BOARD MEETING STATE OF CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD JOE SERNA JR. BUILDING CALEPA HEADQUARTERS BUILDING 1001 I STREET BYRON SHER AUDITORIUM SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2005 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 Mrs. Barbara Riordan, Acting Chairperson Ms. Dorene D'Adamo Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier Dr. Henry Gong Mayor Ronald Loveridge Supervisor Barbara Patrick Supervisor Ron Roberts STAFF Ms. Catherine Witherspoon, Executive Officer Mr. Tom Cackette, Chief Deputy Executive Officer Ms. Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer Ms. Diane Johnston, General Counsel Ms. Kathleen Tschogl, Ombudsman Dr. Alberto Ayala, Manager, Emission Control Technology Section Mr. Robert Barham, Assistant Chief, Stationary Source Division Mr. Richard Bode, Chief, Health and Exposure Assessment Branch Mr. Richard Corey, Chief, Research and Economics Studies Branch Dr. Bart Croes, Chief, Research Division PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iii APPEARANCES CONTINUED STAFF Mr. Bob Cross, Chief, Mobile Source Control Division Ms. Victoria Davis, Staff Counsel Mr. Dan Donohoue, Chief, Emissions Assessment Branch Ms. Annette Hebert, Chief, Heavy-Duty Diesel In-Use Strategies Branch Dr. Norman Kado, Research Division Ms. Kathleen Mead, Air Pollution Specialist, Retrofit Implementation Section Mr. Paul Milkey, Emissions Assessment Branch, Technical Analysis Section Dr. Linda Smith, Manager, Health and Ecosystem Effects Section Ms. Nancy Steele, Manager, Retrofit Implementation Section Ms. Peggy Taricco, Manager, Technical Analysis Section Mr. Michael Terris, Staff Counsel Mr. Peter Venturini, Chief, Stationary Source Division Mr. Floyd Vergara, Staff Counsel Mr. Richard Vincent, Research Division ALSO PRESENT Mr. Henry Hogo, South Coast Air Quality Management District Ms. Bonnie Holmes-Gen, American Lung Association of California Ms. Yolanda Hwang, Bay Area Biodiesel Collaboration PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iv APPEARANCES CONTINUED ALSO PRESENT Mr. Joseph Kubsh, Manufacturers of Emission Control Association Mr. Joshua Shaw, California Transit Association Mr. Peter Spaulding, California Association for Coordinating Transportation Mr. Gene Walker, Golden Gate Transit, CTA PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 v INDEX PAGE Pledge of Allegiance 1 Roll Call 1 Item 05-2-1 2 Acting Chairperson Riordan 2 Executive Officer Witherspoon 3 Staff Presentation 3 Board Discussion and Q&A 8 Item 05-2-2 14 Acting Chairperson Riordan 14 Executive Officer Witherspoon 15 Staff Presentation 15 Joshua Shaw 29 Gene Walker 36 Henry Hogo 43 Peter Spaulding 44 Joseph Kubsh 51 Bonnie Holmes-Gen 53 Motion 56 Board Discussion and Q&A 57 Vote 72 Item 05-2-3 73 Acting Chairperson Riordan 73 Executive Officer Witherspoon 73 Staff Presentation 74 Board Discussion and Q&A 85 Motion 85 Vote 86 Items 05-2-4 & 02-2-5 86 Acting Chairperson Riordan 86 Executive Officer Witherspoon 87 Staff Presentations 89 Board Discussion and Q&A 115 Public Comment 126 Adjournment 142 Reporter's Certificate 143 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 1 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Good morning, 3 everyone. 4 Good morning. I'd like to call the February 5 24th, meeting of the Air Resources Board to order. And it 6 is our custom to begin our meetings with the Pledge to the 7 Flag. And if you'd all rise, I've asked Dr. Gong to lead 8 us in the Pledge. 9 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Please join me. 10 (Thereupon the Pledge of Allegiance was 11 Recited in unison.) 12 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Madam clerk, would 13 you please call the roll 14 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Ms. Berg? 15 Mrs. D'Adamo. 16 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Here. 17 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Supervisor DeSaulnier? 18 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Here. 19 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Dr. Gong? 20 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Here. 21 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Ms. Kennard? 22 Mayor Loveridge? 23 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: He's here. 24 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Supervisor Patrick? 25 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Here. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 2 1 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Ms. Pineda? 2 Supervisor Roberts? 3 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Here. 4 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Madam Chair Riordan? 5 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Here. 6 Thank you very much. I'd like to remind anyone 7 in the audience that wishes to testify on the items on 8 today's agenda item to sign up with our clerk of the Board 9 so that we know that you are interested in speaking. At 10 the appropriate time, I will call upon you. And if you 11 have a written statement, please give 30 copies to the 12 clerk. 13 The first item on today's agenda is number 14 05-2-1, our monthly informational health update on the 15 health effects of air pollution. And airborne particulate 16 matter, especially matter less than 10 micrometers in 17 diameter, has been associated with adverse human health 18 effects including premature mortality and cardiopulmonary 19 health effects. 20 Recently, research has focused on traffic-related 21 air pollutants and their health impacts. Today's update 22 will discuss recently published studies on traffic as a 23 source of these pollutants and health effects. 24 Ms. Witherspoon, would you please introduce this 25 agenda item. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 3 1 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yes. Good 2 morning Madam Chairman and members of the Board. 3 Previously, staff presented results showing that 4 the risk of death from cardiopulmonary causes is more 5 strongly associated with persons living close to a major 6 roadway than those living farther away. Those chronic 7 exposures were related to components associated with 8 traffic, including airborne particulate matter. 9 For this health update, staff will be discussing 10 more specific results from studies regarding acute 11 exposure to traffic emissions and cardiovascular health 12 effects. 13 Dr. Norman Kado will make the staff presentation. 14 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 15 Presented as follows.) 16 DR. KADO: Thank you very much, Ms. Witherspoon. 17 Good morning, Madam Chairman and members of the 18 Board. Our health update today will be on the association 19 between exposures to traffic and heart disease. 20 --o0o-- 21 DR. KADO: To provide a brief background. In 22 previous presentations we reported that investigators of 23 several studies found that long-term exposure to 24 particulate air pollution is associated with increased 25 death from heart and lung disease and from lung cancer. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 4 1 This finding was the foundation for the Board's new annual 2 PM10 and PM2.5 ambient air quality standards adopted in 3 2002. 4 The investigators compared many cities with 5 different ambient air pollution levels using the 6 assumption that exposure is approximately uniform within 7 each city. 8 This assumption however may not accurately 9 reflect exposure to pollutants with important local 10 sources. One of these sources is traffic. For example, 11 investigators in the Netherlands reported that traffic 12 density and distance to major roadways are associated with 13 death from heart and lung disease within a city. 14 Traffic in California is a source of local 15 pollutants. For example, studies by UCLA and SC 16 investigators found large increase of approximately 17 30-fold in the levels of particulate matter from vehicle 18 exhaust immediately adjacent to and down-wind of the 405 19 and 710 freeways. 20 There was a rapid decrease in concentration on 21 the down-wind side of the freeways to near background 22 levels within about 500 feet. In December, ARB staff 23 presented results showing that for a typical commuter, the 24 in-vehicle exposure to traffic-related pollutants while 25 traveling on freeways can represent more than 50 percent PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 5 1 of their daily exposure to ultrafine particulate matter. 2 Since pollutant levels are highest on the 3 freeways themselves, a natural question to ask is what is 4 the risk of heart disease associated with daily commutes 5 which is the subject of the 2 recent studies we will 6 present today. 7 --o0o-- 8 DR. KADO: In the first study, German 9 investigators focused on residents of Augsburg, a city of 10 about 280,000 residents located near Munich, who 11 experience non-lethal heart attacks over a 2-year period. 12 Air pollution exposure information was not reported and 13 the subjects were interviewed and asked to recall in 14 detail their activities that preceded the heart attack. 15 The investigators found that there was a 16 significant association between heart attacks and traffic 17 exposure, whether traveling in vehicle, using public 18 transportation or on a motorcycle or bicycle. The risk 19 was greatest, a 3-fold increase when traffic exposure 20 occurred one hour before the heart attack. 21 This is an intriguing result although it measures 22 only one health endpoint of the symptoms of heart disease, 23 such as angina, ischemia, may also be occurring but were 24 not studied. In addition, the authors indicate that 25 confounding factors such as stress and noise can also PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 6 1 contribute to the reported effects. 2 --o0o-- 3 DR. KADO: Investigators of the next study 4 measured PM exposure and its association with 5 cardiovascular effects. Nine healthy North Carolina State 6 Troopers were monitored using RealTime 7 electrocardiographs. The volunteers were males ages 23 to 8 30 non-smokers and had shifts from 3 p.m. to midnight. 9 They were asked not to consume alcohol or medications 10 during the 5-day study period. 11 RealTime measurements of PM2.5 and other 12 pollutants were conducted in 3 locations: Inside the 13 vehicle, on the road side, and in the community. 14 --o0o-- 15 DR. KADO: In-vehicle PM2.5 levels were 16 associated with significant changes in markers of 17 inflammation, blood coagulation and cardiac rhythm, which 18 are possible indicators of increased risk of heart 19 disease. 20 These effects were observed a few hours after the 21 pollution exposure period. The PM2.5 levels were below 22 the federal 24-hour average standard of 65 micrograms per 23 cubic meter of air. 24 In a companion publication these investigators 25 also reported that most health endpoints were associated PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 7 1 with components of PM2.5 containing copper, aldehydes and 2 sulfur, which reflect the wear of breaks, the acceleration 3 of vehicles and possibly diesel combustion respectively. 4 The results from this study are important since 5 this establishes a link between PM2.5 and its source, 6 vehicular traffic. 7 --o0o-- 8 DR. KADO: The studies presented today provide 9 evidence for an association between exposure to traffic 10 and its pollutants and increased risk of heart attacks and 11 heart disease risk factors even in healthy young adults. 12 An important question is how these effects translate to 13 the California environment where traffic is typically high 14 and commutes are relatively long. 15 Last month the Board approved a study that will 16 examine cardiovascular health effects from exposure to 17 fine and ultrafine particles during freeway travel. The 18 investigators from UCLA will study 16 healthy volunteers 19 greater than 50 years of age, who will be exposed to 20 normal traffic pollutants while riding on a freeway. 21 One commute will be on a freeway that has 22 primarily gasoline fueled vehicles, while another commute 23 will be on the 710 freeway, with mid-day peaks of 24 approximately 25 percent diesel traffic. 25 To separate out the effects of stress and noise, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 8 1 identical commutes with the same volunteers will be 2 conducted using an air filter on the vehicle to remove the 3 particles. Detailed blood chemistry, markers for 4 inflammation, as well as electrocardiograms will be 5 evaluated for all scenarios of the volunteers. Results 6 are expected in about 2 and a half years. 7 In summary, traffic appears to be an important 8 source of PM that can be associated with cardiovascular 9 health effects. It is becoming clear that diesel and 10 other particle controls for vehicles will improve the 11 health of commuters in those living near freeways and 12 other major roadways. 13 This concludes our presentation. We'll be happy 14 to answer any questions. 15 Thank you very much. 16 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you very much. 17 I'm reminded as I travel the I-10 freeway into our El 18 Monte office and watch the construction of some in-fill 19 housing literally almost at the junction of the 605 and 20 the 10. And I think what we're learning now -- and I'm 21 wishing there was a way that we could communicate to more 22 of our cities primarily. 23 This is a serious problem. And these are young 24 families that are going to be raising children, and 25 they'll be outside on a daily basis. And it's a bit PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 9 1 frightening for their future health. But I appreciate the 2 report and want to thank the research staff for continuing 3 to push the research that's necessary for us to be even 4 more emphatic with our land-use planners, because I think 5 it's terribly important. 6 Let me open it up to Board Members. Do you have 7 any questions for the staff at this time? 8 Dr. Gong. 9 BOARD MEMBER GONG: No questions. I just wanted 10 to compliment staff for an excellent presentation. As 11 usual, I make a little commentary. And I think this 12 presentation is right on. Obviously, in any study, 13 epidemiologically especially, you don't really have cause 14 and effect, that's 1, 2, 3. But I think that it asks the 15 right questions. There's something in traffic that -- 16 particularly in susceptible individuals -- can cause heart 17 problems. I'm surprised they didn't find strokes, that's 18 the other endpoint, too. 19 But I think it's really the tip of the iceberg. 20 As you mentioned, they only look at heart attacks and not 21 at chest pains or visits to the emergency room and the 22 chest pain went away that type of thing. So it really is, 23 I think, the tip of the iceberg. 24 I'm sure that even these 2 studies you quoted are 25 from Germany and from North Carolina, they would also PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 10 1 apply to Los Angeles and to California Highway Patrolmen. 2 I'm not trying to incite them. But one wonders what 3 they're undergoing in terms of traffic exposure. And, of 4 course, the same could be said for all other in-vehicle 5 drivers. 6 And I think I hark back to the December meeting 7 when Dr. Scott Fruin presented a very nice presentation on 8 the importance of in-vehicle exposures. And I think that 9 really opened my eyes as to what's going on on the 10 freeways not just 100 feet or 300 feet away. 11 So our citizens driving in these vehicles are 12 exposed to the maximum, it seems like, depending on the 13 traffic patterns and the sources around them. 14 So, again, I congratulate you on a very nice 15 presentation. 16 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Any other questions 17 or comments on this? 18 Ms. Witherspoon. 19 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yes, Madam Chair, 20 with respect to your comments about in-fill, I just wanted 21 to alert the Board that on Friday of last week we posted 22 the revised version of our land use guidance document, 23 which contains a very strong recommendation to keep 24 housing and other sensitive uses back 500 to 1,000 feet 25 from major roadways. And we have a public workshop coming PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 11 1 up on that document on March 4th in Los Angeles at UCLA. 2 Also, Lynn Terry and I will be meeting with the 3 building industry association next Monday and other 4 developers to discuss how we reconcile the in-fill 5 objectives of the administration with keeping people out 6 of harm's way. 7 So there's more to follow. And that document 8 comes before the Board, when Lynn? -- April -- at your 9 April meeting? 10 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Mayor Loveridge. 11 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Just a follow-up, the 12 guidance document once completed, who is it distributed 13 to? I assume the world. 14 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: It's been 15 distributed to the world already and many local 16 governments already have it. And we've been out meeting 17 with the different planning associations and governmental 18 bodies. It's on the web for all to see. They get a 19 "What's New" notice if they're on our mailing list. And 20 then, of course, it will come here and then press coverage 21 will carry it farther. 22 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Information is like 23 confetti, it's all around us. But who in local 24 governments? Do you send it to the clerk, the manager, to 25 the electeds? Who gets that document? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 12 1 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Well, we select 2 people within associations. Other people select 3 themselves who wish to stay informed of how our policies 4 are evolving. So we have a narrower list than one would 5 like. We don't blanket everyone with this document. But 6 we will have an outreach strategy once it's final. 7 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: I think Chairman 8 Riordan's comments are important is that for local 9 officials to know they need to be informed. And so it 10 seems it to me it would be helpful, in addition to sending 11 it to a planning director, that the electeds who are 12 making these final decisions have access to the document. 13 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: I agree. And it 14 is wonderful reading. And it's stated in plain English. 15 It's not your typical techy, difficult-to-understand 16 document, you know, from a regulatory body. And we just 17 have to figure out how to get it in their hands. And you 18 probably can tell us how or any of you who serve as 19 locally elected officials, what's the best way to get 20 through all the chaff on your desk and your colleagues' 21 desks so that they see it and respond to it. 22 We'll have air districts carry it in too, of 23 course, to their county boards of supervisors and their 24 cities. And so they'll help us with outreach. 25 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Let me make a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 13 1 suggestion that perhaps the staff, whomever is tasked with 2 distribution after we have our approval and final, you 3 know, say on the document, that you interview those 4 members of the Board who are obviously involved as local 5 elected officials, and seek their advice on how to -- not 6 only how to distribute it, to whom to distribute it, but 7 also its form. 8 And sometimes I've noticed we have cleverly, in 9 the past, packaged something up, so it's very readable. 10 It's very quick, very readable and kind of catches your 11 attention. And I'm thinking that we might want to do 12 something with at least an intro to a bigger document that 13 could be attached to it. We need to attract people's 14 interest. 15 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We probably want 16 to do some road shows, too. 17 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Yes. Yes. And the 18 League of California Cities, and the Association of County 19 Governments could maybe be opportunities as well. 20 All right, anything further from the Board 21 members? 22 Then we will move on, since this is not a 23 regulatory item so we don't have to officially close it. 24 We will simply say thank you to the staff. And 25 our next item I'll wait and we'll change our staff for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 14 1 Item 05-2-2. 2 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 3 Presented as follows.) 4 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Before we move on to 5 this item, I just want to comment. The staff that's here 6 from El Monte I trust you all are here and you didn't have 7 to swim to get to the airport. But I also want to say to 8 our Chief Executive Officer your El Monte staff has been 9 so nice to the interim Chairman. I want you to know that 10 they make life very nice for me when I go to El Monte. 11 And I appreciate that very much. 12 And therefore, I'm a little prejudiced when I, 13 you know, am going to give you advice on what I think we 14 need to do for that group down there. 15 By way of the agenda, this is Item 05-2-2, 16 proposed modifications to our fleet rule for transit 17 agencies and new requirements for transit fleet vehicles. 18 Back in February of 2000, the Board established a 19 fleet rule for transit agencies. And we asked staff to 20 report back to us on the progress of its implementation. 21 Since that time, the evolution of technology has led to 22 several amendments to the original regulation. And today 23 staff is bringing to us an amendment to expand the scope 24 of the fleet rule in keeping with the goals of the diesel 25 risk reduction program. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 15 1 Ms. Witherspoon, would you introduce this item 2 and the staff presentation, please. 3 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, Madam 4 Chairman. 5 This proposal is one more step in reducing the 6 health impact from transit fleets on Californians by 7 addressing all the types of buses used in transit service. 8 Staff is also proposing some clean-up changes to the 9 original rule. 10 Later this year in July we'll be coming back and 11 addressing more fundamental aspects of the transit rule 12 with respect to CNG versus diesel technology. But that is 13 not before us today. This is more about classes of 14 vehicle types and what is or isn't subject to the 15 regulation et al. 16 And with that, I'll turn the presentation over to 17 Ms. Kathleen Mead. 18 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MEAD: Thank you, Ms. 19 Witherspoon, Madam Chairman, and members of the Board. 20 Today, I will present staff's proposed 21 modifications to the fleet rule for transit agencies, 22 including proposed new requirements for transit fleet 23 vehicles. 24 --o0o-- 25 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MEAD: I will provide a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 16 1 brief background on diesel particulate matter or PM's 2 health effects, and the current fleet rule for transit 3 agencies; describe the proposed new requirements for 4 transit fleet vehicles and modifications to the current 5 fleet rule; discuss the technical feasibility, benefits 6 and cost effectiveness of staff's proposal; provide 7 staff's conclusions and recommendation; and talk to you 8 about staff's next steps. 9 --o0o-- 10 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MEAD: The documented 11 health impacts of diesel PM include increased incidents of 12 lung cancer, chronic respiratory problems such as asthma 13 and bronchitis and cardiovascular disease. High levels of 14 PM are consistently correlated with the more hospital 15 emissions and deaths in study after study. 16 Based on work by Dr. Lloyd and Mr. Cackette we 17 know the annual health impacts from PM include 2,900 18 premature deaths. Additional impacts include increased 19 hospital admissions, asthma attacks, other serious 20 respiratory symptoms and lost days of work. 21 The number of deaths per year from PM are similar 22 to annual deaths from car accidents and homicides. 