact reduce emissions from those other vehicles as well 12 but trying to do it in a very systematic way and trying to 13 do it as fast as we can, but unfortunately we can't wave a 14 magic wand and have all the vehicles operating very 15 quickly. 16 But I think we're all committed. The Board 17 is committed. I think I see the industry is committed and 18 I see the progress that you see out there and we have 19 competition amongst all the fuels. 20 MR. PERALES: For that I thank you very 21 much, sir. I don't know if you know Dr. Gerald 22 Finkelstein. He's the oncologist at Adolescent Center in 23 Long Beach Memorial Hospital. He's fighting every day to 24 fight against cancer and find a cure for cancer and all 25 those kids that are in there. We spent almost two and a 208 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 half years there and saw all the death, and I believe 2 every hospital does have that wish, like you did today and 3 with the resolution you're passing, to cut down on cancer 4 causing agents. It's a great thing because he's given all 5 his life fighting against cancer and a cure, and at the 6 same time the pollution is killing all the little ones. 7 Thank you. 8 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much 9 indeed. 10 Our next speaker is Joshua Shaw with the 11 California Transit Association. 12 MR. SHAW: Dr. Lloyd, Members of the Board, 13 thank you for having us here today. I am Joshua Shaw, 14 Executive Director of the California Transit Association. 15 You heard from one of our members earlier today, Dick 16 Cromwell of the Sunline Transit Agency. You'll hear from 17 some more representatives from transit agencies after I'm 18 done. 19 I wanted to mention to you at the top that 20 I'm very proud to represent those folks, as well as the 21 women and the men of the other 80 transit systems that are 22 in the California Transit Association. Every day those 23 people are providing a vital public service. Roberta 24 mentioned it at the top of her presentation where she said 25 public transit is important to society's overall goals, 209 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 and I would like us to keep that in mind. I would like 2 you to keep that in mind as your Board moves throughout 3 the day on this proposal. 4 Specifically, we provide over one billion 5 passenger trips every year. That's about 4 million trips 6 a day on an average weekday. That is a vital public 7 service. I mention that to underscore what I think is the 8 mission statement for most local public transit agencies, 9 which is to provide the most access options and the most 10 mobility options to local citizens as possible in a safe, 11 reliable and cost-effective manner. That's our mission 12 statement at the local level. 13 Having said that, we recognize that it's 14 very important for transit to be held to a high standard, 15 along a lot of other societal goals including clean air, 16 and that's why I'm happy to report today that the 17 California Transit Association is strongly supportive of 18 your goals and objectives that you're looking for in this 19 rulemaking. We urge you to adopt the rulemaking 20 substantially as it is in front of you today. 21 There are some concerns we do have and I 22 would like to point those out. We have four specific 23 concerns, but we are very supportive. Before I get to 24 those specific concerns, I would like to mention that 25 public transit historically has been on the cutting edge 210 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 of developing fuel and emission technologies. Sometimes 2 that edge has cut back at us, and I just wanted to mention 3 that so we can remember that as we move forward. 4 About a decade ago, lots of us, because we 5 were told by regulatory bodies or we heard from certain 6 communities that it was important to do, we put into 7 service hundreds of methanol buses, for instance. Those 8 aren't on the road anymore. Those cost a lot to put in 9 service. They were unreliable. They didn't work. The 10 engine is no longer available. That's just an example. 11 In the early '90s, we were told about the 12 particulate trap technology that was the next best thing, 13 and we needed to go to that and everybody in the state 14 pretty much purchased engines and put those traps on, and 15 they're no longer in service and that cost us a lot of 16 money to put those things in service. 17 So while we want to be on the cutting edge 18 and I think transit agencies will continue to be, 19 sometimes the technology isn't quite as ready as 20 regulators or others have told us it is, and we are on the 21 front line trying to put that in service. 22 Having said that, agencies will continue 23 looking at the best available fuels. You've heard and you 24 know that agencies are moving towards liquid natural gas, 25 compressed natural gas. Lots of agencies are looking at 211 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 the next step, whether it's fuel cells or hybrid electric. 2 We talked about that earlier today. All of our agencies 3 are trying to do the best they can. All of them that have 4 diesel are trying to replace the oldest engines, buying 5 the new, cleaner engines that are available on the market 6 today. 7 I think it's worth noting that most of 8 those systems have done that without regulatory or 9 commanding control structures. They've done that within 10 the existing transit funding system that allows them to 11 clean their fleets while also expanding public transit 12 service, and that's a key tenant for us. Any goals that 13 we can meet, that meet your desires, we hope can be met 14 but also allow us to spend the money that's necessary to 15 meet those goals but also expand our public transit 16 service at the same time. We do believe, as I said, you 17 have a proposal in front of you that comes very close to 18 meeting our definition of a really good one which is fuel 19 neutral and cost-effective. 20 When we first determined to come to you 21 today and say we're supportive of your goals and 22 objectives, it was our understanding the proposal would be 23 applied statewide uniformly and it would provide 24 flexibility for operators at the local level to choose 25 whatever path or fuel or engine technology they wanted, 212 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 but we're a little concerned with some of the discussion 2 today about carving out or going different directions. I 3 think your staff and you had a good discussion about why 4 that might not be the best idea at this point for your 5 Board. 6 There are, as I mentioned, some specific 7 concerns under the proposal. Let me move through those 8 quickly. 9 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: You've got about a 10 minute. 11 MR. SHAW: Very quickly. The 2004 engine 12 standards, it was mentioned earlier that there is some 13 uncertainty about those standards because some of our 14 maintenance and procurement folks tell us they're not 15 quite sure that the technology will be there as your staff 16 is assured that it will be. We've supported in the past 17 some proposals to supplement those engine standards, some 18 fleet averaging. You've got a set of fleet average 19 proposals. You might look at a more progressively 20 stringent fleet averaging proposal. We commend that to 21 you for your consideration. 22 On the PM retrofit program, Roberta 23 mentioned at the beginning that there's an amendment along 24 these lines that provide for certification and warrantees. 25 I wanted to say thank you for that. We support that 213 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 amendment. We think it's necessary to give us the 2 assurances that those technologies do work. Board Member 3 DeSaulnier was asking about the availability and the 4 readiness of those technologies. The certification goes a 5 long way to make sure that happens. 6 We're still concerned about the Tier 2, 7 Tier 3 standards. Those are very aggressive. Those are 8 very stringent. That's going to cost a little bit more, 9 we think, than in your Board proposal. There's nothing in 10 the proposal about capping the cost. 11 So we have some concerns there, but we will 12 make it happen. We will do what we need to do to make 13 that happen, and what will help us make that happen is low 14 sulfur fuel. This is my third point. We appreciate you 15 requiring low sulfur fuel. It's absolutely necessary. 16 The problem we see is the possibility of how available 17 will it be, will it be available to all transit operators. 18 We're able to absorb some of the increased costs that we 19 think will have to be coming online with low sulfur fuel. 20 But if it's simply not available in some regions, 21 obviously we can't meet the expectations you've got. We 22 would formally ask you to continue to monitor the 23 availability of that fuel so it's out there for us. 24 Finally, I'll just conclude by saying 25 rhetorically we wish you were looking at larger, 214 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 heavy-duty engine market segments. We think this proposal 2 does balance the research and development that's necessary 3 on the backs of a very tiny market segment. Having said 4 that, we are your partners. We're going to move forward 5 with you. We hope you move forward quicker on those other 6 market segments because that will drive the technology 7 that we can put into our transit buses. 8 In conclusion, Chairman Lloyd, the way to 9 move forward with us, we think, in partnership is to work 10 with us and go to the legislature and the Governor to see 11 if they can appropriate some additional dollars to help us 12 meet the costs that will come online for some of your 13 proposals. We talked about the Carl Moyer Program, that's 14 a good one that's available for all the things you want us 15 to do under this proposal. If you could help us get some 16 additional funds, that would really solidify the 17 partnership. 18 Thank you very much. 19 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 20 Let's see if there's any questions or comments. Thank you 21 very much. 22 MR. SHAW: Thank you. 23 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Mr. Bahram Fazeli, and 24 after that we have Steve Heminger, Suzanne Patton and 25 Chuck Harvey. 215 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 MR. FAZELI: My name is Bahram Fazeli. I'm 2 from Communities for a Better Environment. For those of 3 you who don't know, CBE is an environmental health and 4 justice organization, and CBE has played a pivotal role in 5 pushing for the environmental justice initiative that has 6 been adopted by South Coast Air Quality Management 7 District. 8 Our members are overwhelmingly members of 9 lower income and color in communities. Our community 10 members are RDF higher exposure risks due to their work 11 environment, and their children are at high risks because 12 they go to school and play in the areas that have been 13 impacted unjustly by the proportionate and cumulative 14 concentration of toxic air contaminants. In addition, our 15 community members live close to transportation corridors 16 and they are impacted by diesel more than any other 17 community in the South Coast basin. 18 We commend the initiative by the Air 19 Resources Board to reduce diesel emission into our air. 20 However, we think that the rule needs to be strengthened 21 and improved. My colleagues from Environmental Coalition 22 will speak later on the details of the improvements that 23 we are suggesting, so I will not repeat them. However, I 24 will emphasize two points. 25 One is that the resolution should give the 216 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 districts the regulatory flexibility that they need to 2 protect the health of their communities, and I do not see 3 why it should not be explicitly mentioned in the 4 resolution. And also I urge the Board to include the 5 school buses in the resolution. 6 We urge you to incorporate all these 7 changes that will be suggested in detail later by the 8 Environmental Coalition into the rule and create a strong 9 rule that we can all be proud of as one of the many steps 10 that the ARB needs to take to move our society into a 11 diesel-free environment. 12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 13 Questions or comments? Thank you very much. 14 Steve Heminger then Suzanne Patton, Chuck 15 Harvey and Bob Murphy. 16 MR. HEMINGER: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman 17 and Members of the Board. I'm Steve Heminger. I'm the 18 Deputy Director of the Metropolitan Transportation 19 Commission, which is the regional transportation planning 20 and funding agency for the San Francisco Bay Area. It's 21 in our role as banker for the 26 or 27 transit agencies in 22 the Bay Area that I find myself here today in front of 23 you. 24 Our issue -- our interest in this issue 25 dates back to your resolution in September of 1998 when 217 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 you urged transit and school bus operators to replace 2 their fleets with alternative fuels, and I think it's safe 3 to say you got our attention with that resolution. In 4 response, we work with our transit operators to analyze 5 environmental, financial and operational impacts of a 6 conversion in the Bay Area. We chose CNG as the fuel we 7 would study. 8 Our analysis reached four conclusions. The 9 first is that in our region, the incremental cost of 10 converting to CNG would be $260 million. Secondly, 11 without funding to cover that additional cost, the 12 conversion strategy could result in higher overall fleet 13 emissions in our region because fewer old diesel buses, 14 which are the heaviest pollutors, could be replaced with 15 CNG than with newer, cleaner diesel buses. Third, the CNG 16 in our region could be counterproductive to the Bay Area's 17 ozone attainment strategy because CNG emits more hydrogens 18 than diesel fuel does. And fourth, and perhaps most 19 importantly, it is our view, and I think the view of our 20 transit agencies, that CNG is not an end-state air quality 21 strategy, but a transitional technology, eventually to 22 fuel cells or some other kind of technology. 23 And I guess our basic plea today and our 24 agreement in satisfaction with the two-path approach is 25 that it allows us not to have to convert twice, not to 218 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 have to convert to CNG and then convert eight or ten years 2 later to another technology. The findings that we reached 3 did lead to discussions with your staff, and we do 4 appreciate the flexibility they have built into the 5 proposal with the diesel and alternative fuel path. 6 While the diesel path for many Bay Area 7 operators -- not all, but many Bay Area operators -- will 8 give them greater compliance flexibility at lower cost, 9 the two-path approach also offers the Air Resources Board 10 some advantages as well. 11 First of all, the diesel path's PM retrofit 12 program should speed the introduction of these devices and 13 also of low sulfur fuel; secondly, the diesel path 14 requires the manufacture of .5 gram NOx diesel engines 15 sooner than the expect the federal standard; and third, 16 the diesel path will require the diesel path operators to 17 lead the way in introducing the zero-emission bus 18 technology, both the demonstration and the eventual 19 implementation, two years before the alternative path. 20 The Bay Area can follow this diesel path 21 at a lower cost, but there will still be added costs over 22 and above what we spent out of our already under-funded 23 transit vehicle replacement program. MTC has invested the 24 federal CMAQ money that you've heard about in maintaining 25 Muni's extensive trolley bus system, also in repowering 219 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 old diesel engines, and we expect to spend more of those 2 funds to comply with this regulation today, but we don't 3 expect and don't hope to have to do it alone. 4 Although the diesel and alternative fuel 5 paths will result in similar emission reductions, only 6 technologies under the alternative fuel path are currently 7 eligible for your Carl Moyer Program and the Bay Area 8 Districts Vehicle Registration Fee Program. We don't 9 think that's fair. We would urge you that the transit 10 operators choosing either compliance path be eligible for 11 funding from the air quality agencies, just as either path 12 is eligible for funding from the transportation agencies 13 and the funds we allocate. 14 In conclusion, I think unlike the Robert 15 Frost poem, and this thing oddly enough got me thinking 16 literarily. Your two paths don't diverge in the wood 17 never to come back together again. 18 (Laughter) 19 MR. HEMINGER: The two paths do parallel 20 each other roughly for several years, but they eventually 21 get back together with the zero-emission bus requirement. 22 And that's where we all want to go. MTC and the Bay Area 23 transit operators support that common air quality 24 destination and we appreciate your flexibility in 25 providing two paths to get there. 220 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 Thank you very much. 2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much, 3 Steve. Any questions or comments? Thank you very much 4 also for keeping the time. 5 MR. HEMINGER: Sure. 6 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Next is Suzanne Patton and 7 Chuck Harvey and Bob Murphy, Frank Martin. 8 MS. PATTON: Hi. Good afternoon, Chairman 9 Lloyd and Members of the Board. My name is Suzanne Patton 10 and I am the Environmental Manager at AC Transit. I have 11 been asked by our Deputy General Manager, Mr. Jim Glyte 12 (phonetic), to present comments on behalf of AC in support 13 of the proposed rule regarding public transit buses. 14 First, the District's General Manager, Rick 15 Fernandez, has asked me to be certain to advise you that 16 AC Transit is enthusiastic and thrilled to have become an 17 associate member of the California Fuel Cell Partnership. 18 We believe that this emerging technology is the future for 19 urban transit, and we are grateful to have this 20 opportunity to work in the partnership of fuel cell 21 technology. 22 With regard to the proposed rule, AC 23 Transit commends CARB staff for their efforts to 24 understand the public transit industry in California and 25 the impact of this rule on the day-to-day operation of 221 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 transit for scores of our citizens. In this regard, we 2 think that it is important for you to realize that the 3 federal funding highlighted as the basis for paying for 4 these improvements is extremely limited and further 5 stretching of this resource directly impacts service on 6 the street. 7 AC Transit is the second largest diesel 8 operator in California. Our system serves more than 9 230,000 people each day throughout 13 cities and counties 10 on more than 140 bus lines. AC Transit also provides 11 home-to-school service for more than 60,000 school 12 children each day, serving special school districts with 13 specialized service. 14 In the early 1990s, the federal government 15 eliminated direct operating assistance for transit 16 agencies and simultaneously required the transit agency 17 provide door-to-door individualized service for people 18 with disabilities with no funding to cover these costs. 19 In the case of AC Transit, that amounted to a negative 20 financial impact of more than 10 percent of our operating 21 budget. The result was to cut a comparable amount of 22 transit service. These cuts had a negative economic 23 impact on the amount of funding necessary to operate this 24 critical inner-city service. 25 In response to concerns like this 222 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 throughout the United States, Congress included provisions 2 in the Transportation Equity Act, TEA-21, which allows 3 agencies like AC Transit the ability to replace the lost 4 operating assistance and to defray some of the paratransit 5 costs by using federal capital funds for these purposes. 6 This past year, with the flexibility in TEA-21, AC Transit 7 was able to restore a substantial amount of the service 8 previously cut and is now dependent upon using federal 9 capital funds for the direct operation of transit service 10 on the street. 11 Therefore, viewing this funding as a 12 resource for compliance with these pending regulations 13 runs the risk of directly eating into critical funding for 14 the operation of transit service, not just the replacement 15 of buses. We remain concerned that CARB understand and 16 respond to the need to review these regulations pending 17 the availability and cost of the technology which is 18 essential to meet the new standards. In doing this, it is 19 critical you take into account the direct relationship of 20 meeting air quality standards and the ability to provide 21 transit service. 22 This concludes AC Transit's comments on the 23 proposed rule, and thank you for your time. 24 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much, and 25 again, we appreciate your joining the partnership and look 223 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 forward to working with you. Any questions or comments? 2 Thank you. 3 Chuck Harvey. 4 MR. HARVEY: Good afternoon. 5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Good afternoon. 6 MR. HARVEY: Can we all stretch and take a 7 deep breath? Are we at the seventh-inning stretch yet? 8 My name is Chuck Harvey and I represent 9 the San Mateo County Transit District. I am the manager 10 of maintenance. I'm here to talk to you today about our 11 system. We operate 275 fixed route paratransit vehicles 12 in the area between San Francisco and Santa Clara County. 13 We carry approximately 70,000 passengers per day. 14 While we are not using alternate fuels 15 today, San Transit has been a proactive partner in the 16 effort to reduce emissions in the Bay Area Air Quality 17 Management District. We have done this through aggressive 18 preventative maintenance, fleet replacements and upgrades, 19 and I would like to give you just two examples of those. 20 The first is that we've had a SMO capacity 21 check program since 1988, nearly one decade before it was 22 mandated by California law. In fact, our current testing 23 program is four times more restrictive, both in the 24 testing cycle and in the failure rate for SMO capacity. 25 The second thing is we have started an aggressive repower 224 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 program with the help of Steve Heminger and using mostly 2 our own funds to repower over 100 '93 model year buses. 3 These buses are all at their half-life, and rather than 4 repower two-cycle engines, we are aggressively repowering, 5 thus reducing NOx by 25 percent and PM by 50 percent over 6 the rest of their remaining life. 7 The San Tran staff and policy board have 8 carefully reviewed the transit bus fleet rule, and we 9 appreciate the hard work that the CARB staff has put into 10 it, listening to us, and the excellent work they've done 11 to craft the rule. We support the principles and 12 objectives of the proposal. We do have some comments 13 about some areas which we feel should be modified. We 14 think the rule is very close, but as they say, the devil 15 is in the details, and we would like to just point out a 16 few of those. 17 First of all, on the ZEB demonstration and 18 the hybrid that came up earlier, we believe that hybrid 19 technology may be a very cost-effective answer for transit 20 in reducing emissions. We would like to see a testing 21 protocol established to determine hybrid emissions on the 22 road, and we would like to see that done as soon as 23 possible. If we intend to test the feasibility and 24 cost-effectiveness of low emission vehicles, we would 25 recommend that staff consider adding a percentage of 225 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 hybrid buses into the ZEB test. By doing so, this would 2 allow a side-by-side comparison of both technologies which 3 would have to meet the report requirements and would allow 4 staff to make a very informed decision in 2006 about 5 hybrid versus zero-emissions vehicles, and we would be 6 even supportive of testing additional vehicles in order to 7 do both. 8 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: So what you're saying is 9 leave the requirement as is and then add on top of that 10 the requirement for the hybrids. 11 MR. HARVEY: We would recommend that the 12 hybrid be included in the test so that we have a protocol 13 for the test, that it's reported, and then we can see what 14 the emissions benefit and cost-effectiveness is and 15 compare that side-by-side as we get closer to the time 16 that the trigger point is reached. 17 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Of course if you've got 18 the ZEBs, I'm not sure that you can compare zero with 19 something. 20 MR. HARVEY: We have to compare the 21 cost-effectiveness of the ZEB as opposed to the hybrid 22 cost emissions reduction and determine what the value of 23 the reduction is. That's my suggestion. So for example, 24 if we get to 2006 and ZEBs still appear to be extremely 25 cost prohibitive, we will have hybrid testing that has 226 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 been tracked properly. 2 On the PM retrofit side, we think that's an 3 outstanding idea. We've been retrofitting engines to 4 higher standards. The only thing that we're concerned 5 about is the staff report has estimated costs for 6 achieving the reductions, but there are no cost caps 7 actually in the rule. If you're going to measure the 8 effectiveness of reductions on a per-ton basis, then you 9 have to put something in the rule that says if somebody 10 comes forward and says it's $50,000 to put this device on, 11 that's too much money. If you put a cost cap, use the 12 staff report, pad the report, pad the number, but put 13 something in there that gives us some assurance that we're 14 not going to have to put anything that's designed on the 15 bus. 16 The USEPA, by the way, has an excellent 17 protocol for that under their Retrofit Rebuild Law. They 18 have a protocol that establishes how to do a cost cap, how 19 to do the certification, how to do the warranty, and I 20 appreciate the comments earlier today about adding 21 warranty and durability issues to the rule. 22 Finally, on the 2004 NOx standard, it's an 23 aggressive reduction. We are concerned on the supply side 24 that it may not be met, and if it isn't met that we might 25 find that we can't buy buses from 2004 to 2007 if their 227 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 new engine is certified by the engine folks. In reality, 2 what the staff is proposing, that in a mere 14 months 3 we're going to move from 2 grams to a half a gram. 4 We support technology forcing legislation. 5 Don't get me wrong. We absolutely do. We think in this 6 case you've been successful in the past, but there's a 7 difference and that is there is no volume in this market 8 as opposed to the technology forcing you've done in the 9 automotive industry. We think that volume drives the 10 technology development in the heavy-duty engine market. 11 By selecting only transit bus fleets, you've reduced the 12 engine market. 13 Now the staff proposal identifies 14 approximately 420 engines. Our analysis of the AFTA fleet 15 directly actually shows in '04, 325 potential buses, and 16 in '05, 200 buses for replacement. And I'll conclude my 17 comments quickly. 18 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. Yes. 19 MR. HARVEY: We would recommend that a 20 technology review be added to allow CARB to look at the 21 '04 standard in '03, and if it's not going to be 22 achievable, to perhaps consider what level can be achieved 23 for perhaps one gram, 1.2 grams, so we continue to buy 24 buses and force down emissions. 25 So in summary, while diesel transit buses 228 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 account for less than one percent of the total mobile 2 emissions in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 3 San Tran supports the goals to reduce emissions and health 4 risks from our equipment. We believe the modifications 5 we've suggested will provide some assurances to the 6 transit operators that the specific elements of the 7 proposed rule will be fairly applied for both the 8 availability and the cost-effectiveness of the new 9 technologies. 10 And I appreciate your time in allowing me 11 to address you today. 12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. Questions or 13 comments? No. Thank you very much. 14 Next is Bob Murphy, then we're going to 15 take Jeanne Cain and Ed Manning. Is Bob here? No? 16 Okay. Then Jeanne Cain and Ed Manning. 17 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Mr. Chairman, while 18 they're coming up I did have a question. The last witness 19 brought up the testing protocol. Could we have staff just 20 respond to that? 21 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes. 22 UNIDENTIFIED STAFF MEMBER: Yes. The 23 commenter was correct. There is no testing protocol right 24 now with hybrids. Hybrids we've recently adopted testing 25 protocol for light-duty hybrids. Heavy-duty hybrids are 229 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 an order of magnitude more difficult. There are working 2 groups just now being established that include the 3 participation of our staff along with that of EPA, 4 companies like Lockheed Martin and other hybrid, 5 heavy-duty hybrid 6 manufacturers, and those of interest. We are actively 7 pursuing that and have a strong interest in developing an 8 accurate test procedure. 9 There are interim protocol to simply 10 certify, but to get a really good handle on what a hybrid 11 will do in use under different types of truck scenarios is 12 difficult and is going to take a cooperative effort by all 13 these people, and I think there is a lot of interest and 14 energy toward doing that. 15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Jeanne Cain, when you 16 least expect it, we call on you. 17 MS. CAIN: I was trying to find a flight 18 and they're full. 19 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Jeanne Cain from the 20 California Chamber of Commerce. 