MEETING
BEFORE THE
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD
HEARING ROOM
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD
2020 L STREET
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1995
9:40 A.M.
Nadine J. Parks
Shorthand Reporter
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
ii
MEMBERS PRESENT
John D. Dunlap, III, Chairman
Eugene A. Boston, M.D.
Joseph C. Calhoun
Lynne T. Edgerton
M. Patricia Hilligoss
John S. Lagarias
Jack C. Parnell
Barbara Riordan
Ron Roberts
James W. Silva
Doug Vagim
Staff:
Jim Boyd, Executive Officer
Tom Cackette, Chief Deputy Executive Officer
Mike Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer
Michael Kenny, Chief Counsel
Terry McGuire, Chief, Technical Support Division
Rich Bradley, Chief, Air Quality Data Branch, TSD
Debbie Popejoy, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Section
Marci Nystrom, Staff TSD
Judy Tracy, Staff Counsel
Peter Venturini, Chief, Stationary Source Division
Dean Simeroth, Chief, Criteria Pollutants Branch, SSD
Gary Yee, Manager, Industrial Section, SSD
Jim Aguila, Staff, Stationary Source Division
Kathleen Walsh, Staff Counsel, Office of Legal Affairs
Ed Wong, Staff, Stationary Source Division
Genevieve Shiroma, Chief, Air Quality Measures Branch, SSD
Bob Jenne, Staff Counsel
Bob Cross, Assistant Chief, Mobile Source Division
Sue DeWitt, Staff, MSD North
Edith Chang, MSD North
Catherine Lentz, MSD North
Karen Irwin, MSD North
Patricia Hutchens, Board Secretary
Wendy Grandchamp, Secretary
Bill Valdez, Administrative Services Division
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
iii
I N D E X
PAGE
Proceedings 1
Call to Order 1
Pledge of Allegiance led by Supervisor Roberts 1
Roll Call 1, 2
Opening Statement by Chairman Dunlap 2
Comments by Chief Counsel Mike Kenny 4
Further Comments by Chairman Dunlap 5
AGENDA ITEMS:
95-12-1 Public Hearing to Consider Amendments
Criteria for Designating Areas of
California as Nonattainment, Attainment,
or Unclassified, Amendments to the Area
Designations for State Ambient Air
Quality Standards, and Amendments to
San Joaquin Valley and Southeast Desert
Air Basin Boundaries
Introductory Remarks by
Chairman Dunlap 6
Staff Presentation:
Jim Boyd
Executive Officer 7
Marci Nystrom
Staff, Technical Support Division 9
Written Comments Entered into
Record and Responded to by
Debbie Popejoy 22
Questions/Comments 26
Record Officially Closed by
Chairman Dunlap 38
Motion to Approve Resolution 95-46 39
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
iv
INDEX, continued. . . PAGE
AGENDA ITEMS:
95-12-1 Roll Call Vote 40
95-12-2 Public Hearing to Consider Amendments
to the Gasoline Deposit Control
Additive Regulation
Introductory Remarks by
Chairman Dunlap 41
Staff's Presentation:
Jim Boyd
Executive Officer 42
Jim Aguila
Staff
Stationary Source Division 44
Written Comments Entered Into
Record by Gary Yee 52
Questions/Comments 53
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Steven Smith
WSPA 56
Questions/Comments 58
Comments Continued by
Steven Smith 59
Questions/Comments 62
Direction to Staff by Chairman 65
Questions/Comments 66
Additional Written Comments Entered
into Record by Gary Yee 71
Record Officially Closed By Chairman
to Await 15-day public comment period 72
Motion to Approve Resolution 95-47 74
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
v
INDEX, continued. . . PAGE
AGENDA ITEMS:
95-12-2 Roll Call Vote 74, 75
Announcement by Chairman Dunlap 75
95-12-3 Public Meeting to Consider A
Status Report on Consumer Product
Manufacturers' Compliance with
"Future Effective" Standards
Introductory Remarks by
Chairman Dunlap 76
Staff's Presentation:
Jim Boyd
Executive Officer 78
Ed Wong
Staff
Stationary Source Division 79
Questions/Comments 88
Closing Remarks by Mr. Boyd 88
Closing Remarks by
Chairman Dunlap 89
Luncheon Recess 91
Afternoon Session 92
95-12-4 Public Meeting to Update Board
on Technological Progress of
Zero-Emission Vehicles
Introductory Remarks by
Chairman Dunlap 92
Staff Presentation:
Jim Boyd
Executive Officer 92
Sue DeWitt
Mobile Source Division North 93
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
vi
INDEX, continued. . . PAGE
AGENDA ITEMS:
95-12-4 Closing Remarks by Mr. Boyd 105
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
David C. Nunenkamp
for Assemblyman Bernie Richter 109
Questions/Comments 116
John G. Larrea
for Assemblyman Mickey Conroy 117
M. John Grimley
for Senator Ray Haynes 122
Valory F. Brown
for Assemblyman Steve Baldwin 124
Questions/Comments 127
Reuel Jones
for Assemblyman Bruce Thompson 128
Questions/Comments 132
Matt Saboraria
for Assemblyman Curt Pringle 133
Questions/Comments 136
Tom Austin
WSPA 138
Questions/Comments 144
(Direction to Staff) 149
Jamie K. Phillips
Planning & Conservation League 149
Lewis K. Uhler
National Tax Limitation Committee 152
Paul Knepprath
American Lung Assn. of California 157
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
vii
INDEX, continued. . . PAGE
AGENDA ITEMS:
95-12-4 Questions/Comments 159
Steve Moss
M.Cubed 160
Joseph Caves
Union of Concerned Scientists 164
Bill Ward
Drivers for Highway Safety 169
Questions/Comments 177
Janet Hathaway
NRDC 177
Anthony Trujillo
Citizen 180
Questions/Comments 186
Cecile M.Martin
CATC 189
Jerry Mader
Advanced Battery Task Force 195
Questions/Comments 199
Bill Van Amburg
CALSTART 201
Michael Semmens
Electrosource 204
Mike Wirsch
SMUD 208
Anita Mangels
CAHT 209
Bonnie Holmes
Sierra Club California 216
Robert Efrus
ALABC 221
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
viii
INDEX, continued. . . PAGE
AGENDA ITEMS:
95-12-4 Written Comments Entered into the
Record in toto 224
Closing Remarks by Mr. Boyd 224
Closing Remarks and Directions to
Staff by Chairman, and comments
by Board members 228
Adjournment 242
Certificate of Shorthand Reporter 243
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
1
P R O C E E D I N G S
1 --o0o--
2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Will the November meeting of the
3 California Air Resources Board please come to order.
4 I'd like Supervisor Roberts to please lead us in
5 the Pledge of Allegiance.
6 (Thereupon, all persons in the hearing room
7 rose to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, led
8 by Supervisor Roberts.)
9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Ron.
10 I'd like the Board Secretary to please call the
11 roll.
12 MS. HUTCHENS: Boston?
13 DR. BOSTON: Here.
14 MS. HUTCHENS: Calhoun?
15 MR. CALHOUN: Here.
16 MS. HUTCHENS: Edgerton?
17 MS. EDGERTON: Here.
18 MS. HUTCHENS: Hilligoss?
19 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: Here.
20 MS. HUTCHENS: Lagarias?
21 MR. LAGARIAS: Here.
22 MS. HUTCHENS: Parnell?
23 MR. PARNELL: Here.
24 MS. HUTCHENS: Riordan?
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
2
1 SUPERVISOR RIORDAN: Here.
2 MS. HUTCHENS: Roberts?
3 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Here.
4 MS. HUTCHENS: Silva?
5 SUPERVISOR SILVA: Here.
6 MS. HUTCHENS: Vagim?
7 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Here.
8 MS. HUTCHENS: Chairman Dunlap.
9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Here. Thank you.
10 During the week of October 30th to November 3rd, I
11 had the opportunity to travel the State from San Diego to
12 Walnut Creek with Secretary Strock and my colleagues from
13 our sister Cal-EPA agencies as part of Governor Wilson's
14 regulatory relief initiative.
15 In his initiative, the Governor directed State
16 agencies to look within themselves and to their regulated
17 communities and stakeholders in order to identify
18 regulations that might be outdated, ill-stated,
19 counterproductive, or for some other reason needed to be
20 changed.
21 By way of a status report on this subject, let me
22 briefly share with you our findings, and I will call upon
23 our legal counsel, Mike Kenny, for his assessment as well.
24 Our hearings were in San Diego, Loma Linda -- the
25 heart of the great Inland Empire I might point out,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
3
1 Supervisor Riordan -- Glendale -- and I think in your
2 district, too, as a matter of fact -- Glendale, Bakersfield,
3 and Walnut Creek.
4 We drew larger audiences than witness lists, and
5 took both written and oral testimony.
6 The comments, from my perspective, fell into two
7 broad categories. Broader policy issues, of which we were
8 well aware, Title 5, or permitting uniformity among air
9 districts was certainly discussed, and there are topics in
10 those categories that are being addressed by established
11 industry regulatory task force groups and working groups.
12 The second category would be concerns of
13 individual companies over the specific handling of their
14 regulatory relationship between the company or district
15 and/or the Air Resources Board.
16 Staff has prepared summaries of all testimony
17 received, both verbal and written. Each individual who
18 submitted testimony will receive a letter and followup by
19 the Board, not later than December, informing them of the
20 status of their issue, and outlining to them how each can
21 play an active role in the process, which we are engaged in.
22 In addition, Mr. Kenny, I understand that on
23 October 20, staff conducted a hearing to take public comment
24 on the question of which of the current regulations issued
25 by this Board and the State of California could be impacted,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
4
1 or that could be revised, or changed, or deleted in some
2 way.
3 Would you please inform us, the Board, of the
4 results of the meeting, what steps have been taken since,
5 and please offer, as well, any observations you may have on
6 the content and process of the regulatory relief initiative.
7 MR. KENNY: Yes, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
8 Board. On October 20th, we did hold a workshop here at the
9 Air Resources Board. The purpose of that workshop was to
10 really look at the regulations that are on the books for the
11 Air Resources Board in response to the Governor's Executive
12 Order.
13 What the staff had done was look at the
14 regulations and identify, of the regulations, those which
15 are either outdated or no longer necessary. We have
16 identified approximately 75 regulatory sections which no
17 longer had any real effect in the State as a result of them
18 being essentially obsolete through passage of time.
19 We noticed at the October 20th workshop that we
20 were planning to bring to the Board the elimination of those
21 particular sections. The notice went out to almost 2,000
22 people; however, we had a very small turnout. And I think
23 the primary reason for that was that there was really very
24 little significance to the regulations which we were going
25 to be eliminating. They really didn't have much of an
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
5
1 impact on the population.
2 We will go forward with the elimination of those
3 regulations either through a Section 100 change, which is an
4 administrative approach for getting rid of the regulations
5 very simply; or, in some instances, we need to come back to
6 the Board to request the Board's approval to eliminate
7 regulations which have a more substantive effect in terms of
8 moving, for example, the emissions criteria and inventory
9 guidelines out of Title 17, where they currently reside, and
10 into an actual guideline document, which will be more useful
11 and easy for the public to use.
12 We're in the process, also, of looking through the
13 regulations in their entirety to see if there are other
14 places where the regulations can be streamlined.
15 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Very good. Any questions of Mr.
16 Kenny? All right. Thank you, Mike.
17 As to the next steps, public and written comments
18 received during the hearings will be summarized and made
19 available for further review via Internet and other
20 published communications by December 1.
21 Cal-EPA will formally respond to the comments in a
22 package by February of next year.
23 Clearly, this is a time of great public scrutiny
24 of our regulatory institutions. Given the unfinished
25 business that we're dealing -- that is, striving to meet
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
6
1 clean air goals -- we need to move very deliberately and a
2 very carefully in a way that sends very clear signals that
3 we will not sacrifice any of those clean air goals and
4 progress that we need as we move forward.
5 So, thank you. And I'll continue to make sure the
6 Board is apprised of any efforts in this area.
7 I would like to remind those in the audience who
8 would like to present testimony to the Board on any of
9 today's agenda items to please sign up with the Board
10 Secretary. And if you wish to offer written comments,
11 please provide 20 copies to her.
12 The first item on the agenda today is 95-12-1, a
13 public hearing to consider amendments to the criteria for
14 designating areas of California as nonattainment,
15 attainment, or unclassified, amendments to the area
16 designations for the State ambient air quality standards,
17 and amendments to the San Joaquin Valley and Southeast
18 Desert Air Basin boundaries.
19 Before the staff begins its presentation, I'd like
20 to make a couple comments, brief comments, about the area
21 designations.
22 This year's review shows that several areas have
23 continued to improve, despite continued growth. This shows
24 that development and good air, or clean air, can coexist.
25 The South Coast Air Basin, well known for its air
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
7
1 quality problems, now meets the attainment requirements for
2 nitrogen dioxide. Attainment is proposed for several other
3 areas for carbon monoxide. These areas were previously
4 unclassified because of inadequate air quality data.
5 While these examples offer good news, there's also
6 some bad news to report. Our expanded monitoring efforts
7 have shown some problems. In particular, numerous
8 violations of the State CO standards have been found in
9 Imperial County near the international border.
10 While we don't know yet fully understand the
11 nature and causes of the problems, identifying this area as
12 nonattainment signals the need for further study and heads
13 us in the right direction for finding solutions.
14 At this point, I'd like to ask Mr. Boyd -- good
15 morning, Jim -- to introduce the item and begin the staff's
16 presentation.
17 MR. BOYD: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
18 Good morning, Board members, and good morning to our
19 audience.
20 Mr. Chairman, as you indicated, we are indeed
21 proposing amendments, not only to the area designations, but
22 also to two other regulations relating to air quality in
23 California.
24 The first proposed amendments affect the San
25 Joaquin Valley and the Southeast Desert Air Basin
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
8
1 boundaries. As you know, the Health and Safety Code
2 requires the Board to divide the State into air basins. The
3 San Joaquin Unified and the Kern County Districts have asked
4 us to consider a change in the boundaries of these two air
5 basins.
6 The second proposed amendment affects the criteria
7 we use to designate areas with respect to attainment status
8 for the State's ambient air quality standards. As you know,
9 the California Clean Air Act requires that your board adopt
10 criteria for designating areas as either attainment,
11 nonattainment, or unclassified.
12 Under the Act, we are required to review these
13 criteria periodically and to recommend changes to you if
14 needed.
15 During the last two years, we have identified some
16 situations that just do not fit within the requirements of
17 the existing criteria. The amendments we are proposing
18 today are designed to deal with these particular situations.
19 Finally, the Act requires us to review area
20 designations annually and to propose updates based on any
21 new information gathered.
22 A review of the recent air quality data indicates
23 that several changes to the current area designations are in
24 order, and the Chairman highlighted some.
25 With that introduction, I'd now like to call upon
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
9
1 Ms. Marci Nystrom of the Air Quality Analysis Section of the
2 Technical Support Division to give you the staff's
3 presentation.
4 MS. NYSTROM: Thank you, Mr. Boyd. Good morning,
5 Mr. Chairman and members of the Board.
6 As Mr. Boyd said, today, we're proposing changes
7 to three different, but related, regulations.
8 The first proposed change affects the air basin
9 boundary regulations. Specifically, it would change the
10 Kern County portion of the boundary between the San Joaquin
11 Valley and the Southeast Desert Air Basins.
12 Our proposal to change the air basin boundaries
13 was prompted by a change in the district boundary lines.
14 the districts have agreed to move their boundary line
15 further to the west. And, as a result, two areas -- the
16 Kern River Valley and the Cummings Valley -- are now
17 included in the Kern County District instead of the San
18 Joaquin Valley District. Both districts have requested that
19 we make the same change in the air basin boundaries.
20 We agree with the districts that the two areas in
21 question are more similar to the Southeast Desert than they
22 are to the San Joaquin Valley. Therefore, in response to
23 the districts' request, we propose changing the boundaries
24 to include these areas in the Southeast Desert Air Basin.
25 Now, I'd like to move on to the next set of
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
10
1 proposed changes which affect the designation criteria
2 regulations. In general, the designation criteria are the
3 rules we use to designate areas for the State standards.
4 As shown here, there are four possible designation
5 categories. A nonattainment designation means that ambient
6 concentrations violate the State standards. In addition to
7 the simple nonattainment designation, there's a subcategory
8 of nonattainment called "nonattainment transitional." This
9 designation implies the area is getting close to attainment,
10 but still has a small number of violations.
11 In contrast to nonattainment, an attainment
12 designation means the air is generally clean. Although the
13 ambient concentrations in an attainment area do not violate
14 the State standards, they may show a small number of
15 exceedances.
16 Finally, an unclassified designation means that we
17 don't have enough data to determine attainment or
18 nonattainment.
19 You may have noticed that I used two terms in
20 explaining the designation categories. These terms are
21 "exceedance" and "violation." While the two terms are
22 similar, they have different and very specific meaning with
23 respect to the designation criteria.
24 An exceedance is any measurement that is higher
25 than the level of a State standard. However, not all
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
11
1 exceedances are considered violations. Some exceedances are
2 affected by uncommon circumstances or what we call "highly
3 irregular or infrequent events."
4 These exceedances are not considered to be
5 violations and, as a result, they're excluded from the
6 designation process.
7 In contrast, a violation is an exceedance that is
8 not affected by a highly irregular or infrequent event.
9 And, again, it's the violations that provide the basis for
10 the nonattainment designation.
11 the designation criteria currently define two
12 types of highly irregular or infrequent events. They are
13 exceptional events and extreme concentration events.
14 An exceptional event is a specific, identifiable
15 event that causes an exceedance of a State standard. An
16 exceptional event may be caused by an act of nature or it
17 may be related to human activity.
18 In contrast, an extreme concentration event is
19 determined by a statistical procedure, and represents a
20 concentration limit that we expect would recur less than
21 once per year.
22 Today, we're proposing to add a third type of
23 highly irregular or infrequent event called an "unusual
24 concentration" event. This change is needed because we
25 sometimes come across exceedances that cannot be excluded
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
12
1 under the existing criteria but, nevertheless, do not
2 support a nonattainment designation.
3 In general, an unusual concentration event would
4 be defined as an anomalous exceedance that does not qualify
5 as an exceptional event or an extreme concentration event.
6 We would identify unusual concentration events only for
7 areas already designated as attainment or unclassified.
8 In evaluating these events, we would consider
9 relevant information, such as the available air quality and
10 emissions data, the meteorological data, the potential
11 impacts on public health and welfare, and any rules or
12 regulations that might influence future concentrations.
13 Based on our review of these data, we would need
14 to make three findings: Specifically, we would need to find
15 that the impact of the exceedance is limited to the local
16 area, the exceedance is not expected to recur, and the data
17 are not sufficient to support a nonattainment designation.
18 An area could retain its attainment or
19 unclassified designation based on the exclusion of an
20 unusual concentration event for up to three consecutive
21 years. However, if such an exceedance occurred during the
22 fourth year, the area would have to be redesignated as
23 nonattainment.
24 Let me give you an example of how the unusual
25 concentration event could be used in the designation
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
13
1 process. During 1993, the Mojave Desert AQMD initiated
2 nitrogen dioxin monitoring at a new site in the Southeast
3 Desert Air Basin. At the time, this area was designated as
4 attainment.
5 In May, 1993, they measured a high one-hour
6 concentration of 0.36 parts per million. This exceeds the
7 State standard of 0.25 parts per million. In contrast, the
8 second highest measured value was only 0.05 ppm.
9 During last year's review of the area
10 designations, we could not exclude the high value. It
11 didn't qualify as an exceptional event, because we couldn't
12 document any activity that might have caused the exceedance.
13 It didn't qualify as an extreme concentration
14 event either, because there were not enough data to
15 calculate a reliable limit.
16 But, still, we didn't feel the measurement
17 supported the nonattainment designation and, as a result, we
18 went beyond the scope of the designation criteria and
19 postponed a designation call until we had more data.
20 Under our proposed amendment, this anomalous
21 exceedance could have been excluded as an unusual
22 concentration event, because it satisfies the proposed test.
23 The air quality and emissions data indicate the exceedance
24 is limited to the local area, because it's much higher than
25 the NO2 at any of the other sites in the air basin. In
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
14
1 addition, because the exceedance is so much higher than the
2
3 remaining data, it's unlikely to recur. Therefore, the
4 single exceedance does not by itself support a nonattainment
5 designation.
6 During this year's review of the area
7 designations, additional NO2 data were available for this
8 monitoring site, and we were able to calculate a reliable
9 extreme concentration limit. As expected, we can now
10 exclude the exceedance as an extreme concentration event.
11 This confirms the anomalous nature of this particular
12 exceedance and also the appropriateness of the unusual
13 concentration event as a mechanism for excluding such
14 exceedances.
15 In addition to the unusual concentration event,
16 we're proposing a number of other minor revisions to various
17 sections of the designation criteria. These minor revisions
18 don't change the way in which we apply the criteria; they
19 simply clarify current practices, delete unnecessary or
20 obsolete language, make the regulation internally
21 consistent, and correct grammatical errors.
22 Now, I'd like to describe the last set of changes
23 we're proposing. These changes affect the area designation
24 regulations.
25 As required by law, these proposed changes are
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
15
1 based on air quality data collected during 1992 through
2 1994. As shown on this slide, we propose redesignations for
3 three pollutants. Specifically, we propose redesignating
4 two areas for ozone, four areas for carbon monoxide, and one
5 area for nitrogen dioxide.
6 The first change, for ozone, would affect Northern
7 Sonoma County in the North Coast Air Basin. This area is
8 currently designated as unclassified. During the last three
9 years, there was only one exceedance and it's excluded as an
10 extreme concentration event. Therefore, we propose you
11 redesignate Northern Sonoma County as attainment for ozone.
12 The next proposed change affects Mono County in
13 the Great Basin Valleys Air Basin. This area was designated
14 as nonattainment-transitional for ozone last year by
15 operation of law.
16 The designation was based entirely on 1993 data,
17 which showed no exceedances. However, during 1992 and 1994,
18 the data for Mono County show a total of 19 exceedances.
19 Four of the 19 exceedances are excluded as extreme
20 concentration events. However, the remaining 15 are
21 considered violations.
22 Because of these numerous violations, this area no
23 longer qualifies for the nonattainment-transitional
24 designation, and we propose to redesignate Mono County as
25 nonattainment for ozone.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
16
1 The next four proposed redesignations are for
2 carbon monoxide. The first one affects Sutter county in the
3 Sacramento Valley Air Basin. Sutter County is currently
4 designated as unclassified. During 1992 through 1994, we
5 collected data at a site in Yuba City, and these data show
6 no exceedances. Therefore, we propose you redesignate
7 Sutter County as attainment for CO.
8 We have a similar situation in Inyo County in the
9 Great Basin Valleys Air Basin. This area is now designated
10 as unclassified. During the last three years, the district
11 collected data at a site in Bishop. Again, the data show no
12 exceedances of the State CO standards. Therefore, we
13 propose you redesignate Inyo County as attainment.
14 The third area is the Sacramento County portion of
15 the Census Bureau urbanized area. This area is located in
16 the Sacramento Valley Air Basin, and is currently designated
17 as nonattainment for CO.
18 Based on recent data, this area qualifies for the
19 nonattainment-transitional designation, and the Sacramento
20 District has requested this designation change.
21 CO data show that the State standards were not
22 exceeded at any site in this area during 1994. In addition,
23 our analysis that this area should reach attainment well
24 within the three-year limit required for nonattainment-
25 transitional areas.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
17
1 Therefore, we propose you redesignate the
2 Sacramento County urbanized area as nonattainment-
3 transitional.
4 The last area we propose redesignating for CO is
5 the City of Calexico in the Southeast Desert Air Basin.
6 This area is currently designated as unclassified. During
7 1994, the staff began monitoring at the Calexico-Ethel
8 Street site.
9 Data for the last three months of 1994, show a
10 total of 12 violations, including four violations of the
11 one-hour standard and eight violations of the eight-hour
12 standard.
13 At this time, we cannot exclude any of these
14 exceedances. We can't exclude them as exceptional events,
15 because there are no qualifying circumstances associated
16 with the exceedances. We can't exclude them as extreme
17 concentration events, because we don't have enough data to
18 calculate a reliable limit.