23 --o0o-- 24 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MEAD: Because of these 25 adverse health impacts, in September 2000 you adopted the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 17 1 diesel risk reduction plan that sets our goals and 2 objectives for reducing diesel PM. Methods we identified 3 for reducing diesel PM from in-use vehicles, include 4 retrofitting engines, repowering engines and replacing 5 vehicles. 6 As a result of the plan, ARB has so far adopted 7 rules to reduce in-use emissions from urban buses, solid 8 waste collection vehicles or refuse haulers, stationary 9 engines, transportation refrigeration units, and portable 10 engines. 11 --o0o-- 12 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MEAD: Now, I will focus 13 on the existing fleet rule for transit agencies, which was 14 adopted by the Board in February of 2000. 15 The rule has 2 parts. The first is more 16 stringent new engine exhaust emission standards for heavy 17 heavy-duty urban bus engines. And the second part 18 established in-use fleet requirements to control NOx and 19 PM emissions from urban buses. 20 The new urban bus engine standards are more 21 stringent than the standards for comparable heavy 22 heavy-duty truck engines until 2010. Urban buses that are 23 operated by transit agencies must use these engines and 24 may not use engines certified to truck standards. 25 In 2004, you adopted a separate standard for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 18 1 diesel hybrid electric buses, subject to the existing rule 2 to promote the hybrid electric technology. The rule also 3 promotes innovative technology by requiring larger transit 4 agencies to purchase zero-emission buses starting in 2008. 5 --o0o-- 6 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MEAD: For transit 7 agencies, the rule sets fleet-wide requirements applicable 8 to each transit agency's in-use buses. Initially, each 9 agency was required to select a compliance path, either 10 the diesel path or the alternative fuel path to set the 11 fuel type for urban bus purchases or leases through 2015. 12 As of 2002, in addition, transit agencies were 13 required to begin using ultra low sulfur diesel fuel, 5 14 years ahead of the State mandate. 15 To achieve emission reductions, each transit 16 agency must consider its fleet as a whole to meet emission 17 reduction goals of a maximum NOx fleet average of 4.8 18 grams per brake-horsepower hour by October 1, 2002; and 19 percentage reductions in their total diesel PM emissions 20 relative to the January 1, 2002 urban bus fleet base 21 lines. 22 --o0o-- 23 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MEAD: Since the 24 adoption of the fleet rule for transit agencies, staff 25 became aware that transit agencies were increasing their PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 19 1 use of buses that were not covered under the rule. In 2 other words, they did not meet the definition of an urban 3 bus. 4 Staff surveyed transit agencies throughout the 5 state and determined that 34 percent of the buses operated 6 by transit agencies are not covered by ARB's fleet rule. 7 Of these, 9 percent are gasoline powered and 25 percent or 8 about 4,000 are diesel or alternative fuel. 9 Staff believes that these 4,000 diesel and 10 alternative fueled buses and trucks that are operated by 11 transit agencies should be covered under the current rule 12 to achieve additional emission reductions. 13 --o0o-- 14 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MEAD: Therefore, our 15 proposal today focuses on NOx and PM emission reductions 16 from each transit agencies in-use fleets through retrofits 17 or fleet turnover of those vehicles that are not urban 18 buses, which we are calling transit fleet vehicles. 19 For these vehicles transit agencies will be 20 allowed to continue to purchase buses and trucks that use 21 heavy-duty truck engines and will not be required to 22 purchase a specific fuel type or need to use ultra low 23 sulfur diesel fuel, unless required for a retrofit device. 24 --o0o-- 25 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MEAD: This shows the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 20 1 types of buses that can be transit fleet vehicles, which 2 include paratransit, dial-a-ride buses, charter buses, 3 some commuter buses and heavy-duty trucks not currently 4 subject to the rule. 5 Transit fleet vehicles are owned and operated by 6 public agencies, are greater than 85 pounds gross vehicle 7 weight rated, use heavy-duty truck engines and are fueled 8 by diesel and alternative fuel. Gasoline-fueled trucks 9 and buses are not included in staff's proposal. 10 --o0o-- 11 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MEAD: For transit fleet 12 vehicles our proposal is to establish a maximum allowable 13 NOx fleet average to reduce emissions and requires 14 percentage reductions in the total PM emissions relative 15 to a baseline emission level. These reductions will take 16 effect in 2 phases, in 2007 and in 2010. 17 --o0o-- 18 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MEAD: As previously 19 discussed and for comparison the current rule sets a 20 maximum allowable NOx fleet average for urban buses at 4.8 21 grams per brake-horsepower hour based on engine 22 certification standards. 23 --o0o-- 24 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MEAD: Staff is 25 recommending that each transit agency reduce its NOx fleet PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 21 1 average to a maximum of 3.2 grams per brake-horsepower 2 hour by December 31st, 2007. And further reduce it to a 3 maximum of 2.5 grams per brake-horsepower hour by December 4 31st, 2010 for its transit fleet vehicles. 5 Staff expects transit agencies to achieve these 6 NOx average reductions through fleet turnover, repowering 7 of older buses and trucks or in some cases retrofitting, 8 for an example, with a verified diesel particulate matter 9 that also reduces NOx. 10 --o0o-- 11 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MEAD: For PM, the 12 current rule requires progressively more stringent 13 percentage PM emission reductions from the urban bus fleet 14 relative to the baseline year of January 1, 2002. 15 --o0o-- 16 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MEAD: Similarly, our 17 proposal to reduce PM from transit fleet vehicles requires 18 each transit agency to reduce the total diesel PM 19 emissions by 40 percent as of December 31st, 2007 and by 20 80 percent as of December 31st, 2010, compared to a 21 baseline emissions of January 1, 2005. 22 Staff expects that some of the PM reductions will 23 occur with fleet turnover, but a majority of the 24 reductions will be achieved through retrofitting, for an 25 example, by installing a verified diesel particulate PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 22 1 filter or repowering with a cleaner engine. 2 We are also proposing that both transit fleet 3 vehicle and urban bus fleets that a transit agency is able 4 to meet a fleet PM average of 0.01 gram per 5 brake-horsepower hour in lieu of achieving the final 6 percent reduction requirement in order to allow for 7 growth. 8 --o0o-- 9 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MEAD: Now, that I've 10 discussed the requirements for transit fleet vehicles, I'd 11 like to briefly discuss our clarifying changes that we are 12 proposing for the current rule. 13 --o0o-- 14 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MEAD: First, as I 15 described to you earlier, the transit fleet vehicles are 16 only subject to in-use requirements and not stricter 17 engine emission standards. As a part of this rule-making, 18 transit agencies asked us to define a commuter service bus 19 because of ongoing confusion over when these buses are 20 classified as an urban bus and when they would be 21 classified as a transit fleet vehicle. 22 In other words, the issue is whether the engine 23 needs to meet the more stringent urban bus new engine 24 requirements. 25 The key points in the proposed new definition are PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 23 1 that a commuter service bus is a transit fleet vehicle 2 that operates on a fixed route, primarily during the peak 3 commute hours, and has no more than 10 stops per day 4 excluding park and ride lots. 5 A commuter bus that operates with more stops and 6 throughout the day is classified as an urban bus. This 7 codifies our guidance for the last 4 years. 8 --o0o-- 9 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MEAD: Second, in the 10 last year we were approached by a new transit agency, Elk 11 Grove, that did not know how to comply with the existing 12 regulations. Since the existing regulation was silent on 13 how new transit agencies were to comply, staff is 14 proposing requirements for new transit agencies and 15 transit agencies created from existing transit agencies. 16 --o0o-- 17 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MEAD: Third, after 18 finalization of the engine standards for the diesel hybrid 19 electric buses, engine manufacturers told us that the 20 standards were not clear with respect to the limits for 21 non-methane hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide and formaldehyde 22 emissions. Staff is therefore proposing to add limits for 23 these pollutants that are the same as current heavy-duty 24 engine standards. 25 Lastly, staff is proposing to relocate the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 24 1 existing in-use requirements of the fleet rule for transit 2 agencies from sections devoted to new engine standards to 3 sections for the in-use fleets rules for controlling 4 diesel emissions. 5 --o0o-- 6 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MEAD: Now, let me 7 briefly discuss the technical feasibility for this 8 proposal. Because of the requirements in the current 9 rule, transit agencies are retrofitting their urban buses 10 with particulate filters. Thus far, over 1,100 filters 11 have been installed and more will be required. 12 Currently, ARB has verified 16 PM reducing 13 products which include particulate filters, oxidation 14 catalysts, and an emulsified fuel for 1988 through 2004 15 model year on-road engines. 16 For the proposal, transit fleet vehicles can 17 utilize the same technologies to reduce their PM 18 emissions. For large vehicles staff expects the same 19 applications that are used on urban buses. For smaller 20 vehicles staff expects transit agencies to rely more on 21 fleet turnover through engine repower and vehicle 22 replacement. 23 --o0o-- 24 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MEAD: Now, I'd like to 25 turn to the benefits of the regulation. Staff's proposal PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 25 1 will reduce PM emissions by nearly 50 percent in 2010 and 2 2020 compared to baseline emissions. In addition, 11 3 premature deaths will be avoided by 2020. 4 --o0o-- 5 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MEAD: Staff's proposal 6 will reduce NOx emissions by 38 percent in 2020 compared 7 to baseline emissions. 8 --o0o-- 9 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MEAD: The estimated 10 cost to all California transit agencies is approximately 11 $19 million, most of which will be expended over the next 12 5 years. 13 --o0o-- 14 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MEAD: When the cost is 15 compared to emissions reduced, the estimated cost per 16 pound of pollutant prevented is about $1.40 per pound of 17 NOx and $65 per pound of PM, which is in the range of 18 currently adopted diesel control measures. 19 The estimated cost of control per premature death 20 prevented for the proposed regulation is about $1.5 21 million to $2 million, which is 3 times lower than the 22 U.S. EPA's benchmark for value of avoided death. This 23 rule, therefore, a cost effective mechanism to reduce 24 premature deaths that would otherwise be caused by diesel 25 emissions without this regulation. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 26 1 --o0o-- 2 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MEAD: Staff recommends 3 that you adopt these proposed requirements, which will 4 provide NOx and PM emissions reductions that are cost 5 effective and reduce premature deaths. 6 This proposal is consistent with the Board's risk 7 reduction plan to reduce particulate matter emissions from 8 diesel fueled engines and vehicles. 9 --o0o-- 10 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MEAD: Now, for staff's 11 next steps. In July, we will be returning with proposals 12 that affect transit agencies. 13 First, last year we agreed to come back in July 14 2005 to address the issue of whether or not to align with 15 the 2007 urban bus and new engine standards with the 16 California National Heavy-Duty Truck Engine Standards. 17 Second, in response to requests from South Coast 18 Air Quality Management District, we have initiated a State 19 rule-making covering 4 South Coast fleet rules that apply 20 to transit agencies, refuse haulers, street sweepers and 21 school buses. We will be working closely with the South 22 Coast as we craft those rules. 23 Preliminary workshop notices providing proposed 24 regulatory language and rationale will be released on or 25 before March 15th, 2005, and a public workshop will be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 27 1 held on or before April 15th, 2005. The public workshop 2 will provide all stakeholders the opportunity to comment 3 on the issues. Our schedule will put all 4 fleet rules 4 before you by July 2005's public meeting. 5 This concludes staff's presentation. 6 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you very much, 7 Kathleen. Let me call on our ombudsman now to describe 8 the public participation and the process that occurred 9 while this item was being developed, and share any of your 10 thoughts or concerns with the Board at this time. 11 OMBUDSMAN TSCHOGL: Thank you. Madam Chairman, 12 and Members of the Board, this regulation has been 13 developed with input from the California Transit 14 Association, transit agencies, cities and counties, the 15 California Association for Coordinated Transportation, 16 Regional Council of Rural Counties, Union of Concerned 17 Scientists, CalPIRG, which is the Public Interest Research 18 Group, American Trucking Association, California 19 Department of Transportation, South Coast Air Quality 20 Management District, Sacramento Air District, the Detroit 21 Diesel Corporation, International Truck and Engine 22 Corporation, ISE Corporation, and other engine 23 manufacturers, Motor Coach industries, Complete Coach 24 Works and other bus builders and control equipment 25 installers, private transit operators, emission control PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 28 1 manufacturers, bus builders and consultants. 2 Staff began the regulation development process 3 April 3rd, 2003. Since that time they have held 8 4 workshops, 4 were in El Monte and 4 were in Sacramento. 5 On average, 30 to 50 people attended the 6 workshops. The attendees represented, and I won't list 7 them all again, but all the previously mentioned 8 interested parties. 9 Staff presented the draft regulation at several 10 conferences and meetings which were hosted by other 11 organizations. Individual meetings were held with 12 stakeholders and district staff. They conducted a survey 13 of transit agencies currently subject to the rule. 14 Eighty-one percent of the agencies responded. 15 Additionally, they contacted and provided 16 information to more than 50 transit agencies currently not 17 subject to the fleet rule for transit agencies. 18 Throughout the rule-making process staff met with 19 a number of the same stakeholders in focused meetings. 20 They worked closely with small transit agencies, including 21 Amador County, Lake County, Mariposa County, Tehama County 22 and many other small rural transit agencies. 23 Alternatives were suggested to the proposed 24 regulation and explored by staff. The staff report was 25 release for public comment on January 7th, 2005. The PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 29 1 notice was mailed to more than 3,800 people and Emailed to 2 more than 3,400 stakeholders and interested parties. This 3 concludes my comments. 4 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you very much. 5 Board members, do you have any questions at this time? 6 We'll move on to public testimony. Let me remind 7 the audience, I am going to ask that the speakers keep to 8 a 5-minute time limit. And I'll indicate to you at such 9 time as your comments need to be wrapped up. There are 10 also some lights there at the speaker's stand that give 11 you an indication as well. 12 Let me invite then first Joshua Shaw from the 13 California Transit Association, followed by Gene Walker 14 from Golden Gate Transit and then Henry Hogo South Coast 15 Air Quality District. Those are the first 3 speakers and 16 then we'll move on from there. 17 MR. SHAW: Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of 18 the Board. Joshua Shaw, Executive Director of the 19 California Transit Association representing about 85 of 20 the state's public transportation operators, including all 21 of the urban operators in the state and dozens and dozens 22 of medium suburban and rural agencies. 23 For the benefit of most of the newer members, I 24 would like to point out that the history of the 25 development of the original transit rule that your staff PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 30 1 spoke about had us coming up before you in many of its 2 incarnations and supporting that rule, working with you to 3 make sure that we're cleaning the air and we have your 4 support on making the best technology available. 5 This morning I actually don't have a formal 6 position of support nor of opposition but a couple of 7 observations. One of which is there's some lack of 8 consensus amongst our members about the effect of certain 9 elements of this desperate and wide-ranging rule. That's 10 one reason I don't have a formal position this morning. 11 We do know -- or as you've heard there are 12 different aspects to the rule. Some of them are very 13 focused on, say, a commuter bus or hybrid electric. Some 14 of them are wide-ranging, particularly gas that scoops up 15 all those non-urban buses. And I think that's caused some 16 confusion, both technical and practical for our members. 17 So to the extent there are some individual 18 agencies here, I'd really urge you to listen to their 19 particular concerns and let those comments guide you. 20 Burt overall I do have one request to make, not 21 so much formally for my organization's leadership but just 22 as a consequence of having participated with your staff 23 and having watched this process. And that is to consider 24 building in a little bit more discretion within this 25 regulation today for your CEO to grant variances or PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 31 1 exemptions on a case-by-case basis. 2 And I ask you that because we've noted that we're 3 talking about more desperate vehicles in this regulatory 4 process, when we were talking about urban buses. There 5 are only a couple of manufacturers that provide engines 6 for those buses and we're real comfortable with how those 7 work and what the implications of your prior rule were. 8 Now, we're talking about a range of different 9 vehicles for a range of different services, some transit 10 and some not transit, as your staff pointed out. And we 11 think there could be more unintended consequences of this 12 rule than your prior rule. 13 Number 2, significant implementation problems 14 have arisen with your existing urban bus rule in some very 15 focused market places with regard to 1, for instance, 16 model engine with one particulate matter trap where we've 17 really had failures on the road causing us to lose transit 18 service on an almost daily basis for some of my members. 19 That gives me pause going forward with a brand new rule 20 that scoops up brand new vehicle types. 21 Number 3, the Governor has proposed cutting $1.5 22 billion of transportation funding this year. For those of 23 you who have particularly close relationships in that 24 office, I'd urge you to say doing so not only hurts us do 25 our job of moving people, but hurts our collective job of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 32 1 cleaning the air by scaling back on funding without 2 cleaner transit service. Please help in that when you 3 have a chance. 4 (Laughter.) 5 MR. SHAW: And number 4 as mentioned by your 6 staff, we have not yet addressed the question of whether 7 and how you will harmonize your engine standards to the 8 U.S. EPA standards in 2007 and beyond. That has been the 9 one issue or one exception we've taken historically with 10 the rule as it currently exists. And again, we don't have 11 that -- we're adding a whole new rule that gives us pause 12 for concern. 13 So all of that adds up to please build in a 14 little bit more discretion for your CEO and her staff to 15 give us the ability to come on a case-by-case basis and 16 say some aspect of this particular rule is not working. 17 Having said that, we have enjoyed the outreach 18 made by your CEO, your Deputy CEO, Dr. Steele, Ms. Mead 19 and all the other folks. They've done a great job. They 20 have conducted all those workshops. They've given us 21 every chance to give you all the practical questions and 22 problems and concerns that some of our members may have 23 had. But it still led up to a little bit of a lack of 24 consensus. So we ask for an abundance of caution and a 25 little bit more discretion going forward to look for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 33 1 exemptions. 2 Thank you very much. 3 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you very much. 4 Let me ask Ms. Witherspoon or Mr. Cackette to speak to 5 that discretion issue. Do you feel that you have enough 6 built in or how would you like to respond to that? 7 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Well, what we've 8 been using so far is enforcement discretion to not 9 penalize people who are unable to comply because of 10 circumstances outside their control. What I think Mr. 11 Shaw is asking for is more regulatory discretion about who 12 has to comply. And I don't have a problem with looking at 13 that topic. It would be a 15-day change. It's my 14 understanding, and I'll defer to legal counsel on this, 15 that when we're contemplating the provision of exemptions, 16 we need to state in the rule the kinds of circumstances 17 underwhich they would be granted. 18 So we need to think ahead and have CTA think 19 ahead for us of what conditions might arise that we can 20 describe in our rule underwhich I would exercise the 21 discretion you're giving to me, because otherwise it's 22 reserved totally to the Board to make those regulatory 23 decisions. 24 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Ms. D'Adamo. 25 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Do you have any discretion PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 34 1 right now under what is before us? And if so, what would 2 the exemptions be? 3 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: What I'm saying 4 is we'd need to do a 15-day change. And I -- 5 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: You don't have anything in 6 the rule right now? 7 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Not that I'm 8 aware of. 9 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Would you identify 10 yourself. 11 RETROFIT IMPLEMENTATION SECTION MANAGER STEELE: 12 Nancy Steele. We currently have a provision for financial 13 hardship claims for transit agencies with fewer than 30 14 vehicles. It was 20 in the original rule and we increased 15 it to 30 with the addition of the transit fleet vehicles. 16 And secondly, we do have a provision for 17 technology unavailability, so that they can come to us and 18 request a delay. Again, it would be case by case, but it 19 does give us that discretion. 20 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: It seems like it might be 21 broad enough. 