Comment Log Display

April 7, 2023

Mr. Paul Arneja
Air Resources Engineer
California Air Resources Board
Submitted electronically via
https://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm/bclist.php

	RE:	 Comments on March 23, 2023 Draft of Advanced Clean Fleets
Regulation 

Dear Paul,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Proposed 15-day
Changes to the Proposed Regulation Order - Advanced Clean Fleets
Regulation, issued on March 23, 2023. I am writing on behalf of
Recology, one of the leading recycling, composting and waste
collection companies in the state.

Recology and its over 25 California operating subsidiaries operate
a fleet of over 2,000 vehicles in the state that will be covered by
the regulation. We service over 80 communities throughout Northern
California, ranging from major cities and suburban communities to
remote rural areas. We trace our roots back more than 100 years. 

Recology is proud to have been at the forefront of the state's push
towards diversion of solid waste from landfill. In partnership with
the City of San Francisco, we pioneered the first 3-bin system in
any major U.S. city, and helped the City achieve the highest
diversion rate of any major U.S. city. We have actively supported
the cities and counties we work with in meeting the state's
recycling mandates, including AB 939, AB 1826, AB 341, and SB 1383.
Through our 5 California compost facilities, we are also one of the
state's largest commercial composters.

Consistent with our mission, Recology fully supports CARB's goal of
transitioning all heavy duty vehicles to ZEVs as a means to
aggressively reduce greenhouse gases. We have been piloting this
technology since 2019 and are working with manufacturers in testing
and developing ZEVs that meet the needs of our industry. Our fleet
is powered by 90% renewable or alternative fuel.

We believe the goal of fleet electrification is best served through
fair, workable regulation that thoughtfully engages with the
challenges industries face in transforming their fleets and
businesses and making the necessary investments. We want to see a
successful Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation that drives the state
towards a zero-emission future. We offer the following comments in
that spirit.

Waste and Wastewater Fleet Option
The "waste fleet" definition only applies to fleet owners whose
activities support "processing of diverted in-state organic waste
to produce biomethane." For consistency with SB 1383, the
definition should be broadened to include any type of organics
processing that CalRecycle recognizes as diversion. SB 1383 does
not express a preference for biomethane, and approves several other
methods of diverting organics, including composting. Composting is
also the preferred method for most jurisdictions we work with.
Compost produced by Recology is procured by jurisdictions as part
of their strategy to comply with SB 1383's procurement mandates and
by California farmers seeking to incorporate sustainable and less
water-intensive practices into their operations. Limiting the
definition of "waste fleet" to include only those supporting
biomethane production effectively penalizes companies and
jurisdictions that invested in composting, and is therefore
inconsistent with the state's policies related to organics
recovery.

The "waste fleet" definition only applies if the fleet owner
"contracts" with a "municipality." However, many jurisdictions
including San Francisco do not have contracts with their solid
waste collectors, instead authorizing them through a license or
permit system. Moreover, many solid waste collection contracts are
not entered into by municipalities, but rather by counties and
solid waste agencies (JPAs). The "waste fleet" definition should be
modified to better reflect the many ways that jurisdictions choose
to engage their solid waste collectors.

The "waste fleet" definition only applies if the organic waste is
collected pursuant to a contract with a minimum 10-year term, or 3
years with automatic renewal. We suggest deleting this requirement
since it appears arbitrary and unnecessary to fulfill the purpose
of the exemption. For example, it is unclear why a franchise
agreement with a 7-year term, or a 1-year evergreen provision,
should not receive the exemption, on the understanding that the
exemption would only apply as long as the contract is in effect.

In light of the above comments, we suggest revising the "waste
fleet" definition to read as follows:

"'Waste fleet' means the vehicles owned and operated by a fleet
owner that is contracted, licensed or permitted by a city, county,
joint powers authority, or other local governmental agency that is
mandated to support the hauling, transfer, and processing of
diverted in-state organic waste via franchise agreement, other
contract, license or permit."

In 2015.2(e)(2), "garbage vehicle configurations" should be changed
to "waste fleet vehicle configurations," for consistency with the
"waste fleet" definition.

Daily Usage Exemption
This exemption is only available if the fleet owner demonstrates
that "no new BEV is available to purchase that can meet the
demonstrated daily usage needs of any existing vehicles of the same
configuration in the fleet." However, "fleet" means vehicles
"operated under [] common ownership or control." For many
companies, their "fleet" will consist of all the vehicles they
operate throughout the state. This regulatory structure creates
severe issues for companies that operate in varying operating
environments.