19 However, it's important to note that the extreme
20 concentration algorithm is designed to exclude, on average,
21 one value per year. So, even if we could calculate a
22 reliable limit, we wouldn't expect to exclude such a high
23 number of exceedances during a single year.
24 Finally, given the large number of exceedances and
25 the expectation that they will continue to occur, it would
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
18
1 not be appropriate to exclude them as unusual concentration
2 events.
3 The Imperial County APCD is concerned about this
4 proposed redesignation. The district believes the
5 violations are transport related and are caused by traffic
6 backing up at a nearby border crossing.
7 The district contends that Mexican vehicles
8 produce more emissions than similar California vehicles, and
9 that this, in combination with the stop-and-go traffic,
10 causes the violations at the Calexico site. As a result,
11 the district contends that it cannot mitigate the violations
12 and, therefore, should not be redesignated as nonattainment.
13 In contrast, we believe the nonattainment
14 designation is appropriate. Under State law, the area
15 designations are based on ambient air quality data. The
16 purpose of these designations is to provide information
17 about the healthfulness of the air. We do acknowledge that
18 because of the increased vehicle traffic in and around the
19 international border and the generally localized nature of
20 the CO violations, the CO problem in Calexico is probably
21 limited to the local area.
22 Therefore, we propose you redesignate only the
23 area within the Calexico city limits as nonattainment.
24 This nonattainment designation does not carry with
25 it any specific planning requirements. It simply identifies
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
19
1 a problem area so that the planning process can be
2 implemented.
3 At this time, we don't have enough information to
4 determine the cause of Calexico's CO problem. However,
5 based on this nonattainment designation, we will be
6 recommending that further study, such as remote sensing,
7 traffic counts, and saturation monitoring, be conducted in
8 this area.
9 These types of studies will help us to better
10 understand the nature and causes of the problem and whether
11 a local control program would be effective.
12 Our last proposed redesignation is for nitrogen
13 dioxide and affects the South Coast Air Basin. This area is
14 currently designated as nonattainment. During the last
15 three years, the South Coast District collected NO2 data at
16 a number of sites in the basin. They measured three
17 exceedances at two sites, and all three exceedances are
18 excluded as extreme concentration events.
19 Therefore, we propose to redesignate the South
20 Coast Air Basin as attainment. If you adopt this particular
21 redesignation, all areas of California will be designated
22 attainment for the State NO2 standard.
23 In addition to the areas we propose for
24 redesignation, there's one other area I'd like to talk
25 about. The area is Inyo County, and the situation there is
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
20
1 important, because it uses our unusual concentration event
2 procedure.
3 Inyo County is currently designated as
4 unclassified for the State ozone standard. Prior to 1992,
5 no ozone data were available for this area. During 1992
6 through 1994, the local district collected data at a site in
7 Bishop, and these data show no exceedances.
8 However, in addition to the Bishop Data, the
9 National Park Service has been collecting data since
10 December, 1993, at a site at the Death Valley National
11 Monument.
12 The Death Valley data show a measurement of 0.098
13 ppm, which exceeds the State ozone standard of 0.09 ppm.
14 Because the Death Valley data are limited, we cannot
15 calculate a reliable extreme concentration limit and exclude
16 the value as an extreme concentration event.
17 Furthermore, we can't document any activity that
18 would justify excluding it as an exceptional event. While
19 we cannot exclude the exceedance under the existing
20 criteria, under our proposed amendments, we could exclude
21 it as an unusual concentration event.
22 Our review of the available air quality and
23 emissions data indicates that the impact of the exceedance
24 is limited to the local area. Furthermore, the air quality
25 data do not indicate that the exceedance is likely to recur.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
21
1 Finally, because the level of the exceedance is
2 close to the State standard and occurred on only one day, it
3 does not provide adequate support for a nonattainment
4 designation. However, we'll continue to monitor the
5 situation and reevaluate it next year when additional data
6 are available.
7 Identifying this exceedance as an unusual
8 concentration event would allow Inyo County to maintain its
9 unclassified designation for ozone; but, of course, it's
10 contingent upon your approval of the unusual concentration
11 event procedure. If you do not approve that proposal, Inyo
12 County would have to be redesignated as nonattainment for
13 ozone.
14 This slide summarizes our proposed changes.
15 First, we're proposing to change the Kern County portion of
16 the San Joaquin Valley and Southeast Desert Air Basin
17 boundaries. This change would add two areas to the
18 Southeast Desert Air Basin and would make the air basin
19 boundaries consistent with the district boundaries.
20 Second, we're proposing to add to the designation
21 criteria another type of highly irregular or infrequent
22 event called the "unusual" concentration event. This change
23 would allow us to exclude anomalous exceedances from the
24 designation process.
25 In addition, we're proposing a number of other
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
22
1 minor revisions to clarify and correct various sections of t
2 he criteria.
3 Finally, we're proposing seven changes to the area
4 designations for State standards -- two changes for ozone,
5 four changes for carbon monoxide, and one change for
6 nitrogen dioxide.
7 Two of these changes represent nonattainment
8 designations; however, the remaining five either move areas
9 into attainment or move them closer to that goal. This
10 shows that, overall, we're continuing to make progress
11 toward clean air.
12 This concludes the staff presentation. And now,
13 Debbie Popejoy, the Manager of the Air Quality Analysis
14 Section, will summarize and respond to the written comments
15 we've received.
16 MS. POPEJOY: Thank you, Marci. We received three
17 individuals who commented. The first one was from a
18 concerned citizen, Scott Johnson, in Albany, California. He
19 requests that the Board not adopt the proposed changes to
20 the designation criteria which affect the highly irregular
21 and infrequent events.
22 He believes, for sensitive people -- such as
23 asthmatics -- unusual concentrations can be life-threatening
24 and that the regulators should not be allowed to disregard
25 an outlier of an air pollution event.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
23
1 Our response to back to him is that our current
2 designation criteria allow, on average, an exceedance -- one
3 exceedance per year to be excluded as an extreme
4 concentration event.
5 By adding the unusual event to the criteria, we
6 are applying the same criteria to areas with incomplete or
7 new data as we do for areas where we can calculate the
8 extreme concentration.
9 By excluding the exceedance as unusual does not
10 represent further degradation in air quality.
11 The proposed regulation requires that the
12 potential health impacts be evaluated at the time an
13 exceedance is considered to be unusual. So, we feel it is
14 appropriate to amend the criteria to include the unusual
15 concentration event.
16 The second letter we received was from Doug
17 Quetin, the Air Pollution Control Officer of Monterey Bay
18 Unified District.
19 He said that he believes that the data from the
20 stations located to monitor the impact of specific sources
21 can result in regional designation values for PM10 which are
22 much higher than they otherwise should be, and that data
23 from a station which is impacted by a fire should not be
24 used to determine designation values either, and that the
25 data impacted by sources or fires should be deleted from the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
24
1 database completely.
2 We have called and talked with Mr. Quetin, and he
3 now better understands the designation process and no longer
4 has these concerns. But I will go through them a little
5 anyway.
6 Sources are not supposed to cause exceedances of
7 the ambient air quality standards. If the data from a
8 source specific monitor shows an exceedance -- shows an area
9 that is in nonattainment, then the planning process can be
10 designed to address the specific problem.
11 Monitors which are source specific can be
12 identified as special-purpose monitors, but the data are not
13 excluded from the database.
14 Data affected by fires can be excluded as
15 exceptional events. In the Monterey situation, the
16 concentrations of concern are lower than concentrations from
17 other sites in the district, and the ARB staff generally
18 does not formally exclude concentrations unless they have
19 the potential for regulatory impact.
20 Data affected by fires are flagged as such, but
21 are not deleted from the database. However, these data are
22 not used in the designation process.
23 The third written comment we got was from Mr.
24 Stephen Birdsall from the Imperial County APCD, and is the
25 APCO there in the district.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
25
1 Marci has already talked a little bit about his
2 concerns. An additional concern is that he believes the
3 Calexico monitor was put there to evaluate the impact of
4 transport from Mexico, and that the exceedances are caused
5 by cross-border vehicle traffic from Mexico and beyond
6 reasonable regulatory control and, therefore, the district
7 believes nonattainment is an inappropriate designation.
8 Mr. Birdsall asks the Board to delay the
9 designation decision until they can appear and present
10 testimony. Should the Board redesignate Calexico as
11 attainment, the district -- he feels the district should be
12 exempt from planning requirements until further studies have
13 been done.
14 The Calexico site was established to help assess
15 transport. However, as all monitoring sites which collect
16 data for record, the data from the Calexico site is
17 appropriate to be used for designations.
18 As with ozone designations, CO designations should
19 reflect air quality regardless of where the sources are
20 located. We do have two areas in California which are
21 designated as nonattainment for ozone, because the
22 exceedances are caused by overwhelming transport of
23 pollutants from other areas. These areas, although they are
24 designated as nonattainment, are not required to develop
25 local control strategies.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
26
1 If, after further study, it is determined that the
2 CO exceedances are caused by transport from sources in
3 Mexicali, the district would not need to develop a local
4 control program.
5 The district has already received a letter from
6 the Executive Office stating that a better understanding of
7 the nature of the CO air quality problem is needed in order
8 to determine whether a CO planning effort is warranted.
9 ARB staff will be working with the U.S. EPA and
10 possibly the World Bank to establish an emission inventory
11 in the area. By the winter of 1996-97, there will be at
12 least one more CO monitor in Calexico and a total of four in
13 Mexicali.
14 In addition, ARB's Monitoring and Laboratory
15 Division is planning a saturation study during the winter of
16 96-97 to determine the geographic extent of the CO problem.
17 So, with this study in mind, we believe it's still
18 appropriate to designate the area as nonattainment.
19 Those are all the comments we received, and we'd
20 be happy to answer any questions.
21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Any of the Board members have
22 any questions of staff?
23 Mr. Parnell.
24 MR. PARNELL: Well, it seems to me that -- first
25 of all, I compliment the staff for doing what appears to be
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
27
1 a very complete and competent analysis of the situation.
2 But Mr. Birdsall comments with respect to Calexico seem --
3 without knowing all of the ramifications and what the
4 redesignation will mean for the entire area, I wonder if
5 some additional consideration is warranted under the
6 circumstances?
7 Maybe you could -- you have just shared with me
8 your comment, and it's a complicated issue, in my view, to
9 understand what the ramifications would be for the entire
10 area because of a monitor which seems to be placed in what I
11 would consider to be a prejudiced area.
12 MS. POPEJOY: Well, first of all, the designation
13 is only for the Calexico -- the city limits within Calexico.
14 We're not including the entire Imperial County.
15 So, any control strategy would have to be designed
16 to reduce the concentrations in Calexico and would not
17 affect the rest of the district.
18 In addition to that, Caltrans has done some
19 traffic counts of December of 1994. We've taken a look at
20 that. And there appears to be just as much traffic going
21 into Mexico as coming out of Mexico during the evening when
22 we see the most potential for impact on the CO standard.
23 So, it appears that we have a lot of traffic
24 congestion in Mexicali -- or in Calexico in addition to the
25 traffic congestion in Mexicali.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
28
1 There may be some local measures that could be
2 implemented to reduce -- you know, to improve traffic flow
3 in Calexico that might reduce the concentration. So, we're
4 not really convinced that there is nothing the district can
5 do, and we really won't know exactly what the extent of the
6 problem is until after we've done further studies.
7 And so, we're proposing, until those studies are
8 completed, that the district not have to implement any local
9 controls, and that we continue to evaluate and monitor the
10 area until we understand what the problem is before anything
11 is required.
12 One other point is that the -- there will be an
13 additional border crossing opened between Calexico and
14 Mexicali. And that, in itself, may reduce some of the
15 congestion at the border. It is a commercial site. It
16 wouldn't be for private vehicles, but it may reduce some of
17 the congestion.
18 I don't think anybody would argue that the problem
19 isn't due to Mexican vehicles, but I think there might be
20 some other thing besides closing the border that might
21 improve the situation.
22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Dr. Boston, you have a comment?
23 DR. BOSTON: Yes.
24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: And then Mr. Lagarias.
25 DR. BOSTON: Two questions, please. First of all,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
29
1 on the district changes in Kern County and the San Joaquin
2 Valley Districts, do those changes follow the political
3 boundaries of the supervisorial districts so there's a
4 continuity of political responsibilities?
5 MS. POPEJOY: I don't believe we really looked
6 into that.
7 DR. BOSTON: Shouldn't we?
8 MS. POPEJOY: It follows the district boundaries,
9 the air pollution control district boundaries.
10 DR. BOSTON: Aren't we required to have that type
11 of political responsibility --
12 MS. POPEJOY: (Interjecting) Actually, we're not
13 required. It's required -- the air basin boundaries are
14 supposed to divide the State up into areas of similar
15 geographic, topographic, and meteorological, and air quality
16 characteristics, and, where practical, follow a political
17 boundary.
18 And this boundary that we're proposing for the air
19 basin does follow the air districts' boundaries.
20 DR. BOSTON: How about that, Mike?
21 MR. BOYD: Dr. Boston, as indicated, we consider
22 political boundaries. And I agree with the point you're
23 making that it pays dividends to be able to replicate
24 political boundaries. But topography doesn't always do
25 that, nor does meteorology always do that.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
30
1 And, as Supervisor Vagim knows, in creating the
2 San Joaquin Valley Unified District -- which was a product
3 of a lot of years of study and what have you -- there was
4 mutual concurrence on all parties that you couldn't always
5 do that, particularly with regard to Kern County itself,
6 because of its significant geographical division it created
7 and what have you.
8 So, while cognizant of that, the ultimate decision
9 was that couldn't be done. And so, all that we're proposing
10 here is just additional fine-tuning of those particualr
11 kinds of needs, recognizing that a different entity has been
12 established to deal with the eastern section portions which
13 are in Kern County, so on and so forth.
14 So, while that is a very desirable goals and pays
15 dividends usually when we pursue it, it isn't always
16 administratively or technologically feasible. And these
17 areas are examples of areas where it has not been practical.
18 and it's been acknowledged by all political entities, and
19 they're all actually doing a very good job of dealing with
20 it.
21 MS. POPEJOY: Dr. Boston, both districts -- the
22 San Joaquin Valley District as well as the Kern County
23 District, their boards have approved the boundary change for
24 their district, and have written and requested that ARB make
25 the same change to the air basin boundary.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
31
1 And so, after looking at the topography, and the
2 sources, and the meteorology, it was determined that it was
3 appropriate to take those two areas from the San Joaquin
4 Valley and put them in the Southeast Desert Air Basin.
5 DR. BOSTON: Okay. The second question is a
6 simple chemistry problem I want somebody to follow with me.
7 We're now in attainment for oxides of nitrogen
8 throughout the State, apparently.
9 MS. POPEJOY: Yes.
10 DR. BOSTON: And to my knowledge, you have to have
11 oxides of nitrogen to make ozone. We know we've got a
12 tremendous ozone problem. So, if we don't have any oxides
13 of nitrogen to mix into this big chemistry lab in the sky
14 and mix it with all these VOCs to make ozone, how can we be
15 in attainment with oxides of nitrogen?
16 MS. POPEJOY: You want to take that one, Mike?
17 MR. SCHEIBLE: The air quality standard that we're
18 concerned with for the NO2 standard is the effects on
19 health. And so, what we're saying is that the areas meet
20 the health-based standards for exposure for nitrogen
21 dioxide.
22 We deal with the need to control oxides of
23 nitrogen to lower PM10 values and lower ozone values under
24 those programs.
25 So, the level of nitrogen dioxide in the air meets
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
32
1 the State's standard and, therefore, the area's attainment
2 for that pollutant. The emission source does not -- it
3 doesn't mean that there's a less need of control of
4 emissions of oxides of nitrogen in order to address other
5 ambient standard problems.
6 DR. BOSTON: That would lead you to believe that
7 our fight with oxides of nitrogen is over and we're in
8 attainment. And yet, we really need to lower more in order
9 to reduce the other pollutants.
10 MR. SCHEIBLE: That's correct as an emissions
11 source. But we don't need to do it in order to lower the
12 NO2 level from a health perspective as measured by our
13 standards. We need to do it for PM10 and ozone.
14 MR. MC GUIRE: There are two additional, and if I
15 could add -- first, it's NOx, which is a collective group of
16 oxides of nitrogen that form ozone. This standard is NO2,
17 which is only one part of it. And even if the NO2
18 concentrations in the air are below the health effects
19 level, there still is enough nitrogen oxide to participate
20 in the ozone formation reaction concentration substantially
21 below the health standard.
22 DR. BOSTON: Okay.
23 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. Good point.
24 MR. SCHEIBLE: We will take extra care to
25 communicate the situation to the public, because it is easy
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
33
1 to be confused.
2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Mr. Lagarias.
3 MR. LAGARIAS: I notice, in Calexico, there's a
4 population of 24,000; and right across the border of
5 Mexicali, the population is in excess of a million. So,
6 there's a 40-to-1 difference. And it seems like anything
7 that you can do in Calexico will have little meaning without
8 regard to what is being done in Mexicali.
9 It seems like Mexicali is in exceedance of the CO
10 standard in the United States rather than Calexico's in
11 exceedance. Is this correct?
12 MS. POPEJOY: Well, the air quality in Mexicali
13 could indeed be very bad. The sources that contribute to
14 the CO are usually motor vehicle. And they're occurring --
15 the exceedances are occurring late at night, early in the
16 morning. So, it's usually the traffic that's happening in
17 the rush hour in the evening.
18 We don't really know what the sources, other than
19 vehicle sources, are in Mexicali, and we're hoping that we
20 can evaluate that better through cooperation with U.S. EPA
21 as well as, possibly, the World Bank, so we can get a better
22 idea of the stationary source contribution from Mexicali.
23 But it's probably due to motor vehicle, probably
24 uncontrolled motor vehicles, that are in Calexico. No doubt
25 there are cars that came across from Mexicali.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
34
1 MR. LAGARIAS: Thank you.
2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Supervisor Riordan, then
3 Supervisor Vagim.
4 SUPERVISOR RIORDAN: Just to follow up -- and I
5 have talked to the staff and I've spoken to the Chairman.
6 Just traffic counts, I think, aren't going to resolve the
7 problem. I think you're going to have to go down to really
8 look at what's coming across the border.
9 My hunch is you've got some very, very old cars --
10 MS. POPEJOY: Very, very old.
11 SUPERVISOR RIORDAN: -- coming across the border
12 out of the Mexicali area. And it's going to be very
13 complicated to try to resolve this. And the fact that the
14 economy is very poor down there, just extraordinarily poor,
15 so we may have to give some help from some other resources
16 than just right there at the, you know, at the point of
17 maybe trying to bring people across in some sort of mass
18 transit. That sort of thing might be helpful.
19 But my -- without even being there, my bets would
20 be that those are very, very old cars coming across.
21 MR. BOYD: Supervisor Riordan, your point is an
22 excellent and correct point. This issue of this designation
23 has been pending with us, frankly, for several years.
24 A few years ago -- to date it, I guess, Assistant
25 Executive Officer Witherspoon, who is no longer with us, and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
35
1 I spent a couple of days in the Mexicali-Calexico area
2 because of concern, even at that time, about whether or not
3 who dominates the issue and what is the issue.
4 And your observations are exactly correct. Mr.
5 Lagarias' point is well made about the population density.
6 However, because of near abject poverty, the ratio of
7 vehicles to people is much lower on the Mexican side of the
8 border. Yes, they are older cars. They do engage in
9 massive car pooling. I mean, they get more people in a car
10 than you're used to seeing as it comes across the border, as
11 they do, for employment purposes on a daily basis in the
12 Imperial Valley.
13 And they have the infamous maquiladores, the
14 industries along the border that are, frankly, not
15 controlled nearly to the extent that industries in
16 California or the United States are.
17 There have been a lot of mutual national
18 government to national government, and with the California
19 State Government involved, work over several years. And
20 because of the need to know these issues of transporter
21 pollutants-- not only into California but into the entire
22 lower Western United States -- as it relates even to such
23 things as the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission's
24 work, there are number of monitoring stations that have been
25 and continue to be established as a result of national and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
36
1 national to State cooperation.
2 In addition, and probably the largest forcing
3 function for additional work has been NAFTA. And the border
4 environmental agreements that were made by our Cal-EPA and
5 the Mexican and National Governments relative to efforts to
6 clean up the border areas across California, which are
7 carried on by EPA to the other States, have also contributed
8 to pledges by the Mexican Government to bring its standards
9 up to a parallel with at least U.S. national standards on
10 their side of the border, or at least within a certain strip
11 of area that would influence the air in the United States.
12 So, a lot of actions are being taken. However, as
13 the staff has indicated, we've been living with this a long
14 time, and we have concluded that, standing alone, the
15 California side of the issue, i.e. Calexico, there are
16 actions that can be taken to improve the public health of
17 our own citizens on that side of the border while we
18 continue the long, but successful, program of working on the
19 problem on the other side of the border.
20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Supervisor Vagim.
21 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
22 First, Dr. Boston, there's no politics in air.
23 And the question I have is, isn't the Southeast Basin all in
24 Kern County or does it spill over into another county?
25 MS. POPEJOY: No. The Southeast Desert Air Basin
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
37
1 includes parts of L.A. County, parts of Kern County, parts
2 of San Bernardino County, and parts of Riverside County, and
3 Imperial County.
4 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: So, does that mean the
5 individual boards are managing their part of the basin?
6 Because they haven't formed a unified or anything.
7 MS. POPEJOY: Right. There are different
8 districts within that air basin.
9 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Okay. as far as the boundaries
10 themselves on a map, do we have that available?
11 MS. POPEJOY: I believe it's in your package as
12 part of the appendix.
13 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Because I know the Kern River
14 Valley goes quite a ways in. As a matter of fact, it's
15 right in the City of Bakersfield -- I mean, starts there.
16 So, this is just the eastern part of that.
17 MS. POPEJOY: Right. It's just a small sliver on
18 the eastern part --
19 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Okay.
20 MS. POPEJOY: -- just west of Tehachapi itself.
21 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Okay. Very good. Thank you.
22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Any other questions or comments?
23 Dr. Boston.
24 DR. BOSTON: I'd just mention to Supervisor Vagim
25 that I come from Orange County where accountability has
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
38
1 become a very big issue for our supervisors.
2 (Laughter.)
3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Jim Silva can attest to that as
4 well.
5 All right. Mr. Boyd
6 SUPERVISOR RIORDAN: Dr. Boston!
7 (Laughter.)
8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Mr. Boyd, does staff
9 have any further comments?
10 MR. BOYD: MR. BOYD: No further comments, Mr.
11 Chairman.
12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Fine presentation.
13 thank you. Very thorough.
14 Madam Secretary, we have no witnesses; is that
15 correct?
16 All right. Anyone in the audience wish to comment
17 on this item? All right. We'll move along.
18 Since all testimony, written submissions, and
19 staff comments for this item have been entered into the
20 record and the Board has not granted an extension of the
21 comment period, I'm officially closing the record on this
22 portion of Agenda Item No. 95-12-1. Written or oral
23 comments received after the comment period has been closed
24 will not be accepted as part of the official record on this
25 agenda item.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
39
1 Again, a reminder to my Board members of our
2 policy concerning ex parte communication. While we may
3 communicate off the record with outside persons regarding
4 Board rulemaking, we must disclose the names of our contacts
5 and the nature of the contents on the record.
6 This requirement applies specifically to
7 communications which take place after notice of the Board
8 hearing has been published.
9 Are there any communications which need to be
10 disclosed on this item?
11 (There were no responses.)
12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Very good. We have
13 before us a resolution, 95-46, which contains the staff
14 recommendations. Why don't we take a moment and review it.
15 Do I have a motion and a second to move this item?
16 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I'll move
17 for adoption of Resolution 95-46
18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay.
19 SUPERVISOR RIORDAN: I'll second it.
20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: I have a motion made by Mr.
21 Parnell, seconded by Supervisor Riordan. Thank you, Doug,
22 though. We appreciate it.
23 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: I didn't hear him.
24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: He got to it first.
25 Any questions, comments, issues we need to discuss
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
40
1 before we move on the item?
2 All right. Will the Board Secretary please call
3 the roll.
