BOARD
MEETING
STATE
OF
CALIFORNIA
AIR
RESOURCES
BOARD
JOE
SERNA,
JR.
BUILDING
CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
CENTRAL
VALLEY
AUDITORIUM,
SECOND
FLOOR
1001
I
STREET
SACRAMENTO,
CALIFORNIA
FRIDAY,
MARCH
28,
2003
8:
30
A.
M.

JAMES
F.
PETERS,
CSR,
RPR
CERTIFIED
SHORTHAND
REPORTER
LICENSE
NUMBER
10063
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
ii
APPEARANCES
BOARD
MEMBERS
Dr.
Alan
Lloyd,
Chairperson
Dr.
William
Burke
Mr.
Joseph
Calhoun
Ms.
Dorene
D'Adamo
Supervisor
Mark
DeSaulnier
Professor
Hugh
Friedman
Mr.
Matthew
McKinnon
Mrs.
Barbara
Riordan
Supervisor
Ron
Roberts
STAFF
Ms.
Catherine
Witherspoon,
Executive
Officer
Mr.
Tom
Cackette,
Chief
Deputy
Executive
Officer
Mr.
Mike
Scheible,
Deputy
Executive
Officer
Ms.
Lynn
Terry,
Deputy
Executive
Officer
Ms.
Kathleen
Walsh,
General
Counsel
Ms.
Analisa
Bevan,
Manager,
ZEV
Implementation
Section,
MSCD
Mr.
Tom
Cackette,
Chief
Deputy
Executive
Officer
Mr.
Craig
Childers
Mr.
Bob
Cross,
Chief,
MSCD
Mr.
Tom
Jennings,
Senior
Staff
Counsel
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
iii
APPEARANCES
CONTINUED
STAFF
Mr.
Jack
Kitowski,
Chief,
On­
Road
Controls
Branch,
MSCD
Mr.
Chuck
Shulock,
Program
Specialist,
MSCD
ALSO
PRESENT
Mr.
Tim
Carmichael,
Coalition
for
Clean
Air
Mr.
Tod
Dipaola,
Kirsch
Foundation
Mr.
Tom
Dowling,
Self
Mr.
Greg
Hanssen,
PEVDC
Mr.
Doug
Korthof,
Self
Mr.
William
Korthof,
Self
Mr.
Bill
Mason,
Self
&
PEVDC
Mr.
Charlie
Peters,
Clean
Air
Performance
Mr.
Jerry
Pohorsky,
The
Pohorsky
Group
Ms.
Lisa
Rosen,
Energy
Efficiency
Mr.
Dan
Santini
Ms.
Sandra
Spellliscy,
PCL
Mr.
V.
John
White,
Sierra
Club
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
iv
INDEX
PAGE
03­
2­
4
1
Staff
Presentation
2
Mr.
Charlie
Peters
10
Mr.
Doug
Korthof
13
Mr.
V.
John
White
16
Mr.
William
Korthof
25
Ms.
Lisa
Rosen
28
Mr.
Jerry
Pohorsky
31
Mr.
Greg
Hanssen
35
Mr.
Bill
Mason
38
Mr.
Tom
Dowling
41
Mr.
Dan
Santini
44
Mr.
Todd
Dipaola
48
Ms.
Sandra
Spelliscy
52
Mr.
Tim
Carmichael
57
Discussion
and
Q&
A
60
Adjournment
143
Reporter's
Certificate
144
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
1
1
PROCEEDINGS
2
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Good
morning.
The
meeting
of
3
the
California
Air
Resources
Board
is
now
in
session.
And
4
would
you
please
come
to
order.
This
is
a
continuation
of
5
yesterday's
item
on
the
low­
emission
vehicle
program.

6
And
we
will
continue
on
that
program.

7
Ms.
Witherspoon,
do
you
want
to
say
anything
at
8
this
time?

9
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
Yes,
Dr.
Lloyd.

10
We
thought
It
might
be
useful
for
the
Board,
before
we
get
11
into
this
morning's
testimony
to
summarize
some
of
the
12
comments
that
you
heard
yesterday.

13
In
particular,
the
specific
numerical
proposals
14
relating
to
the
post
2009
model
year
targets
for
ZEVs.

15
And
so
if
you'll
indulge
the
staff
for
a
moment,
we're
16
going
to
present
a
chart
comparing
those
different
17
proposals
and
explain
some
of
the
significance
of
them.

18
We
will
of
course
come
back
to
this
at
the
close
of
19
testimony
as
ask
you
get
into
a
broader
discussion.

20
And
we
also
will
have
copies
available
of
this
21
chart
for
members
of
the
audience
at
the
back
table.
I
22
believe
those
copies
are
either
being
made
now
or
will
23
shortly
be
available.

24
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
see
it.
We
just
got
one
25
board
member
who
is
not
here.
I
know
Mr.
Calhoun
is
here.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
2
1
Dr.
Burke,
I
think,
is
on
his
way.
Dr.
Friedman
will
not
2
be
here.
And
Supervisor
Patrick.
So
we've
just
got
one
3
board
member
missing.
So
it's
probably
fine
to
go
ahead.

4
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
Shall
we
proceed?

5
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
think
to
proceed
as
long
so
6
you've
something
for
Dr.
Burke.

7
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
We
will
be
8
revisiting
it
again
when
we
get
to
the
Board
discussion
9
later.

10
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
think
it
would
be
helpful.

11
Do
my
colleagues
agree?
Because
I
think
it's
­­
certain
12
of
the
proposal
has
ramifications
which
need
to
fully
13
understand
before
we
take
a
vote,
give
us
some
chance
to
14
talk
about
it.

15
Thank
you.

16
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
Mr.
Shulock
is
17
going
to
present
the
comparison.

18
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
Good
19
morning,
Mr.
Chairman
and
members.

20
Could
we
bring
the
slide
up,
please.

21
(
Thereupon
an
overhead
presentation
was
22
Presented
as
follows.)

23
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
What
we'd
24
like
to
do
is
walk
you
through
some
of
what
you
heard
25
yesterday
to
try
and
frame
the
issues
a
little
bit
so
you
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
3
1
can
have
them
in
your
mind
as
you're
going
through
the
2
rest
of
the
testimony
this
morning.
As
Ms.
Witherspoon
3
indicated,
this
will
be
revisited
before
you
begin
your
4
final
discussion,
but
we
thought
it
would
be
helpful
to
go
5
through
this
now.

6
What
this
shows
are
the
various
proposals
that
7
have
been
discussed
with
respect
to
the
2009
and
beyond
8
time
period.
So
the
proposals
­­
our
original
staff
9
proposals
an
approach
that
increases
that
10
fold
for
the
10
various
phases.
The
Cal
ETC
proposal,
this
is
what
Dave
11
Modisette
spoke
to.
The
Union
of
Concerned
Scientists
12
that
was
presented
by
Jason
Mark
and
then
the
South
Coast
13
Air
Quality
Management
District
Proposal.

14
And
what
we
show
for
each
of
these
is
for
three
15
different
time
periods
2005
through
2008,
2009
through
11
16
and
2012
through
14.
What
would
be
the
number
of
fuel
17
cells
equivalent
vehicles
that
would
be
required
for
each
18
of
those
in
those
time
frames.
We
also
then
have
a
19
cumulative
total
and
then
some
other
issues
that
I'll
get
20
into
in
a
second.

21
Looking
just
at
the
numbers,
on
our
staff
22
proposal,
as
you
know
doubt
recall,
we
recommended
250
23
vehicles
in
that
initial
timeframe
with
the
latter
time
24
frames,
the
later
time
frames
to
be
determined
by
your
25
board
based
upon
­­
or
following
input
from
the
technical
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
4
1
advisory
panel.

2
The
10X
proposal,
as
we
describe
it
here,
simply
3
starts
with
that
250
number
and
multiplies
it
by
10
fold
4
each
time.
The
rationale
for
this
approach,
as
we
5
discussed
yesterday,
and
I
recognize
it
wasn't
6
particularly
persuasive
to
Board
Member
Calhoun
it
seemed.

7
But
anyway
the
rationale
that
we
had
was
that
these
appear
8
to
be
the
developmental
phases
that
are
followed
in
9
technical
developments
of
this
type.

10
The
same
logic
underlies
the
DOE
proposal,
which
11
is
not
up
here,
but,
you
know,
similar
in
some
ways.
But
12
the
same
logic
of
progression
through
stages
underlies
the
13
DOE
proposal
which
was
put
together
in
careful
14
consultation
with
the
automakers.

15
So
the
logic
behind
this
is
really
based
on
this
16
notion
of
a
progression
through
the
various
stages.
On
17
the
Cal
ETC
proposal
the
recommended
500
vehicles
in
that
18
initial
period,
a
total
of
2,800.
And
the
next
one
19
22,400.

20
The
rationale
behind
that
is
also
a
progression
21
based
on
a
different
approach.
Looking
at
theirs,
it
22
looks
­­
it
appears
that
what
they
do
is
just
double
the
23
number
each
year.
So
if
you
take
individual
years,
it
24
goes
for
400
to
800
to
1,600.
So
it's
a
similar
kind
of
25
ramping
up,
just
expressed
on
a
year
by
year
basis
rather
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
5
1
than
ours
in
groupings.
But
it's
not,
at
least
as
far
as
2
we
can
determine,
it's
not
based
on
the
same
kind
of
stage
3
logic
that
would
be
behind
the
10X.

4
The
Union
of
Concerned
Scientists
proposal
again
5
starts
with
500,
then
goes
to
5,000
and
30,000.
The
6
rationale
behind
that,
as
expressed
by
the
presenter,
was
7
statements
from
the
automakers
that
indicate
that
there
8
were
numbers
in
this
ball
park
or
ever
greater
perhaps
9
that
have
been
expressed
in
public
statements
from
the
10
automakers.

11
And
so
this,
as
we
would
describe
it,
I
think,
is
12
saying
well
this
is
what
we've
been
told
in
some
of
these
13
public
statements.
So
here's
a
progression
that
would
hue
14
to
that.

15
The
South
Coast
proposal
has
much
larger
numbers,

16
as
you
can
see,
4,500
or
so
in
that
initial
period,
32,000
17
and
54,000
as
the
time
moves
out.
The
way
that
one
works
18
or
the
logic
behind
it
is
in
everything
else
that
you've
19
seen
there's
the
ZEV
portion
and
the
AT
PZEV
portion.
And
20
they
sort
of
­­
you
move
the
line
in
between.
So
if
you
21
reduce
the
ZEV,
then
you
increase
the
AT
PZEV.

22
And
there's
a
back­
filling
going
on.
So
there's
23
sort
of
a
fixed
percentage
requirement
that's
divvied
up
24
between
ZEVs
and
AT
PZEVs.
What
the
South
Coast
proposal
25
does
is
it
looks
back
at
our
2001
proposal
and
says
there
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
6
1
was
a
ZEV
piece
and
there
was
an
At
PZEV
piece.
Rather
2
than
having
the
them
either
or
trade
off,
let's
do
both.

3
So
although
it's
not
shown
here,
one
thing
to
4
bear
in
mind
that
that's
a
two
percent
gold
requirement
5
plus
an
AT
PZEV
requirement
that's
based
on
filling
up
6
another
two
percent.

7
So
there's,
in
the
South
Coast
proposal,
there
8
are
also
much
larger
numbers
of
AT
PZEVs
than
would
be
9
implied
by
any
of
these
other
proposals.

10
So
that's
how
they
work
through
their
stages.

11
One
thing
that
struck
us
as
we
looked
at
the
cumulative
12
total
is
that
those
first
three
are
somewhere
in
the
same
13
ballpark.
Again,
they
have
different
rationales
and
14
follow
different
purposes,
but
they
arrive
at
similar
15
places.
The
South
Coast
proposal,
obviously,
comes
up
16
with
much
larger
numbers.

17
A
couple
of
other
issues
that
also
differ
across
18
the
proposals
to
keep
in
mind,
one
of
which
is
the
19
treatment
of
battery
electric
vehicles.
In
our
original
20
staff
proposal,
it
was
fuel
cells
only.
But
as
we
21
discussed
in
our
presentation
yesterday,
we
now
would
22
recommend
that
up
to
50
percent
of
the
target
there
could
23
be
met
by
other
types
of
vehicles.
And
in
the
10
­­
I
24
guess
on
the
10
fold
proposal
that's
not
explicit,
but
at
25
least
from
our
standpoint
we
would
probably
recommend
that
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
7
1
there
be
some
sort
of
sharing
allowed.

2
In
the
Cal
ETC
proposal
that
would
allow
up
to
3
100
percent
substitution
by
BEVs.
So
there's
no
minimum
4
floor
requirement
explicitly
expressed.
I
do
believe
that
5
in
Dave
Modisette's
testimony
he
said
you
may
want
to
do
6
something
like
that.
But
in
the
proposal
as
it's
written
7
it's
a
100
percent
substitution.
The
Union
of
Concerned
8
Scientists
proposal
also
likewise
would
allow
substitution
9
up
to
50
percent
maintaining
the
rest
as
fuel
cell
10
vehicles.

11
And
then
the
South
Coast
proposal
has
a
hard
12
number
of
2,000
full
function
EV's
by
2008.
So
that
one
13
actually
has
a
direct
requirement
for
battery
vehicles
14
rather
than
just
allowing
them
to
substitute
in
as
an
15
option.

16
Another
dimension
to
be
aware
of
is
the
treatment
17
of
plug­
in
hybrids
in
gold.
Under
our
staff
proposal,

18
that
would
not
be
included.
Under
the
10X,
at
least
as
we
19
have
described
that,
it
would
not
be
included.
On
Cal
ETC
20
very
clearly
that's
been
one
of
their
recurring
issues.

21
So
in
their
proposal
they
did
include
that.

22
The
Union
of
Concerned
Scientists,
we
weren't
23
sure
looking
at
the
printed
material
whether
that
was
24
included
or
not.
South
Coast
district,
no,
they
did
not
25
include
it.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
8
1
One
other
piece
of
information
on
this
table
just
2
to
again
frame
the
discussion
is
when
and
if
do
the
3
various
proposals
return
to
the
red
line
and
the
red
line
4
volume
in
that
2015
through
2017
timeframe,
it
would
be
5
73,000
vehicles,
a
little
under
25,000
vehicles
per
year
6
for
2005,
15,
16
and
17.
So
the
red
line
volume
is
about
7
73,000.

8
As
you
go
through
the
discussion
later
on
today,

9
there
will
be
some
policy
issues.
And
again
just
to
frame
10
them
to
have
them
in
your
mind,
first
of
all,
is
clearly
11
just
what
are
the
numbers.
And
then
underneath
that,

12
what's
the
rationale
­­
what's
the
approach
that
would
13
support
the
choice
of
any
of
the
options
here
for
the
14
numbers.
So
that's
going
to
be
one
of
them.

15
Second
is
this
issue
of
BEV
substitution.
Is
16
there
BEV
substitution
allowed?
And
if
so,
what
17
constraints
or
factors
would
you
want
to
take
into
account
18
on
that.

19
As
I
mentioned,
another
issue
is
if
and
when
20
these
proposals
return
to
the
redline,
the
timing
of
the
21
ramp
up
in
the
outer
years.

22
If
we
receive
more
proposals
this
morning,
we'll
23
squeeze
them
onto
this
table
and
have
an
updated
version
24
for
you.

25
When
you
begin
the
policy
discussion,
we're
not
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
9
1
sure
if
there
will
be
separate
numbers
put
forward
or
if
2
people
will
just
be
speaking
off
of
these.
But
if
there
3
is,
in
deed,
another
proposal,
we'll
incorporate
it
and
4
have
that
before
you.

5
So
that
concludes,
from
my
standpoint,
the
6
summary.
I
don't
know
if
Catherine
has
any
other
7
information
to
provide.

8
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
There
were,
of
9
course,
other
issues
yesterday.
But
we
think
that
we'll
10
hold
those
all
until
the
Board
discussion.
They
go
off
in
11
different
directions.
And
this
was
more
just
to
frame
the
12
major
issue
before
you.
So
we'd
recommend
you
go
to
the
13
public
comment
now.
And
we'll
come
back
to
the
rest
14
later.

15
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.

16
Let's
do
that.

17
There
were
a
number
of
people
who
I
called
last
18
night
who
did
not
step
forward.
I
just
want
to
check
with
19
those
again
just
in
case
they
were
here.

20
Raymond
Cernota?

21
Glynda
Lee
Hoffman?

22
David
Muerle?

23
Hew
Hesterman?

24
Paulette
Jaeger?

25
MichaelMora?

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
10
1
Shauna
Wilson?

2
Bill
Smith
was
testifying,
I
don't
see
him
back
3
this
morning.

4
Kurt
Rasmussen?

5
Bernadette
Del
Chiaro?

6
I
think
she
was
going
to
come
back
today,
but
7
maybe
she's
not
here
just
yet.

8
So
we
will
pickup
with,
I
see,
Charlie
Peters.

9
And
then
Tim
Carmichael,
Doug
Korthof.

10
MR.
PETERS:
Good
morning,
Chairman
Lloyd
and
11
Committee.
I'm
Charlie
Peters,
Clean
Air
Performance
12
Professionals.
We're
a
coalition
of
motorists
that
is
13
actually
worldwide.
And
we're
quite
concerned
with
how
14
all
this
impacts
the
public.
How
much
we're
going
to
have
15
to
pay
and
how
this
is
going
to
work.

16
I'm
here
to
see
if
I
can
get
a
little
advice
on
17
remediation
and
see
if
I
can
share
a
couple
of
issues
that
18
I
think
might
have
a
possibility
of
getting
some
19
consideration.

20
I
have
a
very
complex
proposal
here.
It's
a
21
pretty
large
print.
It's
one
piece
of
paper.

22
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Charlie,
we
have
­­
again,

23
just
to
remind
people
we're
going
to
be
on
three
minutes
24
here.

25
MR.
PETERS:
Yes,
sir.
It
says
CAPP
supports
a
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
11
1
smog
check
inspection
and
repair
audit,
a
gasoline
oxygen
2
cap
and
elimination
of
the
dual
fuel
cafe
credit
to
cut
3
car
impact
over
50
percent
in
one
year,
a
smog
check
audit
4
to
cut
toxic
car
impact
in
half
in
one
year,
an
oxygenate
5
waiver
would
stop
a
$
10
billion
refinery
welfare
program
6
coming
from
the
federal
tax
reduction
of
52
cents
per
7
gallon
of
ethanol
used.
That,
by
the
way,
is
coming
8
straight
out
of
our
transportation
funds.

9
The
third
issue
is
about
a
third
of
the
gasoline
10
used
on
new
cars
is
allowed
by
the
renewable
fuel
credit.

11
From
the
$
900
per
car
cost
of
the
ethanol
gasoline
system.

12
And
there's
not
one
E85
pump
in
the
State
of
California
13
that
I'm
aware
of.

14
So
we
talk
about
things
like
global
warming
and
15
toxic
impact,
and
all
of
these
things.
And
I
would
say
to
16
you
that,
in
my
humble
opinion,
of
course
that
would
take
17
miracle
because
it
doesn't
appear
as
though
those
folks
in
18
Washington
would
support.
Is
there
someway
of
pulling
off
19
a
miracle
in
those
three
small
items
we
think
that
that
20
could
very
significantly
improve
how
the
public
is
treated
21
and
so
on.

22
There
has
been
a
very
interesting
legal
issue
23
going
on
with
consumer
unfair
competition
lawsuits
that
24
the
Attorney
General
is
now
involved
in,
that
anybody
who
25
gets
any
action
whatsoever
from
any
regulatory
agency
in
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
12
1
the
state
of
California
can
be
sued
by
any
consumer
with
a
2
group
of
lawyers.

3
So
far
the
Attorney
General
has
stepped
in,
the
4
California
Bar
Association
has
stepped
in.
And
I
have
a
5
huge
concern
there
because
I
have
a
gentlemen
by
the
name
6
of
Mr.
Cruz
in
southern
California
who
came
here
when
he
7
was
seven
years
old
because
both
of
his
parents
passed
8
away.
His
mother
was
a
U.
S.
citizen.
His
father
was
a
9
Mexican
citizen.
He
has
U.
S.
citizenship
today.

10
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Charlie,
can
you
help
link
11
what
you're
saying
to
our
deliberations?
That
would
be
12
helpful
for
us.

13
MR.
PETERS:
Absolutely.
Here
is
a
copy
of
the
14
court
actions
to
remove
this
guy
from
business
in
the
15
straight
of
California.
He
was
Triple
A
certified.
He
16
was
CAPP
certified.
He
was
smog
certified.
He
had
an
17
eight
bay,
seven
hoist
­­
the
reason
was
he
didn't
18
appropriately
mitigate
the
outcome.

19
At
best,
there's
possibly
$
300
worth
of
money
20
involved
in
this
whole
process.
And
California
eliminates
21
small
business
people
just
straight
up
and
basically
says
22
you
have
no
opportunity
to
do
business
in
California.

23
This
is
a
person
who
maintained
cars,
keeps
them
from
24
becoming
broken,
sets
standards.
He's
impacting
the
air.

25
And
we
just
put
him
out
of
business,
and
I
am
trying
to
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
13
1
find
out
how
to
appropriately
mitigate
an
issue
like
this.

2
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Charlie,
your
time
is
up.

3
MR.
PETERS:
Thank
you
very
much.

4
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.
We
appreciate
it.

5
I
guess
I
was
looking
from
a
different
list
here
6
than
I
should
have.
John
White.
I
saw
John
make
a
7
fleeting
appearance.
And
then
Doug
Korthof,
and
William
8
Korthof.

9
John,
do
you
want
to?

10
MR.
DOUG
KORTHOF:
Dough
Korthof
from
Seal
Beach.

11
I
first
want
to
say
that
I
think
everybody
is
in
favor
of
12
clean
air.
Everybody
agrees
on
this.
The
only
question
13
is
how
to
get
there.
So
I
think
we
have
everybody
here
14
honestly
on
that
footing.
I
wan
to
also
point
out
in
15
response
to
Dr.
Burke's
observation
that
there
are
only
16
two
or
three
supporters
of
the
staff
report.

17
In
fact,
a
lot
of
people
due
to
the
wording
18
listed
themselves
of
the
staff
report
when
they
meant
to
19
say
supporters
of
the
ZEV
mandate.
So
yesterday,
during
20
the
whole
thing,
not
one
person
supported
the
staff
21
recommendation.
That
is,
if
it
meant
cutting
down
on
22
battery
powered
electric
vehicles,
no
one
outside
the
23
automakers.

24
Now,
some
want
­­
so
I
just
wanted
to
point
that
25
out.
Some
want
you
to
buy
the
fuel
cells.
Perhaps
fuel
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
14
1
cell
vehicles
will
become
practical
sometime
in
the
2
future.
Perhaps
not.
It's
an
economic
and
an
3
infrastructure
problem.
But
solar
electric
roof
top
4
systems
and
battery
electric
vehicles
allow
us
to
live
oil
5
free
right
now.
So
I
wanted
to
support
and
extend
Tom
6
Gauge's
point
That
we
need
to
cut
down
on
gasoline
7
consumption.
Not
everyone
has
to
do
so.

8
Please
let
those
of
us
that
choose
to
do
so
9
enable
us
to
do
it,
please.

10
The
only
good
faith
effort
so
far
in
this
11
marketing
was
Toyota.
They
actually
sold
a
car
to
12
somebody
who
wanted
to
buy.
Everybody
else
played
games.

13
During
a
magical
six
month
window
they
abandoned
14
the
tricks
and
devices
and
honestly
offered
an
EV
to
those
15
willing
to
spend
the
money.
That's
free
market.
And
no
16
one
else
did
that.

17
Voluntary,
does
not
work
with
these
automakers.

18
They
bully
the
drivers.
They
confiscate
our
cars.

19
They've
taken
out
two
of
our
cars
and
they
won't
give
them
20
back.
They're
going
to
do
something
else
with
them.

21
They're
going
to
break
them
up.
This
is
not
what
we
want.

22
And
they're
gaming
the
system
with
PZEV
credits.

23
They're
laughing
at
you
when
you
say
require
PZEV
credits,

24
multiple
PZEV
credits.
They
laugh
at
you.
These
thinks
25
are
multiplying
like
quarks
and
masons,
blue
quarks,
queen
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
15
1
quarks.

2
They
did
the
letter
of
the
memorandum
of
3
understanding
nothing
more.
They
did
not
create.
They
4
laughed
at
us.
They
said
we
did
not
create
a
viable
5
program.
All
we
did
was
put
a
certain
amount
of
the
cars
6
on
the
road
and
then
we
took
them
back.

7
Remember
when
Volkswagen's
multiplied
in
the
60s,

8
because
they
put
them
out
and
everybody
bought
one,
and
9
they
didn't
breakdown.
That's
the
way
these
should
be.

10
Instead,
they
put
them
out,
everybody
loves
them
and
they
11
take
them
back.
That's
not
productive.

12
So
I
propose
three
things.
First
of
all,
get
rid
13
of
the
PZEV
system,
this
system
of
multiple,
hard
to
14
understand
permission.
Get
rid
of
all
that.

15
Very
simple
program,
enable
one
dealer,
not
16
everybody,
just
one
EV
to
come
out
during
this
blackout
17
period.
Just
one
EV.
Give
us
one,
like
the
Toyota
EV
18
Plus.
They
can
open
that
line.
They've
told
me.
The
19
line
is
there.
We
can
open
it.
We
just
don't
have
to
20
because
CARB's
not
making
us.
That's
the
second
point.

21
Sell
the
car
to
anybody
who
wants
to
buy
it.

22
Give
us
the
free
market,
for
once,
please.
Enable
other
23
manufacturers
to
fulfill
their
ZEV
requirements
by
buying
24
ZEV
credits
to
supply
the
RAV4
EV
to
those
of
low
income
25
in
areas
that
are
impacted
by
bad
air.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
16
1
There
are
so
many
people
when
I
drive
down
the
2
streets
of
Los
Angeles.
I
was
pulled
over
on
the
10
3
freeway
by
somebody
who
said
how
do
I
get
one
of
those.

4
When
I
pulled
into
a
gang
area,
the
gang
members
came
5
over.
Were
they
going
to
shoot
me?
No,
they
said
how
is
6
that
electric?
How
can
I
get
one?

7
When
I
was
driving
the
street,
they
guys
with
8
bandannas
came
over
next
to
me,
pull
up
next
to
me.
I
9
figured
oh,
here
I
am.
I'm
dead.
There's
the
uzi,
right?

10
No.
Hey,
what's
that
man?
It's
electric.

11
These
they
all
know.
And
when
I
tell
them
that
12
you
can't
have
it
because
they
oil
companies
are
stopping
13
it,
they
know
what
I
mean.
They
know
that
the
oil
14
companies
are
conspiring
with
the
auto
companies
to
stop
15
us
from
getting
electric
cars.
They
believe
it,
whether
16
it's
true
or
not.

17
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Can
you
wrap
up
because
18
you've
gone
three
minutes,
three
and
a
half
minutes.

19
MR.
DOUG
KORTHOF:
Thank
you,
sir.

20
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much.
And
we
21
appreciate
that.

22
John
White,
William
Korthof,
Lisa
Rosen.

23
MR.
WHITE:
Mr.
Chairman
and
Members,
good
24
morning.
My
name
is
John
White.
And
I'm
proud
to
be
here
25
representing
the
Sierra
Club.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
17
1
And
I
have
had
the
honor
and
the
privilege
of
2
appearing
before
this
Board
on
this
issue
going
back
to
3
the
original
adoption.
And
I
want
to
reflect
a
little
bit
4
on
sort
of
where
we've
come
and
where
we
still
need
to
go.