First, the regulation requires a comparison of apples to oranges. A
refuse collection vehicle that operates in a sparse, hilly rural
area requires more battery power than the same vehicle operated in
a dense, flat urban area. There may be a BEV that meets the daily
usage needs of the urban vehicle but not the rural vehicle. Yet the
exemption counts these vehicles the same if they have the same
configuration. The exemption should be modified so that only
configurations in similar operating environments are compared.

Second, the regulation penalizes fleet owners that operate vehicles
in diverse environments. Continuing the above example, suppose a
fleet owner needs to replace a rural vehicle, but it also operates
an urban vehicle hundreds of miles away. If there is a BEV that
meets the daily usage needs of the urban vehicle but not the rural
vehicle, the fleet owner would be unable to obtain the exemption
for the rural vehicle, whereas a different fleet owner that only
operates in rural areas would be able to obtain the exemption. The
fact that the fleet owner could conceivably replace the urban
vehicle instead is no answer, because the fleet owner might not
need to replace that vehicle. The exemption should be modified so
that the comparison is done for vehicles operating out of the same
yard or the same limited geographic area.

Third, the regulation requires fleet owners to submit an
unnecessary amount of documentation. The exemption requires
submission of data "for all ICE vehicles of the same weight class
and configuration of the vehicle to be replaced." If the fleet
owner has hundreds of vehicles of the same configuration throughout
the state, the fleet owner would have to gather and submit data on
all these vehicles in order to get an exemption for one vehicle.
And as stated above, much of the data would be irrelevant because
it would apply to vehicles in different operating environments. A
representative sample of vehicles from a similar operating
environment should suffice.

The daily usage exemption is only available to fleet owners whose
fleets already have at least 10% ZEVs. This seems inconsistent with
the milestone approach in §2015.2(a), which does not require 10%
ZEVs until a later date. The premise of the daily usage exemption
is that there is no available BEV that meets the fleet owner's
daily usage requirements. A fleet owner should not be required to
purchase BEVs that do not meet its daily usage requirements just to
meet the 10% threshold for this exemption.

The daily usage exemption is unavailable for non-tractor Class 8
vehicles if a BEV exists in the same configuration with an energy
capacity of 450 kilowatt-hours or more. This may not be enough for
refuse collection vehicles, with their powerful lifting systems,
frequent stops, and heavy payloads. Whether a BEV is equivalent
should be based on its actual performance for its intended use, not
on an arbitrary energy capacity metric.

If the fleet owner wishes to demonstrate that no BEV can handle the
daily assignments of the equivalent ICE vehicle, the fleet owner
must submit data "from BEVs of the same configuration already
operated on similar daily assignments." But if there is no
equivalent BEV, it's unclear how the fleet owner could obtain such
information. It would be illogical to require the fleet owner to
purchase an unsatisfactory BEV in order to prove that it's
unsatisfactory. The fleet owner should be allowed to submit other
kinds of data (e.g. manufacturer specifications) to substantiate
the lack of equivalency.

2015.3(b)(4) states that the daily usage exemption is categorically
unavailable and will not be granted if certain mileage or energy
use criteria are met. This bright-line test seems overly narrow.
For a refuse collection vehicle, the hours it can operate between
charges, and the payload it can carry while remaining within legal
weight limits, are at least if not more significant than mileage or
energy use. Equivalency should be based on the BEV's actual
performance for its intended use in the specific operating
environment in which it will be used, and not reduced to an
oversimplified numerical comparison.

Purchase Exemption
The standard for applying the Purchase Exemption is that there is
no available ZEV "configuration" that serves the same "primary
intended function" as an ICE vehicle. This standard is too broad. A
ZEV refuse collection vehicle that can only operate 5 hours between
charges and carry a 7-ton payload is in no meaningful way
"equivalent" to an ICE vehicle that can operate 10 hours without
refueling and carry a 10-ton payload. If these vehicles were deemed
equivalent, it would necessitate seismic shifts throughout our
industry, including increasing the number of vehicles and drivers,
increasing yard space, etc. These in turn would increase waste
collection rates throughout the state. As stated above, equivalency
should be based on a vehicle's actual performance for its intended
use in the same operating environment as a comparable ICE vehicle.


