BOARD
MEETING
STATE
OF
CALIFORNIA
AIR
RESOURCES
BOARD
CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
1001
I
STREET
COASTAL
HEARING
ROOM
SECOND
FLOOR
SACRAMENTO,
CALIFORNIA
WEDNESDAY,
JUNE
28,
2001
9:
00
A.
M.

JAMES
F.
PETERS,
CSR,
RPR
CERTIFIED
SHORTHAND
REPORTER
LICENSE
NUMBER
10063
JANET
NICOL,
CSR
CERTIFIED
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
LICENSE
NUMBER
9764
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
ii
APPEARANCES
BOARD
MEMBERS
Dr.
Allan
Lloyd,
Chairperson
Mrs.
Barbara
Riordan
Dr.
William
Burke
Mr.
Joseph
Calhoun
Ms.
Dorene
D'Adamo
Professor
Hugh
Friedman
Dr.
William
Friedman
Mr.
Matthew
McKinnon
Supervisor
Ron
Roberts
STAFF
Mr.
Mike
Kenny,
Executive
Officer
Mr.
Tom
Cackette,
Deputy
Executive
Officer
Mr.
Mike
Scheible,
Deputy
Executive
Officer
Ms.
Lynn
Terry,
Deputy
Executive
Office
Mr.
Michael
Benjamin,
Manager,
Emission
Inventory
Systems
Section
Analisa
Bevan,
Manager,
ZEV
Implementation
Section
Mr.
Richard
Bode,
Chief,
Health
and
Exposure
Assessment
Branch
Mr.
Richard
Corey,
Chief,
Research
Division
Mr.
Bart
Croes,
Chief,
Research
Division
Mr.
Bob
Cross,
Chief,
Mobile
Source
Control
Division
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
iii
APPEARANCES
CONTINUED
STAFF
CONTINUED
Ms.
Victoria
Davis,
Staff
Counsel
Ms.
Deborah
Drechsler,
Ph.
D,
Research
Division
Ms.
Krista
Eley,
Mobile
Source
Control
Division
Ms.
Diane
Johnston,
Senior
Staff
Counsel,
Office
of
Legal
Affairs
Mr.
Jack
Kitowski,
Chief,
On­
Roads
Control
Branch
Ms.
Leslie
Krinsk,
Senior
Staff
Counsel
Ms.
Eileen
McCauley,
Manager,
Atmospheric
Processes
Research
Section
Mr.
Bart
Ostro,
Office
of
Environmental
Health
Hazard
Assessment
Ms.
Gayle
Sweigert,
Mobile
Source
Control
Division
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
iv
INDEX
Page
Proceedings
1
Roll
Call
1
Item
01­
5­
1
3
Executive
Officer
Kenny
4
Staff
Presentation
8
Mr.
Rich
Bell
52
Mr.
Bob
Cassidy
69
Mr.
Michael
Wolterman
82
Mr.
Tom
Austin
95
Mr.
Greg
Hanssen
115
Mr.
Craig
Toepfer
127
Mr.
David
Packard
135
Mr.
Thomas
Dowling
141
Mr.
Michael
Coates
144
Mr.
Tim
Hastrup
145
Mr.
Steve
Heckeroth
148
Mr.
Ken
Smith
151
Mr.
David
Burch
154
Mr.
Ted
Holcombe
159
Mr.
Mickey
Oros
160
Mr.
Hans­
Henning
Judek
163
Mr.
Dale
Foster
164
Mr.
Alec
Brooks
173
Board
Discussion
191
Vote
203
Item
01­
5­
6
206
Vote
204
Item
01­
5­
2
205
Executive
Officer
Kenny
206
Dr.
Deborah
Drechsler
207
Dr.
Daniel
Greenbaum
226
Questions
and
Answers
246
Mr.
Brian
Lamb
253
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
v
INDEX
CONTINUED
Page
Item
01­
5­
3
260
Executive
Officer
Kenny
261
Mr.
Jim
Pederson
262
Board
Discussion
280
Item
01­
5­
5
289
Executive
Officer
Kenny
289
Ms.
Theresa
Najita
290
Ms.
Kati
Buehler
294
Mr.
Joe
Carranko
296
Mr.
Jerry
Maltby
309
Mr.
Chris
Churchill
320
Mr.
Kurt
Rasmussen
322
Mr.
Jerry
Murdock
325
Item
01­
5­
4
335
Executive
Officer
Kenny
336
Mr.
Bruce
Oulrey
337
Ms.
Barbara
Lee
340
Mr.
Wayne
Morgan
348
Adjournment
355
Reporter's
Certificates
356,

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
1
1
PROCEEDINGS
2
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Good
morning.
The
June
28th,

3
2001
public
meeting
of
the
Air
Resources
Board
will
now
4
come
to
order.
As
you'll
notice,
I
guess
we've
get
some
5
change
of
positions
today,
so
it
will
take
us
a
little
6
while
to
get
used
to
that.

7
Superviser
DeSaulnier,
would
you
lead
us
in
the
8
pledge
of
allegiance.

9
BOARD
MEMBER
DeSAULNIER:
I'd
be
happy
to,
Mr.

10
Chairman.
11
(
Thereupon
the
Pledge
of
Allegiance
was
led
12
by
Supervisor
DeSaulnier.)

13
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Will
the
Clerk
of
the
Board,

14
please
call
the
roll.

15
CLERK
OF
THE
BOARD
KAVAN:
Dr.
Burke?

16
BOARD
MEMBER
BURKE:
Present.

17
CLERK
OF
THE
BOARD
KAVAN:
Mr.
Calhoun?

18
Ms.
D'Adamo?

19
Supervisor
DeSaulnier?

20
BOARD
MEMBER
DeSAULNIER:
Present.

21
CLERK
OF
THE
BOARD
KAVAN:
Professor
Friedman?

22
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Here.

23
CLERK
OF
THE
BOARD
KAVAN:
Dr.
Friedman?

24
BOARD
MEMBER
WILLIAM
FRIEDMAN:
Here.

25
CLERK
OF
THE
BOARD
KAVAN:
Mr.
McKinnon?

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
2
1
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Here.

2
CLERK
OF
THE
BOARD
KAVAN:
Supervisor
Patrick?

3
Mrs.
Riordan?

4
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
Here.

5
CLERK
OF
THE
BOARD
KAVAN:
Supervisor
Roberts?

6
Chairman
Lloyd?

7
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Here.

8
We
are
going
to
have
a
change
in
the
agenda.
The
9
first
item
we
will
consider
will
be
the
standardization
of
10
the
charges.
Before
that,
I'd
just
­­
my
colleagues
here,

11
hopefully
Bill
is
going
to
hand
out
a
paper
on
diesel
12
emissions
that
Tom
and
I
prepared
with
enormous
assistance
13
from
our
very
talented
staff.
And
we
gave
that
yesterday.

14
It
has
a
critical
review
of
the
Air
and
Waste
Management
15
Association
in
Orlando.

16
I
think
you'll
find
this
useful,
as
some
of
the
17
key
issues,
and
also
a
good
place
where
you
can
get
a
lot
18
of
information
readily.

19
But
as
you'll
notice
from
the
acknowledgements
20
there,
we
have
outstanding
contributions
from
the
staff,

21
literally
without
whose
help,
it
never
would
have
been
22
finished.

23
It's
on,
but
it
isn't
coming
across
very
much.

24
Is
that
any
better?

25
I
don't
know
whether
there
are
any
other
board
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
3
1
members
who
want
to
say
anything
before
we
start?

2
With
that
then
we'll
commence
with
the
first
item
3
on
the
agenda,
which
is
01­
5­
1,
Public
Hearing
to
Consider
4
Amendments
to
the
California
Zero
Emission
Vehicle
5
Regulations
Regarding
The
Treatment
Of
Majority­
Owned
6
Small
or
Intermediate
Volume
Manufactures
and
7
Infrastructure
Standardization.

8
We
turn
to
consideration
of
the
issues
related
to
9
the
success
of
the
Zero
Emission
Vehicle
Program.
As
a
10
Board,
we
voted
unanimously
last
September
and
again
this
11
January
to
affirm
the
ZEV
Program
and
its
importance
to
12
California's
long­
term
air
quality
efforts.

13
I
am
personally
very
committed
to
the
success
of
14
the
program,
and
know
that
this
reflects
the
commitment
of
15
all
the
Board
Members.
Welcome,
Didi.
Progress
in
16
attaining
critical
public
health,
global
climate
change,

17
and
energy
diversity
goals
will
be
greatly
enhanced
18
through
the
use
of
ZEV
technologies,
and
this
is
basically
19
a
family
of
technologies.

20
Can
you
hear
it?

21
I
can't
control
the
volume.

22
Thank
you.
I'll
swallow
it.

23
(
Laughter.)

24
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Few
programs
that
this
board
25
has
considered
have
the
ability
to
provide
such
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
4
1
far­
reaching
and
long­
term
benefits
for
California.
Last
2
January
this
board
approved
changes
to
the
ZEV,
to
the
3
Zero
Emission
Vehicle
Regulation
that
reduced
the
number
4
of
ZEVs
required
for
the
near
term,
while
increasing
the
5
number
of
ZEVs
and
advanced
technology
vehicles
required
6
in
the
long
term.

7
We
took
this
action
so
that
the
long­
term
success
8
of
the
ZEV
Program
could
be
assured,
by
providing
9
additional
time
to
address
some
of
the
near­
term
10
implementation
challenges
facing
the
ZEV
Program.

11
The
Board
directed
staff
to
develop
12
recommendations
and
begin
working
on
a
number
of
issues.

13
Today,
we
will
be
considering
staff
proposals
on
two
of
14
these
issues.
We
directed
staff
to
investigate
joint
15
ownership
issues
associated
with
the
treatment
of
small
16
and
intermediate
volume
manufacturers
and
standardization
17
of
infrastructure
for
battery
electric
vehicles.

18
These
two
issues
are
important,
because
they
have
19
the
potential
to
directly
impact
the
success
of
the
ZEV
20
Program
and
public
acceptance.

21
Mr.
Kenny,
will
you
lease
begin
the
staff
22
presentation
on
this.
23
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
KENNY:
Thank
you,
Mr.
Chairman
24
and
Members
of
the
Board.

25
As
Dr.
Lloyd
mentioned
there,
the
issues
included
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
5
1
in
the
Board
item
for
your
consideration.
First
is
the
2
staff
proposal
that
would
result
in
a
change
in
the
way
3
that
production
volumes
and
associated
ZEV
requirements
4
are
calculated
for
auto
manufacturers
that
are
majority
5
owned
by
another
manufacturer.

6
Small
volume
manufacturers
are
not
subject
to
ZEV
7
requirements.
And
intermediate
volume
manufacturers
can
8
satisfy
their
entire
ZEV
requirement
with
partial
ZEVs.

9
However,
there
have
been
a
number
of
mergers
and
10
consolidations
in
the
industry
over
the
last
few
years
11
that
have
made
it
increasingly
more
difficult
to
classify
12
manufacturers
as
small,
intermediate
or
large
volume,
and
13
thus
determine
their
ZEV
production
requirements.

14
The
staff
proposal
that
you
will
consider
today
15
clarifies
these
relationships
and
ensures
fair
and
16
equitable
treatment
for
all
manufacturers.

17
The
second
issue
that
will
be
discussed
today
is
18
staff's
proposal
to
standardize
the
charging
19
infrastructure
for
battery
electric
vehicles.
A
concern
20
has
been
expressed
with
the
current
situation
and
its
21
impact
on
the
success
of
the
ZEV
Program.
And
this
is
22
something
that
actually
staff
shares
as
a
significant
23
concern.

24
Right
now,
we
have
slightly
over
2,000
electric
25
vehicles
on
the
road,
but
the
manufacturers
who
have
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
6
1
leased
these
vehicles
have
used
four
different
connectors
2
after
plugs
in
tandem
with
two
different
power
transfer
3
techniques.
The
situation
has
not
caused
serious
problems
4
to
date
due
to
the
small
number
of
vehicles
and
the
fact
5
that
most
of
the
vehicles
were
placed
with
fleets.

6
Fleets
are
not
as
dependent
upon
access
to
public
7
charging
as
the
retail
consumer
is.
However,
we
expect
to
8
see
two
changes
over
the
next
decade.
The
number
of
9
battery
electric
vehicles
will
dramatically
increase
and
10
we
will
gradually
move
from
a
predominantly
fleet
based
11
market
to
a
wider
consumer
market.

12
As
a
result
the
changes
as
approved
by
this
Board
13
in
January,
staff
estimates
that
the
number
of
EVs
will
14
increase
to
4,000
by
2003
and
increase
from
4,000
between
15
the
years
2003
and
2010.

16
The
lack
of
charging
standardization
represents
a
17
major
implementation
barrier
with
such
a
large
number
of
18
vehicles
on
the
horizon.
Staff
is
concerned
that
19
consumers
will
be
very
hesitant
to
embrace
EV
technology
20
and
lease
or
purchase
large
numbers
of
EVs
with
different
21
charging
technologies
prevalent
in
the
marketplace.

22
Achieving
standardization
involves
some
difficult
23
decisions
for
a
government
agency.
Both
charging
systems,

24
the
conductive
and
the
inductive,
have
undergone
25
considerable
technological
development.
Both
have
been
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
7
1
developed
into
commercial
products
that
have
provided
EV
2
drivers
with
the
ability
to
safely
and
reliably
charge
3
their
vehicles.

4
If
one
is
not
familiar
with
the
charging
5
technologies,
displays
of
the
charging
equipment
have
been
6
brought
by
the
industry
representatives
for
viewing.

7
We
would
have
preferred
for
the
market
to
have
8
moved
towards
a
single
standard
or
for
the
industry
to
9
select
one
standard
through
a
consensus
process.
However,

10
little
progress
has
been
achieved
over
the
last
four
11
years.
The
industry
is
evenly
divided.
Each
is
committed
12
to
the
charging
technology
it
is
using
and
has
invested
13
in.
There
is
no
process
to
independently
select
the
14
charging
system.
This
leaves
the
difficult
decision
to
15
ARB
or
some
other
government
agency.

16
Staff
believes
that
this
Board
is
the
most
17
appropriate
agency
the
make
this
decision,
since
we
are
18
charged
with
ensuring
the
success
of
the
ZEV
Program.

19
Staff's
proposal
incorporates
significant
input
that
was
20
provided
during
the
public
process,
which
included
a
21
public
workshop
as
well
as
several
stakeholder
meetings.

22
Today
staff
will
present
their
assessment
and
23
recommendations
on
the
need
for
standardization,

24
evaluation
of
charging
systems
and
proposed
regulations
to
25
achieve
standardization.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
8
1
Krista
Eley
and
Gayle
Sweigert
of
the
Mobile
2
Source
Control
Division
will
now
make
the
staff
3
presentation.

4
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
ELEY:
Thank
you,
Mr.

5
Kenny.
6
As
you
noted,
there
are
two
parts
to
the
ZEV
item
7
we
are
presenting
to
the
first
part
of
the
majority
owned
8
small
or
intermediate
volume
manufacturers.
Gayle
9
Sweigert
will
be
presenting
the
second
part,
electric
10
vehicle
infrastructure
standardization.

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

13
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
ELEY:
This
part
of
the
14
item,
majority
owned
small
or
intermediate
volume
15
manufacturers
addresses
auto
manufacturers
that
partially
16
or
wholly
own
other
auto
manufacturers.

17
­­
o0o­­

18
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
ELEY:
In
the
last
three
19
or
four
years
there's
been
a
large
amount
of
consolidation
20
among
manufacturers.
As
a
result,
it
has
become
difficult
21
to
determine
whether
companies
should
be
considered
22
individual
companies
for
the
zero
emission
vehicle
23
requirements.

24
As
such,
staff
believes
there
is
a
need
to
25
clarify
a
manufacturer's
volume
status
and
ensure
that
all
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
9
1
manufacturers
are
treated
equitably.

2
­­
o0o­­

3
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
ELEY:
On
this
slide
are
4
a
few
examples
of
auto
companies
that
have
consolidated
in
5
recent
years,
Mercedes
Benz
and
Chrysler
merged
to
form
6
DaimlerChrysler.
Ford
wholly
owns
Jaguar,
Land
Rover
and
7
Volvo,
and
partially
owns
Mazda.

8
General
Motors
wholly
owns
Saab
and
partially
9
owns'
Suzuki
and
Subaru.
Volkswagen
wholly
owns
10
Rolls­
Royce
and
Lamborghini.

11
­­
o0o­­

12
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
ELEY:
I'd
like
to
13
briefly
provide
you
with
some
background
information
on
14
the
vehicle
volume
classifications
for
purposes
of
ZEV
15
requirements.
A
large
volume
manufacturer
is
defined
as
a
16
manufacturer
with
California
annual
sales
of
greater
than
17
$
60,000.

18
These
large
volume
manufacturers
must
meet
at
19
least
20
percent
of
the
ZEV
requirement
with
pure
ZEVs
and
20
may
meet
the
remaining
eight
percent
of
the
ZEV
21
requirement
with
20
percent
advanced
technology
partial
22
ZEVs
or
ATP
ZEVs,
and
60
percent
partial
ZEVs
or
PZEVs.

23
An
Intermediate
volume
manufacturer
is
defined
as
24
a
manufacturer
with
California
annual
sales
greater
than
25
$
4,500
and
less
that
$
60,000.
These
intermediate
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
10
1
manufacturers
may
meet
the
ZEV
requirement
entirely
with
2
partial
ZEVs.

3
A
small
volume
manufacturer
or
an
independent
low
4
volume
manufacturer
is
exempt
from
all
ZEV
requirements.

5
The
reason
for
providing
less
rigorous
requirements
for
6
small
and
intermediate
volume
manufacturers
is
that
7
smaller
companies
do
not
have
the
resources
to
develop
new
8
technology
as
quickly
as
larger
companies.
Those
9
manufacturers
often
wait
for
new
technology
to
trickle
10
down
from
the
large
manufacturers.

11
In
addition,
the
smaller
companies
often
have
12
fewer
vehicle
models,
which
makes
it
more
difficult
to
13
comply
with
the
requirements.
14
­­
o0o­­

15
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
ELEY:
Our
current
16
approach
to
determine
a
manufacturer's
vehicle
volume
17
status
is
based
on
the
principle
of
"
Operationally
18
Independent."
This
term
"
Operationally
Independent"
is
19
not
defined
in
is
ZEV
regulations,
resulting
in
a
20
principle
that
the
somewhat
uncertain,
difficult
to
apply
21
and
subject
to
individual
interpretation.

22
Staff
must
interpret
each
new
ownership
23
arrangement
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
For
example,
the
24
current
vagueness
of
the
term
operationally
independent
25
has
even
caused
some
question
as
to
whether
Chrysler
and
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
11
1
Mercedes
Benz
could
be
considered
operationally
2
independent
following
their
1998
merger
into
one
company.

3
To
ARB
staff,
this
would
be
an
obvious
4
circumvention
of
the
term,
since
neither
company,
Daimler
5
Benz
AG
or
Chrysler
Corporation
exists
separately
today.

6
Nonetheless,
this
example
demonstrates
the
need
7
for
clarity
to
ensure
predictable
and
equitable
treatment
8
among
the
vehicle
manufacturers.

9
­­
o0o­­

10
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
ELEY:
The
proposal
we
11
are
presenting
today
to
define
manufacturer
volume
and
12
multiple
ownership
situations
is
based
on
percent
13
ownership
regardless
of
how
operations
are
structured.

14
Where
one
company
owns
greater
than
50
percent
of
another
15
company,
their
vehicle
volumes
would
be
combined
and
used
16
to
determine
the
ZEV
requirements.

17
To
incorporate
this
into
the
ZEV
regulations,
18
staff
is
proposing
to
modify
the
definitions
of
small
and
19
intermediate
volume
manufacturers.
The
proposed
20
definitions
would
take
effect
in
2006
to
provide
auto
21
makers
four
years
of
lead
time
to
allow
adjustment
of
22
market
plans.

23
­­
o0o­­

24
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
ELEY:
Here's
an
example
25
of
how
the
proposal
will
affect
a
fictitious
company
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
12
1
before
and
after
the
regulation.
This
example
assumes
2
that
manufacturers
will
fulfill
their
credits
with
20
3
percent
pure
ZEVs,
20
percent
ATP
ZEVs
and
60
percent
4
PZEVs.

5
Before
the
Regulation,
we
have
Company
A,
a
large
6
manufacturer
and
company
B
an
intermediate
volume
7
manufacturer,
recently
purchased
by
Company
A.
After
the
8
regulatory
change
is
in
place
for
the
combined
company,

9
there's
an
eight
percent
increase
of
both
pure
ZEVs
and
10
ATP
ZEVs,
a
six
percent
decrease
of
PZEVs.

11
­­
o0o­­

12
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
ELEY:
The
actual
13
proposal
results
in
an
increase
of
ZEVs
required,

14
approximately
160,
and
an
increase
in
ATP
ZEVs
required,

15
approximately
950
and
a
decrease
in
the
number
of
partial
16
ZEVs
required,
approximately
4,400
per
year.

17
Under
current
ownership
arrangements,
there
are
18
two
auto
companies
that
are
affected
by
this
proposal,

19
Ford
and
Volkswagen.
The
cost
to
Ford
to
implement
this
20
change
is
2.6
million
for
the
first
year
in
2006.
The
21
cost
to
Volkswagen
is
less
than
$
100,000.
22
Any
future
merger
and
acquisitions
would
also
be
23
impacted
by
this
clarification.
In
addition,
an
emissions
24
impact
analysis
was
performed
by
staff.
Due
to
the
small
25
increase
in
ZEVs
and
advanced
technology
PZEVs,
there
is
a
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
13
1
minimal
emissions
benefit.

2
­­
o0o­­

3
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
ELEY:
ARB
staff
4
considered
three
alternatives
to
the
proposal
being
5
presented
today.

6
The
first
alternative
considered
was
to
keep
the
7
principle
of
applying
the
term
operationally
independent.

8
However,
as
mentioned
earlier,
much
uncertainty
has
been
9
created
about
applying
this
undefined
term,
creating
a
10
burden
each
time
staff
interprets
a
new
ownership
11
arrangement
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.

12
In
addition,
some
manufacturers
not
involved
in
13
multiple
ownership
situations
have
commented
that
the
14
current
method
has
resulted
in
inequity
and
15
competitiveness
issues
among
manufacturers.

16
The
second
alternative
considered
was
to
use
an
17
existing
provision
of
the
US
EPA
Regulation
used
to
18
aggregate
the
sales
volumes.
This
provision
aggregates
19
vehicle
volumes
when
a
company
owns
ten
percent
or
greater
20
after
another
company.

21
This
alternative
was
explored
at
the
March
2000
22
workshop.
In
general,
the
auto
manufacturers
expressed
23
that
applying
the
ten
percent
aggregation
was
considered
24
too
restrictive
for
this
regulation.

25
The
third
alternative
considered
was
to
develop
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
14
1
the
definition
for
operationally
independent,
and
include
2
it
in
the
regulation.
Interested
vehicle
manufacturers
3
provide
proposed
definitions.
One
manufacturer's
proposed
4
definition
of
operationally
independent
consisted
of
5
separate
legal
entities,
self­
sustaining
capital
6
structure,
and
a
separate
board
of
directors.

7
Staff
was
unable
to
define
all
of
the
8
manufacturer's
definitions
into
a
single,
clear
and
9
enforceable
definition.
The
manufacturers
themselves
10
could
not
reach
any
consensus
with
this
approach.

11
Staff's
final
recommendation
at
the
suggestion
of
12
several
auto
makers
was
to
use
the
50
percent
ownership
13
criteria,
which
is
the
proposed
regulation
change
being
14
presented
today.

15
I
would
like
to
close
with
a
staff
recommendation
16
that
the
Board
adopt
the
proposal
as
presented
today.
The
17
proposal
simplifies
the
determination
of
the
manufacturer
18
volume
status
to
ensure
predictable
and
equitable
19
treatment
of
all
our
manufacturers.

20
I'll
now
turn
the
presentation
over
to
Gayle
21
Sweigert
who
will
be
presenting
the
next
part
of
this
22
item,
electric
vehicle
infrastructure
standardization.

23
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Yes.
If
it's
okay
with
you,

24
Mike,
we'd
like
to
maybe
stop
at
this
point
and
ask
25
questions.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
15
1
EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR
KENNY:
All
right.
2
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Yes,
Dr.
Friedman.

3
BOARD
MEMBER
WILLIAM
FRIEDMAN:
I
just
had
one
4
question,
and
it's
probably
just
my
business.
This
50
5
percent
proposal
presumes
that
two
companies
get
together.

6
What
if
three
companies
get
together
of
35,
30
and,
you
7
know,
different
other
percentages?
Isn't
that
sort
of
a
8
backdoor
way
to
avoid
­­
are
you
encouraging
some
9
additional
mergers
of
less
than
50
percent
ownership
by
10
this
approach?

11
EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR
KENNY:
We're
not
trying
to
12
really
encourage
or
discourage.
What
we're
trying
to
do
13
is
simply
reflect,
kind
of,
the
reality
that
we
actually
14
currently
see
in
the
marketplace.

15
BOARD
MEMBER
WILLIAM
FRIEDMAN:
I
understand
16
that.
But
out
in
the
world
if
this
50
percent
proposal
is
17
the
going
concern,
is
there
not
a
side
door
to
this
so
18
that
people
don't
get
to
50
percent,
yet
they
do
mergers
19
and
so
forth
and
they
avoid
the
arithmetic
that
we
want
to
20
apply?

21
EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR
KENNY:
Actually,
Dr.

22
Friedman,
that
could
happen.
I
mean,
actually
there
is
at
23
least
a
factual
scenario
in
which
a
company
owns,
for
24
example,
49
percent
of
another
company,
and
so
therefore
25
there
would
not
be
an
obligation
to
count
that
company
in
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
16
1
its
ZEV
calculations.

2
What
we
were
trying
to
do
is
essentially
reflect
3
that
there
are
companies
that
own
other
companies
almost
4
outright.

5
BOARD
MEMBER
WILLIAM
FRIEDMAN:
I
understand
6
that.

7
EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR
KENNY:
But
what
you're
saying
8
is
correct.
I
mean
it
is
possible
to
essentially
own
less
9
than
50
percent
and
therefore
not
calculate
it
in.

10
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Professor
Friedman.

11
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
First
of
all,
I
12
haven't
seen
the
language
of
the
resolution
for
some
13
reason,
but
the
summary
says
greater
than
50
percent,
so
14
you
can
own
50
percent,
which
clearly
is
control,
and
not
15
be
subject
to
the
aggregation,
not
be
subject
to
the
16
rules.

17
But
it
would
be
easy
enough,
as
you
point
out,
to
18
simply
take
one
percent,
even
if
you
were
over
50,
if
you
19
had
51
percent,
and
take
the
one
percent,
if
you're
60,

20
take
ten,
to
bring
yourself
down
to
50,
no
greater
than
21
50,
which
takes
you
out
of
this,
and
put
it
in
some
other
22
entity.

23
Again,
I
don't
know
the
language,
but
I
think
it
24
has
to
be
crafted
very
carefully
if
that's
the
attitude
25
and
the
spirit
­­
if
that's
our
goal.
But
I'm
not
sure
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
17
1
that
we're
achieving
a
kind
of
fairness
and
equity
that
we
2
are
seeking,
because
there's
some
fairly
large
3
manufacturers
who
don't
have
the
sales
in
California,
but
4
have
large
sales,
and
larger
than
Jaguar
or
some
of
these
5
subsidiaries
of
other
companies,
that
would
be
caught
in
6
this
web,
on
the
theory
that
there
is
control.

7
But
I
suspect
that
the
reality
is
that
they
8
almost
compete
with
each
other,
some
of
these
subsidiaries
9
and
divisions
within
the
family
that
we're
trying
to
10
capture.
So
I
have
some
reservations
about
this.

11
EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR
KENNY:
I
think
you're
12
actually
correct
about
the
fact
that
they
are
competing
13
with
one
another
for
market.
At
the
same
time,
what
we
14
were
trying
to
reflect
is
that
certain
companies
actually
15
own
all
of
other
companies,
in
effect.
And
so
16
consequently
what
they
do
is
they
have
the
ability
to
17
really
control
that
company,
I
mean,
completely.

18
To
the
extent
that
we
don't
include
them
as
part
19
of
the
ZEV
calculations,
we
really
are
essentially
20
ignoring,
kind
of,
one
of
the
facts
of
life
that
exists
21
out
there,
which
is
companies
that
are
completely
22
controlled
and
operationally
controlled
by
another.

23
And
what
we
were
trying
to
do
is
essentially
24
reflect
those
numbers
in
the
overall
ZEV
requirement.

25
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
I
understand,
but
I
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
18
1
think
you
can
have
companies
with
operational
control
of
2
others
that
would
easily
avoid
­­

3
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
KENNY:
I
think
you
can
avoid
4
this
if
you
choose
to
do
so.
I
just
don't
think
5
manufacturers
will
choose
to
take
the
path
of
avoidance,

6
because
the
consequences
are
actually
not
that
7
significant.
I
mean,
we
look
at
the
numbers
of
vehicles
8
that
we're
talking
about
adding
as
a
result
of
this
9
combination,
and,
yes,
there
is
some
increase,
but
there
10
is
also
some
decrease
associated
with
it.

11
And
then
at
the
same
time,
you
know,
if
companies
12
are
owned
by
other
companies,
I'm
sure
there
are
many
13
other
factors
that
essentially
play
into
that
ownership
14
control,
and
those
are
the
things
that
companies
are
going
15
to
have
to
weigh
and
balance
among
itself,
and
decide
16
whether
it
wants
to
maybe
sell
a
portion
of
this
company
17
to
avoid
this
particular
requirement.

18
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
A
factual
19
operational
control
test,
though
difficult
and
requiring
20
an
ad
hoc
case­
by­
case
determination,
I
think,
would,
in
21
my
own
view,
would
probably
be
more
functionally
effective
22
and
efficient
than
a
bright
line
test
of
50
percent,

23
which,
in
a
given
case,
could
easily
be
skirted.

24
I
mean,
if
I
were
running
a
company
that
was
25
acquiring
another
one
of
these
smaller
manufacturers,
I'd
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
19
1
say
let's
not
acquire
more
than
50
percent,
we
can
void
2
this,
if
it's
close.
If
all
we
want
is
control,
we
can
3
get
working
control
for
a
lot
less.

4
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
KENNY:
I
think
your
point
is
5
probably
valid,
when
we
look
at
the
kinds
of
facts
that
6
we're
confronted
with
right
now.
I
mean,
as
the
slide
7
showed,
I
mean,
this
probably
really
most
impacts
Ford,

8
and
it
probably
has
very
little
impact
on
the
other
9
companies
that
we're
talking
about.

10
And
the
impact
there
with
Ford
is
essentially
one
11
in
which
they
own
other
companies
essentially
at
the
12
hundred
percent
level,
and
that's
essentially
why
they're
13
brought
into
this.
And
the
other
companies
don't
own
14
other
subsidiaries,
you
know,
at
above
the
50
percent
15
level.

16
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
What
was
wrong
with
17
the
operational
control?
18
EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR
KENNY:
Just
­­

19
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Other
than
it's
not
20
a
standard
you
can
apply
a
yardstick
to.

21
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
KENNY:
I
think
it's
not
a
22
bright
line.
What
we
have
to
do
each
time
is
essentially
23
engage
in
an
interpretation
that
this
particular
factual
24
scenario
fits
within
the
operational
control.
And
what
we
25
were
trying
to
do
was
provide
something
that
was
kind
of
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
20
1
more
sort
of
­­

2
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
I
think
Jack,
could
3
you
comment.

4
ON­
ROADS
CONTROLS
BRANCH
CHIEF
KITOWSKI:
What
I
5
wanted
to
expound
on
was
Mr.
Kenny's
point
that
there
are
6
other
factors,
many
other
factors,
which
go
into
an
7
acquisition
of
another
company,
and
those
factors
very
8
often
lead
the
larger
company
to
wholly
buy
from
other
9
companies.

10
So
most
of
the
situations
we
have
dealt
with
and
11
we
see
are
a
very
large
company
purchasing
a
hundred
12
percent
of
the
smaller
company.
And
that
is
the
situation
13
where
we're
still,
even
at
one
hundred
percent
ownership,

14
you
know,
debating
the
issue
of
whether
they're
15
operationally
independent
or
not.

16
Manufacturers
argue
that
even
when
they
own
one
17
hundred
percent
of
another
company,
that
that
other
18
company
is
still
independent.
There
are
some
situations,

19
there
is
a
situation,
General
Motors
owning,
I
believe,
40
20
percent
of
another
company.

21
They
would
not
be
affected
by
the
requirement
22
here.
So
there
is
a
tradeoff
in
where
you
draw
that
23
bright
line.
We
had
originally
proposed
drawing
that
24
bright
line
at
a
ten
percent
level,
which
is
consistent
25
with
some
of
the
requirements
the
US
EPA
has
and
other
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
21
1
aggregate
requirements.

2
And
it
just
seemed
too
restrictive
for
this
3
requirement.
The
50
percent
was
where
we
decided
to
draw
4
the
line,
and
it
will
preclude
some
versus
others.

5
But
we
believe
most
of
the
mergers
will
happen
6
apart
from
the
consideration
of
the
ZEV
mandate.
There
7
will
be
other
factors
that
will
overwhelm
how
much
of
the
8
new
entity
that
they
purchase.
And
in
most
cases,
it
9
would
be
one
hundred
percent.

10
SENIOR
STAFF
COUNSEL
JENNINGS:
I
think
one
other
11
factor
that
might
be
relevant
is
that
­­
Tom
Jennings
of
12
the
legal
staff.
One
other
factor
that
might
be
relevant
13
is
that
General
Motors
owns
one
hundred
percent
of
Saab.

14
So
in
a
way
the
relationship
is
the
same
as
Ford's
15
relationship
to
Volvo,
but
General
Motors
has
always
16
treated
Saab
as
part
of
that
company
and
aggregated
the
17
volume
the
way
we're
proposing
it
be
done
in
the
other
18
situations.

19
So,
in
that
sense,
there
are
other
companies
20
affected,
but
they're
already
going
the
way
we're
21
proposing
to
it
be.

22
MOBILE
SOURCE
CONTROL
DIVISION
CHIEF
CROSS:
I
23
guess
the
last
piece,
I'm
Bob
Cross
with
ARB,
is
that
24
companies
like
DaimlerChrysler,
for
example,
we're
trying
25
to
argue
that
they
were
operationally
independent.
And
I
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
22
1
think
that
that's
the
case
that
in
our
mind
we
want
the
2
bright
line
to
be
on
the
side
of
saying
hey,
these
guys
3
are
in.

4
So
I
think
that
the
percentage
of
requirement
5
makes
certain
of
things
like
Daimler
Chrysler
are
in,
and
6
provides
a
little
bit
of
latitude
both
ways
for
situations
7
where
you
have
big
companies
like
GM
acquiring
small
8
companies
like
Saab,
for
example.

9
And
on
those
I
think
it's
less
critical
than
in
10
the
situations
like
DaimlerChrysler.

11
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Thank
you.

12
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
had
a
question
on
the
­­
I
13
guess
we've
got
Ford
to
address
that,
I
know
when
you
14
mention
the
2.6
million
before,
that
was
staff's
estimate
15
not
Ford's
estimate.
So
I
presume
that
we
will
­­
Ford
16
will
testify
what
that
number
should
be.

17
Any
more
questions
from
the
Board?

18
Then
we
will
continue
with
staff
presentation.

19
(
Thereupon
an
overhead
presentation
was
20
presented
as
follows.)

21
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
SWEIGERT:
Thank
you.

22
Next,
I
will
discuss
staff's
recommendation
for
the
23
standardization
of
charging
systems
for
battery
electric
24
vehicles.
First,
I
will
begin
by
describing
the
current
25
situation
and
the
need
for
standardization.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
23
1
I
will
briefly
discuss
the
process
that
staff
2
used
to
evaluate
charging
technologies
followed
by
staff's
3
findings
on
the
merits
of
each
charging
system.
I
will
4
conclude
the
staff
presentation
with
a
brief
discussion
of
5
the
proposed
regulatory
approach.

6
­­
o0o­­

7
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
SWEIGERT:
I
will
now
8
begin
with
a
discussion
of
the
need
for
standardization.

9
Currently,
we
have
slightly
over
2,000
EVs
on
the
10
road
and
approximately
3,000
charging
stations
to
support
11
these
vehicles
at
fleet
facilities,
residences
and
public
12
sites.
Over
1,000
stations
comprise
California's
public
13
charging
network.

14
­­
o0o­­

15
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
SWEIGERT:
There
are
16
three
basic
systems
in
use,
the
inductive,
the
on­
board
17
conductive,
and
the
off­
board
conductive.

18
To
further
complicate
the
situation,
there
are
19
multiple
connector
types
or
plugs
in
use.
The
inductive
20
system
began
with
the
large
cattle
connector
and
is
now
21
moving
to
a
small
paddle
connector.
The
industry
is
in
22
the
middle
of
this
transition,
which
is
not
expected
to
be
23
complete
until
2003.
As
a
result,
there's
limited
24
availability
for
some
inductively
charged
vehicles.

25
While
the
conductive
systems
have
used
a
variety
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
24
1
of
different
connectors
over
the
last
few
years,

2
considerable
progress
has
been
made
of
moving
towards
the
3
Avcon
connector
as
the
industry
standard.
As
a
practical
4
matter
the
Avcon
connector
is
used
in
virtually
all
5
conductive
public
charging
installations
in
California.

6
­­
o0o­­

7
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
SWEIGERT:
The
following
8
shows
a
typical
situation,
the
current
diversity
of
9
charging
technologies
and
connector
types,
public
and
10
fleet
installations
need
to
install
multiple
systems
to
11
accommodate
most
EVs
on
the
road.

12
­­
o0o­­

13
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
SWEIGERT:
As
a
result
14
of
the
modifications
to
the
ZEV
requirements
adopted
by
15
the
Board
in
January,
the
number
of
EVs
in
California
will
16
substantially
increase
over
the
next
decade.

17
In
concert
with
this
increase,
marketing
efforts
18
will
need
to
shift
from
fleets
to
retail
customers.
The
19
current
situation
has
a
potential
to
be
a
barrier
to
20
market
expansion.
Staff
is
concerned
that
the
lack
of
a
21
standard
charging
system
contributes
to
public
perception
22
that
the
EV
market
is
not
yet
mature.

23
Consumers
could
be
more
apprehensive
about
24
embracing
EV
technology
for
fear
that
they
may
be
buying
25
the
equivalent
of
a
Beta
Video
Cassette
recorder.
The
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
25
1
lack
of
standardization
not
only
decreases
the
access
and
2
net
capacity
of
the
public
charging
network,
but
also
3
results
in
higher
costs.
Because
these
technologies
must
4
continue
to
be
supportive,
public
and
private
sponsors
5
must
maintain
higher
costs
to
maintain
and
expand
6
California's
public
charging
network.

7
And
finally,
the
issue
of
stranded
resources.

8
One
charging
technology
will
eventually
need
to
be
chosen.
9
Each
technology
continues
to
have
the
proponents
that
are
10
investing
considerable
resources
into
the
development
and
11
commercialization
of
product.
The
longer
a
decision
is
12
delayed,
the
higher
the
stranded
or
sunken
investments
13
become.

14
­­
o0o­­

15
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
SWEIGERT:
This
slide
16
shows
the
expected
number
of
ZEVs
over
the
next
decade.

17
As
you
can
see,
the
number
of
ZEVs
will
be
increasing
18
substantially.
It
is
expected
that
the
majority
of
these
19
vehicles
will
be
battery
electric
vehicles
through
the
20
next
seven
to
ten
years.

21
As
you
can
see,
an
excess
of
20,000
vehicles
are
22
expected
between
2003
and
2006
and
up
to
100,000
by
the
23
year
2010.

24
­­
o0o­­

25
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
SWEIGERT:
There
are
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
26
1
many
benefits
to
standardization,
especially
for
the
2
consumer.
Standardization
will
increase
access.
Every
EV
3
will
fit
every
charging
station,
analogous
to
a
gasoline
4
station
in
which
every
vehicle
can
use
any
gasoline
pump.

5
This
will
greatly
enhance
consumer
confidence
and
support
6
market
expansion.

7
Standardization
assures
further
technology
8
improvements
by
focusing
resources
into
one
technology.

9
This
will
also
make
it
easier
to
service
and
maintain
10
equipment
because
it
costs
more
to
support
multiple
11
technologies.

12
Overall,
staff
believes
that
standardization
will
13
reduce
cost
for
consumer
fleet
operators
and
public
14
infrastructure
sponsors.

15
­­
o0o­­

16
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
SWEIGERT:
ARB
had
hoped
17
that
market
forces
for
the
industry
would
select
the
18
charging
system.
Unfortunately,
little
progress
has
been
19
made
in
the
industry
in
moving
towards
standardization.

20
Four
years
ago
ARB
considered
developing
a
21
similar
proposal
for
standardization,
but
was
asked
to
22
wait
and
let
the
market
decide.
Now,
four
years
later,

23
the
industry
remains
evenly
divided
and
committed
to
their
24
selective
technologies,
and
there
is
no
independent,

25
nonregulatory
selection
process
available.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
27
1
Also,
no
commitment
has
been
provided
by
the
auto
2
manufacturers
to
resolve
the
issue
in
the
next
few
years.

3
The
lack
of
commitment
to
resolve
the
issue
combined
with
4
our
responsibilities
for
the
successful
implementation
of
5
the
ZEV
Program
leaves
the
difficult
decision
to
ARB.

6
­­
o0o­­

7
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
SWEIGERT:
The
following
8
slide
shows
the
impact
of
not
standardizing
charging
9
systems
either
through
regulations
or
market
forces.
The
10
graph
illustrates
the
number
of
EVs
that
staff
estimates
11
would
be
on
the
road
by
2006
and
2010
by
the
four
auto
12
makers
who
currently
use
a
different
charging
system
than
13
the
one
staff
is
recommending
as
a
standard.

14
The
number
of
EVs
with
nonstandard
charging
15
systems
could
rapidly
increase.
If
standardization
does
16
not
occur
by
2006,
over
10,000
EVs
would
be
on
the
road
17
without
a
standard
charging
system.
If
the
decision
is
18
not
reached
until
2010,
then
there
could
be
five
times
as
19
many
vehicles
with
the
nonstandard
charging
system.

20
These
are
some
of
the
reasons
why
we're
making
21
this
proposal
today.

22
­­
o0o­­

23
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
SWEIGERT:
Next,
I
will
24
briefly
describe
the
process
that
ARB
used
for
evaluating
25
the
charging
technologies.
To
begin,
I
would
like
to
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
28
1
describe
the
function
of
a
charger.
A
charger
is
an
2
electrical
device
that
converts
alternating
current
3
supplied
by
the
electricity
grid
to
direct
current
to
the
4
vehicle
battery
for
the
purposes
of
charging
the
vehicle
5
battery.

6
­­
o0o­­

7
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
SWEIGERT:
There
are
8
several
important
issues
that
need
to
be
considered
when
9
evaluating
a
charging
system.
One
of
these
is
the
charger
10
location.
Chargers
can
be
located
either
on
the
vehicle
11
or
off
the
vehicle
as
a
separate
piece
of
equipment.

12
The
primary
benefit
of
an
on­
board
charger
is
13
that
the
charger
goes
where
the
vehicle
goes,
which
14
reduces
the
total
number
of
chargers
that
must
be
15
purchased.

16
This
is
an
important
consideration,
because
we
17
anticipate
that
at
least
1.5
charging
stations
per
vehicle
18
will
be
needed
to
provide
sufficient
public,
workplace
and
19
residential
charging
support
for
vehicles.

20
The
disadvantage
of
the
on­
board
system
is
that
21
it
can
result
in
added
weight
on
the
vehicle
that
can
22
reduce
vehicle
range.

23
Another
consideration
is
the
connector
or
plug
24
used.
This
is
the
device
that
the
consumer
will
use
on
a
25
daily
basis
to
connect
their
car
to
the
charging
station.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
29
1
The
connector
must
be
easy
to
use
so
that
it
will
be
2
accepted
by
the
consumer.
The
connector
choice
is
3
influenced
by
the
type
of
charging
system
selected.

4
Finally,
there
are
three
different
types
of
5
charging.
The
most
common
of
these
is
referred
to
as
6
Level
2.
It
uses
dedicated
equipment
that
is
permanently
7
affixed
to
a
220
outlet.
This
is
the
charging
that
is
8
used
on
a
daily
basis
at
residences,
fleet
facilities
and
9
public
sites.

10
Other
types
of
charging
include
level
1
for
11
convenience,
which
uses
the
standard
110
volt
outlet
12
connection.
Smaller
vehicles
use
this
on
a
routine
basis.

13
Also,
it
can
be
a
backup
for
a
full
performance
vehicle,

14
when
Level
2
charging
is
not
available.

15
Finally,
there
is
high
power
or
fast
charging
16
which
can
utilize
either
an
on­
board
or
off­
board
charger.

17
­­
o0o­­

18
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
SWEIGERT:
There
are
two
19
basic
charging
systems,
conductive
and
inductive.

20
Conductive
systems
are
further
differentiated
by
whether
21
they
use
an
on­
board
or
an
off­
board
charger.
On­
board
22
conductive
charging
extends
power
to
the
charger,
which
is
23
located
on
the
vehicle.
Connecting
to
the
electricity
24
grid
only
requires
simple
equipment,
consisting
of
a
25
ground
fault
circuit
interrupt
or
GFCI.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
30
1
On­
board
conductive
charging
is
used
in
Honda
and
2
Ford
EVs,
as
well
as
with
most
industrial
EVs
and
electric
3
buses.
An
alternate
method
of
conductive
charging
uses
an
4
off­
board
charger.

5
In
this
case,
the
vehicle
is
equipped
with
a
6
charger
port,
and
a
charger
has
to
be
installed
at
each
7
facility
whether
the
EV
needs
to
be
recharged.
The
only
8
manufacturer
who
utilizes
this
system
is
DaimlerChrysler.

9
Finally,
inductive
charging
is
a
method
of
10
transferring
power
from
the
charger
to
the
battery
11
mechanically
rather
than
by
direct
electric
contact.

12
Inductive
charging
is
based
on
the
energy
transfer
in
a
13
two­
part
transformer.

14
­­
o0o­­

15
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
SWEIGERT:
The
next
step
16
in
staff's
evaluation
process
was
to
identify
the
17
selection
criteria
so
that
each
charging
system
could
be
18
objectively
passed.

19
The
second
step
was
to
collect
data
pertinent
to
20
each
charging
system.
Next
staff
evaluated
each
system
21
and
completed
a
preliminary
analysis
prior
to
the
public
22
workshop
which
was
held
in
February.

23
­­
o0o­­

24
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
SWEIGERT:
Staff
25
subsequently
incorporated
comments
received
during
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
31
1
public
workshop
and
stakeholder
process
into
the
selection
2
criteria.
The
selection
criteria
were
grouped
into
three
3
broad
categories,
cost
and
market,
consumer
concerns
and
4
future
technology
evolution.
Fifteen
specific
criteria
5
were
considered,
and
each
were
given
a
high,
medium
or
low
6
priority.
Eight
of
the
15
criteria
were
considered
high
7
priority.

8
High
priority
was
assigned
to
those
criteria
that
9
provide
the
greatest
contribution
to
facilitating
the
use
10
of
electric
vehicles,
enhancing
consumer
acceptance
and
11
supporting
market
expansion.

12
Next
I
will
summarize
the
staff's
findings
or
the
13
results
of
the
technical
evaluation
conducted
on
the
14
different
charging
technologies.

15
­­
o0o­­

16
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
SWEIGERT:
The
following
17
criteria
were
included
under
cost
and
market.
One
of
the
18
most
important
criteria
is
the
assessment
of
the
current
19
and
future
system
costs.

20
System
costs
refer
to
the
total
costs
for
the
21
charging
system,
including
all
of
the
equipment
located
on
22
the
vehicle,
as
well
as
off
the
vehicle.

23
The
second
consideration
was
open
technology
24
market
competition.
This
includes
an
evaluation,
if
there
25
are
any
licensing
fees,
patents
or
other
market
barriers
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
32
1
that
would
prevent
additional
manufacturers
or
auto
2
manufacturers
from
manufacturing
or
using
the
charging
3
system.

4
Finally,
other
considerations
include
5
infrastructure
costs.
These
are
the
equipment
costs
that
6
the
consumer
or
public
infrastructure
provider
must
pay
7
for
the
off­
board
charging
station.

8
­­
o0o­­

9
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
SWEIGERT:
This
slide
10
compares
the
current
system
costs
for
all
three
charging
11
systems.
Note
that
this
is
the
cost
for
the
manufacturers
12
to
produce
the
system.
The
actual
cost
numbers
are
not
13
shown
to
protect
the
confidentiality
of
the
data.
The
14
off­
board
conductive
system
has
the
highest
costs,

15
approximately
$
8,000.
And
the
on­
board
conductive
system
16
has
a
system
cost
in
the
range
of
$
1,900.
The
extremely
17
high
costs
of
the
off­
board
conductive
system
used
by
18
DaimlerChrysler,
and
the
fact
that
the
system
cost
is
not
19
likely
to
be
competitive
in
the
near
future
are
the
20
reasons
for
its
removal
from
most
of
the
other
analyses
21
shown
later.

22
­­
o0o­­

23
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
SWEIGERT:
This
slide
24
illustrates
the
current
list
or
retail
price
for
different
25
conductive
and
inductive
off­
board
equipment.
This
is
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
33
1
equipment
that
the
consumer
must
purchase
in
order
to
be
2
able
to
charge
their
vehicle.
For
the
conductive
system,

3
this
is
the
wall
box.
And
for
the
inductive
system,
this
4
represents
the
price
of
the
charger.

5
Conductive
wall
boxes
retail
between
$
350
and
6
$
1,900
depending
on
the
model
and
type
of
features
7
desired.
Inductive
chargers
are
priced
between
$
2,000
and
8
$
6,000.
As
this
slide
illustrates,
the
off­
board
9
equipment
prices
on
average
is
much
lower
for
conductive
10
than
inductive.

11
­­
o0o­­

12
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
SWEIGERT:
I
would
like
13
to
summarize
staff
findings
regarding
costs.
I
want
to
14
emphasize
that
these
are
estimates
based
on
information
15
provided
by
different
manufacturers.
And
all
estimates
16
have
a
certain
level
of
uncertainty
associated
with
them.

17
As
discussed
earlier,
on­
board
conductive
systems
18
currently
have
the
lowest
system
cost.
Another
benefit
of
19
the
on­
board
conductive
system
is
its
ability
to
reduce
20
costs
for
smaller
city
vehicles
both
now
and
in
the
21
future.
This
is
due
to
the
fact
that
the
size
of
the
22
charger
can
be
adjusted
for
the
needs
and
size
of
the
23
vehicle
traction
data
reading
and
does
not
have
to
rely
on
24
the
standard
charger
size,
as
with
an
off­
board
charger.

25
Thus
city
vehicles
with
smaller
battery
packs
will
require
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
34
1
smaller
chargers,
reducing
overall
system
cost.

2
Another
important
consideration
is
the
cost
of
3
the
infrastructure
or
charging
station.
Costs
for
the
4
conductive
wall
boxes
are,
on
average,
lower
than
the
5
inductive
charger,
and
staff
expects
this
trend
will
6
continue
well
into
the
future.
This
is
because
the
cost
7
of
producing
a
simple
conductive
wall
box
is
expected
to
8
be
less
expensive
than
the
cost
of
producing
a
charging
9
station
that
incorporates
a
charging
electronics
as
the
10
inductive
system
does.

11
­­
o0o­­

12
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
SWEIGERT:
Finally,
13
future
costs
are
very
important.
Taking
all
of
the
14
previously
discussed
factors
into
consideration
and
15
reviewing
information
provided
by
auto
manufacturers,

16
staff
estimates
that
on­
board
system
costs
at
high
volume
17
for
conductive
systems
will
be
able
to
achieve
cost
18
targets
of
$
700
for
city
vehicles
and
$
900
for
19
full­
function
vehicles.

20
Staff
recently
received
information
from
one
21
manufacturer
of
inductive
charging
equipment
in
which
they
22
estimated
they
would
be
able
to
achieve
a
future
high
23
volume
cost
target
identified
by
conductive.

24
­­
o0o­­

25
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
SWEIGERT:
Patents
and
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
35
1
licensing
fees
covering
infrastructure
equipment
are
a
2
potential
impediment
to
competition.

3
This
concerns,
specifically,
with
that
portion
of
4
the
charging
system
that
needs
to
be
compatible
with
a
5
variety
of
vehicles
and
users.
Conductive
systems
allow
6
for
an
open
architecture
in
which
patents
or
proprietary
7
designs
have
been
minimized,
thus
encouraging
future
8
technology
of
evolution.

9
Conductive
keeps
the
infrastructure
uncomplicated
10
and
cost
effective,
because
it
uses
simple
wall
box
11
technology.
Inductive
systems,
on
the
other
hand,
rely
on
12
a
complex
or
costly
charging
for
the
infrastructure.
The
13
conductive
wall
box
is
somewhat
analogous
to
the
situation
14
with
a
typical
consumer
product.
The
110
household
outlet
15
remains
basically
unchanged,
allowing
products
like
16
toasters
to
evolve
and
improve
over
time.
We
don't
need
17
to
constantly
change
the
electrical
outlet
to
accept
new
18
technology
developments,
like
the
microwave.

19
However,
the
opposite
situation
exists
for
20
inductive
technology,
as
inductive
technology
involves
the
21
off
board
charging
needs
to
be
replaced
or
upgraded.

22
Conductive
systems
have
only
one
patent
that
23
covers
the
connector
vehicle
inlet.
There
is
a
universal
24
licensing
agreement
in
place.
This
is
$
100,000
plus
four
25
percent
of
profits
and
represents
a
small
fraction
of
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
36
1
total
charging
system.

2
­­
o0o­­

3
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
SWEIGERT:
Manufacturers
4
of
inductive
systems
have
stated
that
inductive
is
an
open
5
technology.
However,
there
are
a
number
of
patents
6
covering
inductive
technology
that
introduce
a
level
of
7
uncertainty
regarding
costs.
Because
there's
no
universal
8
licensing
agreement
covering
inductive
technology,
the
9
future
costs
for
a
new
manufacturer
are
unknown.

10
General
Motors,
a
manufacturer
and
inductive
11
patent
holder,
has
provided
comments
that
patents
issues
12
would
be
resolved
between
them
and
interested
13
manufacturers.

14
­­
o0o­­

15
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
SWEIGERT:
To
summarize,

16
staff
believes
that
two
high
priority
cost
issues
favor
17
the
on­
board
conductive
system.

18
Next,
I
will
turn
to
the
discussion
of
the
19
criteria
that
have
consumer
concerns.

20
­­
o0o­­
21
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
SWEIGERT:
High
priority
22
criteria
included
the
safety,
reliability
and
durability
23
of
charging
equipment,
the
ease
of
use
or
how
consumer
24
friendly
the
equipment
is.
Charging
efficiency
is
also
an
25
important
consideration.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
37
1
Other
criteria
include
public
access,
product
2
support,
and
the
ability
to
provide
convenience
or
110
3
volt
charging.

4
­­
o0o­­

5
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
SWEIGERT:
All
charging
6
systems
meet
or
exceed
the
established
industry
practices
7
for
safety.
These
safety
standards
are
included
in
the
8
Society
of
Automotive
Engineers'
recommended
practices
for
9
charging
systems.

10
The
safety
standards
are
generally
implemented
11
through
the
UL
listing
process.
While
there
is
no
peer
12
review
data
available,
all
systems
have
demonstrated
13
excellent
reliability
and
durability.
This
includes
14
meeting
stringent
industry
testing
recommendations
for
the
15
connector
10,000
insertions.

16
There
have
been
field
problems
with
both
systems.

17
This
includes
a
failed
component
in
the
inductive
vehicle
18
inlet
that
resulted
in
the
safety
recall
of
the
EV
1
and
19
S10
last
year.

20
There
were
larger
than
expected
durability
21
problems
with
the
prototype
conductive
connector.
Both
22
problems
have
been
resolved.

23
­­
o0o­­

24
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
SWEIGERT:
Staff
25
assessment
of
the
inductive
paddle
is
that
it
is
easier
to
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
38
1
use.
It
only
requires
one
angle
of
motion
rather
than
two
2
with
the
conductive
connector.

3
However,
both
systems
meet
consumers
ergonomic
4
needs
and
are
easier
to
use
than
a
standard
gasoline
pump.

5
All
auto
manufacturers
conducted
consumer
focus
groups
to
6
evaluate
different
connector
designs.

7
Conductive
charging
is
more
efficient
than
8
inductive
charging.
Inductive
systems
are
one
to
two
9
percent
less
efficient
at
the
peak
power
levels.
These
10
sufficiency
differences
are
significantly
greater
when
EVs
11
charge
at
lower
power
levels.

12
Therefore,
some
city
EVs
as
well
as
EVs
with
lead
13
acid
technology
would
be
expected
to
have
greater
14
efficiency
losses,
as
compared
to
the
comparable
15
conductively
recharged
vehicles.

16
In
addition,
full
performance,
inductively
17
charged
EVs
that
charge
often
at
lower
power
levels
may
18
also
have
lower
charging
efficiencies.

19
Staff
attempted
to
conduct
independent
tests
to
20
measure
efficiency.
Testing
done
in
El
Monte
has
shown
a
21
negligible
difference
in
some
cases,
but
up
to
a
20
22
percent
difference
in
other
cases.

23
­­
o0o­­

24
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
SWEIGERT:
To
summarize,

25
conductive
equaled
or
exceeded
inductive
in
four
out
of
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
39
1
the
five
high
priority
criteria
for
consumer
concerns.

2
­­
o0o­­

3
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
SWEIGERT:
Next
I
will
4
turn
to
the
discussion
of
future
technology
evolution.

5
This
is
the
ability
of
different
charging
systems
to
keep
6
pace
with
the
advances
in
technology.
The
high
priority
7
criteria
included
vehicle
to
grid
or
using
the
battery
to
8
send
power
back
to
the
grid.

9
The
second
criteria
is
level
two
plus
charging,
a
10
fast
charging
option.
Other
considerations
are
level
3
11
high
power
charging
and
auto
docking.

12
­­
o0o­­

13
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
SWEIGERT:
Vehicle
to
14
grid
charging
reverses
the
power
flow,
in
that
the
charger
15
can
provide
power
to
the
electricity
grid
when
not
16
charging
the
batteries.
When
EV
charger
connection
17
systems
were
developed,
they
were
only
expected
to
deliver
18
power
to
charged
vehicles.
Much
has
changed
in
the
last
19
ten
years.
There
are
a
variety
of
electric
drive
vehicles
20
including
pure
battery
electric
vehicles
that
contained
21
all
of
the
basic
components
needed
for
a
distributed
power
22
generation
source.

23
This
is
considered
a
promising
application
for
24
the
future.
ARB
funded
a
study
to
evaluate
the
viability
25
of
EVs
as
power
resources.
The
conclusion
was
that
EV's
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
40
1
could
be
cost
competitive
in
providing
power
for
ancillary
2
services.
Ancillary
services
are
used
to
cover
imbalances
3
in
power
availability
by
California
independent
system
4
operators.

5
Conductive
systems
are
capable
of
bi­
directional
6
flow
with
little
or
no
expensive
modifications.
Minimal
7
modifications
are
needed
to
wall
boxes,
cables
and
8
connects
to
support
vehicle
to
grid
power
flow.

9
However,
vehicles
need
to
be
designed
to
allow
10
for
this
application.
Current
inductive
systems
are
not
11
capable
of
reversing
power
flow.
Although
an
inductive
12
system
could
be
designed
to
do
this.
It
would
require
13
adding
components
to
the
vehicle
side.
In
addition,
it
14
would
require
adding
considerable
components
to
the
15
charger,
which
will
significantly
increase
the
cost
and
16
complexity
of
the
inductive
system.

17
­­
o0o­­

18
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
SWEIGERT:
There
are
two
19
types
of
fast
charging.
Level
2
plus
uses
an
on­
board
20
charger
and
level
3
uses
an
off­
board
charger.
Level
3
21
provides
a
faster
charge
time,
about
20
minutes
to
22
recharge
from
20
to
80
percent
of
charge.
Level
2
plus
23
could
recharge
a
vehicle
in
less
than
an
hour.

24
However,
due
to
the
very
high
costs
of
off­
board
25
chargers,
auto
manufacturers
do
not
anticipate
a
business
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
41
1
case
to
support
level
3
charging
in
the
near
to
mid­
term.

2
Level
2
plus
is
considered
by
many
to
be
the
only
cost
3
effective
approach
in
the
near
to
mid
term.
Level
2
plus
4
is
very
promising
for
conductive
applications.

5
Several
auto
manufacturers
are
working
on
6
integrated
chargers
that
would
provide
faster
charging.

7
Some
systems
are
already
commercially
available.
It
is
8
technologically
feasible
for
inductive,
but
those
systems
9
are
currently
under
development
and
it
would
be
more
10
complicated
than
a
comparable
are
conductive
system.

11
­­
o0o­­

12
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
SWEIGERT:
The
following
13
slide
summarizes
staff's
findings
on
the
criteria
included
14
under
technology
evolution.
On­
board
conductive
systems
15
exceeded
inductive
in
the
two
categories
of
vehicle
to
16
grid
and
level
2
plus
charging.

17
Here
are
the
complete
results
of
the
staff's
18
technical
evaluation.
On­
board
conductive
systems
met
or
19
exceeded
inductive
in
seven
out
of
the
eight
high
priority
20
criteria.

21
­­
o0o­­

22
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
SWEIGERT:
Next,
I
will
23
discuss
the
regulatory
approach
that
staff
is
recommending
24
to
standardize
infrastructure.
Staff
is
recommending
that
25
the
ZEV
regulations
be
modified
to
add
requirements
for
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
42
1
charging.
There
are
two
basic
requirements.
One
is
for
a
2
conductive
vehicle
inlet
as
specified
by
the
Society
of
3
Automotive
Engineers
in
their
recommended
practice.

4
This
is
currently
in
final
draft
form
and
5
expected
to
be
finalized
later
this
year.
The
second
6
requirement
is
to
require
a
minimum
on­
board
charger.

7
This
will
ensure
that
every
EV
would
be
able
to
use
every
8
conductive
charging
station.

9
The
proposed
implementation
year
is
to
2006.

10
This
provides
industry
with
a
full
four
years
to
make
11
changes
to
vehicle
platforms
and
work
out
any
inner
12
operability
issues.

13
­­
o0o­­

14
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
SWEIGERT:
Staff
is
15
proposing
that
these
requirements
would
apply
to
all
16
vehicles
that
qualify
for
1.0
or
greater
ZEV
credit
and
17
which
are
capable
to
be
designed
of
level
2
or
220
volt
18
charging.

19
Staff
also
proposes
that
grid­
connected
EV's
that
20
will
utilize
Level
2
charging
also
be
included.
This
21
would
exempt
all
neighborhood
electric
vehicles
and
city
22
vehicles
that
would
only
be
capable
of
a
Level
1
charging.

23
­­
o0o­­

24
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
SWEIGERT:
As
part
of
25
the
regulatory
development
process,
staff
considered
a
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
43
1
number
of
options
to
the
proposed
approach.
This
included
2
establishing
a
consensus
process.
Given
the
divisions
3
within
the
industry,
there
was
no
viable
option
for
4
achieving
consensus
in
the
near
term.

5
Another
option
was
to
standardize
both
charging
6
systems.
However,
that
would
not
meet
the
needs
of
the
7
consumer
who
will
need
one
standardized
system
in
order
to
8
ensure
access
to
public
charging.

9
Other
options
were
to
recommend
the
charging
10
system
but
not
require
it
or
implement
through
public
11
policy
initiatives.
Neither
of
these
approaches
would
12
provide
certainty
to
the
ZEV
Program.

13
­­
o0o­­

14
AIR
POLLUTION
SPECIALIST
SWEIGERT:
In
15
conclusion,
staff
has
found
that
on­
board
conductive
16
charge
will
provide
consumers
and
public
charging
17
supporters
with
the
lowest
infrastructure
equipment
costs,

18
has
the
greatest
potential
for
future
technology
19
evolution,
and
meets
or
exceeds
industry
standards
for
20
safety,
reliability
and
durability.

21
Conductive
keeps
the
infrastructure
the
simplest.

22
And
when
we
have
completely
standardized,
we
will
achieve
23
the
goal
of
every
EV
fitting
every
EV
charging
station.

24
This
concludes
the
staff
presentation.

25
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
44
1
Questions
from
the
Board
or
comments?

2
I
have
one,
I
guess.
On
your
efficiency
slide,
I
3
heard
what
you
said,
but
it
wasn't
particularly
crisp
4
there.
Can
you
basically
summarize,
is
it
definitive
in
5
terms
of
that,
one
system
over
the
other?
You
know,
I
got
6
some
range
into
negligible
to
20
percent,
but
you
know
­­

7
ON­
ROADS
CONTROLS
BRANCH
CHIEF
KITOWSKI:
Yes.

8
Let
me
try
and
clarify.
And
you
will
probably
hear
both
9
negligible
and
20
percent
in
the
testimony
a
little
bit
10
later.
And
they're
not
necessarily
mutually
exclusive.

11
We've
heard
comments
from
manufacturers
and
we
12
did
a
little
bit
of
testing
on
our
own
to
get
our
own,

13
sort
of,
hands­
on
feel
for
the
testing.
We've
confirmed
14
with
what
we
have
heard
from
the
manufacturers.

15
At
high
power
levels
inductive
and
conductive
can
16
be
comparable
one
to
two
percent
is
about
right.
And
I'm
17
not
really
an
electrical
engineer,
as
a
kind
of
person,
so
18
if
it
helps
you,
the
analogy
I
use
is
to
kind
of
think
of
19
it
like
water
flow.
And
what
we're
trying
to
determine
is
20
how
much
the
nozzle
at
the
end
of
the
hose
might,
you
21
know,
restrict
the
water
flow
coming
out.
And
when
you
22
have
that
water
turned
on
full
blast,
inductive
and
23
conductive,
they're
about
the
same,
probably
slightly
24
better
for
conductive.