21 MS. CAIN: Good afternoon, Chairman Lloyd 22 and Members of the Board. My name is Jeanne Cain. I'm 23 Vice President of the California Chamber of Commerce -- 24 Vice President, California Chamber of Commerce and also 25 Chair of a Chamber-led coalition known as Californians for 230 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 Sound Fuel Strategy. The California Chamber has over 2 11,000 employers as their members who represent 3 broad-based business. In fact, over 80 percent of our 4 members have less than 100 employees, so we represent 5 small business. 6 As the Chair of the Californians for Sound 7 Fuel Strategy, we represent broad-based business, 8 construction, mining, retailers, trucking, and what we do 9 is advocate on behalf of business. We're interested today 10 in advising you on developing reasonable and 11 cost-effective approaches for regulating diesel exhaust. 12 I'm still out of breath. 13 On behalf of the Chamber Coalition, I would 14 like to provide some brief points. It might be odd that 15 business is here today because I know your rule only 16 applies to operators of transit and urban buses, but we 17 think what you're doing today sets the tone in California 18 on how you are going to regulate diesel statewide. We are 19 overall happy with your approach, with your dual pathway. 20 We believe it's a cost-effective strategy 21 without limiting flexibility or setting policy that rests 22 a particular fuel at the expense of another. It gives 23 operators a choice and allows fuels to compete with each 24 other. They compete in terms of cost and reducing fuel 25 emissions. 231 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 We know achieving clean air is important to 2 this community. If we don't do something at the mobile 3 sources, there is a chance you look back at stationary 4 sources, and we believe we've probably gotten the most you 5 can out of stationary sources. Mobile sources need to be 6 regulated. We support regulation, we just want it to be 7 reasonable. 8 We have had a report that has recently come 9 out, and I have a copy here and I will leave it for you 10 and your staff, but basically it is prepared by the Sierra 11 Research. It suggests that while natural gas engines are 12 capable of achieving lower emissions, there are 13 substantial incremental costs, and their estimates range 14 as high as $70,000, in fact, very similar to your staff 15 estimates. Also the report indicates that using 16 after-treatment for diesel engines is far more effective 17 in terms of cost in reducing NOx and PM, rather than 18 switching to natural gas. And again, this report includes 19 information and data to support those statements. Even if 20 the natural gas engines and the infrastructure is reduced, 21 it is still more cost-effective to get the same reduction 22 as you would with clean burning diesel. 23 Now, I'm not suggesting that alternative 24 fuel is not a viable fuel. It's only intended to 25 underscore that we need a dual pathway, that we should 232 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 allow the fuels to compete on an equal basis. 2 Now, we are concerned with some of the 3 requests coming today with exceptions. We've got the 4 South Coast and the San Joaquin Air District, and I know 5 it's limited to the bus fleet, but I believe it sets a 6 precedent that when you move into setting these emission 7 standards statewide, that the air districts could come 8 back and say, "Would you also now give me an exemption 9 from your rule from other areas." 10 We think you should set a statewide rule. 11 Businesses can't function and have different requirements 12 in different air districts. Businesses don't limit 13 themselves to one air district over another air district. 14 So we need some sense of uniformity. 15 On the setting a different fuel standard in 16 this proposal, we're concerned but we understand it's very 17 limited to a very small fleet. What we want to caution 18 you is to not move into other rules that has a different 19 sulfur level than the national level. You don't want to 20 isolate business in California to be non-competitive with 21 those companies who work in states very close to us. 22 One final note, we believe market-based 23 incentives are critical to conversions to offset the cost 24 of diesel conversion. We support the Carl Moyer Program 25 and we think you ought to add more funds to it. We are 233 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 pleased that you will continue to use these funds as a 2 high priority, and we hope that Governor Davis will 3 provide additional money. We also support the additional 4 money for the school bus conversion and we hope there 5 again you will use the dual-path strategy. 6 And with that, I think I finally caught my 7 breath. If you have any questions, I'm available. 8 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 9 Again, your comment, vis a vis the fuel, I think we are 10 trying to create a market for one of your member companies 11 who obviously is very aggressively and we're very happy to 12 see them marketing a low sulfur diesel and we'll hear 13 testimony along that line. 14 Any questions or comments? Thank you. 15 Mr. Ed Manning representing I think Western 16 States Petroleum Association. 17 MR. MANNING: That's correct, Mr. Chairman. 18 Thank you. First I would like to congratulate the Board 19 on being nominated to take over the Belmont Learning 20 Center situation today. Now that you've got all the air 21 stuff figured out, that will be a task well worth your 22 energies. 23 I think this issue today that we're talking 24 about is an important one, and I commend the Board and 25 staff on behalf of WSPA for working not only with us but 234 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 with everyone in a difficult process, but also trying to 2 define the balance that the Chairman referred to earlier. 3 Certainly everyone is committed, as all the 4 testimony has suggested today, to a program, whether it be 5 on a diesel pathway or other pathways, to continue 6 progress on cleaning up California's air. And certainly 7 you've noted one company's commitment, but our whole 8 industry is committed to working with you and towards that 9 goal. 10 We also think that the dual pathway 11 proposal, which is so critical to this rule, is consistent 12 with the Governor's position. We worked with members of 13 this Board in every agency when Governor Davis was first 14 elected on trying to solve the difficult, equally 15 difficult problem, or maybe more difficult problem in some 16 respects, problem of oxygenated fuels, MTBE, and 17 particularly the oxygenate mandate. 18 And the Governor really spoke clearly about 19 his goals in these types of issues where he supported a 20 federal waiver of the oxygenate mandate, and in making 21 that request and talking about it, the Governor talked 22 about setting standards and letting industry achieve the 23 standards using their ingenuity and cost-effective 24 solutions that they could find, and also that regulators 25 shouldn't be in the business of picking and choosing 235 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 particular winners. And what he meant by that was whether 2 it be ethanol or somebody else, you should be setting the 3 goals and California should be setting goals and letting 4 industry compete and achieve. And one of the transit 5 agency representatives mentioned the methanol example 6 earlier, and I think that is an example where if you try 7 and get into choosing a particular fuel to the exclusion 8 of others, it ends up backfiring. 9 So we commend the Board today by saying 10 we're going to set the goals, clean air goals, to protect 11 the public health and let the different industries and 12 fuels compete. That fundamentally from our standpoint is 13 the most important part of this rule. 14 We would also like to thank the Board for 15 reaffirming their commitment to a national fuel standard. 16 We think that's also critically important, and we know 17 you're working hard with EPA to derive a national fuel 18 standard. 19 As to the -- Jeanne Cain mentioned earlier 20 the cost-effectiveness analysis. Both in the Sierra 21 analysis and in your own staff report, it's clear that you 22 get equivalent benefits roughly at one-sixth the cost. 23 When we start talking about application of this program in 24 other settings, and in particular school buses, you can 25 get far more coverage and far more emission reductions for 236 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 a heck of a lot more school children and make that $50 2 million go an awfully long way by allowing a functioning 3 diesel pathway. This sort of policy that you're setting 4 today has repercussions throughout other areas where we 5 need to make progress. 6 We look forward to joining with the Air 7 Board this year on seeking funding for, whether it be for 8 the Carl Moyer Program or for other programs, to help on 9 diesel retrofits, which are also going to be needed. 10 The other thing WSPA supports is the 11 inclusion in the proposed rule of programs and funding to 12 encourage acceleration of the retrofit or replacement of 13 old diesel engines. We think that makes a great deal of 14 sense as well. 15 The one thing we would certainly disagree 16 with is the Board at this point carving out any particular 17 air district. We think they either have authority or they 18 don't, but more importantly it really undermines the 19 message you're sending today if you turn around and take 20 away markets from an industry who's try to compete. For 21 example, if individual companies who are going to testify 22 later are making the fuel and committing the resources to 23 do it, certainly then immediately taking away the market 24 from them makes no sense. So we would encourage to you 25 set the standards to protect the health but allow all 237 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 industries to compete. 2 And in closing, we share with you the goal 3 of having a diesel bus drive by, as the Chairman referred 4 to, and no one noticing it. 5 Thank you. 6 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. Any questions 7 or comments? Thank you very much. 8 We have Mr. Frank Martin, Mr. Durand Rall 9 and Mr. Bruce Rudel. 10 MR. MARTIN: Chairman Lloyd, Board Members, 11 my name is Frank Martin. I am the Director of Operations 12 for the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority in San 13 Jose, California. As many of you may know, the Santa 14 Clara County Transit Authority is an independent 15 government agency responsible for bus, light rail 16 operation, congestion management, Pacific Highway 17 programs, countywide transportation planning in Santa 18 Clara County. VTA is not only a transit provider but also 19 a multiple transportation planning organization involved 20 with transit roadways, bike ways and pedestrian 21 facilities. The VTA operates about 525 buses over 2,300 22 bus route miles, the light rail system is about 28.5 23 miles, and we operate 50 double (phonetic) light rail 24 vehicles. 25 My comments today, I've had this shortened 238 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 somewhat so I'm going through and speaking through the 2 presentation, but the task that you have before you today 3 in terms of setting a rule that specifically relates to 4 transit buses, next week our Board of Directors will have 5 a very extensive presentation from a number of different 6 entities. We've made requests for CARB to have someone 7 there, also MTC. They've not yet set a position, but 8 based on the very extensive presentation at the board 9 meeting next week, at some point in time during the first 10 or second quarter they will be making a decision. So my 11 comments here this afternoon are my comments as a transit 12 professional working in the transit industry for some 25 13 years. 14 The concern that I have is the single-mode 15 transit bus that you are addressing. There have been 16 several questions asked during the presentation today, 17 what about the other modes, school buses, and other heavy 18 equipment. I don't think we've actually heard any kind of 19 timetable as it relates to the other modes, at what point 20 will regulations be promulgated that will also address 21 those concerns. School buses, yes, there's $50 million, 22 but what about specific standards as it relates to other 23 modes not sitting on transit buses? 24 You've heard from the MTC in terms of the 25 underfunding of bus procurements in the Bay Area, 239 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 although there may be available resources in terms of 2 capturing the federal dollars to fund the bus purchases, 3 but in the Bay Area we do have an underfunding as it 4 relates to bringing in new buses to the area. 5 As an example, I'd just like to read the 6 following. For many transit agencies funding for such 7 additional costs may not be available. Where such funds 8 were available, other beneficial programs and projects 9 such as the opportunity to replace older, higher emission 10 buses with lower emission buses or expand service and 11 reduced traffic congestion may suffer. Those programs 12 could be more effective models for reducing in the overall 13 emissions in the area. For example, the recent diesel 14 procurement at VTA, we were able to purchase an additional 15 19 clean diesel buses, approximately $264,000, that would 16 have otherwise not been possible if CNG buses were 17 purchased. The additional buses allowed VTA to eliminate 18 the older polluting buses. 19 If we were to consider the CNG path, we 20 would have had 43 fewer buses that we would have been able 21 to purchase on the most recent order, taking into account 22 the additional cost in terms of the infrastructure that's 23 necessary to support that type of operation. 24 In summary, it is my opinion that this 25 should be fuel neutral, it should definitely take into 240 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 consideration the cost indication and financial impact 2 that has been discussed earlier, and also set the 3 standard, allow the market to drive the actual results of 4 your proposal you're making. 5 At the VTA we have a very aggressive 6 non-revenue electric vehicle program. We currently have 7 four vehicles on-site. By the end of the first quarter 8 we'll have a total of 21 electric vehicles for our 9 non-revenue fleet, and we're also participating in the Bay 10 Area, along with the area transit properties like San 11 Mateo County, as it relates to the repowering of older 12 vehicles. 13 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you, 14 Mr. Martin. Questions for Mr. Martin? 15 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Yes. 16 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Calhoun. 17 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I guess I would like 18 to ask staff a question. We talked earlier about 19 eliminating -- the school buses being omitted from this 20 particular -- Mr. Martin mentioned the same thing and he 21 was focusing in on a particular timetable as to when that 22 would occur. And if I recall, Mr. Kenny, I think you said 23 that funds were not available. What happens if we adopted 24 the regulation and they don't have the funding for it? 25 MR. KENNY: Well, that is why we didn't 241 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 essentially include school buses in this particular 2 proposal. Our concern here was that there is funding 3 essentially available for transit agencies through a whole 4 host of sources, whether it's essentially TEA-21 monies, 5 local monies, fair subsidies, 2766 funds, the Moyer funds, 6 things like that. 7 The difficulty with the school buses is 8 that school districts do not have those same kinds of 9 funds available to them, and our concern was -- 10 essentially was that if we actually put a requirement upon 11 the school districts, the funding wouldn't be available to 12 actually satisfy that requirement other than taking away 13 from the education itself, and we didn't want to do that. 14 The $50 million that the Governor has 15 proposed would be money that could very easily, 16 essentially address this issue. So the key is going to be 17 essentially getting that funding proposal of the Governor 18 and legislature and then utilizing those funds to really 19 achieve the emission reductions from the school buses. 20 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you. 21 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I suppose the -- in 22 an effort to cause that to happen, you're going to need 23 the support of the school districts. 24 MR. KENNY: We would love the support of 25 the school districts. 242 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Yes. We need 2 it. 3 Mr. Rall and Mr. Rudel, are you here? I 4 think maybe they had to leave. Let me then call Jason 5 Mark, Todd Campbell, Gail Feuer -- pardon me? Oh, sorry. 6 MR. RUDD: That's okay. Good afternoon, 7 Board. 8 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I'll still call 9 those others. 10 MR. RUDD: Good afternoon, Dr. Lloyd, 11 wherever you happen to be right now. My name is Bruce 12 Rudd. I am the Transit General Manager for the City of 13 Fresno. My transit operation is known in the area as 14 Fresno Area Express. We operate both fixed route and 15 demand response service in the Fresno metropolitan area, 16 and compared to the other agencies from the Bay Area, we 17 are kind of a small entity in that we are only 85 fixed 18 route buses at peak, but I am proud of my agency. We 19 provide currently approximately a million passenger trips 20 a month. And for an agency of that size, I'm very proud 21 of the efforts made by my staff and the community's 22 commitment to clean by using mass transportation. 23 I am here to speak in regards to the 24 proposed regulation that was developed by your staff. As 25 you will also see, there's a letter from my City Manager 243 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 on behalf of our Mayor, who is also supportive of the 2 regulation as proposed and created. 3 In regards to my fleet again, understand 85 4 buses represents less than seven-tenths of one percent of 5 all the heavy-duty vehicles that operate or are registered 6 in my county. That doesn't include all the intrastate and 7 interstate heavy-duty trucks or other mobile sources that 8 operate within my county. 9 I would like to point out that the staff's 10 recommendation acknowledges a technology does not stand 11 still. I would look right out the door and see there's a 12 number of options available today that are defined as 13 clean vehicles, but again there are different approaches 14 to that. I would also ask you to look at the fact that 15 you now have U-LEV automobiles that are now certified 16 running on gasoline. Five years ago, no one would have 17 even thought that was even achievable unless you were 18 running alternative fuels. 19 This advancement in technology will be no 20 different in the heavy-duty market, particularly in the 21 use of urban transit buses. Urban buses historically have 22 been the research and development areas for advanced 23 technologies, for existing diesel technologies, and I 24 propose that the advances that have been recognized in 25 other industries using diesel engines, whether it's 244 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 over-the-road truck construction or ag, have been 2 developed or some have been developed in the transit 3 application. 4 Fresno and Fresno Area Express, like other 5 Californians, are concerned about air quality. As 6 Mr. Crow pointed out, our area has bumped up from serious 7 to severe. Our MPO, though, and the voting numbers of the 8 MPO are also concerned and as such voted to allocate $1 9 million last year for the procurement of two hybrid buses, 10 diesel electric buses, using the Lockheed drive system 11 that you heard about earlier today, and again we believe 12 that the commercialization of a hybrid technology is still 13 another strategy that can be used in reducing emissions 14 from local sources. 15 Again, the City of Fresno supports the 16 goals and the principles outlined in staff's proposal. 17 And as I said, you have a letter from my City Manager in 18 response to the proposal. I would also ask in closing 19 that whatever final decision that the Board comes to 20 today, that that decision be applied statewide and be fuel 21 neutral and emission specific. 22 I would also ask and encourage again that 23 the Board focus their efforts in developing a hybrid 24 strategy with testing protocol. The two engines that are 25 being used in my two hybrids are certified in the standard 245 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 truck protocol testing cycle. They do not reflect the 2 emission benefits that we will achieve in a standard-duty 3 cycle, and we would be happy to use or provide our 4 vehicles for any testing that the Air Board would be 5 interested in developing as far as the development of that 6 protocol. 7 Again, thank you for your time and your 8 consideration. 9 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you, and thank 10 you for your offer. We appreciate that. Are there any 11 questions from any of the Board Members? Yes. 12 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Thank you. 13 The San Joaquin Air District 14 representative, Dave Crow, indicated that he would be 15 looking for this carve-out situation similar to what they 16 have at South Coast. What do you see occurring if you 17 don't -- what do you see occurring in the event that the 18 proposal, as is, is adopted in terms of the dual path? 19 MR. RUDD: As staff pointed out, the NOx 20 reductions proposed in either path basically equal each 21 other. We are in non-attainment and NOx is for ozone. As 22 such, the rule that you've crafted or staff has crafted 23 will address that problem. 24 As you all know, the biggest issue facing 25 the San Joaquin Valley and probably South Coast is not so 246 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 much the 85 urban buses that I operate in the city, but 2 it's the increased vehicle miles traveled by the personal 3 automobile. And so we can look at different strategies, 4 but as far as I said, staff's recommendation has shown 5 that the NOx benefit on either path would become -- is 6 equal. 7 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Okay. Thank you. 8 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Mrs. Riordan. 9 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Yes. 10 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Could you tell me 11 how many transit systems there are in the San Joaquin 12 Valley? 13 MR. RUDD: Well, using urban heavy-duty 14 urban buses? 15 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Yes. I presume that 16 maybe you belong to a regional association or something 17 and you could give me that. 18 MR. RUDD: There isn't a regional 19 association. There's a state association, California 20 Transit Association. I believe there's Stockton, Visalia, 21 Bakersfield, Fresno and Modesto. 22 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: So there are five. 23 MR. RUDD: Yes. 24 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: And the Golden 25 Empire Transit District in Bakersfield has committed to 247 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 going to CNG. Could you just tell me briefly, do you have 2 any idea of plans similar to that in the other areas that 3 you're aware of? 4 MR. RUDD: I'm not aware of any other plans 5 by any other agencies to make the commitment at this time 6 to CNG. 7 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Thank you. 8 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you. Any 9 other questions? Thank you very much, Mr. Martin. 10 Let me ask. Bonnie, are you going to be 11 the presenter on this for the whole group? How do you 12 want to work this? 13 MS. HOLMES-GEN: My plan was to present 14 some brief testimony, and I have three colleagues who were 15 going to follow. 16 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: All right. Okay. 17 Then we'll -- I just want Mr. Mancini to be ready and 18 he'll be following the four of you. So if you would 19 begin, please. 20 MS. HOLMES-GEN: Thank you very much. My 21 name is Bonnie Holmes-Gen and I'm representing the 22 American Lung Association of California, and I'm really 23 pleased to be here today to participate in this very 24 important decision and I appreciate the patience of the 25 Board in sitting through a very long hearing. 248 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 I wanted to mention up front that there are 2 several individuals who came and could not stay or who 3 presented letters to the Board, and I want to read some of 4 their names and organizations because they are joining our 5 testimony. Angela Johnson-Massaros with the California 6 League of Conservation Voters' Education Fund; Robert 7 Garcia with the Environmental Defense Fund; Jonathan 8 Hargrave with the Physicians for Social Responsibility, 9 Los Angeles; Sylvia Solise with the National Association 10 of Latino Elected Officials Education Fund; Nancy Chuda, 11 who is the President of the Children's Environmental Whole 12 Health Coalition. I'm sure that you know some of these 13 names and are familiar with these people. 14 I also want to mention that there have been 15 5,000 letters sent to the Board on this rule, 900 phone 16 calls, and 200 E-mails. I believe -- 17 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: How would you know that? 18 (Laughter) 19 MS. HOLMES-GEN: We have our moles. I 20 believe that that represents a pretty passionate outcry 21 from the public on this issue. It's clear that the public 22 is very aware of the problem of diesel toxics and is very 23 concerned about transit buses in their communities. So I 24 want just to make that quick point up front. 25 I am representing the American Lung 249 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 Association of California, together with its medical 2 section, the California Thoracic Society, and as you may 3 know, the Lung Association is the oldest voluntary health 4 organization and works to promote lung health and fight 5 lung disease. We do appreciate the Board's leadership on 6 this issue of diesel exhaust. We strongly supported the 7 Board's decision to list diesel particulates as a toxic 8 air contaminant in '98, and we believe that this proposal 9 today is critically important to build on that 10 groundbreaking decision. 11 Our focus, of course, is human health, 12 especially lung health. Our concern with the diesel 13 particulates is that these very fine particulates and 14 ultra-fine particulates can bypass the protective 15 mechanisms of the respiratory system, as you know, and 16 lodge very deep in the lung where they can create 17 dangerous health impacts ranging from short-term wheezing 18 and shortness of breath to lung irritation and lung 19 cancer. In fact, as you know, particulates have been 20 associated in many studies with premature death. 21 We are especially concerned about the 22 sensitive populations in our communities and throughout 23 the state -- people with asthma, chronic lung disease, 24 emphysema, the elderly and infants, all of whom are more 25 vulnerable to exposure from air pollution, especially 250 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 including diesel exhaust. And I would mention that there 2 are 2.5 million Californians today who do suffer from 3 asthma including a large percentage of children, half a 4 million children, and for them exposure to diesel exhaust 5 can exacerbate their asthma and trigger asthma episodes, 6 so this is a tremendous public health concern. 7 While this rule can seem very complicated 8 in many ways for the millions of individuals who comprise 9 the sensitive populations, the decision before you is 10 really very simple. It's a public health decision, and 11 stopping the diesel buses from polluting our air is 12 essentially important to the everyday lives of millions of 13 Californians. 14 I wanted to note that we do appreciate the 15 work that's been done by the Board to incorporate 16 zero-emission vehicles and alternative fuels into the 17 rule. That is critically important, but we do believe 18 that more must be done to strengthen the rule, to 19 strengthen the alternative fuels pathway, and to reduce 20 emissions. 21 Under this rule, as you are aware, the 22 diesel pathway does result in emissions far beyond the CNG 23 or the alternative fuel pathway. Transit districts that 24 choose to continue purchases of diesel buses under this 25 rule will be adding buses that emit two to five times more 251 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 particle pollution, for example, than natural gas buses. 2 So we are very concerned this would mean that in those 3 communities that choose to purchase additional diesel 4 buses, these communities would continue to suffer 5 excessive health impacts. 6 So we would note that there have been many 7 successful projects, as you have mentioned throughout the 8 day, involving natural gas and other alternative fuel 9 buses, and that providing communities with health benefits 10 from alternative fuels is critically important. 11 There are three specific proposals that 12 we're putting before you today and the others on our panel 13 will go into a little more detail, but I wanted to mention 14 very briefly what those three proposals are, and I know 15 you've had a lot of discussion about all of them. 16 Very quickly, we understand that current 17 statute -- the first proposal is to allow local air 18 districts to purchase exclusively alternative fuel 19 vehicles in their transit fleet, and I just wanted to say 20 briefly that we understand that statutory authority 21 currently exists for the South Coast Air District, and 22 we're just asking the Board to specifically acknowledge 23 this statutory authority and, furthermore, to state that 24 in addition, other serious particulate non-attainment 25 areas should be able to make this choice for alternative 252 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 fuel purchases. We want to make the point this would not 2 remove flexibility at all. In fact, it would clarify that 3 there is a real choice out there because it would ensure 4 that there would be no fears of potential legal challenges 5 or delays to those who do choose the alternative fuel 6 path. We think that's very important. 