5
First
of
all
though,
I'd
like
to
really
thank
the
6
Board
and
the
staff
for
a
terrific
process
under
very
7
difficult
and
trying
circumstances.
I
think
we
have
had,

8
speaking
as
a
member
of
the
environmental
community,
very
9
very
good
opportunities
to
present
our
views,
good
10
opportunities
to
hear
from
the
Board
what
it
was
thinking
11
as
it
was
developing
its
plans,
particularly
the
staff.

12
You
have,
as
you
know,
the
best
staff
in
the
13
world
on
these
subjects.
And
they
have
performed
14
admirably.
Even
when
we
disagreed,
it's
been
a
good
open
15
honest
straightforward
thing.
I
also
note
that
the
Board
16
members
have
themselves
put
an
enormous
amount
of
time
17
into
this.

18
I've
tried
not
to
burden
all
of
you
with
as
many
19
meetings
as
I
might
have
liked
to
have.
But
I
know
you
20
all
have
met
and
thought
and
deliberated,
spent
time
in
21
Detroit,
spent
time
with
the
manufacturers,
really
22
struggled
to
make
this
thing
work.

23
And
Mr.
Chairman,
your
leadership
is
very
much
24
appreciated
in
the
overall
calm
and
deliberate
manner
that
25
you
bring
to
bear
on
quite
contentious
and
difficult
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
18
1
issues.

2
I
wish
our
friends
in
the
auto
industry
had
been
3
really
as
engaged
in
this
process
in
a
constructive
way
as
4
I
wish
they
had
been.
I
think
there
has
been
too
much
5
litigation
and
too
much
of
an
attempt
to
really
avoid
the
6
debate
here
in
California.

7
People
have
gone
to
Court
and
sought
to
impede
8
the
flexibility
that
you
have
sought
to
give
them
under
9
the
most
unusual
interpretations.

10
This
is
the
law
that
I
put
up
here.

11
(
Thereupon
an
overhead
presentation
was
12
Presented
as
follows.)

13
MR.
WHITE:
Section
43018
of
the
California
Clean
14
Air
Act.
It
was
pass
in
1988,
and
it
gave
this
Board
and
15
this
staff
the
authority,
under
which
it
has
proceeded.

16
And
some
of
the
issues
that
we're
talking
about
I
wanted
17
to
touch
on
that
are
still
­­
that
have
been
raised
in
the
18
last
couple
of
days.
I
know
you've
had
a
lot
of
19
presentations.
I
don't
want
to
take
a
lot
of
time.

20
On
the
issue
of
the
hybrids,
and
the
AT
PZEVs.

21
The
rationale
that
my
friend
and
colleague
Roland
Hwang
22
put
together
about
the
link
to
the
zero
fuel
cell
platform
23
is
very
important.
But
let's
remember
that
the
hybrids
24
also
give
us
upstream
emission
reductions
NMOG
and
toxics.

25
And
those
are
very
important
reductions
that
we
don't
have
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
19
1
another
way
to
get.
And
they're
very
consistent
with
the
2
statute.

3
The
second
thing
is
I'm
surprised
that,
you
know,

4
we
have
so
much
PR
floating
around
on
these
issues
with
5
our
friends
from
General
Motors,
with
all
of
the
­­
I
6
remember
they
were
very
much
involved
with
PR
at
the
time
7
we
did
the
ZEV
mandate
with
the
electric
vehicle
and
8
making
a
lot
of
statements
in
the
press
and
so
forth,
and
9
raising
people's
expectations.

10
They
have
done
that
with
fuel
cells.
And
we're
11
glad
to
see
their
enthusiasm.
But
they
also
have
a
hybrid
12
presentation
they've
given
their
shareholders.
I'd
like
13
to
leave
with
the
Board
an
excerpt
from
the
annual
report
14
of
General
Motors
regarding
the
hybrid
vehicles
that
15
they're
offering.

16
And
that
one
of
the
reasons,
in
addition
to
fuel
17
savings,
is
low
pollution.
So
the
rationale
for
hybrids
18
isn't
fuel
economy,
at
least
in
California.
It's
19
pollution.
And
you're
on
firm
ground
here
along
with
the
20
link
to
zero.

21
On
the
remaining
issues
before
you,
I
know
that
22
it
is
a
difficult
decision.
And
I
know
there's
a
lot
of
23
disappointing
among
the
supporters
of
battery
electrics
at
24
the
changes
you're
making
with
regard
to
the
hybrid
25
compliance
in
the
near
term.
And
there's
good
reason
for
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
20
1
people
to
want
fresh
credits.
There's
good
reason
to
want
2
things
to
have
turned
out
differently
with
respect
to
the
3
credits.

4
But,
in
fact,
to
think
they've
turned
out
as
they
5
have,
these
adjustments
you're
making,
we
think
on
6
balance,
with
respect
to
the
hybrid
near
term
make
sense.

7
However,
two
things
trouble
us
about
the
proposal
8
as
it's
before
you.
And
I
say
that
knowing
that
many
of
9
the
criticism
level
against
the
auto
industry
about
10
marketing
of
battery
electrics
and
so
forth
have
a
lot
of
11
truth
in
them.
And
yet
we've
also
seen
the
recent
12
experience
with
Toyota,
and,
you
know,
there
are
some
13
lessens
here.
And
I
think
the
success
of
the
ZEV
mandate
14
is
why
we're
here
to
talk
about
hybrids
being
so
doable.

15
We
wouldn't
be
there
without
the
battery
electric
16
vehicles
having
given
us
the
hybrids.
We
wouldn't
be
17
talking
about
electric
drive
with
fuel
cells
without
that
18
platform.
So
those
are
a
very
important
platform
and
19
there's
future
opportunities
to
fill
into
the
fleet
with
20
them,
which
your
rule
apparently
is
going
to
provide
for.

21
But
two
things
remain
missing.
One
is
the
role
22
of
the
independent
expert
panel
needs
to
be
carefully
23
narrowed
and
constrained
and
not
be
given
a
policy
making
24
role
and
not
taking
the
job
of
this
board.
This
is
your
25
decision
to
set
numbers
as
their
helpfulness
to
give
you
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
21
1
independent
advice
on
key
technical
matters.

2
Conflicts
are
going
to
be
important
to
watch
with
3
those
people.
And
the
role
of
the
fuel
cell
partnership
4
is
going
to
need
to
be
opened
up
and
made
a
little
more
5
accountable.
There's
got
to
be
more
governance
and
6
participation
by
the
NGOs.
So
you've
got
to
narrow
that
7
responsibility
some.

8
And
the
second
thing
is
that
we
just
have
to
9
have,
as
my
colleagues
have
pointed
out,
commitments
for
10
zero
after
2008.
Now,
with
those
numbers
my
friend
Jason
11
Mark
has
a
very
modest
proposal,
more
modest
than
the
one
12
that
we
put
forward.
And
I
leave
that
to
your
good
wisdom
13
what
the
actual
numbers
should
be.

14
But
if
you
look
at
what
we're
seeing
around
the
15
world,
Japan
and
the
EC,
and
some
of
the
other
16
presentations
the
automakers
are
making,
you're
well
17
within
safe
grounds
to
get
into
the
health
five
figures
in
18
the
next
decade.

19
So
you
pick
the
numbers,
but
be
sure
there's
20
numbers
there
or
this
mandate
dies
today.
And
I
don't
21
think
that's
what
you
want.
So
we
would
commend
all
of
22
the
fine
work
that
your
staff
has
done
and
the
comments
of
23
other
folks
on
the
record.
But
I
think
those
are
the
two
24
points
that
I
really
wanted
to
emphasize.

25
And
also
really
to
thank
you
all
for
the
work
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
22
1
that
you've
done
and
for
the
staff's
work
as
well.
And
we
2
have
disagreements
still
that
I'm
sure
we'll
end
up
with,

3
but
we're
committed
to
working
with
you
going
forward
to
4
make
this
a
continuing
success
as
we
go
forward
into
the
5
next
round.

6
Thank
you.

7
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you,
John.
Thank
you
8
for
your
real
constructive
hope
over
again
these
months,

9
and
helping
us
­­
reminding
us
of
our
mission
and
what
we
10
need
to
do.

11
Thank
you
very
much.

12
BOARD
MEMBER
BURKE:
Mr.
Chairman.

13
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Yes,
Dr.
Burke.

14
BOARD
MEMBER
BURKE:
Before
Mr.
White
leaves,
I'd
15
like
for
him
to
know
that
two
years
ago
­­
I'm
not
big
16
into
demonizing
industry,
because
we
all
make
a
living
one
17
way
or
another.
And
I
absolutely
am
not
into
demonizing
18
the
legal
process,
because
we
all
­­
that's
what
America's
19
about
is
we
all
have
justice
under
the
system.

20
Two
years
ago,
a
major
car
manufacturer
came
to
21
South
Coast
and
said
to
us,
the
largest
concentration
of
22
automotive
pollution
in
the
state
of
California
is
in
the
23
South
Coast
district.
We
think
that
this
should
be
a
test
24
area
to
control
emissions
from
cars.

25
And
we
should
have
­­
we
have,
our
engineers
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
23
1
have,
some
creative
ideas
on
how
to
do
that.
We
are
2
willing
to
give
you
$
200
million
to
operate
this
test
3
project.
Dr.
Wallerstein
approached
CARB
and
approached
4
Mike.
Mike
says
no,
you
can't
take
the
money.
You
can't
5
do
the
project,
because
the
ZEV
mandate
is
going
to
work
6
and
we're
going
to
make
sure
it
works.

7
Now,
here
we
are
this
morning
losing
in
court,

8
losing
the
momentum
of
our
ZEV
mandate,
and
I
don't
have
9
$
200
million.
You
know,
that's
a
tragedy,
because
we
10
don't
know
what
we
might
have
found
to
be
able
to
do
in
11
these
last
two
years
to
enhance
the
efforts
of
CARB
if,
in
12
fact,
that
experimental
project
had
been
established.

13
And
all
my
friends
who
are
driving
electric
cars
14
and
all
those
companies
in
South
Coast
who
have
electric
15
fleets
might
today
be
adding
augmentation
to
that
instead
16
of
having
to
travel
all
this
way
to
fight
for
what
17
currently
is
less
than
gross.

18
So,
you
know,
everybody
has
a
position
here.
You
19
know,
I
don't
think
the
car
companies
are
without
fault
or
20
without
merit.
You
know,
and
I
know
the
consumers
and
the
21
agencies
are
not
without
fault
or
without
merit.

22
So
I
just
wanted
to
let
you
know
that
some
things
23
have
happened
that,
you
know,
the
public
may
not
be
aware
24
of.

25
MR.
WHITE:
Mr.
Chairman,
may
I
respond.
Dr.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
24
1
Burke,
I
think
it's
important
for
me
to
be
understood
at
2
least,
that
I
don't
think
this
­­

3
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Excuse
me,
John.

4
I'm
having
a
little
trouble
hearing
you.

5
MR.
WHITE:
I'm
sorry.
I
was
just
going
to
say,

6
I
actually
don't
think
this
is
a
dire
situation
in
the
way
7
you
describe.
I
think
we're
gaining
more
than
we're
8
losing.
We
are
making
a
mid­
course
adjustment
and
we
are
9
moving
forward
in
ways
that
we
could
have
never
10
envisioned.

11
When
we
did
this
in
1990,
there
wasn't
any
PZEV.

12
There
wasn't
any
SULEV.
We
were
arguing
about
ULEV
and
13
TLEV,
okay.
And
we've
made
that
happen.
So
I
think
the
14
program
in
emission's
terms
has
been
successful.
I
also
15
think
that
the
adjustment
you're
making
today,
if
you
make
16
the
right
ones,
and
if
you
keep
the
commitment
to
zero
and
17
allow
some
of
these
accelerated
improvements
and
hybrids
18
to
occur,
is
going
to
lead
us
to
success,
but
you
have
to
19
keep
the
path
clear.
And
at
the
same
time,
we
have
to
be
20
open
to
dialogue.
I
think
the
fact
is
we've
got
more
21
consensus
now
than
we
had
four
years
ago,
in
the
last
22
discussion
here.

23
Now,
some
of
the
parties
aren't
here.
Some
of
24
them
are
in
court
or
offering
side
deals.
But
in
the
end,

25
overall
progress
is
being
made
provided
we
don't
lose
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
25
1
sight
of
the
need
to
still
set
the
ambitious
goals.

2
So
I'm
not
as
unhappy
as
it
may
sound
except
that
3
we're
trying
to
make
things
work
better,
and
I
think
this
4
Board
has
shown
a
lot
of
creativity
and
imagination
in
5
making
us
move
forward.

6
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.

7
We
have
William
Korthof,
LIsa
Rosen,
Jerry
8
Pohorsky.

9
MR.
WILLIAM
KORTHOF:
William
Korthof.
I
live
in
10
Pomona
in
the
South
Coast
Air
Quality
District.
And
let's
11
see
I'm
a
RAV4
electric
vehicle
driver
right
now
as
well.

12
I
work
at
AC
Propulsion
for
two
years.
I
13
presently
run
a
solar
installation
business.
And
I
wanted
14
to
speak
today
to
strongly
oppose
the
staff
15
recommendations,
because
I
think
they're
a
significant
16
step
backward
for
the
ZEV
mandate,
and
the
progress
that's
17
been
underway
for
13
years
now.

18
The
proposed
revisions
would
result
in
the
ZEV
19
blackout,
but
not
just
a
ZEV
blackout
but
pretty
much
an
20
end
to
the
ZEV
program
as
we
know
it.
And
the
only
ZEVs
21
that
will
happen
in
the
future,
will
have
to
come
from
22
third
party
sources.

23
We're
not
going
to
have
a
meeting
in
eight
year's
24
time
where
the
car
companies
decide
that
they
want
to
25
start
building
fuel
cell
vehicles
in
quantities.
Once
we
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
26
1
look
at
the
costs
and
say
gee
for
$
500,000
or
$
400,000
or
2
$
200,000
we
could
build
these
expensive
laboratory
3
experiments
on
wheels.
It
just
isn't
going
to
happen.

4
So
if
we
put
off
the
idea
of
actually
building
5
vehicles
that
are
actually
going
to
be
marketable,
that
6
consumers
actually
want
to
be
driving.
If
we
put
that
off
7
until
some
nebulous
date
in
the
future,
it's
just
not
8
going
to
happen.
And
the
press
is
already
in
that
CARB
is
9
playing
to
pull
the
plug.
This
sets
a
bad
precedent
for
10
regulatory
continuity.

11
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Nothing
has
happened
until
12
this
Board
acts.

13
MR.
WILLIAM
KORTHOF:
That's
correct,
but
the
14
press
is
already
in
on
this.
The
press
has
already
voiced
15
the
story
that
the
staff
proposal
is
to
eliminate
the
ZEV
16
component
of
the
ZEV
mandate
to
basically
make
zero
zero
17
emission
vehicles.

18
So
unless
this
Board
makes
a
decision
in
this
19
hearing
or
in
the
next
hearing
or
very
soon
that
the
20
requirements
for
zero
emission
vehicles
is
solid
and
21
intact
and
that's
still
the
intent
of
the
program
with
22
serious
numbers
of
vehicles,
that's
not
what
the
public
is
23
going
to
see.
The
story
is
already
out
that
ZEVs
are
24
done.

25
So
we
have
to
­­
if
they're
not
done,
we
need
to
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
27
1
make
some
change
in
course.

2
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
That's
the
purpose
of
this
3
hearing.

4
MR.
WILLIAM
KORTHOF:
From
my
perspective
and
5
from
people
that
I
contact,
customers,
ZEVs
are
market
6
ready.
Now
is
the
time.
I
don't
have
a
second
vehicle.

7
I
have
a
RAV4
EV
and
that's
my
only
car.
I
drive
8
approximately
up
to
3,000
miles
a
month.
So
I'm
actually
9
a
very
high
mileage
driver.
I
drive
all
over
the
LA
10
basin.

11
As
I
say,
I
don't
have
a
second
vehicle.
And
my
12
routine
is
not
a
regular
commute
pattern,
with
a
known
13
start
and
endpoint.
So
I
know
if
I
can
make
it
work
for
14
myself,
there's
quite
a
range
of
commuters
with
regular
15
patterns
that
are
going
to
be
able
to
make
it
work.

16
I
wanted
to
comment
on
the
ZEV
market
demand.

17
The
RAV4,
as
Toyota
pointed
out,
if
you
just
took
their
18
data
in
their
own
quote
from
their
presentation,
they
19
marketed
300
units
in
the
first
in
the
retail
market.

20
They
essentially
closed
down
the
fleet
market
21
during
that
time
window,
so
we
know
that
there's
a
22
capability
for
them
to
market
300
vehicles
at
the
price
of
23
a
brand
new
Lexus
SUV.
So,
you
know,
down
the
road
if
we
24
said
well,
that
was
one
manufacturer
selling
at
a
limited
25
number
of
dealerships,
with
a
limited
number
of
sales
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
28
1
people
that
were
motivated
at
a
high,
essentially
a
luxury
2
car
price,
using
1996
technology
vehicles,
1996
battery
3
technology.

4
You
add
that
to
the
fleet
market
for
postal
5
vehicles
that
Ford
has
demonstrated
that
they
can
place
6
vehicles
into
the
postal
service,
those
are
EPac
compliant
7
vehicles,
an
aggressive
marketing
program
could
meet
both
8
Ford's
desire
to
place
vehicles
for
it's
cafe
purposes,

9
it's
desire
to
get
some
alternative
fuel
vehicles
onto
the
10
road,
and
also
the
postal
­­

11
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Can
you
summarize,
please.

12
MR.
WILLIAM
KORTHOF:
As
I
see
it,
there's
a
13
demand
for
at
least
1,000
vehicles
per
year.
Without
a
14
mandate
that
forces
production
quantities
that
are
in
that
15
rough
order
of
magnitude,
the
market
for
ZEVs
will
not
be
16
satisfied.
And
the
ability
For
the
market
to
mature
and
17
grow
will
not
be
met.
So
I
propose
at
least
1,000
18
vehicles
per
year
of
production,
approximately,
of
19
placement
credits
through
2006
to
2010
timeframe.
So
the
20
way
to
get
there
would
be,
I
propose
­­

21
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.

22
Lisa
Rosen.
Jerry
Porhorsky,
and
Ed
Heustis.

23
MS.
ROSEN:
Thank
you.
I'm
pleased
to
be
here
24
and
appreciate
your
patience.

25
As
the
complexity
of
this
measure
grows
to
nearly
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
29
1
200
pages,
the
probability
of
more
lawsuits
and
loopholes
2
increases.
Don't
for
any
measure
that
you
can't
fully
3
understand.
Clarity
and
simplicity
are
not
just
virtues,

4
they're
essential
for
any
kind
of
fair
legal
enforcement.

5
I
believe
that
the
success
of
the
battery
6
electric
program
is
not
just
the
numbers
on
the
road
which
7
are
small,
but
that
it's
been
a
catalyst
to
driving
all
8
kinds
of
automotive
development
and
progress.
And
how
9
many
of
these
programs
will
continue
if
the
force
driving
10
it
is
gutted.

11
As
the
electric
vehicles
are
removed
from
12
service,
the
benefits
of
the
program
are
lost.
Demand
13
grows
when
people
who
see
one
want
one.

14
I
spoke
to
sales
people
who'd
sold
50
or
more
of
15
these
vehicles,
and
the
sales
grew
slowly.
They
were
16
fueled
by
word
of
mouth.
The
sales
people
that
I
talked
17
to
commented
that
there
was
in
deed
a
marketing
program,

18
but
it
seemed
to
have
nothing
whatsoever
to
do
with
the
19
actual
sales
and
placements
they
made.
That
particular
20
market
as
grown
by
word
of
mouth
and
presentations
at
21
public
functions,
environmental
things.
Those
were
the
22
only
sources
of
customers
that
they
noted.

23
But
it
was
as
if
the
cars
were
going
out
and
24
selling
themselves.
If
there
were
no
cars
of
this
kind,

25
they
can't
go
out
and
sell
themselves.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
30
1
One
of
the
sales
people
in
fact
went
so
far
as
2
part
of
her
MBA
program
to
go
and
design,
redesign
her
own
3
marketing
program
that
she
felt
might
more
effectively
4
address
the
actual
markets
out
there.

5
I
did
note
and
think
passing
that
none
of
the
6
manufacturers
seemed
willing
to
embark
on
a
Corvette
like
7
program
in
which
a
company
supports
a
high
quality
product
8
that
loses
money
for
them
in
order
to
enhance
the
9
company's
image
and
provide
a
vehicle
to
people
who
are
10
really
hardcore
enthusiasts,
which
is
what
we
seem
to
have
11
here.

12
The
sales
people
that
I
talked
to
indicated
that
13
particularly
given
the
mad
rush
at
the
end
to
buy
14
vehicles,
which
wasn't
reflected,
I
believe,
in
Mary
15
Nickerson's
figures.
Her
figures
did
not
reflect
the
last
16
four
weeks
of
sales.
I
believe
and
these
sales
people
17
certainly
believe
that
they
could
double
their
sales
to
18
members
of
the
general
public,
not
to
mention
any
kind
of
19
fleet
sales,
which
weren't
included,
if
they
had
another
20
year
of
program
to
go.

21
And
there
was
also
the
comment
not
only
from
22
those
sales
but
from
a
Gem
salesperson
that
we
ended
up
23
talking
to
that
if
there
is
no
mandate
requiring
it,
no
24
one
is
going
to
engage
in
production.

25
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Can
you
summarizes,
please.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
31
1
MS.
ROSEN:
I'm
thinking
of
the
Alchemists
during
2
the
middle
ages
and
their
pursuit
of
transmuting
base
3
metal
into
gold.
I
think
that
you
can
do
it.
In
the
end
4
human
being
technology
did
concur
that
and
they
produced
5
gold
in
linear
accelerators.
But
I
think
that
the
pursuit
6
of
the
fuel
cell
is
rather
like
that.

7
My
proposals
would
be
to
stick
with
a
flexible
8
result
driven
mandate.
Anytime,
you
specify
a
number
of
9
particular
technologies
that
you
have
to
produce,
I
think
10
you're
going
to
blunder
into
more
lawsuits.

11
I
think,
though,
that
if
you
have
a
policy
that
12
favors
existing
technology
that
already
works,
you're
more
13
likely
to
get
results.
And
I
think
battery
electrics
do
14
that.

15
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.

16
MS.
ROSEN:
And
I
believe
you
could
also
17
encourage
one
manufacturer
or
set
it
up
so
that
one
18
manufacturer
could
meet
the
mandate
for
all
of
them
if
19
they
cooperated
as
they
have
in
the
fuel
cell
process.

20
Thank
you.

21
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.

22
Jerry
Pohorsky,
Ed
Heustis,
Greg
Hanssen,
Bill
23
Mason.

24
MR.
POHORSKY:
Good
morning,
Dr.
Lloyd
and
staff
25
members
and
board
members.
I'm
Jerry
Pohorsky,
a
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
32
1
professional
problem
solver,
and
I
have
a
solution
to
your
2
problem.

3
In
the
interests
of
time,
I've
cut
my
testimony
4
in
half.
However,
you've
been
provided
with
the
rest
of
5
the
story.

6
While
I'm
a
delighted
EV1
driver
today,
my
7
delight
will
change
to
disappointment
in
July
when
my
8
lease
expires.
This
is
happened
to
many
EV
drivers
9
already,
and
that's
why
I'm
calling
EVs
an
endangered
10
species.
Actually,
we're
all
endangered
by
the
toxic
11
fumes
that
come
from
petroleum
powered
vehicles.

12
(
Thereupon
an
overhead
presentation
was
13
Presented
as
follows.)

14
MR.
POHORSKY:
I'm
going
to
skip
over
this
slide.

15
How
can
we
make
sure
ZEVs
survive.
Let's
strengthen
the
16
mandate.
CARB
said
that
10
percent
of
new
cars
sales
must
17
be
ZEVs.
Looking
at
this
the
other
way,
this
means
that
18
90
percent
of
new
cars
sold
will
still
be
polluting
the
19
air.
Weakening
the
mandate,
drives
that
number
closer
to
20
100
percent.

21
My
proposal
eliminates
the
need
for
an
22
alternative
compliance
path
and
gives
you
real
numbers
of
23
ZEVs
that
are
easy
to
understand
and
easy
to
enforce.
ZEV
24
credits
should
be
reserved
for
vehicles
that
have
either
25
zero
emissions
or
a
category
known
as
ILEV,
Inherently
Low
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
33
1
Emission
Vehicles.

2
This
is
the
same
standard
used
to
determine
which
3
single
occupant
vehicle's
are
allowed
to
use
the
carpool
4
lanes
during
commute
hours.
There
is
a
list
of
qualified
5
ILEVs
on
your
web
site.
This
list
includes
natural
gas
6
and
propane
powered
vehicles
from
most
of
the
major
auto
7
makers.
And
this
is
the
alternative
compliance
path.

8
None
of
the
current
production
hybrids
or
PZEVs
9
are
in
the
ILEV
category.

10
­­
o0o­­

11
MR.
POHORSKY:
It
seems
that
most
of
the
recent
12
changes
to
the
mandate
have
been
designed
to
ease
the
13
burden
on
the
automakers.
While
this
helps
maximize
their
14
profitability,
it
has
also
resulted
in
the
endangered
15
species
problem
that
we're
facing
today.

16
Please,
reevaluate
your
priorities.
You're
part
17
of
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
not
the
Corporate
18
Profit
Protection
Agency.
The
automakers
should
be
held
19
in
contempt
of
CARB.

20
The
public
deserves
the
right
to
be
able
to
go
21
into
any
dealer's
showroom
and
order
a
zero
emissions
22
vehicle.
The
process
should
not
be
anymore
difficult
or
23
intimidating
than
ordering
any
other
new
car
or
truck.

24
­­
o0o­­

25
MR.
POHORSKY:
We
all
know
that
affordable
fuel
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
34
1
cell
vehicles
are
at
least
a
decade
away,
and
that
the
EV
2
is
already
developed
to
a
satisfactory
degree.
I'm
3
perfectly
happy
with
my
1997
EV1.
GM
doesn't
need
to
4
spend
another
dime
developing
it.
All
they
need
to
do
is
5
keep
collecting
the
monthly
payments.

6
Which
would
you
prefer?
Would
you
rather
see
me
7
driving
a
ZEV
for
two
more
years
or
should
I
just
lineup
8
at
the
gasoline
pump
like
everybody
else
with
a
PZEV.

9
­­
o0o­­

10
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Can
you
bring
this
to
a
11
conclusion.

12
MR.
POHORSKY:
I'm
working
on
it.
Even
if
ZEV
13
credits
were
issued
for
release
the
MOA
vehicles,
it
14
appears
a
significant
shortfall
of
ZEVs
could
occur
if
the
15
mandate
required
the
full
10
percent
in
the
near
term.

16
And
I'm
not
talking
2005,
I'm
talking
now.

17
Some
of
this
shortfall
could
be
met
with
natural
18
gas,
propane
and
ILEV
hybrid
cars
that
I
recommended.
So
19
what
I'm
saying
is
any
hybrid
should
be
either
propane
20
hybrid
or
natural
gas
hybrid.
We
don't
need
any
gasoline
21
hybrids,
because
none
of
the
manufactures
have
even
22
started
making
a
plug­
in
hybrid
yet.
You
might
as
well
23
start
them
out
with
a
clean
full.
Why
make
them
use
24
gasoline?