25
The
challenge
comes
in
do
you
ever
need
to
turn
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
45
1
that
nozzle
at
half
or
even
less
than
half?
And
there
are
2
a
lot
of
situations
where
that's
the
case.

3
When
you
can't
fill
the
battery
right
to
the
very
4
top,
you
can't
keep
going
full
blast,
full
blast
and
then
5
shut
it
off,
there
has
to
be
some
logic
to
the
charging
6
strategy.
And
especially
for
lead
acid
batteries,
you
7
need
to
taper
it
even
more
and
more
and
more
and
more.

8
So
we
found
that
lead
acid
batteries
will
have
9
more
of
a
tendency
to
have
that
nozzle
turned
down
a
10
little
bit
toward
the
end
of
the
chart,
so
they
will
11
suffer
from
lower
efficiency
at
some
point.

12
In
addition,
there
are
other
instances
where
you
13
aren't
going
to
want
to
do
it.
If
you
cool
­­
if
you
14
charge
on
a
hot
day,
some
of
the
battery
management
15
techniques
to
ensure
long
life
of
the
battery,
what
they
16
do
is
they
cool
the
battery
when
you're
charging
on
a
hot
17
day.
It
can't
take
all
of
the
heat
of
the
charge
all
at
18
once.

19
When
you're
cooling
the
battery,
you're
running
20
at
a
very
low
charge,
you're
trickling
that
charge
in
21
there.
And
when
you're
trickling
that
charge
in
there,

22
that's
when
the
efficiency
drops
dramatically.
Level
1
23
charging
would
be
the
same
thing.
Some
of
the
smaller
24
battery
packs
would
be
the
same
thing.

25
So
there's
a
number
of
instances
we've
seen
where
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
46
1
the
efficiency
is
likely
to
drop.
And
so
the
two
percent
2
number,
I
think,
one
to
two
percent
number
is
right.
And
3
I
think
the
20
percent
number
in
some
cases
is
right.

4
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.
That's
a
good
5
explanation.
I
appreciate
that
Jack.

6
The
other
point
I
heard,
staff,
on
2006,
why
that
7
was
selected.
I
would
be
interested
in
the
witnesses
8
talking
about
that
timeframe.
In
fact,
the
additional
9
time
there
would
be
useful.
So
for
those
who
are
10
testifying,
it
would
be
a
question
I
would
like
to
11
explore.

12
Professor
Friedman.

13
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
I
don't
propose,

14
personally,
that
we
get
into
a
full
blown
discussion
of
15
what
I'm
to
raise
at
this
point,
but
I
think
before
the
16
end
of
the
day,
I'd
like
to
hear
from
any
witnesses
on
it
17
and
from
the
staff,
at
some
point.
To
what
incentive
have
18
you
considered,
if
we
were
to
go
this
way,
what
we'd
be
19
doing
to
the
existing
infrastructure,
and
those
who
own
20
vehicles,
and
how
we
could
assure
­­
make
every
reasonable
21
effort
to
assure
that
those
charging
capabilities
are
22
still
available
for
the
life
or
the
reasonable
expectation
23
of
life
of
such
vehicle?

24
And
I
think
if
we're
going
to
decide
that
25
standardization
is
a
must,
and
have
to
pick
one
or
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
47
1
other,
I
mean,
inductive
is
clearly
a
very
legitimate
2
rational
approach.
But
assuming
comparatively
it
doesn't
3
measure
up
for
the
reasons
that
have
been
proposed,
the
4
stated
ones,
and
we're
going
to
have
to
pick
one,
I'm
5
concerned
about
what
it
does
to
those
who
in
good
faith
6
have
not
only
made
them,
but
have
bought
them
and
are
7
using
them.

8
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
think
that's
a
legitimate
9
issue
there,
too.
I
think,
as
you
said,
we
probably
could
10
shortly
get
on
that
issue.

11
Ms.
D'Adamo
and
then
Mr.
McKinnon.

12
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
Just
a
quick
question
of
13
Mr.
Kitowski.
The
issue
that
you
were
just
raising
about
14
efficiency
on
warm
days,
would
that
apply
to
all
batteries
15
or
was
it
just
the
lead
acid?

16
ON­
ROADS
CONTROLS
BRANCH
CHIEF
KITOWSKI:
It
17
would
apply
to
those
batteries
that
have
a
thermal
18
management
system,
which
incorporates
some
sort
of
cooling
19
or
air­
conditioning.
That's
not
necessarily
lead
acid.

20
That
depends
on
what
the
manufacturer
believes
is
21
necessary
to
ensure
the
durability
of
the
battery.
There
22
are
lead
acid
systems
that
use
it,
but
there
are
nickel
23
metal
hydride
systems
that
use
it
and
there
are
nickel
24
metal
hydride
systems
that
don't
use
it.

25
Most
batteries
­­
well,
it's
pretty
mixed.
It's
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
48
1
not
dependent
on
the
battery
type
itself,
it's
the
system
2
approach.
And
I
believe
Honda
has
used
it,
General
Motors
3
has
used
it,
Toyota
has
not.
4
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Mr.
McKinnon.

5
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Yeah.
I'm
concerned
6
about
stranding,
kind
of,
cars.
If
we
start
building
more
7
and
more
cars
with
two
different
systems,
I
don't
know
8
that
we
solve
the
problem.
We
may
make
the
problem
worse.

9
I'm
also
concerned
with
those
that
have
invested
10
already
in
inductive.
And
if
we
were
to
pass
this
11
resolution
today,
I'm
interested,
as
folks
testify
today,

12
if
there
might
be
some
room
for
us
to
figure
out
a
way
to
13
reward
the
conversion
of
some
of
the
inductive
cars
or
14
maybe,
you
know,
they're
going
to
be
too
old
by
the
time
15
this
happens.

16
But
it
seems
to
me
that
at
least
part
of
the
17
discussion
might
be
today
is
how
we
do
the
transition.

18
And,
frankly,
if
folks
are
arguing
we
should
leave
it
to
19
the
market
till
later,
then
I
think
that
how
we
do
the
20
transition
discussion
is
still
important,
because
some
day
21
we're
going
to
have
to
deal
with
that
question.

22
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Good
point.
I'm
sure
we'll
23
address
that.
I
guess
I
didn't
ask
you
Madam
Ombudsman
if
24
you
would
like
to
comment
on
the
process
by
which
this
25
recommendation
was
brought
before
the
Board.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
49
1
OMBUDSMAN
TSCHOGL:
I'd
be
pleased
to.
Chairman
2
and
members
of
the
Board.
The
proposed
regulation
before
3
you
now
was
developed
in
response,
as
you
know,
to
your
4
request
at
this
year's
January
board
meeting.
I'll
5
summarize
the
outreach
that
staff
conducted
in
preparation
6
for
today.

7
On
February
27th
staff
held
a
workshop
in
El
8
Monte.
The
workshop
began
at
10:
00
a.
m.
and
ended
at
8:
00
9
p.
m.
The
evening
session
was
held
to
facilitate
greater
10
public
participation.
Staff
sent
the
workshop
11
announcement
to
50
people
via
the
US
Postal
Service,
and
12
electronically
to
nearly
650
people.
Staff
sent
the
13
announcement
to
the
environmental
community,
concerned
14
citizens
groups,
industry
representatives,
government
15
agencies
and
others
who
have
identified
their
interest
in
16
the
ZEV
mandate.
Staff
posted
the
announcement
to
our
web
17
site
as
well.

18
Fifty
people
attended
the
workshop
at
some
point
19
during
the
day.
Staff
convened
a
working
group
to
discuss
20
the
technical
issues
surrounding
the
requirements
of
these
21
amendments.
The
group
consisted
of
the
manufacturers
of
22
vehicles
and
charging
systems,
government
agencies
and
the
23
public.

24
This
working
group
was
announced
at
the
February
25
27th
workshop,
and
anyone
interested
in
participating
was
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
50
1
invited
to
do
so.
The
working
group
met
on
March
14
and
2
again
on
April
10
in
El
Monte.
Staff
had
an
additional
15
3
individual
meetings
with
interested
parties
since
January
4
of
this
year.

5
These
parties
included
automakers,
energy
6
providers,
ZEV
enthusiasts,
and
infrastructure
providers.

7
Staff
also
conducted
a
conference
call
with
all
seven
8
automakers
on
April
17th.

9
Finally,
the
staff
record
and
the
announcement
of
10
this
hearing
were
posted
to
ARB's
web
site
on
May
11.
At
11
this
time,
the
announcement
was
sent
to
the
recipients
12
identified
a
few
moments
ago.

13
Throughout
the
process,
staff
heard
comments
that
14
helped
shape
the
regulation
that
is
before
you
now.

15
Thank
you.

16
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thanks
very
much.
Now,
going
17
to
the
public
testimony.
Before
we
do
that,
again,
one
of
18
the
issues,
Mr.
Kenny,
I
would
like
to
explore
in
addition
19
to
some
of
the
issues
that
have
already
been
raised,
is
an
20
answer
to
the
argument
of
well,
let
the
free
market
take
21
its
place.
And
I
know
staff
commented
on
the
issue
here
22
that
we
have
tried
to
­­
basically
tried
to
come
up
with
23
some
standardization
during
the
last
few
years
and
nothing
24
happened.
That's
yeah,
we're
coming
here.

25
So,
maybe,
we
can
comment
on
that
now
or
later.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
51
1
EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR
KENNY:
Yes.
I'd
be
happy
to.

2
We
actually
had
this
discussion,
a
very
similar
one
to
3
this,
back
in
1997/
1998.
And,
at
that
point
in
time,
we
4
actually
were
looking
to
standardization.
And
we
thought
5
that,
in
fact,
we
knew
that
if
we
had
a
standardized
route
6
for
exactly
the
kinds
of
reasons
you've
heard
today,
we
7
thought
it
would
make
the
market
more
successful,
we
8
thought
it
would
be
easier
on
the
consumers,
we
thought
9
that,
in
fact,
it
would
probably
provide
for
a
dedication
10
of
resources
that
would
work
to
everyone's
advantage.

11
At
the
time,
what
we
heard
from
the
manufacturers
12
was
that
what
we
should
do
is
essentially
allow
the
market
13
to,
sort
of,
work
this
out,
and
that
the
market
would
14
likely
work
it
out.
There
was
also
a
lot
of
discussion
15
that
SAE
committees
were
looking
at
that
and
that
would
16
help
the
market
move
towards
some
level
of
being
able
to
17
work
this
out.

18
In
the
end,
as
a
staff,
we
actually
debated
this
19
fairly
intensely
among
ourselves
to
decide
whether
we
20
should
allow
it
to
be
worked
out
over
time
or
whether
we
21
should
propose
to
the
Board
back
then
a
standardized
22
approach.

23
And
what
we
decided
back
then
was
that
we
would
24
allow
the
market
the
opportunity
to
try
to
work
it
out.

25
Unfortunately,
here
we
are
four
years
later
and
the
market
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
52
1
hasn't
worked
it
out,
and
we
don't
see
any
likelihood
2
that,
in
fact,
given
another
six
months,
given
another
3
year,
given
another
two
years,
that,
in
fact,
the
market
4
would
work
it
out.
It
seems,
in
fact,
at
this
point
in
5
time
that
the
market
is
even
more
entrenched
than
ever
6
with
regard
to
multiple
systems.

7
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.

8
Let's
start
the
public
testimony.
I'd
like
to
9
remind
the
witnesses
to
sign
up
if
you
want
to
testify
10
with
the
Clerk
of
the
Board
and
also
provide
30
copies
of
11
your
written
statements.

12
So
I'd
like
to
start
off
with
the
first
witness
13
who
signed
up,
and
also
to
alert
the
others,
which
is
Rich
14
Bell
from
Ford
and
Bob
Cassidy
from
Nissan
and
Michael
15
Wolterman
from
Toyota.

16
Maybe,
Rich,
you
could
also
clarify
­­
that
I
see
17
that
we
have
later
on
Craig
Toepfer
from
Ford
testifying,

18
one
is
against
and
one
is
for.

19
I
presume
you're
taking
about
different
aspects.
20
MR.
BELL:
We
fight
each
other
all
the
time.

21
(
Laughter.)

22
MR.
BELL:
I'm
speaking
on
the
multi­
manufacturer
23
issue
and
Craig
is
speaking
on
the
inductive
charge
on
24
behalf
of
Ford
and
EVC3.

25
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Is
your
mike
on?

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
53
1
MR.
BELL:
Is
there
any
way
to
get
the
slides
up
2
on
­­
the
Board
can
see
but
the
audience
can't.

3
I'm
Rich
Bell
with
Ford
Motor
Company.
I
just
4
want
to
speak
briefly
on
multi­
manufacturers,
since
we
are
5
affected
the
greatest
by
that
proposal.

6
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
guess
does
this
fall
in
the
7
category
that
no
good
deed
goes
unpunished?

8
(
Thereupon
an
overhead
presentation
was
9
presented
as
follows.)

10
MR.
BELL:
That's
right.
As
part
of
an
overview,

11
I
want
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
things
your
staff
12
has
been
telling
us
about
what's
coming
in
post­
2001
­­

13
post
January
2001
revisions
since
the
Board
last
met
on
14
this
issue,
and
then
talk
a
little
bit
about
15
multi­
manufacturer
rationale
for
changes,
our
structure,

16
fairness,
cost,
air
quality
benefits
and
necessity.

17
­­
o0o­­

18
MR.
BELL:
As
far
as
changes
since
January
of
19
2001,
there
are
some
revisions
we're
expecting
that
will
20
have
a
positive
impact
on
Ford
Motor
Company's
credit
21
position,
and
actually
make
it
easier
for
us
to
comply,

22
based
on
where
we
thought
we
were
in
January.

23
And,
if
you
recall,
we
said
in
January
that
near
24
term
we
thought
we
were
in
really
good
shape
with
where
25
the
direction
of
the
mandate
was
headed.
But
there
are
a
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
54
1
couple
of
other
provisions
that
are
being
considered,

2
inclusions
of
trucks
up
to
8,500
pounds
that
would
more
3
than
double
our
requirements
of
Ford
Motor
Company,

4
multi­
manufacturer
provisions,
we
increase
our
ZEV
and
ADP
5
said
requirements
by
about
15
percent
or
equivalent
to
6
about
600
Pure
ZEV
credits
in
2006.

7
­­
o0o­­

8
MR.
BELL:
And
if
we
finally
had
time
to
go
back
9
and
analyze
the
impact
of
the
fixed
three­
year
volume
10
average
that
staff
proposed
to
the
Board
and
looked
at
in
11
January
and
approved,
and
that
would
result
in
a
ten
12
percent
greater
credit
required
over
the
first
five
years
13
than
would
be
required
if
we
based
it
on
our
actual
sales.

14
In
other
words
in
2003,
our
actual
sales
are
15
lower
than
the
97/
98/
99
volume
average
that
we
would
now
16
have
to
base
it
on.
So
over
that
period,
you've
got
a
ten
17
percent
hit.
And
the
net
effect
is
basically
now
piling
18
on
of
our
credit
deficit.
We
had
a
deficit
earlier
than
19
we
thought
we
were
going
to.

20
­­
o0o­­

21
MR.
BELL:
Moving
on
to
the
multi­
manufacturer
22
issues
specifically.
There
are
two
reasons
that
staff
has
23
provided
for
making
changes.
The
first
is
ambiguity.
And
24
we
believe
that
that
can
be
addressed
by
staying
with
the
25
operationally
dependent
definition
and
just
providing
some
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
55
1
turns
and
concepts
that
better
define
operationally
2
independent.

3
As
far
as
fairness
is
concerned,
the
second
4
rationale
or
change,
it's
hard
for
us
to
talk
about
5
fairness
in
the
ZEV
mandate
in
the
same
breath,
because
6
it's,
you
know,
it's
basically
­­
it's
hard
to
be
fair
7
when
you're
requiring
manufacturers
to
do
things
and
other
8
manufacturers
not.

9
So
it
is
kind
of
a
tough
concept.
One
can
argue
10
that
to
be
equitable
you
would
have
to
mandate
it
applied
11
to
all
manufacturers
equally.
You
could
argue
it
the
12
other
way
as
well.

13
But
basically,
you
know,
all
the
groupings
of
14
affiliated
companies,
this
is
approximately
the
same
size,

15
don't
have
the
same
ability
to
­­
and
resources
to
apply
16
towards
orders
meeting,
you
know,
ZEV
mandate.
And
that's
17
why
we
feel
the
fairness
issue
is
kind
of
soft.

18
­­
o0o­­

19
MR.
BELL:
This
slide
depicts
our
view
of
Ford's
20
structure.
Ford
Motor
Company
is
the
parent
company.
We
21
have
divisions
of
Ford
that
you're
familiar
with,
Lincoln
22
Mercury.
And
they
are
clearly
divisions
of
Ford
Motor
23
Company.
We
also
have
operationally
independent
24
corporations,
Land
Rover,
Jaguar,
Volvo,
Aston
Martin
and
25
Mazda.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
56
1
­­
o0o­­

2
MR.
BELL:
We
view
Lincoln
and
Mercury
and
Ford
3
as
divisions
of
Ford
Motor
Company,
not
separate
legal
4
entities,
and
they
are
clearly
not
operationally
5
independent.

6
­­
o0o­­

7
MR.
BELL:
Jaguar,
Aston
Martin,
Volvo
and
Land
8
Rover
are
wholly
owned
subsidiaries.
I
think
Aston
Martin
9
is
as
well.
They're
operationally
independent
from
us.

10
They
are
separate,
legal
entities.
I
think
you
saw
these
11
three
points
earlier
in
the
ARB
presentation.

12
Self­
sustaining
capital
structures.
They
have
a
separate
13
Board
of
Directors,
and
they
maintain
their
own
14
distinctive
image
and
reputation.
They
have
their
own
15
cycle
plans,
et
cetera.

16
­­
o0o­­

17
MR.
BELL:
Getting
back
to
the
fairness.
Staff
18
went
through
some
of
the
details
about
how
Ford
affected
19
and
how
VW
is
affected.

20
In
Ford's
case,
we
are
significantly
affected.

21
Volkswagen
was
estimated
at,
I
think,
$
100,000
a
year
and
22
Ford
staff
estimated
it
at
$
2.4
million
a
year.

23
The
revisions
would
become
effective
in
the
2006
24
model
year,
and
that's
well
within
the
scope
of
our
25
current
product
plans.
We
share
the
product
plans
with
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
57
1
the
staff
that
go
out
to
2008.
And,
in
our
view,
you
2
know,
there's
really
insufficient
time
to
optimize
our
3
costs
and
our
plan
for
compliance
if
it
were
to
take
back
4
in
2006.

5
And
under
the
proposal
our
ZEV
and
ATP
ZEV
6
requirements
would
grow
quite
quickly,
and
we
don't
see
7
anything
that
let's
us
on
the
demand
side.
Back
in
8
January
there
was
a
complete
staff
report
that
talked
9
about
the
market
and
whatnot.
This
increases
our
10
requirements
about
addressing
the
demand
side
of
the
11
equation.

12
­­
o0o­­

13
MR.
BELL:
As
far
as
cost
is
concerned,
I
have
14
shared
some
specific
numbers
with
staff,
but
basically
the
15
2006
costs
staff
has
presented
are
low
by
our
estimates
by
16
a
factor
of
about
four.
And
that
varies
up
and
down
17
depending
on
where
staff
stands
with
the
efficiency
18
calculations
that
they're
playing
with
now.
It's
about
19
four,
based
on
the
efficiency
calculation
that
you
saw
20
back
in
January.

21
So
instead
of
$
2.6
million
a
year
it's
over
$
10
22
million
a
year.
And,
of
course,
those
costs
go
up
as
the
23
mandate
ramps
up
to
2018.
It
goes
from
four
percent
to
24
ten
percent.
And
then
also
the
inclusions
of
trucks
up
to
25
8,500
pounds.
That
combined
effect
of
those
two
things,

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
58
1
our
annual
cost
will
go
to
three
and
a
half
times
where
2
they
would
be
in
2006,
so
it's
a
significant
amount
of
3
money.

4
­­
o0o­­

5
MR.
BELL:
Moving
on
to
air
quality
benefits.

6
And
air
quality
benefits
by
the
proposal's
estimates
are
7
quite
low,
and
there
isn't
really
a
discussion
of
cost
8
effectiveness
in
the
proposal,
except
to
say
that
they're
9
going
to
dismiss
the
concept
of
cost
effectiveness
based
10
on
Ford's
decision
earlier
to
retain
the
mandate
despite
11
cost
effectiveness.

12
And
that
basically
was
related
to
the
Board's
13
view
that
the
mandate
made
sense
regardless
of
the
costs,

14
simply
because
of
technology
advancement.
And
in
our
15
view,
the
multi­
manufacturer
division
that
has
been
16
proposed
won't
promote
technology
advancements
and
we
17
think
the
rationale
is
somewhat
flawed.

18
­­
o0o­­

19
MR.
BELL:
In
our
view
the
revisions
aren't
20
necessary.
Consolidation
within
the
auto
industry
isn't
a
21
threat
to
ARB's
air
quality
goals.
You
won't
end
up
with
22
fewer
ZEVs
because
of
consolidation.
In
other
words
you
23
are
where
you
were
regardless
of
who
buys
them.
What
you
24
would
do
by
this
proposal
is
simply
get
more
of
them,
not
25
less,
than
what
you're
talking
about.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
59
1
It
won't
increase
the
number
of
ZEV
models
in
our
2
case.
We
won't
do
Jaguar
ZEVs.
We
won't
do
Aston
Martin
3
ZEVs.
We
won't
do
Land
Rover
ZEV
models.
We'll
simply
4
have
to
do
more
Ford
models
to
the
ones
that
are
already
5
planned.
We'll
have
to
find
a
way
to
market
more
of
those
6
incentives,
other
ways
to
get
more
customers.

7
­­
o0o­­

8
MR.
BELL:
We
don't
think
your
revisions
are
9
necessary
that
you
can
work
with
your
definition
of
10
operationally
independent.
You've
done
all
the
hard
work.

11
Staff
has
categorized
all
the
manufacturers.
We're
all
12
packed
in
our
little
boxes,
whether
we're
covered
or
not.

13
Any
further
aggregation
in
industry
that
things
have
been
14
set,
you
just
follow
the
path
that
we've
already
laid
out.
15
­­
o0o­­

16
MR.
BELL:
So
in
conclusion,
the
costs
are
high.

17
They're
nearly
exclusive
to
Ford
Motor
Company.
The
air
18
quality
benefits
are
small.
The
consolidation
proposes
no
19
threat
to
the
goals
of
the
mandate,
revisions
won't
20
increase
the
number
of
ZEV
models
on
the
market.
The
lead
21
time
is
insufficient
to
optimize
costs.
And
it
should
22
probably
be
at
least
a
couple
of
years
longer.

23
And
we
believe
that
revisions
are
not
necessary.

24
­­
o0o­­

25
MR.
BELL:
Getting
back
to
the
points
that
staff
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
60
1
put
up.
We
believe
that
you
can
fix
the
definition
you
2
have
by
adding
factors
such
as
separately
remedy,

3
self­
sustaining
capital
structure
and
operation.

4
Any
question?

5
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I'm
sure
there
are
some.
I'm
6
sure
there
will
be
others
who
will
testify
on
this
7
particular
item
before
we
get
on
to
the
recharging
of
8
standardization
to
come
about.

9
One
of
the
things
you
talked
about
is
the
timing.

10
And
staff
has
that
information
there.
Clearly,
your
11
bottom
line
is
no
time
is
a
good
time.
Does
additional
12
time
help?

13
MR.
BELL:
It
certainly
helps
us
evolve
our
14
product
plans,
such
that
we
can
have
the
lowest
cost
15
compliance
plan
company.
In
other
words,
look
at
our
cost
16
per
credit,
put
together
a
plan
that
makes
the
most
sense.

17
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Yeah,
but
you're
also
­­
in
18
your
concluding
comments,
you're
also
pretty
confident
19
that
the
Board
can
basically
cover
some
of
these
issues
20
itself
without
putting
it
into
significantly
more
21
production.

22
MR.
BELL:
I
think
so,
yeah.

23
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Mr.
Kenny.

24
EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR
KENNY:
I
think
this
whole
25
discussion
really
boils
down
to,
kind
of,
a
pretty
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
61
1
straightforward
issue
between
us
and
Ford.
And
it
really
2
is
the
question
of
should
the
wholly
owned
subsidiaries
be
3
counted?

4
And
If
you
look
at
the
operational
definition
5
that
Rich
was
proposing,
he's
proposing
that
we
not
count
6
those
companies
even
though
they
are
wholly
owned
7
subsidiaries.
And
what
we're
proposing
is
that
we
think,

8
in
fact,
we
should
count
those
companies.
And
that
really
9
is
kind
of,
I
think,
the
heart
of
the
question.

10
And
what
that
means
is
that
if
we
count
the
11
companies,
then
Ford
volume
does
increase
and
consequently
12
their
ZEV
obligation
increases.

13
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
How
do
you
respond
to
the
14
issue,
Mike,
where
they've
got
an
independent
board
of
15
directors
and
cases
where
they
rate
independently.
And
16
clearly
we
know
from
the
badges
on
there,
I
can
understand
17
why
you
wouldn't
get
an
Aston
Martin
ZEV.

18
So
there's
­­

19
BOARD
MEMBER
WILLIAM
FRIEDMAN:
Darn.

20
(
Laughter.)

21
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
KENNY:
Well,
I
guess
I
would
22
use
the
same
argument
that
was
used
earlier,
which
is
that
23
wholly
owned
subsidiaries,
if
we're
going
to
define
them
24
in
the
context
of
separate
board's
of
directors,
that
is
25
not
that
difficult
to
establish,
and
we
could
actually
see
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
62
1
a
kind
of
Lincoln
division,
which
is
a
wholly
owned
2
subsidiary,
but
which
essentially
is
established
with
a
3
different
board
of
directors
and
things
like
that,
if
4
people
chose
to
try
to
avoid
this
particular
requirement.

5
I
would
also
refer
back
to
the
argument
that
Mr.

6
Jennings
made
which
is
that
if
you
look
at
GM
and
Saab,

7
you
know,
it's
a
very
similar
situation,
and
yet
the
Saab
8
vehicles
are
counted.

9
And
so
what
we
were
trying
to
do
is
simply
10
reflect
that
we
think
these
vehicles
should
be
counted,

11
because,
in
fact,
Ford
does,
in
the
end,
control
these
12
five
companies.

13
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Yeah,
I
hear
you,
but
I'm
14
also
cognizant
of
the
fact
that
as
we
included
SUVs
into
15
the
requirement
and
then
we
add
here,
I
can
see
why
Ford
16
would
think
of
this
as
being
picked
on
rather
unfairly
at
17
a
time
when
they
were
actually
trying
to
work
with
us
very
18
strongly.

19
Any
comments?

20
Professor
Friedman.

21
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Well,
just
a
22
follow­
up.
Could
you
respond
to
the
point
that
this
does
23
not
promote
technological
advancement.
It
just
piles
on.

24
It
just
adds
more
credit
requirement.

25
EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR
KENNY:
I
don't
think
it's
a
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
63
1
piling
on.
I
do
think
it
does
promote
technological
2
advancement
to
the
extent
that
we
get
greater
numbers
of
3
vehicles
out
into
the
marketplace.
I
mean,
ultimately
the
4
goal
is
to
have
as
many
of
the,
either
zero
emission
5
vehicles
or
Advanced
Technology
Partial
Zero
Emission
6
vehicles
in
the
marketplace
as
we
can
achieve.

7
And
I
think
Rich's
comment
about
the
fact
that
8
we're
probably
not
going
to
see
an
Aston
Martin
ZEV
or
a
9
Land
Rover
ZEV,
I
think,
he's
probably
very
accurate
in
10
saying
that.
But
at
the
same
time,
those
are
vehicles
11
that
are
in
the
marketplace
that
essentially
do
have
a
12
pollution
consequence
to
them.
And
the
entire
goal
of
the
13
ZEV
Program
was
to
essentially
develop
a
mobile
14
transportation
future
in
which
we
minimize
the
amount
of
15
pollution
that's
coming
from
those
vehicles.

16
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
If
they
were
still
17
owned
independently,
they
would
not
be
subject
to
these?

18
EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR
KENNY:
That's
absolutely
19
true.
And
actually
­­

20
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
And
some
of
them
21
were
acquired
probably
in
good
faith
and
without
any
22
thought
that
this
would
mean
any
changes.

23
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
KENNY:
I
think
it's
true,
if
24
they
continue
to
be
independent
companies,
they
would
not
25
be
subject
to
this
requirement,
because
then
they
would
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
64
1
fall
into
either
an
intermediate
volume
manufacturer
or
a
2
small
volume
manufacturer.
And
they
would
have
either
a
3
different
requirement
or
no
requirement,
depending
on
the
4
fact
of
that
status.

5
But
what
we
are
trying
to
reflect
is
that
these
6
are
no
longer
independent
companies.
I
mean,
they
are
7
companies
that
are
completely
owned
by
Ford,
and
they
have
8
therefore
the
resources
of
Ford
at
their
disposal.
And
9
that's
what
we've
been
trying
to
basically
reflect
in
10
terms
of
the
ZEV
requirement.

11
We
did
exclude
the
small
volume
manufacturers
for
12
the
simple
reason
that
they
didn't
have
those
resources
13
available
to
them
and
so
we
didn't
think
it
made
sense
to
14
actually
put
that
burden
upon
them.

15
With
regard
to
the
intermediate
volume
16
manufacturers,
you
know,
we
tried
to
essentially
17
discriminate
in
favor
of
them
because
of
the
lack
of
18
resources
that
they
had
in
comparison
to
the
larger
volume
19
manufacturers.
But
in
this
situation,
Ford
is
essentially
20
increasing
its
market
share
through
it's
wholly
owned
21
subsidiaries,
and
it
did
seem
to
us
to
be
reasonable
to
22
include
those
vehicles
as
part
of
the
ZEV
requirement.

23
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
What
would
be
your
24
outside
current
product
year
plan?
In
other
words,
you
25
said
2006
is
too
soon,
but
what
­­

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
65
1
MR.
BELL:
We
basically
have
our
ZEV
compliance
2
plan
AT
PZEVs,
PZEVs
and
ZEVs
out
to
2008
at
this
time,
so
3
beyond
2008,
it's
basically,
you
know,
when
we
would
have
4
time
to
completely
adjust
the
­­

5
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Would
staff
agree
with
that?

6
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
KENNY:
In
terms
of
a
timeframe
7
for
adjustment,
I
mean
we
would
take
Ford
at
its
word
on
8
that.
I
don't
think
we've
actually
looked
at
that
or
have
9
we?

10
ON­
ROADS
CONTROLS
BRANCH
CHIEF
KITOWSKI:
We
have
11
not
looked
at
that.
Generally,
the
domestic
automakers
12
need
an
additional
more
than
two
years
compared
to
the
13
foreign
automakers,
the
Japanese
automakers,
and
it's
14
probably
in
the
ballpark.

15
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
I
guess
what's
16
bothering
me
is
that
there
is
something
retroactive
about
17
this,
that
sort
of
bothers
me.
It
just
that
we're
really
18
in
a
sense,
although
hopefully
minimally,
that
the
effect
19
of
this
would
be
certainly
to
be
a
disincentive
of
some
20
kind
for
companies
to
acquire
other
companies
that
have
21
been
independent,
and
that
would
not
be
subject
to
these
22
requirements.
And
all
of
a
sudden
because
they've
been
23
acquired
or
50
percent
plus
has
been
acquired,
they
24
suddenly
are
subject
to
it,
particularly
where
there's
25
special
custom
type
vehicles,
and
so
that
just
­­
all
it
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
66
1
does
is
increase
the
volume
of
the
traditional
credit.

2
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
KENNY:
That
is
correct.
I
3
mean
­­

4
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
I
know
what
our
goal
5
is.
And,
you
know,
we're
staying
the
course,
but
­­

6
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
KENNY:
I
think
the
one
thing
7
that
is
probably
worth
some
exploration
is
the
issue
of
8
timing.
I
mean
we
issued
it
as
a
2006
timeframe,
because
9
we
thought
that
it
was
actually
a
reasonable
timeframe.

10
If,
in
fact,
we
are
off
by
a
year
or
two
years,
11
that
may
be
a
reasonable
course
to
pursue.

12
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
Mr.
Chairman,
if
I
might,

13
I
would
like
to
see
staff
maybe
pursue
some
thought
there
14
that
would
give
to
Ford
and
the
subsidiaries
some
15
opportunities.
Obviously,
they're
good
partners
for
us
in
16
terms
of
achieving
what
we
want
to
achieve
in
terms
of
the
17
ZEV
requirement.
And
sometimes
a
little
help
can
go
a
18
long
ways
in
getting
everybody
on
the
same
track.

19
So
while,
we
understand,
or
at
least
I
feel
I
20
understand
what
you
are
trying
to
achieve
through
the
21
staff
recommendation,
it
seems
to
me
that
maybe
there's
a
22
timing
issue
again
that
we
could
partner
up
a
little
bit.

23
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Supervisor
DeSaulnier,
Dr.

24
Burke.

25
Anybody
down
here?

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
67
1
BOARD
MEMBER
DeSAULNIER:
Mike,
sort
of
on
the
2
same
line
of
anything,
it
seems
as
if
we're
concerned
with
3
more
future
mergers
and
the
potential
to
manipulate
the
4
ruling.
I
wonder
in
terms
of
what
Alan
said,
when
we
5
started
this,
your
testimony
was
no
good
deed
goes
6
unpunished,
if
there
was
any
discussion
about
sort
of
7
separating
this,
the
world
as
we
know
it
now
is
accepted,

8
but
any
future
mergers
would
come
under
some
kind
of
9
control.

10
EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR
KENNY:
Actually,
I
don't
11
think
we
actually
looked
at
it
from
that
perspective.

12
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Could
you?

13
EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR
KENNY:
Yes,
we
could.

14
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Would
you?
15
EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR
KENNY:
Yes,
we
would.

16
(
Laughter.)

17
BOARD
MEMBER
DeSAULNIER:
So
to
finish
my
18
thought,
would
you
do
that,
please?

19
(
Laughter.)

20
EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR
KENNY:
Yes,
we
can.

21
BOARD
MEMBER
DeSAULNIER:
Thank
you.

22
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Dr.
Burke.

23
BOARD
MEMBER
BURKE:
I
was
right
with
you
up
24
until
you
said
that
Jaguar
and
some
of
the
other
25
divisions,
Aston
Martin,
have
the
full
resources
of
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
68
1
corporation
available
to
them,
which
may
or
may
not
be
2
true,
I
don't
know,
how
do
you
know
that?

3
Because
if
I
owned
Ford
Motor
Company,
what
I
4
would
do
to
obfuscate
this
rule
is
to
reverse
sales
to
5
employees,
make
the
sales
so
that
arguably
we
kept
all
the
6
profit,
and
then
I
wouldn't
own
them.
I'd
just
take
all
7
the
profit.

8
The
other
thing
that
bothers
me
about
what
you've
9
been
saying
this
morning
is
that
you've
been
speaking
10
about
these
corporations
like
they're
proprietary
11
corporations.
And
they're
not,
they're
public
12
corporations.

13
So
50
percent
is
not
controlling.
A
somewhere
14
much
lower
figure
than
that
is
really
what
a
controlling
15
interest
in
a
corporation
like
this
is.
So,
you
know,

16
you're
not
really
comparing
apples
and
oranges.
And
I
17
think
there
is
probably
some
unfairness
there.

18
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
KENNY:
In
response
to
that,
19
Dr.
Burke,
I
think
we
agree
with
you,
that
controlling
20
interest
could
be
lower
than
50
percent
quite
easily.

21
What
we
were
trying
to
do
is
reach
a
kind
of
balanced
22
approach
where
we
thought
there
was
a
number
that
would
23
actually
reflect
kind
of
the
overall
goal
that
we
were
24
trying
to
achieve.

25
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Any
other
questions
from
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
69
1
Board?

2
Thank
you,
Rick.
And
anyone
else
testifying
on
3
this
particular
part
of
this
item?

4
Then
we
go
with
Bob
Cassidy,
Mike
Wolterman
and
5
Tom
Austin.

6
MR.
CASSIDY:
Good
morning,
Dr.
Lloyd,
Dr.
Lloyd
7
and
members
of
the
Board.
I'm
Bob
Cassidy.
I
represent
8
Nissan
Motor
Limited
this
morning.
As
you
know,
Nissan
9
has
two
EVs
in
California.
We
have
alter
EV,
which
uses
10
the
large
battle
conductive
system,
and
we
have
the
11
hypermini
which
is
a
city
car,
uses
the
small
inductive
12
system.

13
The
first
units
are
produced
by
GMADB.
The
14
second
by
TAL.

15
Our
view
on
the
than
standardization
issue
is
16
quite
simple.
We
think
it's
too
soon
to
select
a
17
standard.
I
will
address
several
of
the
issues,
which
18
leads
Nissan
to
this
conclusion
and
then
I'll
offer
19
recommendation.

20
(
Thereupon
an
overhead
presenation
was
21
presented
as
follows.)

22
MR.
CASSIDY:
Our
recommendation
is
that
we
delay
23
consideration
for
one
year.
During
that
time
we
appoint
24
an
independent
expert
panel
to
look
into
this
issue
in
25
detail.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
70
1
­­
o0o­­

2
MR.
CASSIDY:
One
of
the
important
considerations
3
addressed
by
staff
is
cost.
If
we
look
at
the
cost
of
the
4
two
systems,
they're
generally
the
same.
Intuitively
this
5
makes
sense.
The
electricity
comes
out
of
the
wall
or
out
6
of
the
grid,
we
process
it,
and
we
charge
the
battery.
So
7
the
bits
and
pieces
that
go
into
the
charging
system
8
included
in
the
connector
are
essentially
the
same
and
9
therefore
the
costs
of
the
two
systems
ends
up
the
same.

10
I
don't
think
we
should
be
confused
by
current
11
selling
prices
or
alleged
costs,
because
they
don't
really
12
reflect
all
the
bits
and
pieces
in
volume
production.

13
However,
a
key
consideration
as
staff
has
pointed
14
out,
is
where
do
you
put
the
money.
And
there
is
a
15
difference
between
the
inductive
and
conductive.
With
16
that
conductive
it's
on­
board
and
so
the
money
stays
with
17
the
car.
The
inductive
system,
you
can
move
some
of
the
18
money
to
the
infrastructure
and
take
it
off
the
car.

19
Nissan
believes
that
one
of
the
largest
20
impediments
of
the
widespread
adoption
of
EVs
is
the
cost
21
of
the
vehicles.
So
we
move
to
do
what
we
can
to
reduce
22
the
cost
of
the
vehicle.
We
see
the
inductive
system
then
23
as
one
mechanism
to
do
this.
It
takes
a
few
dollars
off
24
the
car
and
puts
them
on
the
ground.
So
from
a
25
manufacturer
perspective,
that's
a
good
choice
with
this
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
71
1
criteria.

2
The
Board,
of
course,
needs
to
address
who
pays
3
for
what's
in
the
ground,
and
that's
a
very
good
question.

4
­­
o0o­­

5
MR.
CASSIDY:
We
would
propose
that
the
local
6
community,
a
local
government,
perhaps
a
business
that
7
goes
into
the
charging
business
itself
can
be
responsible
8
for
this
infrastructure.
We
think
that's
appropriate
that
9
other
groups
become
involved
in
the
ZEV
mandate
as
an
10
issue.

11
­­
o0o­­

12
MR.
CASSIDY:
We've
heard
from
staff
about
13
efficiency.
Essentially
the
two
systems
are
very
much
the
14
same.
We
agree
with
the
high
level
of
power
numbers
that
15
staff
has
cited.
However,
we
would
point
out
that
the
16
on­
board
conductive
does
have
a
penalty
in
that
the
car
17
has
to
carry
around
its
own
charger
all
of
the
time.
So
18
you're
forced
to
add
this
additional
weight
to
the
19
vehicle,
and
that
results
in
probably
the
same
order
of
20
magnitude,
loss
and
efficiency,
a
one
to
two
percent
loss
21
in
efficiency
by
carrying
around
your
own
charger.
So
22
when
we
look
at
the
efficiency
issue,
we
see,
yes,
they're
23
both
pretty
good,
and
it's
really
not
a
criteria
to
make
24
the
decision.
They're
very
much
the
same.

25
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Bob,
would
you
disagree
with
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
72
1
staff's
comment
that
says
high
temperatures
when
there
is
2
a
difference
there?

3
MR.
CASSIDY:
No,
I
wouldn't.
That's
a
good
4
issue.
It
depends
very
much
on
the
battery
selection
and
5
the
vehicle
design.

6
For
example,
the
20
percent
of
number
cited
is
7
also
vehicle
and
battery
specific.
The
Alter
EV,
as
you
8
probably
know,
uses
a
lithium
ion
battery.
And
its
9
capability
is
such
that
it
can
sustain
a
high
power
level
10
of
charging
longer
than
some
of
the
other
batteries.

11
So,
again,
it's
very
subtle.
I
might
add
that
12
the
differences
in
the
efficiency
are
very
small
compared
13
to
vehicle
fuel
economy,
if
you
will.
So
we're
looking
at
14
a
very
small
number.
I
guess
I
would
suggest
that
the
15
number
is
so
close
and
so
small
again
it
shouldn't
be
the
16
basis
for
a
decision.
It
shouldn't
be
the
selection
17
criteria.
They
are
very
much
the
same.

18
­­
o0o­­

19
MR.
CASSIDY:
Real
world
durability.
This
is
20
probably
the
key
concern
for
Nissan
over
the
proposed
21
choice
of
the
conductive
charger.
We've
had
good
22
experience
with
the
inductive
system.
As
you
know,
this
23
is
a
simple
plastic
paddle.
It
slides
in,
it
slides
out.

24
There's
no
moving
parts.
It's
hard
to
break
it.

25
The
conductive
system
is
in
contrast
made
up
of
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
73
1
many
pins
and
springs,
a
protector
plate.
It
is
2
mechanically
reasonably
complicated.
We
feel
that
it
is
3
subject
to
outside
contamination
and
could
experience
4
deterioration.

5
Nissan
originally
looked
at
conductive
years
ago,
6
and
dismissed
it
because
of
those
problems.
We
understand
7
the
new
connector
is
improved
and
we
support
that
work
and
8
are
pleased
to
have
seen
that.

9
However,
we
don't
think
that
it
has
had
10
sufficient
time
in
the
market
to
really
judge
its
real
11
world
durability.
We
understand
its
past
construction
12
tests,
if
you
will.
We
need
to
let
the
market
beat
it
up
13
for
awhile
and
see
how
it
really
does.

14
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
What
does
Renault
use?

15
MR.
CASSIDY:
Renault
uses
a
conductive
system.

16
In
Europe,
there
are
many
different
conductive
systems.

17
And
I
don't
believe
they're
using
that
Avcon
connector.

18
It's
an
older
style
connector.

19
­­
o0o­­

20
MR.
CASSIDY:
Ease
of
use.
Again,
this
is
a
21
tough
issue.
We
think
that
the
paddle
system
is
just
a
22
slam
dunk.
You
can
push
it
in.
You
can
pull
it
out.
We
23
happen
to
think
the
consumers
really
respond
to
that
and
24
find
it
easy
and
contemporary
and
modern
and
all
the
25
things
we
want
in
the
EV.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
74
1
As
you
know,
the
conductive
system
is
a
little
2
bit
more
complicated.
Is
this
a
deal
breaker?
I
don't
3
know.
But
clearly
we
prefer
the
inductive
for
our
4
vehicles.

5
­­
o0o­­

6
MR.
CASSIDY:
The
next
issue
I'm
calling
future
7
technology.
As
you
may
know,
Nissan
is
very
active
with
8
Station
Car
Programs
in
Japan.
One
program
is
a
joint
9
program
with
Toyota
as
well.
As
Station
Car
Programs
10
require
a
Robust
communication
system
between
the
vehicle,

11
its
charger
and
then
the
control
center
for
the
Station
12
Car
Program.

13
When
we're
transferring
information
such
as
state
14
of
charge,
vehicle
trouble
codes,
if
you
will,
the
15
reservation
system,
access
codes,
consumer
codes,
things
16
that
we
need
to
make
the
program
run,
we
dismissed
the
17
conductive
system
because
we
had
concerns
about
a
reliable
18
communication
connection.
The
mechanical
system
just
19
isn't
as
robust
as
we
feel
we
have
with
the
infrared,

20
which
is
included
in
the
inductive
system.

21
­­
o0o­­

22
MR.
CASSIDY:
So
looking
at
these
issues,

23
especially
the
end­
use
durability
in
a
communication
24
issue,
we
offer
the
following
recommendation.
We'd
like
25
you
to
delay
consideration
for
the
selection
of
a
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
75
1
connector
standard
for
at
least
one
year.
And
during
this
2
one
year
period,
we
ask
that
you
appoint
an
independent
3
expert
panel
to
evaluate
the
market
and
system
4
performance,
and
make
the
choice
at
that
time.

5
Thank
you.

6
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much.

7
Questions
or
comments
from
the
Board?

8
Professor
Friedman.

9
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
I
think
the
staff's
10
evaluation
in
comparing
the
analysis
indicated
that
the
11
inductive
system
was
easier
to
use.
But,
in
your
view,

12
would
the
conductive
connector
be
any
less
easy
to
use
13
than
using
the
gas,
opening
the
gas
tank
door,
and
14
unscrewing
the
gas
cap
and
sticking
in
the
filler?

15
MR.
CASSIDY:
In
terms
of
ease
of
use,
if
I
had
a
16
way,
I
guess,
to
refuel
my
Nissan,
that
was
slick
as
a
17
paddle
and
everybody
else
was
using
gas
pumps,
we'd
market
18
it
and
sell
them
like
crazy,
because
it's
new
and
easy
to
19
use.

20
We
think
it's
a
marketing
tool
that
is
effective.

21
We
think
consumers
would
like
it
and
we
think
we'd
like
to
22
do
it.
Is
it
a
deal
breaker?
I
don't
think
so.

23
Again,
assuming
that
the
real
world
durability
is
24
present,
and
we
simply
don't
know,
we're
a
little
bit
25
reluctant
to
go
with
this
standard
at
this
time
and
start
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
76
1
putting
them
on
vehicles
when
we
ourselves
are
not
2
confident
they
will
hold
up.

3
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
What
do
you
think
4
one
year
will
do?

5
MR.
CASSIDY:
I
hope
that
one
year
gives
us
6
enough
data
with
these
types
of
connectors
to,
at
least
7
from
Nissan's
perspective,
to
be
more
comfortable
in
8
saying,
okay,
maybe
this
isn't
our
first
choice,
but
the
9
choice
is
okay.

10
At
this
point,
we're
reluctant
to
say
the
choice
11
is
okay.

12
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
How
many
additional
cars
does
13
staff
expect
to
be
out
there,
so
that
what
­­
if
we
are
14
looking
now,
and
staff
has
looked
at
the
experience
to
15
date,
given
say
X
vehicles
out
there
worldwide,
now
in
one
16
year
would
give
us
X
plus
Y,
what
percentage
are
we
17
expecting
that
to
be?
18
ON­
ROADS
CONTROLS
BRANCH
CHIEF
KITOWSKI:
Well,
a
19
one
year
delay,
assuming
a
decision
was
made
in
one
year
20
from
today,
and
therefore
the
implementation
would
need
to
21
be
delayed
from
2006
to
2007,
it
would
result
in
22
approximately
­­
a
little
over
­­
well
there's
the
chart
23
right
there.
Boy,
talk
and
there
it
is.
I
was
going
to
24
say
a
little
over
10,000
and
the
point
is
there
it's
about
25
12,000
additional
vehicles
on
the
road.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
77
1
MOBILE
SOURCE
CONTROL
DIVISION
CHIEF
CROSS:
Dr.

2
Lloyd
was
asking
how
much
of
a
­­

3
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
No,
the
point
is
­­
what
I'm
4
looking
at
as
an
independent
panel
what
increased
database
5
do
they
have
available
during
this
time?

6
ON­
ROADS
CONTROLS
BRANCH
CHIEF
KITOWSKI:
The
7
question
being
how
many
more
vehicles
do
we
expect
on
the
8
road
over
the
next
year?

9
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Yeah,
correct.

10
ON­
ROADS
CONTROLS
BRANCH
CHIEF
KITOWSKI:
And
the
11
number
of
vehicles,
what
we're
seeing,
is
there
are
some
12
vehicles
starting
to
come
on
the
road
due
to
the
earlier
13
production
of
­­
higher
early
production
credits
the
Board
14
gave
in
January,
that
number
is
probably
over
500,
but
15
less
certainly
than
2,000.

16
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
So
a
percentage
increase
but
17
not
a
significant
percentage
increase.
And
obviously
18
during
that
time
period
there
is
not
much
durability.

19
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
I
don't
think
20
you
can
postulate
that
we'd
gain
a
lot
of
durability
21
experience.
We
already
pretty
much
know
the
consumer
22
response
is
pretty
good.
It's
a
little
easier.
We
have
a
23
bigger
sample,
I
suppose,
of
consumer
reaction,
but
the
24
consumer
reaction
has
been
positive
in
both
cases,
so
I
25
don't
think
we've
really
anything
from
that.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
78
1
MR.
CASSIDY:
Dr.
Lloyd,
I'd
also
bring
up
that
2
our
second
point
is
an
independent
group
to
look
at
this
3
so
we
can
more
systematically
tabulate
the
data.
Our
4
feeling
is
much
of
it
seems
to
be
anecdotal,
very
limited
5
sample
where
somebody
goes
here
and
their
connector
didn't
6
work
or
there
were
two
choices
and
neither
of
them
were
7
the
one
they
needed.

8
So
we
really
think
the
independent
panel
could
be
9
a
real
plus
to
try
to
put
these
things
in
a,
what
we
would
10
say,
is
a
more
even
perspective.

11
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
It
might
take
us
six
months
12
to
get
the
independence
of
that
panel
established.
I
mean
13
my
concern
would
be
that.

14
MR.
CASSIDY:
I
understand.

15
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.

16
Ms.
D'Adamo.

17
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
Well,
Mr.
Cassidy,
I
18
appreciate
your
testimony,
especially
since
your
company
19
utilizes
both
systems,
so
I
think
that
what
you
have
to
20
say
about
the
comparison
is
particularly
helpful.

21
I
would
question,
however,
ease
of
use,
that
it's
22
anymore
than
perhaps
a
marginal
difference,
having
23
utilized
both
systems.
What
I'd
like
to
ask
you,
though,

24
are
a
couple
of
questions
regarding
efficiency
and
cost.

25
And
I'd
like
to
hear
from
you
and
then
also
have
staff
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
79
1
respond.

2
On
cost
you're
saying
that
there
is
a
difference
3
because
of
where
you
place
the
cost,
whether
it's
on
the
4
vehicle
or
on
the
charging
system.
Could
you
be
more
5
specific
about
those
figures.
And,
secondly,
regarding
6
efficiency,
if
the
on­
board
conductive
chargers
add
to
the
7
weight
and
reduce
efficiency,
how
much
weight
and
how
much
8
of
a
loss
of
efficiency?

9
MR.
CASSIDY:
Yes,
I
understand.
Let
me
answer
10
the
second
question,
because
I
have
firm
numbers.
For
the
11
Alter
EV
my
technical
staff
says
it
would
be
approximately
12
50
kilograms
to
introduce
the
on­
board
charger
and
the
13
necessary
vehicle
structure
changes
to
have
it
pass
the
14
quality
appliance
procedures.
They
estimate
a
one
to
two
15
percent
reduction
in
efficiency.

16
Turning
to
the
first
question
regarding
how
much,

17
I
have
not
taken
that
pencil
to
paper
and
calculated
that.

18
Off
the
top
of
my
head
looking
at
the
pieces,
you're
19
probably
in
the
20
percent
of
the
dollars
on
conductive
20
system
on
the
ground
versus
maybe
60
percent
of
dollars
of
21
inductive
system.

22
Mike
Wolterman
from
Toyota
is
speaking
on
the
23
technical
guide,
perhaps
he
can
give
us
an
overview.

24
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
Could
staff
respond
to
25
those
two
questions?

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
80
1
ON­
ROADS
CONTROLS
BRANCH
CHIEF
KITOWSKI:
Well,
2
I'll
respond,
but
then
I
also
want
to
point
out
that
there
3
are
technical
representatives
of
the
conductive
industry
4
that
will
also
be
providing
some
input
especially
on
the
5
impact
of
the
efficiency
for
the
conductive
charger
being
6
on
board
the
vehicle,
that
that
information
will
probably
7
be
useful,
because
there
are
some
scenarios
in
the
future
8
that
will
significantly
affect
that.

9
But
in
terms
of
the
cost
that
we
have
­­
as
was
10
stated,
the
primary
cost
for
the
inductive
is
off­
board
11
the
vehicle.
The
primary
cost
for
the
conductive
is
12
on­
board
the
vehicle.
Both
those
costs
are
expected
to
13
reduce
in
the
future.
We
evaluated
current
and
future
14
costs
on­
board
and
off­
board.
Our
estimations
are
15
certainly
that,
without
a
doubt,
conductive
costs
are
less
16
expensive
off­
board
the
vehicle,
and
as
a
system
today,

17
you
know,
in
total
today.
And
the
off­
board,
the
18
off­
the­
vehicle
portion
is
important
because
that's
the
19
part
if
we
want
public
infrastructure
that
people
are
20
going
to
have
­­
the
extra
costs
people
are
going
to
have
21
to
pay.

22
In
the
future
it
is
still
very
clear
to
staff
23
that
the
off­
the­
vehicle
portion
of
conductive
will
be
24
less
expensive
than
the
on­
the­
vehicle
portion.
The
only
25
point
in
question
is
whether
we've
recently
received
some
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
81
1
information
that
the
system
costs
in
the
future,
that
the
2
inductive
may
be
able
to
get
to
the
point
where
conductive
3
could
get
on
the
system
cost
basis.

4
If
those
optimistic
projections
come
true,
then
5
the
on­
board
and
off­
board
could
get
potentially
to
the
6
same
location
in
the
future,
although
the
off­
the­
vehicle
7
portion
would
remain
less
for
conductive.

8
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
I
was
hoping
for
something
9
a
little
more
specific.

10
ON­
ROADS
CONTROLS
BRANCH
CHIEF
KITOWSKI:
In
11
terms
of
specific
numbers?

12
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
Um­
hmm.

13
ON­
ROADS
CONTROLS
BRANCH
CHIEF
KITOWSKI:
The
14
dollar
amounts.
We
showed
some
­­
we
provided
some
15
numbers
in
the
future,
system
costs
in
the
lead
for
16
conductive
are
about
$
700
for
a
city
vehicle,
about
$
900
17
for
a
full
function
vehicle.

18
Previously,
using
our
estimates,
we
had
thought
19
inductive
would
be
well
over
$
1,000
for
the
system.
We
20
recently
received
some
information
from
General
Motors
21
that
believes
they
can,
through
technological
22
advancements,
volume
reductions,
they
can
get
down
to
23
comparable
cost
reduction
levels
for
conductive.

24
Hopefully,
they
can.

25
The
off­
board
portion
currently
is
already
for
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
82
1
conductive
at
$
350.
We
would
expect
that
to
continue
to
2
have
cost
reductions
in
the
neighborhood
of
50
percent.

3
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
Thank
you.

4
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much.

5
Thanks,
Paul.

6
Michael
Wolterman,
Toyota,
Tom
Austin,
and
then
7
Greg
Hanssen.

8
(
Thereupon
an
overhead
presentation
was
9
presented
as
follows.)
10
MR.
WOLTERMAN:
Good
morning.
My
name
is
Mike
11
Wolterman.
Can
you
hear
me
okay?

12
My
name
is
Mike
Wolterman
and
I'm
with
the
Toyota
13
Technical
Center
in
Ann
Arbor,
Michigan
and
I'm
here
14
representing
Toyota
Motor
Corporation.

15
­­
o0o­­

16
MR.
WOLTERMAN:
And
first
I'd
like
to
discuss
17
Toyota's
experience
with
charge
systems.
As
you're
aware,

18
Toyota
adopted
the
conductive
charge
system
using
Yazaki's
19
coupler
for
the
1998
model
year
RAV4
EV.
And
we
began
20
using
the
inductive
system
on
our
1999
model
year
RAV4
EV.

21
Toyota
is
in
the
unique
position
of
being
the
22
only
automaker
in
the
world
that
has
had
and
is
currently
23
operating
electric
vehicle
fleets
using
both
conductive
24
and
inductive
charge
systems.

25
Given
our
experience
with
both
conductive
and
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
83
1
inductive
charge
systems,
we
are
the
only
company
that
can
2
provide
a
comparison
of
these
systems
based
on
our
3
firsthand
experience.
A
key
point
here
is
that
we
started
4
with
the
conductive
system,
and
through
our
own
analysis
5
decided
to
switch
to
the
inductive
system.

6
­­
o0o­­

7
MR.
WOLTERMAN:
Today,
I'd
like
to
discuss
8
several
points
with
you,
one
being
a
comparison
of
the
9
inductive
and
conductive
systems.
This
is
based
on
our
10
experiences
both
in
the
lab
and
the
field.
And
I
would
11
like
to
discuss
our
concerns
with
the
current
conductive
12
recommended
practice.

13
Specifically,
its
ability
to
become
an
14
international
standard,
the
fact
that
the
recommended
15
practice
is
still
being
developed,
the
lack
of
geometric
16
tolerance
data,
concerns
over
the
interoperability
of
the
17
coupling
and
the
lack
of
mandatory
communications.

18
­­
o0o­­

19
MR.
WOLTERMAN:
Based
on
our
experience,
we
have
20
found
inductive
to
be
a
better
system
than
the
conductive
21
system.
This
chart
shows
the
results
of
our
experience
22
with
the
General
Motors
and
all
Toyota
works
inductive
23
systems,
and
the
Yazaki
and
Avcon
conductive
systems.

24
These
areas
are
discussed
further
in
our
written
25
comments
and
I'm
going
to
summarize
this
chart
here
this
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
84
1
morning.

2
Concerning
ease
of
use,
staff
has
already
3
addressed
that
issue.
As
far
as
safety,
durability
and
4
reliability,
the
Avcon
coupling
conductive
system
relies
5
on
pressure
contacts,
moving
parts,
springs
and
seals.

6
And
during
this
reliance,
we
are
concerned
that
the
7
durability
and
the
reliability
of
the
system
over
time
may
8
deteriorate.

9
In
our
opinion,
these
issues
also
foster
a
safety
10
concern.
Communications
is
a
key
component
for
station
11
car
programs
and
technological
advances.
The
inductive
12
system
utilizes
an
infrared
communications
system,
which
13
is
standardized
worldwide
and
is
the
same
system
that
is
14
used
by
your
TV
remote
control,
while
the
conductive
15
system's
communication
is
optional,
and
I'll
discuss
this
16
issue
further
later
on.

17
As
far
as
societal
costs,
efficiency,
complexity,
18
we're
configuring
the
systems
with
like
features.
These
19
are
similar
between
the
two
technologies.

20
Packaging
the
charge
system,
especially
on
21
smaller
vehicles,
such
as
the
Ecom
or
the
Nissan
22
Hypermini.
It's
easier
for
the
inductive
system
because
23
the
charge
port
is
smaller
and
the
charger
is
located
off
24
the
vehicle.
This
also
results
in
favorable
on­
vehicle
25
weight.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
85
1
As
far
as
the
infrastructure
is
concerned,
staff
2
in
their
initial
report
stated
that
60
percent
of
the
3
charges
in
the
State
of
California
were
inductive.

4
And
finally,
the
potential
for
advanced
5
technologies
for
both
of
these
systems
is
there.
However,

6
one
of
the
points
is
that
neither
the
inductive
nor
the
7
conductive
recommended
practices,
at
this
point,

8
acknowledge
any
advanced
technology,
such
as
Level
2
plus
9
or
vehicle­
to­
grid
power.

10
So
overall,
we
believe
the
inductive
system
to
be
11
superior
to
the
conductive
system.

12
­­
o0o­­

13
MR.
WOLTERMAN:
Our
concerns
related
to
14
conductive
recommended
practice.

15
One
is
the
ability
for
it
to
become
an
16
international
standard.
All
the
automakers
in
this
room
17
are
building
vehicles
for
the
worldwide
market.
And
our
18
vehicles
must
be
designed
to
meet
international
standards.

19
It
is
very
costly
to
design
and
package
one
vehicle
for
20
one
market
and
another
vehicle
for
the
rest
of
the
world.

21
In
this
regard,
the
inductive
system
with
the
22
small
paddle
has
been
accepted,
as
an
IEC
Committee
draft.

23
And
that
draft
is
now
in
the
review
process
to
become
an
24
international
standard.

25
In
addition,
the
small
paddle
inductive
coupler
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
86
1
has
been
standardized
in
the
US
as
an
SAE
recommended
2
practice
J7273,
and
in
Japan
as
a
Japan
electric
vehicle
3
standard
G107.

4
­­
o0o­­

5
MR.
WOLTERMAN:
The
IEC
started
to
consider
the
6
standardization
of
the
conductive
coupler
last
year.

7
However,
based
on
the
information
that
I
have
8
here,
there
is
currently
no
charge
for
coupling
the
9
configuration
of
conventional
data
in
this
draft.
We
are
10
concerned
that
the
Japanese
and
the
European
auto
makers
11
that
produce
small
vehicles
may
not
accept
the
buck
type
12
coupler
due
to
the
size
and
the
complexity.

13
If
the
IEC
ultimately
decides
to
standardize
a
14
coupler
that
is
not
Avcon's
coupler
as
their
standard,
the
15
conductive
recommended
practice
may
need
to
be
amended
to
16
reflect
that.

17
As
I
mentioned
earlier,
it's
costly
to
design
and
18
package
a
vehicle
for
a
specific
region,
as
compared
to
a
19
vehicle
that
meets
worldwide
standards.
And
we
are
20
concerned
that
if
the
ARB
decides
to
standardize
the
21
coupler
at
this
time,
the
conductive
charge
infrastructure
22
in
California
might
need
to
be
changed
again
in
the
future
23
as
these
standards
evolve.

24
­­
o0o­­

25
MR.
WOLTERMAN:
Since
we
do
not
know
what
form
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
87
1
international
standards
will
take
in
the
future,
we
have
2
some
serious
concerns
with
the
use
of
the
conductive
3
recommended
practice.
Specifically,
it
is
now
in
a
draft
4
form,
and
as
a
matter
of
procedure
draft
documents
are
not
5
referenced
in
SAE
documents,
and
as
such
should
not
be
6
reference
in
the
ZEV
regulations.

7
As
the
conductive
recommended
practice
evolves,

8
the
contents
may
become
unacceptable
to
what
the
ARB
is
9
looking
for.
And
I'm
curious
as
to
what
might
happen
to
10
the
ZEV
regulations
if
the
conductive
recommended
practice
11
were
to
be
substantially
changed.

12
­­
o0o­­

13
MR.
WOLTERMAN:
In
the
current
version
the
14
conductive
recommended
practice,
there
is
no
geometric
15
tolerance
data.
This
can
be
added.
I
am
one
of
the
two
16
people
on
the
SAE
Charging
Systems
Committee
reviewing
and
17
trying
to
try
to
make
the
two
a
recommended
practice.

18
However,
this
review
is
not
complete
and
I
cannot
tell
you
19
today
that
the
data
I've
seen
can
be
used
to
build
20
interoperable
components.

21
As
a
member
of
the
subcommittee
reviewing
these
22
documents,
I'll
take
some
of
the
responsibility
for
this
23
tolerance
data
not
being
in
the
current
draft.

24
­­
o0o­­

25
MR.
WOLTERMAN:
Another
concern
is
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
88
1
interoperability
or
compatibility
from
the
parts
from
2
various
manufacturers.
There
is
no
process
in
place
to
3
ensure
the
interoperability
between
different
4
manufacturers.
This
interoperability
needs
to
address
5
both
the
physical
and
the
communications
areas.

6
If
consumers
are
confused
today
about
the
7
existence
of
the
two
charging
systems,
imagine
how
8
confused
they
will
be
when
there
is
only
one
conductive
9
charging
system,
but
the
connector
from
supplier
A
doesn't
10
fit
into
the
inlet
from
supplier
B
or
the
connector
from
11
supplier
C
doesn't
communicate
with
the
inlet
from
12
supplier
D.

13
It
should
be
noted
that
even
though
TAL
and
GM
14
worked
together
to
develop
the
small
inductive
system,
our
15
first
units
were
not
interoperable.

16
­­
o0o­­

17
MR.
WOLTERMAN:
In
addition,
the
conductive
18
recommended
practice
does
not
require
communications
for
19
Level
1
and
Level
2
charging.
Communications
will
be
20
required
for
station
car
projects,
neighborhood
car
21
projects,
future
technologies.
Even
if
the
conductive
22
recommended
practice
were
changed
to
require
23
communications,
most
of
the
existing
infrastructure
does
24
not
support
it.

25
And
the
communications
specified
in
conductive
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
89
1
documents,
specifically
SAE
JA1850,
which
is
multiplexing
2
and
SAE
2293
will
be
obsolete
by
the
year
2007.
Some
3
other
types
of
communications,
such
as
infrared
which
is
4
where
we're
using
the
inductive
or
blue
tooth
which
is
a
5
2.4
gigahertz
radio,
is
required
if
conductive
is
to
be
6
operable
in
the
future.

7
In
addition,
message
sets
including
header
and
8
data
fields
need
to
be
developed
and
communications
9
interoperability
to
the
various
manufacturers'
gateways
10
need
to
be
verified.