22 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: The 23 other -- 24 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Mr. Cross, do you 25 want to -- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 35 1 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: This 2 is Bob Cross, quickly. The other piece of it is that 3 because the rule is structured as an averaging rule, it's 4 highly flexible in terms of what choices any transit 5 agency can make with respect to compliance. 6 In other words, they can choose any of their 7 fleet vehicles to do kind of any wide variety of technical 8 approaches to bring the emissions down to the level that 9 they need to. So that the need for sort of a technology 10 exemption, if you will, beyond the kind of thing Dr. 11 Steele cited is uncertainty at best. 12 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Okay. Any other 13 questions, Board Members, for staff? 14 Okay. Thank you, Mr. Shaw. 15 MR. SHAW: Thank you. 16 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: I appreciate your 17 comments. And when we look at the resolution, we may add 18 something to that. 19 MR. SHAW: Madam Chair, we appreciate that. 20 We're not regularly in the business of throwing curve 21 balls the day of a regulatory process. But mostly we came 22 with these comments because we've watched our members 23 struggle trying to figure out this particular rule. I 24 apologize for that. We do appreciate your staff's 25 interaction with you on what could be done. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 36 1 Thank you. 2 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you very much. 3 Mr. Walker from Golden Gate Transit. 4 MR. WALKER: Good morning, Madam Chair and Board 5 Members and staff. I am Gene Walker, maintenance manager 6 of Golden Gate Transit. I also chair the CTA Maintenance 7 Committee. 8 Briefly before I start with some comments, I want 9 to pass on that I was contacted last night by Marty 10 Mellera from San Francisco Muni. Marty, unfortunately nor 11 any of his staff, were able to attend today. They're in 12 negotiations on a Coach procurement. But they have 13 certainly been working very diligently with staff in the 14 development of the proposed modification as they address 15 hybrid bus technology. 16 And Marty wanted to pass on his thanks and 17 gratitude for all the hard work the workshops and 18 everyone's efforts in moving forward with this new 19 technology. 20 California Transit on the whole certainly want to 21 echo Muni support, because we think that this technology 22 being able to introduce this in California transits will 23 give us an opportunity to evaluate and develop a new 24 burgeoning technology that again let's us have another 25 tool to reduce emissions from our transit fleets. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 37 1 We are in support of the proposed modifications. 2 We do have some concerns. Some of the concerns are with 3 our fleet vehicles -- other fleet vehicles. As in the 4 public transit fleet rule, there are some mechanisms in 5 place for expansion. If we expand our fleets, we may well 6 have to expand out support vehicles also. And I don't 7 find a mechanism in there from our pro -- our baseline to 8 expand that. If it's there, then I'm in error. And if it 9 is in place, you've really thought about it. 10 There is also some movement from our ridership in 11 asking transits to provide transit in a more urban 12 neighborhood setting, which would require cutaway coaches, 13 which are much smaller and they're not an urban bus. But 14 again they do have emissions. And if there's a mechanism 15 to where we can introduce those -- I'm in error if it's 16 there, but I don't see it. 17 I also wanted to talk about the delay in 18 addressing the 2007 emission standards. Transits take a 19 long time to move things. When we start in a direction 20 with the emissions being compliant to that, it often takes 21 4 or 5 years to find funding, get a plan in place, and 22 start that plan. 23 If we know what is going to happen in 2007, it 24 will make a lot of changes possibly in our options of do 25 we rebuild and extend life or do we figure on replacing PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 38 1 those and find the earmark and placecards with the 2 manufacturers to build those coaches and also for our 3 funding to purchase those coaches. 4 We also ask for caution on the fleet rule for 5 other vehicles. We will be reducing emissions. We have 6 been very proactive in reducing emissions, speaking for 7 Golden Gate Transit especially. Our original baseline for 8 PM fleet average was around 50. This year we are down 9 around 8. And that's well below what we need to be. 10 What are the problems with this? We have 80 new 11 coaches with that particular engine and PM filter that's 12 causing the problems. They're expected to have a service 13 annually. Certainly you're going to have some unscheduled 14 failures. 15 I started these coaches in service, not all 80, 16 but a number of them in March of 2004. To date, we've 17 have 500 plus PM filter changes. It's very hard to supply 18 service when you have that many failures. And certainly 19 we bring people to work. We want to have buses to bring 20 them back home. And I don't like to have them break down 21 in the middle of the highway to have to do changes. 22 Certainly, the safety of our passengers is at risk there. 23 But I don't want to see the same thing happen in 24 our efforts to reduce emissions from our other fleet 25 vehicles, where I don't have support vehicles to go out PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 39 1 and aid these buses that are down. So I would ask for 2 caution as we move into this next phase of emission 3 reductions from our fleets. 4 Certainly CTA and all the transits are in support 5 of reducing emissions and we will continue to offer our 6 support and work with staff in that movement of reducing 7 emissions. 8 Thank you. 9 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you, Mr. 10 Walker very much. 11 Let me have staff perhaps respond. I remember 12 staff did inform me about some of the issues with your 13 filters, correct? And I'm remembering that. But you 14 asked some other questions, and I think we'll just ask 15 staff to respond accordingly. So, staff, do you want to 16 respond to some of those. I'm not sure, Ms. Witherspoon, 17 if you want to use the staff behind or -- 18 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Or both. I want 19 to give you a brief statement and then have Annette follow 20 up. The first thing we want you all to understand is 21 what's failing is a particular engine. It's a newer 22 engine, DDC, with their factory-installed particulate 23 filter. None of the retrofit particulate filters have 24 been failing in the field. 25 And so this is the interplay of new emission PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 40 1 controls on the engine and what that did to the exhaust 2 temperature, its EGR-equipped engines and whether or not 3 the engineering was done properly, and there's enough 4 catalyst material in the trap. 5 And so what DDC has been doing as the temporary 6 fix is to keep changing out the filters more quickly 7 because they're not adequate for the exhaust gases. But 8 it would be far better to have the engine and the trap 9 working properly, and that's the long-term fix. And we 10 might -- we're still looking at whether we need to grant a 11 broader exemption to handle the DDC problem that's 12 emerged. 13 But as we add new vehicles to the transit rule, 14 what's happening is we're bringing them in for retrofit 15 and rebuild. And so this new engine problem we think is 16 not going to arise, but some transit districts will try to 17 purchase better-equipped-from-the-factory vehicles. And 18 if those manufacturers are not careful with their 19 engineering, it could resurface. 20 And so I'll say again we're quite open to looking 21 at what kind of conditions we need to consider. Staff 22 told you about the flexibility that's in the rule. If 23 we're missing a feature or 2, we'll add it. And we can 24 explore that following this hearing if you want us to. 25 And if Annette wants to add more to that. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 41 1 HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL IN-USE STRATEGIES BRANCH CHIEF 2 HEBERT: Okay. The first point about the expansion 3 allowance, we believe that is in there, but we will take a 4 look at it and make sure it is covered in the current 5 regulation. And we're actually trying to discuss with the 6 second point about the adding of the cutaway buses. We're 7 not quite understanding. 8 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Do you want to 9 come -- 10 HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL IN-USE STRATEGIES BRANCH CHIEF 11 HEBERT: Would you clarify it for us? 12 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Yes. Mr. Walker, 13 take a moment and -- 14 MR. WALKER: When we answered the question today 15 -- today -- this year on the survey of what our other 16 non-urban buses were, since it's paratransit vehicles, et 17 cetera, normally those are used by a contractor who we 18 send our paratransit out to. And we're more involved with 19 urban buses. 20 The ridership, particularly where we serve, has 21 asked for better service in the more urban type 22 neighborhoods. A 40-foot bus wouldn't work there, so we 23 may increase the size of our cutaways, and that would 24 certainly affect our baseline report we did. And I want 25 to make sure there's a mechanism there that if we want to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 42 1 take that option or -- and it does work for our riders, 2 then there is a mechanism in place where we would increase 3 that fleet and not run against a foul -- I should say of 4 our baseline and suddenly we have a big spike, because we 5 bought 20 vehicles. And it may well be there and I missed 6 it. I just want to be certain it is there. 7 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Right. Let's give 8 them a moment to... 9 RETROFIT IMPLEMENTATION SECTION MANAGER STEELE: 10 This is Nancy Steele. The way the regulation is set up is 11 the baseline is fixed for PM reductions as of January 1, 12 2005. So it's true that if they add vehicles, they can't 13 increase the baseline. The question is what kind of 14 vehicles are they adding, when are they adding them, and 15 what are their PM emissions, and are they getting rid of 16 older dirtier vehicles? 17 So they may not have any problems if they're 18 getting rid of older, dirtier vehicles and adding in 19 cleaner vehicles. Where we allow for the expansion is 20 once they have achieved an average of 0.01, which would be 21 the vehicles that are available for these transit fleet 22 vehicles, the vehicles that would be available starting in 23 2007. At that point, there would be no penalty for them 24 doing any increase. But it's true that we do not have a 25 provision to increase the actual base line after January PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 43 1 1, 2005. 2 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Okay. I think that 3 takes care of it. 4 MR. WALKER: Thank you. 5 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you, Mr. 6 Walker. 7 Henry Hogo. And following Henry, Peter Spaulding 8 from the California Association of Coordinating 9 Transportation, and Joseph Kubsh from the Manufacturers of 10 Emission Control Association. 11 MR. HOGO: Good morning, Madam Chairman and 12 Members of the Board. For the record, my name is Henry 13 Hogo. I'm the Assistant Deputy Executive Officer of the 14 South Coast Air Quality Management District. 15 I'm here this morning to urge your board to 16 approve the staff proposal for the smaller transit 17 vehicles and the non-revenue fleets that are in the 18 transit agencies in California. We believe this is a very 19 important step in your efforts to reduce diesel emissions 20 in California in general. 21 And I also believe that what we have done in the 22 South Coast with our fleet rules, we have actually covered 23 these -- this sector of vehicles in the transit that's 24 owned by a transit agency. And they are well along the 25 way of meeting the fleet averages that your staff is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 44 1 proposing. And we believe that they will be able to 2 comply with your regulations in a fairly straightforward 3 manner. 4 The last thing I just want to say that we are 5 looking forward to working closely with your staff on the 6 4 new fleet rules that your staff will be bringing before 7 you in July, and we will provide further comments at that 8 time. 9 That's all I really have to say this morning. 10 Thank you, again. 11 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you very much. 12 Thank you for being here. 13 Mr. Spaulding. 14 MR. SPAULDING: Good morning, Madam Chair and 15 congratulations on your appointment, and members of the 16 Board. My name is Peter Spaulding. I'm the Executive 17 Director for the California Association For Coordinated 18 Transportation. And our membership is about 300 small 19 rural transit and public transit systems, and also 20 nonprofit human service agencies that supply both public 21 and private service here in the state. 22 I do want to thank the staff. As they mentioned 23 in the outreach that for the last 2 years has been taking 24 place to gain input from our members in the industry, 25 they've done a terrific job. They've come to several of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 45 1 our conferences, and they've been available to members 2 that have called in, and they've given them an awful lot 3 of help in understanding the urban bus rule and in 4 interpreting the proposals to the transit fleet rule. 5 So we really appreciate that help and look 6 forward to continuing to work with them. 7 There are a couple of issues that we still want 8 to address that were -- have -- we want to make sure that 9 the Board is aware of with respect to the rule. 10 One is -- and some of these might be reiterating 11 some of the things that some of the previous speakers have 12 said. The first thing is is that we feel that the 13 financial hardship exceptions really should be applied to 14 operators of any size. As was just mentioned a couple of 15 minutes ago, the rule has an exception capability in there 16 now for fleets of less than 30 vehicles to apply for a 17 financial hardship. 18 As has been pointed out, the Transportation 19 Equity Act for the 21st century, this is the federal 20 funding with the federal legislation that sets funding 21 levels and policies for the next 7 years still has been 22 delayed in Congress. 23 That means that existing federal funding that is 24 flowing to large and small operators alike is set on 25 levels that were developed 7 or 8 years ago, and they are PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 46 1 being allocated on a 6-month or a one-year basis. And 2 right now there is no set time as to when reauthorization 3 is going to take place and what those increase funding 4 levels might come to. 5 On a more specific California note, 6 transportation funding is in dire straits. The Governor's 7 proposed budget for 2005 and 2006 again suspends Prop 42 8 funds. That diverts 1.3 billion for transportation, rail 9 and transit projects into the General Fund. Last year 10 there was 1.2 billion that was diverted. In addition, 11 there are public transportation account funds that are 12 generated, and there's been $216 million in, what are 13 called, spill-over funds that will not go to the public 14 transportation account. They'll stay in the general fund. 15 So across the state, large and small operators 16 alike, are being forced to reduce service, increase fares, 17 layoff employees and defer capital projects. And all of 18 these result in less ridership, less mobility, and in some 19 cases more dependence on private automobiles and greater 20 emissions. 21 So we would request that that limitation of 30 22 vehicles in order to apply for financial hardship be 23 lifted, be removed and allow that to apply to operators of 24 all sizes. 25 Secondly, we would like to see an exemption for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 47 1 vehicles within 1 year of retirement. As was also 2 mentioned by some previous speakers, transportation 3 funding takes a long time from the time it's allocated 4 till the projects are actually implemented. If vehicles 5 are coming up and they're close to retirement and they're 6 impacting the emission standards, we would like to see 7 some kind of an exemption for those types of vehicles, as 8 they will be removed from the road soon anyway. Perhaps 9 that could be part of the financial hardship exception 10 that could be applied. 11 The final thing I wanted to mention was the 12 definition of the commuter service bus. I know we've kind 13 of gone around and around on this. The commuter buses in 14 many times it seems inappropriate to define a bus as a 15 commuter bus just because of the number of stops that it 16 makes. 17 If you have a commuter service that is making, I 18 guess, as it now would be 11 stops. During the course of 19 a day, it would be subject to one standard. If it makes 20 fewer than that, it would be subject to another standard. 21 And in addition, in the language that defines the commuter 22 service bus, it talks about the number of stops that it 23 might make each day. I think that could be cleaned up 24 very easily by saying the number of stops it makes per 25 schedule, because some of the commuter buses actually do PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 48 1 make round trips in the morning and in the afternoon. 2 So limiting it to 10 stops per day, the bus is 3 making more than 2 round trips, really cuts down on the -- 4 what gets -- what gets considered to be a commuter service 5 bus and an urban bus. 6 Our members are very committed to improving air 7 quality. I think they've done a good job. They take 8 advantage of every technological opportunity they get to 9 replace their fleet, make it more efficient, make it more 10 attractive to their riders. And we definitely are looking 11 forward to working with staff and working with the Board 12 to comply and to improve the quality of the air in 13 California. 14 Thank you. 15 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you, Mr. 16 Spaulding. Staff, let's talk a bit about some of those 17 issues he raised. The expansion of the hardship. Who 18 would like to take that? 19 Annette. 20 HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL IN-USE STRATEGIES BRANCH CHIEF 21 HEBERT: Okay. I'll take a stab at it and Dr. Steele can 22 jump in if I get something wrong. 23 Basically the financial hardship exemption right 24 now is allowed for transits with 30 or less vehicles. And 25 we're eye-balling it right now, that's about a third to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 49 1 one half -- I mean, one quarter to a third of the transits 2 already out there. I think we have about 70 transit 3 agencies. 4 So opening up to all would be about -- we could 5 potentially see a lot of applications for financial 6 hardship. Although, as you've mentioned, a lot of the 7 funds do come from federal monies. And while that's being 8 worked out right now, what would level it would be in the 9 future. I think in the past it's been to 80 to 83 percent 10 of the funding comes from the federal funds and the rest 11 is made up of local and State funds. 12 So we felt that for the bigger transits that they 13 should be able to make up for those differences. So 14 that's why we didn't expand beyond 30 in that area. 15 The commuter service bus definition what happened 16 is we began looking at the transits and in the urban bus 17 operation. We started realizing that a lot of these motor 18 coaches that we're calling a commuter service bus -- we're 19 trying to distinguish between commuter service bus is 20 motor coaches sometimes are used similar to urban buses. 21 They go through the urban communities and expose the 22 public to the stop-and-go operations just like an urban 23 bus does. 24 So therefore, based on the exposure levels to the 25 public we feel that these motor coaches, whenever they PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 50 1 have a lot of stops, stop-and-go operation like an urban 2 bus, they should be subject to the same requirements as 3 the urban bus, you know, direct translation of what -- and 4 the ones that don't, that are truly just, you know, pick 5 up in one are, make a couple of stops, drop off in another 6 area, make a few stops and that's it. Then they can 7 follow underneath the commuter service bus and the transit 8 fleet vehicle definition and follow those rules. 9 Really the big difference that causes question is 10 what kind of engine needs to go in these buses. 11 Basically, it's classified as an urban bus. It's supposed 12 to have an urban bus certified engine which of course is 13 cleaner than the truck engines that go into the other 14 ones. 15 And our bottom line is that -- is the exposure to 16 the public. We feel that, you know, if they're going to 17 use them accordingly, then they need to be as clean as the 18 other vehicles. 19 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: I 20 might add that the definition, as proposed, reflects three 21 or four years of the staff working with the various 22 transit facilities or operators to try and figure out how 23 best to make the distinction. And I think they've done a 24 pretty good job of capturing what needs to be captured. 25 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you, Mr. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 51 1 Spaulding. 2 Mr. Kubsh and Bonnie Holmes-Gen you're going to 3 be following Joe. 4 MR. KUBSH: Good morning, Madam Chairman and 5 members of the Board. My name is Joe Kubsh. I'm the 6 Deputy Director of the Manufacturers of Emission Controls 7 Association. And I'm here as well to lend my comments in 8 support of this proposed regulation. 9 And I'd like to take my 5 minutes to just talk a 10 little bit about retrofits. First, I'd like to echo Ms. 11 Witherspoon's comments about the DDC engine that has been 12 mentioned already this morning. This was a new engine 13 case and shouldn't be confused with the retrofit 14 technologies that are out there. 15 I did want to indicate that our member who is 16 supplying the filter in the DDC application is certainly 17 working very closely with DDC to resolve the issues on 18 this engine. And this really, as Ms. Witherspoon 19 indicated, is a systems-related problem not specific to if 20 the particulate filter doesn't work kind of a label on 21 this technology. 22 And with respect to retrofits, I did want to 23 indicate that, as staff indicated in their presentation, 24 besides the 1,100 particulate filters that have been 25 successfully retrofitted on urban buses here in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 52 1 California, there are also many other examples of 2 particulate filters that have been successfully 3 retrofitted on on-road vehicles not only here in 4 California, but in many other market places around the 5 world. 6 In fact, by our count right now, there's close to 7 200,000 diesel particulate filters that have been 8 successfully retrofitted on the applications around the 9 world. Many of those are in-transit applications and 10 other types of on-road vehicles. And as staff knows, as 11 indicated in the verification protocols, these passive 12 filters systems have to have specified duty-cycle 13 requirements that allow manufacturers or allows end-users 14 to determine whether passive filters will indeed work in 15 their application area. 16 I also want to indicate that the number of 17 retrofit applications is -- or the number of retrofit 18 technologies is still expanding. I know staff is busily 19 working in El Monte to go through additional verifications 20 that have been in the pipeline to expand even further the 21 number of retrofit applications that fleet owners, not 22 only for the transit rule, but for the other rules that 23 ARB has put out there covering PM, will be able to use to 24 help reduce PM emissions and NOx emissions in some cases 25 from their existing vehicles. