BOARD MEETING
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
WHITCOMB BALLROOM
RAMADA PLAZA HOTEL
1231 MARKET STREET
SAN FRANSICSO, CALIFORNIA
THURSDAY, JULY 26, 2001
9:00 a.m.
James F. Peters, CSR, RPR
Certified Shorthand Reporter
License Number 10063
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
ii
APPEARANCES
BOARD MEMBERS
Dr. Alan Lloyd, Chairman
Mrs. Barbara Riordan
Ms. Dorene D'Adamo
Supervisor Mark J. DeSaulnier
Professor Hugh Friedman
Dr. William F. Friedman
Mr. Matthew McKinnon
Supervisor Barbara Patrick
Mrs. Barbara Riordan
Supervisor Ron Roberts
STAFF
Mr. Mike Kenny, Executive Officer
Mr. Tom Cackette, Deputy Executive Officer
Mr. Mike Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer
Ms. Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer
Mr. Vincent Agusiegbe, Air Resources Engineer
Mr. Michael Benjamin, Manager, Emission Inventory Systems
Section
Mr. Richard Bode, Chief, Health and Exposure Assessment
Branch
Mr. Steve Brisby, Manager, Fuels Section
Mr. Mark Carlock, Chief, Emission Inventory Branch
Mr. Mike Carter, Chief, Emissions Research/Regulatory
Development Branch
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
iii
APPEARANCES (Continued)
STAFF
Mr. Richard Corey, Chief, Research and Economic Studies
Branch
Mr. Bart Croes, Chief, Research Division
Mr. Bob Cross, Chief, Moubile Source Control Division
Mr. Bob Effa, Chief, Air Quality Data Branch
Mr. Bob Fletcher, Chief, PTSD
Mr. Ben Hancock, Air Resources Engineer
Mr. Gary Honcoop, Manager, Strategic Analysis and Liaison
Section
Mr. Bob Jenne, Senior Staff Counsel
Mr. Tom Jennings, Senior Staff Counsel
Ms. Diane Johnston, Senior Staff Counsel
Ms. Leslie Krinsk, Senior Staff Counsel
Ms. Jackie Lourenco, Manager, Off-Road Control Section
Mr. Cynthia Marvin, Air Quality and Transportation Planning
Branch
Ms. Annmarie Mora, Air Pollution Specialist
Dr. Randy Pasek, Chief, Emission Inventory Branch
Ms. Deborah Popejoy, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Section
Mr. Dean Simeroth, Chief, Critieria Pollutants Branch
Ms. Noreen Skelly, Staff Counsel
Mr. Bruce Tuter, Air Polllution Specialist
Mr. Peter Venturini, Chief, Stationary Source Division
Mr. Jeff Wright, Air Pollution Specialist
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
iv
I N D E X
Page
Proceedings 1
a. Pledge of Allegiance 1
b. Roll Call 1
Opening Comments 2
Item 01-6-1 3
Staff Presentation 3
Comments and Questions by Board Members 10
Item 01-6-2 15
Staff Presentation 15
Ombudsperson Tschogl 29
Comments and Questions by Board Members 30
Public Comment
Richard Penna, Dick Rowe, Rolf Lichtner,
NMMA 47
Comments and Questions by Board Members 56
Peter Eikenberry, U.S. Coast Guard 63
Comments and Questions by Board Members 64
Dale McKinnon, MECA 66
Russell Long, Bluewater Network 69
Comments and Questions by Board Members 74
Resolution Honoring Dr. Glenn Kass 77
Item 01-6-3 83
Introduction of Research Screening Committee
and Comments 86
Staff Presentation 92
Comments and Questions by Board Members 104
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
v
I N D E X
Page
Item 01-6-3 (continued)
Public Comment
David Schonbrunn, TRANSDEF 106
Comments and Questions by Board Members 110
Item 01-6-4
Staff Presentation 114
Lunch Recess 129
Afternoon Session 130
Item 01-6-4 (continued)
Presentation by California Energy Commission
Gordon Schremp 130
Item 01-6-5 151
Staff Presentation 152
Public Comment
Dennis Cardoza, Assembly Member 158
Dave Jones, Counsel to Assembly
Member Cardoza 162
Jerry O'Banion, Supervisor, Merced County 188
Joe Rivero, Suprevisor, Merced County 188
Kenni Friedman, City of Modesto 190
Bob Deklinski, City of Oakdale 191
Farrell Jackson, City of Oakdale 192
Phil Rockey, City of Oakdale 193
Michael Burns, City of Waterford 194
Ellen Garvey, Bay Area AQMD 194
David Crow, San Joaquin Valley APCD 205
Larry Greene, Yolo-Solano APCD 207
Chuck Fryxell, Mojave Desert AQMD 209
Gretchen Bennitt, Northern Sierra AQMD 211
Paul Knepprath, American Lung Ass'n., CA 213
Nate Marciochi, City of Los Banos 214
Julius Pekas, Merced County Chamber
of Commerce 215
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
vi
I N D E X
Page
Item 01-6-5 (continued)
Public Comment (continued)
Amber Houska, Merced County Economic
Development Corporation 216
Donna L. Hansen, City of Modesto 218
Fred Cavanah, City of Modesto 219
Jana Coons, City of Modesto 220
Wayne Zipser, Turlock 221
Charles Deschenes, City of Waterford 223
Tim James, Sacramento Metropolitan
Chamber of Commerce 224
Walter Burr, City of Merced 225
Frank Vierra, City of Livingston 226
Sonya Harrigfeld, Stanislaus County 226
Robert Nunes, Monterey Bay APCD 227
Larry Allen, San Luis Obispo County APCD 228
Brigette Tollstrup, Sacramento Metro. AQMD 231
Henry Hogo, South Coast AQMD 233
Linda Weiner, American Lung Ass'n.,
Bay Area 234
Judith Lamara, American Lung Ass'n., Sacto. 236
Suzanne Phinney, Cleaner Air Partnership 237
Shannon Eddy, Sierra Club 239
Judith Rocchio, National Park Service 241
Jeff McGraw, TIE 242
Gabrielle Karmon, TIE 245
Chris Reardon, Manufacturers Council of
the Central Valley 246
Vito Chiesa, Stanislaus Co. Farm Bureau 249
Larry Armstrong, Citizen 250
Leonard Trimlett 253
Charlie Peters, Clean Air Performance
Professionals 254
David Schonbrunn, Transportation Solutions
Defense and Education Fund 256
Board Comments 259
Item 01-6-4 (resumed) 274
Public Comment
Julia Levin, Union of Concerned Scientists 275
Jim White, White Environmental Associates 266
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
vii
I N D E X
Page
Item 01-6-4 (continued)
Public Comment (continued)
Elisa Lynch, Bluewater Network 283
Roland J. Hwang, NRDC 286
Charlie Peters, CAPP 288
Dinner Recess 291
Evening Session 292
Item 01-6-6 292
Staff Presentation 294
Board Comments (page numbers will change here due to
tape problem)
Public Comment
Jack Broadbent, USEPA 323
David Crow, San Joaquin Valley APCD 326
Brigette Tollstrup, Sacramento Metro AQMD 333
Julia May, CBE 335
Henry Clark, West County Toxics Coalition 355
Ethel Dotson, CBE 358
Larry Armstrong 363
Charlie Peters, CAPP 370
Chris Daly, Supervisor 373
Flora Campbell 377
Ms. Thomas, West County Toxics Coalition 379
Shannon Eddy, Sierra Club 380
Marcie Keever, Environmental Law & Justice
Clinic, OUr Children's Earth Fnd. 382
Mary Head 385
Tina Consentino, CBE 385
Carla M. Perez, CBE 388
Donna Dindio, CBE 395
Nia Hamilton, CBE 397
Richard Drury, CBE 401
Wendy Banegas, CBE 408
Maria Brown 410
A.J. Napolis, Silicon Valley Toxics
Coalition 414
David Schonbrunn, Transportation Solutions
Defense and Education Fund 417
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
viii
I N D E X
Page
Item 01-6-6 (continued)
Public Comment (continued)
John Holtzolaw, Sierra Club 419
Dennis Bolt, Western States Petroleum Ass'n. 421
Jim Thomas, National Motorist Ass'n. 423
Leonard Trimlett 424
Board Discussion 425
Motion 437
Adjournment 438
Certificate of Reporter 439
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
1
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Good morning. The July 26, 2001,
3 meeting of the Air Resources Board will now come to order.
4 Just let you know that we do have several Board
5 Members who are on their way, so we don't have a full
6 complement at this time, by no means, here.
7 Will you please join me in the Pledge of
8 Allegiance.
9 (Thereupon, the Pledge of Allegiance
10 was recited in unison by all persons
11 present.)
12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Will the Clerk of the Board
13 please call the roll.
14 BOARD CLERK KAVAN: Dr. Burke.
15 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Present.
16 BOARD CLERK KAVAN: Mr. Calhoun.
17 Ms. D'Adamo.
18 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Here.
19 BOARD CLERK KAVAN: Supervisor DeSaulnier.
20 Professor Friedman.
21 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Here.
22 BOARD CLERK KAVAN: Dr. Friedman.
23 Mr. McKinnon.
24 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Here.
25 BOARD CLERK KAVAN: Supervisor Patrick.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
2
1 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Here.
2 BOARD CLERK KAVAN: Mrs. Riordan.
3 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Here.
4 BOARD CLERK KAVAN: Supervisor Roberts.
5 Chairman Lloyd.
6 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Here.
7 Again, it's very good to be in the Bay Area again.
8 As usual, much cooler than in Sacramento.
9 We have, actually, a very full day ahead of us,
10 and I'm -- we hope that by the end of the day we receive
11 such a good welcome in the Bay Area starting out, as we will
12 at the end of the day.
13 As I indicated, we have, I think, all the Board
14 Members except Mr. Calhoun will be here today, in various
15 stages of transit at the moment.
16 Since we've got a very full day and a half, we're
17 going to try to move expeditiously through the agenda, on
18 the other hand, giving adequate time for people to testify
19 on some very important items.
20 Also, today represents the annual meeting, joint
21 meeting between the Research Screening Committee of the Air
22 Resources Board and the Board. And when I was on the RSC,
23 it was one of the highlights of the year, so it gives us an
24 opportunity to hear from the Research Screening Committee to
25 thank them for their outstanding efforts, but also be able
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
3
1 to hear the presentation on the Research Plan. And then at
2 lunch we get a chance to speak with them one on one, and
3 exchange some information, and what-not. So I think that'll
4 happen today, as we have a longer lunch time.
5 I think a reminder that those people who are going
6 to be testifying, we need to remind them to sign in with the
7 Clerk of the Board, and if they have a written statement, to
8 provide 30 copies.
9 We'll move right into the first item, 01-6-1. Oh,
10 by the way, I guess I should also welcome our colleagues in
11 El Monte and in Sacramento. So at least you can be tuned
12 in. Sorry, you're not here in person.
13 Let's see, the first item is the approval of
14 California's 2001 Emissions Inventory. This includes an
15 update to the Marine Engine Inventory which supports the
16 next agenda item.
17 State law requires this Board to review the
18 statewide inventory for criteria pollutants every three
19 years.
20 At this point, I would like Mr. Kenny to begin the
21 staff presentation.
22 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Thank you, Dr. Lloyd and
23 Members of the Board.
24 The Statewide Emissions Inventory is the technical
25 foundation for almost all of our air quality programs. It
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
4
1 includes emission estimates for virtually every source of
2 air pollution in California. The core inventory is
3 presented as annual averages. This allows general
4 comparisons across categories to determine the relative
5 contributions of each source type.
6 Of course, we also produce the daily emission
7 inventories for permitting, modeling and enforcement
8 purposes.
9 Because it's so important, we devote substantial
10 resources to data collection, research, analytical tools,
11 and public outreach. We want California's inventory to be
12 as technically accurate as possible. We are also working to
13 make this information more accessible and understandable to
14 everyone.
15 The staff presentation highlights changes to the
16 inventory not previously considered by the Board. Overall,
17 these changes are relatively minor. As staff will discuss,
18 it's important to clarify that we are not amending the on-
19 road emissions model for federal transportation conformity
20 purposes.
21 Dr. Randy Pasek will make the presentation.
22 Randy.
23 DR. PASEK: Thank you, Mr. Kenny.
24 Good morning, Dr. Lloyd and Members of the Board.
25 We might have to wait just a second until I get up here.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
5
1 Okay, great.
2 This morning I am presenting for your approval the
3 2001 Emissions Inventory, including an updated recreational
4 marine engine inventory that will be considered as part of
5 the regulatory item later today.
6 State law requires that the Board review the
7 Statewide Emission Inventory for criteria pollutants every
8 three years. This particular inventory is a statewide
9 annual average inventory. From this core inventory, a
10 number of specialized inventories are developed based on
11 refinements that may be seasonal, regional, or even at the
12 community level.
13 Independent of the triennial review process, the
14 Board routinely approves components of the statewide
15 inventory when it acts on individual regulations and
16 attainment plans.
17 Today's update of the 2001 Statewide Emission
18 Inventory is part of an ongoing process of continual
19 inventory improvement and refinement. I am presenting an
20 overview of the current Statewide Emission Inventory as well
21 as an updated recreational marine engine inventory
22 supporting the next item on today's agenda.
23 The key pollutants from the standpoint of our
24 health based standards are ROG, reactive organic gases; NOx,
25 oxides of nitrogen; PM10; and, in a few instances, carbon
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
6
1 monoxide, or CO.
2 The main components of this inventory have been
3 previously approved by the Board as part of other inventory
4 updates, regulatory items, or clean air plans and SIPs,
5 State Implementation Plans. The presentation will focus on
6 what's new in the Statewide Emissions Inventory. Inventory
7 improvements are ongoing as we develop new emission
8 reduction strategies. As a result, changes are made more
9 frequently than the triennial review process under state
10 law.
11 The Statewide Emission Inventory is the technical
12 foundation that underlies many of the Board's programs aimed
13 at improving air quality and public health. In addition to
14 the Statewide Emission Inventory, we develop numerous other
15 specialized inventories. These include modeling emission
16 inventories used in air quality models to design state
17 implementation plans; regional specific planning inventories
18 developed to support control measures and to satisfy federal
19 transportation conformity; and neighborhood level
20 inventories to support a community health program.
21 The statewide annual average emission inventory is
22 divided into the following five major categories: on-road
23 mobile; off-road mobile; stationary; area-wide; and natural.
24 These major categories are further subdivided based on
25 source type into approximately 70 categories. More than
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
7
1 17,000 point sources and 31 million mobile sources are
2 included in the statewide annual average emission inventory,
3 which is reported not only at a statewide, but also county
4 and air basin level. The emission inventory is regularly
5 updated as emission estimates and methodologies are refined.
6 In this slide, the relative contribution of ROG,
7 reactive organic gas, emissions from the four anthropogenic
8 source categories in the years 2001 and 2010 are shown.
9 These categories are on-road mobile, off-road mobile,
10 stationary, and area-wide. The proportional contribution of
11 each category changes over time as a result of the
12 contribution of growth and the implementation of new control
13 strategies. For example, the on-road category decreases
14 from 40 percent in 2001 to 26 percent in 2010.
15 This slide shows a similar situation for NOx.
16 Growth and implementation of new control strategies results
17 in a decrease from 52 percent in 2001, and 41 percent -- to
18 41 percent in 2010 for the on-road category, as an example.
19 One of the important uses of the Statewide
20 Emission Inventory is the development of emission trends and
21 forecasts, such as the one shown here. Such analyses help
22 us to assess the effectiveness of our control programs, as
23 well as determine the additional emission reductions needed
24 to meet the health based air quality standards.
25 This chart of the statewide ROG and NOx emissions
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
8
1 between the years 1990 and 2010 takes into account not only
2 population growth, but also effectiveness of control
3 measures. Despite significant growth, it is apparent that
4 emissions of ROG and NOx have decreased significantly since
5 1990 due to our aggressive control programs, and are
6 projected to continue to decline. These reductions will
7 have not only ozone, but also PM and toxic air contaminant
8 benefits.
9 Now, I'll discuss what's new in the 2001
10 inventory. The major changes are incorporated -- are an
11 incorporation of updated vehicle travel and speed
12 distribution data provided by local transportation agencies.
13 The EMFAC 2000 on-road model was approved by the Board in
14 May of 2000. Since then, we have also added in the benefits
15 of additional ARB control strategies and made some minor
16 methodology improvements. These changes were presented to
17 the public in workshops held in both northern and southern
18 California in May of this year.
19 It is important to note that we are not seeking
20 approval of the revised on-road inventory for the purpose of
21 federal transportation conformity. That approval process is
22 done in conjunction with the Board's approval of State
23 Implementation Plans.
24 We are also seeking Board approval of an updated
25 recreational marine engine emission inventory, in support of
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
9
1 a proposed regulation for inboard and stern drive marine
2 engines, to be considered later today. The updated marine
3 inventory includes revised emission factor and activity
4 estimates that were developed based on recent test data,
5 manufacturer information, and survey results. The proposed
6 changes to this category are reflected in the 2001 emission
7 inventory being considered today.
8 In addition to updating the on-road emission
9 inventory and the recreational marine engine emission
10 inventory, we have focused on making the emission inventory
11 more refined, easier to understand, and easier to use. We
12 are now using state of the art technology like GIS to
13 produce neighborhood level, rather than just county or air
14 basin level, emission inventories that are needed for such
15 programs as the community health program. With GIS and Web
16 tools, we are also creating maps, rather than just tables,
17 of emissions that are much easier for policy-makers and the
18 public to understand.
19 Finally, we have made much more of our emission
20 inventory information readily available, both through the
21 ARB Web site, as well as publications like the California
22 Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality. We intend to continue
23 these efforts to make the emission inventory more widely
24 available and understandable to all users.
25 Staff recommends the Board approve the Statewide
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
10
1 Annual Average 2001 Emission Inventory, including the
2 recreational marine engine emission inventory.
3 Thank you for your attention, and I'd appreciate
4 answering any questions that you have.
5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Do the Board Members have any
6 questions?
7 I had a question. Go back to your pie charts,
8 Randy, and if you look at both NOx and ROG, one of the
9 things that surprised me is that, obviously, off-road is a
10 significant number. It's interesting that they are both 14
11 percent in 2001-2010. Maybe that's fortuitous. I mean, if
12 you look at NOx, basically off-road is double that. Well,
13 that's right, NOx is 28 percent. It is, again, exactly the
14 same in 2001 and 2010. Again, maybe that's fortuitous.
15 The other thing that jumps out is the stationary
16 side. We're projecting that in that ten-year period,
17 stationary for NOx, 17 to 25 percent. And if you look at
18 ROG, going from 21 up to 30 percent, and yet we're
19 predicting on-road significant reductions.
20 Can you comment on that?
21 DR. PASEK: Well, I think one thing to notice is
22 that what's not here is the absolute value, or the absolute
23 emissions. And so you can see the difference between 2001
24 and 2010 would be a significant reduction in the total. And
25 I think you are correct in that it's more fortuitousness, in
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
11
1 terms of the off-road being the same number. I mean, it's
2 the same percent of the total contribution, but the overall
3 emissions would reduce substantially.
4 And it's right, it does highlight, I think, the
5 fact that the mobile side is reducing -- as a contribution
6 to the total, are being reduced more quickly, or at least it
7 appears that way now. And we just require, I think, maybe
8 highlights the importance that we need to focus on all
9 categories, as we do.
10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: And obviously, the on-road is a
11 significant percentage.
12 DR. PASEK: Sure.
13 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yeah.
14 PROFESSOR HUGH FRIEDMAN: Why are you projecting
15 such a increase from stationary sources? What -- what
16 accounts for that?
17 MR. FLETCHER: This is Bob Fletcher.
18 Basically, there's only a very slight increase in
19 the stationary source categories from 2000 and 2010, and
20 similarly, for the area-wide category. Both of those
21 categories remained relatively constant over these years.
22 When you consider the control factors that are being -- you
23 know, the emission controls that are going into effect, as
24 well as the growth of these categories. Then, when you look
25 at that, that's a fairly constant over these years. You see
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
12
1 a greater decline in the on-road inventory than you do in
2 the off-road inventory, and that accounts for the fact that
3 the stationary source percentage goes up, and the area-wide
4 goes up slightly or, you know, it's -- yeah, it goes up
5 slightly, and the on-road is going down, and the off-road is
6 going down.
7 So it's just a function of how the numbers are
8 working. But there's not that great of an increase.
9 DR. PASEK: I understand it's all relative.
10 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: I think it's very
11 illustrative, and we look at SIPs and where we need to go
12 for the future. And if we were entirely accurate, the 2010
13 pie would be smaller, because in absolute emissions,
14 obviously, they're a lot lower. This is about proportions
15 and it's about fair share, as we look at control strategies
16 for the future.
17 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Now, I think I alerted the staff
18 to this question. If we went back to 1990, and we were
19 sitting here today, how would these numbers compare with our
20 estimate today to 1990? That is, what's our -- what -- how
21 do we evaluate our ability to look ahead ten years, and when
22 we get -- now we're ten years ahead, do we come up with a --
23 obviously, we come up with a better number. Is it a lower
24 number or a larger number?
25 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Well, it seems
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
13
1 that the closer we look at individual, categories, we always
2 seem to find more emissions, so it's a two-edged sword. Our
3 control strategies are obviously more effective, from that
4 standpoint. And we often discover emissions that we didn't
5 realize were there, and that gives us new opportunities for
6 control strategies.
7 So I think the inventory really, in large measure
8 drives the new ideas and innovation in our control plan.
9 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: And one last question from me.
10 We had several questions from the Alliance, and I
11 notice that we don't have anybody -- any witnesses, so I
12 would like to ask the one particularly here that was one of
13 the questions on NOx and PM emissions. And the method here,
14 which discussed, I think, in terms of PM, it says the
15 proposed method continued to use in 1984 model year
16 through -- data through 2003 model year does not account for
17 any change in diesel technology that may have occurred over
18 the last 15 to 20 years.
19 Can staff respond to that?
20 MR. CARLOCK: Yes. This is Mark Carlock. Mark
21 Carlock.
22 What they're referring to is the way that we
23 grouped the emission rates for light-duty diesel vehicles,
24 not for all diesel vehicles. And there was a grouping where
25 we did not include the latest changes to the PM standards.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
14
1 We agree that's a change we can make, and we are talking
2 about just the passenger cars, which is a very small, small
3 portion of the inventory.
4 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: And the other comments raised by
5 the Alliance?
6 MR. CARLOCK: We think we have settled them, to
7 the extent that they didn't feel it was necessary to --
8 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Okay.
9 MR. CARLOCK: -- come and testify today.
10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Great. Thank you.
11 Any other questions from Board Members?
12 With that, I guess we don't -- it's not a
13 regulatory item, so it's not necessary to officially close
14 the record. So I guess we can approve that from the Board.
15 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: I'd like to make a motion.
16 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes, Dr. Burke.
17 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Second.
18 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Second. All in favor, say aye.
19 (Ayes.)
20 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Okay. We'll allow a minute while
21 staff rotates.
22 (Pause.)
23 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: The next agenda item is 01-6-2,
24 Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2003 and later
25 spark ignition inboard and stern-drive marine engines.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
15
1 This item is a follow-on to the regulation we
2 adopted in 1998 for marine outboard and personal watercraft
3 engines. I am pleased to report that this year, the first
4 year of implementation, is demonstrating the success of that
5 rule. Most of the new outboard engines being certified are
6 clean four-stroke designs, with the remainder being
7 primarily advanced direct injection two-stroke designs.
8 Today's item covers inboard engines, which are
9 actually automotive engines used in boats. That makes them
10 amenable to the catalyst and electronic fuel controls that
11 have been so successful on our cars.
12 At this point, I would like to ask Mr. Kenny to
13 introduce the item and begin the staff's presentation.
14 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Thank you, Dr. Lloyd and
15 Members of the Board.
16 As you mentioned, the Board adopted emission
17 control regulations for gasoline outboard marine engines in
18 1998. Those regulations contained emission standards and
19 other requirements that will significantly reduce exhaust
20 emissions from this previously unregulated source. That was
21 a unique rulemaking in that its benefits were clearly multi-
22 media in nature from both an air pollution and water
23 pollution perspective.
24 In similar fashion, the proposal before you today
25 seeks to impose emission standards and other requirements on
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
16
1 inboard and stern-drive marine engines. This proposal
2 culminates an extensive cooperative effort on the part of
3 ARB staff, the marine industry, and the USEPA.
4 Presenting the proposal is Ben Hancock, and I'll
5 turn it over to Ben now.
6 MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Kenny.
7 Good morning, Chairman Lloyd and Members of the
8 Board. The item we are presenting today is the adoption of
9 emission standards and other requirements for gasoline
10 inboard and stern-drive boat engines beginning in 2003.
11 Here is an outline of what's in our presentation
12 this morning. We'll give you some background on what boats
13 are covered by the rule, and the challenges of applying
14 automotive control technology to them. We'll present the
15 core of our staff proposal. We'll present emission benefits
16 and costs of the proposal. We'll go over outstanding issues
17 that have been raised. And then we'll draw some
18 conclusions.
19 This slide shows a ski boat. It's typical of an
20 inboard engine boat. I'm pointing to the reference --
21 nervous here -- pointing to the engine compartment of the
22 boat --
23 (Laughter.)
24 MR. HANCOCK: -- right behind the driver. That's
25 the engine compartment. Okay. And the exhaust pipes, it's
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
17
1 a V-8 engine, there's two exhaust pipes. They go under the
2 floor of the boat, out the rear wall of the boat, and they
3 exit right at the waterline. There is a swim platform in
4 the back by the swimmer that they exit underneath.
5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Are you sure you're not getting
6 excited by the passenger?
7 (Laughter.)
8 MR. HANCOCK: The staff's proposal adds inboard
9 and stern-drive engines to the regulation that the Board
10 approved in 1998 for outboard engines and personal
11 watercraft, which were also known as jetskis. While
12 outboard engines are primarily two stroke engines, inboard
13 engines are four stroke automotive engines adapted for use
14 in boats.
15 The proposal includes all gasoline marine
16 propulsion engines. Engines used as on-board power
17 generators are already covered under separate ARB
18 regulations. Small marine diesel engines, propulsion and
19 auxiliary, are covered under ARB regulations. Large marine
20 diesels are covered under USEPA regulations. Very large
21 marine diesels are covered by voluntary international
22 agreements. Recreational marine diesels will be covered
23 under proposed USEPA regulations to appear in September of
24 this year.
25 Okay. On the left is an overhead shot of that
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
18
1 engine compartment again, right there. And on the right is
2 the hood of the engine compartment pulled up. You can see
3 it's an automotive V-8 engine, and the two exhaust pipes.
4 This is an overhead shot of a stern-drive boat.
5 The engine is in the compartment at the rear of the boat.
6 You can just see the transmission, and under the water is
7 the propeller. That's why it's called a stern-drive.
8 This is the engine and drive of the stern-drive
9 engine. Picture a V-8 engine with a stern-drive. This is
10 the most common type of drive for inboard boats. About two-
11 thirds of all inboard and stern-drive sales are this
12 arrangement. That's the engine on the left, a big V-8
13 engine from Volvo Penta, or General Motors. And this is the
14 transmission and drive right now, dual propeller. The
15 exhaust gases rise up and then go down through the case of
16 the transmission and out the propeller shaft below the
17 water.
18 The engines are marine adapted automotive engines.
19 This means that the engines are calibrated for marine
20 operation and the exhaust is redirected up the propeller
21 shaft under the water at the rear of the boat.
22 I just said that.
23 This is a cutaway of the exhaust manifold, so you
24 can see some of the differences between the original
25 automotive application and the marine application. You can
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
19
1 see that this is a double wall manifold and riser. You see
2 the two walls there. The cooling water passages are colored
3 blue, and the exhaust passages are colored red. The exhaust
4 gases travel up and then down.
5 For an automobile, the exhaust gases would pass
6 out of the rear of the manifold, normal -- just go straight
7 line out the rear and to the bottom of the car. And in a
8 normal car water jackets aren't used. In the upper right
9 corner, we just saw it come in, just past the rubber
10 coupling, the point -- is the point at which the water and
11 exhaust gases mix. So water is kept separately up to this
12 point, and then the water and exhaust gases mix right at
13 that point, and after this point it's a mixture of water and
14 liquid droplets and flow.
15 This is done to cool the exhaust gases for safety, and to
16 allow the use of rubber connections in the exhaust units.
17 Okay, this is why we're here today proposing this
18 rule. Starting from the top, the 1994 State Implementation
19 Plan for Ozone anticipated two tons a day of hydrocarbon
20 reductions from inboard boats. The USEPA was expected to
21 set capping standards for inboards by 1998 to achieve this
22 two ton per day reduction, but the standards were never set.
23 However, ARB and USEPA staff have been working together on
24 developing the standards presented here today.
25 Second, ARB promised, as part of the SIP suit, to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
20
1 achieve a total of three tons a day of hydrocarbon
2 reductions from inboard boats in rules adopted by June of
3 2001.
4 Third, inboard and stern-drives are powered by
5 automotive engines with carburetors or fuel injection. They
6 are amenable to the same emission control technology which
7 has been successful in cars, namely, computerized air fuel
8 control and three-way exhaust catalysts.
9 And last, but not least, as a category they are a
10 significant emission source, especially on summer weekends
11 when peak ozone concentrations are noticed or made.
12 This shows the relative importance, emission-wise
13 for the class of inboard and stern-drive boats in
14 California. Shown are summer weekend day averages for both
15 2010 and 2020. Boat usage is concentrated on the summer
16 weekends, and frequently the ozone peaks occur at these
17 times.
18 In 2010, inboard and stern-drive boats left
19 uncontrolled will contribute about 150 tons a day of
20 hydrocarbons plus NOx. This is comparable to the exhaust
21 emissions from five million cars in 2020. Left uncontrolled
22 -- okay. Left uncontrolled, the inboards' emissions will
23 continue to increase and will be equivalent to five million
24 cars, as I just said. As a result of this proposed rule,
25 the State will see a 56 ton per day reduction of
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
21
1 hydrocarbons plus NOx in 2020.
2 We initiated a research program to evaluate marine
3 catalysts. It was performed at Southwest Research Institute
4 in San Antonio, Texas, between December of 1999 and March of
5 2001. The emission results for uncontrolled engines are
6 shown here. And that is our proposed capping standard of 16
7 grams per kilowatt hour of hydrocarbons plus NOx.
8 And here are the results from our test engine with
9 catalysts installed. Results with the catalyst position are
10 shown -- with the catalyst position downstream are shown in
11 the middle. I'll show you a picture of what that means in a
12 moment. The catalyst was located in the rear of the exhaust
13 manifold, near to the water mixing point that I mentioned
14 earlier. The right bar represents the results from a
15 different catalyst placed closer to the exhaust manifold and
16 cylinders. And here is our proposed 2007 standard level of
17 five grams per kilowatt hour. It's less than one-third of
18 the emissions of an uncontrolled engine.
19 Okay, here's that picture I promised you. You can
20 see in the slide the two different catalyst locations we
21 tested. First was the riser position -- there you go.
22 Right there we broke the risers, the part at the top from
23 the exhaust manifold and inserted a catalyst. And, in fact,
24 we have a sample of that. Mike Carter is holding it up
25 right there.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
22
1 Okay. This is far away from where the water
2 mixing point is. However, space is limited here, so we had
3 to trade off conversion efficiency versus size, versus
4 resistance to flow. The results from a catalyst placed in
5 this location were the third bar in the previous slide.
6 Okay. The second catalyst location was down here,
7 near the water mixing point. We actually moved the water
8 mixing point to the right and put a catalyst in there, so
9 the catalyst was not all wet. The water mixing point was
10 placed downstream of the catalyst and kept dry.
11 Here there are less concerns about space, so we
12 were able to install a full automotive size catalyst. The
13 catalyst that you are handling, Board Members, is about half
14 the size of the automotive size catalyst that normally would
15 be placed on this car. We achieved, in that location, with
16 the big catalyst, our lowest results at no power degradation
17 or exhaust backpressure.
18 In developing these standards, ARB, USEPA, and the
19 National Marine Manufacturers Association have cooperated in
20 verifying the performance of catalyst systems on the water.
21 The stakeholders who donated equipment were General Motors,
22 Mercury Mercruiser and the members of MECA, which is the
23 Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association.
24 The projects we worked on were testing and
25 configuring marine engines with catalysts, electronic air
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
23
1 fuel control and oxygen sensors on a laboratory dynamometer.
2 And the second was evaluating and combatting water exposure
3 of oxygen sensors and catalysts in the wet exhaust pipes.
4 This was important, because the oxygen sensors, which are a
5 key auxiliary component in automotive emission control
6 systems, are sensitive and could be damaged to exposure by
7 liquid water.
8 So as a result of the catalyst testing, we
9 demonstrated 80 percent emission reduction and identified
10 the two feasible catalyst configurations that I just showed
11 you. For the first time, electronic feedback catalyst
12 control was applied to a marine engine. We overcame
13 problems, an EGR solenoid burnout, oxygen sensor exposure,
14 and engine stoichiometric operation to get these results.
15 And for the second project, for the in-boat
16 exhaust water accumulation testing, we outfitted a boat
17 engine with monitors and found the conditions which led to
18 accumulation of water inside the exhaust pipes. We found
19 that that was condensation of the water combustion.
20 We were able to modify the cooling water flow to
21 the manifolds with an automotive water thermostat, such that
22 no water accumulated in the exhaust manifold. So exhaust
23 controls should therefore be able to survive indefinitely.
24 Okay, here are our proposed standards. They
25 combine hydrocarbons plus NOx, and apply only to new
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
24
1 engines. We are proposing two sets of standards. The first
2 is designed to prevent an emissions increase, which evidence
3 says will occur as industry converts from carbureted engines
4 to fuel injection. The proposed 2003 standard levels of 16
5 grams per kilowatt hour HC plus NOx, will ensure that smog
6 forming emissions are no higher than in the past.
7 The real essence of our proposal, however, is
8 catalyst based standards beginning in 2007, which lead to
9 reductions of 67 percent from uncontrolled levels. We
10 recognize that the proposed standards represent a modest
11 reduction compared to automobiles which have catalyst
12 efficiencies in the high 90s of percents. This reduction
13 and stringency is provided because marine engine operation
14 is at sustained high loads, and because there are packaging
15 constraints on marine engines.
16 As shown here, we're proposing that the emission
17 standards be phased in to provide additional flexibility in
18 exchange for greater emission reductions from earlier
19 introduction of more catalysts. This slide, you'll notice,
20 is -- has red numbers and crossed out white numbers. These
21 changed very late last night. We were glad to eliminate a
22 slide from your presentation of unresolved issues, and this
23 was the result.
24 In 2007, only 45 percent of each manufacturer's
25 California sales must comply, 75 percent must comply in
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
25
1 2008, and 100 percent must comply in 2009. This proposal
2 was developed in cooperation with the USEPA, and we expect
3 them to align with these standard levels. Their proposed
4 rulemaking is anticipated for release in September.
5 One of our key new requirements in the proposed
6 inboard and stern-drive regulations is for a simple OBD, or
7 onboard diagnostics and monitoring system, for emission
8 control equipment. OBD systems were originally developed
9 for and have been employed on automobiles since 1988. Our
10 original proposal was based on an automotive type OBD
11 system. In developing the current proposal, we have worked
12 with manufacturers to better match the capabilities of
13 industry and the marine environment.
14 Additional requirements for engine misfire
15 monitoring that would be -- there it is, right there, engine
16 misfire monitoring, if necessary -- may be added to the list
17 of required diagnostics should in use testing indicate that
18 current techniques are insufficient to protect the catalyst.
19 And staff suggests that the Executive Officer be provided
20 authority to determine the need for misfire monitoring
21 requirements in the regulation.
22 Okay, labeling. The outboard and personal
23 watercraft, or jet ski program, uses a star system of
24 environmental labels to inform consumers of which engines
25 are clean. Staff is proposing that inboards be included in
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
26
1 this program.
2 The first three star level labels were set up
3 under the Board's 1998 outboard regulation. The fourth
4 level, the four star level, would be added by today's
5 proposal. Outboard engines meeting the 2008 standards
6 achieve a three star level, as will inboard engines meeting
7 the proposed 2003 standards. The four star label is based
8 on the proposed 2007 standards for inboards.
9 These star labels would be required to be visible
10 on the boat's hull, next to the hull's registration number.
11 The engine manufacturers will be responsible for supplying
12 the labels with instructions for placement on -- to the boat
13 builders. Responsibility for proper placement of the labels
14 will be the boat manufacturer's.
15 Here are more compliance provisions of the
16 proposed regulations. They are similar to other mobile
17 source regulations.
18 First, an engine label to show engine family name
19 and compliance status. Second, a two-year emission control
20 system warranty for 2003 compliant engines, and a three-year
21 warranty for 2009 and later engines. The manufacturer
22 replaces emission control system defects during this period.
23 Third, ARB has the authority to order testing of
24 reduction engines on a selected audit basis when a problem
25 is suspected, to ensure that production engines comply. In
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
27
1 addition, ARB has the authority to procure and test in use
2 engines for compliance.
3 Because experience in boats is lacking, many of
4 the stakeholders, the U.S. Coast Guard, USEPA, and the ARB,
5 have agreed to conduct a test program to confirm the
6 viability of catalyst systems under the full range of
7 conditions encountered in the water. Members of the
8 National Marine Manufacturers Association will donate six
9 boats. General Motors and Marinizers Mercury, Volvo Penta,
10 and Endmar will donate six engines. Members of the
11 Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association will donate,
12 prepare and can catalysts for the project.
13 ARB, USEPA, and the National Marine Manufacturers
14 Association will fund the project. ARB and USEPA will
15 contract project manager and an engine tester to run the
16 boats, instrument them, and test them. The U.S. Coast Guard
17 will oversee the project to ensure boating safety. We are
18 proposing technology reviews before the Board in 2003 and
19 2005, to apprise you of the test program, and the progress
20 made toward compliance with the 2007 standards.
21 There are benefits. The red bars represent the
22 baseline emissions from uncontrolled inboards. The green
23 bars represent the 2020 emissions inventory with the staff's
24 proposal on a summer weekend basis. So for hydrocarbons, we
25 have a reduction of 11 tons a day. And for NOx, we show 45
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
28
1 tons a day of reductions.
2 We estimated the cost of meeting the proposed 2007
3 standards, based on whether those costs are distributed
4 across California sales only or across all national sales.
5 We anticipate that the USEPA will align with California, and
6 thus the lower figures will be more appropriate.
7 These cost effectiveness values are well within
8 the range of other adopted ARB programs. For example, the
9 reformulated gasoline program showed a benefit of $2.50 a
10 pound. And the outboard engine program was at $3.60 a
11 pound.
12 Okay, conclusions. Inboard boats represent a
13 significant presently uncontrolled source, 175 tons a day of
14 hydrocarbons plus NOx in 2020, equivalent to about five
15 million cars.
16 Second, the proposed catalyst control is expected
17 to reduce emissions from the average boat engine by more
18 than 67 percent. Emission reductions are expected to be 56
19 tons a day of hydrocarbons plus NOx in 2020, on a summer
20 weekend day.
21 Third, the proposal includes environmental
22 consumer labeling which dovetails with the outboard engine
23 program. A four star level is proposed. Then ARB, USEPA,
24 and National Marine Manufacturers Association have been and
25 will be cooperating on the development effort to prove and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
29
1 adapt this equipment to boats. We are proposing technology
2 reviews before the Board in 2003 and 2005 to evaluate our
3 progress.
4 That said, I'll entertain questions.
5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much.
6 I just have one -- got a statement from the
7 Ombudsperson before we entertain questions from the Board,
8 so Madam Ombudswoman -- Ombudsman. Would you please
9 describe the public participation in this process and
10 express any concerns or observations you may wish to make.
11 OMBUDSPERSON TSCHOGL: Mr. Chairman and Members of
12 the Board, staff began this process by holding a public
13 workshop in El Monte on September 19th, 2000. Staff mailed
14 the announcement to 25 organizations or individuals
15 identified from previous marine engine activities. Staff
16 also posted the announcement on our Web site.
17 The groups to which the announcement were mailed
18 include Engine Manufacturers and Marinizers, boat builders,
19 the Coast Guard, emission control manufacturers, and public
20 boating associations. Twenty-seven people attended the
21 half-day workshop.
22 On March 15th, 2001, staff attended a meeting in
23 San Antonio, Texas, at the Southwest Research Institute, to
24 discuss the results of research conducted on marine engines
25 with emission control devices. Many of the groups mentioned
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
30
1 a moment ago also attended this meeting.
2 Throughout the development of the proposal, staff
3 met or teleconferenced with 35 stakeholder groups, visited
4 three boat manufacturers, and received more than 50 written
5 comments from concerned parties.
6 Finally, staff announced the date and location of
7 this meeting on June 8th of this year, and the staff report
8 became available on June 12th. The announcement was sent to
9 nearly 700 people on ARB's general interest mailing list, as
10 well as to the recreational marine mailing list, and to
11 about 35 boat manufacturers and engine marinizers.
12 This concludes my comments. Thank you.
13 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much.
14 Question from the Board, Dr. Friedman.
15 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM FRIEDMAN: Yeah. Yeah, I
16 feel it was a fine presentation, and I think it's long
17 overdue that we examine the source of pollution.
18 My question relates -- I guess, I need you to help
19 me understand the implementation timeframe. This is not new
20 technology. There is abundant experience in catalyst
21 derived gains. And why is it going to take us until, what
22 is it, 2009, to complete implementation? This is 2001. And
23 why are we not going to have testing until 2005 of materials
24 that we -- it ought to take a year or two, at the most, to
25 give us the information we need for authentic implementation
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
31
1 on a large scale.
2 So what are the obstacles to altering these
3 timelines in a way to get these gains earlier?
4 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: Dr.
5 Friedman, Bob Cross from the ARB staff.
6 We started about where you are expressing when we
7 started this process. I mean, we felt that automotive
8 catalysts would be a drop in for marine applications, and
9 that we should proceed very expeditiously with requiring
10 their installation. I think in digging into the issue
11 further, just like everything else, it got more complicated.
12 And there are a number of things that are different.
13 The environment that the catalyst is in is
14 entirely different because it's a water cooled enclosure.
15 The power levels that the engines typically operate at are
16 far higher than automotive catalysts. The space available
17 for the catalyst is less than a typical automobile. There
18 are safety concerns with marine operation that are different
19 than automotive, in terms of managing heat and managing
20 exhaust leaks, and things like that.
21 The businesses that are doing this work are small.
22 The total market is 100,000 engines per year, and the
23 biggest one is around 60,000 or 70,000, and everybody else
24 is less than that, so we're talking about engineering
25 departments typically of a few engineers, as opposed to GM
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
32
1 or Chrysler. And I think those are the -- those are the
2 major reasons, but I think the -- so they don't have the
3 capital, basically, to do something GM or Chrysler could do.
4 I think that this is one that is going as fast as
5 it practically can, given all those constraints. The
6 testing program is not delayed until 2005. It will start
7 immediately. The test program that staff described was done
8 in the first year, and we demonstrated that the technology
9 works in the laboratory. The program we would be starting
10 immediately is the sort of prove-out that it actually works
11 in boats under all the conditions which can occur in a
12 marine environment, which are much, much less broader than
13 the laboratory. And the reviews are basically checkpoints
14 to make sure that the demonstration, in fact, goes okay.
15 I think given the size of the industry and the
16 technical problems that we're talking about, which are,
17 albeit engineering problems, but they're real, I think the
18 time schedule that we've laid out is -- or suggested, is
19 reasonable and appropriate.
20 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Professor Friedman.
21 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Just to follow up, if
22 I may. Is that 100,000 just California, or is that --
23 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS:
24 That's national.
25 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: -- that national
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
33
1 market?
2 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS:
3 That's national.
4 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Pardon?
5 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS:
6 That's national. California is 10,000.
7 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Really.
8 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: Yeah,
9 so it's really small.
10 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Only 100,000 a year.
11 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: Yeah,
12 in the US. And there are only, you know, there are three
13 kind of big manufacturers, and then a whole bunch of little
14 ones.
15 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Is there any hope, a
16 realistic expectation, that voluntarily there will be
17 accelerated implementation?
18 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: I
19 think so. because I think that the -- it's like any other
20 industry. The wise ones jump ahead and get the experience
21 early, so that they're sure that when they have to do the
22 largest volume introductions, which now start at 45 percent
23 in 2007, they have some experience already.
24 So I think that as the demonstration program
25 increases their confidence that this is the right thing to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
34
1 do, we'll start to see some pilot production models earlier
2 than '07.
3 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Mr. Kenny.
4 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: If I could add one thing
5 to what Mr. Cross just said. I think the other aspect of
6 this regulation that at least provides some level of
7 incentive is the labels. And what we've tried to do there
8 is provide labeling so that, in fact, there is consumer
9 education and consumer opportunities to go after the
10 cleanest possible engine and the cleanest possible boats.
11 And that may actually provide some incentive and some draw
12 in the marketplace to pull the cleaner boats and cleaner
13 engines in faster.
14 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I was going to ask on
15 that, and maybe I don't know whether we're going to have
16 comment on it, but one of the points raised in the material
17 was that maybe there should be the four star -- the
18 labeling, and the gold four star low, low, super low,
19 required on the hull.
20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Actually, we have talked
21 about that among ourselves as a staff and with the industry.
22 And one of the original thoughts was that we were going to
23 put the burden of enforcement on the engine manufacturers to
24 ensure that, in fact, the boat manufacturers put the labels
25 on the hull.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
35
1 With, you know, some additional thought and some
2 additional consideration, we think that's probably a
3 mistake. It does make more sense to go directly to the boat
4 manufacturers and put that requirement on them, and so that
5 is our intent.
6 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Ms. D'Adamo and then Dr. Burke.
7 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Could staff provide some
8 information about consumer knowledge of the labels on
9 outboard engines, and whether or not we think that this is
10 really going to take off with regard to this new regulation.
11 And then also a question about motor vehicles. Has there
12 ever been given a thought of a similar labeling system for
13 motor vehicles?
14 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: I
15 think it's early to tell on the effectiveness of the star
16 label program, because it's just been in place for like a
17 year or two. But I think that they're appearing on the
18 engines, and I think that people are -- particularly
19 personal watercraft people, are becoming very aware of the
20 availability of cleaner watercraft, compared to what they
21 have normally been buying. As a boater myself, I run into
22 this all the time, where people are saying gosh, I mean, you
23 know, I'm really feeling bad about my smoky PWC, and
24 thinking about investing in something cleaner.
25 So I think that that -- I think it is having the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
36
1 desired effect. I think that in this case, these -- these
2 manufacturers understand that boaters are typically somewhat
3 environmentally bent. I mean, very often they fish or they
4 picnic on the side of the lake, or whatever, and, you know,
5 deal with films on the water and grease and oil on their
6 boat or smoke coming out of the exhaust pipe distresses
7 them.
8 So I think that there is a sensitivity among that
9 user group to clean air. And I think that they will respond
10 appropriately.
11 On cars, there are various emission ranking
12 schemes that have, over the years, been used, and I think
13 they're still being used, that you can -- that consumer
14 labels would show up on the windows which are removable.
15 But none of them are permanently attached to the car, like
16 these labels would be.
17 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: On motor vehicles, is it as
18 simplified? I know --
19 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: No.
20 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: -- I just purchased a new
21 car, and it didn't seem anywhere near as --
22 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: No,
23 the scales are much more --
24 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: -- simplified as this. And
25 would that be something that this Board could pursue?
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
37
1 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: One of the --
2 on the cars right now, on the same window that has the price
3 tag and the equipment list, there's a tag about this big,
4 and it's a bar, and it shows you the smog index, and zero is
5 the best, and one is the worst. And, for example, a ULEV
6 one, a ULEV one program, would be .43 on that label right
7 now. Those are on every car that's on the marketplace. And
8 some observations from looking at it is that they're, you
9 know, printed in black and white, and, you know, have about
10 the excitement of a bar code. So it's -- they're not, you
11 know, maybe as glossy as they would.
12 EPA has developed, not on the car, but just as a
13 web site, a program like that. Unfortunately, they made the
14 ranking go the opposite way, and so they're not very
15 compatible with the ranking that we have. But there's not a
16 star system, so to speak.
17 But you can tell that, you know, it's like the --
18 it's like the efficiency things. If you're .43, it tells
19 you that the average for that model year that you're buying
20 from for a car would be, you know, .56 or something, so you
21 know that you're, you know, ten percent or 20 percent
22 cleaner than the average, if you buy a ULEV.
23 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I know that this is not
24 before us today, so I don't want to take up too much time on
25 it. But if this Board would have the jurisdiction to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
38
1 provide a similar requirement for motor vehicles, I think it
2 might be a good idea if we could at least look into what
3 would be the best method of getting the information out.
4 But this -- this bar versus a star system, I -- I know in my
5 own case, it was difficult to ascertain just how good the
6 new car was that I purchased. I asked about SULEV and ULEV,
7 and the person that I was buying the car from didn't even
8 know what I was talking about.
9 So in my instance, I think that the star system
10 may have been a little more easy for me to figure it out,
11 but I don't know. Maybe it'd be something worth studying by
12 way of a market analysis.
13 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: We could do
14 that, and we'd be glad to look at it again, because I think
15 this labeling idea makes good sense. One of the
16 difficulties with the car program, though, is it was kind of
17 constantly changing, and so, you know, I gave you those
18 numbers that the average today is about .5 something and a
19 ULEV, which used to be the cleanest car you could buy, was
20 .43. That doesn't sound like much difference. The reason
21 is, is all the cars, you know, are being forced to be
22 cleaner and cleaner and cleaner, so your reference point
23 keeps changing. And these stars, what would've been a, you
24 know, a four star five years ago, would be a, you know, one
25 star this year. And yet that label, if it stayed on the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
39
1 vehicle in some way, becomes kind of misleading to -- you
2 know, maybe it's misleading to consumers.
3 So when it's constantly changing every two or
4 three years, it does provide some difficulty in having a
5 relative comparison.
6 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Dr. Burke.
7 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: I'm going to recommend you
8 come to South Coast to buy your car next time, because we
9 just instituted a program with the Southern California
10 Dealers Association where every car sold in the South Coast
11 has a label which is printed jointly, and it's colorful and
12 informative, we like to believe.
13 But back to the marine issue here. I'm a little
14 concerned. On this OBD, is that the majority of the cost of
15 the $700 to $1,200 per engine?
16 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: The
17 answer is no. No, it's primarily the catalyst itself.
18 Because many of the --
19 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Is it --
20 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: --
21 many of the engines already have computers on them.
22 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Here's what I was trying to
23 figure out. An OBD on my boat costs $5,000, Detriot Diesel.
24 It's not gas. I understand that. But it costs $5,000. I'm
25 just wondering how you're getting OBDs at this rate.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
40
1 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS:
2 They're using -- basically, they're using sort of one
3 generation removed from the highest tech car stuff that's
4 available. So they can -- in that case, they can kind of
5 connect to some of the economies of scale of the automotive
6 industry, should they choose to do that. In other words,
7 they marinize an OBD system, or a complete computer, from a
8 car, and then a lot of the components do interchange and the
9 design interchanges, so you -- that's basically how the
10 volumes of the computer that the OBD is derived from are far
11 higher than the diesel computer volumes would be.
12 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Well, there's -- I see a -- I
13 have some concerns, as a 42 year boater who used to park his
14 boat here in Miller Park downtown, and started out with gas.
15 Believe me, I had gas long before I could afford diesel.
16 Because I remember, I'll never forget that when catalytic
17 converters first came to California, Kenny Hahn, who was a
18 supervisor down in LA, was so proud that we did that, and he
19 was holding this demonstration out in Los Angeles County,
20 showing what a wonderful thing catalytic converters were.
21 And they started the car, and the grass under the car caught
22 on fire. And so they had to bring out the county fire
23 department to put it all out.
24 Now, catalytic converters still, to my knowledge,
25 are -- get hot.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
41
1 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: Have
2 you got the one that's up there? If you look at the box
3 that it's in, it's water jacketed. So the cooling water
4 that is used, the lake water, or whatever that's used to
5 cool the engine is also used to cool the enclosure around
6 the catalyst.
7 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Dr. Friedman, this is really
8 a very complex issue, because that on fresh water, would be
9 one thing. That on salt water would be a whole different
10 thing.
11 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: Yeah,
12 it's an extra system for salt water.
13 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: You see, because if that --
14 with the density of the gasoline fumes in the hull of a
15 small boat, the potential for explosion, I think, becomes
16 significant on salt water if you have any corrosion at all,
17 and cut off that fresh water -- fresh or salt water cooling
18 system. Because if that unit heats up, and there are -- and
19 the hull of that boat is not properly ventilated, you could
20 -- you're gone. You're history. You're out of here.
21 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS:
22 That's probably -- that's one of the places where we do have
23 OBD in the system design, is that there will be temperature
24 measurement at the catalyst, so that if there is a problem
25 with the catalyst, the operator would be alerted.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
42
1 And also, you're right. I mean, if the -- what
2 you would hope would be that the cooling water that goes to
3 the catalyst would also be the cooling water that would go
4 to the engine, and therefore you'd be shutting the engine
5 off to keep from ruining the engine, as well as the concern
6 about catalyst safety.
7 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Well, if you have a twin
8 engine inboard, you could have one engine that would be
9 working fine and the other engine would be going nuts.
10 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: But
11 you get two OBDs.
12 Hopefully. Hopefully.
13 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Look, I'm out there all the
14 time. I've got more miles on the water than everybody in
15 this room combined. So I know what can happen in the ocean,
16 and I not only have OBDs now, I have television in my engine
17 room which goes to my bridge. And let me tell you
18 something, I still, in the middle of the night, in the
19 middle of the ocean, have a great deal of fear of what's
20 going on in that engine room.
21 Now, if we're talking about a little boat on the
22 lake, you know, blow up one guy, it's not going to hurt
23 anybody. But you talk about a boat --
24 (Laughter.)
25 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Now, the Coast Guard -- I
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
43
1 have two other questions, I know I -- the waterline in the
2 exhaust system, I'm confused. First, you said it was cooled
3 by droplets, but yet it was below the waterline. How does
4 that work?
5 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: If
6 you look at the picture, you'll see that the exhaust flow is
7 routed up, and then it drops back down.
8 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Yes. Sure.
9 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: And
10 see where the label says "water level"?
11 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Now, does that actually
12 take --
13 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS:
14 That --
15 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: -- it through water?
16 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS:
17 That's the actual lake water level, where it says that. And
18 the rise in it is used to prevent the water from
19 backflushing into the engine.
20 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Doesn't it change the quality
21 of the emission when you run it through the water?
22 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: Yeah,
23 some, but we went through that discussion with personal
24 watercraft and outboards, and learned that an awful lot of
25 it ends up in the air.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
44
1 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Of the 10,000 boats --
2 engines that are sold in California, how many are used in a
3 salt water environment versus fresh water?
4 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: Gosh,
5 I can't answer that. Let me go another step. If you look
6 at the point just to the right of the rubber coupling with
7 the two clamps on it --
8 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Right.
9 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: --
10 that's where the --
11 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: That's the one that's going
12 to vibrate loose, right?
13 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: No,
14 that's stainless. Those are good clamps.
15 That's where the waste cooling water enters the
16 exhaust system. So what you have is you have the system is
17 jacketed, and then you have waste cooling water entering the
18 exhaust system at that point and mixing with the exhaust,
19 and cooling it for safety, and for silencing, and a lot of
20 other reasons.
21 So when we were talking about water getting --
22 there are two water getting back issues. One's the water
23 level issue, and two is the cooling water, when it's
24 introduced in the system.
25 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: I understand.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
45
1 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: And
2 basically, we were able to control the problem, because it
3 turned out that the cooling water wasn't getting back into
4 the engine. Instead, the exhaust was condensing in the
5 manifold.
6 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Right. Would give you
7 backpressure?
8 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: Yeah.
9 I'm sorry, what --
10 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: And giving backpressure?
11 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: No,
12 it's just condensing. It was just condensing, and, you
13 know, it'll foul up plugs and things when the engine was
14 idling, so we had to heat the exhaust manifold a little bit
15 to keep that from happening.
16 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Well, I'm glad, quite
17 frankly, you're testing it a lot, and I would suggest that
18 you really look into this in the -- in the salt water
19 marine, because --
20 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS:
21 That's included.
22 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: -- there's such a dramatic
23 difference in one than the other. And I, you know, we don't
24 want to see -- what I -- if I were a boat buyer, I'm not
25 sure four stars or one star, if -- if it's a twin engine
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
46
1 inboard boat, I'm not sure I would want to pay $2,500 more
2 for air quality. And I'm not -- I don't -- I can't imagine
3 the public's acceptance of that readily. I, you know,
4 $2,500 per unit, if it's a twin engine, is a lot of money.
5 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: Well,
6 it's more like 17 or 1,800.
7 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: But you said $1,200 an
8 engine, or --
9 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: No.
10 Well, 1,200 was the high one. I think that what'll happen
11 is that the -- the whole proposal that we're discussing
12 today was to what was developed in very close cooperation
13 with the United States Environmental Protection Agency. And
14 a cornerstone of the agreement is that it will become a
15 national standard. And I think that that -- well, that
16 takes it up from 10,000 to 100,000, which gives you an
17 economy of scale.
18 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Right. But I've heard that
19 coming for 20 years, okay. We're going to do this, you
20 know. The boating industry is the toughest industry to
21 move, because the small guys are the small guys. But there
22 are guys with big boats, who give big contributions, and
23 they don't want to change. So, you know, changes in the
24 boating industry are -- when the Congress has enough no
25 gumption to make the changes, they sometimes roll back, as
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
47
1 you remember a few years ago.
2 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: Dr.
3 Burke, I think maybe that the witnesses can speak to that.
4 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Yeah. Okay.
5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think the testing program does
6 address, I think will address some of those issues.
7 I have just one question. The assumptions of the
8 emissions of hydrocarbons, what fuels were assumed? What
9 fuels were assumed?
10 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: Just
11 gasoline. Unleaded regular gasoline.
12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: They were RFG 3, or --
13 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS:
14 Just -- it would be test fuel, which would be equivalent to
15 RFG3, RFG -- whatever.
16 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think you -- what I'm getting
17 at is, with some of the presentation, with some of the
18 concerns about increased evap, is that included in our
19 calculations?
20 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: No,
21 evap was not included at all.
22 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Okay.
23 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: No.
24 And that is a potential issue.
25 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: If there's no more questions from
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
48
1 the Board Members, we have six witnesses signed up. I'd
2 like to call the first three, all from the Marine --
3 National Marine Manufacturers. Richard Penna, Dick Rowe,
4 and Rolf Lichtner.
5 MR. PENNA: Good morning.
6 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Good morning.
7 MR. PENNA: My name is Richard Penna. I am
8 counsel to the National Marine Manufacturers Association on
9 the stern-drive inboard rulemaking procedures. Accompanying
10 me are Dick Rowe, who is Chairman and CEO of Inmark, and
11 Rolf Lichtner, who is Director of Regulatory Affairs and
12 Product Safety for Mercury Marine.
13 NMMA would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, the
14 other Board Members, and staff, Tom Cackette, Bob Cross,
15 Mike Carter, Jackie Lourenco, Ben Hancock, Jeff Lowry,
16 Andrew Spencer, a number of people have worked with us, for
17 their cooperation and really their extraordinary efforts to
18 work with NMMA and its members on this difficult issue.
19 NMMA believes the proposed rule, with the
20 revisions that have been added by staff, present a
21 significant challenge to the small companies that marinize
22 stern-drive inboard engines. But it is one that we can
23 support.
24 We have come a long way in reaching agreement over
25 the past months, and we, again, appreciate the work that has
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
49
1 been done cooperatively with the Board, its staff, and
2 others.
3 Let me start the testimony by describing the
4 stern-drive inboard industry, who we are, but, more
5 importantly, who we are not.
6 If the Board is not aware, the entire stern-drive
7 inboard market in the United States is approximately
8 100,000, Mr. Cross had said. That's national. And we agree
9 that a much smaller subset of that is here in California.
10 This is less than .6 percent the size of the light-duty
11 vehicle market. There are nine companies that marinize
12 stern-drive inboard engines. Most are small businesses, and
13 the largest marinizer produces approximately 80,000 engines
14 nationally, which is fewer than virtually any motor vehicle
15 manufacturer in the U.S. market. So, again, we're talking
16 about all very small entities here.
17 There are also several other aspects of the stern-
18 drive inboard industry that are important to note as the
19 Board considers the rules.
20 First, stern-drive inboard marinizers do not
21 manufacture engines. They use blocks and other components
22 supplied by vehicle manufacturers and other suppliers, and
23 modify these for use in marine environment. Also, the basic
24 electronic components are purchased from outside vendors,
25 but are made specifically for marine use. These are not
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
50
1 off-the-shelf automotive components. We need to emphasize
2 that. These are not automobile components that are off the
3 shelf. These are made specifically for use in the marine
4 environment, and that use is very important.