25
­­
o0o­­

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
35
1
MR.
POHORSKY:
Okay.
Here's
my
10
percent.
If
2
you
want
to
look
behind
I've
got
it
there.
The
top
two
3
percent
could
be
either
fuel
cells
or
BEVs,
alternate
4
compliance
path.
Any
mix
works
for
me.
Two
percent,
keep
5
it
Gold.
The
next
four
percent
could
be
either
gold.
You
6
could
fill
the
whole
six
percent
up
with
gold
if
you
want.

7
If
you
can't
do
that,
okay,
give
me
some
CNG
cars.
Honda
8
has
one.
They're
working
with
fuel
maker
of
Canada
for
a
9
home
fueling
device.

10
Bronze
category,
this
is
the
propane.
So
on
your
11
ILEV
list,
there's
a
bunch
of
propane
cars
in
there.

12
They're
not
getting
any
ZEV
credits.
Rather
than
See
13
hybrids
or
PZEVs
get
credits,
forget
that
noise,
let's
get
14
some
of
these
other
clean
technologies
that
are
already
15
acknowledged
by
you
as
being
clean
enough
to
go
into
the
16
carpool
lane.

17
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.
I've
got
to
cut
18
you
off
please.
We've
got
you
on
time.

19
Thank
you
very
much.
We've
got
the
proposal.

20
Maybe
staff
can
take
a
look
at
that.

21
Ed
Heustis?

22
Greg
Hanssen,
Bill
Mason,
Tom
Dowling,
Dan
23
Santini.

24
MR.
HANSSEN:
Good
morning,
Dr.
Lloyd
and
25
distinguished
members
of
the
Board.
My
name
is
Greg
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
36
1
Hanssen.
I'm
with
the
Production
Electric
Vehicles
2
Drivers
Coalition.
We
represent
over
200
people
who
are
3
driving
or
at
least
recently
drove
production
electric
4
vehicles
in
California,
and
some
beyond.

5
I
had
some
cute
stories
about
my
EV1
which
I
just
6
lost
on
Wednesday,
and
my
efforts
to
save
the
EV1.
We
had
7
80
people
trying
to
write
letters
to
save
the
EV1
to
8
extend
the
leases
and
keep
the
cars
on
the
road
without
9
warrantee,
but
GM
turned
us
down.
I
also
had
some
stories
10
about
my
RAV4,
which
was
­­
or
at
least
the
trials
And
11
tribulations
of
trying
to
obtain
my
RAV4,
but
I'm
going
to
12
skip
over
that
and
go
right
to
our
proposal
from
the
13
Production
EV
Drivers
Coalition.

14
We've
got
basically
three
things
that
we'd
like
15
to
see
in
this
resolution
this
afternoon.
Many
of
these
16
are
in
line
with
things
that
members
of
the
Board
have
17
suggested,
and
proposals
that
have
been
made
by
our
18
colleagues
in
the
environmental
community
on
the
19
utilities.

20
First
and
foremost,
we
agree
with
staff's
21
proposal
to
split
the
alternate
compliance
path
between
22
battery
technologies
and
fuel
cell
technologies.
We
23
believe
the
goal
should
be
to
have
3,000
to
5,000
battery
24
technology
vehicles
on
the
road
during
this
2001
to
2008
25
timeframe.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
37
1
We
believe
that
this
split
between
battery
2
technology
and
fuel
cell
technology
must
be
a
requirement.

3
There
must
a
floor
requirement
for
battery
technology
and
4
for
a
fuel
cell
technology.
I
don't
think
there's
any
5
doubt
that
fuel
cell
technology
will
continue
rolling
on.

6
But
for
those
of
us
who
drive
EVs,
we
have
grave
concerns
7
about
whether
battery
technology
will
continue.

8
We
see
a
huge
market
for
full
function
battery
9
electric
vehicles,
which
can
share
the
same
platform
with
10
fuel
cell
vehicles,
city
electric
vehicles
and
plug­
in
11
hybrid
vehicles.
And
we
believe
all
should
be
considered
12
in
this
battery
requirement
within
the
compliance
path.

13
Second,
we'd
like
to
see
additional
credits
for
14
pre­
2001
vehicles
to
be
brought
back
on
to
the
record.

15
This
is
MOA
vehicles,
out­
of­
state
vehicles
and
other
used
16
vehicles,
because
we
have
a
definite
shortfall
of
17
blackout,
if
you
will,
between
2003
and
2005
or
6,
even
18
with
a
battery
requirement.
And
anything
that
can
be
done
19
to
encourage
these
vehicles
to
stay
on
the
road
would
be
20
very
helpful.
I
think
credits
within
this
ultimate
21
compliance
path
might
be
able
to
achieve
that.

22
Finally,
I
think
there
should
be
some
sort
of
23
additional
credits,
maybe
a
multiplier
credit
of
say
20
24
percent
or
so
for
vehicles
that
are
offered
for
sale
or
25
for
open
lease.
So
we
can
avoid
the
problem
that
many
of
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
38
1
our
drivers
have
had
of
having
their
vehicles
taken
from
2
them.

3
We're
not
going
to
require
people
to
sell
4
vehicles.
Of
course,
it's
their
discretion.
But
we'd
5
like
to
have
an
incentive
for
companies
like
Toyota
who
6
have
made
the
RAV4
available
for
sale
and
open
lease.
I
7
should
also
point
out
that
in
our
goal
to
try
and
8
encourage
all
the
automakers
in
to
the
alternate
9
compliance
path,
perhaps
having
this
battery
section
could
10
encourage
automakers
like
Toyota
and
Nissan
because
they
11
will
have
already
placed
a
portion
of
their
battery
12
technology
requirement
with
vehicles
that
came
out
in
2001
13
and
2002.

14
So
I'm
sorry
we
didn't
get
to
speak
last
night
15
and
get
our
proposal
up
along
side
everyone
else's.
I
16
think
whether
it's
500
fuel
cell
vehicles
or
250
fuel
cell
17
vehicles,
and
how
you
split
it
between
there,
we're
not
18
really
concerned.
Our
main
goal
is
3,000
to
5,000
battery
19
technology
vehicles
in
this
timeframe,
2001
to
2008.

20
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you,
Greg
for
the
21
specific
comments.
We
appreciate
it.

22
Bill
Mason,
Tom
Dowling,
Dan
Santini.

23
MR.
MASON:
Good
morning.
I'm
Bill
Mason.
I'm
24
speaking
this
morning
as
a
retired
automotive
engineer
and
25
also
as
co­
chairman
of
the
PEVDC.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
39
1
There's
been
a
lot
of
discussion
about
grid
2
connected
hybrids.
As
Greg
said,
we
support
these
3
vehicles
as
a
viable
pure
ZEV
technology.
I'd
like
to
4
remind
staff
and
also
point
out
to
the
Board
that
in
5
addition
to
the
excellent
work
that's
been
going
on
at
UC
6
Davis
for
a
number
of
years
by
Andy
Frank
and
his
people,

7
there's
a
rich
history
of
very
good
plug­
in
hybrid
8
development
work
in
the
past.

9
In
1995,
Mitsubishi
placed
two
plug­
in
hybrids
10
with
ARB
for
a
30
month
evaluation.
These
were
plug­
in
11
hybrids
with
a
gasoline
fueled
APU
and
lead
acid
12
batteries.

13
These
were
followed
by
three
or
four
more
14
advanced
prototypes
with
a
CNG
fueled
APU
and
lithium
ion
15
batteries
of
Mitsubishi's
own
design
and
manufacture.

16
Now,
Automotive
News
in
December
of
1994,
almost
nine
17
years
ago,
one
of
the
lead
articles
was
entitled,
"
Volvo
18
Plans
to
Sell
a
Hybrid
Electric
Car
in
the
United
States
19
in
1997
or
1998."

20
Volvo's
hybrid
was
also
grid
connected,
had
a
21
gasoline
fueled
APU
and
nickel
metal
hydride
batteries.

22
Plug­
in
hybrids
have
a
substantial
and
credible
23
development
history.
And
with
regard
to
Volvo,
that
24
experience
is
now
owned
by
Ford
Motor
Company.

25
The
alternative
compliance
path
must
be
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
40
1
technology
neutral.
Battery
electric
vehicles
must
be
2
required
in
the
alternative
path,
not
just
an
option.
I'm
3
afraid
that
regardless
of
how
you
try
to
set
the
ratio
to
4
encourage
battery
electric
vehicles,
the
automakers
will
5
spend
more
money
than
doing
the
BEVs,
to
do
­­
to,
you
6
know,
avoid
doing
something
that
they
don't
want
to
do.

7
It
took
several
months
for
the
2001
amendments
to
8
become
law.
And
when
they
did
ARB
was
promptly
sued
by
GM
9
and
Daimler
Chrysler.
In
my
opinion,
the
lack
of
BEV
10
development
in
the
last
two
years
was
due
to
lawsuits
and
11
the
refusal
of
most
manufacturers
to
do
anything.
I
don't
12
think
you
should
blame
technology
and
the
market.

13
In
closing,
I
believe
that
the
pure
ZEV
portion
14
of
the
ZEV
mandate
needs
to
recognize
that
it
is
highly
15
unlikely
that
any
one
technology
will
ever
replace
the
ICE
16
fueled
by
gasoline.
It
won't
be
all
fuel
cells.
It
won't
17
be
all
BEVs.
Each
technology
will
have
a
role
to
play.

18
I
also
believe
that
the
pure
ZEV
program
is
not
19
about
manufacturers
being
able
to
make
a
business
case
or
20
being
able
to
easily
market
a
new
technology.
The
pure
21
ZEV
program
is
an
investment
in
the
manufacturers
and
22
California's
futures.
And
for
that
reason,
I
don't
think
23
you
should
hesitate
to
require
BEVs
in
the
alternative
24
compliance
path,
not
just
make
them
an
option.

25
Thank
you.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
41
1
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much
Bill.
We
2
appreciate
it.

3
Tom
Dowling
Dan
Santini,
Todd
Dipaola.

4
(
Thereupon
an
overhead
presentation
was
5
Presented
as
follows.)

6
MR.
DOWLING:
Good
morning,
Dr.
Lloyd
and
members
7
of
the
Board
and
staff.
I'm
intending
to
address
8
specifically
the
Toyota
RAV4
program.
My
position
is
that
9
it
was
an
evidence
of
strong
retail
demand
that
there
were
10
many
reasons
why
there
were
dropouts
and
their
could
have
11
been
a
lot
more
sales,
if
Toyota
were
prepared
to
do
that.

12
­­
o0o­­

13
MR.
DOWLING:
Toyota
says
we
tried,
but
retail
14
demand
was
very
low.
The
Buyers
and
potential
buyers
15
disagree
with
that.
We
do
want
to
give
sincere
thanks
to
16
Toyota.
They
did
quite
a
few
right.
They
did
things
that
17
no
one
else
had
done
before.
But
there
were
a
lot
of
18
other
things
that
could
have
been
done.

19
Strong
retail
demand
is
still
there.
And
we
very
20
need
ZEVs
in
the
marketplace
now.
I
won't
read
that,
but
21
that's
a
quote
from
Toyota's
web
site,
about
sales
being
22
very
low
as
the
reason
for
discontinuing
the
program.

23
They
couldn't
make
a
business
case
for
continuing
sales
at
24
those
volumes.

25
We
don't
believe
that's
the
real
reason
­­

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
42
1
­­
o0o­­

2
MR.
DOWLING:
­­
that
they
discontinued
the
3
program.
They
never
expected
or
said
they
were
going
to
4
sell
more
RAV4
EVs
than
they
did.
They
sold
everyone
that
5
they
could
make.
We're
not
even
addressing
here
the
fleet
6
demand
which
is
significant
additional
to
the
retail
7
demand.

8
What
they
did
is
they
filled
their
quota.
They
9
got
more
multipliers
for
2002
deliveries
than
for
2003
10
deliveries.
So
when
they
had
gotten
enough
they
quit,

11
because
CARB
wasn't
requiring
them
to
make
anymore.

12
­­
o0o­­

13
MR.
DOWLING:
So
their
stated
reason
doesn't
seem
14
to
be
the
real
reason.

15
I'm
going
to
skip
this
in
the
interests
of
time.

16
But
we
want
to
thank
Toyota
for
a
lot
really
good
things
17
they
did
do.

18
­­
o0o­­

19
MR.
DOWLING:
What
they
could
have
done
­­
one
of
20
the
big
things,
is
they
could
have
integrated
the
rebates.

21
They
didn't
do
that.
What
it
looked
to
the
retail
buyer
22
was
this
was
a
$
42,000
car.
Yes,
there
were
Lowenthal
23
funds
and
so
forth,
but
Toyota
did
not
pass
those
on
24
directly.
They
made
the
buyer
jump
through
hoops.
Fill
25
out
forms.
Wait
for
their
money,
pay
sales
tax
as
if
it
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
43
1
were
a
$
42,000
car.
And
that
turned
off
a
lot
of
buyers.

2
That's
the
reason
for
dropouts.

3
Not
every
Toyota
dealer
was
a
RAV4
EV
dealer,
and
4
their
marketing
campaign,
such
as
it
was,
didn't
make
that
5
clear.
People
would
show
up
at
other
dealers
and
be
6
steered
to
other
cars
and
be
told
the
RAV4
EV
didn't
exist
7
and
so
forth.

8
I
live
in
Folsom
and
I
know
that
happened
at
the
9
Folsom
Toyota
dealer
was
not
a
RAV4
dealer.
Toyota
didn't
10
help
very
much
with
DMV
issues.
One
big
thing
they
caused
11
a
lot
of
people
to
drop
out
was
the
charging
12
infrastructure.

13
The
RAV4
EV
is
the
small
paddle
inductive
14
chargers.
The
worst
of
all
possible
words
really.
The
15
least
available
public
infrastructure.

16
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Can
you
just
summarize,

17
please?

18
MR.
DOWLING:
Yes,
sir.
Toyota
didn't
help
with
19
that
at
all.
So
there
were
many
things
that
caused
the
20
buyers
to
drop
out,
potential
buyers
to
drop
out
that
21
could
have
been
taken
care
of.

22
­­
o0o­­

23
MR.
DOWLING:
Spotty
availability
was
very
24
important.
All
along
in
all
these
programs,
you
can
get
25
them
if
you're
there
at
the
right
time.
But
if
you're
not
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
44
1
there
at
the
right
time,
you
can't
get
them.
So
the
main
2
thing
­­
another
thing
is
the
performance
sales
too.

3
There
could
be
better
performance
and
other
features
in
4
ZEVs
that
would
help
a
lot.

5
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.

6
MR.
DOWLING:
Thank
you.

7
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Dan
Santini,
Todd
Dipaola,

8
Sandra
Spelliscy.

9
(
Thereupon
an
overhead
presentation
was
10
Presented
as
follows.)

11
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
National
Labs,
I'd
give
you
12
more
than
three
minutes
normally,
Dan.
I
apologize,
but
13
that's
all
we
have.

14
MR.
SANTINI:
I'm
Dan
Santini
from
the
Technology
15
Assessment
Section
of
Argon
National
Laboratory.
I
have
16
discussed
my
presentation
ideas
with
Tien
Hwang
of
the
17
Office
of
Freedom
Car
and
Vehicle
Technologies
at
the
18
Department
Of
Energy.
And
Tien
felt
that
it
was
advisable
19
for
me
to
share
my
ideas
as
a
scientist
with
the
Board.

20
I
have
participated
in
the
past
with
the
Electric
21
Power
Research
Institute
study
of
electric
hybrid
22
vehicles.
And
Dr.
Phil
Patterson
has
supported
that
in
23
kind
contribution
to
that
study.
So
the
Department
Of
24
Energy,
and
myself
as
a
scientist
working
for
them,
are
25
greatly
interested
in
what
the
technologies
are
of
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
45
1
interest
to
CARB
and
whether
those
technologies
have
the
2
potential
to
spill
over
and
benefit
the
nation
as
a
whole.

3
And
that
is
the
position
I'd
like
to
speak
to
from
today.

4
I
don't
know
if
anybody
else
has
used
the
term
5
grid
connectable
in
describing
a
grid
connected
hybrids
6
that
you
may
have
been
discussing.
But
one
of
my
7
perspectives
is
that
these
hybrids
may
or
may
not
run
on
8
gasoline
that
would
be
up
to
the
consumer
at
least
9
depending
on
the
regulatory
environment
of
a
particular
10
state.

11
­­
o0o­­

12
MR.
SANTINI:
In
the
EPRI
working
group
study,
we
13
looked
at
grid
independent
hybrids
such
as
are
sold
today.

14
And
then
the
possibility
of
having
a
variant
of
­­
two
15
variants
of
the
hybrids.
One
with
all
electric
range
16
capability
up
to
20
miles
or
actually
20
miles
or
better,

17
and
then
60
miles,
dictated
to
a
certain
extent
by
CARB
18
intentions.

19
I
was
quite
fascinated
with
our
results
for
the
20
hybrid
with
a
20­
mile
grid
connected
capability.
And
as
a
21
scientist,
I
think
there's
some
interesting
potentials
for
22
that
technology
for
the
country.

23
First
I
note
that
it
could
be
charged
without
24
infrastructure
modification.
Infrastructure
modification
25
is
a
big
issue
with
hydrogen
fuel
cell
vehicles
for
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
46
1
example.
It
provides
greater
gasoline
fuel
economy
than
2
the
straight
grid
connectable
­­
or
the
straight
grid
3
independent
hybrid.

4
It
could
be
an
option
if
the
power
train
systems
5
are
developed
properly,
then
you
could
have
multiple
6
options
in
your
hybrid
power
train.
One
of
which
might
7
allow
you
have
grid
collectability.
And
you
would
get
8
your
added
fuel
economy
as
a
result,
and
be
able
to
use
9
electricity
instead
of
oil.

10
These
technologies
could
provide
the
possibility
11
for
judiciary
timing
and
relocating
of
emissions
in
urban
12
areas.
I'll
discuss
that
a
little
more.

13
The
grid
collectability
provides
you
the
option
14
and
capability
of
adding
green­
house
gas
reductions
if
you
15
charge
your
­­

16
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Dan,
can
you
summarize
there
17
please.

18
MR.
SANTINI:
Okay.
I
think
the
key
point
that
I
19
need
to
make
here
is
that
such
a
technology
with
the
20
energy
storage
capabilities
of
the
HEV
20'
s
has
a
21
potential
for
providing
an
enabling
bridge
for
the
22
hydrogen
fuel
cell
vehicle
technology
as
scientists
23
looking
at
the
attributes
of
fuel
cell
vehicles.
We
are
24
recognizing
the
benefits
of
larger
amounts
of
energy
25
storage
that
might
have
been
previously
considered.
And
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
47
1
in
looking
at
the
HEV
20
grid,
the
energy
storage
2
capability
that
we
came
up
with,
it
would
be
complimentary
3
to
the
energy
storage
capabilities
that
are
being
4
considered
now
for
the
hydrogen
fuel
cell
vehicles.

5
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much.

6
MR.
SANTINI:
And
I
have
a
couple
of
slides
that
7
embellish
other
points.

8
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
We
have
that,
Dan
which
we
9
very
much
­­
let
me
just
ask
you
one
point.
Will
this
10
technology
be
part
of
the
freedom
car
program?

11
MR.
SANTINI:
The
freedom
car
program
has
12
developed
a
set
of
goals.
And
the
goals,
however,
are
13
subject
to
reevaluation.
There
is
reevaluation
going
on
14
with
respect
to
the
power
train
energy
storage
goals.
We
15
will
be
presenting
a
paper
on
the
fuel
cell
attributes,

16
including
cold
start,
getting
out
of
the
driveway
and
so
17
forth,
if
the
future
transportation
technology
conference.

18
And
our
emphasis
with
DOE
is
that
you
think
about
19
power
train
technologies
that
have
a
fairly
significant
20
amount
of
energy
storage
capability.
If
you
have
those
­­

21
if
the
DOE
works
with
other
organizations
to
develop
that
22
capability,
that
would
be
a
natural
to
fit
into
hybrids
in
23
the
interim
such
as,
you
know,
an
HEV
20.

24
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thanks
very
much.

25
Tod
Dipaola,
Sandra
Spelliscy,
Tim
Carmichael.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
48
1
MR.
DIPAOLA:
Thank
you,
Chairman
Lloyd
and
Board
2
Members.
My
name
is
Dipaolo.
I'm
a
public
policy
3
associate
the
Steve
and
Michelle
Kirsch
Foundation.
The
4
foundation
was
founded
in
1999
with
the
mission
of
5
improving
our
world
through
strategic
union
and
advocacy.

6
We're
a
501(
c)(
3)
charity.
And
we
both
fund
and
7
advocate
for
environmental
initiatives
that
clean
our
air.

8
And
the
foundation
as
well
as
our
founder,
Steve
Kirsch,

9
has
a
long
history
of
a
commitment
to
clean
vehicles
and
10
the
ZEV
Program.

11
First,
I'd
like
to
thank
this
Board.
As
a
result
12
of
your
vision
and
the
ZEV
Program's
aggressive
approach
13
to
promoting
zero
emission
vehicles
over
the
past
13
14
years,
we've
reaped
the
benefit
of
battery
electric
15
vehicles,
the
mass
commercialization
of
hybrid
vehicles
16
and
fuel
cell
vehicles.
These
technologies
owe
their
17
birth
and
entirety
to
CARB's
foresight
in
setting
high
18
goals
and
resolve
and
seeing
them
through.

19
The
ZEV
mandate
has
altered
the
course
of
20
worldwide
automotive
technology.
It
has
changed
21
automotive
history
for
the
better
and
turned
concept
cars
22
into
environmental
reality.
Based
on
the
program's
track
23
record
of
success
and
prospects
for
stimulating
further
24
automotive
innovation,
the
Kirsch
Foundation
feels
25
anything
less
than
a
fervent
push
forward
would
be
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
49
1
regrettable.

2
Therefore,
I'm
hear
today
to
relay
our
concerns
3
regarding
CARB
staff's
proposed
amendments
to
the
ZEV
4
Program.
While
a
few
of
the
provisions
of
staff's
most
5
recent
proposal
could
really
benefit
the
program
and
6
resolve
pending
legal
issues,
most
of
its
changes
erode
7
the
program's
potential
to
drive
clean
vehicle
technology.

8
In
a
January
letter
to
the
Board,
the
Foundation
9
and
many
of
our
environmental
colleagues
expressed
our
10
concern
regarding
the
direction
of
the
program's
11
modifications
and
outlined
three
necessary
components
we
12
required
to
support
the
proposal.

13
These
included
significant
numbers
of
non­
NEV
14
vehicles,
non­
NEV
ZEVs
between
2008
and
2005
and
2012,

15
increased
incentives
for
plug­
in
hybrids,
and
stronger
16
requirements
for
conventional
hybrids.
While
staff
did
a
17
commendable
job
revising
hybrid
classifications
the
issue
18
of
plug­
in
hybrid
incentives
and
larger
numbers
of
ZEVs
19
have
not
been
adequately
resolved.

20
In
addition,
several
new
and
disappointing
21
modifications
arose
when
the
latest
proposal
was
made
22
public.
Specifically,
we
were
disappointed
in
a
few
key
23
elements,
which
included
only
requiring
250
total
ZEVs
to
24
be
produced
in
the
next
five
years.
CARB
has
shown
itself
25
to
be
a
worldwide
leader
in
clean
vehicle
technology
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
50
1
development.

2
Right
now,
however,
the
Japanese
government
is
3
poised
to
require
50,000
fuel
cell
vehicles
on
the
road
by
4
2010,
which
does
not
compare
favorably
with
staff's
5
proposed
250
fuel
cell
vehicles
by
2008.

6
We're
especially
disappointed
with
no
plans
for
a
7
program
post
2008.
Under
the
current
proposed
rules
the
8
program
would
essentially
sunset
­­
would
go
into
effect
9
in
2005
and
sunset
three
years
late
in
2008.

10
Also,
the
credits
for
non­
California
fuel
cell
11
vehicles
is
also
disappointing.
In
fact,
California
could
12
see
no
fuel
cell
vehicles
to
2008
and
all
of
them
could
be
13
placed
elsewhere
in
the
United
States.

14
Also
and
end
to
the
programs
technology
neutral
15
approach
is
something
else
we
found
to
be
very
16
disconcerting.
In
the
past,
CARB
has
pushed
the
ZEV
17
program
forward
with
an
idea
of
pushing
a
diversity
of
ZEV
18
technologies.
Choosing
only
fuel
cell
vehicles
could
19
essentially
set
the
program
up
for
defeat
when
we
look
at
20
regulations
again
in
2008
or
at
another
point,
if
21
technology
is
not
advanced
significantly.

22
Also,
we'd
like
to
see
further
incentives
for
23
plug­
in
hybrid
vehicles.
The
Commercial
success
of
24
hybrids
has
shown
us
a
lot
about
consumer's
acceptance
of
25
them
and
we'd
like
to
see
it
pushed
to
the
next
level
by
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
51
1
providing
enough
incentives
to
encourage
an
automaker
to
2
actually
take
that
path.

3
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Todd,
can
you
wrap
up
there.

4
I
think
we've
read
the
rest
of
it.
I
think
you've
got
the
5
gist
of
it
there,
but
we
appreciate
your
specific
6
suggestions
there.

7
MR.
DIPAOLA:
I'll
wrap
up.
Essentially,
the
8
Kirsch
Foundation
as
opposed
to
the
current
staff
9
proposals
as
proposed.
We
would
like
to
see
a
return
to
10
the
2001
amendments
that
the
Board
passed
just
two
years
11
ago.
And
we
think
that
amend
the
regulation
every
two
12
years
creates
an
incentive
for
companies
to
generate
13
results
conducive
to
further
charges.

14
We
believe
the
trading
needs
to
occur
between
15
automakers
and
other
companies
earning
credits
and
that's
16
what
the
program
has
been
designed
for.
So
we
at
the
17
Kirsch
Foundation
urge
you
to
stay
the
course
and
affirm
18
the
path
you
set
just
two
years
ago.
We
urge
you
not
to
19
weaken
a
program
that's
brought
so
much
positive
change
to
20
California.

21
Thank
you.

22
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
for
Todd.

23
Sandra
Spelliscy
and
Tim
Carmichael.

24
MS.
SPELLISCY:
Good
morning,
Mr.
Chairman
and
25
members.
Sandra
Spelliscy
with
the
Planning
And
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
52
1
Conservation
League.
I'm
going
to
speak
in
bullets
this
2
morning.
I
want
to
move
very
quickly.

3
And
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
be
here
4
today.
I
think
I
have
a
little
bit
different
perspective
5
than
maybe
you've
heard
from
some
of
the
others
in
this
6
hearing.
The
Planning
and
conservation
league
is
opposed
7
to
the
staff
proposal.
We
urge
you
to
reject
it
and
to
8
maintain
the
guiding
principle
of
your
2001
decision,

9
which
was
to
see
significant
numbers
of
zero
emission
10
vehicles
on
the
road
in
California
in
this
decade.

11
I
see
two
major
problems
with
the
staff
proposal.

12
The
first
is
that
it
gives
up
too
quickly
on
present
day
13
ZEV
technologies
that
are
providing
ZEV
miles
every
day.

14
The
staff
analysis
has
a
fundamental
flaw,
I
believe,

15
which
it
turns
the
assumption
of
the
2001
decision
on
its
16
head.
That
assumption
was
that
we
were
going
to
over
time
17
build
a
market
for
ZEV
vehicles
in
this
state
with
this
18
program.