4 MS. HUTCHENS: Boston?
5 DR. BOSTON: Yes.
6 MS. HUTCHENS: Calhoun
7 MR. CALHOUN: Aye.
8 MS. HUTCHENS: Edgerton?
9 Hilligoss?
10 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: Aye.
11 MS. HUTCHENS: Lagarias?
12 MR. LAGARIAS: Aye.
13 MS. HUTCHENS: Parnell?
14 MR. PARNELL: Aye.
15 MS. HUTCHENS: Riordan?
16 SUPERVISOR RIORDAN: Aye.
17 MS. HUTCHENS: Roberts?
18 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Aye.
19 MS. HUTCHENS: Silva?
20 SUPERVISOR SILVA: Aye.
21 MS. HUTCHENS: Vagim?
22 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Aye.
23 MS. HUTCHENS: Chairman Dunlap?
24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Aye.
25 MS. HUTCHENS: Passes 10-0.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
41
1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you.
2 The second item on the agenda -- why don't I give
3 staff a moment to change places. I'll give some brief
4 opening comments while we're setting up for this item.
5 Jim, my compliments to the staff on that rather
6 involved presentation. Good job. Lot of material there.
7 MR. BOYD: thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate
8 it.
9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: The second item on the agenda
10 today is 95-12-2, a public hearing to consider amendments to
11 the gasoline deposit control additive regulation.
12 In 1990, the Board adopted a regulation requiring
13 that all commercial California gasoline contain deposit
14 control additives. At the 1990 Board hearing, staff showed
15 that when deposits form on critical areas of port fuel
16 injectors and intake valves, vehicles may experience a
17 significant degradation in performance and a corresponding
18 increase in vehicle emissions.
19 To implement the regulation, ARB staff established
20 an administrative process to certify gasoline additives.
21 Under the current process, gasoline formulations are
22 certified once an applicant demonstrates that the additized
23 gasoline is effective in reducing and preventing the buildup
24 of deposits on port fuel injectors and intake valves.
25 An enforcement procedure was also established to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
42
1 ensure compliance with the per-gallon standard specified by
2 the reg. Currently, compliance with the regulation is
3 monitored by auditing daily records which are kept at
4 additive facilities.
5 Since the implementation of the additive
6 regulation over three years ago, staff has approved over 200
7 applications for certification and has conducted two
8 separate field audits of virtually all additive facilities
9 throughout our State.
10 Based on the experience gained through evaluating
11 applications, along with information learned during field
12 audits, the staff is now proposing several housekeeping
13 amendments to the deposit control additive regulation.
14 These proposed amendments will enhance implementation of the
15 regulation and provide more operational flexibility, without
16 compromising its environmental benefits.
17 And, at this point, I'd like to ask Mr. Boyd to
18 introduce the item and begin his staff's presentation. Jim?
19 MR. BOYD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, as you
20 indicated, today, we are proposing several so-called
21 housekeeping amendments to update and to improve the current
22 deposit control additive regulation.
23 Our proposals do not reflect any fundamental
24 changes to the regulation. It will not affect significantly
25 how we evaluate certification applications.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
43
1 The proposed amendments are intended to improve
2 the overall clarity and specificity of the regulation, to
3 provide additional operational flexibility, and to provide
4 consistency with presumed future federal requirements.
5 As the Chairman mentioned, the staff proposal
6 preserves the environmental benefits and integrity of the
7 regulation.
8 To provide clarity, we propose to modify the
9 requirements for certification test fuel formulations by
10 providing criteria that applicants can follow to develop
11 their test fuels.
12 We also propose to clarify other provisions of the
13 regulation which have been misunderstood, if not
14 misinterpreted, in the past.
15 And to provide operational flexibility, we propose
16 to add a provision for manual correction of additive dosage.
17 This will allow additive facilities to so-call manually
18 correct, under certain conditions, underadditized gasoline
19 shipments which have been dispatched to a service station.
20 I'm not sure we haven't created a new word here,
21 "additized." But, nonetheless, we and the staff have been
22 struggling with this for weeks, and we just can't come up
23 with a better descriptor.
24 We propose, also, to provide consistency with the
25 vehicle test procedures that will likely be contained in the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
44
1 U.S. EPA final gasoline additive regulations they're
2 developing.
3 These test procedures reflect updated and more
4 precise versions of the original test procedures that were
5 adopted in our regulation.
6 With that, at this time, I'd like to introduce Mr.
7 Jim Aguila of the Stationary Source Division who will give
8 you the staff's presentation.
9 MR. AGUILA: Thank you, Mr. Boyd.
10 Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
11 Board. As mentioned in the introduction, we are proposing
12 general housekeeping changes to the gasoline additive
13 regulation.
14 The proposed amendments will make the gasoline
15 additive certification program, which was established by the
16 regulation, easier to understand and easier to administer.
17 I will briefly discuss the background of the
18 regulation to lay the framework for today's proposal, then
19 I'll discuss our proposal.
20 In September of 1990, the Board adopted a gasoline
21 deposit control additive regulation to ensure that all
22 commercial motor vehicle gasoline would contain effective
23 deposit control additives to maintain clean fuel systems.
24 Maintaining clean port fuel injectors and intake
25 valves allow vehicles to operate as they were designed to.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
45
1 Staff also found that significant emissions reductions in
2 NOx, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbon emissions could be
3 realized by cleaning up the fuel systems of the California
4 fleet that have accumulated deposits, and thereby avoid the
5 excess emissions caused by the port fuel injector and intake
6 valve deposits.
7 As this slide shows, port fuel injector deposits
8 can seriously degrade an injector's spray pattern, which
9 affects the combustion of the fuel. As deposits form on
10 port fuel injectors, the air/fuel ratio of the combustion
11 mixture is affected, resulting in improper combustion of the
12 fuel and increases in carbon monoxide, hydrocarbon, and NOx
13 emissions.
14 Deposits also form at critical areas of the intake
15 valve as well. When deposits build on the intake valve, an
16 airflow restriction to the combustion chamber occurs. This
17 results in leaning the air/fuel ratio in the cylinder during
18 combustion and causing an increase in NOx emissions.
19 This slide also shows how deposits form on intake
20 valves.
21 As presented by staff in the original rulemaking,
22 the major benefit of the additive regulation is to ensure
23 that all vehicles maintain clean fuel systems and thereby
24 operate as designed.
25 Staff also found that by removing deposits that
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
46
1 have already accumulated in vehicle fuel systems excess
2 emissions can be reduced. This slide shows the emissions
3 reductions associated with the original implementation of
4 the additive regulation.
5 Today, since the U.S. EPA does not have a clean-up
6 requirement, California will realize an additional benefit
7 of cleaning deposits from out-of-State vehicles that are
8 operated in California.
9 The regulation adopted by the Board establishes a
10 program requiring all commercial gasoline to contain
11 effective deposit control additives.
12 To be certified, an applicant must submit an
13 applicatifon demonstrating additive effectiveness on a
14 worst-case, deposit-forming commercial gasoline. The
15 application must also include general information, such as
16 additive name, composition, minimum additive dosage
17 concentration, EPA registration, and vehicle test data.
18 The vehicle test data must show that the additive
19 concentration is effective in keeping port fuel injectors
20 and intake valves clean from deposits.
21 The vehicle test data must also show that the
22 additive concentration is effective in cleaning port fuel
23 injector deposits to a specified level.
24 As mentioned earlier, this requirement provides
25 assurance that vehicle fuel systems have deposits -- that
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
47
1 have deposits will be cleaned.
2 Finally, the regulation also requires additive
3 facilities to maintain records indicating the volume of
4 gasoline sold as well as the amount of additive used.
5 To date, we have approved over 230 applications
6 for gasoline certification. We have also developed
7 procedures for certification review and enforcement to help
8 administer the additive program.
9 Our implementation of the additive program has
10 been effective in ensuring that all commercial gasoline
11 contains effective deposit control additives. However, we
12 have identified several elements of the additive program
13 that can be improved to facilitate the application process
14 and our issuance of certifications.
15 Today, we are proposing three specific amendments
16 as well as other minor amendments.
17 Changes are proposed to the criteria for
18 certification test fuels and additive evaluation test
19 methods. And, as I will explain later, we will be proposing
20 to delay the recordkeeping requirements.
21 Comments were made during the 45-day comment
22 period. We are proposing changes today to address these
23 comments.
24 I will discuss the changes during the
25 presentation. These proposed modifications are available to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
48
1 you in your package and to the audience on the table in the
2 lobby.
3 The amendments, which staff will propose today,
4 are intended to simplify the additive program certification
5 process and to enhance compliance with the regulation.
6 Since the amendments do not represent any
7 significant departure from the current program, the benefits
8 of the additive regulation are maintained.
9 Most applicants request gasoline certification for
10 the maximum pipeline specifications, which are the most
11 fungible specifications. To determine that their additives
12 are effective, applicants typically will conduct vehicle
13 tests on a primary certification fuel in conjunction with
14 supplemental test fuels that, together, represent the
15 maximum pipeline specifications.
16 This assortment of motor vehicle tests on several
17 fuels is cumbersome for applicants. We are proposing to
18 simplify the process by specifying definitive criteria for
19 certification fuels, thereby minimizing the need for
20 supplemental data.
21 Also, we propose to allow some flexibility by
22 allowing certain certification test fuel properties to be at
23 least 80 percent of the requested values. These properties
24 include aromatics, olefins, sulfur, and oxygen contents.
25 This flexibility recognizes the difficulty in
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
49
1 blending a single certification test fuel to an exact set of
2 specifications.
3 For other gasoline properties, we propose that
4 those properties be formulated to represent typical
5 commercial motor vehicle gasoline. We also propose that
6 certification test fuels be formulated from typical gasoline
7 blendstocks.
8 To address industry's comments made during the 45-
9 day comment period to further clarify the criteria for
10 formulation of certification test fuels, we propose to
11 revise the original regulatory text as indicated on page 4
12 of Attachment A of the resolution before you.
13 The changes are identified by shading additions
14 and deletions to the text.
15 Whereas, in the past, the current regulatory
16 provisions have led to some degree of confusion, we believe
17 that these amendments will minimize any uncertainty for
18 applicants by being more specific. These amendments also
19 provide flexibility for providing a blending tolerance.
20 Initially, we propose to include clarifying
21 language in the regulation to address potential
22 misunderstanding concerning recordkeeping requirements.
23 However, we agree with industry comments made during the
24 45-day comment period to delay any action on the proposed
25 recordkeeping amendments until the U.S. EPA promulgates
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
50
1 their final rule in the spring of 1996.
2 This will allow us to consider how the U.S. EPA
3 regulation will apply to California and avoid potential
4 regulatory duplication.
5 When the Board adopted the additive regulation in
6 1990, the test methods referenced in the regulation to
7 evaluate port fuel injector and intake valve deposits were
8 the most generally accepted at that time.
9 Since then, the American Society for Testing and
10 Materials, better known as ASTM, has updated the test
11 procedures to incorporate improved quality control.
12 Therefore, we propose to amend our keep-clean test methods
13 to be consistent with these updated methods.
14 We also propose to revise our clean-up test method
15 to incorporate the ASTM test method.
16 Since the EPA proposes to require the use of the
17 latest ATSM test methods in their final additive regulation,
18 our proposed amendments will provide consistency with the
19 anticipated EPA vehicle testing requirements.
20 Since the newer test methods have better quality
21 control, we expect that the use of the newer test methods
22 may reduce invalid test runs.
23 Under the current provisions, all gasoline must be
24 additized prior to leaving the final distribution facility.
25 The final distribution facility is defined in the regulation
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
51
1 as the facility just prior to the service station, such as a
2 gasoline bulk terminal.
3 At our July 20th workshop, industry suggested that
4 it would be advantageous to provide the flexibility to
5 manually additize gasoline loads after the final
6 distribution facility. This would allow a facility to
7 correct any underadditized gasoline that has left the
8 gasoline terminal.
9 We agreed with this concept and proposed a
10 provision to allow manual additization with appropriate
11 documentation. Providing additional flexibility will not
12 result in any detrimental environmental impacts.
13 Originally, our proposal only allowed manual
14 correction up to the point of delivery. However, we have
15 now modified our proposal to allow manual correction up to
16 the point of retail sales of motor vehicle gasoline.
17 To add further clarity, we propose to make minor
18 changes to address previously misunderstood terms. We also
19 propose to add specificity to the regulation by requiring
20 applicants to provide the reproducibility of the additive
21 test method which they identify in their applications.
22 We also propose to require applicants to report
23 the minimum dosage of their additive on a volume basis
24 within their certification applications.
25 In summary, staff is proposing to the Board today
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
52
1 a series of amendments which will add clarity, specificity,
2 and flexibility to the regulation.
3 Also, while maintaining the current benefits of
4 the regulation, these amendments will provide consistency
5 with future EPA gasoline additive requirements.
6 Staff intends to evaluate the U.S. EPA final
7 deposit control additive regulation and determine the need
8 to recommend further adjustments to our regulation.
9 Thank you for your consideration. This concludes
10 the staff's presentation. And, at this time, I'd like to
11 introduce Gary Yee, Manager of the Industrial Section of the
12 Stationary Source Division, to provide a summary of the
13 comment letters received during the 45-day comment period.
14 MR. YEE: Thank you, Jim.
15 Basically, we've received four letters -- can you
16 hear me now? (Adjusting microphone)
17 Basically, we received four written responses from
18 companies in regards to the proposed amendments during the
19 45-day comment period.
20 One of the letters I will not be summarizing.
21 This letter is from the Western States Petroleum
22 Association, and I believe they will be making a
23 presentation today on their letter.
24 Three other letters are from Kern Oil Company, the
25 Atlantic Richfield Company, and Chevron.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
53
1 Basically, all three letters pertain to the
2 recordkeeping requirements that we proposed in our original
3 staff recommendations.
4 Their basic recommendations were basically
5 twofold: One was either be consistent with EPA's interim
6 regulations dealing with recordkeeping or to delay our --
7 any action today until EPA comes up with their final
8 regulations on the additive requirements.
9 As you heard in our presentation today, we have --
10 we basically agree with these comments, and we have proposed
11 to delay any action on recordkeeping.
12 Essentially, that is it. And those are the
13 comments that were presented.
14 Thank you.
15 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Any questions from my
16 colleagues on the Board of staff?
17 Dr. Boston.
18 DR. BOSTON: With the advent of our new cleaner
19 burning California gasoline, do these additives create a new
20 set of problems for that gasoline? Or what is the additive
21 usually that's used, and does it cause more air pollution
22 when it's used?
23 MR. SIMEROTH: I'm sorry, Dr. Boston. I missed
24 the last part of your question.
25 DR. BOSTON: Our new reformulated gasoline, which
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
54
1 we're now calling California clean-burning gasoline, does it
2 cause any problem when you add the additives to clean the
3 valves and the injectors to that fuel? And does the
4 additive, whatever it is, create more air pollution?
5 MR. SIMEROTH: Dr. Boston, at the moment, the
6 additives don't seem to cause any problems based on. Nissan
7 ran a test program where they specifically looked at the
8 issue; tore an engine apart after accumulating 30,000 miles
9 on it, and the -- their California reformulated gasoline
10 they used as a test fuel with additives had less deposits
11 than the conventional gasoline with the deposit control
12 additives.
13 One of the things we expect to happen as soon the
14 industry starts producing the cleaner-burning gasoline, and
15 knows what the parameters are for their specific gasolines,
16 they'll come back in and apply for certification of new
17 deposit control additive packages, primarily to lower the
18 dosage rates.
19 And by being cleaner burning, there's not a -- I
20 shouldn't say "not." We do not expect the need to have as
21 much deposit control additives needed in the future as are
22 needed now. And industry will take advantage of that and
23 save themselves some money.
24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Any other questions?
25 MR. CALHOUN: One quick question.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
55
1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Mr. Calhoun.
2 MR. CALHOUN: How do you enforce the additive
3 regulation?
4 MR. SIMEROTH: Primarily, it's been through the
5 recordkeeping requirements that industry maintains at each
6 terminal facility where the additives are injected. They
7 show the amount of gallons dispensed. They identify the
8 additive and its approval number and the rate of additizing
9 the additive, summarize -- at the present time, mostly
10 monthly, although a number of the terminal operators
11 maintain daily records to ensure they're not getting
12 themselves in trouble.
13 MR. CALHOUN: Do we ever take any samples, though?
14 MR. SIMEROTH: At the present time, we haven't
15 been analyzing for the presence of it. We've been doing it
16 primarily off the records.
17 MR. CALHOUN: All right.
18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Any other questions? Is that
19 it?
20 DR. BOSTON: Is that a verb or an adverb,
21 "additize"?
22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Additize? I don't know, but it
23 definitely caught my attention.
24 (Laughter.)
25 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: We have one witness. Could I
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
56
1 have the witness come forward? Mr. Smith, Steven Smith,
2 from WSPA.
3 If there's anyone else that wishes to speak on
4 this item, please see the Board Secretary.
5 Good morning, Mr. Smith.
6 MR. SMITH: Good morning. Thank you.
7 Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the Board.
8 My name is Steven Smith. I'm the Senior Fuels Planning
9 Engineer for 76 Products Company, which is an operating
10 group of Unocal in Los Angeles.
11 My remarks today will be on behalf of the Western
12 States Petroleum Association. And in light of some of the
13 proposals that staff has already explained, I will be
14 modifying and shortening my testimony significantly to focus
15 on the areas only where WSPA has a few concerns.
16 And I believe copies of my oral testimony should
17 be passed out to you this morning.
18 We applaud staff's goal, with these amendments, of
19 fine-tuning the existing regulation to provide additional
20 clarity and flexibility and to provide consistency with
21 anticipated future federal deposit control additive
22 regulation changes that we should be seeing, hopefully, in
23 early 1996.
24 The majority of staff's proposed changes, we
25 agree, are in line with these goals and, as a result, we
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
57
1 support many and, in fact, most of staff's proposed
2 amendment changes.
3 So, I'll focus just on those areas, like I said,
4 where we have concerns, and those are in three areas.
5 First, WSPA proposes that no changes be made to
6 CARB's current monthly recordkeeping requirements. And, as
7 staff explained, it sounds like they plan to hold that as an
8 amendment change this morning.
9 I'll just offer a few -- maybe a few supporting
10 comments. The current requirement that each producer,
11 importer, and distributor compile records for each grade of
12 gasoline on a monthly basis we feel is appropriate and
13 consistent with current EPA requirements. We do not feel
14 that daily recordkeeping -- additive recordkeeping -- is
15 justified or appropriate for the following reasons:
16 Our resources at this time are primarily
17 dedicated, as I'm sure most of you can guess, to various
18 aspects of the California Phase 2 reformulated gasoline
19 rollout. That's our primary task over the next three to six
20 months.
21 We're concerned that, to ensure compliance with
22 all of the various enforcement issues that could accompany
23 new recordkeeping requirements, that that would pull
24 resources away from our main objective, which is the rollout
25 of Phase 2 gasoline.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
58
1 So, we urge CARB to allow us to continue working
2 on this Phase 2 rollout effort without any unnecessary
3 diversions.
4 We also support the overall goal to achieve
5 consistency between CARB and EPA additive regulations where
6 justified. So, to this end, as staff explained, we
7 recommend that CARB delay changes to its additive regulation
8 until EPA comes out with its amended regulation -- we hope
9 in the next six months.
10 And based on our current information, at least,
11 it's unlikely that the final EPA proposal --
12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Mr. Smith, on that point, let me
13 be clear. So, you're asking us to withhold action to follow
14 a federal lead six months from now? Is that right?
15 MR. SMITH: Correct.
16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay.
17 MR. SMITH: And that's consistent --
18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: May I interrupt for a moment?
19 Staff, are we -- Mr. Boyd, are we involved in the
20 deliberative, technical, evaluative process that U.S. EPA's
21 going through in their effort?
22 MR. BOYD: I'll let Mr. Simeroth respond.
23 MR. SIMEROTH: Chairman Dunlap, we're following
24 what EPA is doing, and we're having phone conversations back
25 and forth on their activity.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
59
1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. I'm going to ask you
2 about what does it mean to us to delay when he's through.
3 So, be thinking about how we respond to that.
4 MR. SIMEROTH: Okay.
5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Please continue, sir.
6 MR. SMITH: All right. Thank you.
7 That was the second point. And the third point
8 is, we feel -- at least at this time -- that there are no
9 demonstrable environmental benefits that are associated with
10 switching from monthly to daily recordkeeping requirements.
11 We don't feel like those environmental benefits have been
12 clearly defined to any degree.
13 That was my comment regarding recordkeeping, and
14 is in support, again, of staff pulling that issue from the
15 table today.
16 A second topic -- we propose that CARB add a
17 liability protection provision to the State regulation that
18 is similar to that exists in the federal regulations. And
19 we've offered specific language in our written comments that
20 we've provided to the staff.
21 In general, this provision would protect the
22 company from additive liability in certain circumstances if
23 they can demonstrate that they had an adequate contract and
24 proper oversight with a downstream company that they give
25 the gasoline product to for additization by that downstream
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
60
1 party. And that exists -- that liability protection exists
2 currently in EPA regulations, and we'd like to see something
3 similar to that included in the State regulation.
4 That was our second (sic) primary concern.
5 Finally, our third concern -- we propose a few
6 minor, very minor, changes to language regarding
7 certifications, additive certifications, that companies are
8 required to obtain from CARB, like Mr. Aguila explained.
9 Staff has clarified in Section 2257 amendments the
10 properties of the certification test fuel that they would
11 like to see in most cases, and has added language requiring
12 that a demonstration be provided that the test fuel is
13 produced from typical refinery blendstocks.
14 We support these requirements. That makes good
15 sense to us. That's very clear and direct.
16 However, staff has added language requiring the
17 companies provide a demonstration that the test fuel is
18 representative of typical commercial gasoline. And we feel
19 that this reference is very ambiguous and could be subject
20 to wide interpretation by industry and staff, because
21 "typical" commercial gasoline can vary widely in its
22 properties.
23 So, we request that the staff delete this
24 reference and add language specifically stating what they're
25 really looking for. A simple clarification is what we ask
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
61
1 for.
2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Do you have suggested language?
3 MR. SMITH: We'd like to talk with staff about
4 really what additional properties they're interested in
5 besides sulfur, aromatics, olefins, oxygen, and T90. And if
6 they have interest in additional properties, we'd like to
7 see them specify that.
8 We view this certification issue as very important
9 for the following reasons. New certifications should be --
10 must be capable of transportation system fungibility of a
11 pipeline and distribution system, and should be applicable
12 to any gasoline meeting Phase 2 reformulated gasoline
13 requirements.
14 And any overspecification of the certification
15 fuel requirements could lead to divergence in certification
16 ranges for individual companies, and that's our concern. It
17 could impact system fungibility, reduce exchange capability,
18 and, at a worst case, impact the rollout of Phase 2, which
19 none of us want.
20 And, obviously, we consider a smooth rollout of
21 Phase 2 reformulated gasoline our highest priority over the
22 next year, like I stated earlier. So, as a result, we just
23 recommend that staff remove that more vague requirement and
24 add more specific language.
25 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
62
1 MR. SMITH: So, that concludes my comments.
2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you.
3 MR. SMITH: Be pleased to answer questions.
4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Don't leave. Mr. Parnell.
5 MR. PARNELL: Mr. Kenny, can we, as a matter -- if
6 we were of a mind to, can we grant immunity for liability to
7 downstream blenders as they suggest? Have you read their
8 language?
9 MR. KENNY: I have actually looked at their
10 language. And the concern I would have with the language is
11 that what it effectively does is essentially move the
12 refiners out of being subject to the additive regulation.
13 And what the refiners would essentially be doing
14 is contracting out their liability under the additive
15 regulation to some third party.
16 The concern for the Board, I think, in terms of
17 trying to do enforcement, was that, as we were doing the
18 enforcement, we would end up basically getting into a
19 contractual review as opposed to an additive review.
20 It seems to me that the company could essentially
21 insulate itself from the concern that it has by simply
22 engaging in an indemnity agreement with the downstream
23 companies that it's contracted with for the additization.
24 MR. PARNELL: Rather than deal with the
25 regulation.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
63
1 MR. KENNY: Exactly.
2 MR. PARNELL: The second question, if I may. Do
3 the words, "representative of typical commercial gasoline"
4 cause heartburn in terms of future interpretation? That
5 seems fairly straightaway to me, and I just would be
6 interested in your comments.