11
­­
o0o­­

12
MR.
WOLTERMAN:
Given
these
unknowns,
it
is
13
virtually
impossible
for
the
automakers
to
use
the
14
conductive
recommended
practice
to
design
future
vehicles.

15
This
does
not
mean
to
imply
that
the
inductive
recommended
16
practice
is
a
Level
2
standard.
But
the
inductive
17
recommended
practice
is
at
least
one
iteration
ahead
of
18
the
conductive
practice,
in
that
we
have
already
addressed
19
communications
and
interoperability
issues.

20
In
addition,
a
decision
here
today
for
either
21
conductive
or
inductive
will
only
transfer
this
debate
22
from
here
to
SAE
Charging
Systems
Committee.
A
group
of
23
about
ten
volunteers
will
now
have
to
argue
these
issues,

24
specifically
can
we
build
partiality
drawings,
do
we
need
25
communications,
are
they
interoperable?
And
this
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
90
1
committee
is
not
the
place
for
this
debate
to
take
place.

2
These
recommended
practices
are
not
mature.
They
3
are
evolving,
and
they
need
to
be
allowed
to
evolve
4
naturally,
not
by
force.
Force
of
these
recommended
5
practices
will
only
result
in
a
substandard
document.

6
­­
o0o­­

7
MR.
WOLTERMAN:
A
major
concern
for
Toyota
is
the
8
fact
that
if
the
ARB
chooses
conductive
as
a
single
9
standard,
then
the
ARB
is
requiring
Toyota
to
place
a
part
10
onto
its
electric
vehicles
that
Toyota
does
not
have
11
confidence
in
and
has
chosen
not
to
use,
a
part
which
12
could
effect
the
safety
and
well­
being
of
our
customers.

13
­­
o0o­­

14
MR.
WOLTERMAN:
To
summarize,
there
are
too
many
15
concerns
with
conductive
to
choose
conductive
as
a
single
16
standard.
It's
actually
too
soon
to
choose
either
17
conductive
or
inductive
as
a
single
standard.
They
both
18
need
more
time
to
mature.

19
And
if
a
single
standard
must
be
chosen,
the
20
inductive
system
should
be
chosen,
since
the
recommended
21
practice
is
more
refined
at
this
point
in
time
than
the
22
conductive
recommended
practice.

23
­­
o0o­­

24
MR.
WOLTERMAN:
We
believe
the
marketplace
should
25
make
the
final
decision.
The
marketplace
will
reward
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
91
1
system
that
meets
the
consumer's
requirements
and
punish
2
the
system
that
does
not.
I
realize
the
marketplace
is
3
slow
to
make
a
choice,
but
the
losing
technology
cannot
4
blame
anybody
but
itself
for
its
failure.

5
If
this
is
not
an
acceptable
solution,
then
I
6
request
that
the
Board
appoint
an
independent
expert
panel
7
to
evaluate
the
merits
and
the
demerits
of
the
conductive
8
and
inductive
systems,
and
make
a
recommendation
to
the
9
Board
for
a
single
standard.

10
I'd
like
to
also
state
that
a
request
came
up
as
11
far
as
the
additional
time
in
delaying
this.
That
would
12
be
helpful
in
the
design
process,
but
I'm
not
sure
it
13
would
change
our
opinion
at
this
point
in
time.

14
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Just
to
alert
everybody,

15
after
this
witness
we're
going
to
give
a
ten­
minute
break
16
for
the
court
reporter.

17
Professor
Friedman.

18
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Mr.
Wolterman,
if
we
19
were
to
pursue
your
suggestion
and
recommendation
and
seek
20
to
appoint
an
independent
panel,
and
that
independent
21
panel,
after
evaluating
the
two
systems,
recommended
also
22
as
the
staff
has,
a
conductive,
as
far
as
you're
23
concerned,
would
that
put
the
matter
to
rest?

24
MR.
WOLTERMAN:
Yeah.
As
Toyota,
we
would
agree
25
with
that.
If
that
independent
panel
came
back
to
you
and
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
92
1
said
our
recommendation
says
­­

2
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
And
how
do
you
­­

3
what
do
you
mean
by
independent
panel?

4
MR.
WOLTERMAN:
I
would
probably
let
the
people
5
who
are
knowledgeable
in
the
area,
but
not
with
any
6
current
or
past
ties
directly
to
conductive
or
inductive,

7
somebody
who
­­

8
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Without
any
past
9
ties
to
any
automobile
manufacturers?

10
MR.
WOLTERMAN:
Well,
that
potentially,
too.
How
11
do
you
get
a
truly
independent
panel,
I
guess,
is
a
little
12
tricky.
I
can
appreciate
the
difficulty
in
doing
that,

13
but,
you
know,
some
of
the
professors
from
well
known
14
universities,
some
knowledgeable
people
­­

15
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Now,
you're
talking.

16
(
Laughter.)
17
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Never
done
any
18
funded
research,
yeah.

19
(
Laughter.)

20
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
One
question
I
had,
that
21
you're
working
on
a
volunteer
basis
on
coming
up
with
an
22
SAE
standard
for
the
conductive
system,
can
you
explain
23
why
you
at
Toyota
would
spend
some
time,
given
the
fact
24
that
it's
chosen
the
inductive
system?

25
MR.
WOLTERMAN:
Well,
given
the
activities
going
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
93
1
on
here,
it's
imperative
that
both
the
systems,
conductive
2
and
inductive,
become
built
to
recommended
practices.
And
3
at
the
May
10th
meeting
of
the
SHR
System
Committee,
which
4
addressed
both
inductive
and
conductive.
And
hopefully
5
because
you
haven't
distinguished
between
those
two,
when
6
they're
there,
they're
working
on
both
of
them.

7
As
I
mentioned,
we're
not
asking
­­
that
were
8
included
in
the
proposed
draft.
So
myself
and
Tom
9
Cartwright
are
taking
on
the
responsibility
to
make
that
10
more
of
an
ability
to
use
backups
and
address
the
issues,

11
and
is
there
enough
data
here,
can
someone
pick
this
up
12
and
actually
go
forward
and
build
this
without
having
to
13
go
to
the
conversion
systems?

14
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Would
it
be
fair
to
say
that
15
given
the
fact
that
we're
not
going
to
require
this
until
16
2006,
at
the
earliest,
and
if
we
did
decide
conductive
17
that
that
may
spur
the
SAE
committee
to
move
faster?

18
MR.
WOLTERMAN:
It
would
spur
the
SAE
Committee
19
to
move
faster,
but
I
think
there
may
still
be
a
lot
of
20
issues
that
need
to
be
resolved,
but
we
may
move
faster
21
and
it
may
not
take
any
less
time.
As
I
mentioned
there's
22
still
issues
with
communications
that
need
to
be
resolved,

23
interoperability
issues
would
be
resolved.

24
So
I'm
not
sure
if
we're
cutting
any
time
off.

25
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Any
questions
from
my
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
94
1
colleagues
on
the
Board?

2
Mr.
McKinnon.

3
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Did
I
understand
you
4
correctly
that
you
felt
that
the
SAE
process
with
ten
5
volunteers
wasn't
the
best
way
to
set
the
bill
to
do
6
standards?
I
mean,
it
seems
counterintuitive
to
your
7
argument
so
far
that
we
should
help
do
that.

8
MR.
WOLTERMAN:
All
I'm
implying
is
that
SAE
is
a
9
volunteer
effort.
These
people
are
there
not
representing
10
their
company,
but
representing
themselves.
And
as
such,

11
of
course,
their
companies
support
their
being
there,
but
12
as
such,
it's
not
something
that
companies
are
going
to
13
allow
people
an
unlimited
amount
of
time
to
do
that,
to
14
spend
developing
these
standards.
It's
a
slow
process,

15
and
it's
not
something
that
I
mean
­­
we're
getting
ready
16
to
develop,
I
believe,
the
current
draft
of
a
document,

17
but
the
current
draft
still
needs
more
refinement
to
make
18
it
the
standard
to
address
the
issues
that
I've
brought
up
19
today.

20
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Thanks.

21
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Okay.
Thank
you
very
much
22
indeed.

23
We'll
take
a
ten
minute
break
because
again,
we
24
have
a
long
agenda
ahead
of
us
today,
so
just
ten
minutes,
25
if
that's
okay
with
the
court
reporter,
and
then
we'll
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
95
1
start
up
with
Tom
Austin
right
after
the
break.

2
(
Thereupon
a
brief
recess
was
taken.)

3
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I'd
like
to
restart
the
4
meeting,
please.

5
Welcome,
Tom,
I'm
still
used
to
looking
over
6
there.

7
MR.
AUSTIN:
All
set.

8
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Yes,
thanks.

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

11
MR.
AUSTIN:
Good
morning,
Mr.
Chair.
I'm
Tom
12
Austin,
senior
partner
of
Sierra
Research,
today
providing
13
testimony
on
behalf
General
Motors
and
Toyota.
I'll
start
14
by
saying
that
General
Motors
concurs
with
the
testimony
15
that
you
just
heard
from
Toyota
and
Nissan
and
will
not
be
16
addressing
that
issue.
I'm
addressing
a
totally
separate
17
issue,
the
vehicle
to
grid
power
services
issue.

18
Next.

19
­­
o0o­­

20
MR.
AUSTIN:
The
staff
report
cites
vehicle
to
21
grid
power
services
as
one
of
the
justifications
for
a
22
conductive
charging
design
requirement
by
saying
that
23
deployment
of
EVs
with
vehicle­
to­
grid
power
delivery
24
capability
would
provide
another
source
of
value
to
the
25
owner
of
the
vehicle,
and
that
while
the
vehicle
to
grid
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
96
1
power
flow
from
inductive
charges
would
be
possible,
it
2
would
be
cost
prohibitive.

3
Our
analysis
concludes
that
the
potential
for
4
vehicle
to
grid
power
flow
is
not
a
sufficient
reason
to
5
require
a
conductive
charging
requirement.
Vehicle
to
6
grid
power
delivery
doesn't
come
close
to
providing
an
7
economic
benefit
to
the
owner
as
my
analysis
will
8
describe.

9
­­
o0o­­

10
MR.
AUSTIN:
That's
a
different
conclusion
than
11
other
people
reached.
And
the
reason,
the
conclusion
I've
12
come
to,
is
different
is
listed
on
this
slide.
Other
13
analyses
of
this
issue
have
totally
ignored
the
effects
of
14
battery
life
on
using
the
vehicle
for
vehicle
to
grid
15
power
transfer.

16
In
addition,
the
analyses
that
you've
seen
from
17
others
have
used
the
current
peak
electricity
crisis
as
18
the
basis
for
the
economics
of
this
process
in
the
future.

19
Finally,
there's
been
an
insignificant
20
attention
­­
inadequate
attention
paid
to
the
overlap
21
between
peak
electricity
demand
period
and
peak
travel
22
demand
period.

23
And,
finally,
there's
been
no
attention
paid
to
24
the
infrastructure
and
importantly
administrative
costs
25
associated
with
the
vehicle
to
grid
power
transfer.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
97
1
­­
o0o­­

2
MR.
AUSTIN:
Battery
life
does
not
exceed
the
3
vehicle
life
in
electric
vehicles.
And
so
shortening
the
4
battery
life
with
additional
charge/
discharge
cycles
must
5
be
accounted
for.
There
have
been
projections
from
6
battery
producers
that
the
cost
of
nickel
metal
hydride
7
batteries
in
high
volume
may
come
down
into
the
range
of
8
$
250
per
kilowatt
hour
as
the
wholesale
price
to
an
OEM.

9
That
will
translate
into
roughly
a
$
500
per
10
kilowatt
hour
retail
price
for
replacement
battery
to
the
11
owner
of
electric
vehicles.
You've
also
heard
people
talk
12
about
nickel
metal
hydride
battery
life
being
in
the
range
13
of
thousands
of
charge/
discharge
cycles.

14
If
you
want
to
look
at
what
the
damage,
economic
15
damage,
to
the
battery
is
associated
with
extra
16
charge/
discharge
cycles,
you
merely
have
to
divide
the
17
cost
per
kilowatt
hour
by
the
cycle
life
and
it
translates
18
into
50
cents
per
kilowatt
hour
as
the
additional
battery
19
cost
the
owner
will
end
up
incurring
if
the
vehicle
is
20
used
for
vehicle
to
grid
power
transfer.

21
­­
o0o­­

22
MR.
AUSTIN:
Charging/
discharging
losses
are
23
another
factor
that
adds
to
cost.
To
send
a
kilowatt
hour
24
back
to
the
grid,
you're
going
to
have
to
use
more
than
a
25
kilowatt
hour
drawn
from
the
grid
to
charge
the
battery.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
98
1
Charging/
discharging
losses
are
typically
about
30
2
percent.
That
means
to
send
a
kilowatt
hour
back
to
the
3
grid
it's
going
to
be
necessary
to
purchase
1.4
kilowatt
4
hours.

5
If
you
look
at
the
current
prices
being
charged
6
by
Southern
California
Edison
for
off­
peak
recharging,

7
which
are
eight
cents
per
kilowatt
hour,
that
means
it's
8
going
to
cost
11
cents
for
every
kilowatt
hour
if
it's
9
transferred
back
to
the
grid.

10
And
accounting
for
transmission
losses
it
also
is
11
going
to
translate
into
higher
greenhouse
gas
emissions
12
associated
with
the
electricity
supply,
because
of
the
13
fact
that
we
end
up
using
more
fossil
fuel
to
provide
the
14
electricity
with
vehicle
to
grid
transfer
as
part
of
the
15
process.

16
­­
o0o­­

17
MR.
AUSTIN:
This
graphic
shows
the
practical
18
problem
associated
with
the
concept,
where
I
have
19
overlaying
on
the
same
graph
the
current
marginal
cost
of
20
electricity
that's
experienced
by
Southern
California
21
Edison
showing
that
for
summer
weekday
conditions,
the
22
price
of
electricity,
the
cost
of
electricity,
peaks
at
23
about
3:
00
p.
m.,
which
is
precisely
the
beginning
of
the
24
afternoon
commute
period.

25
So
any
vehicle
that's
used
to
sell
electricity
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
99
1
back
to
the
grid
when
it's
most
economic
to
do
so,
will
2
end
with
a
depleted
battery
and
not
be
available
for
use
3
during
the
p.
m.
travel
period.

4
­­
o0o­­

5
MR.
AUSTIN:
You
have
to
account
for
what
would
6
be
called
the
opportunity
cost
of
not
having
the
vehicle
7
available
for
use
during
normal
commuting
periods.
I've
8
done
a
first
order
approximation
of
what
that
might
be
by
9
assuming
in
this
example
that
someone
rents
another
10
vehicle
for
summertime
weekdays
in
order
to
dedicate
the
11
electric
vehicle
for
use
by
the
grid.

12
If
you
do
that,
we
end
up
with
the
opportunity
13
costs
being
$
1.67
per
kilowatt
hour
for
the
cost
of
coming
14
up
with
the
replacement
transportation
if
the
vehicle
is
15
going
to
be
tied
up
providing
power
back
to
the
grid.

16
­­
o0o­­

17
MR.
AUSTIN:
The
next
slide
please.
Also,
most
18
of
the
analyses
that
others
have
published
in
this
area
19
use
current
electricity
costs,
but
current
costs
of
20
electricity
are
truly
an
aberration.
By
2002
our
estimate
21
is
that
the
cost
of
electricity
during
peak
periods
is
22
unlikely
to
exceed
15
cents
per
kilowatt
hour.
That's
23
because
there
are
many
new
energy
efficient
power
plants
24
coming
on
line.

25
The
electricity
production
costs
from
these
power
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
100
1
plants
is
going
to
be
well
under
ten
cents
per
kilowatt
2
hour,
even
if
natural
gas
prices
are
on
the
high
side.

3
And
unless
there
are
significant
new
disincentives
imposed
4
on
energy
producers
by
the
government,
we
think
supply
and
5
demand
is
going
to
be
back
in
balance
within
the
next
6
couple
of
years.

7
And
the
long
range
forecast
for
what
the
value
8
might
be
of
electricity
sold
back
to
the
grid
is
going
to
9
be
way
down
from
the
50
to
60
cent
per
kilowatt
hour
10
numbers
that
are
consistent
with
what
current
prices
have
11
been.

12
­­
o0o­­

13
MR.
AUSTIN:
Here's
a
summary
of
what
the
math
14
looks
like.
The
50
cent
per
kilowatt
hour
prices
that
15
we've
seen
recently
are
not
going
to
be
with
us
in
the
16
future.
I
think
a
more
realistic
projection
of
the
value
17
of
power
transferred
back
to
the
grid
during
peak
periods
18
is
about
15
cents
per
kilowatt
hour.

19
Then
if
we
look
at
the
elements
of
cost
to
the
20
vehicle
owner
associated
with
providing
electricity
back
21
to
the
grid,
we
see
that
battery
life
reduction
is
in
the
22
neighborhood
of
50
cents
per
kilowatt
hour,
the
cost
for
23
recharging
the
battery
is
about
11
cents
per
kilowatt
24
hour.

25
And
the
opportunity
costs
for
not
using
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
101
1
vehicle
could
be
$
1.67
per
kilowatt
hour,
if
you
want
to
2
look
at
rental
car
costs
as
the
replacement
for
a
total
3
cost
per
kilowatt
hour
of
$
2.28.

4
­­
O0o­­

5
MR.
AUSTIN:
Our
conclusions
are
that
if
you
6
account
for
the
opportunity
costs
of
not
having
the
7
vehicle
available
for
the
afternoon
commute
period,
the
8
cost
to
the
vehicle
owner
of
providing
electric
power
back
9
to
the
grid
exceeds
by
more
than
a
factor
of
ten
the
10
likely
value
of
that
electricity
and
the
compensation
the
11
owner
could
conceivably
obtain.

12
And
even
if
you
ignore
the
opportunity
costs
of
13
not
having
the
vehicle
available,
if
you
assume
this
is
14
only
being
done
by
people
who
for
some
reason
don't
need
15
to
drive
their
car
in
the
afternoon
during
summer
days,

16
and
if
you
use
current
electricity
prices,
it's
still
not
17
economic
because
of
the
damage
that's
done
to
the
battery
18
when
it
goes
through
additional
charge/
discharge
cycles.

19
And
when
you
consider
what
the
cost
of
20
electricity
is
likely
to
be
in
the
near
future
when
supply
21
and
demand
come
back
into
balance,
the
economics
of
this
22
concept
don't
even
come
close
to
working.
You
can
look
at
23
the
assumptions
that
I've
used.
You
can
change
them
by
50
24
percent
or
100
percent
and
you're
still
not
going
to
come
25
close
to
showing
that
this
makes
economic
sense
for
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
102
1
vehicle
owners.

2
So
for
that
reason,
we
see
this
concept
as
3
providing
no
justification
for
a
design
requirement
for
4
conductive
charge
systems.

5
Thank
you.

6
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thanks,
Tom.

7
Yes,
Dr.
Friedman
and
then
Mr.
McKinnon.

8
BOARD
MEMBER
WILLIAM
FRIEDMAN:
I
need
to
better
9
understand
this
opportunity
cost
of
vehicles
out
of
10
service.
What
is
your
assumption?
Are
you
assuming
that
11
people
are
charging
their
batteries
at
peak
commuter
12
times?

13
MR.
AUSTIN:
No.
For
this
concept
to
generate
14
maximum
revenue
­­

15
BOARD
MEMBER
WILLIAM
FRIEDMAN:
You
gave
us
a
16
graph
and
you
showed
us
from
3:
00
to
5:
00
o'clock
the
cost
17
is
the
highest.
And
what
does
that
have
to
do
with
when
18
people
charge
their
cars
and
have
you
factored
in
how
many
19
people
don't
travel
more
than
100
miles
in
a
day?

20
MR.
AUSTIN:
Just
to
be
clear,
I'm
not
assuming
21
that
anyone
is
charging
their
car
during
that
period.

22
That's
the
period
when
the
value
of
the
electricity
in
the
23
vehicle's
battery
is
the
greatest.
That's
the
period
when
24
you
want
to
send
it
back
to
the
grid
to
get
the
maximum
25
economic
value
out
of
this
concept.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
103
1
What
I'm
showing
you
here
is
that
that
is
2
precisely
the
period
when
the
vehicle
is
needed
for
the
3
p.
m.
commute
period,
and
so
if
we're
going
to
use
the
4
vehicle
to
send
power
back
to
the
grid,
the
vehicle
is
not
5
going
to
be
available
for
normal
commute
activity.

6
This
concept
doesn't
come
close
to
working
if
7
you're
talking
about
sending
power
back
to
the
grid
early
8
in
the
morning
or
overnight,
because
the
marginal
cost
of
9
electricity
is
so
low
that
you
can't
justify
the
10
inefficiency
of
charging
the
battery
and
discharging
it.

11
BOARD
MEMBER
WILLIAM
FRIEDMAN:
I
guess
I
12
understand
that.
But
on
the
one
hand
you're
talking
about
13
the
cost
back
to
the
vehicle
owner
and
you're
telling
me
14
that
that's
the
$
1.67,
that
the
vehicle
­­
that's
your
15
cost
as
a
vehicle
owner
from
vehicle
to
grid
transfer,

16
$
1.67
per
kilowatt
hour.

17
Now,
how
in
the
world
does
that
­­
I
own
one
of
18
these
cars
let's
say,
how
do
I
see
that
$
1.67?

19
MR.
AUSTIN:
Let
me
explain
it
to
you.
That
is
20
if
you
assume
that
the
vehicle
is
tied
up
sending
power
21
back
to
the
grid
and
can't
be
driven,
but
the
owner
still
22
needs
transportation.

23
BOARD
MEMBER
WILLIAM
FRIEDMAN:
I
understand
all
24
that.
My
car
is
being
charged
at
night,
and
where
­­
I
25
don't
see
that
$
1.67
anywhere.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
104
1
MR.
AUSTIN:
My
analysis
assumes
the
car
is
2
charged
at
night.
The
point
is
in
order
for
this
concept
3
to
work
economically
or
to
come
as
close
to
working
as
it
4
can,
you
have
to
discharge
back
into
the
grid
in
the
5
mid­
afternoon
and
late
afternoon.

6
That
means
you
can't
be
driving
the
car.
If
you
7
need
the
car
for
transportation,
that
$
1.67
per
kilowatt
8
hour
is
the
cost
of
providing
transportation
with
some
9
other
vehicle,
like
a
rental
car
that
you
might
use
only
10
on
summer
weekdays,
where
there's
a
high
demand
for
11
electricity.

12
BOARD
MEMBER
WILLIAM
FRIEDMAN:
Well,
maybe
that
13
works
for
you,
but
I
still
can't
imagine
any
need
for
me
14
to
drive
any
other
vehicle
or
to
give
a
damn
about
what
15
goes
on
in
terms
of
my
sending
power
back
to
the
grid
at
a
16
time
when
I
want
to
use
the
car.

17
I
mean,
it
just,
in
the
real
world,
makes
no
18
sense
to
me
for
you
to
add
$
1.67
to
$
2.28
and
tell
me
19
that's
what
it
really
costs.

20
MR.
AUSTIN:
What
makes
no
sense
is
to
assume
21
that
people
are
actually
going
to
be
willing
to
send
power
22
back
to
the
grid
in
the
afternoon
when
it's
needed
the
23
most
when
the
primary
purpose
of
the
car
can't
be
24
provided.
You
can't
use
it
for
transportation
and
send
25
power
back
to
the
grid.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
105
1
BOARD
MEMBER
WILLIAM
FRIEDMAN:
The
primary
2
purpose
of
the
car
is
not
to
fortify
the
energy
3
requirements
of
the
State
of
California.
4
MR.
AUSTIN:
Exactly.

5
BOARD
MEMBER
WILLIAM
FRIEDMAN:
Whoever
said
it
6
was.
The
amount
­­
what
the
amount
of
electricity
used
7
for
X
thousand
cars
is
a
tiny
blip
on
­­
it's
a
pimple
on
8
the
nose
of
what
the
energy
requirements
are
for
the
State
9
of
California.

10
MR.
AUSTIN:
I'm
not
disagreeing
with
that,
but
11
when
the
staff
report
says
there's
this
big
economic
value
12
to
owners
to
send
power
back
to
the
grid,
I'm
saying
well,

13
that
doesn't
make
sense
because
you
can't
send
power
back
14
to
the
grid
and
use
the
car
for
commuting.
If
you're
15
going
to
tie
the
car
up
in
that
service,
you
have
to
look
16
at
was
that
a
good
investment,
what's
the
opportunity
cost
17
of
letting
the
car
stay
tied
up
connected
to
the
grid
as
18
opposed
to
having
it
available
to
drive.

19
BOARD
MEMBER
WILLIAM
FRIEDMAN:
I
understand.

20
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thanks,
Tom.

21
Mr.
McKinnon.

22
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Yeah.
First
of
all,
I
23
want
to
assure
you
that
I'm
not
going
to
decide
this
issue
24
and
this
resolution
today
based
upon
this
particular
25
benefit
or
not
benefit
or
whatever.
It's
nice
if
it
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
106
1
works.
If
it
doesn't,
that's
not
what
the
major
thrust
of
2
the
decision
is
about
today.

3
But
I
do
have
some
questions
about
the
numbers
4
you
used.
And
I'll
give
you
a
concrete
example.
I
drive
5
four
miles
to
work
every
day.
I
have
a
battery
that's
got
6
100
mile
range
that
I
drive
surface
streets
actually
30,

7
35
miles
an
hour.
So
that
100
mile
range
is
pretty
real.
8
That's
a
good
number.

9
So
there's
96
miles
of
that
range
I
don't
need
10
every
day.
I
get
real
world
conditions
of
Sacramento.

11
It's
hot,
and
they're
saying
we
might
have
rolling
black
12
outs
in
the
southern
part
of
the
city
today
around
3:
00
or
13
4:
00
in
the
afternoon.

14
I
get
off
work
at
6:
00
o'clock
at
night,
if
I'm
15
lucky,
okay.
I
drive
to
work.
I
plug
in.
I
program
and
16
I
say
I'm
willing
to
give
up
50
percent
of
my
battery.
I
17
only
need
four
percent
of
it,
but
something
might
come
up
18
today,
whatever,
I'm
going
to
give
up
50
percent
of
my
19
battery.
For
people
that
drive
further
back
and
forth
to
20
work,
maybe
they
only
give
up
ten
percent
or
20
percent
or
21
whatever.

22
Are
you
calculating
­­
I
mean,
are
you
looking
at
23
it
as
if
people
100
percent
discharge
their
battery
at
24
that
3:
00
p.
m.
­­
prior
to
3:
00
p.
m.
or
during
the
3:
00
to
25
7:
00
period
or
whatever?
Is
your
calculation
based
upon
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
107
1
100
percent
discharge?

2
MR.
AUSTIN:
No.
The
numbers
I
used
are
not
3
simply
tied
to
100
percent
discharge.
If
in
the
example
4
you
used,
if
you
were
going
to
cough
up
50
percent
of
your
5
battery
charge
back
to
the
grid
during
the
afternoon
peak
6
period,
because
you
still
have
enough
to
drive
home,
my
7
analysis
indicates
that
that
still
would
not
be
in
your
8
long­
term
economic
interests,
because
it's
going
to
9
shorten
the
life
of
your
battery
and
the
cost
to
you
or
to
10
the
subsequent
purchaser
of
that
vehicle
is
going
to
11
substantially
exceed
the
return
you're
going
to
get
by
12
selling
that
power
back
to
the
grid.

13
Batteries
have
a
life,
which
is
related
to
the
14
number
of
charging/
discharging
cycles
they
go
through.
If
15
you
decide
to
spend
some
of
that
life
having
your
vehicle
16
committed
to
this
type
of
a
system,
you
have
to
be
17
prepared
to
replace
the
vehicle
earlier
than
it
otherwise
18
requires
replacement.

19
And
when
you
just
run
the
simple
economics
of
how
20
much
will
it
cost
me
to
replace
the
battery
earlier
21
because
I'm
sending
power
back
to
the
grid,
it
doesn't
22
pencil
out.
That
factor
alone
is
enough
to
make
it
23
uneconomical.

24
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Well,
okay,
then
let
me
25
broaden
this
question
to
staff
too.
Is
an
occasional
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
108
1
discharge
unrelated
to
driving
of
50
percent
or
20
2
percent,
does
that
have
the
same
kind
of
­­
how
do
you
put
3
this
­­
do
I
lose
battery
life
as
if
I
was
fully
4
discharging
the
vehicle
for
having
the
cycle
­­
having
to
5
recharge
the
50
percent
or
the
20
percent?

6
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
Well,
I
think
7
if
you
discharge
the
battery
­­
the
life
of
the
battery
is
8
related
to
the
discharge,
so
directionally,
yes,
you
would
9
lose
some
life,
if
you
did
this
a
lot.

10
But
unfortunately
the
issue
that's
being
11
discussed
is
not
relevant
to
where
we
saw
the
potential
12
advantages
of
vehicle
to
grid.
We
did
a
study
that
went
13
out
and
looked
at
how
could
battery
vehicles
help
our
14
electric
system
become
more
efficient.
And
one
of
the
15
things
was
well,
gee,
when
you
run
out
of
electricity
in
16
the
afternoon
at
some
peak
period,
could
we
have
all
these
17
batteries
dump,
you
know,
their
energy
back
into
the
grid,

18
the
lights
stay
on.

19
And
I
think
our
conclusion
was
that
that's
not
a
20
very
good
way
of
doing
things
for
some
of
the
reasons
that
21
Mr.
Austin
set
forth.
But
what
we
did
find
was
that
there
22
was
another
vehicle
to
grid
opportunity
that
wasn't
23
discussed
here,
and
that
is
in
the
area
of
power
24
regulation.

25
The
State
pays
$
800
million
a
year
to
power
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
109
1
plants
from
the
Independent
System
Operator
to
have
them
2
spun
up
and
be
just
sitting
there
sort
of
idling
ready
to
3
put
a
little
bit
of
energy
in
here,
take
a
little
bit
of
4
energy
out
there,
because
this
whole
system
has
to
stay
in
5
balance.
As
you
can
guess
sometimes
there's
too
much
6
juice
over
here
and
not
enough
here
and
voltages
aren't
7
quite
right,
et
cetera.
So
they
pay
power
plants
to
be
8
spun
up
and
ready
to
regulate
the
quality
of
the
power
and
9
the
system.

10
And
that's
where
electric
vehicles
might
be
a
11
really
good
match,
because
if
they're
plugged
in,
and
not
12
all
of
them
have
to
be
plugged
in,
but
it's
going
to
occur
13
during
all
times
of
the
day,
but
when
they're
plugged
in,

14
they
can
be
asked
to
put
a
little
bit
of
juice
back
in
to
15
help
balance
off,
you
know,
a
shortage
of
voltage
or
a
16
little
bit
of
flow
of
electricity
in
one
area
and
put
it
17
back
in
a
little
bit
later,
and
you
wouldn't
be
going
18
through
these
50
percent
discharges,
you'd
be
using
all
of
19
them
as
a
way
of
kind
of
an
accumulator
or
a
buffer
to
the
20
system.

21
And
that's
where
we
think,
because
there's
a
huge
22
amount
of
money
we
spend
on
doing
that
in
the
electric
23
system
today,
that
maybe
battery
vehicles
could
do
it
more
24
effectively.
Maybe
the
utilities
could
ultimately
end
up
25
paying
for
part
of
electric
vehicles
to
provide
that
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
110
1
service
instead
of
paying
it
to
a
power
plant
to
be
spun
2
up
and
ready
to
generate
electricity
when
it
doesn't
need
3
to
be.

4
And
so
the
issue
here,
I
think,
we
pretty
much
5
don't
think
it's
a
particularly
attractive
approach
6
compared
to
this
other
one.
And
we've,
you
know,
rated
7
whatever
value
you
want
to
give
to
the
potential
of
having
8
electric
vehicles
play
a
part
of
regulating
our
9
electricity
system
is
more
likely
to
be
on
the
one
I
10
described
than
the
one
that
Tom
Austin
described.

11
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
It's
because
the
prices
12
end
up
much,
much
higher.

13
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
CACKETTE:
Well,
it's
14
not
so
much
the
price.
It's
that
the
system
has
to
pay
a
15
power
plant
to
be
up
when
it
didn't
need
to
be
up
for
an
16
example.
And
when
that
occurs,
that's
a
fairly
expensive
17
item.
And
if
some
of
that
money
could
go
to
subsidizing
18
electric
vehicles
to
do
the
same
approach,
maybe
giving
19
you
free
electricity,
for
example,
when
you're
plugged
in,

20
it
would
end
up
being
­­
we
think
it
could
end
up
being
a
21
lot
cheaper
way
to
go
for
the
State
as
a
whole.

22
MR.
AUSTIN:
I'm
familiar
with
the
concept
that
23
Mr.
Cackette
is
describing.
I
focused
on
the
analysis
24
that
the
Board
has
seen
in
the
past.
I've
done
some
25
analysis
of
his
other
concept
as
well.
It
also
doesn't
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
111
1
pencil
out,
the
potential
value
to
the
owners
of
electric
2
vehicles
is
pennies.
The
total
cost
the
State
incurs
in
3
doing
this
per
electric
vehicle
in
the
future
is
not
4
sufficient
to
justify
the
administrative
costs
and
the
5
time
involved
for
people
to
plug
their
vehicles
in
when
6
they
normally
wouldn't
plug
them
in.

7
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Any
other
questions?

8
One
other
comment,
Tom.
On
your
first
overhead,

9
the
second
highlight
you
had,
"...
while
vehicle
to
grid
10
power
flow
from
inductive
chargers
is
possible,
it
would
11
be
cost
prohibitive,"
from
the
staff
report.
You
didn't
12
address
that
comment.

13
MR.
AUSTIN:
Well,
the
only
point
in
raising
that
14
is
this
was
the
rationale
given
in
the
staff
report
for
15
why
the
conductive
option
had
more
appeal.
And
I'm
not
16
disagreeing
with
this
statement
about
it
being
more
17
difficult
to
do,
vehicle­
to­
grid
power
transfer
with
18
inductive.
It
is
possible.
I've
not
analyzed
in
detail.

19
I'm
just
saying
the
basic
concept
doesn't
pencil
out,
so
20
it's
not
a
reason
for
doing
this.

21
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I'm
sure
we'll
hear
some
more
22
of
this
when
I
think
that
­­
in
the
comments
later
on
so
23
maybe
we
have
some
more
questions.

24
Bob.

25
MOBILE
SOURCE
CONTROL
DIVISION
CHIEF
CROSS:
Very
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
112
1
quickly,
the
question
of
battery
life
and
its
connection
2
to
depth
of
discharge
was
sort
of
left
floating.
And
I
3
think
Mr.
McKinnon
brought
it
up.
I
think
that
if
you
4
discharge
a
battery
very
modestly,
that
has
much
less
5
impact
on
its
life
than
if
you
go
to
the
full
80
percent
6
that
we
consider
ending.

7
So
I
think
that
that's
the
connection
to
what
Tom
8
was
saying
which
is
that
if
they're
floating
along
and
9
doing
small
charge/
discharge
cycles,
that's
not
a
terribly
10
significant
impact
on
the
battery
life.

11
MR.
AUSTIN:
That
is
true.
But
in
Mr.
McKinnon's
12
example,
if
you're
then
using
the
battery
to
get
home,
and
13
discharging
it
more
fully,
the
net
effect
is
the
same
for
14
this
concept
as
my
analysis
indicates.

15
If
you
only
draw
it
down
40
or
50
percent
to
send
16
power
back
to
the
grid,
but
you
still
have
to
use
it
that
17
day
to
get
home
you're
going
to
end
up
drawing
it
down
18
closer
to
80
percent
and
the
effect
on
cycle
life
is
going
19
to
be
identical
to
what
I've
assumed
in
my
analysis.

20
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Yeah,
but
he
goes
four
miles.

21
MOBILE
SOURCE
CONTROL
DIVISION
CHIEF
CROSS:
It
22
goes
from
50
to
60
percent.

23
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
So
as
I
understand
your
24
argument,
and
I
think
it
probably
comes
pretty
much
to
a
25
wash,
but
if
this
kind
of
approach
becomes
a
reality,
then
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
113
1
it's
probably
going
to
behoove
all
of
us
to
educate
people
2
on
where
those
lines
are
where
they
work
and
where
their
3
battery
works
harder.
4
In
other
words
­­
you
know,
I
might
decide
to
5
only
give
up
30
percent
instead
of
50
percent,
based
upon
6
some
set
of
knowledge
of
what
it's
going
to
do
to
my
7
battery
life.

8
And
so
I
think
you
raise
real
good
points.
And
I
9
don't
know
that
what
you
raise
is
even
a
factor
in
the
10
decision
before
us
today.
It
was
in
the
report
and
you're
11
addressing
that
and
I
understand
that.
I
don't
know
if
12
it's
a
huge
one
for
me.

13
But
it
certainly
is
one
that
anyway
we
go,
if
we
14
get
involved
in
this
grid
transfer
business,
we
better
15
consider
it
and
we
better
think
about
how
people's
battery
16
life
is
affected
and
give
people
good
data
as
far
as
17
making
good
choices
along
the
way.

18
Because
if
I
found
out,
instead
of
giving
up
50
19
percent,
I
could
give
up
30
percent
and
not
­­
and
20
maximize
the
efficiency
of
my
battery,
help
out
with
the
21
power
problem
and
get
paid
for
it,
then
that
would
be
the
22
choice
I
would
make.

23
MR.
AUSTIN:
I
understand
that.
And
I
think
what
24
you'll
find
is
that
any
really
careful
credible
analysis
25
of
this
issue
will
show
you
why
the
utilities
don't
use
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
114
1
batteries
for
this
function
now.

2
BOARD
MEMBER
WILLIAM
FRIEDMAN:
Well,
Tom,
I
need
3
to
apologize
to
you
for
being
too
dense
in
the
beginning
4
to
understand
where
you're
coming
from
on
the
transfer
5
issue.

6
It
seems
to
me,
though,
that
if
we
are
going
to
7
depend
in
any
way,
shape
or
form
on
electric
vehicles
to
8
solve
the
energy
crisis
in
the
year
2005
or
6,
then
I'm
9
living
in
the
wrong
State.
I
mean,
you
know,
to
me
it's
a
10
way
that
I
can't
imagine
that
that's
going
to
be
the
11
successful
route
to
dealing
with
what
we're
trying
to
deal
12
with
for
the
future
in
terms
of
energy
supply
and
demand.

13
MR.
AUSTIN:
We
agree
on
that.

14
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
think
the
good
news
you
15
had
­­
we're
going
to
have
plenty
of
electricity
for
next
16
year,
so
that
was
good
news
for
all
of
us.

17
(
Laughter.)

18
MR.
AUSTIN:
We're
permitting
a
lot
of
power
19
plants
right
now.

20
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
I
had
one
quick
21
question.
You're
assuming
lead
acid
battery?

22
MR.
AUSTIN:
No,
nickel
metal
hydride
is
what
I
23
used
in
my
analysis.

24
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
So
when
I
follow
the
25
principle
of
discharging
batteries
as
fully
as
possible
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
115
1
before
recharging
them,
I'm
pursuing
a
bad
principle?

2
MR.
AUSTIN:
That's
a
good
principle
for
nickel
3
cadmium
batteries,
if
you
want
to
have
the
maximum
power
4
available.
But
a
lot
of
the
new
technology
batteries
do
5
not
require
a
deep
discharge
to
have
the
maximum
power
6
available
after
recharge.

7
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
And
lead
acid
and
8
nickel
metal
hydride
are
the
same
in
that
respect?

9
MR.
AUSTIN:
Yes.

10
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Lead
acid
you
don't
want
to
11
discharge,
as
Bob
mentioned.
12
MR.
AUSTIN:
Don't
have
the
same
memory
problem
13
on
that
as
NiCads
do.

14
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thanks,
Tom.

15
We
have
Greg
Hanssen,
then
Craig
Toepfer
and
16
David
Packard.

17
MR.
HANSSEN:
Good
morning,
almost
afternoon.
I
18
didn't
really
intend
to
speak
on
vehicle­
to­
grid,
but
just
19
one
quick
note,
if
you
have
to
jump
through
half
as
many
20
hoops
as
I
had
to
jump
through
to
get
permission
from
21
Edison
to
connect
my
solar
array
to
the
grid,
then
they've
22
got
a
ways
to
go,
in
my
opinion.
I
hope
they
can
resolve
23
that.

24
My
name
is
Greg
Hanssen.
I'm
the
co­
chairman
of
25
the
Production
Electric
Vehicle
Drivers
Coalition.
I'd
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
116
1
like
to
say
here
that
my
views
here
do
not
­­
are
not
2
unanimous
amongst
the
group,
but
I
do
speak
on
behalf
of
3
many
of
the
members,
and
actually
one
infrastructure
4
installer.

5
I
should
also
note
that
I
have
a
vested
interest
6
in
this,
because
my
company
is
about
to
get
some
RAV4
EVs
7
and
so
we
are
investing
in
some
more
magna
chargers.

8
And
Toyota
has
said
that
they'll
build
as
many
as
9
the
market
can
take.
It's
unfortunate
that
they're
10
limiting
it
to
fleets
right
now,
because
I
know
a
lot
of
11
people
who
are
still
trying
to
get
one.

12
For
the
record
I
am
pro­
conductive
and
I
am
13
pro­
inductive.
I'm
here
to
basically
argue
for
duel
14
standards
or
at
least
some
relaxed
method
of
achieving
15
your
goals,
you
know,
without
all
the
harsh
endings.
16
I
do
not
support
General
Motors.
As
a
matter
of
17
fact,
I've
spent
much
of
my
time
and
energy
fighting
18
General
Motors
in
the
Legislature
and
we're
preparing
to
19
fight
them
in
the
court
if
need
be.

20
But
it's
funny,
some
of
the
stuff
here
in
this
21
staff
report.
They
say,
"
The
proposed
infrastructure
22
regulation
will
have
several
positive
effects
for
EV
23
drivers
and
ultimately
cleaner
air
for
all
of
California."

24
I
say,
wow,
that
kind
of
reminds
me
of
the
sinister
mirror
25
to
mirror
version
of
the
GM
lawsuit,
which
says
that
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
117
1
cost
of
the
ZEV
program
will
raise
the
cost
of
new
cars
in
2
California.
And
the
people
who
hold
on
to
their
old
cars
3
will
create
more
pollution.
Because
it
creates
more
4
pollution
it
goes
against
these
federal
laws
and
State
5
laws
and
ARB
rules
and
blah,
blah,
blah,
blah,
blah.

6
It's
basically
a
house
of
cards
that
falls
apart
7
if
you
don't
buy
into
the
silly
assumption.
I
don't
8
believe
that
this
main
issue
here
is
that
public
9
perception
is
going
to
be
dramatically
changed
by
going
to
10
a
single
standard.
I
think
if
you're
worried
about
public
11
perception
in
the
EV
market,
there
are
probably
a
dozen
12
much
more
critical
issues
that
you
really
need
to
be
13
handling
before
you
talk
about
whether
consumers
are
14
worried
about
inductive
or
conductive
chargers.

15
You
know,
what
is
the
range
of
the
vehicles,
is
16
it
fast
enough
to
go
on
the
freeway,
is
it
­­
where
do
I
17
plug
it
in,
how
much
does
it
cost
to
plug
in,
et
cetera,

18
et
cetera,
et
cetera?

19
I
mean,
if
you've
driven
the
vehicles,
you've
20
been
asked
these
questions.
So
you
know
where
the
public
21
misperceptions
are.

22
The
duel
charging
standard
isn't
really
that
23
critical
of
an
issue.
As
a
matter
of
act,
as
an
EV1
24
driver
it's
not
an
issue
for
me
at
all,
because
in
25
southern
California
anywhere
I
want
to
plug
in
they've
got
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
118
1
an
inductive
charger.

2
I
mean,
there
aren't
conductive
chargers
at
all
3
the
sites,
but
just
about
every
site
has
an
inductive
4
charger.
So
as
a
big
paddle
EV1
driver
I'm
doing
okay
5
there.

6
The
staff
report
mentions
that
the
perception
7
issue
could
cause
someone
with
the
duel
standards
to
be
8
confused
about
whether
or
not
they
get
an
inductive
or
a
9
conductive
system
for
their
garage.
But
I
have
to
ask
is
10
that
really
better
than
the
inductive
driver
who
gets
an
11
inductive
vehicle
and
knows
that
his
new
charger
is
going
12
to
be
a
doorstop
in
five
or
six
years?
I
mean,
it
sounds
13
to
me
that's
a
bigger
negative
there.

14
I'd
like
to
go
into
the
funding
for
the
public
15
infrastructure.
I
have
to
ask,
we
all
know
that
GM
for
16
all
of
its
faults
has
put
a
lot
of
effort
into
the
17
inductive
infrastructure
right
now
and
maintaining
that
18
infrastructure.

19
If
we
select
conductive
as
the
standard,
do
you
20
really
think
Nissan,
Toyota
or
General
Motors
is
going
to
21
put
a
penny
into
the
conductive
Avcon
infrastructure?

22
Chrysler
is
not,
because
they're
just
building
NEVS.
Ford
23
has
told
me
that
they
have
no
intention
of
supporting
24
public
infrastructure
because
most
of
their
vehicles
are
25
fleet
vehicles.
And
Honda,
so
far,
has
a
less
than
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
119
1
perfect
record
of
supporting
the
conductive
2
infrastructure.

3
So
if
you
mandate
conductive,
it
seems
to
me
that
4
all
of
the
burden
of
adding
these
chargers
will
fall
on
5
the
public.
It
would
be
public
money
or
just
very
6
generous
shopping
store
owners
or
something
like
that.

7
And
then
we
also
get
into
the
maintenance
issue.

8
GM
has
also
been
very
good
about
maintaining
their
9
chargers,
even
out­
of­
warranty
chargers
they've
replaced.

10
I've
been
told
by
some
of
the
installers
from
Clean
Filed
11
Connection
that,
at
one
point,
the
issue
was
so
bad
with
12
EV1
that
they
were
told
not
to
repair,
not
to
pull
out
the
13
bad
conductive
chargers
in
the
field,
because
they
simply
14
weren't
being
reimbursed
for
these
costs.

15
Now,
I
mean
you
can't
blame
them.
They're
a
16
small
company.
I
mean,
I'm
sure
they
would
grow
17
tremendously
under
this
regulation,
but
there
is
something
18
to
be
said
for
a
big
company
with
deep
pockets
buying
the
19
infrastructure
and
supporting
the
infrastructure
and
20
maintaining
it.
And
so
I
think
that's
one
point
where
21
this
rivalry
of
conductive,
inductive
is
actually
kind
of
22
healthy.

23
In
the
staff
report
they
mentioned
the
effect
on
24
employment
in
California.
And
somehow
they
know
that
25
conductive
is
going
to
be
better
for
employment
in
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
120
1
California
and
not
that
we're
talking
great
numbers
of
2
people
here,
but
the
last
time
I
checked
more
people
work
3
at
GM
in
accordance
with
the
inductive
system.

4
And
the
last
thing
I'd
like
to
say
is
that
for
5
the
last
couple
of
years
I've
been
working
my
butt
off
6
trying
to
make
the
electric
vehicles
market
a
success.

7
And
I
beg
of
you,
please
do
not
mandate
a
regulation
here
8
that
could
have
detrimental
effects
on
the
infancy
of
the
9
EV
market.

10
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thanks,
Greg.

11
Ms.
D'Adamo.

12
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
Could
staff
respond
to
the
13
witness'
concerns
about
the
manner
in
which
this
would
14
affect
public
infrastructure.

15
ON­
ROADS
CONTROLS
BRANCH
CHIEF
KITOWSKI:
Well,

16
I'll
give
us
a
short
answer
to
start
and
maybe
somebody
17
else
will
come
in.

18
And
the
comment
by
Mr.
Hanssen
that
General
19
Motors
has,
in
fact,
supported
public
infrastructure
is
20
entirely
true.
They've
probably
supported
it
more
than
21
any
other
manufacturer.
That
is
not
necessarily
meaning
22
going
forward,
whether
we
standardize
or
don't
23
standardize,
that
General
Motors
is
a
panacea
out
there
24
for
public
infrastructure.

25
We
haven't
any
indication
that
they're
going
to
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
121
1
have
long­
term
commitments
to
expanding
and
continuing
to
2
support
that
long­
term
infrastructure.
Public
3
infrastructure
is
a
serious
issue
that
we
are
­­
we
have
4
established
a
stakeholder
group
on,
that
we
want
to
work
5
with
all
the
parties
on
what
is
the
best
mechanism,
you
6
know,
how
many
sites,
how
do
we
handle
warranty
issues,

7
who
pays
for
them?
We're
very
committed
to
doing
what's
8
necessary
to
get
out
the
adequate
number
of
public
9
infrastructure.

10
We
do
need
the
cooperation
of
all
the
parties
and
11
really
it's
a
serious
issue
mostly
outside
the
12
standardization
issue.
If
anything,
the
standardization
13
does
help
because
then
you're
dealing
with
one
simpler
14
lower
cost
infrastructure
item
as
opposed
to
two,
and
one
15
of
them
being
higher
cost.

16
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
Has
staff
given
Mr.

17
McKinnon's
suggestions
that
he
made
earlier
a
thought
in
18
terms
of
rewarding
those
that
convert
systems
that
are
out
19
there,
including
these
public
infrastructure
systems,
for
20
example,
if
GM
wanted
to
maintain
its
commitment,
some
21
sort
of
subsidy
to
encourage
them
to
still
be
involved
in
22
the
public
infrastructure
side
of
this?

23
EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR
KENNY:
We
have
given
that
24
some
thought.
Unfortunately,
we
don't
have
a
perfect
25
answer
on
it.
Part
of
the
difficulty
is
that
it's
very
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
122
1
difficult
and
very
expensive
to
convert
a
car.
And
so
2
it's
probably
unlikely
that
any
cars
would
be
converted.

3
To
the
extent
that
public
charging
is
converted,
for
4
example,
from
inductive
to
conductive,
what
it
really
5
means
is
simply
replacing
that
particular
charging
unit.

6
We
can
look
at
some
way
of
trying
to
incentivize
7
that,
if,
in
fact,
the
manufacturer
wanted
to
go
that
way.

8
But
what
I
think
we're
going
to
have
to
do
is
essentially
9
look
at
this
whole
issue
of
a
transition
between
a
duel
10
standard
and
the
Board
then
going
to
a
single
standard,

11
and
how
we
basically
make
sure
that
we
don't
have,
at
12
least,
some
level
of
obsolescence
or
some
level
of
market
13
concern
about
the
fact
that
people
who
currently
own
14
vehicles
are
losing
the
opportunity
to
charge
those
15
vehicles
for
the
future.

16
Part
of
the
way
we
try
to
address
that
is
with
17
the
start
date.
When
we
were
looking
at
2006
as
a
18
reflection
of
the
timeframe,
that
will
give
manufacturers
19
the
chance
to
put
new
systems
in
place,
put
new
vehicles
20
in
place
and
therefore
minimize
the
number
of
vehicles
21
that
would
be
out
there
that
would
be
subjected
to
this
22
potential
obsolescence.

23
At
the
same
time,
you
don't
want
anybody
in
2006
24
to
suddenly
have
a
vehicle
that
they
can't
essentially
25
charge,
and
so
we
do
need
to
figure
out
how
we're
going
to
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
123
1
move
in
that
direction,
and
that's
what
we'll
continue
to
2
look
at.

3
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
What
would
be
your
4
recommendations
today,
if
we
act
on
this
regarding
the
5
transition
period?

6
EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR
KENNY:
I
think
the
key
is
7
going
to
provide
some
level
of
incentive
for
the
existing
8
vehicles
that
are
out
there
and
to
look
at,
you
know,
what
9
the
transition
period
of
time
will
be
between
what
we
10
currently
have
in
the
marketplace
and
when
we
would
11
actually
see
vehicles
that
are
produced
that
are
12
essentially
a
single
charging
standard.

13
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
I
should
have
been
more
14
clear.
Would
it
be
your
recommendation
and
then
staff
15
would
come
back
­­
first
of
all,
the
staff
is
recommending
16
that
we
adopt
this,
but
that
staff
would
come
back
with
17
recommendations
for
the
transition
period
say
in
six
18
months
or
something
of
that
nature?

19
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
KENNY:
I
think
that
in
terms
20
of
coming
back
to
the
Board
with
a
transition
plan,
I
21
think
what
we
would
like
to
do
is
simply
try
to
develop
22
that
plan
and
then
figure
out
whether
we
should
bring
it
23
back
to
the
Board
and
what
the
timeframe
would
be
on
that.

24
Actually,
I
can't
give
you
a
real
direct
answer
on
that
25
today.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
124
1
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Mr.
McKinnon.

2
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
I
was
going
to
say
we
may
3
find
out
down
the
road
that
the
cars
that
are
left
out
4
there,
so
to
speak,
stranded,
are
old
enough
that
people
5
aren't
using
them
anymore,
that
kind
of
thing.
I
mostly
6
wanted
to
let
Greg
respond
to
this
transition
issue,

7
because
I'm
real
interested
in
what
an
owner
thinks
that
8
bought
­­
you
drove
EV1s
for
quite
a
while.

9
MR.
HANSSEN:
Yeah,
I've
got
a
Gen
1
Magna
10
Charger
which
has
survived
four
years
and
a
trip
to
11
Florida.
And
it's
still
holding
up
great.
And
now
12
because
of
the
transition
to
the
small
paddle,
we're
going
13
to
have
to
get
a
small
paddle
charger
for
the
RAV4,
which
14
we're
willing
to
do,
that
is
my
company,
which
is
just
15
three
us.

16
But
I
know
others
who
have
expressed
concern
17
about
this.
My
friend
Bob
Seldon
who
has
been
a
long
time
18
EV1
driver
was
seriously
looking
at
a
RAV4
EV
also
and
had
19
gotten
the
paperwork
signed
up
to
do
all
this,
but
­­
and
20
he
was
ready
to
buy
the
charger
too,
because
of
course
it
21
would
work
on
either
of
his
vehicles,
the
EV1
or
the
RAV4,

22
but
when
ARB
announced
that
they
were
pursuing
this
course
23
of
mandating
conductive
charging,
he
basically
had
to
24
rethink
it,
do
I
really
want
to
get
another
$
2,000
box
for
25
this
vehicle.
How
valuable
is
it
to
me
to
have
this
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
125
1
vehicle?

2
I
was
actually
kind
of
surprised,
because
I
would
3
have
thought
that
he
would
have
just
gone
for
it,
because
4
what's
$
2,000?
But
for
a
lot
of
people
I
think
who
might
5
be
looking
at
EVs
in
the
first
couple
years
here,

6
especially
from,
you
know,
like
the
Toyota
products,

7
buying
a
charger
that
they
know
is
going
to
be
a
door
stop
8
in
a
couple
of
years
is
just
unsettling.
Just
from
an
9
efficiency
standpoint,
it
doesn't
sound
right.
You
don't
10
have
to
invest
in
that
and
know
that
it's
going
to
have
a
11
limited
appeal.

12
I
mean,
if
you
could
somehow
pull
this
regulation
13
off
as
a
trick
and
kind
of
throw
it
on
people
at
the
last
14
minute
and
say
oh,
surprise,
by
the
way,
this
is
15
happening,
you
know,
then
it
wouldn't
be
­­
you
wouldn't
16
have
all
this
problem.
But
as
it
is
right
now,
anyone
17
who's
going
out
to
look
at
an
inductive
car,
and
I
guess
18
right
now
the
RAV4
is
the
only
thing
out
there
really
19
available,
they
have
to
ask
themselves
do
I
want
to
invest
20
in
a
charger
for
this,
or
should
I
wait
several
years
21
before
I
get,
you
know,
some
other
vehicle.

22
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
You
know,
the
thing
that
23
worries
me
is
us
tricking
people
by
letting
a
bunch
of
24
cars
being
built
and
down
the
road
making
this
decision
­­

25
MR.
HANSSEN:
I
realize
the
staff
has
actually
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
126
1
put
some
thought
into
this.
They're
not
proposing
2
actually
getting
rid
of
any
inductive
infrastructure
until
3
2010,
post­
2010.
So
you
know,
in
all
likelihood,
they
4
would
support
infrastructure
as
long
as
the
vehicles
are
5
out
there.

6
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Bob,
do
you
want
to
comment?

7
MOBILE
SOURCE
CONTROL
DIVISION
CHIEF
CROSS:
I
8
think,
though,
that
one
of
the
things
to
recognize
is
that
9
right
now
the
fleet
of
vehicles
that's
existing
out
there
10
that
uses
inductive
is
leased.
And
in
many
cases
leases
11
are
coming
due,
some
of
them
are
being
renewed,
in
most
12
cases
they're
being
renewed,
some
aren't.

13
And
the
only
vehicle
that
is
currently
on
the
14
market
that's
inductive
is
the
RAV4,
which
is
also
leased.

15
And
it
would
seem
to
me
that
if
there
is
a
good
time
to
16
change
it's
now,
when
there
­­
when
a
product
that
was
17
made
with
inductive
is
several
years
old.
There's
not
18
that
many
going
out
that
are
inductive
right
now.

19
And
another
generation
of
ramping
up
volume
is
20
going
to
happen
in
the
reasonably
near
future.
So
it
21
seems
to
me
that
the
problem
that
we
are
talking
about,

22
the
longer
we
wait
the
worse
they
get.
23
MR.
HANSSEN:
But
you're
not
changing
now,
you're
24
changing
in
2006.
I
mean
there
could
potentially
be
a
lot
25
of
vehicles
that
come
out
here
in
the
next
few
years.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
127
1
MOBILE
SOURCE
CONTROL
DIVISION
CHIEF
CROSS:
But
2
if
you
knew
the
standard
was
conductive
it
would
be
less
3
likely
that
there
was
two
standards.

4
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
think
we've
got
to
cut
this
5
off
unless
there's
any
more
questions
from
the
Board?

6
Greg,
thank
you
very
much.

7
I'm
going
to,
basically,
after
the
next
witness
8
hold
everybody
to
five
minutes.
We've
got
a
number
of
9
people
that
have
been
added
to
the
list
and
we
are
going
10
to
lose
a
quorum
in
the
early
afternoon,
so
since
it's
a
11
regulatory
item,
I
wanted
to
move
ahead.

12
But
the
next
person
is
Greg
Toepfer
from
Ford,

13
and
I'd
like
to
give
him
due
time,
but
then
after
that
14
then
limit
people
to
five
minutes
and
that's
for
David
15
Packard,
Thomas
Dowling,
Michael
Coates,
et
cetera.

16
MR.
TOEPFER:
Mr.
Chairman,
members
of
the
Board,

17
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
to
you
this
18
morning.
For
those
of
you
that
I've
had
the
pleasure
of
19
meeting
in
the
past,
hello.
For
those
of
you
who
have
not
20
met
me
before,
I'd
like
to
introduce
myself
a
little
bit
21
and
tell
you
why
I'm
here.

22
For
the
past
ten
years,
I've
been
an
employee
of
23
Ford
Motor
Company,
a
technical
specialist
responsible
for
24
electrical
codes
and
standards
development.
In
that
25
capacity,
I've
served
in
several
leadership
positions,

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
128
1
Electric
Power
Research
Institute,
Infrastructure
Working
2
Council.
I'm
the
chairman
of
the
SAE
Committee
that
3
created
both
the
inductive
and
conductive
recommended
4
practices.
I
represent
the
SAE
on
the
National
Electric
5
Code.
I'm
the
Secretary
of
the
International
Electro
6
Technical
Commission,
Technical
Committee
Number
69,

7
Electric
Road
and
Industrial
Vehicles,
and
I'm
also
8
Secretary
of
a
Joint
Steering
Committee
between
ISO
and
9
IEC.

10
I
will
try
to
focus
my
comments
on
the
discussion
11
that
we've
had
on
standards
this
morning.
I
respectfully
12
disagree
with
the
points
made,
and
in
toto
believe
them
to
13
be
either
incorrect
or
inaccurate.
I
think
if
you're
to
14
discharge
your
duties
and
responsibilities
as
board
15
members,
you
need
to
have
the
facts,
and
I
hope
that
16
you'll
understand
those
as
we
go
forward
through
my
17
presentation.

18
First
of
all,
a
couple
of
opening
statements
are
19
important.
Who
is
the
International
Electrico
Technical
20
Commission?
What
is
the
role
that
standards
play
in
our
21
society?
And
I'd
like
to
address
those.

22
The
International
Electrico
Technical
Commission
23
is
the
sibling
organization
to
the
International
Standards
24
Organization
located
in
Geneva,
Switzerland.
IEC
as
it's
25
called
is
responsible
for
developing
all
electrical
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
129
1
standards
for
all
equipment
worldwide.

2
ISO
on
the
other
hand,
handles
international
3
standards
for
all
nonelectrical
equipment
including
4
automobiles.

5
The
IEC
has
60
member
countries,
including
all
of
6
the
industrialized
nations
and
many
of
the
emerging
and
7
industrializing
countries
around
the
world.

8
The
IEC
consists
of
107
technical
committees,

9
four
advisory
committees,
which
we
call
super
committees,

10
that
deal
with
environmental
aspects,
safety,
electro
11
magnetic
compatibility
and
telecommunications.

12
We
have
ten
sister
committees,
which
is
similar
13
to
our
FCC,
it
regulates
radio
interference
and
14
communications,
and
17
joint
committees
for
information
15
technology.
We
are
tied
in
with
virtually
every
other
16
standards
organization
whether
regional
or
national
or
17
around
the
world.

18
­­
o0o­­

19
MR.
TOEPFER:
Earlier
this
morning
I
passed
out
20
an
information
packet
that
describes
a
little
bit
about
21
the
work
of
international
standards
organizations
to
the
22
facilitators
here
and
I
also
passed
out
some
information
23
from
the
Society
of
Automotive
Engineers
technical
24
standards
for
their
governance
policy.

25
Let
me
clarify
what
a
standard
should
do.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
130
1
According
to
the
IEC,
it
should
meet
the
requirements
of
2
the
global
market
efficiently.
It
should
ensure
privacy
3
and
maximum
worldwide
use
of
the
standards
and
conformity
4
assessment
schemes,
assess
and
improve
the
quality
of
5
products
and
services
covered
by
its
standards,
establish
6
the
conditions
of
interoperability
of
complex
systems,
7
increase
the
efficiency
of
industrial
processes,

8
contribute
to
the
improvement
of
human
health
and
safety,

9
and
contribute
to
the
protection
of
the
environment.

10
A
shorter
thing
that
I'd
like
to
say
about
11
standards
is
we
establish
the
safety
and
functional
12
requirements
necessary
to
bring
technology
from
the
13
laboratory
into
the
commercial
marketplace,
that
is
our
14
sole
purpose.
We
are
not
designers
of
equipment.

15
Secondly,
the
activities
of
these
standards
16
committees
are
regulated
by
consensus
agreement.
In
the
17
United
States,
the
American
National
Standards
Institute
18
has
that
responsibility.
In
other
countries,
similar
19
organizations
perform
the
same
function
to
ensure
that
20
people
that
are
directly
and
materially
affected
by
our
21
work
are
considered
into
the
process
as
an
open
process.

22
­­
o0o­­

23
MR.
TOEPFER:
Now,
with
respect
to
international
24
standards,
Europe,
their
regional
body
satellite
and
their
25
national
standards
bodies
or
the
member
countries
normally
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
131
1
recognizes
and
adopts
IEC
as
a
mandatory,
regulatory
2
product
requirements
for
anything
introduced
into
the
3
European
union.

4
IEC
Technical
Committee
69
has,
over
the
past
six
5
years,
developed,
under
the
consensus
process,
a
final
6
draft
international
standard
for
electric
vehicle
7
conductive
charging.
My
committee
has
31
member
8
countries,
16
of
them
participating
or
voting
members,
15
9
of
them
are
observer
countries
that
are
interested
in
our
10
work
and
are
kept
abreast
of
our
work
through
the
11
communications
network
that
we
have
established.

12
It
was
approved
by
a
hundred
percent
of
the
13
voting
members
and
published
in
the
first
quarter
of
this
14
year.
I
have
copies
of
the
standards
here.

15
Secondly,
the
inductive
standard,
which
we
took
16
on
as
a
new
work
item
proposal
nearly
seven
years
ago,
has
17
been
through
four
project
leaders,
two
product
changes,

18
and
the
project
leader
didn't
even
show
up
at
the
last
19
meeting
when
the
comments
that
were
submitted
by
all
of
20
the
countries
were
to
be
considered.

21
I
hope
they
will
show
up
at
the
next
meeting,

22
because
that
is
where
the
standards
were
that
represents
23
the
interests
of
the
marketplace
and
the
consumers
really
24
should
take
their
place.

25
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
am
a
little
bit
concerned.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
132
1
I
was
chopping
people
to
five
minutes.
I
didn't
think
you
2
were
­­
how
much
longer
are
you
going
to
go.

3
MR.
TOEPFER:
I
have
two
slides.

4
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Okay,
good.

5
MR.
TOEPFER:
I
think
I
covered
the
good
stuff
6
already.

7
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Slides
isn't
always
a
good
8
indicator
of
how
long
it's
going
to
take.

9
­­
o0o­­

10
MR.
TOEPFER:
Now,
in
the
United
States
we
put
in
11
installation
rules
effective
with
the
1996
National
12
Electric
Code.
They
were
modified
slightly
in
'
99
and
13
they
were
modified
slightly
in
2002,
which
is
another
14
important
aspect
of
standards
development
as
all
of
these
15
organizations
have
mechanisms
in
place
for
review
and
16
updating
of
the
standards
to
ensure
their
relevancy
on
a
17
continuing
basis.

18
In
the
United
States
Electrical
Products
19
Standards
are
developed
by
Underwriters
Laboratory
a
not
20
for
profit
private
organization
that
has
the
same
impact
21
of
national
standards
bodies
in
other
countries.

22
Through
the
development
process,
we
have
23
developed
three
products
standards.
UL
2202
is
a
basic
24
generic
EV
charging
system
equipment
standard.
UL
2231
is
25
a
personal
protection
system
for
EV
supply
circuits
which
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
133
1
insists
on
protecting
people
against
shock
and
fire
2
hazards.