19
Now,
suddenly
we
are
in
a
position
where
we
are
20
supposed
to
have
had
a
market
appear
overnight
and
because
21
the
program
has
not
captured
it,
suddenly
the
decision
22
that
you
made
in
2001
does
not
work.
I
believe
that
there
23
are
vehicles
that
we
have
here
today
that
we
should
be
24
seeing
in
fleets.
We
should
be
seeing
them
in
the
25
innovative
transportation
systems
that
Supervisor
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
53
1
DeSaulnier
has
been
working
on
and
we
need
to
not
give
up
2
on
that
goal.

3
The
second
major
problem
is
that
the
alternative
4
path
in
terms
of
fuel
cells
in
the
staff
proposal
is
a
5
recipe
for
failure
that
we've
already
tried.
And
let
me
6
just
say
I
differ
from
a
lot
of
people
here
who
think
the
7
critical
flaw
in
the
staff
proposal
is
that
there
are
no
8
numbers
after
2009.

9
Because
my
feeling
is
that
if
we
do
nothing
More
10
than
have
a
demonstration
program
for
fuel
cells
in
the
11
next
six
or
seven
years
and
then
pick
a
number
for
the
out
12
years,
it
will
not
work
and
it
will
not
work
because
13
people
simply
won't
believe
you.

14
We've
done
that
in
'
96.
We
were
there
in
'
98.

15
We
did
in
2000.
If
we
do
it
again
today,
we
are
repeating
16
the
same
process
that
we've
seen
throughout
this
17
regulation.
We
have
to
have
a
serious
gold
portion
of
the
18
program,
now,
in
order
­­
for
people
to
believe
that
the
19
out
years
when
I'm
not
going
to
be
here
and
probably
most
20
of
you
will
not
be
here,
really
mean
anything
in
21
California.

22
Let
me
switch
to
a
couple
comments
about
process.

23
This
process
is
nothing
like
the
biennial
review
that
we
24
did
in
2000,
2001,
five
months
one,
single
public
25
workshop.
The
proposal
before
you
today
is
far
too
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
54
1
complicated
to
have
been
done
this
quickly.
I
think
this
2
is
why
you
see
so
much
disagreement
about
what
the
staff
3
is
proposing.

4
We
spent
many,
many
hours
talking
to
the
staff
5
about
our
specific
concerns,
about
the
direction
they
were
6
taking
and
things
that
we
thought
needed
to
be
changed.

7
None
of
which
were
ultimately
reflected
in
the
staff
8
proposal.

9
I'd
hope
that
there
is
someway
within
the
10
structure
of
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act
that
this
11
Board
could
find
a
system
so
that
there
are
alternative
12
policy
choices
laid
out
for
you
before
you
come
to
the
13
Board
hearing.
Certainly
the
staff
can
say
what
its
14
preferred
alternative
is,
but
for
you
to
be
in
a
situation
15
where
you
have
to
make
an
up
or
down
judgment
about
the
16
staff
proposal,
and
if
you
decide
not
to
accept
it,
have
17
to
create
sort
of
from
whole
cloth
from
the
dais,
what
the
18
new
program
should
be,
is
simply
not
a
good
way
to
make
19
public
policy.

20
We
are
in
the
position
of
trying
to
respond
to
an
21
extremely
intricate
staff
proposal
in
a
very,
very
small
22
amount
of
time.
We
want
to
layout
specific
proposals.

23
It's
virtually
impossible
to
do
that
in
the
few
minutes
24
that
people
are
given
here.
I
seriously
hope
that
this
25
Board
will
think
about
how
to
reform
its
regulatory
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
55
1
process,
and
it's
hearing
process
to
deal
with
these
very,

2
very
complicated
technical
decisions
in
a
better
manner
3
than
we've
seen
in
the
last
few
months
and
over
the
last
4
couple
of
days.

5
Let
me
talk
very
quickly
about
a
couple
of
6
mistakes
I
hope
that
we
can
avoid
in
the
future.
This
is
7
an
extremely
complicated
and
complex
regulation.
It
has
8
not
aged
gracefully
over
the
years.
Every
time
it's
come
9
up
for
review
it's
gotten
more
complicated.
This
time
is
10
no
exception.

11
It's
very
difficult
to
have
a
successful
12
regulatory
program
that
nobody
in
the
public
can
really
13
understand,
nobody
in
the
press
understands.
You
can't
14
explain
to
the
judges
who
are
interpreting
the
law.
It's
15
not
been
the
best
way
to
go
about
creating
the
kind
of
16
program
we
want
to
create.
I
hope
that
we
learn
from
that
17
lesson
and
in
the
future
try
to
have
simplicity
as
a
18
guiding
force
in
the
regulatory
process
here.

19
The
other
problem
that
we've
had
with
this
20
program
is
that
no
successful
regulatory
program
can
21
withstand
the
kind
of
constant
scrutiny
and
review
and
22
reevaluation
that
this
program
has
undergone.

23
One
of
the
pillars
of
regulatory
success
is
to
24
have
certainty
for
the
public
and
for
the
regulated
25
industries.
And
the
only
thing
that's
been
certain
about
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
56
1
this
program
is
the
certainty
that
it
will
constantly
2
change.

3
Again,
I
hope
that
we
can
learn
from
these
4
lessons,
and
in
the
future
do
a
better
job.

5
Let
me
just
close
with
these
final
words.
If
you
6
speak
to
anybody
who
works
on
air
quality
issues
in
7
California
these
days,
a
recurring
theme
comes
up.
That
8
theme
is
about
the
mind
boggling
challenges
that
we
face
9
in
getting
to
the
health
based
standards
in
California.

10
Despite
all
the
progress
that
we
have
made
on
air
quality,

11
we
still
have
places
like
the
South
Coast
and
the
Central
12
Valley,
where
there
is
no
discernable
path
for
reaching
13
healthy
air
for
millions
and
millions
of
people.

14
And
the
reason
that
this
task
is
so
daunting
is
15
because
we
have
made
all
of
the
easy
choices
when
it
comes
16
to
air
quality
in
this
state.
And
all
we
are
left
with
17
are
the
very
very
hard
choices.

18
The
ZEV
Program
is
one
of
those
very
hard
19
choices.
This
is
a
tough,
tough
program.
It's
a
20
revolutionary
program.
It
pushes
the
automakers
hard,
and
21
they
don't
like
it,
and
they
push
back
hard.
And
all
of
22
us
who
are
involved
with
this
it's
tough
for
us
and
it
23
makes
people
uncomfortable.

24
But
as
you
deliberate
today
on
the
fate
of
this
25
program,
I
urge
you
to
summon
all
of
your
political
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
57
1
courage
to
make
the
hard
choices
that
you
know
you
need
to
2
make
on
this
program,
because
when
it
comes
to
protecting
3
the
health
of
the
people
of
California,
there
are
simply
4
no
more
easy
choices
to
make.

5
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you,
Sandy.
Tim
6
Carmichael.

7
MR.
CARMICHAEL:
Good
morning,
members
of
the
8
Board
and
Chairman
Lloyd.
Tim
Carmichael.
I'm
the
9
Executive
Director
of
the
Coalition
for
Clean
Air.

10
It's
hard
enough
going
last,
but
after
Sandy's
11
presentation,
I'm
shaking
a
little.

12
I'll
jump
straight
in,
because
I
know
we're
short
13
for
time
and
we're
eager
to
hear
your
deliberations.

14
There
are
two
numbers
that
aren't
in
the
staff
report
that
15
should
be
in
the
staff
report.
The
first
of
those
is
1.8
16
million
vehicles
per
year.
And
that
is
a
very
important
17
number
for
you
guys
to
remember
as
you
consider
what
to
do
18
with
this
program.
That's
the
number
of
new
cars,
light
19
trucks
and
SUVs
sold
in
California
every
year,
1.8
20
million.

21
And
that's
lost
when
we're
talking
about
2,500
or
22
500
or
even
25,000.
1.8
million
new
vehicles
in
23
California
every
year.

24
The
second
number
that's
not
in
the
staff
report
25
and
should
be
in
the
staff
report
is
14
billion
or
some
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
58
1
bigger
number.
$
14
billion
per
year,
that's
the
cost
of
2
air
pollution,
estimated
cost
of
air
pollution,
in
the
3
South
Coast
air
basin.

4
We
know
that
the
San
Joaquin
is
suffering
5
significant
costs
in
health
care,
as
well
as
crop
loss.

6
So
the
number
for
the
state
is
much
bigger
than
$
14
7
billion.
But
that
number
is
not
in
the
staff
report.

8
I've
got
to
believe
that
this
Board
and
the
staff
9
working
for
you
recognize
that
the
priority
for
the
agency
10
is
the
protection
of
public
health.
But
the
staff
report
11
highlights
the
cost
savings
of
this
program
to
the
12
automobile
industry
without
addressing
or
identifying
the
13
costs
of
air
pollution
in
our
society.
And
that's
a
14
mistake
in
this
report
and
it
should
not
be
left
out
of
15
any
future
report.
Where
we're
talking
about
cost
to
an
16
industry.
Let's
remember
the
cost
to
society
of
air
17
pollution.

18
I
think
Sandy
and
my
colleagues
from
the
other
19
organizations
have
addressed
all
of
our
concerns
with
the
20
proposal.

21
Let
me
just
jump
to
what
we
believe
the
combined
22
effect
of
all
those
problems
­­
combined
impact
of
all
23
those
problems
will
be.
If
you
move
ahead
with
the
staff
24
proposal
today,
California
will,
in
effect,
relinquish
our
25
leadership
role
in
driving
zero
emission
technology
for
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
59
1
the
globe.
Many
of
you
probably
relish
that,
and
you
know
2
think
let's
pass
the
torch,
enough
of
this
pain.

3
But
there
are
a
lot
of
benefits
to
being
in
the
4
leadership
position.
And
it's
very
important
to
remember
5
how
much
popular
support
there
is
here
in
California
for
6
this
leadership
role,
for
this
program.

7
Dr.
Burke
mentioned
Yesterday
just
basically
8
summarized
the
numbers
of
where
the
people
lined
up
as
9
testifiers.
And
sure
it's
70
something
people.
It's
not
10
the
state
of
California.
But
I
need
to
remind
you
and
you
11
need
to
remember,
as
an
agency,
you
have
never
received
as
12
many
letters
of
support
for
any
program
as
a
strong
ZEV
13
Program
in
California.
You
have
never
ever
­­
there's
no
14
program
that's
come
close,
tens
and
tens
of
thousands
of
15
support
letters
for
a
strong
ZEV
Program.
The
popular
16
support
is
there.
The
People
of
California
are
behind
not
17
only
a
leadership
position
for
zero
emission
vehicles,
and
18
zero
emission
technology,
but
for
a
very
strong
program.

19
And
you
need
to
remember
that
as
deliberate
today,

20
remember
that
the
majority
of
Californians
believe
in
this
21
program
and
believe
we
should
be
leading
the
globe
in
22
these
sorts
of
efforts.

23
With
that,
thank
you
very
much.

24
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you,
Tim.

25
Ms.
Witherspoon,
does
staff
have
any
further
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
60
1
comments
before
I
close
the
record?

2
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
Not
at
this
time.

3
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
We'll
now
close
the
record
on
4
this
agenda
item.
However,
the
record
will
be
reopened
5
when
the
15­
day
notice
of
public
availability
is
issued.

6
Written
or
oral
comments
received
after
this
hearing
date
7
but
before
the
15­
day
notice
is
issued
will
not
be
8
accepted
as
part
of
the
official
record
on
this
agenda
9
item.

10
When
the
record
is
reopened
for
a
15­
day
comment
11
period,
the
public
may
submit
written
comments
on
the
12
proposed
changes
which
would
be
considered
prior
to
the
13
adoption
of
the
amendments
and
responded
to
in
the
final
14
statement
of
reasons
for
the
regulation.

15
So,
I
guess,
we're
open
for
discussion
at
the
16
Board.

17
Mr.
McKinnon.

18
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Mr.
Chairman,
I
want
to
19
start
out
the
way
I
started
yesterday,
and
that
is
to
be
20
very
clear
that
I
don't
consider
where
we've
gone
in
the
21
last
12
years
as
failure.
What
has
happened
in
the
last
22
12
years
in
terms
of
technology
development
to
get
closer
23
and
closer
to
zero,
it's
mind
boggling
how
far
we've
come.

24
And
nothing
can
take
that
away.
We
can't
call
this
a
25
failure.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
61
1
But
I
have
to
tell
you
that
I
cannot
proceed
with
2
the
staff
proposal
with
no
numbers.
And
I'm
very
3
heartened
by
basically
the
testimony
of
the
Union
of
4
Concerned
Scientists
and
Dave
Modisette
yesterday.
And
I
5
think
the
Union
of
Concerned
Scientists
laid
out
lots
of
6
facts
and
statements
by
the
auto
companies
about
their
7
intentions
and
what
they
could
do
if
they
wanted
to.

8
His
numbers,
and
this
really
to
me
is
a
9
discussion
about
numbers.
I
frankly
tend
to
favor
the
10
Modisette
proposal,
not
because
it
wasn't
a
good
proposal
11
from
the
Union
of
Concerned
Scientists,
but
it's
sort
of
12
taking
just
a
slightly
more
conservative
view
at
the
13
numbers.
I
like
the
Modisette
proposal.

14
The
only
thing
I
might
change
about
it
is
in
the
15
first
2
or
3
years
using
the
sliding
years
that
Jason
16
described
in
the
Union
of
Concerned
Scientists'
format
17
last
night.

18
To
be
specific,
I
think
that
silver
needs
to
make
19
it
to
the
gold
category.
I
think
it
matters.
Just
20
instinctively
I
think
that
and
now
we're
starting
to
hear
21
some
of
the
discussion
of
how
it
might
impact
even
fuel
22
cell
development
and
what
may
happen,
particularly,
and
23
when
I
say
plug­
in
HEV,
what
I'm
talking
about
is
plug­
in
24
HEV
that
has
the
ability
to
operate
on
100
percent
25
electric
for
some
set
period
of
time,
to
20
miles
or
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
62
1
60
miles.
So
that
essentially
a
consumer
could
operate
on
2
electric
while
they
were
commuting
each
week.
And
if
they
3
needed
to
use
the
car
in
the
gasoline
mode
to
go
on
a
4
vacation
or
a
longer
trip,
they
could
do
that.

5
So,
I
think,
yesterday
I
said
something
about
a
6
car
that
you
could
switch
on
and
off.
And
somebody
said
7
well,
it
does
it
automatically.
I
don't
mean
8
automatically.
I
mean
that
if
you
choose
to
use
it
as
an
9
electric
vehicle
most
of
the
time,
you
can
control
that.

10
And
I
think
that
that
essentially
should
get
gold
credit.

11
In
terms
of
the
issue
of
stating
the
number
of
12
Battery
Electric
Vehicles
versus
fuel
cell
vehicles,
I
13
personally
do
not
want
to
prescribe
that.
I
personally
14
think
we
set
out
the
big
numbers
and
the
auto
companies
15
are
going
to
make
a
variety
of
choices
about
how
many
fuel
16
cells
they
do,
how
many
battery
electrics,
how
many
17
plug­
in
hybrids
on
down
the
line,
that
we,
you
know,
we
18
set
the
sort
of
­­
the
major
goals
and
we
set
a
credit
19
scheme
that
gives
them
some
options,
but
we
don't
20
prescribe
50
percent
or
70
percent
or
whatever.

21
So
I
think
that's
sort
of
kind
of
my
major
­­
the
22
big
piece
of
where
I'm
at
on
this.

23
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Supervisor
DeSaulnier,

24
Supervisor
Roberts.

25
BOARD
MEMBER
DeSAULNIER:
Thank
you,
Mr.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
63
1
Chairman.

2
First,
I'd
like
to
thank
you
and
my
colleagues.

3
As
John
White
said
I
know
everybody
has
put
a
lot
of
work
4
into
this.
And
I'd
like
to
thank
staff.
You've
had
some
5
comments
directed
your
way,
but
I
think
you
did
a
great
6
job
with
a
difficult
chore.
And
you've
basically
tee'd
up
7
the
issues
that
Matt's
just
talked
about.

8
And,
Catherine,
in
the
category
of
be
careful
9
what
you
ask
for
or
wish,
you've
done
a
great
job
today,

10
too.
And
for
everyone
who's
come
here
and
traveled,
I
11
hope
you
appreciate
how
the
Chairman
has
tried
to
run
the
12
meeting
given
how
difficult
a
task
it
is
to
keep
so
many
13
different
constituencies
happy.

14
The
great
American
sage
Yogi
Berra
once
said
that
15
the
toughest
thing
about
predictions
is
you
never
know
16
what's
going
to
happen
in
the
future.

17
(
Laugher.)

18
BOARD
MEMBER
DeSAULNIER:
That's
not
my
favorite
19
Yogi,
but
that's
a
pretty
good
one
for
today.

20
I
think
we
can
predict
though
that
over
the
21
course
of
the
next
20
years
in
the
timeframe
we're
looking
22
at
that
the
world
is
going
to
change
quite
a
bit.
And
23
certainly
air
quality
and
auto
manufacturing
is
going
to
24
change
quite
a
bit
during
that
time
period
as
well.

25
The
issues
that
staff
put
in
their
slide
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
64
1
presentation
first
beginning
with
the
alternative
2
compliance
option
and
rolling
into
the
BEV.
I
agree
with
3
Matt,
although
I
tend
to
side
with
­­
to
go
a
little
4
higher
and
do
what
Jason
has
suggested,
the
rationale
5
being,
I
look
at
the
proposal
by
the
Bush
Administration
6
with
a
little
bit
of
­­
well,
maybe
perhaps
more
than
a
7
little
bit,
but
out
of
courtesy,
I'll
say
a
little
bit,

8
out
of
skepticism.
I
think
most
of
those
numbers
will
in
9
fact
end
up
California
numbers.

10
So
I
would
agree
with
Matt,
but
I
would
tend,
in
11
terms
of
the
discussion,
look
at
the
higher
numbers
that
12
Jason
has
suggested.
In
terms
of
the
question
of
the
13
plug­
in
hybrids,
I
agree
with
Matt
that
should
be
in
the
14
gold
category
as
has
been
suggested
by
Mr.
Modisette.

15
The
ZEV
infrastructures
that
I've
been
working
on
16
and
Chuck
and
I
have
had
some
discussion
about,
in
the
17
resolution
there's
a
paragraph
that
I
think
is
good,
and
18
is
acceptable.
And
I
look
forward
to
three
months
from
19
now
coming
back
to
my
colleagues
with
a
presentation
I
20
think
that
will
be
quite
positive.

21
In
regards
to
what
John
White
talked
about,
in
22
terms
of
the
panel,
in
looking
at
the
resolution,
I
think
23
that
pretty
much
accomplishes
what
he
was
looking
for
in
24
terms
of
the
conflict
of
interest
and
their
appropriate
25
role.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
65
1
So
with
those
sort
of
broad
interests,
I'd
just
2
say
I
think
we've
come
a
long
way.
And
I
would
say
that
I
3
can't
think
of
a
worse
time
for
this
Board
and
for
the
4
State
of
California
to
think
about
weakening
in
any
way
5
what
we
have
started
out
on
­­
what
this
Board
started
on
6
in
1990.

7
From
the
historical
standpoint,
this
would
be
the
8
worst
time
for
us
to
send
any
kind
of
message
to
the
State
9
and
to
the
country
and
to
the
world
that
we're
going
to
10
back
off.
And
to
the
auto
manufacturers,
I'd
just
say
11
that,
and
to
all
of
us,
but
particularly
to
the
partners
12
in
the
auto
field,
the
expression
that,
"
To
those
who
much
13
is
given,
much
is
expected."
I
think
that
this
is
14
something
that
I
would
look
to
you
folks
without
15
minimizing
the
difficulty
that
you
have
and
having
a
good
16
deal
of
respect
for
many
of
you
in
terms
of
the
challenges
17
you
have,
in
terms
of
being
worldwide
companies
that
have
18
to
be
profitable
and
have
to
look
at
technology
with
a
19
jaundiced
eye,
but
I
would
call
you
to
continue
to
partner
20
with
us
rather
than
litigate
against
us.

21
Thank
you,
Mr.
Chairman.

22
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Just
one
clarification
before
23
I
go
to
Supervisor
Roberts.
Both
you
and
Matt
suggested
24
that
we
put
plug­
in
hybrids
into
the
gold.
You
recognize
25
that's
going
­­
are
you
going
to
say
that's
forever
or
for
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
66
1
a
period
of
time,
because
clearly
I
think
this
would
be
a
2
major
policy
shift
to
have
something
which
can
operate
in
3
non­
zero
mode
to
put
in
a
zero
category.

4
BOARD
MEMBER
DeSAULNIER:
For
myself,
I'd
be
open
5
to
some
suggestion
in
terms
of
when
that
would
sunset.

6
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Mr.
Chairman,
I
7
respectfully
disagree
with
you.
I
think
that
what
you're
8
talking
about
­­
people
use
two
different
cars
to
do
the
9
same
thing.
And
I
think
you
get
the
gasoline
mode.
Am
I
10
you
know,
going
to
fall
on
my
sword
over
that,
no.
I
mean
11
if
we
can
work
out,
you
know,
a
consensus
as
a
board,
I'm
12
going
to
be
with
that
consensus.

13
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
But
you
can't
disagree
that
14
that
vehicle
can
operate
in
a
non­
zero
mode.

15
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
I
cannot.
But
I
will
16
suggest
to
you
that
in
real
life
application
what
happens
17
is
that
individual
climbs
into
a
different
vehicle
to
do
18
something
different.
And
the
real
effect
on
the
air
is
19
equivalent.

20
And
I
think
what
we
gain
out
of
putting
this
to
21
gold
is
it's
something
that's
going
to
be
easier
to
get
to
22
the
public.
So
if
that
makes
it
complicated
legally
or
23
something,
then
I'm,
you
know
­­
I
could
be
swung,
but
I
24
think
if
we're
talking
about
how
it
really
affects
25
people's
lives
and
how
they're
really
going
to
use
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
67
1
vehicles,
we
get
the
same
effect
either
way.

2
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I'm
just
concerned
that
if
3
you
throw
this
open
forever,
that,
in
fact,
you
­­
Mr.

4
Freeman
talking
about,
you
know,
the
hydrogen
are
very
5
close
to
zero.
You've
heard
Honda
talking,
and
6
rightfully,
that
they've
got
vehicles
that
operate
very
7
close
to
zero.

8
So
when
we
come
to
maybe
4
decimal
points,
you
9
know,
what
is
the
difference
there.
And
I
think
we've
10
resisted
that
argument
in
the
past.
I
think
you're
trying
11
to
put
some
encouragement
there,
which
I
understand.
What
12
I
understand
is
that
the
credits
that
we
had
to
date
13
wasn't
enough
to
entice
people
into
that
market.
And
14
maybe
staff
is
proposing
to
increase
those
credits.
And
15
clearly
if
the
Board
doesn't
feel
that
that's
enough,
then
16
maybe
an
interim
period
I
would
go
with
that
for
a
period
17
of
time
to
see
how
it
works.

18
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Mr.
Chairman,
I
have
no
19
problem
with
an
interim
period.
I
mean,
there's
some
20
wisdom
to
that,
if
it
doesn't
work
the
way
I
think
it
21
should
work,
hey,
then
we
find
that
out
and
we
can
change
22
it.
So
I
can
do
that.

23
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Supervisor
Roberts.

24
BOARD
MEMBER
ROBERTS:
Thank
you,
Mr.
Chairman.

25
Good
morning.
It's
nice
to
see
you
again.
And
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
68
1
thank
you
for
ending
it
at
such
an
early
hour
last
night.

2
(
Laughter.)

3
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
apologize
for
the
way
in
4
which
it
ended.

5
BOARD
MEMBER
ROBERTS:
All
of
a
sudden
I
looked
6
up
and
he
was
gone.
I
wasn't
sure
I
was
sitting
here.

7
But
it's
nice
to
see
you
and
it's
nice
to
see
you
in
that
8
chair.

9
(
Laughter.)

10
BOARD
MEMBER
ROBERTS:
Mark,
I
think
it
was
Yogi
11
that
also
said,
"
This
is
like
deja
vous
all
over
again."

12
(
Laughter.)

13
BOARD
MEMBER
ROBERTS:
And
having
been
on
this
14
Board
for
8
years
now,
there's
a
little
bit
of
that
that
15
I'm
feeling
today.
But
in
spite
of
that,
I
think
16
there's's
a
couple
points.

17
Let
me
deal,
first,
with
the
issue
that
you
just
18
discussed
with.
I
like
what
both
of
my
colleagues
have
19
said
about
introducing
the
HEV
into
the
gold.
And
I
like
20
it
for
a
limited
time
though.
I
don't
know
what
that
21
limited
time
is.
And,
Mr.
Chair,
if
you
could
just
22
suggest
something,
but
I
think
there
should
be
a
limit
on
23
that,
just
as
we've
done
with
other
things.
But
if
we
can
24
give
that
a
little
stimulus,
that
would
be
­­

25
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
think
we'd
look
to
staff
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
69
1
for
some
guidance
there,
I
think.

2
BOARD
MEMBER
ROBERTS:
Okay.
I
think
that
would
3
be
good.

4
We
talked
about
the
correspondence.
I
have
to
5
share
with
you,
I
did
receive
a
lot
of
letters.
There
was
6
one
of
them
that
caught
my
attention
in
particular,

7
because
it
was
addressed
to
Supervisor
Ron
Roberts.
And
8
it
was
asking
me
to
read
this
letter.
And
after
I
read
9
this
letter
would
I
please
contact
Supervisor
Roberts
to
10
let
him
know
how
I
felt.

11
(
Laughter.)

12
BOARD
MEMBER
ROBERTS:
I'm
not
going
to
tell
you
13
who
sent
it.
It
was
another
elected
official.
I
just
14
want
the
world
to
know
I
did
have
a
thorough
discussion
15
with
Supervisor
Roberts
on
this
issue.

16
(
Laughter.)

17
BOARD
MEMBER
ROBERTS:
Again,
you
know,
there's
18
something
unfair
that's
also
happened
here.
And
I'm
not
19
sure
if
it
really
was
the
press
or
if
it's
people
20
interpreting
the
press.
But
in
my
reading
of
everything
I
21
received,
the
staff
has
not
recommended
getting
rid
of
the
22
ZEV
Program.

23
Can
I
say
that
again?
The
staff
has
not
24
recommended
getting
rid
of
the
ZEV
Program.
The
staff
25
didn't
recommend
going
to
zero.
The
staff
said
we
need
to
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
70
1
determine
a
number,
but
we
don't
know
what
that
number
is
2
yet
and
clearly
it
was
not
a
zero
number.

3
For
those
of
you
who
took
that
and
continued
to
4
hammer
away
on
that,
that
isn't
part
of
the
5
recommendations
I
got.
And
if
it
was
something
reported
6
in
the
press,
I
must
have
missed
it.
Maybe
I'm
not
7
properly
educated.
But
that's
not
what
I
brought
away
8
from
what
the
staff's
effort
was.

9
This
staff
is,
has
been
and
will
be,
I
think,

10
committed
to
having
a
zero
emission
vehicle.
This
Board
11
is
committed
to
a
zero
emission
vehicle
period.

12
Having
said
that,
we've
got
to
find
something
13
that
works.
We've
got
to
find
something
from
a
cost
14
standpoint
and
a
performance
standpoint
that
is
15
competitive.