5 Second, the engineering staff at these companies
6 is small. For many companies, only one or two engineers are
7 on staff. Today, in the audience, we have 40 percent of the
8 engineering staff of one company. It's three people. Okay,
9 so we're not talking here about the resources available to
10 the motor vehicle industry. Clearly, this isn't the auto
11 industry.
12 Third, unlike light-duty vehicles, or even
13 personal watercraft manufacturers, SDI marinizers are not
14 integrated with boat builders. Engines commonly are sold to
15 brokers who subsequently transfer them to boat builders, and
16 many times there's more than one transaction that occurs
17 before the engine finds its way to a particular boat. Thus,
18 SDI engine marinizers have no control over the engine, its
19 placement and labeling after it is sold to a broker.
20 Finally, it's critical to keep in mind that while
21 many components may be based on land based engines and
22 systems, operation in the harsh conditions in a marine
23 environment make safety and reliability essential. When you
24 are a mile or more from the shoreline, you cannot simply
25 pull over to the side of the road if there are problems.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
51
1 Any new systems must be safe and reliable for use in a
2 marine environment.
3 The purchase of a pleasure craft is purely a
4 discretionary decision. This industry is greatly affected
5 by the overall economic conditions of the country. Indeed,
6 many financial analysts use the sale of pleasure craft as a
7 bellwether for the economy. This year, sales of pleasure
8 craft components is down 30 to 40 percent from last year.
9 As recently as Tuesday of this week, Mercury announced the
10 termination of 166 employees, and in the week prior, US
11 Marine boat plant was permanently closed. So this industry
12 is really buffeted by the economy, and, indeed, one of the
13 most widely covered events by financial analysts is the
14 Miami Boat Show, because that is a true indication of
15 whether there is discretionary income available to
16 customers.
17 And you see, as I understand, financial reporters
18 from all over the world come to that not to look at boats,
19 but to see what the level of market activity is. So this is
20 an industry that is very sensitive to economic conditions.
21 Given the size and other characteristics of the
22 stern-drive inboard industry, both the interim standard and
23 the requirement for the catalyst based level present a major
24 challenge to SDI marinizers. The agreement by the Board to
25 enter into a joint development and in-water testing program
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
52
1 for catalysts with USEPA, the Coast Guard, NMMA members, and
2 catalyst suppliers is the most critical factor that allows
3 NMMA to support the Board's action for the 2007 and later
4 standards.
5 This cooperative program will take technology from
6 the conceptual stage to the water, and it will determine if
7 catalysts are safe and durable in both fresh water and salt
8 water environments. NMMA members pledge to work closely
9 with ARB staff and all other participants in this program.
10 It is important for both the environment and boating safety
11 that the program be conducted in a way that assures that
12 this technology can be transferred from land based operation
13 to the marine environment.
14 While we hope the catalyst technology will prove
15 safe and durable in the marine environment, if this
16 technology cannot be used, it will be important for the
17 Board to take action to revise the 2007 later standards.
18 The Board's resolution on this gives us comfort that this
19 would be done.
20 In addition to the in-water test program, there
21 are several other aspects of the proposed rule that are very
22 important to SDI marinizers.
23 First, NMMA believes the revised staff proposal
24 for 16 grams per kilowatt hour standard, together with the
25 streamlined certification program for 2003, which has been
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
53
1 discussed with the staff, will allow marinizers to allocate
2 desperately needed resources for the major goal of this
3 program, which is develop catalyst technology. We want to
4 keep our eye on the ball, we want to develop a catalyst that
5 can work, will work in a marine environment, and that's
6 where we think the resources should be spent. And we think
7 the arrangement that we've worked out over the last days
8 will assure that.
9 NMMA members recognize the need to assure the
10 Board's air quality goals. In order to accomplish this
11 without draining the resources available to the companies,
12 NMMA agrees to the revised staff proposal to increase the
13 phase-in and percentage for 2007 and later catalyst based
14 technology from ten percent to 45 percent in 2007, from 50
15 percent to 75 percent in 2008, and 100 percent in 2009.
16 Over and above this, NMMA members have agreed to
17 include all manufacturers in the program. NMMA's
18 calculations show that these measures will more than achieve
19 the Board's desired goal.
20 Due to the competitive issues within the industry,
21 it is proper that the exception in the proposed rule for
22 manufacturers of 2,000 less engines be deleted. Therefore,
23 all SDI engines sold in California will be subject to the
24 2003 and 2007 later standards. This provides competitive
25 parity, but it also provides additional air quality benefits
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
54
1 for 2003 and later years, since all engines sold in the
2 state will meet applicable requirements.
3 You may ask why the industry would support cutting
4 out an exemption for small manufacturers. The reason for
5 that is this. Given the cooperative research program, if
6 those companies were not regulated they would not be able to
7 participate fully in the program. For many of those
8 companies, because of their small size, it's critical that
9 they get the benefits of the research and technology
10 development that would flow from this program. So NMMA
11 polled its members, spoke with all of them, and -- and there
12 is agreement among the members for elimination of the small
13 volume exemption.
14 Second, revision to the requirements for marine on
15 board diagnostics, OBDM, are critical to SDI marinizers.
16 Since these must take into account that these systems are
17 different from those used in land-based vehicles. NMMA
18 believes development of OBDM systems provides as significant
19 a challenge to this industry as the development of the
20 catalyst itself.
21 For example, catalyst -- NMMA believes that these
22 are significant problems. For example, the catalyst
23 performance in misfire may not be able to be monitored in
24 the same way as an automobile. The testing done to date on
25 catalyst systems in the laboratory shows it's not possible
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
55
1 to keep the rear oxygen sensor dry, because there's water
2 ingestion. Given that, you can't use the technique that is
3 currently used on automobiles, which is to monitor front and
4 rear oxygen sensors. So therefore, there has to be a
5 difference, and what we've talked about and what Mr. Cross
6 alluded to, is some sort of temperature sensing for the
7 catalyst.
8 The in-water testing and development program is
9 now aimed at identifying problems for catalyst survival
10 associated with misfire. If misfire presents a problem, the
11 Executive Officer will be empowered to develop requirements
12 for misfire monitoring, while providing adequate lead time
13 to SDI marinizers and component suppliers to make the change
14 in both the hardware and the software that will be needed to
15 monitor misfire related problems in a marine environment.
16 The test program, together with lead time and cost
17 effectiveness are critical to SDI marinizers, since OBD
18 development will strain the limited engineering resources of
19 the companies.
20 Finally, the revised staff proposal with regard to
21 labeling provides a common sense way of allocating
22 responsibility. If the Board wants to discuss the issue of
23 labeling further, SDI marinizers are willing to engage
24 constructively in this discussion. NMMA and the SDI
25 marinizers want to continue the working relationship that we
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
56
1 have developed with the Board and the staff as we move
2 forward with this important testing program.
3 We appreciate the efforts that ARB has made to
4 understand the unique issues faced by this industry. We
5 want to continue working to assure environmental goals can
6 be met in a manner that does not compromise boating safety
7 or the competitive balance in the marine industry.
8 I thank you. Mr. Rowe, Mr. Lichtner and I will be
9 happy to answer any questions that you may have.
10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much, indeed, for
11 that statement.
12 Mr. McKinnon.
13 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Yeah, I understand, early
14 in your testimony you talked about not having the ability to
15 use off the shelf components. I'm interested, it seems to
16 me that exhaust manifolds are clearly very different,
17 looking at the picture, anyway.
18 Certainly, the manufacturers go to a manifold
19 manufacturer for those manifolds. Is that correct, or do
20 you make them?
21 MR. ROWE: No, sir. We manufacture our own --
22 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Could you -- yeah, please --
23 MR. ROWE: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm Dick Rowe, with
24 NMMA. Excuse me.
25 We manufacture our own. It's not that you can't
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
57
1 go to some machine shop that possibly copied some -- one of
2 ours, let's say, manifolds, and sells it after market. So
3 we've designed a good share of that engine, other than the
4 pistons and the block. The rest of it, primarily the oil
5 pans, and bell housings, the attachments for water cooling,
6 and a lot of -- even the intakes, especially, on fuel
7 injection, are all manufactured by our own companies.
8 So it's not an off-the-shelf.
9 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Okay. You answered that
10 question.
11 The other one I have is, does your organization
12 include small manufacturers? You --
13 MR. ROWE: I can answer that, because I own a
14 small -- I think staff, they visited us, they know how big
15 we are. We have one engineer. The rest, we're a family
16 business. My son, son-in-law, and their respective spouses,
17 and we even have now a granddaughter that is in the
18 business. So we're very small, we're very aggressive. And
19 we're the largest of the smalls. When you drop below us,
20 the total probably -- and this is an estimate, because
21 sometimes you don't know the exact figures of your
22 competitors, but it's assumed that all of our competitors
23 combined build something less than what we do annually. So
24 it's small business. Many of them don't even have engineer
25 staff.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
58
1 That was one reason -- let me just add, that's one
2 reason for this development program, so that the small
3 manufacturers will have that system, this technology, and --
4 and the engineering experience.
5 MR. PENNA: In addition, NMMA did talk to all of
6 its members, including the very small members, and they were
7 in agreement to proceed with the -- the course that I
8 outlined in the statement.
9 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Thank you.
10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Professor Friedman.
11 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I have more of a
12 comment than a question. As I see how this has evolved, I -
13 - it seems to me this is -- this is a wonderful example of
14 those who have -- who manufacture sources of pollution,
15 working cooperatively to reduce the emissions, and working
16 with staff and -- and buying in to the solution. And it
17 seems to me that's -- that's what we're seeking, as we
18 identify various sources. And -- and I think I heard
19 recognition of the concerns that Dr. Burke was expressing,
20 and the expectation that the technology reviews that will
21 occur in 2003 and 2005 would -- would assist in determining
22 what the -- what kind of technology will be safe, reliable,
23 and -- and effective.
24 So I just wanted to say that that's -- that's what
25 I'm hearing, and I appreciate your appreciation of the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
59
1 problem, and the willingness of the manufacturers, large and
2 small, probably mostly small, to -- to buy into this, and
3 cooperate.
4 MR. PENNA: Thank you very much.
5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Dr. Burke.
6 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Mr. Penna, is your family
7 name part of a bifurcated boat name?
8 MR. PENNA: No, sir.
9 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Penna-Volvo
10 MR. PENNA: No. No. It's from northern Italy.
11 MR. PENNA: Oh.
12 (Laughter.)
13 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Okay. Because they make a
14 fine product.
15 MR. PENNA: In fact, no, Volvo Penta is one of the
16 manufacturers. They are not here today, but they have been
17 active participants in the negotiations and discussions that
18 we have had for the test program, and all the other
19 discussions. Again they're small, and I think their staff
20 member just had a -- I think he has a wedding in the family,
21 or something like that, can't get out here.
22 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Yeah. How big is Post?
23 MR. PENNA: Post?
24 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Yes. Back east, Post Boats.
25 MR. PENNA: They are just -- you're talking about
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
60
1 Post yachts. They are just coming back on now. They
2 probably have done better in the last two to three years
3 than they have in the past. But they're coming on well.
4 That's kind of out of our league. We build small
5 boat engines, rather than big ones.
6 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Thank you. Okay.
7 Let me comment that I agree with Professor
8 Friedman. You know, I really am heartened by manufacturers
9 coming and participating in the process. I'm concerned
10 because it is such a complex issue, that staff has so many
11 things to deal with that they really don't understand it as
12 fully as the manufacturers, because when I ask how many are
13 salt water and how many are fresh water, they can't answer
14 that question. And then I started thinking well, if there's
15 salt water boats involved in this, and they're operating
16 offshore, how does that affect our emissions reduction. You
17 know, I don't see how you answer that question if you don't
18 know how many are salt water.
19 But that's not your responsibility to answer that,
20 right?
21 MR. PENNA: No, we don't know, either.
22 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Yeah, right. So, you know,
23 when we talk about emissions reduction here, you know, I
24 don't know how we quantify that, if we don't know, because
25 if all these boats were just sitting on a lake, it would be
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
61
1 one thing. But if they're operating offshore, then some
2 percentage of them have got to be operating offshore. But,
3 you know -- and if there's an answer to that question, I --
4 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: Well,
5 Dr. Burke, I'll run those numbers down for you. It's not
6 that there's no answer, it's that it comes out of the
7 inventory, which I don't have at my fingertips right now.
8 So we'll get the answer to you.
9 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: But we --
10 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: It is
11 significant --
12 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: -- that's all I'm asking.
13 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: It is
14 significant, and it's particularly significant because
15 offshore is upwind of the basin, so you're getting in your
16 NOx emissions.
17 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: It depends on which offshore
18 you're talking about.
19 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Yeah, but if they're -- if
20 they're in Balboa, chugging out to sea, that would generate
21 in -- in the harbor at Balboa, wherever they are.
22 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Right, that's true.
23 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: We get that ultimately.
24 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: Yes. That stays there. But
25 then it, you know, if they're really operating offshore,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
62
1 which is -- they're not the same in southern California.
2 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: All
3 I'm saying is the prevailing wind is from the shore, inland.
4 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: And so it's taking it out,
5 right?
6 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Well, I think on the issue of
7 transport, that'll come up this afternoon. That whole issue
8 may be good to relate to that.
9 BOARD MEMBER BURKE: I really appreciate your
10 help.
11 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: No more questions. Thank you
12 very much. And again, I would like also to compliment you.
13 I sat in a meeting, oh, I don't know, six months ago now,
14 and I'm amazed at the progress that has been made and the --
15 and the way in which you have worked together with staff and
16 with MECA and with Southwest. And I think that I'm really
17 delighted to see the way things have come together. I think
18 it's a tribute to, as Professor Friedman and Dr. Burke said,
19 I think it's a tribute to your commitment here not to fight
20 us, but to work with us, and a tribute to staff that they
21 actually recognize the unique problems that you have, went
22 out and visited you, saw that you're not these large
23 manufacturers, and so I think it's, to me, it's a hallmark
24 of the way ARB typically addresses these things, and I'm
25 really delighted to see what's evolving.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
63
1 Thank you.
2 MR. PENNA: Thank you very much.
3 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: We have Peter Eikenberry, U.S.
4 Coast Guard, Dale McKinnon from MECA, and Russell Long of
5 Bluewater Network, and that's it.
6 MR. EIKENBERRY: Good morning. I'm Peter
7 Eikenberry, from the United States Coast Guard, Office of
8 Boating Safety in Washington, D.C.
9 Basically, I'm going to simply reiterate the
10 concerns that we have expressed in the past, both to the EPA
11 and to the Air Resources Board, concerning safety issues.
12 Our federal mandate is to provide for safety in
13 the manufacture of recreational boats, so that the public
14 gets a safe boat that is free of defects that can pose a
15 serious risk of injury to the public.
16 As we have expressed in letters and discussions we
17 have had with both the EPA and the ARB, we feel we cannot
18 endorse the proposed environmental regulations until all of
19 the safety issues have been adequately addressed. These
20 issues are included in your staff report of June 8th, 2001.
21 One of those is heat in the engine room and its effects on
22 the durability and reliability of the engine components.
23 Also, exhaust leaks that could occur due to a greater number
24 of joints in the system and to the higher level of
25 maintenance required. By that, I mean these joints
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
64
1 occasionally have to be taken apart and put back together.
2 That can result in leaks by not being put back together
3 properly.
4 Further, as we have stated, we believe that these
5 issues will not be adequately addressed until testing in an
6 operational environment, that is, real boats under real
7 operating conditions, has been done on a long term basis to
8 judge that effects of the proposed changes.
9 Therefore, we strongly support the proposed test
10 program to address all of these concerns, safety, as well as
11 environmental. Then, when we have been able to evaluate the
12 test data, we will be able to assure the boating public that
13 safety is not being compromised, and that they will enjoy
14 not only a clean environment, but a safe environment, as
15 well.
16 I'd be more than happy to answer any questions. I
17 don't think it would be appropriate for the Coast Guard,
18 because of our restraints imposed on us by federal law, to
19 comment on anything other than safety issues.
20 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Will you be a party to the test
21 program?
22 MR. EIKENBERRY: Absolutely. We were the ones who
23 initially proposed it to the EPA when the EPA raised this
24 issue several years ago.
25 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
65
1 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: How does the Coast Guard
2 view the introduction of on-board diagnostics in terms of
3 increased safety?
4 MR. EIKENBERRY: We've been dealing with this
5 issue through the American Boat and Yacht Council and NMMA
6 for a number of years. And one of the issues that was
7 raised in the -- one of the American Boat and Yacht Council
8 committees was the reliability of on-board computers that
9 control and operate and monitor the engines. Because if
10 that engine fails, as Dr. Burke pointed out, you can't walk
11 home. This is not a car that you're driving down the road.
12 There's only one person that we know of in history that's
13 ever been able to walk on water, and none of us can do that.
14 So it's a real serious issue, particularly when a
15 boat is in what sailors like to call extremis. That means
16 they're in a situation where that engine cannot fail, you
17 need it now, such as crossing the bar, coming in through the
18 Golden Gate, these are places where if you lose that engine,
19 you very well may lose your life.
20 So this equipment has to be reliable, it has to be
21 durable, it has to have built-in fail safe mechanisms that
22 have to have backup mechanisms, so that the engine will
23 continue to run even though the computer itself may have
24 failed.
25 So these are very serious safety issues, and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
66
1 they're issues that we've been discussing with the industry
2 for several years.
3 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Any other questions?
4 Thank you very much.
5 Dale McKinnon, and then Russell Long.
6 MR. McKINNON: Good morning. My name is Dale
7 McKinnon. I'm the Deputy Director of the Manufacturers of
8 Emission Controls Association. MECA is pleased to testify
9 in support of ARB's proposed new emissions standards for
10 spark ignited inboard and stern-drive marine engines. This
11 program will provide significant emission reductions that
12 will directly benefit the citizens of California.
13 We commend ARB for its outstanding efforts in
14 developing this important program. We also wish to
15 compliment the marine industry for its cooperative efforts
16 in evaluating and exploring emission control strategies for
17 these engines. MECA and its members have appreciated the
18 opportunity to work with ARB staff and the marine industry.
19 MECA is a non-profit association made up of the
20 world's leading manufacturers of emission control technology
21 for on- and off-road vehicles and engines, but also
22 stationary IC engines. MECA's member companies have over 30
23 years of experience and a proven track record in developing
24 and commercializing emission control technologies for a wide
25 range of vehicles and engines. These companies have
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
67
1 developed control technologies for gasoline, diesel, but
2 also alternative fueled engines.
3 The staff report provides a very thorough and fair
4 analysis of emission control issues. We concur with the
5 staff's report's conclusions that the regulatory
6 requirements are technologically feasible and the program
7 will provide significant reductions in not only NOx
8 emissions and hydrocarbon emissions, but also particulate
9 matter emissions.
10 If the proposed action is finalized, our member
11 companies are committed to invest the necessary resources to
12 help insure that effective, durable control technology is
13 available for these engines.
14 We would also offer specific observations relating
15 to controlling emissions from these engines.
16 Firstly, the technology to reduce emissions from
17 spark ignited inboard and stern-drive marine engines will be
18 based on automotive type three-way catalyst close loop
19 technology. Indeed, this technology has been used on well
20 over 300 million automobiles with outstanding results, and
21 the same technologies can be adapted to marine engines.
22 Secondly, although spark ignited marine engine
23 applications pose unique engineering challenges, such as the
24 possibility of water ingestion into the exhaust systems,
25 special temperature requirements, and packaging issues, we
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
68
1 believe that a properly engineered and designed system will
2 successfully address these issues.
3 Also, MECA strongly supports the ARB consumer
4 environmental label requirements. We believe it is
5 extremely important to provide the consumer with information
6 regarding emission levels of the product being purchased.
7 In addition to giving special recognition to cleaner
8 engines, the requirements will promote the development,
9 introduction and purchase of marine equipment with lower
10 polluting engines.
11 In closing, we look forward to working with the
12 marine industry and the Air Resources Board to address the
13 design challenges unique to the application of emission
14 control technology in a marine environment, and to make this
15 program a success.
16 Thank, you.
17 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much, Dale.
18 I'd like to thank you, also, for MECA's commitment
19 here to work with the industry, because I know six months
20 ago there was -- it was stated there was some reluctance of
21 the industry to commit to this because of the limited
22 market. And I know we felt as a Board, that we bring you a
23 lot of business, so it's nice that you're actually directing
24 some of your efforts in this direction, too. So I really
25 appreciate your commitment and work with us, and EPA and the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
69
1 industry.
2 MR. McKINNON: Thank you.
3 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Any questions from the Board?
4 Thank you very much.
5 MR. McKINNON: Thank you.
6 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: The last witness is Dr. Russell
7 Long.
8 DR. LONG: Good morning, Dr. Lloyd, Members of the
9 Board. My name is Russell Long. I'm Executive Director of
10 the environmental organization, Bluewater Network, based
11 here in San Francisco.
12 I'd like to start by just pointing out one thing
13 to put this rulemaking into perspective. Even by 2007, even
14 with catalytic converters, cars are still going to be far,
15 far cleaner, probably about one order of magnitude cleaner
16 than inboard stern-drive boats. Clearly, catalysts, which
17 have been available for a quarter century now, are long
18 overdue in boats.
19 Nonetheless, we believe that this is a historic
20 first step, and we commend the staff for this rulemaking.
21 It will set a precedent, we think, also for other categories
22 that EPA is currently considering, including such categories
23 as snowmobiles, certain industrial equipment, all terrain
24 vehicles, motorcycles, on highway and off-road bikes, and
25 various other categories.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
70
1 We remain concerned about several issues, however.
2 First, on the consumer labeling program. I should just
3 mention a bit of history. Bluewater was the group that came
4 to the Air Board back in 1996 or 7 requesting that an
5 environmental label be placed on outboards and personal
6 watercraft. And we're very pleased that CARB went ahead
7 with the program. We think it's a terrific program, and
8 consumers seem very appreciative of it.
9 Now, the heart of the program is really consumer
10 information. We believe consumers have a right to know what
11 the environmental qualities are of the products that they're
12 about to purchase. And so we believe that the labels must
13 be highly visible and readily available. Towards that end,
14 it was good to hear today that boat manufacturers will be
15 required to place permanent labels on the boats, though
16 actually there was one ambiguous comment about that, and I'd
17 just ask for clarification.
18 Now, we would also request these labels be placed
19 on the engines themselves. This provides valuable
20 redundancy in case the original owner removes the permanent
21 label from their boat. And in the event of a resale, of
22 course, the new owner may want to know what type of engine
23 they've got. So we'd ask for your support, then, to direct
24 staff to mandate the placement of a permanent label on both
25 the engine and the boat itself.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
71
1 Now, the second thing we're concerned about with
2 the environmental program is the hang tag. In the outboard
3 personal watercraft rule, there is a hang tag that goes on
4 the handlebar of a personal watercraft, or on the tiller of
5 an outboard. And there's been a problem with -- with that
6 part of the program. The hang tag itself provides more
7 detail, so that a buyer, when they're looking at the motors,
8 they see the label there, it might have two stars on it, and
9 it says very low emissions, but they don't really know what
10 that means. So the hang tag shows all the different labels,
11 and it describes each one in more detail with specific
12 numerical values that we've related to the pollution from a
13 dirty two-stroke. So it provides some good detail for a lot
14 of boaters who would actually like to have this kind of
15 information.
16 Now, what's happened, and I discovered this in
17 going to West Marine recently to take a look at some
18 outboards, is the hang tags are not being put on the engines
19 until the time of sale. So, in other words, consumers are
20 looking at these things, they don't see a hang tag, they
21 don't get that information until after they've bought the
22 engine. And as it's going out the door, in the back room,
23 the dealer puts the label on.
24 The rule says that the label is supposed to be on
25 at time of purchase, which can be interpreted either way.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
72
1 We would ask for you to direct staff to clarify this for the
2 manufacturers so that that hang tag is on throughout the
3 purchase period, in other words, in the dealerships, in the
4 showrooms, in the displays.
5 Now, as far as this rulemaking -- yes.
6 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Can we just ask staff, can that
7 be done?
8 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: We'd be happy to do
9 that. We think actually the original intent of the Board,
10 when they adopted this particular labeling requirement in
11 hang tags, was for that to be available to the consumer at
12 the time of -- at the time that basically the item was
13 offered for sale. And so to the extent that that's not
14 occurring, we'll be happy to follow up and make sure that
15 does occur.
16 DR. LONG: Thank you. As far as this rulemaking
17 goes, I didn't note the hang tag feature of the rulemaking,
18 and I'd just request clarification that we do the same thing
19 with this rule as you have just asked Mr. Kenny to do with
20 the outboard personal watercraft rule.
21 Finally, I --
22 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Could I just --
23 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Professor Friedman.
24 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: -- clarify also, as I
25 understand the rule, it would include a requirement that the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
73
1 engine have a permanent label.
2 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Yes, that's correct.
3 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: As well as your
4 comment that --
5 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: What our proposal is is
6 that the engine actually have a label on it, and that the
7 engine manufacturer also provide a second set of labels that
8 could be then provided to the boat manufacturer for
9 placement on the hull of the boat.
10 We have not placed the burden of enforcement on
11 labeling the boat on the engine manufacturer. Our intent is
12 essentially to come back to you with a requirement for the
13 boat manufacturer to do that.
14 DR. LONG: And we would hope, certainly, that
15 there is an absolute requirement lawfully for the boat
16 manufacturers to place those labels on, so that we have an
17 enforcement mechanism against them.
18 Finally, my last point. I'd like to briefly
19 address the issue of carbon monoxide. The Coast Guard and
20 various boating organizations, including ourselves, have
21 noted the alarming increase in boater deaths in recent years
22 from carbon monoxide poisoning. And this has primarily been
23 houseboats, but nonetheless, it's a source of concern. It's
24 been overlooked within many of the off-road categories.
25 Obviously, we've looked at it with regards to on-road. And
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
74
1 we think it's high time that carbon monoxide be taken
2 seriously in the off-road sector, starting, we believe, with
3 inboard stern-drive boats, since they will be the first to
4 have catalytic converters, three-way catalysts, we
5 understand.
6 So we'd like to ask that in 2003, during the
7 technology review, that staff is directed to, in order to
8 protect public health and safety, to establish an emissions
9 standard for carbon monoxide on inboard stern-drive boats.
10 at the current time, I don't believe they have any data on
11 carbon monoxide, so it would be appropriate to wait and give
12 them an opportunity to develop that during the review
13 period.
14 Thank you very much.
15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. Is that a
16 problem with staff?
17 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: I think we
18 certainly would want to look at it during the evaluation,
19 but I don't think we would like to be directed to establish
20 a standard yet until we see the data. I mean, these 2007
21 engines with the catalyst, the CO's going to be reduced by
22 at least 75 percent, compared to what it is today. So
23 without a standard or any involvement of government
24 regulation, that's going to come way down. And then I guess
25 the only question is whether that's -- that's enough, that I
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
75
1 --
2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Well, I understand what Dr. Long
3 was saying here. If we're going to get data, just get some
4 CO data, then during that technology review we can see
5 whether it's adequate what's going down.
6 DR. LONG: Thank you very much.
7 Any other questions from the Board?
8 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes, Mr. McKinnon.
9 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I just -- I wanted to
10 comment on that. I think we should be cautious to look into
11 it, because I am thinking the houseboat problem is largely
12 generators, rather than the drive engines. And that may be
13 a whole issue that we need to deal with. But I think we
14 need to be cautious we don't try to fix one problem with
15 dealing with another.
16 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much.
17 Any other questions from the Board, comments, at
18 this time?
19 Mr. Kenny, are there any further comments?
20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: No.
21 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes. I guess, I think we've
22 stated enough about, on this particular item, how much we
23 appreciate the staff and the industry working together. So
24 I guess I will close the record on this agenda item.
25 However, the record will be reopened when the 15-day notice
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
76
1 of public comments -- public availability is issued.
2 Written or oral comments received after this
3 hearing date, but before the 15-day notice is issued, will
4 not be accepted as part of the official record on this
5 agenda item. When the record is reopened for a 15-day
6 comment period, the public may submit written comments on
7 the proposed changes which will be considered and responded
8 to in the final statement of reasons for the regulation.
9 Again, just a reminder to my colleagues here,
10 since this is a regulatory item, do we have any ex parte
11 communications?
12 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman.
13 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Mrs. Riordan.
14 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Yes. On Monday, July 24th,
15 I did speak to Mr. Long of the Bluewater Network. The
16 discussion was exactly as it appears in their written
17 comments and what was testified to today. And that's the
18 only item.
19 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Ms. D'Adamo.
20 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Yes. On Wednesday, I spoke
21 with Mr. Long also, by telephone, and his comments were
22 basically the ones he made today.
23 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you.
24 We have a resolution before us.
25 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Move adoption.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
77
1 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Second.
2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: All in favor say aye?
3 (Ayes.)
4 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Any opposed?
5 Any abstain? No.
6 Thank you very much. Again, I would like to thank
7 staff very much.
8 We're going to take a -- probably a ten-minute
9 break now. We have the unusual luxury, my colleagues here,
10 that we're ahead of schedule.
11 (Laughter.)
12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: But we -- to let everybody know
13 what we are going to do here, in ten minutes we're going to
14 reassemble, hear the Strategic Research Plan. Then, if we
15 finish that item, we're going to start the review of RFG3
16 before lunch. Then we will break at 12:45 for lunch, so
17 that -- to allow everybody to -- so lunch is at 12:45. So
18 ten minutes.
19 (Thereupon, a ten-minute recess was taken.)
20 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Before we start the next item, I
21 would like to welcome the Research Screening Committee to
22 our annual joint Board meeting. It's again a particular
23 pleasure for me to welcome you, having served there, and I
24 know how much effort you put in this arena.
25 However, before we start, in terms of our official
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
78
1 interaction, I would like to acknowledge the contributions
2 of Professor Glenn Kass, who for many years served on the
3 Research Screening Committee, was instrumental in starting
4 and laying out the research program that has served ARB so
5 well, for so long.
6 Many of us here know Glenn, some more than others.
7 I think several of the Board Members will know him. He's
8 currently Chair and Professor of Earth and Atmospheric
9 Science Department at Georgia Tech Institute of Technology.
10 We heard a few days ago that he's terminally ill, and so
11 it's a very poignant moment for all of us.
12 I'd just like to recount some of his
13 accomplishments and then finish by reading a resolution I
14 know my colleagues on the Board signed today.
15 He received his Ph.D. from the California
16 Institute of Technology, where he served as Professor of
17 Environmental Engineering and Mechanical Engineering until
18 he joined the faculty at Georgia Tech in 2000. And for
19 those years when he was at Cal Tech, he served both his
20 students, Cal Tech, and the State of California with immense
21 -- with a very distinguished record and pioneering research.
22 He's been a member of USA's Advisory Committee on
23 Ozone, Particulate Matter, and Regional Haze Implementation
24 Programs, and formerly served on the EPA's National Clean
25 Air Scientific Advisory Committee.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
79
1 He served as a member of the Research Advisory
2 Committee of the Health Effects Institute, and he also
3 served as a member of ARB's Scientific Advisory Committee
4 and as a consultant on air quality matters for state and
5 local governments and the Department of Defense. He
6 published over 200 peer review journal articles during his
7 career, dealing with many different aspects of all air
8 pollution.
9 His contributions, I think, on models for
10 emissions of photochemical oxidants, airborne particles and
11 visibility are truly a trendsetter. And he was very
12 instrumental, and we all remember him at -- when he was --
13 his help for the South Coast and at the Air Board to help to
14 develop air pollution control strategies, which in turn also
15 addressed some of the issues that we had not addressed
16 before; for example, protecting museums and archeological
17 sites from damage due to environmental conditions, and also
18 looking at the adverse health effects of -- adverse health
19 effects from air pollutants. I think Professor Kass and his
20 group have studied the formation and control of gaseous and
21 fine particle pollutants, and the economic optimization of
22 pollution control strategies.
23 Some of his recent accomplishments was development
24 of a realistic source sampling system and the use of that
25 system to characterize major sources of urban air pollution,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
80
1 a system subsequently copied by many investigators; The use
2 of organic traces for source apportionment of airborne
3 particulate matter, comparison of size and chemistries of
4 particulate measurements to the ATOFMS measurements, an
5 attempt to make these measures more quantitative;
6 Development of mechanistic source oriented external mixture
7 air pollution model; Characterization of airborne PM2.5 and
8 ultra-fine particles for use in formulating standards and
9 understanding air quality; Detection of excess ammonia from
10 catalyst equipment on automobiles, and the source and fate
11 of reactive nitrogen in Los Angeles.
12 And I think Glenn can look back to these many,
13 many fine accomplishments also with the knowledge that the
14 work he had pioneered in a lot of the fine particle research
15 arena is now being recognized more and more in fine particle
16 research as being a key to some of our health problems, and
17 also provides some of the greatest challenges that we have,
18 as regulators, to address those issues.
19 The resolution I'd like to read.
20 "Whereas, for 23 years Professor Glenn Kass has
21 served the people of California as a dedicated and
22 distinguished academician, focused on the least expensive
23 means to rapidly achieve cleaner air in California;
24 "Whereas, he has made the source of research
25 excellence that has guided and educated other air quality
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
81
1 scientists, decision-makers, and emission control planners;
2 "Whereas, his approach to complete and detailed
3 analysis of all aspects of air pollution control from
4 understanding emissions, atmospheric processes, and
5 modeling, to comparing simulated and ambient monitoring data
6 that directly guided developments in each of these areas at
7 the Air Resources Board and the national scientific
8 community;" -- and I would say international.
9 "Whereas, his tireless efforts to understand ozone
10 and particulate matter pollution have refined and expanded
11 the general understanding of these pollutants, and in
12 particular have vastly improved scientific knowledge in
13 California;
14 "Whereas, his efforts to expand understanding of
15 indoor air pollution has sparked and supported development
16 in this area of the Air Resources Board;
17 "Whereas, his unyielding dedication to assist the
18 Air Resources Board in developing peer studies, pilot
19 programs, testing protocols, and advancing the state of
20 science, and has been an asset to the people of California;
21 "Whereas, he has guided the development of new
22 ideas into accepted forms about air pollution control by
23 providing the data and the analysis to confirm new
24 mathematical models of atmospheric chemistry, or by
25 demonstrating a changing nature of particulate matter
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
82
1 composition;
2 "Whereas, he educated two generations of air
3 pollution scientists in his rigorous approach to atmospheric
4 science, and these scientists continue to serve the people
5 of California;
6 "Whereas, his insight and his foresight have
7 served the development of a culture of air pollution control
8 in California that has garnered the respect and admiration
9 of national academic institutions for his honesty,
10 openmindedness, and competence;
11 "Whereas, his accomplishment as a great teacher,
12 leader, and innovator at the California Institute of
13 Technology include establishing programs that have strongly
14 supported the decisions of this Board with facts, evidence
15 and analysis over the last three decades;
16 "Whereas, in service to the people of California,
17 he has reminded his students, co-workers, and the air
18 quality community of the need for excellence in hard
19 science; and,
20 "Whereas, he has been a unique asset for the Air
21 Resources Board and the national academic community;
22 "Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Air
23 Resources Board thanks Professor Glenn Kass for his many
24 years of dedicated service to the Air Resources Board, and
25 the people of California."
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
83
1 Executed at San Francisco, California, this 26th
2 day of July, 2001.
3 I think this summarizes, in a small way, the many
4 contributions that Glenn has made.
5 And we also state that Dr. John Holmes, with whom
6 Glenn worked for many years, would have been here today
7 also, but he's also undergoing some treatment.
8 I think it just emphasizes to all of us the
9 frailty and the -- the unknowns as we move ahead, and I
10 think the need to recognize that every day we have to push
11 ahead as rapidly as possible.
12 Again, we trust that this measure will get to
13 Glenn, and I know we speak for all of you in this room and
14 the Board and staff in wishing him the very best, and
15 hopefully that maybe he can succeed where the prognosis is
16 not good.
17 Thank you.
18 I mentioned the next agenda item is 01-6-3, the
19 proposed ten-year Strategic Plan for Research and
20 Implementation for Fiscal Year 2001-2002.
21 As I mentioned, this is a particular pleasure for
22 me today, was the highlight when I was on the Research
23 Screening Committee, not only to get a free luncheon, but
24 you actually get to see -- see the -- meet the Board,
25 because I think the amount of work that you do, it really
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
84
1 pays off. It does actually get up to -- to the Board,
2 through the Executive Office.
3 I think, as the Board Members know, the Research
4 Screening Committee was established by law to advise the
5 Board on our overall research program and on individual
6 research proposals. We benefit enormously from their
7 counsel, and are grateful for their service to the State of
8 California.
9 Unfortunately for us, today is the last day of Mel
10 Zeldin's participation on the committee. Mel is retiring
11 from the South Coast Air Quality Management District, and
12 thus resigning from the Research Screening Committee, as
13 well. I understand that Mel and his wife are planning to
14 move to Reno to spend their retirement years. What a wise
15 decision.
16 (Laughter.)
17 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Mel Zeldin has served with the
18 committee for 13 years and has always provided the strongest
19 technical and scientific support. His expertise in
20 atmospheric processes spans the full range from weather
21 forecasting to monitoring to control. His insights and
22 involvement in planning and conducting various field
23 programs in southern California have been invaluable. His
24 success in the area of speciated particulate matter and dust
25 control also earned him the nickname, "Mr. PM".
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
85
1 And personally, Mel, having worked with you on the
2 Research Screening Committee and worked with you down at
3 South Coast, I really commend you and thank you for your
4 wonderful efforts and dedication, and the way you've
5 conducted yourself and provided tireless efforts for the
6 Research Screening Committee, and my work with you at South
7 Coast. I know you'll be a tremendous loss to Dr. Burke and
8 the staff down there.
9 But you're not very far away, and as we see with a
10 lot of these places, they never retire; they just
11 transition. So maybe one day we'll see you back as a
12 consultant.
13 The Board and I would personally like, as I say,
14 to congratulate you and thank you, and wish you many, many
15 years of happy, productive retirement.
16 Additionally, as you may or may not know, Dr. Kent
17 Hoekman of Chevron also recently resigned from the
18 committee. Dr. Hoekman accepted a job as Executive Director
19 of the Atmospheric Sciences Division at the Desert Research
20 Institute, also in Reno.
21 (Laughter.)
22 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: The distance and time commitment
23 was too great, so he also deemed it necessary to submit his
24 resignation. Dr. Hoekman will also be missed for his
25 diligence in reviewing all the research reports and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
86
1 insightful comments. And I know that Mr. Kenny and Bart
2 Croes and Mr. Scheible are looking for replacements so that,
3 in fact, we can provide the necessary support we need there.
4 So at this point, I'd like to ask Mr. Kenny to
5 introduce staff and the item.
6 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Thank you, Dr. Lloyd.
7 Members of the Board.
8 I'd like to add staff's welcome to the members of
9 the Research Screening Committee, and also express our
10 shared regret that both Mel and Kent are leaving. They have
11 actually provided immensely valuable service over the years.
12 It's greatly appreciated.
13 The staff works closely with the committee
14 throughout the year, so we are very aware of the major
15 contribution they make to our research program and to
16 ensuring the success of the many projects that we sponsor.
17 What I'd like to do at this time is to introduce
18 Professor Hal Cota, Chairman of the Research Screening
19 Committee, who will present the committee and provide
20 comments on this year's research highlights.
21 Dr. Cota.
22 DR. COTA: Thank you very much, Mr. Kenny.
23 Good morning, Chairman Lloyd and Members of the
24 Board. It's a pleasure to come before you, be with you.
25 Before I make a few more comments, I'd like to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
87
1 have some introductions. I'll go first, and then the rest
2 of the committee can introduce themselves.
3 I'm a chemical engineer and professor of --
4 Professor of Environmental Engineering at Cal Poly. I also
5 am a director of Cal Poly's EPA area-wide training center,
6 whose mission is to provide training to people in the state
7 and local agencies on air pollution control issues and
8 matters. One of my research interests is in biochemical --
9 bio-aerosols, basically from compost facilities in the State
10 of California.
11 DR. BALMES: I'm John Balmes, Professor of
12 Medicine, at UCSF. I'm a pulmonary physician and an
13 occupational environmental medicine physician, and am
14 actively engaged in health effects research regarding
15 respiratory effects of air pollution. And also Acting
16 Director of the Center for Occupational Environmental Health
17 here in Northern California, which is a multi-campus UC
18 Berkeley, UCSF, UC Davis consortium.
19 MS. KOSHLAND: I am Professor Catherine Koshland,
20 a Professor of Environmental Health Science and of Energy
21 and Resources at UC Berkeley, and a mechanical engineer by
22 training. My research areas have been in combustion and
23 associated health impacts, and I've spent considerable time
24 looking at incineration of toxic substances. We also worked
25 on the state study on MTBE, and I'm currently looking at
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
88
1 diesel engines and fine particulates.
2 We're also engaged in a study of coal combustion,
3 not something I ever expected to be a part of, but we have
4 an opportunity to look at a unique set of Chinese coals that
5 may be revealing in a -- in a broad way about the effects of
6 particulate pollution from coal, and it may be important
7 here, as well as in China.
8 I'm also the UC Berkeley lead campus director for
9 our toxic substances training program. The lead for that is
10 at UC Davis, but we have a complement that looks at health
11 effects of modern technologies.
12 MS. WALTON: My name is Amy Walton, and I'm at the
13 Jet Propulsion Laboratory down in -- I'm Amy Walton, and I
14 work at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena. I head a
15 research and technology program for the earth science
16 community.
17 DR. WILLIAMS: My name is Forman Williams. I'm a
18 Professor of Engineering Physics and Combustion in the
19 Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at the
20 University of California at San Diego. And I am also
21 Director of the Center for Energy Research at UCSD. My
22 specialty is in combustion, and I do research on things like
23 production of oxides of nitrogen in combustion of
24 hydrocarbon fuels. I basically call myself a combustion
25 theorist.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
89
1 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think, Dr. Williams, I guess
2 staff would appreciate the comment that this is a very
3 positive legacy that Dr. Workman brought before us.
4 DR. WILLIAMS: Yes, that's true. And my
5 predecessor on the Research Screening Committee was Dr.
6 Alvin Gordon, who served for a number of years, as well,
7 from USCD.
8 MR. ZELDIN: Mr. Zeldin, Assistant Deputy
9 Executive Officer for Science and Technology Advancement
10 with South Coast AQMD.
11 And if I might just take a minute here, I think,
12 to thank Dr. Lloyd for the very kind comments and the Board
13 and staff. In looking back over 13 years here, I would say
14 that the amount of material that has gone through for review
15 can be measured by the ton.
16 (Laughter.)
17 DR. ZELDIN: Sometimes the material comes in boxes
18 this big.
19 I'd like to say it has indeed been a pleasure and
20 a privilege for me to have been associated with so many fine
21 and outstanding individuals. This research program by the
22 ARB is, in my opinion, the best in the country, and the
23 people that I've been associated with, from top to bottom,
24 have been outstanding.
25 I just want to say what a pleasure it has been for
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
90
1 me over these 13 years, and thank you very much.
2 DR. COTA: We have two committee members that
3 aren't here, that I'd like to introduce, so to speak. Lynne
4 M. Halderman is Associate Professor in the Department of
5 Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford. Dr.
6 Halderman's area of expertise are aerosol chemistry,
7 exposure assessment and indoor air quality. She just had a
8 baby, and is taking some time off.
9 Bill Nazeroff is a Roy W. Carlson distinguished
10 professor in environmental engineering at the University of
11 California at Berkeley. Dr. Nazeroff's area of expertise
12 are air quality engineering, air pollution dynamics, and
13 indoor air quality. He is on sabbatical leave in Denmark,
14 and thus unable to join us.
15 As noted already, we have had two members or will
16 have two members leaving us, one due to moving out of state
17 and the other in retirement. And I just want to say we're
18 going to miss the contributions of Dr. Kent Hoekman of
19 Chevron, and Mel Zeldin, of the South Coast Air Quality
20 Management District, very much.
21 This past year the Committee has participated in
22 the research program in many ways. We have spent time on
23 the Strategic Plan, the 2001-2002 Research Plan, the peer
24 reviewed RFPs, research proposals, and final research
25 reports.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
91
1 This has taken a considerable amount of time, as you've
2 heard. This is on top of the individual committee members'
3 professional and personal research commitments, and I do
4 want to take this opportunity to thank the committee members
5 for spending so much time and for their dedication.
6 The committee wishes also to thank Bart Croes and
7 all the research division staff for their work they do to
8 ensure the air pollution research program remains focused on
9 state of the art science. They played a big part in
10 developing the Strategic Plan for Research for 2002 to 2010.
11 There are several research projects that do
12 demonstrate the quality that we've talked about, several
13 relating to the diesel PM. The work being done at the
14 University of California, Riverside, to investigate
15 children's exposure to diesel exhaust particles and other
16 less related pollutants, and to determine the fraction of
17 children's total exposure attributable to the school bus, is
18 one example.
19 Developing atmospheric tracer for diesel exhaust
20 so the effectiveness of upcoming control measures can be
21 followed is another. And West Virginia University is
22 investigating effective dynamometer systems for the
23 inspection and maintenance program to test both the gasoline
24 and heavy-duty diesel trucks.
25 These projects also proved to be complementary to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
92
1 the research activities that are taken in-house by ARB, and
2 by other organizations such as the Coordinating Research
3 Council and the USEPA. Improved diesel emission inventories
4 and determined the effectiveness of diesel controls are
5 important to all of these groups.
6 Let me conclude by thanking each member of the
7 Board for their continued support of the research program.
8 We trust this program in the long run will assist you in
9 making cost effective environmentally sound air quality
10 management decisions.
11 In closing, let me add that our committee reviewed
12 the Strategic Plan, and the Annual Plan that you're
13 considering today, and we recommend it for your approval.
14 I'll turn the presentation back to Mr. Kenny.
15 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Thank you, Dr. Cota.
16 Now, staff would like to present for consideration
17 the Board's Strategic Plan for Research for the years 2001
18 through 2010. The objective of this plan is to provide a
19 long-term road map for research that will support our air
20 quality planning efforts, help us with regulatory decision-
21 making, advance efforts to meet the State Implementation
22 Plan and other commitments, and facilitate coordination with
23 other research organizations.
24 The first annual Implementation Plan is also
25 before you today. The projects included will be funded next
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
93
1 fiscal year, and total a little over $6 million.
2 With that, I'd like to introduce Ms. Annmarie
3 Mora, who will provide a detailed overview of the Strategic
4 Plan and next year's planned research.
5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Before that happens, could I also
6 take advantage of introducing Dr. Mike Lipsett, who is an ex
7 officio member of the Research Screening Committee, coming
8 from OEHHA, Office of Environmental Health Hazard
9 Assessment. And I think we're delighted that Dr. Lipsett
10 provides a link between OEHHA and the ARB. So, welcome,
11 Mike, and thank you for your continuing contributions.
12 MS. MORA: Good afternoon, Chairman Lloyd and
13 Members of the Board.
14 Today, we are presenting to you a long-term
15 Research Plan and a coordinating Annual Plan. Each year we
16 bring to you the Annual Plan, which contains a list of
17 recommended projects. In addition to the Annual Plan this
18 year, we are presenting our first Strategic plan for
19 Research.
20 We prepared the plan to help focus the direction
21 of our research program. As such, this year's Annual Plan
22 has been developed in coordination with the long-term goals
23 set forth in the Strategic Plan.
24 I will begin with the introduction of the long-
25 term plan.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
94
1 The Health and Safety Code states that an
2 effective research program is an integral part of the
3 statewide effort to combat air pollution. Furthermore, it
4 charges the Board with administering and coordinating all
5 air pollution research funded with state funds. In line
6 with this direction, we have developed a ten-year Strategic
7 Plan for Air Pollution Research. The plan has been designed
8 to anticipate the Board's research needs and support
9 upcoming regulatory efforts.
10 We know the plan must be flexible, and although it
11 is a ten-year plan, we intend to update it every two to five
12 years. The Strategic Plan was developed to identify and
13 prioritize various air pollution concerns, and will serve as
14 a road map for research funding over the next ten years. In
15 addition, the plan is intended to provide stakeholders and
16 research funding organizations with targets for possible
17 collaboration with the ARB, and inform university
18 researchers and private consultants about our research
19 needs. In general, it hopes to inform the public about our
20 program.
21 We consulted with several resources and surveyed a
22 long list of established research plans as we developed our
23 own plan. The Research Screening Committee, experts within
24 the ARB, other regulatory organizations, such as the United
25 States Environmental Protection Agency, the South Coast
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
95
1 AQMD, the California Energy Commission, the Coordinating
2 Research Council, the Health Effects Institute, and others,
3 provided thorough reviews and insightful comments.
4 As a result, we believe that we have developed a
5 comprehensive plan that focuses on the most significant air
6 pollution issues.
7 Based on our analysis of the research needs of the
8 Board's regulatory programs over the next decade, the plan
9 has three primary objectives.
10 First, to reduce emissions and exposure to
11 particulate matter. Second, to characterize and reduce
12 community exposure to air pollutants. And third, to promote
13 continued advancement and acceptance of zero and near zero
14 emission technologies. These themes are found throughout
15 the plan and serve as the underlying bases for each research
16 section.
17 The plan itself is organized under the following
18 research areas: Health and welfare effects; exposure
19 assessment; technology advancement and pollution prevention;
20 and global air pollution.
21 These categories were selected because they
22 represent the range of research that we anticipate will be
23 needed over the next decade. Furthermore, they defined the
24 natural sequence of research. Health and welfare effects
25 will identify the impacts associated with air pollution.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
96
1 Exposure assessment will characterize exposures. And
2 technology advancement will facilitate the application of
3 effective exposure reduction strategies.
4 In addition, we have designated global air
5 pollution as an area of concern. It not only encompasses
6 all three of the above categories, but also contains
7 elements that extend well beyond their individual
8 components.
9 I will provide a brief description and the scope
10 of future research needs for each of these categories.
11 The first category is health and welfare effects.
12 The major drivers in this area are the effects of PM and
13 environmental justice. It is important for the ARB to
14 establish clean air targets that protect the health of all
15 Californians, including sensitive individuals and those
16 living in disadvantaged communities.
17 We also want to protect California's ecosystems.
18 The knowledge gained from our health effects research
19 supports many programs, including the establishment of
20 ambient air quality standards.
21 The assessment of community health, effective
22 public health intervention programs, and the assessment of
23 consequences of long-term exposure to air pollution. This
24 slide shows the important role that air quality standards
25 play in the Board's mission.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
97
1 The specific research areas that fall under this
2 section include human health effects; Lake Tahoe and other
3 sensitive ecosystems; regional haze; and the benefits and
4 costs of air pollution control.
5 A sample of the research questions we wish to
6 investigate include what are the key components or
7 characteristics of particulate matter that contribute to
8 adverse health effects. Is deposition of air pollution a
9 primary factor in the continuing decline in the clarity of
10 Lake Tahoe? How can the ARB correctly distinguish the
11 contribution of natural sources from those contributed by
12 anthropogenic sources toward regional haze? And what have
13 been the benefits of air pollution control over the last 20
14 years?
15 This is just some of the important research that
16 we believe will help the Board to further understand and
17 characterize the effects air pollution has on the health and
18 welfare of the people and natural resources of California.
19 The second category is exposure assessment.
20 Advancing our understanding of air pollution and
21 characterizing exposures drives this area of research. The
22 information gained from our exposure research helps ensure
23 that our regulatory activities focus on reducing exposures
24 that represent the greatest health concerns.
25 Specific research areas under this section include
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
98
1 personal and indoor exposure, emission inventory,
2 atmospheric processes, and multi-media effects.
3 Some of the exposure assessment research questions
4 that we believe need to be addressed include how does
5 exposure to air pollution impact children, and how does it
6 differ from that on adults? What are the emissions of
7 biologically relevant species of PM? How can the transport
8 of pollutants be quantified and responsibility for emission
9 reductions be assigned? What is the atmospheric deposition
10 to other media quantified -- I'm sorry, how is the
11 atmospheric deposition to other media quantified?
12 We believe that research to address these
13 questions and other related questions will result in the
14 ability to better characterize and reduce community exposure
15 to air pollutants, and thus support corresponding policy
16 decisions.
17 Through the technology advancement and pollution
18 prevention section, the ARB will continue to be engaged in
19 several activities to advance the development, demonstration
20 and commercialization of technologies associated with zero
21 or near zero emissions. Further, the ARB will also take
22 steps to enhance emission monitoring and measurement methods
23 to advance pollution prevention alternatives. Specific
24 research areas will focus on clean air technologies and
25 distributed generation.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
99
1 Major research questions in this area include how
2 can we improve and optimize existing control strategies
3 using the least cost approach to make air quality programs
4 more efficient? How can we provide better monitoring
5 methods and increase the accuracy of our measurement and
6 interpretation of data? What can be done to facilitate the
7 development and deployment of zero and near zero emission
8 technologies?
9 Answers to questions in this area will help
10 address our regulatory requirement to promote continued
11 advancement and acceptance of zero and near zero emission
12 technologies.
13 Our final category is global air pollution.
14 Changes in the global climate and response to increases in
15 carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are expected to
16 create regional changes in temperatures, humidity, and
17 precipitation. Research is needed to determine the impact
18 of these changes on regional air quality and, in turn, on
19 existing future control strategies. An understanding of the
20 sources of global climate change is also needed before
21 effective mitigation methods can be determined and assessed.
22 Another aspect of global air pollution concerns
23 the transport of pollutants far beyond their point of
24 origin, as shown in this slide. Dust and other pollutants
25 can be transported from Asia and the Sahara Desert to the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
100
1 western United States, contributing to an increase in
2 regional background levels for PM and ozone within
3 California.
4 We need to determine how global transport affects
5 statewide air pollution distribution, and the contribution
6 it, as well as increasing industrialization and
7 decertification, has on PM and ozone control needs in
8 California.
9 Major research efforts in this area include
10 identifying how the greenhouse gas emission inventory can be
11 improved, identifying the true contribution of motor
12 vehicles to nitrous oxide emissions, and how global climate
13 changes affect the state's air quality.
14 Global climate change is one of the most pressing
15 issues facing the nation today. It is imperative that as
16 much research as possible be done to accurately assess the
17 potential effects this impending change may have on our
18 environment. Evaluating climate change issues and
19 developing a statewide control policy requires the
20 coordinated input of many agencies. The ARB will seek out
21 as many appropriate coordination opportunities as possible.
22 It is imperative that the Board's research program
23 is scientifically sound and responsive to issues which
24 affect the health, safety, and well-being of California's
25 residents. We believe that the Strategic Plan for Research
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
101
1 will strengthen the Board's scientific foundation on which
2 they make regulatory and policy decisions.
3 I would now like to introduce the first
4 implementation of the Strategic Plan. The fundamentals of
5 the Strategic Plan are reflected in the planned air
6 pollution research for fiscal year 2001-2002, which is also
7 before you today. This annual plan has been assembled in
8 coordination with the Strategic Plan, and is based on the
9 same four research categories.
10 The mobile source, stationary source, planning and
11 technical support, and research divisions play major roles
12 in designing the research program. We also closely
13 coordinate the development of the plan with the South Coast
14 AQMD and hosted a workshop to solicit public comments.
15 I'd like to first discuss the research budget. We
16 anticipate a research budget of approximately ten and a half
17 million dollars. This figure includes $1.2 million from new
18 budget proposals which are currently under consideration by
19 the governor.
20 As the pie chart shows, just over $6 million is
21 allocated for the proposed projects. Two million dollars is
22 allocated for our vulnerable populations program, for which
23 an advisory committee is being established. Projects funded
24 under this program are also reviewed by the RC and come
25 before the Board for final approval. $1.4 million per year
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
102
1 is allocated to cover our remaining obligations under the
2 Children's Health Study. This project is scheduled for
3 completion in December 2003. Also, $1 million is earmarked
4 for the Innovative Clean Air Technologies Program.
5 Since the projects funded under this program are
6 development and demonstration, and not research, these
7 projects are not reviewed by the RC. Rather, the proposed
8 projects are reviewed by a separate advisory committee and
9 brought before the Board for final approval.
10 The projects in the annual plan are now in the
11 conceptual stage. These projects will then be developed
12 into either Requests For Proposals or interagency
13 agreements. The resulting proposals or agreements will be
14 evaluated by staff and presented to the Research Screening
15 Committee for review before they come to you for approval.
16 I'll briefly summarize the major research efforts
17 from each area in this year's plan.
18 There are five projects proposed under Health and
19 Welfare Effects, totaling a little more than $2 million.
20 The first two projects relate to the health effects of
21 particulate matter. The third relates to air pollution
22 issues surrounding Lake Tahoe. The last two projects will
23 investigate the benefits of air pollution control programs.
24 The results of these projects in this category
25 will support the development of future ambient air quality
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
103
1 standards and provide an assessment of the effectiveness of
2 implemented control strategies.
3 Under the next section, Exposure Assessment, there
4 are ten recommended projects totaling $2.6 million.
5 (Children crying.)
6 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Children's Study.
7 (Laughter.)
8 MS. MORA: Three of the projects will quantify and
9 characterize exposure to air pollutants. The next three
10 will focus on the emission rates and sources of PM and
11 dioxins. Additional exposure assessment projects will
12 improve upon our modeling capabilities, and two will provide
13 regulatory support for reducing VOCs.
14 The results of these projects will assist in
15 identifying pollutant specific contributions to the emission
16 inventory, and the physical and chemical processes that
17 occur in the atmosphere that affect exposure to pollutants.
18 Ultimately, they will support State Implementation Plan and
19 more effective control strategies.
20 The next section, Technology Advancement and
21 Pollution Prevention, contains five projects totaling $1
22 million. These projects address the further advancement of
23 emission monitoring, emission characterization and emission
24 control technologies. These projects will support and
25 evaluate clean air technologies and control strategies. It
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
104
1 is important for the Board to not only encourage new
2 emission reduction technologies, but also to assess the
3 effectiveness of those already in place.
4 In the last category, Global Air Pollution, one
5 project is proposed. This project will improve estimates of
6 nitrous oxide and ammonia emissions for motor vehicles. The
7 results of these projects -- of this project will help the
8 ARB to determine if controls are needed for these
9 pollutants.
10 As you know, the research that is sponsored by the
11 Board is crucial to the Board's mission to provide
12 California with cleaner air. We believe that the vision in
13 the Strategic Plan and the projects outlined in the Annual
14 Research Plan for fiscal year 2001-2002 will strongly
15 support that mission. Therefore, we recommend that you
16 approve these plans.
17 I'd be happy to answer any questions.
18 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much.
19 Comments or questions from the Board?
20 Now, these are proposed projects, and then you
21 will go out with RFPs or interagency agreements for these?
22 MS. MORA: Correct.
23 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Just one question, to take
24 advantage of Mel being here. The one on revegetation in
25 Antelope Valley, I know that you've been involved with a
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
105
1 number of these. Are we progressing, or are we -- but
2 clearly, you feel that there's enough progress to warrant
3 some more work.
4 DR. ZELDIN: I was involved with some of the
5 original work back in the early nineties, when there was
6 tremendous problems with abandoned farmlands in the Antelope
7 Valley, creating PM10 levels in excess of 700 micrograms per
8 cubic meter over a 24-hour period. I think the program is
9 needed over an extended period, because when you look at the
10 viability of native vegetation restoring that, it's not
11 something you can determine in one or two or three years.
12 It takes a significant period of time to make that
13 assessment. So I believe that the program is well
14 warranted.
15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you.
16 Professor Friedman.
17 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I'm curious to know a
18 little bit more about the source apportionment of fine and
19 ultra-fine PM, just -- just what the objective of that
20 research is.
21 MR. CROES: This is Bart Croes, Chief of the
22 Research Division.
23 We're actually considering that project today in
24 front of the Research Screening Committee, and that's to
25 understand the various sources that contribute to PM 2.5,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
106
1 for which EPA has promulgated a standard, as well as for the
2 very small, ultra-fine particles in which -- in case there's
3 increased health concerns.
4 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: But the source
5 apportionment portion of that, this is to find -- to
6 identify where these particles are coming from, what is
7 producing the ultra-fine or the nano-particles versus the --
8 the larger?
9 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: Yeah, that's
10 correct.
11 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: By category or
12 source?
13 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: Basically, it'll
14 be able to look at the relative contributions of sources
15 like gasoline fueled motor vehicles, diesel engines, dust,
16 other --
17 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Does that relate also
18 to on-road tire and brake wear --
19 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: Yeah.
20 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: -- and other kinds of
21 sources?
22 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: Yes, it does.
23 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Okay. I don't --
24 thank you.
25 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: We have two witnesses signed up,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
107
1 David Schonbrunn and Paul Sebesta.
2 MR. SCHONBRUNN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
3 I'm David Schonbrunn, President of TRANSDEF. We're
4 a Bay Area environmental organization, with a focus in
5 regional transportation land use and air quality planning.
6 I think your -- I'm planning to testify on two
7 other items on today's agenda, and I believe you'll see a
8 consistent theme through these, which is transportation
9 control measures.