7 The other two comments are that we would 8 like to see an acceleration of the proposed retrofit 9 program to achieve earlier health benefits, and we would 10 like to see you direct the staff to develop a real-world 11 emission program that establishes a more representative 12 test cycle for urban buses and enhances ARB's in-use 13 compliance program, and I know that you've already taken 14 action on part of that request. 15 Although more needs to be done, these three 16 proposals would go a long way toward closing the gap 17 between the diesel pathway and the alternative fuel 18 pathway. The American Lung Association commends the Air 19 Resources Board for tackling this very difficult problem 20 of toxic emissions from urban transit buses, and we do 21 look forward to working with you on this and other 22 measures to protect lung health and promote cleaner fuels 23 in our communities. 24 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you, Bonnie, and 25 congratulations on your new job. Any questions or 253 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 comments from the Board? 2 Next up is Jason. 3 MR. MARK: Appreciate your flexibility in 4 allowing us to move things around. We're trying to keep 5 things exciting for you. We realize you're probably only 6 halfway through a pretty long day. I'm sure you're hoping 7 much later -- 8 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: The leaf blower film was 9 pretty good. 10 MR. MARK: Okay. Fair Enough. Well, we've 11 got some pictures for you as well. We have a picture of 12 you for starters, which must be exciting. 13 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board, 14 thank you very much for the opportunity. My name is Jason 15 Mark. I'm a Senior Transportation Analyst with the Union 16 of Concerned Scientists, and I join Bonnie Holmes-Gen and 17 a number of colleagues in the environmental community 18 really in support of a strong rule. We're united in what 19 we see as the clear need for cleaner buses in transit. I 20 think Bonnie did an excellent job covering many of those 21 key issues. 22 If we can just take a look at the next 23 slide, I think I have a clicker. He does. There we go. 24 Just to put a finer point on the issue at hand, the 2004 25 new, what I imagine the industry will have to call cleaner 254 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 diesel bus because they're calling today's clean diesel 2 buses. 3 Today's bus, clean diesel buses, will emit 4 43 times more smog forming pollutants and soot than a new 5 car in the year 2004. What that means is that you'll need 6 to have 40 people on that bus in order to actually be 7 gaining in terms of air quality compared to 40 people 8 riding around in single occupancy vehicles if they're new 9 vehicles. Clearly people aren't riding around in 10 completely new vehicles. The point is clear we've done 11 quite a lot in cleaning up light-duty vehicles. The time 12 is now to be addressing a heavy-duty vehicle. 13 School buses are the place to start. 14 Certainly we believe that you need to be getting more 15 people on that bus for starters for the whole set of 16 reasons that transit makes a whole lot of sense, and we're 17 in strong support, but we also think you need to clean 18 them up. If we can go back. 19 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: What if you put CO into 20 that equation? 21 MR. MARK: It's an excellent question. We 22 haven't run the numbers on that front. I would argue that 23 most public health scientists continue to emphasize the 24 ozone and not particulate to be the key public health 25 issue, and I would look at many regions in California 255 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 struggling to meet the ozone ambient air quality standards 2 and we expect in the future, particulates. I would 3 suggest those are key and I think it's fair to 4 characterize those key strategies, ozone and particulates. 5 In our October comments, we urged the staff 6 and Board to consider tighter standards and 7 alternative-fuel-only pathway and zero emission bus 8 requirements, and we strongly support the adjustments that 9 you have made to the proposal in the way of establishing a 10 requirement. We encourage you to identify regulatory 11 incentives for early introduction. We think 2008 is way 12 too late for a zero-emission bus technology. We would 13 like to see some sort of multiple credit system for the 14 early introduction of zero technology. We're very 15 supportive of the alternative fuel only. 16 Where I think we're looking for improvement 17 is in addressing the diesel standards altogether. We've 18 been consistent in our call for diesel clean-up. We think 19 the proposed rule could go further, both technically and 20 also in terms of protecting public health. 21 Just to put a finer point, go two slides 22 ahead on the slide that is now unreadable. The red bars 23 are what is estimated in the staff report for in-use 24 emissions over the central business district. Particulate 25 emissions from a new diesel bus, the first set of bars is 256 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 model year 1998. In model year 2000, again no change in 2 standards. We would expect that gap between diesel and 3 natural gas, which is the yellow bar, to be a factor of 4 ten or more. Your proposed rules in our view don't close 5 that gap. You continue to see that in the future a new 6 diesel bus will still emit nearly five times more in 7 real-world operation than a new natural gas bus. 8 What does that mean for the two different 9 pathways, which are also unreadable? The top line, which 10 is in red, represents in-use -- our estimate of in-use 11 emissions from new buses over the diesel pathway, and then 12 the line on the bottom, the dotted line, is natural gas 13 buses. You can see that there's a large gap between the 14 two pathways, diesel and natural gas. 15 Ultimately, to continue the literary theme 16 that has already emerged, never the 'tween shall meet for 17 these two pathways, the gap is at a factor of two. I 18 might get a pointer. Of course, being color blind, I 19 won't actually be able to find the pointer. Must be part 20 of the ADA requirements, color blindness. 21 Nonetheless, we see a gap of two to five 22 that persists. If your local transit agency -- bottom 23 line, if your local transit agency chooses the diesel path 24 instead of the alternative fuel path, we believe there 25 will be two to five times more particulates. 257 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 And on to our next speaker. 2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you, Jason. 3 MR. CAMPBELL: Good afternoon, Members of 4 the Board, Chairman Lloyd. My name is Todd Campbell. I'm 5 a representative of the Coalition for Clean Air, and as 6 you know, I've worked very hard in the heavy-duty sector 7 and been a representative for quite some time working with 8 transit agencies throughout the state of California. I 9 think we have also worked together over the last ten years 10 trying to get to a conclusion that diesel exhaust or 11 diesel exhaust particulate is a toxic air contaminant, and 12 we have linked that with over 30 human studies proving 13 that cause. 14 As you can see, the Coalition for Clean Air 15 and the environmental groups here today are very 16 supportive of this rule, but there is a wide gap in terms 17 of the PM emissions, and I don't think it was the 18 intention of staff, but I think that this is a problem, 19 especially when we have listed this compound as a toxic 20 air contaminant. Next slide, please. This is it. Sorry. 21 To close this diesel gap we are 22 recommending two -- actually, three policies. The first 23 is accelerating the retrofit program, and I think that 24 Member DeSaulnier pointed out a very good point, that this 25 is a really easy win here. If we can get a motion from 258 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 the Air Resources Board, the Board, accelerating the 2 standards, which I think staff earlier entered that it's 3 very -- this is a very likely scenario, under the current 4 rule for the Tier 2 standards, the requirements for 5 retrofitting model years buses from 1990 to 1995 is 6 streamed from 2003 to 2005. What we're recommending is 7 accelerating the program to 2003 and 2004. Staff has 8 pointed out that this technology is available today. It 9 will not change the cost, it will just accelerate the 10 program. We think by accelerating the retrofits for the 11 Tier 2 retrofit part of the rule, we will gain emissions 12 and reduce the PM. It's an easy way to reduce the gap. 13 We also encourage acceleration of the Tier 14 three requirements. Currently it's proposed that these 15 requirements from Tier 3 for retrofits don't come into 16 effect until 2007 for model years 1996 to 2003. We're 17 encouraging a step up to 2005 to 2007 with the same 18 percentages, but we think that this also will bring the 19 needed gains to reduce or minimize the current diesel PM 20 gap between diesel and the alternative fuel path. And 21 recognize even if the PM was equal, it still wouldn't be 22 equal in terms of toxics. I think one of the key things 23 we need to remember is we're trying to reduce toxic air 24 emissions, not only in California but the South Coast air 25 basin which has found extraordinary numbers in terms of 259 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 the level of toxics in the basin. 2 The next recommendation is developing a 3 real in-use emissions program. As staff has shown you in 4 their slides, the in-use gap is even not equal. Diesel 5 emissions in in-use using the emissions cycle show a 6 tremendous gain, ten times at the outset, and then even by 7 2010 with 2010 buses, we still have a difference of five 8 times the particulate emissions. 9 We're recommending that staff in the next 10 nine to 12 months develop a -- or relook at the FTP cycle 11 to set the certification standards, looking at the CBD 12 test cycle and also the New York bus cycle which the West 13 Virginia University and National Renewable Energy 14 Laboratory establishes a -- probably a better way of 15 looking at actual real-world emissions. And these are 16 also the emissions that the NUM Fact (phonetic) 2000 are 17 based on, so staff is looking at already using these 18 numbers. We should think -- we should look at how can we 19 look at the true emissions on buses by actually looking at 20 buses in the chassis, real in-use emissions. 21 The second thing -- the second 22 recommendation that we're instructing the Board to make a 23 motion for is to develop a better in-use compliance 24 program as we're going forward with these technologies, 25 and I think we're going to want to know how well we're 260 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 doing. And Member Calhoun mentioned his concern, are we 2 making these emissions goals as we go forward. I think 3 under the consent decree reached by the ARB, the EPA, with 4 the engine manufacturers, putting out a tablet or a kind 5 of a blueprint to getting to -- 6 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Paul, the clock has 7 stopped. Thank you. Sorry, Todd. 8 MR. CAMPBELL: That's okay. 9 (Laughter) 10 MR. CAMPBELL: I'm almost done. Let me 11 finish this one point. We think that it's going to be 12 very important for staff to see how these emissions are 13 progressing. And following the consent decree, I think it 14 was very wise to think of on-board diagnostics and we 15 think the Board should also encourage staff to look into 16 that as well. 17 And now I would like to introduce the third 18 point with Gail Feuer from the Natural Resources Defense 19 Council. 20 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thanks, Todd. 21 MR. CAMPBELL: Thank you. 22 MS. FEUER: Good afternoon, Dr. Lloyd and 23 Members of the Board. I am Gail Ruderman Feuer. I'm a 24 senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense 25 Council. As a lawyer among this group of 261 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 environmentalists, I have the lucky task of trying to 2 convince you why it is essential that you put a carve-out 3 and put language into your rule allowing local districts 4 that are serious or worse PM non-attainment areas to 5 require their transit agencies, if they want, to be 6 limited to the alternative fuel pathway. 7 Two agencies have now come before you to 8 ask for that carve-out. First, the South Coast came 9 before you and their Board Member, Norma Glover, gave a 10 pitch on behalf of their Board that it is important for 11 their control of particulate matter and for their toxic 12 emissions to have this carve-out so that they can choose, 13 if they so desire, to require transit agencies only to 14 pick the alternative fuel path. As you may know, they are 15 developing a fleet rule now which would require the 16 alternative fuel path. They feel very strongly that it's 17 important for you to say in your rule that they have the 18 authority to do this. 19 San Joaquin made a compelling argument with 20 respect to their NOx problem and the fact that they need 21 to achieve ozone attainment by the year 2005, that they 22 need this alternative of requiring transit agencies to 23 pick the alternative fuel path so they can have the NOx 24 advantages of alternative fuel buses earlier on. 25 We support both carve-outs. We think the 262 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 solution is to set the cutoff at serious PM non-attainment 2 areas, which would apply therefore both to the South Coast 3 and the San Joaquin and a few other districts in the 4 state. It's important to note we are not asking that you 5 close the diesel pathway all the way. 6 I should tell you at the beginning of this 7 process it was the view of the environmental community and 8 the public health community that there should only be one 9 path and that the alternative fuel path was the way to go. 10 In our view, alternative fuel buses, natural gas in 11 particular, are proven, they work, they're available, 12 there's funding for them and they're cleaner. We were 13 convinced by staff, though, that there are some advantages 14 to the dual fuel path. 15 Principally among them would be some 16 potential flexibility for certain transit agencies and 17 proving a market for the lower emitting diesel engines, 18 which you would be requiring, but that was premised on 19 there being equivalent emission reductions on the two 20 paths. And we said we can buy in to your two paths and we 21 can support this rule, but only if you have equivalent 22 emission reductions on the two paths, and your staff is 23 very clearly telling you that is not happening. 24 In the real world, we have buses in the 25 central business district driving cycle, as I believe 263 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 Mr. Kenny described earlier, putting their foot down on 2 the pedal and accelerating and decelerating, the PM 3 emissions are different. It is your obligation, we 4 believe, to the community residents, 5,000 of which have 5 written you letters, to provide them with equivalent 6 emission reductions, and you can do it. 7 So let me move to the legal arguments. The 8 principal legal argument we've heard is the South Coast 9 can do it anyways and probably San Joaquin can do it, so 10 why should you put the authority in the rule? And we 11 think that answers itself. 12 If your legal staff really thinks that the 13 South Coast Air District and San Joaquin have the legal 14 authority in the Health and Safety Code, we think that 15 supports you making that crystal clear in the rule. What 16 will happen otherwise is you'll have years and years of 17 litigation over this question. In fact, at the Rule 1190 18 workshop, the last one that was held on the fleet rule at 19 the South Coast District, I recall transit agency one 20 after another coming up and saying to the South Coast even 21 with the Health and Safety Code, we don't think you have 22 the legal authority. In fact, Stephanie Williams, who 23 testified today on behalf of the California Trucking 24 Association, said to the South Coast AQMD at that hearing, 25 we don't think you have the authority, and if you develop 264 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 this fleet rule, we will sue you. 2 And that's what's going to happen. You're 3 not going to have implementation of the your rule, you're 4 not going to have implementation of a fleet rule, you're 5 going to have years and years of litigation over do they 6 have the authority or not. And San Joaquin has a more 7 tenuous case. Mr. Kenny said well, probably they have the 8 authority to do it because they don't have that specific 9 carve-out in the Health and Safety Code that the South 10 Coast region has. And he said well, they probably have a 11 good argument, but that's not enough. 12 If you think they do, then consistent with 13 legislative history you should put it in your rule and 14 make that very clear. And we're not asking you to make 15 the decision for any local districts. We don't want you 16 to you mandate that they choose the alternative fuel path. 17 All we want you to do is make clear that they have the 18 ability to decide by resolution that they can choose the 19 alternative fuel path. It's not enough that your lawyers 20 sit here and publicly say you think they have authority. 21 That won't help in a lawsuit. 22 Very briefly if I can wrap up, the second 23 argument that's been made is that you need to prove diesel 24 technology so please don't close off the diesel pathway. 25 We're not pushing to close the pathway. It will still be 265 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 open. Districts like AC Transit and other transit 2 agencies in the Bay Area and around the state are still 3 going to choose the diesel pathway and they will create 4 that market. Even the alternative fuel pathway provides 5 15 percent diesel vehicles, and EPA is already on the path 6 of adopting a rule which will apply to heavy-duty vehicles 7 which will provide the market for the heavy-duty engines 8 with the new technology on them. So we don't think that 9 should be a concern. 10 If anything, we want to make sure there's a 11 market for alternative fuel vehicles to make sure those 12 are still provided at a reasonable cost to transit 13 agencies. 14 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much, Gail. 15 Any questions or comments of the Board? 16 Yes, Dr. Friedman. 17 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: I would like to ask 18 staff to comment on the issue of accelerating the schedule 19 for retrofits. 20 MR. CACKETTE: As I indicated earlier to 21 Mr. DeSaulnier's questions, we think it's feasible to do 22 that. The proposal we have in there for the schedule for 23 retrofits is, I guess, a modest one. It was designed to 24 have a slow start and be stretched out a little bit in 25 order to reduce the economic impact and risks on the 266 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 transit agencies, but in kind of retrospect and looking at 2 it, I think the proposal they have made looks pretty 3 reasonable. 4 MS. FEUER: Just to be clear, I assume 5 we're talking about the same thing. We have submitted on 6 behalf of the environmental community a specific proposal 7 on how to accelerate the retrofit, which you should all 8 have in front of you. 9 MR. CACKETTE: That's the one I was 10 speaking of this morning because they shared a copy with 11 us and we took a look at that, so -- 12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I'm a little bit 13 surprised, Gail, that you mentioned that being sued by 14 Stephanie was really an unusual event. 15 (Laughter) 16 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes, Supervisor 17 DeSaulnier. 18 BOARD MEMBER DE SAULNIER: I don't know if 19 I want to jump into this. 20 (Laughter) 21 BOARD MEMBER DE SAULNIER: Tom, in my 22 packet -- and maybe this was changed -- but on Tier 3 I've 23 got you recommending in your modest proposal 75 percent in 24 2008, but what I heard Todd suggest was 50 percent. 25 MR. CACKETTE: I'll look at my -- 267 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 BOARD MEMBER DE SAULNIER: Maybe you can 2 come back to that. This is on Tier 3. 3 MR. CACKETTE: In Tier 3 -- 4 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: We can read it here. 5 MR. CACKETTE: In Tier 3, what I have down 6 was in '05 -- by '05, 20 percent; by '06, 75 percent. 7 BOARD MEMBER DE SAULNIER: That's yours. 8 And Todd, yours was 50 percent. So I assume you'd be okay 9 with Tom's modest 75 percent as opposed to your 50 10 percent. 11 MR. CAMPBELL: No -- what he's got, that's 12 for Tier 3. I think we have exactly the same thing. 13 MR. CACKETTE: Yes. The 50 percent was for 14 the Tier 2. 15 BOARD MEMBER DE SAULNIER: Never mind. 16 MR. CAMPBELL: Show you what the impact of 17 it is with a push of a button, I hope. 18 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. 19 BOARD MEMBER DE SAULNIER: So the gist of 20 it is the percentages change to 50 percent in Tier 2, is 21 what you're suggesting, as opposed 20 percent. And Tier 22 3, you're just moving the years up to '05, '06 and '07. 23 MR. CACKETTE: Right. From '07, '08 and 24 '09. 25 BOARD MEMBER DE SAULNIER: Thank you. 268 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Oh, here we are. Well, 2 we've got a good picture here. 3 MR. CACKETTE: We thought you were going to 4 be impressed with the snappy looking chart, but maybe 5 that's not going to happen here. 6 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think -- are we okay? 7 MR. CACKETTE: We can parade the laptop in 8 front of you, if you want, and you can look on the screen. 9 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Comments or questions. 10 Supervisor Roberts. 11 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Yeah. While they're 12 taking that second, I could probably sneak in a question. 13 Do we have any idea how many school buses there are in 14 California? 15 AUDIENCE MEMBER: 24,000. 16 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: How many? 17 AUDIENCE MEMBER: 24,000. 18 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: 24,000. I just want 19 to note that if you took $50 million at $3,000 a bus, I 20 think you could do about 16,000 or 17,000 buses. 21 MR. CACKETTE: We've actually looked at 22 that. 23 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: You could almost do 24 all of them. 25 MR. CACKETTE: If you take $50 million, you 269 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 can buy something like -- these are rough numbers. I 2 can't remember the exact ones. You could buy 400 new 3 school buses and pay for the school bus. You could do 4 about a thousand where you pay for the incremental cost of 5 CNG, or you can do about half of the buses in the state 6 with particulate traps. Those are kind of the choices. 7 Obviously the last one doesn't get you any NOx reduction, 8 it gets you all particulate, and the former ones get you 9 both, but it does illustrate, I think, the point you're 10 trying to make. 11 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think we'll pass on this 12 point. 13 BOARD MEMBER DE SAULNIER: I'm sorry I 14 brought it up. I'm prepared to make a motion. 15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Bruce Mancini -- I'm 16 sorry, Bart Mancini, Bruce Rothwell and Bruce Bertelsen. 17 MR. MANCINI: Hello, ladies and gentlemen. 18 I'm here representing Nova Bus, Incorporated. We 19 manufacture heavy-duty transit buses for urban transit 20 buses, and we have built natural gas, both liquified and 21 compressed, and methanol buses. We have also pioneered 22 fuel cell transit buses, as well as hybrid electric 23 transit buses. 24 I want to talk to you a little bit about 25 sound regulatory practice, and I needed to add a little 270 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 bit of a word there today. Some regulatory practice 2 establishes balanced and responsible and consistent 3 performance requirements based on science and data, and 4 then the regulatory body will refrain from specifying the 5 technology or how you're going to achieve that regulation 6 and leave that up to the industry to determine that. 7 Unfortunately, the CARB regulation really does not do 8 justice to that second point. One of the things we want 9 to talk to you about is diesel hybrid electric. Hybrid 10 electric technology is an enabling technology -- 11 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Paul, where's the clock 12 again? Paul. Clock. 13 (Laughter) 14 MR. MANCINI: -- for fuel cell buses of the 15 future. Hybrid electric and electric drive are an 16 essential technology for fuel cell buses to actually work 17 and be commercialized for the future. At this point in 18 time, diesel electric hybrid is the only commercially 19 viable methodology for achieving that. So if this type of 20 technology is eliminated, you will only be harming in the 21 long run the viability of fuel cell transit buses in the 22 out years. 23 We have test data from Southwest Research 24 and Environment Canada which basically show that our 25 diesel hybrid bus on the CBD 14 cycle real-world testing 271 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 beats CNG and NOx by about 40 percent and particulate by 2 about the same amount. That's data. It's not 3 hocus-pocus, that's reality. 4 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Based on particulate as 5 well? 6 MR. MANCINI: Yes. 7 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think staff would be 8 very interested in seeing those data. 9 MR. MANCINI: Using low sulfur fuel. 10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I don't care what fuel, 11 I'm just interested in seeing that. 12 MR. MANCINI: And as alluded to in earlier 13 conversation, they are in commercial production for New 14 York City Transit and our company is building five 15 prototypes for New York City Transit or a pilot fleet for 16 New York City Transit. And again, being consistent with 17 United States Law, 49 USC basically identifies hybrid 18 electrics as a clean fuel technology. 19 With regard to the fuel cell buses, at this 20 point in time fuel cell buses are truly an emerging 21 technology in their infancy as a vehicle technology goes, 22 and it is inappropriate at this point to select a 23 technology to go forward with and where reform-based fuel 24 cell buses have extremely low emissions, barely above 25 measurable values given the current state of technology 272 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 and they should be included as part of the ZEV -- or ZEB 2 requirement. And reform-based systems can be better 3 supported by existing infrastructure. 4 Recommended changes that we have to the 5 regulation as it stands, please make this fuel and 6 technology neutral. Set the standard, and let whatever 7 fall out of it fall out of it, definitions consistent with 8 federal law, and change the name of the two paths. We're 9 okay with emission requirements in either path. Change 10 the name of the paths, standard path and a low emissions 11 path, and whatever technology meets that low emissions 12 requirements, compete with that and have those be 13 technologies or vehicles purchased on the low emissions 14 path be eligible for state or whatever type of additional 15 assistance may be available. It's really quite simple. 16 Cost ceilings also, a previous speaker 17 alluded to that. EPA, in the retrofit rebuild 18 requirement, set a very good precedent and it worked very 19 well. You basically set a cap on what that technology is 20 worth to you and let the industry compete for that 21 technology. Not only does that put a cap on what the 22 exposure of the transit authority is, especially in a ZEB 23 requirement, these ZEBs are estimated by staff to be an 24 incremental cost of 275K. They could very easily be a 25 million, and at three buses at a million bucks a pop, 273 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 you're -- that's 12 diesel buses that could be replaced, 2 older diesel buses that could be replaced for those ZEBs. 3 So cap that cost and set the target for 4 industry and again, as also previously stated, establish 5 hybrid vehicle test procedures so this emerging and future 6 technology can compete. The big three auto makers are 7 looking at hybrid technology for their PNGV cars, the 8 Department of Defense is looking at hybrid technology for 9 the propulsion systems for their vehicles, and three of 10 the six major transit buses, transit bus manufacturers, 11 already have hybrid electric vehicles on the road. This 12 is not just some kind of tinker toy technology. This is 13 going to be the future of transportation, and this 14 regulation really would be -- adversely affects the 15 ability of that technology to move forward, and it is 16 plain and simply a cleaner technology than what natural 17 gas is right now. 18 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Okay. Thank you. I had a 19 couple of questions. One, when you talk about comparing 20 the diesel particulate and natural gas particulate and say 21 that the diesel is cleaner than the natural gas. Did you 22 have after-treatment on diesel? 23 MR. MANCINI: Yes. 24 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Did you have 25 after-treatment on natural gas? 274 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 MR. MANCINI: Whatever the transit buses 2 had been sold with, they were compared to whatever late 3 model transit buses are sold with. I believe they do 4 carry oxidation catalysts on them, but they have -- our 5 hybrid does have a particulate trap, but the natural gas 6 did not have a particulate trap. 7 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Well, I think again the 8 point there about using the best science, when you quote 9 those numbers at least be consistent and not apples and 10 oranges. The other party is saying we should be fuel 11 neutral and set the standards on the ZEB, and we are in 12 fact setting the standards at zero, and yet you say well, 13 you want to include reformers. At the moment reformers 14 are not quite there. It may be, but you can't have it 15 both ways. 16 MR. MANCINI: Well yes, sir, but under that 17 ZEB, that zero standard, you also allow combustion heaters 18 in the bus which does produce an emission and it's an 19 emission that's going to go into the air, same as -- same 20 as what the reformer would produce. 