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
THURSDAY,
APRIL
24,
2003
9:
00
A.
M.

TIFFANY
C.
KRAFT,
CSR,
RPR
CERTIFIED
SHORTHAND
REPORTER
LICENSE
NUMBER
12277
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
Dr.
William
Friedman
Mr.
Matthew
McKinnon
Supervisor
Barbara
Patricks
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
Dr.
Alberto
Ayala,
Manager,
Alternative
Strategies
Section,
MSCD
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
iii
APPEARANCES
CONTINUED
STAFF
Mr.
Craig
Childers
Mr.
Bart
Croes,
P.
E.,
Chief,
Research
Division
Mr.
Tony
Dickerson,
Engineer,
Field
Inspection/
Testing
Section
Ms.
Deborah
Drechsler,
Air
Pollution
Specialist,
Research
Division
Ms.
Annette
Guerrero,
Staff
Air
Pollution
Specialist
Mr.
Larry
Hunsaker,
Emission
Inventory
Analysis
Section
Mr.
Bob
Jenne,
Senior
Staff
Counsel
Mr.
Chuck
Shulock,
Vehicle
Program
Specialist,
MSCD
ALSO
PRESENT
Tom
Addison,
Bay
Area
Air
Quality
Management
District
Larry
Armstrong,
Quality
Tune
Up
Shops
Chris
Ervine,
Coalition
for
Test
and
Repair
Stations
Kathy
Patton,
Santa
Barbara
County
Charlie
Peters,
Clean
Air
Performance
Professionals
Bob
Larson,
U.
S.
EPA
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
iv
INDEX
PAGE
Pledge
of
Allegiance
3
Roll
Call
3
Item
03­
2­
4
Chairperson
Lloyd
5
Executive
Officer
Witherspoon
11
Staff
Presentation
12
Q&
A
70
Motion
75
Vote
111
Item
03­
2­
3
Chairperson
Lloyd
112
Executive
Officer
Witherspoon
112
Mr.
Tom
Addison
113
Motion
115
Vote
115
Item
03­
3­
1
Chairperson
Lloyd
116
Executive
Officer
Witherspoon
116
Staff
Presentation
117
Item
03­
2­
2
Chairperson
Lloyd
123
Executive
Officer
Witherspoon
123
Staff
Presentation
124
Motion
126
Vote
126
Item
03­
3­
2
Chairperson
Lloyd
126
Executive
Officer
Witherspoon
128
Staff
Presentation
129
Q&
A
140
Mr.
Charlie
Peters
148
Mr.
Chris
Ervine
152
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
v
INDEX
CONTINUED
PAGE
Item
03­
3­
3
Chairperson
Lloyd
164
Executive
Officer
Witherspoon
165
Staff
Presentation
166
Q&
A
176
Mr.
Charlie
Peters
190
Mr.
Larry
Armstrong
193
Mr.
Chris
Ervine
198
Motion
202
Vote
202
Item
03­
3­
4
Chairperson
Lloyd
203
Executive
Officer
Witherspoon
204
Staff
Presentation
205
Q&
A
219
Bob
Larson
227
Public
Comment
Kathy
Patton
235
Adjournment
248
Reporter's
Certificate
249
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
1
1
PROCEEDINGS
2
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Before
we
get
started,
I've
3
got
to
read
an
announcement
from
the
owners
of
the
4
building,
and
that
is
that
throughout
the
month
of
May
we
5
will
be
conducting
safety
preparedness
drills
that
will
6
include
evacuating
this
room.
This
drill
may
occur
during
7
this
meeting.
In
order
to
prepare
us
for
unexpected
8
emergencies,
we
do
not
know
what
date
or
time
the
alarm
9
will
sound.

10
And
I
thought
this
was
an
infrequent
occurrence.

11
Yesterday
in
the
meeting
of
the
Fuel
Cell
Partnership
just
12
next
door,
we
did,
in
fact,
get
an
alarms.
We
weren't
13
evacuated
from
that
room
because
it
occurred
on
the
20th
14
through
22nd
floors.
But
it
can
happen.
So
don't
be
15
surprised.

16
At
that
time
please
look
for
and
note
two
17
emergency
exits.
The
exits
are
located
inside
the
public
18
hearing
rooms
on
the
first
and
second
floors
in
the
19
connecting
halls
outside
the
conference
room
within
the
20
remainder
of
the
building.
If
you
do
have
to
go
out,

21
don't
expect
to
go
out
and
turn
right.
A
wall
will
come
22
down
and
prevent
you
from
going
right
out
of
this
23
building.
You
need
to
go
left
and
then
be
directed
out
of
24
the
building.
My
colleagues
here
will
have
to
go
through
25
here
and
get
out
there.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
2
1
So
if
the
alarm
sounds,
evacuate
immediately.

2
Take
all
valuables
with
you.
Typically
they'll
indicate
3
what
part
of
the
building
there's
this
exercise.
So
you
4
don't
have
to
evacuate
as
soon
as
you
hear
the
siren.

5
This
doesn't
apply
­­
you're
not
using
the
elevators.
If
6
you
have
mobility
concern
that
would
prevent
you
from
7
using
the
stairways,
please
let
the
host
of
the
meeting
8
know
so
the
arrangement
can
be
made
to
have
you
wait
9
safely
in
the
protected
area.
You'll
be
directed
to
a
10
safe
stairwell
vestibule,
and
an
aide
will
stay
with
you
11
until
you
hear
the
all­
clear
announcement.

12
Then
if
you
evacuate
outside
the
building
­­

13
there's
some
pretty
mundane
instructions.
I'll
skip
14
those.
Stay
at
the
relocation
area
until
the
all­
clear
15
signal
of
the
completion
of
the
drill
is
given.
Inside
16
the
building
the
completion
of
the
drill
will
be
announced
17
by
the
public
address
system.
You
go
in
the
park,
the
18
all­
clear
signal
will
be
given
from
the
command
center
set
19
up
on
the
stage.
If
you
do
not
hear
the
announcement,

20
simply
stay
and
follow
the
lead
of
your
meeting
host.

21
Thank
you
cooperating
with
the
safety
program.

22
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
Mr.
Chairman,
I
missed
23
that.
Can
you
read
that
again?

24
(
Laughter)

25
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
will
provide
you
a
copy.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
3
1
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
Thank
you.

2
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Well,
with
that,
good
3
morning.
I'd
like
to
bring
the
April
24th
public
meeting
4
of
the
Air
Resources
Board
to
order.

5
And
Would
please
join
me
in
the
pledge
of
6
allegiance.

7
(
Thereupon
the
Pledge
of
Allegiance
was
8
Recited
in
unison.)

9
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.
Will
the
clerk
of
10
the
Board
please
call
the
roll.

11
BOARD
CLERK
DORAIS:
Dr.
Burke?

12
BOARD
MEMBER
BURKE:
Present.

13
BOARD
CLERK
DORAIS:
Mr.
Calhoun?

14
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
Here.

15
BOARD
CLERK
DORAIS:
Ms.
D'Adamo?

16
Board
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
Here.

17
BOARD
CLERK
DORAIS:
Supervisor
DeSaulnier?

18
BOARD
MEMBER
DeSAULNIER:
Here.

19
BOARD
CLERK
DORAIS:
Professor
Friedman?

20
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Here.

21
BOARD
CLERK
DORAIS:
Dr.
Friedman?

22
BOARD
MEMBER
WILLIAM
FRIEDMAN:
Here.

23
BOARD
CLERK
DORAIS:
Mr.
McKinnon?

24
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Here.

25
BOARD
CLERK
DORAIS:
Supervisor
Patrick?

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
4
1
SUPERVISOR
PATRICK:
Here.

2
BOARD
CLERK
DORAIS:
Ms.
Riordan?

3
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
Here.

4
BOARD
CLERK
DORAIS:
Supervisor
Roberts?

5
BOARD
MEMBER
ROBERTS:
Here.

6
BOARD
CLERK
DORAIS:
Chairman
Lloyd?

7
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Here.

8
Again,
we're
going
to
start
today's
proceedings
9
with
two
carry­
over
items
from
last
month.
But
before
I
10
introduce
the
first
item,
I'd
like
to
make
the
following
11
notation
for
the
record.

12
Supervisor
Patrick
was
not
present
at
the
13
March
27th,
28th
Board
meeting
but
was
provided
with
14
transcripts
and
comment
letters
received
and
has
had
the
15
opportunity
to
read
the
material
in
detail.
Therefore,

16
she
is
prepared
to
participate
in
the
discussion
and
vote
17
the
two
items
that
were
continued;
amendments
to
the
zero
18
emission
vehicle
regulation
and
amendments
to
the
19
Proposition
40
Carl
Moyer
funds,
both
of
those.

20
Similarly,
Dr.
Friedman
was
present
on
March
27th
21
for
all
of
the
Carl
Moyer
item
and
most
of
our
22
deliberation
on
this
zero
emission
vehicle
regulation,

23
departing
at
7:
45
that
evening.
He's
also
received
the
24
transcripts
and
comment
letters
received
and
had
the
25
opportunity
to
read
the
material.
Therefore,
he's
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
5
1
prepared
to
participate
in
the
discussion
and
vote
on
this
2
zero
emission
regulation.

3
I'd
also
like
to
remind
anyone
in
the
audience
4
who
wishes
to
testify
on
today's
agenda
items,
except
for
5
the
zero
emission
for
which
the
public
record
is
closed,

6
to
please
sign
up
with
the
attendant
at
the
entrance
to
7
the
Boardroom.
Also
if
you
have
a
written
statement,

8
please
provide
30
copies
to
the
Clerk
of
the
Board.

9
The
first
item
on
the
agenda
today
is
03­
2­
4,

10
proposed
amendments
to
the
zero
emission
vehicle
11
regulation.
Last
month
we
began
our
deliberation
on
12
changes
to
the
ZEV
regulation.
At
that
time
I
shared
my
13
personal
perspective
on
the
matter
before
us
and
what
it
14
means
to
people
of
California,
I
would
add
today,
to
the
15
world
as
well.
The
reason
being
the
ZEV
mandate
is
the
16
most
powerful
idea
and
the
most
motivating
force
this
17
Board
has
ever
unleashed
on
the
vehicle
sector.

18
For
the
last
13
years
since
the
ZEV
mandate
was
19
first
adopted
we've
seen
the
near­
impossible
accomplished
20
with
gasoline
vehicle;
zero
evaporative
emissions,

21
exceedingly
clean
exhaust,
cleaner
in
some
cases
than
the
22
outside
air
entering
the
vehicle
for
ventilation
purposes,

23
and
emission
control
system
that
twice
as
durable
than
the
24
conventional
forebearers
forecasted
to
last
an
astonishing
25
15
years
or
150
thousand
miles.
That's
a
tremendous
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
6
1
accomplishment.

2
I'm
speaking,
of
course,
of
the
PZEVs,
partial
3
zero
emission
vehicles
which
we
also
refer
to
as
the
4
bronze
category
of
the
automobile.
The
Sacramento
Bee
ran
5
an
excellent
full­
page
story
on
these
vehicles
a
week
or
6
so
ago
essentially
calling
them
the
unsung
heroes
of
the
7
ZEV
regulation
revolution
or
regulation.
And,
in
fact,

8
they
are.
Maybe
the
Rodney
Dangerfield
of
the
cadre
we
9
have
of
technology
we
have
under
the
ZEV
umbrella.
In
10
this
year
alone
140,000
PZEVs
will
be
sold
to
California
11
consumers,
including
the
following
makes
and
models:
the
12
Honda
Accord,
Toyota
Camry,
Ford
Focus,
Nissan
Sentra,

13
Volvo
S60
and
V70,
BMW
325,
Volkswagen
Jetta,
and
more
to
14
come.

15
The
market
penetrations
of
these
vehicles
will
16
continue
to
grow
as
manufacturers
take
full
advantage
of
17
the
option
we
provided
to
them
within
the
ZEV
regulation
18
to
satisfy
up
to
6
percent
of
the
total
10
percent
ZEV
19
requirement
with
ultra
clean,
ultra
durable
gasoline
20
vehicles.

21
In
the
silver
category
advanced
technology
PZEV
22
class,
the
progress
has
been
equally
tremendous.
With
23
AT
PZEVs
we
get
the
same
underlying
emission
performance
24
and
durability,
plus
the
innovation
of
ZEV­
enabling
25
componentry,
reduced
life
cycle
emissions,
and
zero
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
7
1
emitting
miles.

2
The
entire
nation
is
now
familiar
with
the
Honda
3
Insight
and
the
Toyota
Prius,
the
first
mass
production
4
gasoline
electric
hybrid
vehicles
to
hit
the
market.

5
Initial
demand
for
these
vehicles
exceeded
all
6
expectations
and
is
pushing
the
industry
rapidly
to
expand
7
its
hybrid
offerings
as
quickly
as
possible.

8
The
press
coverage
has
been
substantial
for
both
9
of
those
categories,
including
the
more
recently
extensive
10
Honda
Civic
with
both
the
hybrid
and
natural
gas,
examples
11
of
tremendous
progress.
And
most
recently
some
of
you
12
will
have
seen
last
week
the
announcement
of
the
recent
13
version
of
the
Toyota
Prius,
which
has
shown
the
14
revolution
is
continuing
that
you
can
have
larger,

15
cleaner,
better
performing
vehicles.
And
this
is
16
tremendously
good
news
for
the
consumer
and
I
think
a
17
direct
result
of
the
piece
of
this
regulation.

18
On
another
technology
front,
we
see
Ford
and
BMW
19
actively
exploring
the
flexibility
of
the
feasibility
and
20
flexibility
of
the
hydrogen
internal
combustion
engine.

21
Again,
this
has
come
a
long
way
in
the
last
several
years,

22
and
we
are
now
affording
opportunities
for
that
technology
23
to
take
its
rightful
place.

24
Studies
are
under
way
also
to
evaluate
the
25
appropriate
design
and
features
of
plug­
in
electric
hybrid
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
8
1
vehicles.
Again,
this
is
another
exciting
development.

2
As
these
vehicles
complete
certification
process
for
AT
3
PZEVs,
they'll
be
able
to
qualify
for
up
to
2
percent
of
4
the
total
10
percent
ZEV
mandate.
That
is
exactly
what
5
this
Board
envisioned
would
happen
in
2001.
And
what
we
6
are
now
seeing
and
being
realized
in
the
real
world.

7
Giving
all
the
progress
I
just
described,
no
one
8
described
the
California
ZEV
mandate
as
a
failure.
And,

9
in
fact,
having
a
tremendous
benefit
to
clean
air
in
10
California
for
all
citizens.
To
be
sure,
we've
had
more
11
than
our
share
of
difficulty
in
achieving
the
ultimate
12
goal
of
pure
zero
emission
vehicles.
In
fact,
it
was
just
13
today
that
I
was
looking
back
at
a
publicized
magazine
in
14
the
early
'
90s
looking
at
the
promise
of
pure
battery
15
electric
vehicles.

16
We've
seen
progress
in
the
gold
category.
It's
17
been
steady
and
sure.
Batteries
are,
in
fact,
more
18
durable
and
higher
performing
than
ever
before.
Range
has
19
improved.
Costs
have
come
down.
And
consumers
are
20
clearly
excited
about
all
the
ZEV
products
they've
seen
21
and
the
potential
they
hold
for
the
future.
The
only
real
22
problem
we're
having,
obviously,
it's
a
formidable
one,
is
23
getting
truly
affordable,
truly
reliable,
truly
commercial
24
gold
category
products
on
the
road.
And
that's
a
problem
25
we
share
fully
with
the
automotive
industry
since
mandates
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
9
1
alone
cannot
overcome
the
nature
of
physics,
the
material
2
costs
of
precious
metals,
or
some
of
the
other
technical
3
challenges
that
are
bedeviling
both
the
industry
and
us.

4
As
I
reread
that
article,
the
comment
was
made
5
here
about
the
potential.
But
if,
in
fact,
we
weren't
6
able
to
drive
those
costs
down
or
if
we
didn't
get
enough
7
consumer
acceptance
at
those
costs
then,
in
fact,
we
8
wouldn't
be
able
to
have
a
sustainable
market.

9
So
again,
here
we
are,
rightfully
celebrating
all
10
that's
been
accomplished,
in
fact,
very
humbled.
And
I
11
feel
this
also
very
personally
compared
to
a
few
years
12
ago.
Humbled
by
what
has
not,
and
also
by
the
challenge
13
of
what
is
still
before
us,
but
utterly
committed
to
the
14
ultimate
goal
of
zero
emissions.
And
I
think
I
can
as
15
iterated
last
time
most
eloquently
by
my
colleague,

16
Supervisor
Roberts
­­
in
fact,
there
was
never
an
intent
17
to
stray
from
that
commitment
to
the
goal
of
zero
18
emissions.

19
As
the
Board
debates
today
over
the
finer
details
20
of
the
revised
regulation,
I
ask
all
my
colleagues
and
the
21
audience
to
keep
in
mind
the
historic
nature
of
what
we're
22
attempting
to
do.
As
we
have
seen
repeatedly
the
action
23
of
this
Board
echo
around
the
world
in
almost
every
24
program
area.
That
makes
this
Board
extremely
25
influential.
But
it
also
means
in
my
view
that
we
have
a
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
10
1
great
responsibility
to
be
thoughtful
and
judicious
since
2
so
many
others
may
mimic
what
we
do.
And,
again,
I
think
3
that's
speaking
more
from
the
technical
side.
That,
I
4
think,
is
a
real
responsibility
for
us
to
implement.

5
I'd
also
like
us
to
remember
that
we
are
not
6
running
a
marathon.
We
are
running,
in
fact,
a
marathon,

7
not
a
sprint.
Although
obviously
we
need
to
go
as
fast
as
8
possible
because
the
quality
of
our
air
demand,
in
fact,

9
that
we
get
as
much
of
this
technology
on
the
road
as
fast
10
as
possible.

11
When
we
lasted
revisited
the
ZEV
mandate
in
2001,

12
we
had
a
number
of
near­
term
concession
that
were
balanced
13
again
the
longer
term
gains
of
growing
the
ZEV
mandate
14
from
10
to
14
percent
between
2003
and
2018.
I
would
15
suggest
to
my
colleagues
that
we
are
in
a
similar
position
16
today
with
one
key
difference.
This
time
we
have
the
17
intermediate
silver
and
bronze
category
achieved
in
the
18
real
world
that
we
were
merely
hoping
for
in
2001,
which
19
means
we
are
able
to
fully
preserve
or
accomplish
even
20
more
emission
reductions
as
we
continue
to
refine
21
California
ZEV
regulation
and
get
cleaner
air
to
all
22
Californians
as
rapidly
as
possible.

23
At
the
end
of
last
month's
hearing,
the
Board
24
asked
to
staff
to
look
into
several
specific
issues
and
25
provide
an
assessment
of
their
implications
for
the
ZEV
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
11
1
program
and
for
air
quality
in
general.

2
So
with
that,
at
this
time
I'd
like
to
turn
it
3
over
to
Ms.
Witherspoon
to
begin
the
staff
presentation.

4
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
Thank
you,

5
Chairman
Lloyd,
and
good
morning
members
of
the
Board.

6
In
response
to
the
Board's
direction,
staff
7
developed
additional
information
since
the
last
hearing
to
8
help
clarify
the
issues
before
you.
Staff
has
also
9
analyzed
the
impact
and
implications
of
various
10
alternatives
that
came
up
during
your
deliberations
last
11
month.

12
In
bringing
this
item
back
before
you,
we
tried
13
to
capture
the
sense
of
the
Board
regarding
which
features
14
of
the
proposed
ZEV
regulation
were
generally
acceptable
15
to
Board
members
and
which
needed
further
discussion
and
16
resolution.
We
also
made
every
effort
to
address
the
17
Board's
request
for
incentives
that
would
keep
existing
18
BEVs
on
the
road
in
California,
incentives
to
stimulate
19
new
BEV
production,
and
specific
production
targets
for
20
2009
and
later
fuel
cell
vehicles
for
their
equivalence.

21
The
staff
proposal
before
you
today
strengthens
22
the
pure
gold
element
of
the
ZEV
regulation
as
compared
to
23
last
month
presentation
primarily
due
to
the
inclusion
of
24
the
specific
targets
on
the
alternative
compliance
path
25
for
2009
and
beyond,
which
you
all
made
clear
was
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
12
1
extremely
important
to
the
Board.
Staff
believes
that
the
2
ZEV
program
as
proposed
will
continue
to
advance
pure
ZEV
3
technology,
research,
and
development,
support
the
4
commercialization
of
ZEV­
enabling
advanced
technology
5
vehicles,
and
will
achieve
significant
criteria
pollutant
6
emission
reductions.

7
Chuck
Shulock
of
the
Mobile
Source
Control
8
Division
will
now
make
the
staff
presentation.

9
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
Good
morning
10
Mr.
Chairman
and
members.

11
Our
staff
presentation
this
morning
will
start
12
off
with
the
recap
of
the
March
Board
meeting,
the
13
information
presented
to
you
at
that
time,
and
the
14
alternatives
that
were
provided
with
regard
to
possible
15
numeric
vehicle
targets.
We
then
will
present
the
results
16
of
the
additional
staff
analysis
that
we
have
undertaken
17
since
the
Board
meeting
in
response
to
your
request.
We
18
will
conclude
with
a
summary
of
the
proposed
regulation
19
including
our
response
to
the
various
open
issues
and
our
20
staff
recommendation.

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

23
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
We
will
set
24
the
stage
for
our
recap
of
the
March
meeting
by
revisiting
25
what
has
brought
us
to
today,
why
are
amendments
needed.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
13
1
We
will
give
a
very
brief
overview
of
the
main
features
of
2
the
proposed
regulation,
followed
by
an
overview
of
the
3
testimony
that
you
heard
and
what
we
took
away
from
the
4
Board
discussion.
The
recap
will
conclude
by
summarizing
5
the
issues
that
were
still
outstanding
at
the
conclusion
6
of
the
March
meeting
and
the
directives
that
you
gave
to
7
staff.

8
­­
o0o­­

9
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
We
are
here
10
today
because
there
is
a
need
to
amend
the
regulation.

11
First
of
all,
there
are
legal
challenges
to
the
2001
12
amendments
that
need
to
be
addressed.
Due
to
legal
action
13
that
has
taken
place,
the
ARB
is
prohibited
from
enforcing
14
the
current
regulation
through
the
2003
and
2004
model
15
years.
Under
the
circumstances,
2005
is
the
earliest
16
practical
restart
date.

17
­­
o0o­­

18
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
In
addition,

19
as
we
discussed
at
some
length
in
March,
in
staff's
view
20
there
is
a
need
to
modify
the
regulation
to
better
align
21
with
technology
status
and
market
demand.
Despite
all
of
22
the
efforts
to
date
and
the
Board's
continued
emphasis
on
23
zero,
at
present
there
is
no
pure
ZEV
that
is
24
technologically
and
financially
ready
for
mass
deployment.

25
And
although
there
is
considerable
investment
in
fuel
cell
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
14
1
technology
and
infrastructure
both
by
auto
makers
and
by
2
government,
the
pace
of
future
ZEV
development
is
quite
3
difficult
to
predict.

4
On
the
bright
side,
however,
there
has
been
5
tremendous
such
as
near­
zero
technology
such
as
PZEVs
in
6
the
bronze
category
and
advanced
technology
PZEVs
in
the
7
silver
category.
This
is
creating
significant
new
8
opportunities
for
air
quality
improvement.

9
­­
o0o­­

10
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
Reinforcing
11
what
the
Chairman
noted
in
his
opening
remarks,
one
good
12
example
of
progress
newly
announced
since
the
March
Board
13
meeting
is
the
2004
Toyota
Prius
that
is
pictured
here.

14
Not
only
is
the
2004
Prius
cleaner
than
its
predecessor,

15
it's
also
larger,
has
better
acceleration,
and
is
more
16
efficient.
It
features
more
advanced
versions
of
key
17
ZEV­
enabling
technologies
such
as
its
electric
drive
18
system.
Our
understanding
is
that
all
this
will
be
made
19
available
at
roughly
the
same
retail
price.

20
­­
o0o­­

21
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
PZEVs
are
22
always
making
news.
As
the
Chairman
mentioned,
the
23
Sacramento
Bee
recently
ran
a
front
page
article
on
PZEVs.

24
This
slide
shows
a
graphic
from
that
article
listing
the
25
different
models
of
PZEVs
available
and
explaining
their
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
15
1
cutting­
edge
technology.
It
is
noteworthy
manufacturers
2
are
expected
to
sell
some
140,000
PZEVs
in
the
2003
model
3
year.
So
as
you
can
see,
the
near­
zero
side
of
the
4
program
continues
to
develop
at
a
rapid
pace.

5
­­
o0o­­

6
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
The
next
7
element
of
our
recap
deals
with
the
basic
structure
of
the
8
proposed
regulation.
One
factor
that
was
of
great
9
importance
to
staff
as
we
developed
the
proposal
was
the
10
desire
to
preserve
compliance
under
the
2001
regulation.

11
Some
manufacturers
have
made
good
faith
efforts
to
comply
12
by
building,
marketing,
and
placing
ZEV
products.
This
13
resulted
in
their
legitimate
accrual
of
ZEV
credits
14
sufficient
in
some
cases
to
defer
the
need
for
additional
15
vehicles
for
a
number
of
years.
Although
some
have
16
suggested
that
the
resulting
ZEV
blackout
should
be
17
addressed
by
devaluing
such
early
credits,
in
staff's
view
18
it
was
more
important
in
the
long
run
to
recognize
and
19
preserve
the
value
of
the
early
efforts
that
were
20
undertaken.

21
­­
o0o­­

22
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
This
desire
23
to
recognize
compliance
under
the
2001
regulation
directly
24
led
to
the
two­
path
concept
embodied
in
the
proposed
25
regulation.
The
base
path
allows
manufacturers
that
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
16
1
invested
early
and
have
banked
credits
to
continue
to
use
2
those
credits
to
achieve
compliance.
The
alternative
path
3
provides
an
incentive
for
manufacturers
to
continue
to
4
build
new
products.
It
requires
manufacturers
to
produce
5
demonstration
quantities
of
new
vehicles
but
then
allows
6
the
remaining
gold
obligation
to
be
back
filled
with
7
silver
vehicles
up
to
the
full
4
percent.
The
progress
of
8
the
program
and
the
ongoing
requirements
will
be
assessed
9
by
the
Board
at
a
future
date.

10
­­
o0o­­

11
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
Testimony
at
12
the
March
hearing
raised
few
strong
objections
to
the
13
continuation
of
the
base
path
as
an
option.
There
was
14
some
comment
that
several
staff­
proposed
changes
unduly
15
relaxed
the
program,
but
in
general
comment
was
16
supportive.

17
The
alternative
path
proposal
as
originally
18
defined
by
staff
was
another
story.
Here
there
was
19
significant
opposition
focused
on
vehicle
totals
in
the
20
initial
2001
through
2008
time
period,
the
need
for
firm
21
production
targets
in
model
years
2009
and
beyond,
the
22
role
of
battery
electric
vehicles,
and
the
timing
and
role
23
of
the
independent
expert
review
panel.

24
­­
o0o­­

25
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
These
next
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
17
1
several
slides
present
staff's
interpretation
of
the
sense
2
of
the
Board
at
the
March
hearing.
We
heard
some
areas
of
3
clear
agreement.
The
Board
wanted
to
see
specific
future
4
targets
for
fuel
cell
production
under
the
alternative
5
path
as
opposed
to
the
to­
be­
determined
approach
6
recommended
by
staff.

7
The
Board
also
was
interested
in
exploring
all
8
feasible
means
to
bring
battery
electric
vehicles
back
to
9
the
marketplace
and
more
broadly
encouraging
the
continued
10
availability
of
cars
that
have
already
been
placed.

11
The
Board
also
seemed
to
generally
agree
that
if
12
plug­
in
hybrid
technology
were
to
be
moved
to
the
gold
13
category,
the
required
minimum
range
and
other
aspects
of
14
the
definition
would
need
to
be
adjusted.

15
­­
o0o­­

16
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
With
regard
17
to
questions
involving
the
independent
expert
review
18
panel,
the
Board
seemed
to
be
of
the
opinion
that
the
19
language
in
the
draft
resolution
captured
the
appropriate
20
role
of
the
panel
and
fully
preserved
the
Board's
21
discretion.
Finally,
although
there
was
some
discussion
22
of
the
potential
leakage
of
vehicles
to
other
states,
due
23
to
staff's
proposed
treatment
of
the
travel
issue,
there
24
seems
to
be
consensus
that
the
staff
approach
combined
25
with
the
2011
sunset
was
workable.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
18
1
­­
o0o­­

2
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
It
was
also
3
clear
in
March
that
there
were
several
issues
that
were
4
not
resolved.
First
among
these
was
the
target
production
5
level
for
2001
through
2008
on
the
alternative
path.

6
Should
it
be
250
or
500
vehicles?
Related
to
that
is
the
7
question
of
future
minimum
production
levels
for
2009
and
8
beyond
and
their
rational.

9
There
also
were
different
views
with
regard
to
10
the
appropriate
method
to
encourage
battery
EVs.
Should
11
there
be
incentives
or
a
mandate?
And
if
a
mandate
is
12
favored,
should
it
be
a
direct
numeric
requirement,
or
is
13
it
better
to
indirectly
mandate
BEVs
through
an
increase
14
in
the
fuel
cell
requirements.

15
Finally,
the
Board
left
open
whether
plug­
in
16
hybrid
vehicles
should
be
moved
to
the
gold
category.

17
­­
o0o­­

18
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
At
the
close
19
of
the
March
hearing,
the
Board
gave
directives
to
staff.

20
You
asked
us
to
frame
the
remaining
issues
and
discuss
the
21
implications
of
the
various
possible
alternatives.
You
22
also
made
note
of
the
fact
that
the
regulation
is
complex
23
and
there
are
interactions
among
it's
various
provisions.

24
So
you
asked
that
staff
describe
the
combined
effects
of
25
the
proposal
in
a
comprehensive
fashion
so
you
would
have
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
19
1
clarity
as
to
the
complete
package
before
you
and
what
it
2
means.

3
­­
o0o­­

4
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
The
next
5
section
of
the
staff
presentation
outlines
the
results
of
6
our
additional
staff
analysis.
We
will
start
by
7
describing
some
elements
of
the
big
picture,
the
key
8
factors
that
must
be
kept
in
mind
during
your
9
deliberation.

10
First
of
all,
we
must
not
lose
site
of
the
fact
11
we
are
aiming
for
here
is
long­
term
mass­
market
12
penetration.
Measures
that
address
near­
term
vehicle
13
availability
clearly
have
their
place,
but
they
ideally
14
should
be
steps
on
a
path
to
sustainable
15
commercialization.

16
We
also
need
to
communicate
clearly
that
zero
17
emissions
is
still
the
goal.
Staff
has
recommended
that
18
you
take
steps
to
capitalize
on
the
near­
term
availability
19
of
near­
zero
technology,
but
that
must
all
be
viewed
and
20
communicated
as
transitional
measures
toward
the
ultimate
21
goal
of
zero.

22
As
far
as
real
world
issues
that
stand
in
the
23
way,
the
biggest
hurdles
are
vehicle
performance,

24
affordability,
wide­
spread
consumer
acceptance,
and
in
25
some
cases
infrastructure.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
20
1
­­
o0o­­

2
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
Turning
3
again
to
near­
zero
technology,
we
need
to
emphasize
again
4
these
vehicles
represent
tremendous
progress.

5
Bronze
vehicles
provide
extremely
low
tailpipe
6
emissions,
zero
evaporative
emissions,
and
an
extended
7
emission
warranty.

8
Silver
vehicles
provide
all
of
the
above,
plus
9
additional
ZEV­
enabling
features
such
as
electric
drive,

10
low
fuel
cycle
emissions,
or
zero
emission
VMT.

11
This
progress
bodes
well
for
the
future
of
zero
12
emission
transportation.
But
in
the
near­
term,
practical,

13
affordable,
pure
ZEVs
are
still
an
illusive
goal.

14
­­
o0o­­

15
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
During
the
16
2001
deliberations,
staff
said
that
one
of
our
key
goals
17
was
a
steady
sustained
grant
towards
commercialization.

18
What
we
have
seen
today,
however,
is
closer
to
the
19
opposite.
The
existing
regulation
has
not
resulted
in
the
20
sustained
ramp,
but
rather
in
work­
arounds,
litigation,

21
and
intermittent
product
blackouts.
This
fundamentally
is
22
due
to
the
fact
that
the
major
manufacturers
do
not
see
a
23
business
case
for
further
battery
EV
development.
Absent
24
a
battery
breakthrough,
they
do
not
see
a
future
in
which
25
some
such
vehicles
meet
a
sustainable,
profitable
market
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
21
1
demand.
And,
thus,
they
have
expressed
no
interest
in
2
moving
toward
larger
volumes.

3
Rather,
the
OEMs
have
been
voting
with
their
4
research
and
development
dollars
in
favor
of
fuel
cell
5
vehicles.
This,
of
course,
should
not
be
the
sole
by
6
which
options
are
evaluated,
but
in
staff's
view
it
needs
7
to
be
taken
into
account.
Simply
put,
we
see
greater
8
potential
for
sustained
progress
towards
our
goal
when
the
9
chosen
approach
is
one
that
accelerates
already
existing
10
momentum.

11
­­
o0o­­

12
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
Finally,

13
there
appears
to
be
interest
by
third­
party
BEV
14
manufacturers,
but
only
if
price,
taking
into
account
the
15
market
value
of
BEV
credits,
and/
or
subsidize
are
16
sufficient
and
sustained.
At
present
what
is
needed
by
17
the
third­
party
manufacturers
is
evidence
will
there
be
18
future
subsidies
or
credit
values
sufficient
to
make
19
long­
term
production
appear
to
be
profitable.
In
that
20
respect,
the
third­
party
manufacturers
face
many
of
the
21
same
challenges
faced
by
the
OEMs,
cost
and
the
need
for
22
widespread
market
acceptance.

23
­­
o0o­­

24
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
With
all
25
that
as
background
we
will
now
turn
to
the
open
issues.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
22
1
We
will
discuss
four;
whether
the
2001
through
to
2008
2
demonstration
vehicle
requirement
under
the
alternative
3
path
should
be
250
or
500
vehicles;
what
can
be
done
to
4
encourage
BEV
production;
targets
for
fuel
cell
production
5
in
2009
and
beyond;
and
the
treatment
of
plug­
in
hybrid
6
vehicles.

7
­­
o0o­­

8
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
The
first
9
issue
involves
the
number
of
vehicles
to
be
required
under
10
the
alternative
path
for
2001
through
2008.
Our
staff
11
recommendation
of
250
represents
a
stretch
goal
for
fuel
12
cell
production.

13
At
the
March
hearing
you
discussed
an
alternative
14
goal
of
500
vehicles.
This
increase
does
not
appear
to
be
15
aimed
at
actually
increasing
the
number
of
fuel
cell
16
vehicles,
but
rather
appears
to
be
intended
to
indirectly
17
leverage
increased
battery
vehicle
production.
The
18
thinking
here
is
that
a
larger
fuel
cell
requirement
in
19
conjunction
with
BEV
substitution
would
encourage
20
manufacturers
to
build
BEVs
or
purchase
BEV
credits
rather
21
than
build
the
additional
fuel
cell
vehicles.

22
­­
o0o­­

23
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
At
the
March
24
meeting
you
asked
us
to
work
through
the
implications
of
25
choosing
250
versus
500
as
the
initial
fuel
cell
target.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
23
1
We
first
will
look
at
the
250
level.

2
Under
this
approach,
all
manufacturers
appear
to
3
be
able
to
formulate
a
viable
compliance
strategy
either
4
on
the
base
or
alternative
paths.
The
requirements
on
the
5
alternative
path
are
higher
than
some
would
choose,
but
6
our
understanding
is
they
are
achievable.
This
approach
7
keeps
open
the
option
for
some
manufacturers
to
initially
8
choose
the
base
path
but
then
move
over
to
the
alternative
9
path
if
they
make
sufficient
progress
on
fuel
cell
10
development,
thus
increasing
the
number
of
new
ZEVs.

11
With
regard
to
BEV
substitution,
it
is
possible
12
given
a
requirement
of
250.
But
in
staff's
view
it
is
13
unlikely.

14
­­
o0o­­

15
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
Going
to
500
16
would
have
several
significant
impacts.
First
of
all,
the
17
compliance
cost
to
manufacturers
would
double.
The
cost
18
to
build
small
numbers
of
fuel
cells
in
2006
to
2008
time
19
frame
at
the
latter
end
of
the
initial
period
is
20
uncertain.
But
assuming
that
the
cost
remains
at
or
21
near
current
levels,
the
total
cost
of
the
requirement
22
would
jump
significantly
from
some
250
million
to
about
23
$
500
million.

24
Staff
also
concludes
that
the
number
of
vehicles
25
required
for
manufacture
under
the
500
vehicle
approach
is
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
24
1
in
excess
of
that
needed
to
maintain
progress
towards
fuel
2
cell
development
at
this
stage.
This
could
actually
slow
3
advancement
as
manufacturers
seek
the
lowest­
cost
approach
4
to
meet
the
requirement.

5
BEV
substitution
clearly
would
be
more
6
economically
attractive
with
the
requirement
of
500
fuel
7
cells,
but
it
still
appears
to
be
unlikely.
This
is
due
8
to
the
fact,
as
we
noted
above
manufacturers
do
not
see
a
9
commercial
future
for
BEV
technology.
They,
therefore,

10
wish
to
avoid
any
additional
investment,
either
directly
11
on
their
own
systems
or
indirectly
through
purchase
of
12
credits
from
other
manufactures.

13
You
could,
of
course,
address
the
situation
head
14
on
by
imposing
a
specific
requirement
that
manufacturers
15
build
some
minimum
number
of
battery
vehicles.
In
staff's
16
view,
this
is
not
an
attractive
option.
It
would
require
17
manufacturers
to
simultaneously
pursue
two
technologies
18
and
would
run
counter
to
our
underlying
objective
to
19
ensure
that
aggressive
pursuit
of
fuel
technology
is
20
sufficient
to
ensure
compliance.

21
­­
o0o­­

22
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
Looking
at
23
possible
manufacturer
responses,
it
appears
first
of
all
24
that
manufacturers
would
be
motivated
to
seek
to
avoid
the
25
alternative
path
completely.
This
could
involve
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
25
1
purchasing
bank
credits
from
another
manufacturer.
Or
2
manufacturers
could
delay
action
until
2008
and
hope
for
a
3
change
when
the
Board
meets
to
consider
future
program
4
requirements.
If
this
occurred,
there
could
actually
be
5
fewer
new
ZEVs
than
would
be
the
case
under
the
250
6
vehicle
approach.
There
also
would
be
a
reduction
in
the
7
number
of
AT
PZEVs
because
the
manufacturers
would
not
8
have
the
option
to
increase
AT
PZEV
production
to
offset
a
9
portion
of
their
gold
requirement.

10
­­
o0o­­

11
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
Given
all
of
12
the
above,
our
staff
recommendation
will
come
as
no
13
surprise.
We
recommend
that
the
Board
select
250
as
the
14
target
for
the
2001
through
2008
demonstration
period.
We
15
further
recommend
that
the
Board
allow
BEV
substitution
up
16
to
50
percent
of
the
250
vehicle
requirement.
And
details
17
of
our
recommended
BEV
substitution
approach
will
be
18
discussed
in
more
detail
later
in
the
presentation.

19
­­
o0o­­

20
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
The
next
21
issue
is
the
target
for
model
years
2009
and
beyond.
The
22
staff
originally
recommended
that
the
future
requirement
23
be
treated
as
to­
be­
determined
following
input
from
the
24
independent
review
panel.
During
the
March
Board
hearing,

25
however,
several
witnesses
argued
and
the
Board
clearly
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
26
1
concurred
that
specific
targets
should
be
set
now,
even
if
2
they
are
subject
to
revision
later
on.

3
­­
o0o­­

4
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
Several
5
alternatives
were
put
before
you.
Here
I
will
describe
6
the
rationale
for
each.
The
specific
numbers
associated
7
with
each
will
be
shown
on
the
next
slide.

8
The
first
approach
involved
growth
in
stages
9
which
we
refer
to
as
the
10x
approach.
This
alternative
10
is
based
on
the
principle
that
early
production
for
new
11
types
of
vehicle
precedes
and
defines
stages
where
volumes
12
grow
typically
from
ten
to
hundreds
then
to
thousands.

13
The
second
approach
was
suggested
by
the
14
California
Electric
Transportation
Coalition
or
CalETC.

15
It
was
based
on
annual
doubling
of
the
production
amount.

16
This
third
alternative
suggested
by
the
Union
of
17
Concerned
Scientists
grows
in
stages
that
are
based
on
18
Department
of
Energy
national
goals
in
the
early
years
and
19
manufacture
public
and
press
statements
in
the
later
20
years.

21
The
final
approach
was
outlined
by
staff
from
the
22
South
Coast
Air
Quality
Management
District.
This
was
the
23
most
aggressive
and
involved
maintaining
a
2
percent
gold
24
requirement
that
adding
on
top
of
it
rather
than
as
a
25
backfill
the
largest
AT
PZEV
number
projected
in
the
March
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
27
1
version
of
the
staff
proposal.

2
­­
o0o­­

3
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
Looking
at
4
the
numbers,
several
things
stand
out.
In
the
long
term,

5
they
all
end
up
in
the
same
place.
All
of
these
6
approaches
rejoin
the
original
red
line
by
2018.
The
main
7
differences
are
in
the
early
years.
Even
here,
however,

8
the
10x
and
CalETC
numbers
are
actually
quite
similar.

9
The
major
difference
involves
the
2015
time
period
where
10
the
10x
target
is
50,000
vehicles,
but
CalETC
calls
for
11
71,000.
This
difference
is
due
to
the
fact
our
suggested
12
implementation
of
the
10x
approach
provides
for
a
more
13
gradual
ramp
up
to
the
original
red
line
requirement.

14
The
UCS
proposal
is
somewhat
higher
in
the
15
initial
years,
and
the
South
Coast
proposal
is
16
dramatically
higher.
With
respect
to
the
South
Coast
17
proposal,
based
on
what
we
know
today,
it
is
very
18
optimistic.
We
also
need
to
point
out
that
it
actually
is
19
quite
a
bit
more
stringent
than
the
base
path
in
that
it
20
requires
the
same
gold
production
as
the
base
path.
But
21
in
addition
requires
significantly
more
silver
vehicles.

22
Therefore,
as
an
"
alternative
path"
it
really
has
no
23
practical
effect
because
there
would
be
no
incentive
for
24
any
manufacturer
to
choose
it.
They'd
be
better
off
under
25
the
base
path.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
28
1
­­
o0o­­

2
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
Taking
all
3
of
this
into
account,
staff
has
several
observations.

4
First
of
all,
as
we
have
noted
all
the
approaches
are
5
similar
in
the
long
term.

6
Secondly,
all
of
the
numbers
in
the
time
frame
7
are
subject
to
Board
review
and
could
be
modified
up
or
8
down
based
on
new
developments.

9
And
finally,
given
the
overall
similarity
and
the
10
possibility
of
future
adjustment,
one
key
point
today
is
11
the
rational
for
selecting
one
path
over
another.

12
­­
o0o­­

13
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
As
you
no
14
doubt
recall,
our
original
staff
recommendation
was
15
to­
be­
determined.
Recognizing
that
our
suggested
approach
16
has
been
soundly
rejected,
however,
we
have
taken
a
look
17
at
other
alternatives
that
would
accomplish
the
Board's
18
direction.

19
In
that
light,
we
would
recommend
that
you
follow
20
the
10x
rational.
It
is
consistent
with
the
Department
of
21
Energy
targets
when
those
targets
are
scaled
to
California
22
rather
than
national
coverage.
It
also
is
consistant
with
23
our
discussions
with
both
automobile
and
fuel
cell
24
manufacturers.
We
would
further
recommend
that
the
25
production
total
align
with
the
red
line
in
2018
and
that
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
29
1
BEV
substitution
be
allowed
to
continue
on
in
the
2009
and
2
beyond
time
frame
similar
to
its
use
in
the
early
years.

3
­­
o0o­­

4
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
The
next
5
major
issue
involves
providing
encouragement
for
battery
6
electric
vehicles.
Based
on
the
discussion
at
the
March
7
hearing,
you
had
two
different
aspects
of
this
question
in
8
mind.
First
was
a
design
to
keep
existing
BEVs
on
the
9
road
as
long
as
possible.
And
secondly,
a
desire
to
bring
10
fresh
or
new
BEVs
to
the
market
by
any
feasible
means.

11
­­
o0o­­

12
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
We
first
13
have
taken
a
look
at
incentives
to
extend
the
life
of
14
existing
BEVs.
Here
we
recommend
two
separate
actions.

15
First
of
all,
we
recommend
that
you
increase
the
existing
16
credit
for
BEVs
that
are
still
on
the
road
after
three
17
years.
The
existing
regulation
says
that
vehicles
that
18
are
still
on
the
road
beyond
a
three­
year
placement
are
19
eligible
to
receive
fractional
additional
credit.
This
is
20
referred
to
as
in­
use
credit,
and
we
recommend
it
be
21
increased.

22
The
second
action
involves
the
battery
warranty.

23
Under
the
existing
regulation
a
vehicle
must
have
a
24
manufacture
battery
warranty
in
force
in
order
to
earn
the
25
in­
use
credit.
This
requirement
was
put
in
place
in
order
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
30
1
to
provide
a
measure
of
protection
to
consumers
who
lease
2
such
older
vehicles.
As
it
turns
out,
however,
the
3
requirement
to
have
a
battery
warranty
in
place
may
4
actually
get
in
the
way.

5
­­
o0o­­

6
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:

7
Manufacturers
are
reluctant
to
commit
to
having
to
8
purchase
a
replacement
pack,
and
customers
may
be
9
perfectly
willing
to
lease
the
vehicle
without
a
warranty
10
as
long
as
it
continues
to
meet
their
needs.

11
Therefore,
we
recommend
that
you
drop
the
12
requirement
the
vehicle
needs
to
have
a
battery
warranty
13
in
force
in
years
four
and
beyond
in
order
to
earn
this
14
in­
use
credit.
This
would
not
effect
warranties
for
the
15
initial
three­
year
period.

16
­­
o0o­­

17
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
The
next
18
category
of
possible
incentives
involves
measures
to
keep
19
new
vehicles
in
the
hands
of
drivers.
In
the
previous
20
hearings
you
have
heard
testimony
how
drivers
have
been
21
unable
to
renew
their
leases
even
if
they
were
delighted
22
with
the
performance
of
their
vehicles.
To
provide
an
23
incentive
to
manufacturers
to
give
drivers
an
option,

24
staff
recommends
that
the
regulation
provide
a
1.25
credit
25
multiplier
for
Type
1
and
2
batteries
EV
that
are
sold
or
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
31
1
leased
with
a
consumer
option
to
purchase
or
re­
lease.