7 MR. KENNY: I actually don't have a good response
8 to that. Let me turn that over to Mr. Simeroth. I think he
9 can respond to that better.
10 MR. SIMEROTH: Mr. Parnell, what it means to me is
11 that you comply with ATSM specifications for gasoline. I'd
12 also like to point out that that basic requirement has been
13 there since Day One of the regulation, and we've issued over
14 200 certifications with that requirement in the language
15 with really no problems at all.
16 It's meant to help us ensure that somebody doesn't
17 "gage" the fuel and give us something that doesn't represent
18 what they're actually going to be selling.
19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: State slowly what you interpret
20 that to mean so our friend from WSPA can get that down, so
21 there's no unusual take on it, Dean.
22 MS. SIMEROTH: Basically, what it means to us is
23 that you comply with the general ASTM specifications for
24 gasoline. And it's a requirement that has been in the
25 regulation since Day One of the regulation -- January 1st,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
64
1 '92. We've issued well over 200 certifications with that
2 requirement in the regulation.
3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Mr. Smith, does that pin it down
4 for you?
5 MR. SMITH: We would acceptable (sic) to including
6 that reference to ASTM requirements in the regulation, and
7 removing the statement of "typical commercial gasoline."
8 MR. SIMEROTH: Chairman Dunlap, in the proposed
9 amendments, we're proposing a sentence to help clarify this
10 requirement already.
11 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay.
12 MR. SIMEROTH: It's already before you.
13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Could I -- Mr.
14 Parnell, did you have anything else?
15 Could I get you to respond to his initial question
16 about the six-month delay pending U.S. EPA action?
17 MR. SIMEROTH: EPA was supposed to have acted last
18 June. We're hearing another six months. We think that the
19 changes will help facilitate the new certifications we see
20 coming with the introduction of California reformulated
21 gasoline, and it would have some benefit to having them in
22 place when that rollout occurs.
23 Now, the recordkeeping, we recognize that there is
24 merit to waiting to see if we can avoid duplicate
25 recordkeeping requirements. That has merit, and we are
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
65
1 proposing to delay that till EPA comes out with their
2 regulation.
3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. what about the
4 recordkeeping issue? Mr. Smith, can you expand on that a
5 little bit? We're tightening down recordkeeping here?
6 MR. SMITH: Currently in the regulation, as staff
7 would probably agree, there are references to -- that all
8 gasoline be properly additized. And there's also reference
9 to monthly recordkeeping requirements.
10 And staff has taken the interpretation -- and some
11 of our companies agree -- that that means daily
12 recordkeeping is required, and that means every gallon of
13 gasoline needs to be properly additized. But the regulation
14 is really not clear.
15 Some companies have viewed that one way, some
16 companies have viewed it another. And, in all honesty, we
17 don't -- at this point, we aren't convinced that there's
18 environmental justification for tight daily recordkeeping
19 versus monthly.
20 So, EPA's going to clarify that, from their point
21 of view, with their proposed change. And we just would
22 suggest that staff wait and see where EPA starts.
23 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: I'd like a comment about
24 recordkeeping. But let me just perhaps remind staff of a
25 point of philosophy that I've espoused a number of times
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
66
1 about administrative requirements that don't lead us to any
2 environmental benefit.
3 And if this is the case, I have a real problem
4 with tightening some administrative or recordkeeping
5 requirements that just, you know, is paper pushing. So, if
6 that isn't the case, please speak up; but, if it is, we need
7 to talk about making some changes in what we have before us.
8 Mr. Simeroth?
9 MR. SIMEROTH: Chairman Dunlap, one of the reasons
10 for proposing the delay and see what EPA comes out with is
11 to make sure we don't end up with unnecessary recordkeeping.
12 The regulation's basic tenet -- as was correctly described
13 by Mr. Smith -- was that our intention was that every single
14 gallon be properly additized.
15 Our view of the language, while it's more vague
16 than it should have been, was that meant that you keep
17 records showing that each day, for a 24-hour period, that
18 the gasoline that left a terminal would be properly
19 additized.
20 There are differences of opinions on how much
21 gasoline is necessary to cause in a vehicle. But reviewing
22 the certification data, some vehicles are susceptible --
23 more susceptible than others to having problems develop;
24 gasoline does not have a nice, neat pattern of distribution
25 and can get a concentrated amount of gasoline to cause
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
67
1 problems.
2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Right. And we want to tie that
3 down. But characterize for me how much tracking or
4 recordkeeping you think is reasonable in what we have before
5 us.
6 MR. SIMEROTH: Okay. I think what we view as
7 reasonable is that, on a daily basis, a terminal operator
8 knows how much additive he's putting in and knows if he's
9 underadditizing -- using that word again, excuse me -- of
10 putting too much additive in. And we really don't want
11 either one. Either one can cause problems.
12 Underadditizing results in deposits forming in
13 vehicles and an inherent increase in emissions associated
14 with that. Overadditizing can also cause problems,
15 particularly in the combustion chamber of the engine; too
16 much additive lets deposits form there.
17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: So, it's keeping total volumes
18 essentially --
19 MR. SIMEROTH: (Interjecting) To maintain balance
20 so you don't go too far either way.
21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. But not a gallon-by-
22 gallon --
23 MR. SIMEROTH: No.
24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: -- accounting in any way?
25 MR. SIMEROTH: We're not requiring that at all.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
68
1 You look at the total number of gallons coming out of a
2 terminal on a day, and that's millions of gallons --
3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay.
4 MR. SIMEROTH: -- and total amount of additive,
5 and there's a balance.
6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Again, just a
7 reminder, you know, administrative requirements that don't
8 get us anywhere is not something that I support. And I
9 certainly know my Board colleagues won't as well.
10 MR. BOYD: Mr. Chairman, let me --
11 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Sure.
12 MR. BOYD: -- let me assure you that we're
13 sensitive to that; that is, that guides us. This is an area
14 where we've discussed it significantly. This is a complex
15 area. In some areas -- I just happened to be at a refinery
16 a couple days ago where, you know, this is totally
17 automated. There are tanks of secret formulas for each and
18 every different petroleum company standing to be added by,
19 you know, a computerized input, et cetera et cetera.
20 And it seems that that isn't too difficult. But,
21 as pointed out, gasoline emissions are inherently sensitive
22 to that particular issue. We are engaged in a couple of
23 very substantial enforcement settlements, as you know, at
24 this very moment over an issue very similar to this. That
25 is the dilemma of finding substantial amounts of gasoline
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
69
1 without the proper additive.
2 So, we're sensitive to our charge to protect
3 public health and our charge to worry about cost to the
4 industry. And this is an area where we could see no, at
5 present, reasonable way out of the woods.
6 If working with EPA gives us a better view in the
7 future and we find mutually a better approach, certainly,
8 we'll be sensitive to that.
9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: And that could emerge back here
10 at the Board level, right?
11 MR. BOYD: Yes.
12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Very good. Thank you for
13 your patience. Any other questions of our witness or staff?
14 Mr. Silva.
15 SUPERVISOR SILVA: Actually, I have questions.
16 The first one has to do with recordkeeping. How long do we
17 currently require these records to be maintained?
18 MR. SIMEROTH: At the present time, it's two
19 years.
20 SUPERVISOR SILVA: Two years.
21 MR. SIMEROTH: Yes. And I believe EPA has a
22 longer time period that they require the records be
23 maintained.
24 SUPERVISOR SILVA: Mr. Smith, the Consumer Union,
25 auto engineers, and oil companies have debated the additive
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
70
1 issue, I think, for a long time -- whether it's, you know,
2 good, bad, or it's just throwing money away.
3 In your professional opinion, what do you think?
4 MR. SMITH: Well, I guess I'll speak on behalf of
5 WSPA. I think WSPA generally supports the additive program.
6 For one thing, obviously it's required by Federal rules.
7 And I think we support it -- as staff stated earlier, I
8 think the new, cleaner gasoline that's coming out
9 potentially is going to require less additive to be fully
10 effective.
11 The new, cleaner gasoline -- much lower olefins,
12 much lower aromatics, all of those -- the reductions in
13 those properties is making the gasoline a lot less likely to
14 form additives (sic), so --
15 SUPERVISOR SILVA: So, a person who would drive,
16 let's say, a fuel-injected car wouldn't have to buy the
17 additives to pour into his fuel with this new gasoline.
18 MR. SMITH: I'll speak personally.
19 (Laughter.)
20 MR. SMITH: I don't think those will be necessary.
21 I think the cleaner gasoline, coupled with the detergent
22 requirements should be more than adequate.
23 SUPERVISOR SILVA: I'd like to ask Mr. Boyd the
24 same question.
25 MR. BOYD: Well, Supervisor Silva, ny reaction is
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
71
1 that, one, history has shown the additives are beneficial.
2 Number two, the free market economy that we operate in has
3 allowed the petroleum companies to make this a marketing
4 issue and to have their own, as I said earlier, secret
5 formulas, and to compete with each other as to whose is the
6 best and the best buy, which gives the consumer a choice of
7 fuels.
8 And, number three, I agree with all that's said
9 with regard to tomorrow's cleaner-burning gasoline. There
10 has been a general consensus that it's likely that they'll
11 be able to scale back on the quantities of additives that
12 they use. But, again, it's going to be by choice.
13 And there's always those who choose to have
14 allegedly a little better, if not actually a little more, to
15 try to reap a market benefit in advertising, if nothing
16 else.
17 SUPERVISOR SILVA: Okay. Thank you very much.
18 Thank you, Mr. Smith.
19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Anything else? Very good. Mr.
20 Smith, thanks again.
21 Okay. Mr. Boyd, I assume there's nothing else?
22 MR. BOYD: I believe we have a couple more letters
23 to put in the record.
24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay.
25 MR. VENTURINI: Yes, Mr. Chairman, there were two
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
72
1 additional letters that just came in, and I'll ask Mr. Yee
2 to briefly summarize those for the record.
3 MR. YEE: The first letter is from 76 Products
4 Company. Basically, they support our updating of the ATSM
5 methodology, and also support the general housekeeping
6 requirements or clarifications that we are proposing.
7 They have reiterated concern about the
8 recordkeeping requirements, and their recommendation is to
9 delay any action on that.
10 Again, the concerns with the certification test
11 fuels, as Mr. Smith has discussed, in regards to clarifying
12 what we mean "typical" production gasoline -- they have
13 asked to clarify that, and staff has done that.
14 The second letter is from the American Automobile
15 Manufacturers Association. They have generally supported
16 all of the proposed amendments that staff are making today.
17 They have made one added recommendation that we consider a
18 combustion chamber deposit standard for which EPA is now
19 considering and will be developing, I guess. And that's
20 beyond the scope of today's hearing.
21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Is that it?
22 MR. YEE: That's it.
23 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Very good. I will now
24 close the record on this agenda item. However, the record
25 will be reopened when the 15-day notice of public
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
73
1 availability is issued. Written or oral comments received
2 any this hearing date but before the 15-day notice is issued
3 will not be accepted as part of the official record on this
4 agenda item.
5 When the record is reopened for the 15-day comment
6 period, the public may submit written comments on the
7 proposed changes, which will be considered and responded to
8 in the final statement of reasons for the regulation.
9 Again, another reminder to the Board about ex
10 parte communication. Is there anything that needs to be
11 disclosed?
12 (There was no response.)
13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Thank you.
14 We have before us a resolution, 95-47, which
15 contains the staff recommendation. Why don't we take a
16 moment or so to review it. Some of you may have already
17 looked at it.
18 MR. LAGARIAS: Mr. Chairman?
19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Mr. Lagarias.
20 MR. LAGARIAS: I'd like to have an understanding.
21 If I were to add additional comments to this dialogue, would
22 I be "additizing," or would that be --
23 (Laughter.)
24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: We would have to defer to Mr.
25 Kenny about that the "additizing" element of this discourse.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
74
1 MR. KENNY: You would be additizing.
2 (Laughter.)
3 MR. LAGARIAS: I do not wish to additize.
4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Mr. Kenny.
5 They coined a new phrase. A few years ago, it was
6 "incentivized."
7 Okay. Do we have a motion? Mr. Calhoun.
8 MR. CALHOUN: I move we adopt Resolution 95-47.
9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Mr. Calhoun, thank you. Is
10 there a second?
11 SUPERVISOR SILVA: Second.
12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Mr. Silva seconds the
13 motion. Any discussion that needs to occur before the Board
14 Secretary calls the roll?
15 Okay. Pat?
16 MS. HUTCHENS: Boston?
17 DR. BOSTON: Yes.
18 MS. HUTCHENS: Calhoun?
19 MR. CALHOUN: Aye.
20 MS. HUTCHENS: Edgerton?
21 MS. EDGERTON: Aye.
22 MS. HUTCHENS: Hilligoss?
23 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: Aye.
24 MS. HUTCHENS: Lagarias?
25 MR. LAGARIAS: Aye.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
75
1 MS. HUTCHENS: Parnell?
2 MR. PARNELL: Aye.
3 MS. HUTCHENS: Riordan?
4 SUPERVISOR RIORDAN: Aye.
5 MS. HUTCHENS: Roberts?
6 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Aye.
7 MS. HUTCHENS: Silva?
8 SUPERVISOR SILVA: Aye.
9 MS. HUTCHENS: Vagim?
10 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Aye.
11 MS. HUTCHENS: Chairman Dunlap.
12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Aye.
13 MS. HUTCHENS: Passes 11-0.
14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Very good. Thank you.
15 The third item on the agenda today -- well, let me
16 excuse staff again. Thank you. Fine presentation.
17 Appreciate your time and energy.
18 Oh, one thing, while you're changing places, while
19 I have Mr. Venturini there, I'd like to maybe make a comment
20 or two about a project he worked on, and ask the staff
21 presenting the next item to please come forward.
22 On November 3rd, President Clinton formally
23 announced at the White House eight projects that have been
24 accepted to participate in a pilot environmental program
25 known as "Project XL," for "excellence in leadership."
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
76
1 Project XL is one of the environmental initiatives announced
2 by the President last March.
3 Peter Venturini, Chief of our Stationary Source
4 Division, was invited and attended the President's
5 announcement. Two of the accepted projects are here from
6 California. The first is a 3M's data storage and tape
7 technology plant in Camarillo in Ventura County. This
8 involves implementation of a beyond compliance permit at
9 their Camarillo facility.
10 3M is proposing to further reduce emissions below
11 required levels while developing a multimedia permit. The
12 ARB staff is participating with the districts in the
13 development of this prototype permit.
14 The other project is a project from South Coast,
15 which is an "alternatives to work trip reduction plans,"
16 which provides employers alternatives for achieving
17 emissions reductions from the trip reduction area. These
18 projects are complementary to our own and Cal-EPA programs
19 to reduce the permitting burden on California businesses.
20 And I wanted to recognize Peter for his fine work, and draw
21 attention to the fact that he represented us at the White
22 House a couple weeks ago. Good show, Peter.
23 MR. VENTURINI: Thank you very much. Appreciated
24 the opportunity.
25 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. The third agenda item
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
77
1 today is 95-12-3, public meeting to consider a status report
2 on consumer product manufacturers' compliance with future
3 effective standards.
4 This item is a status report on consumer product
5 manufacturers'' reformulation efforts to comply with the
6 second tier, or "future effective" standards, established in
7 the Phase I consumer product regulation and the amendments,
8 known as Phase II.
9 In today's meeting, we will be given a summary of
10 how and what manufacturers are doing to meet these VOC
11 standards.
12 As a reminder, the Board adopted the Phase I
13 consumer product regulation in October 1990, and the
14 amendments to the reg, known as Phase II, in January of
15 1992.
16 Combined, these Board actions established VOC
17 standards for 26 categories of consumer products. In
18 addition, at that time, there were technical and commercial
19 data available for selected categories to further support
20 reductions of VOCs by establishing future effective VOC
21 standards for 11 product categories.
22 However, when the Board adopted these standards,
23 we recognized that the future effective standards could
24 represent challenges to manufacturers. At that time, as
25 with all subsequent consumer product regulations, we
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
78
1 committed to working closely with industry during the
2 implementation of that regulation.
3 We also directed our staff to monitor the
4 industry's progress in meeting the future effective
5 standards and to provide reports to the Board at periodic
6 intervals.
7 Before I turn this over to the staff, I'd like to
8 mention that our consumer product regulations are an
9 important component of the State Implementation Plan. In
10 the years since the adoption of the Phase I reg and the
11 Phase II amendments, there has been a significant reduction
12 in VOCs from the use of consumer products due to the
13 implementation of the first tier VOC standards.
14 The future effective VOC standards in the consumer
15 product regs will provide additional VOC reductions, which
16 we must have, to the year 2000, and are an integral
17 component for meeting the emission reduction goals
18 established in our SIP.
19 At this point, I'd like to ask Mr. Boyd to
20 introduce the item and begin the staff's presentation.
21 Jim?
22 MR. BOYD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you
23 stated, the Phase I consumer products regulations and the
24 Phase II amendments to the regulations were adopted by the
25 Board in October of 1990, and in January of 1992,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
79
1 respectively.
2 Since your passage of the regulation, we have
3 worked closely with this industry to implement the
4 regulation, and have monitored progress in complying with
5 the future effective standards.
6 Overall, we believe the outlook is very positive.
7 With the newer technologies evolving, and with the recent
8 changes to the definition of VOC in the regulation that you
9 made, manufacturers have greater flexibility in their
10 reformulation and in their marketing strategies.
11 This has resulted in an increase in the number of
12 products that can comply with the future effective standards
13 and also meet consumer demand for these types of products.
14 I would like to reiterate your points that the
15 anticipated emission reductions will be realized from the
16 product categories with future effective dates, and that
17 these reductions are indeed a very important part of our
18 State Implementation Plan.
19 With that brief introduction, I'd like to call
20 upon Mr. Ed Wong of the Stationary Source Division to
21 present to you the staff's status report.
22 Mr. Wong?
23 MR. WONG: Thank you, Mr. Boyd.
24 Chairman Dunlap and members of the Board, today,
25 we are presenting a status report regarding the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
80
1 reformulation efforts the consumer products industry is
2 undertaking to comply with the future effective volatile
3 organic compound, or VOC, standards in the consumer product
4 regulation.
5 Our presentation will focus on the future
6 effective standards contained in the Phase I consumer
7 product regulation and the Phase II amendments to that
8 regulation.
9 As a reminder, this regulation was the second
10 regulation adopted by the Board to regulate consumer
11 products. I will begin our presentation by providing you
12 with a brief background of the consumer product regulation.
13 I will then discuss our assessment of the manufacturers'
14 progress in complying with the future effective VOC
15 standards.
16 The ARB adopted the Phase I consumer product
17 regulation in October, 1990, and the amendments to the
18 regulation, known as Phase II, in January, 1992.
19 This regulation establishes VOC standards for 26
20 product categories. Eleven of these categories contain a
21 second tier of standards which we commonly refer to as
22 "future effective" standards.
23 These future effective standards are not
24 technology forcing in the true sense of the meaning, but
25 were established in product categories where lower VOC
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
81
1 complying products were available at the time of rule
2 adoption and where it was apparent that a further reduction
3 of VOCs was feasible.
4 As a reminder, this regulation provides several
5 compliance avenues that manufacturers may choose from to
6 comply with the VOC standards. These avenues include
7 meeting the specified VOC standard, the use of the
8 innovative products provision, or use of the alternative, or
9 use of the alternative control plan.
10 In the event the manufacturer encounters problems
11 beyond their control, the regulation also contains a
12 variance provision which provides temporary relief from the
13 VOC standard.
14 This slide lists the 11 product categories which
15 have future effective standards that begin in 1996 and
16 beyond. As you can see, they cover a variety of product
17 types, ranging from personal care products -- such as nail
18 polish removers -- to household care products and household
19 insecticides.
20 The consumer product regulation future effective
21 standards are an important component of the State
22 Implementation Plan. The emission reductions from these
23 future effective standards will be used by the local air
24 pollution control districts in demonstrating compliance with
25 their attainment and rate of progress commitment.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
82
1 As I previously mentioned, in most all cases,
2 there were products available that could comply with the
3 future effective standards at the time they were adopted.
4 However, some of these VOC standards represented formulation
5 challenges to manufacturers.
6 Because of this, the Board directed the staff to
7 monitor the industry's progress in meeting the future
8 effective standards and to report back to the Board on our
9 findings.
10 In response to your directive, we conducted a
11 study to assess manufacturers' efforts to comply with the
12 future effective standards. In our review, we focused on
13 the four product categories which have a standard effective
14 date on January 1, 1996. In addition, we have had some
15 preliminary discussions with the industry regarding the
16 post-1996 future effective standards and intend to continue
17 these discussions during the upcoming year. We will then
18 come back to the Board in 1996 and provide a second report
19 on the status of manufacturers' efforts to comply with the
20 seven product categories which have a standard effective
21 date on January 1, 1997, and beyond.
22 To gather the information that we are presenting
23 to you today, we conducted a phone survey of manufacturers,
24 raw material suppliers, and distributors to determine the
25 current status of the reformulation efforts. We also
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
83
1 reviewed the technical literature and other related sources
2 to review any pertinent technologies available that could
3 assist manufacturers in their effort to develop complying
4 formulations to meet the future effective standards.
5 Now, let's turn our attention to the four product
6 categories which have a standard effective date of January
7 1, 1996.
8 These categories include single-phase aerosol air
9 fresheners, engine degreasers, "all other forms" glass
10 cleaners, and nail polish removers.
11 The first category we will address is the
12 single-phase aerosol air fresheners. These are aerosol air
13 fresheners with the liquid content in a single, homogeneous
14 phase, which do not need to be shaken prior to use. They
15 are used in a variety of settings to treat unpleasant odors.
16 The current standard is at 70 percent VOC by
17 weight, which became effective in 1993. It is set to go
18 down to 30 percent in 1996.
19 To determine the status of manufacturers'
20 reformulation efforts, we contacted 30 manufacturers of
21 single-phase aerosol air fresheners. These manufacturers
22 represent approximately 70 percent of the market by weight.
23 Overall, the response from the manufacturers was
24 favorable. While the development of the 30 percent VOC
25 product is challenging, most manufacturers have already
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
84
1 developed products that meet the 30 percent standard and, in
2 some cases, their products are already in the marketplace.
3 Manufacturers have employed a variety of
4 formulation strategies to product complying products. Some
5 manufacturers have chosen to use HFC-152a, a non-VOC, in
6 place of hydrocarbon propellants.
7 Some of the manufacturers that are using HFC-152a
8 reported that they expected the cost to increase with the
9 use of this propellant.
10 Other manufacturers are developing formulations
11 based on DME and water or based on LVP solvents. Still,
12 others have developed single-phase aerosol air fresheners
13 that have qualified as innovative products.
14 A few manufacturers reported that they will
15 continue their reformulation effort in 1996, and use the 18-
16 month sell-through period to provide them additional time to
17 reformulate.
18 The second category we will be presenting our
19 findings on is engine degreasers. Engine degreasers are
20 specialty cleaning products designed to remove grease,
21 grime, oil, and other contaminants from the external
22 surfaces of engines and other mechanical parts, and are most
23 commonly used on motor vehicles in household or commercial
24 fleet settings.
25 The current standard for engine degreasers is 75
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
85
1 percent VOC by weight, which became effective in 1993. The
2 standard will go down to 50 percent in 1996.
3 For engine degreasers, we contacted 58 companies
4 to obtain an assessment of their progress in complying with
5 the 50 percent VOC standard. These companies are
6 responsible for approximately 95 percent by weight of the
7 market share for engine degreasers. So, we found that many
8 manufacturers are already marketing the complying product in
9 California or have begun reformulating their products to
10 sell in 1996.
11 Most manufacturers have developed formulations
12 that relied on increased water content, coupled with
13 stronger detergents or solvents. Other manufacturers were
14 moving towards the use of LVP solvents or terpene compounds.
15 Several manufacturers have utilized more recent technology
16 known as microemulsions. Microemulsions solvent technology
17 allows a greater use of water, while allowing the remaining
18 solvent to retain the performance characteristics of a
19 nonaqueous product.