16
Perhaps
because,
like
some
of
my
colleagues,
I've
17
been
here
for
a
number
of
years.
I
can
remember
some
of
18
the
earlier
hearings
and
having
some
speakers
come
in
with
19
new
batteries
now
that
hold
the
promise
that
everything
20
will
be
good,
you
know,
just
give
us
a
couple
more
days.

21
I
mean,
we
thought
we
were
going
to
be
somewhere
22
different
with
respect
to
battery
technology,
with
respect
23
to
performance,
with
respect
to
costs
than
we
are
today.

24
That's
why
we're
having
this
hearing.
We
don't
have
the
25
range
that
I
can
remember
that
was
a
goal
and
not
only
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
71
1
that
was
a
prediction.
We
don't
have
that.
We
don't
have
2
the
costs
where
we
want
it.

3
But
we
still
want
a
zero
emission
vehicle.
I
4
want
that.
I
don't
think
there's
anybody
up
here
and
5
there's
probably
few
people
in
this
room
that
don't
want
6
that.
And
we
have
a
lot
of
­­
it's
not
just
­­
you
know,

7
the
economics
and
to
want
to
make
money
isn't
just
the
car
8
makers.
I
mean
we've
seen
a
steady
stream
of
people
who
9
are
vested
in
this
in
all
sorts
of
ways.

10
I
thought
there's
one
great
company
out
there
11
that
I
haven't
­­
that
don't
come
here
though
that's
very
12
heavily
invested
in
electric
transportation,
and
I
think
13
is
going
to
play
a
significant
role
in
getting
people
from
14
our
train
depo
into
their
office
buildings
downtown,
and
15
that's
Segue
Way.

16
I
don't
know
how
many
of
you
have
seen
these,
but
17
I
tried
one
of
these
out
recently.
This
is
a
little
18
electric
scooter.
And
we've
got
people
actually
riding
19
those
from
the
train
depo
and
they
go
right
onto
the
20
elevator,
and
up
to
their
offices.
Now,
they're
pretty
21
expensive.
And
Segue
Way
is
not
here
saying
you've
got
to
22
have
us
mandate
it
so
we
can
sell
these
things.
Guess
23
what?
Click
on
Amazon.
com
and
you
can
buy
one.
It's
real
24
simple.
And
they
cost
about
$
5,000
a
piece.
I
can't
25
believe
anybody
is
buying
these
things.
You
know
what,

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
72
1
it's
something
that
people
want.

2
And
what
we
keep
talking
about
is,
yes,
there
are
3
people
that
want
certain
things.
I've
got
friends
that
4
still
like
vinyl
records.
And
they
insist
that
we
ought
5
to
have
vinyl
records.
God
bless
them.
And
I've
got
a
6
lot
of
vinyl
records.
But
what
we
have
to
come
up
with
is
7
something
we
want
to
come
up
with,
something
that
is
going
8
to
be
there,
and
it's
going
to
be
cost
competitive,
and
9
it's
to
have
the
performance.

10
In
the
last
several
years,
if
they've
taught
us
11
anything,
we're
not
reaching
any
of
the
goals
that
we
had
12
hoped
for,
aspired
for,
dreamed
for.
We
set
all
kinds
of
13
numbers.
By
God
if
setting
numbers
would
have
done
it,
we
14
ought
to
be
there.
We've
set
numbers.
We've
set
more
15
numbers
than
anybody
around.

16
And
the
fact
of
the
matter
is
our
setting
numbers
17
doesn't
solve
chemical
and
physical
problems
that
need
to
18
be
solved
to
bring
these
products
to
market.

19
So
what
do
we
do?

20
Let
me
­­
you
know,
I
can
only
speak
for
myself.

21
Maybe
I
am
once
again
naively
impressed
with
the
22
technology.
And
I
was
one
of
the,
probably
the
earliest
23
ones
in
the
state
to
have
one
of
the
EV1'
s.
I
had
it
for
24
some
time.
I
drove
it.
I
experienced
it.
I
know
what
25
the
shortcomings
are
from
a
performance
standpoint.
And,

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
73
1
Matt,
you're
right,
there
are
days
I
had
to
go
home
and
2
change
cars.

3
Okay,
that
EV1.
I
live
one
and
a
half
miles
from
4
where
I
work.
It
isn't
about
­­
you
know,
it's
about
your
5
whole
day.
And
there
still
were
days
when
I
had
to
go
6
home
drop
that
off,
get
a
car
that,
you
know,
that
old
gas
7
guzzler
and
get
out
there.

8
We've
got
to
have
better
performance.
And
I
know
9
that
there
are
people
in
the
world
that
can
get
by
on
a
10
car
even
if
it
only
has
20
miles
range.
But
if
we're
11
talking
about
mass
markets,
if
we're
talking
about
some
12
day
getting
the
air
as
clean
as
we
possibly
can,
we've
got
13
to
get
to
zero
emission
vehicles.

14
There's
one
other
thing
I
want
to
notice.
In
San
15
Diego,
the
one
thing
we're
proud
of
is
that
every
single
16
year
the
air
has
gotten
cleaner.
And
what
we
need
to
do,

17
you've
got
to
keep
that
long
view.
There's
got
to
be
a
18
curve
there
that
every
year
that
this
state
we're
going
to
19
make
the
air
cleaner.

20
And
the
mix
may
change,
and
the
strategies
may
21
change,
you
know,
but
the
grand
finale
has
to
be
the
air
22
has
to
be
cleaner
every
single
year.
And
you
know
what
23
we're
getting
there.
We
have
cleaner
air
now
than
we
had
24
50
years
ago
in
San
Diego
and
I'm
very
proud
of
that.
And
25
we're
going
to
keep
going.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
74
1
And
I
don't
remember
who
it
was
that
put
that
2
chart
up,
and
they
kind
of
showed
where
the
curves
are
and
3
then
they
had
to
blowup
the
bottom
of
it
so
we
could
4
see
­­
I
mean,
we're
down,
you
know,
the
world
is
very
5
different.

6
We
still
want
a
zero
emission
vehicle.
And
I
7
said
earlier,
I
may
be
a
little
naive,
but
to
me
I'm
8
asking
what
is
out
there,
what
is
the
promise,
what
looks
9
good,
what
starts
to
respond
to
a
whole
plethora
of
10
problems,
in
addition
to
air
quality,
that
might
make
it
11
the
technology
of
the
future?

12
I
am
very
impressed
with
the
fuel
cell's
13
potential.
I
don't
know
if
they'll
ever
get
the
cost
down
14
where
it's
going
to
make
any
sense.
You
couldn't
begin
to
15
market
it
there.
But
I
also
know
that
good
research
isn't
16
just
about
putting
numbers
of
things
out,
although
I
think
17
you
need
numbers
­­
to
do
need
some
numbers
in
here.

18
But
good
research
is
based
on
a
commitment
that
19
you
build
and
you
analyze
and
you
build
again
and
you
20
analyze
and
you
build
again
and
you're
committed
to
21
improving
a
product
in
all
its
aspects.
And
it
isn't
a
22
requirement
that
we
necessarily
put
out
50
of
one
kind
of
23
vehicle
this
year
and,
you
know,
another
50
next
year.

24
What
it
really
requires
you
to
put
out
some
25
things
that
you
have
a
very
good
research
project
that
in
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
75
1
the
testing
and
the
follow­
up
and
everything
you
can
do
to
2
improve
that
so
that
the
next
model
that
you
bring
out
is
3
going
to
be
a
lot
better,
and
you
know
where
you're
going.

4
If
we
look
ahead,
I
don't
­­
you
know,
it's
very
5
hard
to
set
a
number.
And
I
mentioned
something
yesterday
6
about
being
arbitrary.
And
any
time
you
start
to
look
to
7
the
future
you're
going
to
be
a
little
bit
arbitrary.
And
8
if
you
don't
think
so,
God
I'd
like
to
have
you
as
an
9
advisor.

10
But
we
want
to
get
to
a
zero
emission
vehicle.
I
11
think
we
can
get
there
not
with
the
staff's
12
recommendation,
but
with
an
adjustment
to
that
and
I
like
13
that
second
column.
And
I
like
having
some
of
the
14
credits.
By
the
second
column
I'm
talking
about
the
one
15
that
says
10X
over
it,
and
with
the
changes
that
we
talked
16
about,
Mr.
Chairman.

17
I
hope
that
we
can
have
most
importantly
a
18
partnership
with
the
major
stakeholders
here
that
is
going
19
to
drive
the
successful
research
that
we
need,
the
20
successful
development
that
we
need,
and
that
we're
in
a
21
position
to
continue
to
monitor
this
thing,
and
to
see
not
22
only
how
it's
going
to
be
able
to
make
adjustments.
If
we
23
can
do
that,
you
know,
that
number
that
we're
looking
at,

24
if
we're
successful,
it
will
look
pretty
small
and
25
somebody
will
say
that
you
didn't
set
the
number
high
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
76
1
enough.

2
But
you
know
what,
if
the
research
isn't
3
successful,
it
doesn't
make
any
difference
what
that
4
number
is,
you're
not
going
to
make
it.
So
to
some
5
extent,
setting
the
numbers,
I
think,
is
of
interest.
But
6
what
should
be
more
fundamental
is
how
do
we
forge
that
7
partnership
to
get
the
results
so
that,
you
know,
I
would
8
like
to
see
my
family
and
the
people
in
our
neighborhood
9
all
driving
zero
emission
vehicles,
and
I
don't
care
if
10
they
propel
those
with
rubber
bands,
as
long
as
they're
11
not
polluting.
And
whatever
technology
works
is
fine
with
12
me.
And
if
there's
a
bunch
of
choices,
that's
even
13
better.

14
But
I
think
as
I
sit
here
now,
I
want
to
see
if
15
there's
a
way
to
stimulate
that
investment
in
the
hydrogen
16
research
and
the
hydrogen
development.

17
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you,
Supervisor.
I
18
think
both
your
technical
and
historical
perspective
is
19
most
appreciated.

20
Mrs.
Riordan.

21
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
Thank
you,
Mr.
Chairman.

22
Tim
Carmichael
reminded
us
today
of
something
that
I
took
23
to
heart
and
that
was
the
number
of
new
vehicles
that
are
24
sold
here
in
California.
And
that
is
a
substantial
25
number.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
77
1
But
I'm
going
to
take
you
one
step
further,
Tim
2
and
tell
you
that
we
need
to
also
research
the
number
of
3
new
vehicles
sold
throughout
the
world,
because
I
think
of
4
what
we're
doing
here
today
in
California,
but
there's
a
5
much
bigger
market.
There
are
many,
many
countries
6
besides
other
states
that
are
going
to
follow
us.
And
if
7
you
see
the
bigger
picture
and
understand
that
the
8
automotive
industry
and
all
of
those
who
have
associated
9
industries
and
companies,
this
is
a
big
future
market.

10
And
we
should
not
stumble
in
saying
we
can't
reach
some
11
numbers
that
seem
realistic
to
us.

12
Our
staff
report
was
excellent
and
I
do
thank
13
you.
I
do
think
you're
conservative
and
cautious.
And
14
we,
the
policymakers,
are
a
little
bit
more
optimistic
and
15
pushing.
And
I
think
to
say
to
a
whole
number
of
16
partnerships
out
there,
and
they
can
be
fuel
cells,
they
17
can
be
batteries,
they
can
be
a
whole
host
of
things,
we
18
need
to
do
better
in
terms
of
defining
some
numbers
into
19
our
future
and
setting
some
goals.

20
May
I
say
that
the
Electric
Transportation
21
Coalition
numbers
seem
very
reasonable
to
me,
and
I
am
22
certainly
very
supportive
of
that.
And
I
also
believe
23
that
if
we
do
include
the
HEVs
that
are
the
plug­
ins,
that
24
this
is
a
good
thing.
There
is
probably
some
element
of
25
timing
there,
and
a
sunset
perhaps
if
they
are
given
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
78
1
quote,
"
the
gold
credit."
That
I
would
look
to
staff
to
2
give
me
some
sense
of
what
number
of
years
out
we
would
3
want
to
do
that.

4
I
absolutely
believe
in
the
free
marketplace
and
5
believe
that
there
are
going
to
be
a
number
of
you
who
are
6
sitting
in
the
audience
in
your
associated
industries
that
7
are
going
to
need
to
sort
out
which
is
the
avenue
for
the
8
best
results.
And
there
could
be
a
whole
host
of
them.

9
And
so
I'd
like
to
leave
that
a
little
bit
free
for
you
to
10
have
that
opportunity
to
work
with
what
you
think
will
be
11
best
for
whatever
product
you
develop.

12
And
so
that,
Mr.
Chairman,
is
my,
I
guess,

13
summation.
And
I'm
ready
to
support
the
staff,
what
I
14
would
call,
and
amendment
to
the
staff
report,
which
would
15
include
the
California
Electric
Transportation
Coalition's
16
numbers.

17
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
And
that
would
be
­­
are
you
18
saying
that
would
­­
is
that
having
a
mandatory
thing
or
19
did
I
understand
you
to
give
some
flexibility
on
whether
20
you
have
batteries
or
the
technology?

21
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
Because
I'm
a
free
market
22
person,
I
sort
of
like
flexibility.

23
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Ms.
D'Adamo.

24
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
This
was
what
I
was
25
waiting
for,
some
actual
discussion
of,
you
know,
honing
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
79
1
these
proposals
down.
Just
to
make
sure
I'm
2
understanding.
Mrs.
Riordan,
you're
suggesting
that
we
3
look
more
closely
at
the
Cal
ETC
proposal?

4
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
(
Mrs.
Riordan
nods
head.)

5
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
I'm
unclear
about
the
6
sunset
provision.
I've
got
a
couple
of
questions
on
the
7
sunset
provision
on
plug­
in
hybrids.
I
also
would
like
to
8
have
a
discussion
and
am
interested
in
particular
in
the
9
Chairman's
point
of
view
on
BEVs.
That's
something
I
want
10
to
push
for
as
much
as
possible.
The
ratio
is
important.

11
I
don't
know
that
we
can
decide
here
today
what
that
ratio
12
is.
But
I
think
that
we
ought
to
have
some
discussion
13
about
how
to
get
there.

14
Also,
I
am
interested
in
including
in
the
mix
15
some
mechanism
for
credit
for
re­
lease
or,
in
fact,

16
increase
credit
for
an
open
lease.
I
guess
it's
called
an
17
open
lease
or
an
increased
credit
for
sale.
And
I
would
18
like
to
be
as
flexible
as
possible
on
the
issue
of
BEVs,

19
but
I
am
concerned
about
being
gamed.
Because
last
time
20
when
we
were
here,
we
knew
that
we
were
being
pretty
21
generous
with
the
Neighborhood
Electric
Vehicles
since
22
they
were
already
under
way.

23
As
I
recall,
a
lot
of
us
were
pretty
reluctant
to
24
cut
back
too
far
on
the
credit.
In
the
end
though
I
think
25
we
ended
up
getting
gamed.
So
I
don't
know
the
answer
to
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
80
1
that
question
about
how
do
we
somehow
include
BEVs
in
the
2
mix,
plug­
in
hybrids,
generous
credits
for
re­
release
3
without
getting
gamed.

4
BOARD
MEMBER
DeSAULNIER:
I
can
tell
you
some
5
more
Yogi
Berra
lines,
if
you'd
like.

6
(
Laughter.)

7
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
Well,
maybe,
Mr.
Cackette,

8
since
they're
conferencing
over
there,
do
you
have
any
9
suggestions?

10
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
I
think
that
11
one
of
the
underlying
issues
as
you
discuss
these
broader
12
points
is
that
we
have
to
go
back
and
look
at
the
absolute
13
values
of
credits,
the
relative
values
of
credits.
And
14
I'm
not
sure
that
we
can
do
that,
you
know,
in
5
minutes
15
here.

16
So,
you
know,
there's
issues
for
example
like
on
17
the
plug­
in
hybrids.
When
they
were
in
silver,
we
bumped
18
the
number
way
up
to
make
them
look
attractive,
even
19
though
they're
only
in
silver.
You
put
them
in
gold,
you
20
may
have
over­
incentivized
them.
And
we
need
to
go
back
21
and
look
at
how
that
plays
against
BEVs
if
you
decide
to
22
put
BEVs
in
there
and
against
fuel
cell
vehicles.

23
So
it's
going
to
take
a
little
bit
of
thought.

24
Also,
how
we
would,
you
know,
do
the
challenge
you
just
25
put
out,
should
the
Board
decide
that,
on
re­
lease
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
81
1
credits.
We
want
to
make
it
rich
and
inviting,
but
not
2
result
in
the
gaming
situation,
so
that's
a
balance.
And
3
we'll
need
to
look
at
that.

4
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
That's
exactly
what
I
was
5
checking
with
Ms.
Witherspoon
on
whether,
in
fact,
they
6
could
look
at
that
now
or
whether
they
would
need
some
7
time
to
further
examine
the
ramifications
of
that.

8
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
One
other
9
item
is
we
still
have
a
list
of
issues
we'd
like
to
share
10
with
you,
if
you
finish
this
part
of
the
discussion.
And
11
I
just
want
to
remember
that
one
of
them
is
travel
and
12
that
affects
these
numbers
by
approximately
70
percent.

13
So
again
it's
important
to
figure
out
what
you'd
like
us
14
to
do
in
that
case.

15
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
On
the
travel,
is
that
16
just
limited
to
the
fuel
cell?

17
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
Well,
that's
18
an
issue
as
to
whether
it's
limited
to
fuel
cell,
and
how
19
we
structure
it
if
it's
to
include
other
vehicles
or
not
20
and
for
how
long.
And
as
the
New
York
people
said,

21
there's
a
problem
even
on
the
fuel
cells
that
if
the
22
numbers
get
too
big,
they
travel
in
a
way
that
makes
the
23
credits
large
in
New
York,
which
essentially
wipes
out
24
their
ability
to
get
silver
vehicles.
Sort
of
glutts
25
credits
there,
so
we
need
to
think
about
that
a
little
bit
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
82
1
too.
But
we'll
bring
that
up
maybe
after
you've
done
that
2
and
it
could
be
a
refinement
whatever
you
decide
here
on
3
the
numbers.

4
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Dr.
Burke.

5
BOARD
MEMBER
BURKE:
Well,
I
read
the
Yogi
Berra
6
quote
book,
too.
My
favorite
was,
"
That
restaurant
is
so
7
busy
that
nobody
ever
goes
there
anymore."

8
(
Laughter.)

9
BOARD
MEMBER
BURKE:
But
the
one,
I
guess,

10
that
­­
I
have
the
book
­­
woudl
deal
with
this
is,
"
That
11
was
such
a
good
decision
I
don't
how
I
made
it."

12
(
Laughter.)

13
BOARD
MEMBER
BURKE:
South
Coast
obviously
has
an
14
interesting
stake
in
this
issue.
My
seatmate
described
to
15
Tim
Carmichael
how
we
should
keep
a
global
image
of
this
16
decision
today.
And
it's
very
difficult
for
those
of
us
17
who
live
in
the
highest
density
of
the
problem
to
keep
a
18
global
issue.
Because
we
live
with
it
on
a
day­
to­
day
19
basis
as
do
a
great
number
of
people
in
the
state
of
20
California.
But
we
are
probably
the
highest
impact.

21
My
concern
here
is
not
with
the
science
22
particularly.
My
concern
here
was
with
the
process.
This
23
has
been
worked
on
by
staff
in
the
past
few
months.
And
24
my
comments
yesterday
were
not
alleviated.
The
people
25
that
I
would
think
that
would
support
this
proposal
were
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
83
1
at
best
neutral
on
this
proposal,
were
at
best
neutral.

2
Now,
if
it
is,
in
fact,
the
plugging
in
of
some
3
numbers
or
having
some
PZEVs
as
you're
asking,
it
would
4
seem
that
in
our
process,
that
would
have
been
5
accommodated,
but
it
wasn't.

6
I
was
touched
by,
and
I
can't
remember
which
7
board
member
said
it
yesterday,
the
difficulty
of
changing
8
something
as
complex
and
compound
as
this
issue
from
the
9
dais.
It's
really
difficult.
And
it
takes
almost
solemn
10
like
­­
Solomon
like
attitude
here.
And,
you
know,
as
11
much
as
I'd
like
to
believe
it
I
don't
think
I'm
Solomon.

12
So
if
I
were
a
dictator
instead
of
board
member,

13
I
would
say,
you
know,
you've
got
a
real
good
start
here,

14
why
don't
you
go
back
and
work
with
it
another
month
or
2
15
come
back
and
sit
down
and
talk
to
me
about
it.

16
I'm
not
dictator.
I
am
board
member.
I
love
Ron
17
Roberts
comments,
you've
got
to
get
something
that
works,

18
because
that's
what
it's
all
about.

19
So
what
I'm
going
to
do
is
listen
to
the
rest
of
20
my
colleagues
who
are
like
Solomon
and
see
what
they
say.

21
I'm
waiting
for
yours,
Professor,
I'll
sit
back
and
wait
22
for
your
comments.
But
it's
a
very
difficult
decision
23
here
and
one
in
which
makes
me
even
more
hesitant
because
24
I
remember
sitting
here
2
years
ago.
And
we
struggled
­­

25
no
it
wasn't
here,
it
was
in
the
other
building.
But
we
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
84
1
struggled
and
struggled
and
took
all
that
testimony
and
2
listened
to
all
these
people
and
we
were
adamant
in
our
3
decision.
I
mean
absolutely
adamant
in
our
decision.
And
4
here
we
are
2
years
later
saying
well,
you
know,
we've
got
5
to
be
adamant
in
this
decision.

6
It's
really
an
interesting
process
to
be
involved
7
with,
I'm
glad
I'm
here,
but
I'm
not
glad
I'm
here.

8
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Supervisor
Roberts
had
a
9
comment.

10
BOARD
MEMBER
ROBERTS:
Just
a
quick
one.
There's
11
something
that
needs
to
be
corrected,
I
think,
since
we're
12
discussing
it.
And
you
continue
to
put
it
on
the
screen.

13
The
math
is
not
correct
for
that
third
column.
It
doesn't
14
add
up
to
30,200.
Just
because
we're
getting
into
a
15
discussion,
I'd
like
to
see
it
a
little
closer.

16
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
You're
right.

17
BOARD
MEMBER
ROBERTS:
I
think
it's
about
25,700.

18
And
so
those
don't
follow
in
quite
the
same
pattern.
And
19
just
because
it
might
have
some
bearing
on
what
people
are
20
thinking
here.

21
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Yes.
By
the
way,
just
before
22
Professor
Friedman
and
I
guess
Mr.
Calhoun
speaks,
I
would
23
like
to
comment
something
on
the
process
that
Dr.
Burke
24
brought
up
and
also
rather
a
point
that
Sandy
brought
up.

25
As
you
know,
I
have
the
privilege
of
serving
the
Governor
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
85
1
here
on
a
daily
basis,
as
long
as
he
wants
me
to,
as
long
2
as
he's
there.

3
And
believe
me
I
think
we've
given
access
to
4
people
as
much
as
possible.
The
fact
that
the
staff
5
proposed
this
change
indicates
different
inputs.
We've
6
had
tremendous
detailed
discussions
with
the
affected
7
industry.
I
think
we've
had
excellent
dialogue
with
the
8
industry
but
each
of
those
are
different,
because
we're
in
9
different
stages
of
the
process.

10
It
wasn't
our
idea
to
come
back
today,
that
was
11
because
of
the
lawsuit.
And
I'm
not
debating
the
merits
12
of
the
lawsuit.
The
fact
that
it
was
there,
we
are
in
a
13
democracy
and
people
have
a
right
to
take
what
action
they
14
want.

15
But
that
was
not
the
desire
at
that
time.
The
16
fact
is
we
are
back
here.
But
also
I
feel
that
during
the
17
process
we
learned
information,
during
that
time.
And
you
18
know
I
think
as
a
public
body,
I
don't
think
it
would
be
19
responsible
not
to
take
the
information
into
account
as
we
20
came
back
here.

21
But
you're
right,
Dr.
Burke,
this
is
tremendously
22
complicated.
I've
sat
down
with
staff
and
gone
through
23
some
of
these
issues
and
it
really
is
very
tough,
as
we
24
continue
to
see
now.

25
But
I
think
what
we're
seeing
is
the
fact
of
­­

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
86
1
two
things
I
would
like
to
just
say
on
that.
One
is
that
2
as
staff
has
indicated,
we're
not
sacrificing
air
quality.

3
In
fact,
we're
probably
increasing
that.
The
other
piece
4
about
that
is
that
we
have
a
timeframe
on
this.
So
the
5
more
time
we
take
on
this
before
we
go
ahead
and
get
6
another
program
under
way,
we
are
losing
precious
time,
so
7
we
can't
get
these
vehicles
on
the
road
as
fast
as
8
possible.

9
So
we're
caught
and
staff
is
caught
­­
we're
all
10
caught
on
that
issue.
If
we
had
another
6
months,
it
11
would
be
great.
But
we've
heard
from
many
of
the
people
12
out
here
we
need
to
go
faster,
harder
and
try
to
get
the
13
regulations
out
there
and
try
to
provide
some
surety
for
14
industry,
who
was
working
very
hard
on
this.
That's
what
15
we're
trying
to
do.

16
So
believe
me,
again
I'm
just
speaking
on
behalf
17
of
staff
in
this
case,
it's
a
tough
job.

18
Professor
Friedman,
Mr.
Calhoun?

19
I'm
just
going
to
take
a
pit
stop.

20
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
You
don't
want
to
21
hear
what
I
have
to
say,
is
that
it.

22
(
Laughter.)

23
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Well,
Yogi
Berra
24
wasn't
it
he
who
said
that,
"
It
ain't
over
till
it's
25
over",
or
until
the
lady
sings
or
something.
So
we'll
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
87
1
see
when
we
hear
some
singing
here.

2
First
of
all,
I
certainly
endorse
what
my
friend
3
and
neighbor
from
San
Diego
said
about
what
I
consider
4
rather
an
unfortunate
take
on
all
the
publicity
that's
5
preceded
this
hearing
to
the
extent
that
it's
been
seen
in
6
headlines
have
been
seen
as
staff
proposing
to
pull
the
7
plug
on
the
ZEV
mandate
or
in
any
way
undermining
it,

8
other
than
trying
to
make
it
square
with
what
we
now
9
understand
to
be
reality.

10
This
ZEV
mandate,
which
is
so
noble
and
which
is
11
it
so
important
for
our
futures
and
particularly
for
the
12
futures
of
our
children
and
grandchildren
and
their
13
health,
was
a
prediction
to
begin
with
in
1990.
It
was
14
crystal­
balling,
but
it
was
a
determination
to
get
some
15
science
going
and
to
require
those
who
make
vehicles
and
16
sell
them
in
this
state
to
begin
to
make
and
sell
an
17
increasing
number
of
vehicles
that
were
not
emitting
the
18
pollution
that
can
choke
us.

19
And
we've
then
had
to
monitor
as
we
go
along
this
20
work
in
progress,
and
learn
from
the
experiences,
good
and
21
bad,
that
have
presented
themselves.
And
I
wasn't
here
10
22
years
ago,
but
I
can
sympathize
with
these
of
you
who
were
23
and
have
had
to
go
through
this
at
it
stage
by
stage.

24
I
think
the
staff
proposal
is
a
good
basic
25
proposal
in
maintaining
the
2001
requirements
basically,

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
88
1
but
fixing
them
in
light
of
the
legal
issues
resulting
2
from
the
lawsuit,
and
providing
an
alternative
path
which
3
tries
to
incentivize
a
number
of
the
other
technologies
4
that
seem
promising.