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 53 1 And again I want to commend staff for its 2 willingness to work very closely with all the stakeholder 3 groups in developing these provisions. This was, as 4 already indicated, almost a 2-year process. So I think 5 they've had -- they've provided many opportunities for the 6 stakeholder groups to work on crafting these regulations. 7 And we would urge you to pass the regulations that are 8 before you today. And I'd be happy to answer any 9 questions you might have. 10 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Are there any 11 questions, Board Members? 12 Let me just comment, Joe, and say thank you. And 13 for you to take back to your organization our appreciation 14 for the work that they are doing, the research and the 15 development, because it's just so critical to have good 16 mechanisms to use for retrofits. And we're going to be 17 successful if you're successful, so we all enjoy -- 18 MR. KUBSH: Thank you for those comments. And I 19 know our industry is very, very busy right now, not only 20 working on retrofits but making sure that new engines in 21 2007 that are going to be equipped with filters are going 22 to do the job that's required. 23 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Great. Thank you. 24 Bonnie Holmes-Gen. 25 MS. HOLMES-GEN: Good morning. I'm Bonnie PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 54 1 Holmes-Gen with the American Lung Association of 2 California. And I just wanted to call your attention to 3 the fact that the Lung Association and other groups are 4 supporting the transit rule amendments that are before you 5 today. And we submitted a letter along with other health 6 and environmental organizations in support of the proposed 7 amendments to the transit bus rule. 8 And we believe that it's very important to 9 include all transit fleet vehicles in the fleet rule for 10 transit agencies. That it will be an important effort to 11 help further reduce passenger exposure to diesel 12 particulate matter, further advance the goals of the 13 diesel risk reduction plan, and further reduce pollutants 14 that cause asthma attacks, respiratory illnesses and 15 premature deaths. 16 We also wanted to just note that we are 17 comfortable with the exemptions that are included in the 18 rule for smaller transit agencies. And we believe the 19 staff has worked closely with smaller transit agencies to 20 work out some reasonable exemptions that deal with cases 21 of financial hardship, and some existing contract 22 operations. But we would be resistant to expanding those 23 exemptions and extensions for transit agencies that are 24 larger than 30 -- that have 30 or more vehicles. 25 So we would caution you against including PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 55 1 additional exemptions. We think there's sufficient 2 flexibility already provided in the rule. And we're 3 especially concerned about exemptions for larger transit 4 agencies with 30 or more vehicles. 5 And finally, just as you move forward, we know 6 that the Board and the staff will be looking at other 7 aspects of the transit bus rule. And we just wanted to 8 note that we are committed to maintaining strong transit 9 bus emission standards especially for new buses that will 10 bring us the cleanest technologies and we'll be continuing 11 to provide comments on that. 12 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you, Bonnie. 13 Any questions for the speaker? 14 Thank you very much. 15 That concludes those who have signed up to speak. 16 Ms. Witherspoon, does the staff have any further comments? 17 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Nothing further. 18 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Okay. Then to close 19 the record, let me say that all testimony, written 20 submissions and staff comments for this item have been 21 entered into the record. The Board has not granted an 22 extension of the comment period. I am officially closing 23 the record on this portion of agenda item number 05-2-2. 24 Written or oral comments received after the 25 comment period has closed will not be accepted as a part PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 56 1 of the official record on this agenda item. 2 Just as a reminder to the Board, because this is 3 a regulatory item, we do need to disclose our ex parte 4 communications. Are there any on this particular item? 5 Seeing none, then we will move on. 6 There is a resolution before us, it is numbered 7 05-15. Take a moment and look at it, and then I'll 8 entertain a motion. And then following that we can have 9 discussion on this particular item. 10 Mayor Loveridge. 11 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: I would like to move the 12 resolution, but let me ask our Executive Officer if 13 there's any changes based on the testimony that's been 14 given today that she would recommend in the resolution? 15 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: What I would 16 recommend is that we look at the 2 issues that came up 17 about whether we've got all the right flexibility in the 18 rule. And I think the other one was the cutaway vehicles. 19 And if we conclude that we need a change, then we would go 20 to a 15-day change. But I don't, in my own mind, have a 21 sense yet whether it's truly necessary. But we'll take 22 one more look at it. 23 And if you give us the discretion to bring up 24 15-day changes if we think they're needed, that should be 25 sufficient. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 57 1 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Let me ask Mayor 2 Loveridge if you want to include that in your motion. 3 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Yes. 4 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: I'll entertain a 5 second and then we'll have discussion. 6 Is there a second. 7 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Second. 8 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Seconded by 9 Supervisor Patrick. 10 Further discussion? 11 Supervisor Roberts. 12 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: I would like to have had 13 some discussion before we rushed into the motion. 14 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: You may have all the 15 discussion you wish to have now, but we need a motion on 16 the floor for discussion. 17 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: First of all, Mr. 18 Spaulding made some good points. I didn't hear the 19 answers to all the points he made at the microphone or in 20 his letter. But since one of them is a concern and was 21 concern in another letter that we received, I wanted to 22 call your attention to it. 23 And I think for full disclosure, I got very 24 involved with the transit agency in San Diego. And I've 25 always looked at what we're doing and what the transit PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 58 1 agencies are doing as a real partnership, in terms of, I 2 think at the end of the day there to help us achieve the 3 things that we're trying to do. 4 And I think it's in our interests to make sure 5 that we're setting them up for success to the extent that 6 we're regulating them. 7 You also have a letter from the Metropolitan 8 Transit System from Paul Jablonski. And in it he's raised 9 a couple points. I'm not going to reiterate the stress 10 that transit agencies are under throughout the state, 11 because of the federal funding and state funding at this 12 point. But I would tell you that the comments that are 13 made that capital improvements at dollars for operations, 14 dollars for retrofit, dollars for everything are in very 15 short supply. 16 And in light of some other agencies they're not 17 able to speak up and say well, we'll just tack on a new 18 fee. It doesn't work like that. They're at the bottom of 19 the feeding chart, if you will, and they're trying to make 20 things happen. 21 Mr. Jablonski pointed out 2 things. One that is 22 somewhat similar to Mr. Spaulding's point that was not 23 responded to, and that's an exemption for vehicles that 24 are nearing the end of their lifespan where it doesn't -- 25 it just doesn't make sense to go out -- I mean it doesn't PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 59 1 make sense to retrofit them, and it probably doesn't make 2 sense to just junk them out at that point. 3 And he was suggesting perhaps as much as a 3-year 4 retirement, where you put it into that category. That was 5 his first point. 6 The second point was that there is also the 7 category of vehicles that are basically used during the 8 peak periods or in unusual situations vehicles that are 9 getting very, very limited use. They're clearly secondary 10 vehicles. They're driven very few miles each year, and 11 that perhaps there's some category that would allow us to 12 have these -- continue to have them basically back-up 13 vehicles, that are being driven 10,000 miles or less per 14 year. 15 And if you understand the bigger fleets, probably 16 not characteristic to the smaller fleets, but the bigger 17 fleets, it isn't -- you don't have all frontline 18 equipment. You have some pieces of equipment that are out 19 there simply for backup. That perhaps there could be an 20 exemption for those kinds of vehicles. 21 I would hope that staff could respond to both of 22 those points, and that would also take care of one point 23 that Mr. Spaulding raised that wasn't responded to. And I 24 don't think I heard staff explain his point about the 25 point number 3 in this letter on gross weight of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 60 1 vehicles that I think needs to be responded to also. 2 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Supervisor Roberts 3 raises, I think, 3 points there. So why don't we start 4 with the exempt vehicles -- or vehicles that are close to 5 retirement. 6 HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL IN-USE STRATEGIES BRANCH CHIEF 7 HEBERT: Okay, I think this comes up because in some of 8 our other fleet rules, we have a best available control 9 technology option where we require that retrofits be put 10 on vehicles or they get repowered or replaced. That 11 brought up the design of exempting within a year of 12 retirement. 13 However, this rule is based on a fleet reductions 14 approach, which means that they have to meet, you know, 15 NOx fleet averages or PM amount reduced, and it in itself 16 allows a lot of flexibility. The transits can do that 17 however they want. They can, you know, design a 18 retirement schedule, such that the retirement of vehicles 19 gets them those extra NOx or PM reductions or they could 20 do retrofits, you know, repowers or switch over to alt 21 fuel. 22 So in essence putting in something like, you 23 know, excluding vehicles within 1 year or, in the case of 24 San Diego's request, 3 years of retirement doesn't really 25 make sense in this kind of rule mechanism. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 61 1 And it would also, adding something like a 3-year 2 exemption, may actually allow them to keep a 7-year bus 3 around for 3 extra years and make it a 10-year bus, when 4 in fact it probably should have been replaced at 7 years 5 or 10 years based on the federal funding requirements. 6 So that was our thinking in not allowing for the 7 1-year or 3-year retirement exemption because of the 8 flexibility of the fleet reductions. 9 Another point by Mr. Spaulding was to increase 10 the weight from 8,500 pounds, which is considered a 11 heavy-duty vehicle, to 14,000 pounds to exclude those 12 vehicles. And by our count, the less than 14,000 pound 13 vehicles account for about 15 percent of the diesel 14 engines out there, which we feel is far too great an 15 amount to leave out to get at the particulate matter 16 reduction efforts that we're undertaking. 17 Let me see -- 18 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: There's one -- 19 STAFF COUNSEL DAVIS: This is Vicky Davis from 20 the Legal Office and to address the matter that Supervisor 21 Roberts brought up about backup vehicles. There is a 22 provision for emergency or backup vehicles that are 23 essentially mothballed unless they have to be deployed in 24 an emergency. 25 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Supervisor Roberts. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 62 1 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Yeah. I don't know if 2 that definition is really the same thing I'm talking 3 about. I don't think they're mothballed, but they're 4 getting very limited use. 5 STAFF COUNSEL DAVIS: Yeah, the concern that we 6 have is a sort of a shell game of vehicles that really 7 should be used only on an emergency or backup basis that 8 are seeing more use than they should. It's a camel's nose 9 under the tent sort of problem. 10 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: I guess, I'm not as afraid 11 of the camel, because I'm part of camel. 12 STAFF COUNSEL DAVIS: Oh, well, I ride the bus. 13 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: And, you know, the shell 14 game, I'm telling you these are not our enemies. 15 HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL IN-USE STRATEGIES BRANCH CHIEF 16 HEBERT: Supervisor Roberts, what -- 17 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: These are not people that 18 are trying to get out of doing it. But I also would add 19 to my list of concerns the cost estimates and the cost per 20 ton based on the information that the MTS provided us. 21 Unless they are an unusual transit agency, the costs that 22 were estimated are being grossly underestimated by the 23 numbers that they have developed in terms of costs of this 24 program, and that gives me some concern. 25 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Supervisor PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 63 1 Roberts, let me take a crack at all the issues, because I 2 think they're all interrelated. And ordinarily you've 3 probably seen us jumping to give these kind of exemptions. 4 But what's odd about these transit vehicles is they are 5 low mileage by their nature. They are low weight by their 6 nature, and you've got a mixture of new and old vehicles, 7 and you're trying to phase the older ones out to have 8 lower emissions. 9 And so all 3 of the issues we just walked through 10 are sort of the heart of the rule-making itself. And I 11 think the practical effect of putting them under a fleet 12 average and saying you can't set aside some of the older 13 vehicles means that you're going to have to spend more 14 money. And it is about money, you're quite right, and 15 whether they have it or not. 16 You're going to have to spend more money putting 17 more traps on than you otherwise might. If you pulled 18 individual vehicles out, you'd be buying fewer traps per 19 year. And at some point the traps themselves won't be 20 enough to, as the average cranks down, but that's closer 21 to 2010, where you might actually have to retire the 22 vehicle because, you know, the 9 with traps doesn't 23 balance the one left that doesn't have it, though that's 24 not a good example, because below 30 you can get an 25 exemption. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 64 1 But that's the problem here. And so, you know, 2 the more we try and exempt away and look at these various 3 kinds of cost impacts, you end up with no rule at all for 4 the smaller transit vehicles. And it's just a conundrum. 5 It is going to cost money. And I think the policy message 6 being sent here is as we deliver transit services to the 7 people of California, we'd like to do it in a way that 8 reduces cancer risk and mortality risk, and weave those 9 things together. I mean, that's what we're trying to do. 10 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Yeah. I'm trying to 11 remain calm after you say that. I mean this transit 12 agency I'm talking about is over 50 percent of the fleet 13 is natural gas vehicles. And with those natural gas 14 vehicles they are trying to do everything to accommodate 15 every goal that you have. And they're trying to do it 16 within the restrictions of their own financial structure. 17 And I think that to the extent that I can see where we're 18 grossly underestimating what the cost is to these transit 19 districts and the cost per ton of achieving these 20 programs. 21 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: That's MTS, you 22 mean, Ron? You mean they have 50 percent natural gas. 23 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Pardon? 24 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Are you talking 25 about MTS? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 65 1 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Yeah. 2 RETROFIT IMPLEMENTATION SECTION MANAGER STEELE: 3 Madam Chairman, can I address one of the issues. 4 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Yes. And then I'll 5 go to Ms. D'Adamo. 6 RETROFIT IMPLEMENTATION SECTION MANAGER STEELE: 7 Nancy Steele. We don't have the complete information from 8 MTS regarding how they calculated their costs. But in 9 their letter they did state that they figured the cost of 10 a retrofit at 14,500 per vehicle. That is at least 2 to 3 11 times what we believe the actual cost is. 12 And so when they say that we grossly 13 underestimated the cost, I don't know how they came up 14 with 14,500 as the cost of the retrofit. They used a 15 number, I assume, based on their own research. But at the 16 same time, we don't think that's what other transit 17 agencies have been paying for those retrofits. 18 So we really are at somewhat of a disadvantage 19 here because we don't have the full information about how 20 they Calculated those costs. But we do think our costs 21 that we calculated in the rule are reasonable and accurate 22 costs. 23 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you. 24 Ms. D'Adamo. 25 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Well, I completely respect PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 66 1 the concerns of Supervisor Roberts. But I actually like 2 this rule, because I like the flexibility of it with it 3 being an average. And I'm just wondering the information 4 that you have from the district, in light of the fact that 5 they've already got 50 percent of the buses CNG, I would 6 suspect that they're not going to have -- this rule 7 wouldn't target very many additional buses. Have they 8 provided you with that information? 9 RETROFIT IMPLEMENTATION SECTION MANAGER STEELE: 10 We do have the information specifically from them. They 11 were a survey respondent. And so we can work with them in 12 more detail to look at their particular issues. But, yes, 13 it's true that a transit agency that has a significant 14 amount of natural gas vehicles won't have to do that much 15 in addition to comply with this rule. 16 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MEAD: I'm Kathleen 17 Mead. Also, the current fleet that's 50 percent CNG are 18 urban bus engines. They have a significant commuter fleet 19 that they're going to be bringing in to the urban bus rule 20 which will take away some of the costs that they brought 21 into their letter and meet current urban bus rules. 22 They have, I think, about 60 vehicles that 23 they're currently trying to decide which way they need to 24 turnover within the next 6 to 9 months. This is from 25 talking with staff. They have several different options. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 67 1 And I do not know where the total costs came from that 2 they have provided, but they have 2 or 3 different options 3 that they can do: Delay till 2007, where they have a .01 4 engine available; or go gasoline, if they choose to, 5 because they do have gasoline in their fleet. But they 6 have a couple of options available to them. Again, I'm 7 not sure where their costs came from, because I didn't get 8 that detail. 9 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: 10 Another part of this -- Bob Cross -- another feature of 11 this is the average. This way you can average the use. 12 In other words, this kind of scheme takes care of 13 low-usage vehicles. It doesn't -- they don't impact the 14 average as much as the high-use vehicles do. So it kind 15 of takes care of a lot of the issues that commenters are 16 raising. 17 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Okay. Any other 18 questions? 19 Supervisor DeSaulnier. 20 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: I hesitate to say 21 anything, because it's nice to have a discussion about 22 transit bus rules and have another region have a problem 23 with it other than the Bay Area. 24 (Laughter.) 25 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: But I guess my question PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 68 1 is, staff sounds fairly confident that your cost numbers 2 are right. And I'm sensitive to Supervisor Roberts 3 concerns being in a similar position in the Bay Area. So 4 what if you're wrong, how do you monitor this? And if it 5 turns out that there is the cost implications, what do we 6 do about it to fix it? 7 RETROFIT IMPLEMENTATION SECTION MANAGER STEELE: 8 This is Nancy Steele again. 9 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Not that we're ever 10 wrong. 11 (Laughter.) 12 RETROFIT IMPLEMENTATION SECTION MANAGER STEELE: 13 We do monitor this rule very closely. Since it was 14 adopted, we've brought you 2 non-regulatory items with 15 updates. This is our third regulatory fix with 16 amendments. We'll be back again in July. That's all I 17 can say. We do monitor this rule closely, and we are 18 definitely not averse to coming back to you if we feel 19 there are changes needed. 20 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: I think therein maybe 21 is the solution. I don't know if that makes Ron totally 22 comfortable, but I know when we talked about this, 23 particularly with AC Transit when we first went through it 24 in the days of Mike Kenny, the whole cost issue especially 25 for low-income. And, of course, we're different PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 69 1 because -- well, we're always different in the Bay Area 2 because we're doing diesel as opposed to natural gas. But 3 as we've gone through it, there's been a level of comfort 4 reached. So I would just suggest that we continue to 5 monitor it. Certainly, if we're wrong, we admit and we 6 come back on the cost. 7 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: And are you saying 8 then that to -- this is a question to staff -- that if we 9 need a revision, we can actually revisit it in July? 10 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: No. We wouldn't 11 have enough facts about purchases by then to know that 12 there was a huge difference, because this rule doesn't 13 even take effect until it's been filed with OAL and some 14 time after. So -- 15 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: So you actually can 16 have these discussions probably before they even go over 17 there. 18 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We talk about 19 this all the time. And we're also watching what's 20 happening on the trap market, what's being introduced, 21 what's being take off, what's going up in price. One 22 thing that was looked at was the Longview Device, where 23 it's NOx and particulate and it is priced closer to 24 $14,000 to $18,000, I believe. 25 And MTS bought a lot of those. And so it's easy PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 70 1 to look north and say well that's what it costs, but they 2 chose to do it. They wanted those extra NOx reductions. 3 They didn't have to have them. We're glad they did 4 though. 5 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Okay. So from what 6 I can gather from the staff comments, particularly to 7 Supervisor DeSaulnier's, we will continue to monitor this, 8 that you will come back to us. And so hopefully there 9 will be a bit of a comfort level for San Diego 10 particularly, that this is not the last time this is going 11 to be presented. 12 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yeah. We'll 13 spend some quality time with MTS and see if we can't get 14 to the bottom of their exact concern. 