2
This
option
would
be
effective
with
model
year
2003
and
3
newer
vehicles.

4
­­
o0o­­

5
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
We
have
6
previously
mentioned
our
recommendation
that
you
allow
BEV
7
substitution
within
the
minimum
production
requirement
of
8
the
alternative
path.
This
slide
shows
our
complete
9
recommendation.
We
recommend
that
BEVs
be
allowed
to
meet
10
up
to
50
percent
of
the
alternative
path
fresh
11
requirement.
This
would
apply
to
2003
and
later
new
12
vehicle
placements.

13
We
recommend
that
the
credit
ratios
be
based
on
14
the
relative
cost
of
various
technologies
with
a
bias
to
15
make
BEV
substitution
more
economically
attractive.

16
Here
we
have
looked
at
work
undertaken
by
CalETC
to
17
develop
appropriate
credit
ratios.
We
have
reviewed
their
18
approach
and
believe
it
is
reasonable,
and
therefore,
for
19
the
2001
through
2008
time
period
would
endorse
the
use
of
20
the
ratio
shown
here
which
they
have
suggested,
20
to
1
21
for
city
EVs
and
10
to
1
for
full­
function
EVs.

22
Appropriate
ratios
for
2009
and
beyond
would
also
need
to
23
be
established.

24
­­
o0o­­

25
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
In
summary,

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
32
1
the
recommended
incentives
would
have
the
following
2
effect.
They
would
encourage
the
continued
availability
3
of
used
BEVs.
They
would
encourage
the
sale
and
4
open­
ended
lease
any
new
BEVs
that
are
brought
to
market.

5
They
would
provide
incentives
for
new
BEV
production
under
6
the
BEV
substitution
approach,
given
that
the
cost
per
7
credit
is
less
than
for
fuel
cell
vehicles.

8
On
the
other
hand,
we
must
be
clear
there
is
no
9
guarantee
these
incentives
would
result
in
new
BEVs
being
10
marketed.
That
depends
mostly
on
the
availability
of
11
third­
party
manufacture
financing.

12
And
finally,
please
bear
in
mind
that
higher
BEV
13
credits
along
with
BEV
substitution
would
reduce
the
total
14
number
of
fuel
cell
vehicles
needed
and
also
reduce
the
15
need
for
AT
PZEVs
to
backfill
any
shortfall
in
the
gold
16
obligation.

17
­­
o0o­­

18
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
The
final
19
issue
involves
the
treatment
of
hybrid
vehicles.
The
20
first
thing
to
note
here
is
that
plug­
in
vehicles
are
21
highly
incentivized
under
the
existing
proposal.
This
22
graph
compares
the
credit
levels
earned
by
plug­
in
and
23
non­
plug­
in
hybrid
electric
vehicles
along
with
some
other
24
vehicles
that
I
won't
discuss.

25
­­
o0o­­

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
33
1
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
The
2
upward­
pointing
arrows
show
the
credits
earned
by
HEV
60
3
and
HEV
20
vehicles
which
are
vehicles
with
a
60
mile
4
all­
electric
range
and
20
mile
all­
electric
range
5
respectively.
The
downward­
pointing
arrow
shows
the
6
credit
earned
by
HEV
zero
which
is
a
hybrid
with
no
7
all­
electric
range,
such
as
a
Toyota
Prius,
Honda
Civic
8
hybrid
or
Ford
Escape
hybrid.
As
you
can
see
the
plug­
in
9
vehicles
earn
substantially
higher
credit.

10
­­
o0o­­

11
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
Continuing
12
on
with
the
current
status,
it
also
needs
to
be
understood
13
that
under
the
revised
staff
proposal
manufacturers
have
a
14
significant
need
for
silver
credits.
You
may
recall
15
manufacturer
testimony
at
the
March
hearing
stating
the
AT
16
PZEV
option
is
quite
ambitious.
Thus,
there
is
an
17
incentive
for
manufacturers
to
pursue
options
that
can
18
earn
additional
AT
PZEV
credit.
Using
our
best
cost
19
information
as
shown
in
the
table,
plug­
in
hybrids
are
20
more
attractive
than
other
hybrids
on
a
cost
per
credit
21
basis
through
the
2008
model
year.

22
­­
o0o­­

23
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
A
few
other
24
things
to
keep
in
mind,
if
plug­
in
hybrids
were
to
be
25
treated
as
gold,
their
credit
level
would
need
to
be
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
34
1
reduced.
This
occurs
because
their
credit
level
as
silver
2
has
been
boosted
significantly
in
order
to
provide
an
3
incentive
for
the
technology,
even
though
the
vehicles
are
4
in
the
silver
category.
This
level
would
no
longer
be
5
appropriate
if
the
vehicles
moved
to
gold
and
were
being
6
weighed
against
BEVs
and
fuel
cell
technologies.

7
­­
o0o­­

8
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
In
addition,

9
if
the
vehicles
were
placed
in
gold,
you
likely
would
want
10
to
increase
the
minimal
electric
range
beyond
the
ten­
mile
11
level
in
the
current
regulation.
These
changes
would
add
12
cost
to
the
vehicle
and
reduce
its
relative
13
attractiveness,
possibly
negating
the
effort.

14
In
light
of
all
of
the
above,
staff
recommends
15
leaving
these
vehicles
in
the
silver
category.

16
­­
o0o­­

17
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
The
final
18
section
of
our
presentation
provides
a
summary
of
the
19
staff
proposal
in
light
of
the
direction
provided
at
the
20
last
Board
meeting.
This
is
intended
to
give
you
an
21
overview
of
the
entire
regulation
in
order
to
assist
you
22
in
understanding
what
is
before
you
today.
This
summary
23
is
based
on
the
various
staff
recommendations
that
we
have
24
described
so
far.
Obviously,
the
details
of
the
package
25
would
change
in
line
with
whatever
modifications
you
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
35
1
choose
to
make
to
what
we
have
suggested.
We
will
first
2
describe
the
major
elements
of
the
proposal
which
include
3
the
base
and
alternative
paths,
the
credit
calculation
4
methods,
and
the
independent
expert
review
panel.
We
then
5
will
describe
the
effect
of
the
program
on
the
number
of
6
vehicles
required
and
on
air
quality.

7
­­
o0o­­

8
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
The
base
9
path
preserves
the
2001
regulation
structure
along
with
10
other
modifications
that
staff
believes
are
appropriate
in
11
light
of
today's
circumstances.
The
base
path
uses
the
12
2001
percentage
requirements
of
2
percent
gold,
2
percent
13
silver,
and
6
percent
bronze
and
allows
full
use
of
Bank
14
credits
subject
to
NEV
caps
in
the
gold
and
silver
15
categories.

16
To
get
on
the
alternative
path,
a
manufacturer
17
must
produce
its
market
share
of
defined
minimum
18
production
totals.
The
industry­
wide
numbers
under
the
19
staff
recommendation
are
250
for
model
years
2001
through
20
2008;
2,500
for
2009
through
2011;
25,000
for
2012
through
21
2014;
and
50,000
for
2015
through
2017.
Beyond
that,
it
22
would
return
to
red
line
numbers.

23
Manufacturers
would
be
allowed
to
meet
up
to
24
50
percent
of
this
requirement
with
battery
electric
25
vehicles.
The
remainder
of
a
manufacturer's
gold
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
36
1
obligation
could
be
met
with
AT
PZEVs.

2
­­
o0o­­

3
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
The
proposal
4
would
modify
the
calculation
of
ZEV
credits.
It
removes
5
the
efficiency
multiplier,
extends
the
incentive
for
early
6
fuel
cell
vehicles,
creates
several
categories
of
ZEVs
7
with
appropriate
credit
levels,
and
adjusts
those
credit
8
levels
over
time.

9
­­
o0o­­

10
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
The
proposal
11
would
also
modify
the
calculation
of
AT
PZEV
credits.
It
12
would
remove
the
efficiency
multiplier
and
all
references
13
to
fuel
economy.
It
would
modify
the
credit
calculation
14
for
advanced
componentry
credit
by
establishing
three
15
levels
of
hybrid
electric
vehicle.
It
would
also
modify
16
the
calculation
of
zero
emission
VMT,
low
fuel
cycle
17
emissions,
and
CNG
vehicles.
The
staff
proposal
would
18
also
make
a
number
of
other
modifications
I'll
list.

19
Several
of
them
are
significant
here.

20
­­
o0o­­

21
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
It
would
22
provide
incentives
for
early
production
of
PZEVs
in
model
23
years
2003
and
2004.
It
would
reaffirm
the
addition
of
24
LDT
2
vehicles
to
the
baseline
against
which
manufacturer
25
compliance
obligations
are
assessed.
It
would
extend
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
37
1
sunset
date
for
transportation
system
credit.
It
would
2
revise
the
deadline
by
which
a
vehicle
must
be
placed
in
3
service
to
earn
credit
in
a
particular
model
year.
It
4
would
delay
the
imposition
of
a
NEV
credit
cap
in
the
5
silver
category,
and
it
would
add
severability
clauses
to
6
the
regulation
language.

7
­­
o0o­­

8
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
The
final
9
noteworthy
feature
of
the
staff
proposal
is
the
creation
10
of
an
independent
expert
review
panel.
The
panel
would
11
consist
of
independent
experts
without
any
conflicts
12
involving
the
automotive
industry.
The
role
of
the
panel
13
would
be
to
access
ZEV
and
AT
PZEV
technologies,
including
14
fuel
cells,
battery
EV,
and
advanced
ZEV
componentry.
The
15
panel
would
assess
technology
status
and
market
readiness
16
in
each
area
and
would
provide
the
Board
with
data
to
17
support
the
Board's
review
of
future
ZEV
requirements.

18
­­
o0o­­

19
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
With
respect
20
to
the
number
of
vehicles
required,
the
general
effect
of
21
the
changes
before
you
today
as
compared
to
the
March
22
version
of
the
staff
proposal
are
as
follows.
This
would
23
increase
the
number
of
new
or
fresh
ZEVs
on
the
24
alternative
path
by
adding
targets
for
2009
and
beyond.

25
It
would
then
decrease
the
number
of
AT
PZEVs
on
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
38
1
alternative
path
since
fewer
offsets
against
the
gold
2
requirement
would
be
needed.
There
would
be
no
changes
to
3
the
base
path,
the
alternative
path
requirement
for
2001
4
through
2008,
or
the
PZEV
option.

5
­­
o0o­­

6
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
This
graph
7
shows
the
number
of
ZEVs
in
2009
and
beyond
under
the
base
8
path
and
also
shows
for
comparison
purposes
the
number
of
9
ZEVs
under
the
alternative
path
for
the
March
version
of
10
the
proposal
versus
the
April
version.
The
largest
11
numbers
­­
the
top
line
represents
the
base
path.
The
12
March
version
of
the
alternative
path
is
the
flat
line
at
13
the
bottom
shown
as
zero
because
under
that
proposal
the
14
specific
total
is
to
be
determined.

15
As
you
can
see,
the
April
version
starts
out
16
lower
than
the
base
path,
then
gradually
increases,

17
rejoining
it
at
2018.
The
totals
under
the
April
version
18
correspond
with
to
the
250,
2500,
250,000
progression
19
recommended
by
staff.
The
difference
being
that
here
the
20
numbers
are
shown
year
by
year
rather
than
in
three­
year
21
blocks.

22
­­
o0o­­

23
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
This
graph
24
makes
a
similar
comparison
of
AT
PZEV
totals
for
2009
and
25
beyond,
again,
showing
the
base
path
and
the
March
and
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
39
1
April
versions
of
the
alternative
path.
Here
the
lowest
2
totals
are
the
base
path.
The
March
version
of
the
3
alternative
path
is
the
highest
because
it
assumes
zero
4
ZEV
production
in
these
years
and,
therefore,
the
maximum
5
AT
PZEV
backfill.

6
The
April
version
of
the
alternative
path
is
the
7
middle
line
which
starts
out
higher
than
the
base
path,

8
then
gradually
rejoins
it.
As
you
can
see
under
the
April
9
version
the
maximum
AT
PZEV
penetration
in
any
single
year
10
is
around
200,000.
This
is
down
significantly
from
the
11
total
shown
for
the
March
proposal
which
again
assumes
12
zero
pure
ZEV
production
in
those
out
years.

13
­­
o0o­­

14
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
The
final
15
slides
address
our
air
quality
analysis.
We
first
present
16
the
emission
reductions
under
the
proposal.
We
then
17
discuss
two
environmental
issues
raised
in
public
comment,

18
the
fleet
turn
over
effect
and
the
air
quality
impact
of
19
providing
hydrogen
infrastructure.

20
­­
o0o­­

21
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
Staff
has
22
estimated
the
emission
impact
of
the
April
proposal
for
23
the
South
Coast
Air
basin
in
2010
and
2020
using
the
24
impact
emission
model
and
our
usual
assumptions.

25
This
slide
shows
the
results
of
the
April
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
40
1
proposal
as
compared
to
the
March
proposal,
the
2001
and
2
amendments,
and
the
no­
ZEV
alternative.
In
this
format
a
3
plus
sign
means
an
air
quality
benefit.

4
The
take­
home
message
from
this
slide
are
as
5
follows.
When
compared
to
the
March
proposal,
the
April
6
proposal
shows
a
slight
increase
in
ROG
in
both
2010
and
7
2020
and
a
slight
increase
in
NOx
in
2020.
This
is
due
to
8
the
reduced
number
of
AT
PZEVs
under
the
April
proposal.

9
Even
though
ZEVs
are
cleaner
on
a
vehicle­
by­
vehicle
10
basis,
under
our
credit
ratios
over
the
long­
term
one
ZEV
11
must
be
replaced
by
about
six
AT
PZEVs.
Therefore,
the
12
backfill
of
AT
PZEVs
for
ZEVs
results
in
a
air
quality
13
benefit,
and
the
reduced
amount
of
such
backfill
under
the
14
April
proposal
slightly
reduces
the
air
quality
benefits.

15
As
the
slide
illustrates
when
compared
to
the
2001
16
amendments,
the
April
proposal
is
roughly
a
wash.

17
Finally,
when
compared
to
the
no­
ZEV
program,
the
18
April
proposal
continues
to
show
positive
air
quality
19
benefits.
Please
also
note
that
although
not
quantified
20
here,
the
ZEV
program
also
will
result
in
decreased
21
emissions
of
CO
and
toxic
air
contamination.

22
­­
o0o­­

23
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
Before
24
leaving
the
topic
of
air
quality
impacts,
we
would
like
to
25
touch
on
two
environmental
issues
that
have
been
raised
in
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
41
1
the
context
of
CEQA
compliance.
The
first
has
to
do
with
2
the
fleet
turn
over
effect.
You
may
recall
this
argument
3
from
the
2001
rule
making.
At
that
time
commenters
argued
4
that
the
ZEV
program,
by
raising
the
price
of
new
vehicles
5
sold
in
California,
will
reduce
the
sale
of
the
new
6
vehicles.
This
then
would
mean
that
older,
dirtier
7
vehicles
are
kept
on
the
road
longer
such
that
the
ZEV
8
program
actually
would
have
an
emission
disbenefit.

9
We
reviewed
this
issue
in
2001
and
concluded
that
10
when
we
use
reasonable
assumptions
regarding
the
11
incremental
cost
of
the
various
technologies,
the
program
12
had
only
a
minor
effect
on
sales.
Commenters
have
again
13
raised
the
fleet
turn
over
ratio
with
respect
to
the
March
14
staff
proposal.
At
this
point
based
on
our
analysis
to
15
date,
staff
sees
no
reason
to
modify
its
previous
16
conclusion
regarding
the
effect
of
the
ZEV
program
on
new
17
vehicle
sales
and
resulting
fleet­
wide
emissions.

18
In
our
previous
analysis,
as
I
mentioned,
we
19
determined
that
the
2001
amendments
would
have
only
a
20
minor
effect.
The
2003
proposal
is
less
burdensome
to
21
manufacturers
than
2001,
so
staff
expects
at
this
time
22
that
it
would
likewise
have
only
a
minor
effect.

23
The
second
issue
raised
by
commenters
has
to
do
24
with
up­
stream
emissions
for
hydrogen
infrastructure.

25
Commenters
have
argued
that
the
air
quality
analysis
does
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
42
1
not
account
for
excess
emissions
associated
with
the
2
production
and
marketing
of
hydrogen
fuel.
In
the
3
near­
term
any
such
emissions
will
be
insignificant
because
4
the
number
of
vehicles
to
be
fueled
is
quite
small.

5
Staff
has
preliminarily
calculated,
using
the
6
commenters
own
assumptions
that
providing
fuel
for
2,750
7
vehicles,
which
is
the
number
expected
through
2011
under
8
the
proposal
that
we
have
described,
that
providing
fuel
9
for
that
number
of
vehicles
would
result
in
a
0.3
percent
10
change
in
the
emission
benefit
of
the
program.

11
As
the
fleet
expands,
there
will
be
a
number
of
12
refueling
options
to
be
explored,
and
there
will
be
ample
13
opportunity
to
review
and
optimize
their
environmental
14
performance.

15
We
should
not
forget
one
reason
for
the
16
widespread
governmental
and
stakeholder
interest
in
a
17
hydrogen
economy
is
that
it
supports
a
long­
term
vision
of
18
sustainable
and
renewable
energy
production.
As
is
the
19
case
with
the
ZEV
program
as
a
whole,
when
looking
at
20
hydrogen
infrastructure,
we're
taking
early
steps
that
21
have
the
potential
for
a
tremendous
long­
term
pay
off.

22
­­
o0o­­

23
VEHICLE
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SHULOCK:
In
24
conclusion,
staff
recommends
that
the
Board
approve
the
25
proposed
amendments
to
the
2001
zero­
emission
vehicle
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
43
1
regulation.
The
staff
proposal
maintains
the
air
quality
2
benefit,
addresses
litigation
issues,
allow
the
ZEV
3
program
to
be
implemented,
and
maintains
progress
towards
4
transforming
California's
vehicle
fleet
to
zero
emissions.

5
Thank
you.

6
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you,
very
much.
At
7
this
time
before
we
go
into
discussion,
do
the
colleagues
8
have
any
questions
of
the
staff?

9
Thank
you.

10
Well,
last
month
we
skipped
over
our
ex
parte
11
disclosure
since
we
are
continuing
the
Zev
item
today.

12
I'd
like
to
go
through
the
disclosures
at
this
time
to
get
13
that
out
of
the
way
before
we
begin
our
deliberations
on
14
the
proposal
regulatory
changes.

15
And
let
me
remind
my
colleagues
in
the
public
of
16
our
policy
concerning
ex
parte
communications.
While
we
17
may
communicate
off
the
Board
with
outside
persons
18
regarding
Board
rule­
making,
we
must
disclose
the
names
of
19
contacts
and
the
nature
of
the
contents
on
the
record.

20
This
requirement
applies
specifically
communications
that
21
take
place
after
notice
of
the
Board
hearing
has
been
22
public.

23
Starting
at
my
far
left
with
Supervisor
Roberts
24
and
working
down,
are
there
any
ex
parte
communications
25
Board
members
need
to
disclose
at
this
time?
I
know
I
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
44
1
have
several.

2
SUPERVISOR
ROBERTS:
Mr.
Chairman,
I
have
several
3
also.

4
On
March
19
I
met
with
a
number
of
people
to
5
discuss
the
proposed
issues.
Among
those
are
Kelly
Brown,

6
Ford;
Bob
Cassidy,
Nissan;
Reg
Modlin
of
DaimlerChrysler;

7
Al
Weaverstadt,
General
Motors.
And
I'm
going
to
8
mispronounce
this,
I'm
sure,
Akimasa
Yasouka
­­
is
that
9
close
enough
­­
okay
­­
of
Honda.

10
On
March
20th
I
met
with
Dean
Kato
and
Dave
11
Hermance
of
Toyota.

12
On
March
21st
I
met
with
Bob
Epstein
representing
13
the
NRDC.

14
On
March
24th
I
had
a
telephone
conversation
with
15
Jason
Mark
representing
the
Union
of
Concerned
Scientists.

16
And
on
April
23rd
a
member
of
my
staff,
Tony
17
Orlando,
met
with
Dr.
James
Burns
and
Dean
Taylor
18
representing
San
Diego
State
University
and
Southern
19
California
Edison
respectively.

20
The
subject
of
all
of
these
conversations
concern
21
the
pending
regulations
and
in
various
aspects
that
have
22
been
covered
in
staff's
report
today.

23
That's
a
complete
list
as
best
as
I
know
it
of
24
all
of
the
contacts.

25
CHAIRMAN
LLOYD:
Thanks,
Ron.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
45
1
Supervisor
Patrick.

2
SUPERVISOR
PATRICK:
Thank
you,
Mr.
Chairman.

3
I
met
­­
or
I
had
a
telephone
conversation
on
4
April
21
with
Greg
Hanssen
and
Bill
Mason
of
the
5
Production
Electric
Vehicle
Drivers
Coalition.

6
And
on
April
22nd
I
had
a
conference
call
with
7
Kent
Harris
from
PG&
E;
Linda
Urata
from
the
San
Joaquin
8
Valley
Clean
Cities
Coalition;
and
Bill
West
and
Dean
9
Taylor
of
Southern
California
Edison.
Both
of
those
10
conversations
were
regarding
a
compromised
proposal
where
11
they
felt
that
250
vehicles
was
too
low
and
that
they
were
12
in
favor
of
the
CalETC
compromise
proposal.

13
Thank
you.

14
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
And
just
point
out
to
my
15
colleagues,
the
reason
we
have
these
balls
here.
These
16
are
stress
balls
courtesy
of
the
California
Fuel
Cell
17
Partnership.
So
they're
here
for
our
use.

18
SUPERVISOR
PATRICK:
I've
used
mine
already,

19
Mr.
Chairman.

20
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Mr.
Calhoun.

21
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
Mr.
Chairman,
on
the
26th
22
of
January
I
had
a
telephone
call
­­
conversation
with
23
Mr.
Jim
Ehlmann
from
the
General
Motors,
and
he
talked
24
about
the
difference
between
the
initial
staff
report
and
25
the
most
recent
one
that
was
published
at
that
particular
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
46
1
time.

2
And
I
had
a
follow­
up
conversation
with
him
on
3
the
21st
of
March.
And
that
particular
conversation
4
focused
on
credits
for
fuel
cell.

5
On
the
27th
of
January
I
talked
to
Mr.
Kelly
6
Brown
of
Ford
Motor
Company.
And
our
conversation
was
7
about
the
impact
of
the
latest
staff
proposal
at
that
time
8
on
the
industry.
I
also
­­
and
he
made
a
comparison
9
between
the
initial
staff
report
and
the
one
that
was
just
10
released.

11
On
the
27th
I
also
talked
to
Mr.
Reg
Modlin
of
12
DaimlerChrysler
and
had
a
similar
conversation
with
him
13
about
the
comparison
of
the
two
different
staff
proposals.

14
On
the
18th
of
March
I
had
a
meeting
with
Bill
15
West
and
Ed
Kjaer
from
Southern
California
Edison,
and
16
their
concern
was
focused
primarily
on
keeping
some
17
existing
requirements
out
there
for
electric
vehicles
for
18
battery
electrics.

19
And
I
had
a
similar
meeting
with
them
on
April
20
the
21st.
That
was
actually
our
last
meeting
after
the
21
last
Board
meeting,
and
they
talked
about
the
need
to
22
keep
­­
maybe
perhaps
establish
a
credit
market
and
23
reemphasized
the
desire
that
we
keep
some
battery
electric
24
vehicles
on
the
markets.

25
On
the
24th
of
March
I
had
a
meeting
with
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
47
1
Dr.
Larry
Berg
and
Steve
Kukucha
from
Ballard,
and
we
2
talked
about
the
status
of
fuel
cell
technology
and
that
3
they
thought
the
staff
proposal
at
that
time
on
the
4
required
number
of
fuel
cell
vehicles
was
somewhat
5
reasonable.

6
And
on
the
21st
of
April
I
had
a
similar
7
telephone
call
from
Dr.
Larry
Berg,
and
he
informed
me
8
that
Ballards'
position
had
not
changed.

9
On
the
21st
of
April
I
had
a
telephone
call
from
10
Ben
Knight
of
Honda,
and
he
also
expressed
concern
about
11
the
impact
of
the
proposed
changes
on
the
industry
and
on
12
Honda
in
particular.

13
That
concludes
my
ex
parte
communication.

14
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.

15
Dr.
Burke.

16
BOARD
MEMBER
BURKE:
On
March
17th,
Mike
Kane
met
17
with
my
staff
in
my
office.

18
On
March
19th,
Paul
Scott
met
with
my
staff.

19
On
April
21st,
Bill
West
and
Ed
Kjaer
and
Scott
20
Briasco
met
with
me
in
my
office
to
discuss
the
reissuance
21
issue
and
credit
market
issue.

22
On
April
21st,
Ben
Knight
with
Honda
came
to
23
discuss
the
same
matters
that
he
discussed
with
24
Mr.
Calhoun.

25
And
on
April
23rd,
Greg
Hanssen
and
Bill
Mason
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
48
1
spoke
with
my
staff
via
phone.

2
And
that's
all
my
ex
partes.

3
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.
Ms.
Riordan.

4
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
Yes.
Thank
you,

5
Mr.
Chairman.

6
On
January
23rd
I
met
with
Ron
Wilson
and
Randy
7
Hasty
from
e­
Motion.

8
On
March
14th
I
met
with
Bill
West,
Ed
Kjaer,

9
Felix
Oduyemi
from
Southern
California
Edison.

10
On
March
21st
I
met
with
Deigo
Miralles
with
11
REVA­
EV.

12
And
on
March
24th
I
met
with
Dr.
Larry
Berg
and
13
Steve
Kukucha
representing
Ballard.

14
All
of
these
discussions
focused
on
the
staff
15
report
that
was
developed
for
the
early
meetings
of
what
16
would
have
been
February
and
then
March
27th.

17
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Yes.
On
January
23rd
I
met
18
with
John
Wilson,
Randy
Hasty
of
e­
Motion
Mobility.
Again
19
similar
to
Barbara,
all
my
discussions
were
focused
on
the
20
staff
proposal
and
the
alternatives
to
the
staff
proposed.

21
On
February
the
6th
I
met
with
members
of
the
22
Auto
Alliance,
the
large
manufacturers,
Kelly
Brown,
Ford;

23
Reg
Modlin,
DaimlerChrylser;
Bob
Cassidy,
Nissan;
and
Jim
24
Ehlmann
from
General
Motors.

25
On
the
6th
of
February
I
had
a
telephone
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
49
1
conversation
with
Diane
Ogilue
from
Toyota.

2
Then
on
the
7th
of
February
I
met
with
Dean
Kato,

3
Dave
Hermance,
Joe
Tomita,
and
Akihoto
Hayasaka
from
4
Toyota.

5
On
February
the
6th,
met
with
CalETC
6
representatives
Dave
Modisette,
Bill
West,
Ed
Kjaer,
Bill
7
Boyce,
and
Kent
Harris.
I
guess
I
should
say
Dave
8
Modisette
from
Public
Policy
Advocates.
Bill
West
and
Ed
9
Kjaer
from
So.
Cal.
Edison.
Bill
Boyce
from
SMUD.
And
10
Kent
Harris
from
PG&
E.

11
On
13th
of
February
I
met
with
Rick
Woodbury
from
12
Commuter
Car
Corporation,
also
called
TANGO.

13
Had
a
telephone
conversation
February
19th
with
14
EV
Drivers
Coalition,
Greg
Hanssen
and
Bill
Mason.

15
Then
had
a
meeting
with
part
of
the
Auto
Alliance
16
and
environmental
groups.
This
was
Bonnie
Homes­
Gen,
Lung
17
Association.
This
was
January
29th
in
Sacramento.
Jamie
18
Knapp
with
ZEV
Alliance;
Jason
Mark
from
Union
of
19
Concerned
Scientists;
Rolad
Hwang
from
NRDC;
Dave
20
Modisette,
CalETC;
Sandray
Spelliscy,
PCL;
and
Jason
Mark,

21
UCS
via
telephone
call.

22
Then
on
February
the
24th
and
the
27th
I
had
a
23
telephone
conversation
with
Beth
Lowery
from
General
24
Motors.

25
Then
on
the
28th
I
had
a
telephone
call
with
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
50
1
Kelly
Brown
from
Ford
representing
the
Auto
Alliance.

2
Same
day
I
had
a
discussion
with
Reg
Modlin,
Auto
Alliance
3
from
DaimlerChrysler.

4
Then
I
had
a
telephone
call
on
March
14th
with
5
Paul
Staples
from
HyGen.

6
Then
on
the
14th
of
March
also
had
a
telephone
7
conversation
with
Beth
Lowery
from
General
Motors.

8
I
had
a
telephone
conversation
on
the
18th
with
9
Ben
Knight
of
Honda.

10
I
had
a
meeting
on
the
ZEV
Alliance
on
the
19th
11
in
Sacramento
with
Bonnie
Homes­
Gen,
Lung
Association;

12
Jason
Mark,
UCS;
and
Rolad
Hwang,
NRDC.

13
Met
the
same
day
with
CalETC,
Dave
Modisette;

14
Bill
Warf
from
SMUD,
and
Bill
West,
So.
Cal.
Edison.

15
I
had
a
telephone
conversation
with
Greg
Hanssen
16
and
Bill
Mason
from
the
EV
Drivers
Coalition
on
March
the
17
19th.

18
Had
a
meeting
with
Diego
Miralles
representing
19
REVA­
EV
on
the
20th
in
Sacramento.
And
another
meeting
20
with
the
Auto
Alliance,
the
large
auto
manufacturers,
in
21
the
Sacramento
on
the
20th;
Ben
Knight,
Honda;
Aki
Yasouka
22
from
Honda;
Bob
Cassidy,
Nissan;
Reg
Modlin,

23
DaimlerChrylser;
Kelly
Brown
from
Ford;
Al
Weaverstadt
24
from
General
Motors.

25
Had
a
telephone
conversation
on
the
24th
with
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
51
1
Dean
Kato
from
Toyota.

2
Another
telephone
conversation
with
Kelly
Brown
3
on
the
24th
of
March.

4
Had
a
meeting
on
the
24th
with
Jason
Mark
and
5
Rolad
Hwang
from
the
ZEV
alliance.

6
Had
a
telephone
conversation
on
to
25th
with
7
Dr.
Larry
Berg,
Ballard.

8
I
had
a
telephone
conversation
on
April
the
9th
9
with
Tim
Carmichael,
Coalition
for
Clean
Air.
On
the
same
10
day
discussion
with
Bonnie
Homes­
Gen
on
the
American
Lung
11
Association.

12
April
9th,
a
telephone
conversation
with
Rolad
13
Hwang.

14
I
had
a
meeting
on
April
10th
with
Dean
Kato
in
15
Sacramento
and
Joe
Tomita
via
video
conferencing
in
a
16
similar
meeting.
That's
right.
On
the
10th.
That
was
by
17
Joe
Tomita
by
video
conference.

18
April
10th
had
a
meeting
with
Kelly
Brown,
I
19
think
this
time
representing
Ford
in
Sacramento.
Reg
20
Modlin,
I
had
a
phone
call
April
14th
with
21
DaimlerChrysler.

22
Had
a
telephone
conversation
April
18th
with
Dave
23
Modisette
representing
CalETC.

24
Had
two
phone
calls
on
the
2nd
and
the
8th
of
25
April
with
John
White
representing
Sierra
Club.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
52
1
Had
a
meeting
on
April
22nd
with
Dr.
Berg,
Steve
2
Kukucha,
and
Firoz
Razul
from
Ballard.

3
I
think
that's
it.

4
Well,
April
24th
a
telephone
conversation
with
5
Beth
Lowery
from
General
Motors.

6
Professor
Friedman.

7
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Prior
to
the
revised
8
staff
report
in
advance
of
the
March
hearing,
I
met
in
9
Sacramento
on
January
30th
with
the
ZEV
Alliance
Group,

10
Bonnie
Homes­
Gen
and
Jamie
Knapp
and
David
Modisette
of
11
CalETC.

12
On
February
6th
I
met
with
the
Auto
Alliance
13
so­
called
of
the
large
auto
manufacturers
representatives
14
in
Sacramento,
Kelly
Brown,
Ford;
Reg
Modlin
of
15
DaimlerChrysler;
Bob
Cassidy
of
Nissan;
and
Jim
Ehlmann
16
for
General
Motors.

17
I
would
say
with
respect
to
all
of
these
18
disclosures
that
the
content
of
the
conversation
and
the
19
presentations
by
all
of
these
folks
with
whom
I
met
or
20
spoke
by
phone
was
the
same
as
was
presented
by
them
or
21
their
other
representatives
at
the
March
hearing.
And
I
22
made
a
note
of
that
at
the
time
at
the
March
hearing.

23
I
met
on
February
6th
in
Sacramento
again
with
24
CalETC
representatives
including
Dave
Modisette,
Ed
Kjaer,

25
Bill
Boyce,
Kent
Harris,
and
Mark
Duvall.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
53
1
And
I,
by
telephone,
had
a
conversation
with
the
2
EV
Drivers
Coalition,
Greg
Hanssen
and
Bill
Mason
on
3
February
6th.

4
After
the
revised
staff
report
in
advance
of
the
5
March
hearing,
I
had
further
meetings
or
conversations.
I
6
was
contacted
again
by
Greg
Hanssen
and
Bill
Mason
of
the
7
EV
Drivers
Coalition.

8
March
17th
I
had
a
meeting
in
San
Diego
­­
March
9
19th
with
General
Motors'
representatives
Bob
White,
Beth
10
Lowery,
Ray
Buttacavoli.
Again,
their
conversation
with
11
me
was
to
urge
consideration
of
stationary
fuel
cell
12
systems
as
that
would
be
interchangeable
essentially
with
13
mobile
use
or
suitable
for
mobile
applications
to
be
given
14
some
credits.

15
Auto
Alliance
large
auto
manufactures
met
with
me
16
on
March
19th.
Again,
that
was
Kelly
Brown
of
Ford;
Bob
17
Cassidy
of
Nissan;
Reg
Modlin
of
DaimlerChrysler;
and
Al
18
Weaverstadt
of
General
Motors.
And
this
time
joined
by
19
Aki
Yasouka
of
Honda.

20
ZEV
Alliance
contacted
me
again
by
phone
on
March
21
20th,
Bonnie
Homes­
Gen,
Rolad
Hwang,
and
Katherine
22
Philips.

23
Toyota
met
with
me.
I
think
that
was
with
24
Supervisor
Roberts
as
well
on
March
20th
in
San
Diego,

25
Dean
Kato
and
Dave
Hermance.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
54
1
And
CalETC
contacted
me
again
in
Sacramento
on
2
March
26th.
That
was
Dave
Modisette,
Public
Policy
3
Advocacy;
Ed
Kjaer,
Bill
West,
Southern
Cal
Edison;
John
4
Wilson,
e­
Motion
Mobility;
and
Randy
Hasty
of
e­
Motion
5
Mobility.

6
And
finally,
after
our
March
hearing
leading
to
7
this
meeting,
I
had
the
following
contacts.
CalETC,

8
April
16th
and
18th
phone
calls
by
Dave
Modisette.

9
Actually,
the
18th
was,
I
think,
a
letter.

10
On
April
15th
I
received
a
CalETC
compromise
11
general
proposal
that
was
discussed
on
the
April
16th
12
phone
conversation.
This
had
to
do
with
numbers.

13
And
then
the
18th
phone
call
was
regarding
14
another
compromise
proposal
­­
revised
compromise
15
proposal.

16
Toyota
­­
I
met
with
Toyota
yesterday
by
video
17
conference,
Dean
Kato
in
Sacramento
and
Joe
Tomita,

18
Mr.
Kawai,
general
manager
of
the
fuel
cell
division.
And
19
this
was
done
­­
I
think
I
was
joined
by
other
members
of
20
the
Board
who
will
identify
themselves.
And
that
was
21
based
on
an
April
23rd
letter
we
received
from
Toyota.

22
And
then
I
had
a
letter
dated
April
10th
from
the
23
Sierra
Club,
finally.
That's
my
final
disclosure.
John
24
White
signing
it
for
the
Sierra
club.
And
this
letter
25
essentially
congratulates
or
says,
"
It's
encouraging
to
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
55
1
hear
Board
members
embrace
staff's
suggestions
for
2
increasing
the
required
number
of
AT
PZEVs,
particularly
3
hybrid
electric
vehicles."
It
says
he
believes
"
the
Board
4
has
made
it
clear
that
the
Board
remains
committed
to
5
achieving
a
state­
wide
goal
of
emissions."
With
respect
6
to
the
unresolved
issues
that
we're
going
to
be
resolving
7
today
hopefully,
his
position
was
an
unqualified
8
recommendation
to
support
the
staff's
recommendation
for
a
9
minimum
requirement
in
the
alternative
compliance
pathway
10
of
250
zero
emission
vehicles
for
the
2005­
2008
period.

11
His
discussion
points
out
that
increasing
that
12
number
would
not
give
any
great
health
benefits
and
could
13
cause
risk
­­
put
at
risk
some
of
the
fuel
cell
or
other
14
technology
efforts
and
cooperative
efforts.

15
He
also
addresses
other
matters.
I
don't
know
if
16
this
is
in
the
record
or
not.
I
think
the
record's
been
17
closed.
I
don't
know
if
I
need
to
read
the
whole
letter
18
or
what
I
need
to
do.
I
think
other
Board
members
have
19
directly
received
this
letter.

20
GENERAL
COUNSEL
WALSH:
Professor
Friedman,
we
21
can
make
sure
all
of
the
Board
members
have
a
copy
of
the
22
letter.
It
will
be
made
a
part
of
the
record
as
a
part
of
23
your
disclosure
this
morning.

24
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Then
I
won't
25
elaborate
further
on
it
at
this
time.
Thank
you.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
56
1
BOARD
MEMBER
WILLIAM
FRIEDMAN:
Mr.
Chairman,

2
since
mid­
January
my
secretary
informs
me
that
I've
3
received
218
phone
calls
from
patients
or
family
members
4
of
patients
and
a
slightly
larger
number
of
calls
from
5
faculty
or
community
doctors,
none
of
whom
chose
to
6
discuss
the
ZEV
regulation,
I'm
pleased
to
say.
I
have
7
nothing
to
declare.

8
(
Laughter)

9
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.

10
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
Lucky
you.
All
right.

11
What
I'll
do
with
my
list
is
only
note
where
12
additional
issue
or
specific
issues
were
discussed
beyond
13
the
staff
proposals
that
were
out
and
available
for
the
14
public
at
the
time
of
the
meetings
that
I'll
be
listing.

15
On
January
21st,
in
Stanislaus
County
­­
I
16
believe
this
was
in
Modesto.
I
met
with
representatives
17
from
e­
Motion
Mobility,
John
Wilson,
Randy
Hasty;
and
with
18
representatives
from
Stanislaus
County,
Reagan
Wilson,

19
Mike
Lynch;
and
with
the
representative
from
the
20
Stanislaus
County
Economic
Development
Board,
Kirk
21
Lindsay.

22
On
March
6th,
I
met
in
Modesto
with
the
Auto
23
Alliance,
several
representatives
from
the
Auto
Alliance,

24
Kelly
Brown
from
Ford;
Bob
Cassidy
from
Nissan;
and
Jim
25
Ehlmann
from
GM.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
57
1
February
6th,
in
Modesto
met
with
representatives
2
from
the
ZEV
Alliance,
Bonnie
Homes­
Gen
from
the
American
3
Lung
Association,
and
Todd
Dipaola
from
the
Kirsch
4
Foundation.

5
February
7th,
in
Modesto
I
met
with
6
representatives
from
Toyota,
Dean
Kato,
Dave
Hermance
and
7
Kazuo
Tomita,
and
Akihoto
Hayasaka.

8
On
March
12th
and
then
again
on
March
17th
I
had
9
two
separate
telephone
conversations
with
representatives
10
from
Stanislaus
County,
Reagan
Wilson
and
Mike
Lynch.

11
On
March
20th,
in
Sacramento
I
joined
in
the
12
meeting
with
other
Board
members
and
with
representatives
13
from
the
Auto
Alliance,
Ben
Knight
from
Honda,
Akimasa
14
Yasouka
from
Honda;
Bob
Cassidy,
Nissan;
Reg
Modlin,

15
DaimlerChrysler;
Kelly
Brown,
Ford;
Al
Weaverstadt,
GM.

16
On
March
20th,
in
Sacramento,
meeting
with
CalETC
17
representatives
Dave
Modisette,
Scott
Briasco,
Bill
Boyce,

18
and
Serge
Roy.

19
On
the
20th
of
March
I
had
a
conference
call
with
20
representatives
from
the
ZEV
Alliance,
Bonnie
Homes­
Gen,

21
Jason
Mark,
Rolad
Hwang.

22
On
the
25th
of
March,
phone
call
with
23
representatives
from
the
EV
Drivers
Coalition,
Greg
24
Hanssen
and
Bill
Mason.

25
On
the
25th
of
March
a
phone
call
with
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
58
1
representatives
from
CalETC
and
e­
Motion
Mobility,
Dave
2
Modisette
and
John
Wilson.

3
On
the
27th
of
March
I
had
a
telephone
4
conversation
with
Reg
Modlin
from
DaimlerChrysler
and
Dan
5
Surges,
Mobility
Labs
regarding
the
specific
issue
of
city
6
car
transportation
and
neighborhood
electric
vehicles.

7
On
the
25th
of
March,
a
telephone
conversation
8
with
Laurie
David
from
NRDC.

9
On
the
25th
of
March,
a
telephone
conversation
10
with
Bonnie
Homes­
Gen
representing
the
American
Lung
11
Association.

12
On
April
3rd,
in
Modesto
and
then
again
on
April
13
16th
in
Modesto
I
had
two
meetings
with
representatives
14
from
Stanislaus
County,
Reagan
Wilson
and
Mike
Lynch.

15
On
April
10th,
a
phone
call
with
an
interested
16
private
citizen,
Elaine
Lissner.
Additionally,

17
Ms.
Lissner
provided
me
with
an
e­
mail
communication
18
regarding
her
thoughts,
again,
regarding
the
staff
19
proposal.

20
On
April
10th,
I
had
a
discussion
­­
telephone
21
call
with
Alec
Brooks
who
also
provided
additional
written
22
materials
to
me
regarding
the
staff
proposal.

23
On
April
16th,
a
phone
call
with
Dave
Modisette.

24
And
in
addition,
I
received
­­
for
the
purposes
of
that
25
telephone
call
on
April
15th
I
received
CalETC
compromised
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
59
1
proposal,
then
a
revised
version
of
that
on
April
17th
2
from
Dave
Modisette.
And
again,
a
communication
from
Dave
3
Modisette
in
writing
on
April
21st
regarding
follow­
up
4
material
to
the
meeting
that
we
had
on
­­
the
phone
call
5
we
had
on
April
16th.

6
On
April
23rd,
a
phone
call
with
representatives
7
from
CalETC,
Dave
Modisette,
Bill
West,
Ed
Kjaer,
John
8
Wilson,
and
Randy
Hasty.

9
On
April
16th,
phone
call
with
the
EV
Drivers
10
Coalition,
Greg
Hanssen
and
Bill
Mason.

11
On
April
17th,
in
Stockton
I
had
a
meeting
with
12
Dean
Kato
from
Toyota.
At
that
time
I
also
received
a
13
letter
from
him
regarding
Toyota's
position.

14
On
April
17th
I
had
a
phone
conversation
with
15
Kelly
Brown
from
Ford.

16
On
April
17th,
a
telephone
conversation
with
17
representatives
from
e­
Motion
Mobility,
John
Wilson
and
18
Randy
Hasty.

19
On
April
18th,
a
phone
call
with
representatives
20
from
CalETC
and
Stanislaus
County,
Dave
Modisette
and
Mike
21
Lynch.

22
On
April
23rd,
a
telephone
call
with
Ben
Knight
23
specifically
regarding
hybrid
issues.

24
On
April
23rd,
a
phone
call
with
John
White.
At
25
this
time
John
discussed
the
letter
that
he
has
since
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
60
1
provided
to
me,
the
same
letter
that
Professor
Friedman
2
mentioned.

3
On
April
23rd,
a
phone
call
from
Dean
Kato
4
regarding
­­
from
Toyota
regarding
hybrid
issues,
and
Dean
5
followed
up
with
an
e­
mail
written
communication
to
me
6
regarding
hybrid
issues
as
well.

7
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.
McKinnon.

8
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Okay.
The
first
set
of
9
ex
parte
was
pre­
March
5th
revision
of
the
staff
report.

10
On
the
23rd
of
January,
I
met
with
e­
Motion
11
Mobility,
John
Wilson,
Randy
Hasty.
Essentially
they
12
described
how
their
business
works,
their
business
13
provides
sort
of
transportation
solutions
to
communities
14
and
businesses
where
­­
and
I
hate
to
mischaracterize
15
this
­­
where
people
essentially
check
out
the
appropriate
16
vehicle
for
the
job
that's
needed.
And
certainly
they
see
17
ZEVs
as
a
key
ingredient.
Their
primary
concern
was
the
18
ever­
changing
regulation
and
their
ability
to
operate
as
a
19
business
with
the
changes
in
the
regulation
that
continue
20
to
happen.

21
On
the
6th
of
February
I
met
with
CalETC,
Dave
22
Modisette,
Ed
Kjaer,
Bill
Boyce,
Kent
Harris,
and
Mark
23
Duvall.
Essentially,
they
were
opposed
to
the
staff
24
report
at
the
time,
and
their
comments
are
pretty
clearly
25
in
the
record.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
61
1
The
EV
Driver
Coalition
was
my
next
meeting
that
2
was
also
on
the
6th
of
February,
Greg
Hanssen
and
Bill
3
Mason.
Same
comment,
opposition
to
the
staff
proposal
at
4
that
point
in
time.
Their
comments
are
clearly
reflected
5
in
the
record.

6
Auto
Alliance
­­
just
those
large
auto
makers
in
7
the
Auto
Alliance
minus
Toyota
met
with
me
on
the
7th
of
8
February,
Kelly
Brown
from
Ford;
Bob
Cassidy
from
Nissan;

9
Jim
Ehlmann
of
GM;
and
Reg
Modlin
from
DaimlerChrysler.

10
Frankly,
in
this
meeting
the
concerns
were
expressed
about
11
the
travel
issue
which
is
pretty
clearly
in
the
record.

12
And,
frankly,
I
can
say
the
concerns
that
were
raised
in
13
this
meeting
are
in
the
record.
The
tone
of
the
14
conversation
was
more
supportive
to
the
proposal
with
a
15
few
concerns.

16
Also
on
the
7th
of
February,
I
met
with
Toyota,

17
Dean
Kato,
Dave
Hermance,
Joe
Tomita,
and
Aki
Hayasaka.

18
In
that
meeting
the
very
similar
conversation,
more
or
19
less
supportive
of
the
staff
proposal
with
a
few
concerns.

20
And
it
has
­­
all
of
those
issues
are
very
clearly
in
the
21
record.

22
On
the
11th
of
February
I
met
with
the
ZEV
23
Alliance,
Bonnie
Homes­
Gen
from
the
Lung
Association;

24
Jaime
Knapp
from
the
ZEV
Alliance;
and
Todd
Dipaola
from
25
the
Kirsch
Foundation.
Again,
very
clearly
a
conversation
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
62
1
that
was
opposed
to
the
staff
proposal
at
that
time,
and
2
their
comments
are
very
clearly
in
the
record
from
3
hearings
and
letters.