5
I
have
a
sense
that
we're
with
the
fuel
cell
6
about
where
everybody
was
in
1990
with
the
battery.
Maybe
7
a
little
less
optimistic
about
the
fuel
cell.
Apparently,

8
everybody
was
predicting
the
battery
was
just
around
the
9
corner.
And
even
when
I
came
into
this
four
or
five
years
10
ago
and
was
in
Michigan
and
in
battery
factors
and
other
11
places,
it
was
just
a
matter
of
mass
production,
and
we're
12
going
to
have
much
longer
life,
and
much
cheaper
in
terms
13
of
cost
at
fairly
small
volumes.

14
But
that
said,
I
do
think
that
the
staff
proposal
15
is
too
modest.
I
think
that
we
need
to
require
much
more
16
and
a
specific
quantity,
at
least
as
a
target.
And
then
17
that
will
be
subject
to
an
earlier,
before
it
kicks
in,
to
18
a
technology
advisory
panel
assessment
to
give
us
19
guidance,
not
to
set
the
policy,
but
to
help
us
understand
20
where
we
are
technologically.

21
I
personally
would
prefer
to
see
more
zero
22
emission
vehicles
mandated
between
now
and
2008,
but
I'm
23
satisfied
that
with
the
questions
about
cost
and
what
24
would
be
made
in
the
near
term
for
zero,
a
good
25
satisfactory
demonstration
of
numbers,
such
as
250,
and
I
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
89
1
think
that's
a
minimum,
and
I
think
it
should
not
2
personally
­­
I'm
troubled
that
that
would
include
3
transportation
or
travel
credits.

4
I
think
we
need
in
this
state,
my
sense
is
we
5
ought
to
require
250
for
this
state.
And
not
to
take
away
6
from
New
York
or
Massachusetts,
but
you
know,
I
don't
like
7
the
notion
that
we
could
end
up
with
very
few
here.
I
8
don't
think
that
would
really
happen.
But
I
think
it's
9
our
responsibility
to
make
sure
it
doesn't
happen.
Maybe
10
I'm
misunderstanding
that
issue,
but
that's
my
sense
of
11
it.

12
Because
the
trade
off
is,
even
though
it's
a
very
13
low
number,
it
should
be
enough,
I'm
told,
and
I'll
accept
14
those
who
know
better,
that
250
will
be
enough
in
these
15
short­
term
years
to
demonstrate
and
to
allow
people
to
16
experiment,
the
manufacturers,
and
to
develop.

17
And
with
it
the
trade
off
and
the
benefit
we
get
18
is
we
are,
as
I
understand
it,
we
are
significantly
19
increasing
the
mandate
on
the
near
zero
emission,
the
20
volume,
the
number,
the
PZEV
the
AT
PZEV.
And
we're
21
driving
and
continuing
to
force
technology
there,
and
22
we're
going
to
get
a
lot
more
emission
reductions,
which
23
we
sorely
need
in
the
state
in
the
next
few
years
from
24
mobile
sources.

25
So
if
my
understanding
is
correct
that
that's
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
90
1
what
we're
doing
with
the
staff
proposal,
then
I
can
live
2
with
it
until
2009.
And
that's
when
I
join
my
colleagues
3
here
in
feeling
that
there
is,
as
I
said
earlier
in
some
4
questions
during
the
testimony,
I
don't
have
any
5
reluctance
to
pick
a
number
that
has
some
sound
basis
6
based
among
other
things
on
automaker
CEO
announcements
7
and
pronouncements
as
to
what
they
expect
and
see
their
8
vision,
what
their
plan
is
for
many
many
more,
many
more
9
fuel
cell
vehicles
than
we're
talking
about
here,
assuming
10
that
that's
the
vehicle
of
choice,
the
fuel
cell,
than
11
these
numbers.

12
And
I'm
content
with
the
staff
on,
I
guess,
the
13
medal
standards,
if
you
will,
or
a
precedent
of
10
times
14
multiples
of
10.
And
I
could
live
with
either
the
first
15
column
or
the
second
column
of
the
Cal
ETC
proposal.

16
They're
very
close
in
numbers.
And
I
wouldn't
draw
a
line
17
in
the
sand
on
either
in
terms
of
choosing
between
them.

18
I
am
concerned
though
about
giving
the
automakers
19
the
full
freedom
and
choice
to
pick
the
ZEV
technology.

20
My
concern
is
that
they'll
all
go
for
the
fuel
cell,
and
21
that
we
won't
see
anymore
battery
electric.
And
that,
at
22
least,
is
on
the
road.
There
are
people
who
have
made
23
them,
people
who
buy
them,
swear
by
them,
love
them,
dream
24
about
keeping
them,
and
are
sorely
disappointed,
because
25
in
some
cases,
they
can't.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
91
1
And
so
I,
too,
think
that
those
that
have
been
2
sold
and
made
we
ought
to
see
what
we
can
do
legally
and
3
appropriately
to
if
not
restore
them
to
make
sure
that
any
4
additionals
that
are
leased
or
sold
do
what
we
can
to
try
5
and
cajole,
or
if
it's
permitted
and
legal,
require
that
6
they
be
available,
so
that
they
can
be
available
on
the
7
long
term
for
those
who
want
to
buy
them.

8
It
may
well
be
that
that
was
an
inhibiting
factor
9
in
marketing
them
to
begin
with,
it
seems
to
me.
Why
10
invest
in
something
if
you
can't
keep
it
if
you
like
it.

11
So
again
there
are
questions.
There
will
always
12
be
lingering
doubts,
despite
Toyota's,
I'm
sure,
good
13
faith
statements
on
the
RAV4,
EV
RAV4.
And
despite
GM's
14
earlier
assurances
on
the
EV1,
there
will
always
be
15
lingering
doubts
whether
in
fact
there
could
have
been
a
16
better
college
try
to
market
these,
and
they
could
have
17
been
provable
successes
if
sold
in
great
volume.

18
I
realize
there
are
infrastructure
issues
and
19
other
things,
but
I'd
like
to
do
more
to
see
is
there
some
20
way
we
could
do
more
on
the
electric
vehicle,
the
battery
21
electric.
By
that
I
mean
within
these
numbers
to
either
22
incentivize
or
to
mandate
up
to
a
certain
percentage.

23
Finally,
I
don't
feel
as
strongly
that
plug­
in
24
hybrids
should
be
gold.
I
think
they
should
be
as
close
25
to
gold
as
we
can
have.
I
call
them
tarnished
gold
or
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
92
1
fools
gold.

2
(
Laughter.)

3
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
All
of
them.

4
Platinum.
Give
them
something
heavy.
But
when
they're
5
not
being
driven
in
battery
mode,
they're
gasoline
6
vehicles.
And
they
may
not
even
be
low­
emission
gasoline
7
vehicles,
like
SULEV
or
ULEV.
During
the
time
I
can't
8
quarrel
when
they're
being
driven
in
battery
mode
when
9
that
switch
is
on
or
up
or
whatever,
they're
entitled
to
10
that
kind
of
credit.
But
the
fact
is
they
can
also
be
11
driven
a
different
way.

12
I
really
am
concerned
about
keeping
faith
with
13
this
mandate
as
others
have
said.
And
I
believe
that
I've
14
benefited
greatly
from
the
testimony
I've
heard.
I
came
15
here
to
listen
and
I've
listened.
And
I
had
some
16
inquiries
from
the
press
and
I
didn't
want
to
talk
or
17
comment
because
I
hadn't
made
my
mind
up.
This
is
the
18
forum.
This
is
the
process.

19
I
mean
it's
flawed.
It's
not
perfect.
But
you
20
have
talented
staff,
very
thoughtful
hard­
working
staff
21
give
you
a
proposal,
pieces
of
which
they
run
by
some
of
22
us,
but
they
can't
run
by
very
many
of
us
because
of
the
23
obvious
legal
constraints.
And
they
get
bits
and
pieces
24
of
feedback.
They
hold
workshops.
They
get
input
from
25
all
the
constituent
interests
and
the
stakeholders,
and
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
93
1
then
they
fashion
something.
And
then
it's
out
there
for
2
comment.
And
then
it's
revised
in
light
of
the
responses
3
and
comments
from
the
interests,
affected
interests.

4
And
then
it's
further
out
there
in
the
public,

5
and
we
have
it,
and
we
are,
as
we
will
report
shortly,
we
6
are
available
at
least
most
of
us
to
try
to
make
ourselves
7
available
to
all
of
the
interests
who
want
to
talk
to
us.

8
And
we
listen
and
we
hear.
And,
of
course,
there
are
very
9
differing
and
conflicting
tugs
and
pulls.

10
And
out
of
that
we
then
come
to
a
2­
day
meeting.

11
We
listen
to
people
that
we've
not
heard
from
before
and
12
people
we've
heard
a
lot
from
before.

13
It
is
complicated.
And
I'm
glad
I
have
people
14
explaining
it,
because
even
though
I've
been
a
lawyer
for
15
40
plus
years,
if
I
had
to
read
this
for
the
first
time,

16
particularly
if
I
were
someone
like
an
aboriginal
or
from
17
Mars
who
just
landed,
I'd
read
that
and
I'd
say
this
is
18
not
as
Rousseau
so
said
in
the
state
of
nature.
This
is
19
incredible.
How
could
the
human
mind
come
up
with
this
20
kind
of
a
complex
entangled
scheme.

21
(
Laughter.)

22
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
But
would
it
put
you
to
23
sleep?

24
(
Laughter.)

25
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
But
the
scheme
makes
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
94
1
sense.
It
makes
sense
given
what
we're
trying
to
2
accomplish.
It
makes
as
much
sense
as
about
anything
else
3
I
can
think
of.

4
So
with
that,
I'll
listen
to
you
with
what
Mr.

5
Calhoun
has
to
say.

6
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
did
hear
you
say
­­

7
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
I
was
a
little
worried
8
there
for
a
few
minutes.
I
wasn't
sure
you
were
going
to
9
finish
the
statement.

10
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
But
in
the
back,
I
was
able
11
to
hear
you,
so
I
was
not
ignoring
you.

12
Mr.
Calhoun.

13
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
Thank
you,
Mr.
Chairman.

14
I
guess
I'd
like
to
echo
something
Ron
Roberts
said
15
earlier,
and
that
is
about
the
impression
that
was
had
by
16
a
lot
of
people
concerning
the
staff
report.

17
Nowhere
did
I
get
from
the
staff
report
that
the
18
staff
intended
to
eliminate
the
ZEV
requirement.
I
think
19
most
of
the
people
in
this
room
are
supportive
of
moving
20
in
the
direction
of
zero
emissions.
Certainly,
I
am.
And
21
that's
what
this
whole
business
has
been
about
for
the
22
last
30
years.

23
However,
in
the
process
of
trying
to
get
there,
I
24
think
we
have
to
be
somewhat
reasonable.
And
if
I
were
to
25
criticize
something
that
has
happened
in
the
past,
I
think
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
95
1
in
some
instances
we've
not
been
reasonable.
And
2
certainly
we
have
to
take
into
consideration
the
status
of
3
technology
and
the
cost.

4
Nowhere
in
the
process
here
in
the
last
couple
of
5
days
have
I
heard
much
discussion
about
the
cost
of
all
6
these
different
proposals.
When
new
technology
comes
out,

7
the
auto
manufacturers
will
put
forth
practically
8
everything
that's
necessary
in
order
to
try
and
meet
what
9
the
requirement
is
because
they're
running
a
business
and
10
they
don't
want
to
stop
selling
cars.

11
However,
you
have
to
take
into
consideration
the
12
cost
involved,
especially
in
the
early
years.
You
have
to
13
take
into
consideration
the
cost
that's
involved.
Now,

14
there's
no
questions
in
my
mind,
because
I
know
this
15
happens,
once
they
have
met
certain
requirements,
they're
16
going
to
do
everything
they
can
to
take
the
cost
out.

17
So
it's
important
to
take
that
into
18
consideration.
And
that's
why
I'm
concerned
about,
in
the
19
early
years,
having
a
fairly
low
requirement.
And
20
certainly
I
wouldn't
want
to
see
any
number
higher
than
21
what
the
staff
has
proposed
there,
250.
I'd
like
to
see
22
it
a
little
less
than
that.

23
And
in
the
out
years,
yes,
increase
the
numbers,

24
but
I
think
that
at
that
time
the
manufacturers
will
have
25
taken
most
of
the
­­
I
won't
say
most
of
the
cost
out
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
96
1
there.
They
will
never
take
most
of
it
out,
but
they
will
2
certainly
improve
on
the
cost.
And
I'd
like
to
see
that
3
factor
taken
into
consideration.

4
If
I
would
recommend
anything
to
my
colleagues,

5
it
would
be
that
we
reduce
the
number
of
vehicles
that
we
6
require
starting
in
2009,
I
guess,
reduce
that
number
7
some.

8
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Reduce
it
from
what,

9
Joe?

10
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
Well,
it's
at
2,500
now.

11
And
this
is
in
the
early
stages
now.

12
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
We
haven't
picked.

13
We
haven't
voted
on
any
number.

14
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
No,
I
understand
that.
I
15
understand
that.
You
have
some
numbers
up
there,
that
16
you're
going
to
vote
on.

17
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
But
you're
18
suggesting
that
they
should
be
lowered,
is
that
what
you
19
mean?

20
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
Two
thousand,
1,500.
And
21
I'm
certainly
supportive
of
keeping
the
pressure
on.
And
22
that,
in
effect,
is
about
all
I
have
to
say.

23
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
We're
going
to
quick
­­

24
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
One
other
thing
that
I
25
want
to
emphasize.
Nowhere
in
any
of
these
proposals
up
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
97
1
here
did
I
hear
anything
about
cost
effectiveness.
And
I
2
think
that's
a
factor
also.

3
Thank
you.

4
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
Alan,
just
on
5
that
one
point.

6
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Chairman.

7
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
Just
on
the
point
8
of
cost
effectiveness.
Dr.
Lloyd,
excuse
me.

9
Just
on
the
point
of
cost
effectiveness,
whatever
10
proposals
the
Board
adopts
today,
the
staff
will
analyze
11
in
great
detail
the
cost
impacts
of
what
you've
chosen
to
12
establish
as
targets,
in
addition
to
the
environmental
13
impacts,
depending
on
assumptions
about
the
fuel
cell
14
deployment,
where
the
hydrogen
will
come
from,
that
sort
15
of
thing.
We
have
to
do
that
as
part
of
our
legal
16
responsibilities.
It
would
be
in
the
15­
day
package
and
17
in
the
final
statement
of
reasons.

18
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
We're
going
to
take
a
few
19
minute
break,
but
before
that,
before
we
vote
a
request
of
20
one
of
the
Board
members.
Just
a
short
break.

21
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
I
failed
to
mention
22
again,
I
said
during
the
hearings
that
I
personally
am
23
interested
in
the
staff
exploring
further
and
reporting
24
back
on
giving
credit
for
stationary
fuel
cell
technology
25
and
installations
that
are
functionally
equivalent
with
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
98
1
mobile
uses
in
this
state
on
some
kind
of
a
basis.

2
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Yeah,
I
think
staff
is
going
3
to
do
that,
because
I
would
­­

4
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
That
was
a
6­
month
5
thing
or
three
months
­­
within
three
months.

6
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Yeah,
I
would
certainly
echo
7
that.
The
same
thing
with
the
infrastructure
I
think
8
we're
doing.
One
of
the
things
I
would
say
on
the
numbers
9
now,
and
I'll
come
to
this
time
at
the
numbers.
I
feel
10
very
strongly
having
worked
with
part
of
the
fuel
cell
11
partnership
here
on
the
early
year
number,
the
250.
I
12
realize
how
much
this
is
costing
companies.
I
know
what
13
is
involved
there,
and
part
of
the
process.

14
And
also
I
feel
very
strongly
that
I
hope
that
15
the
process
and
the
partnership
will
continue.
And
so
16
having
talked
to
a
number
of
the
number
of
companies
17
involved,
while
I
say
this
that
the
number
to
some
of
you
18
may
look
pretty
meager,
the
dollars
are
not
meager.
And
19
also
as
we
look
at
this
technology
to
go
ahead,

20
infrastructure
is
a
big
piece
of
that.

21
However,
I
do
feel
that
in
the
2009
and
2011
time
22
period
I
would
say
the
staff's
number
is
probably
very
23
reasonable,
because
having
sat
beside
Dr.
Burns'
at
the
24
congressional
testimony
a
few
weeks
ago,
the
target
for
25
General
Motors
and
others,
but
I
will
say
I
can
say
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
99
1
firsthand
there,
would
mean
that
the
2,500
in
that
time
2
period
should
be
easily
obtainable.

3
And,
again,
I
was
impressed
by
the
technology
4
trip
that
General
Motors
took
out
to
Sacramento
and
5
showing
their
range
of
technologies.

6
And
so
that's
just
one
company.
And
I
know
the
7
goals
of
the
Japanese
manufacturers
and
the
progress
that
8
they're
making
in
Japan
and
the
numbers
in
Japan.
I
9
certainly
could
not
condone
­­
I
certainly
could
not
10
support
any
number
less
than
that.
And,
in
fact,
I
have
11
to
bite
hard
not
to
go
significantly
higher.

12
But
as
I
say,
the
one
thing
I
have
learned
since
13
2
years
ago
just
the
point
that
Joe
and
that
Mr.
Calhoun
14
and
Supervisor
Roberts
made
that
just
because
you
put
15
numbers
out
there
it's
not
necessarily
so.
But
the
one
16
thing
I've
learned
on
the
fuel
cell
partnership
­­
and
the
17
fuel
cell
partnership
I
indicated
before
that
this
is
a
18
true
partnership.

19
And
I'm
looking
to
my
colleagues
in
the
back
of
20
the
room
there,
and
I'm
looking
forward
to
continuing
this
21
in
an
honest
and
sincere
­­
and
I
know
you
were
sincere
in
22
pushing
this
technology
and
also
down
here.

23
But
I
also
realize
that
you
know
that
the
nearer
24
you
get
in
those
are
significant
numbers.
And
we
also
25
recognize
that
we
get
out
later.
We
have
this
technical
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
100
1
advisory
panel
as
well
as
the
fuel
cell
group
to
tell
us
2
whether
those
numbers
are
reasonable.
My
expectation
is
3
that
they
will
be
very
reasonable.

4
MS.
D'ADAMO:
Mr.
Chairman.

5
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Legal
counsel
advises
me
that
6
we
may
be
able
to
take
a
one­
minute
break
but
we're
going
7
to
lose
people,
lose
our
quorum.
So
maybe
­­
can
we
just
8
hold
one
minute
here.

9
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
I'm
not
leaving.

10
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Well,
we're
going
to
be
11
starting
the
ex
parte,
and
we're
going
to
be
finishing
­­

12
apparently
we're
going
to
be
losing
a
quorum
in
15
13
minutes.

14
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
I'll
be
able
to
hear.

15
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Okay.
No,
we're
not
going
to
16
be
able
to
take
a
break.
Because
we
do
in
fact
before
we
17
start
to
vote
­­
the
other
issue
I'd
strongly
support
is
18
the
issue
of
doing
everything
we
can
to
see
how
we
can
19
retain
these
vehicles.
And
I
think
that's
to
me
the
20
amount
of
testimony
I've
heard
on
that
part
of
it,
it
is
21
actually
disheartening
to
see
you've
got
operating
22
vehicles
out
there
than
those
to
be
crushed.

23
Now,
I
don't
know
how
we'd
do
that,
but
on
the
24
other
hand
I
think
everything
should
be
done
to
try
to
do
25
that.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
101
1
The
other
issues
I
think
get
so
complex
that
I
2
think
we're
asking
staff
obviously
to
look
at
that
and
3
report
back
here.

4
Those,
I
think,
were
the
key
points
that
I
­­
the
5
other
point
I
think
that
to
reinforce
what
John
White
said
6
this
morning
what
this
Regulation
has
accomplished
and
the
7
fact
is
that
when
we're
looking
at
the
PZEVs
and
the
AT
8
PZEVs
increases.
That
does
a
tremendous
amount
for
air
9
quality
using
the
existing
infrastructure.
And
that's
not
10
to
be
under­
estimated.

11
The
other
point
I
think
was
I've
particularly
12
noted
what
he
said
of
quoting,
I
think
it
was
the
Chairman
13
of
General
Motors
saying
that
there
is
actually
not
only
a
14
fuel
economy
but
an
emissions
benefit
to
the
AT
PZEVs.

15
And,
you
know,
maybe
get
that
confirmed
for
me
what
I
16
always
understood
was
the
issue.

17
But
anyway,
with
that,
Ms.
D'Adamo.

18
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
Yes
I
just
had
­­
I'm
just
19
wanting
to
understand
your
position
a
little
bit
more
on
20
the
early
years
2005
to
2008.
Because
if
we
were
looking
21
just
at
fuel
cells,
I
can
understand
perhaps
lower
22
numbers.
But
if
we
now
are
considering
putting
batteries
23
into
the
mix,
plus
we've
got
this
travel
issue,
and
then
24
also
the
re­
release,
I'm
thinking
perhaps
a
higher
number
25
with
maybe
a
minimum
on
fuel
cells.
And
I'd
even
favor
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
102
1
some
sort
of
limitation
on
travel.
I'm
real
nervous
about
2
these
vehicles
getting
placed
elsewhere.

3
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
This
is
what
I
was
assuming,

4
Ms.
D'Adamo,
that
the
staff
would
come
back
with
this
5
analyzing
those
different
scenarios.
My
concern
was
to
6
ramp
up
the
cost
of
this
expensive
technology.
But
I
7
think
I
hear
you
and
I
would
support
the
general
thrust
of
8
that.
But
I
think
I'd
like
to
see
that
analysis
from
9
staff.

10
All
I
was
saying
is
that
knowing
the
significance
11
of
the
250
in
terms
of
the
fuel
cell
being
of
what
that
12
costs,
we've
got
to
be
careful
what
we
do
with
that.
But
13
I
also
hear
the
other
part,
and
I'm
completely
with
you
14
about
getting
those
existing
vehicles
back
in
there.
I
15
think
that
staff
would
understand
those
would
be
the
16
things
that
you
would
do
analyzing.

17
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
Actually,
there
18
is
a
policy
issue
that
we
need
the
Board's
direction
on
on
19
this
issue
of
250
versus
500.
And
what
I
understood
Ms.

20
D'Adamo
to
be
asking
is
should
the
Board
go
to
500
with
21
the
understanding
that
the
additional
250
or,
you
know,

22
the
BEV
equivalent
to
be
multiples,
would
be
made
up
with
23
batteries
and
would
not
push
fuel
cell
manufacturing
up
24
necessarily.

25
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Or
in
that
time
period,
but
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
103
1
with
a
deep
swallow
I
said
plug­
in
hybrids
for
a
short
2
time.

3
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
I'll
come
back
to
4
plug­
in
hybrids.
The
policy
issue
is
whether
you
either
5
want
to
compel
manufacturers
to
do
both
things,
if,
in
6
fact,
250
represents
the
upper
limit
of
their
fuel
cell
7
production
ability
and
then
they
must
at
the
same
time,
if
8
they're
on
the
alternative
compliance
path,
either
build
9
or
purchase
BEV
credits
from
another
manufacturer,
is
that
10
appropriate,
is
that
fair,
is
it
reasonable?
That's
one
11
policy
question.

12
The
other
question
is
if
they
really
do
not
wish
13
to
be
engaged
in
two
markets
at
the
same
time,
does
it
14
make
any
sense
to
have
500
fuel
cell
vehicles?
Let's
say
15
they
just
put
their
heads
down
and
say
we
don't
want
to
do
16
BEVs
at
all.
We'll
go
ahead
and
make
the
full
500
fuel
17
cell
vehicles,
but
these
are
very
immature
fuel
cells
at
18
an
R&
D
stage.
Is
any
benefit
gained
by
having
an
19
additional
250
of
them
at
potentially
a
million
dollars
a
20
piece.

21
And
so
it
is
a
tough
question,
it's
a
policy
22
question,
and
we
do
need
your
guidance
before
you
vote
on
23
whether
you
want
250
or
500
as
the
target
in
the
first
24
three
year
window
of
time.

25
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I'm
just
saying
I
could
not
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
104
1
support
putting
additional
burden
on
those
companies
2
there.
Particularly
those
who've
gone
ahead
in
good
3
faith.

4
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
Then
if
­­

5
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Then
the
other
thing
what
you
6
were
just
saying.

7
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
Would
you
like
me
8
to
piece
through
the
issues
one
at
a
time
that
Ms.
D'Adamo
9
was
talking
about
the
travel,
the
plug­
in
hybrids,
the
10
re­
release,
I
will.

11
On
the
matter
of
travel,
we
think
Professor
12
Friedman
is
right,
it
will
probably
play
out
that
most
of
13
the
cars
come
to
California
because
of
our
weather,
they
14
do
have
temperature
management
difficulties;
because
of
15
the
California
fuel
cell
partnership;
and
because
of
the
16
South
Coast
hydrogen
infrastructure,
which
is
already
in
17
place
and
they
are
building
upon.

18
We
have
a
very
strong
draw
in
California.
We're
19
not
expecting
a
lot
of
leakage
of
these
vehicles
to
the
20
eastern
states.
We
do
have
some
more
subtle
travel
21
issues.
Mr.
Cackette
talked
about
New
York
and
22
Massachusetts
impacts
with
how
credits
multiply
in
their
23
states
and
what
they
do
to
their
silver
obligations
et
24
cetera.

25
Also,
as
you
substitute
in
BEVs,
what
in
any
of
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
105
1
these
three­
year
windows,
whether
or
not
you
wish
us
to
2
include
that
in
the
travel
provision
we've
structured
such
3
that
they
don't
multiply.
We
think
that's
probably
a
4
minor
issue
at
these
numbers.
It's
a
also
a
good
thing
to
5
have
BEV
volumes.

6
So
we'd
be
inclined
as
a
preliminary
7
recommendation
to
say
keep
the
travel
provision
we've
8
written
for
fuel
cells
only
and
let
it
float
for
the
other
9
categories
of
ZEVs.
And
we
would
recommend
sunsetting
the
10
travel
clause
in
2012
­­
well
at
the
end
of
2011,
because
11
if
these
targets
prove
correct,
we'll
be
approaching
12
commercialization.
And
the
multiplier
effect
is
just
not
13
that
important
later
on.
So
that's
how
we
would
address
14
travel.

15
On
re­
release
we'll
look
at
it.
Mr.
Cackette
16
indicated
it's
a
gaming
issue.
And
we
will
try
to
carry
17
the
credits
we
establish
previously
forward
and
have
them
18
be
appropriate.
Of
course,
any
time
you
do
give
credit
19
for
putting
an
old
vehicle
back
on,
your
diminishing
the
20
pressure
to
bring
new
ones.
But
we'll
find
the
best
21
balance
point
and
put
that
in
the
15­
day
change
proposal.

22
On
plug­
ins,
we
talked
a
bit
about
the
credit
23
level.
We
had
lavish
credits
in
the
silver
category.
If
24
we
move
them
to
gold,
we
need
to
re­
ratio
what
those
25
credits
are.
Many
board
members
have
proposed
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
106
1
possibility
of
a
sunset.
Staff
would
suggested
to
you
it
2
won't
be
much
incentive
if
you
give
the
credit
and
take
it
3
away.
So
if
we're
going
to
do
this,
we
would
recommend
4
doing
it
for
the
long
term.