3
UL
2251
covers
the
test
requirements
to
assure
4
conformity
with
the
functional
requirements
of
plugs,

5
receptacles
and
couplers
for
EVs.
It
covers
the
6
conductive
connector
for
vehicle
inlets.
There
is
no
7
similar
standard
for
inductive.
It
may
be
a
proprietary
8
tie
standard
located
in
somebody's
offices.

9
And
finally,
the
Society
of
Automotive
Engineers,

10
as
you
know,
has
passed
two
recommended
practices
for
11
electric
vehicles,
one
for
conductive,
one
for
inductive.

12
At
this
point
in
time,
both
of
those
documents
are
being
13
circulated
for
approval
or
in
the
case
of
conductive
a
14
second
time.
In
the
case
of
inductive
a
third
time.

15
As
you
know,
we've
had
Gen
1.
We
developed
a
16
standard
for
it,
and
it
was
replaced
by
Gen
2.
We
17
developed
a
standard
for
it.
Another
communications
18
system
wasn't
functioning
properly
so
they
made
some
19
revisions
to
it.
We
will
send
that
out
to
ballot
20
simultaneously
with
1772.

21
1772
in
its
original
form
was
passed,
and
it
had
22
two
connectors,
the
Yazaki
connector
and
the
Avcon
23
connector
referred
to
in
an
Appendix.
Since
that
time,

24
the
26
voting
members
of
my
committee
have
agreed,
by
a
25
substantial
majority
to
settle,
based
on
the
technical
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
134
1
information
available
to
us,
on
the
Avcon
as
being
a
2
superior
design.

3
We
are
in
the
process
of
moving
that
information
4
into
the
body
of
the
report,
and
with
Mr.
Wolterman's
help
5
will
even
try
to
make
it
more
like
the
built­
to
standard
6
that
he
insists
on.
But
it's
not
really
a
requirement,
if
7
you
read
the
SAE
information
that
I
provided
to
you.

8
The
other
thing
that
we've
done
in
the
second
9
version
of
1772
is
that
we've
improved
the
part
of
the
10
system,
the
control
pilot
that
regulates
the
safety
and
11
management.
There
were
a
few
misinterpretations
of
the
12
information,
but
I
think
we've
clarified
that.

13
We
did
not
change
out
the
connector,
modify
14
anything,
obsolete
any
equipment
or
do
anything
else
that
15
would
affect
the
vehicles
that
are
on
the
road
today.

16
I
think
we've
done
an
outstanding
job
in
setting
17
up
a
series
of
standards,
not
only
industry
standards
but
18
national
standards
and
international
standards
that
we
19
very,
very
efficiently
together
rely
on
and
complement
20
each
other
perfectly.

21
My
conclusion
is
I
know
it's
a
difficult
job
22
making
all
of
the
conflicting
information
on
this.
I
23
think
the
staff
has
done
a
magnificent
job
trying
to
make
24
sense
of
it,
differing
opinions,
technical
data
that
may
25
be
limited
or
based
on
assumptions
of
some
kind,
and
come
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
135
1
up
with
a
very
solid
reasonable
recommendation
to
you.

2
I
support
their
recommendation.
I
think
you
3
should
go
forward
with
it.
Failure
to
do
so
will
have
a
4
detrimental
effect
on
the
electric
vehicle
industry.

5
Number
one,
I
believe
that
the
debate
over
this
6
system
or
that
system
is
an
effective
barrier
to
EV
7
commercialization.
If
you
believe
that
EVs
are
important,

8
and
I
personally
do,
it's
time
to
make
a
decision.

9
Secondly,
we
talked
about
some
costs.
Do
we
10
postpone
this
or
study
it
for
a
year
or
debate
it
11
continuously,
I
may
retire
by
the
time
we
get
there.

12
So
the
people
that
have
cars,
the
people
that
13
will
be
buying
cars
in
the
future
need
that
assurance
that
14
a
single
standard
that
best
represents
their
interests
15
will
be
in
place
in
California,
so
that
we
can
get
on
with
16
it
and
not
create
or
compound
the
problems
that
we've
17
heard
about
this
morning.

18
So
thank
you
very
much
for
your
attention.
I
19
hope
you
do
the
right
thing.

20
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you,
Greg.
Thanks
for
21
clarifying
some
of
the
issues
here.

22
Any
questions
from
the
Board?

23
Thank
you
very
much.
We
have
David
Packard,

24
Thomas
Dowling,
Michael
Coates,
Tim
Hastrup.

25
(
Thereupon
an
overhead
presentation
was
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
136
1
presented
as
follows.)

2
MR.
PACKARD:
Hi.
David
Packard.
I'm
director
3
of
business
development
of
EVI.
I
want
to
thank
you,
Mr.

4
Chairman
and
the
Board
for
allowing
me
to
present
today.

5
EVI
is
a
conductive
power
control
manufacturer.

6
Second
slide,
please.

7
­­
o0o­­

8
MR.
PACKARD:
We're
located
in
Auburn,

9
California,
and
we're
on
our
eighth
generation
product
10
since
our
inception
in
1994.
We
have
shipped
close
to
11
5,000
power
control
stations,
EV
charging
stations,
in
12
that
time,
and
about
3,000
of
those
have
been
our
ICS
13
model,
which
makes
up
the
bulk
of
the
conductive
14
infrastructure
in
California.

15
We
have
three
distinct
products
that
we're
now
16
offering
that
we
brought
to
display
today.
And
in
17
addition
to
that
we
have
the
DCS
55
model
exclusively
for
18
the
United
States
Postal
Service,
that
we're
working
in
19
conjunction
with
Ford
on.

20
We'd
like
to
think
we
can
do
all
this,
come
out
21
with
all
these
different
products
for
different
22
applications
because
we're
just
such
a
great
company.
But
23
really
I
think
it's
a
testament
to
conductive
charging,

24
how
easy
it
is
to
implement
a
safer
public
product
that
25
people
can
handle
and
charge
their
vehicles.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
137
1
­­
o0o­­
2
MR.
PACKARD:
We
appreciate
the
hard
work
staff
3
has
done.
We
can't
imagine
having
to
do
something
like
4
this
and
the
difficulty
to
make
the
decision
and
also
the
5
difficulty
which
it
will
impose
on
the
automakers
for
6
complying
with
this.

7
However,
we
support
the
staff's
determination
8
that
now
is
the
time
to
standardize
not
only
for
the
cost
9
savings
show,
but
really
because
this
is
an
ancillary
10
product.
We
don't
want
to
lose
the
focus
of
the
market
on
11
selling
zero
emission
vehicles,
because
that's
really
what
12
it's
all
about.
And
people
are
not
buying
charging
13
stations,
they're
buying
vehicles.
We'd
like
to
think
14
they're
buying
cars
because
of
our
stations
but
really
15
they're
buying
the
vehicles.
What
comes
with
it,
comes
16
with
it.

17
We
also
support
staff's
decision
to
go
with
18
conductive
charging,
because
on
board
conductive
charging
19
is
a
product
that
is
going
to
allow
us
to
really
reduce
20
the
cost
of
the
market
and
give
us
a
flexible
technology
21
that's
reliable,
efficient
and
safe
and
keep
pace
with
22
changes
in
the
battery
size,
battery
voltage,
battery
23
chemistry
on
board
the
vehicle.

24
Additionally
as
we've
had
various
competitors
25
over
the
years,
it
seems
that
conductive
is
very
conducive
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
138
1
to
competitors
entering
and
leaving
the
market,
and
these
2
are
competitors
who
have
had
no
relationship
whatsoever,

3
who
have
come
into
the
market
at
various
times.

4
Next
slide.

5
­­
o0o­­
6
MR.
PACKARD:
Our
current
product
offering
is
7
shown
here
as
well
as
over
there.
On
the
left
our
8
flagship
ICS­
200B
is
really
a
high
end
specialty
product.

9
Some
of
the
users
still
prefer
that,
but
it's
got
a
lot
of
10
features
that
really
aren't
needed
by
the
majority
of
the
11
market.
When
we
originally
designed
it,
we
had
to
12
accommodate
every
possibility,
and
that
added
to
the
cost.

13
It
has
some
features
that
work
in
extremely
harsh
14
environments.
It
can
log
battery
charging
profiles
and
on
15
and
on
and
on.
So
we've
cost
reduced
the
product
and
then
16
we
came
out
with
DS­
50,
which
is
really
low­
cost
17
residential
and
fleet
unit,
and
the
DS­
200­
DL,
which
is
a
18
duel
unit,
able
to
charge
two
vehicles
at
the
same
time.

19
The
interesting
thing
about
that
product
is
it
20
also
slashes
installation
costs,
which
on
a
cost
per
port
21
basis
rivals
the
cost
of
the
hardware.
By
putting
two
22
units
in
one,
we
are
able
to
cut
that
cost
potentially
in
23
half.
And
also
you
can
see
that
we
go
through
a
pretty
24
rigorous
approval
process
with
all
the
listings
we
have
to
25
get.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
139
1
Change
the
slide
please.

2
­­
o0o­­

3
MR.
PACKARD:
Conductive
technology,
as
we've
4
heard,
has
been
around
for
over
100
years.
We've
all
been
5
using
it
all
our
lives.
In
fact,
there's
even
some
6
conductive
contacts
within
the
inductive
unit
itself.

7
The
plastic
component
of
the
Avcon
connector
has
8
been
changed
to
a
much
more
durable
unit.
And
nobody
9
feels
the
pain
of
breaking
those
connectors
more
than
we
10
do,
because
we
have
to
go
out
and
change
them
out.

11
However,
there
has
been
no
change
to
the
contacts
12
within
the
connector,
the
important
part,
where
we
13
transfer
the
electricity.
And
of
all
the
units
we've
14
shipped,
over
5,000
units
over
the
past
six
years
or
so,

15
we
haven't
seen
any
failures
in
those
pressure
butt
type
16
contacts.

17
Next
slide,
please.

18
­­
o0o­­

19
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Dave,
can
you
­­

20
MR.
PACKARD:
I'm
going
to
skip
a
bunch
of
21
slides.

22
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Okay.

23
MR.
PACKARD:
One
of
the
favorite
terms
we
hear
24
about
is
in­
volume,
where
the
price
is
going
to
be
in
25
volume,
and
in
significant
volume,
because
we
know
we
can
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
140
1
promise
anything
and
we'll
worry
about
it
when
we
really
2
get
there.
But
as
far
as
quality
and
pricing
go
in
every
3
year
since
1995,
we
have
reduced
the
price
to
the
market
4
by
reducing
the
part
count
within
the
product,
with
5
innovation
and
by
improving
the
quality
of
the
product.

6
We
think
our
track
record
bears
testament
to
what
7
we
expect
in
the
future.
Mind
you,
we've
been
able
to
8
accomplish
all
of
this
without
the
in­
volume
or
9
significant
volumes
in
any
single
year.
And
our
price
10
reductions
have
all
been
due
to
the
market
pressures
from
11
competitors
in
conjunction
with
new
engineering
designs.

12
You
can
skip
the
slide
9.

13
­­
o0o­­
14
MR.
PACKARD:
The
future
­­
I'm
sorry,
that's
15
eight.
Here
we
go.

16
We're
coming
out
with
a
110­
volt
product
for
use
17
in
the
US,
city
EVs,
NEVs,
a
220­
volt
product
for
Europe,

18
which
is
essentially
all
conductive.
And
also
our
ICS
19
300,
which
is
really
the
one
I
wanted
to
point
out,
that
20
we've
designed.
The
design
is
complete,
which
will
21
operate
up
to
200
amps
for
AC
Level
3
charging
22
incorporating
the
conductive
on­
board
charger
with
the
23
controller
to
get
higher
charge
rates
on
board
the
24
vehicle.

25
And
all
our
products
are
compatible
for
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
141
1
vehicle­
to­
grid
charging.

2
Change
the
slide,
please.

3
­­
o0o­­

4
MR.
PACKARD:
In
summary,
we
support
staff's
5
determination.
We
think
it's
in
the
best
interests
of
the
6
market
to
choose
a
standard
that
is
­­
we
think
the
best
7
choice
is
conductive,
because
it's
a
safe,
reliable,

8
flexible
technology.
It's
efficient
and
it
allows
us
to
9
stay
with
one
technology
for
the
next
hundred
years.

10
Thank
you.

11
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.

12
Of
course,
I'd
be
very
surprised
if
you
said
13
others
would,
since
you
make
the
systems
there.

14
Thank
you.

15
MR.
PACKARD:
I'm
trying
not
to
be
biased.

16
(
Laughter.)

17
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much.
18
MR.
PACKARD:
Any
questions?

19
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much.

20
Next,
we
have
Thomas
Dowling,
Michael
Coates,
Tim
21
Hastrup.

22
MR.
DOWLING:
Good
afternoon.
My
name
is
Tom
23
Dowling.
I'm
an
EV1
owner,
and
a
Ranger
EV
owner.
I've
24
driven
EV1s
for
about
60,000
miles
and
the
Ranger
EV
for
25
about
10,000
miles,
so
I've
got
a
lot
of
­­
I've
done
a
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
142
1
lot
of
public
charging
all
over
northern
California.

2
Actually
I've
rented
a
RAV4
in
southern
California
and
3
have
done
public
charging
down
there,
too.
So
I'm
quite
4
familiar
with
the
public
charging
infrastructure
and
have
5
had
a
lot
of
experience
with
it.
I've
made
a
lot
of
trips
6
back
and
forth
to
the
Bay
Area
and
other
such
places,
so
7
I've
used
it
a
lot.

8
At
the
present
time,
I
have
two
inductive
9
chargers
at
home
and
a
conductive
charging
station
as
10
well.
So
I'm
quite
familiar
with
them.

11
I'm
not
here
to
debate
the
merits
of
one
versus
12
the
other.
They
both
work.
They
both
could
be
improved.

13
My
position
is
that
we
really
already
have
a
standard,
the
14
duel
standard
that
we
have
works.
It
could
be
improved
15
too,
but
I
don't
think
we
should
change
it
now
or
a
year
16
from
now
or
any
particular
time,
unless
the
cars
are
not
17
there,
you
know.

18
I
think
the
charging
standard,
as
even
Mr.

19
Packard
said,
is
secondary
to
the
cars.
What
people
are
20
buying
are
cars
not
chargers.
I
don't
think
people
are
21
confused
by
different
charging
standards
now.
I
do
think,
22
however,
that
if
we
do
discontinue
either
standard,
we'll
23
make
it
harder,
specially
in
the
short­
run,
for
people
to
24
get
cars.
The
availability
will
be
impacted.
People
will
25
not
want
to
buy
a
car,
if
they
were
aware
of
it,
if
they
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
143
1
knew
that
the
charger
was
going
away,
or
lease
the
car.

2
And
we
know
that
Toyota
is
delivering
cars
now.

3
There
are
substantial
incentives
in
the
regulations
for
4
early
deliveries.
I
think
we're
doing
significant
5
short­
term
damage
if
we
discontinue
either
one
of
the
6
current
standards.
Who
would
want
to
buy
or
lease
a
7
vehicle
if
they
knew
that
that
standard
was
going
away.

8
That
would
really
make
it
harder
to
move
9
vehicles.
And
as
Toyota
said,
they
don't
feel
comfortable
10
with
the
conductive
standards.
They
would
be
forced
to
11
put
parts
on
their
cars
that
they
don't
really
like.
So
12
there's
going
to
be
a
real
long
time
before
they're
going
13
to
be
ready
to
change,
I
think.

14
So
the
current
standard,
I
think,
it
works
and
I
15
think
we
should
leave
it
alone
and
see
what
cars
are
16
manufactured.
And
if
one
of
the
other
kind
of
cars
stops
17
being
manufactured,
then
the
decision
is
made.
And
that's
18
really
where
the
marketplace
decides,
not
at
the
charger
19
level
but
at
the
vehicle
level.

20
Even
today,
you'll
see
that
most
places
have
both
21
conductive
and
inductive
charging
stations
in
the
same
22
place.
EVI,
in
fact
makes
a
pedestal,
which
is
installed
23
in
several
locations
where
you
can
mount
one
of
their
24
conductive
charging
stations
and
a
Gen
2
inductive
charger
25
on
the
same
mount
back
to
back.
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
144
1
You
see
that
at
several
­­
El
Dorado
Hills
park
2
and
ride
is
an
example
of
that.
There's
a
picture
of
that
3
on
EVI's
web
page.

4
So
anyway,
in
conclusion
I
think
we
have
a
5
standard
that
works.
It
could
use
improvement.
We
should
6
continue
to
improve
it.
People
are
buying
vehicles
and
7
not
charging
stations,
and
we
want
to
make
it
easier
for
8
people
to
buy
or
lease
vehicles.
That's
what
the
9
regulation
is
all
about.

10
Thank
you.

11
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much.
Nice
to
12
have
someone
with
experience
in
both
systems
there.

13
Next,
we
have
Michael
Coates,
Tim
Hastrup,
Steve
14
Heckeroth.

15
MR.
COATES:
Good
morning,
Dr.
Lloyd
and
Board
16
Members.
Thank
you
for
allowing
me
to
speak
very
briefly
17
this
morning.
I'm
Michael
Coates.
I'm
speaking
as
a
18
board
member
of
the
Green
Car
Institute,
an
independent
19
nonprofit
organization
dedicated
to
research
and
education
20
on
automobiles
and
the
environment.
We're
a
fuel
neutral
21
organization.
We're
not
an
advocate
for
electric
vehicles
22
or
any
specific
fuel
system
or
company.

23
We
do
strongly
support
the
CARB's
regulatory
24
approach
and
move
to
set
a
single
charging
standard.
We
25
think
such
a
standard,
from
our
view
of
the
industry,
is
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
145
1
critical
for
the
industry
to
move
forward
with
its
future
2
research
and
development
and
ultimately
with
this
3
marketing.
We
might
even
suggest
a
shorter
time
limit
for
4
implementation.

5
However,
we
do
have
one
concern
that
we
wanted
to
6
add
to
this
public
record.
During
the
next
two
years,
our
7
research
indicates
there
may
be
20,000
to
30,000
8
neighborhood
electric
vehicles
introduced
to
the
9
California
market.
These
would
probably
be
the
dominant
10
electric
vehicles
on
the
market.
And
while
the
staff
is
11
focused
on
charging
the
city
and
full
function
EVs
the
12
infrastructure
demand
is
going
to
be
very
strong
on
these
13
Level
1
chargers
as
well.

14
And
so
we
recommend
that
any
future
15
infrastructure
development
include
this
level
of
charging
16
as
well.

17
Thank
you.

18
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much.

19
Tim
Hastrup,
Steve
Heckeroth
and
Ken
Smith.

20
MR.
HASTRUP:
Good
afternoon.
Good
to
see
you
21
all
again.
I'm
Tim
Hastrup.
I
live
in
the
Sacramento
22
area
out
in
Granite
Bay.
As
you
may
remember
from
our
23
earlier
testimony,
our
family,
we've
had
the
pleasure
of
24
leasing
a
Honda
EV
Plus.
We
are
one
of
the
first
ones
25
since
May
'
97,
so
we've
had
some
experience
with
that
and
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
146
1
we
continue
to
love
it
and
it's
still
going
strong.
My
2
wife
is
out
probably
driving
as
we
speak.

3
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Have
you
talked
to
Ben?

4
(
Laughter.)

5
MR.
HASTRUP:
And
we
also
have
an
EV1.
We
6
started
out
with
a
Gen
1
that
got
recalled.
We
have
a
Gen
7
2,
which
I
drove
down
here.
And
so,
you
know,
we've
been
8
happy
with
them.
We've
had
a
good
opportunity
to
live
9
with
both
systems.
Our
thoughts
are
that,
gee,
you
know,

10
they
both
work
great.
They're
easy
to
use.
When
we
got
11
the
Honda
back
in
'
97,
our
son,
Carson,
was
two
and
a
half
12
at
the
time,
didn't
last
many
days.
He
was
able
to
plug
13
the
car
in
and
continues
to
love
to
do
that.

14
I'd
like
to
think
that
that's
because,
boy,

15
another
engineer
in
the
making,
and
just
like
his
big
16
sister,
they'll
be
just
like
their
dad
and
they'll
be
17
electrical
engineers.
But
I
hate
to
admit
it,
it's
18
probably
because
it's
just
fairly
easy
to
use.

19
We've
had
good
performance
from
both
of
them.

20
They've
worked.
We've
never
really
had
any
problems.

21
We've
always
felt
from
Day
1,
gosh,
why
don't
we
just
have
22
a
single
standard?
Why
did
we
have
to
go
with
all
of
that
23
complexity?
And
we
still
feel
that
way
today.
We
think
24
they're
both
fine.
They're
both
safe.
I
mean,
our
house
25
hasn't
burned
down
with
either
system.
Garages
are
still
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
147
1
standing.
If
we
were
going
to
make
a
nod
towards
either
2
one
of
them
we'd
probably
go
with
conductive
for
a
couple
3
of
reasons.

4
One,
I
think
it's
a
lot
simpler.
It's
a
lower
5
cost
solution.
In
my
business
in
manufacturing
as
an
6
engineering
manager,
low
cost,
is
something
you
appreciate
7
and
think
a
lot
about.
It's
more
efficient
and
especially
8
at
the
lower
power
levels
when
you're
pulling
less
than
9
full
power,
it's
easier
to
deal
with.
And
as
we
all
know
10
these
days,
as
I've
been
teaching
all
of
my
friends,

11
efficiency
does
count.
And
it
makes
a
big
deal.
And
then
12
another
small
thing,
I
think
it's
just
easier
to
come
out
13
with
new
vehicles
or
if
you
have
a
conversion
to
adapt
to
14
a
conductive
standard.

15
I've
had
a
conversion.
I've
made
that
work
with
16
the
conductive
standards.
There's
really
no
practical
way
17
that
I
could
do
that
with
an
inductive.

18
So
the
bottom
line
for
us
is
the
most
important
19
is
a
single
standard.
We
think
that's
important.
If
20
we're
going
to
be
going
there,
we
feel
comfortable
with
21
the
conductive.
We
probably
prefer
that.
In
closing,
I'd
22
like
to
thank
you
for
your
leadership
to
move
us
toward
a
23
common
standard.
Thanks
to
the
staff
for
their
report.

24
You
know,
we
really
would
have
preferred
industry
25
to
show
the
leadership.
We
just
feel
that,
gosh,
it
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
148
1
really
hasn't
happened.
We
can't
continue
to
delay
and
2
wait
and
now
is
a
good
time
before
we
get
a
lot
of
cars
3
out
there.
Now
is
the
time
to
have
the
standard.
We
4
realize
that
we've
probably
got
a
couple
of
boat
anchors
5
in
our
garage,
because
it
doesn't
look
really
promising
6
for
us
to
get
replacement
EVs.
I
may
beg
and
I
may
plead,

7
you
know,
but
I
know
there
are
no
more
EV
Pluses
coming.

8
We're
certainly
going
to
miss
it.

9
Hopefully
when
the
EV1
lease
expires,
maybe
we
10
can
extend
that
for
a
couple
more
years,
but
who
knows.

11
And
other
wise,
it's
looking
kind
of
bleak.
So,
you
know,

12
the
most
important
thing
is,
I
think,
to
get
a
standard
13
and
we
hope
long
term
if
the
cars
go
away,
we'll
be
able
14
to
return
another
day.

15
Thank
you
very
much.

16
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you,
Tim.
That
was
a
17
very
positive
report.

18
Steve
Heckeroth
Ken
Smith,
David
Burch.

19
MR.
HECKEROTH:
Hi.
My
name
is
Steve
Heckeroth.

20
As
a
sole
architect
and
EV
manufacturer
and
an
EV
driver
21
over
the
last
30
years,
I've
tried
to
live
a
zero
emission
22
life.
I
have
three
electric
bicycles
for
my
family.
I
23
have
two
electric
cars.
I
have
probably
the
largest
24
electric
tractor
fleet
in
the
world.
It's
only
3,
but
25
there
aren't
many,
and
I
drive
a
Prius
for
long
trips.
I
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
149
1
got
55
miles
to
the
gallon
coming
here.
I
charge
my
2
electric
cars
from
a
seven
kilowatt
photovoltaic
array.

3
And
I
just
wanted
to
let
you
know
that
for
the
4
last
30
years,
I've
had
this
nightmare.
It's
a
fact
that
5
burning
fossil
fuel
harms
our
life
support
system.
In
6
1995,
I
testified
before
this
Board
and
I
challenged
the
7
auto
industry
to
a
range
test,
my
electric
vehicle
against
8
the
best
they
had
to
offer.
The
only
requirement
was
that
9
the
exhaust
pipe
be
terminated
and
capped.
The
auto
10
industry
did
not
take
me
up
on
that
challenge,
because,
as
11
you
know,
they
would
die.

12
This
is
the
nightmare
that
I
have.
I
watch
my
13
child
in
the
cab
of
the
car
dying
of
exhaust.
Now,
how
14
much
harm
does
exhaust
do?
There's
a
very
easy
test.
You
15
get
in
your
car
with
your
child,
you
start
the
engine,
you
16
have
the
exhaust
pipe
terminated
in
the
cab,
you
get
out
17
of
the
car
and
you
watch
your
child
as
she
struggles
for
18
breath.

19
If
this
is
just
repeated
by
a
few
cars,
that's
20
one
thing,
but
this
is
being
repeated
all
over
the
world.

21
And
this
country
has
taken
the
lead
in
putting
this
22
technology
all
over
the
world.

23
It
doesn't
matter
if
it's
a
small
manufacturer
or
24
a
large
manufacturer,
this
exhaust
is
harmful.
And
there
25
should
be
fines
for
it.
It
doesn't
even
matter
if
it's
a
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
150
1
car.
Another
way
to
test
is
to
take
a
lawn
mower
or
a
2
leaf
blower,
put
it
in
your
living
room,
turn
it
on
and
3
then
sit
there
and
explain
to
your
family
why
it's
more
4
important
to
use
this
energy
saving
equipment
or
time
5
saving
equipment
over
a
regular
a
push
mower.

6
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Wouldn't
they
ask
why
you've
7
got
the
lawn
mower
in
the
living
room.

8
(
Laughter.)

9
MR.
HECKEROTH:
Yeah,
well
I
think
that's
10
something
we
should
all
ask,
why
we
have
a
polluting
­­
a
11
lawn
mower
produces
50
times
as
much
as
a
vehicle.
So
12
this
is
a
very
critical
situation,
and
I
think
it's
13
incumbent
on
this
body
to
look
at
the
way
­­
I've
watched
14
for
the
last
nine
years,
I've
testified
before
this
Board,

15
and
watched
as
the
zero
emission
mandate
has
been
pushed
16
back
and
watered
down.
And
I
want
to
see
it
go
the
other
17
way.
If
it
can
go
that
way,
can
it
go
the
other
way?
Can
18
you
put
a
fine,
like
a
ten
percent
fine
on
every
19
manufacturer
of
equipment
that
produces
exhaust.

20
Now,
I'll
close
by
something
I
testified
on
six
21
years
ago
in
'
95,
and
that's
the
inductive
chargers,
which
22
I
think
are
only
employed
by
the
industry
to
control
the
23
infrastructure.
And
I
can
plug
my
car
in.
Even
though
it
24
only
gets
a
75
mile
range,
I
can
go
across
the
country
in
25
it,
because
I
can
plug
it
into
a
conductive
charger
and
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
151
1
there's
millions
of
them.
And
there's
no
restriction
on
2
my
charging.

3
So
please
take
a
second
look
at
ways
to
make
this
4
zero
emission
mandate
really
function
in
a
way
that
we
5
eliminate
exhaust
and
stop
making
deals
with
the
industry.

6
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Well,
but
I
think
it's
also,

7
Steve,
to
recognize
the
enormous
progress
made
by
the
8
industry,
so
that,
in
fact,
some
of
the
companies
9
legitimately
claim
that
looking
at
the
engine,
not
10
emissions
or
the
tailpipe
emission
which
are
sometimes
11
cleaner
than
those
going
in.

12
So
there's
been
significant
progress
on
that
too.

13
So
some
cases
when
you
put
that
tailpipe
into
your
car
it
14
would
be
difficult
to
actively
­­

15
MR.
HECKEROTH:
Yeah,
the
only
reason
they
could
16
be
cleaner
is
because
we've
polluted
so
bad
in
the
past.

17
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.

18
Next
Ken
Smith,
David
Burch
and
Ted
Holcombe.

19
MR.
SMITH:
Good
morning.
My
name
is
Ken
Smith.

20
I
represent
the
American
Lung
Association
of
California,

21
but
I'm
also
here
on
behalf
of
the
Coalition
for
Clean
22
Air,
the
Union
for
Concerned
Scientists,
Planning
23
Conservation
League
and
the
Natural
Resources
Defense
24
Council.

25
And
I'm
here
today
to
urge
you
on
behalf
of
these
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
152
1
organizations
to
adopt
a
single
on­
board
charging
2
standard.
We
need
to
move
on
this
now.
Don't
wait,
don't
3
create
more
confusion,
adopt
it
now.

4
While
the
staff
has
been
very
specific
in
5
recommending
a
single
on­
board
charging
system
of
a
6
specific
type,
we
are
more
concerned
that
you
make
this
7
decision
for
an
on­
board
charging
system
as
opposed
to
8
what
type.
We're
not
opposed
to
staff's
position
on
this,

9
but
it
is
essential
that
you
make
this
single
choice
now,

10
before
we
get
too
many
cars
out
there.

11
I
think
I
drew
this
assignment
on
behalf
of
these
12
organizations,
because
of
more
than
20
years
of
fighting
13
these
things.
I
have
been
involved
in
infrastructures
of
14
almost
every
type
of
nonpetroleum
fuel
except
hydrogen.

15
I'm
sure
that
I'll
get
involved
in
that
as
we
proceed.

16
I'm
from
the
school
of
hard
knocks
on
this.
I've
17
been
out
there.
I've
been
stranded.
I've
been
18
everything.
One
of
my
recent
experiences
was
with
an
EV
19
rental
in
southern
California,
where
I
pulled
up
to
20
Fashion
Aisle,
the
mall
there.
There's
five
charging
21
stations.
There
was
one
available.
Of
course,
it's
the
22
wrong
kind.

23
I
won't
bore
you
with
all
the
details
of
waiting
24
in
the
restaurant
and
getting
unplugged
and
replugged
and
25
I
took
a
taxi.
I
gave
up.
I
finally
­­
I
was
going
to
an
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
153
1
ARB
meeting
and
I
finally
just
gave
up
and
took
a
taxi.
I
2
just
had
to
have
that
happen.

3
Now,
the
natural
gas
industry
faced
this
problem
4
several
years
ago.
In
the
eighties,
before
there
was
a
5
lot
of
production
of
natural
gas
vehicles,
there
were
6
mostly
after­
market
vehicles,
the
natural
gas
industry
7
decided
we've
got
to
step
up
and
solve
this
problem.

8
Today,
if
you
get
a
natural
gas
vehicle
from
an
9
OEM,
from
an
Original
Equipment
Manufacturer,
you
can
be
10
assured
that
when
you
go
to
a
station
here
in
California
11
or
anywhere
in
the
country
you've
got
a
standard
plugin.

12
It's
a
very
simple,
you
know,
easy­
to­
use
system.
I
use
13
them
all
the
time
with
natural
gas
vehicles.

14
I
also
want
to
share
with
you
a
massive
failure
15
with
methanol
and
the
M­
85
system.
I
watched
an
SAE
16
committee
spend
more
than
five
years.
In
fact
I
went
away
17
from
the
industry
for
two
years
and
came
back
and
didn't
18
see
any
progress
at
all.

19
This
was
all
over
a
fueling
system,
of
not
having
20
Joe
six­
pack
put
in
and
see
102
octane
methanol
and
try
to
21
put
it
into
his
gasoline
car.
And
the
oil
industry
22
absolutely
insisted
on
this
being
solved.
And
the
car
23
companies
came
back
with,
of
course,
three
different
24
unique
systems
to
solve
this.
And
the
oil
companies
25
wanted
a
very
elaborate
electronic
system
to
solve
it.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
154
1
And,
frankly,
it
never
was
resolved.
It
failed.

2
And
I
would
hate
to
see
the
electric
charging
system
go
in
3
that
direction.
So
I
urge
you
to
make
a
decision
now.

4
Sometimes
you
just
can't
get
the
industry
to
do
this
5
independently
like
the
natural
gas
vehicle
industry
did.

6
Sometimes
it
requires
regulation.
I
urge
you
not
7
to
delay.
Let's
get
this
thing
going
in
the
right
8
direction,
do
it
now.

9
Thank
you
very
much.

10
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thanks,
Ken.

11
David
Burch,
Ted
Holcombe,
Mickey
Oros.

12
MR.
BURCH:
Good
afternoon,
Dr.
Lloyd
and
members
13
of
the
Board.
My
name
is
David
Burch.
I'm
a
senior
14
environmental
planner
with
the
Bay
Area
Air
Quality
15
Management
District.

16
At
the
BAAQMD,
we
have
a
long
record
of
support
17
for
the
ZEV
mandate
and
for
electric
vehicles.
We've
18
devoted
significant
resources
to
promoting
the
EVs
in
the
19
Bay
Area.

20
In
addition
to
providing
incentives
to
acquire
21
vehicles,
we
also
implemented
a
program
to
install
22
electric
vehicle
charging
stations
around
the
region
to
23
create
a
network
of
public
EV
chargers.

24
Air
District
staff
supports
the
CARB
staff
25
recommendation
to
adopt
a
single
standard
charging
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
155
1
technology
for
electric
vehicles.
We
recognize
that
the
2
CARB
board
needs
to
consider
many
factors
in
evaluating
3
the
staff
recommendation.
And
the
Air
District
takes
no
4
position
as
to
the
relative
technical
merits
of
conductive
5
versus
inductive
charging.

6
Our
experience
indicates
that
both
inductive
and
7
conductive
systems
are
safe
and
effective.
And
testimony
8
from
CARB
staff
and
other
speakers
today
bears
that
out.
9
Our
key
point
is
that
we
believe
and
agree
that
a
10
single
charging
standard
is
an
important
prerequisite
to
11
successful
implementation
of
the
ZEV
mandate.

12
We
believe
that
the
lack
of
a
standard
charging
13
technology
will
impede
our
efforts
to
promote
electric
14
vehicles
and
install
a
network
of
EV
charging
in
a
cost
15
effective
manner.

16
The
public
charging
can
provide
several
benefits.

17
It
can
help
to
encourage
the
public
to
consider
purchasing
18
electric
vehicles.
It
can
enable
current
EV
owners
to
19
drive
their
vehicles
for
more
trips
and
for
longer
trips.

20
And
it
can
increase
the
visibility
of
electric
vehicles
21
and
help
to
increase
public
awareness
of
this
new
22
technology.

23
Like
most
parties,
we
would
prefer
to
see
a
24
marketplace
solution
or
a
voluntary
agreement
among
the
25
automakers,
but
there
has
been
little
or
no
progress
to
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
156
1
date,
and
there
doesn't
seem
to
be
much
prospect
of
an
2
agreement
in
the
future.
Therefore,
we
support
CARB
3
staff's
recommendation
in
their
efforts
to
develop
a
4
single
standard
charging
technology
via
the
rule­
making
5
process.

6
I'd
like
to
emphasize
a
couple
of
points.
We
7
think
the
public
perception
is
important
here.
The
lack
8
of
a
standardized
charging
technology
contributes
to
the
9
public
perception
that
the
EV
industry
is
not
yet
sure.

10
In
our
interaction
with
interested
members
of
the
11
public,
we
find
the
people
are
perplexed
by
the
lack
of
a
12
standard
charging
technology.
I
go
out
a
lot
of
times
and
13
represent
the
district
at
events
like
electric
vehicle
14
positions,
and
I
interact
with
people
that
are
15
sophisticated
about
electric
vehicles,
other
people
that
16
are
just
getting
introduced
to
the
technology.

17
There
are
two
things
I
always
take
home
are
one,

18
that
everybody
wants
to
know
how
they
can
get
a
vehicle
19
and
are
frustrated
at
the
lack
of
product
out
there.
But
20
the
other
thing
is
that
people,
when
you
start
talking
21
about
the
various
types
of
chargers,
and,
you
know,

22
inductive
versus
conductive,
and
couplers,
they're
just
23
kind
of
amazed
that
there
isn't
a
standard
out
there
24
already.
And
almost
invariably
people
say
that's
got
to
25
get
fixed,
somebody
has
got
to
deal
with
that
issue.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
157
1
The
second
point
is
that
the
cost
to
install
and
2
maintain
a
system
of
public
chargers
is
higher
due
to
the
3
need
to
purchase
and
service
two
different
types
of
4
charging
technology.

5
The
third
point,
most
existing
public
charging
6
sites
currently
provide
both
inductive
and
conductive
as
7
has
been
noted,
but
that's
not
the
case
in
all
locations.

8
So
we
have
a
situation
right
now
where
there's
9
some
stations
have
both,
some
only
have
one,
and
it
10
complicates
the
effort
to
provide
the
information
via
web
11
sites
and
resources
to
people
that
want
to
know
where
they
12
can
go
and
charge
their
electric
vehicle.

13
And
that
lack
of
clear
information
basically
14
undermines
the
credibility
of
the
current
system
and
15
complicates
our
efforts.

16
Finally,
in
terms
of
getting
the
most
bang
for
17
the
buck
with
installing
EV
chargers
for
the
public,
it's
18
going
to
be
more
effective
if
all
the
vehicles
can
use
the
19
same
chargers.
Right
now,
if
you've
got
a
site
that
has
20
one
inductive
and
one
conductive
charger,
you've
got
two
21
chargers,
but
if
you've
got
an
inductive
vehicle
and
you
22
pull
up
and
that
inductive
slot
is
full,
well
essentially
23
that
site
is
not
rendered
useful
for
you
in
the
same
24
situation
vice
versa.

25
So
if
you
have
two
chargers
that
are
the
same,

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
158
1
then
you've
got
double
the
capacity,
and
it
makes
for
a
2
more
cost
effective
use
of
the
system,
creating
more
3
capacity
with
the
same
number
of
chargers.

4
What
the
means
is
that
we
can
install
a
greater
5
capacity
with
less
resources
and
fewer
chargers
if
6
everybody
can
share
the
same
chargers.

7
In
summary,
adoption
of
a
single
standard
will
8
facilitate
the
effort
to
promote
public
charging
by
9
reducing
the
infusion
of
EV
drivers,
allowing
for
more
10
efficient
use
of
the
public
charging
network
and
reducing
11
the
cost
in
both
public
and
private
dollars
to
construct
12
and
maintain
a
network
of
public
chargers.

13
It
seems
that
there's
consensus
that
we
need
a
14
single
charging
standard
sooner
or
later.
The
question
is
15
when
do
we
take
that
step.
There's
no
perfect
time.
In
16
our
opinion,
it
makes
more
sense
to
adopt
a
single
17
standard
now,
while
the
number
of
people
and
chargers
that
18
are
out
there
is
relatively
limited.
The
costs
and
the
19
disruptions
from
the
transition
will
be
minimized
if
we
20
deal
with
it
now,
rather
than
waiting
until
we
have
more
21
vehicles
and
more
chargers
out
there.

22
If
the
CARB
does
adopt
a
single
standard,
we're
23
certainly
going
to
work
with
CARB,
automakers
and
other
24
stakeholders
to
ensure
the
most
viable
and
smooth
25
transition
to
that
new
standard.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
159
1
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much.
And
we
2
appreciate
the
support
of
the
Bay
Area
to
come
and
testify
3
today.
We
look
forward
to
seeing
you
in
San
Francisco
4
next
month.

5
Next,
we
have
Ted
Holcombe,
Mickey
Oros,
and
6
Hans­
Henning
Judek.

7
MR.
HOLCOMBE:
Chairman
Lloyd,
I'll
try
and
make
8
this
brief
here.
We
also
support
the
concept
that
a
9
single
standard
is
preferable
to
two.
We
don't
care
which
10
one.
We
think
they
both
have
merit.
They're
both
good,

11
but
settling
on
one
would
be
desirable.

12
Relative
to
the
grid
discussion
that
came
up
13
earlier,
I
think
people
­­
there
might
be
­­
people
should
14
realize
first
of
all
under
deregulation,
that
we
no
longer
15
produce
the
power,
so
I
don't
see
the
utilities
going
out
16
necessarily
to
place
chargers
in
order
to
bring
this
17
market
in.
But
there
would
be,
perhaps,
a
profitable
18
market
there,
where
somebody
who
owns
a
parking
lot
could
19
put
chargers
in
the
parking
lot
and
make
a
profit
out
of
20
charging
vehicles
in
the
morning
and
taking
power
out
in
21
an
amount
in
the
afternoon
if
the
vehicles
are
parked
22
everyday,
for
instance
say
a
BART
parking
lot
or
a
23
CalTrans
parking
lot.
There
might
be
certain
areas
where
24
this
would
be
profitable.
25
But
I
would
also
think
that
if
there
was
a
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
160
1
question
of
taking
power
out
of
the
vehicle,
that
that
2
power
might
be
more
valuable
to
the
owner
in
his
own
house
3
to
service
his
own
load
if,
for
example,
power
is
lost
to
4
him
if
he
loses
a
power
supply.

5
So
I
think
that
going
­­
thinking
of
a
battery
6
electric
vehicle
as
being
a
backup
for
a
house
power
7
supply
might
be
a
more
prudent
backup
use
than
they
can
8
use
a
backup
for
the
grid.

9
And
I
think
that
the
question
of
whether
the
10
existence
of
that
backup
might
prevent
the
placement
of
11
gasoline
or
diesel
generators,
might
be
a
consideration.

12
Thank
you
very
much.

13
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you,
Ted.
Now,
Mickey
14
Oros,
Hans­
Henning
Judek
and
Dale
Foster.

15
MR.
OROS:
Thank
you.
My
name
is
Mickey
Oros.
A
16
brief
history.
I
founded
EVI
in
the
early
nineties,
'
92.

17
It
was
a
group
that
was
put
together
to
­­
I
was
working
18
with
SMUD
as
a
consultant
and
was
asked
to
put
together
a
19
safe,
cost
effective
system
for
the
marketplace.

20
I've
since
moved
on
to
fuel
cells
and
21
electrification.
And
also
I
have
just
been
working
on
22
doing
the
design
for
the
electrical
systems
for
the
Post
23
Office.
And
I
am
able
to
say
that
because
of
a
conductive
24
system,
we're
able
to
save
a
third
of
the
cost
doing
it
25
conductively
for
the
Post
Office.
And
when
you're
talking
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
161
1
dollars
in
excess
of
a
half
a
million
dollars
for
material
2
costs,
it's
quite
sizable.

3
In
working
with
SMUD,
I
was
asked
to
bring
in
4
some
­­
hire
some
engineers
to
help
develop
this
system.

5
I
could
have
easily
gone
into
an
inductive
format,
no
6
problem,
since
I
was
green
and
had
no
basis
to
start
from.

7
But
after
thorough
investigations
we
found
that
8
the
systems
­­
there
were
other
systems
available
out
9
there
that
made
the
inductive
system
a
little
less
10
desirable
to
go
with.

11
What
I've
heard
today
is
comments
that
go
either
12
way
if
the
system
were
to
go
inductive
or
the
system
were
13
to
go
conductive.

14
But
this
is
what
I
have
discovered
and
that
is
15
five
years
ago,
if
we
just
look
at
five
years
ago,
and
16
consider
that
ground
zero,
we
have
done
a
tremendous
17
amount
of
engineering
development
to
the
point
where
we've
18
made
both
systems
as
safe
for
the
consumer
as
they
could
19
possibly
be.

20
Given
that
five
years,
and
starting
from
a
ground
21
zero
with
codes,
standards
and
safety,
you're
giving
this
22
industry
another
five
years
to
work
towards,
to
go
ahead
23
if
one
manufacturer
had
to
change
its
format.

24
This
is
a
lot
of
time.
You're
giving
them
a
good
25
fair
amount
of
time
to
go
ahead
and
make
that
transition.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
162
1
So
what
you're
hearing
is
that
it
cannot
be
done,
it's
too
2
short.
I
think
it's
just
ego
and
greed
talking
here.

3
I
don't
need
to
comment
on
a
lot
of
the
comments
4
that
have
already
been
talked
about
today.
But
I
think
5
that
if
you
were
to
get
­­
and
I'm
sure
that
the
Board
has
6
not
been
given
true
costs
from
most
of
the
manufacturers,

7
for
simple
reasons.
But
I
think
once
these
true
costs
8
were
to
surface,
you
would
probably
see
that
from
a
9
standpoint
of
the
consumer
that
a
conductive
system
makes
10
a
lot
of
sense.
And
when
we
go
out,
as
the
consumers
here
11
in
the
United
States
today
in
our
country
go
out
and
buy,

12
we
basically
go
out,
and
the
first
thing
that
comes
to
13
mind
is
what
does
it
take
or
how
much
do
we
take
out
of
14
our
pocket
and
cost
is
always
the
driving
factor.

15
And
once
we
look
at
that,
I
think
from
those
that
16
have
spoken
earlier
and
said
that
some
developer
should
17
come
out
and
bear
all
the
cost
to
this,
we
find
out
that
18
if
they
were,
they
would
probably
also
go
back
to
that
19
saying,
well
what
is
the
most
cost
effective
system
for
me
20
to
get
a
return
on
the
investment.

21
And
we
think,
again,
that
drives
us
towards
the
22
conductive
standard.
The
architecture,
conductively,
I
23
found
over
the
years
is
much
more
open.
The
investment
24
costs
are
far
less,
and
the
time
is
now.
I
don't
think
25
that
you
should
wait
and
continue
to
wait.
It
will
only
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
163
1
worsen
as
time
goes
on,
before
the
ramp
up
begins.

2
And
I
hope
you'll
take
some
of
these
comments
to
3
heart
and
take
a
look.
And
I
also
have
figures
that
would
4
backup
some
of
the
statements
that
I've
made.

5
Thank
you
very
much.

6
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Thank
you,
Mr.
Oros.

7
Any
questions?

8
Who
used
the
phrase
Last
of
the
Mohicans?
9
Mr.
Hans­
Henning
Judek,
and
then
Mr.
Dale
Foster
10
and
Mr.
Alec
Brooks.

11
MR.
JUDEK:
Good
afternoon,
ladies
and
gentlemen.

12
I
hope
everybody
is
not
too
hungry.
It's
already
after
13
lunch.
So
anyway,
I
just
wanted
to
briefly
introduce
what
14
we
are
doing
or
trying
to
do.

15
My
company
is
trying
to
implement
an
automatic
16
mechanical
car
parking
system
in
the
United
States.
And
17
we
have
a
project
in
the
Los
Angeles
area,
which
is
very
18
close
to
a
subway
station.
And
about
four
weeks
ago,

19
somebody
had
the
glorious
idea
that
we
should
probably
20
implement
electric
vehicles
into
this
apartment
facility
21
to
provide
an
intermodal
means
of
transportation.

22
So
that
means
that
people
who
arrive
by
the
23
subway
have
the
opportunity
to
get
a
car
right
at
the
24
subway
station.
And
I
found
out
that
there
are
already
25
quite
a
substantial
amount
of
people
working
on
this
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
164
1
matter,
for
example,
Matt
Barth
in
Riverside
and
Susan
2
Shaheen
here
in
the
Bay
Area.

3
The
problem
that
I
see
to
make
a
decision
now
on
4
which
kind
of
connector
should
be
used
or
inductive
system
5
should
be
used
is
that
we
definitely
should
not
forget
6
that
we
may
in
the
future
have
the
need
to
automatize
this
7
whole
procedure,
that
this
­­
it
could
be
some
kind
of
8
robot
or
some
kind
of
mechanical
device
would
be
necessary
9
that
automatically
connects
the
connector
or
the
panel
or
10
whatever
we
are
using
to
the
vehicle.

11
And
I
would
like
to
ask
you
please
try
to
think
12
now
already
about
these
kinds
of
possibilities,
because
13
any
cost­
sharing
system
can
only
really
work
with
these
14
kind
of
automatic
systems.
So
it
means
we
will
have
to
15
think
about
where
to
allocate
the
contact
point.
We
have
16
to
think
about
how
to
open,
for
example,
the
cover
or
a
17
flap.
We
have
to
think
about
how
to
aim
the
connecting
or
18
conductive
device
to
the
car.

19
And
I'm
really
not
quite
sure
we
have
at
the
20
moment
really
all
the
facts
together
to
make
a
decision
on
21
this
matter.

22
And
I'm
inviting
everybody
here
to
the
room
to
23
support
our
effort,
because
300
electric
cars
in
the
City
24
of
Los
Angeles
would
be
a
good
start
for
electric
25
vehicles.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
165
1
Thank
you.

2
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Thank
you.
Are
3
there
any
questions?

4
Dale
Foster.

5
MR.
FOSTER:
Good
afternoon.
My
name
is
Dale
6
Foster.
I'm
with
AeroVironment
in
Monrovia,
California.

7
I'm
the
product
manager
for
the
off­
board
Level
3
charger
8
that
uses
a
conductive
charger,
which
you've
heard
some
9
discussion
about
here.
We're
the
technology
and
product
10
that
staff
is
proposing
to
effectively
make
obsolete
here
11
with
your
current
proposal.
Dr.
Paul
MacCready
and
myself
12
on
behalf
of
AeroVironment
did
submit
some
bold
more
13
extensive
remarks
on
this
subject.
So
I'll
just
hit
some
14
of
the
highlights.
We
do
support
standardization
of
15
infrastructure.
We
think
that's
very
important.

16
We
are
also
a
member,
one
of
the
founding
members
17
of
the
Electric
Vehicle
Conductive
Charging
Coalition,
so
18
we
support
conductive
charging
for
all
the
reasons
that
19
you've
heard
earlier
here
today.
We
also
support
the
20
single
connector
as
has
been
proposed,
the
Avcon
style
21
connector
we
believe
we
can
get
there.

22
At
this
point,
we
digress
from
the
majority
of
23
the
EVC3
membership
where
we
do
not
support
mandating
and
24
requiring
on­
board
charging,
high­
powered
charging.
Now,

25
like
most
of
the
folks
you've
got
testifying
before
you,

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
166
1
we've
all
got
some
vested
interests
in
this
topic.
And
AV
2
has
a
lot
of
invested
interest.

3
We're
a
small
California
company
and
we've
4
invested
millions
of
dollars
in
our
off­
board
charging
5
technology.
And
contrary
to
staff's
report
we
are
not
OEM
6
supportive
as
a
contract
manufacturer.
We're
an
7
independent
company
and
we
sell
these
to
a
variety
of
8
clients.

9
So
that
being
said,
AV
suggests
deleting
the
10
requirement
for
on­
board
charging.
Let
the
marketplace
11
decide
which
is
going
to
work
out.
We
believe
there
are
12
justifiable
cases
and
applications
for
both
on
and
off.

13
The
high
cost
that's
been
quoted
for
our
charging
systems,

14
$
45,000
for
a
60
kW
charger,
we
believe
is
mitigated
if
15
there
are
lots
of
EVs
per
charger,
such
as
oftentimes
in
16
the
case
of
fleets
and
other
repetitive
use
applications.

17
There
is
a
place
for
on­
board
charging
in
some
of
18
these
low­
powered
vehicles.
We
think
it
would
be
prudent
19
for
every
manufacturer
of
a
vehicle
to
supply
an
on­
board
20
charger
with
it
that
can
plug
into
the
millions
of
21
standard
110/
220
outlets
that
are
out
there.

22
Fast,
fast
charging
on
the
order
that
we
achieve
23
with
our
posicharge
system,
which
is
something
roughly
two
24
percent
state
of
charging
increased
per
minute,
we
think
25
greatly
enhances
the
market
viability
and
acceptance
of
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
167
1
electric
vehicles.

2
And,
yes,
we
need
to
get
more
of
the
OEMs,
and
3
the
battery
manufacturers
to
support
fast­
charging
4
technology,
besides
just
DaimlerChrysler
and
some
of
the
5
other
independents.
But
the
higher
power,
fast
charging
6
we
think
is
going
to
be
best
accomplished
with
the
7
off­
board
charging.
So
standards
are
important
and
8
useful,
but
they
should
enable
and
not
limit
advances
in
9
this
technology.

10
So
in
summary
we
support
conductive
charging
11
standards.
We
support
standardizing
that
connector
as
12
proposed.
But
we
do
not
support
specifying
on­
board
in
13
the
mandate.
Leave
that
open
for
either
on­
board
or
14
off­
board.

15
Thank
you
very
much.

16
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Does
staff
want
to
comment
on
17
that?

18
Jack,
the
question
was,
Dale
made
the
comment
19
about
it's
okay
with
conductive
but
don't
specify
on­
board
20
or
off­
board.
And
so
that
was
my
­­

21
ON­
ROADS
CONTROLS
BRANCH
CHIEF
KITOWSKI:
I
22
apologize
for
that.

23
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
That's
okay.

24
ON­
ROADS
CONTROLS
BRANCH
CHIEF
KITOWSKI:
Well,
25
the
systems
are,
you
know,
fundamentally
different.
And
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
168
1
we
did
not
have
an
off­
board
conductive
system
here
2
available
for
review.
In
most
of
our
analysis
we
didn't
3
put
it
in
the
review.
There's
one
manufacturer
who
4
utilize
the
system
and
it's
quite
extensive
and
continues
5
to
be
quite
expensive.

6
It
does
have
some
advantages
especially
for
7
larger
vehicles,
like
the
Epic,
but
the
direction
seems
to
8
be
to
minimize
battery
sizes
and
moving
toward
smaller
9
ones.

10
MOBILE
SOURCE
CONTROL
DIVISION
CHIEF
CROSS:
Will
11
the
connector
that
we're
specifying
accept
or
work
with
12
that
charger?

13
ON­
ROADS
CONTROLS
BRANCH
CHIEF
KITOWSKI:
The
14
connector
should
work.

15
MOBILE
SOURCE
CONTROL
DIVISION
CHIEF
CROSS:
So
16
it's
really
basically
­­

17
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
Can
you
speak
up
just
a
18
little
bit.

19
MOBILE
SOURCE
CONTROL
DIVISION
CHIEF
CROSS:
They
20
never
turn
me
up.

21
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
No,
it's
not
that.
It's
22
the
system.
You
just
have
to
sit
on
it.

23
MOBILE
SOURCE
CONTROL
DIVISION
CHIEF
CROSS:
I
24
guess
the
discussion
I
was
having
with
Jack
is
that
I
25
think
that
our
main
concern
with
specifying
on­
board
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
169
1
charging
is
with
Level
2
charging,
it's
the
charging
that
2
will
happen
between
people's
garages
and
at
work
sites
and
3
things
like
that.

4
What
I
was
asking
was
whether
or
not
if
a
Level
2
5
charging
with
the
on­
board
charging
could
co­
exist
or
not
6
with
Level
3
capability
for
off­
board
fast
charging?

7
ON­
ROADS
CONTROLS
BRANCH
CHIEF
KITOWSKI:
Which
8
it
can.

9
MOBILE
SOURCE
CONTROL
DIVISION
CHIEF
CROSS:
So
10
maybe
we
can
settle
that.
And
the
next
step
is
can
we
11
modify
the
regulations
so
that
they
don't
­­
or
the
12
proposal
so
that
it
doesn't
specify
only
on­
board
charger,

13
in
other
words,
if
you're
going
Level
3
­­

14
ON­
ROADS
CONTROLS
BRANCH
CHIEF
KITOWSKI:
The
15
Level
3
is
exempt
from
the
regulations
that
are
set.

16
MOBILE
SOURCE
CONTROL
DIVISION
CHIEF
CROSS:

17
Okay.
Well,
does
that
satisfy
you?

18
MR.
FOSTER:
Well,
I
think
by
specifying
on­
board
19
you're
effectively
obsoleting
off­
board
technology.
I
20
realize
that
it
may
not
apply
to
a
lot
of
these
vehicles
21
or
a
lot
of
the
buses
and
other
heavy
duty
things
may
not
22
apply,
but
I
think
that
there's
going
to
be
no
incentive
23
for
the
automakers
to
put
duel
on­
board/
off­
board
systems
24
on
vehicles.

25
ON­
ROADS
CONTROLS
BRANCH
CHIEF
KITOWSKI:
The
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
170
1
situation
gets
back
to
the
whole
reason
why
we
started,

2
and
that
we
did
specify
an
on­
board
system,
so
that
every
3
vehicle
can
come
up
onto
any
charging
station
and
be
able
4
to
utilize
that
charging
station.

5
If
there's
a
Level
3,
some
systems
can
be
able
to
6
accommodate
greater
power,
recharge
quicker,
but
we
still
7
want
those
vehicles
to
be
able
to
not
have
to
have
8
separate
distinct
charging
systems
like
exists
with
the
9
DaimlerChrysler
system
today.

10
MR.
FOSTER:
But
I
contend
that
you
could
get
11
there
with
the
connector
that's
being
specified.

12
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
I
couldn't
hear
13
that.

14
MR.
FOSTER:
I
contend
that
you
could
get
15
there
­­
we
have
the
technology
to
get
there
with
the
16
connector
system
that's
being
supplied.

17
MOBILE
SOURCE
CONTROL
DIVISION
CHIEF
CROSS:

18
We're
going
around
the
same
circle
I
just
went
around,
but
19
I'll
try
again.
I
think
that
the
staff
strongly
believes
20
that
for
Level
2
charging,
which
is
again
the
garage,
the
21
routine
stuff,
that
the
charger
should
be
on
a
vehicle
and
22
connectors
should
be
standardized
as
proposed.

23
As
I
understand
it,
some
of
AeroVironment's
work
24
connects
to
­­
is
associated
with
doing
very
fast
25
charging.
And
if
that's
the
case,
their
system
should
be
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
171
1
able
to
coexist
with
the
Level
2
that's
part
of
the
staff
2
proposal,
in
other
words,
if
the
vehicle
has
the
wires
3
between
the
battery
and
the
pins
on
the
connector.

4
So
I'm
not
sure
that
we
really
have
a
problem
5
other
than
saying
that
the
regulation
shouldn't
exclude
6
the
possibility
of
doing
Level
3
charging
with
an
7
off­
board
charger.
8
MR.
FOSTER:
And
the
regulation
does
not
9
explicitly
exclude
off­
board
charging.
The
staff
has
made
10
that
comment
to
me,
but
it
effectively
does
when
you
11
specify
that
it
requires
an
on­
board
charger.

12
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
I
thought,
at
one
point,

13
it
was
not
specified
that
that
Level
3
­­

14
MOBILE
SOURCE
CONTROL
DIVISION
CHIEF
CROSS:
I
15
think
he's
saying
well,
for
Level
2
that's
true,
but,
you
16
know,
in
other
words
we
specify
an
on­
board
for
Level
2,

17
then
we
are,
but
I
don't
think
that's
exclusive.
In
other
18
words,
the
charger
that
he's
developing
is
a
fast
charger,

19
then
it's
a
different
system.

20
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
What
would
you
do
if
21
you
were
him,
had
millions
invested,
what
would
you
do?

22
MOBILE
SOURCE
CONTROL
DIVISION
CHIEF
CROSS:
I
23
would
focus
on
marketing
my
fast
charger
as
an
off­
board
24
charger,
because
the
only
­­
that's
what
I
was
asking
25
about
the
­­
if
the
connector
is
okay,
then
his
end
is
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
172
1
okay,
and
all
that
needs
to
be
on
the
vehicle
is
the
wire
2
between
the
­­
well
it's
not
quite
that
simple,
but
the
3
wires
between
the
pins
and
the
battery.
So
his
off­
board
4
charger
does
fast
charging
through
the
appropriate
pins
on
5
the
connector,
which
is
already
specified.

6
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
So
that
would
be
okay.

7
MR.
FOSTER:
That's
feasible.
We
can
continue
to
8
market
our
product
as
an
off­
board
fast­
charging
system.

9
We
have
other
niche
markets
that
we're
doing
development
10
work,
and
we're
doing
sales
work.
And
my
concern
is,

11
again,
if
by
requiring
anybody
who's
going
to
get
a
ZEV
12
credit
to
have
an
on­
board
charger
greater
than
three
13
kilowatts,
you
have
effectively
disincentivized
it
by
14
putting
any
type
of
off­
board
combinations.

15
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
think
we're
hearing
some
16
sympathy
to
your
investment
here
and
technology.
I
guess
17
what
we're
trying
to
look
for
is
some
hybrid
approach
18
where
we
can
have
our
cake
and
eat
it,
too.

19
MOBILE
SOURCE
CONTROL
DIVISION
CHIEF
CROSS:
If
20
we
go
the
way
he's
suggesting
though,
we're
going
down
the
21
path
of
multiple
standards
again,
because
you
can't
have
22
off­
board
and
on­
board
Level
2
charging
without
multiple
23
standards.

24
ON­
ROADS
CONTROLS
BRANCH
CHIEF
KITOWSKI:
In
25
effect,
it
would
be
analogous
to
taking
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
173
1
DaimlerChrysler
system
but
changing
the
connector
so
that
2
it
looks
like
the
Avcon
or
Ford,
so
it
looks
like
it
will
3
charge
with
it.
Some
vehicles,
like
a
DaimlerChrysler,

4
might
look
like
they
could
go
up
to
a
charging
station
and
5
they
could
charge
and
it
would
fit,
it's
just
it
wouldn't
6
charge.

7
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
think
we'll
probably
have
8
to
come
back
to
this
point
and
maybe
ask
staff
how,
in
9
fact,
we
can
work
with
it
in
the
environment
to
mitigate
10
some
of
these
issues.

11
Thank
you,
Dale.

12
Our
last
witness
is
Alec
Brooks
from
AC
13
Propulsion.

14
(
Thereupon
an
overhead
presentation
15
was
presented
as
follows.)
16
MR.
BROOKS:
Good
afternoon,
Dr.
Lloyd
and
17
members
of
the
Board.
My
name
is
Alec
Brooks.
I'm
the
18
Chief
Technology
Officer
at
AC
Propulsion.
I've
been
19
involved
in
electric
vehicles
since
1987,
both
20
professionally
and
as
a
driver.
In
1988,
while
at
21
AeroVironment,
I
wrote
the
proposal
to
General
Motors
for
22
the
Impact
electric
car,
the
predecessor
to
the
EV1,
and
I
23
was
the
project
manager
and
chief
engineer
for
the
Impact
24
during
its
development.

25
I've
used
both
conductive
and
inductive
charging
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
174
1
systems,
and
I
leased
an
EV1
on
the
first
day
they
were
2
available.
And,
by
the
way,
I
spent
$
2,000
on
a
large
3
pile
inductive
charger.

4
I
got
the
EV1
in
spite
of
the
inductive
charging
5
system
not
because
of
it.
I
support
the
Board's
6
initiative
to
settle
the
charging
standards
debate
once
7
and
for
all
and
I
support
the
staff's
recommendations
to
8
standardize
on
on­
board
conductive
charging.

9
­­
o0o­­

10
MR.
BROOKS:
Lets
skip
this,
because
it's
been
11
covered.

12
­­
o0o­­

13
MR.
BROOKS:
"
It
ain't
what
you
don't
know
that
14
hurts
you;
it's
what
you
know
for
certain
that
just
ain't
15
so."

16
I
remembered
this
when
I
read
a
lot
of
the
17
submitted
comments
on
this
issue.
And
I
was
reminded
of
18
this
pearl
of
wisdom
from
Charles
Kettering,
a
great
19
inventor,
engineer
and
educator
and
head
of
GM
research
20
from
1919
to
1946.

21
There's
been
an
awful
lot
of,
what
I
consider,

22
misinformation
and
obfuscation
of
the
facts.

23
Next.

24
­­
o0o­­

25
MR.
BROOKS:
The
first
one
I
want
to
talk
about
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
175
1
is
cost.
There
is
no
reason
why
the
on­
board
components
2
of
a
conductive
system
will
always
cost
more
than
the
3
on­
board
components
of
the
inductive
system.
There
are
4
many,
many
different
ways
to
make
a
conductive
charger,

5
some
will
cost
more
than
the
inductive
on­
board
6
components,
and
some
will
cost
less.

7
I
want
to
point
out
that
the
display
that's
been
8
put
up
here
to
compare
the
inductive
and
conductive
9
systems
makes
use
of
the
latest
unreleased
version
of
the
10
inductive
system
that
takes
and
shows
it
compared
to
the
11
six­
year
old,
separate
conductive
charger,
and
that
is
the
12
most
complex
conductive
wall
box.
So
I
don't
think
it's
13
exactly
an
apples
to
apples
comparison.

14
These
comments
from
Toyota
and
GM
on
the
slides
15
show
­­
and
these
are
taken
from
the
public
testimony
and
16
submitted
­­
show
that
the
real
cost
of
the
inductive
17
system
is
high
and
will
remain
high
through
2020.
GM
has
18
said
that
they
don't
want
to
be
in
the
charger
business.

19
It's
easy
to
see
why
due
to
the
cost
involved.
But
it
is
20
hard
to
see
why
anyone
else
would
want
to
be
in
the
21
inductive
charging
business.
By
contrast,
conductive
22
charging
systems
and
connectors
are
made
by
small
23
companies
that
have
to
pay
their
bills
from
the
product's
24
sales
and
are
a
sustainable
business
even
at
today's
25
volumes.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
176
1
Next.

2
­­
o0o­­

3
MR.
BROOKS:
Let's
skip
this
one,
it's
been
4
covered.

5
Another
often­
heard
but
questionable
fact
is
that
6
the
weight
of
on­
board
conductive
charges
will
always
be
7
more
than
the
weight
of
the
on­
board
inductive
components.

8
While
this
has
been
the
case
for
some
first
generation
9
electric
vehicles,
new
products
and
approaches
may
10
eliminate
or
even
reverse
the
weight
difference.
One
11
nonintegrated
six
kilowatt
charger
that
I'm
aware
of
could
12
be
integrated
into
the
vehicle
at
a
weight
of
five
13
kilograms,
not
the
50
that
we
heard
earlier.