4
The
next
meeting
I
had
was
also
on
the
11th
of
5
February.
It
was
with
General
Motors.
I
met
with
Beth
6
Lowery,
Ray
Buttacavoli,
Dave
Barthmuss.
And
I
think
7
General
Motors'
comments
are
in
the
record
with
two
8
exceptions.
There
was
quite
a
bit
of
conversation
about
9
their
interest
for
stationary
fuel
cells.
The
other
area
10
that
was
attempted
to
be
discussed,
and
I
want
to
be
very,

11
very
clear
about
this
on
the
record
­­

12
(
Thereupon,
a
fire
alarm
drill
occured.)

13
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
We'll
be
okay,
but
we'll
get
14
another
interruption
when
they
tell
us
we're
okay.

15
SUPERVISOR
DeSAULNIER:
By
that
time
you'll
be
up
16
to
March.

17
(
Laughter)

18
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
On
the
11th
of
February
19
in
the
General
Motors
meeting,
the
other
subject
that
was
20
addressed
that
I
want
to
make
very
clear
in
the
record
­­

21
because
I'm
very
concerned
about
the
subject
coming
up.

22
On
two
occasions
representatives
of
General
Motors
tried
23
to
bring
up
the
subject
of
fuel
economy.
And
at
the
first
24
instance
that
the
subject
of
fuel
economy
was
brought
up,

25
I
asked
that
they
refer
that
issue
to
the
federal
agencies
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
63
1
that
regulate
fuel
economy
and
that
our
Board
had
been
2
clearly
let
know
that
we
are
not
in
the
fuel
economy
3
business.
That's
a
federal
agency
that
regulates
fuel
4
economy.
It
came
up
again
after
that,
and
I
offered
to
5
cancel
the
meeting
if
the
subject
came
up
again.

6
My
next
meeting
also
occurred
on
that
day,
the
7
11th.
The
Planning
and
Conservation
League
gave
very,

8
very
clear
indication
of
opposition
and
concern
for
the
9
zero­
emission
mandate.
They're
clearly
in
the
record.

10
After
the
March
5th
staff
proposal
­­
revised
11
staff
proposal
came
out,
I
had
a
meeting
with
the
large
12
auto
makers
on
the
March
20th.

13
I'm
up
to
March,
Mark.

14
Ben
Knight
of
Honda;
Bob
Cassidy
from
Nissan,
Reg
15
Modlin
for
DaimlerChrysler;
Kelly
Brown
from
Ford;
Al
16
Weaverstadt
from
GM.
Their
comments
are
clearly
in
the
17
record.

18
CalETC
and
I
met
also
on
the
same
day,
March
19
20th,
Dave
Modisette,
Scott
Briasco,
Bill
Boyce,
Serge
20
Roy,
Kent
Harris,
and
Bill
West.
Their
comments
are
21
clearly
in
the
record
in
opposition
to
that
staff
22
proposal.

23
I
received
a
phone
call
from
Laurie
David
who
24
identified
­­
on
the
25th
of
March
who
identified
herself
25
as
part
of
the
Natural
Resources
Defense
Counsel's
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
64
1
Hollywood
chapter
strongly
opposed
to
the
staff
report
and
2
clearly
a
zero­
emission
vehicle
driver.

3
And
also
on
the
25th
I
received
a
telephone
call
4
from
the
EV
Drivers
Coalition,
again,
opposed.
Their
5
comments
are
clearly
in
the
record.

6
On
the
26th,
had
a
telephone
conversation
with
7
Dave
Modisette.
Again,
clear
opposition
and
a
fairly
8
lengthy
discussion
about
a
proposal
for
a
compromise,
very
9
early
discussion
about
that.
Both
his
comments
and
the
10
compromise
are
clearly
indicated
in
the
record
from
the
11
hearing.

12
On
the
same
day
I
met
with
Bonnie
Homes­
Gen
from
13
the
American
Lung
Association.
She
was
clearly
opposed
to
14
the
staff
proposal,
and
her
comments
are
in
the
record.

15
The
same
day
I
met
with
Ballard,
Larry
Berg
and
16
Steve
Kukucha.
Essentially
the
meeting
was
on
the
subject
17
of
fuel
cells
and
the
state
of
fuel
cells.
Their
comments
18
are
clearly
in
the
record.

19
After
the
Board
hearing
ex
parte
I
had
a
20
telephone
conversation
with
Elaine
Lissner
on
the
14th
of
21
April.
Elaine
with
her
phone
conversation
and
e­
mail
that
22
followed
clearly
was
proposing
a
very
simplified
approach
23
that
was
very,
very
strongly
supportive
of
battery
24
electric
vehicles.

25
Alec
Brooks
and
I
spoke
on
April
16th
on
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
65
1
telephone,
he
as
an
individual
interested
private
citizen.

2
And
he
followed
up
with
e­
mail
which
clearly
argued
that
3
the
battery
electric
vehicle
should
be
given
more
due
4
consideration
in
our
deliberations
with
very
clear
5
arguments
about
sort
of
the
state
of
the
fuel
cell
versus
6
the
battery
electric
at
this
point
in
time,
and
that
the
7
development
of
the
battery
electric
over
the
last
seven
8
years
wasn't
getting
sort
of
due
respect
in
the
hearing.

9
The
next
­­
I
had
three
conversations
with
CalETC
10
April
16th
on
the
telephone,
April
21st
on
the
telephone
11
and
April
­­
also
April
21st,
a
face­
to­
face
meeting.

12
Those
were
with
Dave
Modisette.
And
then
on
April
23rd
a
13
meeting
with
Dave
Modisette,
Bill
West,
Ed
Kjaer,
John
14
Wilson,
and
Randy
Hasty.
Those
discussions
were
clearly
a
15
development
of
a
compromise
proposal.
Some
of
that
16
compromise
proposal
or
portions
of
that
compromised
17
proposal
were
talked
about
in
the
staff
report,
certainly
18
not
in
full.
I
would
feel
most
comfortable
if
­­
in
that
19
that
sort
of
public
disclosure
that
I
disclose
sort
of
the
20
written
documents
that
are
involved
with
that.
So
I'd
21
like
to
offer
them
for
the
record.

22
(
Thereupon,
the
public
address
system
made
an
23
all­
clear
announcement.)

24
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
On
the
April
16th
and
25
23rd
I
had
telephone
conversations
with
Greg
Hanssen
and
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
66
1
Bill
Mason.
Those
conversations
were
also
continuing
2
opposition
to
the
staff
proposal
and
encouragement
to
look
3
at
some
of
the
compromise
proposals
that
were
out
there.

4
On
the
16th
I
met
in
person
with
John
White,
and
5
I
received
the
letter
that
was
referred
to
by
Board
Member
6
Hugh
Friedman.
I
received
that
letter
some
time
later,
a
7
few
days
later.

8
But
essentially
the
John
White
meeting
was
a
9
pretty
strong
departure
from
the
position
of
the
Sierra
10
Club
in
that
­­
that's
on
the
record.
On
the
record
the
11
position
called
for
fairly
high
numbers
of
fuel
cells
and
12
the
change
in
position
changed
to
an
agreement
with
the
13
250
number.
He
also
gave
due
credit
to
the
progress
and
14
PZEV
and
AT
PZEV
area,
and
based
his
reasoning
on
that
15
progress
in
large
part.

16
On
the
21st
of
April
I
received
a
telephone
call
17
from
Larry
Berg
from
Ballard.
He
reaffirmed
Ballard's
18
position
that
they
supported
the
staff
proposal
and
the
19
250
fuel
cell
number.

20
On
the
21st
of
April
I
received
a
telephone
call
21
from
Coalition
of
Clean
Air
and
the
Planning
Conservation
22
League,
Tim
Carmichael
and
Sandray
Spelliscy.
They
23
strongly
reaffirmed
their
opposition
to
the
staff
proposal
24
and
the
problems
with
the
lack
of
near­
term
zero
emission
25
vehicles.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
67
1
April
23rd
I
met
with
Toyota.
Dean
Kato
was
here
2
in
Sacramento.
In
Japan
via
video
conference
were
3
Ms.
Fugimoto,
Mr.
Kawai,
and
Mr.
Matsuoka.
The
content
4
was
very
clearly
a
very
thoughtful
discussion
about
the
5
development
of
the
fuel
cell,
about
how
Toyota
was
6
thinking
through
what
the
steps
would
be
in
the
7
development
of
the
fuel
cell,
including
those
factors
that
8
may
not
be
under
their
control,
such
as
infrastructure
and
9
social
kind
of
view
of
the
fuel
cell
and
sort
of
the
10
decline
of
fossil
fuels
as
a
primary.
It
was
a
very,
very
11
informative
discussion.

12
With
that,
I
think
I've
covered
it
all.
Thank
13
you.

14
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thanks,
Matt.

15
Supervisor
DeSaulnier.

16
SUPERVISOR
DeSAULNIER:
For
once
people
are
glad
17
to
hear
me
speak
because
I'm
at
the
end.
Reminds
me
of
a
18
really
bad
academy
award
acceptance
speech
when
people
19
name
everybody
they've
talked
to
in
the
last
5
years.

20
On
February
6th
I
meet
with
Dean
Kato,
Joe
21
Tomita,
Akohoto
Hayasaka
in
my
Concord
office.
The
22
conversation
was
consistent
with
their
correspondence
and
23
their
testimony.

24
On
the
20th
of
February,
I
met
with
ZEV
Alliance,

25
Jason
Mark
from
the
Union
of
Concerned
Scientists
and
Todd
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
68
1
Dipaola
from
the
Kirsch
Foundation.

2
On
February
20th
also
I
received
a
phone
call
3
from
Greg
Hanssen
and
Bill
Mason.
Those
conversations
4
were
also
consistent
with
their
testimony.

5
On
March
19th
I
met
with
Rick
Woodbury
from
the
6
Commuter
Cars
Corporation.
His
conversation
with
me
was
7
similar
to
his
conversation
with
the
Chairman.

8
On
March
20th
I
had
a
phone
call
with
Dave
9
Modisette,
Scott
Briasco
from
the
Department
of
Water
and
10
Power;
Bill
Boyce
from
SMUD;
and
Serge
Roy
from
Capitech.

11
That
was
consistant
with
their
testimony
last
month.

12
On
the
20th
I
had
a
conference
call
with
Bonnie
13
Homes­
Gen
and
Jason
Mark,
again,
consistent
with
their
14
testimony
of
last
month.

15
The
EV
Drivers
Coalition,
Greg
Hanssen
and
Bill
16
Mason,
had
a
phone
call
with
them
on
March
25th.

17
On
the
26th
I
had
another
phone
conversation
with
18
Dave
Modisette
in
regards
to
his
attempts
to
put
a
19
compromise
proposal.

20
On
April
16th
in
the
Concord
office
I
had
a
21
conversation
with
Elaine
Lissner
an
interested
private
22
citizen
who
­­
our
conversation
again
was
consistent
with
23
her
testimony
last
month.

24
On
April
17th
I
received
a
phone
call
from
25
CalETC,
again
from
Dave
Modisette
updating
me
on
his
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
69
1
ever­
going
endeavors
consistent
with
his
submission
that
2
we
have
in
front
of
us.

3
On
the
17th
I
received
a
phone
call
from
the
EV
4
Drivers
Coalition,
Greg
Hanssen,
Bill
Mason,
again
trying
5
to
argue
that
we
not
­­
or
we
support
their
positions.

6
On
April
18th
in
Oakland
I
met
with
Dean
Kato
7
expressing
his
concerns
similar
to
the
concerns
expressed
8
in
a
letter
from
Toyota
of
April
23rd.

9
On
Tuesday
the
22nd
I
talked
to
Dean
again.

10
And
on
Wednesday
the
23rd
I
had
a
series
of
11
messages
from
John
White
going
back
and
forth,
and
they're
12
consistent
with
the
conversations
other
Board
members
had
13
with
Mr.
White.

14
And
I
also
had
a
conversation
by
phone
with
Rolad
15
Hwang.

16
And
that's
it,
Mr.
Chairman.

17
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much,

18
Supervisor
DeSaulnier.

19
I'd
also
like
to
­­
I
think
it
was
referred
to.

20
I
just
want
to
make
sure,
Ms.
Walsh,
that
the
letter
of
21
April
23rd
from
Joe
Tomita
of
Toyota
is,
in
fact,
in
the
22
record.
I
think
it
was
sent
to
me,
to
Ms.
D'Adamo,
to
23
Supervisor
DeSaulnier,
Dr.
Friedman,
and
Mr.
McKinnon.

24
GENERAL
COUNSEL
WALSH:
Yes.
It
will
be
made
a
25
part
of
the
record
as
the
disclosures
made
this
morning,

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
70
1
and
we
did
have
copies
made
and
they
have
been
provided
to
2
all
the
Board
members.

3
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Again
I
think
now
that
we
4
have
completed
our
ex
parte
disclosures
it's
time
to
begin
5
the
Board's
decision
on
discussion
process
on
the
matter
6
before
us.

7
Again,
with
my
colleagues
permission,
I
would
8
like
to
exercise
the
Chairman's
prerogative
and
start
us
9
off
by
sharing
my
own
perspective
on
proposed
regulation
10
before
us
before
we
get
into
detailed
discussion.

11
I
said
at
the
outset
of
today's
hearing
we
have
12
not
failed
in
our
quest
for
zero­
emission
transportation.

13
In
fact,
I
stated
it
is,
in
fact,
a
marathon,
not
a
14
sprint.
The
task
of
achieving
a
revolutionary
change
in
15
motor
vehicle
technology
is
simply
more
difficult
than
16
anyone
anticipated
when
this
effort
began
in
the
early
17
'
90s
and,
in
fact,
requires
working
closely
with
the
18
industries
who
are,
in
fact,
expected
to
effect
that
19
change.

20
In
my
judgment
we
need
to
be
realistic
about
the
21
challenge
that
is
still
before
us,
but
we
should
keep
our
22
optimism
and
never,
never
give
up.
That's
important.
At
23
the
same
time
we
need
to
stay
focused
on
what
is
24
achievable
in
each
time
frame
and
about
what
constitutes
25
the
progress
towards
our
ultimate
goal,
which
is
advancing
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
71
1
the
technology
and
getting
clean
air
and,
in
fact,
our
2
drive
to
zero.

3
I
think
it's,
again,
important
as
we
look
to
our
4
challenges
for
clean
air
that
goal
is
very,
very
5
important.
But
as
we've
seen,
the
family
of
technologies
6
that
are
getting
us
to
cleaner
air
are,
in
fact,
a
7
critical
portion
of
this
overall
regulation,
although
the
8
ZEV
piece
attracts
the
most
attention.

9
Again,
with
all
that
being
said
the
support
in
10
general,
the
staff
proposal
for
amending
the
ZEV
11
regulation
as
laid
out
today
in
particular
just
to
12
reiterate
changes
to
the
ZEV
and
hybrid
electric
vehicle
13
calculation
to
address
the
legal
concerns.
I
think
the
14
two­
path
compliance
structure
is
important
given
that
15
flexibility.

16
The
reliance
on
the
California
Fuel
Cell
17
Partnership
stretch
goals
to
define
the
appropriate
number
18
of
fuel
cell
vehicles
on
the
alternative
path
in
2001
to
19
2008
which
brings
up
the
250
number.
And
again,
since
the
20
last
meeting
we
have
had
that
strong
letter
from
Sierra
21
Club
and
John
White
endorsing
that
number.
And
I
will
22
also
say
at
this
time
being
one
of
­­
ARB
being
one
of
the
23
founding
members
of
California
Fuel
Cell
Partnership,

24
being
the
Chairman
for
this
year
of
that,
again
I
have
a
25
lot
of
faith
and
a
lot
of
hope
in
that
partnership
to
get
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
72
1
us
to
zero­
emission
technology.
Recognize
there
are
many
2
challenges
to
be
overcome,
but
I
think
we
have
a
chance
3
to,
in
fact,
turn
the
tide,
if
you
like,
to
work
together
4
with
all
the
stakeholders
here
to
bring
us
a
technology
to
5
California
and
working
together
with
the
energy
partners,

6
government
partners,
technology
developers,
and
the
7
industry,
I
think
we
will
have
a
real
opportunity
and
I
8
think
with
the
increased
effort
at
the
national
level
and
9
international
level.

10
That's
not
to
say,
obviously,
that
we
are
going
11
to
continue
with
our
other
seeking
of
battery
electric
12
technology
to
get
to
us
to
zero.
I
think
on
the
250
13
number
­­
I've
learned
a
lot
in
the
last
two
years
about
14
the
numbers.
And
I
think
that
as
we
look
at
the
15
development
program
the
cost
it
takes,
while
that
may
seem
16
a
smaller
number
than
I
certainly
would
have
approved
17
two
years
ago,
I
feel
seeing
firsthand
what
this
industry
18
needs
and
takes,
I
think
in
a
development
process
that's
a
19
reasonable
number.
And,
in
fact,
the
stage
growth
in
20
terms
of
using
the
factor
of
10
as
defined
by
the
staff
21
for
2009
and
beyond
is,
I
think,
a
realistic
goal.

22
I
think
the
creation
of
a
new
independent
expert
23
review
panel
to
assist
the
Board
in
evaluating
the
status
24
of
ZEV
technology,
both
fuel
cell
and
batteries
and
hybrid
25
electrics,
I
think
is
a
very
important
piece
of
this
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
73
1
overall.

2
I
would
suggest
that
we
maybe
early
on
­­
staff
3
was
talking
about
getting
that
started
in
2005.
I
think
4
that's
too
early.
I
would
like
to
see
that
being
sort
of
5
in
the
2007/
08
time
frame
or
'
06,
some
flexibility
there
6
to
give
us
time
to
understand
the
technology.

7
But
I
would
request
that
annually
the
Board
8
reports
­­
the
staff
reports
to
the
Board
to
give
us
a
9
status
report
as
we
have
in
some
others
about
the
progress
10
of
how
this
regulation
is
being
implemented.
And
I
think
11
in
the
past
we've
been
surprised
about
maybe
people
have
12
taken
advantage
of
this.
Maybe
that
­­
the
basically
13
unexpected
consequences.
So
I
think
if
the
staff
would
14
report
back
to
the
Board
to
make
sure
it's
going
along.

15
An
annual
basis
would
be
helpful.
Not
a
hearing,
just
an
16
informational
one.

17
I
think
the
suggested
provision
to
address
the
18
travel
issue
with
other
states,
I
think,
is
reasonable.
I
19
think
with
regard
to
battery
electric
vehicles
I,
too,
am
20
concerned
that
the
manufacturers
step
away
from
this
21
technology
at
this
time.
And
it's
been
deeply
22
disappointing.
Two
years
ago
I
had
great
hopes.
However,

23
I
think
that
the
staff
has
made
every
reasonable
effort
to
24
encourage
and
foster
their
participation
in
the
25
regulation.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
74
1
And
I'm
pleased
the
additional
incentives
to
the
2
proposal
to
encourage
auto
makers
to
keep
BEVs
on
the
road
3
as
long
as
possible.
And
I'm
also
satisfied
with
the
4
inclusion
of
BEVs
and
the
alternative
compliance
path
is
5
done
so
at
a
favorable
ratio.
So
we're
not
turning
our
6
back.

7
With
regard
to
plug­
in
hybrids,
I
think
we've
all
8
heard
the
response
from
auto
makers
from
the
question
9
posed
regarding
what
incentives
could
be
offered
to
induce
10
them
to
introduce
plug­
in
hybrids.
And,
in
fact,
we
11
explicitly
asked
that
question
at
the
hearing
of
the
auto
12
manufacturers.
This
response
has
ranged
from
clear
13
indifference
to
acknowledgement
that
the
proposed
14
regulatory
structure
was
attractive
enough
to
look
into.

15
With
this
information
holding
firm
to
my
16
principle
that
zero
means
zero,
the
tailpipe,
I
agree
with
17
the
staff's
suggestion
that
plug­
in
hybrids
continue
to
be
18
treated
in
silver
category
vehicles.

19
Again,
to
sum
it
all
up,
I
think
we
should
20
seriously
consider
a
motion
to
approve
staff's
proposal
21
essentially
as
is
with
the
comments
that
I
made.
But
I'm
22
also
keenly
aware
that
some
of
my
colleagues
have
23
different
views
on
individual
elements
of
the
proposed
ZEV
24
modifications.
I
do
not
mean
to
cut
the
discussion
short
25
in
any
way
because
it's
a
complex
issue.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
75
1
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
Mr.
Chairman.

2
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Ms.
Riordan.

3
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
If
I
might,
just
to
help
4
us
frame
our
discussion
this
morning,
I
would
like
to
move
5
that
the
Board
approve
the
staff
recommendations
that
are
6
before
us
today
and
to
include
your
request
for
the
staff
7
reports
to
follow
on
an
annual
basis
and
the
delay
of
8
your
­­
at
the
Advisory
Board
to
2006
or
after.

9
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Second.

10
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Discussion.
Yes.

11
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
I
think
we
need
to
discuss
12
the
staff
proposal.

13
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Yes.

14
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Could
I
­­
we
have
a
15
number
of
documents
that
were
talked
about
going
into
the
16
record.
I'm
wondering
if
before
we
have
the
discussion
if
17
we
can
have
those
documents
copied
so
everybody
has
them
18
to
look
at.
I
don't
mean
to
cut
anybody
off
but
­­

19
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
think
that's
fine.

20
GENERAL
COUNSEL
WALSH:
They're
being
copied
now.

21
And
as
soon
as
they're
ready,
we'll
distribute
them.

22
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
I'm
fine
with
going
ahead
23
with
what
I
have
to
say.
I
won't
be
referring
to
any
of
24
them
specifically.

25
Mr.
Chairman,
I
would
like
to
compliment
how
far
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
76
1
we've
come
in
this
staff
report
in
a
number
of
areas,

2
particularly
regarding
the
structure
of
the
base
path
and
3
the
alternative
compliance
path.
And
some
of
the
changes
4
that
were
made
with
regard
to
the
silver
and
bronze
5
category.
However,
I
haven't
seen
any
­­
that's
pretty
6
much
where
we
were
in
March
with
regard
to
what
I
felt
to
7
be
the
consensus
that
emerged
at
the
last
hearing.
There
8
was
strong
consensus
that
battery
electric
vehicles
be
9
incentivized
by
some
sort
of
ratio,
and
there
was
also
10
strong
­­
I
felt
strong
consensus
with
regard
to
at
a
11
minimum
a
number
of
250
and
higher
numbers
in
the
out
12
years.
I'm
disappointed
that
what
we
have
before
us
today
13
is
the
minimum
level
where
I
felt
we
left
off
at
the
last
14
hearing.

15
I
think
that
we
can
do
more.
I
think
we
can
do
16
better
particularly
in
the
near
term.
And
I
think
that
we
17
need
to
be
honest
with
ourselves
when
we
look
at
just
one
18
example,
the
number
in
the
near
term,
the
250.
We
need
to
19
be
honest
with
ourselves
that
we
are
not
talking
about
250
20
fuel
cells
that
will
be
built
in
that
time
frame
in
your
21
term
because
we
know
realistically
there
are
a
number
of
22
auto
makers
that
are
going
to
remain
on
the
base
path.
So
23
right
off
the
top
we
can
chop
that
figure
roughly
in
half
24
or
in
a
third,
you
know,
depending
on
how
many
auto
makers
25
choose
to
stay
on
the
base
path.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
77
1
Then,
in
addition,
because
of
the
concern
that
2
was
expressed
by
myself
and
a
number
of
other
Board
3
members
and
witnesses,
there
is
a
credit
scheme
that's
4
been
added
into
the
mix
that
wasn't
originally
envisioned
5
on
the
alternative
path
to
provide
for
BEV
incentives
and
6
for
new
BEVs,
new
BEV
production,
and
for
release.

7
I've
been
advised
that
realistically
staff
8
believes
that
the
auto
makers
believe
that
those
9
incentives
are
not
enough
to
encourage
new
production
of
10
BEVs.
But
they
probably
are
enough
to
incentivize
a
11
re­
lease
of
existing
BEVs
that
are
already
out
there.

12
So
I'm
in
sort
of
a
quandary.
I
feel
like
we
13
have
an
unattended
consequence
here
as
a
result
of
an
14
issue
I
feel
very
strongly
about,
and
that
is
BEVs.
So
15
considering
those
additional
incentives
with
regard
to
16
re­
leases,
the
number
of
250
cut
in
half
or
cut
down
to
a
17
third
would
be
reduced
even
further.
Plus,
we
also
don't
18
have
any
complete
assurances
those
vehicle
are
going
to
be
19
in
the
state
of
California,
which
gives
me
great
20
heartache.

21
I
think
that
what
we
should
have
done
is
given
it
22
a
good
college
try.
Sit
down
with
the
auto
makers
and
the
23
stakeholders
and
see
what
could
be
done
to
increase
that
24
number
and
keep
the
auto
makers
at
the
table.
Keep
them
25
working
through
the
Fuel
Cell
Partnership.
We
already
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
78
1
know
they
were
committed
to
roughly
250
anyway.
But
with
2
the
number
that
we
have,
it's
going
to
be
less
than
250
3
realistically.
I
think
we
could
have
done
better.
We
4
could
have
pushed
for
­­
had
staff
and
through
their
5
discussions
pushed
for
a
higher
number.
I
don't
know
what
6
the
magic
number
is.
I'm
not
in
the
position
to
be
able
7
to
say
what
that
should
be,
but
I
think
it's
got
to
be
8
more
than
250.

9
Other
alternatives
we
could
have
looked
at
would
10
have
been
a
floor
for
BEVs.
And
I
think
we
should
have
11
done
a
better
job
at
exploring
a
viable
credit
trading
12
program
similar
to
the
initial
reduction
credit
system
13
that's
in
place
with
regard
to
stationary
sources
at
the
14
district
level.

15
I've
raised
this
issue
several
times
over
the
16
last
couple
of
weeks
with
staff,
and
I
just
don't
get
a
17
sense
there
was
any
attempt
to
work
with
the
auto
makers
18
and
come
up
with
a
creative
approach.
I
know
there
was
19
some
suggestions
advanced
by
CalETC.
That
may
not
have
20
been
the
way
to
do
it.
But
I
feel
that
if
we
had
tried
21
hard
enough,
we
probably
could
have
come
up
with
22
something.

23
Basically,
my
bottom
line
is
I
think
we
need
to
24
have
more
fuel
cell
numbers,
fuel
cell
equivalents
so
we
25
can
have
a
meaningful
incentive
program
for
BEVs.
I'm
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
79
1
just
not
ready
to
close
the
door
on
any
technology
that's
2
out
there.
I
think
we
need
to
do
everything
we
can
to
3
keep
optimistic,
just
as
we
are
with
fuel
cells.
Keep
4
optimistic
with
BEV
production.

5
I'm
nervous
about
having
BEV
production
6
advancements
frozen
in
time
to
this
date
while
the
other
7
technologies
continue
to
advance,
which
is
what
we
want.

8
We
want
to
have
fuel
cell
technologies
advance,
hybrid
9
technologies,
plug­
in
hybrids.
I
think
BEVs
need
to
be
in
10
that
mix
as
well.
So
I
reluctantly
will
be
­­
unless
11
there
are
any
changes,
I'll
be
opposing
the
staff
12
proposal.

13
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Let
me
just
comment
on
the
14
fuel
cell.
That's
close
to
my
area.
I
think
that
there
15
was
not
a
commitment
of
the
Fuel
Cell
Partnership
250
16
vehicles.
In
fact,
that
was
a
goal
they
put
forward.

17
This
regulation
would
actually
put
that
into
a
specific
18
number.
So
I
think
it's
incorrect
to
say
that
that
was
a
19
commitment.

20
I
would
also
like
to
have
seen
that
number
21
higher.
But
after
talking
to
the
manufacturers,
seeing
22
what's
involved,
I
cannot
in
good
conscious
require
them
23
to
put
a
greater
number
of
vehicles
out
there,
which
are
24
expensive
which
we
realize
are
in
the
development
stage.

25
And
it
doesn't
bother
me
a
lot
that
the
number
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
80
1
may
be
smaller
because
as
long
as
you've
got
a
reasonable
2
number
out
there
because
these
are
development
vehicles.

3
And
I
feel
assured
also
with
the
competition
going
on
4
there
will
be
a
significant
development.
This
regulation,

5
however,
ensures
that
we're
getting
this
technology
on
the
6
road
in
California
through
the
partnership
as
fast
as
7
possible.
And
we're,
in
fact,
developing
the
8
infrastructure
in
a
true
partnership
way
which
will
9
require
them.
And,
in
fact,
we
have
the
great
leadership
10
by
the
South
Coast
Air
Quality
Management
District
in
11
putting
hydrogen
infrastructure
already
in
the
basin.
So
12
the
numbers
don't
bother
me
that
much.

13
And
I
also
feel
that
part
of
what
I
said
earlier
14
on,
I
think
what
we're
trying
to
do
here,
we
have
tried
to
15
force
batteries
onto
the
road.
We
have
not
been
16
successful
with
the
major
manufacturers.
And
what
we've
17
had,
as
I
think
staff
indicated,
we
had
starts
and
18
confrontation.

19
I'm
now
convinced
that
our
greatest
benefit
here
20
is
to
try
to
identify
technologies
that
they
have
21
identified
that
can
be
commercial
successes,
the
hybrids
22
already
and
the
fuel
cells,
but
not
ignoring
the
23
batteries.
Because
if
we
can
see
that
there
are
other
24
ways,
if
we
can
see
that
the
cost
changed
significantly
25
trying
to
keep
that
open,
the
base
path
is
there.
We
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
81
1
had
­­
in
2001
we
had
people
taking
advantage
of
that
base
2
path.
We
didn't
get
the
vehicles
we
wanted.
We
got
a
lot
3
of
smaller
vehicles.

4
So
again,
I'm
not
nearly
as
pessimistic
as
you
5
are
in
terms
of
the
numbers
and
the
consequences
because
I
6
think
as
we
see
this,
this
is
tremendous
potential.

7
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
Well,
my
only
response
­­

8
I
know
other
Board
members
would
like
to
speak.
But
I
9
would
like
to
­­
I
share
your
optimism
on
fuel
cells,
just
10
not
to
the
extent.
I
think
it's
bait
and
switch
strategy.

11
I
hope
I'm
wrong.

12
I
just
­­
as
you
indicated
in
your
remarks,

13
Mr.
Chairman,
that
you
think
we
need
to
keep
focus,
keep
14
optimistic.
I
feel
that
way
with
regard
to
BEVs
as
well.

15
I
think
if
they're
incentivized
enough,
there
will
be
16
improvements.
Will
they
be
to
the
extent
we
had
all
17
dreamed
and
hoped?
Probably
not.
But
I
suspect
that
with
18
all
the
brain
trust
that's
out
there,
there
will
be
19
improvements.

20
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Of
course,
there
will
be
21
improvements
as
a
result
of
the
hybrids
because
they're
a
22
critical
part
of
that,
both
for
fuel
cells
and
for
23
gasoline
or
the
hybrids.
I
recognize
they're
a
different
24
type
of
batteries
there.
I
don't
know
if
staff
wants
to
25
respond
to
that
at
this
time.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
82
1
Dr.
Burke
and
Supervisor
Robert.

2
BOARD
MEMBER
BURKE:
I'll
concede
to
the
3
Supervisor.

4
SUPERVISOR
ROBERTS:
Thank
you,
Dr.
Burke.

5
First,
I'm
not
disappointed,
and
I
want
to
6
compliment
staff.
This
report
has
brought
clarity
to
what
7
I
was
looking
at
as
a
Roubix
cube
of
air
quality
issues.

8
There's
an
incredible
number
of
different
pieces
here
all
9
seeming
to
go
in
directions.
And
obviously
a
lot
of
10
different
interests.
There's
a
lot
of
focus
on
the
11
numbers
because
numbers
are
an
easy
thing
to
grasp.

12
I'm
not
disappointed
in
this
number,
not
even
in
13
the
least.
Talking
about
a
number
when
we're
talking
14
about
the
R&
D
that
needs
to
occur
over
the
next
several
15
years
is
like
requiring
a
chemist
to
use
a
certain
number
16
of
test
tubes
in
his
R&
D.
It's
not
critical.
The
number
17
is
not
critical.
We
need
as
a
sustained
effective
18
research
and
develop
program.
We
need
a
commitment
to
19
that.
And
then
we
have
to
hold
the
feet
to
the
fire
to
20
make
sure
that's
happening.

21
I
probably
would
have
liked
to
have
the
report
in
22
a
couple
years
because
it's
­­
there's
a
lot
that's
23
already
happened
that's
going
on,
and
we're
not
sort
of
up
24
to
date
on,
at
least
I
feel
like
I'm
not.
And
I
would
25
like
to
have
had
that
probably
earlier
rather
than
later.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
83
1
The
main
goal
of
cleaning
up
the
air
in
2
California,
if
not
in
the
nation
and
the
world,
I
think
is
3
going
to
be
very
much
an
outcome
of
this
proposal.
And
I
4
like
it
for
that
reason.
But
I
also
like
it
for
some
of
5
the
secondary
things
that
aren't
necessarily
part
of
our
6
official
agenda.

7
I
like
the
fact
that
hydrogen
might
be
in
a
8
position
to
displace
the
petroleum
products.
I
like
it
9
because
of
the
potential
for
use
in
a
distributed
10
generation
solution
to
some
of
our
other
energy
11
requirements.
I
like
what
I
see
happening.

12
I
also
like
the
fact
that
the
recommendation
is
13
not
to
move
the
plug­
in
hybrids
to
the
gold
category.

14
They
simply
aren't
gold.
They
shoudln't
be
in
gold.
You
15
know,
it's
a
nice
thing,
and
there's
a
place
for
it.
And
16
it's
been
incentivized
to
the
highest
level
it
should
be.

17
But
they
shouldn't
confuse
what
that
gold
category
is.

18
And
it
should
be
something
that
really
is
gold
and
19
contributes
in
a
significant
way
to
the
overall
solution.

20
And
the
plug­
in
hybrids,
in
my
mind,
aren't
there.

21
So
I
like
this.
I
like
the
proposal.
I
like
22
what
staff
has
done
here.
I'm
satisfied
with
the
numbers
23
both
in
the
early
years.
As
I
say,
I
don't
think
the
24
numbers
in
and
of
themselves
are
what's
going
to
be
25
important.
I
mean,
you
can
put
250
fuel
cell
vehicles
out
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
84
1
there,
and
if
it's
not
really
part
of
an
effective
2
sustained
research
and
development
program,
you
won't
get
3
anything
out
of
it.
You'll
get
numbers.
And
it
isn't
4
numbers
that
are
important.
It's
to
get
the
actual
5
operating
vehicles
and
to
get
the
knowledge
and
to
be
able
6
then
to
be
able
to
respond
to
the
market
and
the
cost
and
7
the
convenience
and
the
range
and
the
maintenance
and
8
everything
else
to
accomplish
those
goals.

9
So
maybe
I'm
overly
optimistic
at
this
point.

10
But
based
on
what
I've
seen,
I
think
that
we've
got
a
11
great
program
here.
Again,
I
want
to
compliment
staff
for
12
bringing
the
clarity
to
this
that
wasn't
there
at
the
last
13
meeting.
There
was
so
many
loose
ends
here.
I
thought,

14
how
are
we
going
to
get
this
stuff
all
put
back
together?

15
I
think
your
recommendations
are
excellent,
and
I
intend
16
to
vote
for
the
motion.

17
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you,
Supervisor
18
Roberts.

19
Dr.
Burke.

20
BOARD
MEMBER
BURKE:
The
reason
I
seeded
my
time
21
to
the
supervisor
because
we
spoke
­­

22
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Would
you
speak
up,
Bill,

23
please.

24
BOARD
MEMBER
BURKE:
Mumbles
Burke
here.

25
The
reason
I
seeded
my
time
to
Supervisor
Roberts
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
85
1
is
because
we
had
discussed
this
at
some
length
personally
2
over
the
last
few
days.
And
he
reflects
my
personal
3
thinking.

4
There
is
some
concern
from
South
Coast
as
it
5
relates
to
what
we
hear
as
the
domestic
car
manufacturers
6
are
going
to
put
all
their
cars
in
back
east.
And
the
7
foreign
car
manufacturers
are
going
to
put
all
theirs
in
8
California.
We
think
that's
a
bad
public
policy
9
situation.

10
As
far
as
the
staff
proposal,
with
that
one
11
caveat,
I
plan
on
supporting
it
vigorously.
And
South
12
Coast
District
looks
forward
to
helping
with
the
13
infrastructure
at
any
point
that
we
can,
whether
it's
14
intellectually
or
financially.
We're
going
to
be
out
15
there
supporting
this.
But
I
really
would
like
to
have
16
some
further
discussion
of
this
travel
issue.

17
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
On
that
point,

18
staff
intends
to
monitor
the
placement
of
fuel
cell
19
vehicles
quite
closely.
If
we
see
significant
leakage
to
20
other
states,
we'll
be
back
before
you
with
an
amendment
21
to
the
travel
provision.

22
But
we
think
on
the
natural,
we
have
all
of
the
23
right
ingredients
to
make
the
fuel
cells
come
to
24
California,
including,
of
course,
your
own
infrastructure.

25
BOARD
MEMBER
BURKE:
Our
concern's
one
of
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
86
1
Congressal
influence.
And
with
the
Chairman
of
­­
you
2
know,
it's
pretty
easy
for
him
to
shift
that
way.
And
it
3
would
seem
to
me
that
we
would
want
to
do
something
in
4
advance
of
the
problem,
rather
than
seeing
it
happen
and
5
then
trying
to
deal
with
it.

6
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
think
this
is
­­
I
would
7
say
this
is
an
opportunity
­­
and
I'm
looking
to
the
back
8
of
the
room
to
our
domestic
manufacturers.
In
fact,
we've
9
heard
many
times
that
you
know
you
don't
like
mandates.

10
This
is
an
opportunity,
in
fact,
to,
in
fact,
work
as
a
11
true
partnership
so
that,
in
fact,
the
concern
that
you
12
hear
expressed,
we
don't
get
cars
in
California
basically
13
is
not
a
valid
concern.

14
After
talking
about
a
number
of
you
there,
I
have
15
confidence
that
we
will
get
our
share
of
cars.
But,

16
again,
I
think
you're
hearing
that
­­
please
help
us.

17
Please
make
this
a
really
two­
way
working
relationship.

18
Because
one
of
the
reasons,
obviously,
for
us
asking
staff
19
to
report
back
to
us
on
a
regular
basis
is
that
we
want
to
20
develop
a
new
relationship
working
together.
But
there's
21
not
sufficient
trust
there
yet,
public
trust
that
we
want
22
that
we
see
that
moving
ahead.

23
So
I'm
hopeful,
Dr.
Burke,
that
can
happen.
And
24
I
think
we
are
in
discussions
with
the
companies.
And
I'm
25
optimistic,
and
I
want
to
keep
it
that
way.
At
least
at
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
87
1
this
time
I
would
hope
we
wouldn't
try
to
put
something
2
more
than
we
have
there.
But
try
to
work
together
with
3
the
companies.
I
think
each
are
desirous
of
that.
And
if
4
no
other
reason,
I
don't
think
they
would
want
to
see
5
California
roads
be
even
more
dominated
by
competitors
6
from
overseas.
And
they
would
want
to
make
sure
their
7
technology
is
getting
out
there.
As
we
see
in
the
8
partnership,
they're
all
working
well
together.
And
we
9
see
the
various
generation
of
vehicles
getting
better
and
10
better.

11
I'm
not
sure
that
addressed
your
concern,
but
12
let's
be
positive.

13
BOARD
MEMBER
BURKE:
I'm
willing
to
accept
yours
14
and
Katherine's
assurance
that
you'll
monitor
that.
And
15
trust
me,
our
people
will
be
in
touch
with
you
in
16
following
up.

17
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
know.
McKinnon.

18
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Yeah.
I
also
join
Member
19
D'Adamo
in
opposition
to
the
resolution.
And
I
think
it's
20
really
hard
to
do
that
on
this
Board
because
there's
a
lot
21
of
respect
between
the
members
of
the
Board
and
towards
22
the
Chair
and
towards
the
staff.
We
have
a
bright,

23
hard­
working
staff
that
works
hard
to
fix
and
negotiate
24
problem.
And
the
Chairman
brings
experience
and
science
25
to
every
problem.
And
it's
just
really,
really
hard
to
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
88
1
come
out
with
a
different
opinion,
but
I
have
a
different
2
opinion.

3
So
I
want
­­
I
want
to
say
what's
positive,
what
4
I
think
is
really
positive
about
the
proposal.
And
what's
5
really
positive
in
terms
of
clean
air,
which
is
the
bottom
6
line,
in
the
bronze
category
and
silver
is
the
AT
PZEV
and
7
the
PZEV
make
a
major
contribution
to
cleaner
air,
big
8
time.

9
And
I
know
Kelly
Brown's
been
waiting
for
me
to
10
say
that
forever.
So
I
said
it,
Kelly.
There
you
know.

11
It's
a
big
deal,
and
it
matters.
And
my
12
concern
­­
we
can
play
all
sort
of
semantic
games
about
13
base
path
and
alternative
path.
My
concern,
and
the
14
reason
I
put
a
motion
up
last
time,
is
that
I'm
concerned
15
we're
putting
all
our
marbles
into
one
basket,
and
that
16
being
fuel
cell.
And
the
electric
car
is
a
proven
17
technology.
Yes,
there's
battery
difficulties,
costs
and
18
range.
Fuel
cell,
you
still
have
range
problems.

19
I
guess
my
bottom
line
is
that
we're
weighing
in
20
on
technology
unwittingly.
We're
saying
this
is
the
21
course
for
the
future,
and
we're
weighing
in
pretty
22
heavily.

23
Between
the
paths
and
between
the
way
that
we
24
could
have
worked
on
resolving
this,
we
could
have
left
25
the
availability
of
multiple
technologies.
I
don't
think
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
89
1
we
did
that.
I
think
by
setting
the
250
number
which
is
2
some
­­
it's
sort
of
a
deceptive
number.
It's
sort
of
3
like
some
will
go
to
the
base
path
and
then
some
will
use
4
other
methods.
We
could
get
as
few
as
85
fuel
cell
cars
5
distributed
throughout
the
United
States.
I
mean,

6
that's
­­
hopefully
that
doesn't
happen.
And
I
know
with
7
the
work
that's
gone
on
with
the
partnership,
it's
8
unlikely
that
will
happen.
And
I
will
grant
that.
But
it
9
could
go
as
low
as
that.

10
It
seems
to
me
that
we
should
be
developing
this
11
without
sort
of
the
weakening
of
the
2001
course.
I
mean,

12
sort
of
how
this
starts
is
we
weaken
the
2001
path,
and
13
then
we
have
to
be
concerned
about
the
alternative
path
14
not
being
so
strong
that
we
don't
get
anything
out
of
it.

15
Well,
we
need
to
go
back
to
2001
path.
It
should
be
as
16
close
as
possible
to
what
the
deal
was
in
2001.
A
deal's
17
a
deal.
That
was
what
it
was.

18
And
then
you
have
­­
from
there
you
have
the
19
discussion
about
what
the
alternative
path
is.
2001
­­
I
20
mean,
we
have
cars
that
land
in
California
for
a
year
and
21
then
they're
gone
that
are
ZEV.
They're
moved
to
New
York
22
or
they're
moved
to
Massachusetts.

23
I
really
appreciate
that
CalETC
did
a
lot
of
work
24
trying
to
figure
out
­­
and,
actually,
they
halved
their
25
proposal
for
compromise
between
the
last
meeting
and
their
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
90
1
April
17th.
They
halved
the
number
of
electric
cars
that
2
could
meet
to
match
fuel
cell.

3
And,
you
know,
maybe
this
isn't
the
right
scheme
4
to
do
it.
But
it
seems
to
me
there
ought
to
be
a
scheme
5
that
says
we
want
in
the
mix
in
the
near
term
6
zero­
emission
vehicles.
Zero.
And
that
we've
given
a
7
scheme
where
the
auto
makers
can
choose
and
pick
how
they
8
get
there
and
what
they
do.
I'm
not
saying
we
mandate
9
battery
electric
vehicles.
I
can
live
with
not
mandating
10
fuel
cell
vehicles,
if
that
was
how
you
did
it.
That
it's
11
a
choice
and
it's
a
path
that
they
determine
what
the
mix
12
is.
We
just
determine
what
the
fair
tradeoffs
are
between
13
the
vehicles.

14
The
only
kind
of
other
subject
I
want
to
address
15
is
that
part
of
the
Modisette
Proposal
proposed
setting
up
16
a
trading
mechanism
so
that
if
a
company
was
working
on
17
fuel
cells
and
they
got
down
the
line
and
they
were
having
18
difficulty
and
they
said,
"
You
know,
we
want
to
delay
19
making
ten
more
fuel
cell
cars
because
we're
grappling
20
with
a
problem,
a
materials
problem.
And
we
want
to
find
21
a
replacement
to
the
rare
metals
that
are
being
used"
so
22
that
they
can
reduce
the
cost.
They
say,
"
Let's
work
on
23
that
for
a
while.
Not
produce
any
more
fuel
cells.
We
24
will
put
battery
electrics
on
the
street
to
replace
them,"

25
during
that
interim
period
of
time
because
it
doesn't
make
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
91
1
sense
to
make
more
fuel
cells
before
you
fix
that
problem.

2
And
if
there
was
a
trading
mechanism
where
3
companies
could
go
to
some
of
the
people
that
want
to
make
4
battery
electric
vehicles
and
purchase
them
or
purchase
5
credits
from
them,
that
would
be
a
good
approach,
and
I
6
think
a
valid
approach.

7
My
final
comment
is
that
when
we
talk
about
what
8
things
cost,
there's
all
sorts
of
numbers
that
have
9
floated
around
in
the
fuel
cell
development.
And
I
have
10
to
tell
you
from
last
hearing
to
most
recently,
the
cost
11
numbers
went
from
$
1
million
per
car
to
12
half­
a­
million­
dollars
per
car.
And
that's
now.
That's
13
not
looking
at
over
the
next
few
years
when
everything
14
we've
seen
­­
costs
go
down
as
thing
are
developed.

15
So
when
people
talk
about
cost,
that
needs
to
be
16
considered,
clearly.
The
other
thing
that
needs
to
be
17
considered
is
there
are
other
costs
that
are
being
wrapped
18
into
the
discussion.
For
instance,
if
a
manufacturer,

19
which
one
is,
has
developed
a
car
that
is
software
20
controlled
to
the
hilt.
Boeing
did
that
with
the
777.

21
And
that's
a
great
approach.
You
can
fine
tune
all
sorts
22
of
factors
in
the
vehicle,
the
airplane,
or
the
car
with
23
the
software.
It
is
not
fuel
cell
development,
however.