The regulation should state that the Purchase Exemption lasts for
the useful life of the vehicle, so that it's clear that the
exemption does not expire when the vehicle configuration is removed
from the Purchase Exemption List. A fleet owner that relies on the
Purchase Exemption should not be penalized for subsequent
improvements in technology over which the fleet owner had no
control.

2015.3(e)(2)(G) allows fleet owners to continue to rely on the
Purchase Exemption for 180 days after a vehicle is removed from the
Purchase Exemption List. In our business, funding for the
transition to ZEVs will need to be negotiated into the franchise
agreements and other arrangements with jurisdictions pursuant to
which we provide services. These negotiations can often take years.
If we presented a cost proposal to a jurisdiction based on the
expected availability of the Purchase Exemption, and then were
forced to revise the cost proposal to due to the announced
expiration of the Purchase Exemption, the additional expense would
trigger substantial renegotiation that could take more than 6
months to complete. We suggest changing the time period to 1 year.

We suggest clarifying that the specific configurations listed in
2015.3(e)(1)(A) cannot be removed from the Purchase Exemption List
before January 1, 2025, and therefore fleet owners can continue to
rely on the Purchase Exemption for at least 180 days (or 1 year, as
suggested above) beyond that date. Consistent with earlier
comments, when CARB decides to remove a vehicle from the list, it
should do so only if the ZEV vehicle can perform to the same
standards as a comparable ICE vehicle in the same operating
environment.

In the definition of "configuration," we suggest clarifying that
each of the specific vehicle types listed in 2015.3(e)(1)(A) is a
"configuration," so that it's clear (for example) that
"front-loader refuse compactor truck" is a "configuration," not an
umbrella category under which many different "configurations" may
exist. 

Other Provisions
The regulation generally treats FCEVs and BEVs as interchangeable
(both are ZEVs). It also states that certain exemptions are
unavailable if an equivalent ZEV exists. This could create
unintended outcomes for fleet owners. In reality, fleet owners need
to decide whether to install electrical charging equipment or
hydrogen fueling equipment at their yards. Suppose a fleet owner
plans to adopt a BEV fleet at a particular site and install the
necessary charging equipment, but needs to temporarily rely on the
Purchase Exemption for a particular configuration. Suppose further
that, under the Purchase Exemption, CARB determines there is an
equivalent FCEV available for that configuration, but not an
equivalent BEV. In that scenario, the fleet owner would be required
to purchase the FCEV, even though it lacks the necessary
infrastructure and has no long-term intention to use FCEVs. The
regulation should be revised to eliminate this problem.

Several exemptions including the Daily Usage Exemption, Purchase
Exemption, and Infrastructure Delay Extension appear to apply only
to "replacement" vehicles. This fails to take into account that
fleet owners may need to expand their fleets as demand for their
services increases, or to meet new regulatory mandates such as SB
1383. For example, Recology is continuing to expand the number of
collection vehicles in its fleets as it works with jurisdictions to
add routes for the collection of source separated organic waste.
The exemptions should be modified so that they apply to additional
or replacement vehicles.

The Infrastructure Construction Delay Extension only applies to
delays occurring after a construction permit is obtained and a
construction contract is signed. This does not take into account
the substantial delays that can result from the permitting process,
which for complicated projects may take years, especially if the
project involves environmental impacts. The permitting process is a
function of regulatory and local government requirements and
processes that are beyond fleet owners' control, and it cannot be
assumed that a construction permit will be the only type of permit
required. The extension should be modified to include permitting
delays.

In 2015.2(a), the example is incorrect because it states that a
fleet owner complying with the Milestone Option must have 10% ZEVs
within Class 1. We suggest the following rewording: "for example,
the Milestone Group 1 percentage is vehicles must comprise at least
ten percent of the California fleet each year beginning January 1,
2025 until December 31, 2027."

The Vehicle Delivery Delay Extension and the definition of "vehicle
purchase" require "immediate delivery or installation" of the
vehicle or body. In our industry, most vehicles are made to order
and take a year or longer to manufacture. There is no such thing as
"immediate delivery." We suggest revising these provisions to say,
"immediate delivery upon completion."

The Vehicle Delivery Delay Extension does not apply if the purchase
agreement is modified for any reason within 1 year of the
compliance deadline. This seems like an unnecessary restriction.
There are many reasons purchase agreements may need to be modified,
including change orders or other business terms. We suggest
eliminating this requirement. 

* * *

Thank you for considering these comments. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at
gkazanjian@recology.com.

Respectfully,



Garen Kazanjian
Public Policy & Regulatory Affairs Manager
Recology