10 There's a lot of really excellent research
11 projects in the proposed program. What I want to identify
12 are three areas that we believe are lacking in your program,
13 so that these can be filled in over time.
14 This agency has done some extraordinary work on
15 transportation and air quality linkage, including the
16 publication of a very important pamphlet. I think it was
17 '97. But there hasn't been much seen since that time in
18 this field. One gets the sense that someone must have said
19 we don't want to go there with the whole area of TCMs and
20 transportation and land use linkage.
21 The issue here of great concern is that to reach
22 the state ozone standard, and in particular to reach the PM
23 standards, there's going to be a need to do something to
24 reduce VMT growth, or perhaps even cap VMT growth, and this
25 is why I'm here today to speak on this. Mobile sources are
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
108
1 such a prominent part of the inventory, and sprawl is so
2 ubiquitous that this is a really crucial area, in which
3 there's an inadequate amount of information.
4 So we ask that you direct staff to develop a
5 research program on land use development patterns resulting
6 in a set of transportation control measures that you will
7 deem reasonably available. Our state desperately needs a
8 strategy to reduce or cap the growth in VMT if we're ever
9 going to attain the state ozone standard, and deal with the
10 health impacts of particles.
11 I believe this is the responsibility of ARB
12 because of my experience that our local Bay Area district
13 desperately wants to stay out of this controversial field.
14 EPA is working in this area. California, with its size,
15 desperately needs to be in here, too. Even with a letter
16 from your general counsel in the production of our Bay Area
17 SIP, frankly, that letter was rejected and it was said that
18 our organization misunderstood the meaning, where it said
19 these measures are available, you -- MTC, in particular, has
20 the jurisdiction to implement these measures. They said
21 they don't. They don't believe your counsel.
22 So with your leadership, our state can make
23 significant progress on VMT growth, and that will be to get
24 a research basis started.
25 And so I have two other items that are unrelated.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
109
1 The staff report --
2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Do you have some specifics in
3 terms of research or just ask staff to do it?
4 MR. SCHONBRUNN: I don't have anything specific.
5 Some of my colleagues have done some extraordinary work that
6 shows that different densities of population produce very
7 strikingly patterned VMT levels. Going all the way from
8 urban to suburban, and stopping in the middle, there was a
9 multiple of four in annual VMT. This is extraordinary, and
10 it certainly hints at major control strategies that we very
11 much need.
12 On two other areas, you've heard today the
13 agency's commitment to environmental justice. At a number
14 of recent hearings in the Bay Area, I've heard a lot of
15 testimony about the health effects of living near
16 refineries. I notice that the research program includes an
17 epidemiological study for children, but there's nothing
18 epidemiologically for adults that I -- that I saw,
19 particularly for disadvantaged communities. It seems to us
20 that more effort is needed in studying the synergistic
21 effects of ozone and air toxics, and this is -- this was not
22 covered anywhere.
23 It's clear that a significant part of the
24 population is not being protected from health damaging
25 pollutants, resulting in an epidemic of asthma and cancer.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
110
1 It's clear that some combination of enhanced standards,
2 control strategies, and enforcement is desperately needed.
3 Please complete the research needed to accomplish protection
4 of the health of all Californians.
5 And then, finally, one small item, in terms of the
6 mitigation of the health impacts of diesel emissions from
7 diesel truck and bus facilities. Are buffer zones needed to
8 protect residents that live nearby? If so, what kind of
9 physical separation is needed to protect them? Air
10 districts need guidance from your agency so they can comment
11 meaningfully on project EIRs for these kinds of facilities.
12 Please research this and provide guidance to the districts
13 around the state.
14 Thank you very much.
15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much.
16 Does staff have any comments?
17 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: Yes. This is Bart
18 Croes.
19 I guess there are three points that were raised by
20 the gentleman. The information on land use development and
21 TCMs, there's actually been quite a body of research that
22 ARB has funded over the past. We actually are funding at
23 least one project right now, and we'll try to make him aware
24 of that.
25 I think the research has gone far enough, and it's
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
111
1 -- the information is out there, and we'll look at whether
2 there's further research needs, but it wasn't raised in any
3 of our public hearings or by any of the contributors to the
4 research plan.
5 Environmental justice is a big concern in our
6 plan, and we have the vulnerable population research program
7 that will be looking at whether there are other sensitive
8 subpopulations, other than children, that need health
9 investigations. So we're putting together right now an
10 advisory committee for that, and we'll bring a research plan
11 to the Board at a later date.
12 I'd like to note that the synergism between ozone
13 and air toxics is actually part of our research plan right
14 now. And we are definitely concerned about diesel
15 exposures. We have a few studies ongoing in that area, and
16 that is definitely a focus of the research plan right now.
17 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Dr. Lloyd, I
18 might just add that in terms of applying the results of some
19 of the previous work we've done related to land use, air
20 quality and transportation, as we move into the SIP arena
21 and the planning arena, and use our mobile source
22 inventories models, the transportation models that the
23 transportation agencies and COGs use in their work, we do
24 take advantage of those tools to do assessments of TCMs, and
25 that is clearly part of the process that we go through with
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
112
1 each plan.
2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I know Supervisor DeSaulnier,
3 when he arrives, I know he's taken a particular interest in
4 some of these areas, too.
5 It turns out that the other witness was not signed
6 up for this item, so we don't have anymore public comments,
7 but those are not part of it.
8 So, Mr. Kenny, do you have any other -- he doesn't
9 have anymore comments.
10 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Mr. Kenny has
11 no more comments.
12 (Laughter.)
13 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: And neither does the
14 staff.
15 (Laughter.)
16 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. That was not
17 deliberate, by the way.
18 Are there any other comments from the Board?
19 Since this is not a regulatory item, it's not
20 necessary to officially close the record. However, we do
21 have a resolution before the Board, so take a moment to
22 review that. And I'll entertain a motion.
23 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Move approval.
24 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Second.
25 Moved and second. All in favor, say aye?
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
113
1 (Ayes.)
2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Unanimous vote.
3 Thank you very much, and we look forward to seeing
4 the Research Screening Committee at lunch, and thank you
5 very much, staff, for your comments.
6 We will take a five-minute break, while we change.
7 We will start the presentation, information presentation on
8 RFG3 before lunch, and then break promptly at 12:45.
9 (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: The next agenda item is 01-6-4,
11 Status Report on the Implementation of the California Phase
12 3 Reformulated Gasoline Regulations.
13 What we hope to do is hear the ARB staff
14 presentation before lunch, break for lunch, and then
15 reassemble and continue with CEC's presentation.
16 Just a reminder. In 1999, Governor Davis directed
17 the Board to take the necessary steps to remove methyl
18 tertiary butyl ether, MTBE, from gasoline by the end of
19 2002, while maintaining the full emissions and air quality
20 benefits of cleaner burning gasoline. He did that through
21 Executive Order D-5-99.
22 On December the 9th, 1999, this Board adopted the
23 Phase III Gasoline Regulations. We amended those further on
24 November 16, 2000.
25 Throughout this process, there have been a number
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
114
1 of complex implementation issues that staff has needed
2 additional time to resolve. There have also been several
3 regulatory and legislative developments along the way that
4 have affected our programs. Accordingly, the Board directed
5 staff to report back every six months on how the process is
6 going.
7 I think the single most significant development
8 affecting the MTBE phase-out was USEPA's decision to deny
9 California's request for a waiver from the federal oxygenate
10 requirement. On June 12, 2001, the USEPA administrator
11 officially denied our request, stating that California had
12 not met its burden in showing that the oxygen requirement
13 interferes with California's efforts to attain the national
14 ambient air quality standards.
15 Clearly, we strongly disagree with EPA's
16 assessment and will continue to pursue this with the USEPA
17 and the present Bush Administration.
18 At this point, I would like to ask Mr. Kenny to
19 introduce the item and begin the staff presentation.
20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Thank you, Dr. Lloyd,
21 and Members of the Board.
22 As indicated by the Chairman, we were extremely
23 disappointed with USEPA's denial of our waiver request.
24 This decision, unless it's reversed, will have serious
25 consequences for California citizens. We're concerned that
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
115
1 domestic supplies of ethanol and the infrastructure for
2 getting it here will not be sufficient to get us through the
3 rapid transition that is rapidly approaching.
4 We're also concerned about the potential for price
5 spikes, such as we have endured during the present
6 electricity crisis, if there is not enough competition to
7 keep ethanol prices down.
8 Staff of the California Energy Commission are here
9 to assist us in describing the potential impacts from the
10 denial of the waiver, and on supply and price implications
11 for California Phase III reformulated gasoline.
12 At this time, I would like to ask Steve Brisby to
13 make the ARB staff presentation, and then I think following
14 the lunch we'll ask Mr. Gordon Schremp, of the Energy
15 Commission, to provide the CEC presentation.
16 MR. BRISBY: Thank you, Mr. Kenny.
17 Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
18 Board.
19 This afternoon I will be providing our second
20 progress report on the implementation of California Phase
21 III Reformulated Gasoline Program. Also, because of its
22 potentially large impact on California, we will also discuss
23 in some detail the USEPA's recent denial of California's
24 request for a waiver of the federal reformulated gasoline
25 oxygen requirement.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
116
1 Following this presentation, the California Energy
2 Commission will complete today's progress report by
3 providing additional information on both of these subjects.
4 To start, I will provide a brief summary of the
5 Phase III Reformulated Gasoline Program. The Phase III
6 Reformulated Gasoline regulations were approved on December
7 9th, 1999. Per Governor Davis' Executive Order, the
8 regulations prohibit the addition of MTBE to California
9 gasoline after 2002, while preserving and enhancing the
10 emission benefits of the reformulated gasoline program.
11 The rules also provide additional flexibility to refiners to
12 accommodate the use of ethanol.
13 As the Board may recall, there were several issues
14 that were not resolved at the December 1999 hearing and
15 require follow-up. Therefore, the Board directed the staff
16 to pursue this additional work and to report back
17 periodically on these issues.
18 To date, a number of the follow-up activities have
19 been completed. On January 18th, 2000, the Phase III
20 regulations were approved by the California Environmental
21 Policy Council. This was performed in compliance with state
22 legislation passed in 1999, specifically, SB 989, the Sher
23 bill, and SB 529, the Bowen bill.
24 Also, on November 16th, 2000, the Board approved
25 follow-up amendments to the California Phase III
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
117
1 reformulated gasoline regulations designed to facilitate the
2 use of ethanol in California reformulated gasoline.
3 As part of the resolution approving the Phase III
4 gasoline regulations, the Board directed staff to provide
5 semi-annual updates regarding progress towards
6 implementation of the Phase III gasoline regulations.
7 Last fall, California refiners and pipeline
8 operators submitted their initial set of compliance plans.
9 The next set of updates are due this September. The
10 California refiners have started their CEQA processes.
11 Based on proposed schedules and meetings with industry
12 representatives, California refiners are on track, relative
13 to their own facility preparations, to meet the December
14 31st, 2002 date for the phase-out of MTBE from California
15 gasoline.
16 This means that modifications to refinery
17 processes needed to produce Phase III gasoline are, at this
18 time, on schedule. Consistent with this, the necessary
19 refinery modifications are in various stages of the CEQA and
20 permitting processes. The next Board update will be later
21 this year.
22 As the Board knows, the preferable course for
23 California would be to allow California refiners to comply
24 with our rules statewide, producing fuels with either
25 ethanol or producing fuels that achieve all the required
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
118
1 emission benefits without any oxygenate. USEPA's denial of
2 California's waiver request, unless it is reversed, means
3 that every gallon of gasoline in federal RFG areas will need
4 to contain ethanol. While California refiners seem capable
5 of making the needed changes to their facilities on time,
6 serious questions remain regarding the production and
7 distribution of ethanol in California.
8 Issues relating to supply and distribution of
9 ethanol to California and Phase III gasoline are being
10 evaluated by the California Energy Commission. You will
11 receive a detailed report on this subject from the CEC after
12 lunch.
13 The Board directed the staff address several of
14 the remaining issues related to the California Phase III
15 reformulated gasoline regulations by the end of this year.
16 In the Phase III regulations, the Board addressed the
17 emissions impact of commingling ethanol containing fuels
18 with non-ethanol containing gasolines in the vehicle fuel
19 tank. The Board recognized that this commingling could
20 result in an increase in evaporative emissions and included
21 an adjustment of 0.1 psi re-vapor pressure to offset the
22 calculated emissions increase.
23 Since the mix of Phase III fuels were not yet
24 known, the Board directed staff to further assess the
25 commingling impact. Likewise, when considering the Phase
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
119
1 III rule, the Board considered the impact of permeation of
2 ethanol on evaporative emissions. Because of the potential
3 significance of this effect and the limited data available
4 at that time, staff was to further assess permeation
5 effects, and, if necessary, make appropriate recommendations
6 to avoid emission increases from commingling or permeation.
7 Finally, the staff was directed to review the de
8 minimus levels of MTBE and non-ethanol oxygenates in
9 California Phase III reformulated gasoline. Staff intends
10 to bring recommendations regarding the de minimus levels to
11 the Board later this year.
12 Other activities to be completed during the 2002
13 to 2004 timeframe include evaluating, in cooperation with
14 the California Energy Commission, the expected impacts of
15 near zero sulfur levels on supply and price, and the
16 expected sulfur levels of Phase III reformulated gasoline,
17 and verifying that the benefits of the California Phase II
18 reformulated gasoline program are being preserved.
19 To evaluate permeation losses, staff issued a
20 contract for the investigation of permeation emissions
21 associated with the use of ethanol in gasoline. The
22 literature search portion of the contract work is finished.
23 The information collected confirms that ethanol in gasoline
24 leads to a significant increase in emissions through
25 permeation losses. The information suggests that the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
120
1 permeation increases associated with the use of ethanol may
2 be double what staff estimated in the December 1999 staff
3 report for Phase III gasoline.
4 Also, the contractor has recommended a design for
5 a confirmatory test program that would provide experimental
6 data on the permeation emissions associated with the use of
7 ethanol in California gasoline. We are evaluating how best
8 to proceed with the test program, and are considering
9 several recommendations on how to improve the test protocol.
10 As referred to earlier, the Board recognized that
11 commingling could increase evaporative emissions, and
12 adopted an adjustment of 0.1 psi re-vapor pressure to offset
13 the expected commingling effect, based on our technical
14 assessment of the likely magnitude of commingling if a
15 waiver were to be granted. The Board directed staff to
16 further evaluate the impact of commingling in 2003 and
17 beyond. The staff is conducting a substantial field and
18 data gathering effort now.
19 Staff has established an ARB/industry working work
20 and has completed the preliminary field work. The data
21 collected to date are only preliminary, and are insufficient
22 to provide any assessment at this time. Staff expects to
23 finish the remaining field work by September of this year,
24 so the Board can be briefed in December. At that time, we
25 believe we will be able to provide a more quantitative
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
121
1 assessment.
2 Now, I will present information regarding the
3 USEPA's denial of California's request for a waiver of the
4 federal oxygen requirement.
5 California's request for a waiver is based on
6 provisions in the Clean Air Act, which authorized the USEPA
7 to waive the federal reformulated gasoline minimum oxygen
8 requirement. The Clean Air Act states that a waiver may be
9 granted upon the determination by the administrator that
10 compliance with such requirement would prevent or interfere
11 with the attainment by an area of a national ambient air
12 quality standard.
13 California's request provided information required
14 by the act relative to both ozone and PM10 ambient air
15 quality standards. Our request demonstrated that the oxygen
16 requirement would make attainment of the ozone and PM10
17 standards more difficult. This conclusion is also supported
18 by a wide body of scientific review that also reaches the
19 conclusion that adding oxygen to California gasoline is not
20 necessary to produce lower emission fuels.
21 In 1999, the US Blue Ribbon Panel on oxygenate use
22 in gasoline found that the Clean Air Act oxygen requirement
23 should be removed for California. The USEPA Blue Ribbon
24 Panel found that within California, lifting the oxygen
25 requirement will result in greater flexibility to maintain
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
122
1 and enhance emission reductions, particularly as California
2 pursues new formulation requirements for gasoline.
3 The National Research Council report reached
4 similar findings. Dr. Chameides, Chairman of the National
5 Research Council's Committee on Ozone Forming Potential of
6 Reformulated Gasoline summarized his findings as, having
7 oxygen in the fuel made no difference in terms of air
8 quality benefits during the summer.
9 California's request for a waiver is supported by
10 a large and diverse group of stakeholders, including both
11 state and local water agencies, NRDC, the Sierra Club, the
12 American Lung Association, WSPA and all the California
13 gasoline producers, the California Energy Commission, and
14 many others.
15 With that background, I will now review the
16 history of our waiver request.
17 As you know, on March 25th, 1999, Governor Davis
18 issued the Executive Order for the phase-out of MTBE from
19 California gasoline. Following that, on April 12th, 1999,
20 Governor Davis formally requested that the USEPA grant
21 California a waiver of the federal Clean Air Act requirement
22 for federal reformulated gasoline to contain two percent
23 oxygen.
24 This applies to 70 percent of California's
25 gasoline. And because other gasoline is distributed within
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
123
1 California, it impacts another 10 to 20 percent.
2 From July of 1999 through February of 2000, the
3 staff supplied USEPA with additional materials in support of
4 a waiver for California. Also, the staff met with the USEPA
5 staff and participated in many conference calls. We
6 addressed every issue brought to our attention by the USEPA.
7 In the materials given to the USEPA, the staff clearly
8 demonstrated that there exists a NOx emissions benefit
9 associated with granting a waiver. A further reduction in
10 the emissions of NOx would contribute significantly to
11 making further progress towards attainment of both the ozone
12 and PM10 national ambient air quality standards.
13 On February 14th, 2000, in response to the
14 materials submitted by the ARB, the USEPA sent a letter
15 confirming that California's request for a waiver was
16 received and complete. The USEPA said they hoped to
17 complete their assessment by early summer of 2000.
18 Over a year later, the USEPA officially denied
19 California's request for a waiver from the federal oxygen
20 requirement. In its decision, the USEPA acknowledged that a
21 NOx benefit would be realized if a waiver was granted, and
22 that NOx reductions would aid California in addressing non-
23 attainment pollutants. The USEPA concluded that
24 California's Phase III rule may not be adequate to fully
25 compensate for emissions associated with commingling, and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
124
1 that there is a potential for a VOC increase with a waiver.
2 Because the USEPA concluded that VOCs may
3 increase, they stated that the impact of a waiver on ozone
4 was uncertain, and therefore California had not met its
5 burden in proving that the oxygen requirement interferes
6 with attainment of the ozone standard.
7 Surprisingly, the USEPA said that since they are
8 denying California's request based on uncertainty associated
9 regarding the effect of a waiver on ozone, they need not
10 decide whether the expected reduction in NOx from a waiver
11 and the associated reduction in PM10 would support a
12 determination of interference with the national ambient air
13 quality standard for PM10.
14 The ARB staff strongly disagrees with the USEPA's
15 assessment. The USEPA basically ignores the benefit that
16 further NOx emission reductions will have on attaining the
17 PM10 ambient air quality standard in California in
18 addressing California's waiver request. We disagree with
19 the USEPA's conclusion that there is a substantial
20 likelihood that a waiver would result in an increase in VOC
21 emissions. USEPA's conclusion is a worst case assessment
22 based on speculative factors that might affect commingling
23 emissions.
24 In the USEPA's VOC assessment, they basically use
25 two estimates for the impact of commingling, our estimate of
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
125
1 0.1 psi and their estimate, which is twice as large as ours.
2 In their assessments, when our estimate of the commingling
3 impact was used, there was no increase in VOCs. Even when
4 using the USEPA estimate, most scenarios investigated by the
5 USEPA resulted in no increase in VOCs. We believe that the
6 USEPA was in error in concluding that because it is possible
7 to make assumptions where commingling might increase overall
8 VOC emissions, that California had not met its burden of
9 proof for granting a waiver.
10 We continue to believe that the commingling
11 analysis provided by the ARB appropriately characterizes
12 this effect and should be the one relied on by the USEPA.
13 Also, the USEPA ignored the ARB's commitment to address and
14 remedy any additional emissions increase that might
15 eventually be found and attributed to commingling.
16 Therefore, in the unlikely case that the analysis supplied
17 by California is insufficient, we have included a commitment
18 to address any increase in emissions that might occur.
19 There is no real uncertainty about the final
20 outcome. A waiver will lead -- will not lead to an increase
21 in VOC emissions due to commingling, and will lead to a NOx
22 reduction.
23 Finally, the USEPA's most recent analysis failed
24 to include the most recent information available on
25 permeation. This information has been made available to the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
126
1 USEPA. The data indicate that the permeation emissions
2 associated with ethanol in gasoline could be double the
3 level indicated in California's waiver request. This change
4 alone is sufficient to negate the uncertainty regarding the
5 impact of a waiver on VOC emissions that USEPA attributed to
6 the commingling effect.
7 The effects of denying California's request for a
8 waiver of the federal RFG oxygen requirement are, without a
9 waiver, California must rely on ethanol as the only way to
10 make virtually all the gasoline in the state. Each gallon
11 of gasoline sold in federal RFG areas will be required to
12 contain ethanol. No other fuel can be sold, regardless of
13 its emission benefits. From eight to twelve tons per
14 day of additional NOx reductions will not be realized.
15 California refiners cannot immediately decrease their use of
16 MTBE by using non-oxygenated gasoline, which can be produced
17 today by many refiners to replace gasoline containing MTBE.
18 California refiners will not have the additional flexibility
19 necessary to produce California reformulated gasoline
20 without MTBE more efficiently and at less cost. California
21 will have fewer options to produce gasoline, and will face
22 potential additional factors that could limit supply and
23 therefore create price spikes.
24 These last two items will be discussed in more
25 detail by the Energy Commission staff.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
127
1 In response to the USEPA's denial, a number of
2 potential options are being evaluated. These include, but
3 are not limited to, accepting the denial and maintaining the
4 current phase-out date of MTBE, relying on ethanol as the
5 only way to make virtually every gallon of California
6 gasoline.
7 Legally challenge, in federal court, the USEPA's
8 denial of the waiver. Request that the USEPA reconsider the
9 waiver request, based on new data regarding permeation,
10 USEPA's lack of consideration of the PM10 ambient air
11 quality standard, and their failure to recognize
12 California's commitment to fully mitigate any unexpected
13 emissions increase due to commingling.
14 For the Board's information, on July 13th, the day
15 after the USEPA announced it was denying the waiver request,
16 the California delegation wrote President Bush asking that
17 he reconsider his decision to deny California's request for
18 a waiver of the federal oxygen requirement. A copy of this
19 letter has been provided to you as a part of your packet.
20 As the Energy Commission will report on in more
21 detail, we are intensely reviewing the feasibility of
22 maintaining the complete phase-out of MTBE after 2002, in
23 light of the waiver denial. Therefore, we are looking at
24 the need to possibly extend the schedule for the phase-out
25 of the MTBE and full implementation of the Phase III
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
128
1 reformulated gasoline regulations.
2 Finally, we are examining pursuit of a change in
3 federal law regarding oxygen in federal reformulated
4 gasoline. Or, obviously, since only one response by itself
5 may not be enough to ensure obtaining the desired result, we
6 are exploring many combinations of the options described
7 above.
8 Immediately following the USEPA's decision to deny
9 the waiver request, Governor Davis instructed the Secretary
10 of the California Environmental Protection Agency to take
11 the lead on developing California's response.
12 Recommendations for the Secretary of the California
13 Environmental Protection Agency on options are due to the
14 Governor -- are due to Governor Davis in September.
15 In summary, the staff continues its efforts to
16 meet the Board's objectives for the California Phase III
17 reformulated gasoline program. The staff's next update to
18 the Board will be December of this year, and will continue
19 semi-annually through 2002 -- 2004, thank you.
20 We will also continue to work with the California
21 Energy Commission, refiners, distributors, and others, to
22 implement the program. We will work with the California
23 Energy Commission to monitor supply, price, and other issues
24 that pertain to California's reformulated gasoline program.
25 Recommendations from the Secretary of the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
129
1 California Environmental Protection Agency regarding the
2 USEPA's denial of California's request for a waiver are due
3 to Governor Davis in September of this year.
4 This concludes my presentation. Thank you.
5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much, Steve.
6 Do we know what day in September? Is that the
7 31st, or is it the 15th?
8 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: We don't have a specific
9 date. Originally, when the waiver was denied on June 12th,
10 the request we had was to report -- the request from the
11 Governor's Office to Secretary Hickox was for him to report
12 back within 90 days. And so roughly somewhere around
13 September 12th.
14 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Are there comments, questions
15 from the Board at this time, or do we want to maybe
16 continue, listen to the CEC presentation and take everything
17 together.
18 So, I thank the staff for this part of it. Thank
19 you for a timely presentation so we can break actually right
20 on time for lunch.
21 So I guess we'll reassemble at, I think, it's
22 2:15, is that the time -- 2:15.
23 Thank you very much. We'll adjourn until that
24 time.
25 (Thereupon, the luncheon recess was taken.)
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
130
1 AFTERNOON SESSION
2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I'd like to ask my colleagues to
3 come up so we can recommence with the presentation from CEC
4 on the RFG issue.
5 (Pause.)
6 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: We will start the presentation on
7 the MTBE phase-out by the Energy Commission, but we may take
8 a break prior to you finishing that when we have -- I'm
9 looking for guidance from the Executive Officer.
10 An update. We will finish the CEC presentation,
11 then we will take a break on that issue, and we will
12 commence and finish the transport issue. And then we will
13 come back and take witnesses on the fuels issue. And so
14 that we can make sure that we can accommodate Assemblyman
15 Cardoza and his colleagues who have come here. But we also
16 need Supervisor DeSaulnier, particularly on the transport
17 issue.
18 So, Gordon, it's yours.
19 MR. SCHREMP: Thank you, Dr. Alan -- Dr. Lloyd.
20 I'm okay.
21 (Laughter.)
22 MR. SCHREMP: It's our lunch break, okay?
23 FUELS SECTION MANAGER BRISBY: You can tell he
24 doesn't work for ARB.
25 (Laughter.)
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
131
1 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I'd like to see him with that
2 laser pointer, too.
3 MR. SCHREMP: As you can see from the graphic, my
4 name is Gordon Schremp. I do work in the Fuels Office of
5 the California Energy Commission. I am a Senior Fuels
6 Specialist at the CEC.
7 Today I'll be talking about some of the supply
8 implications of phasing out MTBE, talking about gassing
9 demand, ethanol logistics, and some of the key challenges
10 facing the state as we move forward and phase out MTBE.
11 The cost impacts will cover three basic
12 categories, and those are production cost to make gasoline
13 under Phase III specifications without MTBE; potential price
14 spikes associated with the transition; and also an element
15 of indirect costs having to do with highway revenue.
16 These costs are what were presented in December of
17 1999 before the Air Resources Board, and this is just to
18 show you a comparison between the estimated cost under a
19 waiver scenario, which is on the left, and that under a
20 scenario whereby there has been a denial of the waiver,
21 which we find ourselves in today.
22 And as you can see from this graphic, most of the
23 costs or estimated cost increase to move to Phase III is as
24 a result of having to phase out MTBE, and the regulation --
25 changes in the regulation itself, namely lower sulfur and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
132
1 benzene, are a smaller component of that estimated cost
2 increase.
3 Now, we will be revising these cost estimates over
4 the next several months and have this graphic and work
5 updated prior to our next presentation before the Board in
6 December.
7 This is just a further explanation of the previous
8 graphic. And the additional three cents, because the waiver
9 was denied, is going to be costing California about $475
10 million per year. And that three cents difference is
11 basically due to three factors, and that is a higher
12 operating cost for the refiners; more expensive ethanol
13 because you're using more of it and you'll be paying a
14 higher market price because the demand is higher; and
15 additional refinery investments as well as slightly lower
16 fuel economy in vehicles, meaning you're purchasing a little
17 bit more gasoline. And that fuel economy effect is
18 estimated between one-half and one percent.
19 Now, the next category of potential costs are
20 those of price spikes. This graphic is to illustrate the, I
21 guess, sort of the magnitude and frequency of price spikes
22 over the last four years. And we've taken out the effect of
23 changes in crude oil prices, so what you're seeing here
24 essentially is California retail gasoline price minus crude
25 oil prices. So these changes on this graphic are for
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
133
1 reasons other than changes in crude oil prices.
2 So you ask yourself, why do we see these price
3 spikes. Basically, when there is a severe enough refinery
4 problem that constrains supply temporarily, the next
5 alternative source of supply is weeks away, about two to
6 four weeks. That means we're importing components and
7 finished product from, say, Washington State or the
8 Caribbean, Europe, or Texas and the United States Gulf
9 Coast. As you saw from the previous graphic, those price
10 spikes range from anywhere from 10 to 50 cents per gallon.
11 I think the final point on this slide is that it's
12 important to note that California, due to its isolation,
13 this time and distance effect, even if we had less stringent
14 fuel specifications, if we had major untimely refinery
15 outages you'd have the same result, and that would be price
16 spikes, because you'd still have to leave the state to
17 obtain additional supplies.
18 Now, the first three bullets on this slide have to
19 do with changes in the way we'll be -- that will affect the
20 state, and that is there'll be a de facto mandated use for
21 ethanol. Ethanol will be the only oxygenate that'll be
22 allowed to be used after January 1, 2003. And without the
23 waiver being granted to California, there is little
24 flexibility for California's fuel industry. We'll just have
25 to use the ethanol. And I'll get into flexibility issues a
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
134
1 little bit later.
2 So, obviously, adequate supplies of ethanol, as
3 well as gasoline blending components, are important. And
4 there are several logistical issues that still need to be
5 resolved. Therefore, the frequency and magnitude of price
6 spikes could increase for California motorists.
7 As I mentioned earlier, we are estimating an
8 additional cost, because we did not get the waiver, of about
9 $475 million per year. If you have price spikes of 50 cents
10 a gallon that last for four weeks, that can translate into
11 an additional cost of $660 million per month, come 2003.
12 And the Legislature, I just want to note that we've been
13 directed to look at the feasibility of constructing and
14 operating a petroleum product reserve in the state to
15 minimize the impacts of price spikes for California
16 consumers. And that study will be complete by January of
17 2002, and we expect to be holding a workshop in November of
18 this year.
19 The third element of cost, talk a little bit about
20 highway funds. We all know that when we purchase a gallon
21 of gasoline at the service station, we see that there's a
22 federal and state excise tax on that fuel. Well, if the
23 gasoline doesn't contain any ethanol, the tax load is about
24 18.3 cents per gallon, federal tax. Now, if the gasoline
25 contains ethanol, say six percent by volume concentration,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
135
1 the federal tax owed is less. But there's also a secondary
2 impact, and that is the amount of money that goes to the
3 highway account, with the Federal Highway Administration.
4 And that account is used to fund federal highway projects
5 across the United States.
6 As you can see, there is a significant difference
7 in the amount of revenue that would be owed to the highway
8 account. And this is an estimate of changes in the revenue
9 stream going to that highway account from California. As
10 you can see, the estimated 2000 revenue is about $2.3
11 billion, and under two different scenarios for 2003, if only
12 70 percent of the state's gasoline contains ethanol, it
13 would be about 1.8, and if all of it did, it would be about
14 $1.6 billion going to that -- that fund.
15 And therefore, there would be a diversion between
16 $456 million and $721 million per year from the highway
17 account. And if one were to blend ethanol in higher
18 concentrations than the anticipated six percent, you would
19 see a more significant decline in revenue to that highway
20 account.
21 An increased U.S. gasoline demand alone is not
22 sufficient to make up for that decline in revenue, and I
23 mean for the entire United States. You'd have to see an
24 increase in gasoline demand about four percent to make up
25 for that. I think gasoline demand in the U.S. last year,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
136
1 compared to 1999, was about one percent.
2 And there is some surplus money in the account
3 right now, and there are several factors that combine
4 together to determine whether or not California would
5 receive the same amount of federal funding that it has
6 received in the past. And we're working with the Federal
7 Highway Administration. They've agreed to do some modeling
8 runs to better quantify what the impact could be on the
9 availability of highway funds coming back to California,
10 under a scenario of moving to greater use of ethanol. And
11 we expect to have that work completed over the next four to
12 six weeks.
13 Now, we'll shift away from some of the cost
14 impacts to some of the supply issues. And I'll cover a
15 little bit about our gasoline demand here and the
16 refineries, a little more detail than what Steve Brisby
17 touched on, some of our supply and how we import gasoline
18 into California, as well as the availability of ethanol.
19 Everyone knows gasoline demand in California
20 continues to grow. Sales last year were about 15 billion
21 gallons. And as we move forward to 2003, we expect gasoline
22 to be about 16 billion gallons or about 15.8. That amounts
23 to about 43 million gallons each and every day, and the
24 difference between 2000 and 2003 is a little less than seven
25 percent in terms of increased demand.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
137
1 And California refineries do produce the majority
2 of the state's gasoline. But especially during certain
3 times of the year, such as the summer time, we have peak
4 gasoline demand, refineries are running a lot, and we're a
5 little bit of a net importer of components and some finished
6 product. And if there are some refinery bobbles or
7 unplanned outages, then, of course, we're a larger net
8 importer of products.
9 As refineries move forward and make modifications
10 to be able to blend gasoline without MTBE and using ethanol,
11 their gasoline production capacity is expected to decline
12 slightly, and you're getting a pretty good benefit in terms
13 of volume for gasoline by using MTBE. It's about 11 percent
14 by volume. And that's removed, and then you're putting MTB
15 -- ethanol back in, as well as extracting out some other
16 blending components. The refineries are going to be making
17 some modifications at some of the facilities to expand
18 production of gasoline and blending component output, so we
19 think that the actual production will be about five percent
20 lower than it is today.
21 And ethanol provides little supply benefit during
22 a majority of the year. And why is this? Well, in the --
23 in the summer months, which in California, that season lasts
24 about -- it's about eight months long, when refineries blend
25 ethanol, putting ethanol in would increase the vapor
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
138
1 pressure of the final blend, so they have to extract other
2 components, or not put them in the gasoline, so that the
3 gasoline they blend with ethanol is fully compliant with all
4 the specifications, and that would be the seven pound RVP
5 specification in California.
6 And during the winter months, though, refineries
7 can use other -- those components that they don't normally
8 use in the summer months, and that's butanes and pentanes,
9 they have very high volatility, and can increase gasoline
10 output by using those materials. So using ethanol does not
11 help in terms of expanding your ability to produce gasoline.
12 It's sort of a, you know, no sum game.
13 So back to a slight decrease in production by the
14 California refiners, coupled with rising demand, we expect
15 California to become more of a net importer as we move
16 forward into 2003. And alkalids are one of the key gasoline
17 blending components that the state will be looking for. And
18 we have concerns about not only the cost of those
19 components, but the availability. They're a highly sought
20 after component because they don't have any sulfur. They're
21 very clean, relatively low vapor pressure, so they're quite
22 desirable for making Phase III reformulated gasoline, as
23 well as federal reformulated gasolines.
24 Now, I mentioned California is a net importer of
25 gasoline and gasoline blending components today, and will
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
139
1 continue to do so. But some of those refiners that
2 currently supply this market will not be in a position to
3 continue supplying the market if we move to using ethanol.
4 And that is because of their ability, or, actually,
5 inability to blend gasoline to that real low RVP, so when
6 you add the ethanol, you don't result in a violation during
7 eight months out of the year. So that is a concern.
8 Some ethanol is being used today in California.
9 But we expect MTBE use to continue right up to the deadline.
10 And the reason is that most of the refineries in California
11 do have modifications that have to be undertaken and
12 completed at the refineries prior to them being able to
13 blend ethanol. And based on surveys and individual meetings
14 with refiners and pipeline companies, it's expected that the
15 amount of ethanol they will be using in gasoline will be
16 about six percent by volume by 2003.
17 Now, based on that concentration and demand for
18 gasoline in 2003, what would the amount of ethanol that
19 California require look like? And this graphic is to
20 illustrate that there's a rather sizeable increase in demand
21 over what we see presently. And future A, as we call it,
22 assumes that only 70 percent of the state's gasoline
23 contains ethanol. And the reason it's 70 percent, that
24 currently is the, sort of, the percentage of gasoline that
25 falls in the federal ozone non-attainment areas of
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
140
1 California that would fall under that federal minimum oxygen
2 requirement.
3 Now, it's also very plausible that most of the
4 refiners at first will blend just about all of their
5 gasoline with ethanol until they learn how to segregate and
6 produce non-oxy gasolines for those areas of the market they
7 can, so we could actually see even more ethanol above and
8 beyond what's mandated, as well as the distribution
9 infrastructure can limit your ability to try to move non-oxy
10 blends to other parts of the marketplace. So that higher
11 figure is about 950 million gallons of ethanol per year.
12 Now, we originally had an estimate of about a
13 little less than 600 million gallons, but that was based on
14 1999 gasoline sales. So our demand forecast for ethanol for
15 California's needs have been revised upward to those figures
16 we saw in the previous graphic, 660 to 950 million gallons
17 per year. And that translates into about two to three
18 million gallons per day.
19 Now, to sort of put that in context, production of
20 ethanol in the United States last year was about 1.6 billion
21 gallons. So our estimated demand is rather sizeable,
22 compared to that.
23 But California alone is not the only state that's
24 considering and has considered and phased out MTBE. There
25 are other states in the northeast that have already passed
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
141
1 legislation to phase out MTBE, just after California, and
2 still more states are considering doing that. So ethanol
3 demand projections for the United States could be even
4 greater than just those for California. So the degree of
5 success and timing of these efforts could impact the
6 availability of ethanol for California.
7 And this next graphic ties those two pieces of
8 information together, meaning the estimated demand for
9 California in the dark color, and the lighter green is that
10 for the northeast states. And as you can tell visually, the
11 volumes are nearly equivalent to the estimated demand for
12 California. And it's rather sizeable compared to the peak
13 U.S. output, historically.
14 The sources of this additional supply to meet both
15 California's needs, and potentially those of other states,
16 concerning phasing out of MTBE, would be from the expansion
17 of both existing facilities located within the United
18 States, and the construction of new capacity in the United
19 States. Now, there's been a lot of discussion about
20 potential ethanol supplies from California biomass
21 facilities. But at this time, we do not think any of those
22 facilities will receive financing and be constructed in time
23 for the deadline, but could be made available by the 2004-
24 2005 time period.
25 And Brazil has also been mentioned as a possible
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
142
1 source of ethanol supply for California. They do produce
2 more ethanol than the United States does, but they consume
3 almost all of this internally in their vehicles. They
4 require 22 percent high volume ethanol.
5 And it should be noted that for Brazilians to move
6 ethanol to California, they would have to overcome a 54 cent
7 per gallon tariff that they would pay for every gallon
8 imported in California.
9 And the amount of ethanol that could be available
10 from Brazil does depend on the economics of sugar. If sugar
11 is more profitable, they'll produce a little bit more sugar,
12 and not take that sugar into ethanol production. As well as
13 the internal needs for their own fuel consumption, and
14 market conditions in California or other parts of the United
15 States. Meaning the price of ethanol being sufficiently
16 high enough so Brazil could overcome their 54 cent import
17 tariff.
18 Now, on July 12th, Pat Perez made a presentation
19 that was summarizing the results of our survey, and we've
20 been in contact with -- I believe now we've had responses
21 back from nearly 95 or 96 percent of the U.S. ethanol
22 industry, so a very complete response, so far. And I have
23 to applaud the industry for their rapid turnaround and
24 assistance in providing us with this valuable information.
25 Now, in the previous graphic you saw presented on
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
143
1 July 12th, we did not have a breakdown of the type of
2 additional capacity that was coming online. And this slide
3 is now a further refinement of that information.
4 Now, this is still preliminary, and subject to
5 change, because staff is contacting these facilities
6 individually to assess their status; meaning, are you now
7 under construction, have you obtained financing. So as you
8 can see, these figures are the estimated production of
9 ethanol capacity that would be online by the end of each of
10 those years. So the 2002 graphic shows there's a little
11 more than 2.5 billion gallons of capacity that could be
12 online by the end of 2002 or when our deadline is to phase
13 out MTBE.
14 But not all of the production capacity under
15 discussion will be financed and constructed. The other
16 projects that will receive financing may not begin in time
17 to be completed before the end of 2002, because new ethanol
18 plants require about 12 to 14 months to complete after they
19 have their permit and financing already in place, although
20 expansions of existing facilities can be completed in less
21 time. It depends on the size and the nature of the
22 expansion how -- how less time, but as little as six months.
23 Now, some of the -- that -- so I guess from the
24 previous bullets, those are some things that sort of can
25 decrease the supply outlook for ethanol.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
144
1 Now, other issues that can increase the supply
2 outlook, this is sort of the good news. The survey does not
3 reflect previously deferred construction decisions, or any
4 accelerated, because of the waiver request being denied.
5 The survey went out before that announcement by USEPA, and
6 since that time staff has discovered that a number of the
7 survey respondents have indicated they'll move up their
8 projects because of the denial by USEPA of the waiver. And
9 we have other facilities that still have not reported to us,
10 even though that's a smaller percentage.
11 So that's some good news that could make those
12 projections be even higher.
13 Now, we'll shift to ethanol logistics. And that
14 means moving it from the place of production to California,
15 and then distributing it within California to where it needs
16 to be. And I will also touch on some fungibility and
17 flexibility issues.
18 There are two ways to move ethanol to California.
19 Those are by ship and train. So I'll talk about the marine
20 vessels first.
21 Not all the ethanol facilities have the ability to
22 load barges, and when I say a barge, that's because these
23 facilities are located in the midwest, primarily, and if
24 they can get access to water and go down the Mississippi,
25 that's how they can move some ethanol along the water. And
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
145
1 then the ethanol would be lowered onto other marine vessels
2 that would go through the Panama Canal and on to California.
3 And to put it in perspective how many additional
4 ships you may need, or ships that are in one service now
5 converted to ethanol moving, it's about five to seven ships.
6 And they'd make a combined number of trips to California,
7 anywhere between 45 and 65 per year, not each, but combined,
8 per year.
9 But most of these ships would have to be, what we
10 call, a U.S. flagship, or a Jones Act. That means the
11 vessel is constructed in the United States, owned by a
12 United States company, and manned by a U.S. crew. Now, I
13 say most waterborne ethanol would have to be delivered on a
14 Jones Act vessel, but if ethanol coming out of, say, some
15 Caribbean countries, which we're allowed to import about
16 seven percent by U.S. capacity into California and the rest
17 of the United States without a tariff, as well as ethanol
18 from Brazil, that can be on a foreign vessel.
19 Now, the price of these cargoes on a U.S. ship has
20 been much higher, especially recently, than the foreign
21 vessels, but the major concern is the availability of ships.
22 The fleet is older. They're being retired, and new
23 construction has been deferred to date. So therefore, we
24 believe it's unlikely that all of California's ethanol
25 demand will be moved to this state in these marine vessels.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
146
1 Railcars. The really good news is almost all of
2 these plants have the ability to load railcars, so that's
3 good. Now, the most economical way to move it is with uni-
4 trains, and that means essentially anywhere from 80 to 100
5 cars all strung together with ethanol, and they go right to
6 California. Now, there's no stopping, so it takes them a
7 few days to round -- to go to the various ethanol
8 facilities, pick up the cars, and then be on their way.
9 But, there is currently no capability to offload these uni-
10 trains in California, although it has to be noted that the
11 industry is working very hard to try to reach this
12 capability by the end of 2002. So talks are under way.
13 And the CEC will be assessing this logistical
14 ability over the next couple of months to see what kind of
15 progress is being made, and if they'll be ready in time.
16 And it also has to do with how many railcars do we need.
17 And that's actually quite a few, between, as you can see,
18 1,300 and about, you know, 3,700 railcars, would be required
19 to supply the state if it was all moved via rail. And
20 that's about in between 60 and 90 railcars per day.
21 And all of these additional cars would have to be
22 constructed over the next 16 months, or other cars currently
23 under different service be converted to moving ethanol. And
24 the industry is looking at that actively right now, and has
25 discussions under way to try to have additional cars
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
147
1 constructed. So definitely the adequacy of those cars is a
2 concern.
3 Now, once you get the ethanol into California, how
4 do you move it around? Well, today, refiners with MTBE,
5 they blend it at their facility, and that blended gasoline
6 goes through a network of pipelines to terminals located
7 farther away from the refinery.
8 Well, there are corrosion concerns with shipping
9 ethanol through pipelines over long distances. And as far
10 as we can tell, at this point in time, ethanol will be
11 delivered to these terminals through means other than
12 pipeline, and that means rail deliveries and tanker truck,
13 predominantly.
14 We're also looking at the marine terminals to see
15 if there is any logistical concerns with adequate tankage
16 there, once the ethanol arrives, as well as the ability to
17 offload it. At this time, we don't think that is an issue.
18 Back to those terminals, and that's where you're
19 going to load that tanker truck before it goes to the
20 service station, the ethanol will be stored at these
21 terminals separately, and blended into the tanker truck, not
22 at the refinery. But most terminals are not able to receive
23 ethanol via railcars because there is no rail spur to a lot
24 of these facilities, and it's either too expensive or they
25 do not even have the ability to construct a rail spur.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
148
1 Therefore, the majority of the ethanol will arrive via
2 tanker trucks from other supply storage locations where the
3 ethanol is held. And truck traffic will increase in
4 proximity to these terminals.
5 Fungibility. And this is essentially a term that
6 refers to the ability to blend two different types of
7 gasolines together without a violation. And today, you can
8 take gasoline containing MTBE and put it into a storage tank
9 containing gasoline without any oxygenates, and you won't
10 have a violation. But, in 2003, this capability will be
11 prohibited, and that is because you cannot blend
12 reformulated gasoline containing ethanol with reformulated
13 gasoline without.
14 And so segregation, storage tanks to keep these
15 two different types of components separate, will grow, that
16 need will grow, as well as at the marine terminals and
17 pipeline terminals.
18 Now, flexibility is a very important issue. Now,
19 if a waiver had been granted, refiners would've had the
20 option to blend non-oxy blends of gasoline when they
21 couldn't get ethanol supplies due to production problems, or
22 just some of these logistical problems. Well, that option
23 has been removed for a majority of the state, and so that's
24 certainly a concern.
25 There's another flexibility issue, and that is the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
149
1 refinery has the ability to increase the concentration of
2 MTBE from, sort of, the standard level, of 10 to 11 percent
3 today, up to a higher level of about 15 percent by volume.
4 In theory, you can also do that with ethanol, but because of
5 the limitations with pipeline infrastructure, meaning the
6 pipeline company will say okay, what do you guys want to
7 blend, what concentration of ethanol, decide on the level
8 and that's how we'll set the tanks up, because you have to
9 make a special blend of gasoline that will accept a specific
10 concentration of ethanol. And therefore, the ability to
11 transition and add more ethanol is more challenging, even
12 though the Air Resources Board has been working very
13 diligently with pipeline companies to try to enable this
14 practice to occur if the situation warrants.
15 So it is anticipated that this reduction in
16 flexibility can translate to higher prices at the pump, due
17 to a greater risk of price spikes.
18 Now, we'll conclude with two slides that cover a
19 number of issues that still need to be resolved. And we
20 touched on all of these subjects in my presentation today,
21 and that is, will there be sufficient increase in ethanol
22 production capacity to meet California's needs? Will there
23 be an adequate number of marine vessels and railcars
24 available to move all that ethanol to California. And will
25 those logistical modifications be complete by late 2002, to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
150
1 allow it to be received, that being the ethanol, as well as
2 other gasoline blending components such as alkalid.
3 And will refiners have their modifications
4 completed on time to be able to blend the new gasoline? And
5 it looks as though, at this point in time, the answer to
6 that question is yes.
7 And will there be sufficient imports of gasoline
8 available to meet our increasing demand for gasoline
9 products in California, as well as declining production.
10 And will there be adequate financing available and decisions
11 made to actually commit to construction far enough in
12 advance that all of these projects can be completed prior to
13 the phase-out deadline of December 31, 2002.
14 So, if the answers to all of these questions must
15 be yes -- they must be yes. If not, adequacy of gasoline
16 supplies for California could be questionable.
17 That concludes my remarks. And I thank Dr. Lloyd
18 and the other Board Members for their time this afternoon.
19 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: With that upbeat presentation, I
20 think we'll --
21 (Laughter.)
22 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: -- we'll take a break. Let's, I
23 think, take a few minutes here, and I think we'll adjourn
24 this item, so we can go on to the transport item.
25 Thank you very much, and be assured that I know
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
151
1 the witnesses who make presentations, I think we've got
2 several questions. But thank you, Gordon, and thank you,
3 Steve.
4 So let's take just a few minutes while we change
5 staff, and then we'll start Item 01-6-5.
6 (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
7 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: The next agenda item is 01-6-5,
8 Status Report on Ozone Transport Mitigation Strategies.
9 In April of this year, we asked staff to look at
10 four concepts that might provide opportunities for
11 additional transport mitigation. Those concepts were
12 implementing an improved smog check program in upwind areas;
13 using uniform permitting thresholds; pursuing all feasible
14 measures if those were not already in place; and, lastly,
15 the transport mitigation fee option that some downwind
16 districts have proposed.
17 This is an informational report back from the
18 staff, and provides their preliminary evaluation of various
19 transport mitigation strategies. No rules or regulations
20 are therefore before the Board today. At the end of staff's
21 presentation, we will discuss these concepts further and
22 decide which of them the Board wishes to pursue.
23 The timing and location of this hearing is
24 notable, since we will be considering a Federal Ozone Plan
25 for the Bay Area later today or this evening. However, I
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
152
1 want to stress that transport is not just a Bay Area issue.
2 Virtually, every urban area in California transports at
3 least some of its pollution downwind. So we need to keep
4 all transport couples in mind as we evaluate the appropriate
5 mitigation strategies.
6 And, at this point, I would like to turn it over
7 to Mr. Kenny to begin the staff's presentation.
8 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman
9 and Members of the Board.
10 The Board is responsible for assessing the impacts
11 of ozone transport and establishing mitigation requirements
12 commensurate with the degree of transport.
13 The mitigation requirements were first adopted in 1990, and
14 subsequently amended in 1993. These mitigation requirements
15 have since remained unchanged.
16 We believe it's time to revisit the existing
17 regulation, and are proposing to initiate the public process
18 to develop proposed amendments for the Board's
19 consideration. Although a more in depth analysis is
20 necessary, we believe that opportunities to improve
21 transport mitigation and address equity issues should be
22 explored.
23 Mr. Jeff Wright will give the staff presentation.
24 Jeff.
25 MR. WRIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Kenny.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
153
1 Good afternoon, Chairman Lloyd and Members of the
2 Board. Today I'll be discussing our Status Report on Ozone
3 Transport Mitigation.
4 The purpose of this meeting is to respond to the
5 Board's directive from the April hearing during which the
6 Board asked staff to review potential amendments to the
7 mitigation requirements and provide a status report by this
8 July meeting.
9 On June 13th of this year, we held a workshop to
10 solicit other comments on the four concepts suggested by the
11 Board, and any other potential mitigation approaches. Most
12 comments received at the workshop, or later in writing,
13 addressed the four concepts. The two new ideas raised
14 related to jobs and housing balance and transportation
15 control measures.
16 Currently, the transport mitigation regulation has
17 two key provisions. One, expeditious implementation of Best
18 Available Retrofit Control Technology, or BARCT, and two, a
19 requirement that upwind districts include sufficient
20 measures in their ozone attainment plan to mitigate their
21 impact on downwind areas.
22 In terms of implementing the Board's mitigation
23 requirements, upwind districts complied with the requirement
24 for expeditious BARCT application by meeting the January
25 1st, 1994 date. The requirement for including sufficient
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
154
1 measures in attainment plans to mitigate transport has been
2 addressed as part of our review of the California Clean Air
3 Act plan.
4 During the discussion on April 26th of this year,
5 the Board asked staff to look at the following four concepts
6 related to transport mitigation: The California Clean Air
7 Act all feasible measures requirement; improving smog check;
8 requiring the upwind district to have new source review
9 permitting thresholds as stringent as downwind districts;
10 and establishing a mitigation fee bank.
11 The California Clean Air Act requires each non-
12 attainment district to have a clean air plan that includes
13 all feasible measures. These measures apply to both
14 reactive organic gases, or ROG, and oxides of nitrogen, or
15 NOx. Currently, the all feasible measures requirement is
16 not considered in the transport regulation. As long as
17 upwind areas continue to implement all feasible measures for
18 ozone precursors, transport of pollutants will continue to
19 decrease. This serves as a direct form of transport
20 mitigation.
21 However, if upwind districts were to forego
22 adoption of feasible new measures because they are close to
23 attaining the state standard, or for other reasons, the
24 downwind areas would see less benefit. Including all
25 feasible measures as part of the transport mitigation
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
155
1 requirements would ensure that upwind districts continue to
2 adopt and implement all feasible measures which will benefit
3 their downwind neighbors.
4 Smog check is a key clean air strategy for
5 achieving near-term emission reductions needed to attain air
6 quality standards. A more rigorous program is required for
7 vehicles registered in the urbanized portion of federal
8 ozone non-attainment areas classified as serious, severe, or
9 extreme. State and federal air quality plans for the South
10 Coast, the San Joaquin Valley, Sacramento region, Ventura
11 County, and San Diego County, include the benefits of this
12 more rigorous program. It is not required in the Bay Area.
13 The Bay Area currently participates in a more
14 basic smog check program. However, the Bay Area's new
15 federal ozone attainment plan, adopted by the local agencies
16 last week and to be heard by the Board later this evening,
17 includes a commitment to strengthen their smog check
18 program. The plan includes an additional 4.5 tons per day
19 reduction of ROG through implementation of several program
20 components. Further improvements in the smog check program
21 in the Bay Area could result in significant emission
22 reductions.
23 Both the district and the Board can request the
24 Bureau of Automotive Repair to implement these improvements
25 in the Bay Area without the test only stations aspect.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
156
1 However, we believe a change in state law would be needed to
2 allow the Bay Area to implement the test only station
3 provision of their smog check program.
4 The San Joaquin Valley recently requested that the
5 Bureau of Automotive Repair expand their more rigorous smog
6 check program to six additional cities and adjacent areas.
7 This will provide benefits in both the valley and in
8 neighboring downwind districts. The transport regulation
9 provides an opportunity to require upwind districts to
10 strengthen or expand their smog check program beyond areas
11 that are federally required to do so.
12 Currently, a district's no net increase offset
13 threshold for permitting new and modified stationary sources
14 is determined by its classification in the state ozone
15 standard. In a few cases, the upwind area has a lesser
16 classification than the downwind area. This means fewer
17 sources are subject to new source review requirements in the
18 upwind area than the downwind area. Requiring thresholds in
19 the upwind area to be at least as stringent as those in the
20 downwind area could be considered as an additional transport
21 mitigation requirement.
22 Equalizing the thresholds may result in relatively
23 small emission benefits compared to other district rules.
24 However, it would address the inequity issue.
25 A mitigation fee bank is a concept in which a bank
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
157
1 could be funded with money from fees levied on an upwind
2 area's sources to mitigate downwind impacts. In concept,
3 the amount that the upwind district would contribute to the
4 mitigation fee bank and the amount the downwind area would
5 receive would be commensurate with the degree of transport
6 that occurs between the areas. Most urban areas are both
7 upwind and downwind contributors. In addition, some
8 downwind districts would have few local sources to control
9 with the mitigation fees. This could lead to negative fund-
10 balances, as -- in upwind areas that have substantial local
11 emission sources, and unused funds in more rural downwind
12 areas.
13 How the accounting would be accomplished is a key
14 question that would have to be answered in order to
15 implement this concept. To be equitable, the degree of
16 transport contribution from upwind areas would need to be
17 quantified on some basis taking into account magnitude,
18 frequency, and location.
19 Most of those who have commented on this concept,
20 including downwind districts, believe that a mitigation fee
21 bank would be very complicated to implement, and difficult
22 to develop, from an equity standpoint. We are not
23 recommending pursuing further assessment of this concept.
24 Based on our review of these concepts in the
25 context of the existing requirements, as well as public
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
158
1 comments, we propose to initiate a full public process to
2 amend the Board's transport mitigation regulation to include
3 all feasible measures, equal new source review offset
4 thresholds for upwind and downwind areas, and improved smog
5 check. The transport mitigation regulation has not been
6 revisited for several years, so we believe it is appropriate
7 to look at its effectiveness both now and for the future.
8 That ends the staff's presentation.
9 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much, sir.
10 Do my colleagues have any question at this time,
11 before we go into the witnesses?
12 Thank you. With that, I have the great pleasure
13 of introducing Assemblyman Dennis Cardoza, who is very clear
14 in showing his commitment and concern of his constituents in
15 San Joaquin Valley, to come in today to appear before us.
16 And thank you very much, Assemblyman.
17 ASSEMBLY MEMBER CARDOZA: Thank you, Chairman
18 Lloyd. It's truly a pleasure to be here, and thank you to
19 all the members who sit on this panel.
20 I represent the San Joaquin Valley, and I have
21 brought with me today several other valley leaders. We all
22 appreciate this opportunity to testify about an issue that's
23 critically of import to the Central Valley.
24 As you know, your own studies have documented for
25 some time the San Joaquin Valley suffers from air pollution
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
159
1 from the Bay Area. We are not alone in this. And, as you
2 know, there are a number of other areas downwind from the
3 Bay Area which also suffer from air pollution coming from
4 the Bay Area. The Bay Area pollution contributes to the
5 failure of the San Joaquin Valley to attain air quality
6 standards. As a result, there are additional regulations
7 imposed on the residents and businesses of the San Joaquin
8 Valley.
9 We are trying to do -- the San Joaquin Valley is
10 trying to do its fair share to address the pollution coming
11 from the valley itself. For example, last year, I authored
12 legislation to bring $25 million in state funding to our
13 area. This legislation directed these dollars to be used to
14 provide for cleaner on-road and off-road heavy truck --
15 heavy-duty truck engines. I also worked with Assembly
16 Member Steinberg to ensure passage of similar legislation
17 for the Sacramento Valley, which also suffers from
18 transported air pollution.
19 Both of these programs will reduce nitrogen oxide
20 emissions which cause ozone. So we are trying to do what we
21 can in our valley, but what is very frustrating to us, and
22 simply unfair, and, I'd add, unacceptable, is the fact that
23 the Bay Area is not being held to the same requirements that
24 we are, even though they contribute to our air pollution
25 problem.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
160
1 What I'm referring to is the fact that the Bay
2 Area does not have Smog Check 2. The Bay Area is the only
3 urbanized area, as we just heard, in California without Smog
4 Check 2. As you know, State law requires ARB to assess the
5 migration or transportation of air pollution from upwind to
6 downwind areas. State law also requires the ARB to adopt
7 mitigation requirements for upwind areas that are
8 contributing to air pollution in downwind areas.
9 We are here today to request that you adopt Smog
10 Check 2 for the Bay Area as a mitigation requirement. And
11 we are here today to ask you that you include Smog Check 2
12 in the Bay Area State Improvement Plan, or SIP, which you
13 will consider later today. And hopefully, my testimony will
14 be included in that proceeding, as well.
15 The ARB staff report concludes that the full
16 program, or Smog Check 2, for the Bay Area would reduce at
17 least 13 tons per day of nitrogen oxide emissions. This
18 would make an important difference for our valley and
19 finally hold the Bay Area responsible for dealing with the
20 air pollution it is sending our way.
21 Where we disagree with the staff report is the
22 suggestion that state law prevents the ARB from requiring
23 full -- from implementing a full program. ARB staff
24 suggests that state law would have to be changed to require
25 the test only station provision, which directs certain
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
161
1 percentages of vehicles to smog check stations which can
2 only test and not repair vehicles. We are submitting, under
3 separate cover, a legal opinion which maintains the ARB has
4 the legal authority to impose the full smog check program.
5 Suffice it to say that we think your staff are reading too
6 narrowly your authority in this regard.
7 This is an important point, because, as your own
8 staff point out, Smog Check 2, without the test only
9 stations, lowers NOx reduction from 13 to 9 tons per day,
10 leaving behind 4 tons, which we believe can be taken down.
11 There is a second point of disagreement we have
12 with your staff's recommendation. As best as we can tell,
13 your staff is not recommending that you include Smog Check 2
14 as part of the Bay Area's SIP that you will hear later
15 today. We believe that the ARB should require the Bay Area
16 SIP to include the full program of Smog Check 2. You will
17 be taking up the SIP this evening. The SIP would not be --
18 should not be adopted without including the full program of
19 Smog Check 2.
20 We came here today, over 30 of us, in a bus
21 powered by compressed natural gas, basically, a clean air
22 bus. We chose to do so, because we in the San Joaquin
23 Valley want to do what we can to avoid contributing to the
24 Bay Area's problems. We're asking that the Bay Area be held
25 accountable by your Board for the pollution it's
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
162
1 contributing to our valley.
2 Unless you impose Smog Check 2 on the Bay Area, we
3 can expect to see more children and adults with asthma and
4 other respiratory complaints, more valley businesses saddled
5 with more than their fair share of burdensome regulations,
6 and more brown air days.