15 STAFF COUNSEL DAVIS: Madam Chairman, if I may, 16 this is Victoria Davis from legal again. I'm attempting 17 to clarify my response to Supervisor Roberts' concerns 18 about the spare bus. 19 We've actually got a difference between a spare 20 bus, which is one that is not a regularly scheduled bus, 21 but is essentially an otherwise capable bus that is 22 specifically used to replace a bus that is broken down or 23 taken out for maintenance. That's part of the active 24 fleet. Because in a fairly large transit agency that bus 25 is going to be in pretty regular use. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 71 1 Then we also have the emergency backup bus, which 2 is one that is not used, unless there is some truly 3 unforeseen unexpected emergency. And those are not 4 accounted for in the fleet average. 5 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Yeah, the category is a 6 different category. And I tried to describe it as a peak 7 hour. It's peak service buses. They're not necessarily 8 going out to replace any bus that's broken down. They're 9 being used to augment your basic fleet at those peak times 10 when you need to get instead of 80 percent of your fleet 11 out or 85 or 90 percent, you've got to throw them into 12 use. And they don't get used very often. But, as I say, 13 when we're talking about 10,000 miles a year, I'm certain 14 it is very low mileage for any kind of bus in a major 15 transit agency. So it's outside of those categories that 16 you're just describing. 17 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: All right. And I 18 think we understand the difference. But as staff has 19 said, they are going to work with MTS and revisit some of 20 the issues that have been raised. 21 Mayor Loveridge, did you have any comment? 22 No, all right. 23 Any further discussion on the motion that is 24 before us, which is the approval of the resolution with 25 the addendum of staff looking at 2 very specific issues. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 72 1 And then I would say, in general, a commitment from staff 2 to work on some of the other issues that have been raised 3 and come back to us at an appropriate time to revisit 4 those issues, if we discover some differences and some 5 resolution of those differences. That's as best I can 6 describe the motion before us. 7 All those in favor of the motion indicate by 8 saying aye -- oh, Ms. Johnston. 9 GENERAL COUNSEL JOHNSTON: I just wanted to 10 clarify, Madam Chairman. Did you also want to direct the 11 Executive Officer if the staff finds that 15-day 12 modifications on those particular specific issues are 13 necessary to authorize her to go ahead with those? 14 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Yes, that was part 15 of the motion. 16 Thank you, Ms. Johnston. 17 GENERAL COUNSEL JOHNSTON: Okay. Thank you. 18 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: I always add that 19 along, just whatever staff has said. 20 And I think we can take a voice vote, am I 21 correct? 22 All right, all those in favor of the motion 23 indicate by saying aye? 24 (Ayes.) 25 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Opposed no? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 73 1 Motion is carried. 2 We'll take a -- let's take, for the court 3 reporter, just about a 10-minute break. Let's reconvene 4 at 5 of 11 please, and we'll move on with our next item at 5 that time. 6 (Thereupon a recess was taken.) 7 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: I'd like to ask 8 people to take their seats I need to turn the microphone 9 on. 10 Well, there we go. I thought I was being 11 discriminated against. 12 (Laughter.) 13 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Okay. If I could 14 move to Agenda Item 05-2-3. The next item is 15 consideration of proposals for the ARB's Innovative Clean 16 Air Technologies Grant Program. This is it's 11th year. 17 And it supports demonstrations of technologies that have 18 high potential for providing emission reductions as well 19 as benefiting the State's economy. 20 Today, we have before us 4 proposals for ICAT 21 funding that are being recommended for our Board's 22 approval. 23 Ms. Witherspoon, would you like to begin the 24 staff presentation. 25 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, Madam PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 74 1 Chairman. The ICAT grant program co-funds projects that 2 move promising technologies from the research and 3 development phase into the practical demonstrations. This 4 year we received 14 eligible proposals. We are 5 recommending 4 of those for your approval that totals 6 about $512,000 in requested ICAT support. 7 I'll now turn the presentation over to Richard 8 Vincent of the Research Division. 9 MR. VINCENT: Good morning, Members of the Board. 10 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 11 Presented as follows.) 12 MR. VINCENT: In today's presentation I'll 13 describe the operation of the ICAT grant program and its 14 benefits. Then I'll report on a recently completed 15 project and give you an example of another past project. 16 Finally, I'll present the staff's recommendations for new 17 grants to 4 projects that we've selected from recent 18 applications. 19 --o0o-- 20 MR. VINCENT: ICAT supports field demonstrations 21 of technical innovations that will control air pollution 22 or otherwise support ARB's clean air objectives, and that 23 have economic value to the state. The intent is to help 24 such technologies hurdle over in their path toward 25 commercial development. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 75 1 Besides looking for emission control 2 technologies, we invite applications regarding new air 3 monitoring instruments that might be used inexpensively 4 and easily to characterize the air quality indoors or the 5 ambient air quality on a local scale, such as in 6 environmental justice situations. 7 --o0o-- 8 MR. VINCENT: ICAT supports technologies that are 9 past their R&D stages of development but are not yet 10 commercial. Before they can commercialize the new 11 technology, owners often need to make a practical 12 demonstration of the technology, but they can have trouble 13 finding the necessary funding, even if they have found 14 funding for other stages of the development. 15 ICAT in conjunction with other co-funders 16 addresses that problem of funding for practical 17 demonstrations. 18 --o0o-- 19 MR. VINCENT: ICAT co-funds up to half the 20 budgets of qualified demonstration projects. It does not 21 buy equipment for the host sites. Projects are defined by 22 work plans that include performance milestones at which 23 ICAT will accept invoices for covered expenses. Invoices 24 are paid only if the milestones have been achieved and the 25 co-funders have met their commitments. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 76 1 If a grantee does not meet its commitments or a 2 project is not progressing correctly, the project is 3 removed from the program. 4 --o0o-- 5 MR. VINCENT: The program began in 1994 and has 6 recognized 36 new technologies in applications related to 7 the control or the measurement of air pollution in 8 California. Thirty-three funded projects for control 9 technologies have included all of the classes of emission 10 sources. And 3 projects are for novel or improved 11 instruments to measure fine particulate matter at low 12 cost. 13 Twenty of the projects have been completed, and 7 14 are still in progress. The staff has withdrawn support 15 for 9 that were not living up to their expectations. 16 Grantees are selected via process in which multiple 17 proposals are reviewed competitively. Only a small 18 fraction of all applicants are recommended to receive 19 grants. 20 --o0o-- 21 MR. VINCENT: The Board has approved from 2 to 8 22 new grants per year, except in 1997 and 2004, when funds 23 were not allocated to ICAT. 24 --o0o-- 25 MR. VINCENT: The average grant has been about PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 77 1 $209,000, which is about 30 percent of the average total 2 budget of an ICAT demonstration project. Most of the ICAT 3 support has been for stationary source related 4 technologies. This has not been by our design, rather the 5 best proposals have generally come from that corridor. 6 However, there have also been useful mobile source, area 7 source and air monitoring technologies. 8 --o0o-- 9 MR. VINCENT: In a past survey of ICAT graduates, 10 we found that 80 percent had commercialized their 11 technology at the time of the survey, and half had 12 generated revenues from them. The grantees told us their 13 expectations for future revenue streams and employment due 14 to their ICAT technologies. 15 They expected at least 300 new jobs at that time 16 in California. The economic staff at ARB estimated that 17 the projected revenue streams would account for $2 to $7 18 in new tax revenues in California annually for each dollar 19 that ICAT had spent. 20 We can't say that the ICAT grants cause these 21 positive economic effects. However, the data do indicate 22 that ICAT has selected useful technologies. 23 We plan to continue the review of past ICAT 24 graduates or technologies in an effort to quantify the 25 benefits of the system. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 78 1 --o0o-- 2 MR. VINCENT: Recently, a very successful ICAT 3 assisted project was completed at a dairy in Tipton, 4 California by S.T. Johnson Burner Company of Oakland. A 5 novel low-NOx burner was able to reduce NOx from 25 to 17 6 ppm without any use of flue gas recirculation, and with 7 only a modest use of flue gas recirculation, it achieved 8 lower emissions than what is now required as best 9 available control technology. 10 Reducing or avoiding the need for FGR can save 11 substantially in both the capital and operating costs of 12 NOx control. 13 This advanced NOx control, which is now offered 14 commercially, may redefine BACT for boilers. In addition, 15 the new burners are more fuel efficient and save the owner 16 fuel expense. 17 --o0o-- 18 MR. VINCENT: This is a picture of a commercial 19 application of the S.T. Johnson Burner on a 400 horsepower 20 fire-tube boiler. 21 --o0o-- 22 MR. VINCENT: Several years ago, ICAT supported a 23 project to demonstrate a 0 VOC coating for a class of 24 product for which no such coating yet was available. 25 Following the successful product, the company expanded its PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 79 1 operation from being an R&D only company to commercial 2 production and licensing of their new product. 3 The owner of the company came before the Board 4 and stated that its success was directly dependent on the 5 ICAT support. 6 --o0o-- 7 MR. VINCENT: Our process this year for selecting 8 new grantees was similar to the process in past years. In 9 April we issued a solicitation via Email to about 1,100 10 interested persons. We received 76 proposal abstracts 11 called pre-proposals, which were reviewed for minimum 12 qualifications under ICAT. 13 From them we selected 24 applicants from whom we 14 invited a full proposal. From this we netted 14 full 15 proposals. 16 The proposals were reviewed by staff and the 17 research stationary source and mobile source control 18 divisions by staff at the South Coast Air Quality 19 Management District, and by reviewers who are faculty at 20 UC and Cal State campuses. 21 The process included questions directed by the 22 reviewers to the applicants and our suggestions to the 23 applicants for improving their proposals. 24 --o0o-- 25 MR. VINCENT: In the review process, we apply PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 80 1 several criteria. Applicants and their partners must be 2 capable of supporting at least half of the cost of the 3 proposed project. The technology must be innovative and 4 workable, but not yet commercial in the proposed 5 application. Its future application in California must be 6 able either to reduce emissions or to facilitate the use 7 of an emission reducing technology. 8 The project that ICAT would support must be well 9 described to us and useful for the eventual 10 commercialization of the technology. It must demonstrate 11 the practical application of that technology. 12 Also, the applicant must have a business plan by 13 which the technology would be brought to market, and we 14 look for economic benefits to California from that 15 commercialization. 16 --o0o-- 17 MR. VINCENT: Today, we're recommending 4 new 18 grants totaling $512,000. These funds would support 19 budgets whose projects -- whose total budgets total about 20 $1.1 million. 21 --o0o-- 22 MR. VINCENT: Our first recommendation is for an 23 $80,000 grant to Aerosol Dynamics. Aerosol Dynamics has 24 developed an improvement to a standard PM measurement 25 tool, the condensation particle counter or CPC. CPC is a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 81 1 standard research tool for determining particle number 2 concentrations in the air. 3 The improvement here is that a replacement of 4 Butynol with water as the working fluid. CPCs that use 5 Butynol are unsuitable in many environments, because the 6 Butynol is smelly and flammable. 7 Aerosol Dynamics already markets a laboratory 8 grade water-based CPC. Like most laboratory devices, it 9 is too large and expensive to be deployed widely in the 10 field. The innovation that ICAT will support is a 11 miniaturization and cost reduction that will make the 12 technology much easier to use in homes, schools and other 13 places where researchers may need to characterize the 14 particulate matter in the air. 15 Aerosol Dynamics is asking for a grant to 16 demonstrate that the new device can provide results 17 comparable to those from standard laboratory grade 18 particle counters. The $80,000 funds primarily would 19 support field testing of the device. 20 --o0o-- 21 MR. VINCENT: The second grant that we recommend 22 is to the gas technology institute to demonstrate its 23 Super Boiler at an animal food processing plant in 24 Turlock. GTI has completely redesigned the industrial 25 boiler to integrate innovations in burner technology, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 82 1 boiler geometry, materials, heat transfer and heat 2 recovery. 3 The result is a boiler that can beat the current 4 standard for NOx without flue gas treatment or flue gas 5 recirculation while saving substantially on the use of 6 natural gas. The fuel savings alone should allow a rapid 7 payback of the extra capital costs over a standard new 8 boiler, even before considering the added costs of 9 emission control that would be needed with a standard new 10 boiler. 11 This project will be supported also by the 12 Southern California Gas Company. The rest of ICAT -- the 13 request for ICAT is $240,000 to support the fabrication, 14 installation and performance testing of the prototype 15 boiler. The South Coast District has indicated that it 16 plans to provide part of the grant funds. 17 --o0o-- 18 MR. VINCENT: The third recommendation is for 19 grant to Cleaire Advanced Emission Controls. Cleaire will 20 adapt a special diesel particulate filter from stationary 21 engines to certain heavy-duty trucks. The trucks whose 22 operation is mostly stop and goes such as school buses, 23 garbage trucks, delivery wagons, et cetera, are ill-suited 24 to the catalytic filters that will be retrofitted on 25 trucks and other services. With stop-and-go operation, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 83 1 the exhaust is usually not hot enough for the conventional 2 filters to regenerate. 3 Cleaire will demonstrate a special passive filter 4 that can be regenerated electrically by periodic plug-ins 5 at central fleet locations. A successful project would 6 logically be followed by entry into the ARB's diesel 7 retrofit verification program. 8 The project will be supported by SMUD. It's 9 request of ICAT is for $71,000 primarily for emission 10 testing. 11 --o0o-- 12 MR. VINCENT: The 4th recommended grant would be 13 to Electric Transportation Engineering Corporation for a 14 project that would reduce the cost of switching airline 15 push-back tractors from diesel fuel to battery power. 16 The ARB, U.S. EPA and South Coast District have a 17 Memorandum Of Understanding with the airlines regarding 18 the reduction of emissions at airports. One element is 19 the conversion of various support vehicles to battery 20 power. A few years ago, ETEC ran a very successful ICAT 21 project to demonstrate the economic and operational 22 practicality of recharging many kinds of support vehicles 23 at the terminals. 24 However, the push-back tractors have been 25 difficult to convert to battery because of the high PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 84 1 powered demand for recharging. In many cases, supplying 2 that power would mean bringing in a new power supply to 3 the terminal at a cost exceeding the installed cost of the 4 charging station. 5 ETEC has developed a means to avoid the need to 6 bring in that new power. They would demonstrate the 7 practicality of sharing the power supply to the passenger 8 bridge. That power supply is under used because the 9 bridge is moved only a small fraction of the time. The 10 innovation to be demonstrated here is the ability to 11 interrupt the charging time of the battery on the 12 push-back tractor without compromising the quality of the 13 charge. This is another project that the South Coast 14 District plans to help ARB support. 15 This grant would be $120,000 for the labor of 16 installing the charger and monitoring the performance of 17 the power-sharing hardware. The project would be at the 18 San Francisco Airport. 19 --o0o-- 20 MR. VINCENT: In summary then, ICAT has a record 21 of supporting sound projects for useful new technologies. 22 And we're proposing today 4 new grants to demonstrate 23 technologies that have substantial promise for promoting 24 good air quality in the state. 25 I will be happy to answer your questions. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 85 1 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you very much, 2 Mr. Vincent. 3 Are there any questions for the presenter? 4 Yes, Ms. D'Adamo. 5 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Just a quick comment. I 6 really appreciated you going through the history and the 7 success of this program, which one would have suspected 8 that those would have been the results, but it's nice to 9 actually see them on paper. 10 Thank you. 11 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Any other questions 12 for staff at this time? 13 Yes, Supervisor Patrick, and then I'll come back 14 to Dr. Gong. 15 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: I was just going to make a 16 motion on the 4 resolutions 05-16 through 05-19. 17 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: All right. Let me 18 entertain a second then. 19 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Second. 20 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Dr. Gong. 21 BOARD MEMBER GONG: I was going to do both. 22 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: You were going to do 23 both. 24 BOARD MEMBER GONG: The first and second with 25 great enthusiasm. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 86 1 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: I'm sorry. I'm 2 sorry. I apologize. 3 BOARD MEMBER GONG: No problem. 4 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Next time wave a 5 flag or something and tell me what you're doing. 6 Obviously, we're very excited about these 7 projects. Is there any discussion on the motion? And I 8 am going to take them all as one as it was moved. 9 All right, hearing no discussion then, let me ask 10 all those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye? 11 (Ayes.) 12 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Opposed no? 13 The motion caries. And thank you very much, 14 staff. And we'll look forward to some hopefully very 15 successful projects. 16 Take just a moment while we change staff here. 17 All right, this is Agenda Item 05-2-4. We have 2 18 items that are up for our consideration as updates on 19 activities planned or underway to reduce emissions from 20 ports and railroad operations in California. 21 As we all know, California is a major gateway to 22 international trade. And over the next 20 years this 23 trade volume is expected to triple, which I think is an 24 incredible statistic. 25 It's going to pose many challenges to our state's PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 87 1 transportation infrastructure and certainly to our 2 environment. I had the opportunity to attend the first 3 meeting of the CalEPA and the Business Transportation and 4 Housing Agency's joint public meetings on goods movement 5 co-chaired by Secretary Lloyd and Secretary McPeak. And I 6 can tell you, based on the meeting, the Administration 7 that we serve under is serious about continuing the 8 California's strong tradition of balancing environmental 9 protection with economic growth in the port and locomotive 10 sectors. 11 It's going to be very challenging. There's no 12 doubt about it. But all the right people are at the 13 table. And I was impressed by the magnitude of those 14 sitting at the table. There were people representing so 15 many groups that are directly involved with this whole 16 issue of goods and transportation movement and our 17 environment. 18 At this time, I'm going to ask Mr. Witherspoon to 19 introduce actually both items. Let's just role them right 20 together. Do you think that would work well or should we 21 separate them? 22 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: I think it's fine 23 because Peggy Taricco is giving the first and Dan Donohoue 24 is giving the second and they're both at the table 25 already. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 88 1 So given that, what we want to do today is share 2 with you the regulatory work that's underway to reduce 3 emissions both at ports and railyards and locomotive 4 operations, and some of the non-regulatory activities that 5 are underway. 6 And just to follow-up on what Chairman Riordan 7 said, we're heavily involved in the Cal EPA BT&H process 8 on goods movement, which is calling for an action plan 9 within 60 days. And we've been feverishly writing our 10 portion of that. It will be out soon for public review. 11 And there's the next major meeting is scheduled for March 12 24th in Los Angeles. 13 What BT&H is focused on is what infrastructure 14 investments are going to be needed. What's the priority 15 of them. They're trying to get themselves ready for 16 federal appropriation processes. And we're focused on 17 what environmental mitigation is needed both for the 18 existing activities and the growth that's planned, what 19 they consist of, what steps are necessary, and also how 20 they might be funded. 21 And the Legislature also is taking up the issue 22 of goods movement. And so there will be all kinds of 23 activity. The's half a dozen bills already affecting 24 ports and/or locomotives. And so this dialogue is going 25 to go on at a very high profile all of this year. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 89 1 And following, at the most recent meeting of the 2 goods movement group in Oakland, CCEEB was there, Vick 3 Weisser from CCEEB. And he said you better plan on being 4 at this not just 60 days but 5 or 10 years, because that's 5 what it's going to take to deal with this very massive and 6 long-term issue for California. 7 So we'll just tell you what's going on so far, 8 and set you up for some rule makings later this year. And 9 let's start with Peggy on ports. 10 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS SECTION MANAGER TARICCO: 11 Thank you, Catherine. Good morning, Madam Chair and 12 Members of the Board. We appreciate this opportunity to 13 provide you an update on what we're doing to deal with 14 ports. 15 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 16 Presented as follows.) 17 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS SECTION MANAGER TARICCO: What 18 we would like to do today, if the button works here. All 19 right, what we'd like to do today is to provide you with a 20 broad overview of our efforts, talk a little bit why 21 action is needed, give you a perspective on how port 22 emissions fit into the broader emissions pie, and talk 23 about what strategies we have under way to reduce those 24 emissions. 