21 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I'm not sure that's the 22 case, but clearly we can look at that. I don't know that 23 was the intention there, but we'll clearly look at that. 24 Again we were trying to define that as truly zero, and 25 your analogy with PNGV, again, don't underestimate the 275 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 staff of the Air Resources Board in dealing with 2 light-duty vehicle standards at the California level or 3 the national level. I think they're fully up on this and 4 they would be happy to engage in that debate. 5 Mr. Calhoun. 6 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Yes. Mr. Chairman, 7 I guess I would like to go back to this. I brought up 8 this issue earlier, and that is not eliminating any 9 technology. And I thought I got the impression from the 10 staff comments that this particular regulation would not 11 eliminate the technology. Does it or doesn't it? And if 12 not, then maybe we ought to change it. 13 MR. KENNY: It doesn't eliminate the 14 technology. I think what the witness is really commenting 15 on is that it probably doesn't incentivize the technology 16 as much as he would like. 17 MR. MANCINI: Yes. That is -- that is 18 pretty much the point. The emission requirements on the 19 alternative fuel path, basically what the staff is saying 20 is that can only be met with natural gas. We have another 21 just as viable, maybe better solution, maybe much more 22 cost-effective solution, but under the alternative path as 23 it is laid out, these hybrid electric vehicles cannot 24 compete for the -- for that 85 percent of alternative 25 fuel, even though the emissions are as good or better. 276 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: All right. Again, I think 2 we're supportive of working with staff on that, and I 3 think staff will be happy to respond. I think that is an 4 important part we heard before. I guess we need some time 5 to look at that, and any material you can provide to staff 6 would be very helpful. 7 MR. MANCINI: I would be more than happy to 8 do that. Thank you. 9 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 10 Our next speaker is Bruce Rothwell who can 11 comment about the cost of these zero emission buses. 12 You're well set up, Bruce. 13 MR. ROTHWELL: I hope I can, anyway. Good 14 afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board. I'd 15 like to provide some information. We've heard a few 16 numbers regarding few cells as they apply to zero emission 17 buses, both in timing and cost. I would like to bring you 18 up to date on some of the information I have regarding 19 what the state of the art is today with respect to zero 20 emission buses in the 40-foot transit bus. 21 DBB is a manufacturer of many fuel cell 22 engines. In fact, we manufacture car engines, we 23 manufacture an engine for a hybrid bus for Nova Bus, and 24 we also manufacture full-powered, 275 horsepower systems 25 for 40-foot transit buses. 277 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 Our technology has advanced. We started in 2 1991 with our first phase of a 30-foot transit bus, and 3 we're currently on our fourth phase and that is the engine 4 that you saw this morning out in the green and yellow "Z" 5 bus. This engine is also going to be demonstrated in the 6 next year in a number of buses through the California Fuel 7 Cell Partnership. The Partnership also is addressing, as 8 I understand, to the fueling partners fuel infrastructure 9 issues related to hydrogen and that type of thing. So I 10 think that that responds to some of the concerns there, 11 that it is being looked at through the California Fuel 12 Cell Partnership. 13 Production of our first commercial engines 14 will be in late 2002 or very early 2003, so these 15 regulations or the timing of those engines is good for how 16 the regulations are written. In fact, I believe they 17 called for some buses to be in service by the middle of 18 2003. 19 One of the advantages of our design is it 20 provides a very simple adaptation to existing bus chasses. 21 It uses a standard T-type drive with an automatic 22 transmission and we hook up an electric motor and 23 everything else is fuel cells to provide the electricity 24 to drive those electric motors, so it's a very simple 25 adaptation. In other words, the development time for the 278 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 bus manufacturer will be minimum. 2 Regarding the price differential, we are at 3 the advantage of having -- first of all, we're at a 4 disadvantage of having a very high percentage of our cost 5 being fuel cells initially. In fact, they're very high 6 right now and I'm quite happy to say that. However, as we 7 go out in time and out around 2005, 2006, 2007, we have 8 the advantage of taking advantage of pricing that will be 9 available to us through high volume production for fuel 10 cells for automobiles. And by the way, the California 11 Fuel Cell Partnership is also demonstrating it on cars in 12 the next two years as well. 13 This -- we know what our costs are going to 14 be. We understand that there's some concern about -- I've 15 heard ranges from $75,000 to a $1 million and we know that 16 we have commitments from our suppliers as to what our 17 component cost will be, and we know that our cost will be 18 fairly accurate when we see those projections that we see 19 in the report this morning. 20 I think that pretty well addresses some of 21 the issues that were raised. I think the main thing is 22 that DBB does generally support initiatives that are 23 brought about by industry and government to bring forward 24 fuel cells into the arena of transit buses and other 25 heavy-duty applications because we see it as a real 279 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 solution and the best solution to zero emissions. 2 Thank you. 3 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Again, thank you very 4 much. I guess one of the benefits of the Fuel Cell 5 Partnership is to get these vehicles on the road in a 6 pre-commercialized way and obviously we'll be able to 7 track the cost of those as volume moves up. 8 MR. ROTHWELL: Yes. The timing is right. 9 Next year there will be four additional buses operating -- 10 two at AC Transit and two at Sunlink Transit, and during 11 that program we'll be testing also our next phase in the 12 laboratory and then rolling that out about a year and a 13 half later. 14 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: And then I know we'll have 15 some more tests on some electric buses later on, too. 16 MR. ROTHWELL: Yes. 17 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Questions from the Board? 18 Mr. McKinnon. 19 BOARD MEMBER MC KINNON: Do you have any 20 plans to put facilities in California or do any production 21 in California? 22 MR. ROTHWELL: DBB currently has an office 23 in Poway, outside of San Diego. The question regarding 24 heavy-duty fuel cell assembly plant, we are currently 25 looking at evaluating options around that. We need to 280 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 have some critical mass to be able to identify potential 2 sites for that. 3 BOARD MEMBER MC KINNON: That's great. 4 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: And I think that I and 5 Supervisor Roberts and some others have been down to the 6 facility in Poway, and I'm sure, Matt, if you're down 7 there they would be more than welcome to show you around. 8 Thank you very much, Bruce. 9 MR. ROTHWELL: Thank you. 10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Bruce Bertelsen with MECA 11 then Dave Smith and Howard Levin. 12 MR. BERTELSEN: She wants a ten-minute 13 break. 14 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Oh, you want a break? 15 Sorry. 16 MR. BERTELSEN: I guess that concludes my 17 comments. 18 (Laughter) 19 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Let's just take a 20 five-minute break because time is getting on. Just five 21 minutes. 22 (Brief recess taken) 23 MR. BERTELSEN: Appreciate the second 24 chance. 25 (Laughter) 281 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: You heard a lot of 2 comments ahead of you, so you'll have a chance to answer 3 some of them. 4 MR. BERTELSEN: Right. Chairman Lloyd and 5 Members of the Board, good afternoon. For the record, my 6 name is Bruce Bertelsen and I'm the Executive Director of 7 the Manufacturers and Emission Controls Association. MECA 8 is pleased to testify today in support of ARB's proposal. 9 We think the proposal is balanced, fair, provides a 10 flexible approach and will result in significant emission 11 reductions. It certainly does present engineering 12 challenges, but we are extremely optimistic that those 13 challenges can and will be met. 14 A little bit of background on MECA. MECA 15 is a non-profit association of the world's leading 16 manufacturers of motor vehicle emission control 17 technology. Our companies have decades of experience and 18 a proven track record in the development and application 19 of exhaust control technologies for a whole variety of 20 different types of vehicles, on- and off-road, and really 21 for every fuel that is utilized, be it gasoline, diesel, 22 alternative fuels. In fact, some of our members are 23 developing product for use in fuel cell technology. Most 24 of our written testament and my comments today will be 25 focused on the diesel engine, but I did want to stress 282 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 that we are involved in helping make alternative fuel 2 vehicles, clean vehicles, and even ideas about how to make 3 them cleaner. 4 Just a few general comments, I think ARB 5 has shown tremendous leadership in developing this very, 6 very innovative program, and I can assure you that it is 7 going to stimulate a lot of development effort and healthy 8 competition in the marketplace. The retrofit program will 9 provide immediate benefits and it can serve as a model for 10 other programs. 11 Requiring a reduction in sulfur levels and 12 providing a very low sulfur fuel is an absolutely critical 13 step. It will enable a systems approach to be taken to 14 achieve extremely low emission levels. We hope that 15 eventually the Board and actually the rest of the country 16 will move in the direction of a near-zero diesel sulfur 17 fuel, but having a fuel with an average of less than 10 18 PPM is an extremely important step. 19 With regard to the technological 20 feasibility of these standards, we would concur with the 21 comments that the staff made, both in its report and 22 comments that Tom and Bob made with regard to the state of 23 the various technologies. With regard to the .01 PM, 24 standard, we heartily agree that particulate filters are 25 capable of enabling diesel engines to achieve those low 283 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 levels and is truly a commercially available product. 2 Today they're looking at both off-road and on-road 3 applications, probably 20,000 filters that have been 4 installed on diesel engines. In addition to reducing PM 5 levels up to 90 percent or more, these technologies are 6 very effective in cutting toxic hydrocarbons, reducing 7 smoke, odor and particulate. When we look at the 8 ultra-fine particulates, filters have shown a capability 9 of reducing those by more than 99 percent. 10 It's a technology, as I said, that's now 11 commercially available. Its durability and effectiveness 12 are being demonstrated. I can give you a couple of 13 examples based on experience with some vehicles operating 14 in Europe. Some of these vehicles have achieved or have 15 been in use with filters for over 300,000 miles, and they 16 are achieving -- after 300,000 miles the filters are still 17 achieving somewhere between 80 and 90 percent or greater 18 emission control. So I think we are well on our way with 19 regard to filters. 20 I would also point out that the filter 21 technology of today bears virtually no resemblance to the 22 filter technology of ten years ago. It's a much, much 23 simpler technology and it's far less costly. 24 With regard to the NOx standards, clearly 25 they provide the most significant technological 284 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 challenges, but again we're optimistic that they can be 2 met. There are several different options out there. NOx 3 absorber technology is a technology that is still in 4 development, but we're making remarkable progress and we 5 think that technology will be there. SCR technology, 6 which, as someone mentioned earlier today, has been around 7 in stationary source applications for a number of years, 8 is now emerging as an extremely effective NOx control 9 strategy for mobile sources and we're seeing SCR systems 10 going on marine vessels, locomotives, trucks. In fact, 11 there was a program in Germany with about 12 line haul 12 trucks that accumulated a fleet mileage of 2.5 million 13 miles. Some of those vehicles ran over 250,000 miles, and 14 the SCR systems met all of their design targets. 15 With regard to the retrofit program, in our 16 written comments we noted that we felt from a 17 technological point of view that schedule could be 18 accelerated. You have before you today a proposal to 19 accelerate that schedule which the staff has indicated is 20 technologically feasible. I would like to underscore that 21 we also believe that schedule would be technologically 22 feasible and would support that change in the proposal. 23 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Bruce, you know your time 24 is up there. 25 MR. BERTELSEN: Good. I'm done, too. I 285 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 want to congratulate you for a truly outstanding and 2 forward-thinking proposal. 3 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Also I would like to again 4 compliment you and your member organization when you came 5 out last year which really helped to educate us, and me in 6 particular, on the status of clean-up on diesel technology 7 which was very helpful and we look forward to your visit 8 again this year. 9 MR. BERTELSEN: We come back and the story 10 just gets better and better all the time. Thank you. 11 Just appreciate the opportunity. 12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you, Bruce. 13 MR. BERTELSEN: Thank you. 14 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Before our next testifier, 15 Dave Smith, I just want to let people know where we are. 16 We're going to conclude this item today. We're then going 17 to take public two other items, discussion of the South 18 Coast SIP and also research proposals, and the next two 19 items we will take starting at 8:30 tomorrow morning. So 20 that will give you a feeling of where we're 21 heading. We'll definitely cover those three items today 22 and the other two items will be done tomorrow morning. 23 So those of you who don't need to hang 24 around can leave. Those of you who have to participate 25 with us, we'll continue ahead. 286 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 So with that, Dave Smith from Arco and 2 Howard Levin and Greg Vlasek. 3 MR. SMITH: Paul, are we ready? Okay. 4 (Laughter) 5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: You've already lost five 6 seconds. 7 MR. SMITH: I'd like to just introduce 8 myself. I'm Dave Smith from Arco, and I thank you for 9 this chance to comment on your proposed rule. Arco would 10 like to compliment the Board and the staff on the changes 11 that we've seen from the original proposals to the 12 proposal that is being given to you today. Arco is 13 pleased to take the position of supporting this proposal 14 that's been given to you by your staff. 15 As you have heard, Arco has come out and 16 made a formal public commitment to make a low sulfur, 15 17 PPM or lower sulfur, diesel fuel available immediately 18 upon request from municipalities and in the South Coast 19 who are willing to install advanced engine technology 20 including after-treatment. We're actively seeking 21 partners to use this low sulfur diesel fuel with advanced 22 engine systems. We see that the South Coast newly 23 announced to adopt a bus program may be one of those. The 24 Governor's plan may be as well another chance for Arco's 25 low sulfur diesel to partnership up with other people to 287 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 try to help address some of these problems. 2 Obviously we particularly endorse the clear 3 message that the rapid and cost-effective measures to 4 reduce emissions are preferable to fuel our engine 5 mandates. Such mandates we believe would delay, as you've 6 probably heard before, what we think are meaningful 7 emission reductions and could have ill effects on our 8 economy. 9 Arco has offered to provide this low sulfur 10 diesel fuel early, and we have also offered to work 11 individually with districts like the South Coast to 12 develop rules that achieve their air quality objectives in 13 a cost-effective and fuel neutral method if they in fact 14 believe that this rule that ARB is proposing is not 15 sufficient. I would like to add that some of the 16 suggestions that I've heard today concerning making sure 17 that we are using the right test cycles, making sure that 18 we step up our in-use compliance programs and possibly 19 moving up some of the retrofit requirements seem to me 20 personally as reasonable amendments to the proposal. 21 But having said that, I would like to close 22 in saying that we hope and believe that diesel is going to 23 be a viable fuel for the future, especially low sulfur 24 diesel fuel. However, I know there are many people in 25 this room who believe that the ultimate solution is 288 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 zero-emitting buses, and if that is to be the case, we 2 still think that low sulfur diesel fuel is probably one of 3 the best ways to get there in this time of transition. 4 What we are truly asking for is a chance to 5 fairly compete and to provide equivalent emissions to 6 alternative fuels. We believe your staff's proposal 7 provides such an opportunity and would ask that you would 8 accept the proposal without major modifications to it. 9 Thank you very much. 10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much, 11 David. And again, thank you for Arco's efforts in 12 pioneering this work and we're hopeful that some of your 13 other competitors will follow suit at the rest of the 14 state there. 15 MR. SMITH: I'm sure they will. 16 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Any questions or comments 17 from the Board? Thank you very much, David. 18 Howard Levin and Greg Vlasek and Andrew 19 Littlefair. 20 MR. LEVIN: Chairman Lloyd, Board Members, 21 good afternoon, or perhaps it's just about good evening. 22 My name is Howard Levine and I'm the policy manager for 23 environment safety at Sempra Energy. Sempra Energy is the 24 parent company of Southern California Gas Company and San 25 Diego Gas and Electric. 289 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 As you may know, for many years we've 2 advocated there be more focus and efforts to reduce 3 pollution from mobile sources. We're glad the Board is 4 considering this rule that is intended to reduce emissions 5 of both ozone precursors and toxic air contaminants in the 6 California urban transit bus sector. 7 Last fall when we reviewed the initial 8 proposal, we had some concerns that the dual path approach 9 did not aggressively reduce emission as early as possible 10 through alternative or available alternative fuel 11 technologies. We're pleased that staff made some changes 12 so that the rule provides similar long-term emission 13 benefits through both paths. 14 However, as staff and others have indicated 15 quite a number of times today, a large PM gap still exists 16 between the two paths. We do recognize the Board's intent 17 to provide two paths, to provide flexibility to transit 18 operators in many different parts of the state. However, 19 while air quality improvements are essential statewide, we 20 all recognize there is some areas of the state where the 21 air quality problems are much more acute than others. 22 Since alternative fuel technologies are 23 already being used successfully by California transit 24 operators, the Board should ensure that these technologies 25 be aggressively utilized, particularly where the problems 290 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 are most acute. As evident from the display outside, 2 alternative fuel technologies are here today, and while 3 speeding up diesel retrofits certainly will bring 4 incremental improvements, I don't believe that retrofits 5 alone will close the PM gap. 6 We believe the Board today has an 7 opportunity to help cities and counties achieve more rapid 8 reductions in both NOx and toxic air contaminants and help 9 close the gap. Providing districts with an opt-out, the 10 diesel path will help close the gap. 11 I'm not an attorney. You've heard that 12 legal discussion from others, but I believe the Board 13 should include an opt-out to send the clear signal that 14 local districts have the authority to do what is needed to 15 protect the health of their citizens. 16 I will spare you from the rest of my 17 remarks. I sent a letter in earlier this week, and I 18 thank you for your time. 19 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 20 Questions or comments from the Board? Thank you very 21 much. 22 Supervisor Roberts. 23 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Just a 24 clarification. Mr. Levine, your recommendation isn't 25 based on given that authority to those districts that are 291 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 in serious non-attainment areas, but rather why not do it 2 for any district? 3 MR. LEVINE: Right. Our proposal was to do 4 it for all districts. We didn't feel that it was our role 5 to draw the line between whether it's just extreme or 6 extreme and serious and so on. Perhaps with it put from 7 staff there is a line that will be appropriate, but we do 8 feel that, as the legal staff had said earlier, it is 9 explicit for South Coast, appears to be implicit for the 10 other air districts, but we think the Board including it 11 as part of this package would send a clear signal and 12 enable districts to look at it closely and consider or 13 consider not doing it, whatever is best for their area. 14 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Thank you. 15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 16 Next, Greg Vlasek with California Natural 17 Gas Vehicle Coalition. 18 MR. VLASEK: Mr. Chairman, Board Members, 19 good afternoon. I'm Greg Vlasek, Executive Director of 20 the California NGV Coalition. We're a 40-member 21 association of fuel suppliers, technology companies, 22 including two engine manufacturers, fleet operators, and 23 agencies that support commercialization of NGVs. We are 24 pleased to be here in a somewhat unique position for us as 25 the best available control technology. I think the 292 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 testimony from all corners today seems to be in agreement 2 that natural gas as a transit bus emission control 3 technology is really the technology to be. We're very 4 pleased to be in that position after almost 15 years of 5 research, development, demonstration and commercialization 6 of natural gas engines in buses. 7 I'm not sure that we were really fully 8 aware of that until about 18 months ago when this Board 9 adopted Resolution 98-49 which, in fact, said we think 10 something needs to be done and can be done right now in 11 the transit sector and in the school bus sector and the 12 solution is going to be natural gas buses. 13 In light of that, we have some concerns. 14 We certainly support the incentives for natural gas buses 15 that the staff has developed and proposed, and we've given 16 input to them and to some of you as well. 17 Our concern is only that we're so close to 18 really having meaningful incentives for natural gas buses 19 as an air quality strategy for transit, but we're not sure 20 that the regulation as it stands goes all the way there. 21 I think the best evidence of that has already been well 22 covered today in the testimony related to in-use PM, and 23 you've already been presented a case by the environmental 24 groups and seen that that shows that by moving up the PM 25 retrofits on the diesel path side, you can close most of 293 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 that gap. So we are certainly very supportive of that 2 approach. 3 But having had the experience of trying to 4 commercialize a new fuel and a new technology, we still 5 don't think that gets all the way there because to the 6 extent that there's any gap at all, that is to the extent 7 that diesels, the diesel path is allowed to be any dirtier 8 than the alternative fuel path, that represents a 9 disincentive to go with alternative fuels. So we think 10 that something still more needs to be done, and I'm 11 prepared to go so far as to suggest that not only should 12 you push forward the retrofit requirements on the diesel 13 path, but maybe to make that little -- to make the 14 emissions equal, maybe you ought to relax a little bit on 15 the incentive path, too, in terms of those buses in the 16 Tier 2 and Tier 3 that are on the incentive path and need 17 to -- need at some point, maybe a little later than 18 earlier, to have diesel retrofits. 19 Because again, these are important economic 20 considerations for the transit agencies to make, and to 21 the extent they perceive they're getting away with 22 something in having less NOx reductions and less cost, 23 that is going to be a disincentive for those fleets that 24 are reluctant to go with what we know is the best 25 available and cleanest fuel, which is natural gas. 294 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 In that same regard, we have some concerns, 2 and our concerns are really -- come from expressions of 3 the transit agencies that we've been trying to market 4 these natural gas buses to, and that is relative to the 5 ZEB requirement, the zero-emission bus requirement on the 6 incentive path. Now, granted it is delayed two years, but 7 we think a better strategy, rather than place the burden 8 of both diesel PM retrofit and a zero-emission bus 9 requirement on the incentive path, we would like to see 10 those burdens shifted to the diesel path. And we think a 11 much better strategy for commercialization of 12 zero-emission buses and hopefully fuel cell buses and 13 hybrid electric technology is to have a more aggressive, 14 earlier phase-in of hydrogen -- excuse me -- zero-emission 15 buses on the diesel path such that you get the same or 16 actually better emission benefits of the entire transit 17 program, but again, you are not penalizing those fleets 18 that opt-out early on in the program to go with natural 19 gas technology. 20 And we're certainly not advocating that the 21 net emissions of either PM or NOx or anything else from 22 this program be allowed to increase. What we're 23 advocating is that the balance be better equalized to 24 increase the incentive for CNG buses starting today 25 because it's a technology that's available now and can 295 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 start getting the emissions reductions today. 2 I have a lot of other points I want to 3 cover. I'm obviously out of time to do that. 4 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I would like you to also 5 address Mr. Mancini's comment, vis a vis the particulates 6 from natural gas buses being higher than from the diesel 7 electric. 8 MR. VLASEK: I wish I could address that, 9 but I think there's others much more qualified to do that. 10 I have not seen any data that would indicate that that's 11 going to be the case. 12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: It would surprise me as 13 well. 14 MR. VLASEK: He was comparing, I believe, 15 hybrid electric CNG to hybrid electric diesel but CNG 16 (inaudible) combustion to diesel as well. 17 I would like to make one very important 18 point in closing. That is that you are the ambassadors, 19 you are the representatives of Governor Davis and the 20 leaders to decide today and in the days to come whether or 21 not you really, really want alternative choices to diesel 22 over the next decade or two, or if diesel is going to get 23 there. And just again say that the CNG technology we have 24 today is like a bird in the hand. We know it can get the 25 job done on emissions. The costs are well-known, although 296 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 often exaggerated, and we'd hate to see you so close to 2 having incentives, the right incentives in place for 3 natural gas technology to really take off in this market 4 and in other heavy-duty markets. We would hate to see you 5 take your eyes off what you have and focus too much energy 6 or emphasis in the much less certain, in my opinion much 7 less certain, advanced technologies and zero-emission bus 8 technologies that rightfully will come later on in the 9 process. 10 Thank you very much. 11 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much, Greg. 12 Comments or questions? Thanks, Greg. 13 Next is Andrew Littlefair from Pickens Fuel 14 Corporation. 