24
So
when
people
talk
about
costs,
if
they
want
to
25
include
that
in
the
cost,
it's
introducing
software
into
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
92
1
the
controls
of
the
vehicle.
It's
nothing
else,
and
it
2
shouldn't
be
publicized
as
part
of
the
cost.
I'm
not
3
saying
anybody's
done
that,
but
I
know
how
this
stuff
4
works.
I
want
to
put
that
on
the
record.

5
The
other
thing
that's
being
discussed
in
one
of
6
the
fuel
cell
cars
that's
been
developed
is
sort
of
this
7
modular
construction
where
the
fuel
cell
and
the
8
electronics
and
the
controls
are
sort
of
all
in
one
piece,

9
and
then
the
body
is
interchangeable.
And
that
isn't
fuel
10
cell
development.
What
that
is,
is
manufacturing
process
11
development,
and
it
is
maybe
a
more
efficient
way
to
make
12
cars
or
to
change
product
lines
or
whatever.
It
shouldn't
13
be
counted
as
part
of
the
cost
of
developing
fuel
cells.

14
It
should
be
counted
as
smart
development
of
a
company
at
15
a
better
way
of
manufacturing.

16
So
with
all
of
that
said,
I
can't
support
it.
I
17
have
a
lot
of
respect
for
the
work
and
the
decision
making
18
that's
gone
into
this
process.
But
I
think
we've
gone
19
just
a
little
bit
too
far
in
determining
which
technology
20
will
move
forward.

21
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Just
a
comment
on
the
cost,

22
and
I'd
like
staff
to
respond.

23
The
impression
you
give
I
don't
think
it
is
quite
24
right.
And,
in
fact,
if
staff
has
been
able
to
have
the
25
cost
of
fuel
cells
in
a
month,
then
we
got
a
number
of
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
93
1
people
in
the
audience
who
would
love
to
employee
you
2
right
away.
So
maybe
you
could
clarify
why,
in
fact,
we
3
reduced
­­
used
a
lower
number.

4
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
We
did
not,
in
5
fact,
change
our
estimate
of
the
cost
compliance.
From
6
everything
we
understand
from
the
confidential
7
conversations
with
auto
manufacturers,
the
expenses
of
a
8
hand­
built
fuel
cell
vehicle
at
the
moment
are
in
the
9
million­
plus
range.
It's
difficult
for
any
of
us
to
10
project
what
they'll
be
by
the
end
of
2008.

11
However,
to
make
sure
that
we
were
not
setting
up
12
an
unfavorable
ratio
for
BEV
substitution,
in
that
13
instance
we
assumed
the
cost
would
come
down
so
that
we
14
wouldn't
leave
BEVs
more
expensive
than
fuel
cells
in
a
15
trading
scenario.

16
So
for
the
purpose
of
that
analysis,
we
assumed
17
they'd
come
down
by
half.
That
doesn't
mean
we
know
that
18
will
or
have
any
evidence
they
will.
But
we
want
to
make
19
sure
BEVs
remain
cheaper
as
a
substitute
to
any
fuel
cell
20
vehicle.

21
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
for
that
22
clarification.

23
Supervisor
DeSaulnier.

24
SUPERVISOR
DeSAULNIER:
Thank
you,
Mr.
Chairman.

25
As
you
look
down
to
your
far
right,
I
just
first
of
all
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
94
1
want
to
echo
all
of
my
colleagues'
comments
so
far,
and
2
particularly
the
respect
I
feel
for
staff
and
for
the
3
Chairman.
I
know
it's
been
a
difficult
few
months,

4
particularly
few
hours.

5
And
I
don't
think
from
my
perspective
­­
you
6
know,
Matt
mentioned
semantics.
I
do
think
it's
a
7
question
of
degree
up
here,
and
truly
it's
a
question
of
8
trust
from
my
perspective.
This
is
an
incredible
bully
9
pulpit,
as
Teddy
Roosevelt
used
to
say
about
another
10
office.
But
when
it
comes
to
air
quality,
the
value
of
11
being
a
member
of
the
California
Air
Resources
Board
is
12
really
quite
amazing.
And
one
of
the
things
I've
been
13
concerned
is
devaluing
that
in
any
way.
And,
of
course,

14
we
deal
with
perception.
Optics
is
a
favorite
word
now
in
15
politics.
And
I
think
it's
important
that
we
all
leave
16
here
with
a
true
commitment
to
whatever
the
reg
is
because
17
I
don't
think
victory
will
be
determined
today.
It
will
18
be
determined
most
likely
in
the
coming
decade,
but
really
19
in
the
next
year,
I
think.
And
I
see
that
in
terms
of
20
what
the
auto
industry
does
with
what
happens
today.

21
My
difficulty
with
the
staff
recommendation
and
22
why
I
agreed
with
D.
D.
and
Matt
a
month
ago
was
perhaps
23
somewhat
simplistic.
But
as
a
generalist,
maybe
that's
24
the
best
thing
to
do.
Was
the
500
number
or
better
was
a
25
source
of
currency
basically
that
would
be,
as
staff
put
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
95
1
it,
used
to
leverage
BEV
technology.

2
I
don't
think
BEV
technology
in
my
own
3
experience
­­
and
it's
largely
intuitive
­­
is
we
should
4
give
up
on
it,
as
D.
D.
said
and
Matt
said.
I
look
at
5
vehicle
miles
traveled
in
the
state
of
California
from
a
6
transportation
perspective.
And
I've
mentioned
this
7
before,
and
I
know
others
up
here
who
have
sat
on
MPOs
8
metropolitan
planning
organizations.
We
realize
we
can't
9
provide
the
infrastructure
over
the
next
few
decades
for
10
single
occupancy
vehicle
used
the
way
we
have
in
the
past.

11
The
California
dream
of
super
highways
and
that
kind
of
12
infrastructure
doesn't
exist.
So
the
cars
are
going
to
13
have
to
change
by
necessity.
The
land
use
is
changing.

14
And
the
dependence
on
transit
is
changing.

15
I
think
there's
an
opportunity
there
that
people
16
will
begin
to
see
things
like
city
cars
as
a
viable
17
alternative,
the
way
they
see
them
in
Europe
right
now
in
18
the
smart
car
in
particular,
although
that's
an
19
alternative
combustion
engine.
But
I
do
think
that
20
platform
will
have
growing
validity.
And
I
think
the
21
possibility
for
the
battery
technology
is
something
my
22
friends
at
Toyota
have
led
me
to
believe
is
there
are
more
23
and
more
mass­
produced
hybrids,
there's
greater
24
opportunity
for
that
kind
of
use.

25
Now,
the
Chairman
assures
me,
and
I
trust
him,

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
96
1
that
that
opportunity
exists
with
this
regulation.
As
I
2
read
it,
it
does.
But
my
level
of
trust
is
not
as
strong
3
with
some
of
the
other
auto
manufacturers
who
at
the
very
4
best
I
feel
have
been
disingenuous.
And
unfortunately
5
those
are
American
companies,
one
large
American
company
6
in
particular.

7
So
the
reason
I
hesitate
to
support
it
is
not
8
because
I
feel
it's
a
step
back
or
I
don't
trust
staff
or
9
I
don't
trust
some
of
the
manufacturers
or
I
lack
respect
10
for
where
the
Chairman
is
coming
from.
It's
that
from
my
11
experience
­­
unfortunately,
I've
been
growingly
skeptical
12
about
certain
of
the
people
who
are
involved
in
the
13
regulated
community.

14
And
then,
in
addition,
going
back
to
Mr.
Friedman
15
when
he
was
here
in
his
attempt
to
look
like
Cal
and
speak
16
like
Cal
Worthington,
I
think
there's
great
opportunity
17
for
fuel
cells
­­
or
hydrogen,
I
should
say,
not
just
fuel
18
cells
and
internal
combustion
engines.
But
this
­­
and
19
for
lack
of
a
better
expression
and
I've
been
corrected
on
20
this
­­
chicken
and
egg
aspect,
whether
it's
deliberate
or
21
not,
the
fuels'
people,
the
petroleum
industry,
I
don't
22
think
are
going
to
be
terribly
interested
in
providing
the
23
infrastructure
of
the
hydrogen
either
small
scale
or
large
24
scale.

25
So
I
am
interested
­­
and
maybe
staff
can
respond
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
97
1
when
we
come
back
in
three
months
about
not
just
2
infrastructure
but
the
trick
to
the
infrastructure
is
3
matching
it
so
supply
and
demand
and
the
possibility
for
a
4
very
low
emitter
a
PZEV
or
close
to
it
that
would
be
5
hydrogen
ice
that
may
be
captured
in
this
regulation
that
6
I'm
missing
or
perhaps
we
need
to
work
with.

7
And
then
I
appreciate
the
time
­­
I've
gone
back
8
and
forth.
Allen
called
me
last
night,
and
I
do
think
9
that
if
this
motion
passes,
which
I'm
inclined
to
think
it
10
will,
we
all
leave
here
expecting
that
there
won't
be
11
revisions
backwards,
that
the
auto
industry
will
embrace
12
it
and
accept
it
for
what
it
is
and
work
with
us
and
work
13
with
us
in
the
next
year
on
other
areas.

14
I
won't
support
it
because
I've
unfortunately
15
grown
skeptical.
But
I'm
willing
to
be
proven
wrong.
And
16
I
hope
I
will
be
proven
wrong
by
those
members
of
the
auto
17
industry
who
chose
to
be
responsible
to
California
and
its
18
public
health.

19
Thank
you,
Mr.
Chairman.

20
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Just
a
clarification,
again,

21
for
just
reminding
us
I
think
in
the
resolution
it
does
22
require
staff
to
come
back
with
a
report
talking
about
the
23
appropriate
process
for
incentivizing
station
cars
and
24
hydrogen
infrastructure
and
also
how
we
might
integrate
25
that
into
the
related
transportation
management
programs
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
98
1
and
also
looking
at
the
appropriate
role
for
stationary
2
fuel
cells.

3
SUPERVISOR
DeSAULNIER:
Mr.
Chair,
if
I
could
4
clarify.
I
appreciate
that
paragraph.
I
have
it
5
highlighted.
Also
as
part
of
that
is
the
connection
with
6
potentially
that
infrastructure
with
a
growing
demand
7
which
would
be
perhaps
hydrogen
ice.

8
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
As
I
mentioned
before,
I
9
think
I
had
the
­­
again,
the
opportunity
yesterday
to
see
10
the
progress
made
by
­­
being
made
by
South
Coast
with
11
various
partners
to
deploy
hydrogen
infrastructure
down
12
there.
They're
doing
a
really
excellent
job.
We're
13
slower
up
north.
But
that's
moving
across
from
Auburn
14
through
West
Sacramento
to
the
Bay
Area
and
down.
And
we
15
will
have
links
north
and
south.
So
that's
coming
on.

16
But
obviously
as
I
said
before,
that
will
be
a
slower
17
progress.

18
Dr.
Friedman.

19
BOARD
MEMBER
WILLIAM
FRIEDMAN:
As
usual
as
I
20
was
trying
to
put
my
thoughts
together
about
what
to
say
21
about
this
regulation,
Ron
Roberts
said
the
things
I
was
22
thinking
better
than
I
could
have
said.
I'm
not
going
to
23
repeat
those
things.

24
But
both
D.
D.
and
Bill
Burke
did
raise
this
issue
25
about
out­
of­
state
transport.
And
Catherine
mentioned
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
99
1
fact
that
this
would
be
monitored.
I'm
curious
why
can't
2
we
­­
I
mean,
of
course,
you'll
monitor
it.
But
can
we
at
3
some
date
­­
doesn't
have
to
be
today
­­
get
some
notion
4
of
what
indices
will
be
employed
to
raise
a
red
flag.

5
It's
one
thing
to
monitor.
It's
another
thing
to
know
6
what,
indeed,
will
trigger
some
response
that
we
need
to
7
make.

8
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
You
want
early
warning?

9
BOARD
MEMBER
WILLIAM
FRIEDMAN:
I
think
that's
10
appropriate.
And
I'd
like
to
make
sure
that,
you
know,

11
indeed,
we
get
some
more
clarification
on
that
point.

12
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
Earlier
today
the
13
Chairman
asked
us
to
report
back
annually
on
how
the
14
entire
program
is
evolving.
That's
certainly
one
15
mechanism.

16
But
the
things
we
would
be
looking
at
is
actually
17
vehicle
placements,
the
amount
of
time
that
California
18
vehicles
reside
in
California.
That's
been
an
issue
in
19
the
Fuel
Cell
Partnership
to
date.
And
to
the
extent
we
20
start
to
credit
them
under
our
regulation,
we
need
to
be
21
clear
about
how
long
we
expect
them
to
remain
in
our
state
22
to
count
against
the
alternative
compliance
path.

23
BOARD
MEMBER
WILLIAM
FRIEDMAN:
That's
my
point,

24
Catherine.
I
agree
with
­­
those
are
the
things
you're
25
going
to
look
at.
But
where's
the
line
about
when
we
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
100
1
really
need
to
be
­­
need
to
potentially
do
something
when
2
the
line
is
crossed?

3
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
It's
your
call,

4
of
course,
how
much
alarms
you.
I
would
say
anything
over
5
10
percent
would
alarm
me.
I
would
want
to
bring
it
to
6
your
attention.

7
The
vehicles
only
count
if
they're
played
in
8
another
LEV
state.
So
we're
only
talking
about
New
York
9
and
Massachusetts.
Placements
in
Washington
D.
C.
where
10
there's
a
lot
of
interest
in
getting
Congressal
attention
11
these
vehicles
or
in
Michigan
would
not
count.
Those
have
12
to
be
vehicles
produced
separately
for
that
purpose.
And
13
the
temperature
situation
in
New
York
and
Massachusetts
14
works
against
them.
Getting
cars
early,
cold
weather
15
management
is
a
problem
with
fuel
cells.
So
California's
16
more
temperate
climate
is
the
one
of
the
biggest
reasons
17
we'll
get
them
first,
along
with
the
fact
we
have
a
very
18
well­
developed
partnership
and
early
introduction
of
19
hydrogen
infrastructure
and
now
a
regulatory
reason
to
20
bring
them
here.

21
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
And
if
you'd
like,

22
Dr.
Friedman,
we
could
­­
again,
if
there's
anything
that
23
staff
want
to
elaborate
on
in
three
months
time,
we
can
24
add
to
that.

25
Dr.
Burke.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
101
1
BOARD
MEMBER
BURKE:
South
Coast
is
spending
a
2
lot
of
money
putting
in
hydrogen
infrastructure.
Some
3
people
question
if
we're
not
spending
more
than
we
should.

4
And
it's
the
basis
probably
of
our
concern
of
movement
of
5
these
cars.
There
are
cities
like
Santa
Ana
who
want
to
6
establish
a
city
free
of
hydrogen
cars
and
have
federal
7
indication
that
there
may
be
some
support
there
to
do
8
that.
This
question
nibbles
at
me
because
we're
spending
9
millions
and
millions
and
millions
on
this
infrastructure.

10
And
I'd
think
to
be
at
the
back
side
of
the
bell
curve
­­

11
and
I
know
Catherine's
going
to
watch
it.
But
if
there
12
was
something
we
could
figure
out
that
would
give
us
13
rather
than
retrospective,
prospective
warning,
we
sure
14
would
appreciate
it.
But
we
don't
want
to
let
that
stand
15
in
the
way
of
the
progress
of
what
we're
doing
today.

16
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
think,
Dr.
Burke,
we
17
will
­­
staff
will
report
back
on
that
in
three
months.
I
18
think
that's
a
­­
plus
the
fact,
just
remind
my
19
colleagues,
that
as
we
are
developing
the
hydrogen
20
infrastructure
as
a
result
of
one
of
the
other
regulations
21
we
are
having
a
demonstration
of
zero
emission
fuel
cell
22
buses
which
we
hope
will
grow
in
the
latter
part
of
this
23
decade.
So
that's
also
being
an
important
part.
These
24
are
being
developed
in
California.

25
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
Chairman
Lloyd,

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
102
1
Tom
could
get
at
another
point
he
wanted
to
bring
to
the
2
Board's
attention
about
early
signal
to
where
these
cars
3
might
go.

4
MR.
CACKETTE:
One
other
strong
pulling
factor
5
for
these
vehicles
is
that
the
Department
of
Energy
has
6
announced
a
large
amount
of
money
to
subsidize
fuel
cell
7
demonstrations.
And
there's
an
RFP
on
the
street
and
8
people
are
teaming
up
to
bid
on
it.
They
do
to
have
to
be
9
in
multiple
states.
So
there
would
be
some
bids
that
will
10
include
cars
going
to
other
states.

11
But
that's
one
way
that
we
will
sort
of
get
an
12
advance
that
something's
happening.
We'll
see
the
results
13
of
those,
who
gets
awarded
them.
And
if
there's
going
to
14
be
a
problem
because
they're
all
going
somewhere
else
15
because
of
that
money
and
not
California,
I
think
we
could
16
react
fairly
quickly
and
let
you
know
right
away
if
17
there's
a
problem.
And
you
could
take
the
action
to
18
require
more
of
them
here.

19
BOARD
MEMBER
BURKE:
I
would
just
like
to
share
20
with
you
we
have
an
intelligence
which
indicates
that
it's
21
not
coming
here.
Already
we
know
it's
not
coming
here.

22
So
if
we
want
to
protect
our
own,
you
don't
have
to
wait
23
for
that
information.
I'm
giving
that
to
you
now.

24
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I've
been
talking
to
maybe
25
not
the
same
source,
but
I'm
a
bit
more
optimistic
than
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
103
1
you
are
that
we
can
get
them.
But
it
is
a
concern,
I
2
agree.
I
agree.
And
that's
where
I
think
we
need
to
work
3
into
true
partnership
with
the
partners
in
the
Fuel
Cell
4
Partnership
to
make
sure
that,
if
fact,
what
we're
hoping
5
for
here
does
happen.

6
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
Just
one
last
7
comment
on
the
whole
issue.
The
cure
for
the
travel
issue
8
is
to
take
fuel
cell
vehicles
out
of
regulation
entirely
9
and
have
them
administered
under
a
memorandum
of
10
agreement,
which
is
how
we
did
electric
vehicles
back
in
11
1998.
And
staff
believes
that
a
regulatory
approach
is
12
preferable
to
a
memorandum
of
agreement
because
it's
13
enforceable.
But
it
has
this
leakage
aspect
to
it,
and
14
we'll
see
as
we
go
whether
we
should
switch
to
a
different
15
mechanism
which
has
its
own
drawbacks
as
well.

16
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Any
other
discussion
on
the
17
motion?

18
Supervisor
Patrick.

19
SUPERVISOR
PATRICK:
Thank
you
very
much.

20
As
you
know,
I
was
not
here
at
last
month's
21
meeting.
And
I
thought
I
had
dodged
a
bullet,
but
22
apparently
I
wasn't
able
to
do
that.
I
have
read
the
23
transcript,
and
I
especially
was
interested
in
the
24
transcript
of
the
discussion
on
the
Friday
of
last
month's
25
meeting
and
the
issues
of
concern
which
I
think
were
or
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
104
1
well
articulated.

2
And
I
would
like
to
compliment
staff
on
the
good
3
job
that
you
have
done
in
addressing
each
and
every
one
of
4
those
issues.
I
think
that
I
in
looking
at
the
proposal
5
that's
before
us
today
on
a
much
higher
comfort
level
with
6
it
certainly
than
I
did
previously.

7
But
I'm
very
supportive
of
this
proposal.
I
8
think
that
it
moves
us
into
the
future.
And
I
do
have
to
9
agree,
though,
with
Supervisor
DeSaulnier,
the
proof
of
10
this
is
going
to
be
in
the
pudding.
And
so
we're
looking
11
forward
to
working
with
all
of
the
stakeholders
in
making
12
sure
this
proposal
is
something
that
moves
us
forward
in
13
the
zero­
emission
area
because
that's
critically
important
14
to
all
of
us
here
in
the
state,
certainly
in
the
Valley
15
where
I
represent
quite
a
few
folks.

16
But
I
think
it's
no
more
necessary
in
the
Valley,

17
really,
than
it
is
in
any
other
particular
area.
And
that
18
we
need
to
move
forward
and
that
this
proposal
does
that
19
and
look
forward
to
seeing
what
happens
in
the
next
decade
20
as
that
proposal
comes
to
fruition.

21
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.

22
Mr.
Calhoun.

23
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
Mr.
Chairman,
members
of
24
the
Board,
I
guess
I'm
not
as
pessimistic
about
the
auto
25
industry
as
some
of
any
fellow
Board
members.
And
maybe
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
105
1
that's
understandable.

2
We
can't
dictate
technology.
We
have
to
set
a
3
goal
and
expect
the
manufacturers
to
work
toward
meeting
4
that
goal.
I
don't
think
we've
eliminated
battery
5
technology.
I
don't
think
we've
eliminated
any
6
technology.
I
think
if
the
manufacturers
can
make
7
business
case
for
a
given
technology,
then
obviously
that
8
will
be
their
preference.
We've
heard
over
and
over
9
comments
about
their
inability
to
make
a
business
case
for
10
batteries.
And
hopefully
if
progress
is
made
in
the
11
future,
maybe
they
can.
And
I'd
like
to
see
the
battery
12
technology
survive
also,
but
I
don't
think
that
it's
up
to
13
this
Board
to
try
to
force
the
manufacturers
to
produce
14
battery­
powered
vehicle.

15
So
I'm
going
to
support
the
regulation.
And
I
16
think
it's
essential
that
we
get
the
auto
manufacturers
to
17
cooperate
with
us.
In
whatever
is
it
we're
trying
to
18
accomplish,
you
can't
head
down
one
road
and
they
head
19
down
a
different
road
because
you're
going
to
end
up
20
having
a
battle
on
your
hands.
And
you'll
end
up
in
21
court.
We're
fighting
them
or
they're
fighting
us.
And
22
if
I've
learned
anything
in
the
last
40
years
it's
that
23
you
need
them
to
cooperate.
So
hopefully
they
will
take
a
24
lead
from
this
and
the
action
taken
by
the
Board
they
that
25
will
encourage
them
to
cooperate.
So
I
will
support
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
106
1
motion.

2
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you,
Mr.
Calhoun.

3
Professor
Friedman,
you're
the
last.

4
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
I'm
used
to
having
5
the
last
word
in
my
classes
so
­­

6
I,
too,
commend
staff.
There
was
a
lot
of
7
clarity
in
the
presentation.
And
I
know
how
hard
you've
8
worked
to
read
what
we
said
and
try
and
get
a
proposal
9
that's
rational,
and
I
think
you've
accomplished
that.
I
10
think
this
proposal
is
realistic
of
achievement.
I
think
11
it
gives
stability
and
continuity
to
what
was
long
begun
12
before
and
to
what
lies
ahead.
I
think
it
gives
us
some
13
sure
and
realistic
progress
in
attaining
cleaner
air
14
through
lower
emissions.
Especially
while
the
early
years
15
don't
give
us
as
many
zero
emissions,
they
give
us
a
lot
16
of
reduced
emissions,
earlier
and
more.

17
And
some
of
this
­­
and
I,
too
­­
I,
too,
wish
to
18
share
the
desire
of
Board
Member
D'Adamo
and
my
good
19
friend,
Matt,
my
fellow
public
member,
and
the
Supervisor
20
DeSaulnier
that
we
could
dictate
technology
or
so
21
incentivize
it
they
would
have
no
choice
but
to
build
it.

22
But
I
do
­­
I'm
pleased
to
see
the
incentivizing
23
for
releasing,
extending
the
­­
hopefully,
the
24
availability
and
use
and
presence
on
our
roads
in
25
California
of
the
some
or
hopefully
most
of
the
battery
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
107
1
electrics
that
were
made,
and
that
those
great
people
who
2
bought
them
early
on
because
they
believed
in
it
and
have
3
supported
all
of
our
efforts
will
be
able
to
continue
to
4
use
those
cars
and
show
them,
showcase
them
and
create
a
5
culture
­­
further
a
culture
in
our
society
for
the
6
battery
zero,
which
is
the
only
game
in
town
at
this
point
7
that
has
been
produced.

8
On
the
other
hand,
as
has
been
said,
I
don't
feel
9
comfortable
and
I
probably
never
would
writing
on
somebody
10
else's
checkbook
and
telling
them
exactly
what
they
have
11
to
make
or
buy.
Our
goal
is
zero­
emission
vehicles.
We
12
have
been
steadfast
in
that.
How
they
get
there
is
still,

13
I
think,
ultimately
got
to
be
left
to
those
who
make
it.

14
And
I
realize
that
much
of
this
is
dependent
on
15
good
faith
and
a
collaborative
effort.
And
some
of
you
16
are
closer
than
I
am
to
the
auto
manufacturers.
And
I
17
think
those
of
you
who
are
closer,
at
least
the
Chairman,

18
and
the
partnership,
Fuel
Cell
Partnerships
and
its
19
aspirations
of
its
members
have
a
lot
of
faith
and
feel
20
that
that's
important
to
preserve
and
to
make
this
effort.

21
And
I
hope
it's
not
misplaced.
It
would
be
a
shame,
a
22
tragedy
if
it
is.

23
But
we
have
every
opportunity
to
monitor,
to
look
24
again
at
all
of
this.
And
it's
a
brave,
brave
kind
of
25
faith.
And
there's
some
reasons
to
be
skeptical,
as
has
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
108
1
been
pointed
out.
But
let's
hope
that
this
works.

2
And
if
it
doesn't,
and
there
are
good
reasons
on
3
both
sides
why
it
didn't
work,
we
can
always
come
back.

4
We
don't
have
all
the
answers
now.
None
of
us
does.
And
5
all
we
can
do
is
hold
to
the
zero­
emission
goal
and
6
continue
our
quest
and
our
journey.
And
I
think
this
is
7
advancing
the
progress
toward
it.
It's
a
good
balance.

8
And
so
I
think
I'm
prepared
­­
as
I
second
the
9
motion,
I'm
prepared
to
support
it.
I
do
join
in
the
10
request,
and
I
think
the
motion
embraced
it,
that
it
11
include
the
­­
at
least
annually
reviewing
­­
that
is
a
12
report
from
the
staff
to
give
us
an
opportunity
to
decide
13
whether
we
need
to
have
another
review
and
a
hearing.
And
14
I
would
also
suggest
that
that
report
be
at
least
annually
15
so
that
if
the
staff
or
the
Chair,
obviously,
or
anybody
16
else
gets
an
idea
that
somebody's
not
working
the
way
we
17
are
all
hoping
it
works
in
the
spirit
of
what
we've
said,

18
it
can
be
brought
back
before
us.

19
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much,

20
Professor
Friedman.

21
Before
we
go
to
go
to
­­
I
guess
we've
got
a
22
motion.
Again,
I
would
like
to
thank
my
colleagues.
I
23
would
reiterate
what
Mr.
McKinnon
and
Ms.
D'Adamo
and
24
Supervisor
DeSaulnier
was
saying.
Again,
I
have
the
25
utmost
respect
for
all
three
of
them.
I
continue
to
learn
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
109
1
every
day.
It's
painful
also
for
me
to
not
have
that.
We
2
really
tried,
and
you
can
see
from
the
amount
of
ex
parte
3
that
we've
had
meetings
with
all
stakeholders.
It's
been
4
the
toughest
job
I've
had
because
I
got
the
deep
desires
5
to
zero.
I
also
don't
want
to
give
up
on
batteries,
but
I
6
also
want
to
encourage
other
technologies.
It's
been
7
extremely
tough
and
continues
to
be
very,
very
tough.

8
I'd
also
like
to
thank
staff
for
the
tremendous
9
hours
they've
put
in,
many
long
hours,
days,
nights,

10
mornings.
And
you've
done
a
tremendous
job.
And
it's
not
11
easy,
the
issues.
I
think
that
the
Board
­­
I
know
I've
12
been
in
some
of
those
meetings
where
staff
has
been
13
battling
amongst
each
other
because
you
have
advocates
and
14
you
have
detractors
within
the
staff
so
this
gets
hashed
15
out.
So
my
hat's
off
to
you
doing
this
job.

16
And
to
Ms.
Witherspoon
for
this
mammoth
job
here.

17
I
know
­­
again,
I
thank
you
so
much
for
the
effort
you
18
put
in.

19
We
really
tried.
It's
much
easier
if
you
have
a
20
clean
sheet
of
paper
when
we
started
off.
But
we
have
21
many
people
on
different
pieces
of
the
path,
different
22
parts
of
the
path.
And
that's
where
the
difficulties
come
23
in.
Whenever
we've
looked
at
that,
on
the
face
of
it
24
looks
easy
to
do,
somebody
is
impacted.
And
you
have
many
25
people
making
good­
faith
efforts,
and
you
want
­­
so
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
110
1
that's
made
it
very
difficult.
I'd
say
if
we
started
off,

2
it'd
have
been
much
easier.

3
So
with
that,
again,
I
want
to
express
my
true
4
gratitude
to
my
colleagues
for
very
thoughtful
comments
5
here
to
the
staff
and
the
people
we've
interacted
with.

6
As
Mr.
McKinnon
said,
we've
got
many
thoughtful
proposals
7
from
many
of
the
stakeholders.
And
it's
really
made
our
8
job
both
easier
and
more
difficult
because
everybody
is
9
sincere.

10
So
it's
really
a
responsibility
when
part
of
it
11
comes
down
to
it
­­
and
I
remember
Mr.
Cackette
saying
12
early
on
that
people
say
well,
we
have
a
responsibility
13
and
we
have
an
obligation.
But
we
have
a
credibility.

14
And
he
pointed
out
to
me
credibility
works
both
ways.
So
15
I
also
see
that
we
have
a
technical
credibility
as
well.

16
And
you
know,
unfortunately,
with
some
technical
17
understanding
I've
had
to
make
some
tough
choices
here,

18
that
two
years
ago
I
was
probably
looking
at
numbers
and
19
higher
numbers.

20
With
that
said,
I'd
like
to
thank
you
all.
And
21
maybe
now
we
can
­­
since
we
have
a
motion
on
the
floor
22
proposal
by
Ms.
Riordan,
could
I
can
the
Clerk
of
the
23
Board
the
call
the
roll.

24
CLERK
DORAIS:
Dr.
Burke?

25
BOARD
MEMBER
BURKE:
Aye.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
111
1
CLERK
DORAIS:
Mr.
Calhoun?

2
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
Aye.

3
CLERK
DORAIS:
Ms.
D'Adamo?

4
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
No.

5
CLERK
DORAIS:
Supervisor
DeSaulnier?

6
SUPERVISOR
DeSAULNIER:
No.

7
CLERK
DORAIS:
Professor
Friedman?

8
BOARD
MEMBER
WILLIAM
FRIEDMAN:
Yes.

9
CLERK
DORAIS:
Dr.
Friedman?

10
BOARD
MEMBER
WILLIAM
FRIEDMAN:
Yes.

11
CLERK
DORAIS:
Mr.
McKinnon?

12
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
No.

13
CLERK
DORAIS:
Supervisor
Patrick?

14
SUPERVISOR
PATRICK:
Yes.

15
CLERK
DORAIS:
Ms.
Riordan?

16
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
Aye.

17
CLERK
DORAIS:
Supervisor
Roberts?

18
SUPERVISOR
ROBERTS:
Aye.

19
CLERK
DORAIS:
Chairman
Lloyd?

20
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Yes.

21
With
that,
the
motion
passes
eight
to
three.

22
And,
again,
thank
you
all
very
much.
I'm
sorry
23
for
the
court
reporter.
We'll
have
to
take
a
break
now.

24
Let's
take
a
15­
minute
break.

25
(
Thereupon
a
lunch
recess
was
taken.)

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
112
1
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
We'll
recommence
with
the
2
next
agenda
item,
03­
2­
3,
public
meeting
to
consider
3
Proposition
40
and
related
amendments
to
the
Carl
Moyer
4
program
guidelines.

5
This
item
was
considered
by
the
Board
at
our
last
6
hearing
on
March
27th.
At
that
time
we
approved
the
Prop.

7
40
school
bus
funding
for
this
year
but
continued
our
8
deliberation
on
the
Carl
Moyer
funding
in
response
to
9
issues
and
concerns
raised
by
the
Bay
Area
Air
Quality
10
Management
District.
Since
then,
the
Bay
Area
AQMD
and
11
all
of
CAPCOA's
membership
have
come
together
to
discuss
12
this
issue.
And
we
decided
collectively
to
leave
the
13
current
allocation
formula
intact
for
this
year.
Remember
14
it's
a
two­
year
program.
For
this
year.
There's
still
a
15
great
deal
of
interest
in
modifying
the
formula,
but
all
16
parties
agree
it
will
take
additional
time
to
work
through
17
the
various
options
and
implications.

18
So
Ms.
Witherspoon,
staff's
job
looks
relatively
19
straightforward.
I
presume
we
can
go
through
this
fairly
20
quickly.

21
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
Yes,
Dr.
Lloyd.

22
That's
correct.
Since
the
last
hearing
we
received
a
23
letter
from
the
Bay
Area
District
withdrawing
their
24
request
for
the
Board
to
consider
a
new
Carl
Moyer
funding
25
distribution
this
year.
However,
they
would
like
staff
to
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
113
1
carefully
consider
the
issues
they
raise
as
we
consider
2
funding
allocations
for
next
year.
Staff
is
fully
3
committed
to
doing
that
and
will
begin
those
discussions
4
with
all
of
CAPCOA's
members
immediately
following
this
5
hearing.

6
At
this
point
all
parties
accept
the
existing
7
formula
which
is
based
50
percent
on
population
and
8
50
percent
on
the
M4
SIP
commitment
to
reducing
NOx
from
9
mobile
sources.
Again,
that's
just
for
this
year.

10
And
Dr.
Alberto
Ayala
is
prepared
to
cover
some
11
of
the
items
we
discussed
last
time.
But
in
the
interest
12
of
time
you
could
dispense
with
that
and
go
straight
to
a
13
vote.

14
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Unless
you
have
a
burning
15
desire
to
Dr.
Ayala,
reading
the
sentiments
of
the
Board,

16
if
you
can
contain
those
and
we
can
have
the
first
17
witness.

18
ALTERNATIVE
STRATEGIES
SECTION
MANAGER
AYALA:

19
I'd
be
happy
to
try,
Dr.
Lloyd.

20
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much.
So
with
21
that,
we'll
call
the
first
and
only
witness
on
this.
And
22
it's
Tom
Addison
from
the
Bay
Area
who
started
this.

23
MR.
ADDISON:
Indeed,
Dr.
Lloyd.
As
staff
know,

24
we
started
this
four
years
ago.
But
it
did
certainly
come
25
to
a
head
at
the
last
Board
meeting.
And
I'd
just
like
to
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
114
1
say
that,
you
know,
what
you've
heard
from
your
Executive
2
Officer
is
correct.
The
Bay
Area
Air
District
does
not
3
want
to
cause
any
funds
to
not
be
spent.
We
realize
your
4
staff
was
not
­­
had
not
planned
a
distribution
of
02/
03
5
funds.
So
we're
withdrawing
our
request
for
02/
03
funds,

6
and
we
look
forward
to
a
productive
and
fruitful
7
discussion
for
03/
04
in
future
years.

8
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you,
Tom.

9
Again,
on
the
serious
side
­­
I
was
being
a
10
little
bit
flippant.
But
the
conversations
you
and
I
had,

11
this
issue
had
been
raised
in
the
past,
and
I
know
it's
an
12
ongoing
issue.
So
I
appreciate
that.
And,
in
fact,
as
13
you
heard
from
staff
it's
a
commitment
to
work
with
you
as
14
we
look
at
the
next
round
of
funding.
And
we
appreciate
15
your
patience
on
that.

16
MR.
ADDISON:
And
we
commit
to
working
together
17
to
try
to
come
up
with
something
that
makes
sense
for
all
18
parties.

19
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much.

20
SUPERVISOR
DeSAULNIER:
Mr.
Chairman.

21
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Yes,
Supervisor
DeSaulnier.

22
SUPERVISOR
DeSAULNIER:
He
hesitates
to
recognize
23
me.
I
just
want
to
be
on
the
losing
end
of
everything
24
today.
No.
I
appreciate
­­
I
do
appreciate
your
comments
25
from
staff
and
Tom.
But
it's
a
really
important,
I
think,

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
115
1
for
this
Board
­­
and
D.
D.
and
I
have
had
some
of
2
this
conversation,
and
Barbara
­­
that
we
don't
look
at
3
this
just
in
isolation,
but
we
look
at
it
collectively
4
between
our
relationship
with
the
Bay
Area
and
the
our
5
downwind
neighbors
sort
of
globally.

6
So
hopefully
our
staff
can
help
facilitate
with
7
us
being
able
to
do
that
with
the
CAPCOAs.
Not
just
for
8
this,
but
for
transport,
some
of
what
we
talked
about
over
9
lunch.

10
So
with
that,
I
would
move
the
staff
11
recommendation.

12
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Second.

13
SUPERVISOR
DeSAULNIER:
That's
not
part
of
a
14
motion.
That's
just
a
request.

15
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
So
the
bottom
line,
so
do
we
16
have
any
objections
to
that
proposal?

17
SUPERVISOR
DeSAULNIER:
I'm
sorry.
Do
you
want
18
me
to
withdraw
the
motion?
You
seem
startled.

19
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
No.
It's
good.
So
do
we
20
have
any
objections?
It's
unanimous
approval.
Thank
you.

21
Thank
you.

22
And
thank
you
for
that
great
presentation,

23
Dr.
Ayala.
Cost
effectiveness
was
tremendous.

24
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
Chairman
Lloyd,

25
we
talked
about
juggling
the
next
few
agenda
items,
it
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
116
1
turns
out
they're
still
working
on
the
slides
and
the
2
copies
for
both
the
in­
use
motor
vehicles
and
the
smog
3
check
items.
So
I
would
suggest
that
we
proceed
with
the
4
health
update
after
all.

5
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Do
we
have
the
same
staff
6
working
of
ZEVs
as
this
other
stuff?

7
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
No.

8
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Okay.
So
what
you're
9
suggesting
is
we
actually
go
ahead
with
the
health
update
10
and
the
R&
D.

11
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
I
saw
Bart
Croes
12
walked
into
the
room.
I'm
wondering
where
the
rest
of
the
13
research
staff
is.
They're
here.

14
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Again,
just
the
recognition
15
we
have
several
Board
members
who
are
going
to
be
leaving.

16
I
think
again
the
third
item
on
the
agenda
is
17
03­
3­
1,
monthly
public
health
update.
And
today's
update
18
focus
on
the
health
effects
of
ozone,
which
obviously
19
important
because
staff
is
currently
reviewing
the
20
scientific
literature
on
ozone
in
preparation
from
making
21
recommendation
on
a
possible
revision
to
the
California
22
ozone
standard.

23
With
that,
Ms.
Witherspoon,
would
you
start
the
24
presentation
and
introduce
this
item.

25
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
Thank
you,

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
117
1
Dr.
Lloyd.

2
This
informational
item
will
highlight
recent
3
findings
from
a
study
on
responses
of
allergic
asthmatics
4
exposed
to
ozone.
Today
Dr.
Deborah
Drechsler
from
the
5
Research
Division
will
update
the
Board
on
the
findings
6
from
this
study.

7
Dr.
Drechsler.

8
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
DRECHSLER:
Good
9
afternoon,
Dr.
Lloyd
and
members
of
the
Board.

10
The
study
we
are
discussing
today
deals
with
11
ozone
health
effects
in
people
with
asthma.
The
health
12
effects
of
air
pollution
on
people
with
asthma
have
been
a
13
concern
of
the
Board
for
some
time
due
to
the
sensitivity
14
of
this
vulnerable
population.

15
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Could
you
speak
a
bit
closer
16
to
the
mic,
please.

17
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
DRECHSLER:
The
result
18
of
many
epidemiological
studies
have
demonstrated
19
statistical
associations
between
ambient
ozone
exposures
20
and
emergency
room
visits
and
hospital
admissions
for
21
asthma.
To
give
you
a
perspective
on
the
magnitude
of
22
this
issue,
over
300,00
California
residents
visited
the
23
emergency
room
during
2001
because
of
their
asthma.

24
However,
a
biological
explanation
for
why
asthmatics
may
25
be
vulnerable
to
air
pollution's
effects
is
only
just
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
118
1
beginning
to
emerge.

2
(
Thereupon
an
overhead
presentation
was
3
presented
as
follows.)

4
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
DRECHSLER:
This
5
afternoon
we
would
like
to
tell
you
about
a
recently
6
published
paper
entitled
"
Ozone
Exposure
Increases
7
Eosinophilic
Airway
Response
Induced
By
Previous
Allergen
8
Challenge,"
by
Vagaggini
and
colleagues
from
the
9
University
of
Pisa
in
Italy.
The
paper
appeared
in
late
10
2002
in
the
American
Journal
of
Respiratory
and
Critical
11
Care
Medicine.

12
­­
o0o­­

13
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
DRECHSLER:
As
I
14
mentioned,
epidemiological
studies
have
reported
an
15
association
between
ozone
exposure,
asthma
exacerbation,

16
and
emergency
room
visits
and
hospital
admissions
for
17
asthma.
However,
in
most
studies
of
asthmatics
who
have
18
been
exposed
to
controlled
concentrations
of
just
ozone,

19
the
asthmatics
have
shown
responses
that
were
not
20
different
from
non­
asthmatics.
This
raises
the
question
21
of
how
to
reconcile
these
disparate
findings.

22
Asthma
is
a
chronic
lung
disease
characterized
by
23
airway
inflammation
that
is
primarily
related
to
a
type
of
24
immune
cell
called
the
eosinophil.
Eosinophils
release
25
chemicals
that
induce
inflammation
of
the
lung
tissues.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
119
1
These
cells
are
also
involved
in
allergic
responses
inside
2
the
lungs.

3
Other
features
of
asthma
include
reversible
4
airway
constriction
and
hyperreactive
airway
muscle
cells.

5
Allergy
is
a
prominent
feature
in
most
cases
of
asthma.

6
Ozone
is
not
an
allergen.
However,
some
researchers
have
7
hypothesized
that
ozone
may
increase
ongoing
allergic
8
responses
by
increasing
the
intensity
of
airway
9
inflammation
and
thereby
increasing
bronchial
constriction
10
and
airway
hyperreactivity
in
asthmatics.

11
The
purpose
of
this
study
was
to
investigate
the
12
effects
of
ozone
exposure
in
allergic
asthmatics
who
were
13
already
experiencing
allergen­
induced
asthma
exacerbation.

14
­­
o0o­­

15
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
DRECHSLER:
The
study
16
involved
12
mild
allergics
as
who
attended
the
laboratory
17
on
four
days.
In
order
to
induce
an
asthma
exacerbation,

18
subjects
were
asked
to
inhale
allergens
on
the
first
day.

19
24
hours
later
the
subjects
were
exposed
to
either
20
filtered
air
or
.27
parts
per
million
ozone
for
two
hours
21
and
they
performed
20
minutes
of
light
exercise
during
22
each
hour
of
exposure.

23
At
least
four
weeks
later
the
subjects
repeated
24
allergen
inhalation
and
24
hours
after
that
completed
a
25
two­
hour
exposure
to
the
opposite
atmosphere
as
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
120
1
previously,
that
is
ozone
or
filtered
air.
All
subjects
2
completed
both
exposures.
The
ozone
concentration
used
3
.27
parts
per
million
is
higher
than
has
been
measured
in
4
California
in
recent
years.
It
was
chosen
to
maximize
the
5
possibility
of
sedating
the
biological
mechanisms
involved
6
in
the
responses
of
interest
while
ensuring
subject
safety
7
and
the
relevance
of
the
results
to
current
ambient
8
conditions.

9
Further,
the
study
involved
mild
asthmatics.
It
10
is
likely
that
more
severe
asthmatics
would
experience
11
similar
responses
with
lower
levels
of
ozone
exposure.

12
The
measures
of
respiratory
health
included
lung
function
13
tests
and
the
presence
and
severity
of
a
group
of
14
respiratory
symptoms,
including
among
others
cough,
chest
15
tightness,
pain
on
deep
breath,
and
nose
and
throat
16
irritation.
The
number
of
the
eosinophils
in
sputum
17
samples
was
used
an
as
index
of
the
degrees
of
allergic
18
inflammation
in
the
lungs.

19
­­
o0o­­

20
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
DRECHSLER:
Two
hours
of
21
exposure
to
filtered
air
did
not
change
lung
function
or
22
respiratory
symptoms
in
this
these
subjects.
In
contrast,

23
a
two­
hour
exposure
to
ozone
resulted
in
reduced
lung
24
function
and
increased
respiratory
symptoms,
such
as
25
cough,
chest
tightness,
and
pain
on
deep
breath
compared
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
121
1
to
the
filtered
air
exposure.

2
In
addition,
exposure
to
ozone
increased
the
3
number
of
eosinophils
in
the
lungs
compared
to
the
4
exposure
to
filtered
air.
This
means
that
ozone
5
inhalation
increased
the
allergic
inflammation
that
had
6
been
induced
by
the
allergen
exposure
the
previous
day.

7
­­
o0o­­

8
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
DRECHSLER:
These
9
results
indicate
that
ozone
exposure
can
intensify
10
allergic
inflammatory
responses
induced
by
previous
11
allergen
exposure
in
subjects
with
mild
allergic
asthma.

12
Further,
the
results
provide
biological
explanation
for
13
increased
asthma
systems,
emergency
room
visits,
and
14
hospital
admissions
for
asthma
exacerbation
observed
in
15
epidemiological
studies.

16
Finally,
this
report
illustrates
that
exposure
17
studies
that
do
not
include
an
allergen
challenge
may
18
underestimate
the
impact
of
ozone
on
the
health
of
19
asthmatics.
Thank
you.
We
would
be
happy
to
respond
to
20
any
questions
at
this
time.

21
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you,
very
much.

22
Dr.
Friedman.

23
BOARD
MEMBER
WILLIAM
FRIEDMAN:
I
don't
have
any
24
questions,
but
the
Italians
actually
got
this
right.

25
Because
in
the
past,
people
have
done
these
experiments
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
122
1
the
opposite
way.
First
they
expose
you
to
a
lot
of
2
ozone,
and
then
they
expose
you
to
some
allergen.
And
3
that's
not
what
happens
in
the
real
world.
For
example,

4
right
now
it's
a
big
allergy
season
in
California.
You
5
know,
so
your
exposure
to
allergens
occurs,
period.
And
6
then
if
you're
unlikely
enough
to
be
in
an
ozone
7
high­
intensity
area,
then
you
really
have
a
problem.

8
And
what
I
like
about
the
study,
these
9
eosinophils
they
harvest
­­
the
eosinophils
are
the
little
10
white
blood
cells
that
have
all
the
histamine
in
them.

11
And
that
really
is
what
triggers
a
lot
of
the
12
inflammation.
So
something
­­
this
is
simple
clinical
13
experiment,
and
it
really
makes
a
lot
of
sense.
And
it
14
shows
a
really
powerful
relationship,
and
it
was
done
15
sequentially
the
right
way.
So
it's
a
nice
study.

16
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
The
levels
aren't
that
far
17
from
ambient.