14
And
GM's
claim
that
a
mile
of
range
is
lost
per
15
kilogram
of
weight
added
is
completely
incorrect.
It
16
doesn't
stand
up
to
any
rational
engineering
analysis
or
17
even
common
sense.

18
Southern
California
Edison
tested
the
EV1
with
19
both
minimum
and
maximum
payload
conditions
and
reported
20
range
losses
of
only
1/
100
to
6/
100
of
a
mile
per
kilogram
21
of
added
weight.

22
­­
o0o­­

23
MR.
BROOKS:
Now,
let's
talk
about
consumer
24
friendly.
It's
true
that
the
inductive
paddle
is
slightly
25
easier
to
connect
to
the
vehicle
than
the
conductive
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
177
1
coupling.
By
having
used
both
types
quite
a
bit,
this
is
2
a
negligible
difference.

3
Another
point
worth
considering
in
evaluating
4
consumer
friendliness
are
the
multiple
warnings
attached
5
to
the
newest
conductive
chargers.
These
labels
warn
the
6
consumer
about
the
potential
for
burns,
fires,
shock
and
7
state
that
the
ground
fault
interrupt
device
should
be
8
tested
prior
to
each
use.

9
Conductive
charging
stations
also
contain
some
10
warnings,
but
these
are
directed
towards
service
people
11
that
will
open
the
box,
not
the
end
users
of
the
device,

12
and
there
is
no
direction
to
manually
test
a
ground
fault
13
device
every
time
the
charge
station
is
used.

14
Imagine
a
customer
that
is
new
to
EVs,
but
is
15
interested
in
maybe
getting
one.
Out
of
curiosity,
they
16
have
to
look
at
an
inductive
charger
and
pull
out
the
17
paddle.
What
do
they
see?
A
warning
that
you
can
get
18
burned.

19
By
the
way,
the
burn
warning
label
was
missing
20
from
the
charger
that's
on
display
here.
The
recall
from
21
the
GEN1
EV1s
for
a
charge
port
problem
is
well
known.

22
I'd
like
to
share
some
of
my
own
experience
in
this
area.

23
In
February
2000
my
EV1
was
at
the
dealership
for
24
a
tire
problem.
When
I
got
the
car
back,
I
noticed
a
25
smokey
electrical
smell
while
charging.
I
called
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
178
1
dealership
and
was
told
rather
matter
of
factly,
"
Oh,

2
that.
We
put
your
car
on
charge
after
we
finished
and
one
3
of
our
technicians
noticed
smoke
coming
out
of
the
charge
4
port,
pulled
the
paddle,
but
don't
worry,
we
put
in
a
new
5
port.
It
happens
a
lot."

6
It
was
this
incident
that
caused
me
to
cancel
the
7
renewal
of
my
EV1
lease.
A
month
later
all
Gen
1
and
EV1s
8
and
S10s
were
recalled
because
of
charge
port
problems.

9
We
were
assured
that
there
was
no
problem
with
the
1999
10
Gen
2
EV1s.

11
Next.

12
­­
o0o­­

13
MR.
BROOKS:
Well,
there
was
a
problem.
In
14
November
2000,
the
1999
Gen
2
EV1
was
recalled
for
a
15
charge
port
fire
danger.
The
reasons
cited
were
an
16
internal
component
variation,
whatever
that
means.
Are
17
there
any
more
flaws
or
defects
in
the
latest
inductive
18
system
that
we
were
not
aware
of?
A
recent
event
suggests
19
that
this
may
be
the
case.

20
On
Monday
this
week
there
was
a
report
on
the
EV1
21
Internet
mailing
list
of
a
broken
paddle
on
a
small
paddle
22
inductive
charger
at
a
park
and
ride
location
in
southern
23
California.
I
drove
over
to
have
a
look.

24
Next.

25
­­
o0o­­

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
179
1
MR.
BROOKS:
This
is
what
I
found.
The
paddle
2
casing
was
shattered.
The
plastic
was
fractured
with
3
clean
sharp
edges
and
appeared
to
be
brittle.
I'm
not
an
4
expert
in
plastics,
but
I
wonder
if
the
choice
of
plastic
5
for
the
paddle
was
severely
limited
by
the
requirement
6
that
it
withstand
temperatures
that
are
hot
enough
to
burn
7
you.
8
How
the
paddle
was
damaged
is
unknown.
It
could
9
have
been
vandalism
or
it
could
have
been
dropped,
but
it
10
does
raise
the
question
of
whether
the
paddle
is
too
11
fragile
for
its
intended
application,
and
expected
use
and
12
occasional
abuse.

13
I
picked
out
of
the
dirt
a
couple
of
plastic
14
fragments
from
the
paddle
and
I
want
to
pass
them
up
to
15
the
Board
to
have
a
look
at.
I
also
have
with
me
a
piece
16
of
the
segment
of
new
Avcon
coupler
and
it's
plastic.

17
­­
o0o­­

18
MR.
BROOKS:
What's
been
talked
about
in
the
19
packaging.
Well,
it
turns
out
that
the
conductive
inlet
20
is
smaller
in
volume
by
about
20
percent
than
the
new
21
small
paddle
inductive
system.
And
its
mounting
depth,

22
the
depth
from
the
circuit
to
the
car
back
is
about
half
23
as
much.

24
There's
also
in
the
inductive,
there's
a
25
requirement
for
cooling
air
flow
to
take
away
the
losses
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
180
1
from
the
paddle
and
port.

2
Next.

3
­­
o0o­­

4
MR.
BROOKS:
Communication
is
another
issue.

5
Proponents
of
inductive
charging
have
emphatically
stated
6
that
vehicle­
to­
charge
station
digital
communications
will
7
be
an
absolute
requirement
for
things
like
car
sharing,

8
vehicle­
to­
grid
and
fuel
cell
vehicles.
This
is
not
the
9
case
at
all.

10
These
applications
will
be
better
served
with
11
wireless
broad
area
coverage
such
as
through
12
cellular­
based
data
systems
that
will
allow
communications
13
with
the
vehicle
whether
it
is
parked
at
the
charger,

14
being
driven
or
plugged
into
a
110­
volt
outlet
at
home.

15
Even
the
Toyota
Crayon
station
car
program
brochure
touts
16
how
GPS
and
cell­
based
date
are
used
to
track
the
E­
com
17
vehicles.

18
Also
there
is
no
reason
that
station
cars
or
19
shared
cars
will
be
EVs.
It
makes
no
sense
to
mandate
a
20
communication
method
for
these
purposes
as
part
of
an
EV
21
charging
system.

22
Next.

23
­­
o0o­­

24
MR.
BROOKS:
I
want
to
briefly
address
charging
25
at
higher
power
than
the
usual
Level
2.
Level
1
or
110
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
181
1
volt
charging
is
admittedly
slow,
but
in
my
experience
it
2
has
proved
very
useful.
With
my
EV1
with
the
so­
called
3
convenience
charger
I
was
able
to
make
overnight
trips
and
4
charge
with
110
outlets
at
hotels.

5
Level
1
charging
is
a
kluge
with
inductive
6
charging.
You
have
to
have
a
separate
box,
called
a
7
convenience
charger,
that
you
remove
with
the
trunk
and
8
unwind
two
cords,
one
with
the
paddle
and
the
other
way
9
with
a
plug.

10
Level
1
charging
is
built
right
into
many
Level
2
11
conductive
chargers,
with
no
additional
costs.
You
just
12
plug
it
into
a
110
outlet.
Level
one
is
a
useful
and
13
valuable
feature
for
EV
drivers,
especially
for
efficient
14
vehicles
and
vehicles
with
lead
acid
batteries.
You
15
shouldn't
reject
Level
1
just
because
it
doesn't
work
well
16
in
those
vehicles
with
power­
hungry
battery
cooling
17
systems.

18
Next.

19
­­
o0o­­

20
MR.
BROOKS:
Level
2
Plus
is
a
system
that
21
provides
faster
charging
for
vehicles
with
on­
board
22
conductive
chargers.
The
infrastructure
side
does
not
23
require
a
costly
off­
board
DC
charger,
only
an
up­
rated
EV
24
charge
station
that
looks
like
the
standard
unit.
I
think
25
we
heard
a
little
bit
about
that
from
EVI.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
182
1
AC
Propulsion's
Level
2
Plus
compatible
charging
2
system
allows
20
kilowatts
of
charge
power
or
about
three
3
times
the
standard
rate.
Level
2
Plus
accommodates
up
to
4
400
amps
AC
or
96
kilowatts
to
allow
for
future
technology
5
growth
in
the
capability
of
on­
vehicle
charging
systems.

6
Level
2
Plus
is
backward
compatible
with
Level
2,

7
and
drivers
of
Level
2
Plus
vehicles
would
have
the
choice
8
of
installing
standard
Level
2
or
uprated
Level
2
Plus
9
charge
stations
at
home.
Level
2
Plus
provides
the
10
potential
to
enable
the
cost
effective
faster
charging
11
public
infrastructure
that
remains
compatible
with
12
standard
Level
2
vehicles.

13
Next.

14
­­
o0o­­

15
THE
COURT
REPORTER:
Could
you
slow
down
just
a
16
tiny
bit.

17
MR.
BROOKS:
He
told
me
I
had
to
go
fast.

18
THE
COURT
REPORTER:
Yeah,
I
know
you
told
him,

19
but
I
can't
write
that
fast.
20
(
Laughter.)

21
MR.
BROOKS:
I
submitted
this
in
writing
as
well.

22
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
There
are
competing
23
interests.

24
(
Laughter.)

25
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Maybe,
Alec,
you
could
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
183
1
compromise
here
and
just
hit
some
of
the
highlights,
since
2
we've
got
this
in
front
of
us
then,
and
maybe
slow
down
a
3
little
bit
as
well.

4
MR.
BROOKS:
Okay.
Integrated
charging
is
a
5
method
of
using
­­
the
components
are
already
there
on
the
6
vehicle
to
drive
the
wheels
to
use
them
as
a
part
of
the
7
charger.
I've
made
use
of
figures
and
charts
that
the
8
inductive
proponents
have
shown
to
compare
the
cost
and
9
weight
of
inductive
and
conductive.
I've
put
a
red
line
10
through
all
of
the
components
that
are
not
needed
to
be
11
separate
with
integrated
charging,
and
I've
also
shown
a
12
diagonal
red
line
that
shows
with
integrated
charging
13
on­
board
cost
and
weight
are
clearly
lower
than
inductive,

14
and
as
the
inductive
camp
readily
agrees,
that
the
15
off­
board
cost
and
weight
are
lower
with
conductive,
too.

16
AC
Propulsion
is
not
the
only
company
working
on
17
integrated
charging.
We
have
patents
for
our
approach,

18
but
this
is
not
the
only
approach.
By
the
way,
our
19
patents
are
in
no
way
covering
any
of
the
standards
that
20
we're
talking
about
for
the
connector
and
the
off­
board
21
equipment.
There
are
at
least
three
other
patented
22
integrated
charging
systems
by
Fuji,
JPL
and
GM.
Toyota
23
showed
an
integrated
charger
in
the
E­
com
at
EVS14
in
1997
24
and
may
still
have
an
integrated
charger
today.

25
Ford
and
Ecostar
showed
integrated
charging
in
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
184
1
1999.
GM's
rejection
of
integrated
charging
is
based
on
2
their
experience
for
the
system
that
was
installed
in
the
3
original
impacts,
now
a
12
year
old
design
and
several
4
generations
behind
the
latest
technology.

5
Next.

6
­­
o0o­­

7
MR.
BROOKS:
Vehicle­
to­
grid
is
a
concept
that
8
allows
vehicles
with
electrical
storage
and
generation
9
capabilities
to
perform
valuable
services
while
they're
10
not
being
driven.
The
earnings
potential
is
enough
to
11
transform
the
economics
of
EVs
­­
instead
of
a
cost
12
penalty
associated
with
the
emissions
benefit,
there
would
13
instead
be
a
cost
reduction
associated
with
the
emissions
14
reduction.

15
I
took
it
as
a
sort
of
vote
of
confidence
that
GM
16
and
Toyota
were
so
threatened
by
vehicle­
to­
grid
that
they
17
hired
Mr.
Austin
to
try
to
shoot
it
down.
If
they
had
18
spent
one­
tenth
as
much
effort
to
find
out
more
about
the
19
concept
and
read
the
report,
they
would
realize
that
20
economic
potential
for
EVs
from
vehicle­
to­
grid
is
not
at
21
all
related
to
the
daily
on­
street
power
sales
that
we
22
agreed
conceptually
that
that
doesn't
make
any
sense.

23
I
should
point
out
also
that
neither
Mr.
Austin
24
nor
anyone
from
GM
contacted
us
to
find
out
more
about
the
25
vehicle­
to­
grid
concept.
We're,
of
course,
happy
to
brief
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
185
1
any
automakers
on
the
concept
and
let
them
know
what
we're
2
doing.

3
Next.

4
­­
o0o­­

5
MR.
BROOKS:
This
is
why
they're
so
worried
about
6
it.
What
I
call
the
inductive
camp
dismisses
this.
What
7
I
call
the
inductive
system
is
a
vehicle­
to­
grid
disabler.

8
They
say
that
it's
compatible
with
vehicle­
to­
grid,
but
9
this
is
very
misleading.

10
The
current
designs
for
the
inductive
system
both
11
on
the
vehicle
side
and
on
the
infrastructure
side
are
12
inherently
incapable
of
bidirectional
power
flow.
By
13
contrast
all
of
the
existing
Level
2
infrastructure
­­

14
conductive
infrastructure
is
already
vehicle­
to­
grid
15
compatible
right
now
as
installed.

16
It
is
true
that
the
inductive
coupler
itself
is
17
capable
of
bidirectional
power
flow,
but
the
rest
of
the
18
system
isn't.
To
make
it
bidirectional
would
require
19
completely
different
designs
for
the
infrastructure
side
20
charging
equipment
and
the
vehicle
side
equipment.

21
The
vehicle
side
would
end
up
having
to
carry
22
around
something
of
similar
weight
and
complexity
as
the
23
current
off­
board
charger.

24
This
is
a
good
example
of
how
inductive
charging
25
is
hostile
to
new
technologies.
If
you
want
a
new
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
186
1
feature,
okay,
just
rip
out
and
replace
all
of
the
2
installed
charger
base.
This
is
what
happened
with
the
3
move
to
the
small
paddle,
thousands
of
old
style
large
4
paddle
chargers
became
obsolete.

5
­­
o0o­­

6
MR.
BROOKS:
To
sum
it
up,
press
on
with
7
selecting
on­
board
conductive
as
the
standard
charging
8
system.
We
don't
support
a
one­
year
delay
for
letting
a
9
consultant
make
the
decision.
CARB
staff
already
made
an
10
independent
professional
evaluation
and
we
support
that.

11
Let
the
technology
for
chargers
continue
to
12
develop,
but
keep
the
high
technology
on
the
vehicle
side
13
and
keep
the
infrastructure
side
simple
by
adopting
14
standards
that
require
the
minimum
possible
equipment
and
15
costs
to
safely
deliver
commodity
AC
electricity
to
the
16
vehicle.

17
The
inductive
system
is
inferior
in
many
ways,

18
including
cost
both
on
and
off
the
vehicle,
energy
19
efficiency,
robustness
and
vehicle­
to­
grid
compatibility.

20
Conductive
is
the
right
choice.

21
Thank
you
for
putting
up
with
my
speed.

22
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you,
Alec.
How
would
23
you
respond
to
the
comments
of
your
previous
employer?

24
MR.
BROOKS:
I
think
there's
no
need
to
say
that
25
you
have
to
­­
you
can
have
an
option
of
having
only
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
187
1
off­
board
DC.
There
is
no
reason
whatsoever
that
you
2
can't
make
a
vehicle
that
has
both
on­
board
conductive
and
3
off­
board
DC.
I
think
at
one
point
Ford
was
trying
to
do
4
that,
so
they
can
market
the
system
as
best
they
can.

5
Any
conductive
vehicle
manufacturer
could
choose
6
to
adopt
compatibility
with
that
system
and
they
chose
to.
7
I
think
the
point
that
all
vehicles
being
compatible
with
8
the
standard
level
infrastructure
is
an
important
one,
not
9
to
let
that
go.

10
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Mr.
McKinnon.

11
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Yeah,
I
kind
of
had
my
12
hand
raised
at
the
last
speaker
and
I'll
just
ask
you
a
13
follow
up
to
that
question.
What
would
it
cost
to
have
­­

14
what's
the
kind
of
cost
variable
to
have
the
capability
to
15
plug
in
to
­­
to
have
an
on­
board
charger
and
be
able
to
16
plug
in
to
say
a
fast
charger
like
AeroVironment
has?

17
MR.
BROOKS:
I
can
give
an
opinion
and
then
18
someone
from
Ford
can
also
talk.

19
Basically,
it
involves
installing
a
slightly
20
larger
or
high
capacity
charged
receptacle,
which
I
don't
21
think
is
a
big
cost,
and
putting
big
wires
from
the
22
receptacle
to
the
battery
pack
together
with
a
two
volt
23
contactor.
And
then
it
also
requires
a
fairly
significant
24
software
effort
to
talk
back
and
forth
to
the
charger.
I
25
think
the
software
effort
is
probably
the
most
expensive
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
188
1
part
of
the
whole
deal.

2
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
What's
your
value?
Do
3
you
value
the
idea
of
having
fast
charging?

4
MR.
BROOKS:
Yes,
within
limits.
I
think
one
5
thing
to
keep
in
mind
is
that
the
electricity
company
is
6
charging
for
capacity
about
$
10
a
month
per
kilowatt.
So
7
if
I
have
a
60­
kilowatt
charge
station
and
I
have
a
fixed
8
overhead
of
$
600
a
month
before
I
pump
any
electricity
at
9
all,
as
the
demand
charge.
And
also
a
lot
of
vehicles
may
10
start
tapering
that
power
because
of
battery
heating.
11
But
I
think
what
you'll
find
is
that
the
­­

12
there's
a
sweet
spot
that's
somewhere
between
Level
2
and
13
60
kilowatts.
At
AC
propulsion
we
have
chosen
20
14
kilowatts.
We
have
about
three
times
the
normal
rate
as
a
15
nice
good
compromise
that
allows
you
to
get
a
full
charge
16
for
most
vehicles
in
one
hour,
and
get
back
on
the
road.

17
To
do
much
higher
levels
may
or
may
not
be
cost
18
effective
from
the
infrastructure
side
or
the
vehicle
19
side.

20
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much,
Alec.

21
Does
staff
have
any
more
comments?

22
EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR
KENNY:
No.

23
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
will
now
close
the
record
24
on
this
agenda
item.
However,
the
record
will
be
reopened
25
when
the
15­
day
notice
of
public
availability
is
issued.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
189
1
Written
or
oral
comments
received
after
this
hearing
date
2
but
before
the
15­
day
notice
is
issued
will
not
be
3
accepted
as
part
of
the
official
record
on
this
agenda
4
item.
When
the
record
is
reopened
for
a
15­
day
comment
5
period,
the
public
may
submit
written
comments
on
the
6
proposed
changes,
which
will
be
considered
and
responded
7
to
in
the
final
statement
of
reasons
for
the
regulation.

8
Just
a
reminder
to
Board
members
about
our
policy
9
concerning
ex
parte
communications.
While
we
may
10
communicate
off
the
record
with
outside
persons
regarding
11
board
rulemaking,
we
must
disclose
the
names
of
our
12
contacts
and
the
nature
of
the
contents
on
the
record.

13
This
requirement
applies
specifically
to
communications
14
which
take
place
after
notice
of
the
Board
hearing
has
15
been
published.

16
I
will
start
off
with
a
communication
here
that
I
17
met
with
Nissan
and
GM
and
Toyota
on
June
the
12th
in
this
18
building.
We
discussed
the
effect
of
changing
to
19
conductive
charging
systems
and
the
advantage
of
inductive
20
charging
systems.
I
met
with
Mr.
Treebolt,
Mr.
McKeon
and
21
Mr.
Cassidy
from
Nissan,
Mr.
Nike
Sadam
and
Wolterman
from
22
Toyota
and
Mr.
Weverstad,
Ouwerkerk
and
Buttacadoli
from
23
General
Motors.

24
Any
other
board
members
starting
from
the
25
Supervisor?

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
190
1
BOARD
MEMBER
DeSAULNIER:
Nothing
within
the
2
timeframe,
Mr.
Chairman.

3
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
Yes.
Mr.
Chairman,
I
have
4
met
and
the
conversations
would
be
reflected
in
the
5
testimony
that
was
presented
today
and
the
written
6
comments.
I
have
Mr.
Lindstrom
Honda,
Mr.
Foster
from
7
AeroVironment,
Mr.
Franco,
Mr.
Rogers
from
EV1,
Mr
­­
I'll
8
just
spell
the
last
name,
X­
u
from
Ecostar,
Mr.
Fledgeon
9
from
Mazda,
Mr.
Brooks
from
AC
Propulsion,
Mr.
Cartwright
10
from
Avcon,
Mr.
Hosner
from
Litton,
and
Mr.
Riley
from
BAE
11
Systems.

12
I
also
met
with
people
from
the
Board,
Mr.
Brown,

13
Mr.
Bell,
Mr.
King,
Mr.
Phan,
Toepfer,
Arbuckle,
Stevens
14
and
Richards.

15
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.

16
Professor
Friedman.

17
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
I
was
also
present
18
at
the
June
12th
meeting
in
these
offices
with
the
Toyota
19
and
Nissan
and
GM
representatives
that
you
mentioned.

20
I
also
was
present
with
others
at
a
meeting
at
21
the
Ford
Think
facilities
in
Carlsbad
on
June
18th
for
22
much
of
the
day.
Present
were
from
Ford,
Kelly
Brown,
Mr.

23
Bell,
Ms.
King,
Mr.
Phan,
Mr.
Toepfer,
Mr.
Arbuckle,

24
Stevens
and
Richards.

25
And
also
people
from
EVC3.
There
were
among
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
191
1
others
Mr.
Lindstrom
from
Honda,
Mr.
Foster
from
2
AeroVironment
Inc,
Mr.
Franco
from
EV1
and
Mr.
Rogers
from
3
EV1,
Mr.
Jim
Jude
from
Ecostar,
Mr.
Fledgeon
from
Mazda,

4
Mr.
Brooks
from
AC
Propulsion
and
Mr.
Cartwright
from
5
Avcon,
and
Mr.
Hosner
from
Litton
and
Chris
Riley
from
BAE
6
Systems.
The
subject
was
the
same,
the
advantages
and
7
disadvantages
of
the
two
systems.

8
CHAIRPERSON
Lloyd:
Thank
you.

9
Ms.
D'Adamo.

10
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
Mr.
Chair,
I,
too,
was
11
present
at
Carlsbad
on
June
18th
at
the
meeting
and
met
12
with
all
of
the
individuals
that
Professor
Friedman
just
13
listed.
In
addition,
on
June
12th
in
Modesto,
I
met
with
14
representatives
­­
the
following
representatives
from
15
Nissan,
Mr.
Cheeba,
Mr.
McKino
Mr.
Cassidy.
From
Toyota,

16
Mr.
Naiki,
I'll
spell
it
N­
a­
i­
k­
i,
Mr.
Asada,
Mr.

17
Wolterman.
And
from
GM
Mr.
Weverstad,
Mr.
Ouwerkerk,

18
O­
u­
w­
e­
r­
k­
e­
r­
k,
and
Mr.
Buttacadoli,

19
B­
u­
t­
t­
a­
c­
a­
d­
o­
l­
i.

20
The
subjects
discussed
at
both
meetings
were
21
similar
to
the
testimony
presented
by
these
individuals
22
today.
23
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Mr.
McKinnon.

24
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
I
was
at
exactly
the
same
25
meetings
as
Professor
Friedman
on
June
12th
and
on
June
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
192
1
18th,
with
exactly
the
same
people
present,
and
all
the
2
subjects
that
were
discussed
at
those
two
meetings
have
3
been
thoroughly
discussed
at
this
meeting.

4
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much,
Mr.

5
McKinnon.

6
What
I'd
like
to
do
at
this
stage
is
have
board
7
discussion
to
consider
this
in
two
parts
as
the
staff
8
presentation
was.
The
first
part
on
majority­
owned,

9
small/
intermediate
volume
manufacturers.
Any
comments
10
from
the
Board
on
this
or
deliberations.

11
Supervisor
DeSaulnier.

12
BOARD
MEMBER
DeSAULNIER:
Mr.
Chairman,
going
13
back
to
our
brief
discussion
hours
ago,
I
would
be
14
inclined
to
think
that
I'd
like
to
see
this
rule
modified
15
just
so
that
we
either
do
it
prospectively
or
we
extend
16
the
period
out,
in
order
to
really
ensure
that
those
17
companies
that
are
making
the
investment
are
doing
some
18
positive
things,
don't
become
disincentivized.

19
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
I
would
agree
with
that,

20
Mr.
Chairman.
I
would
like
to
encourage
staff
to
work
21
through
this
issue
and
try
to
be
helpful.

22
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Board
members,
do
you
have
a
23
suggested
date
here
at
all
if
we
extend
it
out?

24
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
KENNY:
If
I
might
make
a
25
suggestion.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
193
1
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Mr.
Kenny.

2
EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR
KENNY:
Yes.
One
thing
that
3
might
be
worth
considering
would
be
essentially
to
extend
4
out
the
date
to
2010,
but
at
the
same
time
to
also
then
5
reflect
in
the
regulation
that
any
future
acquisitions
6
that
are
made
by
one
of
the
big
companies
which
is
subject
7
to
the
ZEV
requirement,
it
would
be
subject
to
a
8
specified
­­
essentially
would
be
­­
any
future
9
acquisitions
that
would
be
made
would
essentially
be
10
subject
to
the
50
percent
level
that
we
had
proposed
to
11
you
today.
And
that
that
would
be
in
place
essentially
12
no
­­
any
company
that
did
that
would
get
a
set
amount
of
13
time,
except
in
fact
they
would
have
the
ability
to
sort
14
of
make
plans
and
to
then
adjust
before
they
had
to
15
actually
comply.

16
And
since
we
would
be
talking
about
moving
this
17
out
to
2010
to
address
the
Board
issue
that
has
been
18
raised
today,
we
should
look
at
the
same
level
of
equity
19
regarding
any
future
acquisitions
that
might
occur
with
20
other
companies,
but
then
we
would
try
to
identify
a
21
specified
period
of
time,
for
example,
four
years
of
lead
22
time,
but
not
less
than
maybe
six
years
in
the
event
that
23
someone
didn't
today,
something
like
that.
We
would
put
24
that
out
for
a
15­
day
comment.

25
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
That
would
be
good.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
194
1
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
Yes,
I
think
that
sounds
2
very
helpful.
3
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Any
comments
from
my
4
colleagues
on
the
right?

5
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
I
think
that
would
6
work.

7
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Mr.
McKinnon.

8
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Sounds
like
a
great
9
solution
to
me.

10
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
think
you
heard
the
11
sympathy
from
the
Board
to
this
particular
case,
but
we
12
also
recognize
that
it
should
be
looked
at
as
a
specific
13
case
here.

14
EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR
KENNY:
All
right.

15
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
So
when
we
come
to
the
16
resolution
then
we
can
reflect
that.
Now,
the
next
part
17
of
it
in
terms
of
the
infrastructure
standardization,
I'm
18
hoping
for
suggestions
from
my
colleagues
here.

19
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
Do
you
want
to
­­

20
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Don't
all
speak
at
once.

21
(
Laughter.)

22
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
Well,
I
have
one
issue
23
that
I
think
that
­­
and
I
may
come
back
to
it.
I
wanted
24
to
hear
from
some
of
the
other
board
members
as
well
on
25
this
and
other
issues.
But
on
the
transition
period,
I
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
195
1
know
Mr.
Kenny
made
some
suggestions
earlier.
I
would
2
feel
most
comfortable
if
we
could
include
a
provision
in
3
the
resolution
that
would
address
the
transition
area
4
period
in
terms
of
public
infrastructure
and
individual
5
owners.

6
I
think
probably
all
of
us
here
today
have
a
7
concern
that
we
don't
want
to
see
anyone
stuck,
in
8
particular
with
cars
that
aren't
even
purchased
or
leased
9
yet.
It
would
be
very
harmful
to
the
overall
cause,
if
10
individuals
do
feel
that
we
could
somehow
address
this
11
issue
and
just
left
them
out
there
on
their
own.

12
And
I
would
encourage
that
staff
come
back
with
13
recommendations
on
the
subsidy
program.
I
really
would
be
14
willing
to
consider
quite
a
high
subsidy
in
the
event
that
15
we
need
to
­­
we
were
just
talking
about
relatively
few
of
16
the
individuals,
so
I
think
we
need
more
information
on
17
that.

18
EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR
KENNY:
We'd
be
happy
to
do
19
all
those
things.
I
think
the
issue
with
regard
to
the
20
transition
is
a
very
legitimate
one.
And
I
do
think
we
21
want
to
approach
this
with
the
idea
of
being
that
we
do
22
not
strand
investments
or
owners
and
that
we
continue
to
23
incentivize
purchases
and
not
disincentivize
anyone.

24
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Yeah.
Again,
where
I'm
25
coming
down
here,
it's
a
tough
item.
The
issue
of
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
196
1
standardization,
I
think,
is
very
important,
because
as
we
2
heard
at
both
the
September
and
the
January
hearing,

3
consumer
acceptance
is
going
to
be
very
important,
and
I
4
think
we
were
asked
by
the
auto
manufacturers
to
help
5
actually
get
vehicles
into
the
marketplace.

6
So
I
think
standardization
of
the
charging
system
7
is
important.
Other
choices,
you
know,
what
do
we
do,

8
what
do
we
utilize
there?
I've
gone
round
and
round
on
9
this
depending
on
the
presentations
and
whatnot
and
so
it
10
is
a
tough
issue.
11
But
today,
I
think
I
heard
some
additional
12
information
I
haven't
heard
before,
particularly
on
the
13
Codes
and
Standards
issue
of
how
much
has
gone
on
in
that
14
arena.
I
heard
some
additional
work
in
terms
of
the
pros
15
and
the
cons.
And
I
think,
on
balance,
I
feel
that
the
16
staff
recommendation
here
is
the
one
to
move
ahead
on,

17
particularly
if
we
look
at
the
flexibility
of
the
program
18
as
we
look
ahead.

19
So
that's
where
I
feel
that
­­
I
would
also
agree
20
with
Didi,
there
is
a
concern
about
future
vehicles
­­

21
well,
current
vehicles,
what
do
we
do
there,
so
that
we
22
don't
discourage
them.
You've
heard
some
of
the
testimony
23
from
the
drivers.
We
heard
testimony
from
the
drivers
24
both
ways,
go
with
inductive,
go
with
conductive,
which
25
means
that,
again,
there's
not
a
real
bias
there.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
197
1
I'm
pleased
to
see
some
of
the
material
2
improvement
in
the
conductive
system
as
well.

3
Professor
Friedman.

4
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Well,
I
gather
that
5
even
before
I
joined
the
Board
efforts
were
under
way
to
6
get
the
industry
to
develop,
by
consensus,
a
single
7
standard.
I'm
sure
there
were
efforts
in
that
direction.

8
I
know
the
staff
provided
great
impetus.
But
unlike
­­

9
and
I
also
was
hoping
the
market
would
take
care
of
it
and
10
some
day
it
might,
although
I
don't
know.

11
But
unlike
the
Beta
and
the
VHS
where
everybody
12
wanted
to
get
a
piece
of
this
equipment,
that
it
was
going
13
to
be
so
great
in
the
house
and
in
the
den,
and
that
the
14
cost
is
even
then
relatively
small,
and
the
market
did
15
eventually
decide
that.

16
But
here
we've
been
told
all
along
that
the
big
17
impediment
to
the
EV
is
market
acceptance,
public
18
acceptance.
And
it
seems
clearly
to
me
that
as
long
as
19
there's
a
duel
standard
and
people
are
uncertain
as
to
20
what's
going
to
shake
out
and
whether
they
will
be
21
stranded,
that's
an
influencing
factor,
along
with
the
22
other
potential
advantages
or
disadvantages
of
one
method
23
of
charging
over
the
other,
particularly
cost,
and
I've
24
heard
information
about
that
today.

25
So
it
falls
on
us,
I
think,
to
try
and
make
a
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
198
1
solemn
choice.
Unfortunately,
we
can't
split
a
vote,

2
unless
we
want
to
leave
things
as
they
are.

3
I
think
that
if
we
do
whatever
we
can
4
legitimately
and
reasonably
to
protect
those
who
have
5
already
made
the
investment,
who
have
the
vehicles
and
6
those
who
are
the
big
and
small
manufacturers
who
have
7
made
the
investment
and
are
making
the
inductive
system,

8
then
we
will
have
done
as
much
as
we
can
do,
and
I
do
9
think
that
we
need
to
make
the
choice
and
we
need
to
do
it
10
soon.

11
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
The
other
part
I
would
add
12
there,
I
would
like
staff
to
try
to
work
with
13
AeroVironment.
They've
been
one
of
the
pioneers,

14
obviously,
in
the
electric
vehicle
business,
and
I
think
15
that
Dr.
MacCready
has
been
one
of
the
real
pioneers
in
16
advancing
technologies
to
see
what
we
can
do,
how
we
can
17
work
with
the
system
here
or
how
we
can
look
forward
and
18
that's
an
important
part
in
this
small
business
there,
how
19
we
can
move
ahead.

20
Small
business,
of
course,
maybe
they're
still
21
partly
owned
by
General
Motors,
but
they're
still,
I
22
think,
the
type
of
company
we
don't
want
to
penalize
for
23
all
their
efforts
here.

24
Any
comments?

25
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
Mr.
Chairman,
I
certainly
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
199
1
agree
with
many
of
the
thoughts
that
have
been
advanced.

2
We've
got
to
deal
with
the
transition
period
and
I'm
very
3
comfortable
with
the
staff
recommendations
that
have
been
4
made.
We
really
did
want
this
to
be
resolved
and
not
5
necessarily
have
to
come
back
to
this
Board,
but
clearly
6
it
wasn't
resolved
and
so
we
do
have
to
take
a
step
today,

7
which
resolves
it,
and
I'm
comfortable
with
the
staff
8
recommendation
and
then
the
earlier
recommendation
for
how
9
to
deal
with
the
acquisitions
of
some
of
the
larger
10
automobile
companies.
And
I
think
Mr.
Kenny
came
up
with
11
probably
a
very
good
compromise,
that
makes
it
all
work
12
for
everybody.

13
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Supervisor
DeSaulnier.

14
BOARD
MEMBER
DeSAULNIER:
I'll
just
add
that
15
although
I
didn't
have
any
ex
parte
communications
to
16
report,
I
did
have
discussions
outside
the
timeframe,

17
because
the
chairman
knows
that
I
was
in
Japan.
And
I'm
18
not
without
sympathy
because
of
those
discussions
of
the
19
testimony
here,
and
it's
a
difficult
decision
as
my
20
colleagues
have
said,
but
I
think
staff
has
done
a
good
21
job
at
presenting
a
recommendation
that
ultimately
will
22
lead
to
greater
success
for
the
whole
program.
23
So
I'd
be
supportive
for
a
motion
at
the
24
appropriate
time
to
support
staff's
recommendations
with
25
Didi's
comments
in
terms
of
the
transition.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
200
1
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
think
we'd
all
agree
given
2
what
we
went
through
in
September
and
January,
if
in
fact
3
the
free
market
had
taken
it
out
of
our
hands,
but
it
4
doesn't
seem
to
wait.
It's
moving
in
that
direction.

5
So,
again,
we're
called
upon
to
exercise
some
6
judgment
here.
And
I'm
also
comfortable
by
the
fact
that
7
it
doesn't
apply
to
2006,
so
if
anything
catastrophic
8
occurs
in
the
next
year
or
so
we
still
have
time
to
change
9
or
do
whatever.

10
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
I'm
sorry.
I
want
11
to
add
a
couple
more
comments.
I
have
fought
hard
and
12
long
about
the
alternative
recommendation
that
we
wait
a
13
year
and/
or
try
and
identify
some
independent
experts
to
14
whom
we
could
throw
this
question
and
ask
them
to
make
a
15
recommendation.

16
I
don't
know.
I
just
can't
see
that
waiting
a
17
year
is
going
to
do
anything
other
than
make
it
worse,
or
18
at
least
I
don't
see
that
it
will
improve
anything
other
19
than
to
find
another
group
of
so­
called
independents
to
20
come
up
and
make
the
hard
choice,
or
at
least
help
us
make
21
the
hard
choice.

22
But
on
reflection,
I
think
our
staff
has
done
an
23
excellent
job.
As
far
as
I
can
tell,
they've
been
24
unbiased.
They've
been
thorough,
thoughtful.
We've
taken
25
all
the
input.
They've
had
all
the
hearings
and
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
201
1
workshops.
And
I
think
they're
as
independent
as
we're
2
likely
to
get,
if
we
could
identify
those
independents
out
3
there.

4
So
while
I
thought
long
and
hard
about
it,
I
just
5
don't
feel
that
that
is
particularly
viable.

6
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
concur
on
that.
I
think
7
the
big
problem
that
I
have
is
how
do
you
get
an
8
independent,
impartial
group
and
how
long
will
it
take
to
9
do
that?
I've
been
reminded
by
recent
actions
by
the
10
President
asking
the
National
Academy
for
their
views
on
11
global
climate
change.
Well,
it
came
back
with
what
12
everybody
was
saying.

13
So
I
think
that
from
the
objective
perspective
we
14
are
not
sure
we
can
do
anything
about
that
with
staff.

15
And
again,
I
think
we've
scoured
the
world
in
those
areas.

16
Again,
I
appreciate
the
sentiments
of
all
the
people
17
testifying
on
the
industry
side
both
ways.
I
think
there
18
was
genuine
concession
about
the
relative
merits
of
each
19
system.

20
Although,
I
must
say
on
the
standard's
side,
I
21
thought
that
when
we
had
that
testimony
about
what's
22
happening
internationally,
that
gave
me
some
comfort
that
23
maybe
things
were
further
along
than
I
thought.

24
Mr.
McKinnon.

25
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
I
think
it's
really
too
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
202
1
bad
that
we
had
to
be
the
ones
to
make
this
decision.
2
That's
kind
of
my
starting
point.
Although
I've
been
3
watching
the
development
of
this
data
for
ten
years
now,

4
and
certainly
the
discussion
about
standardization
has
5
been
going
at
least
four
years.
And
I
have
a
recollection
6
of
it
being
brought
up
even
before
that.
I
haven't
been
7
on
this
Board
that
long,
but
I've
certainly
been
8
interested
in
this
issue
for
a
decade.

9
I
wish
folks
had
gotten
together
and
figured
this
10
out
together.
And
maybe
we'll
do
better
at
the
next
11
pieces
of
it.
I
mean,
there's
communication
standards,

12
you
know,
there's
things
that
are
going
to
happen
as
third
13
parties
begin
to
develop
charging
stations
at
the
14
Starbucks
or
whatever
the
infrastructure
form
takes
now.

15
There's
going
to
be
conversations
about
how
the
16
communications
are
done,
how
you
sell
back
the
energy,
how
17
it's
accounted
for,
all
sorts
of
things.
And
hopefully
18
folks
will
get
together
and
try
to
figure
out
how
to
19
standardize
those
things.

20
I
think
we're
not
the
best
to
do
that,
but
I
21
think
we've
been
given
little
choice.
I
think
if
we
wait
22
around,
we
force
a
situation
where
we
delay
the
ZEV
23
Program,
which
may
be
some
people's
intention
in
this.
I
24
wouldn't
put
that
out
of
the
realm
of
possibility,
maybe
25
delays
it,
or
maybe
sets
up
the
situation
where
we
have
a
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
203
1
lot
more
people
with
cars
that
lose
their
value
because
2
they
don't
have
a
way
to
charge
them.

3
So
I
don't
see
that
we
have
a
lot
of
choice.
I
4
think
we
need
to
make
this
decision,
and
I
think
that
what
5
would
be
best
from
here
on
for
this
kind
of
thing
is
for
6
the
industry
to
try
to
figure
out
how
to
move
forward
7
without
putting
us
in
this
spot
to
make
this
decision.

8
And
I
would
think
that
folks
ought
to
be
working
9
on
the
international
standards,
and,
you
know,
moving
10
forward.
And
the
SAE
Committee,
you
know,
reporting
that
11
we've
been
meeting.
And
it's
voluntary
and
certainly
12
shouldn't
wait
on
us.
If
the
industry
can
put
it
13
together,
the
industry
ought
to
put
it
together.

14
Thanks.
I'm
going
to
support.

15
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
So
do
we
have
a
motion?

16
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
I'll
move
it.

17
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
Second.

18
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Okay,
so
we're
including
both
19
of
those
items
there
as
reflected
in
our
discussion
up
20
here.

21
All
in
favor
say
aye?

22
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Opposed?

23
Thank
you.
And
thank
you
very
much
staff
and
24
thank
you
participants.

25
We're
going
to
take
a
15
minute
break,
before
we
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
204
1
address
the
next
item,
which
would
be
the
particulate
2
matter
and
health
effects.

3
Some
of
the
Board
members
haven't
had
lunch
yet,

4
some
of
the
people
haven't
had
it,
and
the
court
reporter
5
really
needs
a
break.

6
So
we'll
commence
at
2:
15.

7
(
Thereupon
a
brief
recess
was
taken.)

8
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Where
is
our
legal
staff,
do
9
we
need
a
court
reporter?
10
Or
can
somebody
take
it
in
longhand?

11
We're
going
to
take
up
the
item
here
on
item
12
01­
5­
6,
three
research
proposals.
Thank
you
staff
for
not
13
saying
anything.
We'll
move
ahead
to
the
Board
discussion
14
here,
I
think.

15
The
Board
members
have
had
an
opportunity
to
16
review
these
proposals?

17
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
Yes.

18
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Are
there
any
additional
19
concerns
or
comments
by
the
Board?

20
BOARD
MEMBER
HUGH
FRIEDMAN:
I
move
approval
of
21
the
proposals
as
presented.

22
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
I
will
second
the
motion.

23
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
All
in
favor
say
aye?

24
(
Ayes.)

25
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Approved
unanimously.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
205
1
Thank
you.

2
We've
been
briefed
on
these
research
proposals,

3
so
with
that
we
will
now
take
a
15
minute
break
and
then
4
come
back,
so
we
can
eat.
And
the
court
reporter
must
5
come
back
there.

6
So
at
least
this
doesn't
hold
you
up,
Bart,
now
7
for
contracts.
It
would
have
been
a
problem,
I
realize.

8
So
next
time
we'll
put
the
research
proposals
at
9
the
front
then.

10
Dan,
this
isn't
the
way
we
typically
approve
11
research
by
the
way.
This
is
showing
complete
faith
in
12
Bart
here.

13
(
Thereupon
a
lunch
recess
was
taken.)
14
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I'd
like
to
reconvene
the
15
Board
meeting.

16
The
next
item
on
the
agenda
today
is
01­
5­
2,

17
Public
Meeting
to
Consider
an
Informational
Item
on
the
18
Health
Effects
of
Particulate
Matter
and
the
Status
of
Air
19
Quality
Standards
for
Particulate
Matter.

20
The
Children's
Environmental
Health
Protection
21
Act,
SB
25
offered
by
Senator
Martha
Escutia
in
1999,

22
requires
the
Board
in
consultation
with
the
Office
of
23
Environmental
Health
Hazard
Assessment
to
reduce
24
California's
current
ambient
air
quality
standards
for
the
25
adequacy
of
health
protection,
especially
for
infants
and
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
206
1
children.

2
The
outcome
of
that
evaluation
discussed
at
the
3
December
7th,
2000
board
meeting
was
that
particulate
4
matter
was
identified
as
being
one
of
the
three
standards
5
that
may
be
inadequate
to
protect
public
health.
The
6
particulate
matter
standard
was
assigned
the
highest
7
priority
for
review
and
revision.

8
We
also
determined
that
the
health
effects
of
9
particulate
matter
are
significant
enough
for
us
to
10
accelerate
this
review.
Today,
staff
from
the
Board
and
11
the
Office
of
Environmental
Health
Hazard
Assessment
will
12
update
the
Board
on
issues
involved
in
the
standard
13
review.

14
At
this
point
I
would
like
to
ask
Mr.
Kenny
to
15
introduce
the
item
and
begin
the
staff
presentation.

16
EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR
KENNY:
Thank
you
Dr.
Lloyd
17
and
Members
of
the
Board.
As
you
stated,
Dr.
Lloyd,
the
18
first
standard
to
be
reviewed
under
the
Children's
Health
19
Protection
Act
is
particulate
matter.

20
As
a
result
of
our
preliminary
evaluation
of
the
21
health
based
standards
under
this
Act,
we
will
be
22
reviewing
a
number
of
standards
over
the
next
several
23
years.
Since
it
has
been
some
time
since
the
Board
24
adopted
ambient
air
quality
standards,
I
asked
staff
to
25
provide
you
with
an
overview
of
the
standard­
setting
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
207
1
process
and
the
issues
involved
with
the
particulate
2
matter
standard.

3
A
standard
is
adopted
in
consideration
of
the
4
public
health,
safety
and
welfare.
Thus,
the
philosophy
5
behind
this
standard
is
that
it
represents
the
definition
6
of
clean
air
for
particular
pollutants.
The
7
standard­
setting
process
does
not
address
issues
beyond
8
health
and
welfare,
such
as
control
measures
and
the
costs
9
and
feasibility
or
their
environmental
and
economic
10
impacts.

11
Currently,
we
have
three
standards
to
protect
12
Californians
from
the
health
impacts
of
exposure
to
13
particulate
matter.
These
are
a
24­
hour
standard
for
PM
14
10
and
the
annual
average
PM
10
standard
and
a
sulfate
15
standard
measured
as
total
suspended
particulates.

16
Dr.
Deborah
Drechsler
from
the
Health
and
17
Exposure
Assessment
Branch
and
Dr.
Michael
Lipsett
from
18
the
Office
of
Environmental
Health
Hazard
Assessment
will
19
make
the
staff
presentation.
Dr.
Daniel
Greenbaum
from
20
the
Health
Effects
Institute
will
discuss
important
21
results
from
the
recent
national
studies.
22
Dr.
Drechsler.

23
(
Thereupon
an
overhead
presentation
was
24
presented
as
follows.)

25
DR.
DRECHSLER:
Thank
you,
Mr.
Kenny.
Good
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
208
1
afternoon,
Dr.
Lloyd
and
members
of
the
Board.

2
The
ARB
in
consultation
with
the
Office
of
3
Environmental
Health
Hazard
Assessment
is
currently
4
reviewing
the
California
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
for
5
Particulate
Matter
and
Sulfates.

6
Since
many
of
you
have
joined
the
Board
since
it
7
last
considered
the
ambient
air
quality
standard,
our
8
presentation
today
is
designed
to
inform
you
of
the
many
9
complex
issues
staff
will
be
considering
during
the
10
review.

11
Although
the
issues
relating
to
particulate
12
matter
exposure
and
health
effects
can
be
fairly
complex,

13
let
me
emphasize
that
the
health
effects
due
to
exposure
14
to
particulate
matter
are
significant.
The
body
of
15
evidence
associating
exposure
to
particulate
matter
were
16
premature
death
and
cardio­
respiratory
diseases,
including
17
asthma,
bronchitis
and
cardiac
problems
is
substantial.

18
Elevated
concentrations
of
particulate
matter
also
reduce
19
visibility.

20
­­
o0o­­

21
DR.
DRECHSLER:
Our
presentation
today
will
cover
22
the
following
topics:
I
will
present
an
overview
of
the
23
standard
setting
process
and
review
schedule.
I
will
also
24
discuss
the
nature
of
particulate
matter
exposure
and
what
25
makes
it
more
complex
than
all
other
air
pollutants.
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
209
1
Following
my
presentation
today
we'll
be
having
2
Dr.
Bart
Ostro
rather
than
Dr.
Michael
Lipsett
from
the
3
Office
of
Environmental
Health
Hazard
Assessment
give
you
4
an
overview
of
the
latest
scientific
information
on
the
5
adverse
health
effects
of
particulate
matter
and
sulfates.

6
Finally,
Daniel
Greenbaum,
President
of
the
7
Health
Effects
Institute,
will
discuss
several
Health
8
Effects
Institute
funded
epidemiology
studies
that
are
9
relevant
to
the
particulate
matter
standards
reviewed.
We
10
will
also
discuss
emerging
research
and
particulate
matter
11
size
composition
and
effects.

12
So
what
is
an
ambient
air
quality
standard?

13
­­
o0o­­

14
DR.
DRECHSLER:
An
ambient
air
quality
standard
15
is
the
legal
definition
of
clean
air.
Under
California
16
law
standards
are
based
solely
on
health
and
welfare
17
considerations.
Costs
and
feasibility
are
not
factors
in
18
setting
ambient
air
quality
standards.
They
play
a
role
19
only
when
specific
control
and
implementation
measures
are
20
proposed
for
adoption.

21
­­
o0o­­

22
DR.
DRECHSLER:
The
Board's
efforts,
including
23
particular
pollutant
monitoring,
emissions
inventory
24
development,
air
quality
modeling,
and
control
strategies
25
development
are
directed
toward
achieving
clean
air
in
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
210
1
California.
Ambient
air
quality
standards
form
the
2
foundation
of
the
ARB's
programs
to
achieve
clean
air
for
3
all
Californians.

4
­­
o0o­­

5
DR.
DRECHSLER:
The
Federal
Clean
Air
Act,
which
6
authorizes
the
US
EPA
to
set
national
ambient
air
quality
7
standards,
also
permits
states
to
adopt
additional
or
more
8
protective
State
standards.
California
has
exercised
this
9
right
by
authorizing
the
Air
Resources
Board
to
set
10
California
specific
ambient
air
quality
standards
for
a
11
variety
of
air
pollutants,
including
particulate
matter
12
and
sulfates.

13
The
Board
has
been
concerned
about
the
health
14
effects
of
particulate
matter
for
many
years.
The
15
original
particulate
matter
standard
was
based
on
total
16
suspended
particulates.
In
1982
the
Board
set
current
17
California
ambient
air
quality
standards
for
particulate
18
matter,
based
on
the
mass
of
particulate
matter
ten
19
microns
or
less
in
aerodynamic
diameter
for
PM
10
at
a
20
level
that
is
more
protective
of
public
health
than
the
21
national
ambient
air
quality
standard
for
PM
10,
which
is
22
currently
in
effect.

23
The
US
EPA
has
never
set
a
separate
standard
for
24
sulfates,
although
California
did
so
in
1977.
The
25
California
Health
and
Safety
Code
specifies
that
an
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
211
1
ambient
air
quality
standard
has
four
elements,
definition
2
of
the
pollutant,
in
this
case
particulate
matter
and
3
sulfates.
It
also
includes
an
averaging
time,
for
4
example,
24
hours
concentration
to
be
achieved
and
5
specification
for
monitoring
to
determine
attainment.
6
­­
o0o­­

7
DR.
DRECHSLER:
The
current
California
ambient
8
air
quality
standard
for
particulate
matter,
as
I
9
mentioned,
is
based
on
the
mass
of
ambient
particles
ten
10
microns
or
less
in
aerodynamic
diameter
for
PM
10.
The
11
standard
was
based
on
PM
10
because
particulate
matter
ten
12
microns
or
less
in
diameter
is
inhalable
and
can
penetrate
13
deep
into
the
lungs.

14
California
has
two
standards
for
PM
10,
an
annual
15
average
of
30
micrograms
per
cubic
meter,
which
protects
16
against
long­
term
health
effects,
and
a
24­
hour
average
of
17
50
micrograms
per
cubic
meter,
which
protects
against
18
short­
term
health
effects.

19
The
current
sulfates
standard
is
a
24­
hour
20
average
of
25
micrograms
per
cubic
meter.
You've
probably
21
heard
that
US
EPA
is
also
in
the
process
of
reviewing
22
their
ambient
air
quality
standards
for
particulate
23
matter.
They
expect
to
promulgate
new
particulate
matter
24
standards
in
2003.

25
Next,
we
will
be
looking
at
several
questions,

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
212
1
including
what
particulate
matter
is,
how
small
it
is
and
2
where
it
comes
from.

3
­­
o0o­­

4
DR.
DRECHSLER:
So
what
is
particulate
matter?

5
It
is
a
complex
mixture
composed
of
small
droplets
of
6
liquid,
dry
solid
granules
and
solid
cores
with
liquid
7
coatings.
Particles
vary
widely
in
size,
shape
and
8
chemical
composition,
and
arise
from
many
sources.
As
you
9
can
see
from
the
slide,
particulate
matter
is
not
a
single
10
chemical
entity
like,
for
example,
ozone.

11
It
includes
many
chemical
species
that
arise
from
12
a
wide
variety
of
sources.
A
few
examples
are
metals,

13
nitrates,
soil
and
carbon.
Also
known
dead
sulfates
are
a
14
subtraction
of
particulate
matter.
PM
10
can
also
be
15
divided
into
several
size
fractions.

16
­­
o0o­­

17
DR.
DRECHSLER:
The
first
particles
are
between
18
2.5
and
10
microns
in
diameter
and
arise
primarily
from
19
natural
processes.
Particles
less
than
2.5
microns
in
20
diameter
arise
primarily
from
combustion
processes.

21
Several
examples
of
substances
found
in
each
22
category
are
shown
on
the
slide.
Particles
less
than
0.1
23
micron
in
diameter
are
referred
to
as
ultra
fine
24
particles.
These
are
freshly
omitted
from
combustion
25
sources.
They
have
almost
no
mass,
but
the
absolute
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
213
1
number
of
particles
in
this
size
category
is
very
large.

2
This
represents
a
new
and
growing
area
of
3
research.
Adverse
health
effects
have
been
associated
4
with
all
inhalable
particles,
PM
10,
as
well
as
PM
2.5,

5
and
ultrafine
subfractions
of
PM
10.

6
The
potential
for
particulate
matter
to
induce
7
health
effects
is
related
to
particle
size.
Particles
ten
8
microns
or
less
in
aerodynamic
diameter
can
be
inhaled
9
deep
into
the
lungs
where
they
can
induce
tissue
damage
10
and
various
adverse
health
effects.
Particles
larger
than
11
ten
microns
in
diameter
are
generally
filtered
out
in
the
12
nasal
passages
and
do
not
enter
the
lungs
to
any
great
13
extent.
To
give
you
a
perspective
on
how
small
these
14
particles
are,
the
left
side
of
the
slide
shows
an
15
electron
micrograph
of
a
human
hair.

16
On
the
right
is
a
representation
of
the
cross
17
section
of
the
hair
compared
with
2
partials,
one
a
ten
18
micron
particle
and
the
other
a
2.5
micron
particle.

19
As
I
mentioned
earlier,
the
current
California
20
ambient
air
quality
standard
for
particulate
matter
is
21
based
on
measurement
of
the
mass
of
the
particles
that
are
22
ten
microns
or
less
in
aerodynamic
diameter.
So
you
can
23
see
that
PM
10
includes
the
2.5
micron
particle.

24
­­
o0o­­

25
DR.
DRECHSLER:
We
often
also
hear
reference
to
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
214
1
PM
2.5.
This
is
particulate
matter
with
an
aerodynamic
2
diameter
of
2.5
microns
or
less.
If
we
measure
the
3
concentration
of
PM
2.5
in
the
air,
we
measure
only
the
4
particles
that
are
2.5
microns
or
less
in
diameter
and
5
omit
all
those
larger
than
2.5
microns
in
diameter.
Thus
6
PM
2.5
is
a
subset
of
PM
10.

7
­­
o0o­­

8
DR.
DRECHSLER:
Particulate
matter
comes
from
9
many
sources,
some
of
which
are
illustrated
on
this
slide.

10
Some
particles
are
directly
emitted
from
sources
such
as
11
road
dust
and
combustion
related
processes
like
motor
12
vehicles
or
fireplaces.

13
Still
other
particles,
such
as
nitrates
and
14
sulfates
form
in
the
atmosphere
from
chemical
reactions
15
resulting
in
gas
to
particle
conversion.

16
­­
o0o­­

17
DR.
DRECHSLER:
You
may
be
wondering
how
much
18
particulate
matter
we
are
exposed
to
in
California.

19
Exposure
to
concentrations
of
particulate
air
pollution
20
greater
than
the
State
standard
is
ubiquitous
throughout
21
California.

22
This
map
shows
the
current
area
designations
with
23
reference
to
the
24­
hour
California
ambient
air
quality
24
standard
for
PM
10.
As
you
can
see,
with
the
exception
of
25
a
few
sparsely
populated
mountain
areas
that
are
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
215
1
unclassified
due
to
inadequate
air
quality
monitoring
2
data,
only
Lake
County
is
in
attainment
with
the
current
3
standard.

4
The
frequency
of
the
24­
hour
standard
exceedances
5
in
1998
range
from
0
to
264
days,
and
in
1999
from
0
to
6
306
days
depending
on
the
air
basin.
This
means
that
most
7
Californian
citizens
are
exposed
to
PM
10
polluted
air
on
8
a
few
to
many
days
per
year.
On
the
other
hand,
the
9
entire
state
is
attainment
for
the
sulfate
standard.

10
Ultimately,
the
particulate
matter
standards
11
review
process
necessitates
making
a
number
of
decisions.

12
ARB
and
OEHHA
staff
are
studying
the
scientific
literature
13
to
determine
what
particulate
matter
size,
averaging
times
14
and
concentrations
are
the
most
appropriate
to
ensure
15
protection
of
the
health
of
all
of
California's
citizens.

16
We
are
also
reviewing
and
evaluating
the
17
scientific
literature
to
determine
whether
the
separate
18
sulfate
standard
is
still
needed.

19
The
monitoring
method
is
also
required
with
the
20
standard.
Currently,
particulate
matter
and
sulfates
are
21
monitored
with
24­
hour
filter
based
particle
sampling
22
methods
that
are
typically
operated
every
6th
day.
These
23
methods
are
not
readily
amenable
to
short­
term
averaging
24
for
example
for
times
less
than
24
hours.
Also,
the
25
one­
out­
of­
six­
day
monitoring
schedule
does
not
adequately
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
216
1
characterize
exposure.

2
The
monitoring
and
laboratory
division
is
3
currently
evaluating
several
new
continuous
methods
to
4
determine
what
monitoring
strategy
will
be
most
useful.

5
Use
of
these
new
methods
will
allow
multiple
averaging
6
times,
both
long
and
short
term
from
the
output
of
a
7
single
analyzer.

8
­­
o0o­­

9
DR.
DRECHSLER:
As
you
have
seen,
promulgation
of
10
an
ambient
air
quality
standard
involves
several
steps
11
with
contributions
from
staff,
from
ARB
and
OEHHA,
the
12
public,
the
Board
and
others.

13
The
standards
promulgation
process
begins
with
14
the
draft
report
prepared
by
staff
from
OEHHA
and
ARB
that
15
is
released
for
public
review
and
comment.
We
are
16
anticipating
the
release
of
the
first
public
review
draft
17
of
the
staff
report
in
late
September
of
this
year.
This
18
will
be
followed
by
a
public
comment
period
and
several
19
public
workshops.

20
The
report
will
also
undergo
peer
review
by
the
21
Air
Quality
Advisory
Committee,
which
is
OEHHA's
outside
22
peer
review
panel,
at
a
public
meeting
in
November.

23
ARB
and
OEHHA
staff
will
then
revise
the
draft
24
report
to
incorporate
the
comments
of
the
public
and
the
25
Air
Quality
Advisory
Committee
and
re­
release
it
for
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
217
1
further
public
comment
in
early
March
2002.

2
We
expect
to
bring
you
our
recommendations
for
3
the
particulate
matter
and
sulfate
standards
at
the
April
4
2002
Board
hearing.
Our
recommendations
will
include
all
5
of
the
elements
of
the
standards
along
with
the
evaluation
6
of
the
supporting
science.

7
The
recommendations
will
be
summarized
in
a
8
document
that
contains
staff's
best
advice
to
you.
At
the
9
hearing,
you
will
consider
our
recommendations
and
make
a
10
decision
on
the
new
particulate
matter
standards.

11
Thank
you.

12
Are
there
any
questions?

13
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Question,
what
plans
are
14
there
in
the
workshops
to
hold
those
in
some
of
the
15
economically
depressed
communities,
minority
communities.

16
HEALTH
AND
EXPOSURE
ASSESSMENT
BRANCH
CHIEF
BODE:

17
Richard
Bode.
We
haven't
actually
set
up
our
workshops
18
yet,
but
we've
been
speaking
with
the
Ombudsman
Office
19
about
identifying
which
communities.
Definitely,
we're
20
probably
looking
at
those
areas
that
are
most
impacted
21
right
now.
Definitely
those
areas
in
the
south
coast
22
where
there
is
some
of
the
highest
particulate
matter,

23
especially
PM
10
concentrations.

24
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
presume
in
the
Senator's
25
district
is
one
of
those?

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
218
1
HEALTH
AND
EXPOSURE
ASSESSMENT
BRANCH
CHIEF
BODE:

2
Yes.

3
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
4
presentation.

5
Welcome
Dr.
Ostro.

6
DR.
OSTRO:
Good
afternoon,
Mr.
Chairman
and
7
members
of
the
Board.
I'm
Dr.
Bart
Ostro
from
the
Office
8
of
Environmental
Health
Hazard
Assessment.
I'm
going
to
9
briefly
summarize
some
of
the
health
effects
of
10
particulate
matter.

11
Basically,
there
are
dozens
of
epidemiologic
12
studies
from
around
the
United
States
and
the
world
that
13
record
associations
between
particulate
matter
and
both
14
mortality
and
morbidity
or
illness.

15
In
these
studies,
particles
have
been
measured
as
16
PM
10,
as
PM
two
and
a
half
or
fine
particles,
as
coarse
17
particles,
which
are
the
difference
between
fine
and
PM
18
10,
that
is
particles
between
two
and
half
and
10
microns.

19
Also,
some
studies
have
found
some
effects
from
sulfates,

20
and
a
few
recent
studies
have
found
effects
from
ultrafine
21
particles.

22
These
effects
have
been
observed
at
current
23
ambient
concentrations,
which
includes
levels
below
the
24
current
State
standard,
and
also
studies
that
have
looked
25
at
it
have
failed
to
detect
a
threshold
level
for
some
of
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
219
1
these
effects
that
is
a
level
of
which
no
effects
would
2
occur.

3
The
effects
have
been
related
to
both
short­
and
4
long­
term
exposure.
In
this
case
by
short­
term
exposure
5
we
mean
the
24­
hour
average,
maybe
lag
by
a
day
or
two,

6
and
by
long­
term
exposure
we
mean
particle
averages
over
7
several
years.

8
­­
o0o­­

9
DR.
OSTRO:
So
I
want
to
just
provide
a
brief
10
overview
as
to
how
we
derived
these
conclusions.
So
I
11
want
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
some
of
the
epidemiologic
12
studies
that
were
used
to
generate
these
conclusions,

13
specifically
studies
that
relate
acute
exposure
to
14
mortality,
those
that
relate
long­
term
exposure
to
15
mortality,
morbidity
studies,
and
then
a
summary
of
our
16
findings.

17
­­
o0o­­

18
DR.
OSTRO:
Basically,
there
are
several
types
of
19
studies
that
look
at
the
health
effects
of
air
pollution.

20
We
have
toxicologic
studies,
which
look
at
animals
exposed
21
in
a
laboratory
setting.
There's
controlled
human
22
exposure
studies
where
humans
are
basically
exposed
in
23
controlled
settings,
and
epidemiologic
studies
where
24
health
outcomes
are
observed
among
the
free
living
25
population
and
exposure
is
based
usually
on
fixed­
site
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
220
1
monitors
located
throughout
the
community.

2
As
Deborah
described,
particulate
matter
is
a
3
very
heterogeneous
mix
of
different
chemicals
and
sizes.

4
Therefore,
most
of
the
health
effects
literature
relies
on
5
the
epidemiologic
studies
as
opposed
to
the
toxicologic
or
6
human
control
studies.

7
So
basically,
we're
looking
at
data
on
humans
8
under
real
world
conditions
and
there
have
been
recent
9
animal
studies
supporting
some
of
these
epidemiologic
10
findings.

11
­­
o0o­­

12
DR.
OSTRO:
There's
several
different
types
of
13
epidemiologic
studies
and
I'm
going
to
just
discuss
really
14
the
first
two
that
are
listed
there,
time­
series
study
and
15
prospective
cohort
studies.

16
So
by
Time­
series
studies,
in
this
case
on
17
mortality,
although
there
are
some
Times­
series
studies
on
18
morbidity
and
sickness
outcomes
as
well.
We
look
at
19
associations,
really
statistical
association,
between
20
daily
changes
in
air
pollution
and
daily
counts
of
21
mortality
in
a
specified
city
or
region.

22
We
also
look
at
cause
specific
mortality,
looking
23
at
cardiovascular
mortality,
and
maybe
respiratory
related
24
mortality.
So
these
studies
have
to
control
for
other
25
factors
that
change
on
a
daily
basis,
such
as
weather
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
221
1
changes
and
day
of
the
week.

2
And
the
factors
that
we
typically
are
concerned
3
about
like
smoking
or
alcohol
use
or
occupational
4
exposure,
obesity,
are
not
risk
factors
in
these
types
of
5
studies,
because
we're
looking
at
daily
changes.
And
we
6
really
don't
expect
daily
exposures
for
these
things
to
7
change.
And
these
things
are
not
really
related
to
daily
8
changes
in
air
pollution,
so
they
don't
really
affect
the
9
results
of
these
studies.

10
One
limitation
of
these
studies
is
that
they
11
examine
relatively
short
material
exposure,
so
they
look
12
only
at
the
effects
of
say
yesterday's
air
pollution
or
13
the
air
pollution
over
the
last
few
days,
so
they're
14
looking
only
at
very
acute
or
short­
term
exposures.