15 MR. LITTLEFAIR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 16 and thank you all for your patience today, and I'll make 17 my comments very brief because I think you've heard plenty 18 today. My name is Andrew Littlefair. I'm President of 19 Pickens Fuel Corp. We own and operate 33 natural gas 20 fueling stations in southern California and Arizona. We 21 fuel 160 transit buses each day, both CNG and LNG, and the 22 good news is those buses have never missed roll-out. 23 The point there is that CNG is here and 24 works, and LNG is here and works well today. Four quick 25 and I think relevant points, and you've heard various 297 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 things on this today, the incremental cost, and this one 2 kind of gets me every so often. Many times I think policy 3 makers -- and I'm sure you're aware, but many times policy 4 makers aren't aware -- on transit 80 to 90 percent of 5 these buses are paid for by the federal government. So 6 you'll hear big numbers, but today the MTA is ordering 7 hundreds of buses with a $35,000 incremental cost. 17 8 percent of that is being paid for by the locals. So 9 you're really down to an incremental cost now between 10 $3,500 and $5,000, Dick Cromwell said very well over 10, 11 12 years. We're really down to a very thin incremental 12 cost and that can be paid for, as I've heard Barry 13 Wallestein (phonetic) many times, we can find the local 14 grant money to take care of that incremental cost. 15 Now, about infrastructure, and I do know 16 something about this, and I have a standing offer about 17 it. And you'll hear $4 million to build fueling stations 18 for natural gas, and these numbers you heard today had 19 infrastructure built into the bus cost. Every time 20 someone will come along with 20 or 30 transit buses, I'll 21 build a fueling station at our own cost and I'll put that 22 cost over time, many years, into the fuel price and we'll 23 still come down very close to or beat diesel. 24 Currently today, the MTA, a private -- my 25 competitor, frankly, is building them three fueling 298 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 stations at the cost of $4 million each. MTA is very 2 satisfied. That private fuel provider will get their 3 money back over a long period of time, and so they're not 4 spending any capital. So please leave here today knowing 5 that the number about infrastructure costs is often 6 exaggerated. 7 First, let me give you a story of I'm 8 worried about this rule. It was about eight weeks ago, 9 and I shared this with the Chairman, that I attended the 10 meeting at the RTA, the Riverside Transit Authority, and 11 they had only seen your proposed rule, the dual-track 12 rule, and it was enough for them to abandon their CNG-only 13 policy. They had already done it, they had already voted 14 on it, and now they want to go to diesel. And the 15 comments -- and others in the room heard this -- the 16 comments at the break after the vote was well, that's 17 great. We'll go back to diesel and then we'll worry about 18 that fuel cell stuff later. We don't have to worry about 19 that for a long time. 20 That is a concrete example of here's a 21 transit agency that already had 50 CNG buses, already had 22 a fueling station, and they want to abandon CNG and stick 23 with diesel. 24 Finally, I hope you will adopt today the 25 flexibility to give these districts the opportunity to 299 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 carve out and go with a single track if that's what they 2 need in the local areas. I think if you passed your 3 program today but allowed the carve-out, it will do even 4 more than what you're thinking with this dual track and it 5 will be very positive. And I don't know if it's 6 appropriate, and if not I'll sit down now, but I wonder 7 why not go ahead and put that in the rule. Why not -- 8 what's the down side to allow these districts to have the 9 flexibility to adopt a more stringent track if that's what 10 would help them meet their clean air needs in their area. 11 And I'll sit down with that. 12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think we've addressed 13 that question earlier, Andrew. 14 MR. LITTLEFAIR: Well, we hear they might 15 have the legal authority, but it would seem like it would 16 be a real silver bullet if you would just put that in the 17 rule. 18 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Well, I think there are 19 many dimensions to that. As I said at the beginning of my 20 talk, we have to look at the full picture, as well our 21 legal department and staff takes a look at that, but 22 clearly that's something we'll be asking staff to evaluate 23 there. Questions. 24 Again, I applaud your -- again, the 25 leadership you've taken in getting these natural gas 300 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 stations out there and actually making the infrastructure 2 much more -- 3 MR. LITTLEFAIR: We've got six under 4 construction right now as we speak. 5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. Next we have 6 Zail Coffman and then Cecile Martin and Angelo Meszaros. 7 Now getting into the electric vehicle. 8 MR. COFFMAN: Esteemed Board Members, 9 astute staff, I'm Zail Coffman, consulting engine to the 10 Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District. You have a 11 copy of my comments. I'm going to attempt to make it very 12 brief. 13 Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District 14 operates the largest electric bus fleet that's a 15 zero-emissions bus fleet in the United States at this 16 time. We know what we're doing. We're developing a 17 30-foot bus that we have not been able to find in the 18 marketplace, and we do not anticipate a 40-foot bus being 19 available in the next eight years or so. 20 We would like the Board to consider that we 21 have gone to considerable expense to substitute 22-foot, 22 26-foot, and 30-foot electric buses for full-sized diesels 23 in our service. We have a very large elective ridership 24 because we run electric buses. We are also recognized as 25 being a very well managed agency. We're number four in 301 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 the nation, according to the University of North 2 Carolina's rankings, and we don't really attempt to 3 quantify the attractiveness of various bus types to our 4 elective riders. 5 We would like the Board to keep in mind 6 that we figure for every 1.4 elective riders, we're 7 keeping a car off the street. Annually our state, street 8 and beach services keep half a million car trips out of 9 downtown Santa Barbara. In the next four years, we intend 10 to field 40 new 30-foot electric buses. We'll be taking 11 20 40-foot buses and nineteen 30-foot 1988 standard 12 diesels off the road. 13 When we field these buses, we'll be left 14 with another 33 diesel buses, and we're worried that we'll 15 be penalized because we've gone to a smaller bus with zero 16 emissions because that's all that's available at this time 17 is a zero-emission. 18 We will continue to operate a number of 19 1998 to 2000 model year buses probably through the 2008, 20 2010 time frame. We intend to start the retrofits as soon 21 as suitable equipment is available and a suitable fuel. 22 We can entertain the possibility of acquiring some 23 full-size retrofit diesel transit buses in the 2008 to 24 2015 time frame, if indeed we can get one certified on a 25 reasonable basis. 302 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 We ask that the Air Resources Board make 2 provision in the proposed transit bus fleet rule for 3 responsible and proactive operators, such as the Santa 4 Barbara MTD, to seek relief from the final rules on 5 presentation of good cause and a showing that the relief 6 sought results in lower total emissions within the 7 operator's service area. We would also ask the Board 8 direct its staff to investigate certain hybrid transit 9 buses on the basis of their per-mile emissions, pretty 10 much in the manner they've done with passenger vehicles. 11 Speeding along, we heartily support the 12 need to reduce sulfur in diesel and support the rule 13 wholeheartedly. We also support the need to -- or support 14 the Board's efforts to urge the continuing development 15 after-markets emission control technologies and urge the 16 Board to support such development. We support in-use 17 testing, the need for emission standards to reflect the 18 bus on the road rather than engine certification 19 standards. We believe that this type of rule would 20 simplify the introduction of hybrids because it takes into 21 account their differing operational strategies. 22 Another way to level the playing field 23 would be to involve regulating emissions on the basis of 24 grams per seat mile traveled. One thing that we've 25 noticed in other electric bus operators is that a number 303 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 of demonstration electric buses are indeed out there, out 2 there against the back fence. And a bus that's not 3 operated, if it's operated for very fuel miles, does not 4 really reduce emissions. We feel the grams per seat mile 5 rules would address this. 6 We heartily encourage incentives for fleets 7 that operate zero-emission buses. We suggest a 8 seat-for-seat averaging of allowable emissions. 9 Bus-for-bus because no full-size electric buses are 10 available. We also like to support the efforts of the 11 California electric utilities, who may be speaking later, 12 to make their product, electrical energy, competitive with 13 the other alternative fuels. 14 The first of the advance batteries, those 15 that meet the LABC's mid-term standards, have just now 16 become available and will be cost-effective, we believe, 17 within about four years. We would wish to offer the Board 18 and its staff any of our expertise or the benefit of our 19 experience in fulfilling its obligations. 20 Thank you. 21 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much, and 22 again, thank you for the leadership in Santa Barbara on 23 the (inaudible) electric vehicle buses. I know having 24 ridden on it, it's great to see that, really. 25 Did staff comment on the 22-foot, 30-foot 304 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 bus issues? 2 MR. KITOWSKI: With regard to the question 3 of the different size, we kept with the standard 4 definition of an urban bus which we think has a lot of 5 uses and we think it has quite a bit of support around 6 most of the transit agencies because the smaller size 7 alternative fuel buses are not necessarily available in 8 all cases. 9 With regard to the question of relief, I 10 guess I'm a little confused about exactly what relief is 11 being requested. Certainly as you said Santa Barbara has 12 been a leadership in electric shuttles and has overall 13 very low emissions. Most of the requirements that we have 14 applied across the board, that is if you're going to buy a 15 new diesel engine it would have to be the lower emission 16 diesel engine, and the zero-emission bus requirement does 17 not apply for transit agencies under 200. 18 I think the only area I'm thinking of there 19 might be a requested relief would simply be on the fleet 20 average, and if that's the area requested, I think we 21 could accommodate electric -- smaller electric shuttles 22 into that fleet average. 23 MR. COFFMAN: That's pretty much what we're 24 asking. The additional cost of substituting smaller buses 25 for larger buses is the most important cost in transit, 305 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 the driver. We've heard a lot of different numbers for 2 the incremental costs of introducing alternate fuels. We 3 find that our biggest cost is extra drivers with smaller 4 buses to put the same number of seats on the road. 5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Maybe you could get 6 together with staff and share those ideas and come to some 7 resolution then. 8 MR. COFFMAN: Thank you. 9 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. Cece 10 Martin, California Electric Transportation Coalition. 11 MS. MARTIN: Good evening, Chairman Lloyd 12 and Members of the Board. I'm going to try to abbreviate 13 this testimony a little, so I ask your patience if it's a 14 little bit bumpy. I know it's been a long day. 15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: As long as it's within the 16 time frame we'll take the bumpiness. 17 MS. MARTIN: Cal ETC's mission for the past 18 nine years has been to promote cleaner, healthier air and 19 water in development and use of electric vehicles, hybrid 20 electric vehicles, electric mass transit and rail. We 21 would like to note for the record that the proposed 22 transit bus rule being considered by the Board today is 23 the first to include zero-emission buses in its regulatory 24 design. It contains a vision that reflects the commitment 25 that Chairman Alan Lloyd and Governor Gray Davis have made 306 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 to moving California's transportation sector to near zero 2 and zero. 3 We want to comment this evening 4 specifically on the role that electric and hybrid electric 5 bus technology is likely to play in California's transit 6 future. In addition, we want to focus on a couple of 7 opportunities that we believe capture additional emission 8 benefits by encouraging the use of the cleanest bus 9 technology sooner and so drive the market toward near zero 10 and zero. 11 We are in support, in general support, of 12 the direction of this requirement. The unique advantages 13 we think of electric buses echo the advantages of the 14 smaller electric vehicles, and some advantages haven't 15 really been talked about today. We've talked a lot about 16 the ozone and NOx and PM, but I think it's important to 17 note that at the tail pipe, at the exposure level, there 18 are absolutely no emissions, there are no air toxics, and 19 there's no emission control system that's going to degrade 20 over time. It won't require the expense of in-use 21 testing. Electric buses also have extremely low upstream 22 emissions and offer significant reductions in CO2. 23 There are a couple of electric technologies 24 that we think can play a role in this proposed regulation. 25 First would be electric buses, full-size electric buses. 307 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 Now, these are not going to be appropriate for all transit 2 applications, but there will be selected applications 3 throughout the state where a transit agency might find the 4 use for a vehicle that didn't have a long range. And then 5 in addition, there are the electric trolly buses that are 6 mentioned, and I'm going to skip over the part where I was 7 going to describe how some of the most beautiful cities in 8 the world do have electric trolly buses, how the 9 technology has improved. There are fewer wires. You 10 don't requires wires throughout the entire route anymore, 11 and so cities are taking a look at this technology. 12 Also we will bring up a little bit later 13 light rail as a commitment to transit perhaps as a 14 substitute for some buses. Also, we've heard a lot today 15 about hybrid electric vehicles, and there is a growing 16 interest in hybrid electric buses for transit 17 applications. An example is the Department of Los Angeles 18 Water and Power are supporting the development of a 19 30-foot, heavy-duty, plug-in style electric bus and these 20 buses will be deployed by the Los Angeles Department of 21 Transportation. They'll be using some cap stone turbines 22 and alternative fuels and they will have some electric 23 range, some all-electric range. 24 While these buses are mentioned in the 25 proposed transit regulation, there's nothing included in 308 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 the proposal now that encourages their use, and I think 2 there's been some discussion about that today. These 3 plug-in hybrid buses will bring large reductions in air 4 toxics and greenhouse gases, and these buses do have other 5 ZEB-like characteristics. 6 Also, many transit agencies -- and we just 7 heard from Santa Barbara as the perfect example -- but 8 cities and universities and parks have been successfully 9 using battery powered buses for about the last decade. 10 These buses tend to be smaller, range from the 20- to 11 30-foot range. They've been used successfully and there's 12 been a cost to this effort. And as the gentleman from 13 Santa Barbara mentioned, though, a surprising benefit has 14 occurred and that is a benefit of increased ridership, 15 which is something I think we are all interested in. 16 The gentleman from Santa Barbara mentioned 17 their plans to acquire more buses. The Los Angeles 18 Department of Water and Power also has recently taken 19 delivery of about 25 of these all-electric shuttle buses. 20 They bussed around everyone from the National League of 21 Cities who had their national conference in Los Angeles, 22 and these will be permanently placed in private fleets 23 very soon. 24 The point of this is to say that this is a 25 real and a viable technology, and transit districts can be 309 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 faced with downsizing. They can be faced with 2 diversifying their fleet to meet certain needs. So we 3 think there's a role for these buses in this rule. 4 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: That's a good point. 5 MS. MARTIN: Let me just skip over my 6 summation and tell what you we would be interested in 7 having. We believe that there's some simple ways to 8 address the emissions from the rule and capture the 9 emission benefits that we mentioned earlier. First, we 10 have -- I think it's a question for the staff and that is 11 that we don't understand why light rail extensions would 12 be excluded from the zero-emission bus rule if, in fact, 13 they were replacing full-sized diesel buses. We don't 14 know if that's an omission or if there's some thinking 15 behind that. So we would like staff to consider allowing 16 light rail extensions if they're going to replace existing 17 buses to count for the zero-emission bus rule. 18 Second, we would like for districts that 19 choose to replace a full-size transit bus with a 20 zero-emission shuttle-sized bus to get credit for that in 21 their fleet average -- in their fleet average, and this is 22 something I think the gentleman from Santa Barbara brought 23 up. This would prevent, I think, what could be a loophole 24 which is transit districts to avoid the full-size bus 25 rule, buying the smaller buses that just slip through the 310 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 weight qualification. So we think they could be scooped 2 up and encouraged if they do tend to downsize and they are 3 willing to buy zero-emission, they would get credit in 4 their fleet average. 5 And there's one more thing. We think that 6 the zero-emission or -- excuse me -- the hybrid electric 7 buses that are on alternative fuel and have some electric 8 range deserve some incentive because they're available 9 now. We don't need to wait for a ZEB demonstration, we 10 don't need to wait until other technologies are available. 11 We'd like to see staff consider a partial credit the way 12 partial credits are given in the light-duty role; that is 13 for staff to evaluate what emissions value they would 14 bring and to give them some incentive now so that some of 15 the obligation of the zero-emission bus rule could be 16 offset by the hybrid electric buses. 17 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. 18 MS. MARTIN: Thanks very much. 19 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much, Cece. 20 Any questions or comments? Thank you. 21 Ms. Angela Meszaros? No. 22 Then we come into the engine manufacturers. 23 We have Robert Jorgensen, John Duerr and Jed Mandel. I 24 don't know whether that's the order that you want to 25 handle it. 311 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 MR. MANDEL: If that's all right, I'm going 2 to -- 3 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes. You have the 4 flexibility. Jed is representing the Engine 5 Manufacturers' Association. 6 MR. MANDEL: Thank you, Dr. Lloyd, Members 7 of the Board. Good afternoon. Good evening. I'm Jed 8 Mandel here today on behalf of the Engine Manufacturers' 9 Association. EMA's members are the principal 10 manufacturers of diesel and CNG engines used in the 11 transit buses that are the subject of today's hearing. 12 EMA and its members have worked with ARB 13 and EPA to achieve harmonization which allows 14 manufacturers to focus their resources in developing new 15 low emission technologies, while at the same time allowing 16 California to avoid the adverse consequences of having a 17 different emission program. 18 In the heavy-duty engine arena, 19 harmonization has been a success story. That story has 20 been told in the two statements of principles signed by 21 ARB, EPA, and engine manufacturers. ARB pushed for the 22 SOPs, recognizing that California's needs could best be 23 met by an aggressive, uniform, nationwide set of emission 24 standards. Engine manufacturers were willing to commit to 25 such a program to essentially do more than the regulatory 312 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 agencies might otherwise be able to justify because the 2 SOP process provided known emission goals, certainly 3 adequate lead time, a stable regulatory program, and 4 harmonization. 5 EPA has done its part in implementing the 6 SOPs, and so far ARB has done its part to implement the 7 on-highway SOP, and we anticipate that tomorrow morning 8 you'll do your part to implement the non-road SOP. 9 However, the staff is now proposing to undo the heavy-duty 10 on-highway SOP. In direct contradiction to ARB's SOP 11 commitment, the staff today is proposing separate and 12 unique emission standards for heavy-duty on-highway 13 transit buses and bus engines in 2004. 14 I want to emphasize that EMA and its 15 members have worked hard to find a way to structure a 16 program that meets the reduction principles of the staff's 17 transit bus proposal. We are not simply standing on the 18 SOP commitment unwilling to consider any separate 19 California transit bus program. In fact, engine 20 manufacturers are willing to do something more and 21 something different in California, but we cannot agree to 22 a transit bus program that violates both the spirits and 23 the letter of the ARB's commitment under the Statement of 24 Principles. 25 As such, our major objection to the staff's 313 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 proposal is a set of 2004 emission standards that would 2 require the principal engine manufacturers of transit bus 3 engines, and there are only two of them, to certify their 4 engines to standards different than those for the rest of 5 the country and different in so fundamental a way that 6 engine manufacturers would have to research, design, and 7 commercialize new emission control technologies for a very 8 tiny and uncertain California-only market. That is 9 exactly what the SOP was intended to prevent. 10 Let me try and put the issue in 11 perspective. By the staff's estimate, there are 12 approximately 800 new transit bus engines sold each year 13 in California, evenly split between Cummins and Detroit 14 Diesel. About half of those engines are CNG and about 15 half are diesel. Thus, under the staff's proposal, 16 Cummins and DDC would have to invest millions of dollars 17 in technology for 2004 that at best is recooped by sales 18 of 200 units per company in at best three years. 19 In fact, it is uncertain whether transit 20 fleets will want to meet their 2004 through 2006 engine 21 needs with technology that is unproven, costly, possibly 22 unavailable, and which may be orphaned; that is, which may 23 not have the long-term future applicability that the staff 24 is assuming. Instead, they are likely to pre-buy transit 25 buses in 2002 and 2003 or rebuild engines that otherwise 314 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 would have been retired. That, of course, not only delays 2 the hoped-for emission benefits associated with the 3 staff's recommendations but also diminishes the likelihood 4 of any kind of normal market in 2004 through 2006. 5 As a result, engine manufacturers cannot be 6 certain of any market in which to recoop its investment, 7 engine manufacturers won't necessarily make the required 8 investment, fleets can't and won't wait to see if engines 9 will be available, and ARB and the people of California 10 will lose the opportunity for real quantifiable and 11 certain emission benefits. 12 These very real problems would only be 13 exacerbated if individual districts were allowed to limit 14 the options available to fleets, causing further 15 uncertainty about known markets to otherwise justify the 16 investments in product development. 17 EMA has a plan to address this very real 18 problem which we urge the Board to adopt under its 15-day 19 notice procedures. We recommend that the Board implement 20 an optional fleet average NOx requirement, optional in 21 that it's in addition to the program otherwise recommended 22 by the staff. I have prepared the changes that would be 23 required, and I think this has been presented to Board 24 Members and to staff, and certainly we'll make them 25 available. 315 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 Such a program is acceptable to the transit 2 fleets. It provides flexibility for meeting standards, 3 minimizes engine manufacturers and fleet operator costs, 4 assures the availability of product, and most importantly 5 provides known, certain and guaranteed NOx emission 6 benefits essentially identical to those proposed by the 7 staff. Further, as part of a fleet average NOx 8 requirement for 2004 through 2006, EMA and its members 9 would be willing to meet a 0.01 gram per brake horsepower 10 emissions standard for all new transit bus engines sold in 11 California beginning in 2002, October 2002. 12 That is a significant pull-ahead of PM 13 after-treatment technology, which only is made possible by 14 the staff's willingness to adopt a 15 PPM maximum by 15 weight fuel sulfur limit. Unlike ARB's proposed 2004 NOx 16 requirement for new engines, which will require 17 accelerated research and development work for only a few 18 units of sale, a special California PM requirement is 19 doable. Such technology will be available by 2002, and in 20 combination with low sulfur diesel fuel, we are willing to 21 make the technology available as a requirement for new 22 engines in California, even though the SOP does not 23 otherwise contemplate for emissions standards. 24 As I noted previously, we are not standing 25 on the SOP commitment. We are willing to do more in 316 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 California with the cooperation of the transit fleet 2 operators. The optional fleet average NOx proposal, 3 combined with low sulfur fuel, will pull ahead of the .01 4 PM standard to provide NOx and PM reductions that are 5 superior to those under the staff's proposal. We urge the 6 Board to accept our recommendation. 7 Finally, an important element of the 8 staff's proposal is the PM retrofit requirements, a 9 concept which we support and which again is only made 10 possible with low sulfur diesel fuel. The staff's 11 proposal does not contain an important element of the 12 retrofit program, that's how the retrofit kits would be 13 certified. There is before you a proposed set of 15-day 14 notice changes prepared by the staff with a couple of 15 additional changes which I understand the staff will be 16 presenting to you yet this evening, which we've discussed 17 with the staff in the last day. 18 We urge the Board to accept those 15-day 19 changes. They are critical to the retrofit program. If 20 you have any questions, I'd be pleased to answer them now. 21 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Questions? Thank you, 22 Jed. Thank you for your clear testimony there. 23 Is Bob speaking next? 24 MR. MANDEL: Yes. 25 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Or John? 317 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 MR. DUERR: Good evening. My name is John 2 Duerr from Detroit Diesel Corporation. Detroit Diesel is 3 a major supplier of engines used in transit buses. As a 4 supplier of engines fueled with both diesel fuel and 5 natural gas, Detroit Diesel supports the dual-path 6 approach that ARB has taken in this rule. An important 7 feature of the two-path approach is that emission benefits 8 are intended to be similar for the diesel and alternative 9 fuel paths. 10 The anticipated emission benefits from the 11 intermediate diesel path standards, however, will only be 12 realized if diesel path fleets purchase and operate a 13 substantial number of buses and engines complying with 14 these standards. For this to occur, three things need to 15 happen. 16 First, engine manufacturers need to develop 17 and certify and sell engines with emission control 18 technologies that meet these very stringent standards. 19 Secondly, bus manufacturers need to modify their bus 20 designs to incorporate the new low-emission technologies. 21 And thirdly, transit operators must purchase and operate 22 these new engines and buses. 23 We believe the most likely technology paths 24 to achieve these intermediate standards is the use of a 25 continuously regenerating particulate trap for particulate 318 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 control combined with a selective catalytic reduction 2 system for NOx control. CRT systems can and will be 3 commercialized within the next one to two years provided 4 low sulfur fuel is made available. 5 SCR systems, as has been mentioned earlier 6 today, have been successfully used in stationary 7 applications for sometime, but this technology is 8 relatively new for mobile applications. Significant 9 development of fuel testing is needed to realize the 10 potential and ensure the durability of SCR systems in 11 mobile applications. 12 I hope you had a chance earlier today to 13 see the Freightliner vehicle equipped with the SCR system. 14 Simply looking at the bulk of that catalyst system, I 15 think maybe you can appreciate that there is some 16 challenge with the packaging of this technology in a 17 variety of bus applications. 18 In addition to the technical challenges, 19 engine manufacturers and bus builders will need to make 20 difficult business decisions regarding the investment of 21 resources to provide SCR technologies for the relatively 22 small market of buses in California using the diesel path. 23 So some may argue this is not really an added investment 24 but merely an acceleration of investment that will be 25 needed to meet future federal and California standards 319 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 applying to a much broader class of vehicles, but we need 2 to recognize we are early on the learning curve with SCR. 3 We believe the SCR systems will devolve in 4 the 2007 time frame after the benefit of extensive fuel 5 tests. Fuel testing will be substantially more advanced 6 than the systems that would be rushed into production in 7 2004. 