7 I want to thank you very much for allowing me to
8 testify with you today. And I would like to introduce Dave
9 Jones, my legal counsel in the State Legislature, who helps
10 me on this issue.
11 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much, Assemblyman.
12 ASSEMBLY MEMBER CARDOZA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
13 MR. JONES: With the Chair and Board's permission,
14 my name is Dave Jones, and I serve as Counsel to the Rules
15 Committee Chair, Dennis Cardoza.
16 As the Assembly Member pointed out, we do have a
17 disagreement with the staff analysis with regard to the
18 authority you have, as a Board, to impose the full Smog
19 Check 2 program on the Bay Area. We have provided your
20 clerk and hopefully the Board members have received a legal
21 opinion that we drafted on this issue. I'd like to step
22 through it very quickly.
23 As you know, you are statutorily mandated both to
24 assess and to mitigate transported pollutants. If you look
25 at the section of the codes which requires you to do that,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
163
1 Section 39610(b) of the Health and Safety Code, you'll note
2 that there are no limitations on your authority with regard
3 to imposing mitigation requirements. And, in fact,
4 throughout the entirety of the statutes, one cannot find any
5 specific limitations on your authority with regard to
6 imposing mitigation requirements.
7 And your staff agree with us that you do have the
8 authority to impose Smog Check 2. Where the disagreement
9 lies is that your staff believes that you do not have the
10 authority to impose the test only element of the Smog Check
11 2 program. We strongly disagree with that opinion.
12 We disagree with that opinion because it's based
13 on a very overly broad reading of the section of the
14 statutes dealing with Smog Check 2. That section can be
15 found at 44003 of the Health and Safety Code. And I believe
16 we quoted verbatim in the opinion that we've provided you.
17 Section 44003(a), establishes Smog Check 2 in
18 serious, severe and extreme non-attainment areas for ozone.
19 Section 44003(c) allows districts to opt into, voluntarily,
20 the Smog Check 2 program. And this is where the critical
21 difference lies. The second sentence of that section, it
22 reads, "However" -- and I'm paraphrasing -- "areas which are
23 not serious, severe or extreme non-attainment may not
24 implement the test only program."
25 Your staff are reading that as a broad preclusion
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
164
1 on your ability to implement the test only section of Smog
2 Check 2. We think that they are missing the word "however",
3 and misreading that section of the statute which clearly
4 modifies the section dealing with the opt-in provision.
5 We believe that second sentence, taken at face
6 value, taken with its plain meaning understood, merely says
7 that areas that want to opt in cannot engage in the test
8 only component of Smog Check 2.
9 We think that's a very critical distinction,
10 because, as the Assembly Member pointed out, if you don't do
11 the test only component of Smog Check 2, in essence, you
12 lose about 30 percent of the NOx reduction that you would
13 otherwise obtain. So we believe that your staff is
14 overbroadly interpreting that second sentence.
15 The second area of disagreement has to do with the
16 power and authority of the Department of Motor Vehicles to
17 implement Smog Check 2.
18 Your staff argues that because the statutes
19 provide the DMV with exclusive and sole authority to
20 implement Smog Check 2, that that means that you cannot tell
21 the DMV where and when to implement it as a part of the
22 transport mitigation requirement. Here again, we
23 respectfully disagree. We don't think the word "implement"
24 gives the DMV discretionary policy over where and when to
25 implement Smog Check 2's test only provision. And, in fact,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
165
1 if you look at your enabling statutes, you have broad
2 regulatory authority over motor vehicular emissions.
3 We think implement just means to administer. And
4 the fact that the legislature gave the DMV the power to
5 administer Smog Check 2 and the test only component of it,
6 does not preclude you, in the context of mitigation, from
7 deciding to mandate Smog Check 2 with the test only
8 component for the Bay Area. Again, that's a very important
9 distinction.
10 So we respectfully submit that you do have the
11 authority to impose all of Smog Check 2, including the test
12 only provision. We request, as the Assembly Member has
13 said, that you do so in the context of a mitigation
14 requirement, but that you also do so this evening in the
15 context of the Bay Area SIP.
16 I'm prepared to take any questions you might have
17 at this time. And, again, we thank you for this opportunity
18 to address you.
19 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much.
20 Professor Friedman.
21 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Do we know what the
22 position of the Department of Motor Vehicles is on this?
23 MR. JONES: I can't speak to that, although I
24 believe that your counsel has had some conversations with
25 the department or its Bureau of Automotive Repair.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
166
1 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I think I understand
2 your analysis, and your argument. And my own view is if
3 there's an ambiguity, a legitimate ambiguity, and there are
4 good and sufficient reasons for our exercising, though
5 somewhat ambiguous, is our authority, I think we ought to do
6 it and then let somebody challenge it, rather than the other
7 way around and be timid.
8 On the other hand, I haven't heard from our
9 counsel or from the DMV, and so I -- but I wanted to --
10 GENERAL COUNSEL WALSH: Professor Friedman,
11 Kathleen Walsh, ARB Legal Counsel.
12 We have discussed this matter at some length with
13 the Bureau of Automotive Repair, which is the agency that is
14 -- are charged with implementing the program. They are in
15 agreement with our opinion that there is the limitation that
16 precludes this Board from requiring the Bay Area to opt in
17 to a program that would include the test only portion of the
18 enhanced smog check program, as well as the rest of it.
19 That's the crux of the disagreement is whether the test only
20 can be required.
21 Your point about an ambiguity in the statute, I
22 think is well taken. We feel relatively comfortable about
23 our analysis and conclusion of what the statute requires. I
24 have reviewed the legal opinion prepared by Mr. Jones. He
25 does make some good points here.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
167
1 And I'm going to suggest that as we move forward
2 out of today, the expectation is the Board will be giving
3 some direction to the staff in terms of moving forward to
4 develop additional transport mitigation measures, that we
5 submit a request for a legal opinion to the Attorney
6 General. We can lay out the issues, including the -- the
7 position that Mr. Jones has -- has explained, and get a
8 reading from the AG's office. That will put us in a
9 position to know either that we would need to move ahead to
10 get a legislative change or give us a very strong basis for
11 going forward without that.
12 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Yeah, I think that's
13 a -- that was a suggestion I was going to -- or at least a
14 question I was going to ask, because having -- having
15 written some of those opinions in earlier years, I know that
16 that sometimes can resolve this sort of an issue, at least
17 absent litigation.
18 But I wonder if you could give me the reason, the
19 rationale for the provision where -- where, at least
20 clearly, where the district that is in attainment opts in to
21 the program; why it cannot expect the DMV to do test only --
22 to implement test only, as well as the test and -- and
23 repair.
24 GENERAL COUNSEL WALSH: Well, the statute pretty
25 clearly states that where a not an attainment district, or a
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
168
1 district that's not --
2 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Severe, and so forth,
3 yeah.
4 GENERAL COUNSEL WALSH: -- not in attainment --
5 right.
6 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: In other words, the
7 Bay Area.
8 GENERAL COUNSEL WALSH: -- opts in, that BAR
9 cannot administer a program that includes the test only.
10 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Why?
11 GENERAL COUNSEL WALSH: The language of the
12 statute specifically --
13 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Oh, I understand. I
14 understand.
15 GENERAL COUNSEL WALSH: -- says that. I -- I
16 think --
17 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: But I'm trying to --
18 I'm trying to understand what would be the reason?
19 GENERAL COUNSEL WALSH: Well, the legislature's
20 reason?
21 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Yes.
22 (Laughter.)
23 GENERAL COUNSEL WALSH: You're putting me in -- in
24 a very difficult position.
25 (Laughter.)
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
169
1 GENERAL COUNSEL WALSH: As Mr. Cardoza is sitting
2 here.
3 My understanding is that when this piece of
4 legislation went through, there was some concern about
5 having the program include the test only provision in these
6 areas, such as the Bay Area. And that was specifically one
7 of the purposes intended to achieve by this language.
8 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: In other words --
9 but I understood the test only -- what is the reason for
10 test only in -- in areas or districts where it is clearly
11 permitted in the severe or non-attainment district?
12 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: The reason for
13 test only is -- is that we've shown that people who only do
14 testing and don't do repair have a greater probability of
15 performing an accurate test --
16 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Not having an
17 interest or --
18 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Right.
19 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: -- or any incentive
20 or --
21 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Right. And
22 the concept then became that --
23 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: -- skewing the --
24 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: -- rather than
25 make everybody go to a test only, which some states do, that
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
170
1 if we were smart enough to sort of pre-screen cars into the
2 likely to be very dirty, not likely to be too dirty, we
3 could only send the likely to be dirty vehicles to the
4 preferential testing and test only. And that way, most of
5 the people wouldn't have to go, they could to their
6 neighborhood shops where maybe they didn't get quite as good
7 a -- a test sometimes, but there was less at stake. And the
8 cars that really were the most important to get emission
9 reductions, we'd have those that sort of just independent,
10 non -- non-biased testing source.
11 So that was the idea. But under federal law, we
12 were forced to do something like that. And, but we were
13 only enforced in those areas that had certain higher levels
14 of smog, and the Bay Area was not one of those. And I
15 believe, you know, that the main reason behind the bill to
16 keep the Bay Area from having to do that was just there was
17 a lot of controversy about the program, and it wasn't
18 federally required. And a bill went through saying it was
19 not --
20 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: And I suppose even
21 though there are fees charged, I suppose that -- is there
22 some question about additional burden on the administrative
23 agency, the DMV or the Bureau of Automotive Repair?
24 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: No, I don't
25 think so --
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
171
1 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Is there any
2 additional problems in having a dual system, as opposed to a
3 single?
4 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Well,
5 actually, not having one consistent program statewide
6 probably has more administrative costs. That's the one
7 issue, but I don't think it was on administrative costs. It
8 was really focusing more on the perceived inconvenience to
9 having to find out -- find these specialized test programs,
10 and when you were done getting your repair, if you failed,
11 go back to them again. So you make -- a failed car, under
12 test only, goes to three places before it's out of -- out of
13 the system, versus the concept of, you know, one stop
14 shopping at your neighborhood repair facility.
15 So I think it was more along those lines that
16 there were concerns about the enhanced program. They did
17 not exempt the Bay Area from being able to add dynamometers,
18 which is a major expense, for example, to the testing
19 people, whether test only or test and repair, so that --
20 that was not prohibited from the Bay Area. It was just this
21 one concept.
22 MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman.
23 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Ms. D'Adamo. Oh, sorry.
24 MR. JONES: No, I -- if I may, Mr. Chairman. I
25 just wanted to respond to your two questions, as well. And
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
172
1 that is, if one does look at the legislative history of C,
2 you will -- you will find that that second sentence was
3 actually in the statute carried by Mr. Cobb, and as best we
4 can glean, the intent was because Section A just established
5 Smog Check 2 in serious, severe, extreme non-attainment
6 areas, and the Bay Area did not fall into that category.
7 There was some concern on the part of that
8 legislator that the Bay Area Quality Management District
9 might try to voluntarily opt in, and so that language was
10 inserted into the opt in portion of the statute.
11 We believe that supports our legal argument that
12 that section precluding the use of test only, the test only
13 element of Smog Check 2, is just a preclusive or prohibition
14 with regard to opt in. It does not reach your very broad
15 powers under the transport mitigation requirement section of
16 the statute.
17 As to your first question, while certainly this
18 Board could seek an opinion of the Attorney General, it is
19 the final authority of this Board to interpret these
20 statutes at some level. And I think that the courts would
21 give some deference to your interpretation of the statutory
22 series that you're charged with interpreting. And I think
23 what you'll hear from Mr. Cardoza's constituents, and other
24 leaders of the valley, is that there's a great feeling that
25 this particular can has been kicked down the road much, much
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
173
1 too long, with all due respect, and that they respectfully
2 urge that you -- you make the interpretation that we're
3 urging upon you, and that you exercise the full extent of
4 your authority in the context of the SIP and this mitigation
5 requirement.
6 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think Ms. D'Adamo, our other
7 legal representative on the Board.
8 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Well, I was about to say
9 that I think that there are two different ways of looking at
10 this, and I think Mr. Jones framed the issue quite well.
11 With regard to the opt-in provision, the 44003(c),
12 it specifically speaks to -- that section of the statute
13 specifically refers to the opt-in program. And I think that
14 what -- what is before us today, with regard to this
15 measure, and possibly even the next one, the Bay Area SIP,
16 is whether or not this Board has the power, under a
17 different code section, the transport mitigation code
18 section, that actually requires this Board to impose
19 measures on upwind districts in order to address transport -
20 - mitigation of transport.
21 And at the hearing in April, it was my position
22 then, and the more I look into this I feel even more
23 strongly about it, I think that we've been rather lax in the
24 requirement. It's not discretionary upon us. It actually
25 requires this Board to act. With regard to what solutions
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
174
1 we impose, of course, that would be discretionary, but I
2 read that code section as being quite broad.
3 So it would be my desire today to -- that we be
4 aggressive about this requirement with regard to the Bay
5 Area SIP, and then also with regard to any future action
6 that we take on reviewing our mitigation strategies.
7 I'd like to ask staff a couple of questions, and
8 that is, it appears that there are several different levels
9 of enhanced I&M. There's the proposal that the Bay Area
10 will be bringing to us later today with regard to a portion
11 of the enhanced I&M for VOCs. And it's my understanding
12 that they're not including NOx, and then, of course, there's
13 test only.
14 Could staff outline the emission benefits of each
15 of those three provisions that would, as a package, result
16 in a Smog Check 2 program.
17 PLANNING AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT DIVISION CHIEF
18 FLETCHER: Yes. This is Bob Fletcher, Chief of the Planning
19 and Technical Support Division.
20 In the staff report we have a table that outlines
21 those. The Bay Area AQMD SIP proposal would achieve 4.5
22 tons a day of emission reductions. The smog check program,
23 without the test only stations, would achieve nine tons a
24 day of ROG, and nine tons a day of oxides of nitrogen
25 reductions. And the full Smog Check 2 program, we would
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
175
1 estimate would achieve 11 tons per day of hydrocarbons and
2 13 tons a day of oxides of nitrogen. And that would be on
3 page five of the staff report.
4 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: And could staff also
5 comment as to how beneficial that would be, with regard to
6 our targets under the SIP settlement or the settlement
7 agreement, putting the numbers in perspective?
8 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Let me see if I can help
9 a little bit. The settlement agreement actually has more to
10 do with the South Coast. It does not really apply in the
11 Bay Area.
12 In the South Coast settlement agreement, what
13 we're trying to do is essentially achieve 16 tons this year
14 of overall ROG reductions. But they are completely
15 separate, and they don't really relate in any manner.
16 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Okay. All right. Before
17 turning it back to the Chairman, I'd just like to really
18 compliment Assemblyman Cardoza and those who took the time
19 to come out to this hearing today. I know that Assemblyman
20 Cardoza, you're very dedicated about clean air, not just in
21 the San Joaquin Valley but in other areas of the state, and
22 I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to bring your
23 constituents here.
24 ASSEMBLY MEMBER CARDOZA: Thank you for allowing
25 us, once again, to speak, and appreciate your positive
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
176
1 action on this issue.
2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: We have one more question from
3 Professor Friedman, I think, related to this.
4 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Yeah. I ceased
5 because Ms. Walsh had to take a call, and I had one more
6 question of you, Ms. Walsh, if I could, now that you can.
7 I'd just like to know your views on the statement
8 that Ms. D'Adamo made, which I share, and I was going to get
9 to that next. That is, setting aside the issue of whether
10 this limitation, this explicit limitation in the statute,
11 with respect to precluding test only, only applies, it
12 appears, when a district opts in, and treating as somewhat
13 different, very different, our mitigation responsibility in
14 doing a transport regulation. Where do you find a
15 limitation on our authority to adopt a full smog check
16 program in connection with -- as a condition of mitigation?
17 GENERAL COUNSEL WALSH: The distinction between
18 the two approaches, the voluntary opt-in by a district like
19 the Bay Area or a provision in our transport mitigation
20 regulations that would require that in the Bay Area, it
21 truly is the issue that we're grappling with here. And that
22 is, although the Board has, I agree with Mr. Jones, very
23 broad authorities to take actions to deal with motor vehicle
24 based emissions those authorities are limited by the very
25 specific provisions in the statutes that outline your
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
177
1 authorities.
2 Where we find the limitation is that our ability
3 to -- as we read the statutes, our ability to require the
4 the Smog Check 2 program in the Bay Area is our ability to
5 direct the Bay Area as a part of transport mitigating it
6 directly, but requiring the Bay Area to exercise that
7 authority that's provided in the statute to opt in, which
8 then takes you back to the limitations on BAR's
9 implementation of the program.
10 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I understand your
11 position, then. Thank you.
12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Mr. --
13 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Just as a follow-up, why
14 would we be requiring the Bay Area to opt in, as opposed to
15 this Board imposing it directly upon the Bay Area?
16 GENERAL COUNSEL WALSH: Well, ARB's authority to
17 require the -- or to require the opt-in, requires that we
18 rely on the authority in 44003, that allows the Bay Area to
19 opt in. Otherwise, the program is required, but only
20 available in those areas that are serious, severe, or worse,
21 non-attainment areas.
22 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Again, though, my position
23 is that the authority that is given to us under the
24 transport mitigation section is broad enough to go beyond --
25 for example, I would submit that in areas, let's say the San
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
178
1 Joaquin Valley overwhelmed another region downwind. And
2 let's assume for a moment that the San Joaquin Valley did
3 not opt in to expand Smog 2 to its entire region, I believe
4 that this Board, my reading of the statute would be that we
5 would have the authority to impose upon the San Joaquin
6 Valley or any upwind air district, that the Smog 2 program
7 should be or would be imposed district-wide, without
8 requiring that the San Joaquin -- let's say that the San
9 Joaquin Valley were reluctant to impose it upon themselves
10 district-wide.
11 Another example here is we have a letter from
12 Placer County that refers to the inequity of this, and that
13 in some regions of the state, air districts are interested
14 in going district-wide, but because of the inequity that
15 exists with the San Francisco Bay Area politically, it's
16 difficult for them to make that decision.
17 So I think that we could utilize the statute in
18 order to make it easier, kind of remove the politics just as
19 a matter of fairness, as a matter of science, if an -- if an
20 upwind district is overwhelming another district, downwind
21 district, that we would have such broad authority to impose
22 it directly.
23 GENERAL COUNSEL WALSH: Right. And I would not
24 disagree with you that there is very good reason for doing
25 that, policy reasons for doing that. Our concern really
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
179
1 is -- is a fairly narrow, legal concern; that is, that we
2 not move ahead to push to require something that will not --
3 will not be able to -- to carry out, given that specific
4 limitation that we're talking about. And, you know, I
5 understand that -- that there is some basis for
6 disagreement, some bit of ambiguity. We do believe that the
7 intention, in terms of the opt-in, was to limit it. Whether
8 we think that's a good idea or not, is a different question.
9 But I think the policy arguments that you're
10 making certainly are good arguments, both in terms of the
11 issue of should the statute be changed, also things that
12 would be considered in the context of interpreting the
13 statute.
14 We're in a position where we have reviewed the
15 statute here at the staff level and are concerned that if we
16 move ahead, that we'll be moving outside the bounds of the
17 law. And my preference would be to -- to advise you that
18 that is a concern, where that is a concern, and to advise
19 you of some mechanisms that are available to address that
20 concern and put us in a better position so that we don't end
21 up with a -- with a program that's going to -- going to wind
22 us up in a legal challenge.
23 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Professor Friedman. Thank you.
24 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Just one final
25 question. Do we -- so it's your view that we -- in imposing
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
180
1 mitigation requirements, we cannot do anything more than
2 order a district to opt in, rather than ordering directly
3 that they adopt?
4 GENERAL COUNSEL WALSH: With respect to this one
5 area.
6 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: And why is that?
7 GENERAL COUNSEL WALSH: Because the authority
8 under the statute for bringing in -- for allowing the
9 districts that don't fit into those non-attainment
10 categories into the program, is the opt-in provision. And
11 what we would be doing is triggering -- we would adopt a
12 regulation that triggered that opt-in requirement.
13 Where you have general statutes, we have many
14 general statutes that talk about the ARB's broad authorities
15 to address air pollution caused by motor vehicles. And we
16 use those to -- to move forward aggressively. But where
17 there are specific limitations in statute, those cannot be
18 overcome by the -- by the general broad statutes. And
19 that's where the rub comes. We just see that our ability to
20 -- to require the Bay Area to implement such -- or to have
21 such a program implemented, is based on the opt-in provision
22 of the statute with that limitation.
23 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Thank you.
24 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. Thank you very much.
25 By the way, I'd like to just -- I'd like to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
181
1 welcome Supervisor DeSaulnier, and I appreciate him letting
2 us know that he was unavoidably detained. So we appreciate
3 -- I know that you were unable to make it, so I appreciate
4 your letting us know.
5 BOARD MEMBER DeSaulnier: Apparently I wasn't
6 quite late enough, but I'm happy to be here.
7 (Laughter.)
8 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think Matt, Mr. McKinnon, you
9 had a question.
10 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Yeah. A question on
11 legislative history. When this statute was written, was
12 transport even contemplated? I mean, was this statute, this
13 opt-in and opt-out seems like it considers individual
14 districts and doesn't contemplate transport.
15 And I guess if -- I'm interested in the history,
16 and then I'm interested if that isn't the way that we moved
17 to the broader law.
18 ASSEMBLY MEMBER CARDOZA: If I may try to answer
19 some of that. I'm not sure that I can answer the
20 legislative history, since it happened right before I got to
21 the legislature, Mr. McKinnon.
22 I will say that Justice Copps' legacy as a
23 legislator lives on. He is a very effective crafter of
24 legislation. And as Chairman of the Transportation
25 Committee at the time that they drafted this legislation, I
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
182
1 think you can all remember that Smog Check 2 was not the
2 most popular program that was ever implemented in the State
3 of California. And as legislators, politically we try to
4 protect our districts from things that are unpopular.
5 Having said that, I don't know the answer to your
6 question. Mr. Jones may know the legislative history more
7 than I do. However, we can get that information for you,
8 exactly how this transpired.
9 I will say one point, though, on this, is that
10 while this may not be a legal argument of standing to take
11 it to the Supreme Court, which is something I looked at, I
12 believe that my constituents have every right to expect
13 equal protection under the law, as every other district in
14 the state. And when we have such economic disadvantage
15 where I come from, where we have higher unemployment rates
16 than Appalachia, and then we're going to have to live under
17 the burdensome bureaucratic regulations, that certainly the
18 more affluent areas of the Bay Area could help us with our
19 problem. And I'd ask for your assistance in that.
20 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you.
21 MR. JONES: With the Assembly Member's permission.
22 As to the -- the narrow legal issue on legislative history,
23 it's my understanding that the section of the statute
24 dealing with transport was added in some variation in 1988.
25 The section dealing with Smog Check 2 was added, it appears,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
183
1 sometime as early as -- well, about the same time, it
2 appears, 1988.
3 The amendment that we're debating about, that is
4 the language that Mr. Copp inserted in the opt-in provision,
5 I believe was added in 1994.
6 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman.
7 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes, Mrs. Riordan.
8 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Could I ask the speaker a
9 question?
10 Mr. Jones, sometimes, when you have differing
11 opinions, we often say let's clean it up with some
12 legislation to make it crystal clear. Is there some reason
13 that we could not move forward if -- if we believe, as -- as
14 you do, that -- that something needs to be done, that
15 legislation wouldn't be perhaps one way to do that?
16 MR. JONES: I would actually -- I could defer to
17 the Assembly Member on that. The Assembly Member did
18 introduce legislation to address this issue, and that
19 legislation was not able to make it to the floor of the
20 Assembly because it was bottled up in the Appropriations
21 Committee of the Assembly, whose -- whose Chair, I will
22 factually observe, represents the Bay Area.
23 (Laughter.)
24 MR. JONES: So, having said that, that legislation
25 dealt specifically with this opt-in opt-out issue to try to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
184
1 provide the Bay Area Air Quality Management District the
2 opportunity to opt in.
3 Our legal argument, again, is that -- is separate
4 from that. It's that you have the authority under the
5 transport mitigation requirement section. And with all due
6 respect, that your staff is attempting to limit your
7 authority there by taking a sentence that precludes opt-in,
8 and expanding it to cover the whole breadth of the statutory
9 series to include restricting your authority on transport.
10 So we, on behalf of the Assembly Member, don't
11 believe that there needs to be a fix on the transport
12 mitigation requirement. You have the authority, and we
13 would request that you exercise it.
14 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: But you did try to fix it?
15 MR. JONES: Only as it relates to opting in.
16 That's correct, yes.
17 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you.
18 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Twice.
19 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Twice. Thank you very much,
20 Assemblyman and Mr. Jones.
21 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Mr. Chair.
22 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Oh, sorry. Supervisor
23 DeSaulnier.
24 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: I get to -- just a
25 comment.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
185
1 I understand the legal issues here, and at the
2 risk of terminating one's political career in the Bay Area,
3 I'd make an offer that there's obviously issues of equity, I
4 think, here that are real, separate and apart from the legal
5 issues.
6 When the regional administrator first agreed with
7 the petitioners and said she was going to redesignate the
8 Bay Area, I started a partnership with then Supervisor Bob
9 Cabral, from San Joaquin County, who unfortunately has since
10 passed away, who was on your Air Quality Board, to deal with
11 things like jobs, housing imbalances, and the imbalance,
12 something called the inter-regional partnership, which then
13 Assembly Member Tom Torlakson introduced a bill that got
14 funded, and we're now a pilot project.
15 But the genesis of that partnership between Contra
16 Costa, Alameda and Santa Clara County and San Joaquin and
17 Stanislaus County, was the issue of transport.
18 So, perhaps in all of these discussions, there is
19 a possibility that we can somehow sit down and maybe with
20 CARB as the convener, and get a group of people, both from
21 the legislative delegations of our areas and local people on
22 both air quality boards, and see if we can deal with this
23 issue, because clearly, although I'm very proud of the
24 people who represent the Bay Area, and have in the past, in
25 the Legislature, there is an equity issue. And we have many
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
186
1 issues amongst -- between us as our areas continue to grow.
2 There are 50,000 commute cars right now, commuter
3 trips through the Altamont Pass that are projected to grow
4 to 150,000 in the next ten years. VMT, for first time
5 homebuyers, when you look at people buying houses out in
6 Tracy and Modesto and commuting, those are all issues that
7 impact both the Bay Area and the valley, not just on this
8 issue, but on a multitude of quality of life discussions.
9 So if we can come out of this, and if we get -- we
10 need to go past, maybe, the legal arguments and the
11 political expertise of those people who represent the Bay
12 Area and get them to the table to sort of discuss how we
13 deal with something that's a legitimate equity issue. And
14 we shouldn't be fighting one another; we should be working
15 together.
16 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I appreciate that, Supervisor,
17 and the good news is if you can act as a catalyst to
18 accomplish this, the catalyst is not used up in the process.
19 So you do have a political career, as well as solving the
20 problem.
21 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Only if you remember me
22 and I move to the valley.
23 (Laughter.)
24 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: We'd better make sure whether
25 that's the valley, or the local people applauding.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
187
1 (Laughter.)
2 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Just as long -- just as
3 long as they're gone before the next item, Mr. Chair.
4 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: On a serious side, we now -- I
5 would like to announce we do have Spanish translation
6 available over there, just show a picture ID to receive the
7 headset. We also have a major challenge ahead of us. We
8 have about 40 people to testify on this item. And, as you
9 know, we have not finished the fuel item, and then at 6:30
10 we go into the Bay Area Plan.
11 So I would very much appreciate -- I'm going to
12 have to limit people to three minutes. If you can cut it
13 shorter than that, I'd very much appreciate it. If you're
14 covering the same topics that are covered before or previous
15 speakers, it would be very helpful. I know this Board is
16 particularly appreciative of non-duplication. And given the
17 challenge that we have ahead of us this evening, any help
18 you can give us would be very much supported.
19 As -- as my colleague has mentioned -- thank you,
20 Assemblyman -- is the fact that most of the people seem to
21 be in agreement with what the staff's presentation is, and
22 there's just a few opposing that.
23 So, anyway, first we have Supervisor Jerry
24 O'Banion, Supervisor Joe Rivero, Council Member Kenni
25 Friedman, all of Merced County, and then of Modesto.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
188
1 SUPERVISOR O'BANION: Thank you, Chairman Lloyd,
2 and Members of the Board. Hello, Barbara, for the Air
3 District.
4 I am on the Air District for the San Joaquin
5 Valley, as well as on the Board of Supervisors of Merced
6 County. And thank you to the Supervisor from the North Bay
7 Area for the comments. I'm sure that our district would be
8 willing to work with you in the future.
9 I am very supportive of the entire state being
10 under the same levels of requirements. We all are
11 responsible for air pollution. We all should be responsible
12 for cleaning up the air that we all have to -- that we all
13 breathe. And I think that it would be only appropriate that
14 we have the same regulations throughout the state, and would
15 encourage you to consider the implementation of Smog Check 2
16 in the Bay Area, as well as mitigation in your transport
17 ozone requirements.
18 Thank you.
19 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much.
20 SUPERVISOR RIVERO: Thank you, Chairperson Lloyd,
21 and the Members of the Board, and our special supervisor
22 sitting down there, from Kern County.
23 I want to thank you for the opportunity. I'm here
24 from Merced County, saying that yes, we are in support of
25 Dennis Cardoza and his proposals. Merced County is also a
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
189
1 member of what is known as RCRC, Regional Council of Rural
2 Counties, which include 28 of the rural counties. And in
3 discussions on this matter, the one thing that came out of
4 these discussions of those 28 counties was they would like a
5 level playing field. They would like to see everybody
6 having the same standards.
7 One of the items that I would like to point out is
8 the fact that there are many people living in the San
9 Francisco Bay Area, as well as the South Bay Area of San
10 Jose, and such, that live over in the San Joaquin Valley.
11 Just to give you an example of what that is, a station from
12 -- a television station from Fresno did a report and some
13 research and found that 8,000 vehicles a day go over the
14 Pacheco Pass to go to work and come back. Also, that is
15 just a small number compared to what comes over the
16 Altamont, because the Altamont, as you know, don't leave
17 here later than 3:00 o'clock, because you won't get home in
18 Merced County until about 8:30, and so -- because of the
19 amount of traffic that goes over there.
20 So those vehicles, they have found many of those
21 are registered here in the Bay Area, because of this very
22 reason. And so not only do these vehicles contribute to the
23 pollution here, but when they are driven in the valley, they
24 are contributing to the pollution because of the lower
25 standards.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
190
1 So by bringing the level to a level -- I should
2 say, the responsibilities to a level playing field, then it
3 would be a little better. And, I'll tell you what we
4 suffer, in Merced County, from this, but come over the
5 Grapevine into Kern County, and see how it all ends up down
6 there, I mean, they really suffer. And I think she'll agree
7 with me on that.
8 But all of that comes about because it -- not all,
9 but some of it comes about because of un-level playing
10 fields.
11 Thank you very much.
12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much, Supervisor.
13 Council Member Friedman, Council Member Deklinski,
14 and Council Member Jackson.
15 COUNCIL MEMBER FRIEDMAN: Thank you, Chairman
16 Lloyd and Members of the Air Resources Board.
17 I am Kenni Friedman. I am a Council Member from
18 the City of Modesto. I'm also a past Chair of the San
19 Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.
20 I can tell you that one of the problems we have --
21 in the San Joaquin area is mobile sources. And we're not
22 going to say that it's any different than mobile sources.
23 And so what we've done is we've put a lot of resources
24 toward those mobile sources. The first thing we did when we
25 got on the Air Board is we removed all of those automobiles
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
191
1 that were the heavy polluters. We got as many of those cars
2 off as we could.
3 And then when I was Chair of the Board, we spent
4 over $14 million retrofitting diesel, so that the fleets
5 that were running through the San Joaquin Valley that were
6 based in the San Joaquin Valley were running with -- were
7 running with cleaner engines. In addition to that, we have
8 ratcheted down on every industry that we can in the San
9 Joaquin Valley.
10 So with that, in addition to what's coming in from
11 the Bay Area from those stationary sources, the mobile
12 sources that drive through our area on a daily basis,
13 because the two major highways, Highway 5 and 99 run right
14 through the San Joaquin Valley, continue to pollute our
15 area. So we're asking you to give the same standards to the
16 Bay Area, to have them adhere to our standards which we
17 have, which is the implementation of Smog Check 2 as an
18 ozone mitigation requirement for the Bay Area.
19 Thank you.
20 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much.
21 Council Member Deklinski.
22 COUNCIL MEMBER DEKLINSKI: I'd like to thank the
23 Board for allowing us to speak today. I'm Bob Deklinski,
24 City Councilman from Oakdale.
25 I used to live in the Bay Area for 16 years, prior
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
192
1 to moving over to the valley in '91. And when I was here,
2 in my last two years, I flew full-time for law enforcement,
3 and I was predominantly flying in the valley and the Bay
4 Area. And long before Smog Check 2 really became an issue,
5 as a pilot, and flying with my other partners, we would
6 observe what would occur when the -- the elements were blown
7 over into the valley. And you could see the effects,
8 especially when we flew out of Lake Tahoe. We could see
9 that it was beautiful in the Bay Area, but then it was hard
10 for us to do our flying in the valley, because of the heavy
11 elements.
12 And so that's why I'm here, because I -- I've had
13 a chance to see first-hand the elements that are occurring.
14 It's one thing to see it when you're driving on your roads,
15 but it's another to fly into it. And that's why I'm here
16 today, because I can see the effects.
17 And so I'd just like to thank you for hearing us,
18 and -- and please take into serious consideration, which you
19 seem to be doing, that we would like to implement at least
20 Smog Check 2 into the Bay Area.
21 Thank you very much.
22 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much.
23 Council Member Jackson, Council Member Rockey, and
24 Council Member Burns.
25 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: Good afternoon, Chairman
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
193
1 Lloyd and Board Members, and thank you for allowing me to
2 speak here.
3 My name is Farrell Jackson, I represent the City
4 of Oakdale, which is one of the downwind communities. Not
5 only do we get the downwind smog from the Bay Area, but we
6 also -- we have two state highways that pass through our
7 town, which is Highway 120 and also Highway 108, which leads
8 directly to the mountains. And so we get a lot of Bay Area
9 traffic year-round, through the ski season and also through
10 the camping season.
11 So I guess what I'm here today is to ask you to --
12 to make the San Francisco Bay Area adhere to the same
13 standards as the downwind communities do. And so I would
14 ask you to assert your power that we think you have, and to
15 implement the full Smog 2 check.
16 Thank you.
17 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much.
18 Council Member Rockey, Council Member Burns and
19 then Ellen Garvey.
20 COUNCIL MEMBER ROCKEY: Good afternoon, Chairman
21 and Board Members.
22 I would like to echo my colleagues' sentiments
23 this afternoon. I'm from the City of Oakdale, also. And I
24 think our Bay Area supervisor here is -- and others this
25 afternoon, on the Board, have already mentioned some things
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
194
1 that -- the word is equity, and I just hope that you
2 remember that and follow through, which I think you can and
3 will.
4 Thanks a lot.
5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much.
6 Council Member Burns, City of Waterford.
7 COUNCIL MEMBER BURNS: Michael Burns, City of
8 Waterford.
9 Chairman and Members of the Board, thank you very
10 much for the opportunity to be here today. I don't have a
11 lot more to say than everybody else does, but we really
12 would like some equity on this. And we appreciate the
13 supervisor from the Bay Area here and his comments, nice to
14 hear that they'd be willing to work together, because it's a
15 problem we all have.
16 We appreciate your help. Thank you.
17 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much.
18 Ellen Garvey, David Crow, Larry Greene.
19 Demonstrating long-range transport.
20 (Laughter.)
21 MR. CROW: I apologize, Dr. Lloyd. I didn't know
22 I was next up in the queue.
23 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: No, no, it's Ellen's first.
24 (Laughter.)
25 MR. CROW: Again, Dr. Lloyd, I apologize. I
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
195
1 didn't realize I was next --
2 MS. GARVEY: I was transporting my way to the
3 podium.
4 Chairman Lloyd, ARB Board Members, ARB staff,
5 Assembly Representative Cardoza, Elected Officials from my
6 downwind neighbors, other esteemed colleagues, welcome to
7 San Francisco.
8 As I was -- my time is up.
9 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you.
10 (Laughter.)
11 MS. GARVEY: As I was carpooling here this
12 afternoon in my electric vehicle, I was looking out and
13 taking in the weather. It was kind of gray, it was a little
14 foggy, a little drizzly, and I was hoping that I could order
15 you up a nice day, but I see that that just wasn't to be the
16 case. It's a typical summer day for us who live in San
17 Francisco, and not so typical, maybe, for others. But at
18 any rate, we welcome you to San Francisco.
19 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: We feel actually much better,
20 because we're not going to see much of it.
21 (Laughter.)
22 MS. GARVEY: We can always work in a trip to
23 Alcatraz, I'm pretty sure. Just let me know.
24 Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you this
25 afternoon. I'd like to address the smog check issue, as
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
196
1 well as a number of the other transport mitigation measures
2 that have been raised in the -- in the staff report. And I
3 will try to keep my remarks very brief.
4 The San Francisco Bay Area recognizes our
5 contribution to air pollution problems in our neighboring
6 districts, many of whom have representatives who are seated
7 in the audience today. And we certainly recognize our
8 responsibility to reduce that contribution. We all know
9 that the wind blows in many directions, and I'd be a very
10 rich person if I could predict when the wind was going to
11 blow in what direction.
12 Like many urban areas in California, the wind
13 blows in many directions, and we all tend to be upwind as
14 well as downwind contributors and recipients of air
15 pollution that flows. All of us who are in the room today I
16 think live in air districts that experience ozone levels
17 that are above the standard. We also are experiencing ozone
18 trends that may not tend to decline quite as quickly as we
19 would like.
20 I believe that the real solution to local and
21 transported pollution is the implementation of all feasible
22 and cost effective control measures in each air district.
23 We believe that the process currently underway by the Air
24 Resources Board for transport mitigation is the practical
25 solution to ozone transport. We believe also that the Bay
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
197
1 Area District's regulations, on the whole, are as stringent
2 as many of those who are represented here today in the
3 downwind neighbors -- with our downwind neighbors.
4 I'd like to talk first about the issue that is on
5 everyone's mind, and that is smog check. This has garnered
6 significant comments not only today, but in the past. And
7 we believe that an effective inspection and maintenance
8 program is an important element in any air pollution control
9 strategy, because of the preponderance of motor vehicles
10 that are in the Bay Area. And on your way here today, you
11 may have gotten stuck behind one or two of them. I know I
12 did.
13 Many believe that a uniform statewide program
14 would be the best approach for California. But the
15 particular history of California's smog check program, which
16 we've talked a little bit about earlier this afternoon,
17 together with EPA's unique treatment of the Bay Area's ozone
18 classification -- as you know, we are unclassified with
19 respect to our attainment status for ozone -- this has put
20 the Bay Area in an unusual position.
21 We, as you know, have the basic smog check
22 program, with the possibility to opt in to elements of the
23 enhanced program. But, as you know, we do not have the
24 requirement for part of the fleet to go to test only
25 stations.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
198
1 For ozone -- my time is up.
2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: No, you are -- you are
3 outnumbered, so I'll give you extra time.
4 (Laughter.)
5 MS. GARVEY: For ozone control, this presents for
6 us a dilemma. Essentially, all of the technical analysis
7 available shows that Bay Area ozone levels are most
8 dependent on the reactive organic emission levels that
9 occur, and that local NOx reductions may delay our ozone
10 attainment. Therefore, in our recently adopted ozone plan,
11 which was adopted last week by the Air District, the
12 Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and the Association
13 of Bay Area Governments, we have included a measure to
14 implement components of the Smog Check 2 program that would
15 provide additional reactive organic compound emission
16 reductions.
17 This would advance the ozone attainment in the Bay
18 Area, and also in our downwind areas. We are not requesting
19 low to no testing, because this would impose large
20 additional costs on test stations and vehicle owners, and
21 would garner significant nitrogen oxide emission reductions,
22 which takes us away from attaining the ozone standards.
23 The recent California Ozone Study, which is just
24 now being completed, shows that reactive organic emission
25 reductions are more efficient in reducing ozone not only in
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
199
1 the Bay Area, but in many Sacramento and San Joaquin cities,
2 as well. So these hydrocarbon emission reductions not only
3 help us, they help our downwind neighbors.
4 Let me just say personally that I am very
5 interested in continuing to work with our downwind
6 neighbors, with ARB staff, with the California Legislature,
7 and through the inter-regional partnership that Supervisor
8 DeSaulnier was talking about, to make sure that we, in the
9 Bay Area, do whatever we can to reduce ozone in the Bay
10 Area, as well as for our downwind neighbors, whether that's
11 through adding additional measures to the smog check program
12 or through other mitigation measures, as well.
13 Included in the plan that will be heard by the Air
14 Resources Board this evening, there are a number of
15 additional measures that we are including with respect to
16 smog check. And keep in mind that we've left the door open.
17 Included in that control measure is a commitment to continue
18 to look for what additional measures we can include in the
19 plan from the smog check program that will garner additional
20 hydrocarbon emission reductions.
21 I'd like to say a few words about the mitigation
22 bank. With respect to the other proposed changes in the
23 state's transport mitigation requirements, we have profound
24 concerns about the proposal for a mitigation bank. We find
25 that the proposal is impractical, can be unfair, and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
200
1 ineffective. And I won't take the time in my presentation
2 to go over the specifics, but I am available to answer your
3 questions on that.
4 And lastly, very briefly, a word or two about the
5 offset threshold that was proposed. With respect to the
6 proposal for a lower new source review offset threshold, we
7 have a 15 ton per day offset threshold. Some of our
8 downwind neighbors have a ten ton per day offset threshold.
9 As you know, that threshold is set through the California
10 Clean Air Act, and our attainment status for the state ozone
11 standard.
12 I took a look four years back, at what additional
13 emission reductions we would have garnered in the Bay Area
14 if we had lowered our offset threshold from 15 tons down to
15 ten. And we've averaged it over the last four years, all
16 four years tracked very close together, if you combine all
17 of the hydrocarbon emission reductions and all of the NOx
18 emission reductions for the last four years, in going from
19 15 tons down to ten it adds up to less than a tenth of a ton
20 a day. So the change is small, but nonetheless, we do not
21 oppose that change, if that is the wish of the Air Resources
22 Board.
23 That concludes my presentation, and I'd be happy
24 to answer any questions.
25 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Do you have a question? Ms.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
201
1 D'Adamo.
2 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I don't really know how to
3 formulate this question, because this area always confuses
4 me.
5 The plan that is going to come before us this
6 evening, the Bay Area is suggesting that it will opt in to
7 the ROG standard of Smog 2, correct?
8 MS. GARVEY: Yes. There are additional measures
9 included in the plan for ROG, or hydrocarbon emission
10 reductions as a control measure.
11 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Okay. All right. But not
12 the NOx reductions?
13 MS. GARVEY: Correct.
14 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: And it's your position that
15 the Bay Area plan does not include the NOx reductions
16 because of two things, as I understand you're saying, cost,
17 and also because a reduction of NOx is bad. I don't
18 understand that. I don't understand how a reduction in NOx
19 emissions would be bad for the Bay Area, when in all other
20 areas of the state that have Smog 2, it was the wisdom of
21 the scientists that put the program together that a
22 reduction in NOx would be good.
23 So I know I'm trying to explain it in rather
24 simplistic forms, but --
25 MS. GARVEY: No, I understand what you're saying.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
202
1 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: -- it's just this has never
2 made sense to me that NOx is good for the Bay Area. I think
3 it's bad for your downwind neighbors. I don't know why it
4 would be good for the Bay Area. So if you could help me
5 through that, I'd appreciate it.
6 MS. GARVEY: Without going into a lot of
7 scientific discussions and talking about isopleth diagrams,
8 NOx reductions in many areas of California, including the
9 San Joaquin Valley, are beneficial to reducing ozone.
10 That's not the case in the Bay Area. It is different.
11 Hydrocarbon emission reductions are what take us towards
12 ozone attainment.
13 If you're familiar at all with an isopleth
14 diagram, NOx emission reductions do not take you across
15 those isopleths towards attaining the ozone standard. They
16 actually detract from that. So because we are hydrocarbon
17 limited, is the phrase that we use in the Bay Area, and the
18 valley is NOx limited, if you will, hydrocarbon emission
19 reductions help us attain the ozone standard, and nitrogen
20 oxide emission reductions actually take us away from that.
21 So because we are putting together an ozone
22 attainment plan for how the region can attain the ozone
23 standard, we have included those control measures in there
24 that take us towards attaining that standard. And for us,
25 that's hydrocarbon emission reductions.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
203
1 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Could staff respond to
2 this, because I remember a few years ago there was an
3 attempt by, I believe, some Bay Area businesses that were
4 responding to the mitigation provision in the statute, and
5 their proposal was to, instead of a reduction in NOx,
6 would've been to -- it's kind of ironic, but to provide for
7 a mitigation fee.
8 And the science never made sense to me, but I
9 thought that staff, at that time, ARB staff at that time did
10 not concur that a reduction in NOx would not be beneficial.
11 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Ms. D'Adamo, a suggestion here
12 that this is clearly going to come up, I think, this
13 evening, in the Bay Area plan. And I have some similar
14 concerns as you do. And, again, having been involved with
15 this issue for many years, I think that just to focus on
16 ozone here, I think, is extremely short-sighted. If there's
17 anything we've learned over the years, we have to look at
18 the inter-relationships.
19 And, Ellen, I could go on in-depth on this issue,
20 given my knowledge here. I'm not going to do that at this
21 time. But I do think that I'm disappointed to see the Bay
22 Area, at this time, on the very day that we've made some
23 comments about Professor Glenn Kass and his contribution to
24 atmospheric science knowledge, at the same time we're
25 talking about a fairly crude model, and we understand some
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
204
1 of the deficiencies there, to make those, I think, very
2 profound recommendations.
3 And plus the fact that we see increasingly the
4 importance of fine particles derived from nitrogen oxides on
5 health effects, on asthma, I think that we will visit this
6 issue later.
7 But I certainly can't concur with that, and I
8 think it's extremely dangerous.
9 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Okay. I'll defer to the
10 Chair's suggestion on that.
11 One question, though, on --
12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes.
13 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: -- Smog 2. And didn't your
14 district adopt a position, I believe it would've been a
15 couple of years ago, when Assemblyman Cardoza had his
16 legislation before the State Assembly, and I believe Senator
17 Costa had a companion bill. It's my recollection that your
18 district adopted a position in support of those bills, with
19 regard to the opt-in change.
20 MS. GARVEY: I don't recall the specific bills.
21 There've been a number of opt-in smog bills for the Bay
22 Area. The Bay Area Board has never opposed such a bill and
23 has, indeed, supported many of them. And they may have
24 supported the two specific ones that you raised. Yes.
25 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Thank you.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
205
1 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Any other questions?
2 Thank you. And thank you, and I'm sure we'll see
3 you later. But thank you very much.
4 Next, we have Dave Crow.
5 MR. CROW: Good afternoon, Members of the Board,
6 Mr. Chairman, members of the audience.
7 Ellen didn't use all my time, did she?
8 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: She used actually 12 minutes, but
9 she may -- we may need that tonight.
10 MR. CROW: I will be as brief as possible.
11 First of all, our district has submitted written
12 testimony as it relates to your transport discussion today.
13 I would note that the discussion before you today on
14 transport is really not an action item. It is something
15 that you intend to take up in January of 2002.
16 I make that point because in a moment I want to
17 follow up on it, because I think it's a central underlying
18 theme that permeates your staff's recommendations regarding
19 this evening's item of the Bay Area plan.
20 First, I think it's clearly documented and
21 everyone's pretty much in agreement that both federal law
22 and state law require that your Board and the State of
23 California, and, in turn, the Governor, in the submittal of
24 the SIP, address intra-district, interstate transport
25 issues.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
206
1 Finally, there seems to be no doubt after a decade
2 of very expensive, conclusive science, that, indeed,
3 transport does occur and it is overwhelming, from the Bay
4 Area to the Central Valley, so I think we leave those two
5 issues aside.
6 For a moment, what I would like to focus on is
7 that the concern that I have today is that, indeed, we
8 support what you just -- what your Board will do on
9 transport mitigation, and we will come back and participate
10 actively at the first of the year, 2002, as you work to
11 refine some of the concepts that are in front of you today.
12 I think it's very important to not become
13 distracted or confused with respect to this afternoon's
14 discussion of the Bay Area plan, and how you might seek to
15 remedy some of the deficiencies in the Bay Area plan that is
16 being recommended to you. It's important that you take
17 action today, tonight, tomorrow, as it relates to the Bay
18 Area plan, and not defer some obvious fixes that are
19 required of the Bay Area plan, in terms of some deficiencies
20 I won't go into now, but at length later this evening.
21 The reason you need to act affirmatively today, in
22 a directive way with respect to the Bay Area plan and the
23 topics you've been discussing in terms of reasonable
24 available control measures and Smog Check 2, is one of
25 timeliness. Timing is critical. There was a timing issue
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
207
1 that caused the Bay Area plan to move forward in haste, as
2 it related to possible lapse of conformity under federal
3 act. There is yet a bigger timing issue, and that relates
4 to the San Joaquin Valley's attainment dates.
5 So I think as you consider what deficiencies
6 exist, that you look to solve those under the SIP that will
7 be submitted for the Bay Area plan now, and that you do not
8 acknowledge deficiencies there and say we will come back to
9 those in 2002 or 2003, and seek to, under the auspices of
10 the State of California, to include some very obvious
11 remedial steps that are long overdue.
12 I think that's important. And we will speak again
13 in much greater detail to that later today. And with that,
14 I'm done. Thank you.
15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much, Dave.
16 We have Chuck Fryxell, Gretchen Bennitt, Nate
17 Marciochi.
18 MR. GREENE: Was I next?
19 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes, you were. Sorry. Larry --
20 yes, Larry Greene, Chuck Fryxell, and Gretchen Bennitt.
21 MR. GREENE: Thank you, Dr. Lloyd.
22 Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members of the
23 Board. I'll be very brief in my comments here.
24 I'm Larry Greene, I'm the Air Pollution Control
25 Officer of the Yolo-Solano Air District, which is just east.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
208
1 Of course, all of your staff reports for the last number of
2 years, since 1990, have shown that we're -- we receive an
3 alarming transport from the Bay Area. And we would support,
4 of course, the idea of enhanced smog check with the NOx
5 addition there.
6 The key point I would like to make here is that we
7 have 45,000 vehicles a day that drive from the Bay Area
8 through Vacaville into the Sacramento region. Not only do
9 we gain if NOx measures are addressed with all the vehicles
10 in the Bay Area, as a general program, but if those vehicles
11 that are driving through our district have been smogged
12 appropriately and have been held to a higher standard, then
13 obviously we get direct benefit as those vehicles drive
14 through our area.
15 And we also have communities, Vacaville and
16 Fairfield, which are adjacent to each other. One community
17 has an enhanced program, one community does not. And it's
18 very hard to describe to constituents both who live within
19 the same county, why there is that disparity. And I hope
20 that your Board will be able, to some degree, address that
21 today.
22 I would like to speak to the mitigation fee issue.
23 We believe that is a problematic measure. If we try to do
24 that, it would be hard to figure out who's upwind, who's
25 downwind. Sometimes districts can be both even in the same
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
209
1 day depending on the weather patterns.
2 So we would suggest that be further considered,
3 but we do very much support the enhanced program with the
4 NOx measures.
5 Thank you.
6 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much, Larry.
7 Chuck Fryxell, Gretchen Bennitt and Nate
8 Marciochi.
9 MR. FRYXELL: Thank you, Chairman Lloyd, and
10 Members of the Board. My name is Chuck Fryxell, I'm the Air
11 Pollution Control Officer of Mojave Desert Air Quality
12 Management District and Antelope Valley Air Pollution
13 Control District.
14 The purpose of my testimony is to draw your
15 attention to a pervasive problem in our downwind desert
16 communities relating to transport mitigation.
17 Our communities believe that the existing laws --
18 law and regulations fail to produce a fair and just result,
19 and punish downwind communities. The problem is compounded
20 by the fact that we, the staff of the air district and
21 practically all the local elected officials, believe that to
22 be true.
23 I'd like to thank, on behalf of the Mojave and
24 Antelope Air Districts, the excellent policy guidance that
25 your Board has given in the past, relating to transport
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
210
1 mitigation.
2 But going back to our problem, we generally
3 believe that the operation of laws and regulations governing
4 transported air pollution victimizes the downwind districts
5 a second time. The first injury is transported air
6 pollution, which affects the health of our residents. The
7 second is -- the second of the punishment is the
8 requirements imposed on downwind districts based on the
9 readings of air pollution and not the air pollution
10 generated in the district. This fails to meet the basic
11 fairness test that the damaged victim may be made whole by
12 those who cause the injury.
13 Mojave Desert District and Antelope Valley
14 District lie downwind of South Coast, the South Coast
15 District. These downwind districts are overwhelming --
16 these downwind districts are overwhelmingly impacted by
17 transport and are classified severe for federal ozone
18 attainment purposes. Absent the transport, these districts
19 would be in attainment of the federal ozone requirements.
20 We want you and your staff to consider the four
21 mitigation measures for South Coast and the Mojave Desert
22 Air Basin, coupled.
23 One, require the South Coast to set up an ERC bank
24 account for the sole purpose of satisfying the offset
25 requirements imposed because of the downwind districts' non-
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
211
1 attainment status.
2 Two, require the South Coast to pay for downwind
3 air districts' cost of setting up and collecting ERCs that
4 may be found within the downwind districts and can be used
5 to comply with the reduction required because of the non-
6 attainment status.
7 Three, require the South Coast to pay for that
8 part of the downwind air districts' costs that are incurred
9 in addressing problems created by the transported air.
10 And, four, prohibit South Coast from imposing any
11 kind of moratorium on the transport of ERC credits -- ERCs
12 to the downwind district.
13 These mitigation measures could be developed and
14 implemented by the Mojave Desert Transport Committee along
15 with help from your staff.
16 Thank you for this opportunity to testify.
17 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much.
18 Thank you. I'll take one more witness and then
19 give the court reporter a five-minute break. So, Gretchen
20 Bennitt.
21 MS. BENNITT: Thank you. I'm the newly appointed
22 Air Pollution Control Officer for Northern Sierra Air
23 Quality Management District. Our --
24 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Congratulations.
25 MS. BENNITT: Thank you very much.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
212
1 Our jurisdiction actually is Plumas, Sierra and
2 Nevada County. Nevada County is the only county that is in
3 non-attainment for the one-hour ozone standard, but we also
4 have the sad distinction of having some of the highest
5 annual average ozone values in the State of California.
6 That's because it all comes up there and sits up there.
7 Also, you know, our public health is at risk, but
8 there's really very little that Nevada County residents can
9 do to reduce those emissions.
10 We basically have to rely on CARB to implement
11 regulations that will reduce emissions in those upwind
12 areas. My district quickly supports the implementation of
13 Smog Check 2 in the Bay Area, and a more stringent review of
14 all feasible measures. Not only does this reduce ozone
15 emissions being transported up to our area, but it also
16 reduces emissions from Bay Area vacationers that are coming
17 up to our area and heading towards the Tahoe area, as well
18 as hanging out in Nevada City/Grass Valley area.
19 Simply, Nevada County will never be able to enjoy
20 clean and healthy air without further reductions of
21 emissions in those upwind areas.
22 Thank you.
23 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much.
24 So we'll just take a five-minute break, is that
25 all right? So in five minutes we'll start again.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
213
1 (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Paul has to leave early. Paul
3 Knepprath, I understand, wants to leave early. So Paul, if
4 you want to speak now.
5 Yeah, thank you.
6 MR. KNEPPRATH: Hi. Dr. Lloyd, Board Members,
7 thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak
8 here today.
9 My name is Paul Knepprath, representing the
10 American Lung Association of California and our scientific
11 and medical organization, the California Thoracic Society.
12 We have provided you with written comments and a letter, and
13 I won't go through it in detail, but I do want to hit a
14 couple of high points.
15 One is I think that we have to be reminded again
16 that this is a major public health issue that we're dealing
17 with. The transport issue concerns ozone pollution not only
18 in the Bay Area but in some of these other districts around
19 the Bay Area in the valley north of here, as well.
20 The American Lung Association supports adopting
21 the Smog Check 2 program, the enhanced program for the Bay
22 Area, to not only meet the mitigation, transport mitigation
23 requirements, but also to benefit the millions of
24 Californians that live right here in the Bay Area. The
25 reductions in NOx and other pollutants that would occur with
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
214
1 this enhanced program we think will benefit the health of
2 those who live in the Bay Area, including those people who
3 have lung diseases, asthma, COPD, emphysema and the like.
4 You know, California continues to really suffer
5 from ozone air pollution. Our recent state of the air
6 report that we issued in May, along with our clean air
7 month, showed that 33 of California's 58 counties actually
8 received an "F" grade for ozone air pollution. And I think
9 that the report stated that four of those "F" graded
10 counties are right here in the Bay Area. So we not only
11 have this problem throughout the State of California, but we
12 have it right here in the Bay Area.
13 We'd urge you to do as much as you can to mitigate
14 the transport problem, and also to clean up the air here in
15 the Bay Area.
16 Thank you.
17 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you, Paul.
18 Next we have Nate Marciochi, Julius Pekar, Amber
19 Houska, then Donna Hansen, Fred Cavanah, Jana Coons.
20 MR. MARCIOCHI: Thank you, Chairman and Members of
21 the Board.
22 On behalf of the Mayor and the City Council of the
23 City of Los Banos, I'd just like to publicly state our
24 support for our Assemblyman Dennis Cardoza's efforts to
25 ensure that the Bay Area likewise be held accountable for
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
215
1 the air pollution that they create, and therefore be
2 required to be required, excuse me, to follow or abided by
3 the -- by the state -- excuse me, by the Smog Check 2
4 requirements that we in the Central Valley are required to
5 follow.
6 And I'd like to thank you for allowing us the
7 opportunity to speak before you.
8 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. Thanks for coming.
9 Julius Pekar.
10 MR. PEKAR: Thank you, Honorable Chairman, and
11 Board.
12 I'm the Executive Director for the Merced County
13 Chamber of Commerce, and I'm here representing the thousands
14 of farmers and food producers and ranchers and growers that
15 feed the Bay Area, as well as the rest of the world. And
16 they support this Smog Check 2 for the Bay Area.
17 Anyway, I'll make this short and sweet. I had a
18 whole big speech, but time is of the essence, and we want to
19 get back on the clean air bus.
20 (Laughter.)
21 MR. PEKAR: You know, it's funny, when I stepped
22 off the bus and I took that once every six month dose of the
23 Bay Area fresh, crisp ocean smell, and the foods and
24 everything else, it dawned on me that the reason it's so
25 clean and crisp is that the smog is going over to the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
216
1 Altamont Pass.
2 (Laughter.)
3 MR. PEKAR: So anyway, thank you very, very much.
4 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you.
5 Donna Hansen, Fred Cavanah, Jana Coons, Wayne
6 Zipser.
7 MS. HOUSKA: I thought I was next.
8 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: No, you're next.
9 MS. HOUSKA: Okay. Can I go?
10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes, Amber. Yeah, yes. I was
11 just reading the second -- the people lined up. Yes.
12 MS. HOUSKA: Oh, on deck. Okay.
13 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: On deck, correct.
14 MS. HOUSKA: Good afternoon, Chairman Lloyd,
15 Members of the Board, staff, and attending colleagues.
16 It's a pleasure to be here as a representative of
17 Central San Joaquin Valley -- Central -- excuse me, Central
18 San Joaquin Valley and my community of Merced County. My
19 name is Amber Houska, I'm the business retention director
20 for Merced County Economic Development Corporation. We're a
21 privately and publicly funded non-profit organization that
22 serves Merced County.
23 Merced County is located in the Central San
24 Joaquin Valley, with a population of 215,000 that's young,
25 diverse, and increasing. We have a strong agricultural
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
217
1 based economy with approximately 4,200 businesses. We're
2 also proud to be the next home of the University of
3 California, UC Merced.
4 The bad news is that we have one of the highest
5 unemployment rates in the nation, ranging from 13 to 17
6 percent, depending on the season in the year. Air quality
7 impacts the health of our residents, but it also impacts the
8 health of our economy.
9 I am here because we have seen air quality
10 impacting the attraction, expansion and retention of
11 businesses in Merced County. I have submitted my
12 statements, which are similar to the previous speaker's,
13 along with the endorsement of 28 organizations that endorse
14 the statement.
15 In the interest of time, let me just skip to the
16 last comment that I make in my statement.
17 The San Francisco Bay Area should mitigate its
18 negative impact on its neighbors. Please consider the
19 implementation of every possible fair and long-term strategy
20 that benefits all of California. I strongly recommend to
21 the California Air Resources Board that the San Francisco
22 Bay Area should adhere to the requirements of Smog Check 2.
23 Thank you very much for letting me present my
24 comments today.
25 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. Thanks for
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
218
1 coming.