15
­­
o0o­­

16
DR.
OSTRO:
Nevertheless,
these
studies
have
17
found
consistent
associations
with
daily
mortality,
and
as
18
I
mentioned,
this
is
including
all­
cause
mortality,
as
19
well
as
disease
specific
mortality,
like
mortality
from
20
cardiovascular
outcomes,
or
respiratory
outcomes.
And
in
21
the
last
couple
of
years,
there's
actually
been
some
22
studies
relating
changes
in
particles
to
infant
mortality,

23
as
well.

24
The
studies
have
been
conducted
throughout
the
25
United
States,
in
many
parts
of
California
and
throughout
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
222
1
the
world.
I
think
among
these
studies
are
the
Health
2
Effects
Institute's
studies
that
Dan
Greenbaum
from
the
3
Health
Effects
Institute
will
be
discussing.
They're
a
4
multi­
city
study.

5
But
it's
important
to
note
that
besides
their
6
study
there's
probably
several
dozen
studies
that
have
7
also
been
conducted
on
mortality.
As
I
indicated
in
the
8
introduction,
the
associations
are
found
even
at
very
low
9
concentrations
of
particulate
matter
with
no
apparent
10
threshold.
Some
studies
have
specifically
looked
at
11
studies
with
very
low
air
pollution
levels
or
they've
12
statistically
tried
to
model
to
see
if
threshold
levels
13
exist.
And
so
far
a
threshold
level
has
been
­­
they've
14
been
unable
to
detect
the
threshold
level.

15
The
sensitive
group
that
appears
from
these
16
studies
are
elderly
people,
those
with
chronic
heart
or
17
lung
disease,
and
infants.
These
groups
appear
to
be
most
18
susceptible
to
these
mortality
effects.

19
The
other
type
of
epidemiologic
study
that
has
20
been
used
in
the
literature
and
has
been
reported
in
the
21
literature
are
so­
called
prospective
cohort
studies.

22
These
are
a
very
different
type
of
study
than
the
23
Time­
series
studies.

24
These
studies
actually
use
individual
level
data.

25
They
follow
a
specific
group
of
people
over
time,
maybe
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
223
1
seven
to
ten
to
20
years,
and
they
examine
the
impacts
of
2
longer­
term
exposure
that
is
exposures
over
several
years.

3
These
studies
allow
us
to
actually
calculate
the
4
number
of
life
years
lost
in
the
individuals.
And
these
5
studies
are
expensive
but
tend
to
be
very
informative.

6
Now
one
example
of
the
prospective
cohort
study
is
the
7
American
Cancer
Society
Cohort.

8
This
was
a
cohort
of
around
500,000
people
from
9
151
cities
in
the
United
States
that
were
followed
for
10
about
seven
years,
and
actually
now
they've
been
followed
11
for
a
lot
more
years,
but
the
paper
that
was
published
had
12
been
followed
for
seven
years.
The
study
controls
for
13
other
effects
on
other
factors
that
can
affect
mortality
14
like
age,
sex,
smoking,
socioeconomic
status,
obesity,

15
occupational
exposure,
and
alcohol
use.
Those
things
are
16
all
controlled
for.

17
And
then
differences
in
the
air
pollution
levels
18
in
the
cities
are
looked
at
to
see
if
mortality
is
19
associated
with
those
pollution
levels.
And
basically,

20
this
study
found
that
both
all­
caused
mortality
and
21
cardiopulmonary
mortality
were
associated
with
fine
22
particles
that
is
PM
2.5
and
sulfates.

23
And
among
the
findings
were
that
the
exposure
to
24
particles
over
a
long
period
of
time,
and
we're
not
sure
25
exactly
how
long
the
period
is
needed,
but
somewhere
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
224
1
between
probably
a
year
and
several
years,
these
exposures
2
were
associated
with
significant
loss
in
life
expectancy.

3
When
you
compare
the
most
polluted
with
the
least
polluted
4
city
in
the
sample,
it's
roughly
a
two­
year
difference
in
5
life
expectancy
in
the
cities
after
other
factors
are
6
controlled
for.
So
it's
quite
a
significant
effect.

7
­­
o0o­­

8
DR.
OSTRO:
And
there's
also
been
several
other
9
cohort
studies
that
have
been
published,
generally
10
supporting
those
results.
A
study
out
of
Harvard
looking
11
at
six
cities,
and
a
Seventh
Day
Adventist
Cohort
study
12
centered
in
Southern
California
have
also
found
effects
13
related
to
particulate
matter.
And,
again,
the
Health
14
Effects
Institute
has
funded
an
independent
reanalysis
of
15
these
data
sets,
and
I
think
that
will
be
reported
on
the
16
following.

17
­­
o0o­­

18
DR.
OSTRO:
Another
example
of
a
prospective
19
cohort
study
using
morbidity
is
the
Children's
Health
20
Study
which
has
been
funded
by
the
Air
Resources
Board.

21
Now,
besides
the
mortality
effects,
there's
a
22
whole
suite
of
morbidity
outcomes
associated
with
23
particulate
matter.
Among
the
more
severe
particulate
24
matter
has
been
associated
with
hospitalization
for
25
cardiovascular
disease,
as
well
as
respiratory
disease,

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
225
1
emergency
room
visits,
urgent
care
visits,
doctor
visits.

2
Also
there's
a
whole
range
of
cardiovascular
outcomes
now,

3
that
are
shown
to
be
related
to
particulate
matter.

4
You
probably
heard
last
week
there
was
a
study
5
announced
relating
particles
to
heart
attacks,
one
of
the
6
first
studies
of
its
kind.
We've
also
found
studies
that
7
relate
particulate
matter
to
heart
rate,
to
heart
rate
8
variability,
which
is
a
measure
of
how
well
the
heart
can
9
adapt
to
stresses,
to
see
reactive
protein,
which
is
a
10
measure
of
inflammation
in
the
blood,
which
is
a
predictor
11
of
subsequent
mortality,
and
to
other
blood
parameters.

12
Air
pollution
has
also
­­
particles
have
also
13
been
associated
with
exacerbation
signs
of
asthma,
with
14
acute
and
chronic
bronchitis,
with
respiratory
systems,

15
including
cough,
shortness
of
breath
and
wheeze,
with
16
decrements
in
lung
function
and
with
work
loss
and
17
restricted
activity
days.

18
Some
of
these
outcomes
were
included
in
some
19
recent
studies,
like
the
Children's
Health
Study,
which
20
includes
12
cities
in
southern
California.
And
they're
21
finding
that
longer
term
exposure
to
particles
appear
to
22
be
related
to
losses
in
lung
function
and
increased
23
symptoms
among
asthmatics.

24
­­
o0o­­

25
DR.
OSTRO:
So
to
summarize
the
general
findings,

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
226
1
right
now,
it's
that
particles
are
related
to
mortality
2
and
morbidity
and
the
results
do
not
appear
likely
to
be
3
due
to
confounding
or
to
chance
alone.
The
exposures
4
seems
to
be
associated
with
significant
shortening
of
5
life.
There's
no
apparent
threshold
for
these
effects,

6
that
is
no
apparent
safe
level,
and
the
effects
have
been
7
associated
with
all
the
different
measures
of
particles,

8
PM
10,
fine
and
coarse
particles,
sulfates
and
as
I
9
mentioned
even
some
findings
now
with
ultrafines.

10
So
I
think
I'll
stop
here.

11
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
very
much.
Any
12
questions
by
the
Board?

13
I
found
it
most
intriguing
thinking
about
what
14
you
didn't
say
and
that
was
a
plea
for
more
time.
So
I
15
was
very
pleased
to
hear
that.

16
(
Laughter.)

17
HEALTH
AND
EXPOSURE
ASSESSMENT
BRANCH
CHIEF
BODE:

18
Any
more
questions,
Dr.
Lloyd?

19
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
No,
I
don't
think
so.

20
HEALTH
AND
EXPOSURE
ASSESSMENT
BRANCH
CHIEF
BODE:

21
Okay,
with
that,
I'd
like
to
­­

22
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
We
may
have
some
after
we've
23
heard
all
the
presentations.

24
HEALTH
AND
EXPOSURE
ASSESSMENT
BRANCH
CHIEF
BODE:

25
I'd
like
to
introduce
our
invited
speaker,
which
is
Daniel
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
227
1
Greenbaum,
who's
the
President
of
the
Health
Effects
2
Institute
and
he's
going
to
talk
about
the
latest
PM
3
research.

4
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
We
really
appreciate
your
5
coming
down.
I
know
how
busy
you
are.
We
appreciate
it
6
very
much,
sorry
to
keep
you
waiting
as
well.

7
(
Thereupon
an
overhead
presentation
8
was
presented
as
well.)

9
DR.
GREENBAUM:
Thank
you,
Mr.
Chairman.
It's
10
our
pleasure
to
be
here.
Actually,
I'm
here
with
Bob
11
O'Keefe
who's
the
vice
president
of
the
Health
Effects
12
Institute.
And
for
the
record,
as
I
was
introduced,
I'm
13
Dan
Greenbaum,
the
president.

14
I
actually
felt
this
morning
was
hearkening
back
15
to
my
own
days
running
a
State
regulatory
agency
for
Air
16
Quality,
so
it
was
interesting
to
see
how
you
know
how
to
17
diet
better
on
this
side
Of
the
country.

18
If
you
can
give
me
the
next
slide,
please.

19
­­
o0o­­

20
DR.
GREENBAUM:
Just
very
briefly,
I'll
tell
you
21
a
little
bit
about
who
the
Health
Effects
Institute
is.

22
And
you
can
flip
through
these.
First,
that
we're
an
23
independent
research
institute
that
has
joined
Equal
Core
24
Funding
from
government
and
the
US
EPA
and
the
industry,

25
but
that
we
have
an
independent
board
and
expert
science
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
228
1
committees
who
have
no
affiliation
with
either
of
those
2
sets
of
sponsors,
who
oversee
and
review
all
of
our
3
scientific
research.

4
And
finally,
we've
done
over
200
studies
on
the
5
health
effects
of
a
range
of
pollutants,
particulate
6
matter
being
the
center
of
that.

7
­­
o0o­­

8
DR.
GREENBAUM:
I'm
going
to
briefly
review,
and
9
not
dwell
on
some,
if
you
flip
that,
some
of
the
data
that
10
we
had
in
1997,
if
you
could
push
the
next
button
there,

11
which,
as
Bart
said,
these
are
the
Time­
series
studies
12
which
compare
day­
to­
day
relationship
between
air
13
pollution
and
health.
There
are
some
­­
in
1997,
there
14
were
some
40
studies,
both
in
the
US
and
Europe.
This
15
actual
chart
shows
studies
in
Europe
in
a
number
of
cities
16
with
similar
results
in
the
United
States,
showing
that
17
there
was,
to
the
right
side
of
that
line,
an
increase
in
18
risk
of
about
.5
to
one
percent
per
ten
micrograms
of
19
exposure
to
PM
10,
an
increase
in
risk
of
mortality.
And
20
some
similar
or
sometimes
even
greater
increase
in
risk
21
for
hospitalization.

22
Next
slide,
please.

23
­­
o0o­­

24
DR.
GREENBAUM:
There
also
are
several
studies
on
25
long­
term
epidemiology.
Again,
I'm
not
going
to
go
over
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
229
1
the
details,
as
Bart
just
very
nicely
summarized.
The
two
2
most
often
cited
in
1997
were
the
Harvard
Six
Cities
study
3
and
the
Hope
American
Cancer
Society
study.
And
those
4
showed
a
larger
effect,
somewhat
larger
effect
of
four
to
5
five
percent
per
ten
micrograms.

6
And
in
the
next
graphic
that's
on
this
page,
this
7
represents
the
Harvard
Six
Cities
and
Stubenville,
Ohio,

8
the
S
on
the
graph
had
about
a
26
percent
higher
risk
as
9
the
highest
polluted
city,
compared
to
Ported,
Wisconsin,

10
the
P
on
the
graph,
which
was
the
least
polluted
city.

11
Next
slide,
please.

12
­­
o0o­­
13
DR.
GREENBAUM:
These
studies
were
the
basis
of
14
the
action
by
EPA
in
1997
to
set
a
PM
2.5
as
well
as
the
15
PM
10
standard,
as
well
as
supporting
some
other
types
of
16
studies.
But
there
were
questions
that
they
and
others
17
had
at
the
time
about
the
strength
of
this
epidemiology.

18
There
were
questions
about
the
importance
of
different
19
components
of
the
PM
mixture,
which
if
you
go
to
the
next
20
bullet,
please,
which
this
is
a
very
complex
mixture,
as
21
Deborah
Drechsler
said.
And
there
are
questions
about
22
whether
all
particles
are
created
equally
or
are
some
23
sources
more
or
less
toxic?

24
There
were
also
questions
about
what
mechanism,

25
biological
mechanisms,
next
bullet
please,
effect
might
be
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
230
1
causing
these
effects.

2
Next
slide.

3
­­
o0o­­

4
DR.
GREENBAUM:
There's
been
a
lot
of
work
done,

5
and
you
can
go
through
these,
you
can
keep
going
on
the
6
bullets
until
you
finish
the
slide,
please.
A
lot
of
work
7
done
under
way
on
research
funded
by
you
at
the
Air
8
Resources
Board,
by
EPA,
by
us
at
HEI,
by
many
other
9
groups.
There
are
over
500
projects
described
on
line.

10
At
a
quick
inventory
that
we
at
HEI
have
created,
at
11
www.
pmra.
org
and
if
you'll
hit
the
next
button
you'll
see
12
what
the
home
page
looks
like
when
you
open
it.

13
The
next
slide,
please.

14
­­
o0o­­

15
DR.
GREENBAUM:
So
what
could
we
do
to
answer
16
some
of
these
questions?
17
Well,
one
of
the
first
things
that
HEI
did
was
18
funded
competitively
something
called
the
National
19
Morbidity,
Mortality
and
Air
Pollution
Study
or
NMMAPS.

20
This
was
funded
by
HEI,
but
by
a
team
led
by
the
Johns
21
Hopkins
University,
and
also
including
investigators
from
22
Harvard
University.
And
rather
than
going
city
by
city,

23
this
study
attempted
to
do
a
systematic
analysis
in
the
90
24
largest
US
cities
of
air
pollution,
mortality
and
weather
25
using
the
same
techniques
in
every
city,
so
that
you
could
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
231
1
not
only
know
that
the
results
were
similar
in
those
2
different
cities,
but
could
combine
them.

3
There
was
a
similar,
although
somewhat
more
4
limited,
analysis
of
elderly
hospitalization
in
14
US
5
cities
that
took
part
in
this
study.

6
Next
slide.

7
­­
o0o­­

8
DR.
GREENBAUM:
And
as
you
can
see
these
cities
9
span
the
continent.
These
regions
are
broken
up
based
on
10
EPA's
assessment
of
different
general
pollution
mixtures.

11
And
as
you
can
see,
there
were
a
number
of
the
cities,

12
obviously
in
California
included,
although
given
that
this
13
map
wasn't
drawn
on
this
side
of
the
country,
California
14
was
divided
into
at
least
two
parts,
and
maybe
a
third
if
15
you
count
the
small
corner
over
towards
the
Arizona
and
16
Mexico
borer.

17
Next
slide,
please.

18
­­
o0o­­

19
DR.
GREENBAUM:
I'm
sorry
I
had
not
expected
the
20
bullets
to
be
here,
but
this
study
was
very
systematic.
21
An
extensive
analysis
was
done,
and
it
found
when
you
22
looked
at
these
90
cities
a
relatively
consistent
increase
23
in
mortality,
about
.45
percent
per
10
micrograms
per
24
cubic
meter
of
PM
10,
which
was
actually
about
half
the
25
magnitude
of
previous
US
analyses,
but
still
a
consistent
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
232
1
effect.

2
Perhaps,
most
importantly
from
this
study,
there
3
did
not
appear
to
be
an
effect
of
other
pollutants
that
4
could
make
this
particle
effect
go
away.
And
this
chart
5
illustrates
that
the
solid
line
represents
the
effective
6
particles
compared
to
mortality
and
PM
10.
The
other
7
lines
represent
particles
with
other
pollutants
considered
8
at
the
same
time.
You
see
there's
some
change,
but
the
9
effect
is
still
there.

10
It
also
looked
at
the
question
of
harvesting.

11
These
are
day­
to­
day
studies.
Does
that
mean
this
is
just
12
extremely
ill
people
who
are
dying
a
few
days
earlier
or
13
are
there
some
longer
term
advancements
of
death.
And
14
they
found
evidence
that
there
are
longer
term
15
advancements
in
death.

16
Next
bullet.

17
They
looked
at
whether
exposure
was
measured
18
properly
and
found
that
it
was
not
likely
to
change
the
19
results
in
these
kinds
of
studies.

20
And
finally,
overall,
they
found
greater
21
confidence
in
the
results
of
these
Time­
series
studies
22
that
we
have
been
using
to
identify
PM
as
a
problematic
23
air
pollutant.

24
Next
slide.
25
­­
o0o­­

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
233
1
DR.
GREENBAUM:
They
did
find
when
they
looked
2
across
regions
there
were
some
differences
in
different
3
parts
of
the
country.
And
in
southern
California
and
the
4
northeast,
they
saw
the
largest
effects,
smaller
effects
5
in
some
other
regions.
They
attempted
to
try
and
6
understand
why
that
is
and
are
continuing
under
our
7
sponsorship
to
do
that,
looking
at
things
like
whether
8
there
may
be
different
pollutant
mixtures,
other
9
pollutants
that
may
be
present
in
these
that
other
10
cities
­­
in
these
other
regions,
along
with
particles
11
either
enhance
or
detract
from
the
effect.

12
There
may
be
other
differences
in
the
regions
13
that
we're
investigating
now.

14
Next
slide.

15
­­
o0o­­

16
DR.
GREENBAUM:
We
have
extracted
from
that
for
17
you
the
results
in
California
of
the
12
cities
or
at
least
18
really
the
counties
in
California
that
they
looked
at,

19
county
level
data.
And
I
will
start
by
cautioning
you
20
about
this
slide
not
to
too
quickly
say
oh,
we
now
know
21
that
there's
no
affected
particles
in
Sacramento,
but
22
there
is
an
effect
in
San
Diego
or
Oakland.

23
These
studies
were
designed
to
say
what
is
the
24
relative
risk
across
all
these
cities,
but
knowing
that
25
some
cities
are
smaller
and
larger
doing
them
in
a
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
234
1
systematic
way
so
that
you
can
combine
them
very
2
carefully,
because
no
one
city
other
than
perhaps
Los
3
Angeles
is
probably
large
enough
to
be
assured
that
you
4
would
get
a
positive
effect.

5
Having
said
that,
these
are
consistently
positive
6
with
the
exception
of
a
few
of
the
smaller
locations.

7
Sacramento
is
not.
And
clearly
the
conclusion
of
both
the
8
investigators
and
our
review
committee
of
these
studies
9
was
that
there
was
evidence
of
a
consistent
increase
in
10
mortality
per
10
micrograms
per
cubic
meter.

11
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
How
do
you
explain
Modesto.

12
DR.
GREENBAUM:
Oh,
well
­­

13
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Didi,
should
be
here
I
guess.

14
DR.
GREENBAUM:
Well,
that's
why
I
started
by
15
cautioning
you
about
jumping
to
individual
cities.

16
Modesto
is
obviously
one
of
the
smaller
counties
that
was
17
included
in
the
study.
And
we
did
have
some
percentage
of
18
the
cities
that
showed
up
as
not
showing
an
effect,
but
19
they
were
so
small
that
it
was
not
clear
that
that
would
20
be
necessarily
the
effect
if
you
had
more
deaths
in
that
21
city.

22
We
are
looking
at
other
factors
as
we
go
forward
23
to
see
whether
perhaps
there
was
something
else
going
on
24
in
those
cities,
some
other
pollutants
or
other
things
25
that
got
in
the
way
of
that.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
235
1
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
Dr.
Greenbaum,
I
thought
2
that
I
heard
you
say
something
about
counties.
And
then
3
you
backed
sort
of
into
cities,
is
this
a
county
or
a
4
city?

5
DR.
GREENBAUM:
The
death
rates
were
based
on
the
6
counties
around
which
each
of
these
cities
were
based,
so
7
this
is
county
level
death
rates.

8
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
County
level
death
rates,

9
but
you
took
out
the
city
and
compared
the
City
to
the
10
County?

11
DR.
GREENBAUM:
No.
What
this
was
is
basically
12
comparing
the
daily
air
pollution
levels
in
a
particular
13
county
to
the
daily
mortality
levels
in
that
same
county
14
to
see
whether
there
was
a
relationship,
and
also
15
including
daily
weather
patterns
to
see,
because
weather
16
itself
might
be
causing
it.

17
The
only
reason
we
put
the
city
names
up
here
is
18
for
some
people,
particularly
non­
Californians,
Orange
19
County
is
not
as
well
located
as
Santa
Ana
or
Anaheim
20
would
be
for
example.
So
those
are
there
more
for
21
identification.
These
are
county
level
analyses.
So
it's
22
Los
Angeles
county
for
example.

23
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
Thank
you.

24
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Again,
it's
surprising
that
25
you
got
all
down
in
LA.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
236
1
DR.
GREENBAUM:
Right.
And
I
think
it's
fair
to
2
say
that
we
­­
I
mean,
we
are
using
exactly
the
same
3
techniques
in
every
city,
so
there
may
be
some
4
peculiarities
of
the
analysis,
but
there
also
may
be
some
5
differences
and
we're
still
continuing
to
probe
that.

6
That
may
help
us
understand
in
the
future
maybe
there's
7
some
part
of
the
particle
mixture
that's
higher
than
in
8
these
other
places
and
maybe
that's
why
you're
seeing
a
9
greater
effect
as
well.

10
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Smoking
is
taken
out
of
this.

11
DR.
GREENBAUM:
These
are
Time­
series
studies.

12
These
are
daily
studies,
so
the
smoking
behavior
doesn't
13
change
much
from
day­
to­
day,
so
that
one
assumes
that
14
that's
not
here.

15
Next
slide,
please.

16
­­
o0o­­

17
DR.
GREENBAUM:
Now,
the
other
thing
that
I'll
18
say
here
is
that
these
investigators
did
try
to
test
19
whether
as
pollution
went
up,
you
saw
an
increase
in
20
effect.
That's
an
important
question
relating
to
the
21
causality
of
pollution
causing
these
effects.
And
also
as
22
you
went
down
to
the
lowest
levels
of
pollution,
did
you
23
still
see
an
effect?

24
Overall
for
total
mortality,
they
did
see
25
generally
a
linear
response,
but
when
you
broke
that
down
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
237
1
what
you
saw
is
that
for
the
bottom
part
of
this
slide,

2
cardiovascular
deaths
and
respiratory
deaths,
there
was
a
3
quite
straightforward
linear
relationship
with
no
matter
4
how
low
you
went
with
pollution
you
still
have
some
5
effects,
this
is
for
PM
10.

6
On
the
other
hand,
other
types
of
deaths
other
7
types
of
cancer,
for
example,
did
seem
to
show
some
8
indication
that
effects
didn't
really
start
up
until
you
9
got
out
to
about
55
or
60
particles
per
­­
PM
10
per
cubic
10
meter.

11
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
What
was
the
averaging
time
12
on
these?

13
DR.
GREENBAUM:
These
are
daily.

14
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Twenty­
four
hour
average.

15
DR.
GREENBAUM:
Twenty­
four
hour
average.

16
Next
slide.

17
­­
o0o­­

18
DR.
GREENBAUM:
I'm
going
to
ask
you
to
cut
me
19
off
if
I'm
going
too
long.
I
obviously
want
to
answer
20
your
questions
along
the
way
and
we
can
­­

21
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
We
didn't
invite
you
all
this
22
way
­­

23
DR.
GREENBAUM:
I'm
sorry
what?

24
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
We
can't
invite
you
all
this
25
way
and
cut
you
off,
and
it's
interesting
stuff
too,
very
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
238
1
very
relevant.

2
DR.
GREENBAUM:
The
second
set
of
studies
that
3
Bart
described
were
the
so­
called
long­
term
studies,

4
studies
that
looked
at
populations
of
people
over
a
period
5
of
time
in
their
cities,
knowing
much
more
about
the
6
individuals,
how
much
they
smoked,
how
much
did
they
7
drink,
what
was
their
weight
which
is
a
big
indicator
of
8
health.

9
And
at
the
time
in
1997,
pretty
much
the
Harvard
10
Six
Cities
Study
and
the
American
Cancer
Society
Study
11
were
the
two
premier
examples
of
this.
There
were
some
12
others
of
this
sort
in
existence,
but
these
were
the
13
largest
at
the
time.

14
These
studies
have
been
the
ones
upon
which
15
people
have
usually
estimated
the
numbers
of
possible
16
deaths
resulting
from
particulate
matter
exposure.
And
as
17
you
can
see,
there's
been
a
range
of
estimates
made.
This
18
is
two
examples
of
US
EPA
in
1997,
then
a
more
recent
19
estimate
by
the
World
Health
Organization.

20
We
were
asked
in
1997
to
conduct
an
in­
depth
21
reanalysis
of
these
studies.
And
we
had
an
expert
panel
22
pick
a
team
from
the
University
of
Ottawa,
who
had
had
23
nothing
to
do
with
the
original
studies,
to
conduct
that.

24
Next
slide.

25
­­
o0o­­

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
239
1
DR.
GREENBAUM:
And
if
you
could
go
through
the
2
bullets
here.
This
was
a
very
extensive
study.
It
was
a
3
study
which
looked
at
­­
our
reanalysis
looked
at
auditing
4
the
original
data.
It
looked
at
different
analytic
5
approaches.
It
looked
at
different
variables
that
were
in
6
the
database
about
the
individuals,
how
much
pack
years
of
7
smoking,
which
wasn't
used
in
the
original
study.

8
It
also
looked
at
could
there
be
­­
these
are
9
studies
­­
remember
the
Steubenville,
Ohio
had
a
higher
10
death
rate
than
Wisconsin.
Well,
could
there
be
some
11
other
difference
between
those
two
cities
other
than
air
12
pollution
that
might
explain
the
difference
in
death.
And
13
we
needed
to
look
at
a
number
of
things
that
the
original
14
investigators
didn't
look
at.

15
Next
slide.

16
­­
o0o­­

17
DR.
GREENBAUM:
Having
done
that,
I
think
it's
18
fair
to
say
that
overall
the
reanalysis
assured
the
19
quality
of
the
data,
it
replicated
the
original
results,
20
and
it
was
able
to
test
those
results
against
a
wide
21
variety
of
alternative
models
and
analytic
approaches
22
without
changing
the
results
very
substantially.

23
And
let
me,
in
this
slide
just
briefly
point
out
24
that
this
again
is
a
study.
This
was
PM
2.5
and
sulfates.

25
This
is
the
American
Cancer
Society.
And
they
found
in
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
240
1
the
original
analysis
a
17
percent
­­
1.17
increase
in
2
risk
between
the
most
and
the
least
polluted
cities.

3
When
our
analysts
went
in,
they've
got
every
4
other
piece
of
individual
data
we
put
out
of
there
that
5
might
explain
away
those
deaths.
You
see
the
results
6
under
the
full
and
the
extended
model
and
they,
in
fact,

7
if
anything,
the
effects
of
PM
2.5
went
up
slightly.

8
So
our
conclusion
was
that,
in
general,
these
9
results
were
very
durable
and
didn't
go
way.
Even
though
10
we
only
had
two
of
these
studies
at
the
time,
they
seem
to
11
be
very
well
done.

12
Next
slide,
please.

13
­­
o0o­­

14
DR.
GREENBAUM:
There
were
some
very
interesting
15
results.
One
of
those
had
to
do
with
the
risks
relating
16
to
education.
When
we
broke
up
these
populations
into
17
people
without
a
high
school
education,
people
with
a
high
18
school
education
and
people
with
greater
than
a
high
19
school
education,
we
saw
a
marked
difference
in
effect,

20
with
the
highest
estimated
effect
on
mortality
being
in
21
those
without
a
high
school
education.

22
We
do
know
education
is
a
reasonably
good
23
surrogate
for
social
class
for
socioeconomic
status.
And
24
we
don't
know
exactly
what
might
be
causing
this
or
25
explaining
this,
but
some
of
the
things
that
have
been
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
241
1
explored
were,
first
of
all,
it
may
be
that
people
who
are
2
lower
socioeconomic
status,
in
general,
have
a
difference
3
in
their
exposure.
And
we
have
seen
some
data
that
4
suggests
that
given
occupational
differences,
given
less
5
access
to
air­
conditioning
and
other
things,
that
actual
6
exposure
may
be
higher.

7
There
also
maybe
a
­­
we
know
that
socioeconomic
8
status
results
in
generally
­­
well,
worse
health
status
9
for
a
variety
of
reasons.
And
it
may
be
that
therefore
10
those
people
are
more
frail
and
more
sensitive
to
the
11
effects
of
air
pollution.
So
these
are
some
of
the
12
possibilities
that
are
being
explored
as
a
result
of
the
13
study.

14
But
it
is
needless
to
say
an
important
finding
15
that
needs
to
be
looked
at
more
closely,
particularly
for
16
some
of
the
least
protected
members
of
our
population.

17
Next
slide.

18
­­
o0o­­

19
DR.
GREENBAUM:
Actually,
why
don't
you
just
skip
20
by
this.
I'm
just
going
to
say
we
also
did
some
21
additional
analyses.
And
one
of
the
most
interesting
22
things
about
that
was
we
did
find
some
relationship
23
between
sulfur
dioxide
and
mortality
as
well
as
particles.

24
And
it's
interesting
that
that
would
be
the
case.

25
Most
of
the
toxicology
data
does
not
suggest
that
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
242
1
sulfur
dioxide
would
cause
mortality,
and
so
there
may
be
2
other
examples
of
why
that
may
be
­­
other
pollutants
that
3
follow
along
with
sulfur
dioxide
that
could
be
a
cause.

4
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
notice
you
also
mentioned
5
sulfate
as
well.
So
any
efforts
to
remove
sulfur
from
6
fuels
is
going
really
in
the
right
direction.

7
DR.
GREENBAUM:
That's
correct.
Well,
of
course,

8
sulfur
dioxide
when
it
comes
out
it
is
transformed
into
9
sulfate
particles.
And
although
fuel
sulfur
is
not
the
10
largest
source
in
most
cases
­­
actually
in
California,
it
11
probably
is
a
larger
source,
but
in
other
parts
of
the
12
country
it's
not
the
largest,
but
it
is
able
to
be
a
13
noticeable
reduction.

14
­­
o0o­­

15
DR.
GREENBAUM:
So
to
conclude
first
of
all,
the
16
reanalysis
was
able
to
identify
relatively
robust
17
associations
with
fine
particle
sulfate
and
sulfur
18
dioxide.

19
We
tested
those
associations
in
nearly
every
20
possible
manner
within
the
limitations
of
the
data
set,

21
and
found
that
mortality
was
associated
with
the
22
particles,
but
also
maybe
attributable
to
more
than
one
23
component.
Some
of
these
gas
pollutants
we
shouldn't
lose
24
site
of
those.
And
I
know
you
haven't
lined
up
to
look
at
25
those
as
well
in
future
reviews.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
243
1
Next
slide.

2
­­
o0o­­

3
DR.
GREENBAUM:
I'm
just
going
to
just
very
4
briefly
just
say
that
the
other
element
here
is
that
as
we
5
go
down
the
path
of
trying
to
control
any
kind
of
6
effectiveness,
we
are
going
to
be
faced
with
the
issue
7
that
PM
is
a
mixture.
And
we
do
not
know
whether
all
8
particles
are
created
equal
in
the
sense
of
toxicity.

9
Are
some
types
of
particles,
are
some
sizes
of
10
particles,
are
some
sources
of
particles
of
more
concern
11
and
what
will
be
the
best
method
for
regulation.
This
is
12
the
discussion
that
led
EPA
to
move
towards
a
2.5
13
standards
as
well
as
a
PM
10
standard.
There
are
many
14
studies
underway
that
test
different
components
and
15
different
characteristics.
And
the
initial
results
are
16
beginning
to
come
in.

17
Next
slide.

18
­­
o0o­­

19
DR.
GREENBAUM:
There
are
many
possible
culprits,

20
and
I
doubt
we'll
ever
say
that
anyone
of
these
is
the
21
serious
problem.
Many
of
them
have
been
associated
with
22
effects
not
in
and
of
themselves,
though,
we
may
be
23
looking
at
certain
metals
on
particles
that
have
more
24
effects
than
others.
There
may
be
certain
organic
25
compounds,
for
example,
the
kinds
of
things
that
we
found
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
244
1
on
diesel
particles
that
may
have
that
effect.

2
Next
slide,
please.

3
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
How
do
you
define
biogenic
4
particles?

5
DR.
GREENBAUM:
We
have
actually
not
done
­­
I
6
mean
biogenic
particles
obviously
could
have
health
7
effects
and
do
have
health
effects.
Some
of
them
have
8
health
effects
in
asthma
exacerbation
we
know
on
a
very
9
regular
basis,
although
those
tend
to
be
larger
biogenic
10
particles.

11
We
have
not
done
studies
along
the
biogenics.
We
12
have
those
underway
currently,
so
we
don't
have
results
on
13
that.

14
Could
you
keep
going
with
the
­­

15
­­
o0o­­

16
DR.
GREENBAUM:
We
have
done
a
series
of
studies
17
trying
to
tease
out
this
question
of
PM
10
versus
PM
2.5
18
versus
ultrafine
versus
PM
10
minus
2.5
of
a
particle.

19
And
I
think
interestingly
we
have
seen
the
effects
20
associated
with
each
of
those
size
cuts,
with
ultrafine
in
21
PM
2.5
and
the
coarse
fraction.

22
As
this
slide
from
the
recent
criteria
document
23
shows,
it's
not
clear
that
one
of
those
size
cuts
is
24
jumping
out
ahead
of
the
other
one
as
the
most
25
consistently
problematic.
That
doesn't
mean
that
there
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
245
1
isn't
an
effect
associated
with
one
or
another
of
those
2
size
effects
the
PM
10
or
the
PM
2.5.
But
it's
not
clear
3
that
we're
seeing
a
similar
kind
of
levels
of
effect
for
4
all
of
these
size
cuts.
I
think
one
of
the
considerations
5
and
certainly
it
was
one
of
the
EPA
decisions
to
go
to
PM
6
2.5
has
to
do
as
much
with
if
you
know
you
need
to
control
7
both
the
coarse
fraction
and
the
fine
fraction,
what's
the
8
best
set
of
standards
to
ensure
that
you
get
at
that,
and
9
is
the
standard
only
for
PM
10
going
to
be
adequate
to
do
10
that?
I
think
that
has
been
part
of
the
consideration.

11
There
are
also
a
number
of
studies
­­
we
have
12
studies
underway,
for
example,
some
just
down
the
road
in
13
Davis,
at
UC
Davis
and
others,
looking
at
the
effects
of
14
metals,
of
PAH's,
which
come
on
diesel
and
many
other
15
particles
and
of
other
components.

16
­­
o0o­­

17
DR.
GREENBAUM:
I'm
going
to
actually
stop
there.

18
I've
been
going
on
for
some
period
of
time
but
just
to
say
19
that
we
do
have
­­
in
my
package
there
is
some
discussion
20
about
the
question
about
mechanism,
about
what
we're
21
beginning
to
learn
about
that,
and
just
to
say
­­
and
also
22
the
say
that
we
have
had
a
sizable
increase
in
our
23
knowledge
since
1997.

24
In
general,
it
has
tended
to
say
that
the
25
epidemiology
studies
we
had
then
have
held
up
under
quite
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
246
1
a
bit
of
examination.
There
continue
to
be
some
questions
2
we're
trying
to
address,
particularly
in
two
areas.
One
3
is
this
question
of
portions
of
the
particle
making
sure
4
of
what
their
relative
effects
might
be.

5
And
the
second
is
in
the
area
of
better
6
understanding
the
biological
mechanism
underlying
these
7
effects,
although
we
have
started
to
see
some
of
those.

8
I'll
stop
there.

9
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much.

10
Any
questions
from
the
Board?

11
Mr.
McKinnon.

12
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
We
had
a
workshop
awhile
13
back,
and
a
very
interesting
discussion
around
14
environmental
justice.
And
I
was
looking
at
kind
of
your
15
using
education
for
socioeconomic,
which
I'm
real
16
interested
in
not
only
looking
at
environmental
justice
in
17
terms
of
kind
of
an
ethnic
national
origin
questions,
but
18
to
some
extent
socioeconomic
and
class
questions.

19
In
other
words,
there
are
some
neighborhoods
that
20
are
the
hardest
impacted
and
how
do
you
get
to
evaluating
21
that.
And
I'm
kind
of
interested
in
whether
or
not
you've
22
done
any
work
with
kind
of
that
combination
of
thinking
23
about
that.

24
DR.
GREENBAUM:
Well,
I
know
the
issues
well.
I
25
actually
sit
on
the
Air
and
Water
Subcommittee
of
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
247
1
National
Environmental
Justice
Advisory
Committee.
I
2
think
you're
right
to
focus
this
issue
beyond
just
any
one
3
ethnic
group
or
racial
group,
because
I
think
it
is
a
4
broader
questions,
which
these
data
raise
about
5
socioeconomic
status.

6
Certain
groups
are
obviously
going
to
be
more
7
affected,
if
you
look
at
the
socioeconomic
status
and
we
8
have
to
look
at
that.

9
We
actually
have
just
started
down
the
path
of
10
some
very
specific
studies,
for
example,
looking
at
the
11
question
of
diesel
exhaust
and
other
particles
and
their
12
ability
to
exacerbate
asthma.
We
do
know
actually
we've
13
had
an
increase
in
asthma
in
the
country.
That
increase
14
has
been
disproportionate
in
certain
ethnic
groups
in
15
certain
socioeconomic
groups.
It's
been
higher
than
in
16
others.

17
And
we
actually
are
looking
at
possible
studies
18
where
we
might
look
at
those
effects
specifically
in
some
19
of
the
lower
socioeconomic
status
populations
to
see
20
whether
the
effects
were
high
in
those
settings
that
they
21
would
be
in
others.
We're
trying
to
get
at
that
question.

22
This
finding
just
pushes
this
even
more
in
that
direction.

23
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Just
a
follow­
up.
Part
24
of
the
reason
I'm
real
interested
in
that
is
that
I
think
25
we
may
get
confronted
with
fairly
complex
sets
of
facts,

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
248
1
such
as
neighborhoods
where,
in
fact,
there
are
2
neighborhoods
in
Los
Angeles
that
are
largely
African
3
American,
where
the
folks
in
that
neighborhood
went
to
4
work
in
aerospace
plants
and
ended
up
with
fairly
high
5
levels
of
health
care.

6
And
my
guess
is
that
in
studying
those
7
neighborhoods
we
may
not
­­
what
we
may
see
is
better
8
health,
but
the
better
health
is
because
of
better
health
9
care
rather
than
the
toxic
exposures
in
that
neighborhood.

10
So
I
think
there's
some
variables
that
we're
11
going
to
have
to
really
think
through
as
we
begin
to
look
12
at
the
economic
justice.

13
DR.
GREENBAUM:
Right.
And
this
is
the
kind
of
14
area
where
you
have
to
look
at
the
different
type
of
set
15
of
studies.
These
panel
studies
that
Dr.
Ostro
referred
16
to
where
you
actually
go
out
and
you
find
panels
of
people
17
and
you
find
out
things
about
them,
you
get
them
to
agree
18
to
participate
and
you
actually
get
different
populations
19
and
different
settings
of
exposure
and
so
you
can
actually
20
see
whether
or
not
they
have
better
health
care
and
21
various
other
things,
where
they're
employed.

22
The
other
issue
you
run
into
is
occupational
23
exposure
sometimes
and
you
have
to
control
for
those
as
24
well.

25
But
those
sorts
of
studies
may
tell
us
better,

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
249
1
you
know,
is
this
a
function
of
socioeconomic
status,
is
2
it
a
function
of
ethnicity,
is
it
a
function
of
­­
or
are
3
we
all
subject
to
similar
risks
from
this
exposure?

4
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Well,
also
your
point
there
5
tying
what
you're
saying
in
terms
of
health
effects
and
6
education,
I
think
you
take
into
account
the
USC
study,

7
which
is
showing
that
pollution
affects
the
education
and
8
the
school
absenteeism.
And
it's
a
little
bit
of
a
Catch
9
22
situation.

10
Are
you
looking
at
anything
directly
on
11
children's
health
work?
I
realize
that
you
did
an
12
extensive
study.
Is
there
anything
that
you
could
shed
13
some
light
to
help
us
in
what
we're
trying
to
do
here?

14
DR.
GREENBAUM:
I
don't
know
that
I
could
sort
of
15
quickly
give
you
specific
results
today.
We
do
have
16
underway
several
very
key
studies
actually
in
this
arena.

17
One
of
them
is
probably
the
most
interesting.
It's
18
looking
at
a
birth
cohort
a
population
that
actually
19
happens
to
be
in
Europe,
but
is
exposed
to
levels
of
20
particles
not
dissimilar
to
what
we
see
in
this
country.

21
And
they
have
been
followed
first
to
see
whether
22
there
were
effects
in
pregnancy
of
the
mothers
or
in
the
23
children.
Now,
we'll
be
following
them
to
see
whether
24
there
are
effects
in
their
development
based
on
more
or
25
less
exposure.
And
that
will
be
very
important
to
try
and
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
250
1
flesh
out
more
on
this
very
effort.

2
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Last
question,
you
know,
when
3
I
was
over
in
Europe
you're
subject
to
the
same
thing.

4
They're
putting
increasing
emphasis
on
noise
pollution
to
5
the
impact
of
deaths.
What
do
you
make
of
that?
Should
6
we
be
putting
more
emphasis
on
noise?

7
DR.
GREENBAUM:
Well,
I
was
interested
8
recently
­­

9
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
In
reducing
noise
I
mean.

10
DR.
GREENBAUM:
Well,
there
actually
­­
you
know,

11
in
this
country
under
federal
law
we
see
things
as
HAPS,

12
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants.
But
in
the
noise
analyses
in
13
Europe,
a
HAP
is
a
Heavily
Annoyed
Person
and
literally
14
that
is
the
kind
of
jargon
that's
there.

15
And
noise
has
taken
on
a
health
dimension
in
16
Europe
that
it
hasn't
come
close
to
in
this
country.
It's
17
been
interesting
to
see
that.
We've
been
looking
because
18
we
do
find
research
in
Europe
if
that's
where
the
19
researchers
come
from,
and
there's
a
good
opportunity
to
20
learn
something.

21
And
we've
been
looking
for
whether
there
are
ways
22
that
we
could
bring
that
into
this
discussion
because
23
there
are
certainly
certain
conditions
that
one
would
24
expect
that
noise
could
be
a
contributor
to
and
some
of
25
the
very
same
things
that
we
look
for,
for
instance
air
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
251
1
pollution.

2
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Have
you
looked
at
any
of
the
3
data
over
there,
where
they
basically
say,
you
know,
noise
4
builds
more
in
some
cases
than
traffic
accidents.
It
5
seems
difficult
to
believe,
but
these
are
credible
people
6
making
that
point.

7
DR.
GREENBAUM:
Well,
I
think
they
are
well
done
8
studies
and
I
think
they've
gotten
a
start.
I
don't
think
9
that
they
have
the
numbers
of
studies
and
the
numbers
of
10
approaches
to
it
than
we
have,
for
example
on
particulate
11
matter
and
mortality,
so
that
you
want
to
see
that
built
12
up
some
before
you
leap
to
sort
of
the
numbers,
the
13
numbers
debate.
But
I
think
you
can't
dismiss
it,
and
I
14
think
it
is
a
real
issue.

15
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
As
an
ex
regulator,
what
16
would
be
your
advice
to
us,
should
we,
in
fact,
as
we
look
17
at
some
of
our
regulations,
just
address
the
noise
issue
18
not
do
anything
about
it,
but
just
­­

19
DR.
GREENBAUM:
Well,
certainly
noise
is
20
something
­­
I
mean,
it's
certainly
something
that
people
21
have
dealt
with
probably
most
in
this
country
around
very
22
high
noise
levels,
for
example,
airport
noise
has
been
an
23
ongoing
concern.

24
But
I
think
we
will
see
increasing
attention
here
25
and
something
that
we
need
to
look
at
in
certain
settings.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
252
1
If
we
think
­­
your
comment
a
minute
go
about
the
2
children's
health
study,
the
children
not
being
able
to
go
3
to
school,
certainly
an
effect
on
a
child's
ability
to
4
hear
as
a
result
of
noise
exposure
is
at
least
as
5
damaging,
if
not
more
damaging,
than
potential
future
6
growth
and
development.
7
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Some
of
that
may
be
8
self­
inflicted
with
music
type.

9
(
Laughter.)

10
DR.
GREENBAUM:
I'm
talking
about
very
young
11
children.

12
(
Laughter.)

13
MR.
GREENBAUM:
You're
really
not
going
to
14
control
the
music
choices
of
teenagers
anymore
than
I
15
would
for
my
daughter,
so
that's
right.

16
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much
for
17
coming
down.
We
appreciate
that.
And
I
know
that
you're
18
in
close
contact
with
our
research
staff
and
we
appreciate
19
working
with
you.

20
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
And
we
look
forward
to
21
continuing
to
work
with
the
whole
staff.

22
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
And
Dr.
Prasad
back
there
as
23
well.

24
Thank
you.

25
Is
this
the
end
of
the
presentation?

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
253
1
HEALTH
AND
EXPOSURE
ASSESSMENT
BRANCH
CHIEF
BODE:

2
It's
the
end
of
our
presentation.

3
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Any
other
questions
from
the
4
Board?

5
Thank
you
very
much.
I
guess
there's
no
action
6
required
on
this
particular
item.

7
HEALTH
AND
EXPOSURE
ASSESSMENT
BRANCH
CHIEF
BODE:

8
I
think
we
have
one
person
signed
up?

9
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Oh,
we
do.
Thank
you
very
10
much.
Thank
you.
We
do
have
one
person,
thank
you
very
11
much.
Brian,
I
saw
you
back
there
earlier
and
I
forgot,

12
but
I'm
sure
you
would
have
reminded
me.

13
Brian
Lamb
from
the
Great
Basin
Unified
APCD.
I
14
know
they're
greatly
concerned
about
a
particular
town
in
15
that
area.
And
you've
made
great
progress
I
understand.

16
MR.
LAMB:
Thank
you,
Chairman
Lloyd.
You
know
17
if
you've
got
particulate
matter
on
the
agenda,
then
I
18
will
bundle
into
my
car
at
4:
00
in
the
morning
and
get
19
down
here,
and
say
a
few
words.
Next
time
just
put
20
unspecified
pollutant
and
I'll
stay
home.

21
Chair
and
Members
of
the
Board,
I
am
the
District
22
Counsel
for
Great
Basin
Air
Pollution
Control
District.

23
Many
you
know
Dr.
Ellen
Hartebick
our
PPCO.
She
sends
24
here
regards.
We
are
the
home
venue,
Southern
Inyo
County
25
in
the
home
venue
for
Owens
Dry
Lake,
which
is
the
largest
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
254
1
single
source
of
particulate
matter
air
pollution
in
the
2
country.
We
have
an
inventory
of
about
100,000
to
300,000
3
tons
of
particulate
matter
emitted
directly
every
year.

4
We
have
several
24­
hour
average
concentrations
in
5
excess
of
10,000
micrograms
per
cubic
liter,
measured
at
6
the
ambient
air.
In
fact,
just
this
year
EPA
had
to
add
7
another
digit
to
its
data
field
in
the
Ayers
Database
to
8
put
our
figures
in
there,
because
it
wasn't
big
enough.

9
We
have
a
serious
air
pollution
problem.
It
10
affects
the
surrounding
communities
in
that
area.
It
11
affects
indian
reservations.
It
affects
military
12
installations,
so
I'm
here
to
support
and
encourage
your
13
review
of
the
particulate
matter
standard.

14
We
think
this
is
an
important
pollutant.
We
15
don't
have
epidemiology
­­
Owens
Valley
we
don't
have
the
16
numbers
to
do
that,
but
we
have
very
persuasive
anecdotal
17
evidence
that
concentrations
of
particulate
matter
at
18
chronic
health
effects
that
are
very
deleterious.

19
We
want
to
encourage
your
staff
to
be
looking
at
20
the
setting
standard,
look
at
the
monitoring
methods,
and
21
try
to
work
with
EPA
in
having
methods
for
monitoring
that
22
are
consistent.
I've
raised
with
your
board
before
that
23
the
current
State
standards
specified
a
certain
method
of
24
monitoring.
And
in
our
case,
it
requires
us
to
have
25
separate
really
obsolete
monitors
that
are
maintained
just
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
255
1
to
measure
pollutant
for
the
State
standard.

2
We'd
really
like
to
see
the
monitoring
methods
3
coordinated
with
EPA,
so
that
we
can
use
the
same
monitors
4
for
both
the
State
and
federal
standards.

5
We
do
support
continuous
methods
of
air
pollution
6
monitoring.
We
use
the
Continuous
T.
O.
method
at
Owens
7
Lake.
And
we
do
sea
concentrations
on
our
high
days
as
8
high
as
20,000
micrograms
per
cubic
liter
over
an
hour
9
averaging
period.
So
it
really
does
give
you
a
picture
of
10
the
space.
And
since
a
lot
of
the
evidence
on
PM
10
is
11
that
the
effects
are
chronic
related
to
peaks
and
exposure
12
that
kind
of
information
could
be
very
useful
both
from
13
the
standard
and
for
health
effects
advice.

14
So
I
encourage
you
­­
we
intended
the
district
to
15
participate
in
this
process.
If
you're
looking
for
a
16
community
that's
interested,
I
might
recommend
a
workshop
17
at
Ridgecrest,
which
is
downwind
of
Owens
Lake.
And
all
18
of
our
workshops
in
Ridgecrest
are
standing
room.
It's
a
19
community
that
feels
the
effect
of
particulate
matter
20
pollution
very
dramatically.

21
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Does
anybody
look
to
the
day
22
to
day
hospital
admissions
on
these
high
particulate
days?

23
MR.
LAMB:
I
don't
know
that
they
have.
When
24
this
issue
has
come
up
before
­­
our
population
in
Inyo
25
County
is
so
sparse
especially
the
southern
Inyo
County,

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
256
1
the
population
of
all
of
southern
Inyo
County
is
probably
2
less
than
10,000
people.
You
have
a
self
selected
3
population
to
a
certain
extent
of
the
people
that
live
in
4
the
area
of
Owens
Lake
with
the
notable
exceptions
of
the
5
indian
reservations
that
are
near
and
also
the
military
6
installations
that
are
near
are
not
self­
selected.

7
When
we
visited
this
issue
last
time,
there
was
a
8
tremendous
amount
of
anecdotal
evidence
from
the
Navy
Base
9
in
Ridgecrest
that
storm
events
were
connected
with
like
10
where
you
go
to
the
bas
hospital,
sick
days.

11
We
had
in
our
administrative
record
a
commanding
12
officer
of
the
Navy
base
asked
people
to
send
in
E­
mails
13
about
sick
days
or
family
health
incidents
connected
with
14
storm
events.
He
got
like
hundreds
of
E­
mails
of
people
15
anecdotally
seen
in
direct
connection
between
the
storm
16
events
on
Owens
Lake
and
hospital
emissions
or
sick
17
children
who
are
not
being
able
to
work.

18
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
So
you
came
up
with
that.

19
I'm
glad
you've
looked
at
some
of
the
data
down
in
the
20
Coachilla
Valley.

21
DR.
OSTRO:
No,
the
only
thing
­­
I
mean,
there's
22
been
a
couple
of
studies
on
wind
blown
dust
in
the
Utah
23
Valley
and
in
Spokane
and
mortality,
and
they
have
not
24
found
associations
between
the
really
high
windy
days
and
25
excess
mortality.
And
that
could
be
either
because
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
257
1
particles
are
so
big
that
they
don't
get
inhaled
or
it
2
could
be
that
just
people
are
averting
on
those
days
and
3
not
spending
that
time
outside,
but
that's
the
only
4
evidence
that's
there.

5
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
Brian,
just
a
quick
6
question,
where
would
people
go,
other
than
military,

7
where
would
the
people
go
at
Ridgecrest
for
hospital
care?

8
MR.
LAMB:
In
Ridgecrest,
there
is
a
hospital.

9
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
Is
there
a
hospital
there?

10
MR.
LAMB:
Yes.
Ridgecrest
is
pretty
well
11
provided
for
medically.
They
have
hospitals
and
medical
12
staff
there.
And,
of
course,
the
military
at
the
base
13
hospital.

14
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
It
would
be
good
to
get
15
some
data
from
that.

16
MR.
LAMB:
Like
I
said,
it's
in
anecdotal,
but
17
we've
been
told
before
is
we
don't
have
the
numbers
for
an
18
appropriate
study
that
would
come
up
with
significant
19
findings,
but
there
is
a
lot
of
anecdotal
evidence
that
we
20
find
persuasive.

21
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
On
this
measurement
issue,
I
22
know
we
talked
to
you
about
that
when
I
was
down
there
a
23
year
ago,
and
I
guess
I'm
still
a
little
bit
confused
on
24
the
issue
why
we
have
not
had
any
resolution
on
that.

25
MR.
LAMB:
Well,
the
current
standard,
just
to
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
258
1
recap,
the
current
standard
says
a
standard
is
50
2
micrograms
per
cubic
liter
as
measured
using
a
high
volume
3
size
selective
inlet
monitor
according
to
method
B,
which
4
is
a
secret
method,
but
it's
basically
hard
to
get
5
somebody
to
provide
with
method
B,
but
it's
basically
a
6
description
of
the
Anderson
Monitor
that
was
in
effect
in
7
1982.
So
the
standard
adopted
a
monitor
to
go
with
it
8
monitoring
technology
in
advance
and
­­

9
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
So
we
have
an
opportunity
to
10
change
the
measurement
method?
Do
we
intend
to
do
that?

11
HEALTH
AND
EXPOSURE
ASSESSMENT
BRANCH
CHIEF
BODE:

12
That's
actually
definitely
one
of
the
things
we're
looking
13
at.
And
we've
been
talking
with
the
Monitoring
Laboratory
14
Division,
and
they're
very
interested
as
well.
And
I
15
think
right
now
they're
actually
conducting
a
study
16
looking
at
continuous
monitoring
methods
versus
some
of
17
the
other
ones.

18
MR.
LAMB:
One
of
the
research
proposals
that
you
19
adopted
today
was
putting
those
low­
temperature
methods
in
20
Los
Angeles
to
use
those
for
continuing
monitoring.
We
21
use
the
standard
ones
at
Owens
Like
because
the
22
temperature
issue
is
not
­­
we
don't
have
volatile
23
particulate
matter,
it
doesn't
matter
for
us,
but
we
found
24
those
to
be
very
useful
and
accurate.

25
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Mr.
Chairman.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
259
1
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Yes.

2
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Yeah,
I
think
we
talked
3
about
this
subject
about
a
year
or
so
ago.
And
why
don't
4
we
set
a
time
today
for
hearing
back
on
it.

5
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Maybe
a
visit
from
the
6
Executive
Officer.

7
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
KENNY:
We'll
be
happy
to
8
follow
up
on
this
and
basically
put
something
together
so
9
the
Board
actually
gets
a
report
on
what
is
happening
with
10
regard
to
monitoring.

11
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.

12
MR.
LAMB:
My
final
comments.

13
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
think,
you
know,
again
I
14
think
the
work
you
talk
about
with
the
monitoring
15
division,
I'd
like
to
understand,
because
when
I
was
down
16
there,
I
know
obviously
we
worked
with
one
of
your
17
technicians
there.
It
seems
to
be
pretty
compelling
to
do
18
that,
but
on
the
other
hand
there's
clearly
some
issues
19
with
respect
to
the
standard
of
what's
required,
et
20
cetera.

21
So
what
was
the
last
issue?

22
MR.
LAMB:
I
just
wanted
to
mention
as
an
23
information
point
that
we
are
making
progress
on
the
work
24
at
Owens
Lake.
We're
expecting
by
the
end
of
this
25
calendar
year
to
have
at
least
ten
square
miles
of
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
260
1
Owens
Lake
flood,
which
is
about
roughly
a
third
of
what
2
we
originally
identified
as
needed
to
control
will
be
3
controlled
by
the
end
of
this
year
with
shallow
flooding.

4
It
will
be
a
significant
historic
and
technical
and
5
emotional
event
to
see
water
from
the
Los
Angeles
aqueduct
6
released
back
on
Owens
Lake.
7
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Can
you
let
us
know
when
that
8
happens?

9
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
Are
you
going
to
invite
us
10
to
serve?

11
MR.
LAMB:
We'll
invite
you
all.

12
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
And
I
presume
you're
13
agreement
was
with
LADWP
and
not
Mr.
Freeman?

14
MR.
LAMB:
It
was
with
LADWP,
yes
and
it's
15
completely
legal
and
binding.
That's
my
opinion.

16
(
Laughter.)

17
MR.
LAMB:
So
I
really
thank
you,
Dr.
Lloyd
and
18
your
staff
and
the
entire
Board
for
helping
us
make
the
19
progress
that
we
have.
It's
only
because
we
are
making
20
timely
progress
against
the
federal
standard
that
we
are
21
really
engaged
at
looking
at
what
the
State
standard
is.

22
This
wouldn't
be
an
issue
with
us
if
we
didn't
think
we
23
would
get
past
the
federal
standard
in
the
foreseeable
24
future.

25
So
thank
you.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
261
1
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much.

2
So
with
that,
anymore
comments?

3
And
with
that,
I
would
like
to
close
this
item
4
and
thank
the
staff
very
much
and
thank
Bart
and
Dan
and
5
Bob
very
much.

6
Okay.
So
we're
going
to
move
to
the
next
item,

7
which
is
01­
5­
3,
public
meeting
to
consider
the
net
8
effects
of
education
on
air
quality.
The
presentation
is
9
in
response
to
questions
raised
by
the
public
on
the
10
effects
of
tree
planting
and
vegetation
on
air
quality.
11
Many
of
us
are
familiar
that
the
Air
Resources
Board
past
12
research
and
the
effects
of
air
pollution
on
plant
health
13
in
crop
years.

14
However,
we
have
heard
less
about
the
opposite
15
consideration,
the
effect
of
trees
and
other
plants
have
16
on
the
quality
of
the
air
we
breathe.
So
I
look
forward
17
to
hearing
about
how
plants
influence
air
quality
and
any
18
practical
applications
that
might
help
us
achieve
cleaner
19
air.

20
Again,
I'd
like,
at
this
point,
to
reintroduce
21
Mr.
Kenny
and
begin
staff
presentation.

22
EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR
KENNY:
Thank
you,
Mr.

23
Chairman
and
Members
of
the
Board.
Over
the
years,
the
24
staff
has
put
considerable
effort
in
the
hydrocarbons
that
25
come
from
plants.
These
emissions
and
other
processes
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
262
1
that
we
will
hear
about
in
the
presentation
related
to
air
2
quality,
and
thus
they
can
influence
the
overall
3
effectiveness
of
our
clean
air
strategies.

4
With
that,
I'd
like
to
turn
the
presentation
over
5
to
Jim
Pederson
who
will
make
the
presentation.

6
MR.
PEDERSON:
Thank
you,
Mr.
Kenny.
Good
7
afternoon,
Dr.
Lloyd
­­

8
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
You've
got
to
chew
on
it
9
otherwise
it
doesn't
get
you.

10
That's
better.

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

13
MR.
PEDERSON:
Thank
you
Mr.
Kenny.
Good
14
afternoon
Dr.
Lloyd
and
members
of
the
Board.
This
15
presentation
is
in
response
to
interests
shown
by
members
16
of
the
Board
and
the
effects
of
plants
on
air
quality.

17
We
know
that
there
are
important
anthropogenic
18
emissions
related
to
plants
for
example,
from
agricultural
19
activities
or
tree
maintenance.
But
today,
we
will
focus
20
on
the
ways
that
the
plants
themselves
affect
air
quality,

21
and
the
affects
of
plants
have
an
impact
on
ARB's
efforts
22
to
achieve
clean
air
for
all
Californians.

23
Understanding
these
effects
has
been
and
24
continues
to
be
a
long­
term
effort.
It
is
fundamental
to
25
the
emissions
inventory
used
in
our
air
quality
modeling.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
263
1
Thus
understanding
the
effects
of
plants
is
part
of
2
predicting
how
hair
quality
will
change
as
a
mandate
3
emissions
change.

4
And
surprisingly
we
can
have
a
positive
influence
5
on
air
quality
by
the
use
of
plants.

6
­­
o0o­­

7
MR.
PEDERSON:
I
will
briefly
cover
four
broad
8
topics,
how
vegetation
affects
air
quality,
what
ARB
is
9
doing
in
this
area,
the
information
gaps
that
remain,
and
10
what
each
of
us
can
do
to
help
improve
air
quality
by
11
using
plants.

12
­­
o0o­­

13
MR.
PEDERSON:
First,
let's
look
at
the
way
14
plants
influence
air
quality.
I
will
cover
four
main
15
effects.
The
first
two
are
positive,
the
effects
of
16
cooling
and
pollutant
removal.
And
two
are
negative,
the
17
emission
of
pollutants
and
release
of
allergens.

18
The
shaded
evaporative
cooling
provided
by
trees
19
can
improve
air
quality
in
two
ways,
cooling
reduces
the
20
pollutant
emissions
from
many
sources,
and
slows
chemical
21
reactions
in
the
air.
A
different
type
of
benefit
is
that
22
that
plants
speed
up
removal
of
some
air
pollutants.

23
Removal
of
pollutants
by
surfaces
is
called
deposition.

24
But
trees
and
other
vegetation
also
emit
25
pollutants
biogenic
volatile
organic
compounds.
The
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
264
1
biogenic
gases
studied
to
date
are
highly
reactive,

2
meaning
they
are
especially
efficient
in
reacting
to
form
3
ozone
and
PM
2.5.

4
Another
negative
effect
is
that
many
plants
5
release
allergens
that
can
initiate
asthmatic
responses
in
6
sensitive
individuals.
Over
2
million
Californians
suffer
7
from
asthma.
For
many
of
those
individuals,
the
effects
8
of
allergens
is
a
major
health
concern.
In
the
next
9
several
slides,
I
will
cover
each
of
this
in
more
detail,

10
beginning
with
the
air
quality
effects
from
cooling.

11
­­
o0o­­

12
MR.
PEDERSON:
This
slide
shows
the
cooling
13
provided
by
Sacramento's
urban
forest.
The
colors
14
represent
surface
temperature
in
late
June
at
1:
00
p.
m.

15
The
coolest
surfaces
are
blue.
The
Sacramento
River
flows
16
from
north
to
south,
and
the
American
can
be
seen
in
the
17
top
right
corner.
The
areas
of
green
are
the
urban
18
forest.
These
areas
are
about
50
degrees
cooler
than
the
19
rooftops
shown
in
white
which
are
about
140
degrees
20
Fahrenheit.

21
So
how
does
temperature
affect
emissions?

22
­­
o0o­­
23
MR.
PEDERSON:
Lower
air
temperature
reduces
24
emissions
from
many
different
sources.
Cooling
reduces
25
evaporative
emissions
of
volatile
organic
compounds,
for
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
265
1
example,
shaded
parking
lots
can
reduce
evaporation
of
2
gasoline
from
vehicle
fuel
tanks.

3
In
addition
potential
emission
reductions
are
4
available
from
lowered
electrical
power
demand.
Over
the
5
last
decade,
the
Sacramento
Utility
District
has
invested
6
over
$
20
million
dollars
to
supply
free
shade
trees
and
7
educate
their
customers
regarding
how
to
place
trees
from
8
maximum
cooling.

9
This
investment
has
been
formally
evaluated
and
10
determined
to
be
fiscally
sound.
The
conclusion
is
that
11
well
sited
shade
trees
can
provide
a
substantial
energy
12
savings
for
individual
customers
and
collectively
reduce
13
power
demand.
In
the
extreme,
properly
placed
shade
trees
14
can
lower
individual
residential
air­
conditioning
bills
by
15
more
than
40
percent.
But
the
average
savings
are
also
16
substantial.

17
The
average
mature
tree
in
this
program
cuts
the
18
cooling
air
energy
load
by
153
kilowatt
hours
per
year.

19
Thus
ten
mature
trees
safe
the
energy
needed
to
power
one
20
air­
conditioner.

21
When
mature,
the
300,000
trees
planted
by
SMUD
22
customers
will
provide
energy
savings
equivalent
to
16
23
megawatts
of
new
power
generation.
In
addition
to
24
reducing
emissions,
lower
air
temperatures
slow
chemical
25
reactions,
so
that
even
less
ozone
is
formed
from
those
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
266
1
reduced
precursor
emissions.

2
­­
o0o­­

3
MR.
PEDERSON:
In
addition,
to
reducing
emissions
4
and
slowing
reactions,
we
also
know
that
under
some
5
conditions,
plants
help
clean
the
air
and
in
some
cases
we
6
can
predict
how
the
rate
of
pollutant
removal
will
be
7
influenced
by
new
plants
that
are
present.

8
Removal
pathways
depend
on
the
specific
pollutant
9
and
the
environmental
conditions.
For
example,
how
they
10
react
to
the
pollutants,
such
as
nitric
acid,
are
quickly
11
removed
by
any
surface.
So
the
limited
factor
is
usually
12
the
amount
of
atmospheric
mixing.
In
other
words,
as
the
13
pollutant
concentration
close
to
the
surface
is
quickly
14
depleted,
the
bottle
neck
for
removal
will
come
from
any
15
limitation
in
small
turbulent
motions
needed
to
transport
16
air
with
high
pollutant
concentrations
into
contact
with
17
the
surface.

18
Thus,
for
those
pollutants,
the
presence
or
19
absence
of
plants
will
have
relatively
little
effect
on
20
removal
rates.
For
PM
10,
deposition
rates
depend
on
21
complicated
relationships
between
particle
size,

22
meteorological
variables
and
surface
shapes.
Plants
may
23
increase
the
deposition
of
some
sizes
of
particles,
but
24
this
is
difficult
to
quantify.