20 The majority of the manufacturers reported that
21 they will have complying products available in 1996. Some
22 manufacturers have ceased selling engine degreasers in
23 California, because the sales volume or profit margin was
24 too small to retain the product lines. The decisions were
25 usually based on a combination of factors, including cost
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
86
1 considerations, mergers, and buyouts of other companies.
2 The next category we will cover is the "all other
3 forms" or nonaerosol glass cleaners. These products are
4 designed primarily for cleaning surfaces made of glass. The
5 many product forms of nonaerosol glass cleaners include
6 liquids, pumps, cloth wipes impregnated with glass cleaner,
7 and pastes.
8 The current VOC standard for the nonaerosol glass
9 cleaners is 8 percent by weight, which became effective in
10 1993. This standard will go down to 6 percent in 1996. For
11 this category, we contacted 33 manufacturers. These
12 manufacturers were responsible for over 70 percent of the
13 market by weight. For this category, we determined that the
14 majority of the manufacturers expect to have products that
15 meet the 6 percent VOC standard in 1996.
16 The manufacturers reported a range of
17 reformulation paths. These approaches include the increased
18 use of water with stronger surfactants, the use of LVP
19 solvents, the reduction in the use of alcohol, coupled with
20 an increased use of surfactants, and the use of other
21 non-VOC solvents.
22 The fourth and final category is nail polish
23 removers. These products are primarily used to remove nail
24 polish and coatings from fingernails and toenails. The
25 product forms include liquids, creams, gels, sponges, and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
87
1 towelettes. The current VOC standard is 85 percent by
2 weight, which became effective in 1994. It will be 75
3 percent beginning in 1996.
4 We contacted 25 manufacturers to determine their
5 status in complying with the 75 percent VOC standard. These
6 manufacturers are responsible for approximately 92 percent
7 of the market share by weight for nail polish removers sold.
8 For this category, we determined that the majority of the
9 manufacturers have already developed or will develop a
10 complying product by 1996.
11 Most nail polish removers contain acetone because
12 of its excellent ability to dissolve nail polish. However,
13 reformulation is no longer necessary for most acetone-based
14 nail polish removers, since the Board recently approved an
15 exemption for acetone from the definition of VOC.
16 For nonacetone formulations, manufacturers
17 reported that they would increase the water content and make
18 other adjustments in reformulation to comply or use more
19 non-VOC solvents.
20 In summary, we believe that the majority of the
21 manufacturers are meeting the formulation challenges to
22 comply with the 1996 VOC standards. They are meeting these
23 standards through the use of a variety of technologies and
24 marketing strategies.
25 As such, we believe that the consumer demand for
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
88
1 the four product categories just described will be met in
2 1996 and beyond.
3 Thank you. This concludes our presentation, and
4 we'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.
5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Any of the Board members
6 have any questions? Mr. Calhoun.
7 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, I guess one question.
8 Did I understand you to say we recently removed
9 acetone from the list of volatile organic compounds?
10 MS. SHIROMA: Yes. That was the September Board
11 action to exempt four different compounds from the VOC
12 definition.
13 MR. VENTURINI: Mr. Calhoun, if I just might add,
14 that was based on some extensive analysis that was done to
15 evaluate the potential of acetone to produce ozone. And the
16 basic conclusion was that, it was somewhere in the order of
17 ethane and a very low negligible reactivity; and on that
18 basis, we recommended the Board approve removing that from
19 the definition.
20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Any other questions or comments?
21 Okay.
22 Mr. Boyd, do you have anything else to add?
23 MR. BOYD: Well, I think to just elaborate on
24 what's already been said, I'd like to again emphasize that
25 our outlook in this reformulation effort is quite positive.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
89
1 We have and we'll continue to work very closely with the
2 industry in the implementation.
3 And I'd like to compliment them for their positive
4 work with us. I know that in the beginning it was a
5 difficult challenge to this particular industry. We're
6 finding out through our outreach efforts that not only are
7 more of the raw material suppliers getting actively involved
8 in this effort, but more distributors are taking
9 responsibility to ensure that their private label suppliers
10 and manufacturers keep abreast of this requirement and to
11 seek timely solutions.
12 So, this is part of the reason we're feeling
13 pretty good about all of this, and we look forward to coming
14 back and giving the Board yet another progress report in the
15 future.
16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Very good. Thank
17 you, Mr. Boyd.
18 We have no witnesses signed up.
19 I'd like to make a few closing remarks on this
20 item. I'd like to thank the staff for the presentation. I
21 work closely with the staff. I know how much they care
22 about making this program work, because it is truly a
23 cooperative program.
24 I'd like to thank all the companies for their
25 assistance that have been working with us in responding to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
90
1 staff inquiries, the folks that were surveyed. I appreciate
2 their followup, their timely followup, on the status of
3 their reformulation efforts.
4 It's very apparent that the industry will have
5 make adjustments in their product formulations to comply
6 with the '96 VOC standards.
7 I am very encouraged -- and this week, I had an
8 opportunity to make a presentation to one of the large
9 consumer products trade associations, and got to hear
10 firsthand some of their concerns in the Los Angeles area.
11 I am encouraged that there are many more complying
12 products available to the public today than there were at
13 the time of adoption of this regulatory framework. This,
14 once again, confirms our belief that standards that push
15 technology produce results.
16 This reflects to me the diligence and commitment
17 the industry has made to not only comply with the future
18 effective standards, but also to continue to meet the needs
19 of the consuming public. Even more important, this has been
20 accomplished without compromising public health
21 considerations.
22 I'd also like to remind us all that the emission
23 reductions to be gained from the future effective standards
24 are necessary and an important component of our State
25 Implementation Plan. And the industry's progress we have
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
91
1 heard about today will not compromise our emission reduction
2 commitment in the State Implementation Plan.
3 Again, thank you, Mr. Boyd and your team, for a
4 fine presentation.
5 Do we have any written comments on this item?
6 Okay. Very well.
7 Since it isn't a regulatory item, I don't need to
8 close the record. What I'd like to do, though, is take a
9 lunch break at this time.
10 I'd like to reconvene about 1:15 and give people
11 adequate time to have lunch.
12 So, thank you very much.
13 (Thereupon, the luncheon recess was taken.)
14 --o0o--
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
92
1 AFTERNOON SESSION
1 --o0o--
2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: The next item on the agenda is
3 95-12-4, a public meeting to update the Board on the
4 technological progress of zero-emission vehicles.
5 As many of you know, the Board met last month to
6 hear updated information about the series of forums on zero-
7 emission vehicle development and related issues that have
8 taken place on a monthly basis since early spring of this
9 year.
10 These forums have been very well attended,
11 including attendance by some of my Board member colleagues
12 and myself. As promised at the October hearing, the staff
13 will update the Board today on information received from the
14 final public forum on electrical costs and benefits, which
15 took place earlier this month, on November 8th.
16 At this point, I'd like to ask Mr. Boyd to
17 introduce the item and begin the staff's presentation.
18 MR. BOYD: Jim? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
19 Well, as you know, our key leadperson for each of
20 the forums has been Bob Cross, Assistant Chief of the Mobile
21 Source Division, who has been fogbound in L.A. all morning.
22 And we heard the plane left, but. . . I was going to and
23 will continue to take this opportunity to publicly thank and
24 compliment Bob and our entire electric vehicle team for all
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
93
1 the hard work that they've put into conducting these forums
2 and reporting back to the Board.
3 And I will reiterate that if and when we see Bob.
4 I believe the forums have accomplished their goal of
5 soliciting input from concerned parties on the specific
6 issues surrounding the ZEV program, and I'm confident and
7 convinced the forums are assisting the Board in providing
8 input to the future program and will assist you in providing
9 direction to the staff to ensure a successful program.
10 With those brief comments, I'd like to introduce
11 to you for the staff presentation Ms. Sue DeWitt, who is
12 head of our ZEV team, and quite prepared and capable to
13 pinch hit for Bob and give the Board a summary of the last
14 final and last forum, the cost/benefits forum.
15 Ms. DeWitt?
16 MS. DeWITT: Thank you, Mr. Boyd, and thank you,
17 Mr. Chairman and members of the Board.
18 My name is Sue DeWitt, and I'm leading the
19 Technology Advancement Section on the ZEV program and
20 substituting for Bob Cross, who I know is disappointed that
21 he couldn't make it here today. I know that, because he
22 called about eight times before I got up here.
23 (Laughter.)
24 MS. DeWITT: On the screen, you have before you
25 the slides that we'll be working from today, and before you,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
94
1 you have those slides.
2 The next slide, please.
3 We have shown you a summary of the forums between
4 May 9th and October 11th. And today, the purpose of this
5 presentation is to bring you up to date on the benefits and
6 costs forum, the one that was just recently held in Los
7 Angeles.
8 Next slide, please.
9 Each forum covered specific themes, and this one
10 addressed the benefits and costs of the ZEV program and
11 electric vehicles.
12 Next slide, please.
13 We heard from a very representative sampling of
14 those affected by the ZEV mandate, including physicians who
15 treat ailments attributed to air quality, automakers,
16 electric utilities, petroleum industry representatives,
17 environmental groups, and other concerned citizens.
18 Next slide.
19 Staff received presentations that reported
20 findings of studies on incremental costs. These are two of
21 the significant studies that were presented at the forum.
22 And what we notice from these is that we found that the
23 studies found a broad range of incremental cost estimates.
24 These studies -- it seems that the reason why the
25 incremental cost estimates ranged was based on the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
95
1 differences in the assumptions used to report -- to come to
2 the results. You can see that the BKI/EPRI assumptions,
3 that they would include life cycle cost, and made an
4 assumption that the break-even point would be reached with a
5 fast-learning curve, EPRI incremental prices for the base
6 vehicle were -- I don't know what they were, but it was a
7 lead-acid battery that was assumed.
8 Where, in the Sierra study, they assumed an
9 initial vehicle price of $60,000 roughly; there was no brief
10 break-even point. There was a very small learning curve,
11 and they also included confidential incremental cost numbers
12 from the automakers. We actually don't know what they are.
13 In addition to those two studies, there was also a
14 presentation from DOE consultants, from advocates, who
15 presented their findings. But their findings came in
16 between the incremental cost estimates of the BKI and the
17 Sierra studies.
18 Staff also received a presentation that reported
19 the preliminary results of the ARB's own sponsored study
20 from the University of California at Davis. They found that
21 EVs were ranging in a life cycle cost analysis of 21 cents
22 to 26 per mile, where internal combustion engines were
23 running about 24 percents per mile for life cycle costs.
24 Again, the findings are based on the assumptions.
25 The UCD study used long-term, high-volume assumptions. They
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
96
1 did use the numbers that were given to them from the
2 independent Battery Panel. So, you can see that those have
3 been incorporated into the preliminary findings.
4 The model will not be finished until mid-1996.
5 So, these are, like I suggested, the preliminary findings.
6 So, they could change. But we wanted you to know that they
7 were presented at the forum.
8 Next slide, please.
9 We also received presentations on program cost
10 estimates and, again, the significant reports were one from
11 the University of California at Fullerton with Calstart, and
12 another from Sierra Research and the Western States
13 Petroleum Association.
14 These showed that there would be an increase in
15 gas vehicle prices of $10 to $70 per vehicle, depending upon
16 whether the vehicle costs were amortized for California
17 vehicle sales only or across the nation, where the Sierra
18 study showed a $20.3 billion estimated in program costs to
19 fund the mandate, essentially.
20 And no adverse economic impacts on personal income
21 as automakers won't spend more than $5,000. In the UCF
22 study, what they felt was that the automakers would make a
23 decision on whether they would opt to pay the penalty versus
24 spend more money than $5,000 each on each car sold. And so,
25 that's how they got to their conclusions on the $10 to $70.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
97
1 They did, also, find that jobs would be created as
2 a result of the ZEV program, where the Sierra/WSPA study
3 found that 363,000 jobs might be lost if the ZEV program
4 were continued.
5 Next slide, please.
6 The cumulative incremental program costs also used
7 these assumptions. In the UCF study, the incremental cost
8 assumption would drop quickly, and that California would
9 supply a significant portion of the components used in
10 electric vehicles, where Sierra assumed that high
11 incremental costs would remain for an extended period of
12 time and, by high incremental costs, essentially double the
13 price of the gasoline vehicle.
14 Electric vehicle manufacturing would also occur
15 outside of California, which was another key part of the
16 Sierra report.
17 Next slide, please.
18 And then, last, we also received some information
19 on studies on the air quality benefits related to the ZEV
20 program. Based on 2010 and in the South Coast Air Basin,
21 AAMA suggested that the estimate of savings would be 8.8
22 tons per day based on a low number of electric vehicles.
23 The UCS -- the Union of Concerned Scientists study -- now,
24 we're presenting here their high estimate, which was
25 assuming an emissions reduction of 40 tons per day at a 50
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
98
1 percent electric vehicle penetration rate. That is actually
2 their highest estimate.
3 They also had an estimate that was closer to 15
4 tons per day, which was closer to the ARB assumptions and
5 findings that you'll see there in the center.
6 Next slide, please.
7 And then, last, we had some studies on cost-
8 effectiveness that were also presented to us. BKI, on
9 behalf of EPRI, presented a range of from $2,000 to $10,800
10 per ton of emissions. And WSPA was more in the range of
11 $227,000 per ton. And again, the thing that we found is
12 that the results are based on the assumptions. BKI assumed
13 low incremental costs, break-even, and that we were able to
14 find savings, and they also found high-emissions benefits,
15 where WSPA found high cumulative incremental costs and
16 low-emissions benefits.
17 Next slide, please.
18 This is actually something that was new that we
19 found in these studies. And I want to go to my notes
20 quickly here. They're kind of important, because they're
21 different from things that we heard about at the other
22 forums.
23 For example, this ten to fourteen billions of
24 dollars per year in health costs was reported by one
25 physician who found that over 11 percent of the heart
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
99
1 failures in the local hospital were attributed to carbon
2 monoxide, and that this estimate is based on the cost to
3 treat the effects of air pollution.
4 So, that was new information we thought you might
5 find interesting.
6 In addition, some of the other new information
7 that was presented was on the cost of subsidizing the oil
8 industry; where, in the past presentations, where you're
9 comparing the benefits of ZEVs or the cost of ZEVs against
10 vehicles, what you'll find is that the vehicle assumptions
11 don't include the subsidies that are granted the oil
12 industry currently.
13 Next slide?
14 And then, last, this was also new. I think the
15 Board has also heard some presentations on the safety
16 hazards that might be associated with electric vehicles. At
17 this last forum, we had a number of presentations made on
18 the safety hazards that are also associated with gasoline
19 vehicles. And we thought you might like to know about that.
20 And then, in conclusion, there were significant
21 long-term emissions reductions associated with the ZEV
22 program. And you can see that, no matter what your
23 assumptions were, you actually found that ranges of tons per
24 day emissions reductions were in the 8.8 to possibly 40 tons
25 per day range.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
100
1 Next.
2 Air quality benefits of ZEVs are a critical
3 element of the California SIP. A number of people
4 emphasized this, and we also want to remind the Board that
5 that is -- that without ZEVs, our chances of complying with
6 the State Implementation Plan are slim to none.
7 Next.
8 And in this, I think you can see that's self-
9 evident from the information we've presented to you; that
10 the findings of each of these studies was pretty much driven
11 by the assumptions they used in the study.
12 And this was actually very clear -- that the
13 alternatives to existing ZEV programs must offer equivalent
14 or better benefits. And we found that people, no matter
15 what walk they were coming from at this final forum, they
16 were never suggesting not to bring in some alternative to
17 make up for those ZEV benefits.
18 And then, this slide we did specifically because I
19 believe that Chairman Dunlap asked us to respond to this in
20 order to bring together all of the forums and how the staff
21 feels about this.
22 And so, we're answering the question: How did the
23 benefit//cost forum affect the conclusions we'd reached
24 before?
25 And what we found was that the forum provided
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
101
1 information on the divergent views on the benefits and the
2 costs, and that staff remains convinced that the current ZEV
3 program could be amended to be more responsive to the issues
4 raised at these forums.
5 Next slide, please.
6 That concludes my presentation on the cost/benefit
7 forum. And now, I'd like to shift gears a little bit and
8 give you an update on safety issues that have been raised,
9 both at the forums and here at the Board.
10 There is a handout that I believe has already been
11 passed around, but is a recent staff fact sheet on electric
12 vehicle safety, and I think you have that before you.
13 We want to answer some of the questions that were
14 raised about electric vehicles.
15 And the first question that comes up often is:
16 Will electric vehicle batteries spill acid?
17 And the answer is, no. Advanced lead-acid
18 batteries in gel or glass mat form will not amount to any
19 significant fluid acid releases. You're talking about a
20 couple of ounces of material that is probably more akin in
21 fluidity to peanut butter. So, it's not going to pour out
22 and it's not going to splash around.
23 Next question. Will electric vehicle batteries
24 explode?
25 And the answer is, no. The batteries are sealed
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
102
1 lead-acid batteries. They have relief venting in them to
2 prevent overaccumulation of gases and overaccumulation of
3 pressure. So, they are designed not to explode. And with
4 proper charging controls, there should not be excess
5 hydrogen gas emitted.
6 Now, this is important because, if excess hydrogen
7 gases are being produced, then that means that the battery
8 is not being effectively used, and that could affect the
9 battery life. So, it's in the automakers' interest to bring
10 about good charging controls to minimize the effects of
11 excess of hydrogen production in order to sustain the
12 battery life.
13 Next slide.
14 Are the auto manufacturers addressing safety
15 issues?
16 Yes, yes, and yes. The vehicles are being crash
17 tested the same as gasoline vehicles, and modifications and
18 design changes are being made to accommodate for that.
19 In addition to that one point there, Bob wanted me
20 to make sure that you knew that battery manufacturers were
21 actually testing their own batteries off-board the vehicles
22 to do their own private crash testing. So, he wanted to
23 make sure that you knew about that.
24 And there was one point there made about EPRI and
25 the Infrastructure Working Council, and the National Highway
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
103
1 Transportation Safety Administration and many others are
2 working on the safety issues related to the new technology.
3 So, that is being addressed.
4 Will EVs be as safe as gasoline cars?
5 Yes, we believe so. We believe that they have
6 inherently safer attributes over -- where is the rest of
7 that slide?
8 (Speaking of only the top half of slide
9 showing on screen.)
10 MS. DeWITT: There is no combustion process
11 involved with the production of energy in order to move an
12 electric vehicle. So, we think that by reducing the
13 combustion process or eliminating the combustion process
14 from the vehicle, that it's probably inherently safer.
15 In addition, some people talked about the weight
16 of the electric vehicles. People have pointed out to the
17 Air Board staff that with a lower center of gravity, these
18 vehicles will be less prone to roll over in collision
19 situations. So, we think that they will be inherently
20 safer.
21 Gasoline vehicles also have safety issues, and I
22 don't believe people have brought that out to you before.
23 There are explosions, fires, and fumes related to gasoline
24 vehicles. In fact, I don't know if you all recall, but here
25 in Sacramento and up on Highway 50 just this last six
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
104
1 months, three times the interstates have been closed due to
2 gasoline transportation accidents. I just want to remind
3 you that that happens with gasoline, too.
4 So, if you talk about the public hazards of
5 electric vehicles, you should also discuss the public
6 hazards related to gasoline transport. Both are bad.
7 And, of course, the acid batteries that are in
8 gasoline vehicles right now are the fluid lead-acid type,
9 and they could, in the event of a collision -- if they're
10 ruptured -- spill as much as two quarts of acid. So, I'd
11 just point out to you that the lead-acid issues are also in
12 the gasoline vehicles as well.
13 Next slide.
14 This is to talk to you about emergency response
15 training that's been going on in this State. To date, the
16 Air Resources Board staff and many others have been
17 providing informal training programs with fire safety
18 professionals.
19 The California State Fire Marshal has offered an
20 emergency response training program, and it looks like that
21 will start sometime early next year.
22 Formal training -- yeah, that's the next bullet, I
23 already covered that one.
24 And then last, at the last Board meeting, you
25 asked that we schedule a meeting to start a working group on
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
105
1 emergency response issues. That meeting is now scheduled
2 for December 7th.
3 We have been working with the California Fire
4 Chiefs Association to get the names of people who are
5 experiencing in safety issues to attend that meeting. And
6 Mr. Craven, who testified before you at the last meeting,
7 will also be invited.
8 That letter of invitation should go out tomorrow
9 or early next week.
10 And I believe that concludes my presentation.
11 Thank you very much.
12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. Bob would be proud.
13 MS. DeWITT: Thank you.
14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Any questions from my Board
15 member colleagues to Sue at this point?
16 Okay. Jim, any final comments before we go to the
17 witnesses?
18 MR. BOYD: Yes, Mr. Chairman. If you don't mind,
19 since this is our last report on the final forum, I thought
20 I might take advantage of these few moments to kind of put
21 all of this in a little bit of context, and just give the
22 Board and the public a brief recap of the history of this
23 program.
24 As all have heard many times, this program, of
25 course, was enacted by the Board in 1990, as part of the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
106
1 California low-emission vehicle/clean fuels program package.
2 The program, though, was really conceived -- or began, let's
3 say -- in roughly the 1987-88 timeframe, as we here in the
4 air pollution business in California at the State and local
5 level, wrestled with the problems of how to achieve clean
6 air in California in order to meet both the State and
7 Federal ambient air quality standards.
8 I think, as those who've been around some time
9 will recall, the 1977 amendments of the Federal Clean Air
10 Act called for the nation to have clean air by 1987, and
11 called for States and areas to prepare plans to accomplish
12 that.
13 And indeed, in California, plans were prepared and
14 submitted both in 1979; and, in 1982, for the more severe
15 areas that were given a little more time.
16 California, indeed, did its plans; probably, I
17 believe, the most comprehensive in the world. But, at that
18 time, we still could not forecast clear air in all of
19 California's areas by the mandatory deadline of 1987.
20 Thus, at the time of submission of our plans, we
21 found ourselves already, in effect, in technical violation
22 of the 1977 law, even though we feel we pledged to do more
23 than anyone anywhere in the world, most likely.
24 Another bit of history is that the California
25 administration, the California Legislature, the California
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
107
1 business community, environmental community, and other
2 interested public collaborated to create the California
3 Clean Air Act in the 1987-88 timeframe, recognizing that
4 there was a void created by the lapse of the Federal Act.
5 This was enacted into law and became effective
6 January 1st of 1989.
7 Finally, as you know, the 1990 Federal Clean Air
8 Act amendments filled the void that was left from the
9 expiration of the Federal Clean Air Act in '87, and is
10 today's driving force for nationwide action, again to meet
11 national ambient air quality standards.
12 But by the time of the passage of this Federal
13 law, California, however, was well along the path to
14 establishing its LEV, ZEV, and clean fuels programs.
15 In enacting the LEV/ZEV program in 1990, the Board
16 instructed the staff to conduct continuous reviews of the
17 development of technology necessary to meet all facets of
18 the LEV program -- and I just wanted to remind everybody,
19 that meant the so-called TLEVs, the LEVs, the ULEVs, and the
20 ZEVs -- and to report biennially to the Board.
21 And, as you know, these reports have occurred --
22 first in 1992, and again in 1994 -- on all facets and all
23 aspects of the program, not just the ZEV component.
24 Well, to us, your staff, the results of these
25 several years of review of technologic and economic
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
108
1 development, the results of the forums of this year have
2 continued to show the wisdom of California's progressive
3 approach to the solution of its public health as well as its
4 economic problems.
5 There's little question to us of the ability of
6 the world auto community, working in harmony with the great
7 host of related ZEV industries, to meet California's public
8 health needs.
9 Now, we're quite aware of the status of ZEV
10 technological development, and we've indicated more than
11 once we are ready to respond to the current state of
12 technology as it relates to our program needs and our
13 program requirements.
14 From the inception of this program, we and the
15 Board have consistently pointed out that the launch and the
16 execution of this program would recognize these facts and
17 would be tailored always for success.
18 So, having concluded this year's series of forums
19 and having had the advantage of the Battery Panel's input
20 and several previous reports, the staff still remains quite
21 positive in its view of the ability of manufacturers to
22 produce these vehicles in some form and in some quantities
23 in the future. And, of course, an incredible world market
24 has developed for these types of automobiles that provide
25 economic opportunity for the United States as well as for
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
109
1 California.
2 That concludes my comments, Mr. Chairman.
3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Mr. Boyd.