2 Donna Hansen, Fred Cavanah.
3 MS. HANSEN: Donna Hansen. Good afternoon, Board
4 Members and Chairman.
5 I'm the Deputy City Manager for the City of
6 Modesto, and I'm speaking in favor of your staff proposal,
7 with the exceptions noted by our Assemblyman, Mr. Cardoza.
8 I'm going to move from my prepared remarks because
9 I'm just really delighted this Board has recognized so many
10 issues that are not only important to the valley, but I
11 think important to the health and economic well-being of the
12 entire state.
13 You have recognized the severe air quality problem
14 we have in the Central Valley. And as the speakers have
15 said before, no matter what we do, no matter how much money
16 we're going to pour into it, we're not able to mitigate it
17 unless we're all playing and attempting to work together to
18 improve the air quality for the entire state.
19 Contrary to what one of the speakers says, you
20 have produced many reports that clearly show the wind blows
21 from the west to the east. When it gets through the passes,
22 it then spreads out north and south, and puts an ugly yellow
23 and sometimes brownish blanket over the entire Central
24 Valley.
25 You've recognized how vehicles contribute to our
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
219
1 problems, with 50,000 vehicles commuting daily, and going to
2 a potential of 150,000. I don't know how the valley's not
3 only going to manage that, in terms of transportation, but
4 what that will do to our air quality unless we start to
5 impose the same measures on all areas. You've recognized
6 the economic issues, and the jobs and housing imbalance.
7 What we're asking you to recognize today is to
8 recognize your authority and address this issue. We urge
9 you to develop amendments to ozone transport regulations and
10 adopt Smog Check 2 for the Bay Area.
11 Thank you for your time.
12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much.
13 Jana Coons, Wayne Zipser and Charles Deschenes.
14 MR. CAVANAH: Good afternoon, Chairman, Members of
15 the Board. My name is Fred Cavanah, I'm Transit Manager for
16 the City of Modesto.
17 I'm going to be speaking to this issue from the
18 standpoint of the transit perspective. The City of Modesto
19 is doing what it can with its transit funds to help mitigate
20 the ozone situation, and improve the air quality in the San
21 Joaquin Valley. We're spending millions of dollars this
22 year and in the next five years on bus replacements and
23 replacement of our older diesel bus engines with newer,
24 state of the art diesel engines. We're also spending
25 hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to provide
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
220
1 transportation for commuters that live in the San Joaquin
2 Valley and commute to their jobs in the Bay Area.
3 But regardless of how much money we are spending
4 to try to transport these individuals and reduce pollution
5 from single occupant vehicles, that pales in comparison with
6 the amount of ozone that's transported daily from the Bay
7 Area to the San Joaquin Valley. There's basically nothing
8 we can do with our transit dollars to improve that
9 situation.
10 So we're here to ask you to adopt those measures
11 which have been previously presented to you, which we think
12 will do a lot towards improving the air quality in the San
13 Joaquin Valley.
14 Thank you very much.
15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much.
16 Jana Coons.
17 MS. COONS: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Board
18 Members.
19 I want to echo my colleague's comments and speak
20 specifically to the health issue. Virtually everyone in my
21 family, and most people I know in the valley, suffer from
22 allergies, and also my children have asthma. I believe that
23 this is directly related to the poor air quality that we
24 have in the valley, most of which, or a fair portion of
25 which, at least, is transported.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
221
1 As a matter of environmental justice, I strongly
2 urge you to adopt more stringent ozone transport mitigation
3 measures, including Smog Check 2, for the Bay Area.
4 Thank you.
5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you.
6 MR. ZIPSER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Board
7 Members. Good afternoon.
8 My name is Wayne Zipser, and I reside in Turlock,
9 California, which is in Stanislaus County. My occupation is
10 that I'm a farmer. And if it hasn't already been listed
11 yet, it may soon will be farmers will be on the endangered
12 species list.
13 But I came to talk about farmers and ranchers in
14 Stanislaus County, the people that I know and the neighbors
15 that reside next to me, and the people that farm the land in
16 the valley. Farmers and ranchers have become very
17 efficient. They've become very efficient in a lot of ways,
18 and became very dedicated to clean air in the Central
19 Valley. Farmers and ranchers have -- and I'll take my
20 operation as a -- just as a -- because I have a very average
21 operation.
22 I grow almonds, walnuts and wine grapes. And in
23 the last 20 years, we have reduced our burning of
24 agricultural waste by 50 percent. And I know all of my
25 neighbors have all done the same. Also, through technology
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
222
1 and tremendous ingenuity of farmers and ranchers in our
2 area, we've reduced our diesel consumption by a tremendous
3 amount, due to the fact of using technology and ingenuity
4 through non-till practices and other practices.
5 And I think farmers and ranchers in the Central
6 Valley have done their part to help clean the air throughout
7 the Central Valley. And we're going to continue to do that.
8 Farmers and ranchers are always concerned about air, water,
9 and the environment, because that's what we live on. And
10 that's what we drive our businesses on.
11 Agriculture in Stanislaus County is the number one
12 economic factor in Stanislaus County. It's an over one
13 billion dollar in crops grown, which turns into a
14 multiplying factor of four billion dollars to the economy in
15 Stanislaus County.
16 I guess what I'm saying, and I'll be very short
17 because I had some other things that I wanted to say. But,
18 in short, I think to be fair for us in the Central Valley,
19 for the farmers and ranchers -- and I don't think you
20 probably know, but the agricultural economy is in a
21 tremendous crisis. We are barely making it. There are
22 farmers and ranchers that are going to go out of business --
23 and I hope that wasn't one of them, I guess that puts me out
24 of business.
25 But there are people who are going out of
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
223
1 business, and who -- with additional burdensome regulations
2 on farmers and ranchers, it could put us over the edge.
3 I hope that you look at this as being a fair and
4 equitable solution, and hoping that we can save agriculture
5 in Stanislaus County and the Central Valley.
6 And thank you very much and I appreciate the time.
7 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you.
8 We've got Charles Deschenes, Tim James, Walter
9 Burr, Frank Vierra.
10 MR. DESCHENES: Chairman Lord -- Lloyd --
11 (Laughter.)
12 MR. DESCHENES: Well -- Board Members --
13 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I need all the help.
14 MR. DESCHENES: Yeah, so do I.
15 Naturally, I'm with the Cardoza contingent, and I
16 support my colleagues.
17 In addition, I wanted to say that Waterford is a
18 good neighbor to the Bay Area. While the wind doesn't
19 necessarily blow from Waterford to the Bay Area, the water
20 does flow. And we spend a lot of time and effort and
21 resources in improving water quality which affects the Delta
22 and the San Francisco Bay Area. And that's not
23 insignificant. We are a good neighbor. And I guess what
24 we're asking today is some of the words I've heard, equity
25 and being a good neighbor.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
224
1 And that's all we want. We want you to do the
2 best you can to be a good neighbor and help us out. And I
3 appreciate your time. Thank you very much.
4 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you.
5 Tim James.
6 MR. JAMES: Thank you very much, Mr. Chamber --
7 Mr. Chairman and Board Members.
8 (Laughter )
9 MR. JAMES: I'm with the chamber. Sorry about
10 that.
11 (Laughter.)
12 MR. JAMES: My name is Tim James --
13 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: We're not.
14 MR. JAMES: Got you.
15 My name is Tim James, and I work for the
16 Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce. We represent
17 3,000 businesses in the Sacramento region, which includes
18 the Counties of Yolo, Yuba, Sutter, Placer, El Dorado, and
19 Sacramento.
20 We're here today to ask your Board to include us -
21 - to ask that Smog Check 2 be implemented as a
22 transportation mitigation measure for the Bay Area, and also
23 that Smog Check 2 be included in the Bay Area SIP. We are
24 in full support of the comments made by Assemblyman Cardoza,
25 and his staff member, Mr. Jones, earlier.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
225
1 The Sacramento Metro Chamber of Commerce is co-
2 founders of the Clean Air Partnership, along with the
3 American Lung Association, and have also been strong
4 proponents of the CCAT legislation in Sacramento, proposed
5 by Assemblyman Steinberg. So we understand what aggressive
6 and creative means are needed to attack the air quality
7 issues.
8 Our only hope and our request is that the member
9 -- the communities of the foothills and the Central Valley
10 take great pains and effort to ensure that the water quality
11 that flows from east to west is taken care of for the Bay
12 Area, and we'd only ask that they'd show the same concern
13 and respect in the air flow coming from west to east, and
14 making sure that the air we receive is clean and healthy as
15 well.
16 So thank you very much.
17 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you.
18 Walter Burr, Frank Vierra, Sonya Harrigfeld.
19 MR. BURR: Mr. Chairman, thank you for letting me
20 come here and support Dennis Cardoza in his efforts to give
21 us a level playing field in the atmosphere.
22 Thank you very much.
23 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. Thanks for coming.
24 Good afternoon, sir.
25 MR. VIERRA: Mr. Chairman and Board, thank you for
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
226
1 allowing me to speak.
2 I'm Frank Vierra, the Vice Mayor of Livingston,
3 which is about 11,000 people in the Merced County area. And
4 it's time that the Bay Area be held to the same regulations
5 that the valley is held to. It is only fair that the Bay
6 Area be required to have Smog Check 2 and other mitigation
7 measures, so that the Bay Area is held responsible for its
8 own pollution.
9 We have many, many children in Livingston that are
10 very small and have breathing problems. We come from a
11 community that is very low income, and it's time that we
12 help the children breathe healthier, and I hope that you
13 heed to Assemblyman Cardoza's request and pass Smog Check 2.
14 Thanks.
15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much.
16 Sonya Harrigfeld, Robert Nunes, and Larry Allen.
17 MS. HARRIGFELD: Good afternoon, Chairman and
18 Board. I'm Sonya Harrigfeld, from Stanislaus County
19 Department of Environmental Resources.
20 I come here today to ask you to recommend to
21 impose the -- for the ARB to impose the Smog Check 2 on the
22 Bay Area as a transport mitigation measure. The
23 implementation of the Smog Check 2 on the Bay Area should
24 occur as quickly as possible, and include -- and be included
25 in the Bay Area 2001 ozone attainment plan.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
227
1 It's time that the Bay Area be held accountable to
2 -- be held to the same regulations that the San Joaquin
3 Valley is. It's only fair that the Bay Area be required to
4 implement Smog Check 2 and other transport mitigation
5 measures.
6 Thank you very much.
7 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you.
8 Robert Nunes, Larry Allen, and Brigette Tollstrup.
9 And then Henry Hogo.
10 MR. NUNES: Hello. My name is Robert Nunes, I'm
11 with the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control
12 District, which has jurisdiction over the North Central
13 Coast Air Basin. And our district supports ARB's review of
14 the transport mitigation measures. Transport mitigation is
15 important to our district as over the past decade, ARB's
16 transport assessments have repeatedly shown that the North
17 Central Coast is impacted by overwhelming transport from the
18 San Francisco Bay Area.
19 As mentioned in our June 20th letter to the Board,
20 we urge ARB to proceed with the proposed measures and to
21 periodically review their effectiveness. Since the North
22 Central Coast Air Basin is a downwind area sensitive to Bay
23 Area NOx, this includes Smog Check 2 with a NOx provision --
24 NOx reduction provision.
25 We would further encourage ARB to expand the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
228
1 vision of the transport mitigation measures to address the
2 major cause of regional and transported pollution, which is
3 the jobs/housing imbalance, particularly as it relates to
4 the Bay Area. This imbalance causes long-distance commutes
5 and increases urban sprawl. Incentives at the state level
6 to encourage better regional land use planning could help
7 mitigate this trend.
8 Thank you very much.
9 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you.
10 MR. ALLEN: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members
11 of the Board. I'm Larry Allen, I'm the Planning Manager for
12 the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District.
13 And I'm here today to discuss our concerns
14 regarding the effects of pollutant transport on our county,
15 and to urge your Board to direct that staff incorporate the
16 strongest possible mitigation requirements for upwind
17 districts when this comes back to you as a revised
18 regulation later this year, or early next year.
19 And in the interests of time, I'll submit detailed
20 written comments, but I would like to summarize our
21 concerns. San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area
22 for the state ozone standard and the state PM10 standard.
23 We are attainment for all other state standards, and we're
24 also attainment for all federal standards. We've been
25 implementing all feasible measures in our district since we
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
229
1 adopted our first clean air plan in 1991. And as a result
2 we're showing a very steady decline in ozone levels at all
3 of our coastal monitoring stations.
4 However, at our inland sites to the north and to
5 the east, we continue to violate the state standards and are
6 very close to exceeding the federal, the new federal eight-
7 hour ozone standard, which could result in a potential new
8 federal non-attainment designation for us.
9 Ozone levels in those areas are actually showing
10 an increase, rather than a decrease, like all of our other
11 sites. And ARB has done some rather comprehensive studies
12 that show that there is significant transport from both the
13 Bay Area and the San Joaquin Valley to our district, and
14 that they can combine to collectively overwhelm air quality
15 in San Luis Obispo on certain days when pollution travels
16 through the pass and down through the valley, collects
17 pollutants from the San Joaquin Valley, as well, and then
18 moves into our county from the east.
19 And so our board has directed us to express their
20 strong concerns to you regarding the impacts of transport on
21 our county, and a potential for that to result in exceedence
22 of the federal standard, and possibly result in a new non-
23 attainment designation for us, and additional regulatory
24 requirements on local businesses.
25 And we're encouraged by your Board's direction to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
230
1 staff to develop these new mitigation strategies, and I'll
2 just briefly describe that for the all feasible measures, I
3 think most districts are currently implementing this
4 requirement. However, the effectiveness of the same measure
5 in different districts can really vary greatly, depending on
6 the exemption levels and the stringency of permit
7 requirements. And we believe that upwind districts ought to
8 be implementing at least as stringent, if not more stringent
9 regulations than those in downwind districts.
10 For Smog Check 2, I think that's an easy one.
11 It's a -- a very important, and easily implemented measure
12 that will result in immediate and significant reductions in
13 ozone precursor emissions from automobiles. And as a region
14 that's significantly impacted by pollutants from the Bay
15 Area, we would ask that you require that they do adopt the
16 enhanced I&M to the fullest degree possible.
17 For the NSR offset thresholds, I have some
18 specific comments on that that I think might help improve
19 the effectiveness of that measure, as it's presented to you,
20 and I'll put those in my written comments.
21 And on the mitigation fee bank of the four
22 programs proposed, we're glad to see that staff is
23 recommending taking that off the table, because we do see
24 some significant problems with that.
25 So I appreciate the opportunity to be here today,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
231
1 and would ask that your Board do impose the strongest
2 possible measures on upwind districts to help those of us
3 downwind stay in the standards.
4 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you.
5 Brigette Tollstrup, Henry Hogo, Linda Weiner,
6 Judith Lamare.
7 MS. TOLLSTRUP: Good afternoon. My name is
8 Brigette Tollstrup, and I'm the Manager of the Program
9 Coordination Division at the Sacramento Metropolitan Air
10 Quality Management District.
11 I'm here to support the ARB's efforts to amend the
12 transport mitigation regulations. We request that your
13 Board include the enhanced inspection and maintenance
14 program, or Smog Check 2, as a transport mitigation
15 requirement for the Bay Area Air Quality Management
16 District.
17 Your staff report identifies the substantial
18 emission benefits from the Smog Check 2 program that will
19 contribute to ozone attainment in the Bay Area and the
20 downwind districts.
21 We also offer specific suggestions in our written
22 correspondence for improvements to the nitrogen oxide rules
23 in the Bay Area. We believe that differences in stationary
24 source rules between the upwind and downwind districts
25 should be eliminated unless the cost effectiveness is
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
232
1 significantly higher than other rulemaking actions approved
2 in both the upwind and downwind districts.
3 We believe that the best approach to attainment in
4 upwind and downwind districts is to impose controls on
5 upwind sources. The mitigation bank concept may be
6 difficult to operate and hinges on whether reductions in the
7 downwind area are sufficient to fully mitigate the emissions
8 impact from upwind sources. This depends on the size of the
9 impact from the upwind area and the available reductions in
10 the downwind area.
11 For example, the Bay Area emissions inventory is
12 roughly three to four times the inventory in the Sacramento
13 federal non-attainment area. And our inventory is roughly
14 double our downwind neighbors' in the mountain counties.
15 Sacramento has aggressive control programs for both mobile
16 and stationary source sectors that make additional
17 reductions difficult to identify. We request that these
18 factors be considered when evaluating the mitigation bank
19 strategy.
20 In conclusion, we believe that the Smog Check 2
21 program should be implemented in the Bay Area. We suggest
22 specific strategies to achieve additional nitrogen oxide
23 reductions in the Bay Area. We request that the viability
24 of the mitigation fee strategies be considered in light of
25 differences in emission inventories and control programs,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
233
1 and prefer upwind source controls.
2 We have submitted detailed comments on the Bay
3 Area SIP, and we request that those comments be included as
4 part of the record for these proceedings.
5 Thank you.
6 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you.
7 MR. HOGO: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and
8 Members of the Board. My name is Henry Hogo, I'm the
9 Assistant Deputy Executive Officer in charge of planning and
10 rules at the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
11 My comment today is relative to the mitigation fee
12 bank. And since your staff is recommending to remove that
13 from further discussion relative to the transport
14 mitigation, we were supportive of that. We are in agreement
15 with your staff that it is a problematic concept. And more
16 importantly, such an approach would have to be looked at in
17 such a way that wouldn't cause any upset in the economic
18 balance of various areas as it would otherwise be governed,
19 because we are concerned that setting a fee in upwind areas
20 and paying for downwind sources would not truly mitigate the
21 transport issue. So we are in support of staff's
22 recommendation to not look -- to move forward with that.
23 However, we are committed to work with ARB and our
24 downwind districts in developing effective and fair
25 strategies to address transport. And, as you know, as part
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
234
1 of our air quality management plan, we have been providing
2 demonstrations that the downwind areas will meet their
3 federal air quality standards by their stated date. So we
4 are continuing to reduce our emissions to help downwind
5 areas.
6 And lastly, I do want to comment that there is a
7 mechanism for the transfer of emission reduction credits
8 under state law. And we do follow that, and we believe that
9 that's the appropriate method of providing relief to
10 downwind areas.
11 Thank you.
12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thanks, Henry. Thanks for coming
13 up.
14 Linda Weiner, Judith Lamare, Suzanne Phinney,
15 Shannon Eddy.
16 MS. WEINER: My name is Linda Weiner, and I
17 represent four Bay Area affiliates of the American Lung
18 Association. We four affiliates strongly support a full
19 Smog Check 2 program, including test only centers. As our
20 State of the Air report, which is a national American Lung
21 Association report assessing ozone air pollution in major
22 metropolitan areas in the United States showed, four of the
23 nine counties in the Bay Area received an "F", and that's
24 Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, and Solano, where San
25 Francisco, San Mateo, and Marin received an "A". So
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
235
1 clearly, smog affects people's ability to breathe in small,
2 medium, and large metropolitan areas.
3 But because of the continuing problem with ozone
4 air pollution, the Lung Associations urge the Air Resources
5 Board to adopt the strongest possible transport mitigation,
6 not only to reduce air pollution in outlying areas, but also
7 to improve the air quality in the Bay Area.
8 Part of the problem is obviously the drift with
9 wind patterns, but part of the problem is the inter-regional
10 movement of vehicles. And Bay Area vehicles travel 141
11 million miles a day. And as you're well aware, light-duty
12 vehicles in the Bay Area are the major source of air
13 pollution, ozone air pollution. We therefore view a full
14 Smog Check 2 program as an important public health measure
15 to prevent lung disease.
16 As your staff report indicated, the full program
17 would reduce approximately 13 tons per day of ozone
18 precursor NOx emissions in the San Francisco area. And, as
19 you're aware, the connection of ozone to negative health
20 impact has been confirmed by many studies. And as we speak,
21 there are ongoing studies at UC Davis, for example,
22 suggesting that early exposure to ozone pollution can
23 fundamentally effect the development and structure of the
24 lungs in ways that affect lung capacity, set the stage for
25 asthma, and make breathing difficult.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
236
1 We also believe that any mitigation requirements
2 should be linked to the State Implementation Plan for the
3 Bay Area Air Quality Management District to be submitted to
4 the EPA.
5 And in conclusion, the American Lung Associations
6 of all the Bay Area, that's San Francisco, San Mateo, the
7 East Bay, Redwood Empire, and Santa Clara/San Benito,
8 strongly urge the Board to adopt the full Smog Check 2,
9 including test only centers, to mitigate air pollution in
10 outlying districts and improve it in the Bay Area.
11 Thank you very much.
12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you.
13 MS. LAMARE: Good afternoon. I'm Jude Lamare. I
14 manage the Cleaner Air Partnership, and the partnership
15 testimony will be provided by our immediate past chair.
16 I came along simply to deliver a letter from the
17 American Lung Association of Sacramento, Emigrant Trails.
18 It's consistent with the other Lung Association testimony
19 today.
20 But may I say thank you. Thank you for your
21 patience, thank you for your concern, thank you for your
22 leadership on the mitigation of the transport issue. It is
23 very important to us. The clock is ticking. Please don't
24 delay a regulation. Expedite.
25 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
237
1 MS. PHINNEY: Good afternoon, Chairman -- oh, I'm
2 sorry.
3 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: No, that's all right. Carry on.
4 MS. PHINNEY: Okay. Good afternoon, Chairman
5 Lloyd and Members of the Board. I'm Suzanne Phinney, Vice
6 President, Sacramento Operations for Aspen Environmental
7 Group, and the immediate past chair of the Cleaner Air
8 Partnership.
9 As you heard, the partnership is a joint project
10 of the Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce and the
11 American Lung Association. For over 15 years, our coalition
12 of business, environmental, regulatory and elected
13 individuals have worked really hard to reduce mobile
14 sources. We're really excited and proud about our CCAT NOx
15 reduction incentive program to retrofit heavy-duty trucks,
16 and pleased that over 420 trucks have already been enrolled
17 in this program.
18 Although our five ton per day NOx reduction goal
19 may seem small to everyone outside of the region, to us,
20 it's huge. It will make or break our requirement and our
21 desire to achieve attainment by 2005, which is just around
22 the corner. Therefore, your efforts to address transport
23 from the Bay Area is of great importance to us, and we thank
24 you very much for addressing this issue.
25 You've received a lot of letters from a broad
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
238
1 array -- broad and diverse array of constituencies in
2 Sacramento, from letters from elected officials, from the
3 Sacramento Council of Governments, from the Mayor of
4 Sacramento, from businesses, Aerojet, the Chamber of
5 Commerce, from the Environmental Council of Sacramento, and
6 the American Lung Association. The message is the same.
7 Please implement Smog Check 2 in the Bay Area.
8 While staff estimates that between 18 to 24 tons
9 of ozone precursors would be reduced, depending on the
10 program, one point is clear. The number is a lot bigger
11 than the five tons that we're working so hard to reduce in
12 the Sacramento region.
13 We're implementing a NOx reduction program that
14 has never been implemented elsewhere in the state, let alone
15 the country. In contrast, we're asking that the Bay Area
16 implement a smog check program that is routinely implemented
17 in the state.
18 I hope you can tell that we are working very hard
19 and feel very strongly about reaching attainment in our
20 region. We care a lot about air quality. Please help us
21 reach attainment by 2005, by requiring the Bay Area to
22 implement Smog Check 2 on an expedited timeframe. We don't
23 have any time to waste. We need to get there. And also, to
24 include Smog Check 2 in the Bay Area SIP.
25 Thank you.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
239
1 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. And thank you for all
2 your work on the Cleaner Air Partnership.
3 MS. PHINNEY: Thank you.
4 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you.
5 Shannon Eddy, Judith Rocchio, Jeff McGraw.
6 MS. EDDY: Good afternoon, Chairman Lloyd and
7 Members of the Board. Thank you for your attention.
8 My name is Shannon Eddy. I'm representing the
9 Sierra Club today.
10 We strongly support the Board regulations to
11 impose mitigation requirements on upwind districts to reduce
12 pollution impacts on downwind districts. For years,
13 communities in the inland valleys have tried unsuccessfully
14 to get the Bay Area to impose smog check NOx emissions
15 control requirements in the Bay that are imposed on inland
16 valleys.
17 Staff estimates that 18 to 24 tons of ozone
18 precursors could be eliminated through the application of
19 the Bay Area of a smog check program equivalent to that
20 implemented in downwind areas.
21 Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys are having a
22 much tougher time than coastal areas in meeting ozone
23 standards, despite smaller populations and pollution loads.
24 We feel that it's time for the coastal areas to take more
25 responsibility for their actions and the consequences of
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
240
1 those actions on the rest of the state.
2 Further, the Sierra Club also believes that new
3 source review requirements in the coastal areas be at least
4 as stringent as those in downwind areas.
5 This year's energy crisis has imposed unexpected
6 burdens on districts statewide, and we feel that more direct
7 action is necessary to reduce current and any future power
8 plant emissions. There's absolutely no reason for the Bay
9 Area to have looser standards than their inland
10 counterparts. In a moment of panic, the state has
11 compromised our air quality beyond what is reasonable and
12 acceptable.
13 Now is the time for this trend to end, and it is
14 our hope and expectation that the State Board take a
15 leadership role in halting unnecessary additions to the
16 state's air pollution burden, beginning here in the Bay
17 Area.
18 Finally, regarding the mitigation fee bank. We
19 are asking for a public report from the Board regarding
20 power plant emissions increases resulting from the
21 Governor's Executive Orders and from the easing of standards
22 from the air districts. In addition, we would like to see a
23 plan for how the mitigation fees are to be spent. Some
24 recent South Coast expenditures we feel reflected a lack of
25 discrimination, and it is our hope that future spending of
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
241
1 the mitigation fees have a direct impact on improving air
2 quality. Until this issue is addressed, we feel the
3 mitigation fee bank is not appropriate.
4 On behalf of the Sierra Club, I do thank you for
5 your consideration and your time, and we look forward to
6 working with you as these programs go forward.
7 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. And your
8 comment on the mitigation fees, I think staff is working on
9 that issue.
10 MS. PHINNEY: Good. Thanks.
11 MS. ROCCHIO: Good afternoon, Chairman Lloyd and
12 Members of the Board.
13 My name is Judy Rocchio. I am the National Park
14 Service Air Resource Program Manager for the Pacific West
15 Regional Office. We have approximately 20 National Park
16 units in California. There are nine Class 1 areas. And so
17 I just want to broaden our perspective just outside the San
18 Joaquin Valley into the whole state, and say the National
19 Park Service supports all of the mitigation measures that
20 the staff report has addressed.
21 And we further say that ozone transport mitigation
22 will reduce other air pollution impacts in National Parks.
23 We're responsible for protecting National Park Class 1 areas
24 from the adverse effects of air pollution on our resources,
25 including visibility impacts. So ozone, and as much as we
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
242
1 reduce nitrogen oxides and reactive organic compounds, will
2 also reduce visibility impacts in National Parks.
3 So we really appreciate your addressing this
4 situation. We support all four of the mitigation measures
5 that you have proposed, including the fees. And we'd just
6 like to thank you very much and remember to consider your
7 Class 1 parks when dealing with this issue.
8 Thank you.
9 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. Thanks for the Park
10 Service coming here. Thank you.
11 Chris Reardon, Vito Chiesa, Larry Armstrong,
12 Leonard Trimlett. Oh, I missed Jeff McGraw. Sorry, Jeff.
13 And Gabrielle Karmon. I jumped -- sorry, I jumped over
14 that.
15 MR. McGRAW: Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen,
16 supervisors, Members of the Board, I'm here on behalf of a
17 new group dedicated to the memory of David Brower, which was
18 formed on July 1st of this year. It's called Transportation
19 Involves Everyone.
20 If we may, let's momentarily suspend disbelief and
21 realign our thinking about ways we can reduce air pollution
22 and pollutant transport.
23 Think, air pollution is linked to land use. Clean
24 public transit is superior to freeways. In Europe and
25 Japan, public transit is not what U.S. economists refer to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
243
1 here as an inferior good. We clearly need more seamless,
2 modern, affordable public transit in the Bay Area.
3 I submit, with regard to pollution, we have met
4 the enemy, and it is us. Think, millions of hours lost in
5 traffic gridlock.
6 Today's items on ethanol remind us we're bending
7 over backwards to power too much inefficient transportation.
8 Ethanol or no ethanol, we're not reducing the emissions
9 sufficiently for public health.
10 In the U.S., 65 to 100,000 people die from sudden
11 death heart attacks each year, according to the latest
12 estimates, due to moderate levels of particulate, not to
13 mention asthma and other respiratory conditions. Documented
14 ozone damage to Sierra, Ponderosa and Jeffrey Pines in
15 Yosemite and Kings Canyon are also difficult problems.
16 In connection with the ethanol issue, as well, if
17 California were not obligated to use ethanol, reductions in
18 diesel emissions from non-California on-road diesel, which
19 is to say the federal EPA off-road diesel, would be
20 achieved, as well.
21 TIE supports the San Joaquin Valley's call for
22 increased mitigation absent financial arcana. The Bay Area,
23 including 270,000 vehicles per day on the Bay Bridge, is
24 making preventable contributions to pollutant transport to
25 downwind air basins. The answer, in part, is to restore
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
244
1 train service to the Bay Bridge. A plebiscite was held that
2 favored this outcome by a margin of 65/35. Electric train
3 service would result in significant emissions reductions,
4 significant tonnage. And that's before consideration of
5 other possible measures.
6 I submit what is logical and possible is the
7 following simple prescriptive. First, use cleaner fuels.
8 Second, use less by using seamless public transit more.
9 This makes us winners on both accounts, and frees up poorly
10 utilized resources. By that, I mean the time commuters
11 currently waste.
12 Encroaching pollution threatens all of us, though
13 based on today's testimony some are impacted more than
14 others. Conservation, as Californians have recently been
15 reminded, not only saves energy, but helps tame price
16 spikes. Reducing Bay Area commuters' excessive dependency
17 on private autos and SUVs can also help control pollution.
18 Thank you from Transportation Involves Everyone.
19 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you.
20 I guess your colleague, Gabrielle Karmon.
21 MS. KARMON: Thank you.
22 I'm the public policy liaison for Transportation
23 Involves Everyone, which is part of the David Brower's
24 legacy fund. And he was known as one of the foremost
25 environmentalists of all time, and was a great proponent of
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
245
1 this program.
2 David Brower recognized the importance of clean,
3 efficient transportation in the Bay Area early on. He grew
4 up in Berkeley, and as a youth could travel the length and
5 breadth of the Bay Area efficiently and without pollution
6 via electric rail. As he got older, however, he witnessed
7 the disappearance of electric rail from both city streets
8 and across the Bay Bridge. Consequently, throughout his
9 life David Brower strongly advocated that we rethink
10 transport in the Bay Area.
11 David Brower looked at the big picture. When we
12 do so today, we see that 4.5 million cars in the Bay Area
13 are at least partially responsible for enormous damage to
14 our national forests. About approximately one-third of the
15 trees below 6,000 feet in both Yosemite and Sequoia National
16 Parks are dying.
17 Transportation is now perhaps the greatest factor
18 contributing to pollution, urban sprawl, and current energy
19 crises. California Air Resources Board and the San Joaquin
20 Valley Air Pollution Control District say that 26 percent of
21 air pollution in the northern counties is from the San
22 Francisco Bay Area. Even though the public voted
23 overwhelmingly to place rails on the new span of the Bay
24 Bridge, the 1998 North Bay advisory vote, Caltrans chose not
25 to do so. As I said before, we need to rethink our
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
246
1 transportation policies.
2 Ultimately, we must remember that the pollution we
3 create by our morning driving habits results in the
4 afternoon pollution of the Sierras. As John Muir said,
5 "When one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it
6 attached to the rest of the world."
7 Thank you.
8 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you.
9 Chris Reardon, Vito Chiesa, Larry Armstrong,
10 Leonard Trimlett, Charlie Peters, and David Schonbrunn.
11 MR. REARDON: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and
12 Members of the Board. My name is Chris Reardon, I'm the
13 Executive Director for the Manufacturers Council of the
14 Central Valley. The Manufacturers Council is made up of 70
15 members with an employement base of well over 50,000 people
16 spread throughout the Central Valley.
17 I'm here this afternoon to urge this Board to
18 support mitigation measures that would impose Smog Check 2
19 in the Bay Area. As I'm sure many of you are aware, the San
20 Joaquin Valley recently has been bumped up to severe non-
21 attainment. Industry over the last ten years has spent tens
22 of millions of dollars upgrading their facilities with best
23 available control technologies to meet air quality
24 regulations. The bump-up will mean more stringent
25 requirements aimed at industry, who cannot continue to spend
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
247
1 enormous amounts of money on relatively small emission
2 reductions.
3 We are proud of the investments to clean the air
4 in the valley. However, we also believe that it's important
5 that the Bay Area, an overwhelming contributor of ozone to
6 the Central Valley, consistent with ARB status report on
7 ozone transport mitigation, provide a program like similar
8 regions, more comprehensive than the minimum federal
9 requirements.
10 As it's been mentioned numerous times before, the
11 San Francisco Bay Area is the only major urban area left in
12 the state that does not have Smog Check 2. We believe that
13 not only would it provide less pollutant transport to
14 downwind areas, such as the Central Valley, but provide
15 benefits to the citizens who reside here in the Bay Area.
16 While I applaud the Bay Area's recent SIP proposal to reduce
17 reactive organic gases by 4.5 tons a day, it does not come
18 close to the estimated emission reductions of a fully
19 implemented Smog Check 2 program that would produce savings
20 of 11 tons a day of ROG, or reactive organic compounds, or
21 13 tons of nitric oxides a day.
22 We understand this is a difficult decision, but we
23 believe it makes good economic, environmental, and health
24 sense. It's also one that provides a fair playing field, or
25 I should say a balanced playing field, in terms of upwind
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
248
1 regions' impact on downwind areas.
2 If you allow me to provide you some anecdotal
3 information. Fairly recently, I was sitting down with an
4 industry official who pointed across the street to me, and
5 said, that property next door was going to be for my future
6 plant expansion. We continued to talk about some of the
7 economic challenges in California today. As most of you are
8 aware, we have plenty of them. But he stated to me, I'm not
9 sure what we're going to do here in the near future. Air
10 quality regulations will probably prohibit us from expanding
11 anytime soon.
12 I indicated to him that I was participating in
13 this meeting today, and he stated, I hope they understand,
14 meaning ARB, we are in this together. And if we are to
15 benefit, everyone in every region should bear the burden of
16 improved air quality.
17 In closing, I realize this decision -- I realize
18 this discussion also touched on other issues, like
19 mitigation requirements for NSR offset thresholds and a
20 mitigation fee bank. It seems to me those ideas, while
21 interesting, are fraught with more questions than answers.
22 But I think the immediate issue is the implementation of
23 Smog Check 2. I hope you'll do so.
24 Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to be
25 here today, and I look forward to working with you in the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
249
1 future.
2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much. Thanks for
3 coming.
4 MR. REARDON: Thank you.
5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Vito Chiesa, Larry Armstrong,
6 Leonard Trimlett, Charlie Peters and David Schonbrunn.
7 MR. CHIESA: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, fellow
8 Board Members. My name is Vito Chiesa, and I am President
9 of the Stanislaus County Farm Bureau.
10 Today, like Chris before me, pretty much in lock
11 step, the Farm Bureau would like to express that they are in
12 favor of Smog Check 2 full implementation for the Bay Area.
13 It's equitable, and it's been a long time coming.
14 With the change from severe non-attainment -- or,
15 excuse me. With the movement to severe non-attainment, it
16 will put economic burdens that we're not prepared for. So I
17 would like you to consider this a first step.
18 Also, I want to make sure the mitigation bank is
19 still left in play. No one likes to be taxed or put money
20 forward, but it is definitely something we should keep in
21 mind. And the Carl Moyer program was a very successful
22 program. Maybe we can keep that in mind, funding at that --
23 in that direction.
24 Again, we are for implementation of Smog Check 2.
25 I thank you for your time.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
250
1 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much.
2 Larry Armstrong, Leonard Trimlett.
3 MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes. My name is Larry Armstrong.
4 I operate some automotive repair shops and smog stations,
5 both in the Bay Area, and one in Fresno, so I probably have
6 the unique situation of being able to testify before you,
7 and I operate in both of the areas, the so-called enhanced
8 area that has the dynamometer, and also in the Bay Area,
9 which has what is called the BAR 90 system.
10 I really wonder how many people that have
11 testified here today, and I've listened to the people and
12 they appear to be concerned citizens, and many of them came
13 a long ways to come here to testify. And I wonder how many
14 of them might be tempted to change their testimony if they
15 knew that some of the information that they had been given
16 was actually bogus information, that they had been duped.
17 The Air Resources Board did testing on a lot of
18 cars down in El Monte. They tested doing what's called the
19 IM240 system that the federal government wanted to put in
20 place. They tested the ASM system, which is what people
21 here have referred to as Smog Check 2. It's a dynamometer
22 testing system. But they also tested all of the vehicles on
23 the BAR 90 system that is in place in the Bay Area. And
24 when two really big flaws are removed from the testing
25 protocol, one of them being that they identified cars as
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
251
1 faults, failed under the BAR 90 system, that actually failed
2 the California BAR 90 test appropriately. And then, as
3 Sierra Research pointed out, vehicles that did not fail at
4 twice the standard level, or the federal standard, I'm
5 sorry, they didn't fail at quite that level, but they still
6 failed the California smog test, those vehicles were also
7 determined to be false fails.
8 If you take out just the first ones that I talked
9 about, which I did, I got the records from El Monte, and I
10 came within 17 cars of the same cars failing, and that's
11 without even taking into account the second thing that I
12 mentioned to you.
13 So I think there's a lot of people that came up
14 here and testified that they wanted something that if they
15 knew that there were questionable additional benefits that
16 would come from that, plus the fact that the Bureau of
17 Automotive Repair receives about a thousand complaints a
18 month just on the test only portion of the requirements in
19 the Smog Check 2, a thousand a month, which is almost equal
20 to about a third of all of the complaints that they get in a
21 whole year from all automotive repair, and I think that
22 maybe there would be some consideration to looking at this
23 thing in a little bit different light.
24 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Your three minutes are up there,
25 but if you want to finish up.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
252
1 MR. ARMSTRONG: I -- thank you, sir.
2 One would assume that with the program in the Bay
3 Area being different than the one that -- from most of the
4 rest of the state, one would assume that the air in the Bay
5 Area would be getting worse and the air in the other areas
6 getting better.
7 I notice one gentleman from Mojave came, and I
8 would assume that the only air that they're getting
9 transported would come out of the area that has the so-
10 called enhanced program, so that their air that they're
11 getting transported would be coming from what he was
12 actually asking to have. So I found it -- the comments sort
13 of interesting.
14 In the ARB report, there was a statement in there
15 that said that during one episode that seemed to be the
16 episode that they were using to define, that 27 percent of
17 the air pollution in the valley, at that point in time, came
18 from the Bay Area. My question would be, and it didn't seem
19 to define it, whether that air that was there that had come
20 from the Bay Area was cleaner or was dirtier than the air
21 that it must have displaced, because my limited knowledge of
22 air and meteorological things is that if you move some air
23 in, that some air is going to move out.
24 So I'm assuming that it must have displaced some
25 air that was either cleaner or dirtier, and since they were
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
253
1 having an episode, I'm assuming that it might have been
2 dirtier.
3 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I have to ask you to wrap up.
4 MR. ARMSTRONG: I thank you, and it doesn't
5 surprise me that you asked me to shorten my comments. Thank
6 you.
7 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I'm sorry, sir. I gave you more
8 time. I gave you about two minutes more than I allocated to
9 some other people.
10 MR. ARMSTRONG: Thank you, and I appreciate it.
11 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yeah.
12 Leonard Trimlett, Charlie Peters, and then David
13 Schonbrunn.
14 MR. TRIMLETT: Thank you. My name is Len Trimlett
15 from the Bay Area.
16 I respectfully disagree with everybody. Smog
17 Check 2 is about SB 51 car scrappage. Smog Check 2 is about
18 the voluntary accelerated vehicle retirement system. Smog
19 Check 2 is about that $500 insult letter from Ellen Garvey,
20 which says now would be a nice time to scrap your car. Huh-
21 uh. Smog Check 2 is about pollution credits, B52 pollution
22 credits. The transfer of the right to pollute from my
23 vehicle to industry. Huh-uh.
24 Smog Check 2 is the commingling of the various
25 types of gas which you've heard your previous speakers talk
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
254
1 about in the attainment areas. Smog Check 2 is about MTBE
2 water pollution. Dr. Lloyd, your predecessor brought us
3 MTBE water pollution.
4 Smog Check 2 is about test only. Test only was a
5 political compromise, nothing more. As a consumer, I go to
6 a smog check station. You tell me Smog Check 2 is about
7 fraud, so we're going to send you to a test only station.
8 Great. I fail as a gross polluter. Now, you send me to
9 another station to get my car repaired. The bottom line on
10 that car repair is congratulations, you passed your smog
11 test, but we don't trust you. We're going to send you back
12 to that third station to get your car recertified. Smog
13 Check 2 is about money. You tell me that I've got to pay
14 three smog repairs for one vehicle? Give me a break.
15 Smog Check 2 is a fraud. Cancel it.
16 Thank you.
17 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you.
18 Charlie Peters, and then David Schonbrunn.
19 Charlie, the good news is we have your extensive
20 presentation. The bad news is three minutes.
21 MR. PETERS: Thank you, Dr. Lloyd, and Committee.
22 I'm Charlie Peters, founder and president of Clean Air
23 Performance Professionals.
24 I am very excited about what I am seeing in San
25 Francisco right now. And it's interesting that all these
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
255
1 people were transported here today to deal with the policies
2 that have been created in San Francisco. And I think
3 probably if I were to ask each and every one of those people
4 if they like Smog Check 2 in their district, I probably
5 wouldn't find a one of them who'd say they like it.
6 But since they don't like it, San Francisco
7 doesn't have it, well, they'd like for us to have it.
8 That's an interesting situation.
9 I'm proposing to the Committee that it is
10 appropriate to consider reasonably available control
11 measures, RACMs, as follows.
12 Number one, we support a quality audit of the
13 program to improve its performance. We support an
14 evaluation of a one percent cap on oxygen in gasoline. We
15 support an audit flag in the program to identify cars that
16 are shopping around and to take a small percentage of those
17 and have them reviewed before they get their certificate.
18 And we support an engine family specific emissions standard
19 on each car that's tested, so that it can be more fair and
20 more effective.
21 I'd like to share with you, Doctor, and Committee,
22 what happened when I went to Washington, D.C., for the
23 Enhanced IM hearing in 1992.
24 Right at the end of that -- by the way, the Deputy
25 Director of EPA put on the meeting, he went and visited with
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
256
1 the President, President Bush, three times during the
2 hearing. There were about eight television stations there,
3 all the car manufacturers, oil companies, et cetera. There
4 were four people in that meeting from California, total.
5 Three of them are here today. At least two of them are
6 opposed to Smog Check 2 in San Francisco.
7 There was nobody from California other than those
8 four, none of which represented the State of California.
9 What did represent the State of California was a letter from
10 the Secretary of Cal-EPA, the Deputy Secretary of the State
11 Consumer Services, that demanded separation of test and
12 repair. Demanded. So our perception that this demand for
13 separation of test and repair is a federal problem, I'm
14 sorry, that is not correct.
15 When I met with the Deputy Director on the
16 following day, he said Charlie, I want to know what you
17 think of my IM 240. I said well, sir, the first thing I'd
18 like to tell you is what I think about your federal test
19 procedure. It's junk. It doesn't work very well.
20 However, with your ethics, the car manufacturers'
21 ethics, and all the additional standards a car has to meet,
22 it works pretty well. There are specific CAF ratings,
23 safety issues, compliance over time, all of those issues are
24 very important to the effectiveness of the car. But all of
25 them together create a standard that's quite effective.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
257
1 On your IM 240, sir, you completely disregard all
2 of the cold start issues that's about 80 percent of the
3 pollution. Any professional mechanic can gain the federal
4 test procedure for any of the tests, and unless you manage
5 the program and demand that the cars that are broken, in
6 fact, get repaired, the program won't work. And I propose
7 to you that that's an appropriate thing to evaluate.
8 Thank you for allowing me to be here today, sir.
9 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much, Charlie.
10 Thank you for your effort on this issue.
11 Last, we have on this one, David Schonbrunn.
12 MR. SCHONBRUNN: Mr. Chairman, we have written
13 comments before you from our attorney, Mark Chytilo. We
14 picked the speaker card that's marked "opposed" not because
15 we're opposed to Smog Check 2, we're Bay Area residents
16 here, so that's, I think, significant, but because of the
17 mitigation measures that are dangerously incomplete.
18 TRANSDEF is concerned that the staff reports
19 ignored our suggestion to pursue TCMs as mitigation for
20 transport. There's a pattern here in that the mitigations
21 discussed by staff, although, in honesty, not by the public
22 testifying here today, are almost all on the stationary
23 source side of the inventory, with one exception. There's
24 no transportation in the solution of transport.
25 Given the huge contribution of mobile sources to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
258
1 the inventory to transport, it's obvious that a major part
2 of transport mitigation needs to come from mobile sources.
3 Since the emissions reductions from Smog Check 2 and
4 tailpipe standards are ultimately limited, while VMT growth
5 is not, this ought to set off a big flashing light that TCMs
6 ought to be part of the solution. It's alarming that only
7 one person testifying here today even noticed the notion of
8 TCMs, although he didn't use the word TCM or VMT.
9 The State of California is in denial about its
10 addiction to the automobile. And basically, today's hearing
11 is about looking for easy fixes to a very difficult problem.
12 And quite frankly, we look to you for leadership on that,
13 and I have two suggestions.
14 The first is that we suggested -- well, we'd like
15 to see you include TCMs in the subject list that goes into
16 the process for development of mitigations. It's not, now -
17 - we ask that you do that. And, further, we have made a
18 specific recommendation in our letter that you require
19 offsets for all VMT growth. We support the Monterey Bay
20 District's comments about jobs/housing imbalance. We think
21 they were quite wise.
22 And, finally, the extensive discussion you heard
23 on legal fine points today about your authority to implement
24 Smog Check. We believe that all of this can go away if you
25 do what we recommend in our comments on the Bay Area SIP,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
259
1 which is to ask EPA to classify the Bay Area as a severe
2 area for ozone. That would immediately put us into Smog
3 Check 2 eligibility and eliminate all questions of does the
4 Board have the authority or not.
5 You do have the authority to do that, and that
6 would trigger the mitigations that everybody here has been
7 asking for.
8 Thank you very much.
9 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you.
10 Well, that's the end of the public testimony. So,
11 Mr. Kenny, does staff have anymore comments on this issue?
12 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: No.
13 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Board Members, any discussion or
14 -- recognize that this is not a regulatory item, so that
15 it's not necessary to officially close the record, although
16 we do have a resolution before us. No resolution before us,
17 so we don't have to take any action, but I think we need to
18 give some instructions to staff, maybe.
19 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Mr. Chairman.
20 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes.
21 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Yes.
22 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Supervisor Patrick.
23 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: I don't know if it -- is it
24 on? Okay.
25 I really appreciate all the people that came here
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
260
1 today. Unfortunately, I think the bus took off, because we
2 don't have as many people here, but I thought the discussion
3 was fascinating. And I think one of the most important
4 things is the diversity and variety of people who came
5 forward today to say that we need to do something now about
6 Smog Check 2 in the Bay Area.
7 You know, we had businesses, we had governmental
8 folks, we had farmers, we had transportation people, and it
9 seems to me that unanimously, they were in support -- many
10 of them, I shouldn't say unanimously -- the ones that were
11 particularly -- that spoke, I think, to the way I feel about
12 it were unanimous in supporting staff's recommendation, but
13 in feeling that we really need to move forward on the Smog
14 Check 2.
15 And I'm a little bit concerned about what I'm
16 hearing, in terms of our legal ability to do this. And so,
17 you know, I don't know if the rest of the Board feels this
18 way, feels the way that I do, but I think that we need to
19 examine what our complete authority is in this area. And,
20 you know, perhaps we haven't authority due to one sentence
21 in one law, but what about, you know, the transport that
22 we're responsible for, and so forth.
23 In the San Joaquin Valley, we are having to make
24 tough decisions. We have recommended that almost everyone
25 in the San Joaquin Valley be under Smog Check 2. We are
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
261
1 moving forward. And, believe me, it is no easier to make
2 people do these kinds of things in the San Joaquin Valley
3 than it is in the Bay Area. In fact, probably less, because
4 we have many more poor people who are tremendously affected
5 by this. And so I think that we need to do what we can to
6 move this issue forward.
7 Now, I am delighted to hear that my colleague from
8 the Bay Area is wanting to get folks together and have a
9 sit-down and talk about this. I think that's definitely a
10 move in the right direction. But my concern is the
11 timeline, and the clock is ticking. I don't know whether
12 it's just great women have fabulously insightful things, but
13 just before Jude Lamare said the clock is ticking, I wrote
14 down on my notes, the clock is ticking. And we have a
15 tremendous problem in the San Joaquin Valley. And, of
16 course, the northern part of the valley is the one that's
17 particularly affected by the transport from the Bay Area.
18 And so I'm concerned that we move sooner, rather
19 than later. And I'm somewhat concerned about a six-month
20 timeframe to bring this back before this Board.
21 With that, I really haven't any recommendation,
22 other than I need to go on record as saying I think we need
23 to move sooner rather than later on this.
24 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Supervisor Roberts, were you
25 getting ready to say something?
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
262
1 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: I actually wanted to ask a
2 question, because there was something that was dangling, and
3 that was the mitigation bank idea. And I think part of what
4 we're trying to do is position ourselves to give some
5 direction here.
6 It didn't seem like a very good idea, and it
7 didn't seem to be part of the staff's recommendation. But I
8 wanted to see some finality with what the staff is expecting
9 to either do or not do with that, so it's clear. And I was
10 hopeful that wherever appropriate, we can discuss that. But
11 the testimony and some of the letters that dealt with it
12 gives me some great concern about that whole concept.
13 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: If I might.
14 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes.
15 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Supervisor Roberts, we
16 actually did look at the mitigation fee idea, and the
17 biggest problem we had with that is that the mitigation fee
18 would involve a huge amount of accounting. And we thought
19 the greatest difficulty with it was that we would try to
20 figure out essentially, from an accounting standpoint, what
21 kind of transport was occurring, whether it was essentially
22 NOx transport -- hydrocarbon transport, PM transport. And
23 the difficulty is that all districts are essentially
24 impacted in some fashion or another by transport from other
25 districts, and it simply is a matter of looking at the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
263
1 different pollutants and then trying to figure out which
2 pollutants are being transported on particular days. And,
3 obviously, with the seasonality effect, the winds do blow in
4 both directions.
5 So we thought in the end what would happen is that
6 we would do a lot of accounting, and spend a lot of time and
7 put a lot of resources into it, and it would probably have
8 very little effect, and probably very little benefit, which
9 is why the general recommendations that we were proposing
10 that the Board direct us to pursue involve the NSR
11 thresholds, which we do think is a very good equity issue.
12 Also, the all feasible measures, because what it will do is
13 for a district that reaches attainment, it will force them
14 to continue to basically achieve all feasible measures.
15 And then, also, the smog check idea, which is one
16 that we felt we should be looking at and pursuing to see
17 whether or not smog check could be implemented as a
18 transport mitigation measure.
19 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: So I can assume that's an
20 idea that was considered, but it's being discarded.
21 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: By the staff.
22 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Thank you.
23 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Professor Friedman.
24 BOARD MEMBER PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: I think that the
25 golden rule is something that's worth trotting out at this
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
264
1 late hour. It's simple, do unto others as you would have
2 them do unto you. And it seems to me that while the Bay
3 Area isn't a non-attainment area, and isn't otherwise
4 subject to these requirements, to the extent that it is
5 inescapably demonstrative that it's an upwind area and is
6 causing pollution downwind to its neighbors, and I think
7 it's an inequity and an injustice in morality. There ought
8 to be -- if we're interested in cleaning up the air in the
9 state, that's our responsibility, there ought to be some
10 equivalence for a level playing field.
11 And so I, for one, think that the staff's
12 recommendation to move ahead as quickly as is expedient and
13 initiate an appropriate process to amend the transport
14 mitigation regulations, to adopt the all feasible measures,
15 and tighten them and strengthen them to the fullest extent
16 of the law permits, I'll put it that way, fullest extent of
17 our authority with the equivalence in terms of smog check.
18 I mean, I don't like smog check. I had to go to a
19 test only, and then I had to go somewhere else, and then I
20 had to come back. But there are a lot of trade-offs in
21 life. None of us likes some of these things, but if
22 everybody's subject to it, and it is clearly and provably
23 cleaning up the air, then I think that's something that we
24 pay for in a crowded society. We talk about cleaning up
25 transportation. I'd love to see cleaner transport methods.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
265
1 As a matter of fact, I'd like to go back and see fewer
2 people, like the good old days.
3 But we can't do that, unfortunately. And all we
4 can do is the best we can do. And it's not our job as the
5 Air Resources Board to decide where there will be trains and
6 funding or go back to the good days where there were
7 trollies and a lot of other electric and cleaner methods.
8 So anyway, I think that's the course that I would
9 like to see us suggest to staff, and direct staff to come
10 back with the mitigation measures.
11 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you.
12 Ms. D'Adamo, Supervisor DeSaulnier.
13 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: There's been a lot of talk
14 about smog today, Smog 2, and some discussion of the
15 mitigation fee, but very little discussion with regard to a
16 couple of other concepts that staff have recommended, as
17 well, the all feasible measures and the new source review
18 offset thresholds.
19 Just thumbing through the letters that we've
20 received here, it does seem that there are a number of
21 individuals and associations that suggest that with regard
22 to all feasible measures and new source review offset
23 thresholds, that this Board pursue a requirement that, at a
24 minimum, that the upwind district have rules that are as
25 stringent as downwind districts. And I'm assuming that that
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
266
1 would, in particular, be in a situation where the upwind
2 district is overwhelming a downwind district, perhaps not in
3 a situation where there's a significant impact, but, at a
4 minimum, where there is an overwhelming impact.
5 If that's the case, and I would favor that, I
6 would like to suggest that staff be very aggressive in its
7 interpretation of what we have the legal authority to do in
8 those two areas, and I would also suggest that without being
9 anywhere near as familiar with regard to those two areas,
10 all feasible measures and new source review, that I suspect
11 that, there would be a similar problem, in that, there are
12 likely to be specific code provisions in the statute that
13 speak to our authority in those areas.
14 And if so, we would cycle back to the same
15 problem, and that is whether or not -- you're shaking your
16 head no.
17 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Me? No.
18 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Feel free to respond. I'm
19 bringing it up simply to say that I think we need to be as
20 aggressive and as creative as possible. And we need to push
21 the envelope not just on Smog 2, but on all feasible
22 measures and new source review. And in the event that we
23 have more specific provisions, I think that we just need to
24 do everything that we can to be creative.
25 I, for one, am probably in the minority here. I
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
267
1 think we ought to continue to pursue, and I would like staff
2 to at least keep it out there, the mitigation fee bank.
3 Because if we're not able to get a full-blown Smog 2 program
4 in the Bay Area, that does not just impact the San Joaquin
5 Valley. We've had a lot of testimony from the San Joaquin
6 Valley, but it's north, south and east, southeast and
7 northeast.
8 So I think that we need to pursue all options in
9 the event that, for whatever reason this doesn't work out, a
10 Smog 2 entire program. That's what I would favor, a Smog 2
11 program. But in the event that we're not able to work that
12 out, I think we need to keep the pressure on. And I think
13 we can be creative on a mitigation fee bank. I know it
14 would be an accounting nightmare, but it would be --
15 especially if we create that sort of a problem, we could put
16 -- we could turn -- put it right back on to the air
17 districts and require of them to impose their own fee, and
18 let them come up with their own way to account.
19 We have the transport couples that we can turn to
20 and provide a broad schematic as to how the fee amounts
21 could be imposed. And again, I'm just saying that really to
22 keep pressure on all stakeholders and ourselves to be
23 serious in particular about Smog 2.
24 I want to, in particular, thank Supervisor
25 DeSaulnier and take him up on his offer. In the meantime,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
268
1 between now and six months, maybe we can work something out.
2 And I would like to lend my assistance to that effort, as
3 well.
4 Thank you.
5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much.
6 Supervisor DeSaulnier.
7 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Well, on that note,
8 that's a good segue, I think. I'm fine with the staff
9 recommendation. I think that what I'm concerned about,
10 DeeDee, is we have so many other issues that we've
11 discovered as we've started to have this dialogue between
12 the northern part of the valley, at least in the Bay Area,
13 and VMT in particular is a great concern for us.
14 And it's not right that people have to go as far
15 as they do, and particularly first-time homebuyers, when you
16 look at the VMT that they're going through, the people who
17 live in Tracy and now Modesto, and are commuting in, this
18 was before the economy started to slow down, but still, that
19 situation exists, and the impact on no matter what we do on
20 technology, in terms of that growth and land use patterns,
21 that we continue to do within what's becoming a super
22 region, we should have that discussion, as well.
23 So, smog check might get the valley some of what
24 they need to get, but it's not a matter of -- because if we
25 continue to do what we're doing, in terms of transit and VMT
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
269
1 and land use decisions, smog check is not going to help your
2 residents, either. We have to have that further discussion.
3 So I would agree that, you know, over the next six
4 months, if there's a way that we can ask staff to help us
5 convene that kind of discussion, including with the
6 Legislature, because that would set us up in a cycle that we
7 may actually get some bills from them to start to remedy
8 some of these issues in next year's legislative budget or
9 legislative cycle, that we could really partner on. And I
10 know just in the five counties that we've been talking to,
11 that's five million people in just Stanislaus and San
12 Joaquin and the three East Bay and Santa Clara.
13 So the direction is fine if we can -- if you and I
14 can work with staff to try to convene something, I think
15 that would be much more important than just Smog Check 2.
16 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm finished.
17 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you.
18 Mr. McKinnon, do you want to say anything? Don't
19 feel obliged.
20 (Laughter.)
21 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Yeah. I guess I'm
22 somewhat troubled that I look at the law and it says if a
23 district is requesting to opt in. And it seems to me with
24 something like transport, we could time and time again have
25 districts not want to opt in, but have a problem that we
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
270
1 need to deal with. And there's a section a page before in
2 the code that talks about incorporating and implementing
3 future new scientific findings and technological advances.
4 And it seems to me that if we find the new information, we
5 should be able to push forward and maybe I'm stretching
6 here.
7 But I would think that if we are really barred
8 from making this move, that we should seek some legislative
9 approach to be able to deal with things like transport that
10 are statewide problems, whether or not a district wants to
11 engage in it.
12 The other thing I'd like to say is that I think
13 that we did receive some pretty fair testimony towards the
14 end today about the doubts that folks have about how well
15 Smog Check 2 works, period, and the test only stations. And
16 I have some concerns about that, too, and I'm wondering if
17 there's maybe some way we could look at that. I mean, my
18 sum total experience in using test only stations has been
19 they have never put my car back together properly at the end
20 of it. That's my personal experience. And that makes me
21 real nervous about what we've got going there.
22 And I don't know if there's a way that we are
23 permitted to -- it looks like the code excludes us from any
24 of the administrative end of it, but maybe that's something
25 we seek legislative remedy to, is some way of at least
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
271
1 testing or auditing whether or not the program works.
2 Thanks.
3 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think that's a huge issue.
4 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Yeah.
5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Mrs. Riordan.
6 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
7 I just wanted to remind my colleagues that we've
8 centered the attention today on the Bay Area and the San
9 Joaquin Valley, but let me assure you, this problem is
10 statewide. And I think the staff recommendations are
11 excellent. I'd like to pursue that. I'd like to add to
12 what Mr. McKinnon said, because we may need legislation. It
13 may take us all collectively working on that, and that may
14 not have been the case earlier, when the other two audits
15 have been proposed by the Assemblyman. I don't know what
16 the dynamics were at the time.
17 But I am very strongly in support of the staff
18 recommendation to look at our opportunities to assist those
19 areas that are greatly affected by transport.
20 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you.
21 Just one comment. I think it's ironic we're
22 talking about I&M today, and some segments with great
23 confidence that it works, others -- there's some skepticism.
24 As staff knows, there's in today's USA Today,
25 there's an editorial basically quoting the National Academy
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
272
1 of Sciences' report on this issue, which maybe doesn't have
2 the same confidence that some of the proponents were talking
3 about, and there was also a response there from Cora Lee
4 Cooper and Jason Glomei from NASCOM, highlighting the
5 benefits of that.
6 One of the things I would like to suggest, because
7 I agree with Mr. McKinnon here that -- and I think other
8 colleagues here, to make sure that if we're pushing for
9 this, it really works. Maybe, at some time it would be
10 helpful if the Board had a presentation on the Academy
11 report so that -- as we deliberate, going on, or at least
12 that's taken into account, as staff is looking at that.