18
BOARD
MEMBER
WILLIAM
FRIEDMAN:
The
ozone
levels
19
are
a
bit
higher
than
we're
used
to
seeing.
But
you
need
20
to
get
a
response
to
know
if
there's
going
to
be
a
21
response.

22
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
But
not
that
far
from
the
­­

23
BOARD
MEMBER
WILLIAM
FRIEDMAN:
Not
too
bad.

24
Thank
you.

25
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much
indeed.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
123
1
Thank
you.

2
So
I
guess
since
it's
not
a
regulatory
item.
Not
3
necessary
to
close
the
record.
Thank
you.

4
And
we'll
move
on
to
the
next
item,
and
that
is
5
agenda
item
03­
2­
2,
public
meeting
to
consider
6
appointments
to
the
Research
Screening
Committee.

7
The
statute
creating
the
Board
also
authorized
8
the
Board
to
appoint
a
Research
Screening
Committee
to
9
advise
the
Boards
on
its
extramural
research
activities.

10
Currently,
the
Committee
has
one
vacancy
to
be
11
filled,
and
we
would
like
to
add
one
ex
officio
member,

12
each
representing
a
scientific
or
technical
discipline
13
that
is
relevant
to
review,
and
advise
on
our
air
quality
14
research
program.

15
We
have
been
privileged
over
the
years
to
have
a
16
host
of
eminent
scientists
serve
on
the
committee.
As
you
17
know,
the
workload
is
significant,
and
the
compensation
is
18
definitely
more
symbolic
than
financial.
The
input
has
19
been
invaluable
to
the
Board
over
the
years.
Nominations
20
for
the
Research
Screening
Committee
along
with
the
21
candidates'
credentials
and
resume
are
before
us
today.

22
Ms.
Witherspoon,
would
you
like
you
and
your
23
staff
to
provide
names
and
their
general
affiliations
and
24
areas
of
expertise.

25
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
Bart
Croes
is
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
124
1
going
read
into
the
question
the
qualifications
of
the
2
nominated
Research
Screening
Committee
members.

3
RESEARCH
DIVISION
CHIEF
CROES:
Thank
you,

4
Ms.
Witherspoon,
and
good
afternoon
Chairman
Lloyd
and
5
members
of
the
Board.
We
are
very
pleased
that
two
highly
6
qualified
candidates
are
willing
to
serve
on
the
Research
7
Screening
Committee.

8
The
first
nominee,
Dr.
Tracy
Thatcher,
is
a
9
scientist
with
the
Air
Flow
and
Pollutant
Transport
Group
10
within
the
Indoor
Department
at
the
National
Berkeley
­­

11
at
the
Lawrence
Berkeley
National
Laboratory.
She
12
received
her
Ph.
D.
in
civil
and
environmental
engineering
13
from
the
University
of
California,
Berkeley.

14
Dr.
Thatcher
has
over
ten
years
of
experience
in
15
the
design
and
execution
of
aerosol
and
pollutant
16
transport
experiments
in
the
indoor
environment.
Her
17
expertise
will
be
particularly
useful
for
indoor
air
18
quality
projects
that
we
will
manage
with
the
California
19
Energy
Commission.

20
Dr.
Thatcher's
research
interests
have
focused
on
21
aerosol
behavior
indoors
and
the
transport
of
pollutants
22
across
the
building.
Dr.
Thatcher
is
also
a
registered
23
professional
engineer
in
civil
engineering
in
the
state
of
24
California.

25
Dr.
Michael
Prather,
an
ex
officio
nominee
for
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
125
1
Climate
Change
Research,
is
a
chaired
professor
in
the
2
Earth
System
Science
Department
at
the
University
of
3
California,
Irvine.
He
received
his
Ph.
D.
in
astronomy
4
from
Yale
University.
His
research
interests
include
5
simulation
of
the
physical,
chemical,
and
biological
6
processes
that
determine
atmospheric
composition
and
the
7
development
of
detailed
numerical
models
of
photochemistry
8
and
atmospheric
radiation,
and
global
chemical
transport
9
models
that
describe
ozone
and
other
trace
gasses.

10
Dr.
Prather
has
played
a
significant
role
in
the
11
second
and
third
assessments
from
the
Intergovernmental
12
Panel
on
Climate
Change
and
the
World
Meteorological
13
Organization's
Ozone
Assessments.
He's
served
on
several
14
National
Academy
of
Science
panels
on
climate
change.
His
15
expertise
will
assist
with
research
projects
supporting
16
AB
1493.
The
number
of
climate
change
research
projects
17
is
small
and
does
not
require
attendance
at
every
meeting
18
of
the
Research
Screening
Committee.

19
This
summarizes
the
qualifications
of
the
20
candidates.
Further
details
are
available
in
your
21
information
packages.

22
We
recommend
that
you
approve
the
appointments
of
23
Dr.
Tracy
Thatcher
and
Dr.
Michael
Prather
to
the
Research
24
Screening
Committee.
We'll
be
happy
to
answer
any
25
questions
that
you
may
have.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
126
1
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Is
Dr.
Thatcher
a
student
of
2
the
Bill
Nazaroff?

3
RESEARCH
DIVISION
CHIEF
CROES:
That's
correct.

4
BOARD
MEMBER
WILLIAM
FRIEDMAN:
I'd
like
to
move
5
approval
and
then
make
a
comment.

6
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
I'll
second
the
motion.

7
BOARD
MEMBER
WILLIAM
FRIEDMAN:
I
want
to
8
congratulate
Bart
on
identifying
two
truly
imminent
9
scientists
who
will
contribute
importantly.
Dr.
Thatcher
10
because
we
really
are
going
to
be
focusing
on
indoor
air
11
in
a
very
important
way.
Both
of
these
people
are
12
award­
winning
and
renowned
folks.
I
think
these
are
great
13
complements
to
the
Committee.
I'm
very,
very
pleased.

14
Thanks
for
your
help.

15
RESEARCH
DIVISION
CHIEF
CROES:
Thank
you
very
16
much.

17
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
reiterate
those
comments.

18
I
don't
know
Dr.
Thatcher.
I
do
know
Dr.
Prather,
so
I
19
think
that
area's
going
to
be
a
tremendous
help
to
us
as
20
we
move
ahead
in
those
areas
so
good
job.

21
We
have
a
motion
before
us.
All
in
favor
say
22
aye.

23
(
Ayes)

24
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much.
So
a
25
unanimous
approval.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
127
1
And
thank
you
very
much,
Bart.

2
RESEARCH
DIVISION
CHIEF
CROES:
Thank
you.

3
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Now
we
will
move
ahead
to
the
4
next
item,
and
that
is
item
03­
3­
3
report
on
findings
on
5
the
effect
of
exempting
additional
vehicles
from
the
6
smog
­­

7
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
We're
doing
8
reducing
in­
use
emissions
first,
03­
3­
2.

9
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Sorry.
Thank
you.
My
zeal
10
to
get
this
over.

11
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
It's
an
important
12
set
up.
That's
why
we're
doing
this
one
first.

13
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I'm
sorry.
Next
item,

14
03­
3­
2,
strategies
for
reducing
emission
from
in­
use
15
gallons
vehicles.

16
Some
months
ago
I
asked
staff
to
report
to
the
17
Board
what
the
effect
of
existing
passenger
cars
on
the
18
state's
air
quality.
I've
been
concerned
about
the
19
significant
and
continuing
contribution
of
emission
from
20
older
cars
and
what,
if
anything,
can
we
do
about
that.

21
That's
the
genesis
of
the
item.
And,
actually,
I
22
didn't
realize
that
it's
going
to
work
out
this
way
23
because
the
concern
that
I
had
at
the
time
was
that
we've
24
been
focusing
so
much
on
zero
emission
on
new
vehicles,

25
and
we've
been
criticized
for
not
paying
attention
to
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
128
1
vehicles
on
the
road.
So
it
turns
out
today
we've
2
actually
finished
up
the
new
vehicles,
and
now
we're
3
addressing
the
existing
vehicles.
So
I
think
the
timing
4
is
great.

5
And
I
thank
staff
for
bringing
this
item
back
to
6
us.

7
So
with
that,
I'll
turn
it
to
Ms.
Witherspoon.

8
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
Thank
you,

9
Chairman
Lloyd,
members
of
the
Board.

10
We've
made
great
progress
in
reducing
vehicle
11
emission
since
catalysts
were
first
required
in
the
1970s.

12
New
light
duty
vehicles
are
now
99
percent
cleaner
for
13
non­
methane­
organic
gasses
and
95
percent
cleaner
for
NOx.

14
Despite
this
progress,
existing
vehicles
still
15
account
for
a
significant
portion
of
remaining
emissions.

16
There
are
several
reasons
for
this.
First
of
all,

17
California's
vehicle
population
keeps
growing,
as
does
the
18
total
number
of
vehicle
miles
traveled
each
day.
In
19
addition,
cars
last
a
long
time
in
our
climate,
resulting
20
in
a
slower
retirement
rate
than
other
states
may
observe.

21
Finally,
deterioration
of
emission
control
22
systems
is
a
significant
factor
causing
vehicles
to
emit
23
more
as
they
age.
By
the
time
we
get
to
2010,
10­
year­
old
24
and
older
cars
will
be
the
dominant
portion
of
the
25
light­
duty
inventory
which
forces
us
to
concentrate
now
on
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
129
1
how
those
in­
use
vehicles
might
be
addressed.

2
Today
staff
presentation
will
be
given
by
a
3
Annette
Guerrero
of
our
Mobile
Source
Control
Division.

4
Annette.

5
(
Thereupon
an
overhead
presentation
was
6
presented
as
follows.)

7
STAFF
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
GUERRERO:
Thank
8
you,
Catherine.

9
Good
afternoon,
Chairman
Lloyd
and
members
of
the
10
Board.

11
Today
in
response
to
a
request
by
Chairman
Lloyd
12
at
the
December
Board
hearing,
I
will
be
discussing
excess
13
emissions
from
the
in­
use
light
duty
vehicle
fleet
and
the
14
potential
to
reduce
these
emissions.
To
clarify
excess
15
emission
are
the
portion
that
exceed
the
standards
to
16
which
the
vehicles
have
been
certified.

17
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Zero
emissions.

18
MR.
LUNA:
That
file
doesn't
look
like
it's
going
19
to
open
for
us.

20
STAFF
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
GUERRERO:
I'll
21
wave
my
hands
a
lot.

22
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
Just
23
say
the
slide
number.

24
STAFF
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
GUERRERO:
This
is
25
slide
number
2.
After
providing
you
some
background
on
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
130
1
our
progress
on
reducing
vehicle
emissions,
I
will
2
quantify
the
impact
of
older
vehicles
on
emissions,

3
followed
by
a
discussion
of
several
programs
currently
4
being
examined
that
can
reduce
these
excess
emissions
from
5
in­
use
light­
duty
vehicles.
Although
we
will
present
the
6
emissions
in
the
South
Coast
air
basin,
the
same
trends
7
can
be
observed
throughout
the
state.

8
Slide
number
3.

9
­­
o0o­­

10
STAFF
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
GUERRERO:
Since
11
the
1960s
emissions
from
light­
duty
vehicles
on
a
per­
mile
12
basis
have
been
dramatically
reduced
due
to
the
adoption
13
of
increasingly
stringent
emission
standards.
These
14
emission
reductions
have
been
possible
due
to
the
15
development
and
use
of
catalysts,
on­
board
computers,
and
16
cleaner
gasoline.
Because
of
these
efforts,
hydrocarbon
17
plus
NOx,
emissions
from
cars
were
reduced
by
over
18
90
percent
from
the
1990
under
controlled
level
­­
90
19
percent
by
1990
from
uncontrolled
levels.

20
Slide
number
4.

21
­­
o0o­­

22
STAFF
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
GUERRERO:
Despite
23
this
accomplishment,
continuing
air
quality
problems
24
required
emissions
from
light­
duty
vehicles
to
be
reduced
25
even
further.
Consequently,
in
1990
the
Air
Resources
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
131
1
Board
adopted
the
low
emission
vehicle
program,
or
LEV
I.

2
The
Lev
I
program
further
reduces
light­
duty
vehicle
3
emissions
by
75
percent
between
1994
and
2003.

4
The
second
phase
of
these
regulations
left
to
5
expand
the
scope
of
the
LEV
regulations
beginning
in
2004.

6
The
LEV
program
combined
with
cleaner­
burning
gasoline
7
will
result
in
emissions
from
new
light­
duty
vehicles
on
a
8
per­
mile
basis
being
reduced
in
2010
to
approximately
9
1
percent
of
their
uncontrolled
levels.

10
Slide
number
5.

11
­­
o0o­­

12
STAFF
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
GUERRERO:

13
Reductions
in
cumulative
emissions
of
light­
duty
vehicles
14
have,
in
general,
followed
the
downward
trend
of
new
15
vehicle
emissions.
This
has
occurred
despite
the
16
ever­
increasing
number
of
miles
traveled
by
these
vehicles
17
every
day.
For
example,
hydrocarbon
emissions
from
18
light­
duty
vehicles
were
reduced
from
more
than
1200
tons
19
per
day
in
1970
to
approximately
350
tons
per
day
in
2000.

20
By
2020
we
anticipate
that
hydrocarbon
emissions
will
have
21
dropped
below
90
tons
per
day.
Similarly,
NOx
emissions
22
from
light­
duty
vehicles
will
have
dropped
from
23
approximately
650
tons
per
day
in
1970
to
380
tons
per
day
24
in
2000
and
will
be
further
reduced
to
below
75
tons
per
25
day
in
2020.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
132
1
Slide
number
6.

2
­­
o0o­­

3
STAFF
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
GUERRERO:
At
this
4
point
I
would
like
to
focus
on
the
impact
of
excess
5
emissions
from
light­
duty
vehicles.
It's
often
heard
that
6
a
very
small
portion
of
the
fleet
is
responsible
for
a
7
disproportionately
high
percentage
of
vehicle
emissions.

8
As
you
can
see
in
2000,
pre­
1993
or
non­
LEV
9
vehicles
made
up
53
percent
of
the
vehicle
fleet
but
10
accounted
for
87
percent
of
hydrocarbon
emissions.
By
11
2010
only
18
percent
of
light­
duty
vehicles
are
1993
and
12
older
models,
but
they
are
responsible
for
62
percent
of
13
hydrocarbon
emissions.

14
In
contrast,
LEV
I
and
LEV
II
vehicles
will
15
comprise
82
percent
of
the
light­
duty
vehicle
fleet
in
16
22010,
yet
only
contribute
28
percent
of
the
hydrocarbon
17
emissions.
Clearly,
older
vehicles
need
attention
in
18
addressing
ways
to
reduce
emissions,
especially
in
the
19
near
term.

20
Slide
number
7.

21
­­
o0o­­

22
STAFF
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
GUERRERO:
Older
23
vehicles
emit
a
disproportionately
high
level
emissions
24
for
several
reasons.
First,
these
vehicles
were
certified
25
to
less­
stringent
emission
standards.
Second,
they
employ
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
133
1
emission
control
systems
that
are
less
durable
than
those
2
used
on
newer
low­
emission
vehicles.
And
third,
they
lack
3
on­
board
diagnostic
systems
that
can
facilitate
proper
4
maintenance
of
their
emission
control
systems.

5
This
display
on
your
slide
of
the
emissions
from
6
the
vehicle
fleet
in
2010
demonstrates
the
contribution
of
7
each
model
year
to
the
total
light­
duty
hydrocarbon
8
emissions.

9
I
don't
know
you
have
color
slides,
but
the
10
bottom
bars
are
green.
They
represent
hydrocarbon
11
emissions
if
passenger
cars
just
meet
the
emission
12
standard
to
which
they
originally
certified.

13
I
see
we
have
the
slide
coming
up.

14
­­
o0o­­

15
STAFF
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
GUERRERO:
The
red
16
bars
show
the
excess
emissions
due
to
vehicles
that
exceed
17
emission
standards
in­
use.

18
As
you
can
see,
excess
emissions
can
more
than
19
double
the
emission
levels
from
a
properly­
maintained
20
vehicle
fleet.
Excess
NOx
emission
from
non­
LEV
vehicles
21
are
similar
in
magnitude.
These
excess
emission
are
the
22
target
of
the
smog
check
program.
As
I
will
discuss
23
later,
we
are
looking
at
other
ways
of
reducing
these
24
excess
emissions.
Also
note
that
the
excess
emission
25
levels
from
LEV
vehicles
equipped
with
OBD
II
are
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
134
1
projected
to
be
much
lower.

2
­­
o0o­­

3
STAFF
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
GUERRERO:
By
2020
4
when
most
of
the
cars
on
the
road
are
OBD
II
equipped
5
low­
emission
vehicles,
excess
emissions
from
the
vehicle
6
fleet
are
projected
to
be
minimal.
By
facilitating
proper
7
vehicle
maintenance,
OBD
II
allows
the
very
significant
8
emission
reduction
achieved
by
the
low­
emission
vehicle
9
program
to
be
maintained
throughout
the
full
life
of
the
10
vehicle.

11
I
will
now
turn
to
a
discussion
of
some
of
the
12
measures
specifically
designed
to
reduce
in­
use
vehicle
13
emission.

14
­­
o0o­­

15
STAFF
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
GUERRERO:
Three
16
of
these
measures
include
improvement
to
the
smog
check
17
program,
voluntary
vehicle
scrapping,
and
an
emission
18
control
replacement
program
to
examine
the
feasibility
and
19
benefits
of
replacing
critical
emission
control
components
20
on
pre­
LEV
vehicles.

21
­­
o0o­­

22
STAFF
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
GUERRERO:
The
23
smog
check
program
has
been
designed
to
reduce
excess
24
emissions
through
requiring
proper
maintenance
and
repair
25
of
high­
emitting
vehicles.
As
illustrated
in
the
chart,

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
135
1
the
remission
reductions
currently
being
achieved
are
2
large,
approximately
90
tons
per
day
in
the
South
Coast.

3
Also
illustrated
is
that
even
with
the
current
4
program
in
place,
substantial
excess
emissions
remain.

5
One
way
this
is
being
addressed
is
by
making
improvement
6
to
the
smog
check
program.

7
­­
o0o­­

8
STAFF
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
GUERRERO:
Three
9
significant
improvements
are
being
implemented
to
smog
10
check.
The
first
requires
heavier
gasoline
trucks
between
11
8500
and
10,000
pounds
GVW
to
undergo
a
dyamometer
test
12
used
for
cars.
This
test
allows
measurement
of
NOx
13
emissions
in
addition
to
hydrocarbon
NCO.

14
The
second
improvement
increases
the
number
of
15
vehicles
tested
at
test­
only
smog
check
stations.
BAR
16
studies
have
shown
that
greater
emission
reductions
are
17
achieved
at
test­
only
stations,
rather
than
at
test
and
18
repair
station.
Consequently,
BAR
lass
recently
increased
19
the
volume
of
cars
tested
at
test­
only
stations
from
20
20
percent
to
37
percent
of
the
fleet.

21
The
third
improvement
to
be
implemented
in
2004
22
incorporates
a
more
effective
test
of
the
integrity
of
the
23
evaporative
control
system.
The
emission
benefit
of
these
24
improvements
to
the
current
smog
check
required
is
14
tons
25
per
day
hydrocarbon
plus
NOx
in
the
South
Coast
air
basin
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
136
1
in
2010.

2
­­
o0o­­

3
STAFF
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
GUERRERO:
Another
4
program
we
have
evaluated
is
voluntary
vehicle
scrapping.

5
This
program
aims
to
reduce
the
number
of
older
vehicles
6
in
the
fleet.
In
doing
so,
the
inherently
high
emissions
7
of
those
older
cars
is
reduced
when
the
vehicle
is
reduced
8
by
a
newer
vehicle
which
meets
more
recent
emission
9
standards.

10
Another
benefit
of
scrapping
older
cars
is
these
11
vehicles
often
have
the
highest
excess
emissions
as
well.

12
There
are
several
different
programs
that
13
encourage
scrapping
of
older
cars.
In
2000
about
4,000
14
vehicles
were
retired
through
this
program.
BAR
has
also
15
offered
to
pay
for
scrapping
vehicles
which
cannot
pass
16
the
smog
check
test,
although
funding
for
this
program
has
17
run
out.

18
Private
sector
firms
also
pay
for
scrapping
19
vehicles
in
order
to
generate
marketable
emission
credits.

20
To
put
the
potential
benefits
of
scrapping
vehicles
into
21
perspective
if
75,000
vehicles
were
scrapped
each
year,

22
emissions
would
be
reduced
by
7
tons
per
day
in
2010.
The
23
cost
for
such
a
program
would
run
between
70
and
$
100
24
million
per
year.

25
­­
o0o­­

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
137
1
STAFF
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
GUERRERO:
The
2
third
program
under
consideration
addresses
reducing
3
excess
in­
use
emissions
by
replacing
key
emission
control
4
components
on
older
vehicles.
Even
when
a
vehicle
passes
5
the
smog
check
program
cut
points,
its
emissions
may
still
6
be
well
in
excess
of
the
emission
standard
to
which
it
was
7
certified
when
it
was
new.
Some
evidence
suggests
that
8
replacing
certain
critical
emission
components,
such
as
9
the
oxygen
censor,
will
further
reduce
emissions.

10
ARB
is
currently
conducting
a
test
program
to
11
evaluate
the
effectiveness
and
cost
effectiveness
of
12
replacing
emission
control
components
on
older
vehicles
13
that
pass
smog
check
cut
points.

14
The
components
slated
for
replacements
are
the
15
oxygen
censor
and
catalyst
to
reduce
exhaust
emissions
and
16
the
canister
and
associated
hoses
to
reduce
evaporative
17
emissions.
Preliminary
results
from
the
test
program
18
indicate
that
replacing
catalytic
converter
and
oxygen
19
censor
is
effective
in
reducing
excess
emissions.

20
However,
the
emission
benefits
from
replacing
the
21
evaporative
canister
and
associated
hoses
are
less
clear
22
due
to
the
limited
number
of
vehicles
tested
to
date
and
23
high
variability
in
test
results.
Further
testing
is
24
planned
to
better
understand
the
potential
of
this
25
program.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
138
1
­­
o0o­­

2
STAFF
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
GUERRERO:
This
3
chart
illustrates
the
potential
of
the
programs
just
4
discussed
to
reduce
excess
emissions.
The
red
part
of
5
each
bar
is
the
excess
emissions.
The
second
and
third
6
bars
show
that
the
smog
check
programs
provide
large
7
emission
reductions
and
improvements
under
way
will
8
provide
additional
reductions.

9
The
component
replacement
program,
should
it
turn
10
out
to
be
viable,
also
has
a
potential
to
provide
large
11
reductions.
The
AVR,
the
code
name
for
vehicle
scrapping,

12
shows
a
small
benefit
in
this
illustration,
but
it
is
13
important
to
note
that
reductions
can
be
bigger
if
more
14
money
were
available
to
fund
scrapping.

15
Overall,
the
chart
illustrates
that
it
is
16
possible
to
eliminate
most
of
the
excess
emissions.

17
With
the
implementation
of
all
three
in­
use
18
vehicle
programs
previously
discussed,
improvements
to
19
California
smog
check
program,
a
voluntary
accelerated
20
vehicle
retired
program,
and
an
emission
control
component
21
replacement
program
excess
emission
could
be
substantially
22
reduced.

23
­­
o0o­­

24
STAFF
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
GUERRERO:
In
25
summary,
the
biggest
reduction
in
emissions
is
coming
from
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
139
1
the
new
vehicle
emission
standard
as
the
fleet
turns
over
2
to
lower
emitting
vehicles.
We
can
look
forward
to
a
3
75
percent
reduction
in
fleet­
wide
emission
from
4
light­
duty
vehicles
over
the
next
20
years.

5
In
the
mean
time,
older
vehicles
emit
a
6
disproportionate
amount
of
pollution.
Even
by
2010
when
7
the
fleet
is
made
up
of
a
majority
of
low­
emission
8
vehicles,
a
small
number
of
older
vehicles
will
emit
over
9
half
of
light­
duty
emissions.
The
smog
check
program
and
10
vehicle
scrappage
which
focus
on
older
vehicles
can
be
11
effective
in
further
reducing
emissions.

12
­­
o0o­­

13
STAFF
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
GUERRERO:
Excess
14
emissions
are
significant
and
will
continue
to
be
15
significant
until
2020
or
beyond.
While
the
latest
16
technology
used
to
meet
LEV
II
coupled
with
OBD
II
and
17
extended
warranty
will
reduce
or
eliminate
excess
18
emissions,
the
older
vehicles
will
still
have
excess
19
emissions
that
need
to
be
reduced
through
the
smog
check
20
program.
We
also
hope
we
will
find
that
replacement
of
21
certain
critical
emission
control
components
will
further
22
restore
the
lower
emitting
capability
of
some
of
the
older
23
vehicles.
We
will
be
able
to
share
with
you
more
on
this
24
next
year.
That
completes
­­

25
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much
indeed.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
140
1
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
Just
one
final
2
comment
from
the
staff
to
put
that
presentation
in
3
perspective.

4
In
the
current
draft
plan
for
the
South
Coast
Air
5
Quality
Management
District,
we
have
a
black
box
of
400
6
tons
per
day
of
ROG
and
NOx
that
we
don't
know
how
to
7
accomplish.
And
certainly
coming
up
with
the
full
8
complement
of
controls
for
existing
emissions
from
in­
use
9
vehicles
will
be
necessary.
Anything
we
can
do
to
reduce
10
those
emissions
will
help
us
fill
that
black
box
and
11
achieve
attainment.

12
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
Mr.
Chairman.

13
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Yes,
Ms.
D'Adamo.

14
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
Looking
at
slide
15,
the
15
summary
and
older
vehicle
caused
disproportionate
amount
16
of
emissions,
55
percent
if
we
look
at
the
older
vehicles,

17
if
all
of
the
suggestions
were
implemented,
the
vehicle
18
scrapping
program,
for
example,
the
potential
benefits
of
19
retiring
­­
associated
with
retiring
75,000
vehicles
per
20
year,
et
cetera,
what
would
that
number
look
like
or
could
21
you
take
­­

22
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
If
you
23
look
back
at
slide
14,
you
can
see
the
excess
emissions
24
can
be
eliminated.
But
you
still
have
the
inherent
25
emissions
of
the
older
vehicles
depending
on
how
much
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
141
1
scrapping
you
do.

2
So
as
we
showed
in
that
one
illustration,
it
3
costs
a
lot
of
money
to
scrap
a
lot
of
vehicles
to
get
7
4
tons
per
day.
To
some
degree
we're
destined
to
waiting
5
for
those
vehicles
to
eliminate
themselves
from
the
fleet.

6
And
there's
­­
there's
no
other
way
of
getting
at
that
7
other
than
a
modernization
of
the
fleet.
Well­
maintained
8
25­
year­
old
vehicle
puts
out
a
lot
more
emissions
than
a
9
well­
maintained
five
year
old
vehicle.
That's
just
seems
10
like
time.
We're
a
very
large
scrapping
program.
It's
11
only
way
is
to
address
that.

12
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
And
could
you
elaborate
on
13
the
voluntary
vehicle
scrapping
program,
that
the
cost
at
14
$
3
million,
that's
public
expenditures
on
the
local
15
district
programs.

16
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
That
17
was
the
example
of
the
local
district
programs.
A
lot
18
more
vehicles
were
scrapped
through
the
smog
check
program
19
which
had
an
option
if
you
couldn't
pass
that
you
could
20
get
scrappage
money.
It
was
as
much
as
$
1,000
a
vehicle.

21
That
money's
run
out.
I
think
there
may
be
as
many
as
22
20,000
vehicles
scrapped
there.

23
There's
also
scrapping
going
on
for
the
purposes
24
of
generating
emission
credits.
That
one
doesn't
bring
25
down
the
overall
emissions
very
much
because
you
scrap
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
142
1
vehicle
and
use
most
of
those
emissions
to
allow
other
2
industry
to
expand
or
something
like
that.
So
­­
or
site.

3
And
that's
still
ongoing
in
the
private
sector
right
now
4
generating
marketable
emission
credits
from
scrapping
5
vehicles.

6
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
And
the
smog
vehicle
7
scrappage
program
as
a
result
of
not
complying
with
smog,

8
what
do
those
numbers
look
like?

9
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
I
think
10
there
was
about
20,000
scrapped.
I'm
not
sure
over
11
exactly
what
time
frame.
Someone
here
would
know
that
if
12
it's
important
to
be
more
precise.

13
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
No.
Just
general.

14
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
The
15
source
of
funding
with
the
budget
crisis
has
dried
up
so
16
they're
not
paying
for
scrap
cars
right
now.
But
it
could
17
restart.
Right
now
all
the
money
that
is
available
is
18
going
to
pay
for
low
income
repairs
assistance.

19
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
And
same
thing
with
the
20
district
scrappage
program.

21
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
I
think
22
district
scrappage
programs
are
still
under
way.
But
it
23
depends
on
­­
the
money's
coming
out
of
things
like
the
$
4
24
surcharge
on
your
registration
fee
that
districts
have
25
adopted.
It's
not
in
all
districts.
And
I'm
not
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
143
1
personally
aware
of
which
ones
are
doing
it
right
at
this
2
point
in
time.

3
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
Sounds
like
there's
not
4
much
room.
But
I'd
be
interested
in
seeing
if
there's
5
anything
that
can
be
done,
short
of
just
money
falling
out
6
of
the
sky.

7
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
I
think
8
one
of
the
observations
that
may
be
useful
when
we
start
9
looking
at
the
clean
air
plans,
the
SIPS
later
this
year,

10
is
that
Catherine
mentioned
we're
short
hundreds
of
tons
11
of
each
pollutant.
And
we
went
through
and
showed
you
12
smog
check
of
90
tons
in
the
South
Coast.
That
sounds
­­

13
that's
really
big.

14
But
the
other
once
we're
looking
at
like
15
improving
the
smog
check
program,
scrapping
cars,
they
16
were
getting
like
tens
of
tons.
So
we're
facing
this
very
17
difficult
situation
where
there's
no
more
hundred­
ton
18
things
that
we
can
do.
And
we're
having
to
look
at
a
lot
19
of
ten­
ton­
type
ones
or
less.
And
many
of
them
­­
because
20
the
goal
is
to
get
to
400
more
tons
of
emission
reduction.

21
So
on
one
hand
these
look
small.
But
on
the
other
hand,

22
they're
all
the
ammo
we
have
in
our
arsenal
at
the
moment,

23
and
we're
going
to
have
to
look
in
each
one
of
them.

24
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
And
on
a
similar
line,
in
25
looking
at
the
proposals
that
the
district
will
be
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
144
1
presenting,
do
you
see
that
the
older
vehicles
are
2
concentrated
in
certain
parts
of
the
state,
or
are
they
3
pretty
well
evenly
distributed?

4
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
There
5
is
a
distribution.
It's
different
in
different
areas.

6
But
in
general,
if
you
look
at
regional
areas
7
it's
not
a
whole
bunch
different.
If
you
look
at
the
8
valley
versus
L.
A.,
for
example,
you
wouldn't
see
huge
9
differences
in
the
age
distribution.
If
you
go
to
parts
10
of
L.
A.
versus
other
parts
of
L.
A.,
you
see
fairly
radical
11
differences
in
age
distribution.
That
would
be
true
of
12
other
areas
too.

13
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
Thank
you.

14
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.

15
Mr.
McKinnon.

16
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
If
I
follow,
you
know,

17
sort
of
the
logic
that's
­­
we're
doing
very
as
well
sort
18
of
at
reducing
emissions
sort
of
in
recent
times.
And
19
getting
older
cars
repaired
is
very
important,
and
20
hopefully
them
leaving
the
fleet
is
also
important.

21
One
of
the
things
I
often
end
up
talking
to
22
people
about
when
they
want
to
talk
to
me
because
I'm
an
23
Air
Board
member
because
of
sort
of
other
aspects
of
my
24
life
is
sort
of
the
hot
rodder
car
collector
concern
that
25
there
are
people
that
have
cars
that
they
don't
drive
a
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
145
1
whole
lot.

2
Have
we
ever
sort
of
tried
to
figure
out
what
is
3
sort
of
a
fair
amount
of
miles
per
year
to
talk
about
what
4
a
collector
car
or
hot
rodder's
car
would
be
like?
If
you
5
start
going
after
older
cars,
there
is
a
constituency
of
6
people
that,
I
think,
work
hard
on
their
cars.
And
I
7
think
there's
sort
of
an
interest
in
figuring
out
a
8
solution
for
them.
Have
we
ever
considered
sort
of
9
variables
in
mileage?

10
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
Yes.

11
The
car
collectors
and
car
enthusiasts
have
been
very
12
vocal
in
this
whole
issue
of
scrappage.
They
are
very
13
concerned
that
someone
might
take
their
car
away
from
them
14
in
some
manner
or
require
them
to
do
something
that
no
15
longer
makes
it
a
classic
car
or
a
collectible
car.

16
The
word
I
want
to
emphasize
in
that
VAVR
which
17
we
were
calling
scrappage,
the
V
is
for
voluntary.
These
18
are
only
people
that
want
to
get
rid
of
their
car
for
19
money
that
are
in
this
kind
of
a
program.
No
one
has
ever
20
suggested
that
there
be
a
mandatory
claiming
of
older
21
cars.

22
When
the
car
collectors
expressed
concern
about
23
things
like
smog
check,
it
can
be
come
from
two
angles.

24
One
is
they
don't
drive
the
car
much
so
why
do
they
have
25
to
spend
50
bucks
every
two
years.
That's
one
angle.
The
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
146
1
other
angle
is
a
fear
that
some
aspect
of
smog
check
will
2
be
too
stringent
such
as
the
older
car
could
never
pass,

3
and
then
it
has
no
option.
Maybe
scrappage
is
its
only
4
option.

5
That,
I
don't
think,
is
really
a
genuine
concern
6
because
the
standards
as
we
showed
for
smog
check
allow
a
7
lot
of
excess
emissions.
And
the
car
collectors
are
the
8
people
that,
you
know,
make
the
car
run
perfectly.
And
9
it's
going
to
have
this
inherently
low
emission
as
it
10
possibly
can.
It's
still
going
to
be
much
dirty
than
a
11
new
car.
It's
not
going
to
be
a
gross
emitter.
Those
are
12
pristine
cars.

13
We're
not
aware
of
any
evidence
that
collector
14
type
car,
well­
maintained
cars
have
any
problem
getting
15
past
the
smog
check
program.
That
shouldn't
be
a
concern.

16
The
scrappage
is
voluntary
and
shouldn't
be
a
certain.

17
But
there
is
a
heightened
concern
by
those
members
that
18
something
will
happen
to
their
cars.

19
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
They're
required
to
be
20
tested
at
sort
of
the
standard
for
their
model
year
of
21
car?

22
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
Yes.

23
The
standard
is
typically
at
least
a
couple
times
what
the
24
car
could
emit
if
all
the
components
were
in
good
working
25
order
for
a
car
of
100,000
miles.
So
if
they
can
restore
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
147
1
it
to
be
something
like
a
normal
car
at
100,000,
they're
2
going
to
pass
with
flying
colors.
And
they
do.

3
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Thanks.

4
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.

5
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
What
is
your
current
6
thinking
about
replacing
of
these
older
parts?
Are
you
7
thinking
in
terms
of
only
when
they
fail
smog
check
or
8
voluntary
replacement?

9
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
Well,

10
until
we've
completed
the
study,
we're
not
going
to
know
11
exactly
which
are
the
most
effective
and
most
cost
12
effective
of
the
three
parts
to
replace.
And
some
of
them
13
are
simple
to
do
like
­­
and
low
cost
like
an
oxygen
14
censor.
And
some
of
them
are
simple
and
higher
cost,
like
15
catalysts.
Some
of
them
are
not
so
costly
but
hard
to
do
16
like
evaporative
canisters
because
on
many
cars
they're
17
hidden
somewhere
in
the
car
and
very
hard
to
get
at.

18
So
it
will
depend
on
which
one
sort
of
looms,
if
19
any
of
them
loom,
as
the
most
cost
effective
and
practical
20
way
of
doing
it.
We
are
thinking
very
preliminary
that
it
21
could
be
done
in
smog
check
in
some
manner.
As
you
know,

22
a
mandatory
repair
if
you
do
fail,
for
example,
this
would
23
be
one
of
this
things
that
has
to
be
fixed
because
we
know
24
from
the
study
it
would
reduce
emissions.
There's
other
25
options
too
to
how
this
could
happen.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
148
1
But
it's
hard
to
design
until
we
know
which
the
2
components
are.
It's
a
$
300
part
like
a
catalyst
or
3
something
that's
going
to
be
very
hard
to
do
because
4
that's
a
repair
­­
that's
in
excess
of
what
people
pay
5
now.
They
only
pay
$
150,
$
125
on
average
repairs
for
smog
6
check.

7
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.

8
SUPERVISOR
DeSAULNIER:
I
had
a
question
for
you
9
anyway.

10
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
guess
we
have
one
witness
11
signed
up.

12
Do
you
want
to
speak
on
this
one
or
the
next
one?

13
MR.
PETERS:
I
would
love
to
speak
on
this
one,

14
sir.
Chairman
Lloyd,
Committee,
and
staff,
I'm
Charlie
15
Peters,
Clean
Air
Performance
Professionals.
And
we
16
represent
motorists.

17
I
find
it
interesting
­­
Matthew
brought
up
the
18
issue
of
collector
cars,
et
cetera
because
Hemming's
Motor
19
News
has
honored
us
and
had
for
most
every
month
for
about
20
the
last
seven
or
eight
years
put
our
letter
reporting
21
on
­­

22
BOARD
MEMBER
WILLIAM
FRIEDMAN:
Can
you
speak
23
up?

24
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
We
can't
hear
you
very
well
25
up
here.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
149
1
MR.
PETERS:
Excuse
me.
I'll
try
to
help
that
a
2
little
bit.

3
I'm
Charlie
Peters,
Clean
Air
Performance
4
Professionals.
We
represent
motorists.
And
for
about
the
5
last
seven
or
eight
years
we
have
had
a
letter
most
every
6
month
in
Hemming's
Motor
news,
which
is
considered
the
7
Bible
of
the
old
car
hobby.
And
Matthew
brought
up
the
8
issue
of
concerns
of
some
of
the
hobbyists.
So
we
have
9
been
trying
to
contribute
to
that
and
trying
to
report
on
10
that.

11
We're
quite
concerned
that
there
are
significant
12
opportunities
to
improve
how
the
public's
being
treated,

13
to
increase
their
options,
to
improve
performance
of
cars,

14
and
to
significantly
improve
the
environmental
performance
15
of
cars
by
some
appropriate
supportive
credit
and
support
16
for
the
providers
of
service
in
the
marketplace
to
enhance
17
and
improve
compliance
and
improve
how
the
public's
being
18
treated.

19
I've
heard
many
times
here
today
talking
about
20
how,
"
Gee,
we
got
this
great
program
called
PZEVs
and
15
21
year,
150,000
mile
emissions
warranties,
and
that's
just
22
going
to
make
all
the
flowers
bloom
and
make
it
a
great
23
day
and
make
it
a
better
world."
Just
because
those
are
24
free,
all
the
car
manufacturers
are
just
going
to
be
there
25
and
just
do
it
right
every
time.
And
every
one
of
those
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
150
1
cars
is
going
to
get
fixed
every
time
just
right.

2
Let
me
say
to
you
there
are
currently
3
downloadable
free
programs
where
you
can
go
in
and
say
4
every
monitor
on
the
car
is
happy
and
just
right
when,
in
5
fact,
there's
nothing
on
the
car
that's
right.
And
that
6
warranty
situations
in
the
dealer
depends
upon
having
7
options
to
the
public
where
they
can
get
their
cars
to
get
8
a
second
opinion.
And
we
have
a
market
that's
supported
9
by
a
regulatory
process
to
improve
performance.

10
So
I
believe
that
this
­­
what
I've
been
hearing
11
here
today,
the
technology
and
huge
amounts
of
money
and
12
huge
costs,
enforcing
technology
is
the
solution
to
all
13
the
problems
in
the
world,
that
maybe
we
need
to
consider
14
the
possibility
of
this
particular
subject
that
huge
15
opportunities
to
improve
air
quality
in
California
by
16
appropriate
support
and
credit
for
an
industry
that
serves
17
the
public
to
see
it
gets
done
right
more
often.

18
The
I&
M
Review
Committee,
yesterday
the
subject
19
came
up
­­
customer
goes
to
one
place,
gets
a
smog
check.

20
Fails.
Goes
someplace
else,
and
it
passes.
We
take
care
21
of
that
complaint.
Well,
who's
going
to
get
the
22
complaint?
The
guy
that
failed
the
car.
Who
gets
23
addressed
by
the
regulatory
agency?
The
guy
that
got
the
24
complaint.
Who's
the
guy
that
did
the
job
right?
The
guy
25
that
got
the
complaint.
Who's
the
guy
that
said
it
was
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
151
1
okay?
In
this
case
it
happened
to
be
the
new
car
dealer.

2
The
car
never
got
fixed.

3
So
without
a
regulatory
support,
without
some
4
credit,
without
starting
to
be
concerned
about
the
5
breathers
out
here,
the
people
that
drive
cars,
and
the
6
air,
then
all
we're
going
to
do
in
California
is
continue
7
to
exacerbate
the
loss
of
credibility
for
our
Governor,

8
the
loss
in
opportunities
to
improve
the
air
quality,
and
9
we're
not
going
to
get
where
we
should
be
able
to
10
responsibly
go.

11
We
can
cut
fraud
in
half
in
the
smog
check
12
program
in
a
year.
We
can
cut
the
failure
rate
in
half
by
13
a
year
and
reduce
fleet
emissions
2,000
tons
a
day.
Oh,

14
gee,
that
would
be
expensive.
We
need
to
start
by
maybe
15
going
out
and
finding
out
if
we
can
improve
performance
16
with
one
shop
with
a
best
guy
in
the
state
or
the
worst
17
guy
in
the
state.
Do
a
little
pilot
study
to
find
out
if
18
there
is,
in
fact,
a
quantifiable
real
benefit
to
the
19
public
that
can
take
place
by
reduced
fraud
and
improved
20
performance
by
the
most
important
technology
that
has
not
21
been
discussed
here
at
all
today,
that's
the
stuff
between
22
people's
ears.
Empowering
that
to
work
and
serve
the
23
public.
I
would
appreciate
your
consideration
of
a
24
possibility
of
accomplishing
that.

25
We
have
an
appointment
to
see
a
Senator
who's
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
152
1
thrown
his
hat
in
the
ring
to
be
the
pro
tem
of
the
Senate
2
on
Tuesday.
We
have
heard
that
the
Air
Resources
Board
3
and
the
Department
of
Consumers
Affairs
have
been
invited
4
to
that
meeting.
That's
extremely
exciting.
We've
5
already
met
with
the
founder
and
author
of
"
Smog
Check
for
6
California,"
Senator
Presley.
He
was
fantastic.
And
7
we've
met
with
the
Secretary
of
State
and
Consumer
8
Services
and
the
Chief
of
the
Bureau
of
Automotive
Repair.

9
Maybe
it's
time
for
us
to
consider
the
motoring
public
and
10
the
air
and
create
some
support
to
do
it
better.

11
Thank
you.

12
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.
We
have
another
13
witness
signed
up,
Chris
Ervine.
Recognize
that
­­
I
know
14
you
spoke
in
opposition.
We
don't
have
any
resolution
15
before
us
on
this
item.
This
is
an
information
item.
The
16
next
one
is
­­

17
MR.
ERVINE:
I
understand
that.

18
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.

19
MR.
ERVINE:
I'm
Chris
Ervine.
I'm
with
the
20
Coalition
of
State
Test
and
Repair
Stations.

21
I'm
a
little
disappointed.
We're
hearing
an
22
awful
lot
of
talk
about
reducing
emissions,
and
we
have
a
23
huge
untapped
reservoir
of
emissions
out
there
that
are
24
available
for
reduction.
And
this
is
in
the
basic
area
in
25
the
change
of
ownership
areas.
We're
talking
about
a
very
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
153
1
small
percentage
of
vehicles
here
that
are
19
­­
or
older
2
vehicles.
When
you
get
into
a
change
of
ownership
area
­­

3
I
just
live
in
a
change
of
ownership
area.
I
just
retired
4
a
1993
Nissan
Maxima
with
225,000
miles
on
it.
Has
never
5
been
in
a
smog
check
station.
Now,
my
car
was
well
taken
6
care
of.
Passed
with
no
problem
at
all.

7
But
problem
that
we
have
in
these
outlining
areas
8
is
these
people
ignore
the
check
engine
light.
As
long
as
9
that
car
gets
them
from
point
A
to
point
B,
they
don't
10
care
if
that
light's
on
or
not.
The
vehicles
are
not
11
maintained
properly.
They've
never
been
checked
in
a
smog
12
check
station
and
probably
upwards
of
70
percent
of
those
13
vehicles
are
transit
vehicles
that
go
into
the
enhanced
14
areas
and
spew
their
pollution
out
there
as
computer
15
vehicles.
So
we
have
a
large
untapped
resource
of
16
emission
reductions
that
nobody
wants
to
talk
about.
And
17
I
think
this
is
something
that
needs
to
be
looked
into.

18
The
other
problem
that
we
have
is
­­
it
was
19
brought
up
we're
shifting
more
and
more
vehicles
to
the
20
test­
only
stations.
You're
asking
the
test
and
repair
21
industry
in
the
Bay
Area
right
now
to
invest
$
50,000
in
a
22
piece
of
equipment
that
they're
never
going
to
get
their
23
money
out
of
because
they're
going
to
lose
so
much
of
24
their
business
to
the
test­
only
industry
when
it
really
25
gets
going.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
154
1
In
San
Joaquin
Valley
my
shop
and
other
shops
­­

2
I
have
­­
at
this
point
I
have
60
members
in
the
San
3
Joaquin
Valley.
We
have
experienced
an
80
percent
4
reduction
in
smog
tests.
You're
now
talking
to
us
about
5
in
2004
we're
going
to
have
to
invest
in
emission
testing
6
for
evaporative
emission
control
system.
You're
taking
7
cars
away
from
us
to
where
we
can't
pay
for
the
equipment
8
we
have
presently,
and
you're
asking
us
to
spend
more
9
money
towards
testing
vehicles
that
we're
never
going
to
10
see.

11
It
does
not
make
good
business
sense,
and
I
urge
12
the
people
in
the
Bay
Area
not
to
come
on
line
with
this
13
program
because
of
these
problems
with
the
test­
only
14
industry.
They're
never
going
to
recover
their
15
investment.
And
I
think
that
everybody
needs
to
look
at
16
this.
More
and
more
test
and
repair
stations
are
shifting
17
over
to
test
only.
And
when
this
is
all
said
and
done,

18
who's
going
to
reduce
all
your
emissions
when
the
test
and
19
repair
industry
is
out
of
business?

20
Thank
you.

21
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.

22
Mr.
McKinnon,
comment.

23
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Yeah.
The
question
for
24
staff,
can
you
kind
of
quantify
the
sort
of
the
older
car
25
question
versus
those
cars
that
are
transiting
between
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
155
1
enhance
­­
not
enhanced
areas
into
enhanced
areas.
That
2
was
your
­­
do
you
have
a
way
of
quantifying
that.