4 Mr. Cross, welcome.
5 MR. CROSS: Thank you.
6 (Laughter.)
7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: I've never seen a Board so
8 interested in your whereabouts.
9 MR. CROSS: I had a good time at Burbank Airport.
10 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Well, your staff did a fine job
11 in running through the slides. Any observations? Or I can
12 give you a few minutes when we're done with the witnesses?
13 MR. CROSS: I think that's probably preferable.
14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Very good.
15 We have some 22 individuals signed up to testify
16 before the Board. So, I will ask, in the interest of time,
17 that you limit your comments to five minutes, and we'll run
18 through them as quickly as we can. Five minutes
19 individually, less than that if you can.
20 I'd ask that you not be repetitive, please. We'll
21 start off with Mr. Nunenkamp from the Office of Assemblyman
22 Bernie Richter, followed by Mr. Larrea from Assemblyman
23 Mickey Conroy's office.
24 Good afternoon.
25 MR. NUNENKAMP: Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
110
1 Jack, and members of the Board, appreciate the opportunity
2 to share some time with you.
3 My name is David Nunenkamp. I'm the chief
4 consultant to the Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety
5 and Toxic Materials, and a member of Mr. Richter's staff.
6 I'm speaking in behalf of Mr. Richter, who extends
7 his deepest regrets to the Board for his inability to be
8 here today and to share time with you due to commitments in
9 his district that keep him away.
10 The public decision-making process is an arduous
11 process. Conflicts that are presented to you by your staff
12 in terms of the reviews that they've gone through I think
13 emphasize the point.
14 Before we start, I'd like to acknowledge that I'm
15 a poor substitute for Mr. Richter. For those of you that
16 know him, I do not possess his eloquence, his fervor, or his
17 fire. I cannot effectively communicate in his style. I
18 will, therefore, be as short as I reasonably can. I am
19 requested, however, to use his words to the extent possible.
20 In that regard, I respectfully request that you
21 disregard the image before you and, instead, visualize an
22 impassioned, articulate --
23 (Laughter.)
24 MR. NUNENKAMP: -- and well-studied senior
25 statesman, a statesman who represents a significant land
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
111
1 area in the northern part of the State and a rational
2 populace, a statesman who is a product of and a successful
3 player in a free market environment.
4 I further respectfully request that you extract
5 from his words placed in my mouth his commitment to his
6 position on this issue, on the issue before you and, most
7 importantly, that you weigh heavily his views in you
8 far-reaching decision-making process.
9 As a preamble to his thoughts, permit me to set
10 the stage as might be viewed through his eyes.
11 Regulatory structure, regulatory reform following
12 23 to 25 years of significant, steady progress on
13 restoration of a viable, sustainable environment and a
14 viable, sustainable economy within the nation -- and
15 particularly within California -- must be predicated on the
16 following:
17 We need to refine regulation, not eliminate
18 regulation. And, in so doing, we must maintain and enhance
19 the positive effects of the regulations, while
20 simultaneously eliminating the burdens.
21 To reach these lofty goals, we must develop new
22 attitudes about the relationship between our environment and
23 the economy, and more critically about the direct working
24 relationships between the business sector -- or among the
25 business sector, the communities, and the government.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
112
1 To that end, we must collectively examine the
2 validity of existing and promulgated regulations.
3 We must seek efficiency and least costly
4 regulatory structures.
5 We must eliminate regulatory controls that do not
6 work and avoid the creation of new controls that cannot
7 work. We must seek a way to balance our limited fiscal
8 resources for the highest good.
9 Playing upon this stage and before the voters of
10 this State, Bernie, in his heart of hearts, would state that
11 "nothing, nothing could be a greater mistake for the
12 government and the people of this State than for this Board
13 to continue to mandate to the private sector what it must
14 produce; and, further, in his mind, nothing could be more
15 outrageous.
16 To emphasize that point, Mr. Richter would harbor
17 back to Frederick Hyatt's now famous book, The Road to
18 Serfdom, and he would postulate that the document provides
19 significant fuel to the thought that the end of a free
20 market society and to the failure of government as we know
21 it, and indeed the road to communism and socialism are
22 government mandates, which impact and limit market driven
23 product or which requires specific production options in
24 lieu of others.
25 He would further posture that this mandated
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
113
1 diversion from the creation of wealth will irrefutably harm
2 the struggling California economy; for, in his estimation,
3 we are in a rapidly changing world and, accordingly, we must
4 have the ability to respond to market changes to be
5 competitive.
6 We must avoid the burdens that exceed the gain and
7 we must avoid social engineering at all costs.
8 From his perspective, the proffered mandate is
9 nothing more than a gigantic raid on the taxpayers of this
10 magnificent State. In his estimation, the mandate, as
11 currently structured, will cost the taxpayers of this State
12 billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. And one input to
13 your staff clearly showed that as a possible -- possible
14 outcome.
15 The mandate -- to support his facts, he indicates
16 that the mandate has the potential to add several thousand
17 dollars to the cost of all new conventional vehicles in this
18 State and, in so doing, further reduce the competitiveness
19 of the business of this State and the quality of life of the
20 people of the State.
21 It will add to and not reduce air emissions from
22 the vehicles of this State by keeping older vehicles in
23 service and on the roads, furthering their disproportionate
24 contribution to our mobile source emission problems.
25 It will significantly increase the costs
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
114
1 associated with the needs to address the increased threat to
2 public health and safety and to the environment as a direct
3 result to the augmented lead battery (sic) -- lead-acid
4 battery from production, recycling, and the disposal
5 aspects, to say nothing of the increased threat to public
6 health and safety and the environment associated with
7 accidents involving vehicles containing multiple lead-acid
8 batteries, and nothing for all of us that no viable
9 alternative yet exists.
10 Mr. Richter would respectfully request that you
11 carefully note that the whole question of lead-acid battery
12 toxicity is at issue. As of yet, the toxicity cannot be
13 completely quantified and the potential significant
14 environmental effects have yet to be fully documented.
15 To that end, Mr. Richter wishes to advise you that
16 the Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxics
17 will hold a series of hearings in 1996, in a concerted
18 effort to determine if we are creating yet a new or another
19 toxic nightmare.
20 In retrospect, on the other hand, and upon second-
21 guessing the issue, Bernie might posture that such hysteria
22 is unwarranted. In reaching that conclusion, he would
23 proffer that the people of this State are not stupid and
24 would not purchase products that are not viable.
25 Harboring back to the limited range, the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
115
1 recharging times, additional limited range of air
2 conditioning is on-board and utilized, and then the impact
3 of a hilly environment, he would posture that reliance on,
4 quote, his words, "the crazy premise" that an 80 mile a day
5 range is a meaningful average to the drivers of the State is
6 more mindless than the premise itself.
7 He would conclude that smart people on a free and
8 fair market are not easily driven astray. And when the
9 technology is available for a viable electric vehicle based
10 upon new battery technology, we won't need the mandates.
11 But will we have a free market or will we fulfill
12 Frederick Hyatt's nightmare with this catastrophic mandate?
13 Will we further divert the wealth and the creation of the
14 working capital needed to address the mobile source emission
15 problem?
16 After listening with anticipation to Secretary
17 Strock's nonstatement regarding new developments with
18 respect to the electric vehicle mandate on Tuesday of this
19 week, Mr. Richter is deeply concerned that the Board is not
20 heeding the Governor's Executive Order regarding
21 cost-effective regulation.
22 Mr. Richter requests that we remind the Board that
23 in this era of smaller, less costly, smarter, leaner, not
24 meaner government, the promulgation of new rules and
25 regulations must be based on the following four criteria:
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
116
1 There must be a cost/benefit analysis that is
2 based on current science and dollars; that the regulations,
3 if promulgated, will significantly -- repeat -- will
4 significantly reduce human health and environmental risk;
5 that there is no regulatory alternative that is less costly;
6 and that a finding must be made that the cost/benefits do
7 justify the cost of the regulation.
8 These are the questions that you must wrestle
9 with. The answers will be evaluated by all.
10 In closing, Mr. Richter would strongly state that
11 the decision-makers associated with this disastrous mandate
12 had best very carefully second-guess the validity of the
13 mandate because, in his view, the mandate will do more to
14 discredit the regulatory class and directly undermine the
15 viability of the needed regulatory reform and the viability
16 of the environment in this State than anything else
17 currently before any other regulatory body.
18 And finally, every citizen in this State and those
19 cognizant on a national level will know how absurd the
20 mandate is and where the responsibility for its emergence
21 against all reasonable advice and counsel lies.
22 Thank you for the opportunity.
23 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Mr. Nunenkamp.
24 Any questions of the witness? Mr. Lagarias.
25 MR. LAGARIAS: David, I'd like to acknowledge the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
117
1 fact that we've worked together over many years in the past.
2 And I'm well aware of your concern with the environment,
3 since that has been your principal area of expertise.
4 You can tell Assembly Richter we'll take his words
5 to heart and we'll certainly consider them.
6 MR. NUNENKAMP: Appreciate it. Thank you, sir.
7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Mr. Larrea from Assemblyman
8 Mickey Conroy's office, followed by John Grimley from
9 Senator Ray Haynes' office.
10 Good afternoon.
11 MR. LARREA: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Did I get the name right?
13 MR. LARREA: Yes, you did. I was going to
14 compliment you on it. That was well done.
15 Again, what went for Mr. Nunenkamp goes double for
16 me with Assemblyman Mickey Conroy.
17 I'm the Senior Consultant for the Assembly
18 Utilities and Commerce Committee and I worked for Mr.
19 Conroy. He is in his district, also, but wanted to make a
20 brief statement with regards to the last meeting here.
21 "Government is a fine servant, but it makes a
22 terrible master." George Washington made that statement,
23 and the truth of it has never been more evident than in the
24 Air Resources Board's adoption of the California zero-
25 emission vehicle program.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
118
1 Although it has been stated many times before, it
2 is worth stating again, and that is that under a
3 costs/benefits analysis, this unfunded mandate will cost
4 California ratepayers at least $20 billion over the next 15
5 years to fund EV research and development with little or no
6 benefit, despite all the optimistic predictions of the
7 experts.
8 Even the Air Board's most favorable estimates show
9 that all the electric car mandates will result in less than
10 one percent of the reductions required by the Clean Air Act.
11 A lesson can be learned from the gas crisis of the
12 1970s, when the so-called experts predicted that oil prices
13 would rise to $200 a barrel. That speculation fueled the
14 investment in what are now unwanted nuclear plants for which
15 t he ratepayers are still paying.
16 Today, those self-same nuclear plants represent
17 one of the biggest hindrances to bringing competition to the
18 electrical services industry and are one of the reasons, if
19 not the reason, that the electricity rates in California are
20 one and a half times the national average.
21 Is it any wonder that the rosy predictions of the
22 so-called industry experts that t his mandate will fuel the
23 demand for electric cars, spurring technological development
24 and economic growth -- unsupported by facts -- are looked
25 upon so skeptically by a majority of Californians?
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
119
1 The studies suggest that Californians are, at est,
2 ambivalent about electric vehicles, given the media hype
3 that they have to wade through. However, in no way can this
4 ambivalence be construed as support for this mandate.
5 As far as I'm concerned, this mandate puts the
6 environmental cart before the technological horse. The
7 mandate's supporters want California ratepayers and
8 manufacturers to foot the bill for this environmentalist-
9 backed boondoggle in the hope that some technological
10 breakthrough will occur before the ratepayers get tired of
11 footing the bill.
12 For example, there are predictions of future
13 technological improvements to batteries. This is a "Fields
14 of Dreams" approach -- "Build it, and they will come."
15 "Build it, and maybe we'll have some advancement
16 there."
17 But there are no assurances. There are no
18 guarantees. And remember, the mavins of 1970 were wrong
19 about the oil prices and the natural gas reserves. And we
20 are still paying the price for those decisions. Are we
21 prepared to pay based, yet again, upon -- to pay again, yet
22 again, upon predictions (sic)? I don't think so.
23 To expend such vast amounts of time and resources
24 for so little return is counterproductive on a variety of
25 levels. First, the mandate flies in the face of the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
120
1 deregulation efforts that have been sweeping across the
2 country.
3 Airlines, natural gas, trucking, and soon,
4 electrical services all bear witness -- will all bear
5 witness to the great strides that the competition can bring
6 in research and development.
7 Environmentally, this plan exchanges one demon for
8 a variety of others. For the barest of clean air benefits,
9 a whole new toxic waste hazard is created. The disposal of
10 used or worn batteries containing toxic chemicals promises
11 to be on part with other major waste disposal problems.
12 The safety and efficiency of the batteries or the
13 vehicles themselves is of grave concern. Just how much
14 safety protection is sacrificed for economy and efficiency?
15 What really concerns me is that electric vehicle
16 supporters are now pressing for exemptions in environmental
17 and hazardous waste regulations in order to facilitate
18 continued development of EVs, unhindered by the restraints
19 placed on other unfunded manufacturers in many other fields.
20 Given everything that has transpired over the last
21 five years since the mandate's adoption, there is only one
22 reasonable action left to be taken in this matter. The
23 solution is not to change the timetables for EV sales or the
24 quotas -- simply scrap the entire EV mandate and let the
25 market handle it.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
121
1 George Santayana once said, "Those who cannot
2 remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
3 And nothing could be truer in this case. It is
4 well known that the navies of the world during World War II,
5 and since then, have spent countless hours and untold
6 millions of dollars attempting to build efficient, long-
7 lasting batteries to power submarines.
8 Despite being unhindered by environmental, safety,
9 and funding concerns, they were unsuccessful. Eventually,
10 they ended up turning to nuclear power.
11 I'm not suggesting we explore nuclear-powered
12 cars. What I'm suggesting is that free enterprise and
13 competition have been the wellspring feeding this nation's
14 technological advancement. Government's role has always
15 been to foster that innovation and development, not mandate
16 it.
17 I would urge the Board to find ways to support
18 research and development through other than unreasonable
19 deadlines and unrealistic quotas; in other words, through
20 other means than this mandate.
21 Thank you. Any questions of the witness?
22 (There was no response.)
23 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Very good.
24 Appreciate your time.
25 Mr. Grimley, followed by Valory Brown from the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
122
1 Assemblyman Steve Baldwin's office.
2 Good afternoon.
3 MR. GRIMLEY: Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman and
4 members, on behalf of Senator Haynes, I appreciate the
5 opportunity to present a statement by him.
6 My name is John Grimley. I'm the Administrative
7 Assistant to Senator Haynes here in the Capitol.
8 Firstly, Senator Haynes would like to emphasize
9 that he is a pro free enterprise not pro unrestrained
10 business person. There are many businesses in the private
11 sector in favor of regulations which apply to their
12 competitors, which then limit their competition.
13 There are also businesses that favor regulation,
14 because it forces people to deal with their particular
15 business. The unfortunate circumstances in California today
16 is that many regulations have strong vested interest in the
17 private sector. A good example of this is the electric car
18 production mandate shamelessly enacted and enforced by the
19 California Air Resources Board.
20 The mandate requires that a certain number of cars
21 manufactured for delivery to California be electric. It
22 does not require that people buy these cars, only that they
23 be manufactured.
24 The manufacturers' claim -- persuasively in my
25 estimation -- that, in order to manufacture these cars and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
123
1 sell them at a price which might induce people to buy them,
2 will add $2,000 to $5,000 to the cost of a gas-powered
3 vehicle in order to subsidize electric cars.
4 Of course, electric companies support the mandate.
5 They want to raise electric car rates to finance the
6 research programs to promote the policy.
7 Oil companies and car manufacturers oppose the
8 policy.
9 The issue is not who supports or opposes the
10 policy, but rather what advances a free market economy.
11 Production mandates enforced by government are what
12 destroyed the Soviet economy. Government bureaucrats who
13 are not driven by cost considerations or consumer
14 preferences are inherently poor at deciding what people
15 should buy.
16 These bureaucrats want you to buy electric cars so
17 they, in turn, can order someone to make them. According to
18 these bureaucrats, if you don't buy electric cars, you're
19 ill-informed not to recognize the wisdom of the bureaucrat's
20 decisions.
21 Mandates are based on socialist economic policy
22 and, in the end, will fail. Interestingly enough, the
23 electric companies, who argue so vehemently for mandates on
24 car companies, argue against the mandates which require them
25 to buy power from independent power companies at
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
124
1 artificially high prices.
2 In fact, arguments against mandates on any
3 business is the correct position, as this policy promotes a
4 free marketplace.
5 A number of marketplace participants produce
6 consumer goods of high quality at a price which a maximum of
7 consumers can afford. If a company cannot produce a
8 desirable product, a quality, affordable product, it will go
9 out of business.
10 If a government mandate is required to enforce
11 sales goals, the cost of the mandate will be passed on to
12 other products, depriving people who otherwise could afford
13 the product out of the market (sic).
14 Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members.
15 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. Any questions of the
16 witness? Thanks very much.
17 Ms. Brown from Assemblyman Baldwin's office,
18 followed by Reuel Jones from Assemblyman Bruce Thompson's
19 office.
20 Good afternoon.
21 MS. BROWN: Hi. Good afternoon. Mr. Baldwin also
22 apologizes that he couldn't come in person. And if you have
23 any questions or comments regarding his statement, he
24 welcomes any calls in his district office.
25 I have followed the electric car debate with great
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
125
1 interest and feel very strongly that this is one unfunded
2 mandate that never should have been allowed to progress as
3 far as it has.
4 In the name clean air, millions of taxpayer
5 dollars have already been appropriated or spent to subsidize
6 the electric vehicle industry in California, yet the Air
7 Resources Board's own figures indicate that emissions
8 reductions from mandated electric vehicles, even in the
9 final year of the mandate, will be negligible.
10 I believe the figure is less than one percent of
11 required reductions. It is conservatively estimated that
12 before the mandate expires, $20 billion of taxpayer, utility
13 ratepayer, and consumer funds have been spent to subsidize,
14 and manufacture, and sell -- manufacture and sell -- I can't
15 read -- these vehicles, and that doesn't include the cost of
16 public infrastructure necessary to support their operation.
17 There has been a massive public relations effort
18 on the part of the EV lobby and the Air Resources Board to
19 convince the public that the electric vehicles are the only
20 salvation for a State suffering from serious air pollution
21 problems. Much of that effort has been financed with
22 taxpayer dollars.
23 It is unfortunate that a comparable effort has not
24 been made to inform the public that for billions of dollars
25 they must spend they will get virtually nothing in air
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
126
1 quality benefits.
2 If I, as a legislator, supported a mandate that
3 not only told manufacturers what to make, when to make it,
4 and how many units to sell, but also expected taxpayers to
5 underwrite that product and receive no benefit, voters in my
6 districts would be understandably upset.
7 As an elected official, I have a fiduciary
8 responsibility to ensure that the people's money is spent
9 wisely and that the public receives maximum benefits of the
10 expenditure of their hard-earned tax dollars.
11 The electric car mandate is not only imprudent;
12 from a practical standpoint, it is a gross waste of taxpayer
13 funds.
14 Even though you, as Board members, are not
15 elected, you have no less a responsibility to the citizens
16 of California. Your appointment status does not give you
17 license to act as technology czars no with no accountability
18 to the public.
19 If the goal is clean air, there are plenty of
20 other ways to achieve the goal without forcing an expensive,
21 ineffective technology. The electric car mandate is the
22 least cost-effective method of emissions reduction, and it
23 creates needless failures in the marketplace to the
24 development of other more cost-effective and efficient
25 technologies (sic), which would do far to reduce mobile
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
127
1 source pollution.
2 I urge you to abandon the electric car mandate now
3 before another penny of public funds is wasted on the failed
4 experiment that will cost billions of dollars, but achieve
5 less than one percent in air quality improvement.
6 Sincerely, Steve Baldwin.
7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Ms. Brown, thank you.
8 Just a point of clarification. Several, about
9 half of the members of this Board, are elected officials who
10 serve on other boards, and by virtue of that, have been
11 appointed here.
12 MS. BROWN: Okay.
13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: But your point's well taken.
14 Thank you.
15 Dr. Boston?
16 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: This is a point, if I may,
17 before Dr. Boston?
18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yes, Supervisor Vagim.
19 We've lost our witness.
20 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: That's okay. We'll just make a
21 general statement here.
22 At least two of the members here are -- and that's
23 not I, but at least two of the members -- San Diego and
24 Orange County -- are elected by more people than the
25 Assemblymen who are being represented here today.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
128
1 And my district is about half an assembly
2 district.
3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. Dr. Boston?
4 DR. BOSTON: I was going to ask Ms. Brown if
5 Assemblyman Baldwin voted for the California Clean Air Act,
6 and if he didn't consider that to be a mandate. You might
7 ask the other assembly member representatives who may came
8 up that same question.
9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay.
10 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, if I might --
11 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yes, Supervisor Roberts.
12 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: There are no czars here.
13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Pardon?
14 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: There are no elected czars.
15 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: That's correct.
16 (Laughter.)
17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: One of the points that was well
18 taken.
19 Good afternoon, Mr. Jones.
20 MR. JONES: Thank you. I am Reuel Jones of
21 Assemblyman Bruce Thompson's Budget Consultants (sic). My
22 area of responsibility on the Budget is -- on the Budget
23 Committee and subcommittee three (sic), transportation,
24 environment, resources, and agriculture.
25 As you will notice, I am reading from my --
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
129
1 remarks from a personal computer. This is a great
2 technological advance directly attributable to governmental
3 space program (sic).
4 When I first started using a computer -- personal
5 computers in 1980, it was my dream to be able to have a
6 computer that I am now using. Fifteen years ago, I could
7 not have purchased this computer at any cost because the
8 technology had not progressed to where we are today.
9 Even though computers were first developed by the
10 government for government use, the private sector,
11 consumers, and market forces -- supply and demand -- refined
12 the use of the computers. And the ability to make a profit,
13 a free market economy, made these computers affordable.
14 Had these forces not been in use, then only the
15 government would have been able to afford computers. When
16 governments mandate something, no matter how noble the idea,
17 and these three forces are not at work, then we have
18 products that no one wants, or can afford, or are profitable
19 to produce.
20 So is the subject of this hearing today. There
21 are three areas that Assembly Thompson would like to stress
22 in this manner. First, unfunded mandates; second,
23 technologies that are not available yet; and, thirdly, the
24 mandate is not cost-effective for the results expected.
25 I would like to cover each of these in orders
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
130
1 (sic). In these times of higher cost of government and
2 higher taxes, we should not be requiring the citizens of
3 this State to pay for items just simply because of a noble
4 idea.
5 With Governor Wilson pushing for the Federal
6 Government to reimburse our State for unfunded mandates as a
7 result -- excuse me -- as a result of laws passed by
8 Congress, are we any better to demand the citizens of this
9 State pay for this mandate of possibly $20 billion?
10 Back to my little computer for an example. This
11 computer is very powerful and very useful, but it does have
12 a problem. As you can see, it is being run by batteries.
13 These batteries are very expense, about $120 for each
14 battery pack. Unfortunately, this battery only lasts for
15 about an hour. Then, I have to plug it back into the power
16 source and recharge the batteries. I might say,
17 parenthetically, that I did this last night, and I plugged
18 it back in. And it was completely discharged. And when I
19 got up this morning, there was only a 60 percent charge on
20 it. It's supposed to charge a hundred percent, but it
21 didn't.
22 This takes about two hours to charge. And that
23 would mean that in an nine-hour day, I could only use the
24 computer three hours and charge it for six. What are my
25 options? I could sit around waiting for six hours every day
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
131
1 or buy two more battery packs at $120 apiece, or use an AC
2 adapter to plus into the wall and use the computer all day.
3 Yes, I can make it work on batteries, but it is
4 not the best use of my time or resources.
5 Likewise, this is the same problem with electric
6 vehicles. We are a mobile society. In California, it is
7 not uncommon to drive 60 miles to work. The current working
8 range of an electrical vehicle is between 30 to 50 miles.
9 If I were to drive to work and, like the computer, have to
10 stop for two hours to recharge the battery so that I could
11 drive another few miles to get to work, I -- like the rest
12 of California drivers -- am going to use the old standby
13 gasoline engine. I do not care that the air quality is
14 going to be improved only by one percent.