13 At this time of the night, I don't intend -- I
14 cannot come up with a crisp representation of the Board's
15 direction to staff. I have more confidence in the staff's
16 ability to take and synthesize all the information you've
17 had, and to move ahead in your usual excellent way. You can
18 see, I think we've covered the gamut there.
19 The one issue outstanding here, I think, which I
20 think we may be as a board, I heard Supervisor Patrick
21 trying to make a push for greater than -- shorter than six
22 months. I don't know whether we -- I see the staff
23 response. I understand, Supervisor Patrick, and I'm usually
24 the first to push staff on this issue. I'm also
25 recognizing, having been through it now twice, the staff's
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
273
1 uncanny ability to load up the -- our agenda at year-end.
2 And so I'm not sure. I would look to Mr. Kenny's comments
3 on that, and maybe say as soon as possible, but I don't know
4 if he'd like to respond directly to Supervisor Patrick.
5 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: We do consider this very
6 important. And essentially, I think what we would try to do
7 is be as aggressive as possible and move as quickly as
8 possible. We identified the six-month timeframe because of
9 the three issues that are sort of on the table, the smog
10 check, the NSR offset thresholds, and the all feasible
11 measures. The first of those three is probably the most
12 difficult for us to work.
13 I think the NSR offset thresholds and all feasible
14 measures are things we could actually work very quickly, and
15 actually probably recommend modifications to the transport
16 mitigation regulations almost on as fast a timeframe as the
17 law allows, which would be just probably three months.
18 Smog check is going to take more time, in terms of
19 being able to talk with all the parties that are affected by
20 this and trying to move forward on it. A six-month
21 timeframe there is very fast, because, again, we are talking
22 about a regulatory proposal. And a regulatory proposal is
23 going to require us to at least have two months of lead time
24 with that, which really only leaves us with four months to
25 try to make this work. And in that four months, we have to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
274
1 both have the discussions, have the dialogue and write any
2 staff report that we plan to present to you.
3 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you.
4 I would like to thank all the staff and all the
5 people who have come here, and my colleagues, for the, I
6 think, excellent deliberation we've given this topic. And I
7 appreciate it very much. Thank you all very much.
8 What we're going to do now is move very smartly,
9 change pace. We're going to go back to the fuels, with the
10 recognition at 6:30, approximately, we will be stopping this
11 proceeding and then trying to grab a bite to eat, give the
12 court reporter a chance to also take a break, and then we
13 have to go into the Bay Area Plan.
14 So if we can get the fuels team back again, and
15 I'm going to call the witnesses here, so you understand.
16 Tony Hoff, Julia Levin, Jim White, Elisa Lynch, Paul
17 Sebesta, Roland Hwang, and Charlie Peters.
18 (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
19 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I would like to recommence the
20 discussion of RFG3 Implementation Update.
21 As I mentioned, we've got the witnesses, and the
22 first I mentioned is Tony Hoff, and he's gone, but Tom
23 Koehler is going to make a presentation.
24 Tom. Tom Koehler. K-o-e-h-l-e-r. Where's Tom?
25 He was here a minute ago.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
275
1 Well, Tom's not here.
2 Oh, well, then Julia Levin, Jim White, Elisa
3 Lynch.
4 MS. LEVIN: Good evening, Chairman and Members of
5 the Board. I admire your fortitude, or endurance, I guess.
6 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Well, the evening is early.
7 (Laughter.)
8 MS. LEVIN: I'm sorry for your sake that that's
9 the case.
10 My name is Julia Levin. I'm the California Policy
11 Coordinator for the Union of Concerned Scientists. I'm here
12 this evening to tell you that, yes, indeed, a gas crisis is
13 coming, but MTBE and the phase-out of MTBE is not the cause,
14 and delaying the phase-out will not be the solution.
15 Californians should not have to choose between
16 clean air and clean water. The only real solution to the
17 coming gasoline crisis is cutting demand. The crisis is not
18 caused by the MTBE phase-out. It's caused by rapidly
19 increasing demand for gasoline in California with a limited
20 supply. That collision will occur in any case. Delaying
21 the phase-out of MTBE just postpones it.
22 The steps that California should be taking instead
23 of delaying the phase-out of MTBE are increasing the fuel
24 efficiency of our motor vehicles and reducing the need for
25 driving in California. The Union of Concerned Scientists
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
276
1 and the Surface Transportation Policy Project released a
2 report the day before yesterday, entitled "Over a Barrel;
3 How to Avoid California's Second Energy Crisis", where we
4 detail dozens of steps that the State can take to reduce
5 gasoline consumption, both in the short term and in the long
6 term. And I have left copies for all of you, which I
7 encourage you to read.
8 Right now, there are steps that the State can take
9 by offering incentives and carrying out a public education
10 campaign, very much as it's done on the electricity side,
11 that would help to reduce fuel consumption before the crisis
12 occurs. In the long term, as many people have said in
13 earlier testimony, we need to grow smarter. We need to be
14 less dependent on our automobiles.
15 So the Union of Concerned Scientists urges you not
16 to postpone the phase-out of MTBE. It is not the solution
17 to the coming gasoline crisis.
18 Thank you.
19 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Well, we certainly can't do that.
20 It's the Governor who's got to do it.
21 Could I ask you just one question, quickly. Given
22 what you heard earlier, in terms of the potential shortfall
23 and your own calculations, how much would you have to raise
24 CAFE to just eliminate that gap?
25 MS. LEVIN: Raising CAFE is not going to make
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
277
1 enough difference in the next year, which --
2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: No, no, I understand that. But
3 if today, you can wave a wand, what would -- rather than
4 being 27 and a half, for the light duty side, what should it
5 be?
6 MS. LEVIN: We just released a report about the
7 feasibility of raising CAFE standards to 40 miles per gallon
8 for all motor -- for all passenger vehicles, not just cars,
9 but light duty trucks, by 2012. That would save the State
10 $8 billion a year that year, alone, in fuel costs, which I
11 think would translate into several million gallons. I think
12 Roland Hwang is here. He probably could answer you better
13 than I can.
14 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Ms.
15 Levin.
16 MS. LEVIN: Thank you.
17 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Jim White, Elisa Lynch. Hi, Jim.
18 MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, Board Members, members
19 of the staff. My name is Jim White, and I'm the Principal
20 of White Environmental Associates, located in Brea,
21 California.
22 I'm kind of glad that you folks had a chance to
23 digest some of that disturbing information you heard from
24 CARB staff regarding some of the continued uncertainties
25 about using ethanol, and, of course, from the California
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
278
1 Energy Commission regarding supply logistics, price and all
2 that kind of stuff, because, unfortunately, in my short
3 comments I have some other rather unsettling information for
4 you.
5 As you know, the Governor, in response to the
6 denial for the oxy waiver request has asked Secretary Hickox
7 to take another look at the situation here in California
8 relative to the MTBE phase-out. And I want to ask you, do
9 you remember what the basis was of this phase-out? The
10 basis of the phase-out, the Governor's decision, was the
11 University of California MTBE study.
12 If you look at the study predictions and
13 conclusions and recommendations in the light of two and a
14 half years of experience now, since that study was
15 completed, and compare it to what has happened in the real
16 world, according to the State Water Resources Control Board,
17 the incidents of leaking tanks is down. The incidents of
18 claims against the underground tank fund, which helps pay
19 for the clean-ups, is down. According to the Department of
20 Health Services, the reports of contamination of drinking
21 water is drastically reduced and at very low levels. All of
22 this compares to the predictions in the study that predicted
23 massive continued contamination of groundwater, drinking
24 water, specifically. It predicted one and a half billion
25 dollars worth of annual cleanup expenses. In fact, it
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
279
1 predicted up to $3 billion in additional expenses in
2 retaining MTBE in California's gasoline. This just has not
3 happened.
4 So I'll very quickly wrap it up by just suggesting
5 that a lot of this is because of increased awareness out
6 there among the tank owners. This is a tank problem. It's
7 not an MTBE problem. The tank owners are being more
8 diligent about compliance. The agencies, the over 100
9 independent agencies out there, many are doing a better job
10 of enforcing. Plus, Senator Sher passed SB 989, which, in
11 addition to addressing reformulated gasoline, also had many
12 drastic improvements to the UST program, which is going to
13 further protect groundwater, not just from MTBE but from all
14 of those other bad actors.
15 And in conclusion, I would just suggest that in
16 this 90 days of deliberation, I know this isn't the proper
17 forum to say it, and we'll go through other channels, but
18 during this 90 days of deliberation, I would think we'd want
19 to take another look at the basis upon which the Governor
20 made that decision.
21 Thank you very much.
22 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Jim, just one quick question.
23 MR. WHITE: Yes, sir.
24 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Given the comments you make in
25 terms of less MTBE out there, how does that compare with its
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
280
1 usage? Does it mirror the uses? Have the uses gone down to
2 actually result in reduced --
3 MR. WHITE: The usage has gone down in certain
4 areas, but overall, in California, I understand the use of
5 MTBE over the past two and a half years has actually gone
6 up. So the usage is not an issue. It's the fact that the
7 UST program has vastly improved. Not to mention the fact
8 that during all of this generation of negative information
9 regarding MTBE, we had a lot of tanks out there that were
10 facing an upgrade deadline of 1998, and those tanks are
11 gone.
12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you.
13 MR. WHITE: Thank you very much.
14 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you, Jim.
15 Elisa Lynch, Paul Sebesta, Roland Hwang, Charlie
16 Peters.
17 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Mr. Chairman, one thing
18 that might be of some help --
19 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I'm sorry.
20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: -- is Gordon has some
21 information with regard to the quantity of MTBE and whether
22 it has gone up or gone down.
23 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Okay.
24 MR. SCHREMP: Thank you, Dr. Lloyd.
25 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
281
1 MR. SCHREMP: Yes. The California Energy
2 Commission tracks the amount of MTBE used by each refinery,
3 and our most recent report, which is for the first quarter
4 of 2001, shows that the concentration of MTBE in the
5 gasoline did decline from the previous quarter, and it's at
6 its lowest level since we've been collecting this
7 information from January of 2000. And MTBE usage did
8 decline slightly in California for the first quarter of
9 2001, compared to the previous quarter.
10 So I think that's primarily as a result of some of
11 the refineries using less MTBE in the first quarter, as well
12 as the very high cost of MTBE in the first quarter.
13 So, yes, it has declined in both concentration and
14 total volume, slightly.
15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Although, that's not inconsistent
16 with what Jim White was saying, because he said over that
17 period. He was talking about a larger averaging period, but
18 -- thank you, Gordon.
19 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman.
20 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes.
21 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Just a quick question that
22 relates to this last testimony.
23 Who keeps track of the number of tanks that have
24 been either upgraded or taken out and not replaced? There
25 must be some agency that keeps that record.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
282
1 MR. SIMEROTH: My name is Dean Simeroth, I'm with
2 the Air Resources Board. And, Mrs. Riordan, the Water
3 Resources Control Board --
4 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Keeps that.
5 MR. SIMEROTH: -- for the State of California
6 maintains those type of statistics. They also gather it in
7 from local agencies who have responsibility for that
8 program, as well.
9 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Do we keep track of that in
10 any way, just to further the analysis of what's lost?
11 MR. SIMEROTH: We meet with the State Water
12 Resources Control Board periodically on this. The situation
13 is improved over what it was in 1996, in terms of the number
14 of tanks who have significant leaks. It doesn't mean
15 there's no tanks that still don't have problems, for a
16 variety of reasons, human error being one of them. We'll
17 probably never get a really bad reason for tanks leaking.
18 But the situation has improved. But you still
19 have a lot of MTBE in the ground from the previous
20 situation. And that's still there. And what we're
21 anxiously awaiting is that going to result in more problems
22 in the future as the MTBE plumes spread. And the answer to
23 that question, we don't know yet.
24 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Okay. Thank you.
25 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHIEBLE: And for the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
283
1 Board's information, we met just yesterday or the day before
2 with the Water Board staff to brief them on what we would be
3 presenting today, and also to discuss with them coordination
4 in terms of making recommendations to the secretary on the -
5 - what would happen if we were to delay the phase-out of
6 MTBE. I think the question of a phase-out is not a
7 question. The issue could be the timing.
8 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Right. Right.
9 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHIEBLE: It's clear to
10 say that they, from the current view, are no more --
11 continue to be alarmed about the impact of putting MTBE in
12 gasoline and the fact that the system, although improving,
13 is nowhere close to where they would feel secure with having
14 MTBE continue in use. And I'd say that's the position of
15 the vast majority of water agencies in California.
16 So it remains to be a difficult issue. It's good
17 that the leaking should be a lot less than it used to, but
18 it still does not seem to be at the point where we could
19 seriously consider is it okay to have this amount of MTBE in
20 the gasoline for an extended period of time.
21 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you.
22 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you.
23 MS. LYNCH: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of
24 the Board. My name is Elisa Lynch, I'm a campaign director
25 with Bluewater Network. I have comments about ethanol and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
284
1 also about MTBE.
2 Regarding ethanol, I'd first like to put the issue
3 into a larger perspective. Taking MTBE out of our gasoline
4 will create a volume shortfall, as has been talked about
5 earlier today, approximately 11 percent of our volume of
6 gasoline. This presents a choice. Do we fill this with
7 more fossil fuels that take us down a path towards a global
8 warming crisis, or do we choose a renewable fuel that
9 substantially reduces greenhouse gas emissions and preserves
10 the benefits of MTBE.
11 At Bluewater Network, we're pleased with the
12 prospect of increasing ethanol in California's gasoline. It
13 displaces gasoline and moves us in the right direction for
14 global warming, air quality, and, in the long run, we
15 believe, California's economy.
16 Regarding air quality, we believe that California
17 will see greater benefits with ethanol than without.
18 Bluewater Network respectfully disagrees with ARB's
19 conclusion that without ethanol, California gasoline will be
20 cleaner. A key problem is a lack of regulatory assurance
21 that refiners will produce cleaner gasoline without ethanol.
22 Even the Clinton Administration EPA documents on the waiver
23 decision back this up. They acknowledge that California
24 fuel regulations, as they stand, do not require refiners to
25 produce the predicted cleaner burning gasoline.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
285
1 One of the key points is that aromatic content,
2 the maximum amount of aromatic content in gasoline was
3 raised from 30 to 35 percent during the California RFG
4 regulation update. This was to accommodate the needs of
5 refiners to replace the octane benefits of oxygen, and I
6 think that this is a very important point. If refiners take
7 advantage of this regulation and increase the use of
8 aromatics, non-oxygenated gasoline in California will result
9 in dirtier air.
10 Beyond air quality, we also believe that ethanol
11 has other very important benefits. As I mentioned,
12 reduction of greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases are reduced
13 by 35 to up to 100 percent per gallon with the use of
14 ethanol. The higher amounts are from electricity being
15 produced through the cogeneration -- through cogeneration at
16 cellulosic biomass ethanol plants.
17 Ethanol is also an economic opportunity for the
18 state, especially if we produce it from biomass, in the long
19 run. It's time to stop fighting against ethanol and realize
20 its benefits. Key to this is an examination of California
21 fuel regulations to assure that ethanol air quality benefits
22 are completely accounted for.
23 Just a couple of quick comments about MTBE. We
24 want to strongly urge ARB to oppose any delay in the MTBE
25 deadline. California already has limited water supplies and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
286
1 economic challenges. Every extra day that refiners add MTBE
2 to our gasoline is a disaster waiting to happen. We cannot
3 delay this ban.
4 I also was handed the testimony of several people
5 who could not testify on this issue tonight because they had
6 to go and catch planes, and other forms of transportation.
7 These are from industry people representing rail, shipping
8 and terminal industries, saying that logistically, ethanol
9 can be supplied to the state. So I'm going to be handing in
10 their written testimony on their behalf.
11 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you.
12 MS. LYNCH: Thank you very much.
13 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you.
14 Paul Sebesta.
15 Roland Hwang and Charlie Peters.
16 MR. HWANG: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Members
17 of the Board. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on
18 this very important issue of California's oxygenate waiver.
19 My name is Roland Hwang, a Senior Policy Analyst
20 with the Natural Resources Defense Council. And I think
21 many of you are aware that since 1970, NRDC has been
22 following very closely the implementation of the Federal
23 Clean Air Act, and has sought to promote actions under the
24 law that carry out Congress' intent to protect public health
25 and the environment from harm caused by air pollution.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
287
1 I will be very brief tonight, but our position is
2 that NRDC does believe that the USEPA's denial of
3 California's oxygenate waiver request will result in higher
4 emissions of nitrogen oxides, and most likely will result in
5 higher emissions of hydrocarbons. NRDC believes that EPA is
6 obligated to grant the State of California regulatory relief
7 by allowing us to have greater flexibility in our fuel
8 supply. We believe that this is an obligation that they
9 have under the Federal Clean Air Act requirements.
10 It seems like a long time ago since Steve Brisby
11 gave his presentation on the air quality issues that have
12 come up, the controversy that has arisen over the oxygen
13 waiver. However, I would just like to say that we, NRDC,
14 agrees with the conclusions that the staff has reached. We
15 believe the staff -- we commend the staff for doing an
16 excellent job on trying to investigate every avenue here,
17 and answer every question possible, in terms of the true
18 impacts of the oxygenate waiver situation here in
19 California.
20 So we agree with what ARB has found. But because
21 of this, we believe that it is the obligation of the
22 California Air Resources Board, the obligation of the State
23 of California, to protect the air by continuing to pursue
24 this oxygenate waiver. We support efforts by the State to
25 amend the waiver. We support other efforts the State may
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
288
1 have in order to grant -- in order for the State of
2 California to receive regulatory relief from essentially
3 this obsolete and onerous requirement to add oxygenates into
4 our gasoline.
5 American Lung of California has authorized me to
6 speak on their behalf, that they also support the oxygenate
7 waiver request of California, and also support continuing to
8 pursue the oxygenate waiver at the federal level.
9 Thank you for your attention.
10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you.
11 It says that you have written comments, Roland.
12 Do you have written comments?
13 MR. HWANG: Yeah, I submitted them to the -- to
14 the folks over there, and --
15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you.
16 MR. HWANG: You're welcome.
17 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much.
18 Charlie Peters.
19 MR. PETERS: Mr. Chairman, Dr. Lloyd -- I'm
20 supposed to stop already. I can do this again?
21 Chairman Alan Lloyd, and Committee, I'm Charlie
22 Peters, founder and president of Clean Air Performance
23 Professionals. We are a group, a coalition of motorists
24 that is worldwide. We have a letter every month in
25 "Hemmings Motor News" that we report on automotive
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
289
1 regulations and fuel issues.
2 And we support voluntary oxygenates in gasoline in
3 California. We support California's request for a waiver.
4 And over time, we, as we have watched this process go
5 forward, it is absolutely exciting watching the support
6 mechanism for those policies build. And it's absolutely
7 been fascinating being a part of this debate.
8 In our testimony, we provided to you today, we
9 requested that an evaluation of a one percent cap on oxygen
10 in gasoline be done. We have not seen any results. We
11 don't seem to find anybody who has any answers to that. The
12 possibility of putting a cap on the amount of oxygen in the
13 gasoline of one percent, as to how that would affect
14 performance, gas mileage, emissions, and so on, evaluating
15 that possibility as a possible position.
16 In the testimony that I provided to you, it was
17 indicated that there was a waiver sitting on President
18 Clinton's desk at the time he left office, supporting the
19 position of one percent oxygen content in the gasoline, so
20 we would encourage that.
21 We would also encourage some review of what has
22 happened in Brazil. There was a situation earlier on where
23 there was virtually 100 percent ethanol cars being produced,
24 and which were running on 100 percent oxygen. It seems to
25 me as though, at that time, they had double digit inflation
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
290
1 per month, and there was probably some pretty serious air
2 quality issues there. I was talking to a previous member of
3 the Board who told me that when he went down there, that his
4 eyes got all bloodshot, his nose started bleeding, and so
5 on, in that environment, with the tremendous amount of
6 ethanol being produced there.
7 There was also apparently a very significant
8 amount of excess ability to produce ethanol there, and if we
9 bring any of it here, there's a significant penalty to bring
10 it in, apparently to keep competition from maybe some
11 special interest in doing this.
12 Mandating oxygenates, to me, is an issue that
13 stinks. There are suits being filed all over the country
14 against the ethanol producers with odor problems and having
15 a tremendous problem trying to face that. The question is,
16 do we want stinky oxygenate plants all over the State of
17 California; is that how we want to treat our environment? I
18 think that issue needs to be looked in and reported on, as
19 well.
20 Very much appreciate you allowing us to be here,
21 and we very much support California's position for the
22 mandate -- relief from the mandate, and flexibility for the
23 refiners to produce gasoline that is best for the State of
24 California.
25 Thank you.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
291
1 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you for your persistence on
2 this issue, Charlie. Appreciate that.
3 Well, we finished the public testimony. I
4 congratulate everybody. We've actually gone through this,
5 and completed it.
6 So since this is not a regulatory item, Mr. Kenny,
7 do you have any further comments?
8 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: No.
9 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. It's not a regulatory
10 item, it's not necessary to officially close the record.
11 There's no resolution. So at this time, we do have some
12 food for the Board Members here, so we're going to take a
13 break. And also, the court reporter has to eat and take a
14 break.
15 So we're going to take, I guess, can we say maybe
16 a 20-minute break. Is that sufficient, or should we take a
17 half-hour? A half-hour. So we'll start the review, the
18 public hearing on the Bay Area Ozone SIP at ten after seven.
19 (Thereupon, the dinner break was taken.)
20
21
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
292
1 EVENING SESSION
2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Good evening. I would like to
3 remind everyone in the audience who wishes to testify on
4 tonight's agenda item to please sign up with the Clerk of
5 the Board. Also, if you have a written statement, please
6 give 30 copies to the Clerk of the Board.
7 This evening's agenda item is to consider approval
8 of the San Francisco Bay Area's 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan
9 as a revision to the California State Implementation Plan,
10 or SIP. I would like to thank everyone for coming this
11 evening. The fact that we are here having this hearing on
12 this item at a special evening session underscores the
13 ongoing commitment by this Board to increase the opportunity
14 for community participation.
15 I think, as you recognize, we've already been here
16 since 9:00 o'clock this morning. And so we expect most of
17 us will have a very interesting and committed evening to
18 evaluate the plan. We appreciate your coming here to
19 participate in the process.
20 And also as an indication of our commitment to the
21 process, we have an interpreter available throughout tonight
22 to perform simultaneous translation into Spanish.
23 (Interpreter translates Chairman Lloyd's
24 remarks into Spanish.)
25 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: If you would like to take
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
293
1 advantage of this service, please see Ms. Monroe in the back
2 of the room, or in the front of the room, I'm sorry.
3 Following a short ten-minute staff presentation
4 and Board questions, we'll open the hearing for public
5 comment beginning with members of the community.
6 This plan is about taking the next step in
7 protecting the health of residents of Bay Area communities
8 and downwind regions by meeting the federal one-hour ozone
9 standard. As an air quality modeler, or former modeler,
10 myself, I recognize the ideal technical tools are not yet
11 available for precisely forecasting the level of emissions
12 that will be needed to meet this goal. ARB and the District
13 have committed to make improved tools available in 2003 to
14 reassess the attainment target, discuss the results in a
15 public meeting, and to revise the SIP accordingly.
16 Despite some uncertainty about the attainment
17 target for the Bay Area, the public health benefits of
18 moving forward with a plan and new rules to ensure 246 tons
19 per day of emission reductions are certain.
20 This plan is an important next step to clean air,
21 but not the last one. Air quality and transportation
22 agencies must pursue all feasible measures to reduce ozone
23 and particulate matter to attain both state and federal air
24 quality standards, and to cut air toxics in all communities.
25 Residents of communities impacted by air pollution must be
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
294
1 afforded the opportunity for meaningful participation in all
2 future efforts to meet these goals.
3 I would like to ask our Executive Officer, Mr.
4 Kenny, to introduce this item and begin the staff
5 presentation.
6 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
7 and Members of the Board.
8 The item before you, the Bay Area Ozone Attainment
9 Plan for Ozone SIP, accomplishes several objectives. First,
10 it's a narrowly focused plan to meet USEPA's requirement for
11 a new ozone SIP for the Bay Area. The plan adopted by the
12 local agencies contains new control measures that will
13 reduce VOC and NOx emissions by a total of 246 tons per day.
14 The greatest portion of these emission reductions
15 will result from this Board's aggressive vehicle control
16 program, supplemented by the district's stationary source
17 controls.
18 Second, the plan includes commitments by the
19 district to add or tighten four rules to cut emissions from
20 refineries. The Board heard first-hand the concerns of area
21 residents living near the refineries when you met in
22 Richmond earlier this year.
23 Third, in addition to reducing the precursor
24 chemicals that form ozone, the plan will also reduce air
25 toxics that are part of VOCs and particulate matter formed
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
295
1 from NOx. Our ongoing community health and environmental
2 justice issues will expand on these strategies.
3 However, even with these enhancements, concerns
4 continue to exist with regard to the plan. Supervisor
5 DeSaulnier has asked the staff to take a hard look at the
6 plan and to see what we could do to essentially improve it
7 from the adoption that occurred just on July 18th.
8 At the Supervisor's suggestion, we specifically
9 reviewed the attainment assessment and time necessary for
10 approval, as well as the transportation elements and the
11 issues of local agency coordination. The latter is deemed
12 critical to ensure coordinated adoption and implementation
13 of the plan and its elements.
14 Over the past week, ARB staff has been in almost
15 constant communication with Supervisor DeSaulnier, USEPA,
16 and the local agency staff to search for ways to both
17 improve the plan and ensure its apporvability. To that end,
18 we are proposing to add a commitment for an additional .3
19 tons of VOC reductions. This commitment would be a joint
20 one by the Air Resources Board, USEPA, and the local
21 agencies.
22 As a result, we believe the plan is a
23 substantially stronger plan that we bring you today than
24 existed as recently as July 18th.
25 We think we are now at the point in which we can
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
296
1 offer to you a plan that is substantial and is approvable.
2 However, that approval should be conditioned on the
3 subsequent adoption by the local agencies of the
4 improvements to the plan that staff is recommending. By
5 approving this plan, the Board helps to avoid the imposition
6 of transportation sanctions that would otherwise occur when
7 USEPA disapproves the prior ozone SIP.
8 As you noted, Mr. Chairman, this plan is not the
9 final product, but simply a step along the way to clean air
10 and healthy communities. We fully expect that the Board's
11 staff efforts to develop a comprehensive long-range clean
12 air plan, will identify strategies that can be incorporated
13 into future Bay Area Clean Air Plans.
14 We are pleased with the commitment in the plan to
15 increase community outreach and believe this is a critical
16 component to identifying other concerns in the community and
17 finding a way to address them.
18 And what I would like to do now is ask Mr. Bruce
19 Tuter to make the presentation, and to also highlight the
20 enhancements to the plan that we are proposing for your
21 consideration.
22 MR. TUTER: Thank you, Mr. Kenny Good evening,
23 Chairman Lloyd and Members of the Board.
24 For your consideration, we have the 2001 San
25 Francisco Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan to determine ozone
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
297
1 standards. We are asking you to approve this plan as a
2 revision to the California State Implementation Plan or SIP.
3 In my presentation, I will describe the contents of this
4 plan the measures of the ozone forming emissions and the
5 basis for the staff's recommendation.
6 The obvious first question is how is air quality
7 in the Bay Area. The answer is, air quality has improved
8 significantly over the last 20 years. But the Bay Area
9 still has work to do to meet all their goals.
10 The region still experiences a few days over the
11 federal one-hour ozone attainment standard each year.
12 Usually, in the East Bay, near Livermore and Concord, or in
13 San Jose. The Bay Area continues to exceed the more health
14 protective federal eight-hour standard than the California
15 ozone standard. The region needs federal standards for
16 particulate matter or PM10 but will violate the stricter
17 State standard. Since ozone and particulates share chemical
18 precursors like nitrogen oxides, or NOx, ozone reduction
19 strategies also help to cut particulate pollution.
20 Like most urban areas of the state, the levels and
21 risks of air toxics in the region need to be reduced. On a
22 regional basis, particulate emissions for each area are the
23 dominant source of the known excess cancer risk from
24 exposure to air toxins. At the neighborhood level, nearby
25 industrial facilities may play a larger role. Some of the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
298
1 ozone strategies that reduce the other ozone precursor,
2 volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, also help cut toxics
3 from the region.
4 There must be a number of coordinated strategies
5 to address the breadth of issues. First, this plan to meet
6 the federal one-hour ozone standard. Second, is the Bay
7 Area's plan to make progress towards the state ozone
8 standard. This plan must be updated every three years. For
9 the first time, an updated 2003 will include a comprehensive
10 assessment of the emission reductions needed to attain the
11 state standards in the Bay Area, and in neighboring regions.
12 ARB staff will be evaluating advances in control technology
13 for sources under district control tolead all districts in
14 defining the all feasible measures required in its plans.
15 Third, our strategies to reduce particulate
16 especially diesel exhaust for cleaner fules and engine
17 technologies.
18 Fourth are measures to reduce emissions exposure
19 and risk from air toxics in all communities.
20 The combined goal of these strategies is to
21 provide clean, healthful, comfortable air to all residents
22 in the Bay Area and downwind regions.
23 Now let's focus on the plan before you tonight.
24 This plan is specifically designed to attain the federal
25 standard for the 2006 deadline. The broader air quality
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
299
1 issues for other standards and other pollutants are not
2 within the legal scope of this plan. The plan uses all
3 available technical information to identify and attain the
4 target, which is the level of VOC and NOx emissions
5 projected to result in ozone levels that meet the standard.
6 After collecting the benefits of all the adopted controls
7 this information indicates that additional VOC reductions
8 are needed.
9 Some of the analyses in this plan show a range of
10 uncertainty in the estimates of the VOC reductions and
11 attainment from 91 to 135 tons per day. The plan adopted by
12 the local agencies includes measures to provide 122 tons per
13 day of VOC reductions. In a few minutes, I'll discuss our
14 proposal to increase the commitment up to the top of the
15 range, the full 145 tons per day of VOC reductions estimated
16 by the most conservative analyses. The last increment is
17 subject to review in 2003, when we have improved information
18 to reassess the target.
19 The substance of the plan is its commitment to
20 significantly reduce emissions by 2006 for attainment, and
21 in the 2007 to 2010 period for contingency in case of
22 continued violations. These commitments become legally
23 enforcible only if the plan is approved by the ARB and USEPA
24 as a SIP revision.
25 In addition to the Board's role in considering the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
300
1 plan for approval as a separate issue, the ARB functions as
2 a regulatory partner. We reviewed the rules and technical
3 elements of the plan throughout the process and developed a
4 stronger plan, but all reasonable options were included in
5 the plan. Based on our review and other comments, the
6 district added measures to the draft plan, and increased
7 refinery rules for the draft plan.
8 We also had evaluated an emissions inventory and
9 an assessment, recommendations of the ARB and USEPA will
10 convince the district to add an attainment analysis called
11 an isopleth diagram based on the year 2000 emissions and air
12 quality. This is the most conservative analysis we cam up
13 with.
14 Now let's go over what the plan approval would add
15 to the SIP in terms of emission reductions. Measures
16 already adopted by this Board for cleaner vehicles, fuels,
17 off-road equipment and consumer products reduced VOC
18 emissions by 90 tons perda and NOx emissions by 100 tons per
19 day in the Bay Area between 2000 and 2006. The Board's
20 action this morning to adopt emission standards for in-board
21 boat engines will also benefit in the Bay Area. To further
22 maintenance standards, ARB staff are committing to develop
23 additional measures for the Board's consideration. We show
24 a few of them on this slide. ARB's long-range plan
25 scheduled to come to the Board at the end of the year. We
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
301
1 developed many additional strategies to reduce ozone of
2 particulate matter and air toxics across the state.
3 Building on the district's current control
4 program, the industrial and commercial sources under its
5 jurisdiction, the Bay Area District is committing to adopt
6 seven new more stringent rules over the next two years as
7 part of this SIP. Four of these rules are improved
8 monitoring controls at refineries, the focus of much
9 community input. The district has agreed to adopt an
10 architectural model on the suggested control measure that
11 this Board agreed to last year. The last addition of the
12 rules will increase the use of water based solvents to cut
13 ozone toxic solution.
14 In the plan, the district proposes to request from
15 the Bureau of Automotive Repairs improving the sensitive
16 system smog check program here by adding a new test for
17 leaks and evaporative for emissions that are being developed
18 for other urbanized areas.
19 On the transportation side of the equation, the
20 Metropolitan Transportation Commission or MTC proposes to
21 supplement existing transportation control measures with
22 five new measures to be implemented between now and 2004,
23 and six new measures for further study. The new measures
24 include the purchase of 90 buses, to operate regional
25 express bus services; funds for private pedestrian projects,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
302
1 grants that aid in mobile transportation from the livable
2 communities, and subsidies for housing and transit;
3 expansion for freeway service control and extension of BART
4 services to San Francisco Airport; and the six additional
5 measures for further study.
6 Additionally, this combination of existing and new
7 district rules satisfies the requirement to reduce local
8 ozone levels. However, we are recommending that the Board
9 take this opportunity to encourage Bay Area agencies to do
10 more about transportation, to support the region's longer
11 term efforts to maintain the federal one-hour ozone standard
12 and attain the spectrum of state and federal standards by
13 reducing toxics exposures.
14 Specifically, we believe MTC should expand
15 programs to reduce the growth in travel demand in the
16 regional transportation plan being developed now. MTC and
17 the district should play stronger leadership roles in
18 coordinating land use planning, transportation, and air
19 quality for joint policies and decision making. And all
20 three regional agencies should promote local agency
21 coordination, purchasing programs and other initiatives to
22 increase the number of lower emitting vehicles and
23 pollutants.
24 We've included these recommendations in the
25 proposed Board resolution at the request of Supervisor
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
303
1 DeSaulnier, and suggest that the Board ask the Executive
2 Officer to pursue these actions with the regional agencies
3 and report back on the progress.
4 Since the local agencies adopted the 2001 Ozone
5 SIP last week, we have been working with them and USEPA to
6 further strengthen the plan in response to public comments.
7 We are proposing that the existing local agencies and ARB
8 staff confer to reassess the inventory in 2003, when we have
9 the results of the central California ozone study, to have
10 an explicit commitment to complete the review by December
11 2003, and submit a SIP revision to USEPA by April 15, 2004.
12 Recognizing the uncertainty of the attainment level based on
13 the existing analysis we recommend a revision to the 2001
14 plan to add a new joint commitment by all of the agencies,
15 the district, and TC, ABAG, the Air Resources Board and
16 USEPA, to secure up to 23 tons per day of additional VOC
17 reductions by the attainment date subject to change based on
18 the results of the review.
19 We would include a commitment from all agencies to
20 work with stakeholders in an open, public process to ensure
21 that the mid-course review is a comprehensive and thorough
22 evaluation.
23 In terms of timing, here is how it would work to
24 continue transportation funding. ARB adopts the commitment
25 in the Bay Area plan, continue the adoption of this new
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
304
1 commitment by the three local agencies. ARB submits this
2 plan to USEPA with a request for parallel processing, which
3 will allow the USEPA to propose action on the plan with the
4 same condition. The local agencies undertake the public
5 outreach process directed by those Boards, and hold a
6 hearing by September to specifically consider the adoption
7 of this revision. We then submit the revision and USEPA
8 finalizes action on the plan in October.
9 This slide shows what the plan is really about,
10 how to keep producing emissions of cleaner air by pursuing
11 these control measures. With the additional commitment I
12 just discussed, this plan would reduce ozone forming
13 emissions in the Bay Area by 269 tons per day, over the six
14 year scope of the plan. That would be a 23 percent
15 reduction of the combined VOC and NOx emissions with the
16 bulk of the benefits coming from mobile sources, as shown on
17 the bottom of the bar graph in turquoise.
18 In addition to securing these emissions
19 reductions, plan improvements are needed to avoid the
20 implementation poisition of transportation penalties.
21 A significant issue of concern has been the
22 process followed to bring this plan before the local boards
23 and this Board. Although we know that the process has been
24 expedited, it was done to address a significant conformity
25 issue. If this SIP is not approved by ARB today, and USEPA
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
305
1 by mid-October, there are two consequences for
2 transportation projects across the Bay Area.
3 First, importan provisions, which would add new
4 transportation projects by making changes to existing
5 projects that have already been approved. This section
6 would result if the USEPA finalizes its approval of the Bay
7 Area's prior 1999 SIP and that this approval becomes
8 effective before the agency can approve this new plan.
9 Under a consent agreement made of community groups
10 you'll here from tonight, USEPA is scheduled to finalize
11 action on the old SIP in October. MTC cannot make a
12 positive control to be binding on the regional
13 transportation plan scheduled for approval this November.
14 MTC must submit transportation plans to the federal
15 government before approval of the region's first
16 transportation plan automatically expires in January 2002.
17 If the current transportation plan expires, the
18 regional plan will lapse, which prevents approved projects
19 from moving forward to construction and stops the associated
20 federal funding. Appendix A of our staff report lists
21 confirmed projects that could be affected by a lapse. These
22 projects renew freeway lanes and modifications, including
23 construction of several high occupancy vehicle lanes plus
24 bridge improvements and expansion of lightrail. We can't
25 avoid these transportation penalties.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
306
1 We recommend that you approve the 2001 Ozone SIP
2 for the Bay Area tonight, and submit to USEPA for approval,
3 contingent on a district MTC and ABAG adopting the new
4 commitment I discussed to strengthen this plan.
5 We support this plan because it will improve the
6 air quality by reducing 261 tons per day of pollution, with
7 many new measures to be adopted in the next two years. It
8 meets state and federal requirements, including the
9 California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA. It is the
10 only way to avoid a transportation conformity freeze and
11 lapse that would stop important transportation projects
12 across the region.
13 It includes a commitment to improve the public
14 process for an implementation of the plan and the new source
15 review, and would certainly be revised in 2004, when
16 improved science reviews are available.
17 Thank you.
18 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much.
19 Questions from the Board?
20 Supervisor DeSaulnier.
21 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Briefly. I know my
22 colleagues have been here a long time and they're enjoying
23 San Francisco very much.
24 (Laughter.)
25 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: I appreciate your staff
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
307
1 report, the comments and the hard work, that Mike and Lynn
2 and Cynthia I'm sure will be happy when you're not receiving
3 phone messages from me three or four times a day.
4 But I do think, Mr. Chairman, our staff has worked
5 very hard, along with EPA, in the last week, to bring a
6 proposal here that will conditionally approve the attainment
7 plan and keep us in line with conformity freeze and lapse,
8 which I don't think is good for anyone in the Bay Area, low-
9 income people, in particular, but all people, to have a
10 freeze on federal transportation funding that blocks
11 projects that will help people.
12 I think the proposal that we have in front of us,
13 the outreach that will help particularly with affected
14 communities, communities around stationary sources, we will
15 try to come back -- not try to come back with but we will
16 come back with new stationary source controls, and that will
17 be a very positive thing and will help some of the speakers
18 who we'll hear from this evening, but that's a commitment
19 that we're going to work on. I think that land use and
20 transportation sides with the comments on the previous item
21 about the transport to the valley, I think is very important
22 that we deal with VMT at the Bay Area side, and see a
23 decreasing VMT and have a cap on that as soon as possible,
24 so that we can do some things in the Bay Area, and also at
25 the same time have the ongoing discussion with our neighbors
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
308
1 to the east about Smog Check 2, as opposed to what their
2 plan has in there.
3 So this is a great opportunity. I think what Mike
4 says is extremely important. The hardest work is still to
5 come. And the commitment to actually see through things
6 that were suggested, particularly identifying these extra 43
7 tons is important.
8 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
9 I could go on.
10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Well, I was giving you time to
11 catch up with the other part of the day.
12 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: You just assumed I'd
13 talk longer.
14 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you.
15 One of the things I think that's important here.
16 We talk about avoiding conformity, and I agree that's very
17 important. But recognize that the reason we're pushing all
18 of this is for public health. So, you know, another way of
19 looking at his, we want to get to clean air sooner, and I
20 think that's an important aspect that we're trying to do
21 here.
22 Can I ask the staff, what was the maximum ozone
23 level in the Bay Area last year on our ozone level?
24 MR. SCHONBRUNN: One fifty-two.
25 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: One fifty-two. Okay. The court
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
309
1 reporter would like to know who said that.
2 MR. SCHONBRUNN: Schonbrunn, TRANSDEF.
3 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Okay.
4 MS. MARVIN: This is Cynthia Marvin.
5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you.
6 MS. MARVIN: Thank you. With the Board, and we
7 would agree it was at 152.
8 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: And where was that?
9 MS. MARVIN: In Livermore.
10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: So it was down -- so it's
11 probably downwind there. Okay.
12 MS. MARVIN: Livermore typically is the highest
13 site in the Bay Area.
14 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Okay. Do we have any other
15 comments or questions from the Board here?
16 Yes.
17 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Let me do what I can to
18 kind of single my intention here. We spent a lot of time
19 this afternoon regarding the smog check, and as I recall
20 directed the staff to report back in six months regarding
21 the full-blown program. However, we put over until this
22 time period this evening the issue of the second aspect of
23 Smog 2, and began discussions earlier this afternoon,
24 regarding that and it has to do with the NOx provision of
25 the smog program.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
310
1 And so I would be particularly interested in
2 hearing from witnesses as to their feeling about whether or
3 not the smog program could be enhanced to encompass NOx
4 restrictions.
5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you, Ms. D'Adamo.
6 How do we come up with the amount of tons
7 reduction to show conformity, to show attainment of the
8 standards? What was the tool used for that?
9 MS. MARTIN: There were actually seven analyses
10 that are in the Bay Area plan. The ones that we're basing
11 it on are what are called isopleth diagrams that the Chair
12 is probably familiar with, but may be new to the rest of us.
13 And the basis for those was the 1989 modeling study of the
14 Bay Area. That is the most recent modeling that we have,
15 short of the Central California Ozone Study that was done in
16 the summer, last summer.
17 Based on the results of that modeling study,
18 uniform air quality models were used to generate curves that
19 basically show how ozone levels in the Bay Area are
20 predicted to respond to changes in VOC and NOx reductions.
21 And the district included two of those diagrams in its plan,
22 and added a third one at the Board meeting last week. And
23 basically, those different diagrams use a different kind of
24 base line approach. They use 1995 air quality and
25 emissions, or you use year 2000 air quality and emissions.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
311
1 And the fundamental question you're trying to ask is based
2 on where you were in 2000 with emissions and air quality,
3 how much do you need to reduce VOC and NOx, in order to
4 achieve the standard.
5 And the answer to that question is that if you
6 reflect the -- all of the adopted regulations in the Bay
7 Area for both VOC and NOx, you need an additional 145 tons
8 per day of VOC reductions to attain the standard. That's
9 the most conservative analysis that we talked about.
10 Because the modeling tools are not ideal in this case, the
11 district responded to USEPA's request to do what they called
12 a weight of evidence analysis, basically to take all of the
13 other existing information and technical tools and see what
14 they might tell us to shed some light on this question about
15 what is the attainment target.
16 And those are the other analyses that we've
17 referenced. Based on those results, you get an answer that
18 conveys the need for a range of different VOC reductions,
19 the 91 to 145. What we're presenting to you today, with the
20 additional commitment that we're proposing, is a SIP that
21 would achieve the full 145 tons per day of additional VOC
22 reductions, subject to review when we have that improved
23 modeling.
24 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: And the 145 tons, does that take
25 into account reactivity?
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
312
1 MS. MARTIN: It does, to the extent that the
2 diagrams that we're talking about considered reactivity
3 based on that 1989 modeling episode.
4 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: But there's no update in any
5 change in the reactivity mix from '89 to today.
6 MS. MARTIN: Correct. And that's what we'll be
7 looking for the Central California Ozone Study to shed some
8 light on changes and updates with fuels and other products
9 that may affect that relationship.
10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Just an observation. I think I
11 mentioned it earlier. I think that such an important plan
12 is disappointing to me, from a technical viewpoint, that we
13 are still using pretty crude tools to look at that. And I
14 recognize the Bay Area is working with the regional model.
15 I can't wait for the time we can get that, because it just
16 reinforces, to me, that we can't be lax, because there's
17 obviously significant uncertainty there.
18 So hence my comments earlier about I feel the need
19 to reduce NOx, as well as VOC, because I don't think we
20 would rely on this model. I think we would be doing a
21 disservice to the community, and the old adage of how can
22 more pollution be better. So, to me, anything you can do to
23 reduce it will be helpful.
24 Mr. McKinnon.
25 Mrs. Riordan.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
313
1 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Just help me a little bit.
2 It was 1989, and we had kind of described that study. What
3 did you say? I'm sorry, I didn't hear very clearly at that
4 time, Cynthia. It was -- just tell me a little bit about
5 that study.
6 MS. MARTIN: I will, to the limits of my ability,
7 and if there's anyone else at our table who can supplement,
8 I would invite them to do so.
9 My understanding is that it was a very, very small
10 version of what we did in the Central California Ozone Study
11 last year. It was not nearly as expansive or comprehensive,
12 but it was basically an intensive study to look at ozone
13 levels, to look at measured precursor levels in the air, to
14 look at meteorology and really to fundamentally start to be
15 able to build a model. But it was a pretty crude effort
16 compared to what we will have available, based on the study
17 that we all did last summer.
18 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thanks.
19 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much.
20 Mr. McKinnon.
21 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Just so I'm clear on this,
22 I'm going to try to kind of shorten it a little bit, so I'm
23 clear on this.
24 You're proposing that we approve the SIP
25 contingent upon a number of changes that will happen later,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
314
1 those changes being the refinery rules, architectural
2 coatings, improved smog check, and some transportation
3 measures?
4 MS. MARTIN: No. Actually, happily, all of the
5 measures you just mentioned are part of the plan.
6 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Now.
7 MS. MARTIN: They are part of the plan now that
8 was approved by the local agencies.
9 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Good. Okay.
10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: If there are no more questions
11 from the Board, then I would like to go into our witnesses.
12 And --
13 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Mr. Chairman, if I could
14 just add one thing to --
15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes.
16 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: -- Cynthia's answer in
17 response to Mr. McKinnon.
18 The things that you identified, Mr. McKinnon, are
19 part of the plan currently. What we are proposing is that
20 the additional 23 tons be essentially added to the plan by
21 the Board tonight, and that would be essentially the
22 contingency. So approval would be contingent upon the local
23 agencies going back, re-hearing their plans, and actually
24 adding those 23 tons into the plan.
25 And then we have also passed out essentially some
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
315
1 language which reflects those 23 tons, how those 23 tons
2 should be reflected in the plan, as well as essentially the
3 commitment to take the Central California Ozone Study and
4 incorporate the results of the ozone study into a SIP
5 revision which would occur in 2004.
6 And those are really the key things that we think
7 are necessary to improve this plan in order to ensure that,
8 in fact, it can be approved by USEPA and it actually does
9 move forward and give us the best possible health protection
10 that we can achieve.
11 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Well, if I can, what
12 triggered my question was the 2003 to 2004 business. We had
13 an afternoon of hearing about transport to the valley, and
14 equity, and I have no doubt tonight we'll be talking about
15 some environmental justice issues.
16 And I guess I'm kind of interested in the pace and
17 I am real happy to hear that these additions that I named
18 are waiting. But is there a way to expedite faster than
19 2003 and 2004?
20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: I think the key thing is
21 that we would also like to expedite it as quickly as we can,
22 but we are taking the Central California Ozone study
23 information, and we do need to essentially put that into a
24 -- a position to be able to use it as effectively as
25 possible, and we're not quite there yet. We are still going
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
316
1 through the data that we have actually acquired, and we're
2 running essentially the set-up, in order to be able to use
3 that information in the model format.
4 As quickly as we can do that, we'll be ready to
5 move forward. But that was the timeframe that we thought
6 would actually be necessary to follow in order to get there.
7 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes, Ms. D'Adamo -- oh, Professor
8 Friedman and Ms. D'Adamo, or vice-versa.
9 BOARD MEMBER PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Is there
10 anything in the plan -- I couldn't find it -- that addresses
11 any enhanced -- any commitment for enhanced enforcement? Is
12 there any -- is this on? Is there anything in the plan, and
13 I couldn't find it, that addresses any concern about
14 enhanced enforcement by the district of its own rules, or of
15 violations?
16 MS. MARTIN: That's not an explicit commitment in
17 the plan, but it is --
18 BOARD MEMBER PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: It's a way to
19 get more reductions, but probably only as a disincentive
20 against future violations. But --
21 MS. MARTIN: And that is certainly part of ARB's
22 initiatives. And, in fact --
23 BOARD MEMBER PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: We heard a lot
24 about that in Richmond. I mean, it seemed to me, as I
25 recall. And that goes to environmental justice and a lot of
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
317
1 other concerns. I mean --
2 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: One approach we are
3 taking to that, Professor Friedman, is that we do plan to
4 bring to the Board later this year a uniform enforcement
5 approach with regard to refineries. It's our intention to
6 essentially develop that as guidance that would be utilized
7 throughout the state for all refinery actions. And I think
8 that particular document would then be applicable in the Bay
9 Area, as well as, for example, other areas in the state in
10 which refineries exist.
11 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Ms. D'Adamo.
12 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I could use some
13 clarification on the smog enhancement. Mr. Kenny, the
14 proposal that is before us includes smog enhancement
15 revisions with regard to VOC only; correct?
16 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: That's correct.
17 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: And the contingencies that
18 would kick in 2004?
19 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: The plan here is
20 essentially we were looking at this as an interim plan, and
21 our intention is to essentially take the CCAT information
22 and to then come back before this Board, after the local
23 boards have actually heard the matter, following the
24 utilization of the CCAA information in a model format to
25 find out exactly what the emission reductions are that are
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
318
1 necessary to achieve attainment.
2 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Well, again, we probably
3 could just use discussion from witnesses, but I think we
4 need to move forward now, and not wait until 2004 on that
5 aspect.
6 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Actually, we -- we are
7 proposing to move forward now, and we are proposing
8 essentially that the enhanced smog check -- the improved
9 smog check options be part of this plan now. And then we're
10 also proposing, as is part of the Board's direction on the
11 previous item on transport mitigation, we are planning to
12 essentially look at a full smog check effort that would be
13 applicable in the Bay Area as part of transport mitigation
14 requirements.
15 So this plan does have improved smog check
16 components to it, and then we are also looking at smog
17 check, enhanced smog check in the context of transport
18 mitigation.
19 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Well, but there's --
20 there's a gap, because this plan just has VOC. The plan
21 that we discussed earlier would be for the entire program,
22 including test only.
23 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: That's correct.
24 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: And I'm suggesting that we
25 look at the next step, or the -- the mid-ground, and that --
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
319
1 and that be NOx now.
2 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: I think what we're
3 trying to do is we are trying right now to essentially put
4 together a plan that we can bring to the Board. And, as
5 Cynthia said, we have a plan with an additional 145 -- we
6 have 145 tons of reductions in it. We think those emission
7 reductions are sufficient for the attainment assessment that
8 we currently have, and that is consistent with trying to
9 essentially establish attainment with the ozone standard.
10 We are planning to essentially look at the smog
11 check program, but the smog check program, at least, is not
12 necessary in the context of the ozone assessment that we are
13 currently looking at with regard to this plan. Smog check,
14 however, is an important element with regard to the
15 transport mitigation because then we're going beyond simply
16 the ozone plan and making sure that, in fact, we have an
17 attainment demonstration that works. And what we are then
18 doing is looking at essentially kind of a good neighbor
19 policy and ensuring that the downwind neighbors are
20 protected as much as possible from downwind pollution --
21 from upwind pollution.
22 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: But absent what we did
23 earlier this afternoon, the direction that we gave to the
24 staff on reviewing transport mitigation, isn't it true that
25 SIPs should contain transport mitigation measures? Hasn't
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
320
1 that always been our policy, regardless of what we suggested
2 earlier this afternoon?
3 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Not necessarily. What
4 we've done generally with the SIPS is we have essentially
5 adopted -- we proposed adoption of those measures that are
6 necessary to make the attainment demonstration or the
7 assessment demonstration. And in this particular case, that
8 is what we have.
9 A lot of times there's an overlap there, and
10 what'll happen is the same measures are part of the
11 attainment or assessment demonstration and are part of
12 transport mitigation. In this particular case, they are
13 separate. They can be put together, but at least right now
14 the attainment assessment that we're bringing before you
15 today does not require more than the smog check improvements
16 that we do have in the plan at the moment.
17 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Does it require that we
18 could go further should we so decide?
19 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Well, the question there
20 is if the Board was to decide to essentially push the smog
21 check program into this particular plan, it would then have
22 to go back to the local agencies for adoption of the smog
23 check plan. The local agencies do have some limitations
24 with regard to what they can do, as was discussed during the
25 legal discussion earlier on.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
321
1 So what we're proposing, at this point, is that
2 this plan be adopted as it's currently proposed, without the
3 full smog check. We then use the transport mitigation, and
4 the main rational for that is that what we were trying to do
5 with this plan is essentially give an attainment
6 demonstration or an attainment assessment on the books, and
7 at the same time avoid a conformity lapse.
8 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: If I could -- one
9 comment on what we have done in the past to deal with
10 transport in the SIP, in the 94 SIP, for example, as Mrs.
11 Riordan is very familiar with, because of the transport
12 impacts in Mojave Desert, what we did was include all of the
13 strategies that were in the South Coast SIP, fold them into
14 the attainment demonstration for Mojave, and in essence that
15 was the mechanism for reflecting transport mitigation. And,
16 in effect, the Mojave relied on the South Coast clean air
17 strategy in their attainment demonstration.
18 The timing is such in this case, when we look at
19 the Bay Area and the San Joaquin Valley, for example, since
20 the valley SIP will follow our January meeting on
21 mitigation, presuming the Board were to take the action to
22 expand the smog check program, we would then be able to fold
23 that control measure, the smog check program, into the
24 attainment demonstration for the valley SIP that would come
25 before this Board later next year. And that has been the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
322
1 mechanism that we have used in the past to ensure that the
2 transport mitigation is incorporated into the attainment
3 demonstration for federal purposes in the downwind area.
4 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: But all we'd be including
5 here would be the VOC portion, not NOx.
6 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: No, that -- it
7 would include the NOx piece if, as a result of transport
8 mitigation, the Board were to impose that requirement, it
9 would include NOx.
10 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: At a later time.
11 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Right.
12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: But I think you're right. This
13 is just including the VOC, but we're going to get the NOx
14 through another mechanism, as I understand, because -- let's
15 call it a technicality here, if we mess things up here, then
16 we have these conformities lapse. But the intent is to
17 capture both VOC and NOx, but just using a slightly
18 different mechanism.
19 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Perhaps I'm not following,
20 but I'm just wondering if there's a way to incorporate the
21 NOx sooner without it impacting the conformity.
22 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: What I understood from that, and
23 staff is trying to come up with the best way. Because, I --
24 no, I agree with you for that very concern. But the way I
25 read it, we're going to have to use that other mechanism to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
323
1 get the NOx, as I understand it, but we have to have it.
2 Any other question from the Board?
3 With that, we'll call up the first witness. We
4 have a number of witnesses. I would like to -- the first
5 witness, and after the witness, I will institute a three-
6 minute time period, plus or minus, because we have a lot of
7 witnesses this evening, and I want to make sure that
8 everybody gets a chance to get their point across.
9 Our first witness is Jack Broadbent, the new Air
10 Administrator, new Air Director, I guess, of Region 9.
11 Jack, I'd like to officially welcome you the first time
12 testifying before us, and congratulate you on your new job.
13 I worked with Jack for many years at the South
14 Coast AQMD, and I can not only attest to the work he did,
15 his commitment to clean air, but also, I think, his
16 commitment to protecting both the environment and the
17 economy there.
18 So, Jack, it gives me great pleasure -- and I also
19 congratulate you and thank you so much for the extensive
20 work you've put in, you and your colleagues, with our staff
21 and the Bay Area staff, MTC, to work to get us to where we
22 are tonight.
23 MR. BROADBENT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good
24 evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board.
25 Again, my name is Jack Broadbent, and I'm the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
324
1 Director of the Air Division for EPA Region 9. I very much
2 appreciate that introduction, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
3 you for this opportunity to testify tonight.
4 First, we want to recognize the tremendous work
5 that all the agencies have put into the development of the
6 San Francisco Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan. And in
7 particular, we want to commend Mr. Mike Kenny and his staff
8 for their steadfast efforts to work through a number of
9 difficult issues. I think you've probably characterized it,
10 Mr. Chairman, in that we have been working very vigorously
11 over the last several days to address a number of issues.
12 Last week I testified at the joint meeting of the
13 three co-lead agencies here in the Bay Area that despite
14 significant improvements in the plan, EPA continued to have
15 two concerns regarding the attainment assessment, and the
16 updated modeling analysis resulting from the Central
17 California ozone study.
18 Earlier this week, I sent a letter to the Air
19 Resources Board stating that EPA could not propose to
20 approve the 2001 plan unless our two concerns were
21 adequately addressed. We've been working extensively, as I
22 mentioned, with both the Bay Area Air Quality Management
23 District and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the
24 Association of Bay Area Governments, and particularly your
25 staff, to resolve these issues.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
325
1 Today, your staff presented you with additional
2 language for inclusion in the 2001 plan. We believe that
3 with this additional language, that commits to an additional
4 23 tons per day of VOC, we could propose to approve this
5 plan.
6 Specifically, the agencies now commit to fill the
7 emissions reduction shortfall identified in the 2000 ozone
8 isopleths analysis, unless the new analysis following the
9 Central California ozone study shows that more or fewer
10 reductions are needed. In addition, we have assurances that
11 the plan will be updated in 2004 with the most advanced
12 technical information, and with additional control measures
13 if they are determined to be needed.
14 Of course, EPA proposed approval would be subject
15 to public comment, and we will respond to any issues raised.
16 We hope this is good news. We know it has been a
17 long day. Please be assured that we will continue to work
18 very closely with your staff to improve air quality in the
19 Bay Area.
20 And with that, Mr. Chairman, that concludes my
21 remarks. I'd be happy to answer any questions.
22 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much, Jack.
23 As I understand it, you've worked with our staff
24 and the Bay Area to work between us, extracting more
25 commitments from the Bay Area to get to attainment. Is that
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
326
1 a fair statement?
2 MR. BROADBENT: That's a fair characterization, I
3 would say.
4 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: So I think we've come quite a way
5 to help the citizens get to cleaner air faster, in those
6 areas.
7 MR. BROADBENT: I would agree, Mr. Chairman. I
8 think what you have today is a stronger plan, a plan that
9 gets an additional 23 tons per day reduction, which will
10 help achieve the clean air objectives and the clean air
11 standards for the Bay Area.
12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you.
13 Questions or comments from colleagues, here?
14 Thank you.
15 MR. BROADBENT: Thank you.
16 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much.
17 Now I'd like to call witnesses. I'll call several
18 ahead. We have Dave Crow, Brigette Tollstrup, Julia May,
19 Dr. Henry Clark, Ethel Dotson, Flora Campbell, Ms. Thomas,
20 and Shannon Eddy.
21 MR. CROW: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Members
22 of the Board. My name is Dave Crow, I'm the Executive
23 Director, Air Pollution Control Officer for the San Joaquin
24 Valley.
25 I beg your indulgence, and appreciate the time
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
327
1 you'll afford me this evening.
2 There's a number of things -- can you hear me now?
3 There's a number of things I feel compelled to say today on
4 the record. And they are important points that relate to
5 the Bay Area's plan.
6 The San Joaquin Valley has been identified for
7 many years, on three separate occasions, as an area that is
8 overwhelmingly impacted by pollution from the Bay Area.
9 That causes a number of things to happen, by operation of
10 law. Federal law, as well as state law.
11 We'll contend tonight that the plan that's
12 recommended before you this evening is not adoptable, for
13 several reasons, which I'd like to speak to.
14 I would take note, too, that the only time in the
15 staff presentation, or actually before the staff
16 presentation, I heard any comment of transport was in Dr.
17 Lloyd's opening comments that this plan will protect the
18 health in the Bay Area as well as the health in the downwind
19 areas. Unfortunately, I heard no further conversation or
20 comment about transport and transport mitigation in the
21 opening staff presentation.
22 We'd point out that that is a serious flaw, and I
23 would point out further that under federal law, and federal
24 guidance -- and I have the citations, I'll do them in a
25 moment -- intra-state transport is something that must be
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
328
1 met in the SIP submittal, and it is something that EPA is
2 obliged to review.
3 I'll further point out that under state law, the
4 Governor is empowered to adopt SIPs as a piece of a puzzle,
5 if you will, covering the totality of the State of
6 California. And the puzzle, in total, is to assure that the
7 whole State of California comes into attainment with the
8 federal ambient air standards. You heard many times earlier
9 in the staff presentation that this plan was designed to
10 maintain conformity and avoid a lapse in the Bay Area. And
11 it's contended that this plan may, with numerous prospective
12 commitments, meet that duty. It's problematic, and it's
13 indicated that over the next several years if the need
14 arises, and when the opportunity presents, additional
15 measures may be taken to reduce emissions not only in the
16 Bay Area, but presumably downwind.
17 Obviously, we have grave concern with that
18 approach. We believe you have an opportunity before you
19 tonight to not only assure ongoing conformity if the lapse
20 doesn't occur, but if the lapse does occur, a fix is put in
21 place, moneys will flow again to MTC. But you have an
22 obligation to look at the transport implications on other
23 areas within California.