3
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
I
don't
4
think
we
have
information
about
exactly
how
many
cars
that
5
are
in
basic
areas,
which
are
the
smaller
cities
rural
6
areas
go
to
the
smoggy
areas
or
what
fraction
of
the
7
vehicles
in
the
smoggy
areas
are
from
these
basic
areas.

8
The
one
thing
that
has
happened
that's
addressed
9
this
is
the
number
of
ZIP
codes
or
the
subregions
that
now
10
have
the
enhanced
programs,
particularly
in
the
valley
11
have
been
greatly
expanded.
I
think
they
added
100,000
12
cars
­­
over
700,000
cars
were
shifted
from
the
basic
13
program
to
the
enhanced
program
in
the
Valley.
Like
in
14
South
Coast
it's
virtually
all
enhanced
so.
It
wasn't
15
necessarily
change.
But
that's
one
way
it's
been
16
addressed
is
to
spread
the
enhanced
program
which
is
the
17
dyno
testing,
to
more
and
more
of
the
state
that
now
18
represents
almost
90
percent
of
the
cars
that
are
in
the
19
enhanced
program.
So
it's
to
the
extent
this
transfer
of
20
vehicles
from
one
basic
area
to
the
other
one
is
21
occurring,
that's
being
reduced
because
there's
less
22
opportunity
for
that.
Certainly
it
still
occurs.

23
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
Just
as
a
follow
24
up.
It's
been
the
staff's
preference
for
a
long
time
that
25
we
have
a
state­
wide
enhanced
program.
But
it
was
a
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
156
1
decision
by
the
state
Legislature
to
create
a
three­
tier
2
structure
where
in
very
rural
parts
of
the
state
it's
3
change
of
ownership
only.
In
smaller
towns
it's
a
basic
4
inspection
program.
And
then
in
federal,
urban,

5
non­
attainment
areas
in
the
urbanized
portion
it's
6
enhanced.
And
that's
the
structure
we
have
to
live
with.

7
So
most
of
the
improvements
we
talked
about
in
8
this
presentation
are
within
the
enhanced
program.
And
we
9
just
have
to
live
with
the
fact
that
vehicles
move
across
10
boundaries.
But
as
Mr.
Cackette
indicated,
the
number
of
11
vehicles
outside
of
enhanced
areas
represents
roughly
10
12
percent
of
the
whole
fleet
that
might
be
subject
to
13
inspections
were
we
to
have
a
state­
wide
enhanced
14
inspection
program.

15
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
Just
to
16
point
out
that
while
it's
desirable,
perhaps,
to
have
a
17
uniform
program
throughout
the
state,
the
gentleman
18
mentioned
it
cost
$
50,000
to
go
to
enhanced.
And
if
19
you're
a
test
station
or
repair
station
and
you're
in
a
20
community
of
a
couple
thousand
people
who
only
get
a
21
couple
thousand
inspections
and
it's
out
in
the
boonies
22
somewhere,
it's
going
to
be
hard
for
someone
to
make
that
23
decision
to
provide
the
equipment.
If
they
don't
provide
24
the
equipment
there,
you've
got
the
person
having
to
drive
25
50
miles
or
something
to
find
a
test
station.
That's
not
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
157
1
a
good
public
policy.

2
So
there's
something
on
the
positive
side
for
3
having
some
basic
areas
with
less
stringent,
less
costly
4
requirement
in
some.
But
I
think
what
we
had
before
was
a
5
lot
of
urbanized
areas
with
basic
program
what
we're
going
6
towards
was
really
just
the
small
towns
and
the
rural
7
areas
that
will
not
have
the
fully
enhanced
program.

8
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Can
I
follow
up?

9
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Yes.

10
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Did
that
shift
happen
so
11
recently
that
it
wouldn't
be
felt
by
folks
or
­­

12
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
A
year
13
or
so
ago.

14
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
A
year
or
so
ago.
Okay.

15
Is
there
any
­­
clearly,
we
had
cars
that
were
16
old
enough
to
be
exempted
and
we
have
cleaner
cars
that
17
are
going
to
pass
tests
for
at
least
a
few
years.
Other
18
than
those
two
explanations,
can
you
think
of
any
reason
19
why
80
percent
of
the
tests
would
be
at
test­
only
20
stations?

21
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
No.
We
22
had
the
­­
if
you
talk
about
the
total
fleet
­­
and
very
23
roughly
we've
got
36
percent
being
directed
to
test
only.

24
We've
got
a
similar
number
that
can
go
to
test
and
repair,

25
and
there's
a
similar
number
that
are
exempted,
something
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
158
1
around
30
percent.
Those
are
the
cars
for
the
first
four
2
years.
I
don't
know
the
exact
numbers
precisely,
but
it's
3
kind
of
partitioned
into
threes.

4
When
we
went
from
20
percent
test­
only
to
36,
it
5
certainly
doesn't
represent
a
potential
loss
of
business
6
of
80
percent.
We
do
know
that
many
people
do
find
7
test­
only
more
convenient.
There's
a
fraction
of
people
8
that
choose
to
got
to
test­
only,
even
though
they're
not
9
directed.
Maybe
that's
what's
happening.
I
don't
know.

10
But
in
any
case,
there
is
a
business
case
for
11
those
cars
that
are
directed
to
test­
only
are
the
ones
12
with
the
high
probability
of
failing.
And
the
test
13
only­
station
won't
fix
them.
They've
got
to
go
somewhere
14
to
be
repaired.
That's
where
one
of
the
business
15
opportunities
remains.

16
So
I
don't
think
the
comment
that
the
test
and
17
repair
business
will
go
out
of
business
probably
is
not
18
correct.
But
clearly
they've
lost
some
test
business
when
19
the
state
directed
more
cars
to
test
only.

20
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Mr.
Chairman,
I
started
21
this.
There
was
somebody
testifying,
and
he
walked
away.

22
And
I
think
he
wants
to
be
­­

23
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
saw
both
shoot
up
when
24
staff
made
a
comment.
So
we
owe
it
to
them.
So
if
one
of
25
you
could
come
up.
And
I
assume
from
the
reaction
you
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
159
1
disagreed
with
staff's
comment.

2
MR.
ERVINE:
Yes.

3
As
to
his
remark
with
36
percent
of
the
smog
4
fleet
is
directed
to
test­
only,
you
have
to
understand
5
that
four
years
of
newer
vehicles
­­
we're
talking
about
6
enhanced
areas
with
test­
only.
We're
not
talking
bout
the
7
basic
area
or
the
change
of
ownership
area.
Enhanced
8
area,
this
is
where
they're
spending
the
big
money
for
the
9
dynos.
In
the
enhanced
areas,
four
years
and
newer
10
vehicles
are
exempt
from
the
program.
This
is
40
percent
11
of
the
smog
fleet
is
exempt
from
the
program.
1974
and
12
earlier
makes
up
6
percent
of
the
program.
They
are
13
exempt
from
the
program.

14
What
VAR
has
done
is
they
have
taken
36
percent
15
of
brand­
new
vehicles
all
the
way
to
1966
vehicles
and
16
this
is
what
their
36
percent
is.
And
when
you
do
the
17
fuzzy
math,
you
come
up
with
about
80
percent
of
the
18
vehicles
are
either
exempt
or
going
to
test­
only.
And
19
that
leaves
a
very
small
percentage
of
the
vehicle
to
go
20
to
the
test
and
repair
industry.

21
The
test
and
repair
industry,
we
need
to
keep
our
22
dynos
busy.
I
need
to
do
six
tests
a
day
to
pay
for
my
23
dyno.
I
have
$
1,000
a
month
payment
on
it.
I
pay
$
4,000
24
a
year
for
the
maintenance
contract
on
it.
My
most
25
expensive
technician
runs
that
dyno.
I
have
one
stall
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
160
1
dedicated
solely
to
that
smog
test.
I
can't
do
anything
2
else
in
that
bay
because
of
the
dyno
being
in
the
way.

3
And
I
need
to
keep
that
machine
busy
all
day
long
in
order
4
to
make
a
profit
on
it.
I
have
gone
from
12
and
13
smogs
5
per
day
to
less
than
two.

6
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.

7
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
You
certainly
got
me
to
8
the
80
percent.
Now
I
get
how
we're
very
close
to
that.

9
Thanks
a
lot.

10
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Is
there
a
comment
from
staff
11
or
is
there
­­

12
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
I
just
13
have
to
say
we'll
sit
down
and
go
over
the
math
with
them.

14
But
that's
not
our
understanding
of
where
the
cars
go.

15
That's
not
80.
You
know,
20
percent
of
them
don't
go
to
16
test
and
repair.

17
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
I
thought
it
was
36.

18
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
Test
19
and
repair,
the
kind
of
business
he
runs.

20
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Maybe
I
misunderstood.

21
How
many
are
referred
to
test­
only?
What
percentage?

22
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
It's
36
23
percent
of
the
vehicles
subject
to
the
program,
which
24
includes
the
exempted
newer
vehicles,
which
when
I
25
characterized
it
I
said
it
was
about
a
third.
Maybe
it's
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
161
1
a
little
bit
more.
I'm
not
sure
what
the
exact
number
is.

2
He
said
it
was
40
percent
of.

3
But
of
the
cars
that
actually
get
a
renewal,
I
4
think
it's
closer
to
40
percent
of
them
would
end
up
in
5
the
test
and
repair
situation.
Then
you've
got
17
percent
6
of
the
cars
that
go
through
change
of
ownerships.
They
7
can
go
anywhere
they
want
on
top
of
that.
So
I
think
the
8
best
estimate
we
have
is
about
half
the
cars
seeking
a
9
smog
check
go
to
test
and
repair.
Half
of
them
go
to
test
10
only.

11
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
If
you
start
out
of
40
12
percent
of
exempt
­­
that's
where
I
was
following
his
13
number.
But
anyway
­­

14
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
Those
15
are
exempted
by
the
Legislature.
They're
not
in
the
16
program
until
they're
four
years
old.
And
the
old
ones
17
too
are
exempted
by
the
Legislature.
So
with
the
18
remaining
­­
I
think
the
dispute
there
is
that
we
called
19
it
36
percent
which
is
in
­­
the
denominator
has
those
20
exempted
newer
cars
in
it.
And
the
gentleman's
saying,

21
well,
take
those
out
and
it's
different.
It's
more
like
22
half
at
that
point.

23
MR.
ERVINE:
If
you
have
100
vehicles,
46
of
them
24
are
exempted,
and
36
of
them
go
to
test­
only.
That
leaves
25
you
82
percent
of
the
fleet
is
either
exempted
or
going
to
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
162
1
test­
only,
which
leaves
roughly
about
15
percent
that
are
2
going
to
the
test
and
repair.

3
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
We'll
4
have
to
sit
down
and
go
over
the
math
because
that's
not
5
the
way
the
math
looks
for
us.

6
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
It
would
be
helpful
if
you
7
could
get
together.

8
Charlie,
I
see
your
hand,
but
what
I'd
like
to
do
9
is
move
onto
the
next
item
because
it's
related.
You
10
won't
let
me
do
that.
Okay.
Well,
you
may
have
a
very
11
short
time
there.

12
MR.
PETERS:
I
very
much
appreciate
your
13
consideration
of
that,
Dr.
Lloyd.

14
I
think
some
consideration
of
whether
or
not
­­

15
just
how
it
is
testing
a
car
on
a
dynamometer
by
itself
16
fixes
cars.
I
don't
think
that's
true.
And
as
a
matter
17
of
fact,
I
think
the
real
performance
is
test
and
repair
18
is
more
than
twice
as
effective
as
test­
only
as
a
system.

19
Based
upon
observations
comparing
test­
only
20
programs
and
test
and
repair
programs
for
campers,
for
21
emissions,
and
all
factors,
whether
or
not
it
passes
in
an
22
off­
cycle
test
later,
the
test
and
repair
is
more
than
23
twice
as
effective
as
test
only.
If,
in
fact,
you
have
to
24
have
test­
only
because
you
have
fraud
and
cheating,
which
25
certainly
might
be
true,
then
an
appropriate
oversight
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
163
1
demanding
improvement
in
performance
can
improve
that
by
a
2
significant
factor.

3
The
Clean
Air
Act
doesn't
require
any
test­
only.

4
Doesn't
require
dynamometers.
The
California
Legislation
5
statutes
up
until
quite
recently
required
no
test­
only.

6
It
required
the
ability
to
test
in
test­
only,
but
didn't
7
require
any
test­
only.
So
this
division
of
the
industry
8
and
abuse
of
the
public
with
multiple
tests
that
are
not
9
necessary
needs
to
be
looked
at
and
evaluated
because
this
10
requirement
for
test­
only
is
not
required
by
the
federal
11
government
or
by
the
statutes
of
the
Legislature
until
12
quite
recently.
I
think
it
needs
some
additional
13
consideration.

14
Thank
you.

15
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Do
you
want
to
respond
now?

16
Any
other
comments?

17
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
I
just
have
a
quick
18
question.
Whether
or
not
there's
any
further
discretion
19
on
the
part
of
the
San
Joaquin
Valley
to
expand
a
program
20
even
further.

21
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
It's
my
22
understanding
they
work
with
BAR
to
identify
all
of
the
23
areas
that
would
fit
the
definition
mainly
because
they
24
grew
and
got
­­
there's
a
threshold
of
population
minimum
25
for
doing
enhanced.
And
they
found
all
those
areas
that
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
164
1
have
grown
since
the
last
census
included
them.
And
then
2
they
included
a
bunch
of
other
areas
that
were
adjacent.

3
So
that
you
­­
instead
of
having
these
little
pockets
of
4
areas,
they
kind
of
made
a
smooth
curve
around
it,
around
5
the
urban
areas
and
included
all
those
areas
in
the
6
enhanced,
except
some
of
those
areas
are
not
allowed
by
7
state
law
to
have
the
test­
only
feature.

8
I
think
it's
been
expanded
roughly
as
far
as
it
9
can
go
under
the
current
structure.

10
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
Okay.

11
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.
Any
other
12
comments?
Since
it's
not
a
regulatory
item,
it's
not
13
necessary
to
officially
close
the
record.

14
So
with
that,
we
move
on
to
the
next
item,
the
15
time
to
change
staff.
The
next
item
03­
3­
3,
report
and
16
findings
on
the
effect
of
exempting
additional
vehicles
17
from
the
smog
check
program,
highly
related
to
the
last
18
discussion.
And
this
is
an
item
where
we
would
also
be
19
taking
testimony.

20
During
the
last
item
we
talked
about
the
21
contribution
of
in­
use
vehicles
to
California's
air
22
quality
problem
and
the
general
role
of
smog
check
23
inspections.
Now
we're
going
to
turn
to
a
specific
aspect
24
of
the
smog
check
program
itself,
namely
the
exception
for
25
new
vehicles
and
whether
that
can
be
expanded
without
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
165
1
causing
us
to
move
backward
in
our
emission
control
2
efforts.

3
AB
2637
provides
that
new
motor
vehicles
shall
be
4
exempted
from
smog
check
inspections
for
six
years,

5
instead
of
the
current
four
years,
unless
this
Board
finds
6
such
an
exemption
would
prevent
California
from
complying
7
with
the
Federal
Clean
Air
Act
or
meeting
our
state
plan
8
commitments.
So
you
can
see
there's
a
significant
9
obligation
here.

10
So
Ms.
Witherspoon,
please
introduce
the
item
and
11
begin
staff's
presentation.

12
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
Thank
you,

13
Chairman
Lloyd
and
members
of
the
Board.

14
Last
year
AB
2637
by
then
Assemblyman
Dennis
15
Cardoza
was
signed
into
law
establishing
the
enhanced
smog
16
check
program
in
the
San
Francisco
Bay
Area.
That
program
17
is
in
the
process
of
being
implemented
right
now
by
the
18
Bureau
of
Automotive
Repair
with
enhanced
inspections
due
19
to
begin
in
July
of
this
year.

20
As
AB
2637
was
being
debated
in
the
state
21
Legislature,
the
question
came
up
could
the
state­
wide
22
smog
check
program
be
modified
to
reduce
the
burdens
on
23
all
motorists.
Lots
of
alternatives
were
discussed
during
24
that
process,
and
the
Legislature
eventually
settled
on
25
the
concept
of
expanding
the
new
car
exemption
for
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
166
1
everyone
but
with
one
important
caveat.
They
asked
the
2
Air
Resources
Board
to
determine
whether
that
change
would
3
prohibit
California
from
complying
with
federal
law
or
4
from
meeting
our
state
implementation
plan
commitments.

5
If
the
Board
makes
this
determination,
then
6
AB
2637
specifies
that
the
increased
exemption
will
not
7
occur.

8
I'm
going
to
steal
staff's
thunder
and
tell
you
9
the
bottom
line.
Exempting
five­
and
six­
year­
old
cars
10
would
prohibit
California
from
meeting
its
SIP
commitments
11
and
is,
therefore,
not
recommended
at
this
time
for
12
enhanced
smog
check
areas.
However,
that
change
could
be
13
implemented
in
basic
rather
than
enhanced
smog
check
areas
14
without
creating
a
SIP
difficulty.

15
The
Legislature
is
continuing
to
inquire
whether
16
changes
to
the
overall
smog
check
program
are
warranted,

17
and
we
are
continuing
to
evaluate
any
and
all
such
18
proposals.
On
July
1st,
ARB
and
the
Bureau
of
Automotive
19
Repair
will
be
submitting
a
major
joint
report
to
the
20
Legislature
on
the
status
and
effectiveness
of
the
current
21
smog
check
program.
In
that
report
we
will
also
be
making
22
various
recommendations
for
program
improvements.
So
the
23
dialogue
will
continue
beyond
your
deliberations
here
24
today.

25
But
at
this
juncture,
we're
here
for
just
one
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
167
1
narrow
purpose,
to
present
our
analysis
on
the
effect
of
2
exempting
five­
and
six­
year­
old
cars
from
smog
check
3
inspections.
At
the
request
of
the
Chairman,
a
4
representative
from
the
Bureau
of
Automotive
Repair
has
5
joined
us
today
to
answer
any
questions
you
may
have.

6
David
Amlin,
the
engineering
chief
for
BAR,
is
present
and
7
will
be
available
to
answer
questions
following
staff's
8
presentation.

9
CHAIRMAN
LLOYD:
Has
the
Legislature
been
waiting
10
for
this
report?

11
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
This
report?
The
12
law
requires
that
you
make
a
determination.
Otherwise,

13
the
exemption
would
take
effect
January
1st
of
next
year.

14
Staff's
presentation
will
be
made
by
Tony
15
Dickerson
of
the
Mobile
Source
Operations
Division.

16
FIELD
INSPECTION/
TESTING
SECTION
ENGINEER
17
DICKERSON:
Thank
you,
Catherine.

18
Good
afternoon,
Dr.
Lloyd
and
members
of
the
19
Board.

20
This
afternoon
I'm
presenting
for
your
21
consideration
the
results
of
an
analysis
on
the
emissions
22
impact
of
removing
five­
and
six­
year­
old
vehicles
from
23
the
state
smog
check
program.
This
analysis
was
performed
24
in
response
to
recent
Legislation
with
state­
wide
smog
25
check
implications.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
168
1
(
Thereupon
an
overhead
presentation
was
2
presented
as
follows.)

3
FIELD
INSPECTION/
TESTING
SECTION
ENGINEER
4
DICKERSON:
Assembly
2637
was
signed
in
law
in
September
5
2002
providing
for
the
establishment
of
enhanced
smog
6
check
program
in
the
urbanized
area
of
San
Francisco
Bay
7
Area
­­
excuse
me
­­
San
Francisco
Bay
Area
basin.
The
8
areas
affected
will
be
the
counties
of
Alameda,
Contra
9
Costa,
Marin,
Napa,
San
Francisco,
San
Mateo,
Santa
Clara,

10
and
portions
of
Solano
and
Sonoma
Counties.
These
areas
11
are
indicated
in
orange
on
the
map.
The
enhanced
smog
12
check
program
is
to
be
implemented
by
January
2004.

13
­­
o0o­­

14
FIELD
INSPECTION/
TESTING
SECTION
ENGINEER
15
DICKERSON:
Another
portion
of
AB
2637
has
state­
wide
16
impact
on
smog
check,
specifically
the
bill
increased
the
17
existing
smog
check
exemption
for
new
vehicles
from
four
18
to
six
years
after
purchase.
The
additional
two­
year
19
exemption
from
the
biannual
smog
check
program
was
20
included
in
the
law
with
the
intent
to
decrease
program
21
cost
and
improve
efficiency
and
was
based
on
a
preliminary
22
emissions
analysis
which
indicated
that
the
reduction
in
23
smog
check
emissions
benefits
might
not
be
significant.

24
­­
o0o­­

25
FIELD
INSPECTION/
TESTING
SECTION
ENGINEER
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
169
1
DICKERSON:
The
increased
exemptions
are
to
be
effective
2
in
all
basic
and
enhanced
smog
check
areas
beginning
3
January
1,
2004,
unless
the
ARB
finds
that
exempting
the
4
additional
vehicles
would
prohibit
the
state
from
meeting
5
the
requirements
of
the
Federal
Clean
Air
Act
or
the
state
6
implementation
plan.

7
A
detailed
analysis
of
the
emissions
impact
of
8
extending
the
new
vehicle
emissions
from
four
to
six
years
9
has
been
performed.
The
purpose
of
the
staff
report
and
10
this
presentation
is
to
provide
the
Board
with
the
results
11
of
this
analysis
and
staff's
recommendation
regarding
the
12
finding
called
for
in
legislation.

13
­­
o0o­­

14
FIELD
INSPECTION/
TESTING
SECTION
ENGINEER
15
DICKERSON:
Staff
used
the
latest
data
available
to
assess
16
the
emissions
impact
of
additional
vehicle
exemptions.
In
17
some
cases
multiple
data
sets
were
used
to
verify
limited
18
California
data,
including
those
from
other
states.
Also
19
staff
decided
to
try
to
identify
alternative
exemptions
20
should
the
evaluation
indicate
significant
adverse
21
emission
impacts.

22
­­
o0o­­

23
FIELD
INSPECTION/
TESTING
SECTION
ENGINEER
24
DICKERSON:
This
slide
summarizes
the
different
sources
of
25
data
we
analyzed.
For
example,
the
Bureau
of
Automotive
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
170
1
Repair
has
performed
enhanced
smog
checks
on
randomly
2
selected
vehicles
at
the
roadside.
Data
on
the
frequency
3
of
OBD
II
check
engine
lights
that
were
illuminated
has
4
been
collected
in
California
and
during
emission
5
inspections
performed
in
Wisconsin
and
Arizona.

6
Testing
in
our
El
Monte
laboratory
allowed
us
to
7
convert
the
smog
check
data
to
on­
road
emissions.
Testing
8
before
and
after
repairs
done
at
U.
C.
Riverside
allowed
us
9
to
determine
per­
vehicle
emission
reductions
that
can
be
10
lost
due
to
exemptions.
Computer
models
such
as
NVAC
11
allow
us
to
calculate
emissions
in
tons
per
day.

12
­­
o0o­­

13
FIELD
INSPECTION/
TESTING
SECTION
ENGINEER
14
DICKERSON:
This
chart
illustrates
one
of
the
findings
of
15
our
evaluation.
Shown
is
the
smog
check
failure
rate
of
16
vehicles
by
age
based
on
OBD
II
failures.
It
is
clear
17
that
by
age
four,
the
age
that
most
vehicles
will
receive
18
their
first
smog
check,
the
failure
rate
has
begun
to
19
increase.
This
is
also
the
age
when
the
emission
warranty
20
for
most
parts
expire.
By
age
six
the
failure
rate
is
21
five
times
higher
than
it
was
at
age
three.

22
­­
o0o­­

23
FIELD
INSPECTION/
TESTING
SECTION
ENGINEER
24
DICKERSON:
The
results
of
the
analysis
indicated
that
25
extending
the
new
vehicle
exemption
for
an
additional
one
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
171
1
to
two
more
years
is
projected
to
significantly
increase
2
vehicle
emission
in
enhanced
smog
check
area.

3
As
shown
in
this
chart,
exempting
both
five­
and
4
six­
year­
old
vehicles
will
increase
emissions
by
about
5
four
tons
per
day
of
ROG
and
NOx
in
2005.
Exempting
only
6
five­
year­
old
vehicles
would
increase
2005
calendar
year
7
emissions
by
nearly
two
tons
per
day
in
enhanced
areas.

8
The
projected
emission
increases
are
lower
in
2010
due
9
to
lower
baseline
emissions
levels.
However,
a
five­
or
10
six­
year
exemption
is
still
estimated
to
increase
11
ozone­
forming
emissions
by
one­
to
two­
and­
a­
half
tons
per
12
day
respectively.

13
­­
o0o­­

14
FIELD
INSPECTION/
TESTING
SECTION
ENGINEER
15
DICKERSON:
In
November
1994
California
submitted
to
the
16
U.
S.
EPA
a
comprehensive
SIP
detailing
how
San
Diego
17
County,
San
Joaquin
Valley,
Ventura
County,
the
Sacramento
18
region,
the
southeast
desert,
and
the
South
Coast
areas
19
would
attain
the
one­
hour
federal
ozone
standard
by
a
20
statutory
deadline.

21
Enhanced
smog
check
was
included
in
the
SIP
for
22
each
area
and
contributed
emission
reductions
needed
for
23
attainment.
In
fact,
in
the
South
Coast,
enhanced
smog
24
check
provided
about
one­
fourth
of
the
emission
reductions
25
needed.
Smog
check
will
also
be
very
important
in
helping
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
172
1
the
state
attain
the
new
more
stringent
federal
eight­
hour
2
standard.
In
addition
to
being
a
key
strategy
for
3
attaining
the
one­
hour
ozone
standard,
smog
check
is
a
4
critical
element
in
the
South
Coast,
San
Joaquin
Valley
PM
5
10
attainment
plans.

6
­­
o0o­­

7
FIELD
INSPECTION/
TESTING
SECTION
ENGINEER
8
DICKERSON:
In
July
2000
ARB
and
BAR
released
a
report
9
that
concluded
enhanced
smog
check
was
achieving
emission
10
reductions,
but
the
reductions
fall
short
of
meeting
ARB
11
SIP
commitment.
In
August
2000
ARB
and
BAR
committed
to
12
implement
additional
smog
check
improvement
to
remedy
the
13
short
fall.
Most,
but
not
all
of
these
improvements,
have
14
been
fully
implemented.
This
illustrates
the
difficulty
15
of
achieving
the
full
benefits
of
the
enhanced
smog
check
16
program.
Lost
emission
reductions
through
program
17
relaxations
would
make
this
an
even
more
difficult
task.

18
­­
o0o­­

19
FIELD
INSPECTION/
TESTING
SECTION
ENGINEER
20
DICKERSON:
In
bringing
SIP
implications
more
into
focus,

21
I'll
outline
the
implications
of
a
five­
and
six­
year
22
exemption
separately
for
areas
of
California
in
fall
under
23
the
enhanced
program
and
the
basic
program.

24
Enhanced
smog
check
has
been
implemented
under
25
SIP
commitments
that
areas
that
currently
do
not
meet
air
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
173
1
quality
standards.
As
mentioned
previously,
additional
2
emission
reductions
are
needed
in
these
areas
from
smog
3
check
and
other
programs
in
order
to
insure
that
4
California
will
meet
its
air
quality
objectives.

5
Therefore,
staff
believes
the
emission
reductions
6
lost
from
the
exception
of
five­
or
six­
year­
old
vehicle
7
would
jeopardize
SIP
commitments.
And
basic
smog
check
8
areas
which
in
general
have
a
lesser
air
pollution
9
problem,
the
emission
increase
due
to
additional
10
exemptions
are
not
large
enough
to
jeopardize
existing
SIP
11
commitments.
Therefore,
the
staff
believes
a
fleet­
wide
12
exemption
for
new
motor
vehicles
beyond
current
four
years
13
would
not
prohibit
the
state
for
meeting
California's
14
commitment
with
respected
to
the
SIP
in
basic
areas.

15
­­
o0o­­

16
FIELD
INSPECTION/
TESTING
SECTION
ENGINEER
17
DICKERSON:
In
order
to
put
staff's
recommendation
to
18
perspective,
this
map
of
California
identifies
the
three
19
smog
check
program
types.
Also
included
is
a
breakdown
by
20
percentage
of
vehicles
in
the
state
smog
check
program.

21
The
enhanced
program
areas
are
shown
here
in
orange.

22
85
percent
of
the
total
state
fleet
is
concentrated
in
23
these
areas.

24
The
program
basic
program
areas
shown
here
in
25
dark
blue
comprise
only
12
percent
of
the
state's
total
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
174
1
fleet.
Lastly,
the
change
of
ownership
areas
are
shown
in
2
light
blue
with
only
3
percent
of
the
state's
population.

3
­­
o0o­­

4
FIELD
INSPECTION/
TESTING
SECTION
ENGINEER
5
DICKERSON:
In
summary,
staff
has
reviewed
the
6
requirements
AB
2637
and
has
investigated
the
emission
7
impact
of
increasing
the
smog
check
exemption
to
either
8
five
or
six
years
for
new
motor
vehicles.

9
The
analysis
shows
that
a
significant
adverse
10
emissions
impact
would
result
in
enhanced
smog
check
areas
11
from
such
a
change.
Therefore,
the
staff
proposes
that
12
the
Board
approve
its
report
and
find
that
a
fleet­
wide
13
exemption
for
new
motor
vehicles
beyond
the
current
four
14
years
would
prohibit
the
state
from
meeting
California
SIP
15
commitments
in
enhanced
smog
check
areas.
This
means
that
16
the
exemptions
would
not
occur
in
enhanced
areas.

17
In
basic
smog
check
areas,
the
staff
recommends
18
the
Board
find
that
five­
and
six­
year
exemptions
would
19
not
prohibit
the
state
from
meeting
California
SIP
20
commitments,
clearing
the
way
for
exemptions
to
be
21
implemented.

22
The
ARB
staff
in
cooperation
with
BAR
will
23
continue
to
study
targeted
new
vehicle
exemption
options
24
for
enhanced
areas
that
offer
promise
to
decrease
smog
25
check
testing
costs
while
preserving
the
emission
benefits
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
175
1
of
the
program.

2
On
the
next
few
slides
I'll
give
you
a
preview
of
3
the
alternatives
staff
is
investigating.

4
­­
o0o­­

5
FIELD
INSPECTION/
TESTING
SECTION
ENGINEER
6
DICKERSON:
In
evaluating
other
possible
exemptions,
staff
7
is
seeking
to
improve
the
cost
effectiveness
of
smog
check
8
by
exempting
vehicles
or
vehicle
classes
that
have
a
high
9
likelihood
of
passing
a
smog
check
inspection.
This
would
10
reduce
consumer
cost
and
inconvenience.
It
will
also
11
minimize
any
lost
emission
reductions.
We
are
currently
12
evaluating
three
different
ways
of
exempting
additional
13
vehicles.

14
­­
o0o­­

15
FIELD
INSPECTION/
TESTING
SECTION
ENGINEER
16
DICKERSON:
The
first
is
to
exempt
all
PZEVs.
Because
17
PZEVs
have
a
150,000­
mile
warranty,
we
expect
most
owners
18
will
seek
out
repairs
whenever
the
check
engine
light
come
19
on.

20
The
second
approach
involves
using
remote
censors
21
at
the
roadside
to
identify
vehicles
which
repeatedly
22
demonstrate
very
low
emissions.

23
Finally,
BAR
is
evaluating
whether
there
are
24
groups
of
vehicles,
such
as
a
specific
model,
which
rarely
25
fail
smog
check
and,
therefore,
could
be
exempted.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
176
1
We
will
inform
you
if
any
of
these
approaches
2
proves
itself
a
viable
way
to
exempt
more
vehicles
from
3
the
smog
check.

4
Thank
you.

5
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much.

6
Questions.
Ms.
D'Adamo.

7
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
Yes.
The
slide
that
you
8
provided
results
­­
lost
emission
benefits
and
enhanced
9
smog
check
areas.
Do
you
have
a
similar
chart
for
the
10
basic
areas?
Or
regardless
of
whether
or
not
you
have
a
11
chart,
do
you
have
that
information
on
the
basic
areas?

12
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
In
the
13
chart
here
it
showed
the
basic
areas
being
12
percent
of
14
the
cars
in
the
state
and
85,
not
90
I
said
before,
were
15
in
the
enhanced.
Another
3
percent
that
were
only
subject
16
to
change
of
ownership
inspections.
So
I
guess
you
could
17
use
that
ratio
roughly
to
figure
out
what
the
tons
would
18
be.
I
guess
it
would
be
12/
85th
times
these
numbers.

19
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
The
concern
that
I
have
­­

20
and
this
relates
to
our
earlier
conversations.
I
suppose
21
in
certain
areas
of
the
state
that
are
almost
entirely
in
22
basic
areas
it's
not
going
to
make
that
big
of
a
23
difference.
But
in
areas
such
as
the
Valley
­­
and
I
24
don't
know
about
South
Coast.
I
imagine
there's
probably
25
not
much
of
anything
in
South
Coast
that's
in
basic.
So
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
177
1
just
for
purposes
of
discussion
here,
looking
at
the
2
Valley,
I
imagine
there's
a
fair
portion
of
the
rural
3
areas
that
would
still
be
considered
basic.
And
4
especially
if
the
Valley
gets
bumped
up
to
extreme,
I
5
would
think,
you
know,
anything
that
could
come
out
of
6
that
black
box
would
make
a
difference
in
terms
of
meeting
7
the
state's
air
quality
standards.

8
So
I'm
just
wondering
if
the
staff
considered
not
9
allowing
the
exemption
to
occur
in
certain
areas
­­

10
certain
non­
attainment
areas
extreme,
severe.

11
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
We
had
the
same
12
concern
you
did
about
whether
­­
in
the
Valley
in
13
particular
if
you
look
in
the
map
and
see
how
much
basic
14
and
enhanced
coexist
side
by
side
whether
we'd
be
eroding
15
progress.
But
the
standard
that
the
Cardoza
Bill
gave
us
16
was
very
narrow.
It
said
we
had
to
find
it
was
going
to
17
directly
violate
a
SIP
commitment
or
interfere
with
18
conformity.
And
by
that
standard
we
could
not
reach
the
19
finding
that
it
would
necessarily
undercut
what
we
were
20
legally
committed
to
do
because
we
had
established
one
SIP
21
finding
for
basic
areas
and
a
separate
one
for
enhanced
22
originally.

23
So
where
we're
deficient
in
enhanced
areas
­­
and
24
certainly
some
vehicles
will
traverse
back
and
forth
­­
we
25
couldn't
pin
that
down
sufficiently
to
say
it
had
risen
to
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
178
1
the
level
of
the
standard
of
the
Cardoza
Bill
that
we
2
could
tell
you
to
make
this
finding
and
stop
the
exemption
3
from
going
into
effect.
But
we
did
weigh
that.

4
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
Even
in
the
event
the
5
Valley
goes
extreme?
We're
looking
at
Title
5,
for
6
example,
remote
areas
of
the
Valley
where
farmers
are
7
going
to
be
required
to
get
their
diesel
irrigation
pumps
8
either
permitted
or
replaced
and
in
remote
areas
of
the
9
state.
So
just
­­
I
realize
this
bill
had
nothing
to
do
10
with
Title
5,
but
just
drawing
a
comparison
I
think
that
11
especially
in
an
area
­­
maybe
Ms.
Walsh
can
answer
this.

12
But
is
the
language
so
restrictive
that
it
wouldn't
allow
13
for
some
additional
consideration
if
the
Valley
were
to
go
14
extreme
and
have
the
black
box
situation?

15
SENIOR
STAFF
COUNSEL
JENNE:
I
think
the
issue
is
16
whether
we
can
make
a
finding
that
would
prohibit
the
17
state
from
meeting
its
SIP
commitments.
And
the
bottom
18
line
I
think
when
staff
looked
at
the
numbers,
it
just
19
looked
like
the
numbers
were
very,
very
small.
And
we
20
couldn't
make
that
legal
finding
that
they
were
big
enough
21
to
prohibit
the
state
from
meeting
SIP.
I
think
in
the
22
Valley
when
you
go
to
extreme
that
the
number
is
still
23
very
small,
and
it's
probably
not
enough
to
reach
that
24
legal
standard.

25
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
And
the
standard
actually
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
179
1
requires
­­
it's
tied
to
SIP
commitments?

2
SENIOR
STAFF
COUNSEL
JENNE:
It
says
"
prohibit
3
the
state
from
meeting
their
requirements
of
the
state's
4
commitments
with
respect
to
the
state
implementation
plan.

5
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
D.
D.,
the
other
6
factor
­­
excuse
me
­­
Ms.
D'Adamo
is
the
existing
legally
7
enforceable
SIP.
So
it's
the
1994
SIP
in
the
San
Joaquin
8
Valley's
case,
not
the
one
that's
under
preparation
now,

9
or
would
be
required
under
extreme
designation.

10
I
suppose
could
you
construct
a
conflict
by
11
setting
up
the
SIP
to
depend
on
those
emission
reductions.

12
And
later
we
could
revisit
this
and
make
a
finding
under
a
13
new
SIP.
But
under
the
one
we
have
on
the
books,
we
14
didn't
think
we
could
reach
the
result.

15
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
Would
the
district
have
16
the
option
as
they
reevaluate
­­
as
they
evaluate
the
SIP
17
measures
to
include
that
as
a
measure
that
they
would
like
18
to
have?

19
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
I
think
we
can.

20
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
Just
looking
for
any
way
I
21
can
to
have
there
be
another
inequity
argument
that
we
can
22
bring
back
to
the
Board
later.

23
SUPERVISOR
DeSAULNIER:
I'm
prepared
to
ask
24
Senator
Burton
to
write
a
bill
so
you
don't
have
to
have
25
enhanced
areas
at
all
in
the
valley.
We
keep
giving
and
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
180
1
giving.

2
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
thought
we
should
use
3
staff's
creativity
and
have
a
partially­
enhanced
area,
the
4
transition.
I
think
it's
a
good
point.

5
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
Right.
I
guess
I'm
a
bit
6
more
sympathetic
to
the
test­
only
situation.
But
basic
7
doesn't
require
that
anyways.
So,
Mr.
Cackette,
what
you
8
had
mentioned
earlier
about
someone
in
a
remote
area
9
having
to
drive
in
to
go
to
a
test­
only
station,
that
10
wouldn't
apply.
These
people
are
­­

11
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
To
go
12
to
an
enhanced
station
which
means
one
with
a
dyamometer.

13
It
would
be
test
and
repair.
But
even
in
those
areas,
you
14
know,
there
may
not
be
enough
business
to
support
a
15
$
50,000
dyamometer
purchase.
Not
test­
only,
but
enhanced
16
with
the
dyamometer.

17
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
But
in
the
rural
areas
18
they're
required
already.
This
would
be
an
exemption
with
19
regard
to
the
newer
vehicles
under
a
basic.

20
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
Yes.

21
That's
correct.

22
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
The
other
area
where
it
could
23
be
helpful
­­
and
this
context
is
getting
back
some
of
the
24
later
comments
from
staff.
If
you're
able
to
work
the
25
district
to
identify
makes
and
models
which
basically
are
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
181
1
more
reliable
more
vital
for
that
period
of
time,
get
some
2
preferred
options
there.

3
Mr.
­­
Supervisor
DeSaulnier
and
Mr.
McKinnon.

4
SUPERVISOR
DeSAULNIER:
Matt
says
he
wants
the
5
last
word
this
time.

6
As
I
read
this,
I
don't
know
whether
to
ask
staff
7
from
the
author's
office
or
our
staff.
It
doesn't
seem
if
8
as
if
we
have
any
legal
discretion,
or
very
little.

9
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
With
respect
to
10
enhanced
areas,
you
mean?
I
think
that's
correct.

11
SUPERVISOR
DeSAULNIER:
Just
in
terms
of
12
philosophically,
what
the
last
speaker
on
the
last
item
13
said
­­
I've
heard
this
from
other
people
Dennis
Dakota
14
amongst
them.
In
an
area
like
the
Bay
Area
that
15
generally,
as
I
understand
it,
for
a
metropolitan
area
has
16
a
relatively
new
fleet,
just
the
issue
of
we
bring
the
17
tested­
only
stations
on
and
the
amount
of
demand
is
going
18
to
decrease.
So
you've
got
these
people
putting
out
a
19
large
capital
investment
considering
the
size
of
their
20
business
and
the
demand
may
not
be
there,
which
would
be
a
21
good
thing
for
air
quality.

22
Could
you
respond
to
that?
Or
is
that
something
23
you
can
look
at
in
terms
of
the
ongoing
look
at
how
we
can
24
improve
smog
check.

25
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
I
would
say
there
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
182
1
is
a
tension
between
trying
to
minimize
burdens
on
2
motorists
and
also
trying
to
preserve
market
share
and
3
business
opportunities
for
the
stations
that
have
been
4
invested
in
equipment
and
wish
to
provide
these
services.

5
That,
you
know,
to
the
extent
more
vehicles
are
exempt
now
6
by
any
means,
whether
because
there
PZEV,
because
they're
7
super
clean
models,
because
they've
passed
clean
screen
8
remote
censors,
that
will
reduce
business
to
­­
whether
9
it's
test­
only
or
test
and
repair.
And
the
competing
10
public
policy
goal
is
why
send
someone
to
a
test
that
11
doesn't
have
a
dirty
vehicle
that
needs
to
be
repaired?

12
And
so
the
cost
effectiveness
­­
even
if
keeping
13
these
vehicles
in
is
at
the
high
side
of
45,000
a
ton,

14
something
to
that
effect,
so
the
I&
M
Committee
when
they
15
looked
at
it
they
supported
our
determination
but
said
we
16
really
need
to
keep
working
on
this
problem
because
we're
17
wasting
dollars.
Now,
granted,
those
are
dollars
we're
18
not
viewed
as
wasted
by
the
industry
that's
invested
in
19
dynos
and
trying
to
recoup
its
investment.
But
in
terms
20
of
dollars
spent
to
reduces
pollution,
it's
wasted
in
21
another
sense
if
there
is
no
pollution
there
to
be
22
addressed.

23
So
finding
that
balance
point
and
not
24
undercutting
the
companys
that
are
our
partners
this
in
25
this
effort
is
very
challenging
task
and
it
has
been
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
183
1
challenging
ever
since
smog
check
began.

2
SUPERVISOR
DeSAULNIER:
I'm
fine
with
this
item,

3
Mr.
Chairman.
But
I
do
think
as
staff
reviews
it,
it
4
seems
this
tension
will
most
likely
get
worse.
And
with
5
the
risk
of
agreeing
with
Charlie,
then
you
get
into
the
6
issue
as
this
business
operation
becomes
more
difficult
to
7
be
profitable,
it
seems
that
you
might
have
further
8
problems
with
fraud,
with
people
trying
to
create
an
9
underground
business.

10
So
when
we
look
at
this,
it'd
just
be
nice
if
11
staff
would
report
on
that
and
try
to
figure
out
as
well
12
as
you
can
without
­­
just
generally
quantify
if
this
is
13
an
issue,
if
the
issue's
growing,
if
there's
a
way
to
stop
14
it
or
prohibit
it.

15
Thank
you.

16
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
think
Mr.
McKinnon
had
a
17
comment.

18
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Yeah.
I'm
very
19
comfortable
with
the
resolution.
I
also
­­
I
think
as
20
warranties
get
better
and
better
and
as
the
cars
get
more
21
and
more
reliable,
I
think
that
it
should
be
a
benefit
to
22
the
person
that's
purchasing
a
car
that
they've
paid
more
23
for
emission
controls
that
are
warranted
for
longer
and
24
long
they
should
receive
some
of
the
benefit
of
that
of
25
going
less
often.
And
I
think
eventually
we
have
to
as
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
184
1
the
cleaner
and
cleaner
cars
with
the
longer
warranties
2
come
into
effect,
we
have
to
get
good
at
figuring
out
3
which
cars
fit
that
category
and
how
reliable
it
is.
But
4
it
should
be
a
benefit
of
buying
one
of
those
cars
is
that
5
you
go
less
often,
I
think.

6
Now,
as
long­
time
advocate
for
defense
workers,

7
when
your
market
is
developed
by
government,
you
are
8
subject
to
government
changing
and
deciding
that
you
have
9
less
of
a
market.
And
you're
also
subject
to
things
that
10
happen.
And
I
think
we
were
just
talking
about
the
11
tensions.
You
know,
we
all
know
we
need
to
deal
with
12
older
cars.
We
know
that.
And
then
there's
sort
of
13
another
subject
that
enters
in
this
area,
and
that
is
that
14
rule
changes
don't
contemplate
what
it
costs
to
do
the
15
change.
And
sometimes
it's
the
dyno
in
that
example,
and
16
sometimes
it's
rule
changes
that
require
training
at
a
17
frequency
that
is
almost
unfair
to
the
people
that
do
the
18
work.

19
And
I
don't
­­
I'm
not
on
BAR's
Board.
I
20
don't
­­
but
I
often
talk
to
mechanics
who
have
difficulty
21
with
frequent
rule
changes
having
to
take
courses,
course
22
availability
being
a
problem,
and
certification
being
a
23
problem
in
such
a
frequent
time
frame.
And
I
think,
you
24
know,
there
are
places
where
we
could
be
better
and
fairer
25
as
government.
I
mean,
it
may
not
be
this
agency.
It
may
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
185
1
be
BAR.
But
we
could
be
a
little
more
consider
at
of
how
2
often
we
change
to
give
people
time
to
adjust
to
the
3
changes.

4
But
I
don't
buy
that
when
you
create
a
regulated
5
market
that
you
have
a
duty
to
protect
that
market
if
the
6
technology
gets
to
the
point
where
the
cars
are
cleaner
7
for
longer.
I'm
comfortable
with
this
decision
where
8
there's
evidence
that
the
cars
get
dirty
at
four
years.

9
But
if
we
get
to
the
point
where
cars
don't
get
dirty
for
10
ten
years,
we
need
to
look
at
that,
and
we
need
to
be
fair
11
to
the
people
that
purchase
the
cars
that
stay
in
good
12
shape
for
ten
years.

13
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.

14
Professor
Friedman.

15
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Would
you
correct
me
16
if
I'm
wrong.
My
understanding
is
that
the
Legislature,

17
not
us,
has
imposed
this
smog
check
regime
and
made
the
18
distinctions
between
test
and
­­
test­
only
and
test
and
19
repair.
I'm
sure
­­
or
I
assume
we
had
­­
we
or
our
20
predecessors
have
some
input
on
that.
We
can
either
21
voluntarily
testify
or
be
asked
and
called
upon
for
our
22
views.

23
But
I'm
not
sure
that
it
is
our
ultimate
decision
24
or
responsibility,
and
I
don't
believe
it
is,
to
decide
25
what
gets
exempt
­­
other
than
being
referred
this
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
186
1
specific
issue
to
extend
the
exception
for
two
years.