5
However,
balancing
that
consideration,
we
were
6
liberal
about
the
definition
of
plug­
in
hybrids
in
the
7
silver
category.
You
need
only
a
10­
mile
all
electric
8
range.
We
would
suggest
to
you
that
if
you
want
to
put
9
this
in
the
gold
category,
that
perhaps
we
should
be
10
requiring
a
20­
mile
minimum
range
instead.
That
that
11
would
be
truly
more
ZEV
like
and
a
greater
possibility
of
12
true
ZEV
miles.

13
MR.
McKINNON:
Mr.
Chairman.

14
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Mr.
McKinnon.

15
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Yeah,
I
absolutely
agree
16
with
changing
it
to
20
miles
or
even
30.
The
notion
is
17
that
it's
a
commuter
vehicle
that's
used
on
electric
day
18
after
day,
and
exceptionally
­­
or
as
an
exception
is
used
19
with
gasoline.

20
Mr.
Chairman,
I
have
another
comment
and
it's
21
about
the
numbers.
I
sort
of
started
off
the
discussion
22
by
proposing
the
Modisette
numbers.
If
I
was
going
to
23
lean
in
a
direction
other
than
the
Modisette
numbers,
it's
24
towards
the
Union
of
Concerned
Scientists.

25
And
I'm
concerned
that
we've
picked
numbers
that
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
107
1
are
based
entirely
on
fuel
cells.
What
if
fuel
cells
2
don't
work?

3
I
would
like
to
see
us
look
at
a
program
that
4
doesn't
prescribe
fuel
cells,
doesn't
prescribe
battery
5
electric,
but
leaves
the
choice
there.
And
frankly
the
6
difference
between
500
and
250
­­
if
I
was
developing
fuel
7
cells,
I
might
only
want
to
make
three
the
first
time.

8
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
The
battery
option
is
in
9
there.
It's
been
in
there
for
awhile.
But
I
hear
you.

10
I
have
a
little
bit
of
a
concern
on
the
staff's
11
recommendation
of
putting
in
plug­
ins
forever.
Because
to
12
me
then
basically
we
do
not
have
a
zero
emission
vehicle
13
requirement.

14
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Mr.
Chairman,
I
have
a
15
proposal
of
a
way
to
solve
that
problem.
Let's
put
a
16
sunset
that
is
reviewed
by
the
technology
review
panel.

17
And
I
think
we've
changed
the
name
of
that.
I
don't
think
18
we
talked
about
it.

19
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
That's
right.

20
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
But
we're
sort
of
21
talking.
You
know,
we
keep
calling
it
something
22
different.
And
I
like
technology
review
panel
actually.

23
But
maybe
we
do
a
sunset
that
they
sort
of
make
24
recommendations
as
to
whether
or
not
we
extend
it
in,

25
what,
2010
or
2008.
I
mean
I
don't
know.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
108
1
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
would
go
2008
for
that
time
2
period,
and
then
review
it.
I'm
comfortable
with
that.

3
But
I
understand
Mr.
Cackette's
argument
there,

4
but
I'm
not
persuaded.

5
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
Mr.
Chairman,
I
certainly
6
mentally
thought
with
the
inclusion
of
the
plug­
in
HEV,
a
7
minimum
of
30
miles.
I
think
when
you
think
about
the
8
traveling
public
and
I'm
trying
to
visualize
more
than
9
just
southern
California,
but
I
have
to
visualize
southern
10
California,
30
miles
has
just
got
to
be
the
minimum.
It's
11
got
to
be.
And
maybe
it
should
be
more,
but
30.
Now,
is
12
that
a
problem?
Do
you
technically
see
that
as
a
problem
13
for
that?

14
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
I
think
it
15
plays
out
as
an
issue
of
cost,
these
plug­
in
hybrids.

16
That's
what
you're
referring
to
I
believe,
have
to
have
17
the
gasoline
engine
in
it,
whether
they're
essentially
18
five
miles
or
50
miles.
And
to
get
each
mile
of
all
19
electric
range
you're
adding
more
battery
to
provide
the
20
energy
to
make
it
go
that
far.
So,
you
know,
20
miles
I
21
think
it
covers
half
the
VMT
a
person
would
normally
­­
I
22
think
at
20
miles
it's
something
like
half
of
the
VMT
23
would
be
covered
by
the
ZEV
part.
The
other
half
would
24
have
to
be
on
gasoline,
depending
on
the
recharging
25
availability.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
109
1
But
all
I'm
saying
is
if
you
go
to
30,
then
it's
2
starting
to
look
more
and
more
like
a
full
BEV
with
an
3
engine
added
on.
At
20,
it's
starting
to
look
more
like
a
4
city
car
with
an
engine
added
on
I
guess.

5
So
each
time
you're
just
adding
that
much
more
6
battery,
50
percent
more
battery
if
you
go
that
extra
10
7
miles,
which
means
you're
adding
two,
three,
four
thousand
8
dollars
to
the
cost
of
the
vehicle
to
get
that
10
miles
9
and
you
get
some
additional
fraction
of
the
travel.

10
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
I
know
that
it's
11
difficult,
because
I
don't
design
cars.
But
I
do
know
12
what
people
drive.
And
if
our
theory
is
that
we
want
them
13
to
use
electric
all
the
way,
to
and
from
wherever
they're
14
going,
it
seems
maybe
­­

15
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
I
think
the
16
critical
is
that
when
it's
below
20,
you're
going
to
start
17
wondering
whether
people
will
bother
to
plug­
in,
because
18
the
engine
comes
on
every
time.

19
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
That's
my
problem,
right.

20
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
At
20
it
will
21
get
most
people
to
work
and
maybe
back,
maybe
not.
But
22
what
I
was
trying
to
emphasize
that
it
adds
significant
23
cost
each
10
miles
that
you
add
on
the
vehicle
gets
bigger
24
and
heavier
and
so
it's
a
tradeoff.
And
I
can't
think
25
where
the
right
number
is.
Either
that's
on
the
value,
I
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
110
1
guess
on
places
on
the
amount
of
ZEV
miles
versus
the
2
extra
costs
and
complexity.

3
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Given
what
I
­­

4
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
And
you're
saving
on
5
gasoline,
Mr.
Cackette.

6
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Going
on,
it
seems
to
me
that
7
the
most
we
can
do
is
get
staff
to
take
the
direction
8
we've
got.
I'm
not
sure
whether
we
can
vote
on
anything
9
besides
giving
the
general
direction
that
we
want
to
10
strengthen
significantly
the
proposal.

11
What's
your
guidance
here?

12
GENERAL
COUNSEL
WALSH:
If
the
Board
were
to
take
13
action
in
terms
of
consensus
for
example
on
the
issues
14
that
have
been
outlined
both
in
your
discussion
and
by
Ms.

15
Witherspoon,
that
there
is
sufficient
discretion
and
16
authority
delegated
to
the
Executive
Officer
to
carry
out
17
that
direction,
to
put
together
a
version
of
the
18
regulation
with
the
changes
necessary
to
reflect
your
19
direction,
put
that
out
for
a
15­
day
comment
period
and
20
then
adopt
the
regulations
at
the
end
of
that
period
after
21
considering
all
of
the
comments
that
come
in,
with
the
22
additional
direction
that
should
there
be
issues
that
23
warrant
the
issues
our
regulations
will
be
brought
back
to
24
the
Board
to
be
finalized.

25
But
our
standard
practice
would
be
to
allow
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
111
1
executive
officer
to
do
that
unless
there
are
issues
of
2
significance
that
come
up
and
would
warrant
additional
3
input
from
the
Board
prior
to
finalizing
the
regulations.

4
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
That
might
be
putting
a
lot
5
of
onus
on
the
executive
officer,
given
what
I
see
going
6
on.
I'm
not
sure
what
my
colleagues
think.
I
think
I'd
7
be
more
comfortable
coming
back,
because
as
I
said,
I
8
think
it
puts
an
undue
burden
I
think.

9
Ms.
D'Adamo.

10
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
Just
a
quick
question,

11
what
would
that
do
to
the
timing
of
this
becoming
12
effective.
Are
you
talking
about
coming
back
at
the
next
13
hearing?

14
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Can
we
come
back
in
a
month?

15
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
You're
putting
me
16
in
a
difficult
spot
here,
being
well
aware
that
the
17
Chairman
does
not
favor
adding
plug­
in
hybrids
to
gold,

18
but
to
come
back
means
delaying
the
regulation,
because
19
it's
­­

20
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
One
month.

21
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
However
long.

22
I'm
struggling
to
know
what
we
would
do
in
a
month.
The
23
policy
issue
is
pretty
clear,
whether
they
should
be
in
24
gold
at
all.
They
are
not
fully
zero
emitting
vehicles.

25
And
what
we
have
suggested
is
if
you
take
the
choice
of
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
112
1
putting
them
into
gold
what
kinds
of
cautions
need
to
be
2
added
to
that.

3
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
What
I
thought
I
said
was
put
4
them
in
there.
Sunset
2008.
Be
reviewed
as
part
of
the
5
panel.

6
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
The
only
in
7
betweener
I
heard
was
the
issue
of
a
sunset.
And
you
can
8
certainly
add
it
and
have
the
panel
look
at
it,
and
the
9
staff
revisit
it
as
we
get
closer
to
'
08.

10
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
And
then
the
issue
of
what
11
the
range
is
going
to
be
on
that.

12
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
Right.
And
13
that's
where
we
had
left
off.
You
may
not
need
to
decide
14
exactly.
You
can
express
the
goal
that
we
capture
as
much
15
of
people's
normal
daily
trips.
Mr.
Cackette
was
16
explaining,
staff
believes,
20
is
a
whole
lot
better
than
17
10.
That
30
gets
a
lot
more
expensive
and
may
work
18
against
the
desire
to
have
plug­
in
hybrids
come
in.
But
19
we
can
analyze
that
more
fully
and
we
will
propose
what
we
20
think
is
the
best
balance
point
on
that
in
the
15­
day
21
changes.

22
Would
that
satisfy
you?

23
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
But
again
on
the
issue
of
you
24
know
the
sentiment
the
Board
to
try
to
keep
battery
25
electrics
open,
there
are
various
options
there
and
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
113
1
implications
that
we
thought
that
you
would
need
to
take
a
2
look
at
and
then
come
back
to
us.

3
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
We
definitely
in
4
the
15­
day
package
have
to
address
the
appropriate
ratios.

5
Whether
you
want
it
back
in
front
of
the
Board
means
6
another
public
hearing
on
the
amendments
we
proposed.
As
7
opposed
to
us
taking
your
general
direction,
turning
it
8
into
a
specific
proposal,
doing
15­
day
changes
and
then
9
you
delegating
to
me,
the
executive
officer,
the
10
responsibility
for
completing
the
final
package,
in
light
11
of
your
general
policy
direction
and
the
comments
12
received.

13
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Mr.
Chairman.

14
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Yes,
Mr.
McKinnon.

15
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
I
would
like
to,
if
I
16
could,
make
a
motion
to
adopt
the
inclusion
of
the
Cal
ETC
17
numbers
including
the
BEV
ratios
that
are
spelled
out
in
18
it.
And
the
numbers
don't
include
the
addition
on
the
19
graph
that
was
made.
What
I'm
talking
about
is
the
20
numbers
that
were
laid
out
in
Cal
ETC's
comments.

21
I
think
that
gives
us
sort
of
the
three
time
22
periods,
big
overall
goal
numbers
and
it
gives
us
the
23
ratios
for
inclusion
of
other
vehicles.

24
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
would
concur
with
that
25
except
for
the
250
instead
of
500.
The
others
are
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
114
1
same.

2
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Mr.
Chairman,
that
wasn't
3
my
motion.
My
motion
was
for
500.
I
don't
have
a
second
4
yet.

5
BOARD
MEMBER
BURKE:
I'll
second
the
motion
if
6
you'll
accept
this.

7
No,
it
was
a
secret
second.
Matt,
if
you
would
8
consider
adding,
as
a
friendly
amendment,
that
the
review
9
period
instead
of
being
2008
be
three
years
from
now
10
instead
of
5
years
from
now
and
then
have
a
2­
year
review
11
period
at
2006
and
2008.

12
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
I'll
accept
that
as
a
13
friend
amendment.

14
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
A
crucial
15
clarifying
question
whether
BEV
substitution
is
to
be
16
mandatory
or
permissible.

17
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Permissible
in
this
18
motion,
permissible.

19
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
So
if
they
didn't
want
to
20
make
BEVs,
they
would
have
to
make
fuel
cells.

21
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
And
there's
no
percentage
22
involved.
If
the
first
shot
at
making
fuel
cells
says
23
that
it's
smart
to
make
three,
and
they
want
to
fill
it
in
24
with
BEVs,
that's
fine.
If
they
want
to
make
all
fuel
25
cells,
that's
fine.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
115
1
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
And
just
to
2
be
clear
and
all
BEVs,
that's
fine?
No
floor
on
fuel
3
cells
is
what
you're
saying?

4
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
That's
right.

5
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
So
you're
saying,
the
path
6
they
can
go
on
now
is
they
can
use
the
BEV
path
now.
The
7
alternate
path
you're
basically
giving
a
forced
BEV
as
8
well
if
they
can't
handle
that
number
of
fuel
cells.

9
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
That's
correct.
And
they
10
determine
the
mix.

11
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
What
about
the
suggestion
12
that
Alan
made
of
the
number
being
250
instead
of
500.

13
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
If
it's
250,
I
would
agree.

14
I
can't
agree
to
jumping
that
number
up
if
they
decide
to
15
go
with
fuel
cells.
I
think
that's
very
dangerous.
But
I
16
will
agree
with
the
subsequent
numbers
jumping
that
up
17
given
that
option.

18
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
Mr.
Chairman,
but
if
we
19
allow
for
the
flexibility
that
some
of
us
are
pushing
for
20
on
BEVs,
in
particular
on
the
re­
lease
of
sale
with
21
generous
credits,
wouldn't
that
erode
your
attempts
on
22
fuel
cells,
or
couldn't
it
possibly
­­

23
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I'm
just
concerned
about
24
getting
back
to
some
of
the
comments
Supervisor
Roberts
25
and
Mr.
Calhoun
said
that
some
of
the
companies
have,

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
116
1
whether
we
like
it
or
not,
feel
that
they've
gone
through
2
the
experiment
and
they've
now
made
significant
3
investments
on
hybrids,
and
they're
making
significant
4
investment
on
fuel
cells.

5
And
now
if
we're
going
to
be
forcing
them
to
6
spend
significant
dollars
on
something
which
they
feel
7
there's
no
subsequent
market
for
in
this
time
period,

8
that's
where
my
concern
is,
again
having
worked
with
them
9
very
closely
knowing
what
they're
putting
into
that,
those
10
numbers.
But
if
you
want
to,
I
say
in
those
early
years,

11
reduce
that
and
then
go
back
to
the
higher
numbers,
I
12
think
­­

13
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
I'm
just
­­
I'm
looking
14
for
other
options
on
BEVs.
I
think
the
fuel
cell
numbers
15
if
it
were
just
fuel
cells,
but
I
wouldn't
be
supporting
16
that
anyway
because
of
the
BEV
situation.
And
I'd
like
to
17
encourage
automakers
that
are
finished,
maybe
they
can
18
contract
out
to
purchase
credits
from
someone
else
so
that
19
it's
not
­­

20
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Then
I
would
feel
I
would
21
want
to
hear
staff
come
back
to
us,
investigate
the
22
implications
of
this
and
report
back
to
the
Board,
because
23
there
are
ripple
effects
here
and
I
don't
know
what
they
24
are.

25
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Mr.
Chairman,
I
have
a
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
117
1
motion
that's
before
the
Board,
but
I
am
­­
if
the
outcome
2
of
the
motion
is
that
it
passes,
I
have
absolutely
no
3
problem
with
having
staff
come
back
and
say,
you
know,
how
4
it
all
fits
together.
I
mean
we're
sitting
here
making
5
policy
that's
fairly
complex
from
up
here
and
it
doesn't
6
always
work
very
well.

7
So
I
have
no
problem
with
that.
But
the
500
8
number
at
the
start
is
not
disrespecting
your
judgment
9
about
fuel
cell,
and
I
think
250
fuel
cells
is
a
lot
of
10
money,
but
we
don't
know
that
that's
what
will
happen.

11
And
we're
struggling
to
get
zero
emission
vehicles.
And
I
12
really
worry
that
there's
even
merit
to
make
250
fuel
13
cells
at
the
first
deal.

14
I
mean
I've
followed
development
of
all
sorts
of
15
things,
primarily
aircraft,
and
you
know
­­
I
don't
think
16
we
have
enough
with
250
and
so
that's
­­

17
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Just
a
question.

18
I'm
not
clear
what
you
gain
with
doubling
the
number,
even
19
though
it's
optional
whether
it's
BEV
or
fuel
cell.

20
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
I
think
it's
the
21
overall
­­
what
we
gain
is
the
overall
look
at
zero
22
emission
vehicles.
We
may
get
battery
electrics.
We
may
23
get
plug­
in
hybrids.
We
may
get
some
mix,
but
we
get
a
24
number
that
it's
sufficiently
close
to
what
we
were
trying
25
to
get
done
before
this
process
was
interrupted.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
118
1
And
I
think
that's
important.
I
think
2
Californians
want
us
to
work
on
zero
emission
vehicles.

3
And
if
it
works
out
that
there's
fuel
cells
and
there's
4
less
of
them,
but
they
work,
great.
But
I
have
my
doubts
5
at
the
first.

6
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Supervisor
DeSaulnier.

7
BOARD
MEMBER
DeSAULNIER:
I
just
have
a
process
8
question
having
been
through
this
several
times.
I
want
9
to
make
sure
we
get
this
as
right
as
possible.
And
I
may
10
not
be
as
bright
as
some
of
my
colleagues.
Actually,
I'm
11
sure
I'm
not.

12
But
for
me
there's
a
comfort
level
in
what
you
13
just
said
Matt
about
coming
back
next
month.
It
may
be
a
14
question
of
semantics,
but
clearly
we're
close
to
having
15
something
really
important.
And
I
would
like
to
fully
16
understand
sort
of
the
secondary
consequences
of
what
17
we're
talking
about.

18
And
I
don't
want
to,
with
all
due
respect,

19
entrust
that
to
staff.
I'd
like
to
know
what
we're
voting
20
on.
I
look
back
on
what
we
voted
on
in
2001,
and
I
regret
21
not
having
a
better
understanding
on
the
NEV
credits.

22
So
from
my
perspective,
I'm
fine
with
the
23
direction
we're
going
in,
but
I
would
like
to
have
more
24
information
in
terms
of
the
possible
implications.

25
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
And,
again,
I
would
second
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
119
1
that,
because
I'm
fine
with
what
my
colleagues
want
to
do
2
there,
I
just
want
to
know
what
extent
and
the
ripple
3
effects
given
my
comments
on
the
fuel
cell
numbers,
too.

4
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
I
share
that.
I
5
think
the
staff
has
at
least
got
a
symmetrical
proposal.

6
I
understood
it.
And
the
rationale
for
the
250,
which
I
7
understood
the
automakers
who
are
­­
the
subjects
are
8
victims
of
this,
felt
that
this
was
achievable.
To
double
9
it
without
knowing
really
the
basis
and
what
the
10
consequences
would
be,
conceding
that
the
goal
is
11
laudable,
the
purpose
of
it
is
laudable.

12
I'm
content
with
the
10­
time
multiple.
I'm
a
13
little
less
comfortable
with
CalETC
because
I
don't
know
14
the
rationale
for
those
numbers.
And
the
addition
is,
I
15
think,
I
get
25
thousand
7
something.
But
as
­­

16
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
That
addition
wasn't
in
17
the
proposal.
That
was
an
addition
error
that
was
done
in
18
the
staff
graph.

19
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
No,
I
accept
it.
So
20
I
mean
actually
it's
a
little
less
than
what
the
staff
ten
21
times
would
end
up.
But
I'm
not
crystal
clear
on
what
the
22
multiples
are,
what
the
reasons
are.

23
BOARD
MEMBER
DeSAULNIER:
Mr.
Chairman,
in
terms
24
of
my
desire
to
get
a
little
more
information,
I
don't
25
want
people
to
think
that
I
want
it
to
go
down.
I
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
120
1
actually
still
think,
with
all
due
respect
to
the
2
Chairman,
I
would
be
more
inclined
to
go
up
to
Jason's
3
numbers.
So
having
said
that,
but
I'm
not
fearful
that
4
the
extra
30
days
is
going
to
weaken
that
position.
We're
5
all
going
to
­­
we've
indicated
where
we're
coming
from,

6
we
just
need
more
information.

7
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
No,
I
think
the
message
is
8
here
we're
actually
talking
about
­­
we're
actually
9
discussing,
and
if
you
like
maybe
we
have
slight
10
disagreements.
We're
not
disagreeing
over
the
goal.

11
We're
talking
about
zeros
here.
We're
all
talking
about
12
that.
We
all
talk
about
increasing
the
number
of
PZEV
and
13
AT
PZEVs.
We're
just
looking
at
how
do
we
best
get
to
the
14
zero,
and
what's
the
appropriate
number
particularly
in
15
these
early
years.

16
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Mr.
Chairman,
I
would
be
17
willing
to
change
my
motion
to
be
a
motion
that
just
gave
18
a
sense
of
the
Board
so
that
we
could
proceed
forward
to
19
other
issues
that
are
involved
here.
There's
a
number
of
20
other
issues,
but
this
motion
would
be
just
sort
of
to
get
21
a
sense
of
the
Board.

22
And
if
that
isn't
appropriate,
I'm
willing
to
23
even
withdraw
it,
if
we're
going
to
come
back
and
look
at
24
this
in
30
days
with
numbers.
And
I
need
my
second's
kind
25
of
concurrence
on
how
you
want
to
proceed
on
that.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
121
1
BOARD
MEMBER
BURKE:
That's
fine.
I'm
fine.

2
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
Mr.
Chairman,
you
can
3
simply
continue.
I'm
trying
to
think
of
the
correct
4
parliamentary
procedural
­­

5
GENERAL
COUNSEL
WALSH:
Are
you
talking
about
6
continuing
­­

7
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
There's
a
motion
before
us
8
with
a
second.
And
you
can
have
that
continued
to
a
date
9
certain,
which
would
be
the
next
hearing.
Allow
staff
to
10
come
back
with
the,
you
know,
further
analysis
that
might
11
be
needed
for
us
then
to
take
a
final
action
on
that
12
motion.
Would
that
be
acceptable?

13
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
And
given
the
direction
that
14
you're
saying,
Mr.
McKinnon,
that
we're
asking
staff
to
15
look
at
providing
this
dual
path,
if
you
like,
in
terms
of
16
the
batteries
and
the
fuel
cells,
and
what's
the
right
17
proportion
there.
How
do
we
treat
existing
vehicles,

18
existing
BEVs
there.

19
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
It's
a
little
more
than
20
that,
Mr.
Chair.
It's
also
sort
of
the
big
number
21
discussion.
And
I
think
so
­­
but
I
have
no
problem
22
continuing
it.
And
by
the
time
we
hear
the
staff's
23
report,
you
know
we
may
just
defeat
the
motion
and
find
a
24
clearer
way
to
do
it
30
days
from
now.

25
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
Let
me
see
if
I
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
122
1
can
help
here.
I'm
sensing
a
far
greater
amount
of
2
agreement
than
disagreement.
I
do
think
the
key
issue
is
3
the
first
interval
250
versus
500.
I
think
a
shadow
issue
4
behind
the
next
2
intervals
is
the
amount
of
credit
for
5
BEV
substitution
and
Supervisor
DeSaulnier
and
Mr.

6
McKinnon
both
got
at
that.

7
Mr.
McKinnon
proposed
that
we
use
Cal
ETC's
8
ratios
exactly
as
they
are.
Staff
had
recommended
9
previously
that
any
ratios
we
would
use
be
roughly
based
10
on
cost
of
the
relative
technologies,
you
know,
at
the
end
11
of
the
year
of
each
of
those
intervals.
And
we
don't
know
12
what
the
Cal
ETC
ratios
are
based
on.
But
if
you
are
13
willing
to
have
staff
proceed
with
Matt's
logic,
we
can
14
tell
you
what
we
think
the
ratios
ought
to
be
for
plug­
in
15
hybrid
substitution,
BEV
substitution
in
each
of
those
16
intervals.

17
And
then
at
the
end
point,
the
numbers
are
very
18
much
the
same.
I'm
not
sure
there's
an
argument
here
at
19
all.
The
question
we
didn't
get
to
yet
in
this
dialogue
20
between
the
Board
members
is
post
2014,
would
you
have
the
21
staff
proposal
return
to
the
red
line
immediately
or
22
smooth
the
ramp
out
between
2014
and
2018
and
reach
the
23
red
line
at
that
point.

24
But
I
don't
see
a
huge
difference.
Well,
at
the
25
bottom
of
your
slide
it
indicates
what
happens
with
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
123
1
red
line.
It's
essentially
25,000
per
year.
And
in
the
2
three­
year
interval
it's
73,000.
So,
you
know,
if
you've
3
stopped
at
about
25,000,
30,000,
over
a
three­
year
period
4
the
next
year
if
you
didn't
smooth
it
out,
that
would
5
become
an
annual
production
number
versus
a
triennial
one.

6
And
you
may
want
to
smooth
it.

7
But
I
would
love
to
have
the
Board
find
a
8
consensus
today.
You're
so
close.
And
to
go
on
another
9
month
is
to
invite
another
round
­­
I
mean,
you
can
close
10
the
record.
But
in
point
of
fact,
there
will
be
another
11
round
of
debate
and
dialogue
with
the
staff
from
all
12
parties.
And
we
think
we
could
perhaps
get
to
a
policy
13
consensus
amongst
you
all
today.

14
But
I'll
leave
that
back
again
to
the
Board
to
15
see
if
you
agree
you're
as
close
as
I
think
you
are.

16
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Now,
any
comments?

17
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
Can
we
close
the
record
18
and
not
take
anymore
testimony?

19
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
We
have
done
that.
We
have
20
closed
the
record.

21
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
So
even
if
we
came
back,

22
we
could
still
make
a
decision
without
­­

23
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Yes,
right.

24
GENERAL
COUNSEL
WALSH:
Excuse
me,
Dr.
Lloyd.

25
The
final
step
of
completing
the
record
would
be
board
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
124
1
members
disclosing
any
ex
parte
communications
that
they
2
have.

3
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Yes,
correct.
We
haven't
got
4
to
that
yet.

5
Well,
maybe
we
should
do
that.
I'm
just
trying
6
to
think
­­
I
guess
we
should
do
that
now
even
if
we
7
come
­­
we're
going
to
come
to
some
motion
here.

8
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Mr.
Chairman,
we
have
a
9
motion.

10
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Yeah.
But
yes
then
in
fact
11
we
should
declare
our
ex
parte
communications.

12
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Well,
before
we
lose
13
the
proposal
or
the
suggestion
from
our
Executive
Officer
14
and
before
I
lose
it,
it
seemed
to
me
that
it
should
be
15
put
in
perspective.
And
it
seems
to
me
that
I'm
sensing
16
that
is
what
we
are
talking
about.
I
don't
know
that
I'm
17
prepared
to
vote
other
than
to
ask
on
a
15­
day
notice
ask
18
that
they
come
back
with
those
changes
and
19
recommendations.