24 There's a lot of talk about meeting the conformity
25 clock in the Bay Area. I would submit there is a bigger
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
329
1 clock ticking, and that is in the San Joaquin Valley and the
2 Sacramento Valley. We're looking at a 2005 attainment date
3 to meet the federal standards. We've been bumped to severe
4 non-attainment. It's estimated by your staff and ours, we
5 need a 30 percent reduction in ROG and NOx domain-wide, by
6 November of 2005. And that's based, I might add, on the $27
7 million state-of-the-art ozone model.
8 For this plan to propose to address merely the
9 issue in the Bay Area, to not address transport, to not take
10 advantage of known, arguably proven measures such as Smog
11 Check 2 for NOx reductions, and this plan not to address
12 RACM measures with analysis of other measures that could be
13 employed soon, leaves us in a situation where the San
14 Joaquin Valley in November 2005, should we, through our own
15 efforts -- and they have been herculean, our Board has
16 adopted Smog Check 2 throughout our valley -- for us to not
17 make it at 2005, we face federal sanctions. And I would
18 submit that they are far more draconian than a temporary
19 lapse of conformity in the Bay Area.
20 The San Joaquin Valley, as most of you are aware,
21 is an area of high unemployment, chronic double digit
22 unemployment, people with little means, business and
23 industry and ag that struggle. Our board has adopted
24 measures that cost billions to improve the situation. And
25 the study is done, completed, that has amply documented the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
330
1 degree to which transport overwhelms the northern portion of
2 our valley. We don't need to wait for a CCAT study. That
3 will provide refinement. That won't tell us a trend.
4 I would encourage your Board, at this point, to
5 heed several hours of testimony that you heard this morning
6 with regard to a simple approach for both VOC -- additional
7 VOC and NOx reductions in the Bay Area, notably Smog Check
8 2. There is a legal argument, I think they're compelling,
9 when made, that you could impose Smog Check 2 in totality in
10 the Bay Area. If you're dubious of that, you could be
11 somewhat more conservative and approve most of it. It's
12 significant NOx and VOC reductions beyond what's in this
13 plan. Why delay?
14 If you do that, that starts to benefit us
15 downwind. It makes our effort easier, and frankly, it will
16 quickly bring cleaner air to the Bay Area.
17 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think, Dave, I'm going to ask
18 you to come to a close.
19 MR. CROW: Yes. We have provided written
20 testimony. I'm not going to touch on it and go through it.
21 It's there, it's on the record. And it's exhaustive.
22 In summary, it's our contention this plan is not
23 approvable as it's recommended to you, because it does not
24 address transport mitigation. It does not include a
25 complete RACM analysis.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
331
1 Timing is critical. I do have an overhead, but
2 given the lack of time. If you delay implementation of Smog
3 Check 2 by referring it back to the Bay Area District, by
4 our timeframes, it would not be fully effective in the Bay
5 Area until the year 2008. That is some three years beyond
6 the date which the valley may be enjoying the full effect of
7 federal sanctions.
8 So I would suggest that it appears to be within
9 your legal authority to at least move on that measure today,
10 and I would encourage you to do so. And if the lawyers need
11 to sort it out at some future date, let them. But in the
12 meantime, let's move forward, what is happening throughout
13 every single metro area in the state.
14 I'm happy to take questions.
15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes, Matt. Mr. McKinnon.
16 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: This question is actually
17 directed to staff and to counsel.
18 Earlier today we had quite a discussion about our
19 statutory authority being limited. If the scenario were to
20 implement Smog Check 2 fully, short of test only, the test
21 only scenario, in other words, pick up the NOx question, and
22 -- and it's just short of the -- the test only station
23 approach, do we have any better legal standing?
24 MS. WALSH: Yes. Our position is that the legal
25 question that I spoke of earlier dealt solely with the issue
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
332
1 of the test only component of the program.
2 MR. CROW: If I might, on that point, it's much
3 the legal, but your question earlier today with regard to
4 the efficacy, if you will, of Smog Check 2, that point arose
5 after testimony that, earlier in the day, a question arose
6 as to it doesn't work, and a suggestion that an analysis
7 take place over the next year or so.
8 I would point out that just completed in July of
9 2000, there was conducted by Air Resources Board an
10 evaluation of California's enhanced vehicle inspection and
11 maintenance program, Smog Check 2.
12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I would just like to clarify,
13 David, if that was a comment that was directed to my earlier
14 comment. I talked to Supervisor Patrick. I think there's
15 probably a misunderstanding there. I was just looking at
16 that for the numbers. I wasn't questioning the need to do
17 that, sir.
18 MR. CROW: And numbers have been calculated. Our
19 board received the benefit of your staff's advice when they
20 took actions to adopt Smog Check 2 in adjacent metro areas,
21 and the quantifications were provided -- quantifications are
22 provided in the staff report on the Bay Area plan that go to
23 14, 15 tons of NOx reductions.
24 We need NOx reductions in the San Joaquin Valley.
25 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I don't --
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
333
1 MR. CROW: NOx comes from the Bay Area.
2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: -- don't dispute that.
3 Yes, Mr. McKinnon. And then --
4 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Mr. Crow, it seems to me a
5 minute ago you testified that we could take a slightly more
6 conservative approach and get through the statute morass
7 that may be binding -- is holding us back. And I just
8 proposed something, and it looks like it works. And I
9 certainly was trying to move in a direction that was
10 complementary to what you are advocating. And I hope you
11 didn't take it any other way.
12 MR. CROW: I appreciate it, as long as it is
13 something that your Board would deign to do tonight,
14 tomorrow, as opposed to what was suggested earlier under the
15 transport mitigation discussion, that you take further study
16 and re-engage in the subject in January of 2002. So I
17 appreciate your --
18 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you, Dave.
19 (Applause.)
20 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Now I have Brigitte Tollstrup.
21 Good evening.
22 MS. TOLLSTRUP: Good evening. My name is Brigette
23 Tollstrup. I'm the manager of the program coordination
24 division at the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality
25 Management District.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
334
1 I'm here to request that your Board include the
2 enhanced inspection and maintenance program, or Smog Check
3 2, in the Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan before you approve
4 this plan. The staff report did not analyze the Smog Check
5 2 program as a reasonably available control measure. And
6 implementing the leak inspection and evaporative test
7 provisions alone are simply not sufficient.
8 We believe that the additional ROG benefits from
9 the loaded mode testing of Smog Check 2 is a reasonably
10 available control measure, and will contribute to attainment
11 in the Bay Area. Smog Check 2 provides substantial
12 additional emission benefits.
13 We believe that delaying Smog Check 2 pending the
14 outcome of a study, future plan update, or until required
15 under the California Clean Air Act transport mitigation
16 regulations, is inappropriate. The program has been
17 implemented in every other major urban area in California.
18 In fact, today, our Board of Directors approved beginning
19 their process to expand Smog Check 2 program to areas
20 previously excluded in the Sacramento County.
21 The estimated cost to consumers is $10 more per
22 test than they pay for a basic smog test. The average
23 repair cost is just $20 higher. And there's additional cost
24 information attached to my remarks.
25 Not only are the benefits from Smog Check 2
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
335
1 essential to improve air quality in the Bay Area, but also
2 to improve air quality in the Sacramento federal non-
3 attainment area. When our clean air plan was approved, the
4 Bay Area had met the federal ozone standards. This was a
5 fact, fundamental assumption in our clean air plan. Under
6 this plan the Bay Area will have until 2006, one year after
7 our attainment date of 2005, to meet those standards again.
8 This impact on our attainment plan has not been assessed in
9 the staff report. That's why we believe it's essential that
10 every reasonable available measure to reduce emissions be
11 required. The benefits occur not only from a reduction in
12 transported emissions, but from the improvements to the
13 45,000 vehicles a day that travel in our region from the Bay
14 Area.
15 In conclusion, we believe that the emission
16 reductions from Smog Check 2 are significant and cost
17 effective. We believe it will improve air quality in the
18 Bay Area and Sacramento. We believe it's required by the
19 Federal Clean Air Act. Therefore, we request that your
20 Board include the enhanced inspection and maintenance
21 program in the Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan.
22 Thank you.
23 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much.
24 Questions?
25 Julia May, then Dr. Clark, and Ethel Dotson.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
336
1 MS. MAY: Yes. I'm Julia May from Communities for
2 a Better Environment.
3 I want to thank the Air Resources Board for its
4 efforts to improve the plan, but we really urge you to
5 reject this plan tonight. We don't see how you could
6 possibly accept this plan. The plan has been changing on a
7 daily basis. It changed a week before the Air District
8 Board reviewed it. We're finding out today you're adding 23
9 tons of unknown emissions to the plan that you're going to
10 get from someplace. We have no idea where. There's no CEQA
11 review, no NOx controls. There's no environmental justice
12 review. There's a number of people here tonight who live
13 next to very large stationary sources in the Bay Area who
14 -- whose health is severely hurt by these pollutants. And
15 they -- it continues out into the Bay Area and causes smog
16 in the region.
17 Then it blows away to other districts in
18 California. And in four districts, it causes overwhelming
19 pollution and two more significant pollution.
20 Now, again, we really appreciate that the ARB is
21 making efforts to add more measures. But how can we
22 possibly believe that these measures are real? I'm looking
23 at the 1991 Clean Air Plan of the Bay Area district. It had
24 measures in it that were never adopted, including a refinery
25 flare measure that was due to be implemented two years ago,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
337
1 at the latest. Never implemented, fell off the face of the
2 earth, never happened. Now the district is telling us
3 they're going to help us out by giving us a refinery flare
4 monitoring rule, which is a step backward from what we had
5 ten years ago.
6 There's a pressure relief valve rule in here that
7 was supposed to be adopted, reductions in '94, banning
8 venting to the atmosphere. Never happened. Just a week
9 ago, during the public hearing, Shell had a big pressure
10 relief valve release. According to the reports, 65 tons
11 from one release from the refinery at one time. And we're
12 talking about a plan, and it's not 145 tons. What we see in
13 the plan is 12.5, approximately, plus the new 23 tons. Such
14 releases would completely wash out gains that you are trying
15 to reach with your new plan.
16 CEQA, no CEQA analysis. I'm sure you'll hear more
17 about that. It's a legal requirement, but it's also
18 necessary for the community to be able to have input on
19 these issues, so people can tell you about the impacts in
20 the community that could happen from the clean air plan.
21 It's necessary. We don't believe that the conformity issue
22 is real. We think it's a red herring. And we think that
23 the Board must give the community a chance to speak about
24 these real issues, to have more time for a real process, and
25 instead of just trusting promises to the future. The
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
338
1 promises of the past never came true, and we don't know how
2 the district plans to get these 23 tons when there's no
3 detail given.
4 We support transit measures. We support
5 additional NOx controls. We have a lot more we could say,
6 but in the truncated public process, we hope you will give
7 us more time in the future and reject this plan.
8 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Well, I say thank you.
9 (Applause.)
10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: We get caught here in trying to
11 accommodate your time needs and the evening, which we very
12 much appreciate. But we're going to try to get it done
13 today and give those people at the end of the list some
14 adequate time. So we appreciate what you say, and it
15 doesn't help us, either, because I know you've taken the
16 time to do that, but I think you made very good points.
17 You've got written testimony.
18 I would like to ask staff on two of the items, on
19 CEQA, being the one item there that was mentioned.
20 GENERAL COUNSEL WALSH: The Bay Area was required
21 to comply with CEQA in adopting the plan, and they did --
22 the Bay Area, as well as the Air Resources Board, is
23 required to comply with CEQA in adopting the plan. The Bay
24 Area, the lead agency, they prepared a negative declaration
25 for the plan. Staff has reviewed that in the context of
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
339
1 reviewing the plan in total, and has determined that the
2 requirements of CEQA for the planning part of this effort
3 has been complied with.
4 As specific control measure comes forward through
5 the regulatory process, or as additional commitments are
6 identified, there will be more CEQA process at that point in
7 time because we'll be in a much better position, the Bay
8 Area will be in a much better position, to identify the
9 possible impacts of specific measures.
10 BOARD MEMBER DeSCULNIER: Mr. Chairman.
11 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes. Who's speaking --
12 Supervisor DeSaulnier, and then --
13 BOARD MEMBER DeSCULNIER: Julia, a question. When
14 we passed it, and I know you had some problems with my
15 suggestion, and you still do, but my motivation was to try
16 to get the six public hearings, and for my colleagues one of
17 the main conditions we had when we passed with the regional
18 agencies was to direct our staff to have six public meetings
19 within the next 60 days in affected communities, in
20 communities that you work in, and then come back with
21 amendments. And what I was specifically getting at is some
22 stationary source controls that you suggested.
23 Can we do that? Do you see any potential? And I
24 appreciate the fact that we've been playing phone tag, but
25 I'm concerned, as well, is that what we're proposing is real
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
340
1 and it's enforceable, and we get it done. And that we also
2 do the outreach that I admit we didn't do at the regional
3 agencies, and we should've done better.
4 So can we do that, and can you help us with it?
5 MS. MAY: I would have to put that question to the
6 community members. I cannot answer for them. The reaction
7 people had after the last hearing was what good would a
8 process be, although we appreciate your willingness to talk
9 to people, what good is the process after the fact, after
10 the plans are adopted.
11 BOARD MEMBER DeSCULNIER: And I guess maybe my
12 perception of the process, and I agree the process is
13 flawed, from my perspective, and there's a lot of reasons
14 for that. Some of the things that we could've done better,
15 other than we had no control over. So given that, in terms
16 of in a perfect world, we would've done something else. But
17 the reality of the situation we're in is can we fix that,
18 can we engage the communities and come back with a couple
19 additional stationary source components which will be part
20 of the 23 tons we have to go looking for.
21 MS. MAY: Well, there are certainly feasible
22 measures on the list there that are refinery measures, that
23 are feasible and known to work to reduce emissions. Please
24 look at the list. We've put lots of stuff in the record on
25 that.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
341
1 However, again, I have to put it to the community
2 members. Is this a real process? The best way to get to a
3 process, a real process, reject the plan, hold the
4 appropriate review, public review, and go back to adding the
5 measures with some enforceability, because so far we see no
6 enforceability of the districts. The district had over 13
7 violations, some of which were standing for seven years.
8 The district ignores its own plan for a decade. So we don't
9 know if the district would be held to anything that was
10 brought up after the adoption.
11 BOARD MEMBER DeSCULNIER: Mr. Kenny, maybe you
12 could respond to that, because I don't disagree with the
13 comments at all, and I think we, CARB, has to be put on the
14 record that we are going to make sure there is enforcement
15 on the issues that Julie has brought up, and if we have a
16 public process, we identify new stationary source controls,
17 that they will be implemented in a timely fashion.
18 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Basically, the language
19 that we have, that we are proposing to the Board for
20 conditional adoption of this particular plan incorporates
21 that. I mean, we basically are looking to achieve
22 attainment by 2006. We are recognizing that 145 tons is
23 necessary to achieve that. We are talking about making sure
24 that we have those measures specifically adopted in time to
25 ensure them -- that we make the attainment by 2006. And all
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
342
1 of that would involve very substantial public process.
2 It has been the history of this Board, and the
3 direction to the staff, that, in fact, we workshop and we
4 participate with the public at every opportunity, and we
5 continue to try to do that.
6 So I do not think that the staff would in any way
7 avoid the public process, which is crucial to essentially
8 involving people's -- getting people's input and getting
9 their comments.
10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Can I just do a follow-up -- just
11 a follow-up question on that. Mr. Kenny, when was the last
12 time the ARB conducted an audit of the Bay Area?
13 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: I'd have to check. I
14 don't know off the top of my head.
15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Three years ago?
16 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: I've been informed it's
17 within the last five to six years, but we'd have to double-
18 check to be certain.
19 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Ms. D'Adamo.
20 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: It seems to me that there's
21 just too much time in between our review, and there -- there
22 should be a way for Supervisor DeSaulnier's suggestion to be
23 implemented and have these public hearings in a timely
24 manner, and somehow marrying that with the concept of the
25 conditional approval in some mechanism whereby we could
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
343
1 receive it back within a short period of time. And I would
2 suggest also inclusion of the entire Smog 2 program, with
3 the exception of test only.
4 So it could put some of these additional
5 requirements in play now, and have a mechanism where it
6 could come back to us, and also included within that would
7 be a strengthening of enforcement measures.
8 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Our thought on that is
9 in fact that could be done. I mean, we have actually looked
10 at the proposal of Supervisor DeSaulnier that six public
11 meetings be held. And our thought is that were this Board
12 to conditionally approve the plan before it today, the plan
13 would then have to go back to the local agencies for
14 approval of the increases that are necessary to make this
15 plan satisfy the conditions that this Board would append to
16 the plan.
17 That could happen, and it could happen essentially
18 after the six public meetings occur. So what would
19 potentially occur is this Board would conditionally approve.
20 There would then be six public meetings in the Bay Area,
21 local level. And then what would happen is that would then
22 be followed by a public hearing by the local agencies to
23 include the conditions that had been essentially attached by
24 the Board.
25 The one concern that does continue to at least
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
344
1 exist for me is we are talking about essentially including
2 additional NOx measures in this particular plan. It is an
3 interesting arcane aspect of this particular plan that
4 because of the fact that we have very rudimentary tools on
5 this plan, and we do not have the more sophisticated tools
6 that would come from the CCAT's modeling, that if, in fact,
7 we were to include some of the NOx measures from forces of
8 Smog Check 2, it will change the attainment demonstration in
9 a way that will mean that we will more than likely be unable
10 to get USEPA approval, which is an odd artifact of this, but
11 it is a consequence of the fact that we are relying upon
12 very rudimentary tools.
13 And that's why we have proposed to you that, in
14 fact, the proposal be adopted as is, with the conditions of
15 the increased VOC measures, and then we will come back to
16 the Board with essentially the transport mitigation approach
17 with regard to smog check, so that in fact we have the -- we
18 have the mechanism in place to get both things that I think
19 the Board wants, and we don't essentially put ourselves in a
20 position that in attempting to achieve both things at one
21 time, we potentially achieve neither.
22 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: But I'm concerned about
23 what Mr. Crow brought up about the timeline. I think that
24 we need to move sooner, rather than later, on NOx, and I
25 think we've had plenty of studies that would indicate a need
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
345
1 for that.
2 Now, certainly we could always do better than to
3 put it off.
4 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Well, I'm not reading -- I'm not
5 reading that into what Mr. Kenny is saying. I agree with
6 you completely, and I'm terribly distressed by the fact that
7 we have this arcane tool, but Mr. Kenny's dead right.
8 Because of that, and I'll demonstrate to you here why that
9 is, but we'll get into a technicality where we could
10 actually maybe delay the implementation of NOx we're
11 talking. We should go ahead as expeditiously as possible in
12 NOx control, but if we do it as part of this, we get stuck.
13 BOARD MEMBER PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: I'm wondering to
14 what extent -- I'm bothered by just the conditional approval
15 of the plan that is so flawed in its process thus far.
16 (Applause.)
17 BOARD MEMBER PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: I mean, there
18 are concessions, there have been concessions, if that's the
19 case. I don't mean fatally flawed, but sufficiently flawed
20 so that as a public member it troubles me. And I'm a little
21 bothered by just approving it on the condition that there
22 are so many more additional tons of reduction without
23 specification as to taking into account and considering some
24 of the specific feasible measures that have been proposed
25 and that are of concern, and that we've heard about some of
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
346
1 them before, when we were in Richmond and when we've been
2 elsewhere in the state. Particularly with respect to the
3 stationary sources and the refineries.
4 And what I'm wondering is, on the other hand I
5 applaud the willingness and then, indeed, the recognition
6 that they must -- that the district must have more public
7 input and must specify now, if we were to do this, where
8 this additional reduction is going to come from. And what
9 measures they will take, and with community input, as the
10 supervisor said.
11 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Professor Friedman, excuse
12 me. They're having a terrible time hearing you in the back,
13 and I don't want them to miss what you're saying. And we
14 need to somehow --
15 BOARD MEMBER PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: I don't know if
16 I could say it again.
17 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Yeah. Much better.
18 BOARD MEMBER PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: I guess what I'm
19 saying is that I'm concerned about, as a public member,
20 about the process that I've heard all sides suggest has been
21 less than perfect, to this point. I've seen recognition
22 that there needs to be more public input on precisely how
23 additional tonnage reductions are going to be achieved under
24 the plan. I've heard that we're -- it's recommended by our
25 staff that we approve the plan on the condition that the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
347
1 additional tonnage is achieved, and -- and is specified, and
2 only after much more public input and hearings, as
3 Supervisor DeSaulnier has insisted that there be six more
4 community -- appropriate community hearings and forums to
5 deal with that.
6 But unless it came back to us to approve, it seems
7 to me that we have some responsibility to make sure that the
8 reduction is real, and that it has -- it is feasible. These
9 are feasible measures. There's been some -- a few of them
10 identified here, I guess by --
11 MS. MAY: CBE.
12 BOARD MEMBER PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: -- Communities
13 for a Better Environment, that have been already mentioned.
14 At least some of them. Flare relief valves, many have had
15 to do with the stationary sources.
16 We also have said earlier today, I thought we --
17 we pretty well agreed that we want to see the Smog Check 2
18 implemented in the Bay Area to the fullest extent that we
19 have legal authority. At least I think that was the
20 direction I had hoped I heard we were giving the staff, and
21 I know that had to do with transport and a statewide
22 transport program.
23 But now we are here with a plan, and this is the
24 time, it seems to me, to insert it, and I agree with Ms.
25 D'Adamo on that.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
348
1 And what I guess what I'm saying is, on the other
2 hand, we've heard that we need to act. We ought to act now.
3 We shouldn't delay this and risk other untoward consequences
4 in the area. So what I'm wondering is, is there some way we
5 can conditionally approve, but make those conditions real,
6 and make sure that there is additional public input on how
7 this is finally shaped and how the additional reductions are
8 achieved, what the additional restrictions will be and on
9 whom they will be imposed, and get further assurance by
10 prosecution of violations on enforcement, I mentioned that
11 earlier.
12 I am concerned about statements, and I don't know
13 -- I haven't witnessed this, I don't know it, but I'm
14 willing to assume that where there's smoke, there's some
15 fire, and that there have not been the kind of enforcement
16 that I think that all of us in a perfect world would wish to
17 see. And I think that's important. I think it sends
18 signals, and it -- and we've already talked about the need
19 to maybe improve our sanction authority, even if that maybe
20 takes some legislation.
21 So I guess I'm making a speech, but I'm hoping
22 it'll shortcut in some ways a lot of things. And this is my
23 -- what I'm wondering is, since we're into this, is this
24 something that you could live with, conditional approval on
25 those terms?
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
349
1 MS. MAY: I'm not sure if I understand the terms.
2 But I -- again, I have to leave it to community members
3 about whether they're willing to take part in an extremely
4 -- another extremely foreshortened process. The way it was
5 explained to us is that the district was proposing, was that
6 there would be a new meeting every week, starting next week.
7 It's been very hard for people to come out tonight. They
8 came out the week before. The Air Resources Board had
9 another hearing the week before that. The plan has changed
10 every week. That's not really possible for people to
11 continue that kind of process. And there are also legal
12 requirements that have to be met that I'm sure our attorney
13 will address.
14 We think you need to reject the plan and consider
15 the measures. We appreciate that you're considering these
16 measures, but we think they have to be considered in a
17 serious way, where we can give details, talk -- have a give
18 and take talk about all the documentation, all the evidence.
19 There's hard evidence showing that you can get real
20 reductions from these sources, and we'd love to talk to you
21 about, you know, the nine ton average pressure relief valve
22 releases in the Bay Area. We'd love to talk to you about
23 how all the open wastewater ponds around refineries get rid
24 of water pollution by evaporating it to the air.
25 I don't know how we can do that tonight and fine
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
350
1 tune a plan.
2 BOARD MEMBER PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Well, no. I'm
3 not suggesting we do that tonight. We wouldn't be able to
4 do it, I wouldn't think.
5 What I'm wondering is whether we could take what
6 is now the plan, as presented, conditionally, with the total
7 tonnage reduction commitment, and then flesh it out in terms
8 of more specific implementation before it becomes final,
9 before it becomes unconditionally approved. And then that
10 would all be in a process of public hearing, as whatever is
11 required, whatever the supervisor has proposed, as long as
12 that satisfies the requirements and get at it that way.
13 To scrap the plan and simply let's all go home and
14 start all over, I don't -- it sounds to me like you'd have
15 to start all over.
16 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: Professor Friedman, if I
17 might. I think part of what we are trying to do here is
18 recognize that, in fact, the public process has not been the
19 best. I mean, I think we all acknowledge that. And so what
20 we're then trying to do is move forward with at least the
21 best possible approach that we can essentially craft at this
22 point in time.
23 The difficulty that we are confronting is that we
24 are basically staring square in the face of the conformity
25 issue. And that is to a great extent what is driving us on,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
351
1 you know, on both the timing and in terms of trying to come
2 up with a substitute plan that both achieves the clean air
3 objectives that we all have, and that at the same time
4 satisfies this conformity issue.
5 With regard to the specific measures that would
6 flesh up -- the 23 tons of VOC, within the timeframes that
7 we're talking about, I think the reality is we probably
8 could not do so. I mean, what we have tried to do is
9 essentially give ourselves some time to do so, but to try to
10 do so within the timeframes that we would have to meet in
11 order to satisfy the conformity issue that is in front of
12 us, I think it's unrealistic.
13 We are more than willing to essentially sit down
14 with the communities and to talk about any specific measure
15 that they think we should be looking at. And I know, and I
16 don't want to speak for the district, but I would suspect
17 the district would probably be more than willing to do the
18 same thing, also.
19 And I think that is what we are trying to do with
20 at least the six public meetings that Supervisor DeSaulnier
21 mentioned, is give ourselves the opportunity to at least try
22 to figure out what areas we can go. But to simply put the
23 additional measures into the plan without having the
24 opportunity to talk with both the community and other
25 affected parties, I think is probably moving too fast, and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
352
1 probably also moving in a direction in which we would put
2 measures into a plan that we would not know enough about
3 within the time that's available to us.
4 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Well, I think one of the things
5 we need to address as part of that process, though, is Ms.
6 Mays' comment there of ten years ago, you know, how do we
7 know what's on the table will be implemented. So I think
8 that's something we clearly have to shore up.
9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: The one thing we have
10 tried to do here is to the extent that we do not want to ask
11 the communities to essentially take a trust in us, I mean,
12 because we recognize that that's an unreasonable request.
13 And so to the extent that the 23 tons are a part of the
14 plan, and to the extent that the federal government does
15 approve the 23 tons as part of the plan, if, in fact, we do
16 not then fulfill our 23 ton commitment, we are legally
17 liable.
18 There is the ability, at that point in time, for
19 any individual citizen to sue under the Federal Clean Air
20 Act, and to essentially prevail, because we have failed in
21 our commitment to achieve the tons that we have specifically
22 committed to on the record, and legally. And so the process
23 here that we have tried to --
24 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Who's "we"?
25 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: We basically is going to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
353
1 be the State. It's going to be the State --
2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: The State --
3 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: -- and the USEPA, and it
4 is the individual districts, individual Bay Area district
5 and Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
6 And so we are on the hook by basically putting
7 this commitment in there, and the community and the citizens
8 then do have the right, if, in fact, we fail to deliver, to
9 sue and to probably sue quite successfully, because we have
10 given them a very easy hammer.
11 And we've tried to basically provide that as the
12 mechanism instead of providing the specific detail, because
13 the reality for us at this point in time is that we cannot
14 provide that specific detail, and a lot of discussion and a
15 lot of interaction.
16 BOARD MEMBER DeSCULNIER: Mr. Chairman.
17 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes, Supervisor DeSaulnier.
18 BOARD MEMBER DeSCULNIER: A comment to Julia. The
19 six public meetings, at least from my perspective, were
20 meant as a good faith measure, and to try to correct the
21 situation. Now, if it's actually causing problems, then I
22 think we need to talk about it, and with you. I mean,
23 clearly, we need you to help communicate with the community
24 and help them get through and understand this.
25 So hearing that we're trying to rush these, we
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
354
1 need to work with you to figure out if we can make it work
2 the best it can for the community and for your organization.
3 So I definitely, when I hear that it's actually causing
4 problems for you and being counterproductive, we'd rather
5 work with you and try to see if we can find a way to make it
6 work.
7 MS. MAY: I think we need to let community members
8 speak --
9 BOARD MEMBER DeSCULNIER: Okay.
10 MS. MAY: -- on -- they can speak on that, to that
11 issue. I hope you'll ask them the same questions. I
12 appreciate your comment. I think people understand very
13 well what the issues are. They're very concerned about the
14 long delays and the impacts in the community, and the
15 promises that were never kept in the past. As far as the
16 legal issues, you know, we have sued. We sued ten years ago
17 and won in federal court. We've had to sue the district
18 repeatedly. We had to sue EPA to -- and EPA agreed and
19 rejected the plan.
20 We might have to sue again. We do not want to
21 sue. What we're asking you to do is to help us. We want
22 you to reject the blatantly illegal plan and protect
23 people's health. And you can do that tonight. We don't
24 believe --
25 (Applause.)
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
355
1 MS. MAY: We don't believe that the -- that you're
2 really up against it on the highway funding issue. We think
3 it's a red herring.
4 Are there any other questions?
5 BOARD MEMBER DeSCULNIER: Thank you.
6 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think your suggestion to let
7 the community speak was a good one. Thank you very much,
8 indeed.
9 MS. MAY: Thank you very much.
10 (Applause.)
11 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you.
12 Now, Dr. Henry Clark, Ethel Dotson, Flora
13 Campbell, Ms. Thomas, and Shannon Eddy.
14 DR. CLARK: Thank you. I'm the Executive Director
15 of the West County Toxics Coalition, based in Richmond,
16 California. We represent residents that live around the
17 Chevron refinery and other chemical companies.
18 These measures, refinery measures related to the
19 stationary sources that Ms. May talked about, no, those
20 haven't been delayed over ten years. We've been coming
21 before the Air District over 20 years. Over 20 years,
22 talking about those issues, about flaring that rocks our
23 houses. I live on the front line of the chemical assault,
24 right down on Battery Street.
25 Those flares from the Chevron refinery, when they
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
356
1 were blooming, they sent shock waves that rocked our houses
2 like we were caught in an earthquake. Or the evaporation
3 ponds out there at the chemical companies and refineries
4 that send stinky odors out into our community. These are
5 the measures that Ms. May is talking about, and they are
6 real, because we have lived with them all our life. I grew
7 up as a kid, to this very day living next to this type of
8 situation. So these are real situations.
9 So in talking about environmental justice,
10 environmental justice can't wait around for no six years,
11 when you're talking. We just defeated another power plant
12 that the City of Richmond and Chevron was proposing to build
13 on Chevron property here again, right next to our community.
14 So while you're talking about waiting six years or
15 so for some 23 tons of additional emissions, other plants
16 are coming on the line to be built in our community, to
17 expose us to more chemicals. We can't wait. People are
18 dying. I don't think you quite get the message, when we
19 come before you and tell you that people are dying in our
20 community. We're not making this up. We have buried people
21 over the years from lung cancer. We, in our community,
22 North Richmond, our children are suffering from a high rate
23 of asthma and other illnesses in our community relating to
24 our chemical pollution.
25 So this is not something imaginary or just some
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
357
1 type of feel good session. When we come all the way over
2 here from Richmond to testify before you, we need to talk
3 about getting some measures in place right now. And as far
4 as the public participation process is concerned, public
5 participation is key to the environmental justice spirit.
6 It ain't no thing about no well, we started out with a
7 flawed process so let's keep on going forward with this here
8 flawed process in the hope that it's going to work itself
9 out in the final end.
10 Well, yeah, it seems like you have considered some
11 other measures since the last meeting that we had, and
12 that's certainly good. But we need to make that real, and
13 we need to make those measures soon as possible because
14 environmental justice can't wait. And Mr. DeSaulnier, and
15 all of you, you need to be talking with people in our
16 communities about these issues and concerns, because the
17 bottom line is this here. The West County Toxics Coalition
18 has pioneered environmental justice all over this country,
19 and all over the world, and if we're not satisfied with
20 what's coming out of this process, and in the sense of
21 environmental justice, there ain't no environmental justice
22 happenning, period.
23 (Applause.)
24 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Dr. Clark, I would like to again
25 commend you on your comments. As you know, we attended an
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
358
1 evening meeting over in Richmond with Supervisor DeSaulnier,
2 and we heard similar comments. And I think the fact that we
3 actually heard you was manifested this week, when, in fact,
4 the Air Board, through Supervisor DeSaulnier and through the
5 county, contributed $100,000 to help some of the early
6 warning systems for the refinery. That is only a -- I
7 recognize, a first stop, but I think it's a little bit
8 unfair to say we've not heard you on environmental justice.
9 We're making every effort, sir, and we appreciate your --
10 but that's -- that's only a start.
11 DR. CLARK: Well, that's -- it's --
12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Sir -- please, sorry, could you
13 come to the microphone for the court reporter. Sorry.
14 DR. CLARK: Just talking about waiting five or six
15 or some years for 23 some tons. West County Toxics
16 Coalition and our allies going back to 1991, when Chevron
17 was trying to get a permit to expand the waste that they was
18 running in their hazardous waste incinerator at the chemical
19 company. Well, because of community concerns and
20 negotiating with the company, we closed down an incinerator
21 that eliminated over 60,000 tons of hazardous waste that
22 would've been burning and spilled in our community, in less
23 than two or three weeks.
24 So you're talking about 23 some tons over -- I
25 mean, you can do better than that.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
359
1 (Applause.)
2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Ethel Dotson.
3 MS. DOTSON: Yes. Ethel Dotson. I live in the
4 City of Richmond. Did the gentleman -- did they pass -- oh,
5 okay.
6 Any rate, first of all, you all have to reject
7 this plan. I think it's an insult to our intelligence to
8 tell us we'll pass the plan, then we'll have a community
9 meeting. That don't make no common sense. Okay.
10 And I think that what the article that came out in
11 the newspaper yesterday, so that you all don't get caught up
12 in a conspiracy, because it's definitely a conspiracy that's
13 happening. You all don't really know what the -- you all
14 don't know what nobody is doing. You don't know what nobody
15 is doing. And to look -- I was so shocked yesterday to see
16 this on the front page, and then at the bottom right-hand
17 corner, about EPA and this hearing today. You know,
18 waterfront cocaine bust, got the ship and the refineries in
19 the background, and one of the refineries, and the -- and
20 the oil tankers. So that means all the cocaine and stuff
21 that's going to these oil companies, and then the stuff is
22 being put into the community to do genocide on part of our
23 own folks, so don't insult our intelligence, please. And,
24 you know, how can you all pass something -- look at this.
25 Have you seen this? Did you see it on the news?
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
360
1 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: No.
2 MS. DOTSON: And then they let the ship go, go on
3 back to Ecuador. You all need to ask for an investigation.
4 There's something wrong at these refineries. With all the
5 cocaine on the oil tanker.
6 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I --
7 MS. DOTSON: So I think that you all really -- you
8 really need to deny this plan, go back to the table with us,
9 meet with us in the community, and I hope you see. I had a
10 very, very good friend. Since the last time I talked with
11 you all in Richmond, I gave you a copy of that lawsuit that
12 I did in '89. I heard somebody talk about '89 the other
13 night. And '89 is when I did the lawsuit when you all --
14 when you all should've been doing different property tax
15 formulas and zones for different special regulations, what
16 we need in the community. I have not heard from you all,
17 but I did call the attorney. The attorney said yes, the law
18 is on the book. It's there. We have to work with the Air
19 Board.
20 Do you think that that happened? No way that the
21 Air Board worked with us. They just tried to insult my
22 answer, oh, and that means something else. I beg your
23 pardon. That's not what the justice is saying.
24 So you have to deny the plan. We have to talk
25 about all of that. All of it. With these oil companies
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
361
1 getting all these drugs and stuff into our -- our facilities
2 or something, man, they got enough money to pay our taxes,
3 that we shouldn't have to be taking it and stuff. And we've
4 been poisoned to death. I am very, very upset. How can you
5 deny this? You all don't even -- you all didn't know that
6 this had happened?
7 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I didn't know. Maybe some --
8 MS. DOTSON: You all don't watch the news?
9 You don't read the newspaper?
10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Not the West County Times.
11 MS. DOTSON: Did you see it, Mr. DeSaulnier?
12 BOARD MEMBER DeSCULNIER: Yes, I did, Ethel.
13 MS. DOTSON: Okay. So how can you go along with
14 passing the plan --
15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Well --
16 MS. DOTSON: -- and all of this? You need to --
17 I'm asking you all to ask the U.S. Attorney, the California
18 Attorney General, and the District Attorneys and stuff. We
19 want some answers.
20 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Well, I think -- I think on that
21 particular issue, we have a representative from Western
22 States Petroleum Association, Mr. Bolt. We can ask him
23 tonight.
24 MS. DOTSON: Thank you, because you know I'm not
25 lying, I didn't write this newspaper article.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
362
1 But the point is, my mother wanted to come
2 tonight, but she could not, because we need meetings in the
3 community. And we need more than one meeting in each area.
4 You need four meetings in Contra Costa County. One in East
5 County, one in Martinez, one in Rodeo, and one down in
6 Richmond. So we're talking about more than the six meetings
7 and stuff, but don't you all pass this because we have not
8 had our input. And you all know that I mentioned that to
9 you all when you had that hearing at the City Council
10 Chambers in Richmond. And not one time have you all -- we
11 had no -- no meetings.
12 We haven't had no meetings since then. You know
13 the attorneys didn't come down to talk to us. You know,
14 from -- from your -- the state agency. You know. So you --
15 how can you all pass this? And your staff, how can you all
16 do this? Did you see this? Did you see it? I know that
17 you all can't go along with this. I know you can't do it.
18 It all goes along with Bill Moyers, when he came
19 out with trade secrets, that they have been lying. You all
20 have not even looked at that, have you. Trade secrets that
21 Bill Moyers come out with. They've been lying, so how can
22 we trust anybody? I don't trust you.
23 So don't pass this, and if you do, then it's a
24 conspiracy and we going to have to go to court because we
25 got this, got trade secrets, I've got a whole lot of more
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
363
1 other stuff. So please do not pass this plan tonight.
2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much.
3 MS. DOTSON: Thank you.
4 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you.
5 (Applause.)
6 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: We'll take one last person. Mr.
7 Larry Armstrong wants to leave, and then we're going to take
8 a break for the court reporter.
9 So, Mr. Larry Armstrong.
10 We've got to take -- the court reporter needs to
11 take a break, and then we're going to come back.
12 Mr. Armstrong.
13 MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes. My name is Larry Armstrong.
14 I operate some automotive tune-up shops in the Bay Area, and
15 also one left in Fresno, and so I'd like to make some
16 comments that I think you're -- relate a little bit.
17 One thing I'd like to do is I want to compliment
18 you on having a court reporter here this evening. I've been
19 to meetings that I thought were important meetings that were
20 supposed to be public meetings, that had no recording
21 whatsoever going on. I was at one at the -- I believe it
22 was at the ARB offices in Sacramento. There was no
23 recording of the meeting. I believe there was a law passed
24 a few years ago that I think requires some sort of reporting
25 of meetings. So I, again, want to compliment you on
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
364
1 recording this meeting.
2 I would also like to ask how I go about getting a
3 copy of the transcript that's going to be produced here. I'd
4 be happy to pay my fair share of a copy of it, but I'd like
5 to have it as soon as it's produced, if I may. I'd be happy
6 to leave a card.
7 This afternoon it seemed like there were people
8 from all over the areas outside the Bay Area that seemed to
9 be complaining about their air, and yet most of the areas,
10 the people had what they said we should have in the Bay
11 Area. They had the so-called enhanced Smog Check 2 program
12 in their own area, and they were complaining about their
13 air.
14 I find it interesting that the Bay Area seems to
15 be the target everywhere, when the Bay Area seems to have
16 the air that is a little bit better than everybody else's
17 air. So I would hope that you would maybe kind of go
18 through the logic of that kind of a theory that the Bay Area
19 ought to change what they're doing so that they could maybe
20 somehow do something with their air that's better than
21 everybody else's.
22 So I hope that amuses somebody else as much as it
23 amused me, sitting in the audience.
24 One of the reasons I want to get the record of
25 this meeting is that the lady in front of me used the word
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
365
1 conspiracy, and I won't attempt to try to speak as
2 eloquently as she does. She's fabulous. But the -- it
3 almost seems to me like there's a conspiracy here to adopt
4 the Smog Check 2 program in the Bay Area not on a straight
5 up deal, but a kind of a ratcheting program where it gets a
6 little bit tipped in, and then coming back later. I think
7 there was two references made to that, that I certainly want
8 to read what the record says to clarify which -- what was
9 actually said.
10 But I really don't know that the public in the Bay
11 Area is really up to having the abuses that come with the
12 so-called Smog Check 2 program. The choice is taken away.
13 There was a lady from the Sacramento Air district up here
14 that said it cost $10 more. I don't know where she gets her
15 number from. But actually, it's a multiplication rather
16 than how much more, because the customers that are the most
17 likely to fail, the lower income people, get forced into
18 basically buying three smog checks instead of one. So if it
19 is $10 more, it's $30 more, and then times three of the
20 whole thing.
21 So I would hope that the public would be paying
22 attention to that, because they're talking about a whole
23 bunch of money, and somebody was waving around a report from
24 the ARB, and I think that was the report that they presented
25 that said, in another meeting, that said that the Smog Check
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
366
1 2 program wasn't working like it was designed to work. So I
2 would hope that somebody would pay attention to that, also.
3 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I'll have to ask you to wrap up,
4 Mr. Armstrong, otherwise we're --
5 MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes, sir. I'd just -- I'd like to
6 point out that I'm not quite done, and I'll stop.
7 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Because there'll be more
8 witnesses that are --
9 MR. ARMSTRONG: But I hope that you do notice that
10 the lady, I think it was from Community for a Better
11 Environment, was probably up here for half an hour. And --
12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: The first one, because --
13 MR. ARMSTRONG: But it's -- I just -- I'd just
14 like to point that out, and I'll stop, but I do have more
15 comments.
16 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Well, that was because the Board
17 was asking questions in that case, and if we ask --
18 MR. ARMSTRONG: Oh, I see.
19 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: -- if we ask you a half-hour of
20 questions, I'm not going to displace you.
21 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I have a question.
22 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Mr. McKinnon.
23 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I have a question.
24 (Laughter.)
25 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I think what -- I think a
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
367
1 moment there, a moment ago you mentioned Smog Check Test 2,
2 and some of its impacts, and people trying to sneak it in,
3 or whatever. Just so I can repeat what I was proposing, so
4 that there's absolutely no misunderstanding, I'm sure it'll
5 be on the record.
6 The meeting today, a number of us found out very
7 clearly that we have some statutory limitations on what we
8 can impose. And a number -- several of us have been looking
9 for ways to legally get a chance to get better air. And the
10 thing that I proposed was Smog Check 2, short of test only.
11 And I guess what I have to ask you is Smog Check 2, short of
12 test only, would not require paying fees to three different
13 people. Isn't that correct?
14 MR. ARMSTRONG: That could be correct, sir. Yes.
15 And I don't believe I was -- I don't think your comments
16 earlier were the ones that I was referencing. I was
17 referencing there were comments about coming in, basically
18 coming in the back door as a mitigation measure, and
19 bringing in Smog Check 2. I don't think your comments
20 were -- were in there at all. But I see Mr. Cackette in the
21 room, and I can remember in May of 1992, I think it was, Mr.
22 Cackette saying to me, well, what are you worried about,
23 most of your shops are in the Bay Area and they're not going
24 to have this program.
25 So when I -- when you say that, I sit there and I
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
368
1 go oh, that'd be nice. And except that I know that there
2 are people you might be, and I -- and I assume that you're
3 being up front and making an honest presentation, but there
4 are people that -- that I will tell you would attempt to
5 back door your proposal and come back around and bring the
6 test only factor in there, and the public would then get a
7 bad deal, and the people that have been providing that
8 service for years end up basically getting put out of
9 business by their customers being mandated to go to their
10 competitor that is provided by the test only situation.
11 So that would be my concerns there, sir.
12 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I would just offer to you
13 that those that have advocated for the test only today have
14 done it up front. I mean, I don't think we can get away
15 with that, because of the way the statute gave us authority
16 to do things. But I think people have been very up front
17 about that.
18 But I happen to think this is, you know, a viable
19 approach, is that we get test -- get Smog Check Test 2 in
20 short order, without test only. And --
21 MR. ARMSTRONG: As I testified earlier today, sir,
22 I would be happy to sit down with you or anybody on the
23 Committee, and show you how the numbers were jiggled, and
24 there is absolutely no evidence that the Smog Check 2
25 program, or the dynamometer program, with or without test
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
369
1 only, provides any additional benefit over what we have in
2 the Bay Area today.
3 I'm in that business. I have attended all but two
4 of the I&M review, the inspection and maintenance review
5 committee meetings since May of 1992. They had them
6 generally almost once a month. I've attended ARB meetings.
7 I think I'm fairly versed on the subject, and I will tell
8 you that there is a very good possibility that there's a
9 dis-benefit in adopting Smog Check 2, rather than with
10 working with what we have in the Bay Area today, sir.
11 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Thank you.
12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I would also like to respond.
13 Nothing that this Board does is done by the back door.
14 Everything is done in the open. We have public process.
15 Anytime we bring a rule, it's workshopped many times, and
16 before it's brought before this Board. The discussions you
17 heard today, they were discussions. And they were some
18 suggestions and directions to staff to investigate, but
19 there was not a regulatory item.
20 So we will not find it coming in by the back door.
21 It just cannot happen in this process.
22 MR. ARMSTRONG: Sir, I'm sorry. I've been to
23 enough meetings and I've watched enough of these things
24 happen that I think my concerns are legitimate. So I --
25 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Well --
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
370
1 MR. ARMSTRONG: -- I appreciate your comments, but
2 I'll reserve my --
3 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: If you find it while I'm Chair of
4 this Board, that it basically comes through the back door,
5 then I would like to hear from you. Because I -- it's not
6 going to happen. It's not going to happen with the members
7 here. We're all committed to that. We're all appointed by
8 the Governor to serve at his pleasure, and that's not the
9 way we do business.
10 MR. ARMSTRONG: Fine, sir. Thanks.
11 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: With that, I would like to let
12 the court reporter take a short break. And then we will
13 start off with Charlie Peters first, after that, and then we
14 have Flora Campbell and Ms. Thomas.
15 So we'll take a five minute break.
16 (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
17 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I would like to continue. I
18 would like to continue on this item.
19 The next witness is Charlie Peters. And then we
20 have Supervisor Daly, and then Flora Campbell.
21 MR. PETERS: Mr. Chairman, Dr. Lloyd, and
22 Committee. I am Charlie Peters, founder and president of
23 Clean Air Performance Professionals. We are a coalition of
24 motorists that is world-wide. We have been interested in
25 these issues and trying to learn about them now for about a
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
371
1 decade. And we are very excited about the kinds of things
2 we're seeing happening in the Bay Area right now.
3 The situation as to why we're there. In 1993,
4 there was a significant effort to pass legislation both for
5 test only and for the Smog Check 2 program. On the last day
6 of session, at about 8:30 in the morning, our time, my
7 congressman, who was Congressman Jerry Lusk, I called him
8 and he said that he had called my senator and supported
9 passage of the bill in '93.
10 I said, Jerry, no. He says, Charlie, shut up and
11 listen to me. He said, I asked the senator to vote for the
12 bill because I thought that's what you wanted, but the
13 senator told me that it wasn't going to pass, and explained
14 why.
15 That didn't actually happen until 11:30 at night,
16 when Senator Ayala was talking to the Director of EPA in
17 Washington, D.C. So at 11:30 at night, in California, it
18 was starting to get a little late in Washington, D.C. And
19 he rejected her efforts to get California to pass the first
20 bill of Smog Check 2.
21 Right about that time, Mary Nichols was appointed
22 as a Deputy Administrator of EPA. It was reported how she
23 got on the airplane with all of the appropriate
24 documentation and information, and came to California to
25 work a deal. And the deal ended up that Senator Boatwright,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
372
1 Senator Copp and Mayor Brown of San Francisco worked a deal.
2 And the deal was called the Copp-out.
3 I would like to clarify that, at that time, the
4 EPA's official designation of San Francisco was not in
5 compliance. But the deal was worked to not implement the
6 enhanced program in San Francisco.
7 So there's been testimony today counter to that,
8 but that's how it happened. And I'm sure the Chronicle
9 reported that, and I'm sure their search engine would be
10 happy to clarify that in the press.
11 I have been asking questions as to what the
12 inventory is from cars that participate in smog check in
13 California for quite some time, for years, and nobody's
14 given me any answers. I've been trying to find out what
15 reductions the basic program creates for years, and nobody
16 will give me any answers. We have a situation where we
17 support Smog Check 2 because it measures NOx and reduces
18 NOx. Somebody needs to show me how that works, and
19 separating inspection from repair, how that works, because I
20 can tell you, I don't agree with that. I think that's
21 incorrect information.
22 I can tell you with an appropriate oversight, as
23 in the testimony that I provided you here today, with
24 appropriate oversight we can change behaviors, cut the cost
25 to the public of the smog check by 50 percent, cut 50
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
373
1 percent of the fraud out within a year, and reduce emissions
2 very significantly by giving appropriate reductions credits
3 for the ancillary effects of the program for behaviors
4 change, and we have cleaner cars running down the highway.
5 So what is happening here needs some review, and I would be
6 happy to discuss the details of that with anybody who would
7 listen.
8 Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Committee.
9 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much.
10 Questions?
11 Thank you very much, Charlie.
12 Supervisor Daly.
13 SUPERVISOR DALY: Thank you, Chair Lloyd and other
14 directors. My name is Chris Daly, I'm a Supervisor here in
15 San Francisco of District 6.
16 First of all, welcome to the mid-Market in San
17 Francisco's District 6. I also represent out at Tenderloin
18 and south of Market. I'm a member on the Bay Area Air
19 Quality Management District. I'm a relatively new member.
20 And certainly coming on to the Air Board has been a learning
21 curve for me, but I've tried to play catch-up and I've tried
22 to participate to my fullest ability in this process, as
23 I've seen ozone attainment as a critical issue, given the
24 history that I was able to read about in the papers at the
25 air district.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
374
1 I was able to attend the community meeting in
2 Richmond that Supervisor DeSaulnier called, and I was
3 actually a little disappointed with the lack of
4 participation from community members. I guess I'm known in
5 these parts for calling community meetings with 500 folks at
6 them, but there weren't even a dozen community folks at this
7 meeting. And so the process certainly has been one that
8 needs to improve.
9 At the meeting, the joint meeting of the air
10 district, the MTC, and ABAG this past week, I do want you to
11 know that I was a part of a small dissenting block of voters
12 that voted against the ultimate motion forwarded by
13 Supervisor DeSaulnier that brought the attainment plan to
14 you. I questioned several aspects of the plan. I think
15 some that the EPA and that you have questioned as to whether
16 or not the levels of tonnage of emission reductions were, in
17 fact, enough for attainment. I also had some questions as
18 to whether the negative declaration under CEQA was the
19 correct ruling.
20 I'm very glad to see a proposal to achieve an
21 additional 23 tons of reductions per day, but it raises some
22 serious, some more serious questions to me, as a member of
23 the air district, a body which did sign off on that negative
24 declaration. It did sign off on the ultimate ozone
25 attainment plan that, in fact, when we were pushing air
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
375
1 district staff, and I have had a pleasurable past six
2 months' experience of working with the good women and men at
3 the air district, but in terms of pushing the air district
4 staff to find more emission reductions, we weren't able to
5 do it. We weren't able to go past 12.5.
6 And so although these numbers do look pleasing, I
7 have to be honest. From a very conservative stance, I'm
8 very concerned about potential litigation from some folks in
9 the room, who I actually respect very much, but because of
10 some decisions that were made at the air district this past
11 week, which I think may have been faulty. I think that we
12 do have the opportunity to send this back to maybe engender
13 maybe a better relationship, a good faith relationship with
14 some of the stakeholders in our communities who take this
15 issue very seriously, to maybe go through and run a series
16 of more thorough community meetings that are more
17 democratic, that have better outreach, more culturally
18 competent outreach, so that we can get more members of the
19 public to the table and talking. Maybe some folks who have
20 some technical expertise and some ideas as to how we can
21 increase our emission reductions, so that we can get what,
22 12 and a half plus 23 is what, 35 and a half tons per day.
23 Currently, under what you're proposing, I'm not
24 exactly sure how we're going to do that. Is it Smog Check
25 2, what other further kind of reductions, where are we going
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
376
1 to get our further reductions.
2 I think with a community planning process we can
3 tap not just into our technical expertise at the air
4 district, and also at ABAG and then at the MTC, but we also
5 can tap into the experts that I think now are fully engaged
6 in this process and have come out to tonight's meeting, as
7 well as the joint regional government meeting this past
8 week, to actually present something that works for
9 communities, that works for the region, that works. I know
10 our neighbors in the Central Valley and in Sacramento Valley
11 are concerned about our emissions, and the winds that come
12 out of the west and blow some of our emissions that way.
13 I think we can come up with a plan that works for
14 the region, works for the communities, and works for all of
15 northern California, asking, go ahead, take the step, send
16 the plan back.
17 I think that we can live with what happens in
18 terms of federal highway moneys. I don't think that any
19 project would be stopped. I actually don't think there will
20 be much of a stall on any funding. So we can get a good
21 plan, we can engender some confidence from folks in the
22 communities where we don't have to do things quite in this
23 way in the future.
24 And that's my plea to you. Again, I'm new, this
25 is new to me. Regional government is kind of a big thing
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
377
1 for me. I'm used to just knocking on the doors in the
2 apartment buildings and hotels in this neighborhood. But I
3 think that we can do government in a way that treats people
4 with dignity and respect, and that does the right thing, and
5 that in the end, we all are winners.
6 Thank you very much.
7 (Applause.)
8 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you for taking time to
9 come. Thank you.
10 Flora Campbell, Ms. Thomas then Shannon Eddy.
11 MS. CAMPBELL: Good evening. My name is Flora
12 Campbell. I'm the organizer of the West County --
13 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Excuse me, ma'am.
14 Could you pull the microphone closer so we can -- thank you.
15 MS. CAMPBELL: I'm the organizer of the West
16 County Toxics Coalition. I am also the Chair of the
17 African-American Caucus, and this panel, none of you all
18 seem to be really representing our community, where all this
19 pollution is being put. I don't understand how you can even
20 start off with this here plan, when you don't even know --
21 have a clue of what's happening in our community.
22 Where do you come off, and how do we get the
23 message to the people that live in our communities? What do
24 you do, send an e-mail out the morning that the meeting is
25 going to be that evening? Most of the people that live in
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
378
1 our community do not even have computers, so how can they
2 receive an e-mail? How are you getting the message out to
3 the community? Most of the time, the people and the
4 organizers in the community do not even know when you are
5 having a meeting.
6 This thing is a sham. Our communities are not
7 here because they did not get the message. You all go off
8 into your closed meetings and make decisions on the
9 community without our consent and without our knowledge. I
10 think this is an outrage. This plan needs to be rejected,
11 because it's not reflecting the community, not at all. I
12 don't see any African-Americans on this panel, I don't see
13 any Asians, nor do I see any Latinos. How can you say that
14 you are representing us?
15 I don't understand it. I just really don't
16 understand it. We are tired. We are sick. Our children
17 are dying. We come to you for help, and we get the shams.
18 How are you getting the message out, since you said that we
19 are -- you're putting the message out in the community. We
20 need to know how you're getting the message out to the
21 people in the community, if there were very little people
22 here, because we are concerned about our children and our
23 community, it's because they did not have the message. It
24 don't be in the paper. I get the San Francisco Chronicle,
25 the West County Times, and the Oakland Tribune. I didn't
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
379
1 read it.
2 So how are the community getting the messages out.
3 This is a sham. You all are out trying to kill us. You've
4 been killing us for 60 years. I'm now 65 years old. I
5 know. It's a secret meeting, and you do secret things, and
6 we do not know what you're doing, and we need to know what
7 you're doing in our community.
8 Yes, we are going to protest if this here plan
9 goes back. We're going to protest, protest, protest, and
10 then we're going to protest some more. And if it doesn't,
11 the Constitution gives us the right to overthrow.
12 (Applause.)
13 MS. THOMAS: Good evening. I'm Amadee Thomas, co-
14 founder of the West County Toxics Coalition in Richmond, and
15 we are the only group in Richmond that's working on toxic
16 issues.
17 I was co-founder. I was with the other
18 organizations, and this is not my first time being before
19 any council. I have been with the Richmond City Council,
20 I've been with all the councils in the neighborhood. I'm
21 connected with the Neighborhood Council and with the
22 Richmond Police Department. I'm a chaplain. And so I'm
23 here before you this evening to tell you what the health
24 effects of pollution has on our community.
25 The first thing, benzene causes leukemia. Toluene
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
380
1 benzene is a reproductive toxin. Hexane is associated with
2 nervous system damage. Xylene affects the brain. Many
3 hydrocarbons cause eye, nose, throat irritation and a
4 multitude of other impacts. Nitrogen oxides causes
5 respiratory impacts, such as infections, disease and
6 respiratory problems, and response, and many other asthmatic
7 attacks that people have. And my husband just died of a
8 breathing problem. They had him on a machine. He couldn't
9 breathe on his own, so he died on June the 6th.
10 So I wish you would table this, and go over it
11 again. Go over it with the communities, and get us
12 involved, and let us know when the meetings will be, and
13 have it in our communities.
14 (Applause.)
15 MS. EDDY: Good evening. My name is Shannon Eddy.
16 I'm representing the Sierra Club tonight. I'm going to be
17 very brief and to the point.
18 This year's energy crisis has imposed unexpected
19 and heavy burdens. Our financial resources have been
20 drained, our emotional resources have been drained both on a
21 personal level and on a level, really, of the state
22 government.
23 Fortunately, the citizens of the state have really
24 stepped up to work on conservation efforts and been
25 successful in doing that. And what we're asking is that the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
381
1 Board step up also and meet the public really halfway in
2 protecting the, basically, public health.
3 We're asking for three things. The first is that
4 we request that the State Board convene, as soon as
5 possible, a special hearing in conjunction with the Bay Area
6 Air Quality Management District to assess the air quality
7 impacts of the energy crisis.
8 Second, we are asking for an area-wide program to
9 replace diesel backup generators with clean, more efficient
10 alternatives, and we would also like to see a comprehensive
11 program to provide incentives for new clean distributed
12 generation.
13 We acknowledge that the State and its citizens
14 have been severely inconvenienced, to put it mildly, by this
15 crisis. And it's my personal hope, and certainly the hope
16 of the members of the Sierra Club, that the Board do
17 whatever it can to meet this challenge, to be creative and,
18 in Ms. D'Adamo's words earlier, in really protecting the
19 public health. This is an extraordinary situation and it
20 does call for extraordinary measures.
21 And we appreciate your work, and hope that you do
22 everything in your power to protect the public health.
23 Thanks for your time.
24 BOARD MEMBER PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Well, I think
25 the next speaker on the list is Marcie Keever. Is she here?
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
382
1 Then Mary Head, and then Tina Consentino.
2 MS. KEEVER: My name is Marcie Keever, and I am a
3 staff attorney for the Environmental Law and Justice Clinic
4 at Golden Gate University. The clinic makes the following
5 comments on behalf of Our Children's Earth Foundation.
6 The San Francisco Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan
7 for the one-hour national ozone standard as approved by the
8 district, MTC and ABAG, is inadequate, and it fails to meet
9 the requirements of the Clean Air Act and the California
10 Environmental Quality Act.
11 This Board should reject the plan and require that
12 the agencies draft a new plan that will provide for real
13 reductions in VOCs and NOx so ozone attainment can actually
14 finally be achieved in the Bay Area, and also, that the plan
15 comply with CEQA.
16 First, the Ozone Attainment Plan clearly does not
17 meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Our comments on
18 the plan's inadequacy were made numerous times to all the
19 agencies. And while these agencies have made token
20 improvements in the plan, it still does not do enough to
21 pull the Bay Area into attainment.
22 Second, the last-minute proposal by this Board to
23 require the agencies to adopt further reductions in VOCs,
24 and potentially NOx, on top of the VOC reductions in the
25 plan, also do not comply with the Clean Air Act. Without
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
383
1 further explanation, documentation, or environmental study,
2 this Board cannot adopt such changes in the plan. The Clean
3 Air Act requires that an attainment plan demonstrate that
4 its measures will be verifiable, real and enforceable. And
5 these additional reductions proposed here tonight provide
6 little or no explanation of where or how the agencies will
7 achieve these reductions, and this violates the law.