2004 systems will, in all likelihood, become an 8 orphan technology. We need also to recognize that for 9 transit operators to purchase the new technology, the 10 technology must be proven, and the infrastructure for low 11 sulfur fuel and urea supply must be in place. 12 Further, transit purchasing follows a 13 process that takes 12 to 18 months. Purchasing decisions 14 for buses to be delivered in 2004 will need to be made 15 based on information available in early 2003 or even 16 toward the end of 2002. Buses meeting the 2004 diesel 17 path standards are not available, or if transits choose 18 not to purchase them, then they can avoid purchasing buses 19 during the 2004 to 2006 time frame by buying ahead or 20 delaying purchases and the anticipated emission reductions 21 will not be achieved. DDC believes that providing a fleet 22 NOx average as an option to the intermediate diesel path 23 standards will overcome this potential problem. 24 Thank you. 25 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much, John. 320 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 Any questions. 2 Bob. 3 MR. JORGENSEN: Good evening. I've given 4 copies of my written comments, but I also have modified 5 them in the interest of time. And I know that the figures 6 are numbered and they're going to be out of order a little 7 bit, so there will be some missing. 8 Again, my name is Bob Jorgensen. I am here 9 today on behalf of Cummins Engine Company. Cummins 10 manufactures heavy-duty engines for on-highway, mobile 11 off-highway and stationary applications worldwide. Among 12 the automotive applications for which we provide engines 13 are urban buses, of course, the subject of today's 14 hearing. Cummins is a member of the Engine Manufacturers' 15 Association and supports the testimony recommendations 16 presented by the Association. 17 The staff proposal before us today has two 18 paths, the diesel path and the alternative fuel path. I 19 would like to address some issues on the alternative fuel 20 path first. The proposed new engine NOx standards for 21 alternatively fueled urban bus engines are shown on this 22 figure, and what I would call the baseline set of 23 standards, which is the EPA set of standards for 24 heavy-duty engines, is shown in blue. And the NOx 25 emissions standards for the alternative fuel buses is 321 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 shown in red. And as you can see, they parallel each 2 other, so there's no issue at all with that. 3 The only thing I would like to say is that 4 Cummins recommends that once the final standards for 2007 5 are finalized, that the urban bus standards for California 6 are aligned with them. 7 Let me turn now to the diesel path of the 8 provisions which are somewhat more complex and include 9 additional elements. Shown on this chart is the staff's 10 proposal for the PM standard for diesel fueled engines. 11 Again, the baseline heavy-duty engines shown in blue and 12 in red is shown the staff's proposal. As you can see 13 here, the staff proposes that in 2004 the PM standard be 14 dropped to 0.01, which is one third the level of the PM 15 standard for alternative-fueled engines in that same time 16 frame. So one third the level of PM is required out of 17 the urban buses that are diesel-fueled compared to the 18 alternative-fueled engines. But Cummins supports this 19 element of the proposal. Given the 15 parts per million 20 sulfur fuel that the staff is proposing, that enables the 21 use of after-treatment devices of the type that you saw in 22 the Navistar bus to be used. 23 On this chart is the staff's proposal for 24 the NOx standard for diesel-fueled urban bus engine. 25 Again the blue is the baseline, what I would call the 322 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 heavy-duty engine standard at the time, and of course 2 there's a differentiation that in 2004, the NOx standard 3 is proposed at .5. This is one quarter of the standard 4 for the alternative fuel path in the same time frame. 5 They have a 2.5 NOx plus -- not methane, but hydrocarbons. 6 So again, the diesel path would be significantly less. 7 This is the element of the proposal that 8 already you've heard from Jed and from John makes us 9 uncomfortable. The application of these devices is not 10 simple, and very unlike the continuously regenerating 11 traps, these devices are active. You need a reductant, 12 and if you had a chance to look at that bus, there was a 13 reservoir for urea that was provided, and you need to 14 introduce the reductant ahead of a catalyst in a 15 proportion that resembles the NOx emissions from the 16 engine. It's a very complex thing, and it's again, not 17 just a simple retrofit or an application of a retrofit to 18 an existing 49-state product, and it necessitates 19 development of complex control strategies and the addition 20 of special sensors and actuators, and even if it could be 21 done, the physical placement of devices along with the 22 reservoir for the reductant and the piping from the 23 reservoir to the exhaust in the already-tight confines of 24 the engine compartment of the bus would be difficult. 25 For both engine manufacturers and bus 323 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 builders, this represents a significant amount of work and 2 given the large amount of resources compliance with the 3 general heavy-duty standards are consuming, and again, 4 given the small number of diesel-fueled engines that 5 California urban bus market represents, it's questionable 6 as to whether or not it will be practical to do so. And 7 by the way, we have the same issue if the standard 8 proposed for the alternative-fueled engines would be, .5 9 they would also require a device like this. And again, we 10 would struggle if our natural gas engines were subject to 11 a .5 standard, which of course in the proposal, they're 12 not. 13 I just have one more paragraph. Cummins, 14 though, understands the need for further reductions in 15 both NOx and PM from the diesel-fueled urban bus engines, 16 and it's for this reason Cummins, along with Detroit 17 Diesel, in coordination with the transit authorities and 18 the CTA, developed that counter-proposal that Mr. Mandel 19 presented, which we believe will deliver equivalent or 20 perhaps even greater, depending on the assumptions you 21 make about the avoidance techniques that might be used 22 with the proposal as is. 23 This alternative involves pulling ahead the 24 0.01 standard, and now that the staff has made the 15 25 parts per million fuel available or mandated in July of 324 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 2002, we believe you could even pull up the 0.01 15 months 2 to October 2002 from the staff's proposal. So there's 3 where we think we can get additional PM. And the element 4 that extends the fleet average, there's already a fleet 5 average mandate for a certain year, at one year, but if 6 you extend the mandate you're going to get the NOx 7 emissions as well. So you get both the NOx and the 8 PM. 9 So we believe this optional proposal which 10 has broad industry support and achieves the emissions 11 benefits contemplated by the staff should be given your 12 consideration. 13 Thank you. 14 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Staff have a comment? 15 MR. KENNY: Yes, I do actually have a 16 comment. I'm a little bit concerned about the testimony 17 of the last three witnesses. We have actually been 18 working this particular proposal for over a year. The 19 original proposal that we put out was an all-fuel-only 20 proposal. It was in response to the industry, transit 21 agencies and EMA, that we came back with a dual-path 22 approach because they were looking for a diesel approach. 23 So we basically had to have a lot of discussions with the 24 industry and with the transit agencies about the dual 25 path. 325 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 What concerns me particularly about the 2 testimony is that you heard earlier today that the .5 3 standard for the diesel path for NOx in 2004 is an 4 alternative standard, and that alternative is essentially 5 a 2.5 engine which is available in October of 2002 plus 6 after-treatment or essentially certifying to a .5 7 standard. That particular alternative standard was put 8 into the proposal specifically at the request of EMA. 9 Additionally, we have a 15 part per million 10 sulfur standard that we talked about for the fuel. That 11 particular proposal -- that particular provision was put 12 into the proposal after discussions with EMA and the 13 transit agencies. With those things in mind and knowing 14 where we started with an all-fuel rule and where we are 15 today, I'm very concerned about the comments we've just 16 heard in light of the fact that it seems to imply that EMA 17 doesn't believe that the NOx emission reductions that we 18 think are crucial to the equivalence on the dual path can 19 be achieved. If in fact the NOx emission reductions 20 cannot be made to be equivalent, there is a substantial 21 question that we have to basically identify. 22 MR. MANDEL: If I could just take a moment 23 to reply. 24 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I'm sure you'd like that. 25 Thank you. 326 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 MR. MANDEL: Thank you, Dr. Lloyd. And at 2 this late hour I know the Board Members are not interested 3 in a debate as to who said what. I just want to assure 4 the Board Members that EMA has not taken a position that 5 there should be a separate NOx standard in 2004 as an 6 emission standard for new engines. It is completely 7 contrary to the agreement that your predecessors agreed to 8 under the Statement of Principles. 9 What we have done and what we would urge 10 the Board to do today living up to that commitment is to 11 require a NOx fleet average. That does require the 12 cooperation of the fleets, and to their credit they have 13 supported us in this recommendation, which does get those 14 NOx reductions. It takes the same NOx levels that would 15 have occurred under the staff's proposal and simply 16 addresses them through a fleet-average approach. 17 And as we all have tried to point out to 18 you, the engine manufacturers are interested in seeing the 19 greatest reductions possible where it can be practical, 20 and that's why we've also offered to sell as part of new 21 engines low PM technology enabled by low sulfur fuel as 22 part of the new engine and not just as a retrofit program 23 which puts a substantial particulate benefit to the diesel 24 path. 25 We do support the two paths. EMA's members 327 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 make both CNG engines, and we think that the frankly 2 relatively modest difference that you're hearing between 3 your staff and EMA in terms of our proposals are one that 4 makes sense because it gives you known, certain, bankable 5 emissions reductions that the staff can count on. 6 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. Clearly this 7 is an issue where I feel we're going to have to get you 8 together with staff here and resolve some of those. I 9 don't think we can do it right now. Thank you very much. 10 Just to let you know where we stand, and 11 maybe some of the speakers are not here, and this is the 12 final list that I have. We have Darrell Clarke from 13 Sierra Club; James Provenzano, Clean Air Now; Kenneth 14 Despot from Golden Oil Bear Oil Specialties; Amy McCoy, 15 citizen; and Cynthia Rojas, Labor/Community Strategy 16 Center; and Alan Bidwell. Could you put your hands up? 17 How many people? So we have one, two, three -- okay. 18 So the first of those that I mentioned to 19 come forward, Darrell Clarke. James Provenzano. 20 Kenneth Despot. 21 MR. DESPOT: Chairman Lloyd and Board 22 Members, my name is Ken Despot. I work for Golden Bear 23 Oil Specialties in Bakersfield, California. We're a 24 specialties oil refinery and we currently make carb diesel 25 500 PPM maximum sulfur, and we have a small refiners 328 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 exemption for aromatics. It's kind of late in the day and 2 I apologize for not being totally prepared. 3 We do favor the two-path approach to 4 reducing particulate matter and NOx emissions in the state 5 of California. We are currently working on technologies 6 to further reduce the sulfur in our diesel, and we feel 7 that diesel is a fuel that still has a future in 8 California and throughout the United States, and we would 9 like to propose the proposal as stated with the two-path 10 approach. 11 I thank you very much. 12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. Any 13 questions? Thank you. 14 Then Amy McCoy. Cynthia Rojas. 15 MS. ROJAS: Hello. My name is Cynthia 16 Rojas and I'm an organizer with the Labor/Community 17 Strategy Center and the bus riders' union. 18 We support the proposed rule to reduce 19 pollution coming from the transit buses, but we ask you 20 that you eliminate any option for diesel, particularly 21 clean, quote, unquote, clean diesel fuel buses. 22 The Strategy Center and bus riders' union 23 are community civil rights organizations that are 24 currently fighting to improve the public transportation 25 system in Los Angeles, not only as a basic necessity for 329 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 the transit dependent, but as a key environmental justice 2 issue that affects all communities, but particularly the 3 working class of color who live in the areas most 4 concentrated with mass transit vehicles. 5 I'm not only an organizer with the bus 6 riders' union that talks to bus riders every day, I'm also 7 a bus rider. Bus riders know that the public's health is 8 not a luxury. It's not something that can be discussed in 9 economic or, quote, unquote, cost-effective terms. 10 Transit agencies have argued that all bus riders care 11 about is getting where they need to go, and it's true. 12 That is one of the most important things for a transit 13 dependent, but our community's health is just as, if not 14 more, important to us. 15 The majority of bus riders in Los Angeles 16 are working-class people of color who must often, in their 17 own communities, as referred today, deal with toxic 18 factories, waste dumps and other industrial and mobile 19 sources of pollution. 20 The MTA of Los Angeles has adopted an 21 alternative fuels initiative that would improve some of 22 these conditions and they have adhered to it under 23 pressure from bus riders and other environmental groups 24 such as the Coalition for Clean Air, the American Lung 25 Association and RDC and others who are here today. 330 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 So we're here to ask you today to not give 2 the MTA or other transit authorities an opening to abandon 3 or modify that commitment or an opening to purchase 4 supposed clean diesel buses instead of alternative-fueled 5 low-emission vehicles. 6 So if an industry has the technology and 7 ability to improve the quality of life for bus riders and 8 all California residents, it should not be excused by a 9 public agency from developing and using that technology to 10 do so. This Board can send a strong and clear message to 11 all transit agencies and industries that they cannot 12 continue to sacrifice our environment and our health. 13 Just like a dependable public transportation system isn't 14 a luxury, neither is our health or our lives. 15 Thank you. 16 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. 17 Questions or comments? Thank you for coming. 18 Sorry. Mr. McKinnon. 19 BOARD MEMBER MC KINNON: I'm familiar with 20 your organization. Could you tell me what labor 21 organizations have voted on the position you just took, if 22 any? 23 MS. ROJAS: I'm not familiar with any labor 24 organizations who have taken a position. 25 BOARD MEMBER MC KINNON: Thank you. 331 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think our last speaker 2 is Alan Bidwell with Goal Line Environmental Technologies. 3 MR. BIDWELL: Good evening. Thank you for 4 a lively meeting. I hope the Super Bowl is half as lively 5 as this one has been. You certainly don't pick easy 6 issues, do you. We're obviously very impressed with the 7 aggressiveness of your proposals, and Goal Line is a 8 company that shares that aggressive stance on emissions. 9 I'm Alan Bidwell, Vice President for sales 10 and marketing for Goal Line. Goal Line is a manufacturer 11 of SCONOx, the technology that is responsible for having 12 reset federal layer for gas turbines for the last three 13 years running, all the way from 9 PPM down to 2 PPM. 14 I'm pleased to say we haven't stopped with 15 gas turbines, that we have been testing our technology on 16 diesel engines, and there's been a great deal of 17 discussion this afternoon about whether diesel engines 18 can, in fact, achieve ultra-low levels of emissions, and 19 the answer is "yes". 20 Goal Line has applied its technology, 21 SCONOx, to diesel engines over the last several months and 22 done several hundred hours of testing on stationary diesel 23 engines, also when making the transient conditions for 24 mobile diesel engines. 25 We've achieved the following results: 332 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 First of all, we're achieving a 90 to 99 percent reduction 2 in NOx, VOCs, hydrocarbons and CO on the engines. Second, 3 we're achieving these pollutants with less than 4 percent 4 fuel penalty, meaning that there's actually very little 5 energy or fuel consumption as a result of the use of our 6 technology. This is also important from the standpoint of 7 reducing engine retardation, timing retardation, so you 8 actually are reducing the amount of fine particulates that 9 are coming off the engine by increasing the engine's 10 combustion efficiency. 11 Third, we're the only technology available 12 that is not poisoned by sulfur and diesel fuel. Let me 13 repeat that. It doesn't matter what the percentage or 14 amount of sulfur is in diesel fuel, we're able to achieve 15 these NOx emission rates on any level of sulfur. We've 16 actually tested the system on sulfur levels on as high as 17 3,000 parts per million -- I'm sorry -- 5,000 parts per 18 million diesel, and we've had very effective results, 19 still in the 90 percent range. This is also important 20 from the standpoint that our technology also pulls the 21 sulfur out of the exhaust stream of the engine, therefore 22 reducing PM 10 and ultrafine emissions even more. 23 Finally, we don't use any harmful 24 reagents. We don't have any ammonia tanks on board for 25 our technology to work. As a result, there's no chance of 333 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 any type of hazardous spills or accidents that might occur 2 as a result of any type of ammonia tanks being breached 3 during an impact or accident. 4 We're now undertaking testing of the 5 technology, actually, for a diesel manufacturer that is 6 considered one of the world's leaders in technical 7 innovation, Cummins Engine, one of the world's largest 8 manufacturers of diesel engines, and we expect to be 9 demonstrating this technology in a neighborhood near you 10 within the next few months. In fact, we'll be starting in 11 Supervisor Roberts' neighborhood, San Diego, in the next 12 few months, and we'll be then doing additional 13 demonstrations throughout California. 14 I'd like to thank you for your time and 15 look forward to demonstrating these ultra-low levels out 16 in the marketplace. 17 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you very much, 18 and let me ask the Board Members if there are any 19 questions for this witness. 20 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I would like to ask 21 one question. 22 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Calhoun. 23 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: I thought I heard 24 you say that the technology that Goal Line is using pulls 25 the sulfur out of the exhaust. What happens to the 334 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 sulfur? 2 MR. BIDWELL: We chemically absorb the 3 sulfur and then release it, and our technology has the 4 capability of -- 5 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Where does it go 6 when you release it? 7 MR. BIDWELL: Where does it go? 8 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Yes. 9 MR. BIDWELL: It actually can be captured 10 through a proprietary technology that we have that 11 actually absorbs the sulfur onto a chemical substream, and 12 then that can be removed as an actual filter or canister, 13 if you will, for reuse. 14 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Thank you. 15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes. I know Goal Line 16 came up and gave staff an impressive presentation on the 17 application of this technology to diesel after-treatment, 18 as well as you say building on the foundation you had for 19 the power plant. Any questions? Thank you very much. 20 MR. BIDWELL: Thank you. 21 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I guess I would like to 22 ask staff. Is there any written comments to be entered 23 into the -- not 5,000 please. 24 (Laughter) 25 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Unless we ask Gail to read 335 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 them. 2 MS. KEMENA: Hi. Renee Kemena, Mobile 3 Source Control Division, and I'll summarize the comments. 4 We did receive 5,264 letters as of noon 5 yesterday from citizens supporting a strong new transit 6 bus rule that will replace California's dirty diesel buses 7 with cleaner alternatives. We also received over 900 8 phone calls in support of the tough transit bus rule to 9 clean up diesel transit buses. 10 We received a letter from Senator Hayden 11 urging the Board to allow districts in severe 12 non-attainment areas to have the option to mandate 13 alternative fuels. We received a letter from Pacific Gas 14 and Electric Company which urges the Board to delay the 15 regulation and modify the proposal so the lower emission 16 path, the alternative fuel path, will be the least costly. 17 They believe our regulation sends the message that it is 18 cheaper to be dirtier. They urged strong retrofit 19 requirements on the diesel path, that we require more 20 zero-emission buses on the diesel path, and that we not 21 require zero-emission buses on the alternative fuel path 22 at this time. 23 We got a letter from the San Diego 24 Metropolitan Transit Development Board. They support our 25 recommendation with the following comments: They ask the 336 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 Board to broaden our feasibility review in 2006 to include 2 all new technologies that will be required to implement 3 the new standards; they ask that we include an option to 4 allow several fleet operators to combine into one regional 5 bus fleet; they request additional funding for incremental 6 costs and infrastructure or that we change the Carl Moyer 7 Program to allow for full incremental bus cost; and for 8 zero-emission buses, they want annual 15 percent purchase 9 requirement applied over five years so that transit 10 agencies could purchase a sizeable order of zero-emission 11 buses in one order. 12 The Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit 13 District was here. Sorry. We received a letter from 14 Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District, and they 15 support our intent but don't think we adequately consider 16 the rule respective. They state that many rural areas 17 don't have natural gas available and therefore would be 18 forced down the diesel path; that rural districts that are 19 attainment areas would not qualify for AB 2766 fees; and 20 also, if they're federal non-attainment, they would not 21 have access to CMAQ funds. So they ask that we consider 22 defining rural counties as having less than 100,000 people 23 and exempt transit agencies in rural areas that have less 24 than 25 buses. 25 Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality 337 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 Management District supports the regulation but wants it 2 strengthened to help them to meet their 2004 attainment 3 deadline; they want the diesel fuel specifications similar 4 to Arco's environmentally clean diesel, in other words, a 5 lower sulfur limit; they want 2004 diesel standards moved 6 forward to 2003; they want a declining NOx fleet average 7 standard for 2003 and 2004. 8 Jeffrey Reed, the City Manager for Fresno, 9 wrote on behalf of himself and the Mayor of Fresno 10 supporting the dual-path approach. Physicians for Social 11 Responsibility urged the Board to strengthen the proposal 12 to provide stronger incentives for cleaner alternatives. 13 Children's Health Environmental Coalition urges us to 14 strengthen the rule, adopt tighter emission standards, 15 create incentives to switch to alternative fuels. 16 And then Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit 17 District -- they are actually different than the other 18 previous testimony this afternoon -- wants to use diesel 19 hybrids. They would like the Board to provide relief from 20 our regulation to responsible and proactive operators, 21 such as themselves, if they can show lower total emissions 22 than what would be achieved under the regulation. 23 And then finally, we received one letter in 24 opposition from a citizen and self-described 25 environmentalist who opposes the regulation due to the 338 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 undue burden on transit agencies. 2 That was the summary of the comments. We 3 also had some regulatory amendments that we would like to 4 read into the record. 5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I've got a suggestion at 6 this point maybe before you do that, and I guess, fellow 7 Board Members, I am going to exercise a gentleman's 8 prerogative here and make a suggestion. 9 We've heard such a lot of testimony today, 10 and as I indicated at the beginning, this is a highly 11 complex rule. We have a number of issues that I would 12 feel most comfortable in asking staff to look at these in 13 some detail. What I would propose, and we'll have some 14 discussion on this, but what I would propose is that we 15 ask staff to look into those. We've looked into the 16 viability and achievability of the 2004 NOx standard. 17 We've looked at the hybrid issues there. We've looked at 18 the in-use compliance issues, the status of retrofit 19 technology, the carbide issues there, the funding of the 20 sources, most recently the EMA fleet average requirements, 21 and I think we're asking a lot for staff to respond here. 22 I, in all honesty, wouldn't know exactly 23 what I'm voting on and I would be more comfortable if we 24 actually essentially would close the record for that part, 25 ask staff to come back, analyze all those and come back 339 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 with a meeting in February -- we don't have a Board 2 meeting scheduled -- and just to address this item. It 3 gives staff adequate time to look at that. 4 So that's what I would propose and 5 discussion on that. 6 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I would support you, 7 Mr. Chairman, and I think that's the right way to go about 8 this. There were a number of issues raised and staff, I'm 9 sure, would like the opportunity to take a little bit of 10 time to look at those issues that were raised and come 11 back to us with some recommendations for either 12 modifications or further clarifications, one or the other. 13 As I understand it, we have to adjourn to a 14 date certain, and I suspect that if we could, that normal 15 meeting day might be the best. 16 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: February 24th. 17 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I would so move that 18 we continue this item to February 24th at 9:30 a.m. 19 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Dr. Friedman. 20 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: I'm certainly in 21 support. I just wonder should we not -- should not staff 22 have a sense of how we feel, particularly about, for 23 example, the carve-out? 24 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think that's fine. 25 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: I suspect that that 340 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 would be important. 2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think that's fine to 3 give some specific directive to staff so they have a 4 feeling there, I guess. 5 Ms. D'Adamo and Supervisor DeSaulnier. 6 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: We all have 7 something to say. Finally it's our turn. 8 (Laughter) 9 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: With regard to the 10 carve-out, I would like to just raise some concerns so 11 that perhaps staff could, in looking at the carve-out, 12 also look at some of the issues that were raised by EMA 13 representatives and Detroit Diesel Corporation. My main 14 issue on the carve-out is not as much local flexibility or 15 inflexibility, depending on how it's characterized, but my 16 main goal here is what's going to get us to the bottom 17 line of what we want to achieve. And in the San Joaquin 18 Valley in particular, since they don't have it spelled out 19 in the statute, it does appear that, you know, the last 20 time they were before us we were pretty tough on them and 21 said, you know, they've got to go back and get to work on 22 the stationary side. We're going to do our job on the 23 mobile source side. 24 I think we need to, whether it's giving 25 them the tools that they need or whether it's us being 341 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 more aggressive on our end so that they can meet the goal 2 that's set out, because as I understand it, they can't be 3 bumped up again after they get bumped up this next 4 go-around. It means they're going to lose dollars and 5 that's really going to have a huge impact. 