20
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
I
heard
Ms.
Witherspoon
to
21
say
in
order
to
do
that,
staff
does
need
some
additional
22
direction,
in
particular
250
versus
500
or
somewhere
in
23
between.

24
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Well,
then
maybe
we
25
ought
to
vote
on
that
if
we
need
to.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
125
1
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
Were
there
other
issues
2
that
you
needed
direction?

3
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
Mr.
Cackette
is
4
reminding
me,
I'll
list
them
again
250
versus
500
in
the
5
first
interval;
whether
there's
fuel
cell
vehicle
floor
or
6
not,
staff
had
recommended
at
least
the
50
percent
floor
7
for
fuel
cell
vehicles;
whether
you
agree
with
staff's
8
proposal
for
rationing
the
credits
between
the
9
technologies,
we
proposed
a
cost
based
approach
looking
at
10
the
end
year
of
each
interval,
you
know
what's
the
11
relative
cost
of
the
fuel
cell
versus
a
CityCar
versus
a
12
plug­
in
hybrid
et
cetera.
And
that's
how
we
would
round
13
it
off
and
we
would
attempt
to
make
the
electric
vehicle
14
choices
slightly
more
attractive
knowing
that
there
is
15
resistance
to
getting
those
into
the
market.

16
We
also
need
your
guidance
on
post
2014,
how
17
quickly
you
would
like
us
to
return
to
the
red
line,

18
whether
immediately
in
2015
on
an
annualized
basis
or
to
19
smooth
the
ramp
between
2014
and
2018.

20
And
plug­
in
hybrids,
a
sunset
in
'
08
or
not.
I
21
think
we
came
to
a
consensus
on
a
range
that
we
would
push
22
it
as
high
as
it
was
feasible
to
capture
as
much
VMT
and
23
not
undo
our
efforts
on
the
cost
side
and
that
would
be
24
part
of
the
15­
day
proposal.

25
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Ms.
Witherspoon,
I
think
that
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
126
1
one
of
the
issues
here,
and
I
can
understand
very,
very
2
much
your
desire
to
kill
this
thing
today
­­

3
(
Laughter.)

4
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
­­
and
mine
also.
I
have
no
5
desire
to
do
this.
But
on
the
other
hand,
I
am
still
­­
I
6
think
you've
heard
we
all
want
to
point
in
the
right
7
direction.
We
all
want
to
make
sure
that
the
message
gets
8
out.
That
mandate
is
here.
We're
all
committed
to
9
cleaning
up
the
air
faster.
We're
all
committed
to
zero
10
emission
vehicles.

11
But
there
are
ways
in
which
we
get
there.
And
12
they
have
implications.
The
travel
issue,
looking
at
some
13
of
the
other
issues
that
we've
discussed.
I'm
just
14
concerned
that
at
least
­­
I'm
probably
closest
of
any
of
15
the
Board
members
here
to
some
of
the
issues.
And
I'm
not
16
sure
how
we
put
something
together
that
we
would
all
know
17
what
we're
doing,
the
unintended
consequences.

18
So
I'm
really
maybe
looking
forward
to
taking
an
19
extra
month,
so
they
come
back
to
us
where
we
don't
have
20
to
take
anymore
public
testimony.
But
we
have
some
21
clarity
in
terms
of
what
we're
voting
on,
the
specifics.

22
But
there's
no
doubt
to
the
rest
of
the
world
what
we're
23
saying.
We're
strongly
committed
to
our
program
and
the
24
zero
emission
vehicle
requirements,
and
also
increasing
25
the
PZEVs
and
the
hybrids.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
127
1
But
I
think
there
are
issues
that
we
need
to
2
study
carefully.
And,
again,
you
can
hear
me,
the
trend
3
I'm
sensing
with
my
colleagues.
I'm
supportive
of
that,

4
but
I
want
to
know
how
we
get
there.

5
Supervisor
DeSaulnier.

6
BOARD
MEMBER
DeSAULNIER:
Mr.
Chairman,
what
I'm
7
sensing
from
staff
is
I
don't
think
the
Board
wants
to
8
reopen
everything,
and
if
I'm
being
redundant
from
what
9
Alan
just
­­
I'm
sorry,
the
Chairman
just
said,
I'm
sorry.

10
But
you
know
basically
I
think
we
could
have
a
motion
that
11
approves
the
resolution
in
front
of
us,
includes
that
the
12
Board
wants
a
number
higher
than
the
staff
recommendation
13
with
a
minimum
of
the
first
column,
which
is
not
where
I
14
will
be
in
a
month,
and
then
directs
you
to
further
15
investigate
those
issues
that
you've
talked
about,
the
16
travel
issue,
the
re­
release
issue,
because
I
think
all
of
17
us
are
interested
in
that,
the
implications,
and
the
18
tarnished
gold
versus
the
gold
issue.

19
And
if
there's
something
I'm
missing,
I
think
we
20
have
to
frame
it
around
that.
That's
not
a
lot
to
finish
21
with,
but
it
does
at
least
give
me
a
comfort
level
that
22
we're
not
going
to
reopen
everything,
but
we
are
going
to
23
have
some
answers
to
the
implications
of
the
direction
24
we're
going
in.

25
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
Which
essentially
is
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
128
1
motion
before
us.
Well,
it
is
an
analysis
before
we
vote
2
that
then
we
can
be
an
informed
voter.

3
BOARD
MEMBER
DeSAULNIER:
Well,
as
long
as
4
everyone
is
clear
with
that.
Maybe
it's
a
question
of
5
semantics.
I
wasn't
clear
that
that's
what
the
motion
6
was.
If
that's
clear
to
everyone
­­

7
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
No.
You're
right,
that
8
isn't
the
motion,
per
se.
But
it
is
to
the
motion
that's
9
on
the
table
before
us.

10
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Our
motion
is
getting
as
11
complex
as
the
regulation.

12
(
Laughter.)

13
BOARD
MEMBER
DeSAULNIER:
You
know
what
they
say
14
about
sausage,
Mr.
Chairman.

15
GENERAL
COUNSEL
WALSH:
If
I
may,
it
sounds
like
16
what
the
Board
is
looking
for
is
perhaps
an
embedded
17
motion
that
would
provide
a
sense
of
the
Board
in
terms
of
18
a
direction
to
come
back
with
a
specific
proposal
that
19
would
then
be
the
subject
of
Mr.
McKinnon's
motion
that
20
the
Board
could
then
take
action
on
next
month.
That's
21
what
I'm
hearing.

22
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Question.
Would
23
that
be
different
than
an
action
on
this
resolution
with
24
the
indicated
changes?

25
GENERAL
COUNSEL
WALSH:
Yes.
That
­­

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
129
1
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
This
would
not
be
a
2
15­
day
notice.

3
GENERAL
COUNSEL
WALSH:
That
embedded
motion
4
would
be
different
from
an
action
on
the
resolution.
It
5
would
be
­­

6
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Which
is
what
I
7
think
Mark
was
referring
to.

8
GENERAL
COUNSEL
WALSH:
Basically
providing
some
9
additional
direction
to
staff
in
terms
of
coming
back
with
10
what
would
essentially
be
the
15­
day
proposal
to
you
next
11
month.

12
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
I
for
one
would
like
13
it
restated,
if
you're
willing.

14
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Mr.
Chairman,
one
way
I
15
could
approach
this
is
I
could
withdraw
my
motion,
and
I
16
could
take
the
motion
that
I
made
and
break
it
in
pieces
17
so
that
we've
got
a
sense
of
the
Board.
And
then
that
18
would
give
staff
sort
of
the
big
broad
strokes
to
deal
19
with
and
then
work
at
the
numbers
and
make
sure
we
haven't
20
set
up
a
way
to
be
gamed
or
some
of
the
other
21
possibilities.

22
And
so
I'm
willing
to
do
that
and
my
second
has
23
said
he's
amenable
to
that.

24
So
I
withdraw
the
motion
and
I
would
like
to
make
25
a
motion
to
determine
the
sense
of
the
Board
on
the
model
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
130
1
year
2005
through
2008
fuel
cell
number.
And
I'll
stop
2
there.
And
I
would
move
a
number
of
500
fuel
cells
or
a
3
proportional
set
of
other
Battery
Electric
Vehicles
or
4
plug­
in
hybrid
electric
vehicles
that
are
proportioned
5
credit
wise
relative
to
cost.

6
BOARD
MEMBER
BURKE:
I
always
get
in
trouble
7
trying
to
put
words
in
your
mouth.
I
just
want
to
8
understand
the
motion
myself
now.
Because
is
really
what
9
you're
saying
is
you're
really
saying
500
cars
of
the
mix
10
of
which
you
described?
Because
when
you
said
it
before,

11
you
said
well
they
could
do
three
fuel
cells,
right?

12
Can
you
clarify
that.

13
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
What
I'm
saying
is
500
14
fuel
cells
or
a
proportional
number
in
that
period
of
15
different
types
of
battery
electrics.
There's
different
16
credits.
So
in
the
proposal
Cal
ETC
made,
it
would
take
17
approximately
10;
is
that
correct?
This
is
at
50
percent.

18
In
the
first
year
it
would
take
10
Type
2
EVs
to
19
replace
one
of
the
fuel
cells.
Or
it
might
take
20,
am
I
20
doing
the
math
wrong
because
it's
50
percent
of
­­
it's
21
20,
40.

22
So
type
2'
s
the
proportional
number
of
type
2
EVs
23
would
be
20
EV's.
Type
1
EVs
it
would
take
40
of
them.

24
So
the
corresponding
pattern
is
it's
either
in
that
period
25
of
time
500
fuel
cells.
And
what
I'm
suggesting
and
that
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
131
1
this
is
the
sense
of
the
Board,
that
the
ratios
be
talked
2
about
in
terms
of
what
the
cost
is.

3
So
that
is
giving
you
a
lot
more
room
than
4
even
­­
considering
the
Cal
ETC
report,
it's
saying
look
5
at
costs
of
fuel
cells
and
then
what
are
the
proportional
6
equal
equivalent
costs
of
the
others.

7
BOARD
MEMBER
BURKE:
Can
we
hear
what
staff
has
8
to
say
about
that.

9
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
Actually,
we
need
10
to
hear
what
you
have
to
say
about
that.

11
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
cannot
go
with
500
fuel
12
cells.
But
I
thought
where
we
were
heading
was
for
staff
13
to
look
at
the
implications
of
various
scenarios,
and
then
14
come
back
to
us,
which
would
include
that,
Mr.
McKinnon.

15
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Mr.
Chairman,
I
had
a
16
motion
that
I
withdrew.
And
I
withdrew
that
motion
with
17
the
understanding
that
we
were
going
to
go
through
the
18
numbers
to
get
the
sense
of
the
Board
so
that
we
gave
19
staff
­­
and
I
took
the
very
first
piece
of
that
motion
20
and
tried
to
put
it
into
words
and
tried
to
give
the
21
flexibility
to
staff
to
use
costs
to
determine
it.

22
BOARD
MEMBER
BURKE:
Does
that
allow
staff
to
23
come
back
and
say
well
500
is
too
big,
we
need
350
or
does
24
that
say
on
the
other
vehicles
we
can
modify
their
value
25
in
this
system?

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
132
1
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
The
latter.

2
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
And
this
would
impact
3
different
companies
potentially?

4
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Yes.

5
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
Staff
has
already
6
said
we
believe
that
250
is
the
right
number
for
this
7
interval
of
time.
And
once
you
express
the
will
of
the
8
Board
on
you
want
to
go
higher
beyond
staff's
9
recommendation,
we
would
assess
what
that
might
mean.

10
If
you
just
double
it
in
fuel
cells,
it
means
11
$
500
million
rather
than
$
250
million
worth
of
investment
12
at
a
million
dollars
a
car.
Because
we're
doing
a
cost
13
equivalent
BEV
substitution,
it
would
be
the
same
14
investment
in
BEVs,
and
then
always
figure
out
exactly
how
15
many
vehicles
that
is
of
each
type.

16
But
you're
doubling
the
investment
dollars
17
essentially
by
going
from
250
to
500.
And
you're
18
potentially
making
even
more
fuel
cell
vehicles
than
are
19
needed
to
demonstrate
the
technology.

20
On
the
plus
side,
you're
potentially
drawing
BEVs
21
back
into
the
market,
but
you
might
be
asking
22
manufacturers
to
involved
themselves
in
BEVs
when
you
23
don't
wish
to
any
longer,
and
that's
why
they're
going
to
24
the
alternative
compliance
path
instead
of
the
base
25
regulation
in
order
to
stay
with
BEVs.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
133
1
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Okay.
Mr.
Chairman,
I
2
didn't
get
a
second.
And
it
doesn't
seem
to
be
that
we're
3
actually
doing
this
to
get
a
sense
of
the
Board
to
give
to
4
staff.
We're
having
a
debate
over
it.
I
didn't
get
a
5
second
so
I
don't
have
a
motion,
and
maybe
there's
another
6
way.

7
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
Let's
go
with
the
staff
8
proposal.
I'm
receptive
to
going
with
the
staff
proposal
9
to
get
this
over
with.

10
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
So
what
you're
saying
is
11
include
the
staff
proposal
and
come
back
to
us.

12
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
No,
I'm
saying
the
staff
13
proposal
that
they
have
before
us
today.

14
BOARD
MEMBER
BURKE:
But
the
staff
proposal
15
doesn't
have
numbers
in
the
2009
to
2014
years.

16
GENERAL
COUNSEL
WALSH:
I
guess
for
clarification
17
it
would
be
helpful,
Mr.
Calhoun,
to
know
whether
­­

18
there's
a
column
there
labeled
staff
proposal
and
then
the
19
10
times,
which
was
the
modified
numbers.

20
BOARD
MEMBER
ROBERTS:
Modified
staff.

21
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
Mr.
Chairman.

22
Mr.
Calhoun,
did
you
make
a
motion?

23
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
Yes,
I
move
it,
Mr.

24
Chairman.

25
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
That
would
include
­­
if
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
134
1
people
wanted
to
put
in
some
batteries,
that
would
include
2
that?

3
BOARD
MEMBER
BURKE:
But
I'm
confused
on
what
4
would
be
the
numbers
for
2009
through
2015?

5
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Are
you
talking
about
the
­­

6
I
thought
you
were
talking
about
the
10X
proposal?

7
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
Yes.

8
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
The
second
column.

9
BOARD
MEMBER
BURKE:
Oh,
I'm
sorry.
I
10
misunderstood.

11
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
But
with
the
same
comment
on
12
the
bottom
on
BEVs.

13
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
That's
up
to
you,

14
but
yes,
that
would
be
what
staff
would
recommend
that
you
15
take
that
approach.

16
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
Mr.
Chairman.

17
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Yes.

18
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
I
actually
favor
where
Mr.

19
McKinnon
was
headed,
but
I
don't
have
enough
confidence
to
20
be
so
pushy
as
to
say
500
is
definitely
where
it's
at.

21
I
understand
where
you're
coming
on
the
fuel
22
cells.
And
I
think
we
need
a
little
more
time
to
actually
23
look
at,
for
example,
where
Mr.
McKinnon
just
left
off
on
24
the
range
of
you
could
do
3
fuel
cells,
the
rest
BEVs
and
25
then,
Ms.
Witherspoon,
you
said
it
would
depend
on
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
135
1
investment.

2
Well,
then
I
thought
well
what
about
the
2001
3
proposal
and
where
would
we
compare
on
what's
being
4
expected
of
automakers
with
an
investment.

5
So
I
think
there
are
just
so
many
questions
that
6
are
unanswered,
I
would
be
uncomfortable
with
going
with
7
the
10
times
proposal,
because
I'm
just
really
concerned
8
of
the
unintended
consequences.

9
I
have
been
pushing
for
quite
some
time
to
get
10
BEVs
into
the
mix.
What
if
we
get
gamed
with
BEVs
being
11
in
the
mix
and
you
end
up,
or
not
you
personally,
but
I
12
know
you're
pushing
for
fuel
cells,
you
end
up
with
a
much
13
smaller
number
than
250.
So
I'm
uncomfortable
with
14
directing
staff
on
the
10
times
proposal.

15
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Don't
get
me
wrong,
I'm
not
16
pushing
for
full
cells
at
the
expense
of
that.
I
like
the
17
zero
emissions.
I
have
heard
some
of
the
auto
18
manufacturers
seeing
what
they
see
as
a
path
to
zero.
But
19
also,
as
I
indicated
before,
I
also
hate
the
testimony
20
from
people
who
are
losing
their
vehicles.

21
And
that's
where
I
felt
that
if
we,
you
know
­­

22
obviously,
going
forward
I
prefer
the
10X
with
the
23
potential
for
batteries.
But
whether
that
should
be
24
compulsory
or
whether
it
should
be
optional,
those
are
the
25
sort
of
things
I
was
thinking
maybe
staff
could
analyze.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
136
1
And
analyze
what
the
consequences
would
be
for
the
very
2
reason
that
you're
talking
about
how
that
would
impact
3
different
companies.

4
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
I
was
just
expecting
that
5
once
we
look
at
the
numbers
that
there
would
be
a
way
to
6
game
the
system
if
we
start
off
with
250.
So
we're
going
7
back
and
forth
on
250
versus
500.
I'm
willing
to
­­

8
initially,
I
wanted
to
support
Mr.
McKinnon.
I'm
willing
9
to
just
kind
of
back
off,
wait
a
month.
But
I
would
not
10
be
interested
in
getting
locked
in
on
250
today
either.

11
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
And
I
think
that's
why
we
12
need
to
have
further
analysis.
I
really
do.
I
mean
I
13
think
our
dilemma
is
­­
it
reminds
me
of
huge
budgets
and
14
you
get
down
to
very
minute
little
programs.
And
you
15
argue
over
these
funny
minute
programs
and
the
whole
of
16
the
budget
is
so
much
bigger,
and
we're
really
arguing
250
17
cars,
which,
you
know,
we're
all
comfortable
with
the
18
bigger
numbers
on
the
years
out.

19
And
I
think
staff
has
got
to
be
sensitive
to
us
20
that
we
just
don't
know
where
to
be
in
that
early
period
21
of
time
of
2005
to
2008.
And
it
ought
to
be
real
simple
22
to
do
a
quick
analysis
for
us
that
gives
us,
okay,
what
23
are
250
and
what
are
500
going
to
mean
to
the
industry,
to
24
the
public,
to
whomever
the
stakeholders
are.
And
I
think
25
that
would
help
us
tremendously.
I
just
don't
think
we
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
137
1
should
be
arguing
over
these
small
little
numbers
right
2
now.

3
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
And
if
you
put
the
plug­
in
4
hybrids
into
gold,
what
does
that
mean,
because
I
think
I
5
heard
Mr.
Cackette
say
that
has
ramifications
as
well.

6
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
Right.
And
that
along
­­

7
I
mean
there
are
some
other
things
that
need
to
go
along
8
with
it.
But
we're
basically
really
arguing
over
250
9
vehicles.
That
it
shouldn't
take
us
too
long
with
good
10
analysis
to
know
where
we
should
agree
or
disagree
amongst
11
ourselves.

12
BOARD
MEMBER
BURKE:
Mr.
Chairman,
back
to
Mr.

13
McKinnon's
proposal.
If
he
says
500,
and
in
that
­­
if
14
you
move
some
of
these
other
vehicles
into
this,
they
15
would
apply
for
500,
right.
So
I
don't
know
what
makes
16
his
proposal
so
outrageous,
if
you
put
a
floor
in
there
of
17
250
fuel
cell
cars.

18
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Dr.
Burke,
I
don't
know
how
19
that's
going
to
ripple
through
what's
already
out
there.

20
What
people
have
already
got
credits.
How
that
impacts
21
those.
And
that's
what
I
want
to
know.
I
want
to
know,

22
for
example,
does
that
have
a
disproportionate
impact
on
23
you,
or
Ms.
Riordan
or
Joe
or
me.

24
I
just
don't
know
from
that,
because
we
don't
25
have
it.
And
I
don't
want
to
see
the
people
out
there.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
138
1
What
we
do
know
is
it's
going
to
have
a
2
beneficial
impact
on
what
people
are
breathing,
because
3
we're
not
talking
about
differences
­­
these
are
all
4
zeros.

5
BOARD
MEMBER
BURKE:
But
your
basic
proposal
from
6
staff
initially
was
only
250
fuel
cell
cars,
so
you
get
7
that.
Okay,
take
that.

8
The
add
on
is
either
fuel
cell
or
other
cars
that
9
you
have
in
the
gold
standard.
So
you're
not
losing
10
anything.
You're
gaining
something
no
matter
what
11
happens.

12
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Let
me
use
an
example.
I
13
guess
I
don't
want
to
use
an
example
here.
But
let's
just
14
use
­­
you
used
Honda.
They
are
on
the
fuel
cell
path.

15
They
have
decided
that
they
didn't
see
a
viable
market
for
16
battery
electrics.
And
I
suppose
I
know
they're
not
17
making
a
plug­
in
hybrids.
So
I
don't
know
about
the
other
18
option
there.
What
would
be
their
requirement
there
that
19
they
would
have
to
then
buy
credits
from
someone.

20
Does
another
company
maybe
have
credits
right
21
through
2008.
And
so
it
has
no
impact
on
that.
That's
22
what
I
was
indicating,
Dr.
Burke.
I
just
don't
know.
And
23
these
­­
also
I
have
to
understand
why
they
in
fact
have
24
an
impact
on
one
company
and
maybe
not
on
another.

25
BOARD
MEMBER
FRIEDMAN:
Well,
I
don't
think
we
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
139
1
ought
to
lose
site
of
the
fact
that
we
are
mandating
the
2
silver
and
the
bronze
in
greater
volume,
and
that's
going
3
to
give
us
a
big
bang
for
the
buck.
These
are
production
4
cars.
They're
available
by
some
of
the
manufacturers.

5
And
those
who
don't
have
them
can
make
them
or
buy
credits
6
or
do
something
else.
I
really
­­
but
this
is
a
mix,
and
7
it
is
a
complicated
equation.

8
And
I'm
concerned
about
distorting,
what
was
said
9
earlier,
unintended
consequences.
That's
my
only
concern.

10
I
don't
know
what
the
effect
would
be.
We've
not
had
a
11
full
opportunity
to
vet
it.

12
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
The
one
thing
13
staff
can
say
unequivocally
is
that
if
you
increase
the
14
target
from
250
to
any
higher
number,
you
are
increasing
15
the
burden
on
the
manufacturers
in
the
near
term.
We
16
chose
250
based
on
the
stretch
goals
of
the
manufacturers
17
as
they
have
been
discussed
and
evaluated
in
the
18
California
fuel
cell
partnership.
And
in
our
private
19
conversations
with
them,
you
are
pushing
them
on
fuel
20
cell,
and
we're
quite
confident
that
it
is
a
stretch
for
21
them.
And
to
double
it
for
a
company
like
Honda
that
22
wishes
to
do
fuel
cells
and
fuel
cells
only
is
to
push
23
them
way
over
the
mark
on
what
they
think
is
the
right
24
number
of
fuel
cells
for
the
interim
period.

25
And
so
as
the
Chairman
indicated,
Honda
would
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
140
1
have
no
choice
either
to
make
cars
they
don't
think
they
2
need
for
demo
purposes
or
to
propose
BEV
credits,
which
is
3
a
new
and
greater
obligation
than
they
would
have
under
4
the
proposal
we
brought
to
you,
so
that
that
is
definitely
5
the
effect
of
this
debate
is
to
make
the
alternative
path
6
more
stringent
than
staff
proposed,
recognizing
as
you
7
just
did
we
balanced
our
stretch
goal
on
fuel
cells
with
8
higher
obligations
on
silver
vehicles
to
make
up
that
9
difference.
And
then
this
would
back
out
a
little
of
the
10
silver
but
be
a
very
high
burden
we
think
on
the
BEV
and
11
fuel
cell
side.

12
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
I
wonder
if
we
could
13
just
ask
the
staff
to
see
if
there's
any
additional
ways
14
we
could
incentivize
battery
electric
production
in
these
15
interim
years,
as
a
device.

16
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Mr.
McKinnon.

17
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
You
know,
what
would
be
18
helpful
to
me
is
to
be
able
to
look
at
these
numbers
in
19
context
of
the
number
of
cars
sold
by
each
of
the
20
manufactures
in
the
state
of
California.

21
Because
I'd
be
interested
in
the
difference
22
between
250
and
500,
if
it
isn't
more
than
something
like
23
a
dollar
per
car
sold
in
California.

24
Anyway,
when
it
comes
back,
I
don't
have
a
25
motion.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
141
1
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
So
am
I
getting
a
sense
­­
we
2
don't
have
a
motion
now.

3
GENERAL
COUNSEL
WALSH:
Well,
you
do
have
a
4
motion
but
you
don't
have
a
second.

5
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Do
we
have
a
motion
here
to
6
come
back
­­
have
staff
come
back
to
us?

7
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
And
I'll
second
that
and
8
allow
for
their
analysis
of
the
item
before
us.

9
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
So
if
I
understand
10
it,
we've
got
a
motion
and
a
second
before
us
on
the
11
resolution
03­
4
with
the
­­

12
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
No,
this
would
not
be
a
13
motion
on
the
resolution.

14
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
This
would
be
a
motion
just
15
to
have
staff
to
come
back
to
us.

16
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Okay.

17
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
Mr.
Chairman.

18
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Yes.

19
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
I
do
have
a
question
of
20
Ms.
Walsh.
In
the
interim
period
since
we've
closed
the
21
record,
would
we
be
foreclosed
from
having
further
ex
22
parte
communications
with
stakeholders,
and
also
what
23
about
staff
during
that
interim
period?

24
GENERAL
COUNSEL
WALSH:
You
would
not
be
25
foreclosed
from
having
further
contacts.
You
would
need
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
142
1
to
disclose
those
when
we
come
back
next
month.
That
2
would
have
to
be
made
a
part
of
the
record,
yes.

3
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
So
we
would
just
­­
so
4
building
on
that
suggestion
would
be
we'd
hold
on
to
our
5
ex
parte
list
today,
add
on
to
that
and
then
use
that
next
6
time
before
we
have
to
come
to
a
vote.

7
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Yes.

8
GENERAL
COUNSEL
WALSH:
You
could
do
that.

9
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
So
we
don't
have
to
10
reveal
these
today?

11
GENERAL
COUNSEL
WALSH:
Under
this
proposal,
you
12
can
­­
yeah,
you
would
be
able
to
come
back
next
month.

13
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
It
will
be
expected
we'd
hear
14
from
all
stakeholders
again.
So
I'm
comfortable
with
that
15
suggestion.
Yes,
we
have
the
motion.

16
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Can
I
hear
it
again.

17
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
Yeah,
it's
to
continue
the
18
item
that's
before
us
with
­­

19
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
To
the
next
meeting.

20
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
Yes.
And
ask
for
staff
21
analysis.

22
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Close
the
record,
ask
for
23
additional
staff
analysis.
They
will
report
back
to
us
24
and
then
we
will
vote
at
the
next
board
meeting.

25
All
in
favor
say
aye?

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
143
1
(
Ayes.)

2
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Anybody
against?

3
Unanimous.
And
sorry
but
we
have
to
come
back
4
again.

5
Thank
you
all
for
very
much.
I
know
it's
going
6
to
be
tough
again,
but
at
least
I'm
comfortable
­­
much
7
more
comfortable
here.
And,
again,
I
think
we've
come
8
along
way
in
this
hearing.

9
Thank
you.

10
(
Thereupon
the
California
Air
Resources
Board
11
meeting
adjourned
at
12:
30
p.
m.)

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
14th
day
of
April,
2003.

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