8 If the Clean Air Act allowed this type of informal
9 change, the air districts and other agencies could just
10 write a letter to EPA and say we'll reduce pollutants by
11 this much, and there would be no other requirements for
12 these agencies, and there would be no accountability.
13 How can the affected public and this Board know if
14 the reductions are real without knowing what the reductions
15 will actually be. How can they know if these reductions
16 will be verifiable without any data to review before we have
17 these hearings? And how can this Board show the EPA that
18 the plan is enforceable by approving a plan that claims to
19 reduce pollutants without listing reduction measures?
20 These are the questions that the agencies need to
21 answer in a new public process, addressing these new
22 reductions in a revised plan.
23 Finally, given the new information provided here
24 today about these further reductions, the initial study and
25 the approval by the agencies of the negative declaration
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
384
1 clearly violates CEQA. And this Board should direct the
2 agencies to initiate a new CEQA process and produce an EIR,
3 or the very least, a mitigated negative declaration for the
4 revised plan.
5 CEQA requires an EIR or a negative declaration at
6 the earliest possible stage in the process before this
7 agency commits itself to a particular plan. The addition of
8 these further reductions at the last minute is a deferral of
9 the development of these measures until after the project
10 has been approved. And under CEQA, an agency cannot base a
11 negative declaration on the presumed success of mitigation
12 measures that have not been formulated at the time of the
13 project approval.
14 At the very least, the public deserves the full
15 public review and comment process required by the California
16 Environmental Quality Act and the federal Clean Air Act.
17 The agencies' decision --
18 BOARD MEMBER PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Can you
19 conclude, please.
20 MS. KEEVER: Yes. The agencies' decision to
21 approve this plan deprives the public of the information
22 necessary to perform a meaningful analysis of this plan.
23 We, along with Our children's Earth Foundation, urge the
24 Board to reject this inadequate and illegal plan, perform a
25 new process and comply with CEQA.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
385
1 Thank you.
2 (Applause.)
3 BOARD MEMBER PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Mary Head, Tina
4 Consentino, and then Donna Dindio.
5 MS. HEAD: To the Board, good evening. I am Mary
6 Head Peace, of West County area in Richmond that's called
7 Porchester Village. And this village was established in
8 1950. And I'm here tonight because most of the residents
9 there are seniors. It's hard for them to get out at night.
10 And one thing that they asked me to beg of you to reject
11 this because of our young generations of tomorrow is dying.
12 We've had about five young people to slump over the table or
13 die in their sleep from some breathing disorder.
14 Please, reject this. And thank you.
15 (Applause.)
16 BOARD MEMBER PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Thank you,
17 ma'am.
18 Tina, Ms. Consentino.
19 MS. CONSENTINO: Good evening. My name is Tina
20 Consentino. I'm with Communities for a Better Environment,
21 and this is Carla Perez.
22 We're here tonight to present to you a story of
23 what's happened here in the Bay Area, in terms of the public
24 process.
25 The public process in the Bay Area failed. There
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
386
1 was one workshop, public workshop, held on Wednesday, in the
2 afternoon, in Oakland, not when folks could attend, youth
3 were still in school, and working folks were not able to
4 attend because it was in the middle of the day.
5 There was one public hearing on Wednesday, at 9:00
6 a.m. in the morning, in San Francisco. Again, not on a date
7 or a time that was convenient for community folks to give
8 input into this plan. The doors were shut when we tried to
9 go into this meeting, and the community was told that this
10 was a private meeting, and, in fact, we were not allowed to
11 enter. With 75 people chanting, let the people in, people
12 were allowed to enter.
13 The air district tried to tack on two clean air
14 plan meetings to existing community meetings that were
15 requested from community groups after a year's fight through
16 the sham environmental justice working group of the air
17 district. These were meetings that the groups were not
18 provided copies of the clean air plan, and by no means did
19 they consider these clean air plan meetings. This is a
20 violation of environmental justice and the spirit of EJ.
21 There has been a history of community requests for
22 a better public process which were repeatedly ignored by the
23 Bay Area Air District. In April, before the plan was
24 drafted, CBE and some members met with air district staff to
25 request a public process with meetings when people could
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
387
1 attend in the evening, at a minimum, taking the time to have
2 a process. But instead of that, they came out with their
3 draft plan in May, and had a public workshop on the 30th.
4 Again, we wrote a letter requesting specifically
5 what we were asking in terms of public process, and very
6 detailed, and I have a fact sheet which I can show to you
7 here. We never received a response from that letter. They
8 went ahead with their meeting on the 30th, in which
9 community members came and attended and requested and
10 demanding that we move forward with -- not having a real
11 public process. That was ignored.
12 On June 6th, the board of directors, CBE,
13 requested once again to be put on the board agenda for
14 consideration for a real public process. That was ignored.
15 The air board refused to put us on their agenda. On June
16 20th, community members attended, once again taking time out
17 of their day in the middle of the day, at 9:30 in the
18 morning, to testify during public comment period, and urged
19 the Board to put a public process on the agenda. Again,
20 this was ignored. The air district decided to move forward
21 with their July 18th hearing.
22 On the July 18th hearing, over 75 community
23 members attended, all urging for the rejection of the plan.
24 but instead, the agencies voted to move forward with their
25 plan.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
388
1 We'd now like to present to you what -- more ideas
2 of what we have about public process.
3 BOARD MEMBER PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Is this Donna
4 Dindio?
5 MS. PEREZ: You can take Carla Perez off of your
6 speaker's list.
7 BOARD MEMBER PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Okay. And may
8 we have your name then, please.
9 MS. PEREZ: My name is Carla Perez. I'm with
10 Communities for a Better Environment.
11 BOARD MEMBER PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Oh, okay. Thank
12 you.
13 MS. PEREZ: Tina's going to put up some visuals
14 that are going to help me out.
15 So while we're on the public process, let's talk
16 about then what would this process look like. Some people
17 have mentioned it already, but I'm just going to put up some
18 very simple, yet important points, because they seem to not
19 be common knowledge to people who are setting up this so-
20 called public process.
21 What would this look like, what's the scope and
22 scale that we would need for a decision of this magnitude,
23 affecting seven counties in the whole Bay Area.
24 Well, let's see. Let's talk about a number of
25 meetings. Tina just went over that. If we're talking about
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
389
1 seven counties being affected, hey, seven meetings. The
2 math, one meeting per one county.
3 But there are some considerations, right, that
4 need to be addressed, demographics, size, population, and
5 pollution sources, number of pollution sources in these
6 counties, which should, you know, that would require a
7 proportionate amount of meetings for that county.
8 So, for example, in Contra Costa, where we have
9 four refineries and eleven power plants, not to mention
10 several other stationary sources of various types, including
11 recycling centers and the like, we should have a meeting in
12 central, western, north and eastern Contra Costa County.
13 Day and time. Tina just touched on that.
14 Suggestions. Saturdays, evenings. I mean, I don't know,
15 10:00 o'clock at night is maybe not the best evening time,
16 but, I mean, this, you know, it's at least people can --
17 some people can be here right now.
18 When to notify people. One month in advance, at
19 least, in order for people to have time to review a draft
20 plan. And again, you know, we're faced with a situation
21 where there were nine days between the 9th, when certain
22 changes were made, and then the hearing was on the 18th, and
23 then now, every day this week there have been significant
24 changes to the plan. No one can keep up with that. It's
25 absolutely impossible.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
390
1 How to notify people. One of our members was
2 talking about she was reading all the newspapers and never
3 saw an advertisement of any type for a hearing where the
4 public could participate. Let's try local newspapers.
5 Let's try TV bulletins. Let's try good old-fashioned
6 flyering in the neighborhoods, rec centers, housing and
7 community neighborhood associations. Public school system,
8 you can reach young people and parents, alike, through that
9 venue.
10 Structure of the meetings. Four to six month
11 scoping session to consider all feasible measures. And
12 this, I have to say, is a much better set-up than what we
13 experienced on the 18th, where there's no dialogue possible.
14 It was like the agencies speak for a huge chunk of time,
15 then the community speaks, and there's no interaction. And
16 so from the community's point of view, because I'm one of
17 those community members, we're sitting there and people are
18 scratching their heads, talking to each other like this, not
19 making any eye contact, and you don't have to. They don't
20 have to, because they don't have to respond, so they don't
21 have to even be paying attention at that time. So some kind
22 of facilitated dialogue would be really, really useful.
23 Okay. So then a draft plan would be developed.
24 Again, at least a month for community for review. A public
25 hearing could follow that, on the draft plan. And then a
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
391
1 final plan could be drafted with, again, a month for
2 communities to review it, and then hold a public hearing
3 where the plan would be approved or disapproved.
4 So, moving on. Thank you, Tina. This process is
5 definitely, definitely possible, and it's feasible. I'm
6 going to use, for example, the South Coast Air District,
7 where their processes in 1994 and 1997 included a full CEQA
8 review. And, as a matter of fact, for every measure that
9 was added on, they went through an additional CEQA review.
10 A minimum of six to nine month process, including one
11 meeting in each area, per month.
12 And as far as these highway funds, which is like
13 the hugest issue, and I'm not an expert on this conformity
14 lapse, conformity freeze situation, but I have been
15 gathering a lot of facts. I've been doing research. And
16 what I have found is that it's extremely rare that that ever
17 even happens. And Los Angeles went 24 years without an
18 approved air plan and never had their highway funds taken
19 away. And as a matter of -- 24 years. I mean, I'm 25, you
20 know.
21 As a matter of fact, in the research that I've
22 done, I found that one time CBE was able to -- I'm so proud
23 to be part of CBE that they did this process, because
24 apparently the freeze has never happened --
25 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Can you bring this to a close?
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
392
1 MS. PEREZ: Sure. Sure, sure.
2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Because you've already had ten
3 minutes here. I'm sorry.
4 MS. PEREZ: Okay. But we had to go to court to
5 have the conformity lapse implemented.
6 So, let's see. Okay, now I have to come to a
7 close. But this process is violating environmental justice,
8 pointblank. No way around it. And I did, you know, for
9 folks who are not as familiar with the principles of
10 environmental justice, as us who suffer from environmental
11 injustice, a particular principle, number 7, which states,
12 "Environmental justice demands the right to participate as
13 equal partners at every level of decision-making, including
14 needs assessment, planning, implementation, enforcement, and
15 evaluation."
16 I urge you now, as an individual, okay, forget my
17 affiliation with CBE for a moment. I am a woman. I am a
18 mother of a one-year old beautiful baby. I urge you, as
19 family members, and particularly the women as mothers, I
20 fear, I fear for my child's health. Okay. Please. People
21 have told you their children are dying. Okay. Please,
22 please reject this plan.
23 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think on that --
24 (Applause.)
25 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Mr. Chairman.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
393
1 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: On the -- yes, Mr. McKinnon has
2 some questions. All right.
3 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Excuse me. Could I want
4 to ask some questions about the process that occurred before
5 we got involved in this, because it keeps -- I hear air
6 board, I hear air district, I hear air board, I hear air
7 district. And kind of my knowledge of this is that we began
8 community meetings, we're a state board, and at the Richmond
9 community meeting, somebody said something about having
10 meetings in various communities. And I said wait a minute,
11 we shouldn't be making a commitment as a state board that
12 we're going to be in 50 communities. We would be lying if
13 we said we were.
14 But certainly a regional district has that
15 responsibility. And where it gets kind of mixed up in all
16 this discussion is that it may well be this was not anywhere
17 near the best process, but it sort of sounds like we didn't
18 hold hearings, and we didn't do meetings as a state board.
19 And if that -- and if there is some of that in this, then
20 we, as state board members, need to know that and be
21 accountable for that, and change it.
22 We, as state board members, in terms of oversight
23 of the Bay Area board, also have some accountability. But
24 it -- but it's important that we're clear about the process
25 and not mix the two things together.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
394
1 And I guess my second comment on that, and I
2 appreciate organizers. That's -- that's what I am, in my
3 real life. Okay. It is really important to be extremely
4 straight about how things work. This is not a 10:00 o'clock
5 meeting. This was a 6:30 meeting. And there is some
6 insistence on the part of this Board that there be evening
7 meetings, because people of color, working poor, and working
8 people can't come to meetings in the middle of the day.
9 We -- I agree with that, and this Board agrees with that.
10 This Board has been moving in that direction.
11 So I kind of wanted to clear that up. If there
12 are elements of this that this state board has -- has not
13 conducted meetings in a good public way, we need to know
14 that. Okay. We get the message, what the process was
15 before we got it. I mean, it's loud and clear.
16 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think also on the issue of
17 environmental justice, we just had a day and a half workshop
18 this week, and several members of Citizens for a Better
19 Environment and Grace Kong participated. So we're --
20 MS. PEREZ: Communities for a Better Environment.
21 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Communities for a Better, I'm
22 sorry. But the point is, we are trying to learn. We're
23 trying to respond. It's taking time, but there's a
24 commitment on our part to respond to those needs. But I
25 say, some areas, you know, we -- we're taking time to get
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
395
1 that process put in. But we are -- we are listening to the
2 community. We're -- we're learning.
3 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Thank you. Thank you very
4 much.
5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Yes. Ken Kloc next, and then
6 Carla Perez. Was -- was that -- that was Carla. Ken Kloc,
7 and then Nia -- or Nia Hamilton. And then Wendy Banegas.
8 MS. DINDIO: Sir, I got kicked over. My name is
9 Donna Dindio.
10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Oh, I -- we called Donna Dindio.
11 We were told that --
12 MS. DINDIO: No, you didn't. You called them back
13 to the microphone.
14 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Well, you're here. That's fine.
15 Somebody else said that you were -- you were not going to be
16 speaking.
17 MS. DINDIO: I've been sitting here all night,
18 since 6:00 o'clock.
19 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Sorry.
20 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I think I interrupted you
21 to ask some questions.
22 MS. DINDIO: My name is Donna Dindio, and I am a
23 lifelong resident of San Francisco. I've lived most of that
24 time in the Procida Valley of Vernal Heights. I live within
25 one and a half miles of two power plants, and in very close
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
396
1 proximity to two freeways.
2 About 20 years ago, I developed severe
3 environmental allergies. My son, my daughter-in-law, and
4 three of my grandchildren all have asthma. I've chosen to
5 live in San Francisco because the marine air and the cool
6 air here has always been friendly to my allergies. But in
7 the last 20 years, that is not the case. I have been
8 severely ill, and I was a childcare provider for many years
9 and I had to give that up because my illnesses were being
10 given to the children.
11 And many years ago, when my grandchildren were
12 little, they stayed at our house, and they, being asthmatics
13 and me being kind of a clean freak, we never had problems.
14 They never had allergies at my house. And they never wound
15 up in the hospital. But now they come every year for about
16 three weeks, and during that time they cough severely, and
17 during that time they're on inhalers, and they get
18 nosebleeds. So our air is not improving in our area. It's
19 depreciating.
20 And I ask you to please not approve of this plan
21 at this time, because 23 tons is just not sufficient. It's
22 -- it's not enough to help us. It's not enough to clean up
23 the air in our communities. And it's not enough to clean up
24 the air that our unfortunate environmental problems
25 recently, with our -- sorry, losing my trend -- with the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
397
1 energy crisis that we've had, and our power plants are being
2 allowed to run more hours, our power plants are being -- to
3 let out emissions. And that's causing problems in the area.
4 And please, think again before you approve this.
5 Give it a little more time, and give the community more time
6 to have more input, because there are seven counties
7 involved, and most of them have not had any input at all.
8 And thank you for listening to me.
9 BOARD MEMBER PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Thank you.
10 Thank you for waiting.
11 (Applause.)
12 BOARD MEMBER PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Mr. Kloc here?
13 Ken Kloc. All right, then we'll pass. Nia, or Nia
14 Hamilton.
15 MS. HAMILTON: I'm Nia Hamilton, and I live in San
16 Pablo. And what I wanted to say is if the air quality has
17 been increasing for the past 20 years, then why does my
18 cousins, of ages 4, 12, 14, and 30, all have asthma. Why
19 did every member of people that lived in apartments by
20 Chevron, except for two people, receive cancer while living
21 in these apartments. And then they got evicted when they
22 began to fight against their treatment and their conditions.
23 And these are people that were from ages six years old, that
24 had already developed a high level of cancer, and already
25 her hair had fallen out, and she had been getting radiation
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
398
1 for many years, to like seven-year olds, as well. And we
2 all live in Richmond, and they all are suffering from health
3 problems due to toxic air that you now have a chance to help
4 clean.
5 And that's why you must reject this air plan
6 tonight, because we are determined to fight for our health
7 and we will, until the air that we breathe is as clean as
8 where you guys may live.
9 And then also, what I wanted to say is on July
10 18th, the -- at the meeting, security guards tried to not
11 allow people into the meeting and pushed community members
12 out, and physically and verbally intimidated them. And you
13 need to have at least one meeting per county in each county
14 at times and in areas that is accessible to the community.
15 And there needs to be a dialogue between the community and
16 yourselves, and not just lectures from the district with one
17 minute comments from the community.
18 Thank you.
19 BOARD MEMBER PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Thank you.
20 (Applause.)
21 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Excuse me.
22 BOARD MEMBER PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Richard Drury --
23 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Excuse me. I have a
24 question. What was the meeting where security guards
25 prevented access?
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
399
1 MS. HAMILTON: That was the one that was July
2 18th. Where --
3 (Comment from the audience.)
4 BOARD MEMBER DeSCULNIER: Matt, what happened --
5 what happened was, and this is a legitimate complaint, it
6 was in another hotel, and hotel security actually, against
7 our wishes and unknown to us, tried to prevent the public
8 from coming in. So we corrected that and allowed them to
9 come in. But there was time when they were -- it was a
10 fairly short period of time.
11 (Comment from the audience.)
12 BOARD MEMBER DeSCULNIER: I know. They -- and
13 they tried to stop you, and that was the hotel's private
14 security. The regional agencies told them no, it was a
15 public meeting, and allowed you to come in.
16 MS. HAMILTON: And police officers. But my
17 question is, was -- was the hotel told directly, was the
18 manager and all the people that would be involved in that,
19 were they told that it was a public meeting, so that nothing
20 like that could have occurred?
21 BOARD MEMBER DeSCULNIER: I --
22 MS. HAMILTON: Is there anybody that can say that
23 -- that is here, that could represent that yes, that that
24 hotel was told that the community could be there? Because
25 the community, if that hotel was not told, then I think only
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
400
1 an intelligent person would think, hmm, maybe it was done on
2 purpose so that we would be not allowed in. And then they
3 wouldn't be -- have to be accountable for it because oh,
4 they just forgot somehow to let the hotel know that the
5 meeting that they were holding was public.
6 BOARD MEMBER DeSCULNIER: That was a mistake, and
7 you were allowed in, though; correct?
8 MS. HAMILTON: Correct. But however -- oh, yes,
9 we did -- we did have to --
10 BOARD MEMBER DeSCULNIER: I -- I'm not --
11 MS. HAMILTON: -- we -- let me answer your
12 question. We did have to --
13 BOARD MEMBER DeSCULNIER: -- I'm just -- I'm not
14 --
15 MS. HAMILTON: -- fight our way in --
16 BOARD MEMBER DeSCULNIER: -- I agree with you, it
17 shouldn't have happened.
18 MS. HAMILTON: -- we did -- and one of our members
19 was hurt. His face was bruised by the police.
20 BOARD MEMBER PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Thank you.
21 MS. HAMILTON: For us trying to get in.
22 BOARD MEMBER PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Thank you very
23 much.
24 MS. HAMILTON: And that's the reality of the
25 public process that's being held at this moment. That is
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
401
1 not going to continue if we have anything to do with it.
2 (Applause.)
3 BOARD MEMBER PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Richard Drury.
4 And then Mr. Napolis.
5 MR. DRURY: Good evening, Dr. Lloyd and Honorable
6 Members of the Board.
7 First off, my name is Richard Drury, I'm the legal
8 director for Communities for a Better Environment. And I'd
9 like to thank the Air Resources Board very much for your
10 sincere interest --
11 BOARD MEMBER PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Excuse me. I --
12 we have Richard Drury down. Are you speaking for him, in
13 his place?
14 MR. DRURY: I -- I am him. I am --
15 BOARD MEMBER PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Oh, you are. I
16 --
17 MR. DRURY: -- speaking for -- for me.
18 BOARD MEMBER PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: -- I misheard
19 your name.
20 (Laughter.)
21 BOARD MEMBER PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Apologies. I --
22 I thought you said your name was Richard Graham.
23 MR. DRURY: No. Richard Drury, legal director,
24 Communities for a Better Environment.
25 BOARD MEMBER PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: My hearing aid's
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
402
1 battery's given up, late at night.
2 (Laughter.)
3 MR. DRURY: I hope this doesn't come off my time.
4 (Laughter.)
5 BOARD MEMBER PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: No.
6 MR. DRURY: We've submitted very lengthy comments
7 to the Air Resources Board, and I -- I understand that you
8 probably haven't had a chance to read them thoroughly. And
9 that's part of the problem here.
10 The most important point I'd like to make tonight
11 is that this is not an air plan at all. What the Bay Area
12 district is presenting to you is a promise. They are saying
13 that despite our best efforts, all we could get was not
14 enough. We came up 35, or 23 tons short of what the law
15 requires. And so trust us, we'll come up with another 23
16 tons. We can't even tell you how we're going to do it.
17 They're not citing a single measure. They're not citing a
18 single source. They're not citing a single control that
19 they are committing to implement. All they're saying is
20 we're going to give you 23 tons.
21 Now, eight days ago, the same air district staff
22 told Chris Daly 12 and a half tons is all we can get. We
23 looked for every single feasible control measure. We combed
24 up and down, north and south, looked at every air district,
25 and 12 and a half tons was all there was. There aren't any
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
403
1 more.
2 Now, now they're coming to you and saying oh, we
3 can get 23 more tons. No problem. Now, I ask you, Alan,
4 were you lying then, or are you lying now? How are we
5 supposed to trust the air district when eight days ago they
6 said 12 and a half was as good as it gets.
7 Now, one thing is clear. This air plan that was
8 adopted by the air district on the 18th is legally
9 inadequate. There's no dispute about that. Jack Broadbent,
10 from the United States EPA, says, unfortunately, the
11 attainment assessment is inferior both quantitatively and
12 qualitatively to what has been required and submitted
13 elsewhere in the country. We've heard from Sacramento, from
14 San Joaquin, there are measures that are being done
15 elsewhere in the state that are more aggressive than what's
16 being done in the Bay Area.
17 There are reasonably available control measures
18 that are available that could be implemented. But instead
19 of adopting those measures -- we've submitted pages and
20 pages of dozens of measures that could -- that ought to be
21 adopted here -- the Bay Area says, we're going to write you
22 check. We promise. We don't know how we're going to make
23 good on that check, but we'll find the measures.
24 Well, if someone came to you and said I can't pay
25 you now, take my check. I don't know how I'm going to wind
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
404
1 up paying the check later. That -- there's a word for that.
2 It's called a rubber check. And rubber checks bounce. Now,
3 if someone came to you and they had bounced checks over and
4 over and over, you're probably not going to take the next
5 rubber check.
6 Well, for 29 of the last 30 years, this air
7 district has been writing rubber checks. For 29 of the last
8 30 years, the Bay Area has been out of attainment with the
9 Clean Air -- with the federal Clean Air standards every time
10 they draft a new plan, and they say trust us, this one's
11 actually going to get the air clean finally, once and for
12 all, and it never has. It's time to -- to send that check,
13 to bounce that check back to the air district with big bold
14 letters saying insufficient funds.
15 Now, we're relying, in the Bay Area, a lot on
16 transport. Our bad air is blowing into the Sacramento -- I
17 know this is the CARB, this is the California Air Resources
18 Board map here. The pollution from the San Francisco Bay
19 Area is blowing into the Central Valley, San Joaquin, all
20 the way down as far as San Luis Obispo. So the failure to
21 require this air district to do the right thing, to do the
22 measures that are being done in Los Angeles, that are being
23 done in San Joaquin, that are being done in Sacramento, that
24 failure is going to affect not just these residents of the
25 Bay Area, but the residents of the entire northern portion
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
405
1 of the State of California. Don't accept this promise of
2 pollution.
3 Now, the Bay Area Air District, I believe, is --
4 is playing a game of air quality blackmail with the Air
5 Resources Board. They have put you in a very unfortunate
6 position of saying either accept our legally facially
7 inadequate clean air plan -- dirty air plan -- or the
8 federal highway funds get -- get held up. And so you are
9 between the Scylla and the Charybdis. Don't go there. You
10 don't need to go there. You make -- this is their problem.
11 They've known about this problem since 1999. They've known
12 about the air measures since 1984. Yet they don't want to
13 implement them. I don't know why. They've got staff who
14 know how to do it. They've got very talented staff. But
15 somewhere in that chain of command, those measures are
16 getting slapped down. And this promise is never going to be
17 made good on.
18 In short, the air plan is illegal. We
19 respectfully request the Air Resources Board to reject it.
20 There has been no CEQA review process. There is no
21 environmental impact report. And, of course, there was no
22 environmental impact report for whatever these 23 additional
23 tons measures are going to be. We don't even know what
24 those measures are. How could we possibly have a public
25 environmental review of measures that we don't -- have not
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
406
1 yet identified.
2 It's illegal. Send it back. It's time for the
3 Bay Area to make good on its promises. It's time to bounce
4 this check back to the air district.
5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much.
6 (Applause.)
7 BOARD MEMBER PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Mr. McKinnon.
8 Thank you, Mr. Drury.
9 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I -- I have a question.
10 Carla laid out a process that really would be kind
11 of the Cadillac process. Okay. I don't think -- I'm a --
12 I'm a public member, okay. I realize the contradictions
13 there might be between the White House and the state, and
14 whatever. And I think highway funds getting cut off this
15 time is a real possibility. I think that's a real
16 possibility. People can argue with me, disagree with me,
17 but in my world, my life, my life's experience, that's what
18 I think. I think it's real. I don't like that we're in
19 this position. You described it pretty well.
20 If there were a possibility to hold a process,
21 could a process be put together in an expedited fashion?
22 And that's a question to you, and it's a question to staff.
23 Is there time for there to be a process? Because if -- if
24 what I'm being told is there's -- there's just one way or
25 the other, then you're telling me not to consider the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
407
1 transportation funding, the workers that are going to work,
2 and some other things. There's some other people, there are
3 consequences that go beyond.
4 So you're right. It's an awful trap. And what
5 I'm asking is, is there a middle ground here that is better
6 than what you heard otherwise proposed?
7 MR. DRURY: Mr. McKinnon, absolutely. And -- and
8 I appreciate the question, and I appreciate the concern,
9 given the politics of the White House and the state. And I
10 think it's a legitimate concern.
11 CEQA review, which is basically what Carla Perez
12 laid out, was a good CEQA process. That's what should've
13 been done. It could've been done, starting a year ago. We
14 would be done now, and we would probably have a much better
15 air plan, and you wouldn't be in this unfortunate position.
16 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I get that.
17 MR. DRURY: A CEQA review, on the inside, if it's
18 done quickly, can take six months. It is now August,
19 roughly. That would take us into February for a final plan,
20 with a decent public process, and hopefully a decent plan at
21 the back end. We've been asking for that all along.
22 Obviously, if they had started it six months ago we'd have
23 it. But I think they could actually start it now and finish
24 it, given that it's mid-year now, they could finish it
25 roughly by January or February of next year, which is when
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
408
1 this alleged lapse would happen, at the earliest.
2 Now, that's not to say that it would automatically
3 happen. I believe that there would have to be a Federal
4 Register posting that there -- that -- in the past, we've
5 had to go to court to force lapses. In fact, I don't know
6 of a single lapse that has happened without litigation.
7 So, but even at the earliest, if you thought it
8 was an automatic lapse that could happen in January 19th of
9 2001, yes, I think we could do a CEQA review and still make
10 that deadline.
11 BOARD MEMBER PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Any other
12 questions?
13 Thank you very much.
14 MR. DRURY: Thank you.
15 BOARD MEMBER PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Appreciate it.
16 (Applause.)
17 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Did we miss Wendy Banegas? Did
18 we miss her? We jumped over her? Okay, thank you.
19 MS. BANEGAS: Hello. My name is Wendy Banegas. I
20 live in Rodeo -- I live in Rodeo, by the Tosco Refinery.
21 Right to the refinery there is a freeway. Okay.
22 I'm here with CBE -- I'm here with CBE because me
23 and my community don't deserve the bad air we breathe. So I
24 came here with my older brother, Daniel, my best friend,
25 Lucia, and my close friend. We want you to reject the clean
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
409
1 air plan.
2 We want you to reject the clean air plan because
3 when I go to school, I always breathe this bad air. The bad
4 air is like -- is -- when we go, we're walking to school, on
5 the bus when we're riding, and there's this bad smell.
6 Everyone makes rumors about the bad smell, and everyone
7 knows that it's the refinery. The refineries with the bad
8 air is rotting eggs. And that's really bad. And I'm sick
9 right now because of the refinery. I cough too much, and I
10 can't sleep at night. So I cough too much because of the
11 refinery, and I want you to reject the so-called air plan
12 because it's not working. You guys don't know it.
13 And like they were saying about they were trying
14 to kick us out, see, it's right here, they had it on the
15 Contra Costa Times. And they had a picture of us trying to
16 get in the meeting when they wouldn't let us in. So if you
17 guys, you want to see this, because --
18 BOARD MEMBER PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: No.
19 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: We -- I've seen that one. Yes.
20 Supervisor DeSculnier provided that to us.
21 MS. BANEGAS: Yeah, because you guys -- you guys
22 need to know how we breathe the air, because that's nasty
23 bad air. It's disgusting. I can't even stand it. My mom
24 wants to move from the area. I don't want to move, because
25 of my friends. But I always want to move because of this
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
410
1 bad, disgusting smell.
2 Thank you.
3 (Applause.)
4 MS. BROWN: Hi. I'm Maria Brown. I wasn't
5 written there. But I am with the girls. I am a neighbor,
6 and I live in Rodeo. And I just want to say a couple of
7 things.
8 First of all, it's very intimidating to have
9 police here. I'm the mother of two children who have -- who
10 grew up to be teenage, to the age of 16 and 17. They are --
11 my daughter had to go for -- for a brain scan after so many
12 headaches. I am now representing and supporting my -- the
13 children of Kids Against Environmental Pollution.
14 And the other thing I wanted to say is that
15 several times they have come to you, Mr. DeSculnier, and the
16 rest of the Contra Costa Supervisors, and told, these
17 children have come and told you that they have asthma. I
18 have been there, and they were completely ignored.
19 I don't want to see that anymore. I don't want to
20 go to places where we're treated like we're criminals, where
21 we're being watched by police. All we want is to be served,
22 like you're supposed to be serving us. And we -- I'm asking
23 you to reject the plan.
24 (Applause.)
25 MS. BROWN: And give us more -- give us time and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
411
1 give us the benefit of the doubt, and the time to say how we
2 feel.
3 BOARD MEMBER PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Thank you.
4 Ms. D'Adamo.
5 (Applause.)
6 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I would just like to make a
7 brief comment. And as a mother of three small children, I
8 really appreciate that all of you took the time out to be
9 away from your families and come here and tell us about the
10 -- the problems that are very real.
11 I was going to wait until the end to say something
12 about this, but I feel pretty strongly about another thing,
13 as well, and that is that Supervisor DeSculnier has done, in
14 my opinion, a very good job about raising this issue before
15 this Board. Because of him, we went to Richmond a couple of
16 months ago, and heard from a lot of you, and some others who
17 aren't here tonight.
18 So I just wanted to -- to let you all know that I
19 find it a little bit offensive that you keep attacking him
20 personally, and I think that there's quite a -- quite a few
21 legitimate concerns that you have about process. But to
22 attack a member of this Board that I think has done a very
23 good job raising the issue so that the rest of us here can
24 focus on your concerns in a -- in a much greater extent, I
25 think is perhaps -- well, I think it's inappropriate.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
412
1 MS. BROWN: Okay.
2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I -- I think I would, speaking
3 for the rest of us, DeeDee, I would certainly agree with
4 that because I think, as I have seen, I think Supervisor
5 DeSculnier continues to do an outstanding job as actually
6 fighting for his constituents. So I -- I couldn't agree
7 more with you on your comments.
8 MS. BROWN: Sir, from my side, all I've seen is
9 all of the supervisors of Contra Costa County ignoring
10 children, and adults, that are constantly coming, for three
11 years, to meetings in Martinez and wherever they are. And
12 either pushed -- pushing us back, or ignoring us. And
13 ignoring the children that are -- that are saying I'm sick,
14 I have asthma. Fifty percent of the children in Bella
15 Vista.
16 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: But -- but I think, again, I --
17 just to summarize there, I think some of the most effective
18 people in that get stuff done behind the scenes. And rest
19 assured that the supervisor is doing a lot to try to help
20 you.
21 MS. BROWN: I would like to --
22 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you.
23 MS. BROWN: -- see --
24 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you.
25 MS. BROWN: I would like to see --
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
413
1 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you.
2 MS. BROWN: -- him in my neighborhood --
3 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you.
4 MS. BROWN: -- more often.
5 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you.
6 BOARD MEMBER DeSCULNIER: Mr. Chairman.
7 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Now --
8 BOARD MEMBER DeSCULNIER: Not to belabor it, I
9 know we're getting towards the end. I appreciate the
10 comments by my colleagues.
11 In terms of us not responding, the Board of
12 Supervisors, we do have an asthma plan that our health
13 department is undertaking. It's a very aggressive one.
14 Public process sometimes doesn't respond as quickly as I
15 would like, and certainly as you do. Just because we don't
16 always agree doesn't mean we don't listen. Sometimes we
17 listen, and we disagree. But there are things, and I, in
18 particular, am very proud of the record in Contra Costa
19 County of our health department around refineries. I think
20 -- you can disagree that we haven't gone far enough, but
21 we've done a lot, and we've tried to do more.
22 So I appreciate the comments. We're always, at
23 least myself, as a single parent of two kids, and when
24 there've been emissions, fugitive -- when there have been
25 incidents at refineries in my district, I have taken my kids
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
414
1 into the downwind community to meet with my constituents,
2 and cried. So we -- we can work on this. We can have
3 legitimate disagreements. I appreciate the comments by my
4 colleagues, and I hopefully, when we get through this, we'll
5 continue to try to make things better.
6 And, ma'am, I'll take you up on your
7 recommendation. I'll come to your house, if you'd like.
8 MS. BROWN: We don't want you -- we also take our
9 kids to whatever center they send us to, even if they say
10 that there's nothing wrong. But we want you to help us
11 prevent those emissions.
12 BOARD MEMBER DeSCULNIER: We're -- we're trying.
13 I'll come to your house.
14 BOARD MEMBER PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Mr. Napolis has
15 been waiting patiently. It's his turn.
16 MR. NAPOLIS: I'm a very patient man.
17 (Laughter.)
18 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Be aware we're getting less
19 patient.
20 (Laughter.)
21 MR. NAPOLIS: We hope they would say that.
22 I'm reading a statement on behalf of the Silicon
23 Valley Health and Environmental Justice Project, who
24 unfortunately was unable to attend tonight's meeting.
25 On behalf of the Silicon Valley Health and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
415
1 Environmental Justice Project, we would like to address the
2 Bay Area Air Quality Management District Board, the
3 Metropolitan Transportation Committee, and the Association
4 of Bay Area Governments' failure in outreaching to the south
5 bay community in the proposed clean air plan.
6 With no public hearings in our entire county, and
7 little, if any, outreach notifying the public, the claim of
8 involving community input is highly questionable, and any
9 decision determining Bay Area air quality standards will
10 have a serious impact on communities in Santa Clara County.
11 Communities have already suffered the detrimental impacts of
12 Silicon Valley's high tech industry.
13 Currently, our county has the highest number of
14 children with asthma in the entire Bay Area, a cancer risk
15 more than 100 times the level set by the Clean Air Act, and
16 has been given an "F" grade for air quality by the American
17 Lung Association. Affected communities across the country,
18 predominantly working class and communities of color, are
19 paying the price for the growth of Silicon Valley.
20 If the BAAQMD, MTC and ABAG are serious about
21 involving community input, there must be more outreach than
22 an occasional posting on a government agency's Web page.
23 South Bay communities have suffered enough. Failure to make
24 them a part of the decision-making process will be a blatant
25 disregard for Santa Clara County families and children.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
416
1 A final note --
2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much.
3 MR. NAPOLIS: One final note regarding the -- the
4 Silicon Valley Health and Environmental Justice Project.
5 Like many other groups who are here in attendance,
6 they too have been involved with the Environmental Justice
7 Working Group that Ms. Cosentino mentioned. And as you
8 heard, unfortunately, after a year of trying to develop
9 progress and attain some level of respect on environmental
10 justice issues, that did not work. Subsequently, the group
11 resigned, and, in fact, it's that same group that's here
12 tonight that's had to take these type of measures to make
13 our measures heard.
14 We respect the work that ARB is doing. We feel
15 that the type of civility that you all are able to show is
16 what we would like to have with other districts.
17 Unfortunately, and in the spirit of politeness, that's not
18 what's happening in this district. We have serious
19 reservations and grave concerns with the competency and
20 capabilities of the regional air district to do the type of
21 planning that you all are asking with respect to the
22 community planning process.
23 It's ironic, as Mr. Kenny mentioned earlier, that
24 up in Sacramento, for the last two days the state ARB was --
25 had a working group themselves of Communities for a Better
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
417
1 Environment, LOP, and other groups, to talk about embracing
2 the environmental justice guidelines for the state. Well,
3 I'd like to say that in your -- in your efforts to embrace
4 that, I hope that you not only adopt it, but you put
5 pressure here locally that those same efforts are embraced,
6 as well.
7 Thank you.
8 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much.
9 (Applause.)
10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: David Schonbrunn, John Holtzolaw,
11 Dennis Bolt, Jim Thomas, Leonard Trimlett.
12 MR. SCHONBRUNN: Mr. Chairman, David Schonbrunn,
13 for the third and last time today, from TRANSDEF.
14 I want to call your attention to our
15 correspondence. At 74 pages, one of them, and one page that
16 came in tonight as a result of this last minute addition, we
17 have been engaged. In fact, there's probably no group
18 that's been more engaged. It's essentially CBE and -- and
19 TRANSDEF that have really been all over this process. And
20 at the same time, we had no idea what the plan was going to
21 look like until tonight. And that's just not a process.
22 There's a very severe process defect, one that we
23 believe is incurable. As we said in our letter, your agency
24 does have the authority to unilaterally amend the SIP, and
25 that's what's being proposed here tonight. Under Section --
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
418
1 State Cal Code Section 4 -- 41652, you can only do this with
2 45 days' notice to the public and the co-lead agencies.
3 That hasn't happened.
4 So in effect, your only options tonight are to
5 adopt the SIP or reject the SIP. You can't amend it like
6 this. So while some -- it was a good idea, it doesn't work.
7 You can't do it, and we won't let you.
8 It was presto-change-o at the hearing last week
9 with the co-lead agencies when the 2000, the year 2000
10 isopleth was magically cured of the 23 ton attainment
11 shortfall on the eve of the hearing. This change in numbers
12 is significant. Your hearing notice included specific
13 numbers for emissions reductions. The change in the
14 isopleth threw that out the window, and now the addition to
15 the SIP throws that even further out the window. So that
16 means that this hearing is not properly noticed. That means
17 that approval tonight is impermissible.
18 In addition to a violation of state law, the
19 proposed process also violates federal law pertaining to the
20 notice process for SIP submissions. Under 51102D(2), the
21 30-day availability of the plan certainly has not happened
22 because this plan has been a moving target.
23 Now, conditional SIPS have become fashionable
24 among the violator community. Atlanta and Houston are now
25 the poster children for air quality meltdown. If you were
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
419
1 to approve a conditional SIP, you'd be joining those
2 illustrious ranks, and I really don't think you want to go
3 there.
4 This incredibly speeded up process has absolutely
5 nothing to do with air quality. If it were the emissions
6 rules, those could be adopted. That's not a problem. This
7 is solely to protect MTC from the consequences of its
8 actions in 1999 and earlier in the decade. We were there.
9 We said to them you need further emissions reductions, and
10 your attainment assessment is a joke. They didn't want to
11 listen to us. And now that EPA is saying it to them, all of
12 a sudden they're listening.
13 Okay. These comments have been out there. They
14 have completely refused to listen. The only way to get them
15 to listen is to send this back to them. And I would urge
16 you to take the good language that's in the resolution for
17 tonight, the last five paragraphs, adopt the therefores and
18 throw out the parts pertaining to the plan.
19 Thank you very much.
20 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much.
21 John Holtzolaw, Dennis Bolt, Jim Thomas.
22 MR. HOLTZOLAW: Members of the Board, welcome to
23 San Francisco. I'm John Holtzolaw, representing the Sierra
24 Club.
25 I -- we urge you to reject this plan until you've
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
420
1 added the following elements to it.
2 One, complete Smog Check 2, both to reduce ozone
3 precursors and particulates in the Bay Area, but also to
4 reduce the transport of air pollution to other districts.
5 Second, to require that MTC develop transportation
6 control measures that will result in no increase in vehicle
7 miles traveled, VMT, per capita.
8 And we testified in the 1999 Clean Air Plan that
9 it looks like now this could be achieved by -- with three --
10 four transportation control measures that achieved
11 essentially the following things, using MTC's fiscal powers,
12 and their decision-making powers.
13 One, only smart growth around transit stations.
14 Second, building transit, rather than traffic and sprawl-
15 inducing roadways. Three, moving some of the subsidies to
16 our driving through parking cash-out, through parking
17 charges. MTC evaluated a similar plan with a little less,
18 called the RAFT alternative, in 1994. And it almost gets us
19 to that no net increase in VMT per capita. With the
20 additional measure I think we should be able to get there.
21 We appreciate MTC's transportation for livable communities,
22 but it's time to go past that.
23 Third, we urge that you require them to adopt
24 additional measures to cover refineries, power plants, and
25 other industrial sources, reducing the pollution from them.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
421
1 And fourth, that the public process, meeting process be
2 substantially beefed up, particularly for the transportation
3 control measure development and the industrial source
4 development.
5 I thank you very much.
6 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. And thank you for
7 your succinct recommendations. Thank you.
8 MR. HOLTZOLAW: And I will leave one copy of my
9 more extensive testimony a week and a half ago before the
10 three agencies.
11 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much.
12 Dennis Bolt.
13 MR. BOLT: Thank you, Mr. -- Mr. Chairman, and
14 Members of the Board. I'm Dennis Bolt, with the Western
15 States Petroleum Association.
16 I think Ms. Dotson's comments on the tanker were
17 well taken. The customs, U.S. Customs has jurisdiction over
18 this. I happen to staff the marine vessel in terminal
19 group, and I'm going to take this back to our group and see
20 what authority and responsibility that our members have in
21 this area. And we'll communicate back through Mr.
22 DeSculnier, because I think it's a fair question.
23 The Western States Petroleum Association takes
24 very seriously the responsible -- the responsibility of the
25 district and the MTC to bring the Bay Area into attainment.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
422
1 It's important to note that Bay Area refineries are only 2.4
2 percent of total Bay Area emissions. We are going to do
3 everything we can proactively to take the control measures
4 that are in this plan and bring in real emissions. And
5 accept the reality that these are rounding errors, these are
6 minuscule amounts when it comes to a tank bringing
7 containment.
8 We will continue to do our fair share in the
9 future to bringing real emissions reductions as we have. We
10 have already reduced emissions over 51 percent between 1979
11 and 1999. Over 51 percent of our total emissions have
12 already been taken out of the air. And that does not
13 include the NOx reductions that have just -- the phase-in
14 has just been completed, and those reductions are -- are
15 going to yield reductions beyond that 51 percent.
16 I think the -- an error might be to throw in a
17 plethora of control measures that have to be studied and
18 measured, that are going to deal with this small 2.4 percent
19 that's not going to bring us into attainment, and it will
20 suck up the resources of the staff at the agencies who have
21 to bring about the real emission reductions. These are
22 complex planning, and in regulatory processes that are
23 taking from other meaningful work.
24 So let's do -- control measures have to be
25 reasonable under the law. They have to be able to be
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
423
1 achievable, in a reasonable standard found in both state and
2 federal law. And to pursue control measures that don't have
3 a likelihood of being reasonable has impacted the waste of
4 the agencies' resources, and detracts from the ability to
5 get real emission reductions.
6 We want to do, and will continue to do our fair
7 share in the midst of this reality that we have already done
8 a lot.
9 Thank you a lot.
10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much.
11 Jim Thomas, and Leonard Trimlett.
12 MR. THOMAS: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board,
13 my name is Jim Thomas. I'm the California representative
14 for the National Motorists Association. We're a grass roots
15 organization, with some 20,000 members.
16 I came here to talk a little bit about our
17 opposition to any increase in the smog check program. But I
18 see, from some of the comments I've heard, you guys have a
19 problem on your hands that's maybe bigger than that.
20 However, we're kind of tuned in across the country
21 to various smog check programs. And I would urge this Board
22 not to recommend the dynamometer program. Mr. Armstrong,
23 who spoke earlier, was quite eloquent in giving you some
24 technical reasons why this is not a good idea. I can only
25 echo his comments, and tell you and request that you not
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
424
1 suggest that this be part of this enhanced smog check
2 program. We don't need this. It doesn't work. It's
3 inconvenient, it does nothing to reduce any measurable
4 pollutants anywhere that it's been used or is being used in
5 the country.
6 What it does is it greatly increases the
7 inconvenience, the cost, and the waste of time to drivers.
8 And it -- all you need to do is -- is check with some of the
9 areas where this is being done now, and get some public
10 feedback, and you'll be amazed.
11 One last comment. I live for the day when you
12 guys, or the Board will develop enough spine to stand up to
13 the EPA and say hey, we represent California.
14 Thank you.
15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you.
16 Lastly, Leonard Trimlett.
17 MR. TRIMLETT: Thank you. Len Trimlett.
18 When this eloquent lady over here finds out that
19 under Smog Check 2 it's going to cost her $100 to repair --
20 to smog her car, and $500 to repair her car, and she can't
21 afford it, you're going to scrap her car so that you can
22 issue a pollution credit that refineries can buy so they
23 don't have to clean up their pollution.
24 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Not me.
25 MR. TRIMLETT: Pollution credits trade for $13,000
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
425
1 apiece. Each car on the Kanner Fitzgerald emission trading
2 exchange. They're bought and sold by the refineries, and by
3 power plants so they don't have to clean up their mess, so
4 they can continue victimizing this lady.
5 Emission trading credits are causing part of our
6 problem. You want to quantify that emission reduction? Get
7 rid of pollution credits. The Kyoto Treaty, the California
8 Emission Reduction Credit bank, you're banking credits so
9 she can -- so they don't have to clean up their mess, and
10 she can -- she continues to be victimized by the system.
11 Thank you.
12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much.
13 (Applause.)
14 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you. I think with that,
15 we've finished the public testimony.
16 I'd just like to lead off and would ask my
17 colleagues to -- to also join the discussion.
18 From what I've heard this evening, I'm
19 particularly bothered, well, by several things, I think, but
20 most of all I think the concern on the process and -- and
21 the lack of -- lack of input. So I'm not comfortable at
22 this time in approving the plan.
23 (Applause.)
24 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: But also, before we get that
25 applause, I am not saying that we reject the plan. I'm --
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
426
1 I'm suggesting we need to take some more time. And I don't
2 know, again, my understanding that I would like to, I guess,
3 is Supervisor DeSculnier -- no, he's not here. I'd like to
4 basically make sure that the process that he's outlined has
5 time to take place there, and get the input from the
6 community, and then maybe bring it back to the Board.
7 Supervisor DeSculnier, in your absence I was
8 saying that I think several of us are not comfortable with
9 the process to date, and not comfortable with passing the
10 plan at this time. And maybe you wanted to add a few words,
11 as well, there. And I know my other colleagues also do.
12 BOARD MEMBER DeSCULNIER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
13 Well, I was doing outreach in the lobby with some
14 of the people who wonder what I do with my evenings.
15 You know, I understand the frustration. I really
16 do. I mean, I serve on all three regional agencies,
17 governing bodies, in addition to this one. And also, as
18 you've heard this evening, Contra Costa County is the home
19 to the most hazardous material sites base per capita and by
20 square mileage in the State of California, only surpassed by
21 Los Angeles County. But on a per capita basis, and in terms
22 of a density basis, we have the most.
23 So obviously, I'm not unfamiliar with the
24 concerns. I do think that we have tried to be responsive.
25 I do think that this process for -- for some reasons out of
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
427
1 our control, because of the way we were designated by
2 someone who I have a great -- great deal of respect for, the
3 former Regional Administrator of Region 9, it's a difficult
4 process.
5 Regional government in the Bay Area is not right,
6 either. Some of the kids were complaining about the last
7 meeting where we had 32 elected officials from the two
8 governing -- three governing bodies trying to make sense of
9 a very complicated issue, both from a transportation and air
10 quality and land use perspective, and the stationary sources
11 side, as well.
12 So what I was hoping we would do this evening is
13 be able to develop enough trust that we could approve it
14 conditionally and go out and do the work. What I'm hearing
15 is -- and I think this is probably about process -- the
16 timeline to it and the engagement from CBE, and I do
17 appreciate the fact that you came up here with specific
18 recommendations and I think Matt has hit it on -- the nail
19 on the head, that that's very helpful. The concern, as Matt
20 said, in terms of losing or delaying construction projects
21 is something that I personally have concerns about. I have
22 constituents who want to see those HOV lanes built, and not
23 slowed down. And also some of the transit projects.
24 So maybe there's a possibility, and this is what I
25 would like staff to -- to maybe respond to, and also the --
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
428
1 the concerns about Smog Check 2 from my colleagues in the
2 downwind communities. Rather than act tonight, that we try
3 to develop this outreach plan with CBE, and bring it back to
4 the Board at some appropriate time, and get a firm
5 understanding of any risks we have associated with losing
6 those federal funds for transportation projects.
7 So that would be my suggestion, that rather than
8 reject the plan tonight and put it in greater risk, that we
9 do the outreach and we do it in as timely a fashion, take as
10 much time as we can without risking those funds, make sure
11 that those funds really are at risk, and come back with an
12 appropriate report from the regional agencies and from our
13 staff.
14 But I do think our staff has to be fully engaged
15 in the outreach process so we can take some of the things
16 we've learned in South Coast and other parts of the state,
17 and make sure that they're successful in the Bay Area. And
18 maybe, Mike, you can respond to that. And I can put it in
19 the form of a motion, Mr. Chairman, at any time you'd like.
20
21 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think -- I think a couple of my
22 other colleagues want to say something, then I think we'd
23 like to do that.
24 EXECUTIVE OFFICER KENNY: What I was going to say
25 was basically on the original staff proposal tonight was
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
429
1 essentially a conditional approval. And what I heard the
2 Board essentially suggesting is that instead of going with a
3 conditional approval, that what we do is we essentially take
4 advantage of the time, and we sort of reverse it.
5 There is no need to actually conditionally approve
6 it. We can essentially wait until the actual process of
7 outreach occurs, the additional public meetings that
8 Supervisor DeSculnier has talked about occur, and the local
9 districts have had the opportunity to then enhance the plan
10 as it was previously considered, by adding in some of the
11 additional things that we have talked about tonight. In
12 fact, all of the additional things we've talked about
13 tonight.
14 And we can participate in that process, and then
15 we can basically bring it back to the Board in September.
16 From a timing standpoint, with regard to the conformity
17 issues that are there, I think that will actually still
18 work, and because what we can do is we can then move
19 forward, presumably in September. And if in fact the Board
20 does then approve a plan in September, what can then occur
21 is that USEPA could then have that plan and they could
22 basically review that, and make their determination before
23 any conformity lapse actually did occur.
24 So I think that process is one that can actually
25 work very effectively, and, you know, give people more of an
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
430
1 opportunity to participate in the plan then has currently
2 potentially occurred.
3 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you.
4 Mr. McKinnon, and Ms. D'Adamo, we can come down
5 this way.
6 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Yeah. I think -- I think
7 Mark very fairly represented the direction, and I support
8 that direction. I -- I think that my knowledge of some of
9 the hardball that's being played is that we could lose the
10 road funding, and it would be a blame game, and folks'
11 activism -- my friend, do you think I'm lying? I'm telling
12 you what I think. Do you think it's not true, or you think
13 I'm lying?
14 FROM THE AUDIENCE: I think it's a lie.
15 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: You think it is a lie.
16 FROM THE AUDIENCE: Why do you care about highway
17 funding?
18 (Comments from the audience.)
19 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Excuse me. Excuse me.
20 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Okay.
21 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Excuse me. Let's bring it back
22 to order.
23 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I started that.
24 (Comments from the audience.)
25 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: So -- no, sir. Please. This is
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
431
1 a Board discussion here. We've been very patient. We've
2 had all the input. Thank you.
3 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: I started that. It's my
4 fault. I won't ask a question of the audience. I'll just
5 keep -- keep going.
6 Anyway, I'm disinclined to vote for it today. I
7 think that there will be a day that we will have to vote on
8 it, and -- and it will be after a process, and it won't be
9 very long from now. And I hope that over that few months,
10 that there's some resolution of the issues. And I guess one
11 of my concerns is that we'll get down the road and the
12 parties will be far apart, and we'll end up having to vote
13 on it anyway. And if that happens, we will. I -- at least
14 I will.
15 But I'm convinced the process was not good, and
16 that it should be done again.
17 (Applause.)
18 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Ms. D'Adamo.
19 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I concur with my colleagues
20 and don't have much to add. I think we can do better on the
21 process. As far as the control measures, I don't feel as
22 equipped to speak to the specifics, except for smog check
23 and the transport issues. I think we can do better there,
24 and hopefully we can do better with regard to other issues
25 in the plan, as well, and look forward to it coming back.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
432
1 Thank you.
2 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you.
3 Professor Friedman.
4 BOARD MEMBER PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN: Yeah, I -- I
5 expressed earlier I didn't -- I thought the process, as it
6 unfolded, was flawed. And I'm not comfortable either,
7 acting -- approving the plan today, and I would not vote for
8 it today.
9 But I'm concerned that the -- I'm concerned as to
10 whose responsibility it is to -- to make sure the process is
11 not flawed the next time around, and it's expedited. And I
12 -- I have not heard from the air pollution control officer,
13 or the district, other than through one member, I guess,
14 Supervisor DeSculnier. And it seems to me that there -- the
15 front line responsibility is on the district. I could be
16 wrong, and you can set me straight. But I don't think we
17 should begin to start a precedent. We also heard from Mr.
18 Daly, Supervisor Daly.
19 And I would hope that -- that the -- I think it
20 would be a dangerous precedent for us to start setting --
21 setting up plans for every district. I know we have -- have
22 the obligation to review and approve one, but -- so, while
23 we can participate, and I think we need to weigh in with all
24 of the -- the resources we can -- we can divert to this
25 effort, you know, I really think it's up to this district to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
433
1 serve its constituents, and to do the outreach and follow a
2 process that is fair and is designed to give optimal notice
3 and exposure, and opportunity for the community to give
4 input. And to take into account the environmental justice
5 concerns and -- and policies that we've adopted, because the
6 state law requires that. And because it's the right thing
7 to do.
8 (Applause.)
9 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Supervisor Patrick.
10 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
11 I'll move this mic a little bit closer.
12 For those of you who do not know me, I'm a
13 supervisor in Kern County, so I have spent seven years
14 making tough decisions in Kern County and in the San Joaquin
15 Valley. And it's something that I never shy away from. But
16 the one thing that always gives me a comfort level is when I
17 know that people have been involved in the process, and then
18 we can agree to disagree.
19 I am so uncomfortable with the process that has
20 occurred here because, you know, when you've gone down the
21 road and you've worked together, sometimes you -- you
22 naturally do not agree with one another, you know. Tough
23 decisions need to be made. But the only thing that gives it
24 any validity is that all the way along, you've been working
25 together. And I am so very concerned over what I'm hearing
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
434
1 this evening.
2 And I want to make just one comment, and that is
3 how much I appreciate Supervisor DeSculnier and the work
4 that he is doing here in the Bay Area, because he is working
5 hard to put the public back into public input. And I -- I
6 am delighted that he's part of all three of those
7 organizations that are -- and agencies that are involved in
8 approving this plan, and I know that he is trying to put a
9 different face on what has happened. And I know that you're
10 playing catch up, and I know it's very difficult. But I
11 want to salute you, because I have every confidence in the
12 world that you can work with people and make them know that
13 you are -- you are only interested in their -- in their
14 health and that you are only interested in -- in good public
15 policy.
16 And I'm really glad it's you that's here in the
17 Bay Area, because I know that you can turn this around,
18 Mark.
19 (Laughter.)
20 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: And I will be happy to
21 second your motion.
22 BOARD MEMBER DeSCULNIER: Can we have a meeting in
23 Kern County, please?
24 (Laughter.)
25 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Can we have a what?
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
435
1 BOARD MEMBER DeSCULNIER: Thank you, Barbara.
2 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Can we have a what for Kern
3 County?
4 BOARD MEMBER DeSCULNIER: No. I was just being
5 facetious.
6 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Oh, I thought maybe you
7 wanted to move there.
8 BOARD MEMBER DeSCULNIER: No, no, no, no. Thank
9 you very much for your comments.
10 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Before -- I think Mark, you were
11 going to introduce a motion. I would just like to say what
12 I said earlier, and I agree with my colleagues that not
13 being able to approve a plan at this time. But I'd also say
14 what we're about, and I see it all out here, about public
15 health, we're talking about process. We're talking about
16 the very poor tools that we're using, and we've got much
17 better tools on the horizon. We have to use those.
18 But that's no excuse, though, however, that we
19 shouldn't do everything we can, because we're talking about
20 hundreds of tons to get out of the air, both NOx and
21 hydrocarbons. We need to be doing that tomorrow, so let not
22 the process stop us from making sure that we get as maximum
23 a reduction as possible. Let us not make sure that we have
24 tried to enforce all the rules that are there, because the
25 process is helpful, but we can't wait any longer. Public
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
436
1 health is our -- is our goal.
2 So I would urge our staff and the Bay Area staff
3 that this should not be a hiatus, but basically we should be
4 going -- doing everything we can to get the process started
5 so that, in fact, six months from now we actually gain
6 something on those emissions reductions, and we don't in
7 fact continue to get behind the curve.
8 (Applause.)
9 SUPERVISOR DeSCULNIER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
10 I'll try to be brief here, and make a motion. But
11 I -- I do want to just acknowledge the CARB staff and my
12 colleagues. It's been my pleasure in ten years I've been in
13 public policy, that this Board and this appointment has been
14 one of the most rewarding. And this Board's taken on the
15 auto industry, the petroleum industry, a lot of very
16 powerful and influential industries in this country, and has
17 set a precedent for this whole -- for the whole country, not
18 just for the State of California.
19 So it's been tremendously rewarding, and there
20 have been some really tough challenges we've picked up. So
21 I think the Bay Area should do the same, and we should do
22 our part.
23 So I would move that we continue this item until
24 September for report back, and to direct the -- our staff to
25 work with the regional agencies, and being -- being
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
437
1 sympathetic to Board Member Friedman's concerns about us
2 taking the whole world over and understanding the
3 responsibility of the regional agencies. But I do think we
4 have to be involved.
5 If there is a way to go longer and we don't
6 jeopardize the transportation funds, then we should do that.
7 If we can't, we would hope that you would engage us, all the
8 members of the community, and helping us to real public
9 outreach and engaging the people you're concerned with.
10 So that would be my motion.
11 BOARD MEMBER McKINNON: Second.
12 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Any amendments? And all in
13 favor?
14 (Ayes.)
15 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Unanimous, I think. So with that
16 --
17 BOARD MEMBER DeSCULNIER: Thank you.
18 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: Thank you very much, Supervisor,
19 and thank you, colleagues.
20 I think with that, we'll come to a close. I'd
21 like to thank the staff. I'd like to thank you all for
22 coming this evening and staying and participating in this
23 process, and for the orderly way in which you conducted
24 yourselves and the presentations.
25 So, thank you very much, indeed, and I guess we
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
438
1 will --
2 (Applause.)
3 CHAIRMAN LLOYD: I think the -- this meeting, the
4 Board will reconvene at 8:30 tomorrow morning.
5 (Thereupon, the meeting of the Air Resources
6 Board was adjourned at 11:07 p.m.)
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
439
CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
I, JAMES F. PETERS, a Certified Shorthand Reporter
of the State of California, and Registered Professional
Reporter, do hereby certify:
That I am a disinterested person herein; that the
foregoing California Air Resources Board hearing was
reported in shorthand by me, James F. Peters, a Certified
Shorthand Reporter of the State of California, and
thereafter transcribed into typewriting.
I further certify that I am not of counsel or
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing nor in any
way interested in the outcome of said hearing.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
this 6th day of August, 2001
JAMES F. PETERS, CSR, RPR
Certified Shorthand Reporter
License No. 10063
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345