25
On
the
other
hand,
we
know
that
moderately
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
267
1
reactive
pollutants,
like
ozone
and
hydrogen
dioxide
are
2
removed
mainly
by
uptake
into
the
pours
the
plant
pollutes
3
called
staminodium.

4
So
their
removal
rate
is
mainly
determined
by
the
5
amount
of
leaf
area
and
whether
the
staminodium
are
fully
6
open,
which
is
fairly
predictable.
As
you
might
expect,

7
deposition
rates
vary
over
a
wide
range.

8
­­
o0o­­

9
MR.
PEDERSON:
This
slide
shows
relative
amounts
10
of
ozone
deposition
to
various
surfaces.
Note
the
range
11
of
values
given
for
each
plant,
and
the
wide
range
between
12
the
different
types
of
plants.
Various
air
quality
model
13
simulations
have
suggested
that
the
deposition
of
all
14
pollutants
occurred
in
both
the
San
Joaquin
Valley
and
15
Upland
areas
could
be
decreasing
ozone
concentrations
in
16
some
areas
of
the
valley
by
more
than
10
to
30
parts
per
17
million.

18
The
two
aspects
of
vegetation
that
I
covered
so
19
far
have
positive
effects
on
air
quality.
Unfortunately,

20
plants
can
also
have
a
negative
effect
by
emitting
VOCs
21
that
form
ozone
fine
particles.

22
­­
o0o­­

23
MR.
PEDERSON:
This
slide
shows
approximately
24
biogenic
emissions
for
different
plants.
The
values
are
25
Calculated
assuming
average
temperatures
and
light
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
268
1
intensity
for
the
month
of
July
in
the
central
valley.
If
2
the
assumed
temperatures
were
18
degrees
warmer,
reaching
3
a
max
up
170
degrees,
that
the
estimated
biogenic
4
emissions
would
more
than
double.

5
Thus,
although,
a
single
number
is
shown
for
each
6
species,
in
fact,
the
amount
emitted
can
vary
widely,

7
perhaps
by
more
than
a
factor
of
10,
due
to
seasonal
8
differences.

9
Despite
the
range
of
values
that
must
be
10
considered
for
each
species,
it
is
also
clear
that
11
biogenic
emissions
can
vary
with
the
type
of
plant.
The
12
biogenic
VOC
emissions
are
a
large
portion
of
the
VOC
13
inventory
in
most
California
air
basins.

14
For
example,
in
the
South
Coast
Air
Basin,
during
15
ozone
episodes,
biogenic
emissions
may
be
1/
4th
of
the
16
total
VOC
inventory.
And
they
are
also
more
reactive
than
17
most
anthropogenic
emissions.

18
Based
on
sensitivity
simulations,
again,
using
an
19
air
quality
model,
the
effects
of
zeroing
out
all
of
the
20
biogenic
emissions
in
the
San
Joaquin
Valley
is
the
21
reduction
of
ozone
concentrations
by
about
seven
parts
per
22
billion
in
the
urban
plume
down
wind
of
Fresno.

23
For
concentrations
were
about
140
parts
per
24
billion.
And
by
three
to
seven
parts
per
billion
over
a
25
fairly
wide
area
where
concentrations
were
somewhat
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
269
1
lowered.

2
In
areas
with
more
nitrogen
oxide
emissions,
we
3
expect
the
BBOCs
to
have
a
larger
effect
on
ozone
4
concentrations.
Similarly
in
future
years,
as
the
5
anthropogenic
emissions
are
further
reduced,
the
biogenic
6
emissions
will
likely
have
more
affect
on
ozone
7
concentrations.

8
Thus
characterizing
biogenic
emissions
is
9
important
to
our
understanding
of
atmospheric
chemistry
10
and
our
ability
to
predict
future
air
quality.

11
But
the
massive
emissions
alone
cannot
tell
us
12
how
much
ozone
will
be
formed.
The
timing
and
the
13
location
of
the
biogenic
emissions
are
also
important.
We
14
needed
inventory
that
describes
that
time
and
location,
in
15
addition
to
the
mass
of
emissions.

16
­­
o0o­­

17
MR.
PEDERSON:
Over
the
last
two
decades,
the
ARB
18
has
made
a
great
deal
of
progress
in
constructing
such
an
19
inventory
and
could
be
considered
a
pioneer
in
this
area.

20
However,
the
ARB
is
still
working
to
improve
that
21
inventory
of
biogenic
VOCs
used
for
air
quality
modeling.

22
Obtaining
the
inventory
of
biogenic
emissions
23
requires
a
great
deal
of
supporting
information.
For
24
example,
emission
rates
vary
widely
between
different
25
plant
species.
We
know
that
many
high
emitter
species
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
270
1
release
10,000
VOC
compared
to
low­
emitting
plants.

2
Measuring
or
estimating
emissions
rates
for
over
3
6,000
plants
species
is
a
difficult
task.

4
Additionally,
because
emission
rates
need
to
be
5
multiplied
the
biomass
to
get
the
total
emissions,
we
also
6
need
to
know
the
leaky
biomass.

7
The
first
step
is
to
identify
plant
species
and
8
where
they
grow
throughout
the
State.

9
­­
o0o­­

10
MR.
PEDERSON:
In
this
inventory
database,
the
11
different
colors
that
represent
different
types
of
land
12
use
for
plant
communities.

13
The
data
base
had
a
few
of
the
dominant
species
14
in
each
natural
plant
community,
but
their
relative
15
numbers,
biomass
and
other
species
present
are
usually
16
undefined.
The
many
climates
of
California
support
over
17
6,000
new
species.
We
have
measured
emission
rates
for
18
less
than
ten
percent.
Emission
rates
for
the
other
90
19
percent
are
inferred
from
measured
rates
of
the
related
20
species.

21
Biogenic
emissions
are
calculated
by
multiplying
22
the
plants
emission
rate
times
the
mass
of
its
weeds.
So
23
we
also
need
a
way
to
figure
out
the
mass
of
leaves.

24
For
that,
we
use
a
parameter
called
Leaf
Area
25
Index.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
271
1
­­
o0o­­

2
MR.
PEDERSON:
These
satellite
images
go
straight
3
even
within
the
Ozone,
season.
The
leaf
area
there
is
4
great.
Areas
of
Brown
representing
areas
with
very
low
5
green
vegetation.
Yellow
and
green
and
blue
representing
6
increasing
leaf
area.
The
special
patterns
of
leaf
Area
7
are
complex.

8
The
special
atoms
of
leaf
area
are
complex
and
9
cannot
be
characterized
based
on
simple
categories,
such
10
as
agriculture
or
forests.
For
example,
note
the
11
variability
within
the
central
valley
during
July.
Also,

12
you
see
decreased
leaf
area
in
October
for
many
areas,

13
including
the
coast
range,
agricultural
areas
and
the
14
higher
elevations
in
the
sierra.

15
We
use
maps
of
plants
species
and
leaf
area
index
16
to
estimate
the
mass
of
location
of
emissions
because
both
17
factors
help
determine
the
amount
of
ozone
that
will
be
18
formed.
But
we
also
set
the
timing
of
emissions
was
19
important
to
ozone
formation.
You
may
be
surprised
at
the
20
size
of
tempo
variations
and
biogenic
emissions.

21
­­
o0o­­

22
MR.
PEDERSON:
To
illustration
the
timing,
this
23
slide
shows
the
emissions
for
three
principal
types
of
24
biogenic
VOCs
expressed
in
tons
per
hour,
over
a
five­
day
25
ozone
episode.
The
largest
emissions
are
isoprene.
The
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
272
1
reason
the
emissions
change
from
hour
to
hour
and
from
day
2
to
day
is
because
they
respond
to
light
and
temperature.

3
Because
August
5th
was
the
hottest
day
biogenic
4
emissions
were
much
higher
on
this
day.
As
The
5
temperature
in
Azusa
rose
from
99
degrees
on
August
3rd
to
6
106
on
August
5th,
the
biogenic
emissions
over
the
greater
7
southern
California
area
increased
by
nearly
40
percent.

8
The
hotter
days
also
tend
to
be
days
with
higher
ozone
9
concentrations.

10
The
amount
of
ozone
formed
is
also
affected
by
11
hourly
aeration
in
emissions.
For
example
emissions
late
12
in
the
day
will
have
less
impact,
because
they
have
less
13
opportunity
to
participate
in
photochemical
reactions.

14
­­
o0o­­

15
MR.
PEDERSON:
The
last
effect
I
want
to
mention
16
is
the
allergens
released
by
plants.
Pollen
from
grasses,

17
weeds
shrubs
and
trees
is
an
important
source
of
18
allergens.
Vegetation
is
also
a
factor
for
propagation
Of
19
some
moulds.
But
there
are
also
many
other
allergens
that
20
not
related
to
plants,
for
example,
pet
dander
and
dust
21
mites.
22
For
sensitive
individuals,
allergenic
responses
23
can
range
from
discomfort
to
misery
to
life­
threatening
24
respiratory
problems.
Allergens
are
a
factor
for
about
90
25
percent
of
asthmatic
individuals.
Although,
plant
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
273
1
allergies
are
an
important
contributors
to
asthmatic
2
responses
exposure
to
these
allergens
is
seasonal,
since
3
most
people
spend
the
majority
of
their
time
indoors.

4
Indoor
allergens,
such
as
dust
mites
and
moulds
5
which
are
present
year­
round
are
more
frequent
triggers
of
6
asthmatic
responses.
We've
examined
both
positive
and
7
negative
effects
in
plants,
each
of
which
is
quite
complex
8
and
subject
to
many
assumptions
and
uncertainties.

9
­­
o0o­­

10
MR.
PEDERSON:
So
as
the
ARB
develops
plans
to
11
further
improve
air
quality
in
California,
our
key
12
question
is
can
we
actively
predict
the
effects
of
trees
13
and
vegetation
on
air
quality?
We
do
know
enough
to
draw
14
several
conclusions.

15
The
total
air
quality
effect
of
vegetation
16
depends
on
the
plant's
species
and
it's
placement
on
the
17
microscale.
For
example,
with
respect
to
a
house
a
18
microscale
meeting
its
location
relative
to
other
sources
19
within
our
region.
We
also
know
that
biogenic
emissions
20
are
an
important
part
of
the
emissions
inventory.

21
But
how
do
the
positive
and
negative
effects
of
22
vegetation
balance
out?
The
analysis
performed
by
Dr.

23
Hidre
Taha
of
Lawrence
Berkeley
National
Laboratory
24
suggests
that
in
certain
cases,
low­
emitting
trees
can
25
reduce
ambient
ozone
by
removal
of
pollutants
and
emission
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
274
1
reductions
associated
with
cooling.

2
However
his
analysis
also
suggested
that
for
high
3
emitting
trees,
the
beneficial
cooling
air
cleaning
4
effects
are
offset
by
the
ozone
formed
from
the
VOC
5
emissions.
Thus
such
trees
may
actually
increase
ozone.

6
It
is
important
to
remember
that
these
results
should
be
7
interpreted
with
caution,
because
of
the
uncertainties
of
8
large
number
of
barriers.

9
ARB
recognizes
the
importance
of
understanding
10
the
effects
of
vegetation
on
air
quality
and
so
we
have
a
11
number
of
ongoing
efforts.

12
­­
o0o­­

13
MR.
PEDERSON:
Lawrence
Berkeley
National
14
Laboratory
ARB
is
consulting
with
that
group.

15
As
a
partner,
in
the
central
California
ozone
16
study,
we
are
working
to
organize
and
raise
funds
for
17
study
of
the
deposition
of
pollutants
other
than
ozone.

18
ARB
has
several
research
projects
who
help
to
19
address
biogenic
biomass,
biogenic
emissions
and
20
deposition.
These
efforts
have
resulted
in
significant
21
improvements
in
the
budget
inventory
over
the
last
decade,

22
especially
in
the
South
Coast
Air
Basin.

23
We
also
formed
the
biogenic
working
group
five
24
years
ago
to
enlist
cooperation
of
academics
and
other
25
agencies.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
275
1
Through
the
coordination
with
other
agencies,
the
2
group
has
acquired
vegetation
maps
and
leaf
biomass
3
databases.

4
­­
o0o­­

5
MR.
PEDERSON:
As
part
of
our
efforts
to
6
investigate
the
health
effects
of
exposure
to
air
7
pollutants,
we
also
consider
the
combined
effect
of
8
allergens
and
air
pollutants
acting
together.
Our
most
9
recent
efforts
also
include
outreach
For
the
web
page
and
10
directly
to
tree
advocate
groups.

11
­­
o0o­­

12
MR.
PEDERSON:
Some
of
the
advocacy
groups
we
are
13
working
with
include
the
Sacramento
Tree
Foundation,
The
14
Tree
People
and
municipal
utility
districts.
We'd
like
to
15
thank
the
Sacramento
Tree
Foundation
for
joining
us
today.

16
It's
too
late
now
to
stop
by
the
booth
but
they
17
came
with
expert
advise
and
expert
help
with
tree
18
selection
and
placement
for
maximum
energy
conservation.

19
Within
the
greater
Sacramento
Area
the
Tree
20
Foundation
can
arrange
delivery
for
free
shade
trees
21
attached
to
your
planning
site
and
your
individual
needs.

22
Through
partnership
with
tree
groups,
we
can
provide
23
information
to
the
public
regarding
tree
selection
and
24
placement
to
improve
air
quality.

25
These
groups
are
especially
well
equipped
for
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
276
1
public
education.
They
already
provide
valuable
guidance
2
on
actions
we
can
take
as
communities
and
as
individuals
3
to
better
our
environment.

4
­­
o0o­­

5
MR.
PEDERSON:
But
what
information
do
we
still
6
need
and
what
are
the
highest
priorities?
The
most
7
critical
need
is
to
improve
estimates
of
biogenic
VOC
8
emissions
to
allow
us
to
better
predict
future
year
ozone
9
concentrations.
To
do
this,
we
need
more
complete
10
inventories
of
the
spacial
distribution
of
plant
species.

11
We
also
need
to
measure
emission
rates
for
more
plant
12
species.

13
Our
models
of
deposition
require
better
14
supporting
information
for
making
ozone
precursors.
And
15
lastly
we
can
improve
our
emissions
inventory
by
more
16
fully
considering
the
effects
of
local
temperature
17
variations
on
energy
use
and
emissions.

18
Filling
in
these
information
gaps
is
important
if
19
ARB
is
to
design
the
best
strategies
to
achieve
clean
air.

20
Despite
the
information
gaps,
at
this
time
we
can
identify
21
many
types
of
species
that
are
clearly
desirable
or
22
undesirable
from
an
air
quality
perspective.

23
So
an
action
we
can
take
now
is
to
inform
and
24
influence
the
public
to
make
planning
choices
to
improve
25
air
quality
and
avoid
choices
that
would
degrade
air
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
277
1
quality.

2
There
are
effective
actions
that
individuals
can
3
take.
These
actions
are
fairly
simple
and
in
the
long
4
term
are
very
cost
effective.

5
­­
o0o­­

6
MR.
PEDERSON:
The
key
ideals
which
we
invite
7
people
to
be
aware
of
are
listed
on
the
slide,
achieving
8
the
potential
benefits
of
energy
savings
and
improved
air
9
quality
requires
planting
the
right
tree
in
the
right
10
location.
The
very
biggest
improvements
will
come
from
11
planting
large
fast­
growing
trees
in
areas
that
have
12
little
coverage
at
present
and
planting
to
shape
the
west
13
and
south
sides
of
buildings
and
roofs.

14
Shading
parking
lots
or
other
sources
of
15
evaporative
emissions
also
reduces
VOCs.
However,
for
a
16
positive
net
effect
on
air
quality,
it
is
important
to
17
choose
species
that
emit
relatively
small
amounts
of
VOCs
18
and
avoid
species
that
release
allergens.

19
The
difficulty
in
promoting
use
of
low
emitters
20
and
less
allergenic
species
is
that
these
effects
are
not
21
visible
to
the
public
and
they
are
only
two
of
over
40
22
tree
characteristics
that
might
be
considered
in
deciding
23
what
to
plant.
Clearly,
influencing
consumers
directly
24
would
be
very
difficult.

25
Because
tree
advocacy
groups
are
active
and
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
278
1
effective
in
public
education,
that
again
is
our
primary
2
target
audience.

3
The
choice
of
the
best
tree
for
a
specific
4
location
is
not
simple,
but
it
is
possible
to
choose
trees
5
with
the
positive
characteristics
I
talked
about
today.

6
The
Sawleaf
Zelkova
on
the
left
is
a
good
example.
It
7
grows
relatively
quickly
to
large
size.
It
is
a
low
8
emitter.
Additionally,
it
has
know
known
health
effects
9
with
respect
to
allergens
or
irritants.
From
an
air
10
quality
standpoint,
this
is
a
better
tree
choice
than
the
11
tree
on
the
right.

12
The
Liquidambar
is
quite
popular.
Unfortunately,

13
in
addition
to
requiring
maintenance
due
to
litter
drop,
14
it
is
a
very
high
emitter
of
VOCs.
There
are
alternative
15
low
emitter
species
that
also
provide
fall
color
that
emit
16
far
fewer
volatile
organic
compounds.

17
A
great
resource
for
finding
the
best
tree
for
a
18
particular
location
is
the
database
Selectree
that
is
19
available
on
the
web.
Selectree
describes
over
40
20
characteristics
for
each
of
over
1,400
species
of
trees.

21
Searches
can
be
based
on
any
combination
of
22
characteristics.

23
Cal
Poly
State
University
at
San
Luis
Obispo
24
developed
and
maintains
this
database.
It
incorporates
up
25
to
date
information
regarding
biogenic
emissions.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
279
1
We
have
focused
on
the
effects
of
vegetation
on
2
air
quality.
That
is
only
part
of
the
larger
picture
in
3
addition
to
decreasing
energy
use,
trees
and
vegetation
4
have
other
important
benefits.
They
provide
well
5
quantified
watershed
benefits,
both
in
urban
and
nonurban
6
areas.
For
example,
by
increasing
rates
of
water
7
percolation,
it
creates
reduced
runoff
and
increased
8
groundwater
supplies.

9
Other
benefits
are
also
well
documented.

10
Controlled
studies
have
clearly
demonstrated
very
11
significant
social
and
psychological
benefits
from
trees
12
in
residential
areas.
Trees
also
store
carbon
in
their
13
woody
biomass
as
they
grow.
Thus,
large
long­
lived
14
forests
can
help
produce
carbon
dioxide
concentrations.

15
With
the
carbon
storage
even
for
large
forests
is
16
a
relatively
small
effect
compared
to
other
global
17
processes.
Additional,
the
storage
is
temporary.
As
a
18
tree
dies
and
decays,
most
of
the
carbon
will
be
released
19
back
to
atmosphere,
as
carbon
dioxide.

20
So
we
cannot
rely
on
urban
trees
to
handle
global
21
warming
directly.
However,
those
same
trees
if
properly
22
placed
to
shade
buildings
can
indirectly
help
reduce
23
carbon
dioxide
emissions
by
reducing
the
demand
for
24
electrical
power.

25
To
recap
we
have
examined
the
ways
vegetation
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
280
1
affects
ozone
and
fine
particle
concentrations
both
2
positively
and
negatively.
The
largest
air
quality
3
benefit
comes
from
shade
evaporative
cooling
that
reduce
4
emissions
and
slow
the
chemical
reactions,
but
with
5
removal
is
also
important.

6
Biogenic
emissions
of
old
compounds
have
a
7
negative
effect
and
needs
to
be
well
quantified
to
8
understand
and
predict
future
year
concentrations
of
ozone
9
and
fine
particles.

10
We
also
mentioned
the
effect
of
allergens
on
11
sensitive
individuals
including
asthmatics.
Plus
they
may
12
make
some
practical
recommendations
regarding
how
to
use
13
plants,
how
the
use
of
plants
can
help
us
to
improve
air
14
quality.

15
Now,
we
now
there
are
going
to
be
core
day
with
16
other
groups
to
help
influence
planning
decisions.

17
In
conclusion
we
know
a
great
deal
about
the
18
affects
of
vegetation
on
air
quality.
In
particular
we
19
see
the
low
emitting
plants
can
have
many
positive
effects
20
on
the
environment
and
can
even
improve
air
quality.

21
I
hope
that
we
have
demonstrated
the
developments
22
and
importance
of
ARB
programs
of
accurately
quantifying
23
the
effect
of
vegetation
on
air
quality.

24
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
attention.
We
would
25
appreciate
and
questions
or
direction.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
281
1
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much.

2
Ms.
D'Adamo.

3
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
This
is
very
interesting
4
presentation.
How
far
off
are
we
from
data
whereby
when
5
we
look
on
a
chart
listing
various
tree
species
and
come
6
with
any
determination
on
similar
to
the
information
you
7
had
about
temperature,
freeze,
the
shade
that's
generated
8
from
temperature
of
trees
would
enable
of
one
air
9
pollution
removal
et
cetera
et
cetera
go
out
in
10
production?

11
How
far
off
are
we
from
getting
information
12
similar
to
that
in
terms
of
emissions
data?

13
MR.
PEDERSON:
Michael
Benjamin
is
our
expert
on
14
biogenic
emissions.
He's
done
a
lot
of
the
research
that
15
went
into
the
database.

16
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
And
if
you
could
direct
17
your
question
not
just
to
the
negative
effects
but
also
to
18
the
positive
effects
reduction
of
ozone,
et
cetera.

19
MR.
PEDERSON:
Shall
we
start
with
the
negative
20
of
the
positive?

21
EMISSION
INVENTORY
SYSTEMS
SECTION
MANAGER
22
BENJAMIN:
Thank
you.

23
As
Jim
mentioned,
our
understanding
of
biogenic
24
VOC
emissions
is
not
that
well
known.
It
would
be
25
approximately
6,000
plant
species
in
California.
We
have
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
282
1
measured
emission
rates
for
something
on
the
order
of
500
2
of
those
species.

3
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Job
security.

4
(
Laughter.)

5
EMISSION
INVENTORY
SYSTEMS
SECTION
MANAGER
6
BENJAMIN:
Measuring
these
is
extremely
complex,
very
7
resource
intensive,
plants
are
biological
systems.
In
8
many
ways
it's
like
the
PM
studies
that
we
heard
earlier.

9
It's
like
epidemiologic
studies.
It
takes
a
lot
of
10
resources
and
time
to
measure
these
biogenic
VOC
11
emissions.

12
However,
we
do
feel
like
we
have
a
fairly
good
13
understand
of
the
relative
emission
rates
of
different
14
plant
species.

15
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
Well,
what
I'd
be
16
interested
in
seeing
and
maybe
others
on
the
Board
would
17
disagree,
but
it
seems
like
a
relatively
easy
way
to
18
achieve
some
benefits.

19
If
you
have
an
idea
of
good
trees
versus
bad
20
trees.
And
not
having
to
go
through
all
of
the
scientific
21
processes
for
every
single
of
the
6,000
trees,
if
you
had
22
a
general
idea
that
that
­­
that
there
are
probably
around
23
50
different
species
that
would
get
us
in
that
ballpark
24
where
the
negative
aspect
are
quite
minimal
and
the
25
positive
aspects
are
quite
great.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
283
1
I
would
be
in
favor
of
exploring
and
perhaps
2
we're
just
a
long
ways
off
of
that,
but
I
would
be
in
3
favor
of
exploring
some
sort
of
incentive
based
program
4
either
run
by
the
State
of
California
or
some
similar
to
5
the
Carl
Moyer
Program.
It
sounds
easy,
but
if
we
can
6
help
local
air
district
retrofit,
they
why
can't
we
7
encourage
a
program
of
additional
treatment,
and
maybe
8
expand
that
a
step
further.

9
I
remember
when
I
got
the
staff
briefing
I
had
10
asked
this
questions,
and
I
don't
know
what
the
answer
is,

11
but
where
I
live
there
are
­­
every
year
there
are
12
hundreds
if
not
thousands
of
acres
of
orchards
that
lack
13
production
and
they
get
paved
over
so
that
houses
can
be
14
built.
I
suspect
that
the
result
of
that
is
that
the
15
result
of
that
is
that
we've
got
in
certain
areas
more
16
cars
and
addition
emissions.

17
However,
there
may
be
­­
it
may
be
a
wash
when
18
you
look
at
the
PM
impacts
of
say
an
almond
orchard
that
19
is
not
longer
there
and
reduce
the
agricultural
activity.

20
I
don't
know,
but
in
my
gut
it
tells
me
that
something
21
should
be
done
in
order
to
encourage
­­
if
those
trees
are
22
in
fact,
good
overall,
if
something
should
be
done
in
23
order
to
encourage
agricultural
production
of
certain
24
types
that
are
on
balance
positive
to
air
quality.

25
I
don't
know
that.
I'll
just
open
it
up
for
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
284
1
discussion.
I
don't
know
how
far
off
we
are
from
getting
2
that
data
so
that
we
can
put
a
program
of
that
nature
3
together.

4
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Of
course,
I
assume,
Didi,
5
that
while
they're
are
6,000,
you'll
put
those
in
classes
6
so
it's
not
as
onerous
as
one
might
think.
I
would
agree
7
with
you
Didi.

8
The
other
question
that
I'd
like
to
ask
along
the
9
line
the
Didi
was
asking,
presumably
since
we're
talking
10
about
shade
trees
in
some
ways
deciduous
trees
would
be
11
better,
because
that
would
allow
you
to
reduce
cooling
in
12
the
summer
and
heating
in
the
winter?
Would
that
be
true?

13
MR.
PEDERSON:
One
of
the
important
things
that
14
really
the
energy
savings
hinge
on
is
the
location.
And
15
SMUD
has
some
great
materials
on
that,
the
truth
audition
16
is
also
actually
come
to
a
siting
and
looked
through
that.

17
Planting
on
the
west
side
is
where
the
big
18
savings
is.
The
local
effects
of
deposition
are
19
important.
We
have
done
some
measurements
of
deposition
20
and
we
know
differences
between
many
species,
but
we've
21
measured
fewer
species
than
on
the
biogenic
side.

22
However,
there's
probably
a
smaller
range
between
23
species
on
deposition
than
there
is
for
biogenic
24
emissions.

25
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Maybe,
if
you
could,
Mr.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
285
1
Kenny,
if
staff
could
respond
to
Ms.
D'Adamo
with
some
2
suggestions,
whether,
in
fact,
that
such
a
program
makes
3
sense.

4
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
KENNY:
We'll
be
happy
to
do
5
that.
I
think
actually
there's
a
couple
of
things
we
can
6
do.
We
can
look
at
least
subsidy
programs,
and
we
can
7
also
look
at
least
publications
that
have
highlighted
8
those
kinds
of
trees
that
are
essentially
more
beneficial
9
and
also
highlight
those
kinds
of
tress
that
we
just
as
10
soon
not
see
and
try
to
essentially
put
that
out
there
as
11
information
so
that
people
actually
are
educated
and
make
12
the
right
choices.

13
But
we'll
be
happy
to
follow
up
on
this
and
we
14
can
make
a
report
to
the
Board
on
what
me
are
able
to
do
15
and
how
We
can
implement
this
kind
of
a
program.
And
I
16
guess,
you
know,
I
don't
think
it's
goofy.
I
think
this
17
is
actually
something
that's
actually
very
valuable
so
I
18
think
it's
something
we
really
do
want
to
put
some
effort
19
into
it.

20
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
If
staff
could
also
when
21
it
comes
back
before
the
Board,
include,
I
know
that
the
22
Governor's
has
included
in
his
budget
a
central
valley
23
agricultural
assessment.
I've
spoken
with
Ms.
Terry
about
24
it.
And
I
think
the
idea
is
to
get
the
Air
Board,
along
25
with
the
various
other
resources
agencies
involved
to
put
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
286
1
together
a
database
that
the
idea
or
the
vision
would
be
2
to
plug
in
information
about
the
example
that
I
gave
an
3
almond
orchard
going
out
of
product
of
what
that
means
in
4
terms
of
air
quality,
water,
et
cetera,
economics.
So
I
5
would
hope
Trade
and
Commerce
is
involved
in
the
economic
6
piece,
so
if
staff
could
report
back
on
that
piece
as
7
well.

8
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
Mr.
Chairman,
I've
got
to
9
assume
that
Cal
Poly
San
Luis
Obispo
at
Pomona
they've
got
10
a
lot
of
information
I
would
think
and
I
appreciated
11
having
the
reference
of
the
trees.

12
The
partnership
with
some
of
these
foundations,
13
there's
TreePeople
in
LA.
I'm
not
sure
your
group
up
here
14
that
you
mentioned.
Certainly
we
need
to
involve
15
ourselves
with
them.
They
are
the
true
workers.
And
Ms.

16
D'Adamo,
I
don't
know
if
you've
met
any
of
them.
They
are
17
so
dedicated.
And
if
we
were
to
really
make
a
difference,

18
I
think
we
need
to
somehow
associate
ourselves
with
them
19
and
support
them,
because
they're
the
ones
that
would
go
20
out
and
really
sell
the
program,
once
you've
developed
the
21
information,
and
they're
really
a
dedicated
group.

22
You
also
need
to
work
through
­­
I'm
trying
to
23
think
of
the
program
with
the
cities
where
they're
24
designated
as
­­
sacramento
is
one
of
them,
where
you're
25
designated
as
a
tree
city,
and
there's
some
recognition
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
287
1
of
­­
I
not
­­
I
think
I'm
correct
when
I
say
this,
you're
2
recognized,
but
also
the
City
makes
a
real
effort
to
do
3
street
trees
and
some
really
good
things
that
maybe
4
littler
cities
may
not
have
undertaken
not
knowing
of
the
5
strong
benefits.

6
But,
you
know,
some
of
those
kinds
of
linkages
7
are
very
important
if
you
really
want
to
make
it
work
8
well.

9
RESEARCH
AND
ECONOMIC
STUDIES
BRANCH
CHIEF
COREY:

10
Board
Member
Riordan,
Richard
Corey.
I
wanted
to
respond.

11
It
think
that's
an
excellent
suggestion
and
make
the
point
12
that
we
have
begun
those
efforts
to
reach
out
to
a
number
13
of
the
tree
organizations
who
have
­­
many
of
them
have
14
well
established
educational
programs
and
they're
very
15
perceptive
to
including
within
those
educational
programs
16
information
on
air
quality
and
emissions
that
we've
17
discuss
with
you
and
expand
those
efforts
and
have
18
established
a
web
page
that
includes
links
to
those
19
organizations
as
well,
and
also
looking
­­
and
also
20
coordinating
with
educational
programs,
landscape
21
architect
education
programs,
as
well
as
others.

22
So
we
see
that
linkage
as
an
opportunity
to
build
23
on
it
in
terms
of
the
vehicle
to
funnel
this
information
24
through.

25
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
Thank
you.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
288
1
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.
I
think
before
we
2
conclude
this
item,
I
thought
that
the
Board
would
get
3
some
free
samples
of
trees
we
should
plant,
but
what
4
happened
to
them?

5
MR.
PEDERSON:
You
took
a
little
too
long
on
the
6
earlier
item.

7
(
Laughter.)

8
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
You
didn't
tells
us
there's
9
an
incentive
clause
in
there.

10
(
Laughter.)

11
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
The
trees
are
already
12
planted.

13
MR.
PEDERSON:
I'll
just
make
a
comment
that
the
14
fact
that
a
lot
of
the
tree
organizations
are
cited
where
15
there's
already
a
program
going
on,
and
the
place
where
16
the
biggest
change
can
occur,
is
where
there
isn't
a
17
program.
So
some
of
the
areas
that
aren't
well
treed
and
18
particular
schools,
in
our
cities,
could
occur.

19
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Well,
thank
you.
That
20
concludes
that
item,
and
thank
you
very
much,
staff.
21
We
will
take
a
ten
minute
break
now
to
4:
30
while
22
we
change
the
court
reporter
an
then
we'll
continue
on
the
23
smoke
management
guidelines
item.

24
(
Thereupon
a
brief
recess
was
taken.)

25
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
289
1
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I'd
like
to
restart
the
board
2
meeting.

3
As
you'll
notice
that,
contrary
to
what
I
stated
4
before
the
break,
we're
going
to
hold
the
item
on
rice
straw
5
phase­
down
in
deference
to
some
of
the
farmers
we
may
have
6
here
to
speak
on
this
item.

7
So
the
next
item
on
the
agenda
today
is
01­
5­
5,

8
public
meeting
to
consider
the
2001
biennial
report
to
the
9
Legislature
on
the
phase­
down
of
rice
straw
burning
in
the
10
Sacramento
Valley
region.

11
State
law
requires
the
Air
Resources
Board
and
the
12
California
Department
of
Food
and
Agriculture
to
report
to
13
the
Legislature
every
two
years
on
progress
in
reducing
the
14
amount
of
rice
straw
burning
in
the
Sacramento
Valley.

15
This
report
focus
on
activities
occurring
since
16
the
1999
report.

17
The
ARB
is
also
required
to
submit
a
report
18
presenting
findings
regarding
the
air
quality,
public
19
health,
and
economic
impacts
associated
with
the
burning
of
20
rice
straw
through
the
years
1998
to
2000,
when
the
21
phase­
down
schedule
was
paused
at
200,000
acres.
And
the
22
pause
report
is
incorporated
in
the
2001
biennial
report.

23
I
would
now
like
to
ask
Mr.
Kenny
to
introduce
the
24
item
and
start
the
presentation.
25
MR.
KENNY:
Thank
you,
Mr.
Chairman,
and
members
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
290
1
of
the
board.

2
As
we
reported
two
years
ago,
the
phase­
down
3
requirements
are
being
met.
The
key
issue
continues
to
be
4
the
status
of
alternatives
to
burning.
Primary
alternative
5
is
still
soil
incorporation,
and
we
recognize
we
need
to
6
pursue
increased
opportunities
for
off­
field
uses
of
rice
7
straw.

8
Although
the
diversion
rate
is
still
too
low,

9
there
are
a
number
of
alternatives
which
are
showing
10
promise.

11
Staff
will
present
an
update
on
existing
and
12
promising
new
projects
for
the
use
of
rice
straw,
both
in
13
the
short
and
longer
term.

14
An
additional
$
1
million
in
funding
for
the
rice
15
straw
grant
program
will
be
available
in
July
1st,

16
hopefully.

17
This
funding
will
provide
further
support
and
18
incentives
for
the
use
of
rice
straw,
as
alternatives
other
19
than
soil
incorporation
become
more
widely
available.

20
With
that,
I'd
like
to
turn
the
presentation
over
21
to
Theresa
Najita,
of
the
Planning
and
Technical
Support
22
Division.

23
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
In
relation
to
the
last
item,

24
what
about
straw
trees?

25
MR.
KENNY:
We'll
look
at
that.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
291
1
MS.
NAJITA:
Good
afternoon,
Mr.
Chairman
and
2
members
of
the
board.

3
As
the
chairman
and
Mr.
Kenny
stated,
we
are
4
presenting
an
update
on
the
phase­
down
of
rice
burning
in
5
the
Sacramento
Valley
Basin.

6
Based
on
comments
received,
we
have
made
revisions
7
to
the
proposed
report.
A
handout
showing
these
revisions
8
is
available
in
hard
copy
on
the
table
outside
this
room
and
9
is
included
in
your
packets.

10
The
requirements
for
the
phase­
down
of
rice
straw
11
burning
have
been
met.
Beginning
this
fall,
burning
will
be
12
allowed
only
for
disease
control
purposes.

13
The
availability
of
alternatives
to
burning
of
14
straw,
however,
continues
to
be
of
critical
importance.

15
Air
quality
impacts
are
being
minimized,
but
other
16
environmental
impacts
are
mixed.

17
Finally,
the
cost
of
incorporating
straw
back
into
18
the
soil
impacts
grower
profits,
along
with
other
factors.

19
Although
the
goal
to
divert
50
percent
of
the
20
available
rice
straw
to
off­
field
uses
has
not
been
21
achieved,
projects
are
being
developed
which
may
improve
the
22
long­
term
outlook.
The
most
promising
projects
currently
23
underway
involve
the
use
of
rice
straw
for
construction
24
material,
export,
animal
feed
and
compost.

25
Based
on
discussions
with
project
proponents,
our
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
292
1
best
estimate
is
about
447,000
tons
could
be
used
off­
field
2
by
2005,
which
would
represent
about
40
percent
of
the
3
available
straw.

4
In
an
effort
to
help
overcome
some
of
the
barriers
5
to
burning
rice
straw,
ARB
staff
planned
a
forum
to
showcase
6
rice
straw
products
and
to
promote
market
availability
of
7
rice
straw
as
a
commodity.

8
The
Rice
Straw
Expo
will
provide
an
opportunity
to
9
show
demonstration
projects,
expand
contacts
for
the
10
handling
of
rice
straw,
and
to
provide
information
on
the
11
many
incentives
to
use
straw.

12
We
will
be
inviting
participation
from
many
13
governments
and
private
stakeholders.

14
We
anticipate
this
event
will
be
held
in
February
15
or
March
of
2002.

16
The
rice
fund
was
established
in
1997
to
support
17
development
of
new
rice
straw
technologies.
Since
then
the
18
ARB
has
awarded
grants
for
many
demonstration
and
19
commercialization
projects.

20
A
high
percentage
of
the
anticipated
rice
straw
21
usage
in
2005
is
through
projects
funded
by
the
rice
fund.

22
The
proposed
state
budget
for
2001­
2002
includes
23
one
million
for
the
rice
fund.
If
this
money
remains
in
the
24
budget,
we
anticipate
bringing
new
applicants
to
the
board
25
for
approval
this
fall
or
winter.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
293
1
The
current
criteria
for
the
awarding
of
the
rice
2
fund
grants
limits
to
funding
to
projects
that
directly
3
utilize
rice
straw.

4
We
believe
that
increased
opportunity
will
result
5
from
an
expansion
of
the
criteria
to
include
infrastructure
6
and
marketing
program
development.

7
In
conclusion,
ARB
staff
recommends
that
the
8
Legislature
continue
efforts
to
provide
financial
and
9
technical
support
to
develop
alternatives
to
the
open
field
10
burning
of
rice
straw
through
the
use
of
grant
programs,
tax
11
incentives
and
the
rice
fund,
and
to
encourage
the
use
of
12
rice
straw
by
state
agencies
for
environmentally
sound
13
purposes
such
as
erosion
control,
weed
suppression,
compost
14
and
sound
mitigation.

15
This
concludes
my
presentation.
Thank
you.

16
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Big
incentive
bonus
there.

17
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
Mr.
Chairman.

18
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
No
wonder
I
couldn't
follow
19
this.

20
Thank
you
very
much.

21
Any
question
from
the
board?

22
No.
Thank
you.
I
guess
we'll
open
­­

23
MR.
KENNY:
There
are
witnesses.

24
MS.
WALSH:
The
first
witness
is
Supervisor
25
William
White.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
294
1
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Supervisor
White.

2
FROM
THE
AUDIENCE:
He
had
to
leave.

3
MS.
WALSH:
Kati
Buehler.

4
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Is
the
witness
list
coming
5
along?

6
MS.
BUEHLER:
Good
afternoon,
Chairman
Lloyd
and
7
members
of
the
board.
My
name
is
the
Kati
Buehler,

8
representing
the
California
Rice
Commission.

9
We
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
testify
to
you
10
today.

11
The
California
Rice
Commission
is
a
statutory
12
organization
representing
approximately
2500
California
rice
13
growers.

14
Earlier
today
we
submitted
25
copies
of
a
letter
15
to
the
chairman,
and
I
would
like
to
just
briefly
summarize
16
the
points
presented
within
that
letter
for
you
today.

17
The
commission
has
appreciated
the
willingness
of
18
your
staff
to
work
with
us
in
the
development
of
this
report
19
and
to
have
our
input
and
concerns
reflected.

20
In
particular
we
would
like
to
thank
the
hard
work
21
of
Ms.
Theresa
Najita,
who
did
most
of
the
heavy
lifting
to
22
coordinate
with
commission
staff
on
this
project.

23
Ms.
Najita
has
made
herself
accessible
to
commission
staff
24
and
has
worked
hard
to
incorporate
our
comments.

25
The
report
reflects
a
few
broad
themes
that
have
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
295
1
become
apparent
through
the
progress
of
the
phase­
down.

2
First,
growers
have
worked
in
good
faith
to
adjust
3
their
farming
practices
to
replace
their
historical
levels
4
of
burning
with
other
management
practices.

5
Second,
as
a
result
of
those
activities,
regional
6
air
quality
has
generally
improved.

7
Third,
recent
levels
of
burning
coordinated
within
8
the
framework
of
a
smart
smoke
management
program
can
be
9
accommodated
while
resulting
in
few
exceedences
of
the
10
particulate
matter
standards.

11
And
finally,
significant
alternative
uses
for
rice
12
straw
have
not
yet
been
developed.

13
This
lack
of
uses
for
rice
straw
continues
to
be
14
an
economic
burden
to
growers.

15
As
the
report
indicates,
the
industry
is
now
16
spending
more
than
$
15
million
annually
for
the
management
17
of
its
rice
straw.

18
About
one
million
tons
of
straw
is
generated
each
19
year.
And
we
remain
hopeful
that
a
demand
for
this
straw
20
will
help
offset
our
significant
disposal
costs.

21
The
commission
requests
that
your
board,
the
22
Department
of
Food
and
Agriculture,
and
other
state
agencies
23
provide
strong
support
for
any
measures
that
will
help
24
incentivize
and
stimulate
increased
demand
for
rice
25
straw­
based
products.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
296
1
We
hope
that
your
understanding
of
this
dilemma
2
will
enable
you
to
support
our
goals
to
increase
rice
straw
3
utilization
and
help
make
this
issue
a
priority
here
in
4
Sacramento.

5
Again,
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
address
6
the
board
today,
and
the
commission
looks
forward
to
7
continued
work
with
your
staff
to
address
future
challenges.

8
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much
indeed.

9
And
again
look
forward
to
working
with
you
on
this
expo.

10
Seems
like
a
good
idea.

11
MS.
BUEHLER:
Thank
you.
We
are
looking
forward
12
to
working
with
you
on
that
expo.
I
think
that
will
provide
13
a
great
opportunity
to
showcase
some
of
these
new
14
technologies.

15
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much.

16
Next
we
have
Mr.
Joe
Carrancho,
then
Jerry
Maltby,

17
Kurt
Rasmussen
and
Jeremy
Murdock.

18
MR.
CARRANCHO:
Chairman
Lloyd,
members
of
the
19
board.

20
First
off,
I'd
have
to
apologize
for
most
of
my
21
colleagues
who
were
supposed
to
testify,
walked
off,
and
I
22
came
in
here
with
nothing
in
hand,
and
I
was
voted
to
talk.

23
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
We
can
attest
from
previously
24
we
feel
you
can
hold
your
end
up
very
well.

25
MR.
CARRANCHO:
I've
been
before
you
many
times
as
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
297
1
a
private
citizen,
as
a
member
of
Family
Water
Alliance,
as
2
a
member
of
the
Farm
Bureau,
which
I
speak
for
the
rice
in
3
Colusa
County.
I
was
past
president
of
Rice
Producers
of
4
California.
I
addressed
you
then.

5
I
am
with
the
­­
also
with
the
commission.
I'm
on
6
the
executive
board.
I've
been
here
a
couple
times
backing
7
them.

8
Today
I'm
wearing
a
different
hat.

9
Today
I'm
with
California
Straw
Supply
Co­
op.

10
This
is
a
group
of
farmers
who
have
gotten
together.
We
11
closed
our
membership
at
130,
and
we
have
people
waiting
to
12
get
in
and
we
will
probably
open
our
membership.

13
One
of
the
main
problems
we
have
is
due
to
the
14
burn
program
and
most
recently
our
lack
of
price
on
rice,
we
15
don't
have
any
money.

16
We
need
an
infrastructure.
We
have
no
way
of
17
doing
it.

18
And
we
are
trying
to
pursue
grants,
anything
we
19
can
get
to
get
this
thing
going.

20
Our
main
goal
is
to
reduce
the
cost
of
the
21
producer
to
get
rid
of
his
rice
straw.

22
We
are
also
collecting
emissions
credits
that
we
23
will
be
releasing
for
whoever
needs
them
for
pollution
24
credits.
25
I've
watched
all
of
these
reports
from
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
298
1
Legislature
come
down
over
the
years.
And
I
will
give
you
2
the
credit,
that
this
is
one
of
the
only
ones
I've
seen
3
that's
been
a
little
fair,
in
my
opinion.

4
There
is
thousands
and
thousands,
or
least
5
hundreds,
of
studies
made,
and
if
you
look
down
at
the
6
bottom
of
the
report
they
always
reference
a
study.
You
can
7
reference
any
study
you
want.
You
can
get
studies
to
say
8
anything
you
want
them
to
say.
It's
always
slanted,
in
my
9
opinion,
against
the
farmer.

10
The
farmer
has
done
everything
he
can.
He's
11
been
­­
what
he's
been
asked
to
do
he's
exceeded
in
every
12
way,
shape
and
form.

13
I
think
that's
demonstrated
by
the
number
of
14
complaints
you've
had.
We
fought
for
and
got
318,
a
pause.

15
Look
at
your
complaints.

16
The
ARB
chose
to
not
use
just
Sacramento
as
their
17
complaint.
They
went
and
also
started
counting
ones
in
the
18
county.
Before
they
used
to
just
count
Sacramento.
Now
19
they
put
them
all
together,
because
Sacramento
didn't
have
20
any
complaints.

21
A
lot
of
this
was
done
because
with
318,
even
with
22
our
38
percent
level,
we
were
able
to
move
burn
from
east
to
23
west,
taking
it
away
from
Sacramento.

24
Now
that
we're
down
to
safe
harbor
that
is
not
25
possible.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
299
1
There
are
many
of
my
fellow
farmers
who
have
never
2
had
to
incorporate.
They
have
buying
burn.
This
is
going
3
to
hit
home.

4
This
report,
as
you've
just
heard
testified,
40
5
percent
by
2005.
I
would
love
that
to
be
true.
God,
I
6
would
like
that
to
be
true.

7
But
I
think
you're
looking
at
pie
in
the
sky.

8
If
we
were
to
go
back
to
where
this
started
six,

9
seven
years
ago,
we
would
have
been
looking
for
rice
straw
10
from
other
states,
according
to
what
everybody
said
they
11
were
going
to
use.
Yet
we're
using
less
than
one
and
a
half
12
percent
of
the
rice
straw.

13
Everything
that's
been
tried
has
used
maybe
a
14
little
bit
of
rice
straw.

15
One
gentleman
here
that
probably
alone
uses
more
16
rice
straw
than
everybody.
He's
going
to
be
up
here
17
testifying.

18
Some
of
the
ones
that
would
have
made
it,
have
19
they
got
a
grant,
but
they
do
not
know
how
to
write
grants.

20
Didn't
get
it.
And
they're
still
hanging
on.
Without
those
21
grants,
the
money
is
just
wasted.

22
I
want
you
to
know,
if
you
don't
know
already,

23
farmers
are
not
people
who
want
to
burn.
We
burn
out
of
24
necessity.
None
of
us
want
to
pollute.
We
breathe
the
air
25
too.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
300
1
Lord
knows,
when
I
come
to
Sacramento
I
damn
near
2
choke
in
this
smudge
you
got
down
here.

3
I
have
to
go
back
to
the
rice
country
to
breathe
4
clean
air.

5
Speaking
of
that,
you
heard
testimony
today
here
6
how
good
it
is
to
plant
trees.
Cleans
the
air.
That
7
doesn't
only
apply
to
trees.
That
applies
to
any
green
8
crop.

9
Take
the
rice
out
of
the
Sacramento
Valley
and
10
ship
our
water
south
and
see
what
kind
of
pollution
you're
11
going
to
have
here.
We
will
be
sweltering
in
it.

12
Rice
cleans
your
air
all
but
30
days
out
of
the
13
year.

14
I'm
not
going
to
go
into
detail
on
each
one
of
15
these
little
items
that
are
in
this
report,
because
there's
16
other
people
here
that
have
done
it
and
can
do
a
lot
better
17
job
than
I
can.

18
But
over
the
last
few
years
you
should
know
19
farmers
are
being
regulated
out
of
business,
mostly
due
to
20
the
burning
of
the
rice
farmer.

21
We
have
tried
everything.

22
What
we
really
need
is
relief
so
that
it
is
tied
23
to
the
use
of
rice
straw.
Something
that
phases
down
as
the
24
rice
straw
uses
become
available.
Promises
of
rice
straw
25
that's
going
to
be
used
aren't
going
to
get
it.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
301
1
I'm
going
to
refer
to
one
of
the
last
pages
here
2
in
your
report,
and
I
will
just
read
it.

3
Staff
have
estimates
that
economic
effects
for
4
potential
yield
loss
of
ten
percent.
The
potential
revenue
5
reduction
was
estimated
at
about
19
million
valley
wide
with
6
Colusa
County
suffering
the
greatest
loss
at
almost
five
7
million.
8
I
am
from
Colusa
County.

9
$
19
million
per
year
in
the
name
of
clean
air,
and
10
we
are
less
than
two
percent
of
the
problem.

11
I
know
government
talks
about
millions
and
12
billions
like
I
talk
about
a
dollar
and
a
half,
but
believe
13
me,
folks,
$
19
million
to
the
rice
community
is
a
lot
of
14
money.

15
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
speak
to
you.

16
And
if
there's
any
way
the
ARB
can
see
ways
of
17
using
rice
straw
or
helping
fund
rice
straw
benefits,
we're
18
all
for
it.

19
However,
we
do
need
a
pause.
We
need
our
pause
to
20
continue
that
we
had
with
the
38
percent
until
some
of
those
21
uses
can
be
found.

22
Don't
just
regulate
us
out
of
business.
We're
23
almost
there
now.

24
And
we
would
find
a
use
for
it,
but
when
you
lead
25
us
down
so
bad
that
we
don't
have
any
extra
money
to
find
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
302
1
alternative
uses
or
to
fund
alternative
uses,
there
isn't
2
much
hope.

3
Thank
you
very
much.

4
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much.

5
Yes,
Ms.
D'Adamo.

6
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
In
general
I
don't
know
if
7
it's
possible
to
generalize,
but
for
the
rice
farmers
that
8
for
whatever
reason
choose
not
to
plant
for
economic
9
reasons,
whether
it's
because
of
rice
straw
burning
or
other
10
economic
factors,
what
happens
to
the
field?
They
go
into
11
other
crops,
is
it
fallow?
12
MR.
CARRANCHO:
Very
good
example
of
that
is
just
13
came
up.
They
offered
us
in
my
area
$
165
an
acre
if
we
14
would
let
our
water
go
south.

15
They
were
only
offering
that
after
most
of
us
were
16
planted
or
most
of
us
would
have
probably
been
interested.

17
There
was
a
no
brainer.
I
mean,
it's
much
better
to
just
18
not
plant.
And
a
lot
of
us
did
it.

19
I
didn't
particularly
do
it.
I
have
a
hard
time
20
with
it.
I
almost
feel
like
I'm
selling
my
daughter
into
21
prostitution
doing
that.
I
mean,
it's
just
not
the
thing.

22
We
should
be
planting
and
we
have
to
support
our
third­
party
23
impacts
in
our
counties.
Our
counties
would
go
down.

24
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
In
order
to
participate
in
25
that
you
have
to
fallow
your
field?

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
303
1
MR.
CARRANCHO:
You
fallow
your
field
until
2
October
1.
No
water.

3
Now
I've
heard
about
a
couple
of
irrigation
4
districts
who
are
worried
about
giving
us
water
for
de­
comp.

5
Not
in
my
area.
So
far
we're
fortunate.

6
But
I
feel
that's
probably
going
to
be
one
of
the
7
first
things
they're
going
to
cut
off.
If
we
lose
our
water
8
to
de­
comp,
then
we
have
nothing.

9
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Your
comment
earlier
about
10
grants
and,
you
know,
not
being
able
to
­­
not
knowing
the
11
grantsmanship,
I
guess,
is
there
anything
that
we
could
do
12
to
help
that?
I
have
some
sympathy
there,
how
do
you
apply
13
for
them
or
whatnot
and
writing
grants.

14
MR.
CARRANCHO:
I've
tried
for
a
few
of
them.

15
And,
you
know,
unless
you
­­
everything
is
dotted
and
t'd
16
and
in
the
right
order
and
if
one
of
the
main
things
is
you
17
have
to
have
money.
If
you
don't
have
money
to
match
it,

18
and
it's
awful
hard
to
get
started
without
money.

19
And
farmers
are
to
the
point
where
if
you
go
out
20
and
you
get
a
$
100
donation
from
a
farmer,
you're
doing
21
good.

22
You
know,
ten
years
ago
you
go
out
and
you
ask
23
them
for
a
thousand
dollars,
and
it
was
there.

24
Today,
I
mean,
we're
all
hurting.
We're
trying
to
25
keep
our
nose
above
water
and
that's
it.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
304
1
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
The
question
is
to
staff,
when
2
you
talk
about
uses,
you
say
that
20,000
tons
unchanged
for
3
the
last
three
years
and
yet
by
the
next
five
years
you
4
expect
that
to
go
by
a
factor
of
20.
It
seems
really
5
optimistic
estimate.

6
MR.
FLETCHER:
Bob
Fletcher.

7
I
think
it
is
optimistic,
but
we're
not
certain.

8
And
in
discussions
that
we've
had,
many
of
the
end
users
and
9
many
of
the
people
that
are
under
grants
right
now,
we
do
10
think
that
this
is,
if
everything
fell
into
line,
if
we
were
11
able
to
deal
with
the
export
situation
and
resolve
issues
12
associated
with,
you
know,
exporting
the
rice
to
Japan,
then
13
we
could
open
up
150,000
ton
a
year
market.

14
Similarly,
some
of
the
construction
materials
that
15
we've
been
looking
at,
there
are
huge
markets
around
the
16
world,
and
if
some
of
the
people
that
are
producing
some
of
17
this
fiberboard
and
construction
material
can
develop
these
18
markets
where
they're
building
essentially
prefabricated
19
homes
and
then
they
ship
these
homes
in
essentially
a
way
20
that
can
be
sent
overseas
where
they
really
need
housing,

21
they
can
do
it
relatively
inexpensively,
the
construction
is
22
simple,
if
that
were
to
happen,
you're
looking
at
another
23
150,000
ton
a
market.

24
But
there's
no
question
things
have
to
align
25
properly
for
that
to
happen.
So
it
is
not
out
of
the
realm
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
305
1
of
possibility
that
these
markets
could
open
up.

2
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Again,
that
puts
a
lot
of
3
hope,
and
I
think
I
agree
in
terms
of
this
export,
that
4
would
be
very
helpful
in
stimulating
the
market
and
getting
5
the
advertising
out.
I
think
it's
an
excellent
idea.

6
MR.
CARRANCHO:
Chairman
Lloyd,
in
that
light,
we
7
all
know
how
many
forest
fires
we
have.
I
have
been
trying
8
desperately
with
the
Forest
Services
and
Caltrans
and
what
9
have
you,
we
have
found
a
way
that
we
can
chop
our
rice
10
straw,
bale
it
so
it
could
be
put
in
for
erosion
control
and
11
actually
add
the
seeds
that
they
need
to
replant
the
area.

12
We
figure
they
can
drop
it
from
a
helicopter.

13
Now,
this
is
one
area
that
we
could
use
multitude
14
of
ton,
but
there
is
no
help.

15
If
the
state
would
somehow
mandate
rice
straw
is
16
an
aquatic
plant,
you
will
get
no
star
thistle,
you
will
get
17
no
plants
that
you
won't
need
up
there.
It's
high
altitude.

18
These
weeds
that
we
have
in
rice
will
not
grow
there.

19
It
would
be
the
perfect
erosion
control.
It
would
20
be
the
cheapest
way
to
get
it
into
those
canyons
and
so
on
21
that
they're
inaccessible
to
take
it
to
now.

22
But,
there's
no
incentive.
They
have
been
selling
23
wheat
straw
and
other
things
for
years,
and
it's
hard
to
24
make
them
change.
It's
just
like
taking
a
woman
that's
25
going
to
the
grocery
shore
and
she's
been
buying
Del
Monte,

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
306
1
she's
going
to
buy
Del
Monte
until
she
can
get
it
real
cheap
2
or
something.

3
It's
hard
to
change
the
trend.
Even
though
we
4
know
we
have
a
better
product.

5
MR.
FLETCHER:
I
think
we
would
agree
with
6
Mr.
Carrancho
on
that,
and
one
of
the
recommendations
that
7
we
have
to
the
Legislature
is
really
to
encourage
state
8
agencies
to
do
that.

9
We
wouldn't
have
the
authority,
obviously,
to
do
10
that,
but
the
Legislature
would.

11
And
I
think
the
other
consideration,
you
know,

12
what
we
can
do
through
the
Rice
Straw
Expo
is
really
work
on
13
Caltrans
and
some
of
these
other
agencies
to
get
to
the
expo
14
so
that
we
can
show
them
the
products
and
we
can
work
with
15
them,
and
I
think
we
intend
to
do
that
as
well.

16
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Again,
I
think
the
director
of
17
Caltrans,
Jeff
Morales,
is
a
good
person,
maybe
we
can
18
approach
him
directly
and
make
him
aware
of
this,
at
least
19
look
for
a
percentage
of
use
to
start
off.
I
think
it's
an
20
excellent
idea.

21
MR.
CARRANCHO:
We
are
ready
to
supply
it,
if
we
22
can
just
get
some
orders.
All
we
need
to
orders.

23
You
can
get
us
a
way
to
get
rid
of
this
rice
24
straw,
we
can
do
wonders.
But
we
need
somewhere
to
get
rid
25
of
it.
We
can't
just
pile
it
up
in
the
corner.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
307
1
Thank
you
very
much.

2
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
guess
you
could
pile
it
in
3
the
corner
if
Mr.
Rasmussen
goes
to
work
as
well.

4
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Mr.
Chair.

5
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Yes.

6
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
I
had
a
question,
it's
7
both
you
and
staff,
either
one,
or
the
Rice
Straw
8
Commission.

9
You
alluded
to
trade.
And
I've
been
concerned
the
10
last
several
months
from
agriculture,
we've
heard
a
number
11
of
times,
and
also
forest
products,
where
prices
have
just
12
dropped
through
the
floor.

13
And
I'm
wondering
if
we're
having
difficulty
with
14
trade
agreements
that
have
set
up
a
price
system
where
15
people
can
manage
to
operate,
and
then
I
think
you
alluded
16
to
trade
barriers
on
rice
straw.
Is
it
rice
or
rice
straw?

17
And
I'm
interested
in
maybe
if
that's
an
area
18
where
we
should
be
pushing.

19
MR.
FLETCHER:
I
think
it's
not
trade
barriers
is
20
probably
the
wrong
word.
We
didn't
really
realize
the
21
connotations
associated
with
that.

22
We
think
it's
a
barrier
and
we
think
it's
23
associated
with
the
Japanese
government
putting
restrictions
24
on
rice
straw
coming
in.
And
they
have
been
one
of
our
25
contracts,
one
of
our
grantees
is
actually
working
with
CDFA
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
308
1
and
the
United
States
Department
of
Agriculture
to
try
to
2
get
a
protocol
in
place
that
essentially
assures
that
the
3
rice
straw
that's
being
sent
over
is
free
of
pests,
4
basically.

5
So
the
question
for
us
becomes
can
we
get
that
6
protocol
in.

7
Now,
the
difficulty
with
getting
that
protocol,

8
there
may
be
other
political
reasons
that
are
impacting
the
9
ability
to
do
that,
but
we're
looking
at
a
niche
market
in
10
Japan
that's
sort
of
a
specialized
market,
and
that's
the
11
market
we're
trying
to
tap.

12
So
I'm
not
sure
that
it
falls
under
the
13
traditional
trade
barrier
concept.
It's
more
just
a
14
barrier.

15
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
And
then
it's
the
price
16
piece
of
this
also
a
fair
­­
that
prices
have
been
driven
17
down
to
the
point
that
­­

18
MR.
CARRANCHO:
In
Japan
I
know
I've
heard
that
19
rice
straw
sells
for
as
high
as
$
280
a
ton.
But
we
can't
20
get
it
into
them.
There's
been
some
gone
into
Japan
by
way
21
of
Taiwan.

22
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
What
about
the
price
of
23
rice?
Has
it
been
driven
down
given
the
trade
situation?

24
MR.
CARRANCHO:
Well,
we
have
to
look
up
to
find
25
the
bottom.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
309
1
BOARD
MEMBER
McKINNON:
Yeah.
That's
what
I
2
thought.

3
Thank
you
very
much.

4
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much.

5
Mr.
Jerry
Maltby,
Chris
Churchill,
Kurt
Rasmussen,

6
and
Jeremy
Murdock.

7
MR.
MALTBY:
Thank
you,
Chairman,
board
members,
8
for
allowing
me
to
speak
today.
My
name
is
Jerry
Maltby,

9
the
owner
of
the
Broken
Box
Ranch,
which
received
your
grant
10
last
year.

11
I
thought
it
behoove
me
to
come
up
and
give
you
a
12
little
report
on
how
we're
doing
and
to
answer
some
13
questions.

14
I
would
like
to
make
some
comments
on
a
couple
of
15
questions
that
you
asked
to
Joe.

16
And
kind
of
give
you
my
perspective
of
where
I
17
think
things
need
to
go
as
far
as
the
industry
and
as
far
as
18
the
grant
process
and
basically
the
money
flow.

19
Broken
Box
has
gone
ahead
with
its
project.
We
20
might
be
­­
we're
couple
of
months
behind
schedule
only
due
21
to
some
machinery
problems
that
we
had
with
the
bagger
that
22
we
were
actually
putting
the
compost,
which
was
composed
of
23
50
percent
rice
straw
and
50
percent
cattle
manure,
and
24
basically
the
machine
didn't
work.
But
we've
got
another
25
one
coming
and
we
innovated
our
own
little
crib
system,

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
310
1
which
actually
has
worked
just
as
well,
and
actually
better
2
than
some
of
the
bag
deal
at
a
lesser
cost.

3
So
sometimes
out
of
adversity
comes
a
shining
4
light.

5
We
have
produced
and
sold
compost
this
year
6
already.
We
have
some
now
that
we
are
trying
to
get
into
7
the
nursery
field,
as
well
as
several
other
horticulture
8
avenues
that
we're
looking
into.

9
And
it's
been
fairly
well
accepted.
Right
now
we
10
just
got
back
our
E.
coli
and
salmonella
tests,
which
were
11
nontraceable
elements,
and
in
today's
day
and
age
of
parts
12
per
billion,
that
pretty
well
says
it
all.

13
And
so
we
have
been
approved
by
the
CCOF
as
an
14
organic
product.

15
The
process,
basically,
to
refresh
your
memory
16
puts
the
compost
in
a
container
and/
or
vessel
of
some
sort
17
and
forces
air
through
it,
therefore
bringing
the
heat
up
18
and
keeping
it
there
for
a
length
of
time
to
dissipate
any
19
pathogens,
as
well
as
turn
the
product
into
a
hundred
20
percent
nitrogen
compound
that
can
be
put
on
without
any
21
nitrate
runoff.
That's
especially
important
in
water
22
quality.

23
And
we
feel
as
though
the
process
we're
using
also
24
keeps
down
the
methane
production
and
keeps
it
within
the
25
vessel
and
actually
works
to
our
benefit.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
311
1
So
we
have
done
some
trials
with
Chico
State
that
2
are
working
out
very
well.

3
We're
on
the
road
to
doing
some
trials
with
some
4
strawberry
plants,
and
hoping
that
the
initial
study
that
we
5
did,
which
when
I
came
before
you
before
we
knew
nothing
6
about,
but
sometimes
you
stumble
on
something.
You
know,

7
even
a
blind
hog
finds
an
acorn
once
in
a
while.

8
We
feel
as
though
we
might
have
something
that
9
could
be
quite
important
in
the
methyl
bromide
problem
in
10
the
fact
that
there
is
a
fungus
that
comes
out
of
this
11
compost
that
is
mainly
because
of
the
rice
straw
that
is
12
getting
rid
of
one
of
the
main
funguses
that
hurts
the
13
strawberry
production.

14
So
by
probably
September
we
will
have
the
final
15
results
back
from
that
on
the
trials.
The
plants
are
in
16
their
final
stages
now,
and
Chico
State
will
have
a
report
17
that
I
will
certainly
pass
on
to
Bruce
Oulrey,
and
I
know
18
that
he's
aware
of
it.
We've
tried
to
keep
him
as
involved
19
as
my
contact
in
letting
you
know
what's
going
on.

20
The
compost
situation
has
worked
out
very
well.

21
The
feeding
of
the
rice
straw
has
worked
out
very
22
well.
We've
sold
several
thousand
tons
already
this
year
23
within
the
last
12
months
for
feed.
In
fact
my
stacks
are
24
pretty
well
completed.
I've
had
to
cut
off
my
­­
the
last
25
two
sales
simply
because
I
needed
enough
to
get
me
until
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
312
1
September
harvest
for
the
feedlot
that
we
built.

2
And
we
are
feeding
a
ration
right
now
that
3
consists
of
about
40
percent
rice
straw.
Working
very
well,

4
as
we
knew
it
would,
simply
because
we
have
fed
rice
straw
5
before.

6
However,
when
putting
other
cannery
wastes
in
the
7
pod
system
and
holding
them
throughout
the
year
and
then
8
mixing
them
with
rice
straw,
it
has
a
very
advantageous
9
effect
on
the
rice
straw
in
helping
it
to
make
it
more
10
digestible.

11
We
have
recently
been
working
­­
I'm
not
going
to
12
steal
this
man's
thunder
who
is
coming
up
behind
me,
but
we
13
really
hopefully
have
found
a
product
called
EM
that
we
have
14
in
our
water,
are
injecting
it
into
the
water
that
it
lowers
15
the
methane
production
in
the
rumen
of
an
animal,
which
is
16
good
for
the
environment.