6 The other thing that if staff could take a 7 look at as far as bottom line, on an accelerated -- I 8 asked the question earlier on. On an accelerated PM, it's 9 my understanding that that's not really going to help the 10 Valley in the concerns that were raised today. What they 11 need is something on the NOx component. So what could be 12 done on an accelerated NOx component that could get them 13 where they want to go? And what would that do for the 14 Valley and other regions outside regions that would have 15 this carve-out. 16 I'm thinking in particular an issue that's 17 been of great concern to me and others in the Valley, and 18 that's the issue of transported pollution, pollutants 19 coming from one air district into another. Maybe there's 20 another way to skin this cat so that we don't just focus 21 on areas that are particularly acute, because even though 22 these buses, they're mobile, but I guess the reason we're 23 looking at this carve-out is because they're contained in 24 an air district but their omissions aren't. So what can 25 we do to, if we look at the NOx side, get them where they 342 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 want to go and then perhaps also bring along some of the 2 other regions as well. 3 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. 4 Supervisor DeSaulnier. 5 BOARD MEMBER DE SAULNIER: Just briefly. 6 Probably appropriate that I would go next. I, too, am 7 concerned about the transport issue, Dee Dee, that we've 8 gone through. I have this horror -- you know, we had that 9 film somewhere a few meetings ago where that high school 10 was talking about how South Coast was creating all this 11 pollution, and I know you're working on a valley high 12 school to do that to the Bay Area -- 13 (Laughter) 14 BOARD MEMBER DE SAULNIER: -- but it is a 15 concern because when we started this rulemaking before 16 Mike and staff put a lot of effort into the two paths, I 17 was prepared, even though it would make me even less 18 popular than I currently am in the Bay Area, to support 19 the alternative route, period, because as we've heard 20 today the transit operators in the Bay Area definitely 21 want to go the diesel route. But I am concerned about how 22 if the Valley does alternative and we do diesel, what kind 23 of affect that might have on transport and I think we 24 should look at it. 25 For me -- this should come as no surprise 343 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 given my questions some hours ago -- I think it's 2 important that the PM comes as close to equal as possible. 3 So I would be supportive of what the environmental 4 community suggested today and I would like some response 5 by staff in terms of the doability of that. And then the 6 comments by the engine manufacturers, of course we're 7 going to have a lot of feedback from that but that also 8 plays into that. 9 In addition to that, the certification and 10 the testing is problematic because by staff I heard that 11 in-use testing might be 20 times more. We've heard today 12 it might be five times more. I know it's difficult to be 13 exact but get some kind of staff response because I'm 14 concerned we'll go out and do that realtime testing and we 15 will have already made the rule and be reacting to 16 something that wasn't accurate and we'll be criticized for 17 not being more accurate in the first place. 18 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Supervisor Roberts. 19 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Thank you, 20 Mr. Chairman. First of all, staff acknowledged the letter 21 from MTDB and ran through the issues and I'd like perhaps 22 somebody to respond back to me on those issues. Then 23 those questions that were raised, I think there's simple 24 answers to them and I don't want to get into that tonight, 25 but I would like to hear back on those. I do have an 344 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 interest. 2 Secondly, I'm thinking back to about -- I 3 guess it was a little bit over a year ago when we had a 4 major issue before this Board and prior to some of the 5 current Members being on -- and that was how do we 6 classify the diesel exhaust. We went a little bit further 7 I think than staff had anticipated we were going to go, 8 and I think we did something that was long overdue. 9 It's so incredible to me that in this state 10 that diesel hasn't -- nothing has happened, nothing 11 significant in a lot of years of talking about air 12 pollution. And there's something that is so significant, 13 such a significant part, that I think these things are 14 long overdue. As I sit here -- and I do wear a couple 15 different hats and one is a member of our air pollution 16 control district. I would like to see the air pollution 17 control district, the air districts, have that ability to 18 make those decisions locally along with their transit 19 boards. So I'll reserve final judgment, but I guess I 20 want to say after I've listened to all this testimony, it 21 isn't just a matter of one or two districts that may or 22 may not have that right, which is some sophisticated legal 23 argument that somebody wants to get into. I think they 24 ought to have it, and not one of them, I think they all 25 ought to have it. 345 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 So I'm going to be interested in why they 2 shouldn't have it. I'd like to see it. If every transit 3 district can decide now what path they want to go down, 4 I'm not sure how that changes the game except that you 5 have another agency locally making that decision, and I 6 think that an agency that is responsible for cleaning up 7 the air at a specific location, I think that's a good 8 place for that decision to be made. It sounds 9 overwhelmingly sensible to me. 10 And then finally for my comments tonight, 11 the acceleration of the retrofit program. It sounded like 12 what I was hearing is we can -- could do this, and I think 13 it was the gentleman from the Lung Association that was 14 recommending it and I thought staff was merging in 15 agreement. I would like to see that happen, too. 16 So I'll close with that and wait until I 17 hear. I guess I have to tune in 30 days from now, but 18 I'll be back. 19 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman. 20 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes. 21 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, for 22 myself I would like to have perhaps a discussion by staff, 23 probably written discussion, for us to review. We 24 discussed a bit of the local entities and their abilities 25 to do some of the things that they see necessary, and yet 346 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 going back to the Chairman's overarching comments this 2 morning about the bigger picture, there may be a 3 discussion of the bigger picture that's necessary for us 4 to understand what effects that maybe individual control 5 throughout California might have on some sort of larger 6 picture, economic picture, development picture, investment 7 picture that many people have to make in terms of engine 8 manufacturing, fuel development, et cetera, et cetera, as 9 well as the -- those who are involved with the air 10 pollution control device. 11 So I think a larger discussion of perhaps 12 pros and cons might be very helpful to the Board. 13 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Supervisor Patrick. 14 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Thank you. 15 By this stage in the game, normally I have 16 a very clear picture of what direction I want to go in on 17 something. This has been one of the most confounded days, 18 if you will, I think that I have experienced on this Board 19 in the two and a half years that I've been on it. 20 I think I understand completely why we 21 don't want to shut the door on diesel, that we want to -- 22 we want -- because we have other fish to fry in the diesel 23 area, and so we don't want those technologies to stop 24 developing, and so I understand that. That's the big 25 picture. 347 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 I also, being a locally elected person who 2 feels very strongly in local flexibility, I think that 3 we're dealing with a little bit of a unique situation in 4 that the decisions that we're making here -- and let's say 5 everyone in the San Joaquin Valley were to go to the 6 alternate fuel, that is not going to impact other areas in 7 a way that they are all relative -- those buses are in a 8 contained area. So this is a little bit unique. 9 This is not the truck that's going to be 10 driving the length and breadth of California. This is a 11 decision that really affects a local community in a unique 12 way, more unique than a lot of things that we talk about. 13 I have never really felt sorry for Los 14 Angeles in my life. I was born and raised in Burbank, by 15 the way, but it's really unfortunate you don't have a 16 representative on this Board. And I do appreciate your 17 Vice Chairman coming and making a presentation to this 18 Board today because South Coast and San Joaquin Valley are 19 in a very unique situation. We're talking about extreme. 20 We're talking about severe. We're not talking about 21 moderate. We're not talking about honky dorey. We're 22 talking about very important air quality decisions that 23 affect our citizens' health, that affect our economy, 24 everything else. 25 So when we talk about gee -- well, of 348 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 course we read -- you read the thing about South Coast. 2 It sounded like you folks really did have the ability to 3 do that, but when it came to discussing whether San 4 Joaquin Valley had the ability to do that, it seemed like 5 gee, you know, you probably do, and we're going to spend 6 all of our resources fighting somebody in court over 7 whether we have the ability to do this or not. 8 Also we've talked about the idea of whether 9 or not if we were to accelerate this program, where would 10 the advantages be there. We have some really big issues, 11 I think, that are still on the table that I still have not 12 completely formulated decision about what direction to go 13 in, but I have tremendous faith in our staff that they can 14 look at these and give us a more clear understanding of 15 what the big picture is and a more clear understanding of 16 some of these issues that we, as Board Members, are 17 discussing. 18 I can honestly say normally at this point 19 in time the path is clear. It may not be clear to the 20 people in the audience because they all have an ox to 21 gore, but as far as us looking at the state of California, 22 the path usually by this time has become clear and I don't 23 really sense that clarity today. 24 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. 25 Mr. McKinnon. 349 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 BOARD MEMBER MC KINNON: Supervisor 2 Patrick, you hit the big picture, the big picture, the big 3 picture. I'm pretty new on this Board, and one of the 4 things that really hit me about the big picture is that 5 everybody in California has had to deal with cleaning up 6 the air except for diesel. Industry by industry by 7 industry there's been sacrifices made, and I know I voted 8 on whether or not hair mousse emitted. And I don't want 9 to vote on hair mousse and nail polish ever again -- 10 (Laughter) 11 BOARD MEMBER MC KINNON: -- when 70 percent 12 of the problem in at least the toxics is coming from 13 diesel. So then when I reached that kind of conclusion, 14 then it's a discussion about how do we fix it, how do we 15 get there, how do we get to diesel. And I think that one 16 of the things I'm very, very clear on is that diesel in 17 trucking and in hauling things long distances is going to 18 be around for a long, long time. It's not instantly going 19 to be replaced and it's a very, very difficult change to 20 make. 21 It certainly makes sense to me that with 22 transit fleets where they're fueling in one location and 23 where Arco moved and said they would make lower sulfur 24 diesel, it certainly makes sense to me that we begin to 25 move the change in technology in transit fleets. It's a 350 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 good start. It's a good way of setting the direction. 2 Now, trucking -- stay awake here. You 3 know, I -- maybe there are not people that will say it 4 that crassly, but here's the problem. 70 percent of the 5 problem everybody else is having to deal with, and if we 6 can move the technology so that trucking can ease in and 7 have good technology to deal with the PM-10 and to deal 8 with the NOx, we do a heck of a lot for this state. 9 For that reason, I get real uncomfortable 10 when we start carving things away, and I'm really, really 11 up in the air and I think taking a month is a pretty good 12 idea. I know that we gave San Joaquin a pretty rough time 13 and they came and said hey, give us a hand. So I hear 14 that. 15 I hear that -- I hear that logic, but I do 16 have a difficult time saying let's move this technology 17 because the real deal is trucking. We don't get enough 18 gain out of transit fleets to change. People are saying 19 no diesel and I see the buttons. We don't get that much 20 out of transit fleets. What we want to do is move the 21 technology and most fuel towards trucking fleets, and if 22 that scares some people, I'm the one that said it. I 23 don't know if I speak for everybody here, but that 24 certainly is my perspective on it. 25 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 351 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much, Matt. 2 Anybody else on the Board want to make a comment? 3 Mr. Calhoun. 4 BOARD MEMBER CALHOUN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. 5 You know, part of the discussion that I hear tonight kind 6 of reminds me of discussion that the auto manufacturers 7 had over the years. Each wants to do his own thing. I'm 8 somewhat bothered by that. In particular, I think that 9 when we set a standard, whatever technology is available 10 to meet that standard should be allowed, and I have 11 difficulty carving out anything that is going to interfere 12 with that, and I think that's where we have to -- what 13 this Board traditionally has done. Set the standard, let 14 whatever technology is available meet the standard, and it 15 then becomes a marketing issue. People can choose, and 16 that would be it. 17 And I somewhat feel the same way here. I 18 think the staff has tried to carve out two paths, and if 19 the diesel technology or whatever the technology it is, it 20 doesn't bother me. If it meets the requirement, why 21 eliminate it. That's my feeling. 22 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think do we -- 23 Dr. Friedman. 24 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: I think that Matt 25 got it exactly right. The reason I'm in favor of two 352 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 tracking, if you will, is because of the -- what we did 2 with diesel fuel at our meeting when it took 12 years for 3 us to finally say hey, there's some toxic air contaminants 4 in diesel fuel and it's enough, but we also promised the 5 truckers and the fuel makers that they would have a real 6 opportunity to see if they could get to be as good as 7 anybody else. 8 If we eliminate that option, I think we're 9 sending them the wrong signal. I don't think diesel is 10 going to go away in five years, but I do think it could be 11 improved probably 5,000 percent over the next ten. So I 12 think Matt hit the nail right on the head with respect to 13 that issue. 14 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think as the gentleman, 15 one of the gentleman, reminded us earlier, if we look back 16 ten years at what happened to gasoline technology, and 17 again working with the technology and with the fuels, 18 we've seen just tremendous progress. So I think also what 19 we've heard today is that with the combination of the 20 fuels, fuel requirements, the engine manufacturers and the 21 emission control manufacturers can actually unleash a 22 whole number of technologies which can lead us along that 23 path as well. 24 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: I'd just like to 25 make one more comment because there's been a little too 353 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 much hysterical commentary about the direct relation 2 between some diesels in the city and mortality and kids 3 and this and that. And I've seen more cancer in children 4 than would fill this room five times, and a 14-year-old is 5 not dead because of diesel exhaust. That's number one. 6 The bottom line is that if you reduce the 7 particulates in diesel 95 percent, I don't know if there's 8 still toxicity. We really know so little about what it is 9 on any single particle that creates the health dangers. 10 And I just don't want to buy into that it's all or none. 11 I don't think it's correct scientifically nor medically, 12 frankly, and I think it's a hell of an advance. It will 13 have to be restudied some day. 14 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Also I think seeing -- 15 what was said earlier, seeing all the technology we have 16 out there now, all the way I say we've got to clean up 17 diesel, we've got the natural gas out there operating in a 18 lot of these fleets. All of these are much cleaner 19 options, and we have a whole menu of those. So I think 20 I'm very comfortable when we create opportunities coupling 21 with the fuel so that in fact we can get to low emissions 22 or zero emissions that people agree, whatever the fuel in 23 this case. 24 Yes. 25 BOARD MEMBER MC KINNON: I don't want to 354 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 be redundant, but Lord, we were here all day and maybe 2 some of it was redundant so maybe I'll be a little bit. 3 If transit diesel particulates are a 4 percentage and a half or two percent of the diesel 5 particulates out there, and let's say today we required 6 CNG on every transit bus there was and we reduced the 7 diesel particulates to nothing, we still have 68 percent 8 of the problem in diesel. So it seems to me that moving, 9 repeating it, moving the technology so we get the 10 technology to the point that we're getting at that other 11 68 percent matters a whole heck of a lot to everybody, 12 including 14-year-old kids. 13 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Again, if we can 14 accelerate the retrofit technology to take care of 15 vehicles on the road and not rely on the fleet 16 (inaudible), that's going to be a big help. Again, I 17 guess we could talk all night here, but I guess I had the 18 suggestion. I don't know whether we got a motion for 19 that, so -- 20 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I had the motion but 21 I never got a second. 22 MR. KENNY: Mr. Chairman. 23 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes. 24 MR. KENNY: The one thing I wasn't clear 25 about was essentially you mentioned February 24th at 9:30 355 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 in the morning, but you didn't mention the location. 2 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Sacramento, 3 California, our board room. 4 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Do the Board Members have 5 any problem with that date? Again, we would not 6 anticipate a long meeting here, but it would give staff 7 time. So have we got a second here? All in favor say 8 aye. Negatives? No. 9 I guess I will close the record on this 10 agenda item and we will reconvene on February the 24th in 11 Sacramento and the Board will discuss this item and reach 12 a decision. Since the record is closed, we will not hear 13 any additional testimony at this time. 14 I think what we're going to do, we'll take 15 a five-minute break and then we will reassemble to talk 16 about the South Coast AQMD SIP and research proposals and 17 we would hope that we would be out of here maybe by 8:00, 18 or 8:15. 19 Thank you for all remaining so long. 20 (Brief recess taken) 21 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: The next item is Agenda 22 00-1-5, the 1999 amendment to the South Coast District's 23 1997 State Implementation Plan for Ozone. Again, let me 24 say at the outset I am very glad to have the plan 25 amendment before us. It reflects a lot of hard work and 356 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 good will from everyone involved. It will also enable us 2 to move beyond the consuming lawsuits and get back to the 3 job at hand, cleaning up the air in southern California. 4 Having said that, let me stress it is a 5 very limited document, a surgical revision if you like. 6 We still need to work (inaudible) on a comprehensive plan 7 for a revision for this region, and obviously we should 8 get started on that very soon and I think all parties 9 involved recognize that. 10 ARB is analyzing the extent of air quality 11 and meteorological data collection due to the 1997 12 southern California ozone study. That will help us to 13 develop new and better modeling for the region and I 14 support that effort, and part of the work is going on and 15 that will come up before us I think in March. 16 When staff gets through with the technical 17 part, this Board will need to revisit operational control 18 strategies to make sure they are up-to-date and sufficient 19 given everything we've learned about air quality since the 20 last go around. This is a constantly changing world. 21 Implementation Plans are living documents, and as we've 22 seen extensively today, the evolving technologies are 23 taking place at a rapid pace. 24 Mr. Kenny, will you please begin the staff 25 presentation. 357 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 MR. KENNY: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman 2 and Members of the Board. I was actually going to provide 3 some perspective with regard to the plan amendment, but I 4 think I'm going to skip that since I think most of the 5 Board Members are actually quite familiar with it. Let me 6 just say that the 1997 plan revision is good for air 7 quality. It accelerates the adoption and implementation 8 deadlines for new district measures. It ensures timely 9 implementation of this district adopted rules since the 10 1994 SIP. USEPA has indicated to us that this amendment 11 adequately addresses approvability issues with the 1997 12 plan. So with that, I think I would like to introduce 13 Ms. Sylvia Oey and she will give you the presentation on 14 the plan. 15 MS. OEY: Thank you, Mr. Kenny and 16 Mr. Chairman, and good evening Members of the Board. 17 As the Chairman and Executive Officer 18 indicated, this item entails a proposed revision. It is 19 one of the regional plans within the State Implementation 20 Plan for ozone. I would like to begin with a very brief 21 overview of the function of those regional plans. 22 As you know, the federal Clean Air Act 23 requires states to prepare a State Implementation Plan for 24 all areas that violate the national ambient air quality 25 standard for a criteria pollutant or pollutants. This 358 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 plan becomes the state's blueprint for attaining the 2 standard. 3 In California, the ozone plan for any given 4 area is developed by the local air pollution control 5 district working with the local councils of government. 6 The plan takes into account the anticipated reductions 7 from state and federal measures in addition to local 8 control measures. Once a plan is approved by ARB and EPA, 9 it becomes a federally enforceable SIP revision. 10 Today we will be reviewing a proposed 11 revision to the South Coast air basin. The South Coast is 12 classified as an extreme area, as you no doubt heard 13 earlier today, and has until 2010 to attain the federal 14 standard. In 1994, the South Coast Air Quality Management 15 District adopted and ARB approved and submitted a plan for 16 attaining by 2010. This strategy included both local and 17 state commitments, and it identified a certain level of 18 reductions that have to be attained by the federal 19 government in order for the standard to be attained here 20 by the 2010 deadline. We refer to that as the federal 21 assignment. 22 EPA approved this SIP in 1996. The 1994 23 plan is currently the enforceable SIP for the South Coast. 24 The South Coast Air Quality Management District 25 subsequently proposed to replace this portion of the 1994 359 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 plan with a 1997 air quality management plan or AQMP. The 2 District used more recent air quality data and economic 3 forecasts to develop the 1997 plan and also reevaluated 4 its control strategy. 5 The resulting air quality model 6 demonstrated attainment in 2010 with fewer emission 7 mission reductions than were used in the 1994 SIP. The 8 District revised its control strategy accordingly, 9 removing or deleting 31 local measures that it had 10 determined were not feasible, not cost-effective or not 11 needed. The 1997 AQMP relied on the same combination of 12 new state and federal measures as the 1994 SIP. The 13 benefits of those measures were recalculated by using the 14 inventory in the later plan. After much consideration, 15 this Board approved the 1997 AQMP and submitted it as a 16 SIP revision. 17 The South Coast District Board -- next 18 slide please. Thank you. The South Coast District Board 19 approved the proposed 1999 amendment in December. The 20 District's 40-plus member AQMP advisory group was 21 consulted in the development of this amendment, and the 22 public was given the opportunity to comment in two 23 extensive sets of public workshops that were held 24 throughout the basin. 25 Like the 1997 AQMP, the proposed 1999 360 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 amendment revises only the local control strategy. The 2 control measure commitment in this amendment has three 3 layers of enforcability. First, the amendment identifies 4 16 local measures adopted since the 1994 SIP and commits 5 to achieve 4 tons per day of NOx reductions and 454 tons 6 per day of hydrocarbon emission reduction from those 7 rules. The bulk of the plan's reductions come from 8 measures that the District has already adopted. 9 The second layer of enforcability lies in 10 the revised schedule for the adoption of specified 11 near-term and long-term local control measures, and I will 12 discuss those further in just a minute. 13 The third layer of commitment is a table 14 identifying emission reductions to be achieved by year of 15 rule adoption and by rule implementation. This commitment 16 is independent of the control measure adoption schedule. 17 The District may consider and adopt all the rules 18 scheduled for a given year and still be obligated to 19 identify additional emission reductions to fulfill its 20 annual commitment on time. The 1990 amendment also 21 requires semiannual reports to the District Board 22 quantifying progress that is being made towards meeting 23 these commitments. 24 The 1999 amendment uses the same emission 25 inventory as the 1997 AQMP. If this plan is approved by 361 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 USEPA, this 1997 SIP currency will be the new guide stick 2 for measuring progress towards commitments for this 3 phase-in. 4 The revised district control strategy 5 consists of 26 near-term measures and four long-term 6 measures. The near-term measures are to be adopted in 7 2008. The District expects to achieve between 47 and 78 8 tons per day of VOC reductions in 2010 from these 9 near-term measures and makes the commitment to get at 10 least 48 tons. 11 If a near-term control measure proves to be 12 unfeasible or not as effective as projected in the plan, 13 the District will make up the reductions. If the 14 near-term measures deliver less than the 76 tons per day 15 of local VOC needed for attainment, the District will 16 pursue the long-term measures as needed. 17 Both the '97 and the 1999 amendment would 18 produce the tons per day -- the 463 ton per day of local 19 reductions needed to attain the federal standard by 2010. 20 The 1999 amendment, however, would produce those 21 reductions more quickly than the control strategy in the 22 '97 plan. This means that air quality would have improved 23 more quickly not only in the South Coast air basin, but 24 also in the downwind areas that are subject to pollution 25 transport from the South Coast. 362 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 As this slide indicates, the bulk of the 2 District's reductions would be achieved through measures 3 that are already on the books. For new measures, the 1999 4 amendment would also reduce the District's reliance on the 5 less defined long-term measures. Long-term measures 6 accounted for 30 percent of the local reductions in the 7 1994 SIP and almost 20 percent in 1997. Long-term 8 measures account for only 6 percent of the District's 9 commitment in the 1999 amendment. 10 Of course, the District -- one of the 11 District's goals is to amended 1997 AQMP so as to update 12 the applicable SIP, the enforceable plan (inaudible). EPA 13 identified four reasons for proposing a partial 14 disapproval of the 1997 AQMP. They cited a failure to 15 adopt control measures in the '97 AQMP on the scheduled 16 proposed in that plan, a lack of progress in reducing the 17 long-term commitment, the fact that some control measures 18 were dropped which they considered to be back-sliding or 19 SIP relaxation, and the federal reduction assignment. 20 EPA recently sent the District a letter 21 concerning their timetable for reviewing and approving the 22 proposed 1999 amendment. In that letter, EPA staff as 23 much as indicated that the proposed amendments would 24 likely render the 1999 -- excuse me -- the 1997 plan 25 approvable and ARB staff concurs with that assessment. 363 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 Next slide. 2 I would like to emphasize that we have 3 always viewed the 1997 AQMP as an interim SIP or update. 4 Even before the '94 SIP was adopted, ARB staff started to 5 develop the technical tools for the next comprehensive SIP 6 revision for the South Coast. Originally scheduled for 7 completion in 2000, we now anticipate that the next 8 comprehensive South Coast plan update will be ready for 9 local adoption and this Board's consideration in 2001. 