15 If my choices are to take three hours to get to
16 work rather than one, or having to buy an additional battery
17 pack at the cost -- current cost of 9,000 to $15,000,
18 knowing that the batteries would weigh so much that the car
19 could not carry the extra pack, what choice would the
20 drivers of California make? The same one they are making
21 today with carpool lanes. Go to any freeway that has a
22 carpool lane during rush hour and see the parking lot of
23 cars with one driver creeping along at ten miles an hour,
24 while the cars in the diamond lane cruise at the speed
25 limit.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
132
1 I am not advocating giving up on clean air. But
2 spending $20 billion to get one percent improvement in air
3 quality is hardly the wisest thing to do with our resources.
4 If we have to spend $20 billion, let us give a --
5 get a 5, 10, or even 20 percent increase in air quality.
6 Let the market forces work, and we will have a better
7 product. I ask you to reconsider this mandate and give one
8 small measure of relief to the taxpayers of the State of
9 California, because it is an unfunded mandate, the
10 technology is not there, and it is not cost-effective use of
11 taxpayers' funds for only one percent of improvement in air
12 quality.
13 Thank you for your time.
14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. Mr. Lagarias.
15 MR. LAGARIAS: You referred to the current range
16 of electric vehicles today as being 30 to 50 miles. What
17 car are you referring to?
18 MR. JONES: Just from the research that I've been
19 given on that.
20 MR. LAGARIAS: But what car are you referring to?
21 MR. JONES: I am not -- I'm not referring to any
22 specific car.
23 MR. LAGARIAS: Well, can you refer to any car?
24 MR. JONES: No.
25 MR. LAGARIAS: Then, how do you know you have a 30
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
133
1 to 50 mile range?
2 MR. JONES: Because that is what the research that
3 I've been given states.
4 MR. LAGARIAS: Yes, but I'm trying to know where
5 that research is coming from. What car is giving 30 to 50
6 miles?
7 MR. JONES: I am not aware of it, sir.
8 MR. LAGARIAS: I suggest you check your research.
9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Any other questions for Mr.
10 Jones? Thank you.
11 Matt Saboraria from Assemblyman Pringle's office,
12 followed by Tom Austin of WSPA, and Jamie Phillips from the
13 Planning and Conservation League.
14 Did I butcher your name, sir?
15 MR. SABORARIA: Pretty close. Saboraria.
16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Saboraria. Okay.
17 MR. SABORARIA: Yes. Good afternoon. I'm a
18 legislative aide with Assemblyman Curt Pringle's office.
19 Mr. Pringle represents part of Orange County, and is
20 currently the Republican leader in the State Assembly. He,
21 too, regrets that he could not be here today, but asked me
22 to relay the following brief statement on his behalf.
23 Mr. Chairman and members, I wish to take this
24 opportunity to express my strong opposition to zero-emission
25 vehicle mandate. I have followed this issue closely since
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
134
1 the adoption of the mandate in 1990.
2 Having studied a substantial amount of information
3 on the feasibility of electric vehicles over the past five
4 years, I have come to oppose the policy on several grounds.
5 First, the mandate will not accomplish its primary
6 objective -- improving the State's air quality. Based on
7 the California Air Resources Board's own estimates, as
8 reported in the November 8th, 1995, Sacramento Bee, quote,
9 "Use of electric vehicles will reduce less than 1.5 percent
10 of the principal ingredients of smog in Southern California
11 required under the Federal Clean Air Act by the year 2010,"
12 unquote.
13 In addition, electric vehicles powered by lead-
14 acid batteries will be far from pollution free. Indeed, the
15 source of toxic pollutants is simply shifted to more
16 concentrated locations, such as lead mining and processing
17 centers, and electric power generating stations.
18 Second, the costs associated with this negligible
19 reduction in air pollution are unacceptably high. Even the
20 most conservative estimates of the cost per ton of
21 pollutants from existing internal combustion engines that
22 would be reduced through the implementation of this mandate
23 are at least ten times higher than other pollution reduction
24 methods.
25 These costs, both in terms of the production costs
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
135
1 of electric cars and the necessary infrastructure
2 improvements, will be heavily subsidized by electric utility
3 ratepayers and all car buyers in California.
4 Third, the zero-emission vehicle mandate forces a
5 product onto the market prematurely. Electric cars, while
6 advanced in many respects, currently lack the technology to
7 compete favorably with existing internal combustion
8 automobiles, particularly in terms of range.
9 In addition to the negative implication in terms
10 of cost and consumer acceptance, limitations of lead acid
11 and other battery technologies raises serious concerns about
12 the safety of electric vehicles.
13 The auto industry has made great strides in
14 improving the efficiency and cleanliness of internal
15 combustion engines over the past 25 years. Furthermore,
16 several alternative fuel technologies, such as natural gas,
17 have emerged in recent years and show a much greater promise
18 in moving the State towards the air quality goals mandated
19 in the clean air act, while continuing to meet the cost,
20 performance, and safety demands of consumers.
21 I urge you to rescind the zero-emissions vehicle
22 mandate and turn your attention to more feasible means of
23 addressing this issue.
24 Thank you for your consideration of these remarks.
25 And I would also add that I have been asked to submit
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
136
1 letters of opposition to the Board on behalf of Senators
2 Dick Montieth, Ross Johnson, and Assemblyman Bill Hogue, and
3 Assemblyman Bill Morris. And I will give those to the Board
4 Secretary.
5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: The Board Secretary will record
6 them. Thank you.
7 Yes, Ms. Edgerton has a question.
8 MS. EDGERTON: I want to thank you for coming.
9 I just wanted to respond to a couple of issues.
10 I'm a little perplexed as to a couple of points. First,
11 with respect to the negligible benefits f rom the zero-
12 emission vehicle program, I think maybe you saw on the
13 Board -- were you here for the presentation, the staff
14 presentation?
15 MR. SABORARIA: I'd appreciate it if you would
16 inform Assemblyman Pringle of the other studies that have
17 shown significant reductions -- 40 tons per day was one of
18 the ones that was from USC -- because that's very important
19 in Southern California. Our shortfall is about 79 tons.
20 I assume you're from Orange County, also?
21 MR. SABORARIA: Yes.
22 MS. EDGERTON: If it were more like 40 tons, it's
23 really a large part of the tonnage that we need to reduce in
24 order to make the State Implementation Plan goals.
25 The second thing is that I want to be sure that
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
137
1 the staff has gotten to you the response to that battery
2 study that was put out indicating that there was more of a
3 lead risk.
4 We want to make sure that he gets the -- your
5 response to that, because we don't feel -- we've had a
6 number of hearings on it and a lot of workshops, and I
7 wanted to be sure that you had that information.
8 MR. SABORARIA: Right. Well, Mr. Pringle is aware
9 that the State is under a mandate by the Federal Government
10 and, therefore, is limited in the action that it can take.
11 But his concern is that sufficient study be done in terms of
12 how best to meet that mandate in terms of the cost-
13 effectiveness of the various means of reducing total
14 aggregate pollutants in the air, and that the zero-emission
15 vehicle mandate itself is not necessarily the only viable
16 option, and that there are others that could, in fact, bring
17 the State into compliance at a far reduced cost.
18 MS. EDGERTON: Well, just so you know, one of the
19 things that's very interesting to me since I've been on this
20 Board is learning that one of the steps that is taken, as we
21 look at each regulation, is an effort to compare the price
22 per ton of a pollutant reduction or emission reduction
23 strategy with others.
24 And I think some of the figures there do show
25 that, at least for our calculations, that the program is
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
138
1 cost-effective.
2 But I just want to reassure you that that is a
3 grid that we do use, which is always something we have in
4 mind. In fact, when we submitted our report to the
5 Legislature on the 2766 program, I think we had some
6 discussion on the price per ton of emissions reduction.
7 And with respect to the safety issues, do you have
8 this fact sheet on safety issues?
9 MR. SABORARIA: I don't believe so.
10 MS. EDGERTON: Let me just give it to you so you
11 can take it back to --
12 MR. SABORARIA: Okay.
13 MS. EDGERTON: -- the Assemblyman.
14 (Thereupon, Ms. Edgerton supplied the
15 witness with a copy of a two-page handout.)
16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Ms. Edgerton.
17 Mr. Austin from WSPA, followed by Jamie Phillips,
18 Planning & Conservation League, and Lew Uhler from the
19 National Tax Limitation Committee.
20 MR. AUSTIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'm Tom
21 Austin from Sierra Research.
22 Because our electric vehicle cost estimates have
23 been used by so many people who oppose the mandate and
24 because we knew they'd be highlighted here today, the
25 Western States Petroleum Association asked us to provide the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
139
1 Board an update on our estimates of the costs and the
2 emission reductions associated with EVs.
3 During the Board's May, 1994, review of the low-
4 emission vehicle program, I presented testimony comparing
5 ARB staff estimates of LEV and ZEV costs, the estimates that
6 we developed using confidential information supplied by five
7 different vehicle manufacturers and several emission control
8 equipment vendors.
9 At that time, the ARB staff was projecting the
10 price premium for electric vehicles would be approximately
11 $1400. In contrast, our independent estimate for "purpose-
12 built" electric vehicles using advanced batteries with a
13 price premium of approximately $21,000.
14 As I told the Board in 1994, the ARB staff's EV
15 cost estimate was based on the assumption that the battery
16 would be the only significant cost item, and that a battery
17 cost of about $1400 would be adequate.
18 Our cost estimate was based on relatively
19 optimistic projections of battery costs being provided by
20 battery developers. We assumed that batteries would be
21 available meeting the midterm targets for cost and
22 performance established by the U.S. Advanced Battery
23 Consortium.
24 The results of using those estimates were a $5,000
25 battery cost for a four-passenger car with about a hundred
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
140
1 mile range.
2 We've monitored the progress being made in battery
3 development since our original cost estimates were prepared,
4 and it now appears that even our estimates of battery costs
5 were optimistic. More important, there are significant
6 nonbattery costs that have been ignored by your staff.
7 During the May, 1994, meeting, our estimates were
8 criticized on the basis that we did not disclose all of the
9 details that went into our cost model. In response to our
10 criticism, I immediately offered to provide details to the
11 ARB staff regarding how our estimates were prepared.
12 I followed up my verbal offer with a letter and
13 additional verbal communications with the staff. On several
14 occasions, most recently this summer, I was told that the
15 staff would get back to us with a suggested meeting date
16 during which we would disclose the details of exactly how we
17 came up with our numbers.
18 Eighteen months later, we have still not been
19 given the opportunity to meet with your staff. And this
20 morning, I listened again to Ms. DeWitt talking about how
21 there's problems getting at the details behind our analysis,
22 that today was referred to as the basis for the $14,000
23 estimate for the price premium for an electric vehicle.
24 Today, I want to briefly summarize the results of
25 our latest work, which take into account the fact that
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
141
1 advanced technology EVs will not be available within the
2 timeframe we originally assumed. For a combination of
3 reasons, it's now apparent that a continuation of the
4 mandate will force manufacturers to produce less
5 sophisticated electric vehicles using lead-acid batteries.
6 The unavailability of batteries meeting the
7 midterm goals of the U.S. ABC during the early years of the
8 mandate is not the only factor, however, that will cause
9 this to happen.
10 Market research indicates that the public will not
11 be willing to pay the price associated with advanced
12 technology EVs even when batteries meeting the midterm goals
13 are available. As a result, it will be in the economic
14 interest of vehicle manufacturers to produce a significant
15 number of suboptimal EVs based on converted gasoline
16 vehicles.
17 Although the public will be willing to pay less
18 for such vehicles, the subsidy required to sell converted
19 gasoline vehicles will be much less than the subsidy
20 required to sell purpose-built vehicles. And if you run the
21 economics out, it will be in the interest of the car
22 companies to build a number of those vehicles.
23 Our latest cost estimates are based on a projected
24 50-50 split between purpose-built vehicles and converted
25 gasoline vehicles over the 1998 to 2010 timeframe.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
142
1 With a price premium for conversions at just under
2 $8,000 and a price premium for purpose-built vehicles at
3 just over $21,000, we're projecting an average EV cost
4 premium of 14,600, as was shown early on a slide presented
5 by your staff.
6 Using this estimate, the cost of producing
7 vehicles to comply with the ZEV mandate for the 1998 to 2010
8 period is $19 billion. An additional one billion in
9 infrastructure costs are also projected. More details on
10 how we arrived at these estimates were provided to your
11 staff during the November 8th workshop.
12 Although the cost of EVs produced from converted
13 gasoline vehicles is lower than the cost of purpose-built
14 EVs, this will not make the ZEV mandate more cost-effective.
15 The limited range of conversion-type vehicles with less
16 sophisticated batteries means that the vehicles will be less
17 able to meet the needs of motorists.
18 Market research indicates that such vehicles will
19 typically serve as the second or third car in a household.
20 They will often be left in the garage while the gasoline-
21 fueled vehicle is used for trips that require or that the
22 owner thinks might require longer range.
23 To a lesser extent, the same phenomenon will occur
24 with purpose-built vehicles. They won't replace gasoline
25 vehicles on a hundred percent basis. However, the staff's
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
143
1 estimates of the emissions reductions associated with the
2 ZEV mandate, the 14 tons per day that was shown on the
3 slide, are based on the assumption that every single EV sold
4 will completely replace a gasoline-fueled vehicle.
5 Several other assumptions used by the ARB staff
6 have substantially inflated the emission estimates
7 associated with the ZEV mandate. For example, the staff
8 assumes that the higher average vehicle price associated
9 with the mandate will have absolutely no effect on new car
10 sales.
11 It's been clearly established that higher vehicle
12 prices reduce new car sales. It's a fact of life that has
13 already slowed down the turnover of the fleet, keeping
14 older, higher polluting vehicles on the road for a longer
15 period of time.
16 In addition, the staff's estimates are based on
17 the assumption that all EVs sold in California stay in
18 California forever. Migration of vehicles into and out of
19 California is also a fact of life that needs to be taken
20 into account.
21 Even ignoring the factors described above, the ARB
22 staff estimates of the emission reduction potential of the
23 ZEV mandate are too small to produce any measurable change
24 in air quality. When such factors are accounted for, a
25 credible case can be made that the net effect of the ZEV
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
144
1 mandate is an increase in emissions.
2 We prepared a detailed projection as to why this
3 is likely to occur and we'd be pleased to share it with you
4 or your staff. The detailed review will show that our
5 projections are based on a cost and technology forecast that
6 are consistent with the conclusions of your own Battery
7 Technology Advisory Panel and your staff's projections are
8 not.
9 I'd be pleased to respond to any questions you
10 might have.
11 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Well, maybe I'll kick it off.
12 You will have a meeting within the next 10 days with the
13 proper level of staff. If there's been any miscommunication
14 about staff not being available to you, we'll get that
15 cleared up. Thanks for pointing that out to us.
16 Could you say a bit more about the actual -- you
17 mentioned a cost increase for the introduction of these
18 vehicles to society. Say a little more about that, would
19 you?
20 MR. AUSTIN: What it's attributed to?
21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yes.
22 MR. AUSTIN: Well, there's a combination of
23 factors. One significant cost item's going to be the
24 battery itself. There's been numbers tossed around showing
25 cost premiums of as low as a thousand dollars I think I saw.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
145
1 When I listened to what your Battery Panel told
2 you about the cost of advanced technology batteries that are
3 projected to be available sometime after 2000 -- and I used
4 those numbers -- I come up with costs that are several
5 thousand dollars per vehicle just for the battery.
6 The rest of the cost is associated with the fact
7 that, in order to achieve a hundred mile plus range, which
8 most motorists are really going to be interested in, there's
9 going to have to be other investment made in improving the
10 efficiency of the vehicle that are going to raise costs
11 somewhat. But a big factor is going to be that we're
12 talking about economies of scale here which are going to
13 drive costs up.
14 We have a very detailed cost model which accounts
15 for all of these factors -- the R and D costs, the tooling
16 expense, the volume of product necessary to comply with the
17 mandate. And when you run the numbers out, you end up
18 seeing that the price increase associated with producing two
19 to ten percent electric vehicles is going to be in the range
20 that we projected.
21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Ms. Edgerton.
22 MS. EDGERTON: Yes. Do you compare that with the
23 amount of increase which results when the car company
24 invests, say, $6 billion to revise the Taurus?
25 MR. AUSTIN: Well, for example, I heard the number
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
146
1 used that we were projecting the initial cost would be
2 60,000 or something like that. Obviously, when Ford Motor
3 Company manufactures or invests in producing a new Taurus,
4 they don't frontload all of the cost associated with, in
5 some cases, a multibillion dollar development program, and
6 try to amortize it during the first few years of production.
7 We didn't do that either. Our estimate of a
8 $14,000 cost premium is not assuming that the car companies
9 are going to attempt to recover all that investment during
10 the first few years of the program. That's assuming it's
11 going to be recovered over the 1998 to 2010 timeframe, a 12-
12 year period, which we think is quite reasonable, given the
13 scope of the program that we're talking about.
14 If we were to assume that they were trying to
15 recover it more quickly during the first five years of the
16 mandate, the cost would be much higher than $14,000.
17 Clearly, the companies will lose money as they do on any new
18 vehicle when you start looking at how much it costs to get
19 unit number one out the door. You've got to have a little
20 bit longer range view.
21 And the long-range view that we used was looking
22 out 12 years and recovering all the investment costs over
23 that period of time.
24 MS. EDGERTON: What was the average cost of
25 bringing out a new model for one of the Big Three American
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
147
1 companies?
2 MR. AUSTIN: Well, it ranges --
3 MS. EDGERTON: What's the investment? What's the
4 capital investment?
5 MR. AUSTIN: It ranges from hundreds of millions
6 to several billion, depending on how much effort was put
7 into the vehicle, how new it really is. I think one of the
8 most recent examples that ran into the billions was the new
9 Ford compact vehicle that has been advertised -- it's been
10 reported on quite heavily in automotive news as being one of
11 the more expensive vehicles ever developed.
12 MS. EDGERTON: What were the numbers on that?
13 MR. AUSTIN: It was in several billion dollars
14 investment. But they're talking about a very high volume
15 model that's going to have a very long life. And if you run
16 the numbers out, it looks like it, you know, it's going to
17 work for the company over that period of time, the same kind
18 of analysis that will be done for an electric vehicle.
19 Unfortunately, in the case of electric vehicles,
20 no manufacturer can anticipate the kind of free market
21 demand for an electric vehicle with a limited range like
22 they would expect from a gasoline-fueled vehicle that's
23 going to be able to meet 100 percent of a motorist's
24 expectations.
25 MS. EDGERTON: I guess, in comparison, Ford has
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
148
1 said they put 150 million into their EV program and the
2 World car they put two billion.
3 In comparing the health costs at 9 billion a year
4 down in Southern California -- I've got 135 billion in
5 health costs for Southern California versus -- even assuming
6 your 20 billion --
7 MR. AUSTIN: Well, I notice on the slide of the
8 numbers thrown up, Sierra/WSPA says 20 billion. Someone who
9 testified at the workshop said the health costs could be in
10 between 10 to 20 billion. And I'm sure it created the
11 impression that it's a reasonable tradeoff. But the facts
12 are, as many people have stated, that your own staff's
13 estimates show that the EV mandate is not going to eliminate
14 those health costs. It's only going to chip away at the
15 problem, at best reducing emissions by about one percent.
16 Those aren't numbers the other people are making
17 up. That's coming from your own staff's estimates of what
18 the benefits of the mandate are going to be.
19 MS. EDGERTON: But, Mr. Austin, doesn't it beg the
20 question -- as I said to a friend of mine, if I only eat two
21 percent of the chocolate cake, I only get two percent of the
22 calories. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure
23 that. You're not going to get -- if you're requiring only
24 two percent of the market to be zero-emission vehicles, you
25 obviously are only going to have two percent of the cars
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
149
1 zero-emission vehicles.
2 So, people make a lot of that. It doesn't seem to
3 resonate quite to the extent that --
4 MR. AUSTIN: (Interjecting) Well, I think
5 spending $20 billion for something that the public will not
6 be able to see and then even ARB will not be able to measure
7 in the ambient air does resonate with the public.
8 MS. EDGERTON: Well, I think zero is zero and of
9 course, we don't accept the $20 billion. But thank you for
10 coming.
11 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Appreciate it. Jim, would you
12 follow up with the necessary meeting and make sure that
13 happens, please.
14 Mr. Austin, thank you.
15 MR. AUSTIN: You're welcome.
16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Jamie Phillips, Planning and
17 Conservation League, Lew Uhler next, followed by Paul
18 Knepprath, American Lung Association.
19 Good afternoon.
20 MS. PHILLIPS: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,
21 members of the Board. Thank you for the opportunity to
22 speak with you this afternoon.
23 My name is Jamie Phillips, and I represent the
24 Planning and Conservation League, and the Planning and
25 Conservation League Foundation.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
150
1 We are a private, nonprofit organization dedicated
2 to sound environmental policy, and I might add we do not
3 receive any tax dollars as was indicated by a prior speaker.
4 On behalf of our 12,000 individual and 150
5 organizational members across California, I urge you, please
6 do not back down from this program. We are so close. We
7 are close to having an exciting new technology, a technology
8 that will bring jobs and economic growth to our State, a
9 technology that will help make California a leader in the
10 competitive global economy.
11 This is a technology that will help clean our air.
12 Our lives and our livelihoods are depending on your support
13 of the zero-emission vehicle program.
14 We applaud your work. You, the California Air
15 Resources Board have led the country and the world in the
16 drive for clean air, and all the while the opponents -- the
17 oil and the auto industries whose interests are driven by
18 profits, not public health, not environmental health -- are
19 fighting your every move.
20 They're spending hundreds of thousands, and
21 millions perhaps, to misinform the public and sway you away
22 from what you know is right.
23 We applaud your work. In recent months, over the
24 last few years (sic), PCL and PCL Foundation have followed
25 your efforts to develop a fair and effective air quality
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
151
1 program. We have attended zero-emission vehicle workshops
2 and the Board meetings. We have heard the testimony on all
3 sides, and we know that it is clear that Californians want
4 zero-emission vehicles. They want a choice. The technology
5 exists to give them that choice. And, as battery technology
6 improves, Californians will have even more choice. They
7 deserve that choice.
8 We encourage you to hold firm on the zero-emission
9 vehicle program. Yes, consider flexible measures if they
10 assure that we can reach our air quality goals, if they
11 allow for a better product, if they allow for public
12 education about this new personal transportation technology,
13 and if they guarantee a successful introduction of this new
14 technology to the public.
15 We encourage you to continue to hear the views of
16 the public, to continue to conduct open and public meetings
17 as you have, continue your thoughtful and scientific
18 evaluation of this technology and as you have done so
19 effectively to date.
20 Please, also continue to allow public comment on
21 any modifications in the program that you may consider.
22 The San Francisco Chronicle today says, "Don't
23 bargain away electric vehicles."
24 The Planning and Conservation League and the
25 Planning and Conservation League Foundation say, "Don't lose
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
152
1 your nerve now. Hold the course for two percent in '98,
2 five percent in 2001, and 10 percent in 2003.
3 Thank you.
4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. Any questions? Very
5 good. Appreciate your time.
6 Lew Uhler, National Tax Limitation Committee.
7 MR. UHLER: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board,
8 I'm Lewie Uhler, President of the National Tax Limitation
9 Committee headquartered here in the capital area, with tens
10 of thousands of members about the State.
11 We have prepared a brief statement, which I will
12 leave with you, and I won't attempt to read it, but rather
13 try to make several, what I hope, are relevant, significant
14 points.
15 This is a major taxpayer issue, because it's going
16 to cost the taxpayers and consumers of this State a lot of
17 money. I would suggest that what is not broke you should
18 not try to fix. You have plans for air pollution control on
19 into the future -- things like taking the most polluting
20 automobiles, the 10 percent that present some 50 percent of
21 the smog in our State, a low cost way to achieve the
22 objective and goal for which the Board was established.
23 I think the stakes in this game are very high.
24 They're very high for our citizens, our economy, our
25 taxpayers. I believe they are very high for this Board and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
153
1 its future as well. And let me defer that for just a
2 moment.