2
Actually,
we're
just
making
a
finding.
But
beyond
that,

3
it's
the
Bureau
of
Automotive
Repair.
That's
in
a
4
different
agency.
And
it's
the
Legislature.
And
I'm
­­

5
while
I
certainly
that
­­
I
really
like,
Matt,
your
6
putting
the
context
on
this
in
terms
of
what
the
test
and
7
repair
people
are
facing
potentially.
I'm
­­
other
than
8
just
being
sympathetic,
I'm
not
sure
we're
the
right
forum
9
for
any
kind
of
action
or
decision
other
than
what
we
have
10
before
us.
And
I'm
comfortable
with
the
recommendation.

11
GENERAL
COUNSEL
WALSH:
I
think
that's
an
12
accurate
description
of
the
situation
that
states
law
does
13
largely
draw
the
design
of
the
system
we
are
looking
at.

14
As
Supervisor
DeSaulnier
indicated
earlier,
it's
15
accurate
that
this
is
not
a
discretionary
decision
in
the
16
way
that
most
of
the
decisions
that
come
before
you
are.

17
This
is
making
a
factual
finding,
and
that
finding
will
18
trigger
a
specific
requirement
that's
already
in
state
19
law.

20
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Supervisor
Patrick.

21
SUPERVISOR
PATRICK:
Thank
you,
Mr.
Chairman.

22
Professor
Friedman's
comments,
notwithstanding,
I
23
think
it's
important
that
we
go
back
to
Board
Member
24
D'Adamo's
point.
As
someone
who's
from
the
Valley
and
25
recognizes,
as
all
of
us
in
this
room
do,
the
Valley's
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
187
1
challenges,
it
concerns
me
that
our
basic
areas
will
2
get
­­
they're
already
basic
as
opposed
to
enhanced.
And
3
now
they're
going
to
get
an
additional
two
years.
And
our
4
charts
show
us
that
at
year
four
the
emissions
start
5
rising.
So
I
think
your
point
is
very
well
taken.
And
I
6
think
that
that's
something
that
we
have
to
be
concerned
7
about.

8
Now,
perhaps,
it's
not
something
that
we
have,

9
you
know
­­
under
this
piece
of
legislation
that
we
have
10
the
ability
to
do
anything
about.
But
I
think
that
we
11
would
be
remiss
if
not
at
least
acknowledging
that
in
the
12
Valley
we're
going
to
need
all
the
help
that
we
can
get.

13
And
to
give
them
a
pass
on
advance
versus
basic,
I
think,

14
makes
a
lot
of
sense.
Because
they're
in
small
15
communities
and,
you
know,
perhaps
it's
an
inconvenience.

16
Perhaps
if
we
want
to
make
sure
that
the
folks
that
are
17
providing
these
tests
in
small
communities,
you
know,
that
18
they
can
stay
in
their
community
and
do
this.

19
So
I'm
completely
comfortable
with
that.
But
20
then
to
give
them
an
additional
two
years
I
don't
think
21
makes
a
whole
lot
of
sense.
I
don't
know
how
you
go
about
22
acknowledging
that,
but
I
do
think
it's
something
that
in
23
the
Valley
that
we
have
to
be
concerned
about,
perhaps
24
some
other
areas
as
well.

25
But
I
appreciate
you
bringing
it
up
and
you
beat
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
188
1
me
to
the
punch.
Thank
you.

2
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.

3
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
We've
been
having
4
a
furious
discussion
between
all
four
deputies
­­

5
SUPERVISOR
PATRICK:
I
noticed.

6
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
­­
on
this
7
question
and
whether
we
erred,
whether
we
can
construct
a
8
different
theory,
how
we
might
to
get
to
the
result,
which
9
seems
too
obvious
that
the
basic
portions
of
the
San
10
Joaquin
Valley,
because
they
are
in
an
attainment
area
11
somehow
be
included.

12
So
what
I
think
I
would
like
to
recommend
at
this
13
point
is
that
staff
go
back
and
take
another
look
at
the
14
Valley
specifically
and
see
if
we
want
to
make
a
different
15
finding
about
them.

16
We
have
time.
This
law
does
not
take
effect
17
until
January
1st
of
2004,
though
we'd
certainly
need
to
18
decide
relatively
soon
so
BAR
and
the
Department
of
Motor
19
Vehicles
can
take
the
appropriate
steps
to
implement
or
20
not
implement
this
exemption.
But
there's
enough
dialog
21
going
on
between
the
four
of
us
that
we
want
to
put
our
22
best
brains
to
it
and
see
if
we
can't
reach
a
finding
that
23
the
Valley
should
say
stay
in.
And
our
preliminary
24
conclusion
was
they
can't,
but
we'll
take
one
more
look
at
25
it,
if
that
would
be
amenable
to
Ms.
D'Adamo
and
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
189
1
Supervisor
Patrick.

2
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
I'm
fine
with
that,
or
to
3
adopt
what
we
have
and
bring
that
smaller
piece
back.

4
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
That's
what
I
was
5
suggesting.
Go
ahead
and
make
the
finding
in
general.
If
6
we
need
to
refine
it
for
the
San
Joaquin
Valley,
we'll
7
bring
back
the
refinement
on
just
that
piece.
Because
8
none
of
the
other
basic
areas
are
non­
attainment
for
9
federal
law,
I
don't
think.

10
SENIOR
STAFF
COUNSEL
JENNE:
Ms.
D'Adamo,
the
way
11
the
resolution
is
currently
structured,
the
Board
would
be
12
making
a
finding
today
for
enhanced
areas
and
would
13
essentially
be
declining
to
make
any
finding
right
now
14
about
the
basic
areas.
So
because
the
Board
isn't
making
15
a
finding
in
the
basic
areas,
the
exception
would
into
16
effect.
But
the
Board
­­
we
could
certainly
come
back
17
later
on
about
another
finding
for
just
the
basic
areas
as
18
you
suggested.
And
that
wouldn't
affect
anything
you
19
would
do
today,
which
would
be
just
be
making
the
finding
20
for
the
enhanced
areas.

21
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
I
just
wanted
to
22
clarify
that
too
for
Supervisor
Patrick
and
anybody
else
I
23
might
have
misled.
When
I
said
­­
I
indicated
I
24
understood
we
had
a
limited
role,
it
was
to
make
findings
25
as
referred
by
the
legislation.
And
when
I
said
I
support
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
190
1
the
proposal,
it
did
not
take
action
with
respect
to
the
2
basic
areas
on
our
part,
and
I
didn't
mean
to
preclude
any
3
further
consideration
with
respect
to
magnifying
pollution
4
problems
or
non­
attainment
areas.
So
I
certainly
have
no
5
problem
with
it
coming
back
if
there's
some
way
that
in
6
good
faith
a
finding
can
be
made
with
respect
to
that.

7
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Supervisor
DeSaulnier.

8
SUPERVISOR
DeSAULNIER:
I'd
be
happy
to
make
a
9
motion.
And
if
you
need
you
need
an
amendment
to
the
10
resolution,
D.
D.,
you
can
do
that,
or
if
the
direction
is
11
sufficient
for
you
to
come
back.
But
I'll
move
12
resolution
­­

13
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Supervisor
DeSaulnier,
I
14
appreciate
your
anxiety,
but
we
do
have
three
witnesses
15
signed
up
to
­­

16
SUPERVISOR
DeSAULNIER:
I
thought
we
had
­­

17
sorry,
Charlie.
I
know
you'll
get
back
at
me
some
way.

18
Sorry
Charlie.
What
commercial
did
that
come
from?

19
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
So
indeed,
if
there
are
no
20
more
question
from
the
Board,
we
do
have
three
witnesses
21
signed
up.
Charlie
Peters,
Larry
Armstrong,
and
Chris
22
Ervine.
And
then
we
will
be
ready
for
the
motion.

23
Charlie.

24
MR.
PETERS:
Mr.
DeSaulnier,
Mr.
Chairman,
and
25
Board.
Very
much
appreciate
Mr.
DeSaulnier's
attention,

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
191
1
him
being
a
small
businessman
in
the
Bay
Area
with
2
significant
efforts
against
small
businesses
­­
restaurant
3
businesses
throughout
the
state
of
California
currently
4
with
unfair
business
practice
situations
where
some
5
regulator
might
come
in
to
Dr.
DeSaulnier's
business,
in
6
spite
of
the
fact
of
how
important
and
powerful
he
is,
and
7
put
some
minor
correctional
issue
against
his
business.

8
And
what
can
happen
there
can
get
pretty
interesting,
even
9
in
spite
of
his
power.

10
What
I'm
here
to
talk
to
you
about
today
is
I
11
gave
you
a
packet
of
information
which
includes
­­
and
I'm
12
interested
in
the
policy
issues
­­
includes
a
small
13
businessman
in
Southern
California.
There
was
no
14
opportunity
to
make
corrections.
An
employee
of
his
did
15
something
inappropriate,
which
he
immediately
let
go
16
before
he
found
out
what
had
happened.

17
He
goes
to
his
association,
which
is
the
largest
18
in
the
state
supporting
these
issues,
and
the
attorney
19
says
$
20,000
to
start
and
you
lose.
He
said,
"
Well,
gee,

20
I'm
good
guy."
He
goes
before
the
regulator,
and
they
21
say,
"
You're
out
of
business."

22
That's
an
interesting
place
to
start.
He's
23
currently
today
out
of
business.
He's
40
years
old,
AAA
24
approved
shop,
CAP
approved
shop,
passed
every
test,
every
25
standard
there
is.
Has
never
had
a
citation
in
his
life.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
192
1
Has
had
a
perfect
record
with
AAA.
State
of
California
2
has
him
out
of
business
today.

3
We
are
trying
to
mitigate
that.
He
now
has
an
4
attorney.
He's
now
a
petitioned
this
to
the
Supreme
5
Court.
He's
now
petitioned
this
to
the
Department
of
6
Consumers
Affairs.
We're
hoping
he
gets
back
in
business.

7
We
hope
he
gets
some
additional
consideration.
We
hope
we
8
can
mitigate
this.

9
But
what's
right
behind
that
is
immediately
after
10
that
they
can
take
him
to
the
district
attorney.
The
11
attorney
general's
got
him
now.
Then
the
district
12
attorney
comes
for
him.
And
then
immediately
after
13
that
­­
because
there's
been
some
action
against
him,
we
14
can
have
an
unfair
business
practice
suit
against
him
that
15
can
extract
another
20,000,
$
30,000
from
this
money.

16
Immediately
as
soon
as
that's
done,
the
same
attorney
with
17
the
same
pseudo
consumer
can
make
another
action,
and
18
every
attorney
in
the
state
of
California
can
continue
to
19
take
action
against
this
individual.
And
this
guy
never
20
did
anything
wrong.

21
What
are
we
doing
to
small
business
in
22
California?
What
are
we
doing
to
the
air,
putting
23
somebody
who's
a
professional
that
can
fix
the
problem
out
24
of
business
with
no
consideration.
It's
wrong.
I
want
25
your
help.
Say
you
have
nothing
to
do
with
this.
I've
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
193
1
had
everybody
tell
me
for
15
years
it's
ain't
my
problem.

2
Well,
it's
mine.
I'm
the
problem
and
my
lack
of
ability
3
to
communicate
­­
I'm
working
on
trying
to
make
it
better.

4
I'm
petitioning
you.
I'll
get
on
my
hands
and
knees
if
it
5
takes
it
to
help
support
small
business
and
better
air
6
quality
in
California
starting
today
and
to
create
some
7
protection
for
Mr.
DeSaulnier
and
his
business
in
the
Bay
8
Area.

9
Thank
you.

10
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
for
your
written
11
statement.

12
We
have
Larry
Armstrong
and
then
Chris
Ervine.

13
MR.
ARMSTRONG:
Yes.
My
name
is
Larry
Armstrong.

14
I
operate
some
automotive
tune­
up
shops
that
participate
15
in
the
smog
check
program
in
both
the
Bay
Area
and
one
16
left
in
the
enhanced
area.

17
I
submitted
a
letter
to
the
Chairman
concerning
18
my
concerns
over
the
recommendation
of
the
I&
M
Review
19
Committee.
I'd
like
to
make
a
couple
quick
comments.
I
20
sat
back
on
the
other
issue.

21
First,
Mr.
McKinnon,
I
would
like
you
to
consider
22
maybe
an
alternative
theory
on
relinquishing
a
need
to
23
have
a
smog
check.
And
I
would
suggest
to
you
there's
a
24
very
strong
possibility
that
the
reason
these
cars
keep
25
getting
better
is
because
they
were
subjected
to
smog
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
194
1
check
and
they
failed
smog
check
and
the
manufacturers
2
went
back
and
fixed
those
problems
and
made
better
cars.

3
So
there's
a
reverse
spin
on
this
thing
that
I
would
wish
4
that
you
would
consider.

5
I
think
that
­­
I
think
that
the
smog
check
6
program
has
caused
vehicles
to
become
a
lot
stronger
and
a
7
lot
better
in
the
things
they
do
so
that
the
manufacturers
8
could
get
out
of
the
way
of
having
their
cars
fail.

9
The
issue
of
how
many
cars
go
to
test­
only,
I
10
have
strongly
objected
to
this.
Regulators
have
never
11
willingly
admitted
to
what
they're
doing,
and
I
listened
12
to
Mr.
Cackette
over
here,
and
I
listened
to
him
carefully
13
as
to
what
he
said.
He
told
you
the
truth.
But
what
he
14
really
did
was
spin
you
a
little
bit.
And
it
bothers
me
15
when
that
gets
done
to
me,
and
it
bothers
me
when
it
gets
16
down
to
you
folks.
When
he
tells
you
that
36
percent
of
17
the
vehicles
in
the
fleet
are
being
sent
to
test­
only,
the
18
Senate
Transportation
Committee
equated
that
one
half
of
19
all
the
directed
vehicles.
It's
not
36
percent
of
the
20
vehicles
being
tested.
Over
50
percent
of
the
vehicles
21
are
being
directed
to
test­
only.

22
Somebody
talked
about
investment
and
return
on
23
that
investment.
I
finally
gave
away
a
smog
check
station
24
that
I've
run
since
1976
in
Fresno.
Virtually
gave
it
25
away
to
get
away
from
the
losses
that
I
was
continuously
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
195
1
incurring
because
of
the
laws
that
we
put
in
place
that
2
took
my
business
away.

3
If
that
serves
the
public
somehow,
I
guess
that's
4
the
way
it
goes.
But
I
don't
see
how
it
serves
the
public
5
to
take
away
the
ability
to
find
and
repair
cars
in
need
6
of
emission
repairs
in
favor
of
what?
So
I
would
ask
you
7
to
at
least
be
thinking
about
that.

8
I
have
asked
the
Bureau
of
Automotive
Repair
for
9
the
data
that
was
given
to
you
today
as
an
example
that
10
somehow
vehicles
that
go
to
test
only
are
somehow
treated
11
definitely
and
better
and
whatever.
And
the
fact
of
the
12
matter
is
that
to
my
knowledge
that
evidence
has
never
13
been
available.
I've
asked
the
Bureau
of
Automotive
14
Repair
again
a
couple
of
weeks
ago
to
provide
me
with
that
15
evidence,
and
I've
seen
none
of
that
evidence.

16
The
36
percent
factor
that
you're
dealing
with
17
was
developed
by
a
company
under
the
direction
of
a
fellow
18
named
Rob
Clausmyer,
and
it
was
done
based
on
an
arbitrary
19
50
percent
discount
to
test
and
repair.
They
then
20
calculated
up
to
36
percent
of
the
vehicles
would
have
to
21
go
to
test­
only
to
meet
the
requirements
of
this
22
50
percent
discount.
Well,
there
was
no
basis
for
the
23
50
percent
discount
so
whole
thing
is
bologna.

24
In
a
positive
note,
I
would
like
to
commend
the
25
ARB
staff
for
standing
up
to
the
subtle
pressure
from
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
196
1
Legislature
on
and
Governor
an
AB
2637
to
cave
in
and
2
figure
out
a
way
to
do
that,
even
though
they
know
there
3
are
detrimental
effects
on
emissions
from
doing
that.

4
I
was
very
much
concerned
with
the
presentation
5
to
the
I&
M
Review
Committee
which
then
prompted
a
letter
6
that
came
to
you
folks
expressing
a
lot
of
concern
about
7
the
cost
of
taking
those
vehicles
out.
I
have
asked
the
8
Chairman
of
the
Air
Resources
Board
to
provide
me
with
the
9
documentation
so
that
I
can
figure
out
how
that
was
done
10
because
it
doesn't
seem
logical
to
me.
It
shouldn't
seem
11
logical
to
you
if
older
cars
­­
makes
sense
to
fix
and
12
repair
and
­­
find
and
repair
the
broken
ones.
If
ten
13
percent
of
that
group
of
cars
of
those
newer
vehicles
are
14
broken,
how
does
it
become
this
astronomical
cost
to
fix
15
those
cars.

16
And
I
question
whether
­­
and
I
don't
know
17
whether
the
effect
of
the
remainder
of
new
car
warranty
18
might
be
available
to
those
consumers.
If
it
is,
the
19
additional
cost
factor
is,
in
fact,
zero
because
the
new
20
car
manufacturers
have
an
obligation
the
fix
those
cars.

21
And
if
that
cost
moves
over
to
the
consumer
because
it
22
didn't
get
a
smog
check
at
a
later
date,
then
who's
23
responsible
for
that?
If
we
as
a
society
just
allow
those
24
cars
to
go
out
beyond
the
warranty
so
that
the
consumer
25
can
be
obligated
to
pay
for
those
repairs,
that
doesn't
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
197
1
make
a
lot
of
sense
to
me.

2
The
other
issue
that
I
have
with
this,
and
it
has
3
absolutely
no
effect
on
me
except
that
as
I
sat
back
here
4
had
little
blue
areas
on
the
chart
up
on
the
wall,
looked
5
like
more
geographical
area
to
me
than
the
enhanced
areas.

6
And
these
were
areas
that
we're
going
to
say
in
the
7
enhanced
area
the
removal
of
the
five­
and
six­
year
cars
8
would
cause
this
damage
to
our
ability
to
maintain
the
9
SIP,
but
in
the
blue
areas
we're
­­
because
of
the
way
the
10
law
was
written,
you
folks
as
a
group
do
not
have
the
11
ability
to
stand
up
and
say
wait
a
minute.
If
we're
going
12
to
leave
these
cars
in
the
enhanced
areas,
we
see
13
absolutely
no
sense
in
taking
them
out
of
the
other
areas.

14
So
I
would
ask
you
to
stand
up
and,
if
necessary,

15
ask
the
Legislature
to
correct
that
little
loophole
in
16
there.
And
as
I
say,
it
makes
absolutely
no
difference
to
17
me,
except
I
think
I
drive
through
some
of
those
basic
18
areas
with
my
clean
vehicle.
And
so
I
guess
I'm
subjected
19
to
the
air.
So
it
does
make
a
difference
to
me.

20
To
me
the
­­
removing
those
cars
just
because
is
21
irresponsible.
And
I
would
hope
that
you
would
take
the
22
responsible
action.
And
I
would
­­
again,
in
writing
I
23
requested
the
information
that
produced
those
cost
24
factors.
I'd
like
to
have
it
in
writing.
I'd
like
to
25
have
the
data
behind
it.
And
I
will
tell
you
folks
that
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
198
1
every
single
time
since
1992
I've
asked
for
information
2
that
I
was
concerned
about,
when
I
got
the
information
it
3
was
fairly
easy
to
see
how
the
numbers
were
maneuvered
so
4
they
look
like
something
they
weren't.

5
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much.
I
think
6
staff
heard
from
request
from
Mr.
Armstrong.

7
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
The
8
detailed
data
for
this
is
publicly
available
now.
The
9
report
that
backs
up
the
staff
report.
So
if
you
need
10
more
than
that
we
can
get
it.

11
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
think
it
would
be
12
helpful
­­
might
available
to
send
him
the
relevant
13
information
so
he
doesn't
have
to
work
for
it
would
be
14
great.

15
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
And
lastly,
Chris
Ervine.

16
MR.
ERVINE:
Exempting
five­
year
new
vehicles,
I
17
have
an
example.
We
handle
two
fleets
of
­­
they
happen
18
to
be
Ford
Ranger
and
Mazda
pickups.
These
vehicles
range
19
in
age
from
1999
to
2002.
And
I
can
guarantee
you
that
by
20
the
time
these
vehicles
reach
70,000
miles,
they
have
had
21
three
emission
failures.
The
sale
thing
on
the
2002,

22
which
is
only
a
one­
year
old
vehicle.
These
are
a
typical
23
fleet
vehicle.
They're
a
low
­­
well,
I
don't
know
24
whether
you
want
to
call
$
10,000
­­

25
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
What
were
the
two
models?

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
199
1
What
was
the
latter
model
you
mentioned?

2
MR.
ERVINE:
Ford
Ranger
and
Mazda
V2500.

3
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
It's
a
good
job
Kelly
came
4
back.

5
MR.
ERVINE:
In
one
fleet
in
particular
by
the
6
time
they
reach
80,000
miles,
they've
had
valve
failures
7
in
them
and
cracked
cylinder
heads.
In
one
particular
8
case
I
contacted
BAR
because
we
had
one
that
had
47,000
9
miles
on
it,
and
it
had
three
bad
valves
in
it
and
was
10
sending
a
misfire
­­
intermittent
misfire
code.
And
BAR's
11
repy
was
to
test
the
vehicle
and
then
send
it
to
the
12
dealership
to
be
repaired
under
warranty.
The
dealership
13
would
not
repair
it
under
warranty
and
BAR
would
not
back
14
us
up
and
make
the
dealership
fix
it.
The
consumer
ended
15
up
repairing
that
engine
on
their
own.

16
Ford
will
not
admit
to
this
problem
or
any
of
the
17
other
emission
failures
concerned
with
these
vehicles.

18
So
there
are
vehicles
out
there
that,
yes,
will
19
go
200,000
miles
without
an
emission
failure.
There
are
20
other
vehicles
that
are
on
the
low
end
of
cost
that
are
21
typically
not
maintained
well
that
are
typically
a
fleet
22
vehicle
that
will
fail.
And
in
the
cases
of
these
fleet
23
vehicles
here,
the
owner
of
this
fleet
was
more
than
happy
24
to
repair
these
vehicles
any
time
there
was
anything
wrong
25
with
them.
But
his
employees
never
told
him
that
there
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
200
1
was
anything
wrong
with
these
vehicles.
And
they
2
continued
to
drive
them.
And
in
some
cases
we
found
out
3
at
a
later
date
that
it
had
been
six
months
that
this
4
thing
had
been
on
the
road
with
a
burned
valve.

5
By
extending
it
to
six
years,
a
lot
of
these
6
vehicles
with
emission
failures
are
out
of
warranty.
So
7
the
consumer
is
being
hurt
in
that
they're
not
finding
out
8
there's
an
emission
problem
with
their
vehicle
until
it's
9
out
of
warranty
and
then
they're
having
to
pay
for
the
10
emission
repairs.

11
Consumers
in
San
Joaquin
Valley
and
Sacramento
12
Valley
and
other
places
are
being
penalized
financially
on
13
repairs
­­
the
cost
of
repairs.
In
these
areas
in
the
14
enhanced
area
the
cost
of
repairs
has
gone
from
a
point
15
where
we're
dealing
with
spending
this
much
money
to
16
reduce
this
much
emissions,
to
spending
this
much
money
to
17
get
this
much
emission
reduction.
And
by
bringing
in
some
18
of
the
basic
areas
which
are
all
up
and
down
the
central
19
valley
on
both
sides
and
bringing
in
not
the
whole
area
as
20
an
enhanced
area
but
the
high
density
population
spots
in
21
these
basic
areas
into
the
enhanced
area
and
bringing
in
22
the
change
of
ownership.
I
think
the
whole
state
should
23
be
at
least
a
biannual
smog
inspection.

24
The
program
is
already
in
place.
As
far
as
25
having
people
that
have
to
travel
further
for
their
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
201
1
inspections,
it's
not
going
to
happen
because
the
smog
2
machines
are
out
there,
even
though
they're
basic
machines
3
and
they're
not
the
enhanced
machines.
By
just
bringing
4
these
outlying
areas
on
as
a
biannual
inspection
is
going
5
to
reduce
emissions
tremendously.
And
bringing
in
high
6
density
areas
that
are
in
the
basic
area
into
it,
we're
7
going
to
also
reduce
emissions.

8
We
all
know
that
the
enhanced
loaded
mode
testing
9
finds
a
lot
more
emissions
than
just
the
two­
speed
idle
10
test.
And
we
also
know
that
there's
a
huge
percentage
­­

11
as
BAR
showed,
if
there's
no
program
what
the
emissions
12
were
and
by
just
having
the
basic
program
what
the
13
emission
reduction
was,
it
was
a
big
jump.
And
I
think
14
that
the
name
of
this
is
not
to
reduce
emissions
just
in
15
the
high
non­
attainment
areas,
but
to
reduce
emissions
16
worldwide.

17
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much.
Any
18
questions
from
the
Board?
Thank
you.

19
So
with
that,
it's
not
a
regulatory
item.
It's
20
not
necessary
to
officially
close
the
record.
However,
we
21
do
have
a
resolution
before
us.
Resolution
number
03­
6
22
containing
staff
recommendation.
Do
I
have
the
motion
23
seconded?

24
Sorry,
Supervisor
DeSaulnier.

25
SUPERVISOR
DeSAULNIER:
Is
now
okay?
Thanks
for
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
202
1
all
those
comments,
Charlie
about
all
the
power.
I
2
certainly
feel
very
powerful
up
here.

3
I
move
resolution
03­
6.
And
D.
D.
­­

4
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
Yes.
Do
we
have
5
sufficient
direction?
The
only
thing
I
probably
should
6
add,
I
think
we're
probably
just
talking
about
the
Valley.

7
But
I
wouldn't
want
the
valley
to
necessarily
be
singled
8
out.
So
maybe
non­
attainment
areas.

9
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
Federal
10
non­
attainment
areas.
That
would
be
where
there
would
be
11
a
SIP
requirement.

12
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
Okay.

13
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
You're
going
to
speak
to
the
14
author
about
the
limitations
of
the
legislation?

15
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
Absolutely.
Actually,

16
since
you
brought
it
up,
I
mentioned
what
we
were
going
to
17
be
doing.
He
said
he
was
comfortable
with
it.
Apparently
18
this
was
an
amendment
that
was
sort
of
­­

19
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
But
I
think
to
me
it
20
highlighted
a
very
good
discussion
because
it
highlighted
21
many
of
the
issues
which
­­
some
which
we
can't
control.

22
But
I
think
it
was
a
very
good
discussion.

23
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
In
light
of
that
then,
I
24
second.

25
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
All
in
favor
say
aye.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
203
1
(
Ayes)

2
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Anybody
against?

3
Thank
you
very
much.

4
With
that,
I
think
we're
going
to
take
a
5
ten­
minute
break
for
the
court
reporter.
I
don't
think
we
6
can
go
to
the
next
item
without
that
ten­
minute
break.
So
7
thank
you
very
much.

8
(
Thereupon
a
recess
was
taken.)

9
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I'd
like
to
continue
with
10
agenda
03­
3­
4,
public
meeting
to
consider
federal
source
11
of
air
pollution
in
California.

12
This
item
is
a
timely
one
as
the
San
Joaquin
and
13
South
Coast
Air
Quality
District
are
in
the
process
of
14
preparing
new
air
quality
plans
for
federal
one­
hour
ozone
15
standard
attainment.
It's
clear
we
can't
meet
our
16
attainment
goals
without
federal
action
to
complement
both
17
the
state
and
the
local
efforts.

18
The
Federal
Clean
Air
Act
assigns
U.
S.
EPA
some
19
specific
responsibilities
for
reducing
emissions
from
20
mobile
sources
and
also
preempts
states
from
regulating
21
certain
sources.
There
are
also
practical
considerations
22
in
the
case
of
interstate
trucks
that
make
it
necessary
23
for
action
at
the
national
level.
This
shared
regulatory
24
responsibility
combined
with
the
challenging
emission
25
reduction
targets
we
face
makes
it
critical
for
continued
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
204
1
action
at
the
federal
level.
This
needs
to
occur
on
a
2
parallel
track
as
ARB
and
local
district
continue
to
3
pursue
every
feasible
measures
for
sources
under
state
and
4
local
jurisdiction.

5
I
am
pleased
that
had
Mr.
Bob
Larson
from
the
6
U.
S.
EPA's
Office
of
Transportation
and
Air
Quality
has
7
traveled
from
Ann
Arbor
to
join
us
today.
Good
to
see
8
you,
Bob.
It's
been
a
while.
I
know
Bob
has
worked
9
closely
with
ARB
staff
in
the
development
of
our
10
respective
mobile
source
strategies,
and
he
will
provide
11
comments
following
staff's
presentation.

12
And
I
would
like
then
to
turn
it
over
to
13
Ms.
Witherspoon
to
introduce
this
item
and
begin
the
staff
14
presentation.

15
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
Thank
you,

16
Chairman
Lloyd,
members
of
the
Board.

17
California
has
made
significant
progress
in
18
reducing
emissions
and
improving
air
quality
as
a
result
19
of
actions
at
the
local,
state,
and
federal
levels.
But
20
we
also
have
a
long
way
to
go
to
meet
health­
based
air
21
quality
standards
in
all
California
communities.

22
Staff's
presentation
will
highlight
the
relative
23
contribution
of
emission
sources
under
federal
24
jurisdiction,
key
actions
already
taken,
and
further
25
opportunities
we
see
to
reduce
emissions
from
these
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
205
1
sources.

2
We
want
to
continue
our
path
of
progress
with
the
3
inter­
agency
partnerships
that
have
been
successful
in
the
4
past,
our
technical
and
collaborative
regulations
have
5
resulted
in
the
adoption
of
key
measures
from
the
1994
6
ozone
SIP
and
set
the
stage
for
future
actions.

7
Over
the
past
few
years
we
have
jointly
tackled
8
issue
such
as
excess
NOx
emissions
from
heavy
duty
trucks
9
with
benefits
being
realized
nationwide.
For
another
10
important
group
of
sources,
off
road
construction
and
farm
11
equipment,
the
U.
S.
EPA
has
just
released
a
new
regulatory
12
proposal.
The
emission
reductions
from
this
rule
will
13
help
reduce
both
ozone
and
particulate
pollution
from
new
14
diesel
engines.
We
want
to
build
on
these
successes
as
we
15
move
forward.
One
of
the
big
challenges
is
to
address
16
existing
as
well
as
new
engines.
This
is
critical
since
17
federal
sources
include
trucks,
trains,
ships,
and
other
18
equipment
with
long
usable
lives.

19
Mr.
Larry
Hunsaker
will
now
make
the
staff
20
presentation.

21
MR.
HUNSAKER:
Thank
you,
Ms.
Witherspoon.
Good
22
afternoon,
Chairman
Lloyd,
members
of
the
Board.

23
Federal
sources
of
air
pollution
are
a
24
significant
contributor
to
California's
air
quality
25
problem.
This
presentation
is
intended
to
provide
a
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
206
1
background
on
why
these
sources
are
important
to
control
2
and
highlight
opportunities
for
further
emission
3
reductions.

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

6
MR.
HUNSAKER:
Actions
is
to
reduce
emissions
7
from
federal
sources
are
essential
to
our
efforts
to
meet
8
air
quality
standards.
When
we
use
the
term
federal
9
sources,
we
are
referring
to
mobile
sources
that
must
be
10
addressed
by
the
federal
government
for
one
of
two
11
reasons.
Either
the
federal
Clean
Air
Act
preempts
our
12
regulatory
authority
or
practical
considerations
make
13
national
regulations
necessary.

14
Under
federal
law
only
U.
S.
EPA
can
set
emissions
15
standards
for
new
locomotive
engines
and
new
construction
16
and
farm
equipment
with
less
than
175
horsepower.
In
the
17
case
of
heavy
duty
trucks,
ARB
cannot
set
emission
18
standards
for
truck
that
are
purchased
and
registered
19
outside
of
California.
The
interstate
nature
of
the
20
trucking
industry
makes
national
standards
the
most
21
practical
approach.

22
Lastly,
engine
standards
for
aircraft
and
23
ocean­
going
ships
are
set
at
the
international
level
with
24
the
federal
government
representing
the
US.

25
­­
o0o­­

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
207
1
MR.
HUNSAKER:
The
primary
pollutants
of
concern
2
from
federal
sources
are
NOx
and
diesel
PM.
State­
wide
in
3
2010
emissions
of
reactive
organic
gasses
are
relatively
4
small
at
about
6
percent,
whereas
federal
sources
will
5
account
for
28
percent
of
the
NOx
and
61
percent
of
the
6
diesel
PM.

7
While
we
show
state­
wide
emissions
here,
there
8
are
some
regional
difference.
In
the
South
Coast
federal
9
sources
contribute
about
32
percent
of
the
NOx
and
65
10
percent
of
the
diesel
PM,
slightly
more
than
the
11
state­
wide
percentage.

12
In
the
San
Joaquin
Valley
there
are
no
ship
13
emission.
Federal
sources
contribute
somewhat
less
than
14
the
state­
wide
percentage,
about
22
percent
of
the
NOx
and
15
46
percent
of
the
diesel
PM.
For
diesel
PM
localized
16
impacts
from
sources
are
important.
Facilities
such
as
17
ports
and
rail
yards
are
good
examples
of
where
local,

18
state,
and
federal
cooperation
is
necessary.

19
­­
o0o­­

20
MR.
HUNSAKER:
This
slide
shows
the
state­
wide
21
breakdown
of
federal
NOx
sources
into
their
major
22
components,
ranging
from
8
percent
from
construction
23
equipment
to
3
percent
for
trains
and
aircraft.
This
24
breakdown
varies
region
in
the
state.
For
example,
in
the
25
San
Joaquin
Valley
farm
equipment
contributes
the
most
at
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
208
1
9
percent,
while
aircraft
contribute
the
least
at
1
2
percent.
In
the
South
Coast
construction
equipment
is
the
3
top
category
at
11
percent,
while
farm
equipment
is
the
4
lowest
at
1
percent.

5
Now
let's
look
at
the
breakdown
for
diesel
PM.

6
­­
o0o­­

7
MR.
HUNSAKER:
Federal
sources
are
a
big
8
contributor
to
diesel
PM
emissions.
From
a
public
9
exposure
standpoint,
the
toxicity
of
diesel
PM
combined
10
with
its
contribution
to
overall
particulate
pollution
11
makes
these
emissions
important
both
regionally
and
12
locally.
Statewide
emissions
range
from
28
percent
for
13
construction
equipment
to
4
percent
for
trains
and
14
out­
of­
state
trucks.
If
we
include
all
interstate
trucks,

15
those
that
are
registered
both
in
California
and
in
other
16
states,
the
contribution
from
trucks
would
be
about
17
double.

18
Again,
there
are
regional
differences
and
19
relative
emission
contributions.
For
the
San
Joaquin
20
Valley,
the
largest
category
is
farm
equipment
at
25
21
percent,
while
in
the
South
Coast
the
largest
category
is
22
construction
equipment
at
34
percent.

23
­­
o0o­­

24
MR.
HUNSAKER:
This
slide
shows
the
projected
NOx
25
emissions
for
preempted
farm
and
construction
equipment,

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
209
1
out­
of­
state
trucks,
and
trains
based
on
current
2
requirements.

3
The
big
drop
in
farm
and
construction
equipment
4
emissions
is
due
to
fleet
turn
over
and
implementation
of
5
progressively
tighter
engine
standards
phasing
in
between
6
1997
and
2008.
Out­
of­
state
truck
emissions
show
a
steady
7
decline
at
the
2002
and
2000
search
emission
standard
kick
8
in.
There
is
also
a
decline
in
train
emissions
reflecting
9
national
standards
that
phase
in
between
2001
and
2005.

10
And
the
agreement
with
the
industry
to
reduce
fleet
11
emissions
in
South
Coast
by
2010.

12
Diesel
PM
emissions
generally
follow
those
same
13
trends.
These
trends
demonstrate
how
the
benefits
of
14
federal
actions
taken
to
date
accrue
over
time.
However,

15
significant
emissions
remain,
and
we
must
talk
about
16
further
reduction
opportunities
in
a
moment.

17
­­
o0o­­

18
MR.
HUNSAKER:
This
trend
slide
shows
two
federal
19
source
categories,
ships
and
aircraft
whose
emissions
are
20
projected
to
increase
rather
than
decrease.
This
reflects
21
a
relative
lack
of
progress
in
tightening
engine
standards
22
compared
to
other
categories
combined
with
growth
and
23
other
activities.
Obviously,
for
aircraft
emissions
the
24
current
industry
problems
will
effect
near­
term
emission
25
trends.
But
looking
15
or
20
years
out,
we
do
expect
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
210
1
continued
growth.
This
long­
term
perspective
is
important
2
for
aircraft
engines
which
remain
in
the
service
for
3
20
years
or
more.

4
The
same
problem
applies
to
ships
as
growth
5
overtakes
any
benefit
of
current
national
and
6
international
engine
standards.

7
­­
o0o­­

8
MR.
HUNSAKER:
The
downward
trends
of
emissions
9
shown
in
the
previous
slides
are
results
of
a
joint
effort
10
by
U.
S.
EPA
and
ARB
to
adopt
the
controls
called
for
in
11
the
1994
SIP.
U.
S.
EPA
and
ARB
adopted
emission
standards
12
for
diesel
trucks,
off­
road
diesel
gasoline,
and
LTD
13
powered
engines
and
marine
pleasure
aircraft,
such
as
jet
14
skis.

15
U.
S.
EPA
also
adopted
standards
for
locomotives
16
and
marine
harbor
craft.
These
regulatory
efforts
have
17
been
complemented
with
memoranda
of
understanding
signed
18
with
the
railroads
to
reduce
locomotive
emissions
and
with
19
the
airlines
to
reduce
emissions
from
airport
ground
20
support
equipment
in
the
South
Coast.

21
Voluntary
approaches
ever
also
been
taken,
such
22
as
the
voluntary
shipping
speed
limit
now
in
place
in
the
23
vicinity
of
the
ports
of
Los
Angeles
and
Long
Beach.
This
24
speed
reduction
results
in
lower
NOx
emissions.

25
­­
o0o­­

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
211
1
MR.
HUNSAKER:
Now
let's
look
at
where
we
stand
2
with
current
engine
standard
for
heavy­
duty
diesel
trucks.

3
This
slide
slows
the
progression
of
tighter
emission
4
standards
through
the
end
of
this
decade.
In
1997
U.
S.

5
EPA
adopted
the
two
gram
NOx
for
diesel
trucks
anticipated
6
in
the
1994
SIP.

7
ARB
adopted
California
standards
in
1998
that
8
aligned
with
the
national
standards.
These
standards
were
9
scheduled
to
take
effect
in
2004
but
were
accelerated
to
10
2002
under
the
terms
of
the
consent
decree
with
the
engine
11
manufacturers.
In
2001
U.
S.
EPA
adopted
tighter
diesel
12
truck
standards
which
will
be
phased
in
between
2007
and
13
2010
and
represent
an
overall
reduction
of
98
percent
from
14
uncontrolled
engine
emissions.

15
Introduction
of
low
sulfur
diesel
fuel
in
2006
is
16
an
integral
part
of
the
standards.
ARB
has
adopted
these
17
same
engine
standards
for
California.

18
­­
o0o­­

19
MR.
HUNSAKER:
This
is
not
the
end
of
the
story,

20
however.
We
are
encouraging
U.
S.
EPA
to
pursue
strategies
21
to
ensure
that
the
benefits
of
tighter
engine
standards
22
are
achieved
in
use.
One
strategy
to
ensure
that
23
sophisticated
emission
controls
perform
adequately
over
24
time
is
to
require
on­
board
diagnostic
systems
on
new
25
engines.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
212
1
Another
strategy
is
to
adopt
a
manufacturer
2
in­
use
testing
and
recall
program
similar
to
the
program
3
required
for
car
manufacturers.

4
Also
while
diesel
trucks
will
be
much
cleaner
5
starting
in
2007,
the
long
live
of
diesel
engines
slows
6
the
introduction
of
cleaner
vehicles
into
the
fleet.
This
7
makes
it
important
to
find
ways
to
clean
up
the
existing
8
fleet.

9
ARB
is
developing
measures
to
implement
our
10
diesel
risk
reduction
plan.
Last
year
ARB
is
scheduled
to
11
consider
a
proposal
to
reduce
diesel
emissions
from
solid
12
waste
collection
vehicles.
We
are
also
working
on
13
accelerated
software
up
grade
requirements
to
address
the
14
excess
NOx
emissions
resulting
from
the
use
of
emission
15
control
defeat
devices
in
trucks
engines
during
the
1990s.

16
­­
o0o­­

17
MR.
HUNSAKER:
Over
half
the
NOx
and
75
percent
18
of
the
PM
from
off­
road
diesel
engines
come
from
preempted
19
farm
and
construction
sources.
We
have
cooperated
with
20
U.
S.
EPA
to
address
these
engines,
and
our
standards
for
21
the
engines
we
can
regulate
are
harmonized
with
the
22
national
EPA
standards.

23
This
slide
slows
the
progress
of
adopted
emission
24
standards
for
one
category
of
off­
road
diesel
engines,

25
those
ranging
from
100
to
175
horsepower.
When
the
most
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
213
1
stringent
standards
are
fully
phased
in
by
2008,
new
2
engines
will
be
up
to
75
percent
cleaner
than
uncontrolled
3
engines.

4
­­
o0o­­

5
MR.
HUNSAKER:
Based
on
the
current
level
of
6
control
and
the
remaining
emissions
from
off­
road
engines,

7
it's
clear
more
needs
to
be
done.
Just
last
week
U.
S.
EPA
8
proposed
the
anticipated
next
phase
for
federal
off­
road
9
engine
standards.
This
proposal
would
reduce
emissions
by
10
an
additional
90
percent
by
transferring
on­
road
control
11
technology
to
off­
road
engines.
The
extension
of
lower
12
sulfur
diesel
fuel
requirements
to
off­
road
engines
13
nationally
is
an
integral
part
of
the
proposal.

14
We
are
very
supportive
of
this
proposal.
And
15
following
federal
adoption,
we
will
harmonize
our
standard
16
for
that
portion
of
the
off­
road
fleet
under
state
17
control.

18
In
terms
of
existing
engines,
ARB
is
pursuing
19
diesel
PM
risk­
reduction
measures
and
supporting
incentive
20
programs
to
reduce
NOx
emissions
from
off­
road
engines.

21
­­
o0o­­

22
MR.
HUNSAKER:
In
1998
U.
S.
EPA
set
emission
23
standards
for
new
and
remanufactured
locomotives
and
24
locomotive
engines
beginning
in
2001
and
phasing
in
25
through
2005.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
214
1
In
recognition
of
the
severity
of
the
South
Coast
2
air
quality
problem
and
the
contribution
of
locomotive
3
engines
in
the
region,
ARB
reached
agreement
with
the
4
railroads
to
further
reduce
their
emissions
in
the
South
5
Coast.
This
memorandum
of
understanding
ensures
that
the
6
cleanest
locomotive
engines,
those
meeting
2005
standards,

7
are
brought
to
the
region.

8
With
these
programs,
we
project
that
locomotive
9
emissions
in
California
will
be
cut
in
half
between
2000
10
and
2010.
However,
we
believe
that
there
are
further
11
opportunities
for
emission
reductions
from
locomotives.

12
As
technology
continues
to
advance,
U.
S.
EPA
should
13
consider
further
tightening
the
standards
for
locomotives.

14
Use
of
cleaner
fuels
can
also
reduce
emissions
15
and
allow
for
application
of
additional
control
technology
16
and
retrofits.
And
we
support
you
U.
S.
EPA's
proposal
to
17
limit
the
sulfur
content
of
locomotive
diesel
fuel
to
500
18
parts
per
million
of
its
off­
road
diesel
proposed
19
announced
last
week.

20
­­
o0o­­

21
MR.
HUNSAKER:
Commercial
marine
vessels
include
22
both
large
ocean­
going
vessels,
such
as
cargo
ships
and
23
passenger
cruise
ships,
as
well
as
smaller
harbor
craft.

24
The
larger
ocean­
going
ships
travel
internationally
are
25
and
predominantly
foreign
flag
vessels.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
215
1
Harbor
craft
spends
most
of
their
time
in
2
California
coastal
water.
Standards
for
ocean­
going
ships
3
are
set
internationally
through
the
International
Maritime
4
Organization,
or
IMO.
For
American
flag
vessels
the
U.
S.

5
EPA
adopted
standards
based
on
the
IMO
levels.

6
U.
S.
EPA
has
also
set
standards
for
harbor
craft.

7
However,
these
stands
will
achieve
relatively
modest
8
emission
reductions
in
California.
And
with
continued
9
growth
in
shipping
activity,
emissions
are
projected
to
10
increase
overall.
The
emission
levels
from
these
engines
11
remain
well
above
those
from
other
off­
road
or
on­
road
12
engines.

13
ARB
established
the
Maritime
Air
Quality
14
Technical
Working
Group
to
work
on
air
quality
strategies.

15
The
group
includes
stakeholders,
such
as
the
ports,

16
commercial
shipping
companies
and
industrial
associations,

17
U.
S.
EPA,
local
air
districts,
and
community
and
18
environmental
groups.
The
efforts
of
the
working
group
19
are
starting
to
translate
into
programs
to
reduce
20
emissions,
such
as
the
speed
reduction
program
I
mentioned
21
earlier,
and
another
program
set
to
begin
later
this
year
22
to
test
the
effectiveness
of
promising
retrofit
control
23
technologies
on
ships.

24
­­
o0o­­

25
MR.
HUNSAKER:
There
is
a
lot
more
that
can
and
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
216
1
should
be
done.
In
our
draft
state
and
federal
element
2
for
the
upcoming
California
SIPS,
we
had
laid
out
a
number
3
of
opportunities
for
emission
reductions.
We
continue
to
4
urge
U.
S.
EPA
to
adopt
more
stringent
new
engine
standards
5
for
harbor
craft
and
ocean­
going
ships
working
through
the
6
IMO
process.

7
We
are
looking
at
options
for
reducing
in­
use
8
emissions
from
marine
vessels.
We
believe
that
close
9
coordination
at
the
national,
state,
and
local
level
is
10
essential
in
developing
the
most
effective
in­
use
control
11
strategies
to
reduce
emission
from
maritime
and
port
12
activities.

13
Use
of
cleaner
fuels
and
retrofit
technologies
14
would
cut
emissions.
Economic
incentive
programs
could
15
also
be
implemented
to
encourage
vessel
owners
to
reduce
16
their
emissions.
Operational
controls
can
provide
17
emission
reductions
through
a
broad
array
of
potential
18
measures
including
speed
controls,
idling
time
limits,
and
19
other
changes
to
vessel
activities.

20
Dock
site
strategies
include
the
use
of
21
electricity
to
provide
power
for
ships
while
they
are
in
22
port.
Currently
vessels
typically
run
diesel
generators
23
when
at
rest
in
port
to
generate
power
for
lights
and
24
equipment
on
board.