10 In the summer of 1997, ARB, local districts 11 and many others carried out an intensive air quality 12 lobbying study known as the Southern California Ozone 13 Study or SCOS. Data from this study are being used to 14 upgrade our ozone air quality models for the 2001 AQMP. 15 Both the District and ARB are also updating 16 their respective pieces of the emission inventory. 17 Inventory improvements under development include 18 EMFAC2000, the much anticipated motor vehicle emissions 19 model update, and an updated inventory of off-road mobile 20 sources. The entire inventory will also be revised to 21 reflect more current population and economic forecasts. 22 These revisions to the technical 23 underpinnings of the SIP will no doubt necessitate a 24 review of the SIP ozone control strategy. ARB staff will 25 use this new air quality modeling result together with 364 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 inputs from last October's new technology symposium to 2 reevaluate ARB's long-range control strategy. We 3 anticipate that an updated state strategy will be ready 4 for your consideration in early 2001. 5 The 2001 comprehensive plan is also 6 expected to assess how the revised control strategy will 7 impact attainment of the new federal eight-hour ozone 8 standards and PM 2.5 standard. 9 The staff recommends that you approve the 10 1999 amendment to the 1997 AQMP for the South Coast and 11 that you approve the submittal of this amendment as a SIP 12 revision. The resolution that we have prepared for your 13 consideration also requests that EPA take expeditious 14 action to approve this amendment. We also request that 15 you reaffirm this agency's commitment to work 16 cooperatively with the South Coast Air Quality Management 17 District to develop a comprehensive SIP revision which 18 would be considered locally and by this Board in 2001. 19 That concludes my presentation and I would 20 be happy to address any questions you may have. 21 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. One 22 question. When in 2001 do you expect to bring the 2001 23 SIP to the Board? 24 MS. OEY: By the end of 2001. What we're 25 looking at is local adoption sometime in the late spring 365 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 or summer possibly and approval by this Board by the end 2 of 2001. 3 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Okay. Thank you. Are 4 there any comments that need to be in? Any other Board 5 Member questions? With that, I guess I would like to ask, 6 there are two witnesses, Dr. Wallestein (phonetic) and Lee 7 Wallace. 8 DR. WALLESTEIN: Thank you very much. This 9 is the best ever plan for the South Coast Air Basin, and I 10 would like to sincerely thank your staff, especially your 11 Executive Officer, Mike Kenny, and Cynthia Marcum 12 (phonetic). They played a pivotal role in the development 13 of the plan and settlement of our SIP litigation, and we 14 would be very pleased with your approval tonight and 15 speedy forwarding on to the USEPA. 16 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thanks very much. You and 17 your staff are to be congratulated, and I know Mr. Kenny, 18 the many hours he spent on that. So appreciate that 19 effort, and also Cynthia, too. Again, great team work. 20 Comments. 21 Lee Wallace. I don't see Lee here. One 22 advantage of a long day is some of the witnesses drop off, 23 not literally, but at least they disappear for a while. 24 (Laughter) 25 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I guess are there any 366 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 written submissions to be entered into the record? 2 MS. MARCUM: Yes, there are two. Cynthia 3 Marcum (phonetic) for the reporter's benefit. 4 First of all, Tom Keer (phonetic) who 5 writes as a private citizen. He states that the 1999 plan 6 should not be adopted because it relies on the smog check 7 program which he characterizes as broken. He further 8 asked the Board to delay action on the plan until the smog 9 check program and its effects on transportation planning 10 are fixed. We've acknowledged the difficulties that 11 California is experiencing with implementing the smog 12 check program to achieve the full benefits anticipated in 13 the SIP. In fact, we have a separate process already 14 underway with the Bureau of Automotive Repair to both 15 quantify the program's effectiveness and to identify how 16 we will achieve the needed reductions through program 17 improvements and/or other measures. 18 The issues raised in this comment letter 19 and the process we have underway to address them already 20 exist with our approved 1994 ozone SIP. The South Coast 21 1999 amendment doesn't change the existing situation. As 22 a result, we do not believe it is appropriate nor 23 necessary to hold up your action on the plan today. In 24 fact, you approval will enable the EPA's approval of the 25 plan which would lock in District action to accelerate 367 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 emission reductions and it would also help resolve the SIP 2 lawsuit filed against the District. 3 The second comment letter is from Bill 4 Quinn of the California Council for Environmental and 5 Economic Balance or CCEEB. CCEEB strongly supports the 6 1999 plan and urges the Board to approve the plan today. 7 We have no response. We don't need a response to that 8 comment. 9 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Any other comments, 10 Mr. Kenny? 11 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: No comments, but 12 Mr. Chairman, I've been briefed and I'm very pleased and 13 very grateful that perhaps I can make the motion to 14 approve this Resolution 00-5. 15 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Second. 16 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: All in favor say "aye". 17 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Pardon me. Wrong 18 number. 00-4. I got so excited. 19 (Laughter) 20 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Ironic. 21 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: You were right the 22 first time. 23 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Was I right? Are 24 you sure? No, no. I think -- 25 MR. KENNY: It says 00-4. 368 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Am I right? It's 4. 2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: It's Resolution 4, 004. 3 Thank you very much. Again, thank South 4 Coast AQMD. Thank you, Barry. 5 Our last item today will be Agenda Item 6 00-1-7, research proposals. The next item of business is 7 consideration of research proposals, and I understand that 8 there will also be a staff presentation given on this. 9 The Board will recollect that this was held over and 10 separated as a proposal brought before the Board last 11 December because of concerns we had about the overall 12 scope of the program and reporting requirements, et 13 cetera. I'm very pleased to note that I think the staffs 14 have worked together, Dr. Barham and staff and Dr. Burge 15 and his staff and Helene Margolis and also Dr. Friedman. 16 So we brought this now to a point where we're very 17 comfortable and delighted to see this program move ahead. 18 Mr. Kenny, do you have staff presentation? 19 MR. KENNY: Yes. Thank you, Dr. Lloyd and 20 Members of the Board. There are two resolutions being 21 presented for your consideration and the staff 22 presentation will introduce them. The presentation will 23 be given by Helene Margolis and will include a brief 24 overview of the new vulnerable populations program and a 25 detailed discussion of the first project to be sponsored 369 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 through that program. The project is to study the effects 2 of particulate air pollution on asthmatic children and 3 encompasses Resolution 00-6 and 00-7. 4 With that, I would like to apologize to the 5 court reporter and introduce Ms. Helene Margolis. 6 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I will remind you, Helene, 7 that it's quarter of 8:00 and there's 22 overheads. 8 MS. MARGOLIS: Actually, I have reduced it 9 to ten. 10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: So don't run the risk of 11 losing a quarrel. 12 MS. MARGOLIS: Thank you, Mr. Kenny. 13 Actually I have reduced it to ten. 14 Good evening, Dr. Lloyd and Members of the 15 Board. Today I'll briefly describe the first study to be 16 sponsored under the new vulnerable populations research 17 program, and just briefly note with respect to the 18 program, the concept behind it is to interrelate through 19 research what we're finding in terms of genetics, 20 social/behavioral factors and relate them to the 21 environmental impacts with consideration of the other 22 factors. 23 The study that we're talking about today 24 that's before you is entitled "responses in asthmatic 25 children to short-term fluctuations and particulate air 370 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 pollution implications for asthma natural history". The 2 natural history of the disease refers to the course a 3 disease takes over time. For simplicity, we call the 4 project the "Fresno childhood asthma study". 5 This is an epidemiologic investigation of 6 the role air pollution, especially particulate matter, 7 plays in day-to-day exacerbations of asthma in young 8 children and how repeated responses influence the course 9 of the disease. 10 Fresno was selected as the study site for 11 three major reasons. First, Fresno County, in a 58-county 12 analysis by the Department of Health Services, had 13 significantly high rates of asthma-related 14 hospitalizations for blacks and Hispanics of all ages 15 combined, as well as for Hispanic, black, and white 16 children. Secondly, Fresno is notable for its complex mix 17 of air pollution and very high levels of PM as well as 18 gaseous pollutants. 19 Last, but probably the most compelling 20 reason to conduct this study in Fresno, is an 21 extraordinary opportunity to capitalize on the $30-plus 22 million investment being made in Fresno and the San 23 Joaquin Valley to define the temporal and spacial 24 characteristics of particulate matter in the region. 25 There are no other locations in this country or in the 371 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 world where this depth of PM data will be available. The 2 availability of the detailed, daily collected data over 3 multiple years makes the proposed asthma study feasible 4 and highly cost-effective, and this is truly a unique 5 opportunity. 6 The project is the subject of -- skip to 7 the next slide, please. This slide just summarizes the 8 fact that it's a project that's comprised of two parts. 9 It's really one major project with two parts. Part A is 10 the main effort is the epidemiologic and clinical 11 component, and Part B is the exposure assessment component 12 of the project. 13 The research team includes investigators 14 with expertise in all the requisite disciplines -- 15 epidemiology, medicine, biostatistics and exposure 16 assessment. The team, which would work in collaboration 17 with ARB staff, has been drawn from a number of UC 18 campuses, the California Department of Health Services and 19 private research organizations. 20 In addition to the expertise among the 21 investigators, Dr. Tager, who is principal investigator 22 for the overall project, established an external advisory 23 panel comprised of ten distinguished scientists from many 24 disciplines. These individuals will provide advice and 25 peer review for the study throughout this study. Next 372 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 slide please. 2 The objectives of the study or the main 3 objectives are one, to determine the relationship between 4 short-term exposures to specific components of particulate 5 air pollution and other ambient air pollutants, the acute 6 exacerbations of asthma, and that is for the children who 7 already have asthma for what is the particulates and 8 experience them on a day-to-day basis. 9 The second objective is to define the 10 critical exposures leading to these observed acute health 11 effects. As an example, what are the concentrations in 12 which the effects occur? Are there interactions between 13 pollutants such as the criteria pollutants or toxic air 14 contaminants or bioaerosols, or pollen and spores that are 15 both indoors and outdoors. 16 The third objective -- next slide please -- 17 is to determine if there are cumulative effects of acute 18 responses to the short-term air pollution exposures such 19 that the nature of the disease changes over time, either 20 becoming more severe or there are more permanent 21 reductions in lung growth. 22 The fourth objective is to define the 23 biologic characteristics of the children or the exposure 24 characteristics for the subgroups of children who are more 25 or less responsive to a given acute exposure or set of 373 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 exposures who experience larger effects associated with 2 the long-term exposure. Next slide please. You can skip 3 to the next one. Thank you. 4 To meet these objectives, 450 asthmatic 5 children ages six to 10 years will be enrolled in nine 6 groups of 50, each group of 50 children over a nine-month 7 period. These groups of children will be followed 8 intensively for two-week periods, but ten of these periods 9 will occur over a four-year follow-up period. There will 10 be extensive medical information collected, lung function 11 measurements on symptoms, medication used, as well as a 12 lot of additional information regarding the children's 13 health and their routine activities. 14 The major air pollution effects that will 15 be evaluated are listed in this slide. It is expected 16 that there will be distinct subgroups of asthmatics who 17 are responding to different mixtures of pollutants in 18 different seasons. Clinicians know that some asthmatics 19 tend to have summertime allergies, whereas others have 20 allergies specific to other seasons. 21 The interplay between air pollutants within 22 a season and each child's personal profile for asthma 23 triggers will be considered. The biological and exposure 24 characteristics of those children more or less responsive 25 will be defined. Next slide, please. 374 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 I apologize for the -- and don't try to 2 find the street you live on in Fresno. This is basically 3 in addition to the different components of particulate 4 matter, the study will examine the health effects of 5 ozone, NOx, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, as well as 6 indoor and outdoor allergens such as pollens and fungi. 7 They will also look at environmental tobacco smoke and 8 some weather variables. Inclusion of a state of the 9 science exposure assessment protocol in the study is 10 essential to its success, thus the separate detailed Part 11 B proposal was developed and submitted for consideration. 12 This map of the study region highlights the 13 need to define spacial variation in the community. 14 Suppose the circles marked 1, 2, and 3 represent local 15 neighborhoods where the children live. In general, the 16 prevailing winds are from west and southwest. One can 17 easily imagine that compared to neighborhood one, 18 neighborhood two would have higher concentration of 19 primary pollutants due to the position of Highway 99, both 20 over the long-term and short-term. One can also imagine 21 that secondary pollutants or region pollutants such as 22 ozone might tend to be higher in neighborhood three, 23 located in Clovis. In fact, the Fresno Bee reported the 24 occurrence of this phenomenon. 25 There's also variation in the type and 375 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 concentrations of pollutants over time. The study will 2 include extensive consideration of these types of patterns 3 both to refine exposure estimates and to answer questions 4 related to which pollutants, especially components of 5 particulates, are associated with which effects. Next 6 slide, please. 7 This slide shows the work plan and time 8 line for the project in its entirety. The overall project 9 is designed as a five and a half year study. However, 10 because this is a new project requiring substantial 11 resources, it will be funded in two stages with a full 12 review by the Research Screening Committee and the Board 13 occurring towards the end of the first 36 months stage. 14 Shown here are the time frames for the preparation of an 15 interim report, project review by the Research Screen 16 Committee, and pending their approval, the administrative 17 processing of contract amendments allowing completion of 18 the project. Next slide, please. 19 The technical and cost proposals for the 20 overall project health assessment component and for the 21 exposure assessment component were reviewed by the ARB 22 Research Screening Committee. At the time of the RSC 23 meeting in November, the Committee recommended for funding 24 the partial budgets about $1.98 million for the health 25 portion and about $1.9 million for the exposure assessment 376 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 portion of the project. 2 The plan is to submit the interim report 3 and cost proposals for project continuation in about July 4 of 2002. The combined budget for continuation of the 5 health and exposure assessment components is estimated to 6 be about $2.4 million. Thus, the total five and a half 7 year project cost, should it continue through the proposed 8 period, would be about $6.3 million. Next slide, 9 please. 10 How will this project be paid for? Well, 11 effective July in 1999, the Governor and legislature 12 approved the creation of the vulnerable populations 13 research program and allocated $2 million per year for ten 14 years. This study was specifically identified in the 15 program proposal that was approved by the Governor and 16 legislature. The childhood asthma study is indeed the 17 first of many health studies to be sponsored through the 18 program. Next slide, please. 19 In summary, the vulnerable populations 20 research program is on the cutting edge of environmental 21 health research. It is designed to provide scientifically 22 sound information required by the ARB to meet its mandate 23 to protect public health, and specifically the Fresno 24 childhood asthma study will be the first study to examine 25 cumulative effects of short-term air pollution exposure 377 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 responses. It will build on the California regional air 2 pollution study that will -- in the San Joaquin Valley and 3 it will build on the EPA supersite investments. It will 4 also take advantage of the unique opportunity to 5 cost-effectively answer many questions about particle 6 matter exposures and health effects. 7 The asthma study is entirely consistent 8 with the goals and objectives of the program and it will 9 provide critical information required by the Board for 10 making future air pollution public health policy decisions 11 to protect the most sensitive of our children. 12 With that, I thank you for your attention 13 and would be happy to answer any specific questions. 14 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Dr. Friedman. 15 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: I don't have any 16 questions, I just have a comment. This study, which 17 carries a handsome package of commitment in terms of 18 dollars, was scrutinized extensively by the Research 19 Division, by the Chairman and his office, and by me 20 because when it was initially put forward, it required 21 some more checks and balances and some points where 22 evaluation needed to be crystallized. And the current 23 proposal contains those checks and balances. 24 In terms of perspective, this study costs 25 about 30 percent of the cost of the child health study. 378 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 It costs a lot of money to do a big time epidemiologic 2 study with 450 kids and a jillion measurements and 3 tracking them and so forth, but it's an example of 4 creative opportunism. It's opportunistic because the 5 Fresno designation as a supersite is an opportunity that 6 we must take advantage of, and I think that -- I think the 7 likelihood is very good that it will advance progress and 8 our understanding of the relationships between pollutants 9 and asthma and lung growth and all the rest of it. 10 So we all wrestled with this, but I've 11 concluded it is definitely the right thing to do at this 12 time. 13 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: And I certainly echo those 14 comments, and I think with all the measurements going on 15 it's excellent. 16 I have one question. What's the reaction 17 to the Mayor of Fresno for being selected for all these 18 studies? Is he being informed or is she being informed of 19 what's going on? 20 MS. MARGOLIS: Essentially the plan was 21 that pending approval of this I would be going down and 22 briefing the individuals there. However, most of the 23 community is aware that we're planning this study. 24 Mr. Crow has been aware of this study and he's been 25 supportive and the community as a whole has been 379 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 tremendously supportive. Originally Dr. Tager went down 2 to seek support from the community hospital and the San 3 Joaquin Health Consortium that works very much with City 4 of Clovis, City of Fresno, and they've pledged tremendous 5 support, both in terms of helping recruit children and 6 helping to keep the project in the public eye. 7 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Are you creating any jobs 8 there? 9 MS. MARGOLIS: I'd like to. I certainly -- 10 I mean I imagine that we would be recruiting technicians, 11 assuming you're somewhat serious. 12 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: The University of 13 California at Berkeley thanks you. 14 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I just have one 15 question and that is are they going through the schools as 16 the children's health study did? Yes? 17 MS. MARGOLIS: Actually, they're not. The 18 approach here will be quite different in that because they 19 want a distribution of the children from the whole 20 community, they're basically the children's hospital there 21 and there's various asthma intervention programs. There 22 are local clinics, asthma clinics, and they will all 23 provide names of their patients and then any child who 24 wishes to participate will be able to participate. And in 25 that way we will recruit a very diverse population, both 380 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 in terms of severity of disease, levels of treatment, and 2 socioeconomically diverse. And then -- Dr. Friedman, you 3 had a comment. 4 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: Barb, the 5 difference between the two studies is this is the specific 6 identification of an already vulnerable population. In 7 the John Peters study, he studied everybody. 8 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Everybody, yes, but 9 the little key there was -- and maybe these groups will be 10 the key instead of the schools -- that became something 11 that those children really looked forward to and they 12 wanted to participate, and it was kind of reinforced and 13 reinforced so that you could keep this little study group 14 going; where if you don't have kind of a cheerleading 15 group to get these young people kind of thinking this is 16 really great and I want to stay in the program and I want 17 to do my reporting or do whatever I want to do, you lose 18 these children and you need somebody to do that. 19 MS. MARGOLIS: It's a very important 20 observation you're making. One thing I will tell from you 21 past experience, both my own and the study team's and many 22 other investigators, the asthmatic population, whether 23 it's children or adults, but especially children who have 24 parents who deal with this disease day in and day out, are 25 very motivated to understand this disease. And clearly 381 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 the moment you recruit children in the six- to 10-year-old 2 age group and plan to follow them, you really need the 3 parents' involvement and historically we've seen the 4 parent agrees to participate. They're very active. And 5 you really do get a diverse group of parents who are 6 interested because it is. It's a very serious disease and 7 difficult to deal with. 8 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Certainly. And 9 that's very good and I think I've kind of gotten that 10 component, but there still needs to be somebody there 11 because some of the most deserving children to be studied 12 may not have that parent who's going to continue. 13 MS. MARGOLIS: Right. Part of the way the 14 study is designed, there's going to be very frequent 15 contact with the children, there's going to be incentives 16 to continue participation, and again as I said, this was 17 one of the positive aspects about doing the study in 18 Fresno, is that there is a tremendous infrastructure in 19 the community that has really invested in addressing the 20 asthma problem there and they have pledged their support 21 to the study investigators to facilitate throughout the 22 whole project period. 23 So I think your point is well taken and 24 certainly the concern is valid, but I think it can be 25 easily addressed given the foot work that's already been 382 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 done. 2 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: My final comment. 3 If there are any issues with recruitment or attention of 4 patients for any reason, then the way this is set up now 5 we will know about it quickly because there's an advisory 6 committee, read that as an oversight committee, that will 7 be meeting with this group and checking on all these 8 issues for us. 9 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I -- sorry. 10 MS. MARGOLIS: I was just going to add one 11 other point, that in addition there was already built 12 into -- in addition to the fiscal cut point, there's a 13 protocol refinement period that's about six months long 14 right at the beginning of the study that will allow them 15 to pilot test and do some of this initial work and 16 recruitment, and then the plan was that their final, real 17 detailed protocols would be submitted to their external 18 review group, as well as our Research Screening Committee, 19 and there would be regular updates about annually to the 20 Research Screening Committee and to the Board, if you so 21 wish, on the status of the project and addressing those 22 types of questions, where are we and how is the study 23 population. 24 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: We do wish. 25 MS. MARGOLIS: Good. Thank you. 383 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Just also, Helene, you 2 mentioned there this is one of many studies to be done 3 with vulnerable populations, but $10 million over $6 4 million for this, when that many may only be defined as 5 one additional one. 6 MS. MARGOLIS: Actually, it's $20 million 7 and if you minus $6 million we have $14 million left. 8 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: $20 million? 9 MS. MARGOLIS: Well, if it's ten years at 10 $2 million a year. 11 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: And that's locked in? 12 MS. MARGOLIS: Oh, yes. 13 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Good. 14 MS. MARGOLIS: So then we have $14 million 15 left, and I don't think we'll have another asthma study. 16 MR. SCHEIBLE: And we're also hopeful that 17 we'll find co-funders for this study and for other 18 studies, so we'll take that money and have it grow over 19 time and be able to do more with it. 20 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Good, Mike. I'm glad you 21 saved the best for last here. 22 With that, I guess, any other comments? I 23 guess we will -- I don't think we have any witnesses here 24 to testify, although Dr. Barham, I know we had one written 25 comment in support. 384 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 DR. BARHAM: Actually, there are two, 2 Chairman Lloyd. One is from Hal Cota, Chairman of the 3 Research Screening Committee, who we were in contact with 4 over the last couple of weeks. The Committee 5 unfortunately didn't have a chance to review an additional 6 set of outside reviewers' comments before they took action 7 on this item in November of 1999, and subsequent to that 8 we've been able to get those comments to them. The 9 Committee has gone over those comments again and still 10 believes this is a very important study to do and also 11 supports the idea of this break at the end of 36 months. 12 The other comment that we received -- 13 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Well, of course -- 14 DR. BARHAM: Sorry. 15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: -- I think we also 16 understand we reserve the right any time to ask it be 17 brought back to the Board. 18 DR. BARHAM: Oh, certainly. 19 The other comment that we received is from 20 Bonnie Holmes-Gen of the American Lung Association. 21 Ms. Gen expressions the fact that the Lung Association is 22 very concerned about childhood asthma and the increasing 23 rates of asthma and supports efforts such as this to 24 better understand why we're seeing those increasing rates. 25 So that's all I have. 385 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: So I don't think we have 2 any other comments. Entertain a motion? 3 BOARD MEMBER FRIEDMAN: Motion to approve. 4 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Second. 5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: All in favor say "aye". 6 Nay, one up here. Congratulations and look forward to 7 seeing that study really take off. 8 MS. MARGOLIS: Thank you, Dr. Lloyd and 9 Members of the Board. 10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I guess we'll adjourn for 11 the day and reconvene, get together at 8:30 in the 12 morning. 13 * * * 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 386 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900