25 Hopefully, by the end of the presentation today, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 90 1 you'll glean that the good news is that many of ARB's 2 existing programs are already converging at the ports, our 3 work to comply on the state and federal standards, our 4 work on the diesel risk reduction plan, our EJ activities 5 all will result in benefits at ports. The challenge, as 6 Catherine and you, Madam Chair, indicated, is the growth 7 that we're going to see in the future years. And that 8 we're going to have to keep looking for additional ways to 9 reduce emissions from ports, if we're going to meet our 10 air quality goals. 11 --o0o-- 12 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS SECTION MANAGER TARICCO: 13 California is home to several ports, and is a major 14 gateway to the Pacific Rim and international trade. Of 15 the top 25 U.S. maritime ports ranked by value, 4 are here 16 in California. LA and Long Beach top the list and Oakland 17 and Port Hueneme are also on the top 25. Combined these 4 18 ports together handled 42 percent of all the containerized 19 goods that came -- or moved through U.S. maritime ports. 20 Much of the nation depends on California. For 21 example, a common statistic that's cited in many 22 presentations is that 60 percent of the imported goods 23 that goes to Chicago come through the ports of LA and Long 24 Beach. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 91 1 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS SECTION MANAGER TARICCO: 2 Trade through California has increased dramatically. 3 Between 1990 and 2000, we saw an average growth rate of 4 about 9 percent per year in the number of containers that 5 were coming through California. And as Madam Chair 6 indicated that is expected to triple by 2020. 7 While this growth will obviously benefit 8 California's economy, it's going to provide a challenge to 9 our efforts to protect the public health of all 10 Californians. 11 --o0o-- 12 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS SECTION MANAGER TARICCO: As 13 you'll see a little bit later, port emissions can be 14 substantial, and contribute both to regional air pollution 15 problems, like ozone and local community exposures to 16 diesel PM. And in light of the growth, it's going to be 17 important that we implement effective emission controls. 18 --o0o-- 19 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS SECTION MANAGER TARICCO: 20 There are a wide variety of sources that are involved in 21 the movement of goods through ports. There are the diesel 22 trucks and locomotives that take cargo in and out of the 23 ports. There's a wide variety of land-based equipment, 24 the cargo handling equipment that's used to move goods 25 around the ports and get them on and off the ships. And PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 92 1 then again there's obviously the ships that are bringing 2 cargo here and the supporting vessels that -- such as 3 tugboats and crew boats and pilot boats that help the 4 ocean-going ships go in and out of the harbor. 5 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Wait. That picture is 6 a trick to see if anybody's paying attention. 7 (Laughter.) 8 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS SECTION MANAGER TARICCO: Oh, 9 sorry. 10 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Supervisor 11 DeSaulnier, you are very good about figuring that. 12 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: I want a gold star for 13 paying attention. 14 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS SECTION MANAGER TARICCO: 15 There's a rotation device there, maybe. Sorry. 16 --o0o-- 17 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS SECTION MANAGER TARICCO: All 18 right. This slide provides you some perspective on how 19 the different categories that the ports contribute to the 20 overall port-related emissions. This chart is based on 21 recent inventories completed by the ports of Los Angeles 22 and Long Beach and include not only emissions at the port 23 but the regional emissions from locomotives and trucks 24 that are hauling the goods in and out of the ports. 25 I would like to mention that we appreciate the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 93 1 efforts of both the Port of LA and Long Beach in putting 2 these inventories together. They spent hundreds of 3 thousands of dollars and allowed us to be involved in the 4 process. And in the end, we have what is probably the 5 best port inventories in the world at this time. And so 6 we certainly want to thank them for allowing us to use 7 their data and be part of that process. 8 Just for your information, Oakland is gearing up 9 to do a similar inventory in the next few months. And so 10 we'll be working with them on that as well. 11 --o0o-- 12 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS SECTION MANAGER TARICCO: As 13 you can see on this slide, on the back -- there it is -- 14 ocean-going ships are the largest source of emissions, 15 followed by the heavy-duty trucks. 16 --o0o-- 17 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS SECTION MANAGER TARICCO: On 18 the next few slides I'm going to provide you some 19 preliminary data on how these port emissions fit into the 20 broader emissions pie and show you why you are -- why we 21 are concerned. 22 This chart shows how port emissions currently 23 contribute to the regional emissions in the south coast 24 air basin. As you can see, the combined emissions from 25 port-related goods movement, the ships, the trucks, the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 94 1 locomotives and the harbor craft, is important today, but 2 are not as large as the 3 other sectors: Diesel trucks, 3 gasoline vehicles and off-road equipment. 4 --o0o-- 5 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS SECTION MANAGER TARICCO: By 6 2020, however, things look much different. Because of the 7 expected growth in trade and the control of other sources, 8 the significance of port-related emissions changes 9 dramatically. 10 And I want to caution you that these are 11 preliminary numbers. A lot of the growth projections that 12 we're using are being discussed right now in the 13 no-new-net increase process that is underway in LA, and 14 they are subject to change. We don't think the 15 relationships will change much, just the magnitude of the 16 emissions. 17 And as you're going to see on the next slide, the 18 reason that the port-related emissions is so large is 19 because of the contribution of the ocean-going ships. 20 --o0o-- 21 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS SECTION MANAGER TARICCO: 22 They're about 80 percent of the total port emissions in 23 the future years. 24 This chart shows the projected emission trends 25 for the individual sources that make up the port PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 95 1 emissions. As you can see here, the ships are definitely 2 the driver, particularly in the outer years. 3 --o0o-- 4 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS SECTION MANAGER TARICCO: And 5 here is the similar chart for PM, and we have a similar 6 trend. 7 --o0o-- 8 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS SECTION MANAGER TARICCO: One 9 of the reasons we see the emission trends that we do is 10 because of the new engine standards that have been adopted 11 by U.S. EPA and the ARB. As shown on this slide, the 12 emissions from on-road trucks and off-road equipment are 13 expected to decrease dramatically in future years as the 14 fleet turns over. 15 The emissions standards -- new emission -- new 16 engine standards for the other categories are not quite as 17 effective though, and haven't caught up yet with the 18 land-based counterparts, and so we won't see as dramatic a 19 decrease from those categories. And I'd just like to 20 point out again on ships, because they are clearly lagging 21 the farthest behind. 22 --o0o-- 23 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS SECTION MANAGER TARICCO: Now, 24 a little bit on our strategy. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 96 1 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS SECTION MANAGER TARICCO: As I 2 alluded to earlier, a framework for progress in reducing 3 port-related emissions is embodied in our existing 4 programs, such as the State Implementation Plan, and the 5 Diesel Risk Reduction Plan. Governor Schwarzenegger has 6 reinforced these efforts. And over the next several 7 slides I'd like to talk briefly about the strategies that 8 we're working on. 9 --o0o-- 10 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS SECTION MANAGER TARICCO: 11 First, just a couple general comments. To reduce the 12 emissions from port operations, we're going to need a 13 multi-faceted strategy. We're going to need to look at 14 all these approaches that are listed here on this slide, 15 the cleaner fuels, the new engine standards, and consider 16 a variety of mechanisms to implement, such as using our 17 authority, a regulatory authority, to adopt regulations, 18 where that is possible; or requesting U.S. EPA to use 19 their authority; exploring cooperative agreements, such as 20 MOUs in places where our authority isn't that clear cut; 21 looking at incentive programs; and exploring the 22 possibility of feed mechanisms to increase revenues for 23 such incentive programs. 24 --o0o-- 25 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS SECTION MANAGER TARICCO: PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 97 1 First, I'd like to talk about ships, and spend just a 2 little more time on this category, because it is the 3 largest source of emissions at ports here in California. 4 As most of you know, ships are very large. 5 They're a big capital investment. A new ship can cost 6 anywhere up to $100 million. The engines on these ships 7 can be as large as a hundred thousand horsepower, and may 8 cost anywhere from $10 million to $15 million each. 9 Most of the ships don't only have a main 10 propulsion engine. They all have 2 to 4 auxiliary engines 11 of about 2 to 3 megawatts each. And so they have very 12 large power sources on board. 13 Worldwide there are about 90,000 ocean-going 14 ships in the worldwide fleet. Of these, last year about 15 2000 visited California, for a total of 10,000 visits. 16 And so what that means is that of the ships that come 17 here, there are some that come often in one year, and 18 about -- I'd have to look to Paul again here -- it was 19 about 10 to 20 percent come more than 10 times, and about 20 60 percent only come 1 or 2 times. 21 And so it's a real dynamic industry. They travel 22 the world. They're international. Many of those vessels 23 are foreign flagged. Less than 10 percent are U.S. 24 flagged. And so that's kind of the groundwork that we're 25 working with here. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 98 1 And what that means is that as we go forward, 2 we're going to have to work very cooperatively with our 3 regulatory counterparts, not only here in the U.S. but 4 also internationally. And we're going to have to look for 5 innovative approaches to find ways to reduce emissions 6 from these ships, just because of the nature of the 7 business. 8 So what are we going to do about ships. Well, 9 first of all -- the first line of defense always is trying 10 to get more effective new engine standards. And as you 11 saw earlier, there's a long ways that we have to go when 12 it comes to ship engine standards. 13 And for that, we need U.S. EPA to take a 14 leadership role and to push at the international level for 15 more effective engine standards. We're also looking at 16 cleaner fuels, similar to what we do with land-based 17 equipment. Cleaner fuels offer immediate emissions 18 benefits in most cases. 19 Later this year, we will be bringing you a 20 proposal for your consideration that will require the use 21 of cleaner distillate fuels in the ship auxiliary engines 22 while they are here in California coastal waters and at 23 berth. 24 We are also working closely with U.S. EPA on 25 exploring the possibility of having a Sulfur Emission PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 99 1 Control Area designation or SECA for the west coast. 2 Under that program member states can petition IMO to have 3 areas designated. And if approved, basically ships that 4 come into these areas, then would have to burn the cleaner 5 bunker fuel. 6 We're also exploring a variety of in-use 7 strategies. For the last several years, there's been a 8 vessel speed-reduction program down in Los Angeles and 9 Long Beach. We are beginning to explore with industry a 10 possibility of an MOU to achieve additional in-use 11 reductions. We have a cold-ironing feasibility study 12 underway. And we're also working on some ship 13 demonstration projects to -- with some of the carriers to 14 demonstrate retrofit technologies that might be feasible 15 on some of the larger engines that are on the ships. 16 --o0o-- 17 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS SECTION MANAGER TARICCO: 18 Cargo-handling equipment, includes a wide variety of 19 equipment that's used to move goods in and around the 20 ports. Some of the categories we have are yard trucks. 21 There's rubber tire gantry cranes, side-picks and 22 top-picks. On the bulk terminal, you'll find equipment 23 that's very similar to construction equipment here in 24 California, front-loaders and back-hoes and things like 25 that. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 100 1 California ports, notably LA, Long Beach and 2 Oakland, have all been very aggressive in this area at 3 working to reduce emissions from this category of 4 equipment. In many cases, they have installed DOCs and 5 encouraged the use of emulsified fuels. 6 We are also looking at this category, and are 7 currently working on a regulation that we intend to bring 8 to you later this year that would be a statewide rule that 9 would address cargo handling equipment at ports and 10 inter-modal rail facilities and require the application of 11 BACT. 12 --o0o-- 13 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS SECTION MANAGER TARICCO: For 14 harbor craft, like the ocean-going ships, there's more 15 opportunity to reduce emissions through more effective new 16 engine standards, and the use of cleaner fuels. The Moyer 17 program has been very effective here. Over 300 harbor 18 craft vessels have been repowered under the Moyer program. 19 This is another area where we are currently 20 working on a regulation that we'll be bringing you later 21 this year, that will reduce emissions from existing harbor 22 craft through the use of add-on emission controls and 23 accelerated turnover of older engines. 24 --o0o-- 25 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS SECTION MANAGER TARICCO: PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 101 1 These are the strategies that we're working on for on-road 2 trucks. This is one area where the new engine standards 3 will bring dramatic reductions in future years as the 4 fleet turns over. So our focus in the next few years will 5 be on what we can do to clean up the in-use fleet through 6 incentive programs and in-use fleet rules. 7 --o0o-- 8 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS SECTION MANAGER TARICCO: 9 Locomotive emissions are also an element of port 10 emissions. But since Dan is going to talk about that in 11 just a couple of minutes, I'll just move on. 12 --o0o-- 13 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS SECTION MANAGER TARICCO: We 14 have several supporting efforts under way, including 15 improving emission inventories and evaluating risk in 16 communities near ports. One of our priorities for this 17 year is to develop a comprehensive plan for ports and 18 rail. 19 And as you can see, while we have many efforts 20 underway, we believe it is very important for us to take a 21 current look at our strategy and evaluate what additional 22 steps might need to be taken in light of the expected 23 growth, and to make sure that we're on the right track. 24 A key component of this effort is going to be to 25 use exposure assessments as a tool in setting priorities. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 102 1 As we mentioned earlier, port emissions contribute both to 2 the regional emissions, as well as local community 3 exposures. And we think it's going to be a real useful 4 tool to be able to look at risk from these different 5 operations in helping us prioritize what categories we 6 should go after, which ones we want to hit first, you 7 know, how -- which categories are most responsible for the 8 local risk, as well as those that are contributing the 9 most to regional ozone. 10 --o0o-- 11 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS SECTION MANAGER TARICCO: 12 Communication and outreach is critical to our success. 13 And we're working on a variety of arenas to ensure we 14 encourage collaboration and support on similar goals and 15 avoid duplication of efforts and conflicting programs. 16 More recently, as the Chairwoman and Catherine 17 indicated, and in support of the Governor's focus on goods 18 movement and air quality, CalEPA joined with Business 19 Transportation and Housing to conduct a series of public 20 meetings that were designed to solicit input on issues 21 associated with the movement of goods in California. 22 We are now working on the input that was received 23 at those meetings, and we're working with BT&H to develop 24 a goods movement action plan, that will, among other 25 things, address the need for infrastructure, expansion and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 103 1 the need for environmental and community mitigation. 2 It's our goal to take into consideration the 3 outcomes from that process and to our comprehensive plan 4 that I mentioned earlier. 5 --o0o-- 6 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS SECTION MANAGER TARICCO: To 7 sum, it's no surprise that considering the volume of goods 8 that are moved through California ports, that the 9 activities of ports are a major emissions source that 10 contribute to both regional and local air pollution 11 problems. 12 As you have seen, there are a variety of sources 13 at the ports. And our existing programs in many cases are 14 going to help reduce emissions. However, in light of the 15 expected growth in cargo coming to California, for us to 16 ensure a downward trend in emissions is going to take a 17 variety of new solutions, as well as cooperation and 18 action by the ports, and all levels of government. 19 That concludes my presentation. 20 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you very much. 21 And let's just move right on and then we'll have questions 22 and comments from the Board. 23 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 24 Presented as follows.) 25 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 104 1 Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the Board. My name 2 is Dan Donohoue. I'm Chief of the Emissions Assessment 3 Branch, Stationary Source Division. And I'd like to 4 update you today on activities that currently staff is 5 doing and plan with respect to railroad and locomotive 6 emissions in California. 7 --o0o-- 8 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: 9 Briefly what I'd like to talk to you about today is give 10 you a little bit of background on locomotive and railyard 11 activity in California and the emissions associated with 12 that; highlight for you a health risk assessment study 13 that we've done on the Roseville railyard and its 14 implications with respect to other railyards in this 15 state; and then talk about the current and future 16 strategies that we are looking at to provide additional 17 emission reductions in the locomotive railyard area. 18 --o0o-- 19 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: As 20 far as background with respect to the types of rail 21 activity in California, there -- in California there are 22 mainly 2 types of rail activities: Class 1 railyards, 23 which are the Union Pacific and Burlington Northern and 24 Santa Fe. There is also a fair amount of passenger trains 25 that basically use the same tracks. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 105 1 And then there are some Class 3, small regional 2 railroads that operate short-distance hauls. Some of 3 those are also at port terminals. 4 --o0o-- 5 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: This 6 gives you kind of an overview. The darker lines actually 7 represent the Union Pacific and BNSF rail lines throughout 8 California. And you can see that the entire state is 9 connected, and there are major exit points going out of 10 the LA area and the Sacramento area going to carry goods 11 to the eastern part of the U.S. The lighter colored lines 12 represent the short-haul Class 3 rails. 13 --o0o-- 14 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: 15 Within California there are around 10 to 12 major 16 railyards within the State. Railyards like in Oakland and 17 Commerce are actually associated with inter-modal 18 facilities where container-traffic is taken off the ship 19 onto rail for shipment outside of California. 20 Other railyards, such as Roseville and Barstow, 21 are major yards where trains are brought and reassembled 22 for distribution throughout the U.S. Also, the Roseville 23 and Barstow yards are the major repair and maintenance 24 facilities for Union Pacific railroad at Roseville and for 25 the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe in Barstow. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 106 1 --o0o-- 2 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: This 3 slides gives you an overview of the current locomotive 4 emissions for NOx and PM within the State. 5 One thing that we see that the overall trend with 6 respect to this, is based upon the current MOU that 7 exists -- and I'll talk about that in a minute -- new 8 engine standards that are going to be coming -- that have 9 just started to come forward on new locomotives, and the 10 greater use of CARB diesel fuel, which you all approved 11 last November. We're going to see these reductions 12 decrease somewhat in the 2010 timeframe. 13 However, as Peggy mentioned, the increased in 14 goods movement and the increased participation of rail in 15 that goods movement process is going to see the emissions 16 from the 2010 timeframe probably turn back around and 17 increase the reductions that we've been able to achieve. 18 It will probably increase in the 2015, 2020 timeframe, 19 unless additional measures beyond what's currently being 20 done can be implemented. 21 --o0o-- 22 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: 23 Somewhat similar to ocean-going vessels, ARB does have 24 limited authority with respect to regulating locomotives. 25 The Clean Air Act preempts California from setting PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 107 1 emission standards for new and in-use locomotives. There 2 are federal standards. They establish 3 tiers, Tier 0, 1 3 and 2. 4 And primarily the standards require the engines 5 to be upgraded when they are rebuilt. The new engine 6 standards, the Tier 2 standards became effective in 2005 7 and require emission reductions -- require a level of 8 emission reductions not quite equal to what we're seeing 9 in the on-road and off-road fleet. They do require add-on 10 control technology at this point in time. 11 So it's pretty clear with respect to the 12 anticipated growth that we're going to need to see 13 additional ways to gain additional emission reductions in 14 these areas. 15 --o0o-- 16 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: This 17 slide was presented to you earlier. So the only thing I 18 focus on is that with respect to locomotives NOx 19 emissions, the technology used and where the engine 20 standards are do lag behind the on-road and off-road 21 counter-part. 22 With respect to PM emissions, the standards lag 23 behind. They're actually lower than this. They're closer 24 to 38 percent of the comparable on-road and off-road 25 standards. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 108 1 --o0o-- 2 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: I 3 want to talk to you a little bit about health impacts 4 associated with major rail facilities. 5 --o0o-- 6 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: As 7 the earlier slide showed, there's about 10 to 12 major 8 railyards in this state. In 2004, ARB staff did a 9 detailed health risk assessment of the Roseville railyard. 10 And based upon that work and projecting the results of 11 that to these other railyards that handle a fair amount of 12 activity, what we've concluded is that major railyards are 13 a significant source of diesel PM emissions. And the 14 railyard activities are responsible for both some fairly 15 significant near-source diesel PM concentrations and 16 associated risk, and also contribute to the regional 17 impact of diesel PM. 18 The extent and magnitude of that is going to vary 19 somewhat depending on the railyard activity, the proximity 20 of receptors and the meteorology in the area. But we're 21 pretty safe in concluding that for all of these railyards 22 there are going to be additional activities that are going 23 to be needed to reduce the near-source and regional 24 impacts. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 109 1 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: Just 2 real briefly on the Roseville railyard that's located in 3 the City of Roseville. It's about a 950-acre site up 4 there. It's a Union Pacific maintenance service and 5 classification yard. It operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a 6 week and 365 days a year. It's been in operation for 7 about 100 years. 8 In 2000 February, 31,000 locomotives that came 9 through that yard and an additional 15,000 that came 10 through -- passed through the yard, mainly the commuter 11 trains. 12 --o0o-- 13 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: This 14 is an aerial view of the yard. Up in the north is 15 where -- up the at the top of the slide is where trains 16 are -- rail cars are hooked together to develop trains -- 17 the overall trains that leave there. And the lower part 18 is a lot of the maintenance activities there. As you can 19 see, there are residences within the near vicinity of the 20 yard. 21 --o0o-- 22 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: On 23 the findings with respect to the report, what we ended up 24 being able to determine is that there's about 25 tons per 25 year diesel PM coming out of the activities of this yard. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 110 1 It's petty evenly divided between moving of trains and the 2 idling emissions associated with the trains. 3 The results of the dispersion modeling that we 4 did and the risk calculations indicate that there are 5 fairly high near-source risks associated with the 6 emissions, the diesel PM emissions, from the yard that 7 cover a fairly small area near the source. 8 However, there also is a fairly large regional 9 impact within the entire area due to these emissions, and 10 the impact -- that the potential risk above 10 in a 11 million extends out a number of miles from the facility. 12 We can see that just a little bit better in this slide 13 here. 14 --o0o-- 15 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: What 16 we've shown here is a computer map showing the 10 in 17 million, 25 in a million, and 50 million risk isopleths. 18 So within the inner-circle the 50 in a million there. 19 That indicates that within that area, at the edge of that 20 area, the potential cancer risk is 50 in a million. And 21 as you go in, it becomes higher. 22 And as you can see in this picture, there's a 23 fairly large area impacted from the Roseville railyard 24 emissions. The bluish area in the center is the Roseville 25 railyard. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 111 1 --o0o-- 2 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: So 3 we pretty much concluded that there obviously is a fair 4 amount of impact associated with the locomotive emissions. 5 --o0o-- 6 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: And 7 so I want to talk just a little bit about what we are 8 currently doing on it and then identify some of our future 9 activities. 10 As I mentioned, there are federal Tier 2 11 standards. Those came into effect in 2005. New 12 engines -- new locomotives that are purchased must meet 13 those standards. In addition, in November you approved 14 the CARB diesel fuel for intra-state locomotives. There 15 is an existing rail MOU in the South Coast region that 16 accelerates the introduction of Tier 2 locomotives into 17 the South Coast basin. 18 And there have been a number of voluntary 19 efforts, both on the part of the railroads and on the part 20 of the district's to use -- to provide additional 21 reductions from locomotive activity. 22 --o0o-- 23 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: The 24 air districts have done a series of efforts to further 25 reduce emissions. Coming out of the Roseville railyard PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 112 1 study, from the Placer County Air Pollution Control 2 District, negotiated an agreement with Union Pacific for a 3 10 percent reduction in diesel PM emissions from the yard 4 over the next 3 years. 5 Earlier this month South Coast proposed several 6 rules limiting idling at the 7 main railyards in their 7 jurisdiction, and requiring health risk assessments and, 8 where applicable, health risk reduction plans for the 9 those yards. Those are currently proposed regulations 10 that are going through the public workshop process right 11 now. 12 In addition, a number of districts, most notably 13 Sacramento, has also been using Moyer funding on idle 14 reduction devices on trains and on cleaner switchers. 15 --o0o-- 16 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: 17 Let's focus just a little bit on some of the future 18 efforts. And these are the main areas where we're looking 19 at. And I'll cover these in a little bit more detail in 20 each of the subsequent slides. 21 --o0o-- 22 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: With 23 respect to additional cooperative agreements with respect 24 to the main railyards, we are looking right now at 25 developing and working with the Union Pacific and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 113 1 Burlington Northern and Santa Fe to develop a statewide 2 agreement that would do the types of things that are 3 listed on this slide. 4 And these are the types of things that we've seen 5 in the Roseville railyard study that would result in 6 emission reductions and reduce both the near-source impact 7 and the regional impact. 8 It basically, you know, comes down to can we get 9 cleaner locomotives, either Tier 2 engines or cleaner 10 switcher engines out there. How can we reduce unnecessary 11 idling which appears to be responsible for about 50 12 percent of the emissions coming from these facilities? 13 Can we get cleaner fuel or greater use of CARB 14 diesel fuel within the fleet? Efforts to improve the 15 maintenance of the trains through smoking locomotive 16 identification repair programs. And also demonstrating 17 new technologies that are capable of achieving lower 18 emissions. 19 Throughout this process, we need to make sure 20 that we have the mechanisms in place to ensure that there 21 is public input with respect to the development of these 22 agreements. 23 --o0o-- 24 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: The 25 second item was the future standards. EPA released last PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 114 1 year an advanced notice of the proposed rule-making. And 2 while it didn't specify emission limits, it was asking for 3 comments on where we might go with new locomotive engine 4 standards, Tier 3 standards. 5 ARB has made comments with respect to that 6 advanced notice of the proposed rule making, indicating 7 that after-treatment based standards are going to be 8 needed to gain the emission reductions we need, and bring 9 these emissions from locomotives in line with the on-road 10 and off-road fleet. 11 There's a need for idle limiting requirements 12 within that regulation, on-board diagnostic systems to 13 monitor exhaust emissions; and to go back and look at the 14 original standards that basically require the engines to 15 be rebuilt to a Tier 0 level when they come in for 16 maintenance and repair, and see if there's opportunities 17 for those being rebuilt to a cleaner standard at this 18 point in time, given the fact that a lot of these engines 19 last, you know, 30 to 40 years. 20 --o0o-- 21 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: 22 Emission reduction projects, this is a list of just a 23 series of emission reduction projects that are being done 24 right now looking at opportunities to reduce idling or to 25 improve particularly the application of switcher engines PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 115 1 that are the captive fleet that remains at the railyard 2 all the time using diesel particulate filters or hybrid 3 technologies. 4 --o0o-- 5 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: In 6 summary, you know, certainly the emissions from locomotive 7 and railyard activities are an important source of diesel 8 PM and NOx. While we cannot take the traditional approach 9 that we have on on-road and off-road fleet, we're going to 10 have to use some innovative technologies. We're going to 11 have to use negotiated agreements to be able to gain some 12 of these emission reductions. We're going to have to rely 13 on U.S. EPA to develop some more efficient engine 14 standards in the near term. 15 But we're going to need to take these additional 16 steps to reduce both the short-term and longer-term 17 reductions, given the fact that these sources are having 18 near community impacts and regional impacts and are likely 19 to grow as the increases in goods movement occurs. 20 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you very much, 21 Dan and Peggy. Excellent reports. And these are the kind 22 of reports that are good to keep for future reference, 23 because there's some -- again, significant statistics that 24 are important to us. And then there are strategies. 25 And I think those are very helpful, because we're PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 116 1 obviously going to be asked about what is the ARB doing 2 and what is our role and this gives us a beginning. 3 Let me open it now to Board Member comments and 4 questions. Are there any? 5 Yes, Dr. Gong. 6 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Yes. A comment and then a 7 question. 8 Comment about the railyards. I recently was 9 privileged to go on an Environmental Justice tour, and saw 10 a railyard in Commerce. But the one thing I was actually 11 struck with, not so much because of all the train or rail 12 activity, but also with all the diesel trucks going in and 13 out. And it's like a port, in a sense. It's like a 14 center for diesel activity, regardless of what kind of 15 vehicle you're talking about. So that's just a comment. 16 I think there's a lot going on there besides just the 17 trains, I guess, and the rails. 18 The other comment I'd like to make is actually a 19 question. Is there any distinction between cruise ships 20 and freighters that come into the ports in terms of their 21 emission profile. Anything significantly different about 22 the 2? 23 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS SECTION MANAGER TARICCO: I'm 24 going to have Paul help answer that one. But there is a 25 difference. Cruise ships tend to have 4 main engines that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 117 1 are generally 4-stroke engines. And then they can turn 2 them on and off depending on how fast they want to go or 3 if they're maneuvering. Whereas, the large container 4 ships will have one large engine, and then some auxiliary 5 engines. 6 So what happens is when a cruise ship comes in 7 they might be having 2 or 3 of those engines on. They'll 8 turn them all off and then just use one for hotelling. 9 The container ship would have their separate 10 auxiliary engines that they would then use for hotelling. 11 They wouldn't be using the main engines on that. 12 I don't know if you want to add anything to that, 13 Paul. 14 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: 15 Paul, introduce yourself, please. 16 MR. MILKEY: Paul Milkey. 17 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS SECTION MANAGER TARICCO: Ship 18 expert. 19 (Laughter.) 20 MR. MILKEY: Yeah. Cruise ships would tend to be 21 slightly cleaner, though still, you know, very high in 22 emissions. The NOx emissions are slightly lower for the 23 medium speed 4-stroke engines that they use, compared to 24 the large main engines on the cargo ships. But they still 25 use -- with PM they're still very high in PM. They still PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 118 1 use bunker fuel. So they're pretty similar, just slightly 2 better. 3 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: And 4 as far as the megawatt output of those? 5 MR. MILKEY: They would be pretty similar. 6 Although, as Peggy mentioned, you know, the difference is 7 that they have, you know, these configurations where it 8 might be 4 or 5 main engines as opposed to one very large 9 main engine. But overall the power is similar. 10 When they're at dockside the loads are much 11 higher than for a typical cargo ship. Although, they do 12 tend to be at dockside for a shorter period of time, 13 something like 8 hours would be typical versus maybe a 14 couple of days for a big cargo ship. 15 BOARD MEMBER GONG: The thought that came in my 16 head was that in international waters these ships are all 17 open to -- well, they can do what they want to do, I 18 guess, right? Use whatever fuel, run whatever engine, 19 whatever? 20 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS SECTION MANAGER TARICCO: 21 Well, the International Maritime Organization does set 22 standards for ships. And Annex 6, which is just going to 23 go into force in May of this year does set a cap on the 24 type of fuel -- the sulfur content of the fuel that they 25 can use. So there are some regulations out there that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 119 1 they have to abide by. 2 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Okay. 3 Thank you. 4 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Mayor Loveridge. 5 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Well, 3 quick points. 6 One is I thought both reports were really, really 7 outstanding. I mean though in terms of perspective and 8 presentation, just my own personal kudos to both. 9 Second, that what we're talking about for 10 southern California is the key primary central policy 11 issue for the 18 million people who live in southern 12 California. It's the centerpiece in terms of the economy. 13 It's a centerpiece in terms of the quality of life. There 14 are enormous benefits for what we're talking about. There 15 are also costs, which in just the most parochial sense, we 16 have something like 27 intersections of rail in our city. 17 And we increasingly as they look in the future and you see 18 a future of mobile walls that are before us. 19 But it's, you know, in many ways we know what the 20 solutions are. But I think one of the judgments I would 21 offer is that for us to reach solutions about capacity and 22 trade movement, it is now very closely tied to 23 environmental justice and whether or not we can indeed 24 reduce the pollution connected with it. 25 So what we're talking about here is not separate PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 120 1 from trades and goods movement. It is a central 2 inter-related focus. And so it seems to me what we're 3 talking about today is exceptionally important. 4 The last one I just -- and this is a -- maybe I 5 should ask privately, you wonder about ships and their 6 comparison to airplanes and tugboats and idling and 7 whether or not somehow they could be used differently and 8 whether electricity would be a possibility for sustaining 9 ships, I don't know. 10 But it seems to me if you think of planes, we've 11 tried to deal with planes and airports somewhat 12 differently. And so I'd just maybe primitively ask that 13 question. 14 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS SECTION MANAGER TARICCO: So 15 are you talking about plugging in when they're at dock 16 or -- 17 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Or can you move ships 18 around by tugboats at all? I mean can you change -- I 19 mean, I assume the pollution that's caused is not for 20 their arrival at a distance, it's arrival at a port. And 21 can you change the idling, the amount of pollution that 22 comes from ships by, one, would be tugboats, another would 23 be electrification in some way? I don't know. 24 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS SECTION MANAGER TARICCO: 25 Sure. I think all those strategies are options. First, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 121 1 the emissions, though, I mean the way the meteorology here 2 is in California that those transient emissions when 3 they're further out do get on shore. I mean, some work 4 was done in the eighties that looked at the meteorology 5 and how far out emissions release would get on shore. 6 And that helped define what we call the 7 California coastal waters. And in the LA area it can go 8 out as far as 100 miles. So when you look at ship 9 emissions in the LA area, and their contribution to the 10 emissions pie, about -- this is with respect to NOx -- 11 about 70 percent of the emissions are from transiting, as 12 they're coming in and maneuvering. And about 30 percent 13 are from the hotelling, and that would be from their 14 auxiliary engine. 15 A lot of ships do end up having to -- they get 16 pulled in by tugs, once they reach a certain point. 17 Although, the newer ship designs are such that they're not 18 going to need tugs. I mean they're always looking at ways 19 to improve and lower costs and maneuver these ships 20 better. And so the trend is a way from having tugboats 21 pull you in. 22 The possibility of using electricity, that's 23 usually called cold-ironing, where they plug in at dock. 24 That is clearly feasible. They're doing it up in Juneau, 25 Alaska on the cruise ship. There's a cruise ship in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 122 1 Seattle. China shipping at the Port of LA has retrofitted 2 some container ships that are now plugging in. 3 It clearly is an option for some ships, but not 4 all ships. And that's one thing that we're working on 5 this year is the cold-ironing feasibility study is to 6 determine where does it make sense. 7 So that is one way you can reduce those 8 emissions. Another way is by using cleaner fuels in those 9 auxiliary engines. And that's the measure we're going to 10 bring to you this fall. Because by just switching from a 11 bunker to a distillate, such as a marine gas oil, you can 12 have a 63 percent reduction in PM right there. 13 So there's a suite of things that all can be 14 taken into consideration. 15 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Just one last question. 16 I know there's the sort of policy call to have no more 17 pollution coming out of the ports. Where is that kind of 18 task force study in terms of its recommendations? 19 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS SECTION MANAGER TARICCO: The 20 No-Net-Increase Task Force? 21 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Yes. 22 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS SECTION MANAGER TARICCO: It 23 will be meeting next week again to review the redrafted 24 narratives. For the rest of you, Mayor Hahn directed the 25 Port to create a task force that would come up with a plan PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 123 1 that shows how the Port of LA is going to maintain or get 2 back to emission levels that were in 2001. Because 3 basically the directive was that you can grow but you 4 can't increase your emissions. 5 And so the timeline has stretched out a little 6 bit longer. They were hoping to have a final draft by the 7 end of February. Now, that's looking I think more like 8 March, the end of March. We'll know more after next 9 Wednesday and Thursday. 10 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: You may want to share 11 that with the Board Members. 12 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS SECTION MANAGER TARICCO: 13 Sure, we'd be happy to do that. 14 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: One of the issues 15 that's delayed the No-Net-Increase Task Force is although 16 we have the best inventory in the world for base year 17 emissions, there's still a lot of dispute about future 18 year forecasts, and what assumptions should be made about 19 the kinds of ships that are coming to call, whether 20 they're massive and super, super, super tanker, and what's 21 happening to locomotives, what's happening to other source 22 categories. And that's been a big part, I would say, of 23 the delay, because you can't figure out the stringency of 24 the No-Net-Increase goal until you know how much upward 25 pressure you've got on the system. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 124 1 But no matter what you look at, ships are 2 dominant and what your strategy about ships matters a lot. 3 Also, just to add to what Peggy said, some very 4 intriguing ideas came up at the public workshops that BT&H 5 and CalEPA held. One of them was to have barges with 6 selective catalytic reduction devices that come along side 7 the ships and use and candy-cane device up to the 8 exhausts. 9 If it couldn't plug in, then to have its 10 after-treatment off board, so you wouldn't have to manage 11 after-treatment on the open seas where a lot of people are 12 concerned about conditions and temperatures and whatnot, 13 but have it available in port. And then whether or not 14 there's enough room for those kinds of devices is another 15 issue. But people had all kinds of creative ideas. 16 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Okay. Yes, 17 Supervisor DeSaulnier. 18 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: This is just a 19 fascinating conversation. I think staff's done a great 20 job with the consequences of globalization, particularly 21 in the Pacific Rim. 22 In the Bay Area, I wonder if we could work with 23 the air district staff, because where we have these little 24 ports, and there's lots of talk of new ports, there's a 25 tendency, I think in local government not knowing the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 125 1 liabilities that Mayor Loveridge talked about, that the 2 South Coast is so aware of, of thinking only of the 3 benefits. 4 So some of this is inside baseball for us. And I 5 would like to work with you to get more. I know that 6 we're doing a great job in outreach. But I know just in 7 the East Bay there are a lot of local jurisdictions who 8 think oh, this is wonderful. We'll have tons of jobs. 9 But they're not aware of the potential environmental 10 consequences that, of course, they'll run into down the 11 road after they've put a lot of money into investigating 12 this. 13 Thank you, Madam Chair. 14 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Any other comments, 15 questions for Board Members? 16 Well, staff, I think we all agree, that you've 17 done an excellent job. And it is not an easy task to take 18 this on, because these are some difficult issues that are 19 before us. But I know of no better group to take it on 20 than those of you who are working on it right now. 21 Let me close then this item. And we'll look 22 forward to those regulations that you bring back to us 23 later this year. We don't need to officially close the 24 record on this, because it's not a regulatory item. 25 And I want to go on to our open comment period. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 126 1 We have one person to speak, Yolanda Hwang, who represents 2 the Bay Area Biodiesel Collaboration. If you'd come 3 forward please, I think you can use this one right over 4 here. 5 And I remind you, you have 5 minutes. And we 6 welcome you. 7 MS. HWANG: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen of 8 the Board for this opportunity to address you. Since I 9 appeared before you last at your January meeting, we have 10 made good progress on this issue. Working with the ARB 11 staff, we have formed a good working relationship and we 12 have submitted 2 preliminary applications to the EPA and 13 the Department of Energy requesting $2.5 million worth of 14 funding to develop biodiesel fuel specifications and to 15 conduct the required testing on biodiesel. 16 Our current collaboration, which includes the 17 cities of Oakland, Berkeley, the Bay Area Air Quality 18 Management Board, and the nonprofit Ecology Center is 19 committed to seeking the funding needed, so that even if 20 the pending grant applications do not fully fund our 21 project, we will continue seeking the funding until the 22 objectives, namely the development of the required fuel 23 specifications and the testing, are completed. 24 ARB staff has also clarified regulations as they 25 pertain to biodiesel and diesel emissions strategy -- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 127 1 diesel control strategy verifications. 2 The clarification is that it is not permissible 3 to use biodiesel with verified after-treatment 4 technologies. What this means is that for cities such as 5 Berkeley, Chula Vista, Windsor, Palo Alto, San Luis 6 Obispo, San Jose, San Francisco, County of Alameda and 7 others who have already implemented biodiesel for some or 8 all of their trucks in order to comply with current ARB 9 diesel emissions control strategy verifications. 10 We will have to drop biodiesel and switch back to 11 petroleum diesel. Staff has indicated that the ARB 12 regulations provide staff with no discretion. And any 13 exemptions to these requirements will require Board 14 action. 15 As a collaboration, we anticipate that the number 16 of participants in our collaboration will continue to 17 grow, and we have received inquiries from others already 18 this week. Cities have adopted biodiesel for 2 major 19 reasons: One is climate control; and the other is 20 community health. 21 Climate protection is a significant major 22 community concern. Of the 150 U.S. cities and counties 23 that have signed on to the Cities for Climate Protection 24 Campaign, 20 percent of those are in California. In 25 addition, numerous studies have shown that the emissions PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 128 1 from biodiesel have fewer adverse health impacts than 2 petroleum diesel. 3 Biodiesel's particulate emissions are not 4 carcinogenic. And for those cities which have taken the 5 expense and effort to adopt biodiesel, it would be wrong 6 to penalize them at this point by requiring them to drop 7 biodiesel and return to petroleum diesel. 8 Just this month, the Kyoto Protocols were 9 ratified. And in Berkeley, being Berkeley, we threw a 10 Valentine's Day Party for Kyoto, and had members of a 11 delegation from the City of Kyoto attend. 12 For cities who are contemplating a switch to 13 biodiesel, there is no other fuel available which can 14 replace diesel, is renewable, reduces green-house gas, 15 reduces our country's dependence on foreign oil, and is 16 better for the environment and health of the residents in 17 our communities. 18 One hundred percent biodiesel compared to 19 petroleum biodiesel, according to the EPA, reduces carbon 20 monoxide by 50 percent, reduces particulate emissions by 21 70 percent, reduces hydro -- total hydrocarbon emissions 22 by 40 percent and eliminates sulfate emissions. The one 23 emission increase is nitrogen oxide. 24 What we would ask the Board to consider is to 25 provide an exemption for those regulated fleets using PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 129 1 biodiesel blends which are at least 40 percent biodiesel 2 or higher as a temporary interim measure, so that we can 3 do the testing and develop the specifications and continue 4 using biodiesel until we have been able to achieve the 5 certification. 6 We are requesting such an exemption only if the 7 entire fleet is otherwise in compliance with ARB 8 regulations. We support emissions control, and we want to 9 work with the ARB toward a 0 emissions goal. However, we 10 feel that the biodiesel's slight increase of nitrogen 11 oxide needs to be evaluated in light of the many other 12 benefits, including the reduction of carcinogenic 13 particulates and greenhouse gases. 14 The additional benefit of an exemption for B-40 15 and above is that there is no verified emissions 16 technology for older trucks, those dating before 1988. 17 These older trucks are the most polluting vehicles. And 18 in the solid waste industry, 10 to 20 percent of the 19 vehicles in use are these older vehicles, and they produce 20 twice the pollution of the newer ones. 21 I know the strategy is to hope that these trucks 22 are retired. But in the interim, they are still emitting 23 the pollution we like to get rid of. 24 It is in everyone's interest to reduce emissions 25 in these vehicles. And we would like -- and we have heard PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 130 1 from the solid waste industry that they would also like to 2 switch to biodiesel especially for these older trucks. 3 And they have not been able to do so because of ARB regs. 4 We have made good progress in this past month. I 5 want to thank the staff for their help and cooperation, 6 and I look forward to continued work with the Board and 7 staff toward our mutual goals of reducing vehicle 8 emissions including greenhouse gas. 9 Thank you. 10 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you, Ms. 11 Hwang. Staff, would you like to respond? 12 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: "Houston, we have 13 a problem." 14 It is a true and hard conflict at the moment, 15 between biodiesel advocates and the Air Resources Board's 16 diesel risk reduction program. They are in conflict. And 17 it's not just the cities that the witness was referring 18 to, it's also the U.S. Army and other federal agencies 19 that have invested in biodiesel. 20 And the conflict arises because we are seeking 21 ultimately an 85 percent reduction in particulate, and we 22 are getting there through a 3-phase program of 25 percent 23 control, 50 percent control scaling up to 85 percent 24 control. Using verified devices and traps, we're already 25 at 85 percent. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 131 1 And what happens to you when you own diesel 2 vehicles, and we've adopted a reg for you, is that by 3 certain time tables you have to reach those different 4 levels of control. And if there's not a verified device, 5 you skip up to Tier 3, eventually, and you either replace 6 your whole vehicle with a new trap-equipped vehicle or put 7 a trap on. 8 Biodiesel works okay at 25 percent for emission 9 reductions. It does not work at 50 percent, and it does 10 not work at 80 percent, so far. Nor is it allowed in a 11 vehicle that's using a verified device, because there's no 12 certified devices that work in tandem with biodiesel. No 13 one has applied to us for verification. We've been hoping 14 that biodiesel would join up with diesel oxidation 15 catalysts and come in for a 50 percent certification, 16 which would buy more time. Though, ultimately when we hit 17 85 percent, we'd be back to the same conundrum, because 18 biodiesel doesn't get us there. 19 And so I think the policy issue is whether this 20 Board would like to have a temporary exemption, where 21 biodiesel can coexist, because it's a reasonably good 22 strategy for particulate control, you know, in the about 23 50 percent level, but it will never get us to our end-goal 24 of 85 percent or better trap-type returns. 25 There's a separate issue that vehicle PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 132 1 manufacturers have been reluctant to uphold their 2 warranties when biodiesel over B-10, I think, maybe even 3 over B-1 or B-2 is utilized. And there's a wide range of 4 blends out there. The witness was talking about B-40, 5 which is 40 percent biodiesel and the remainder 6 conventional diesel. 7 And we do require that the remainder be CARB 8 diesel. And then all the way up to B-100. And the 9 manufacturers have testified in front of us repeatedly at 10 our workshops that they will void their warranties for 11 vehicles using high percentages of biodiesel, which 12 doesn't matter so much in an old car -- excuse me an old 13 truck or bus that's already out of warrantee, but is an 14 issue in younger vehicles. 15 So whatever you decide or advise us to do, it 16 takes significant regulatory action to undue the scheme we 17 have set up. It's every fleet rule we've adopted so far. 18 So we're talking about the trash truck rule, the transit 19 rule, the true rule, et cetera. We'd need to look at what 20 vehicles are at issue in these cities. But I know the 21 City of Berkeley has made all of their vehicles biodiesel, 22 and they own a wide assortment. So it is, you know, 23 across the Board. And we would need to anticipate it in 24 the public fleet rules. The on- and off-road rule is 25 coming up before you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 133 1 But what's happening is our diesel particulate 2 control program will gradually drive biodiesel out as not 3 sufficient to meet our toxic reduction goals. 4 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Madam Chair. 5 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Yes. 6 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Just -- 7 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Supervisor 8 DeSaulnier. 9 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: -- a comment. I 10 appreciate staff' work with the speaker and the parties in 11 between. I apologize I haven't returned your phone call 12 yet. 13 But I do think -- I go back to the mantra that 14 I've heard since the days of John Dunlap here is that 15 we're fuel neutral. I mean, the goal is the emissions 16 reductions. So I appreciate what you're working for, and 17 I think we should continue to have the discussion. And I 18 also appreciate this is under public comment, so we're not 19 able to take direct action. 20 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Right. 21 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: But ultimately, I think 22 it's important, for me at least as a Board Member who 23 represents many of the jurisdictions that you mentioned 24 through the Bar Area Air Quality Management District, I'm 25 constantly reminding myself we're fuel neutral. It's how PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 134 1 we get to the goal of emissions reductions. 2 Thank you, Madam Chair. 3 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Thank you. 4 Yes, Mrs. D'Adamo. 5 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: This sounds like it's a 6 very complex issue. And a very simplified way of looking 7 at it is that in the valley anyway, we are hearing a lot 8 about the need to clean up diesel, especially within the 9 Ag community, there's a lot of talk about biodiesel. 10 And so I think that if what you're saying is 11 indeed the case, we have an outreach effort that we need 12 to be engaged in, because otherwise I think the message 13 that we're going to be sending is that it's one way only 14 and that ARB perhaps would even be hampering creativity. 15 So in light of that, is there anything that, 16 first of all, we can do in terms of outreach to start to 17 get the word out there that biodiesel is not the do-all 18 end-all that many people think that it is. Just in going 19 through the clippings, you know, there's often times 20 articles about that. 21 And then secondly is there anything we can do to 22 encourage innovation in terms of retrofit devices. You're 23 saying that we can't ever get to the 85 percent. Do we 24 know that for certain? 25 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: I think PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 135 1 the issue on that is that right now when someone comes in 2 with a device like a filter, they specify what fuel that 3 filter has to be used with and go through our complete 4 verification process. And right now it says California 5 diesel fuel. So the manufacturers of those filters are 6 not willing to say nor are they verified under our process 7 that it works with biodiesel. 8 So once you choose to or you're forced to put a 9 filter on a vehicle, it makes you get rid of biodiesel. 10 That's the dilemma. We don't actually tell which 11 manufacturer what they have to do. They come forward and 12 say I'm willing to go through your process, so that I can 13 sell my product in under your retrofit rules. But it's up 14 to them to decide what it is. 15 So part of it is that they've decided that the 16 available fuel is California diesel, and have not gone to 17 the extra effort of doing testing and durability, et 18 cetera, of their device, which we require in order to use 19 biodiesel. So that's the first problem we have. It's 20 sort of a structural problem. 21 The second -- another issue is one of equity, 22 which Yolanda is trying to work on, which is there are 23 other fuels out there, like water emulsion blends with 24 diesel, where we've said you, as fuel, have to be 25 verified. And they've gone through the process, spent a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 136 1 of lot money, millions of dollars, to go through that 2 process to say that their fuel, in fact, does achieve a 3 certain level of emissions, and is durable, doesn't have 4 multi-media effects, et cetera, et cetera. And biodiesel 5 has not done that yet. 6 So as a matter of equity and a matter of our 7 government policy that fuels have to go through 8 multi-media review, biodiesel, by itself as a fuel, is 9 going to need to go through that. And that's what 10 she's -- I think part of the money that she is seeking is 11 to have it go through that process. 12 I think, you know, it is -- would be a bit 13 presumptuous to say well, let's go do something for 14 biodiesel as Supervisor DeSaulnier said, because they kind 15 of have to meet the same burden of proof that everybody 16 else has been asked to meet as well. 17 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Well, yes, except that we 18 also have an energy policy that we're trying to achieve. 19 And this seems like one -- well, not an avenue. It would 20 help. So it seems to me that there's a public policy in 21 favor of trying to seek options that could get us there. 22 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Right. 23 And the environmental -- the urban smog-related policy is 24 that if a City like Berkeley says, I'm going to take every 25 single vehicle today and put biodiesel in it, then it PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 137 1 probably is achieving a greater emission reduction than 2 our structure, which says well, why don't you put traps or 3 buy new vehicles with traps on it and do 10 percent this 4 year and 30 percent next year and 50 percent by 2007 and 5 90 percent by 2008. 6 They may not get as big a reduction initially, 7 but -- our approach would get less reduction initially and 8 more in the end. Whereas the biodiesel approach could 9 actually get more up front and then less later on. So 10 that's what Catherine was saying is it kind of creates 11 this dilemma. You may like to do this for awhile, but 12 ultimately if it's a 70 percent strategy, it doesn't 13 get -- with a NOx increase, it doesn't get an 85 percent 14 reduction. Where the way we structured it, it also 15 delivers a NOx decrease. 16 So that's kind of the dilemma we have in front of 17 us. Do we want to try to either bend these rules, adjust 18 these rules, make exceptions to these rules to try to gain 19 some reduction for a few years, which then would go away 20 as our more comprehensive program is fully implement. 21 That's kind of the dilemma we have. 22 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Supervisor Roberts. 23 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Yeah. I'm not hearing as 24 much of a dilemma. I mean, consistent with the way we 25 have always done things. They've set some goals. I'm PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 138 1 hearing that the goals are not arbitrary. The goals are 2 25, 50 and 85 percent. Those are the goals. 3 And we're allowing options as to how you reach 4 those goals. We're not telling anybody how to do it 5 within those options, not just diesel. You can use 6 natural gas. You can use it. There's all sorts of 7 things. 8 It doesn't mean that you have to comment to every 9 conceivable solution in the world if you're not going to 10 meet those goals. There are options out there and other 11 people are meeting those goals. And it's not just the 12 short-term, it is the long-term. And if somebody invests 13 heavily in something that can't get you to the ultimate 14 goal, that's their decision. But they have to understand 15 we're going to get to the ultimate goal. 16 So, you know, the most consistent things here 17 that I think that we've always tried to regulate, the 18 standards are not arbitrary. They're not -- we didn't 19 choose these standards to exclude biodiesel or anything 20 else. They're fuel neutral, and they're based on 21 performance. 22 And it seems to me, you know, that we're doing 23 the right thing. And it's the marketplace and it's the 24 performance that's going to decide which products are 25 ultimately going to be there at the finish line. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 139 1 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Mayor Loveridge. 2 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: I guess this is both a 3 questions and perhaps a request. I'm a little leery about 4 a full discussion of this, simply in response to public 5 testimony. And would it not be appropriate to schedule 6 this for a more serious look with background information 7 and maybe some choices that we may have before us. 8 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Because the 9 witness is asking us for a regulatory change, at a 10 minimum, I consider that like an official petition. So at 11 a minimum we owe her a written response of yes no or we'll 12 bring it to the Board and you'll decide, you know, at the 13 staff level. 14 And then depending on how much you would like to 15 engage in it, we can have a study session on it, we can 16 write you memos, we can agendize it for a Board 17 discussion. And then when you finally do decide, there 18 might be further regulatory activity after that that we 19 would have to do. So it's complicated. And it's how much 20 time you'd like to spend on it. 21 I do want to bring 2 other issues up though that 22 Ms. D'Adamo referenced energy policy and climate change 23 policy as an issue here as well. And earlier this week I 24 was speaking to someone who was seeking an author and may 25 have found and author for legislation that would require PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 140 1 us to put biodiesel in CARB diesel because of the CO2 2 benefits. And so it's farm policy. It's climate policy. 3 It's energy policy. 4 And then there was an issue about whether 5 biodiesel PM emissions are as toxic as regular diesel. So 6 I agree with everything Supervisor Roberts said and I love 7 that you said that. It could stop right here. 8 But to be totally fair, there's an open question 9 whether B-100 exhaust emissions are less toxic than 10 conventional diesel. And we just don't know the answer to 11 that. There are certainly contaminants in oil. There's 12 toxic constituents present. But whether it's exactly the 13 same toxicity as diesel PM, and whether any kind of credit 14 should be provided on that. 15 And I'm looking at Henry who is smiling, because 16 we don't know and we don't have the kinds of 17 epidemiological studies we would need to answer that 18 question. But Tom's also right, that biodiesel ought to 19 be going through the same multi-media review. It's now 20 state law that you can't be creating special provisions or 21 special requirements for any fuel unless you've certified 22 through the California Environmental Policy Council that 23 you're not doing something that's dangerous to the 24 citizens or to the environment. 25 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Why don't -- as PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 141 1 interesting as this is and recognizing that it was brought 2 under public comment, I think, Ms. Witherspoon, what we 3 need to do first is, as you say, respond to someone who's 4 asking for a change. 5 Obviously, the response needs to be seen by the 6 Board with the appropriate backup material. And then I 7 think we'll know better how to proceed. Unless you have a 8 better recommendation, I'd like to take that position. 9 I'd like to see some -- you know, in-depth thought, and 10 would allow a greater number of the Board members, 11 recognizing that we have several not here today, I'd like 12 them all to have that opportunity to have the background 13 and the full discussion before then. So why don't we, at 14 least, begin with the response. 15 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: I think that's a 16 good idea. And I also think given the level of interest 17 and the complexity of the issue, we should agendize it for 18 a Board Member discussion at an open public hearing and 19 get other people in here talking about it. 20 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Okay. So we'll 21 leave that up to the Board. I recognize this just can't 22 be done overnight. Ms. Hwang, you've given us a tall 23 order here, but we want to respond appropriately. So we 24 will do that. And we thank you for being here today. And 25 I'll just ask the Board to -- I mean, the staff to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 142 1 appropriately respond in a timely way and that we have all 2 of the information to the Board Members. And that at a 3 time when it is feasible in our schedule, we'll agendize 4 it. 5 And thank you very much. 6 MS. HWANG: Thank you. 7 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: Board Members, I'm 8 hopeful that that is the end of the discussion for today. 9 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Is there anyone else 10 from Berkeley here? 11 (Laughter.) 12 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: And we would like to 13 adjourn the meeting and look forward to next month's 14 meeting in El Monte, correct? Is that right? Where are 15 we next month? 16 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Next month we're 17 here. 18 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: We're here in 19 Sacramento next month. Excuse me. All right, we're here 20 in Sacramento. And some time we're in El Monte. 21 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: April we're in El 22 Monte. May we're back here and July we're at South Coast. 23 ACTING CHAIRPERSON RIORDAN: All right, very 24 good. Thank you very much. 25 Meeting is adjourned. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 143 1 (Thereupon the California Air Resources Board 2 meeting adjourned at 12:30 p.m.) 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 144 1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 2 I, JAMES F. PETERS, a Certified Shorthand 3 Reporter of the State of California, and Registered 4 Professional Reporter, do hereby certify: 5 That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 6 foregoing California Air Resources Board meeting was 7 reported in shorthand by me, James F. Peters, a Certified 8 Shorthand Reporter of the State of California, and 9 thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 10 I further certify that I am not of counsel or 11 attorney for any of the parties to said meeting nor in any 12 way interested in the outcome of said meeting. 13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 14 this 28th day of February, 2005. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 JAMES F. PETERS, CSR, RPR 23 Certified Shorthand Reporter 24 License No. 10063 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345