25
­­
o0o­­

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
217
1
MR.
HUNSAKER:
While
we
realize
the
near­
term
2
economic
challenges
facing
the
airline
industry,
a
long
3
term
strategy
to
reduce
aircraft
emissions
is
needed.

4
U.
S.
EPA
works
its
standard­
setting
process
through
the
5
International
Civil
Aviation
Organization,
or
ICAO,

6
because
of
the
international
nature
of
the
industry.

7
With
the
current
emission
standards
in
place,

8
aircraft
emissions
are
project
to
grow
in
the
longer
term
9
as
the
previous
emission
trend
slide
showed.

10
Consequently,
aircraft
will
become
an
increasing
piece
of
11
the
emissions
pie
as
other
sources
continue
to
reduce
12
their
emissions.

13
Since
1998
U.
S.
EPA
and
the
Federal
Aviation
14
Administration
have
jointly
sponsored
a
national
15
stakeholder
groups
whose
goal
is
to
define
emission
16
reduction
targets
for
air
carriers
that
include
a
longer
17
term
goal
for
reductions
in
jet
aircraft
emissions.
One
18
objective
of
this
process
is
for
ICAO
to
develop
more
19
stringent
aircraft
emission
standards.
We
need
U.
S
EPA
to
20
work
closely
with
the
federal
aviation
administration
to
21
advocate
for
tighter
emission
standards.

22
­­
o0o­­

23
MR.
HUNSAKER:
Before
concluding,
I
want
to
speak
24
briefly
about
the
importance
of
funding
from
the
federal
25
government
for
emission
control
programs.
Federal
funding
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
218
1
can
provide
for
incentive­
based
programs
or
fill
2
regulatory
gaps
in
the
control
of
federal
sources.
Over
3
the
last
­­
over
the
past
several
years,
California
has
4
funded
programs
to
clean
up
existing
sources
under
state
5
and
local
jurisdiction
in
order
to
supplement
our
6
regulatory
programs.
U.
S.
EPA
could
do
the
same
as
part
7
of
its
effort
to
reduce
emissions
from
federal
sources.

8
In
conclusion,
we
need
the
federal
government
to
do
9
its
part
to
achieve
clean
air
in
California.
The
10
substantial
emissions
contribution
of
federal
sources
and
11
the
challenging
emission
reduction
targets
we
face
make
it
12
impossible
for
California
to
do
it
alone.

13
Opportunity
exists
for
technically­
feasible
14
cost­
effective
reductions
from
federal
sources.
And
U.
S.

15
EPA
needs
to
pursue
them,
whether
through
regulation,

16
federal
funding,
or
other
incentives.
In
conjunction
with
17
local
air
districts,
ARB
and
U.
S.
EPA
need
to
continue
to
18
partner
to
find
new
ways
to
reduce
emissions,
meet
our
19
federal
air
quality
planning
requirements,
and
make
20
progress
towards
our
mutual
public
health
goals.

21
Thank
you.
This
concludes
my
presentation.

22
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much.

23
Colleagues
have
any
questions
before
we
move
to
24
Mr.
Bob
Larson
from
EPA?

25
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
I
have
one
question.
What
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
219
1
federal
agency
has
responsibility
for
reducing
emission
on
2
federal
property?

3
GENERAL
COUNSEL
WALSH:
For
federal
properties
4
that
are
within
the
state
of
California,
federal
agencies
5
are
responsible
for
meeting
the
applicable
rules
and
6
regulations
that
are
set
out
in
the
California
SIP.
Under
7
the
federal
Clean
Air
Act,
federal
agencies
are
required
8
to
comply
with
those
rules
and
regulations
to
the
same
9
extent
as
any
private
business
or
business.

10
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
So
if
I
go
out
to
the
air
11
force
base
and
LAX
and
see
smoke
incinerator
or
something
12
there,
would
I
call
the
South
Coast
district
if
I
wanted
13
to
­­

14
GENERAL
COUNSEL
WALSH:
That's
correct.

15
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
What
would
they
do
about
16
it?

17
GENERAL
COUNSEL
WALSH:
They
would
no
doubt
go
18
out
and
take
a
look
at
the
situation.
If
there
was
a
19
violation
of
a
district
rule
or
a
regulation,
they
would
20
follow
up
with
appropriate
enforcement
action.
And
those
21
federal
agencies
are
subject
to
those
enforcement
actions
22
as
well
as
the
rules
and
regulations
themselves.

23
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
Is
it
generally
true
the
24
federal
agencies
are
responsible
for
complying
with
the
25
local
air
quality
standard?

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
220
1
GENERAL
COUNSEL
WALSH:
Well,
it
may
be
treated
2
differently
under
certain
­­
different
acts,
federal
laws.

3
The
federal
constitution
provides
supremacy
to
the
federal
4
government,
but
that's
supremacy
can
be
waived.
And,

5
indeed,
in
Section
118
of
the
federal
Clean
Air
Act,

6
Congress
has
waived
federal
immunity
from
the
application
7
of
state
law,
rules
and
regulations,
enforcement
8
activities
and
the
like
with
respect
to
requirements
that
9
relate
to
the
control
and
abatement
of
air
pollution.
So
10
Congress
has
waived
the
federal
immunity
that
would
11
otherwise
apply
under
federal
law.

12
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
What
about
the
federal
13
vehicles
that
are
used
by
the
federal
agencies
in
the
14
state?
Do
they
meet
California
standard,
or
do
they
meet
15
federal
standards?

16
GENERAL
COUNSEL
WALSH:
They
meet
California
17
standards.
There
is
a
provision
in
Section
118
that
18
provides
for
exceptions
if
the
president
declares
some
19
sort
of
national
emergency
related
to
the
security
of
the
20
nation.
That
has
never
to
my
knowledge
been
implicated.

21
We
have
in
some
of
our
motor
vehicle
or
non­
road
engine
22
regulations
included
specific
exemptions
for
tactical­
type
23
vehicles.
But
just
vehicles
that
are
generally
used
by
24
those
federal
agencies
and
on
federal
sites
are
subject
to
25
our
regulations.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
221
1
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
Okay.

2
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Mr.
McKinnon.

3
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
I'm
through.

4
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
It's
my
understanding
5
that
there
are
cleaner
and
cleaner
jet
engines
being
6
produced.
The
problem
is
that
nobody's
going
to
be
buying
7
them
any
time
soon
because
there's
not
a
need
to
buy
new
8
airplanes.
Is
that
sort
of
­­
what's
the
direction
of
9
clean
air
jet
engines?
Is
that
the
case
or
­­

10
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
I
can
11
take
a
stab
at
that.
I
know
a
little
bit
about
it,
not
12
all
about
it.

13
Within
the
current
selection
of
engines
that
you
14
can
put
on
a
current
jet,
there
is
some
variation
in
15
emissions.
It's
not
real
big.
But
there
are
cleaner
ones
16
and
slightly
higher
emitting
ones.
I
don't
what
the
17
variation
is.
But
we
might
be
talking
10
percent
or
18
something
like
that.

19
There
are
engines
under
development
and
some
of
20
them
still
in
the
research
stage
like
at
NASA
that
would
21
have
like
50
to
70
percent
more
NOx
emissions
than
current
22
engines.
The
problem
is
is
that
there
is
kind
of
an
23
inherent
conflict
in
that
the
engine
manufacturers
and
the
24
aircraft
operators
or
looking
for
engines
with
higher
and
25
higher
pressure
ratios
to
reduce
fuel
burner
or
increase
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
222
1
the
efficiencies
of
the
engines.
And
that
makes
them
2
hotter,
which
makes
NOx,
which
makes
emissions
goes
up.

3
There's
a
trend
in
technology
for
higher
NOx
emissions,

4
and
there
is
technology
development
to
try
to
reduce
that.

5
Those
are
sort
of
conflicting
to
some
degree.

6
Without
something
pushing
the
aircraft
7
manufacturers
to
buy
really
clean
engines,
then
I
think
as
8
the
chart
shows
emissions
go
up
from
aircraft
because
9
they're
just
getting
higher
pressure
ratios
for
efficiency
10
and
putting
out
more
NOx
as
a
result.

11
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
My
second
question
has
to
12
do
with
rail
engines.
And
my
understanding
is
that
at
13
least
in
California
the
railroads
have
purchased
clean
14
engines
more
recently.
Are
they
­­
is
it
the
same?

15
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
In
the
16
South
Coast.

17
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
What
about
here
in
the
18
Roseville
yard
and
that
kind
of
thing?
That's
sort
of
19
where
I
heard.

20
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
I
think
you
might
21
have
heard
news
reports
about
yard
haulers
retrofitting
22
for
shifting
the
engines
around.
That
was
a
Cummins
West
23
project
I
think
that
was
funded
by
the
local
air
district
24
with
Carl
Moyer
money
and
with
the
expectation
if
it
25
proved
out
and
was
cost­
effective
it
would
be
replicated
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
223
1
around
the
state.
So
it
wasn't
the
trains
passing
2
through,
but
moving
the
cars
around
in
the
yards
3
themselves.

4
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Okay.

5
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
What's
6
important
on
­­
the
federal
government
has
stepped
up
and
7
required
new
locomotives
to
be
much
lower
emissions.
I
8
think
probably
roughly
50,
60,
70
percent
reduction
in
9
NOx.
And
they've
also
had
a
provision
when
these
things
10
are
rebuild
­­
since
they
last
forever
­­
they
be
build
11
down
to
the
tighter
standards.
That's
a
good
provision.

12
But
it
has
stopped
at
a
level
that
is
way
higher
per
unit
13
of
work
than
the
trucks
or
even
the
off­
road
equipment.

14
So
there's
a
need
for
­­
we
think
the
federal
15
government
to
drop
the
standard
further
now
that
the
16
technology
is
being
developed
for
diesel
trucks
and
17
construction
equipment.
It
could
be
applied.
And
we
made
18
a
comment
in
there
about
supporting
­­
they
have
a
19
proposal
or
suggestion
­­
they're
asking
for
comments
on
20
doing
that
in
their
new
rule
making
for
off­
road
trip
21
equipment
in
general.

22
I
think
there
was
a
comment
made
we
support
a
23
cleaner
fuel
at
500
PPM,
but
we
probably
would
end
up
24
supporting
cleaner
fuel
at
15
PPM
because
that
would
be
25
the
level
of
sulfur
that
would
allow
locomotives
to
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
224
1
potential
have
particulate
control
which
they
don't
have
2
right
now.
We'll
have
to
figure
out
when
we
comment
on
3
this
rule
whether
that
makes
good
sense
or
not.
But
it's
4
pretty
clear
we
would
definitely
benefit
from
having
much
5
cleaner
locomotives
as
the
new
technology
evolve.

6
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
What's
the
life
of
a
7
locomotive
of
the
engine
considering
that
they're
rebuilt.

8
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:

9
Probably
30
or
40
years
at
least.

10
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
A
long
time.
Okay.

11
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
One
more
question.
All
of
12
these
standards
are
tied
to
getting
the
sulfur
content
in
13
fuel
reduced.
What's
the
status
of
that
program?

14
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
When
15
you
say
all
of
the
standards,
you
have
bring
it
up
by
16
category.

17
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
I
shouldn't
say
all.
I'm
18
thinking
in
terms
of
­­

19
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
On­
road
20
fuel
for
trucks
will
be
down
to
a
level
of
sulfur
that
21
will
allow
the
use
of
particulate
filters
in
the
summer
of
22
'
06
nation­
wide.
For
off­
road
equipment
the
EPA
proposal
23
is
to
have
on
that
same
fuel
available
and
required
24
nation­
wide
in
the
summer
of
2010,
I
think
it
is.
So
four
25
years
later.
I'm
think
that's
right.
Bob
can
correct
me
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
225
1
if
I'm
off
by
a
year.

2
Then
they're
seeking
comments
on
what
the
fuel
3
should
be
for
locomotives
500
or
15
perhaps.
And
one
4
would
tend
to
argue
for
the
lower
number
because
that
5
allows
the
use
of
particulate
filters
where
the
higher
6
number
probably
would
not.
And
then
on,
you
know,
marine
7
vessels,
they
tend
to
use
really
high
­­
ocean­
going
type
8
really
high
sulfur
type
fuel.
I'm
not
sure
what's
in
jet
9
aircraft
from
a
sulfur
standpoint
but
­­

10
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
Thank
you.

11
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
SCHEIBLE:
We're
12
scheduled
to
bring
the
Board
in
July
a
regulation
change
13
for
the
diesel
regulation
for
California
that
would
align
14
for
on­
road
fuel
and
off­
road
fuel
with
15
PPM
starting
in
15
2006.

16
BOARD
MEMBER
CALHOUN:
Is
that
the
same
as
the
17
federal?

18
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
SCHEIBLE:
It's
the
same
19
sulfur
level
as
the
federal.
But
we
would
do
the
off­
road
20
earlier
in
California
because
there
really
isn't
a
21
separate
market
for
off­
road
fuel.
So
once
the
on­
road
22
fuel
goes
down,
the
off­
road
fuel
could
go
with
it
in
23
tandem.
It
will
not
affect
locomotives
or
ships.

24
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
And
the
25
parallel
to
it
not
affecting
locomotives
and
ships
is
we
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
226
1
do
have
a
lot
of
interstate
traffic.
Even
the
heavy
duty
2
equipment
­­
construction
equipment
moves
from
state
to
3
state.
So
you
can
get
fuel
­­
federal
fuel
being
used
in
4
California
to
some
degree,
especially
on
the
trucks.
So
5
we
definitely
get
a
benefit
from
having
nation­
wide
6
consistent
low
sulfur
fuel
compared
to
doing
just
by
7
ourselves.

8
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
We
will
be
getting
a
9
nation­
wide
consistent
diesel
fuel?
No
need
to
answer
10
that.

11
CHIEF
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
For
12
sulfur
­­
excuse
me.
That
was
a
serious
omission.
For
13
sulfur.

14
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Any
more
questions?

15
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
Just
a
note.
One
of
the
16
things
that
stood
out
­­
I
always
blamed
a
lot
of
other
17
sources
for
these
diesel
PM.
But
ships
are
significant,

18
are
they
not,
in
California.
And
many
of
those
ships
are
19
not
flying
American
flags.
So
we
have
to
rely
on
some
20
international
source
of
­­
and
how
that's
that
working?

21
Is
that
successful?

22
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
Well,
EPA
can
23
address
that
when
they
come
to
the
­­

24
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
Maybe
I
should
leave
that
25
for
them.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
227
1
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
There
are
2
international
pressures
to
reduce
the
emissions
from
ships
3
because
of
protocol
concerns
which
are
probably
4
stimulating
more
activity
than
has
been
brought
about
in
5
the
last
ten
years
because
we've
been
trying
to
do
6
something
about
ships
for
a
very
long
time.
So
­­

7
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
So
if
I
could
ask
the
8
speaker
from
EPA
perhaps
to
just
touch
on
that,
I'd
be
9
interested
in
that.

10
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
TERRY:
I
just
want
to
11
add
one
thing.
There
was
recently
a
national
conference
12
on
particulate
pollution
and
a
major
new
compilation
of
13
the
scientific
evidence
on
particulate
pollution
was
14
displayed
at
NARSTO.
It's
Mexico,
U.
S.,
and
Canada.
And
15
Jeff
Holmstead
was
there,
and
he's
getting
a
lot
pressure
16
both
from
Canada
and
Mexico,
the
entire
west
coast
17
corridor,
to
take
a
look
at
the
shipping
issue.
And
a
18
number
of
air
districts
in
California
have
been
pushing
19
hard.
And
I
think
you'll
hear
from
Santa
Barbara
on
this
20
point
as
well.

21
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
Good.

22
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Seeing
no
more
questions,
I'd
23
like
to
call
on
Mr.
Bob
Larson
from
EPA.

24
Bob,
thank
for
coming
out.

25
MR.
LARSON:
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
228
1
address
you
on
behalf
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency.

2
(
Thereupon
an
overhead
presentation
was
3
presented
as
follows.)

4
MR.
LARSON:
At
the
outset
I'd
like
to
5
acknowledge
that
we
have
had
a
very
close
and
productive
6
working
relationship
with
the
ARB
staff.
We
certainly
7
appreciated
their
professionalism.
And
we
look
forward
to
8
continuing
that
cooperative
effort
into
the
future.

9
Much
of
what
I
have
on
my
slides
here
­­
I
have
10
just
a
few
have
already
been
touched
on
by
previous
11
presentation.
But
­­
so
this
may
not
take
too
long.
But
12
I
have
an
opportunity
to
address
a
couple
of
points
in
13
particular.

14
Certainly
from
my
view
I
think
the
federal
EPA
15
has
been
particularly
aggressive,
productive,
and
useful
16
from
your
perspective.
Over
the
last
few
years
we've
17
adopted
national
standards
that
are
very
stringent
and
18
impact
those
fleets
that
you're
not
able
to
control
19
yourself,
starting
with
the
tier
two
standard
for
20
light­
duty
vehicles.
Going
on
to
the
2004
heavy
duty
21
standards,
there
was
some
pull
ahead
for
2002
standards.

22
And
then
very
significantly
I
think
for
your
benefit
is
23
the
2007
heavy
duty
standards
where
we
do
have
combination
24
of
very
stringent
reductions
in
emissions
performance
but
25
also
then
the
necessary
improvements
in
the
fuel
sulfur
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
229
1
level
of
the
fuel.

2
­­
o0o­­

3
MR.
LARSON:
As
has
already
been
mentioned,
we
4
have
put
standards
in
place
for
large
spark
ignition
5
engines,
recreational
vehicles,
recreational
marine
6
engines,
and
on
the
last
point
the
large
marine
engines,

7
C1
and
C2,
category
1
and
category
two
engines
which
are
8
more
typical
harbor
craft
using
locomotive­
size
diesel
9
engine
with
medium
at
higher
speed.
And
then
the
C3
10
engines
which
are
more
the
ocean­
going
ships.
As
11
Ms.
Riordan
points
out
they
are
almost
entirely
flagged
in
12
other
nations
so,
therefore,
not
under
our
direct
control.

13
Nevertheless,
we
have
adopted
standards
that
14
are
­­
have
been
put
in
place
through
the
international
15
maritime
organization
so
called
Marpole
Annex
6
standards,

16
and
those
will
be
going
into
effect
in
2004
in
the
17
United
States.
And
we
expect
around
that
same
time
frame
18
internationally.
So
there
will
be
some
standards
in
19
place.
Unfortunately,
those
standards
also
are
not
the
20
most
stringent.
There's
a
large
number
of
the
newer
21
engines
that
basically
are
meeting
those
standards.

22
At
the
federal
EPA
we
are
interesting
in
trying
23
to
improve
the
emission
performance
of
ocean­
going
ships.

24
The
obvious
problem,
though,
is
they're
not
under
our
25
control.
So
we
are
working
very
hard
through
our
efforts
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
230
1
with
the
international
maritime
organization
to
encourage
2
that
international
body
to
pursue
more
stringent
3
standards.
And
we
hope
to
convince
them
that
the
types
of
4
technologies
that
we're
investigating
that
we
plan
on
5
pursuing
for
regulation
here
within
the
United
States
are
6
also
technologies
that
would
work
elsewhere
in
the
world,

7
including
engine
and
fuel
and
perhaps
after­
treatment
8
types
of
technologies
similar
to
what
we've
been
very
9
successful
on
the
land­
based
side.

10
If
we
are
successful,
of
course,
those
emission
11
reductions
aren't
going
to
be
here
in
the
next
few
years.

12
So
we
are
talking
about
something
that
is
a
bit
a
longer
13
term.

14
­­
o0o­­

15
MR.
LARSON:
It
was
mentioned
that
we
have
just
16
proposed
a
non­
road
NPRM
which
has
very
significant
17
emission
reductions
again
and
adopts
the
low
sulfur
18
standard
of
500
PPM
cap
in
the
­­
I
think
it
starts
in
19
September
of
2007
and
then
15
PPM
cap
that
goes
into
place
20
in
2010.
There
is
a
hearing
in
several
areas
of
the
21
United
States.
One
is
being
held
in
the
Los
Angeles
area,

22
here
on
June
17th,
and
we
appreciate
your
support.

23
­­
o0o­­

24
MR.
LARSON:
As
part
of
that
proposal
we
did
25
acknowledge
a
commitment
on
our
part
to
have
these
revised
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
231
1
locomotives
and
marine
standards
that
will
be
two
separate
2
rule
makings.
But
I
grouped
them
here
because
there
are
3
fairly,
for
the
most
part
a
similar
type
of
regulatory
4
path.
We
expect
about
a
year
from
now
to
have
an
advance
5
notes
of
proposal
rule
making
set
out
technical
issues
we
6
see
that
will
help
us
frame
the
actual
proposal
which
7
would
occur
about
a
year
later
during
the
2005
year.

8
Again,
as
I
mentioned
a
moment
ago,
it
will
include
both
9
fuel
improvements
both
in
sulfur
and
technology
options
10
will
be
considered.

11
Implementation
­­
well,
it's
not
a
real
big
­­

12
but
it
should
be
a
big
question
mark
there
­­
noted
that
13
perhaps
2012
that's
my
guess.
That's
no
real
prediction
14
of
exactly
when
we'll
be
able
to
determine
what
is
15
technically
feasible
and
what's
the
economic
time
for
16
phasing
those
things
in.
So,
again,
I
would
say
certainly
17
that
is
not
something
that
could
be
in
place
prior
to
18
2010.
But
maybe
in
the
early
part
of
the
following
decade
19
we
would
hope
to
have
these
standards
in
place.

20
­­
o0o­­

21
MR.
LARSON:
On
the
aircraft
side
there
are
two
22
activities
that
are
going
on.
One
is
with
the
­­
on
the
23
international
side
where
we're
working
to
try
to
get
24
international
standards
in
place.
The
standards
­­

25
investigating
body
there
which
we
are
a
participant
is
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
232
1
looking
at
NOx
reductions
that
range
from
5
to
30
percent
2
compared
to
the
existing
standard.
And
they're
analyzing
3
two
different
implementation
years.
One
of
them
2008,
and
4
one
of
them
2012.
I
don't
think
we
should
be
too
much
5
into
that
­­
those
implementation
dates
and
anticipate
6
they
would
actually
have
standards
in
place
that
would
be
7
effective
beginning
2008.
I
think
we
all
recognize
not
8
only
the
technical
lead
times
associated
with
getting
more
9
stringent
standards
in
place,
but
the
economic
10
difficulties
that
are
for
the
airline
industry.

11
The
second
activity
was
also
mentioned
a
moment
12
ago
in
the
earlier
presentation.
That
is
stakeholder
13
activity
within
the
United
States
that
we're
co­
chairing
14
with
the
Federal
Aviation
Agency.
And
it's
looking
at
a
15
range
of
options
trying
to
improve
emissions
from
16
aircraft,
airports
in
general.

17
A
couple
of
them
are
mentioned
here.
One
of
them
18
is
looking
at
options
for
improving
the
ground
surface
19
equipment
emissions
and
model
that
for
the
successful
work
20
that
was
accomplished
in
the
South
Coast.

21
And
the
second
one
was
to
­­
even
though
there
is
22
a
small
range
of
the
emission
performance
of
existing
23
engines,
as
Mr.
Cackette
mentioned,
to
look
to
encouraging
24
airlines
to
purchase
those
engines
that
are
currently
25
available
and
are
at
the
lower
end
of
that
range
for
what
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
233
1
benefit
we
can
get
from
those
kinds
of
emission.

2
We're
hoping
also
to
encourage
them
to
retire
the
3
various
portions
of
their
fleet,
not
bring
back
engines
4
that
are
currently
partnering
with
us
in
the
desert.

5
Those
kinds
of
things.

6
­­
o0o­­

7
MR.
LARSON:
And
lastly,
I
think
it's
important
8
to
mention
that
we're
not
only
working
on
the
regulatory
9
aspect
­­
although
it's
an
area
where
we've
been
10
particularly
successful.
We
also
have
launched
a
11
nation­
wide
voluntary
program.
We
think
there
is
a
role
12
for
voluntary
emission
reductions
and
we're
pursuing
them
13
quite
rigorously.
The
first
one
is
named
"
Best
Workplace
14
for
Commuters"
basically
to
try
to
encourage
employers
to
15
provide
maximum
benefits
to
their
employees
to
discourage
16
single
occupancy
vehicle
trips
to
and
from
work.

17
Telecommuniting's
an
obvious
one,
ride
sharing,
transit
18
passes,
those
types
of
things.

19
Through
this
program
we
try
to
recognize
those
20
workplaces
who
are
particularly
aggressive
there
in
21
offering
those
benefits
and
bring
up
the
rest
of
the
22
employment
community
to
those
levels.

23
Smart
way
transport
program
is
focused
on
efforts
24
to
reduce
emissions
the
freight
industry.
Right
now
the
25
biggest
emphasis
in
this
program
is
on
the
trucking
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
234
1
industry.
And
we're
encouraged
in
looking
towards
things
2
such
as
reducing
idling
either
through
truck
stops
which
3
is
one
of
the
options
that
is
being
considered
here
in
4
California
as
well
as
auxiliary
power
units
that
would
5
Obviate
the
need
for
running
big
diesel
engine
to
provide
6
heat
and
power
the
cooling
to
the
cab.

7
The
third
voluntary
program
that
we've
been
­­

8
recognized
here
is
we
just
launched
less
than
a
month
ago
9
our
school
bus
initiative,
again,
looking
at
reducing
10
idling.
And
a
key
component
there
­­
but
also
replacing
11
the
older
school
buses.
As
you
can
appreciate,
a
lot
of
12
the
school
buses
are
pre
'
91
inversions
of
engines
and
are
13
quite
dirty
compared
to
what's
available
now.

14
Looking
for
financing
to
­­
we
had
some
over
the
15
$
20
million
available
right
now
to
help
that
work.
And
16
we're
looking
for
other
innovative
financing
options
to
17
improve
the
turn
over
of
fleet
school
buses,
retrofitting
18
the
more
recent
vintage
buses
hopefully
to
have
the
entire
19
fleet
of
school
buses
across
the
nation
turned
over
20
basically
to
clean
technologies
by
2010.

21
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thanks
very
much,
Bob.

22
Questions
from
the
colleagues
of
the
Board?

23
Thanks
very
much
for
coming
out.
Any
other
comments
from
24
the
staff?

25
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
Just
there's
one
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
235
1
more
witness
signed
up
to
speak.
No
more
comments
at
this
2
time.

3
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
We
do
have
one
witness
signed
4
up
for
the
public
testimony.
That's
Kathy
Patton
from
5
Santa
Barbara
County.

6
Welcome.

7
MS.
PATTON:
Thank
you
very
much.

8
I
think
I'm
supposed
to
have
a
clicker.
If
the
9
technology
works,
I'll
get
through
this
quickly.

10
I'm
Kathy
Patton
from
Santa
Barbara
County
Air
11
Pollution
Control
District.

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

14
MS.
PATTON:
I'm
here
to
talk
about
just
one
15
element
of
what
your
staff
has
presented
today,
that
is
16
the
impact
of
marine
shipping.
On
a
local
area
like
ours,

17
I
was
saddened
to
hear
the
number
of
times
that
Mr.
Larson
18
had
to
admit
that
the
federal
actions
that
are
being
taken
19
will
be
long­
term
actions.
And
I
think
you'll
see
in
my
20
slides
we
need
help
now,
and
all
of
California
right
now
21
needs
help
with
this
particular
sector.

22
­­
o0o­­

23
MS.
PATTON:
So
you
may
wonder,
if
you
know
24
anything
about
Santa
Barbara
at
all,
why
we
would
be
25
concerned
about
marine
shipping
when
we
don't
have
a
port.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
236
1
If
our
2001
clean
air
plan,
we
went
through
an
emission
2
inventory
process
that
was
really
quite
a
surprising
3
process
to
us
when
we
started
looking
at
the
relative
4
emission
impact
from
marine
shipping.

5
Marine
shipping
is
the
largest
uncontrolled
6
source
of
NOx
in
our
county,
and
we
believe
probably
in
7
most
coastal
areas
throughout
the
nation.
We're
concerned
8
that
failure
to
control
this
source
is
going
to
need
­­
or
9
require
that
coastal
areas
compensate
for
the
emissions
10
that
we're
receiving
from
off­
shore.

11
­­
o0o­­

12
MS.
PATTON:
Just
to
put
our
little
county
in
13
context,
we
are
roughly
halfway
between
San
Francisco
and
14
Los
Angeles,
closer
to
Los
Angeles.
We
make
up
130
miles
15
of
the
California
coast
line.
Any
ships
traveling
from
16
the
ports
of
Long
Beach
or
Los
Angeles
going
to
the
north
17
or
even
to
Asia
will
pass
by
our
county
and
by
most
of
the
18
California
coast
line.
Just
the
way
the
great
circle
19
route
goes.
The
world
is
round.
And
they
travel
quite
a
20
ways
north
before
heading
west.

21
­­
o0o­­

22
MS.
PATTON:
In
our
county
we
have
the
Channel
23
Islands
just
off
shore,
which
means
most
of
these
ships
24
are
traveling
within
10
to
15
miles
of
shore.
These
are
25
huge,
huge
ships.
It's
like
having
power
plants
traveling
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
237
1
right
off
shore
your
coast
line.

2
In
our
emission
inventory
efforts,
we
worked
very
3
closely
with
the
marine
exchange
from
the
ports
of
4
Los
Angeles
and
Long
Beach
and
found
that
we
have
about
5
1300
making
roughly
7,000
transits
per
year
through
our
6
Channel
Islands.
Surprisingly,
even
though
we
don't
have
7
a
port,
our
emission
inventory
is
roughly
equivalent
to
8
the
inventory
that
South
Coast
has
with
those
two
ports.

9
­­
o0o­­

10
MS.
PATTON:
Just
to
show
you
how
marine
shipping
11
stacks
up
with
our
emissions
inventory,
your
staff
just
12
showed
you
that
federal
sources
were
roughly
a
third
of
13
the
state­
wide
inventory
for
NOx.
Well,
marine
shipping
14
alone
is
roughly
a
third
of
our
emissions
inventory.
It's
15
greater
even
than
all
of
our
on­
road
mobile
sources.
When
16
you
factor
in
the
increase
that
we're
told
from
this
17
industry
is
going
to
happen
over
the
years,
it
gets
even
18
more
alarming
and
more
concerning
for
us.

19
­­
o0o­­

20
MS.
PATTON:
This
slide
shows
the
top
of
­­
is
21
that
­­
would
you
call
that
purple?
Purple
area
there
at
22
the
very
top
is
marine
shipping.
And
when
you
forecast
23
out
into
the
future,
the
growth
in
marine
shipping
­­
it
24
goes
from
being
a
third
of
our
inventory
to
being
almost
25
two­
thirds
of
our
inventory.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
238
1
All
those
other
sources
­­
all
those
other
bars
2
that
you
see
on
this
graphic
are
showing
either
reduction
3
or
staying
slightly
the
same.
Those
are
those
sources
4
that
for
the
most
part
the
state
and
local
areas
have
5
control
other.
This
federal
source
where
we
do
not
have
6
control
is
projected
to
eat
up
all
of
the
progress
we
7
would
have
made
in
those
other
areas.

8
If
any
of
our
estimates
going
out
into
the
future
9
are
not
accurate,
then
you
can
see
that
that
bar
we're
10
trying
to
stay
under,
which
is
the
bar
that
we
showed
back
11
in
our
base
year
we
could
attain
the
federal
standard
12
under
­­
any
of
those
sources
not
meeting
these
13
reductions
­­
and
if
marine
shipping
even
goes
up
further,

14
we
are
in
danger
of
not
being
able
to
maintain
the
federal
15
standard.

16
And
although
EPA
has
recently
adopted
standards
17
for
U.
S.
flag
ships,
I
would
note
those
standards
are
18
based
on
IMO,
the
International
Maritime
Organization,

19
levels
which
are
already
projected
in
the
bars
that
you
20
see
in
front
of
you
here.
And
also
since
EPA
decided
­­

21
and
we
believe
it
was
a
decision
not
a
legal
requirement.

22
Since
they
decided
to
only
apply
their
regulations
to
U.
S.

23
flagged
ships,
it
will
not
provide
very
many
reductions
24
for
us
at
all.

25
­­
o0o­­

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
239
1
MS.
PATTON:
Again,
in
the
inventory
90
percent
2
of
the
vessels
that
transit
the
California
coast
line
­­

3
actually,
it's
over
90
percent
­­
are
foreign
flagged,

4
and,
therefore,
not
regulated
by
the
recent
EPA
rule.

5
We
also
found
­­
we
call
them
our
frequent
6
flyers.
That
roughly
10
percent
of
those
1300
vessels
7
mentioned
make
up
about
50
percent
of
that
NOx
emission
8
bar
that
you
say.

9
So
if
we
could
together
with
EPA
just
get
at
that
10
10
percent
of
our
emissions
and
really
focus
on
these
11
frequent
flyers,
we
could
cut
in
half
that
big
purple
bar
12
that
you
saw.
And
that's
what
we
would
like
to
do.

13
Also
to
put
it
just
in
a
slightly
different
14
perspective,
you're
all
familiar
with
Title
5
permits.

15
Well,
40
of
these
ships
alone
for
qualify
under
our
16
program
of
being
50
tons
or
more
annually
of
NOx.
They
17
would
qualify
for
a
Title
5
program
if
they
were
on
shore.

18
Off­
shore,
they're
uncontrolled.

19
­­
o0o­­

20
MS.
PATTON:
We
are
hopeful
that
the
21
International
Maritime
Organization
will
reopen
the
NOx
22
provisions.
We
understand
that
they
are
slated
to
do
that
23
sometime
in
the
near
future.
The
NOx
provision
of
that
24
Marpole
agreement,
the
treaty
you
heard
the
previous
25
speaker
talking
about
­­
if
that
happens
we
need
EPA,
we
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
240
1
need
ARB,
we
need
all
of
us
at
the
table
to
say
just
how
2
important
this
source
is
to
us.

3
However,
those
are
long­
term
goals.
In
the
mean
4
time,
we
think
we
have
some
short­
term
solutions.
We've
5
been
working
with
your
staff
in
the
maritime
technical
6
working
group.
EPA
has
been
at
the
table,
has
been
a
7
valuable
partner
with
us
in
that.
As
you
heard
from
your
8
staff,
ship
owners
are
there.
Technology
providers,

9
engine
manufacturers,
the
Maritime
Administration,
air
10
agency.
We
are
all
at
the
table
discussing
this.
It's
11
time
now
for
us
to
put
our
money
where
our
mouth
is
and
12
start
to
fund
some
retrofitting
demonstration
programs.

13
Your
staff
has
done
a
marvelous
job
of
pulling
14
the
parties
together
and
finding
out
there
is
some
15
interest
in
launching
some
demonstrations
on
these
large
16
vessels.
Unfortunately,
we've
recently
heard
that
while
17
EPA
is
supportive
­­
you
didn't
see
our
name
on
the
list
18
there
at
the
end
of
the
slide
as
a
funding
incentive
19
program.
We
want
our
name
on
that
list.
We
need
it
now.

20
So
while
Santa
Barbara
may
be
one
of
the
first
21
districts
that
have
gone
through
the
Clear
Air
Plan
and
22
seen
how
these
ship
stack
up,
this
shouldn't
be
a
surprise
23
for
other
coastal
areas.
It's
a
large
unregulated
source.

24
We
urge
you
to
urge
EPA
to
take
a
leadership
role
in
the
25
international
discussions,
but
also
to
take
a
local
role
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
241
1
in
helping
to
fund
incentive
programs
for
marine
vessels.

2
Thank
you.

3
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much.

4
Professor
Friedman.

5
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
I'm
not
sure
I'm
6
addressing
this
question
to
you.
Perhaps
our
7
representative
of
EPA
or
staff.
What
is
­­
first
of
all,

8
what
kind
of
transport
for
prevailing
westerly
winds
or
9
winds
coming
off
of
the
ocean
carry
that
pollution,
the
10
NOx
and
any
particulate
matter,
to
shore?
And
from
how
11
far
away
does
it
need
to
be
before
it
might
dissipate
12
significantly?

13
MS.
PATTON:
Do
you
want
me
­­
your
staff
will
14
have
a
more
technical
­­

15
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
I'll
tell
you
what
16
I'm
thinking.
I'm
sure
this
idea
has
occurred
to
you.
I
17
don't
have
very
many
original
ideas
anymore.
But
it
does
18
occur
to
me
if
you
could
move
those
ships
to
go
around
the
19
islands,
at
least
for
Santa
Barbara.
I'm
not
sure
how
far
20
off­
shore
they'd
have
to
be.
And
it
seems
to
be
the
U.
S.

21
has
some
say
in
that
with
respect
to
foreign
ships.
And,

22
again,
I'm
not
sure,
but
I
think
those
are
­­
at
some
23
point
they
become
international
waters.

24
But
I
think,
you
know
­­
I
remember
the
old
tuna
25
fleet
used
to
get
captured
many,
many
miles
from
shore
off
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
242
1
Costa
Rica.
And
some
of
these
places
are
U.
S.
flagged
2
vessels.
So
with
foreign
vessels
we
get
­­
maybe
a
3
bargaining
ship
or
something
at
the
international
level
in
4
the
organization
or
just
U.
S.
Fiat
or
so
disposed
could
5
either
clean
these
ships
up
on
a
time
table
or
route
6
around.
It
will
cost
you
more
to
go
out,
and
that
may
7
cost
ultimately
the
consumer
a
little
bit
more
business,

8
more
­­
or
both.
But
clean
air
is
our
goal.
And
I'm
just
9
wondering
if
the
staff
or
somebody
can
respond.

10
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
Well,
Professor
11
Friedman,
that
exact
strategy
was
contemplated
by
the
12
Santa
Barbara
Air
District
and
others
as
well.

13
In
the
case
of
the
Channel
Islands,
what's
on
the
14
other
side
is
a
military
testing
zone
for
ordinances.
And
15
it
was
not
thought
to
be
desirable
to
have
ships
16
traversing
where
military
exercises
were
taking
place
17
so
­­

18
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
That
would
be
an
effective
19
mitigation
strategy.

20
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
I
walked
right
into
21
that.

22
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
Which
caused
us
23
to
pursue
the
speed
reduction
strategies
instead
that
were
24
easier
to
implement.
They
had
a
dramatic
effect
on
NOx.

25
With
respect
to
your
broader
question,
California
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
243
1
as
a
state
is
prevailing
on­
shore
breezes.
It's
why
our
2
ozone
problem
is
so
severs.
We
do
trace
them
well
out
3
into
the
ocean.
I
think
our
modeling
domains
for
the
4
South
Coast
and
now
even
for
the
Central
California
ozone
5
study
extend
out
by
more
than
20
miles.
So
we
would
trace
6
some
contribution
always.
And
nearby
transit,
of
course,

7
is,
you
know,
almost
as
good
as
having
been
on
the
shore.

8
MS.
PATTON:
And
just
if
I
could
add
one
other
9
item.
In
early
­­
actually
late
'
80s
when
we
were
doing
10
modeling
we
did
find
that
emissions
out
in
our
channels,

11
whether
they
be
from
off­
shore
oil
rigs
or
marine
12
shipping,
they
differently
did
have
an
impact
on
us
and
on
13
Ventura.

14
So
the
numbers
that
I
presented
today
of
our
15
current
plan
were
based
on
an
emission
inventory
basis,

16
not
necessarily
on
a
model
impact
basis.

17
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
TERRY:
Just
as
a
follow
18
up,
a
couple
of
thoughts.
The
idea
of
leverage
is
a
good
19
one.
We
do
have
some
improved
science
we
didn't
have
in
20
1994
when
we
did
this
initial
measure
in
SIP.
That
came
21
later
with
the
speed
limit.
I
think
with
some
using
the
22
current
models,
we
could
reevaluate
the
impacts
and
23
perhaps
make
it
an
even
stronger
case.

24
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
As
I
recollect,
if
my
memory
25
serves
me,
when
they
were
looking
at
the
Grand
Canyon,

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
244
1
there
was
some
creative
accounting
that
said
some
of
the
2
SOX
emissions
from
the
shipping
was
actually
getting
into
3
the
Grand
Canyon.
Whether
that
was
real
or
whether
it
was
4
to
fill
in
for
some
modeling
deficiencies
­­
but
I
think
5
there
is
some
long
term
transport
as
well
as.

6
Mr.
McKinnon.

7
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
There
is
an
area
for
8
leverage
and
I'll
address
this
to
the
representative
of
9
the
U.
S.
EPA.
A
couple
of
years
ago
I
had
to
do
a
lot
of
10
work
looking
at
this
industry.
And
there
is
a
Defense
11
Department
subsidy
very
large
dollar
figures
that
is
12
distributed
for
having
capacity
available
in
the
event
13
there's
a
war
to
be
able
to
transport
large
amounts
of
14
equipment
and
materials
to
a
theater
of
war.

15
And
there's
a
huge
subsidy
that
goes
to
shipping
16
companies
every
year,
year
in
and
year
out,
irregardless
17
of
whether
or
not
there's
a
war.
And
there's
a
18
requirement
that
they
be
American
flagged
companies.
And
19
there
is
currently
a
move
afoot
to
change
that
requirement
20
and
to
allow
it
to
be
an
American
subsidy
of
a
21
foreign­
owned
company,
something
like
that.

22
And
it
seems
to
me
­­
and
there's
just
some
23
really
big
bucks
involved
for
really
not
doing
anything
24
except
being
ready
in
case
of
a
war.
And
it
seems
to
me
25
that
if
the
federal
government
wanted
to
exercise
some
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
245
1
leverage,
there
are
some
huge
shipping
companies
involved
2
in
that
discussion
that
would
be
subject
to
that
leverage.

3
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.

4
Supervisor
DeSaulnier.

5
SUPERVISOR
DeSAULNIER:
Just
a
couple
comments,

6
Mr.
Chairman.
Perhaps
the
Bay
Area
has
found
the
source
7
of
our
problems.
I
wish
D.
D.
was
still
here
in
terms
of
8
our
transport
issues.
Can
we
start
to
work
on
smog
check
9
for
a
peaceful
legislation
at
a
federal
level
for
enhanced
10
smog
check
for
President
Kennedy
here.

11
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Well,
I
think
Charlie
Peters
12
could
be
usefully
employed
in
that
deal
as
well.

13
SUPERVISOR
DeSAULNIER:
Would
it
be
a
one­
way
14
ticket?

15
In
the
Bay
Area,
some
of
you
know,
we
spent
a
lot
16
of
our
money
in
the
Carl
Moyer
on
retrofitting
tug
boats.

17
And
it
was
amazing
to
me
how
much
bang
for
the
buck
we
got
18
in
that
program.
And
it
was
one
of
the
reasons
why
19
hopefully
in
future
years
we'll
get
more
money,
both
for
20
our
sake
and
our
downwind
neighbors.

21
But
for
those
few
of
us
­­
Santa
Barbara.
Those
22
few
of
us
who
have
been
fortunate
enough
to
ascend
to
the
23
region
administrator
for
region
9'
s
beautiful
office
on
24
the
upper
floor
overlooking
the
bay
­­
I
know
I
have.
The
25
former
regional
administrator
I
can
remember
teasing
one
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
246
1
as
we
looked
out
on
to
the
freight
just
sitting
in
the
2
water
waiting
to
go
into
the
port
of
Oakland,
wouldn't
it
3
be
nice
if
she
could
do
something
about
that.
I
know
the
4
current
administrator
has
the
same
office
so
I
know
he
has
5
the
same
view.

6
It
would
be
really
significant
though,
and
I'm
7
appreciative
that
we've
had
this
report.
There's
some
8
movement,
but
it
would
be
tremendously
significant,
I
9
think,
for
the
whole
coastal
region,
not
just
to
the
Bay
10
Area,
if
we
could
be
more
proactive
either
with
subsidies
11
or
educational
programs
or
looking
­­
as
Matt
suggested,

12
other
incentive
in
this
age
of
globalism
where
perhaps
13
disincentive
that
collectively
federal
agencies
­­
and
I
14
assume
you're
doing
some
of
that
­­
can
work
with
to
15
encourage,
prod
of
some
our
trading
partners.

16
And
Matt
was
pointing
out
that
Kennedy
here
used
17
to
be
American
Shipping
Lines,
and
it
is
now
owned
by
a
18
Dutch
company.
Maybe
there
are
things
we
can
do
to
19
convince
them
to
could
the
right
thing
and
help
us
with
20
some
of
our
problems.

21
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Good
point.
Thank
you.
Any
22
other
comments
from
staff?
Board?
No.

23
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Well
­­

24
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Yes.

25
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
We
had
­­
I
think
I
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
247
1
heard
a
request
from
the
speaker
that
we
urge
the
U.
S.

2
EPA,
who
apparently
has
exclusive
jurisdiction
here
­­
and
3
I
think
not
only
should
our
comments,
but
I
think
they
4
should
be
collated,
assembled,
aggregated
with
as
much
5
honest
and
sincere
force
be
made
into
a
appropriate
urging
6
and
emphasize
the
importance
of
speed,
the
need
to
do
7
something.
Not
just
talk
about
it.

8
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
WITHERSPOON:
We
would
be
happy
9
to
do
that.

10
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
think
the
second
part
of
11
that
request
was
an
invitation
to
go
down
to
look
at
the
12
shipping
liens
and
to
observe
the
close
proximity
to
the
13
islands.

14
SUPERVISOR
DeSAULNIER:
Where
they're
testing
15
emission
or
­­

16
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
He's
going
to
do
the
17
inside
of
the
Channel
and
send
us
to
the
outer
area.

18
SUPERVISOR
DeSAULNIER:
He
was
thinking
the
19
Biltmore.
I
was
thinking
the
tug
boat.

20
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
21
information
on
both
those
items
indicating
the
challenges
22
we
have.

23
And
thank
you,
Bob,
for
coming
up.

24
Thank
you,
Kathy,
for
coming
up.
It
was
very
25
helpful,
very
constructive.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
248
1
I
guess
we
have
nobody
for
the
open
comment
2
period.
So
it's
my
great
pleasure
if
there's
no
other
3
business
to
bring
­­
the
April
meeting
of
the
Air
4
Resources
Board
will
now
adjourn
and
see
you
next
month.

5
And
thank
you
again
staff,
colleagues,
thank
you.

6
(
Thereupon
the
California
Air
Resources
Board
7
adjourned
at
4:
14
p.
m.)

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
249
1
CERTIFICATE
OF
REPORTER
2
I,
TIFFANY
C.
KRAFT,
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
hearing
was
reported
in
shorthand
by
me,

7
Tiffany
C.
Kraft,
a
Certified
Shorthand
Reporter
of
the
8
State
of
California,
and
thereafter
transcribed
into
9
typewriting.

10
I
further
certify
that
I
am
not
of
counsel
or
11
attorney
for
any
of
the
parties
to
said
hearing
nor
in
any
12
way
interested
in
the
outcome
of
said
hearing.

13
IN
WITNESS
WHEREOF,
I
have
hereunto
set
my
hand
14
this
5th
day
of
May,
2003.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
TIFFANY
C.
KRAFT,
CSR,
RPR
24
Certified
Shorthand
Reporter
25
License
No.
12277
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345