17
It
also
starts
the
decomposition
of
the
silica
and
18
lignin
within
the
plant
before
it
actually
gets
out
to
the
19
back
end
of
the
animal
and
into
our
manure
piles.
20
So
there
are
some
things
that
have
happened
here
21
that
give
us
some
encouragement.

22
We've
also
developed
an
injector
to
inject
23
molasses
and
a
liquid
feed
supplement
within
the
bale
and
24
then
sell
the
bale
that
way.
That
way
we
can
put
the
25
product
that
was
of
marginal
quality
as
by
itself
and
make
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
313
1
it
quite
acceptable
and
quite
close
to
alfalfa
in
actual
2
feed
production.

3
Now
this
is
going
to
be
quite
interesting
this
4
year,
and
I
think
that
the
board
and
the
State
of
California
5
has
a
real
opportunity
with
the
travesty
that's
going
in
the
6
Klamath
Basin,
the
Tule
Lake
Basin
on
the
actual
stealing
of
7
the
water,
and
I'll
use
that
term
very
very
proudly,
in
the
8
sense
that
that's
exactly
what
they
have
done.

9
And
what
they
have
also
done
is
they
have
put
a
10
tremendous
amount
of
alfalfa
and
oat
acreage
of
production.

11
That
is
going
to
drive
hay
prices
up
to
anywhere
from
125
to
12
$
175
a
ton
by
this
fall.

13
And
it
has
added
even
additional
expenses
to
the
14
ranching
community.

15
But
even
worse
than
that,
the
livestock
industry
16
in
the
Tule
Lake
basin
and
the
Lower
Klamath
Basin
is
going
17
to
be
without
its
winter
forage
stock.

18
Now,
you
know,
it's
horrible
to
live
off
of
19
somebody
else's
adversity,
but
in
this
case
it
is
a
possible
20
avenue
to
get
some
of
the
ranchers
to
try
it.

21
I've
shifted
over
to
12,
15
hundred
tons
into
what
22
I
call
the
high
country,
high
country
is
anything
above
3500
23
foot
elevation,
and
that's
where
they
do
feed
a
lot
of
24
forage
in
the
wintertime.

25
Rice
straw
will
not,
and
I
repeat,
will
not,
carry
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
314
1
an
animal
at
the
high
elevation
through
during
the
winter
by
2
itself,
but
it
will
add
bulk
and
it
does
add
some
nutrients
3
than
when
supplemented
can.

4
And
I've
had
people
up
there
for
the
last
two
5
years
and
have
already
contracted
with
me
for
the
third
year
6
to
ship
rice
straw
up.
They
mix
it
with
their
native
hays,

7
their
alfalfa
hays,
and
the
liquid
feed
and
they
make
it
8
work.

9
We're
getting
more
reception
to
this.

10
The
$
15
credit
I
would
think,
I
think,
and
I
don't
11
have
any
way
of
knowing,
but
just
by
the
numbers
that
you
12
put
in
here
in
your
report,
I
would
say
two­
thirds
of
that
13
came
from
straw
that
I
sold,
because
we
send
out
that
form,

14
every
time
we
sell
a
bale
of
straw,
we
send
out
that
form.

15
We
send
them
to
the
timber,
the
lumber
companies
of
which
we
16
sold
1100
tons
last
year
for
erosion
control.
We
send
it
to
17
them.
We
send
it
to
anybody
who
uses
it
on
the
highway
18
construction.
The
construction
companies
we
send
it
to
19
them.

20
We
just
took
your
form,
copied
it
and
when
we
send
21
them
the
bill,
said
here
it
is,
apply
for
it.

22
They
haven't
used
it
all
from
last
year,
you
need
23
to,
if
we
want
­­
if
you
want
to
continue
this
thing,
you're
24
going
to
have
to
get
it
used,
so
please
apply
for
this
25
credit.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
315
1
I
as
a
grower,
Joe
as
a
grower,
cannot
apply
for
2
that
credit,
because
we
are
the
person
who
raises
it
and
3
even
I
as
an
end
user
if
I
raise
my
own
thousand
acres
of
4
rice
and
use
my
own
rice
straw,
I
can't
get
that
credit.

5
So
I
think
there's
a
little
something
in
there
6
that
needs
to
be
tweaked.
It
shouldn't
matter
who
the
end
7
users
is,
whether
it
be
a
farmer
or
a
timber
man
or
a
cattle
8
man,
whoever
uses
it
should
be
able
to
get
it.
The
$
20
a
9
ton
that
came
out
of
Helen
Thompson's
bill,
of
which
the
10
regulations,
knock
on
wood,
will
be
done
by
the
first
of
11
this
month,
I
think
is
one
of
the
key
points
of
getting
the
12
domestic
usage
of
the
straw
up.

13
I
think
it's
key
and
it's
cheap
key,
a
very
very
14
cheap
key.

15
I
know
a
lot
­­
I
can
probably
­­
I
don't
want
to
16
say
something
I
can't
live
up
to,
but
I
think
I
can
probably
17
sell
to
5
to
10
thousand
tons
of
straw
myself
this
year
if
I
18
can
tell
those
guys
that
I
can
get
them
$
20
back.
Because
I
19
can
charge
them
a
lesser
­­
I
can
make
a
little
and
they
can
20
apply
for
the
straw,
for
the
$
20
rebate.
You
know,
the
21
Governor
in
the
infinite
wisdom
cut
it
from
ten
million
to
22
two.

23
It
really
didn't
make
any
difference,
because
the
24
agency
didn't
get
the
rates
out
in
time
and
still
haven't
25
got
them
out.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
316
1
So
hopefully
they'll
be
able
to
have
that
out
by
2
the
first
of
the
July.
3
I
know
two
million
to
my
operation
alone
that's
4
$
50,000.

5
Now
on
my
budget,
my
banker
likes
that
real
well,

6
but
he
happened
to
bring
that
up,
as
I
reapplied
for
my
7
operating
loan
this
year
and
he
says
I
don't
see
any
income
8
off
that.
I
said
all
I
can
tell
you
it's
coming.
And
I
9
used
the
fact,
and
being
an
ex­
county
supervisor,
I
think
I
10
have
the
right
to
do
this,
I
said,
you
know
how
counties,

11
how
the
government
works,
a
little
slow
sometimes.

12
And
I
said
so
just,
you
know,
the
law
is
there,

13
and
unless
they
cut
the
funds
out,
you
know,
it's
going
to
14
be
a
good
thing,
and
I
think
it
needs
to
go
back
up
to
that
15
$
10
million.
I
think
especially
this
year.
I
think
there's
16
a
tremendous
potential
of
usage
of
that.

17
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Let
me
understand
your
point
18
there.
Are
you
saying
you
haven't
received
money
from
whom?

19
MR.
MALTBY:
We
haven't
received
it
from
the
20
Department
of
Agriculture
under
the
grant
program
for
the,
I
21
can't
remember,
the
AB
2586,
I
think
it
was,
which
stated
22
that
there
would
be
a
rebate
back
on
the
usage
of
rice
23
straw.

24
And
in
the
cattle
industry,
both
dairy
and
beef,
I
25
can
make
a
review,
because
I've
been
approached
by
a
couple
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
317
1
of
dairymen
now
that
they've
seen
the
way
that
I
chop
the
2
straw,
they
say
can
I
use
that
for
bedding.
I
said,
well,

3
can
I
use
that
for
bedding
and
get
my
$
20.
And
I
said
if
4
the
regs
ever
come
out
and
say
you
can,
yes,
you
can,
but
5
technically
that
wouldn't
be
the
case.

6
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
How
long
have
you
been
waiting
7
for
this
money?

8
MR.
MALTBY:
Nine,
ten,
11
months.
It
was
passed
9
in
September,
wasn't
it?
August,
September.
So.

10
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Maybe
Catherine
can
help
out.

11
You
tried
to
ignore
me.

12
MR.
MALTBY:
And
not
to
be
totally
critical,
the
13
person
who
is
writing
this
has
been
under
the
gun
to
do
14
quite
a
few
other
things.

15
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
understand.

16
MR.
MALTBY:
Agriculture
was
shoved
at
him
and
17
said,
here,
you
do
this
and
those
ten
things
over
here.

18
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Dan
Webb
was
going
to
be
19
coming
over,
I
think,
but
he
was
unfortunately
not
able
to
20
come.
I'm
not
trying
to
pick
on
him.

21
MR.
MALTBY:
I'll
cut
them
a
little
slack
for
a
22
few
more
days
here,
then
see
what
happens.

23
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Do
you
have
much
­­
I'm
24
getting
concerned
about
the
time,
Jerry.
I
know
we
have
a
25
few
more
witnesses
here.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
318
1
MR.
MALTBY:
Sure.
I'll
try
to
elaborate
just
a
2
little
bit.

3
I
spent
quite
a
bit
of
time
in
China,
five
4
different
trips,
over
there
putting
a
cattle
project
5
together.
I
spent
a
lot
of
time
in
the
rural
areas.
I
know
6
how
rice
straw
they
use
and
what
they
use
it
for.
They
use
7
it
for
most
of
the
cardboard
boxes
that
you
get
that
come
8
from
China
are
all
made
out
of
rice
straw.
All
their
paper
9
is
made
out
of
rice
straw.
There's
a
very
good
chance
that
10
if
the
funding
were
available,
most
of
the
paper
in
11
California
a
lot
of
the
newspaper
would
be
made
of
that
rice
12
straw.
I
think
there's
some
real
things
you
can
do
there.

13
And
I
would
just
like
to
say
that
I
think
the
feed
14
is
not
the
total
answer,
by
any
means,
but
it
is
something
15
that
can
be
done
immediately.

16
The
erosion
control
and
Joe
has
already
covered
17
that,
but
the
newspaper
thing
is
big
tonnage,
is
big
18
tonnage.
The
feed
export
could
be
half
a
million
and
19
million
tons
a
year.

20
Korea
was
blocked
from
coming
into
China
because
21
they
carried
hoof
and
mouth
disease
in
the
rice
straw.
That
22
was
four
million
tons.
Four
million
tons.

23
It
is
a
trade
barrier.
He's
trying
to
be
nice.

24
I'm
not
going
to
be
nice.
It
is
a
trade
barrier.
I
fought
25
it
all
my
life
with
the
cattle
industry.
I
fought
it
with
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
319
1
the
rice
industry
going
in.
We've
had
the
stuff
sitting
on
2
the
docks
and
to
have
them
say,
no,
we
won't
accept
this,

3
but
if
of
course
if
you
lower
your
price
down
to
a
hundred
4
dollars
a
ton,
sure,
just
bring
it
on
in,
then
they'll
grind
5
it,
but
they
don't
want
to
do
it.

6
So
it
is
a
trade
barrier
and
they're
doing
the
7
same
thing
with
the
rice
straw.

8
But
again
if
you
have
any
questions
about
my
9
project
or
other
things,
I
would
just
like
to
say
I
hope
10
that
you
raise
the
grant
up,
and
I
hope
that
you
do
11
something
into
the
phases
of
the
domestic
marketing
and
12
allow
your
grant
to
take
that
in,
so
we
can
give
some
of
the
13
stuff
away.
If
I
can
give
a
thousand
tons
of
my
compost
14
away,
and
get
some
sort
of
compensation
just
to
cover
the
15
costs
on
the
first
deal,
just
my
cost,
all
I'm
asking
for,

16
but
me
or
anybody
else,
we
can
get
the
people
to
use
it
and
17
then
we
will
hook
them,
because
this
compost
is
better
than
18
commercial
fertilizer.
I'm
a
commercial
fertilizer
person.

19
I
farm
a
thousand
acres
of
rice
and
90
percent
of
it
is
that
20
way.

21
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Maybe
we
can
have
some
free
22
samples
at
the
expo.

23
MR.
MALTBY:
Absolutely.
Not
a
problem.

24
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
Mr.
Chairman,
if
I
can
just
25
ask
about
that
compost,
is
it
something
that
could
be
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
320
1
applied
to
just
regular
landscaping?
And
what
I'm
thinking
2
is
it's
always
been
my
opinion
that
Caltrans
really
ought
to
3
use
more
compost
where
they
landscape,
but
my
question
is
4
maybe
it
couldn't
be
used
on
every
type
of
plant.

5
MR.
MALTBY:
Yes,
it
can.
In
fact
we
have
6
qualified
for
which
is
a
quite
extensive
list,
you
just
7
don't
call
Caltrans
up
and
ask
them
do
you
have
this.
You
8
have
to
do
all
this
testing,
which
we
have
done,
and
we
have
9
passed,
and
it's
getting
Caltrans
to
use
it.
Because
they
10
have
said,
well,
we
have
to
cut
back
on
our
budget
and
we
11
don't
put
as
much
of
that
on
there
as
we
used
to.

12
But
yes,
the
answer
to
your
question
is
yes.

13
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
Because
that's
a
great
use.

14
That's
just
one
of
many
agencies
that
ought
to
be
using
it.

15
MR.
MALTBY:
We've
used
it
for
the
commercial
as
16
well
as
the
landscaping.

17
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
Thank
you.

18
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much.
19
Chris
Churchill,
Kurt
Rasmussen,
Jeremy
Murdock.

20
MR.
CHURCHILL:
Good
afternoon,
members
of
the
21
board.
My
name
is
Chris
Churchill
and
I'm
president
of
22
Fiber
Tech
USA.

23
We
were
one
of
your
grant
recipients
in
1998.

24
In
1998
the
board
approved
a
grant
for
$
750,000
25
for
Fiber
Tech
to
build
a
rice
straw
particle
board
plant
in
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
321
1
Colusa
that
would
use
between
20
and
40,000
tons
of
rice
2
straw
a
year.

3
With
that
money
and
other
private
investment,
we
4
have
been
able
to
build
a
plant
that
we
project
will
use
5
between
40,000
and
80,000
tons
a
year
depending
on
which
6
products
we
produce.

7
Unfortunately,
as
with
an
establishment
of
any
new
8
technology
and
introduction
of
a
new
product
in
the
market,

9
it
takes
a
little
longer
than
you
might
anticipate.

10
In
our
case,
it
took
us
a
little
longer
to
build
11
the
plant
than
we
originally
anticipated,
and
then
the
12
start­
up
of
the
facility
took
longer
than
we
originally
13
anticipated.

14
One
of
the
major
reasons
was
we're
one
of
the
15
first
large­
scale
industrial
users
of
rice
straw,
and
so
16
when
there
was
a
problem,
there's
no
one
really
to
call
to
17
say
how
do
you
have
solve
this
problem,
because
nobody
had
18
had
that
experience.

19
So
solving
the
problems
was
a
series
of
trial
and
20
error,
and
unfortunately
trial
error
is
not
the
fastest
way
21
of
solving
problems
and
that
extended
the
start­
up.

22
However,
now
we
do
have
the
plant
operating
23
successfully.
We
are
now
in
production.
We
are
filling
24
orders
for
customers.
The
product
we're
producing
meets
all
25
the
market
requirements.
It's
been
tested
by
recognized
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
322
1
third­
party
agencies.

2
We're
ramping
up
our
production.
We're
not
in
3
full
production
right
now.
We're
producing
a
couple
of
days
4
a
week,
but
we
will
be
ramping
up
over
time
and
we'll
be
5
producing
24
hours
a
day
and
seven
days
a
week.
It's
at
6
that
point
we'll
still
be
using
significant
amounts
of
7
straw.
You
know,
we
are
still
­­
we're
still
in
business
8
and
people
are
taking
our
products.
Hopefully
the
long
road
9
of
starting
the
plant
and
getting
it
up
to
full
production
10
is
nearly
over.

11
We
appreciate
the
faith
that
the
board
put
into
us
12
for
granting
us
the
money.
The
money
significantly
helped
13
us
not
only
in
paying
our
bills,
but
also
in
gaining
some
14
credibility
and
raising
additional
funds.

15
So
just
wanted
to
say
thank
you.

16
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Congratulations.

17
MR.
CHURCHILL:
Thank
you.

18
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Kurt
Rasmussen
and
Jeremy
19
Murdock.

20
MR.
RASMUSSEN:
Dr.
Lloyd,
thank
you
for
letting
21
me
come
up
here
and
talk
to
you.
It's
been
a
little
over
a
22
year
ago
that
I
told
you
I
think
we
could
solve
all
the
rice
23
straw
problems.
And
I
don't
know
if
we
can
solve
them
all,

24
but
we
can
give
you
a
long
way
in
the
right
direction.

25
And
I
would
like
to
pass
you
out
a
couple
of
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
323
1
things
that
we
have
done
with
rice
straw.
Here
is
two
2
different
items,
if
you
want
to
pass
one
from
each
bag.

3
So
what
we've
been
doing
is,
and
I
thank
you,

4
Jerry,
for
your
comments.
We've
been
working
with
Jerry
5
Maltby
and
we've
been
working
with
Chico
University
and
we
6
believe
that
we
can
enhance
rice
straw
in
the
field
or
off
7
the
fields,
so
that
it
will
become
worth
using
it
again,
you
8
can
either
use
it
as
a
fertilizer
and
you
can
use
it
for
9
composting.

10
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
You
can
use
this
for
11
fertilizer
or
composting?

12
MR.
RASMUSSEN:
Yes.
It
can
used
for
bedding.
It
13
can
also
be
used
for
cattle
feed.

14
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Bedding?

15
MR.
RASMUSSEN:
For
bedding.
The
dry
stuff.

16
There's
two
bags
there.
One
is
wet
and
one
is
dry.

17
The
wet
one
would
be
one
you
could
use
for
cattle
18
feed
or
you
can
plow
it
in
as
a
fertilizer.
It
can
be
used
19
either
way.

20
The
dry
one
would
be
very
good
for
bedding
for
21
dairy
farmers
and
if
you
­­
so
in
other
words
what
the
thing
22
is
that
we
can
check
the
rice
grower
and
he
can
solve
all
23
the
environmental
problem
for
the
dairy
farmer
and
here's
24
basically
how
you
would
do
it.
You
would
take
the
rice
25
straw
there
and
give
it
to
his
dairy
cows
at
about
ten
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
324
1
percent,
and
then
you
would
take
the
other
rice
straw
and
2
put
down
as
bedding.
You
will
now
be
able
to
eliminate
most
3
of
his
methane
gas
out
of
the
rear
end
of
the
cow
and
when
4
the
cow
manure
drops
down
in
the
other
kind
of
bedding,
you
5
will
take
care
of
the
ammonia,
most
of
the
ammonia
problem.

6
So
now
it
makes
something
like
this
and
then
if
you
will
7
scoop
it
off
and
put
it
into
an
air
bag
and
compost
it,
you
8
get
a
better
compost
than
you
can
buy
at
Home
Depot.

9
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Did
Mr.
Maltby
verify
that
10
there
is
less
methane?
Did
you
verify
that
there
was
less
11
methane
from
the
cow?

12
MR.
MALTBY:
I
have
no
way
to
prove
that.

13
MR.
RASMUSSEN:
We
have
no
proof
of
that
or
how
14
much
it
is,
we
just
know
that
it
reduces
and
make
the
cow
15
healthier.
This
is
one
thing
we
do
know.

16
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
How
do
you
know?

17
MR.
RASMUSSEN:
There's
other
research
we've
done
18
around
the
world,
and
many
other
places,
and
I
don't
have
19
all
the
answers
right
here,
but
EM
is
used
in
about
a
20
hundred
countries.
It's
not
a
new
thing.
It's
a
new
thing
21
in
the
United
States,
but
it's
around
the
world
in
about
a
22
hundred
countries
and
it's
an
national
farm
policy
in
about
23
six
or
seven
countries
where
they
use
it
as
a
policy.

24
So
if
you
took
this
and
put
it
into
the
dairy
25
farms,
now
you
can
reduce
his
emission
and
odors
to
the
­­

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
325
1
up
to
there
­­
up
to
­­
you
won't
have
all
this
and
all
2
these
things
coming
down
so
you
can
help
reduce
the
air
3
pollution,
and
make
a
healthier
cow
and
get
rid
of
the
rice
4
straw
and
the
same
time
he
won't
need
all
of
his
ponds
and
5
so
forth,
he
won't
need
it
as
much,
because
the
straw
will
6
absorb
the
liquids.
7
If
you
read
it
in
the
report
there
you
will
see
8
that
we
can
enhance
the
rice
straw
by
using
the
EM
9
implementation,
we
enhance
the
nutrition
value
of
it
and
it
10
will
enhance
the
value
and
there's
more
studies
being
done.

11
But
again
we
need
to
apply
for
some
funding
if
we
12
can
get
some
for
­­
we
need
more
help
in
funding
for
data.

13
So,
Jeremy,
you
want
to
come
up?

14
I
brought
my
expert
along
here,
who
has
been
15
running
the
program
more
than
I
have.
Ask
him
all
the
16
questions.

17
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Okay.

18
MR.
MURDOCK:
Thank
you
for
this
opportunity
to
19
speak.

20
I'm
the
president
of
EM
Living
Soil
Systems.
And
21
we've
started
to
work
on
some
of
these
alternatives
to
rice
22
straw
burning.

23
We
feel
like
the
EM
culture
can
be
applied
to
help
24
some
of
the
incorporation
problems,
and
help
develop
some
of
25
the
commercial
off­
field
usages
of
rice
straw.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
326
1
Basically
because
of
the
unique
aspects
of
EM
2
culture
having
both
anaerobic
bacteria
and
aerobic
bacteria,

3
we
can
apply
it
in
incorporation
methods
in
both
non­
flooded
4
and
flooded
fields,
so
some
of
the
problems
associated
with
5
non­
flooded
fields
incorporating
rice
straw
is
heavy
6
mechanical
or
high
mechanical
energy
needed
because
of
the
7
high
fiber
content
to
work
it
in.

8
And
through
preliminary
research
we
have
already
9
found
that
EM
is
highly
effective
at
breaking
down
a
lot
of
10
the
lignin
rich
fiber
that
creates
that
barrier
for
11
decomposition.

12
So
we
feel
like
there's
a
lot
of
possibilities
13
with
spraying
EM
into
non­
flooded
fields
and
then
greatly
14
reducing
the
mechanical
soil
straw
preparations,
which
would
15
then
decrease
energy
inputs,
and
as
well
as
particulate
16
matter
emissions.

17
And
then
with
flooded
­­
the
problems
associated
18
with
flooding,
well,
they
found
that
flooding
is
a
more
19
effective
way
to
incorporate
rice
straw,
but
there
is
all
20
sorts
of
putrefactive
anaerobic
volatile
gases
coming
off
21
the
top,
large
amounts
of
methane
especially.

22
And
because
there's
so
many
anaerobic
bacteria
if
23
we
spray
the
rice
straw
prior
to
flooding
and
colonize
it
24
with
anaerobic
bacteria
we'll
eliminate
those
gaseous
25
emissions
greatly
during
the
winter
flooding
period.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
327
1
We're
also
working
on
developing
alternative
2
commercial
industry
for
rice
straw.
People
have
been
3
talking
about
RNE.
One
of
them
that
has
not
grown
in
4
popularity
or
grown
in
tonnage
used
is
bedding,
and
we
feel
5
like
that
bedding
has
a
lot
of
potential,
especially
in
6
poultry
industries,
because
it
eliminates
the
ammonia.

7
And
you
are
talking
about
proof
of
that.
We
do
8
have
data
now
that
proves
through
fermentation
we're
able
to
9
reduce
ammonia
levels
in
ammonia
levels
77
percent,
and
10
that's
from
preliminary
data.
We're
still
getting
more
11
data.
That's
the
first
point
of
data
collection.

12
And
there's
many
points
there
after
that
we're
13
waiting
for
to
come
up
with
the
full
data
analysis.

14
But,
we
feel
like
from
international
research,
15
methane
reduction
will
be
parallel
to
ammonia
reduction.

16
I've
not
been
able
to
find
methane
research
done
in
America
17
and
we
hope
to
do
some
soon.

18
The
other
industry
is
cattle
feed.
We're
hoping
19
to
really
expand
that
and
make
it
a
highly
affordable
price.

20
And
we're
doing
research
in
the
straw
burning
21
industry.

22
The
material
that
you
have,
that
straw,
it's
23
called
bokashi.
And
it
might
become
very
popular
in
the
24
next
five
years,
hopefully.

25
But
that
you
alluded
to
the
fact
of
using
it
as
a
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
328
1
compost,
and
the
system
of
agriculture
that
I've
done
in
the
2
last
two
years,
called
nature
farming,
uses
that
as
a
3
compost
replacement.
It's
a
much
more
efficient
method
as
4
far
as
energy
inputs,
the
mechanical
inputs
and
time
inputs,

5
when
compared
to
making
compost,
and
the
results
are
equal
6
or
greater
than
using
compost.

7
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
But
the
dry
sample
that
we
got
8
that's
not
treated
with
your
material?

9
MR.
MURDOCK:
It
is.
It's
stabilized
by
drying.

10
It's
just
the
wet
and
dry.
It's
two
different
products.
In
11
fact
you
can't
use
bedding
wet.
You
know,
you
need
to
apply
12
the
bedding
dry,
but
yet
if
you
were
to
­­

13
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
For
example,
but
like
when
you
14
use
that
as
a
­­
in
the
landscaping
as
a
compost
as
a
mulch?

15
MR.
MURDOCK:
You
could.
You
can
use
it
wet
or
16
dry
as
a
mulch,
because
it
gets
rained
on,
dries
out,
so
you
17
can
use
that
wet
or
dry.
For
shipping
costs
it
might
be
18
more
useful
to
dry
it.
19
You
want
to,
let's
say,
you're
tilling
in
a
cover
20
crop,
you
would
want
to
apply
the
bokashi
wet
into
the
cover
21
crop
and
then
just
­­

22
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
How
do
you
spell
that?

23
MR.
MURDOCK:
B­
o­
k­
a­
s­
h­
i.
Bokashi.
And
in
24
Japanese
it
simply
means
fermented
organic
matter.

25
And
you
can
make
bokashi
out
of
anything.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
329
1
The
company
I
founded
last
year
essentially
takes
2
byproducts,
takes
agricultural
wastes
and
we
remediate
it
3
with
EM.
We'll
remediate
anything.
We've
done
projects
4
where
we
remediate
a
brewery
with
this
and
turn
it
into
5
cattle
feed.

6
So
we
remediate
waste
material
that
people
have
to
7
spend
money
in
hauling
off,
and
we
turn
it
into
a
8
value­
added
product
that
they
can
use
on
a
farm
or
sell
as
a
9
commodity.

10
So
we're
working
with
these
different
­­
trying
to
11
develop
these
different
alternative
usages,
off­
field
usages
12
for
bokashi,
and
basically
EM
is
highly
effective
at
13
breaking
down
the
surface
tension
of
rice
straw,
and
that's
14
kind
of
the
barrier
to
incorporation
into
using
it
as
feed.

15
It's
not
palatable,
it's
not
soft,
it's
not
easy
to
16
incorporate.

17
And
just
to
sum
it
up,
EM
is
highly
effective
at
18
breaking
down,
as
you
can
tell,
if
you
just
feel
the
19
material,
it
doesn't
feel
anything
like
rice
straw
20
untreated.
And
if
you
look
at
it,
the
fibers
are
kind
of
21
being
pulled
apart,
and
that
­­
and
the
data
collected
is
22
indicative
of
what
one
can
observe.
23
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thanks
very
much.

24
I
must
say,
when
I
­­
Mr.
Rasmussen
first
brought
25
this
to
our
attention,
I
was
a
little
bit
skeptical,

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
330
1
although
hoping
that
it
would
pan
out,
but
to
hear
some
2
independent
verification
today
that
things
are
working
and
3
seeing
this,
that's
great.

4
MR.
MURDOCK:
It's
working
out
great.
And,
you
5
know,
we
installed,
I
was
out
a
few
weeks
ago
installing
an
6
injection
system
into
Jerry's
feed
lot
to
inject
EM
into
the
7
drinking
water,
and
see
just
vertically
integrating
EM
8
allows
Jerry
to
make
a
higher
grade
compost
easier.

9
If
you
insert
it
earlier
into
the
chain,
then
the
10
byproducts,
the
manure
created
from
those
cattle
will
be
11
more
conducive
into
making
a
higher
quality
compost.

12
So
it's
just
kind
of
the
chain
reaction,
and
then
13
year
after
year
the
populations
establish
in
those
14
environments
and
EM
becomes
more
and
more
effective
over
15
time,
kind
of
an
a
logarithmic
curve,
you
know.

16
So
whenever
you're
dealing
with
something
17
biological
on
a
microbal
level,
you
know,
it
just
takes
time
18
to
see
results.
A
lot
of
times
we're
used
to
just
putting
19
some
highly
soluble
fertilizer
or
something
just
to
see
20
results
of
the
plants
getting
green
instantly.
We're
seeing
21
results
now,
and
we
just
have
to
keep
in
mind
we're
dealing
22
with
EM,
things
aren't
overnight,
but
the
gains
are
really
23
large
in
the
long
term,
especially
environmentally,
and
we
24
just
feel
like
using
EM
we
can
just
do
a
lot
of
things
using
25
less
energy
and
creating
less
volatile
gas
emissions.
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
331
1
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.

2
Mr.
Kenny,
we
have
EM
Systems
working.

3
MR.
MURDOCK:
Thanks.

4
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Any
questions
from
the
board
5
or
comments?

6
Ms.
D'Adamo.

7
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
I
had
a
couple
of
comments
8
about
the
report.

9
I
think
that
it
would
be
most
helpful
if
in
the
10
section
regarding
environmental
assessment
of
the
11
phase­
down,
page
21,
I
think
that
it
should
include,
my
own
12
opinion
is
that
I
think
it
should
include
the
use
of
water
13
and
the
impact
that
that
has
on
our
resource
base,
and
I
14
realize
that's
not
utilized
in
all
instances,
but
as
far
as
15
the
impact,
I
think
it
should
be
included
in
the
discussion.

16
And
then
in
addition
earlier,
Mr.
Carrancho,
am
I
17
pronouncing
your
name
right,
indicated
that
in
some
18
instances
where
fields
are
left
fallow,
well,
in
many
19
instances,
in
instances
where
a
farmer,
for
whatever
reason,

20
is
not
able
to
continue
production,
the
result
may
be
that
21
the
field
gets
left
fallow.

22
What
sort
of
an
impact
does
that
have
23
environmentally?

24
And
I
haven't
been
out
to
these
areas,
I
don't
25
know
if
the
result
is
increased
PM
from
the
dust.
I
don't
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
332
1
know.
Just
some
of
the
­­
something
to
throw
out
there.
2
On
the
ethanol
section,
page
15,
I
just
like
to
3
throw
it
out
there
that
I
think
it
should
be
more
aggressive
4
and
perhaps
there
should
be
a
discussion
of
ideas
that
where
5
we
can
­­
further
along
in
this
report,
I
realize
the
6
discussion
here
indicates
the
difficulties
in
ethanol
7
production,
but
I
think
we
need
to
have
a
little
bit
of
a
8
responsibility
in
light
of
the
fact
that
we
adopted
the
RSG.

9
So
I
don't
know
if
it
would
be
in
this
report
or
10
just
elsewhere
where
it
could
be
a
little
more
aggressive
on
11
this
topic.

12
The
credit
that
one
of
the
witnesses
raised,
that
13
the
credit
is
not
available
to
the
producer,
could
staff
14
speak
to
that?
Is
that
something
that
is
a
limitation
in
15
statute
or
is
it
in
regulation?

16
MR.
FLETCHER:
If
you're
dealing
with
the
$
20
17
credits
and
the
$
15
credits,
those
are
accounts
that
are
18
administered
by
CDFA,
and
they
are
statute
in
terms
of
19
limitations
on
the
ability
to
provide
them
to
the
growers
20
themselves.

21
Now,
the
emission
reduction
credits,
that
was
also
22
referred
to,
is
a
similar
situation
in
terms
of
there
are
23
credits
available.
They
can
capture
them
and
they
are
using
24
them.

25
BOARD
MEMBER
D'ADAMO:
I
don't
want
to
take
up
a
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
333
1
bunch
of
time
on
this
today,
but
maybe
if
staff
could
be
2
directed
to
pursue
this,
perhaps
a
recommendation
through
3
Mr.
Ogilvie's
office
for
possible
­­
there
you
are.

4
Clean­
up
legislation
in
this
area.

5
And
then,
lastly,
this
has
just
been
fascinating
6
to
see
the
evolution
in
this
area.
I
can
see
great
7
progress.
I
know
some
of
the
other
board
members
mentioned
8
that
as
well.

9
I'm
just
kind
of
wondering
if
the
witnesses
10
benefit
when
they
come
before
us
periodically
to
talk
about
11
how
they've
progressed.

12
And
it
almost
seems
to
me
that
if
they
do,
if
they
13
utilize
this
as
an
opportunity
to
engage
in
an
information
14
exchange,
is
there
something
that
we
can
do
to
further
that
15
process
along
by
way
of
holding
workshops
or
perhaps
putting
16
together
some
sort
of
a
committee
or
an
information
exchange
17
of
an
informal
nature,
because
it
seems
to
me
that
there's
18
tremendous
potential
here
for
additional
uses.

19
And
as
board
members,
we're
fascinated
to
hear
20
about
it,
but
we're
probably
not
going
to
be
utilizing
that
21
information
directly.
It
just
seems
that
if
there
were
more
22
of
you
in
the
room
that
it
would
be
more
useful
for
you
all.

23
So
I
don't
know.
Ms.
Terry.

24
MS.
TERRY:
Certainly
that's
our
goal
with
the
25
expo
is
to
really
get
the
word
out.
And
I
think
we
have
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
334
1
enough
time
here,
we
have
planned
it
during
the
season
where
2
that
the
farming
community
will
be
available
so
we
will
do
3
our
best
to
have
really
extensive
outreach
and
bring
people
4
together.

5
That
combined
with
the
changes
to
the
criteria
to
6
allow
consideration
of
projects
that
involve
marketing
the
7
infrastructure,
we
think
it's
time
to
move
in
that
direction
8
now
that
we're
seeing
some
success
with
fundamental
concepts
9
like
bedding
and
particle
board
and
manufacturers,
and
so
10
on,
so
we
think
we
can
move
a
little
bit
more
in
the
11
marketing
stage
to
bring
perhaps
Trade
and
Commerce
and
some
12
other
agencies
in
more
active
process.

13
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Good.
Thanks.

14
And
your
comment
on
the
ethanol,
I
notice
there
we
15
did
get
an
e­
mail
from
a
Joan
Lee,
the
Gray
Panthers,

16
encouraging
us
to
also
push
on
that
issue.

17
With
that,
I
guess
we
­­
brings
this
item
to
a
18
close.
No
need
to
vote
on
this,
it's
not
a
regulatory
item.

19
Thank
you
very
much,
staff.

20
And
thank
you
for
the
presentation
from
the
21
farmers
and
the
colleagues
out
there.
Very
informative.

22
We'll
take
a
five­
minute
break
before
we
go
into
23
our
last
item.

24
We're
not
going
to
hear
the
enforcement
item
25
today.
We're
going
to
hold
that
over
until
the
next
meeting
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
335
1
in
San
Francisco.

2
So
the
next
item
and
the
last
one
will
be
the
3
smoke
management
program.

4
So
let's
take
a
five
minute
break.

5
(
Thereupon
a
short
recess
was
taken.)

6
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Last
item
on
the
agenda
today
7
is
01­
5­
4,
public
meeting
to
consider
the
smoke
management
8
guidelines
program
implementation
status.

9
In
March
2000
our
board
adopted
revisions
to
the
10
agricultural
burning
guidelines
and
established
the
smoke
11
management
guidelines
for
agricultural
and
prescribed
12
burning.
The
revisions
enhance
the
smoke
management
program
13
by
improving
data
collection
and
evaluation,
augmenting
14
smoke
management
planning,
increasing
burner/
air
agency
15
communication
and
collaboration
and
strengthening
the
16
burning
authorization
decision­
making
process.

17
When
the
board
adopted
the
guidelines,
we
also
18
recognized
the
need
for
air
district
support
in
implementing
19
the
new
revisions
of
the
guidelines.

20
The
board
directed
staff
to
work
with
the
air
21
districts
and
other
stakeholders
to
assist
with
a
variety
of
22
programmatic
needs,
including
smoke
management
forecasting
23
and
planning,
program
costs
and
environmental
impact
24
assessment.

25
While
not
included
as
part
of
the
guidelines,
the
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
336
1
board
also
directed
staff
to
report
back
on
how
to
address
2
the
issue
of
smoke
from
backyard
residential
burning.

3
Today
staff
will
provide
us
with
a
update
on
the
4
status
of
these
efforts,
as
well
as
report
on
air
district
5
progress
in
implementing
the
provisions
of
the
guidelines.

6
Again,
I
would
like
to
turn
this
over
to
Mr.
Kenny
7
and
the
staff
presentation.

8
MR.
KENNY:
Thank
you,
Dr.
Lloyd
and
members
of
9
the
board.

10
Smoke
management
guidelines
adopted
by
the
board
11
last
year
established
a
statewide
framework
for
more
12
standardized
smoke
management
planning
and
decision
making.

13
At
the
same
time,
they
provide
air
districts
with
14
flexibility
to
design
and
implement
their
programs
to
meet
15
their
unique
needs.

16
The
guidelines
established
July
1st,
2001,
as
the
17
deadline
for
air
districts
to
develop
a
revised
program
and
18
submit
them
to
the
ARB
for
approval.

19
In
response
to
the
board's
direction
to
work
with
20
air
districts
and
other
stakeholders
on
program
development,

21
we
coordinated
with
the
California
Air
Pollution
Control
22
Officers
Association
to
create
nine
smoke
management
working
23
groups.

24
The
working
groups
are
made
up
of
a
variety
of
25
stakeholders,
including
federal
and
state
land
managers,

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
337
1
fire
protection
agencies,
air
districts
and
the
ARB.

2
The
working
groups
have
provided
a
forum
for
3
discussion
of
issues
and
have
sponsored
the
development
of
a
4
number
of
products
to
assist
in
development
and
5
implementation
of
effective
smoke
management
programs.

6
Today
staff
will
provide
an
overview
of
the
7
working
group
effort,
and
highlight
a
number
of
the
8
products.

9
With
that,
I'd
like
to
turn
it
over
to
Mr.
Bruce
10
Oulrey,
who
will
make
the
staff
presentation.

11
MR.
OULREY:
Thank
you,
Mr.
Kenny,
Mr.
Chairman
12
and
members
of
the
board.

13
In
the
interest
of
time,
my
presentation
will
be
14
brief.

15
I
will
provide
with
you
a
quick
status
update
on
16
the
implementation
of
the
smoke
management
guidelines
for
17
agricultural
and
proscribed
burning.

18
I
will
also
share
the
results
of
an
analysis
we
19
performed
on
the
need
to
address
residential
garbage
20
burning.

21
As
you
will
recall,
the
board
amended
the
22
guidelines
in
March
2000.
The
purpose
of
the
guidelines
is
23
to
reduce
smoke
impacts
and
accommodate
increases
in
24
prescribed
burning
through
strengthened
smoke
management
25
programs
and
improved
coordination
and
communication
among
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
338
1
burners
and
air
quality
managers.

2
Implementation
of
the
guidelines
is
going
very
3
smoothly.
Air
managers
and
burners
are
work
well
together
4
on
program
development
and
day­
to­
day
operations.

5
The
guidelines
are
resulting
in
strengthened
air
6
district
programs
in
a
number
of
areas,
including
7
utilization
of
smoke
management
plans
for
prescribed
8
burning;
the
requirement
for
burners
to
obtain
local
daily
9
burn
authorization
no
more
than
24
hours
prior
to
a
burn;

10
the
incorporation
of
marginal
burn
days
to
allow
for
limited
11
burning
in
specified
areas;
and
the
development
of
smoke
12
management
tools
for
improving
the
ability
to
make
burn
13
decisions.

14
We
formed
numerous
working
groups
to
assist
with
15
meeting
the
California
Environmental
Quality
Act
16
requirements,
public
education
and
outreach
and
sharing
of
17
real
time
data
resources.

18
As
a
whole,
we
are
very
pleased
with
the
progress
19
that
is
occurring
and
we
are
committed
to
providing
20
additional
assistance
to
air
districts
for
the
21
implementation
of
their
programs.

22
With
regard
to
residential
garbage
burning,

23
working
with
stakeholders
we
identified
the
following
24
concerns.

25
There
is
a
potential
for
dioxin
emissions
from
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
339
1
this
type
of
burning
and
we
know
that
seven
air
districts
in
2
the
state
do
allow
for
it
to
occur.

3
300,000
households
reside
in
these
districts
with
4
about
150,000
households
that
do
not
have
collection
and
5
disposal
services.

6
Information
on
the
actual
amount
of
burning
and
7
definitive
data
on
emissions
is
still
limited.

8
To
address
these
concerns,
we
propose
the
9
following.

10
We
think
educating
the
public
on
potential
health
11
risks,
as
well
as
providing
information
and
alternatives
to
12
residential
garbage
burning
is
an
important
first
step.

13
We
plan
to
work
with
air
districts
and
other
14
stakeholders
to
carry
this
out.

15
We
also
propose
to
work
with
stakeholders
and
16
local
agencies
to
collect
more
information
about
residential
17
burning
emissions
and
to
encourage
improvements
to
waste
18
collection
disposal
services.

19
Additionally,
we
plan
to
work
with
air
districts
20
and
fire
protection
agencies
to
investigate
options
for
21
improving
enforcement
in
areas
that
don't
allow
garbage
22
burning.

23
We
have
added
residential
garbage
burning
to
ARB's
24
clean
air
plan
and
we
are
committed
to
further
evaluating
25
potential
for
developing
an
air
toxics
control
measure.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
340
1
We
recognize
some
air
districts
believe
this
is
a
2
local
issue
and
we
plan
to
work
with
them
and
other
air
3
districts
as
we
go
forward.

4
In
conclusion,
the
implementation
of
the
smoke
5
management
guidelines
and
air
district
smoke
management
6
programs
are
proving
to
be
a
success.
Communication
and
7
coordination
between
burners
and
air
agencies
has
been
8
essential.

9
We
are
appreciative
of
the
cooperative
efforts
10
that
have
been
taking
place
with
stakeholders
through
the
11
working
group
process,
and
we're
committed
to
providing
12
continued
support
for
program
development
and
13
implementation.

14
Thank
you.
That
concludes
my
presentation.

15
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you
very
much,
Bruce.

16
Questions
from
the
board?

17
Questions
from
the
board?

18
No.

19
With
that,
I
think
we
have
two
people
signed
up
to
20
testify.
I
recognize
that
Barbara
and
Wayne
were
not
just
21
here
for
the
­­
Wayne
Morgan
from
North
Coast
AQMD
is
here,

22
and
as
well
as
Barbara
Lee,
president
of
CAPCOA.

23
Wayne.

24
MR.
MORGAN:
Ladies
first.

25
MS.
LEE:
Good
evening,
Mr.
Chairman
and
members
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
341
1
of
the
board.

2
I'm
happy
to
have
an
opportunity
to
talk
to
you
3
this
evening
about
CAPCOA's
efforts
to
work
with
ARB
staff
4
implementing
the
enhanced
smoke
management
guidelines.

5
I
want
to
start
off
by
acknowledging
the
extent
of
6
efforts
staff
have
taken
to
involved
air
districts
in
this
7
phase
of
the
implementation
of
the
program.
We're
very
8
happy
with
all
of
the
efforts
they
have
done
in
that
area.

9
There
are
two
specific
implementation
issues
that
10
I
would
like
to
draw
your
attention
to.

11
The
first
is
that
at
the
hearing
where
you
adopted
12
this
program
last
year,
the
board
committed
to
help
us
13
secure
long­
term
and
full
funding
for
this
enhanced
smoke
14
management
program.

15
We
have
been
working
on
that
over
the
past
year
16
with
ARB
staff.
I
know
that
you've
included
in
your
budget
17
last
year
a
proposal
to
help
districts
in
their
funding
18
efforts
for
this
program.

19
That
was
not
a
successful
effort
on
all
of
our
20
parts.

21
I
would
like
to
urge
you
to
make
this
a
top
22
priority
in
the
coming
year's
budget.
This
program
is
23
costly
to
implement.
Many
of
the
efforts
are
intensive
on
24
the
part
of
the
district,
and
the
equipment
and
other
25
infrastructure
issues
involved
are
costly
for
us,
and
we
do
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
342
1
need
some
help
in
funding
the
program.

2
So
I
would
like
to
ask
you
to
please
make
that
a
3
top
priority.

4
The
second
issue
is
that
last
month
the
California
5
Air
Pollution
Control
Officers
Association
voted
6
overwhelmingly
to
ask
the
ARB
board
to
please
move
ahead
in
7
adopting
an
air
toxics
control
measure
to
ban
burn
barrels.

8
We
want
this
to
be
take
top
priority
for
you
as
well,
and
9
this
is
because
of
the
high
exposure
many
people
receive
10
from
uncontrolled
emission
of
garbage
in
the
burn
11
barrels.

12
Unfortunately
after
we
took
this
vote
we
heard
13
from
three
CAPCOA
members
that
they
have
some
significant
14
concerns
about
hardships
this
action
might
create
in
their
15
areas
because
they
lack
sufficient
garbage
service.
We
16
think
these
are
valid
concerns
and
we
urge
staff
to
consider
17
that
and
address
them
in
the
development
of
the
ATCM,
so
18
that
the
public
in
those
areas
is
not
harmed
by
your
actions
19
going
forward.

20
But
again
I
want
to
reiterate
CAPCOA's
support
for
21
an
air
toxics
control
measure
banning
burn
barrels
and
22
addressing
the
issues
of
uncontrolled
garbage
burning.

23
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Maybe
express
my
ignorance
24
here,
but
why
doesn't
the
local
district
have
the
authority
25
to
ban
these
without
relying
on
ARB
to
send
them
an
ATCM?

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
343
1
MS.
LEE:
Many
districts
have
gone
ahead
and
done
2
this.
Some
districts
are
restricted
in
their
ability
to
do
3
it,
either
statutorily
in
a
couple
of
cases,
or
for
4
political
reasons
in
other
cases
And,

5
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
In
those
cases
you'd
like
us
6
to
bear
the
heat
and
use
us
to
­­

7
MS.
LEE:
The
districts
don't
have
specific
8
authority
to
adopt
air
toxics
control
measures
in
the
same
9
way
that
the
ARB
does
have,
and
this
is
a
significant
source
10
of
air
toxics
emissions,
and
we
think
it's
a
viable
approach
11
to
addressing
it.

12
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
What's
the
status
of
our
work
13
in
this
area?
14
MR.
FLETCHER:
Well,
over
the
last
year
we
have
15
been
working
with
one
of
the
numerous
work
groups
we've
16
formed
on
smoke
management
over
the
last
year,
but
one
of
17
them
was
specifically
targeted
at
residential
burning
and
18
specifically
garbage
burning
and
we
have
actually
collected
19
quite
a
bit
of
information
about
the
scope
of
the
problem
20
and
that's
the
slide
up
there
indicated
that
there
is
about
21
300,000
households
we
think
that
are
in
areas
that
still
22
allow
garbage
burning.
About
half
of
those
are
in
areas
23
where
we
think
that
there
is
residential
service
to
pick
up
24
the
garbage.

25
The
issues
that
we're
looking
at
is
really
trying
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
344
1
to
quantify
what
the
dioxin
and
benzene,
which
are
probably
2
the
two
toxic
air
contaminants
that
we're
dealing
there
are.

3
US
EPA
has
done
work
to
do
testing
on
this
for
under
a
4
couple
different
scenarios
and
that's
basically
the
only
5
testing
that's
been
done
on
there.

6
I
think
the
issues
that
we
need
to
look
at
is
7
working
with
the
fire
agencies
there
is
some
question
about
8
whether
it's
better
to
burn
stuff
on
the
ground
or
burn
it
9
in
burn
barrel
from
fire
safety
perspective,
so
those
are
10
areas
I
think
we
need
to
look
into.

11
We
need
to
get
a
better
handle
on
what
the
12
exposure
actually
is
from
the
combustion
of
this
material.

13
I
think
the
150,
from
our
perspective,
from
what
14
we
know
right
now,
may
be
an
upper,
you
know,
an
upper
15
level.
We
just
don't
know
how
frequently
this
occurs.

16
In
conjunction
with
the
testing
and
monitoring
17
we're
now
going
to
be
doing
and
we're
starting
up
in
the
Bay
18
Area
and
shortly
thereafter
in
the
South
Coast
to
start
19
assessing
what
the
ambient
levels
of
dioxin
are.
I
think
it
20
will
start
giving
us
a
baseline
to
evaluate
what
the
21
incremental
impacts
of
this
are.

22
Quite
frankly,
we're
going
to
proceed
with
a
23
continued
collection
of
the
information
to
try
to
get
a
24
better
handle
on
what
the
exposures
are
and
what
the
25
emissions
are
and
we
may
end
up
having
to
do
some
of
our
own
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
345
1
testing
to
see
what
the
impact
is,
but
I
don't
think
there's
2
any
question
that
there
are
dioxin
and
benzene
emissions
3
from
this
source
and
it's
pretty
widespread
in
some
of
these
4
areas.

5
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
So
that
Barbara
can
go
back
to
6
her
members
and
Wayne
can
go
back,
and
I
don't
get
a
call
7
from
Bob
Reynolds,
when
do
we
expect
to
bring
something
to
8
the
board?

9
MR.
FLETCHER:
Well,
it
usually
takes
us,
our
rule
10
of
thumb
for
an
airborne
toxic
control
measure
it
takes
11
about
three
to
five
person
years
and
roughly
two
­­
sorry,

12
three
to
five
person,
people
to
develop
it
and
it
takes
13
about
two
years
to
develop
an
ATCM.

14
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
The
clock
started
when?

15
MR.
FLETCHER:
The
clock
started
probably
about
16
six
months
ago.
So
I
think
if
we
were
able
to
do
it
in
18
17
months
we
would
probably
be
okay.

18
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
So
we're
into
2002.

19
MR.
FLETCHER:
I
think
that
would
be
about
right.

20
Yeah.
Or
what's
next
year?
2002.
Yeah.
End
of
2002.

21
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Good.
22
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
Mr.
Chairman.

23
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Yes.

24
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
I
just
have
a
comment.

25
When
the
staff
briefed
me,
I
asked
them
for
some
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
346
1
of
the
areas
that
were
still
allowing
the
burning,
and
I
2
found
it
very
interesting
because
I
expected
very
remote
3
little
areas
to
be
­­
and
rural,
very
rural,
to
be
on
that
4
list.

5
Reality
is
they
are
not
necessarily
those
areas.

6
In
fact
there
are
some
areas
that
I
was
really
shocked
that
7
they
were
allowing
this
residential
burn.

8
And
in
thinking
about
representing
the
largest
and
9
the
most
rural
of
counties,
when
you
think
of
the
distances
10
of
San
Bernardino,
and
we
were
able
to
provide
either
11
transfer
facilities
and
albeit
some
of
our
waste
disposal
12
sites
might
be
thought
of
in
jeopardy
today
for
what
we
know
13
about
those
sites,
but
what
we
knew
and
when
we
established
14
them,
we
were
able
to
provide
to
22,000
square
miles
some
15
sort
of
waste
disposal.

16
Now,
some
of
it
had
to
be
obviously
driven
a
17
tremendous
distance.

18
So
it
concerns
me
that
there
are
some
counties,

19
and
I
will
name
a
couple
of
them.
One
was
Monterey,

20
correct.
Now
you
tell
me
about
Monterey.
San
Luis
Obispo.

21
Santa
Barbara.
I
consider
those
absolutely
­­
that's
22
unacceptable.

23
And
so
I'm
a
little
concerned
about
what
areas
24
we're
allowing
this
burning
in.
I
mean,
I'm
a
generous
25
person,
but
I'm
not
real
generous
when
I
think
of
what
our
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
347
1
areas
are
doing
and
those
areas
are
allowing
that
burning.

2
It's
just
not
realistic.

3
MS.
LEE:
The
three
areas
that
I
spoke
of
that
4
expressed
concerns
about
hardship
were
very
rural
areas.

5
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
That
may
be.

6
MS.
LEE:
Lassen,
Siskiyou
and
­­

7
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
Sure.
And
those
would
be
8
the
ones
that
I
would
expect
and
be
understanding.

9
But
some
of
the
others,
I'm
just
not
understanding
10
of
that
at
all,
because
you
can
do
transfer
facilities.

11
Very
easy
to
do.
I
mean,
we
do
it
in
massive
desert
areas
12
that,
you
know,
I've
represented,
so
it
can
be
done.

13
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
think
we
can
­­

14
MS.
LEE:
In
the
case
of
the
Monterey,
I
don't
15
know
all
of
the
circumstances
of
all
of
the
areas,
but
I
do
16
know
in
the
case
of
the
Monterey
district
that
when
the
17
district
was
formed,
one
of
the
things
that
went
into
their
18
charter
was
that
they
were
unable
to
ban
garbage
burning.

19
So.

20
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
That's
a
very
strange
one.

21
MS.
LEE:
It's
a
circumstance
where
as
much
as
22
they
would
like
to
address
the
situation
they
can't.

23
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
think
you
should
alert
Bob
24
Carr
that
if
he
doesn't
come
next
month
to
testify
about
25
transport
of
ozone
from
the
Bay
Area
to
San
Luis
Obispo,
we
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
348
1
are
going
to
ask
him
why
does
he
allow
exposure
to
dioxin
2
from
open
burning.
So
has
he
done
that
trade­
off
there.
So
3
just
alert
Bob,
if
he's
not
retired
by
then.

4
MS.
LEE:
I
will.

5
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
But
you
can
see
what
I'm
6
saying.
I
mean
there
are
some
counties
that
I
truly
7
understand
it,
but
those
others,
there's
not
a
reason
they
8
should
be
having
residential
burning.

9
MR.
FLETCHER:
Just
to
clarify,
if
I
might,
some
10
of
these
areas
it's
not
the
entire
county.

11
BOARD
MEMBER
RIORDAN:
And
I
recognize
that.

12
But
even
if
you
planted
their
footprint,
for
13
instance,
on
San
Bernardino
County,
you'd
see
why
I
have
14
that
concern,
because
it
just
don't
make
sense.
It
doesn't
15
compute.

16
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
think
this
paper
that
was
17
attached
to
Bob
Reynolds'
letter
here
was
pretty
18
interesting.
I
think
it
just
adds
to
the
case.

19
Thank
you
very
much,
Barbara.

20
Wayne.

21
MR.
MORGAN:
Dr.
Lloyd,
members
of
the
board.

22
Good
to
be
here.

23
I
have
a
much
greater
appreciation
for
this
board
24
because
of
all
the
topics
that
you
discussed
today.

25
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
appreciate
that.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
349
1
MR.
MORGAN:
All
way
from
cow
mature
to
electric
2
vehicles.
Quite
a
challenge.

3
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Let
Bob
also
know
that
we
4
covered
it.
5
MR.
MORGAN:
I
will
do
that.

6
The
questions
are
raised
here
by
Ms.
Riordan
is
7
absolutely
right
on
target.
It's
really
hard
to
understand
8
why
some
of
the
urbanized
areas
still
allow
residential
9
burning.

10
I
can
speak
a
little
bit
on
behalf
of
Bob
Carr,

11
because
I
know
a
little
bit
of
his
situation
is
that
his
12
residential
burning
ban
is
being
phased
in
over
a
period
of
13
about
three
or
four
years
and
it's
designed
for
various
14
communities.

15
So
there
is
an
effort
underway.

16
But
I
think
it
points
to
something
that
is
I
would
17
like
to
stress
and
you
probably
will
never
hear
this
from
me
18
again
and
that
is
at
times
it
is
needful
for
the
Air
19
Resources
Board
to
take
the
leadership.
It
really
is.
And
20
at
times
we
can
help
support
you
in
a
lot
of
leaderships,

21
but
this
is
a
real
delicate
political
issue
when
it
comes
to
22
residential
burning.

23
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
recollect
when
we
first
24
started
with
these
regulations,
your
reactions
were
not
25
quite
the
same.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
350
1
MR.
MORGAN:
Right.

2
I
would
also
like
to
thank
the
Air
Resources
Board
3
for
approving
our
smoke
management
plan.
As
you
know,
we
4
were
the
first
to
go
through
the
process,
and
we're
the
5
first
to
receive
full
approval,
and
I
would
really
like
to
6
thank
Mike
Kenny,
Lynn
Terry,
and
Bob
Fletcher
for
their
7
effort
in
working
with
us
to
make
that
happen.

8
As
you
know,
we've
had
our
smoke
management
9
program,
it's
been
working
for
about
10,
11
years
now.
As
I
10
said
before,
it's
not
perfect,
but
it
works.
It's
a
11
cooperative
program
working
with
those
that
do
the
burning
12
of
forest
slash
and
so
forth.

13
And
you
were
speaking
earlier
with
the
rice
14
growers
and
so
forth
about
incentive
programs.

15
One
of
the
things
that
I
would
like
to
suggest
16
that
maybe
the
Air
Resources
Board
investigate,
and
that
17
would
be
alternatives
and
maybe
incentive
programs
for
18
alternatives
to
avoid
the
need
for
burning
forest
slash.

19
Some
of
that
now
is
being
used
because
of
the
economics
are
20
right
to
use
it
in
biomass
fuel,
but
there
are
incentives
at
21
times
that
need
to
be
applied
in
order
to
encourage
more
and
22
more
of
that
to
develop
markets
and
so
forth
for
chipping
or
23
for
using
it
for
biomass
fuel.

24
And
so
I
would
like
to
suggest
that
if
you
can
25
think
of
some
financial
incentive
ways
to
bring
that
about,

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
351
1
that
would
be
very
helpful.

2
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Would
that
qualify
also
for
3
some
of
the
biomass
to
ethanol?

4
MR.
MORGAN:
That's
true.
That's
down
the
road,
I
5
guess.

6
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Not
really
far.

7
MR.
MORGAN:
Not
too
far?

8
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Yeah.

9
Your
comments,
by
the
way,
also,
Wayne,
really
10
appreciate
that,
because
I
know,
Lynn,
when
we
went
up
11
there,
see
how
far
we've
come,
and
so
I
really
would
12
congratulate
Mike
and
Lynn
and
Bob
in
their
effort.
To
hear
13
you
say
that,
it
came
from
a
position
of
not
necessarily
14
seeing
eye
to
eye
to
where
it
is
today.
So
that's
great.

15
MR.
MORGAN:
And
it
is
appreciated
and
our
board
16
especially
appreciates
it,
as
well
as
you
folks
coming
to
17
the
North
Coast
to
see
it
firsthand.

18
So
again
thank
you
very
much.

19
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
The
owl
picture
is
still
with
20
us.

21
MR.
MORGAN:
Do
you
still
have
the
owl
picture?

22
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Yes.

23
MR.
MORGAN:
One
of
the
things
I
wanted
to
mention
24
and
one
of
the
main
reasons
I
wanted
to
come
down
was
to
try
25
and
support
the
Air
Resources
Board
in
setting
a
high
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
352
1
priority
on
burning
­­
banning
the
burn
barrel
in
2
residential
areas.

3
As
you
probably
have
been
made
aware
is
that
the
4
federal
EPA
and
the
New
York
State
Department
of
Health
5
performed
a
study
to
determine
the
emission
of
dioxin,

6
furans
and
several
other
organics.

7
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
This
was
the
paper
that
was
8
attached
to
Bob's
letter?

9
MR.
MORGAN:
That's
part
of
it.
That's
part
of
10
the
study,
yes.

11
But
they
equated
the
emissions
from
burn
barrels
12
with
that
of
a
municipal
waste
incinerator
and
it
showed
13
that
a
200
ton
per
day
municipal
waste
incinerator
equated
14
to
four
households
burning
in
their
burn
barrels.
So
you
15
can
see
the
magnitude
of
dioxins,
furans
that
go
into
the
16
community.
17
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
They're
uncontrolled
burns.

18
MR.
MORGAN:
They're
uncontrolled.
They're
19
emitted
at
low
levels
at
close
proximity
to
people
breathing
20
it,
so
the
impact
from
it
I
think
is
very
considerable.

21
And
then
Bob's
letter
it
showed
that
three
burn
22
barrels
equating
it
again
to
hospital
incinerators,
which
23
this
board
has
adopted
a
control
measure
for
dioxin
with
24
hospital
incinerators,
and
in
this
case
I
think
it
was
1700
25
pounds
of
hospital
waste
being
burned,
equated
to
500
pounds
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
353
1
per
year
of
residential
waste
in
a
burn
barrel,
and
both
of
2
those
it
took
three
burn
barrels
to
equate
to
the
same
3
dioxin
emissions
of
the
hospital
incinerator
burning
that
4
1700
pounds
per
year.
1700
or
17,000,
I
think
it
was.

5
So
again
it
kind
of
shows
you
the
magnitude
of
6
what
we're
stating
here
and
what
the
data
has
shown.

7
The
largest
number
of
complaints
that
we
receive
8
on
the
North
Coast
are
from
burn
barrels,
residential
9
burning.

10
It's
a
significant
part
of
our
workload
and
11
responding
to
these,
as
well
as
the
fire
departments
in
12
responding
to
the
smoke
complaints,
and
a
lot
of
them
are
13
people
burning
unapproved
materials.

14
And
in
my
opinion
it's
a
real
poor
use
of
our
15
resources
in
that
area
that
it
could
be
better
used
in
other
16
areas
if
they
weren't
being
diluted
in
to
these
particular
17
complaints.

18
There
are
alternatives
available
is
the
other
19
important
factor,
I
think.
Garbage
service
is
available
in
20
most
areas
in
California.
21
And
as
Ms.
Riordan
said,
there
are
transfer
22
stations
in
areas
that
are
outlying
that
allow
us
proper
23
disposal.

24
In
some
areas
on
the
northern
part
of
California,

25
I
understand
there's
not
garbage
service
available.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
354
1
What
I
would
propose
to
you
is
that
it
could
2
easily,
residential
burning
from
burn
barrels
could
easily
3
be
banned
with
a
proviso
that
if
there
is
not
garbage
4
service
available,
then
maybe
you
have
to
wait
until
5
alternatives
catch
up
a
bit.

6
But
where
garbage
service
is
available,
there's
7
recycling
services
available,
there
really
is
no
need
to
8
burn.

9
The
other
issue
I
would
just
like
to
bring
out
is
10
that
I
know
that
you,
Dr.
Lloyd,
are
committed
to
11
environmental
justice
issues
and
making
sure
those
are
dealt
12
with.

13
And
I'm
sure
that
the
other
board
members
here
are
14
also
committed
to
environmental
justice
issues.

15
I
believe
this
is
an
environmental
justice
issue.

16
It's
occurring
in
poor
and
low­
income
areas,
and
I
think
17
it's
something
that
you
can
use
the
board
can
do
about
it
by
18
asking
staff
to
set
a
high
priority
on
developing
a
control
19
measure
that
will
eventually
ban
or
eliminate
the
dioxin
20
exposures
through
this
route.

21
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
I
think
you
heard
Bob's
22
response
to
my
question,
what
you
heard
was
that
we
are
23
going
to
set
a
high
priority
and
we'll
go
as
fast
as
we
can
24
here
and
Bob
had
committed
to
get
this
to
the
board
towards
25
the
end
of
next
year.

PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
355
1
MR.
MORGAN:
Thank
you
very
much.
I
appreciate
it
2
very
much.

3
CHAIRPERSON
LLOYD:
Thank
you.

4
Other
questions
or
comments
from
the
board?

5
This
is
informational.
We
don't
have
to
take
any
6
action
here.

7
So
thank
you.
Thank
you,
staff.
Thank
you
for
8
cooperating.

9
We
don't
have
­­
we
have
no
one
signed
up
for
any
10
other
business
here
open
comment
period.

11
So
with
that,
I
would
like
to
officially
bring
the
12
June
28th
meeting
of
the
Air
Resources
Board
to
a
close.

13
Thank
you
all
very
much.

14
And
thank
you,
staff.

15
(
Thereupon
the
meeting
was
adjourned
16
at
6:
20
p.
m.)

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
1
CERTIFICATE
OF
REPORTER
2
I,
JAMES
F.
PETERS,
a
Certified
Shorthand
3
Reporter
of
the
State
of
California,
and
Registered
4
Professional
Reporter,
do
hereby
certify:

5
That
I
am
a
disinterested
person
herein;
that
the
6
foregoing
California
Air
Resources
Board
meeting
was
7
reported
in
shorthand
by
me,
ames
F.
Peters,
a
Certified
8
Shorthand
Reporter
of
the
State
of
California,
and
9
thereafter
transcribed
into
typewriting.

10
I
further
certify
that
I
am
not
of
counsel
or
11
attorney
for
any
of
the
parties
to
said
meeting
nor
in
any
12
way
interested
in
the
outcome
of
said
meeting.

13
IN
WITNESS
WHEREOF,
I
have
hereunto
set
my
hand
14
this
13th
day
of
July,
2001.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
JAMES
F.
PETERS,
CSR,
RPR
24
Certified
Shorthand
Reporter
25
License
No.
10063
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
1
CERTIFICATE
OF
SHORTHAND
REPORTER
2
3
I,
JANET
H.
NICOL,
a
Certified
Shorthand
Reporter
4
of
the
State
of
California,
do
hereby
certify
that
I
am
a
5
disinterested
person
herein;
that
I
reported
the
foregoing
6
meeting
in
shorthand
writing;
that
I
thereafter
caused
my
7
shorthand
writing
to
be
transcribed
into
typewriting.

8
I
further
certify
that
I
am
not
of
counsel
or
9
attorney
for
any
of
the
parties
to
said
meeting,
or
in
any
10
way
interested
in
the
outcome
of
said
meeting.

11
IN
WITNESS
WHEREOF,
I
have
hereunto
set
my
hand
12
this
7th
day
of
July
2001.

13
14
15
16
Janet
H.
Nicol
17
Certified
Shorthand
Reporter
License
Number
9764
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PETERS
SHORTHAND
REPORTING
CORPORATION
(
916)
362­
2345