3 A very important threshold issue for this Board to
4 consider is whether or not your statutory authorization even
5 gives you authority to deal and to issue orders about
6 electric vehicles. An opinion of the Legislative Analyst
7 prepared for Senator Ayala underscores a point that I took a
8 look at myself early on, and that is, what is the scope of
9 this Board's authority?
10 It is to deal with emissions, i.e. pollutant
11 emitting things that move. And since an electric vehicle is
12 not a polluting emitting thing that moves, there's a
13 question as to whether or not this Board even has
14 jurisdiction to issue this order.
15 Very clearly, the statutory authority that
16 establishes the Board, requiring that you look at cost-
17 effectiveness and technological feasibility before issuing
18 an order, it is hard for me to determine -- from what I have
19 read and observed -- that those threshold requirements and
20 statutory impositions have been met or properly addressed by
21 the Board.
22 It is clear from what an earlier speaker said and
23 what the general literature identifies -- and that is that
24 the premium on electric vehicles is going to be substantial,
25 whether it's 10,000, 20,000, we're talking hundreds of
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
154
1 billions of dollars.
2 Those costs will be defrayed how? They're dead
3 weight costs. They need not be imposed. They do nothing in
4 terms of economic improvement in this State.
5 Those costs will be distributed either by cross-
6 price subsidies for emission vehicles (sic), for regular
7 combustion engines, or by tax credits, or some combination.
8 But those costs will be borne. They'll be borne by each of
9 us as consumers and as taxpayers.
10 So that represents, no matter how you disguise it,
11 a tax increase, which this Board -- and the last time I
12 checked its jurisdiction, did not have the authority to
13 impose a tax increase on the people of this State.
14 Technology feasibility -- I can tell you from
15 personal experience, when I talk with citizens who know
16 nothing of this order, and this is the best kept secret in
17 California, that when they learn that the vehicles that are
18 being described and discussed will go 30 to 70 miles,
19 depending on whether you turn the air conditioning on or go
20 up a hill; that they'll have battery packs that have to be
21 changed every year or every two years, and those at a great
22 cost, and they look at all these issues, why, they laughed.
23 The technological feasibility, as expressed by the
24 experts is one thing; by the average person who is talking
25 about vehicles and looking to buy them, when they laugh,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
155
1 then you have a problem.
2 The impact on the economy of California, of
3 course, is clear. We have a fragile economy. We're trying
4 to come out of a long-term depression. And this order, to
5 the extent that it adds dead weight cost to the economy, is
6 not helpful at this time.
7 Forcing this on local government in a fleet
8 context to try and defray the cost and require absorption is
9 simply to redistribute the impact and make this the mother
10 of all unfunded mandates on local government.
11 So, I urge you to very carefully consider those
12 aspects.
13 Bottom line, the risk is not only for California,
14 but I believe for this Board. And I think that, in your
15 deliberations, you ought to take this one in very -- under
16 very close consideration. To date, while there has been
17 debate, discussion, conflict over orders of this Board and
18 the efforts to reduce air pollution, reasonable people can
19 disagree, but you've led to the improvement of the air
20 quality of the State.
21 When, on the other hand, you issue an order that
22 is not only inexplicable in terms of its cost, but
23 essentially it simply does not achieve your goals, i.e.
24 cleaning up the air in any meaningful way, and that there
25 are much less costly alternatives, then the common sense
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
156
1 and, therefore, the authority of this Board is put in
2 serious question.
3 Hence, all future decisions will be subject to
4 serious question by the people of this State. Already we
5 have a giant chasm, as we all know, between government and
6 the people. Orders of this kind that defy common sense, it
7 seems to me, widen that chasm.
8 You can do yourself, as a Board, as an
9 institution, a favor. You can do the people of this State,
10 in terms of their confidence in government, a favor by
11 addressing this issue directly, face-on, head-on. Don't
12 round the edges. Don't say, "Well, we'll just require three
13 vehicles." You've still done the same thing. You've
14 required and forced something that is simply not ready in a
15 marketplace environment.
16 Review this, think about it, rescind the order,
17 wait the time for the technological development of the
18 private marketplace. Let the smart people -- they may
19 figure out how to take the sun and translate the sun into
20 power in an efficient way very soon.
21 Something will happen along that line. You can't
22 force it. We've got a lot of smart people working on it.
23 But I would urge that you consider the issue in the context
24 of your own authority, your own future, and the relevance of
25 the orders that, in the future, you will be issuing for the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
157
1 benefit of the State of California.
2 Thank you.
3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. Any questions? Very
4 good.
5 Mr. Knepprath, American Lung Association of
6 California, followed by Steve Moss of M.Cubed, and Joe Caves
7 of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
8 Good afternoon, Paul.
9 MR. KNEPPRATH: Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman,
10 Board members, thank you very much for the opportunity to
11 speak to you today.
12 I want to congratulate you on the process that
13 you've undertaken over the last year to hear the views of
14 Californians -- of physicians, of consumers, and others --
15 on this very important issue, and we want to applaud you for
16 the leadership you've shown over the many years in
17 promulgating progressive air quality regulations that
18 benefit public health.
19 I want to speak here today on behalf of the
20 American Lung Association, and also on behalf of my primary
21 constituents, and those are people who have chronic lung
22 disease, asthma, and suffer other kinds of lung diseases for
23 which air quality and the issues that we're dealing with
24 today are a life-and-breath/a life-and-death issue.
25 For them, the decisions that you make on the zero-
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
158
1 emission vehicle program is clearly one that affects their
2 way of life and their ability to breathe.
3 I would also remind the Board and the public that
4 most Californians live in polluted air basins. And for
5 those of us who are subject to that, the zero-emission
6 vehicle program holds some benefits and holds a light of
7 hope that we may achieve clean air one day.
8 Is the zero-emission vehicle program and the
9 mandate the panacea? Is this going to clean up our air for
10 now and into the future? The answer's obviously, no. It is
11 one very important strategy for cleaning up the air and
12 reducing ozone-producing emissions. And those ozone-
13 producing emissions cause the people that I represent, those
14 with lung disease, severe problems.
15 We've talked about cost and benefits, and we
16 testified last week at the hearing in Los Angeles, and one
17 of the costs that you don't see -- I mean, you've heard the
18 $10 billion and $14 billion in health costs in California,
19 and that is true. But one thing you don't see is the kids
20 who can't go out and play when they have a polluted day.
21 The ZEV mandate is going to clearly help people
22 who suffer lung disease and for the children of California
23 that are depending on you to show them the way, to show them
24 a cleaner future and a cleaner environment.
25 So, we're here today to certainly urge you on, to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
159
1 continue the methods, and continue your commitment to the
2 ZEV mandate, and to cleaning up our air, to providing a
3 healthier place for people of California, for the children,
4 for those with lung disease. And, as an earlier speaker
5 said, we are close. This was promulgated in 1990. We
6 supported the measure then. We support it now, because it
7 has public health benefits, lung-health benefits.
8 And I just want to remind the Board that we are
9 talking about people who have to breathe the air and, for
10 them, air quality is definitely a public health issue.
11 Thank you.
12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Mr. Knepprath. Good
13 to see you today.
14 MR. KNEPPRATH: Thank you.
15 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yes, Ms. Edgerton.
16 MS. EDGERTON: Mr. Knepprath, I wanted to just ask
17 you, I gather from -- if I understand your remarks
18 correctly, you think that the LEV/ZEV program brings credit
19 to the regulatory class.
20 MR. KNEPPRATH: Absolutely. I think that both
21 nationally -- and we supported what's happening in the 12
22 Northeastern States. That's an important regulation. It's
23 important for California.
24 And, again, what we do here in California is going
25 to have impact across the country. And so, protecting folks
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
160
1 here is going to protect people in other States.
2 Thank you.
3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. Mr. Moss, followed
4 by Joe Caves, followed by Bill Ward.
5 MR. MOSS: I'd like to thank the Board for this
6 opportunity to speak. I'm Steven Moss. I'm a partner with
7 M.Cubed, which is an economic consulting firm specializing
8 in resource economics and policy analysis.
9 I thought the Board gave a very straightforward
10 presentation. And to me, what was most striking about it
11 was that there was a two-handed economist behind every
12 chart, which was, on the one hand, zero-emission vehicles
13 are going to cost very little, be very good for the State of
14 California, and promote growth. But, on the other hand,
15 they're going to be very bad for the State of California;
16 they're going to cost a whole lot of money, and no one's
17 going to want to buy them.
18 And, then, what the Board did -- what the Board
19 staff did I thought was very interesting. They said, "And,
20 therefore, they're good," which I think is an inadequate
21 answer.
22 And I think what I'd like to tell the Board today
23 is really, there are a couple of issues that need to be
24 addressed or at least focused on as you move forward. What
25 is it that drives these different points of view? Why is it
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
161
1 that there are these two hands that are way far apart? And
2 everybody has really alluded to most of the reasons why.
3 One is, a lot of people think that electric
4 vehicles are going to cost a lot more than gasoline-powered
5 vehicles. Some people think they're going to cost about the
6 same or just slightly more. I would say -- and I'm a guy
7 who can't even fix my own car -- that based upon the
8 evidence that I've looked at, it's more likely that electric
9 vehicles are going to cost more than it's likely they're
10 going to cost not so much.
11 That's just based upon my reading of the evidence
12 and examining the analysis that's out there.
13 Secondly, what drives economic benefit numbers?
14 Well, mostly, that's driven by the notion that these cars
15 will be produced in this State or at least that substantial
16 amounts of the components of these cars will be produced
17 here.
18 Again, I don't produce cars. Most of us don't.
19 But, in looking at the evidence that I've seen, that doesn't
20 seem very likely. It seems much more likely that, if these
21 cars are produced en masse, they will be produced out of
22 State, and any money for them will go to those other
23 locations.
24 I'm just pointing these things out. I'm not
25 saying I'm right or wrong. I'm saying these are the things
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
162
1 that are driving these economic estimates that you see on
2 the board.
3 The third thing is that some people believe that
4 these vehicles are desired by Californians, and they want
5 these things. They want to get 'em, and drive 'em, and go
6 and buy 'em right now. They'd like to go down to the auto
7 dealership and get 'em.
8 Other people believe that that's not true; that,
9 if they wanted 'em, they'd get 'em now, that the oil
10 companies would give 'em to them (sic).
11 Again, I am not -- I haven't bought a car
12 recently. But my understanding of the evidence that I've
13 seen is that there's no reason to believe that Californians
14 want these vehicles.
15 These vehicles are being pushed by regulators and
16 not being pulled by consumers. And so, there's no obvious
17 reason to think that people are going to go out and en masse
18 to buy these things, unless they're really much better than
19 something they can buy today.
20 So, those are the things that are driving the two
21 hands that are up on the board. There are two other issues
22 that I just want to speak to real quickly.
23 One is that, in my sitting in on some of these
24 meetings, is that the idea of an industrial policy that
25 these things will act as some sort of industrial policy of
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
163
1 the State of California is bandied about.
2 I personally reject that as a reason to even
3 consider this policy. If you wanted to have an industrial
4 policy, there's lots of things you might want to invest in.
5 This may be on the list or this may not. Maybe you'd like
6 to invest in truck engines, or maybe you'd like to invest in
7 ways of getting rid of rice straw.
8 But there are other things to do with money. This
9 should not be viewed as an industrial policy. And, as part
10 of that notion, I think it's important to understand that 10
11 percent is not good enough; that this mandate, for it to
12 really work, has got to bounce far past ten percent; that
13 the underlying idea here is to jump technology into a
14 different phase so that we have real fuel diversity in
15 California.
16 Again, that may be something that's desirable, but
17 let's understand what we're talking about. This program is
18 a failure if you only get a ten percent market penetration
19 rate. You've got to move it far past that. Let's understand
20 what we're talking about.
21 The final thing I want to say is that there's just
22 no doubt there is uncertainty about this policy. That is
23 one thing we're certain about. Some people say one thing;
24 some people say another. It's all based on a couple of
25 people, really, that have done some analysis and run some
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
164
1 models.
2 And so, I'd like to close with sort of a parable
3 that staff's already heard and some of the people in the
4 audience, but I'll tell it to you again, because I like it,
5 which is that we've often had the experience -- or I have
6 anyway -- of walking through a field and seeing off in the
7 distance something that looks like a snake.
8 And we keep our eyes on the snake, and we walk
9 closer and closer in the field, and never take our eyes off
10 of it. Sometimes, when we get close to the snake, it turns
11 out that it's a coil of rope. It wasn't a snake after all.
12 Our eyes deceived us.
13 Other times, it is a snake, and we, like, shy away
14 from it.
15 My reading of the evidence is that what we've got
16 here is a snake right now.
17 Thank you.
18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. Any questions of Mr.
19 Moss? Very good.
20 Mr. Caves, followed by Bill Ward.
21 Good afternoon.
22 MR. CAVES: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and
23 members. My name is Joe Caves, representing the Union of
24 Concerned Scientists. And I think our considered view is
25 what we have here is a coil of rope.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
165
1 (Laughter.)
2 MR. CAVES: I want to commend this Board, and
3 particularly the Chair, for its leadership and vision on
4 this issue. UCS follows technology issues and particularly
5 transportation technology issues worldwide. And we think
6 the ZEV regulation has been the most important force driving
7 transportation technology globally.
8 And I would just mention, based on some things
9 that some previous speakers have mentioned, I think that it
10 continues to be the case that there is strong support for
11 this policy, not just among the public, but in the
12 Legislature as well. You heard from a number of speakers
13 who represent a particular perspective in the Legislature.
14 I spend most of my time as a lobbyist there. I'll
15 tell you that Assemblyman Richter, who introduces a bill
16 last year to eliminate this mandate, receives, if memory
17 serves, two votes for that legislation.
18 While I don't want to predict what would happen in
19 the future on that, I think that it's fair to say that there
20 is a very strong level of support in the Legislature. And
21 our polls indicate, which we've supplied previously to the
22 Board staff, very strong public support for this.
23 And I think that's because there is a fundamental
24 and gut level recognition that the status quo in automotive
25 technology today is inadequate. And it has been the courage
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
166
1 and creativity of this Board to be unwilling to accept that
2 status quo that gives us some hope that we can actually
3 solve our air quality problems in the future.
4 UCS' view is that, without making a technology
5 leap, without actually being able to transcend the inherent
6 problems in internal combustion engines and those -- we
7 think, for example, and tend to disagree with the staff that
8 we believe in-use emissions of automobiles have been
9 consistently understated by our models, and is one of the
10 consistent problems we have and that, over the long term,
11 with increases in VMT, with those inherent problems of
12 dealing with the degradation of performance of gasoline-
13 powered engines, of driver performance and all the problems
14 that they creates, that until we have the technology that
15 transcends that and allows us to get a real emissions
16 reduction in the zero range from those vehicles, we're not
17 going to be able to have clean air in our most polluted
18 basins.
19 That's just a fundamental problem. And I know
20 it's one that this Board has looked at very closely and
21 understands that all the debates over the fractional
22 improvements that we might get from early mandated numbers
23 notwithstanding, that ultimately, unless we figure out a way
24 to change the technology, we are not gong to have clean air
25 in this State, and I submit in virtually every polluted air
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
167
1 basin in the world.
2 We participated in the workshops in detail and
3 tried to provide technical comments, and I don't want to get
4 into reiterating those here. I think your staff has done a
5 good of providing those presentations.
6 I would say that we share your staff's optimism
7 about the state of the technology development. I think we
8 also share their general view that ZEVs are a critical
9 component of California's air quality program. If we're
10 going to meet our SIP obligations, we have to continue on
11 this path.
12 I know that there's been a great deal of
13 discussion about trying to provide some early year
14 flexibility. We've tried to deal with this issue not as one
15 of political rhetoric but as one of how we produce a
16 workable program. How do we achieve a program that puts
17 vehicles in the market people want to buy?
18 We respect and I think recognize there may be a
19 need to provide greater flexibility to the automakers in the
20 early years, and we'd be happy to try to work with you along
21 those lines.
22 I just want to mention what we think are key
23 factors to keep in mind if that becomes the case. It has
24 been this regulation that has driven the technology. And
25 you heard a number of statements early on, I think, from the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
168
1 Assembly representatives that this mandate somehow conflicts
2 with economic theory. And it may not work in theory, but I
3 think the Battery Panel has suggested that it has worked in
4 practice; that we have moved the technology substantially.
5 And the key thing that I heard from their
6 presentation is the need to maintain that momentum. It is
7 our view that however this mandate is modified -- and I
8 would tell you that our view is that it's worked very
9 effectively, and we would resist major modifications -- that
10 we think it has to provide a clearly identifiable path to
11 commercialization at the 10 percent by 2003.
12 That's the timeframe, that 2003 to 2010 period,
13 that is critical for us to have a significant amount of
14 zero-emission vehicles in the market.
15 We recognize that they have to be commercially
16 acceptable vehicles. And we have a lot of issues to work on
17 in that regard, and we would be happy to try to work with
18 you on that.
19 I guess I would agree with the previous speaker in
20 this regard. We think 10 percent is too low. We think that
21 the goal, our long-term goal should be to produce
22 commercially acceptable zero-emission vehicles that become
23 a significant fraction of California's fleet if we're going
24 to have the real potential to have clean air -- to be able
25 to see the sky, blue skies again in Los Angeles.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
169
1 And we think that's the fundamental issue. Thank
2 you.
3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Mr. Caves. Any
4 questions of the witness? Appreciate your remarks.
5 Bill Ward, Drivers for Highway Safety, followed by
6 Janet Hathaway, NRDC.
7 MR. WARD: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Board
8 members. I'm Bill Ward, Chairman of the Drivers for Highway
9 Safety, the Transportation Forum.
10 We're a group of technically oriented people
11 interested in promoting self -- safe, cost-effective
12 transportation. Our organization is a founding member of
13 the Orange County Committees of Correspondence.
14 My degree is in chemistry, and my interest has
15 always been research and development. I earn my living by
16 sorting out ideas that can work from those that can't.
17 The first thing I do with a new idea is to give it
18 a sanity check. Can it be ruled out on basic principles?
19 If it can be shown to violate any fundamental laws of
20 chemistry and physics, there is no point in pursuing it
21 further; it simply won't work.
22 I've attended the Southern California EV meetings,
23 and observed much confusion over some rather basic physical
24 concepts. The primary misconception is that some day, an
25 advanced storage battery will be developed which will allow
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
170
1 EVs to compete with IC powered vehicles. In the next few
2 minutes, I will show you how development of such a battery
3 can be ruled out on elementary principles, independent of
4 technology.
5 All vehicles require energy to be stored on board
6 in some form, not only for propulsion, but to maintain a
7 comfortable temperature, provide lights, and run other
8 accessories.
9 In an EV, the necessary energy is contained in a
10 storage battery, while internal combustion vehicles store
11 their energy in a tank of hydrocarbon fuel. The amount of
12 energy needed is set only by the tasks to be done,
13 regardless of how the energy's stored.
14 First slide, please.
15 Okay. Both internal combustion engines and
16 storage batteries store chemical energy, but with grossly
17 different reactivities. Hydrocarbon fuels are relatively
18 inert at room temperatures, while battery chemicals, by
19 necessity, must react spontaneously and vigorously.
20 An important point we'll get to in a minute is
21 that chemical reactions usually release energy as heat.
22 Careful control is required to coax it out as electricity.
23 And, of course, electricity is not a fuel and it is not
24 stored in batteries. Batteries convert electricity to
25 chemical energy and back, but only chemical energy is
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
171
1 stored.
2 Next slide, please.
3 Chemical energy is usually stored by separating a
4 fuel from an oxidizer. For example, our fossil fuels were
5 formed by ancient plants, which used solar energy to
6 separate oxygen from CO2 and water, forming organic
7 compounds, which became coal, oil, and gas. The 20 percent
8 oxygen in our air comes from that process.
9 Another example of separating a fuel from an
10 oxidizer is a common lead-acid battery. During charging,
11 the electric current separates lead sulfate on both plates
12 into lead, the fuel, on one plate, and lead peroxide, the
13 oxidizer, on the other plate, plus sulfuric acid.
14 The next slide.
15 When a fuel and oxidizer are recombined, the
16 energy originally stored is released. For example, food is
17 a fuel. Muscles oxidize that fuel with oxygen from the air,
18 releasing the original solar energy as mechanical energy.
19 Batteries also release energy during discharge by
20 recombining fuel and an oxidizer. More about that in a
21 minute.
22 Next slide, please.
23 And, as we all know, internal combustion engines
24 combine hydrocarbon fuel with oxygen from the air at high
25 temperatures and convert some of the heat to mechanical
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
172
1 energy.
2 Next slide, please.
3 Like the IC engine, rechargeable batteries also
4 involve a fuel and oxidizer, but they are formed in place by
5 passing a charging current from an external energy source
6 through the battery. When the reactants are allowed to
7 recombine in a carefully controlled manner, the chemical
8 energy is converted back to electricity. Note that
9 electrical energy is not stored directly. Chemical energy
10 is stored by using the electrical energy to separate a
11 reducing agent, or fuel, from an oxidizer. This is an
12 important slide, so we'll spend a minute on it.
13 There are five essential components to a storage
14 battery. From top to bottom of this diagram of a fully
15 charged cell, you can see first an electrode, which
16 electrically connects to the load or source; the fuel
17 supply, which in a lead-acid cell would be lead metal; an
18 electrolyte separator, which would be sulfuric acid; the
19 oxidizer, which would be lead peroxide; and, lastly, the
20 other electrode.
21 As the battery discharges, the lead fuel is
22 oxidized to lead sulfate and the lead peroxide oxidizer is
23 reduced to lead sulfate again, removing sulfuric acid from
24 the electrolyte. During charge, the lead and lead peroxide
25 plates are rejuvenated by reversing the current flow, and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
173
1 the resulting sulfate ions go back into the electrolyte.
2 I've used a common lead-acid battery for the
3 example, but the same principle holds for all batteries no
4 matter how sophisticated and expensive.
5 A fuel and an oxidizer are held in close proximity
6 and allowed to react to release electricity instead of heat.
7 In a sodium sulfur battery, the fuel is molten sodium and
8 the oxidizer is molten sulfur.
9 For nickel metal hydride, the fuel is hydrogen and
10 the oxidizer is a nickel oxide. The higher the energy
11 density and range, the more reactive the chemicals must be.
12 High energy batteries must, by necessity, contain some of
13 the nastiest, most dangerous, and energetic chemicals known
14 to man or woman.
15 The electrolyte keeps the reactants apart, but
16 allows electrically charged ions to pass. Remember, earlier
17 I said chemical energy is usually released as heat. The
18 electrolyte is what forces the reaction to produce electric
19 energy rather than heat. It needs to be thin to keep the
20 internal resistance down and efficiency high.
21 In high performance batteries, it may be only a
22 few thousandths of an inch thick.
23 Next slide, please.
24 This shows what happens if the electrolyte fails.
25 It's the only thing standing between two reactive chemicals.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
174
1 If that membrane fails, they react with nothing to limit the
2 reaction rate and all energy in the battery is quickly
3 released as heat.
4 The technical term for such a device capable of
5 releasing a lot of energy in a short time is a bomb. Then,
6 why don't existing batteries explode, you might ask.
7 For the same reason they don't provide a practical
8 range. They just don't store enough energy. If advanced
9 storage batteries were ever developed which could store
10 anywhere near the energy in a tank of gasoline, they would
11 pose a serious explosion hazard, independent of any
12 particular battery chemistry.
13 If there is enough energy to be useful, there is
14 enough to be dangerous. No one could guarantee a battery
15 failure would not cause a sudden release of the energy it
16 contains.
17 Air breathers, such as internal combustion
18 engines, don't have that problem, as hydrocarbon fuel is
19 relatively inert, stored compactly, and the reaction rate is
20 limited by access to oxygen.
21 Gas tanks don't explode unless they are grossly
22 ruptured and there's an ignition source. There are many
23 serious auto accidents without fires, some with fires, but
24 very few with an actual explosion.
25 It's clear to me, and I hope clear to you at this
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
175
1 point, that we must rule out storage batteries as a vehicle
2 power source on simple basic principles. Storing highly
3 reactive fuel and oxidizer in close proximity is
4 fundamentally and inherently hazardous, yet any high energy
5 storage battery requires just that.
6 That's why I have a problem with CARB claiming
7 that electric vehicles are inherently safer than gasoline-
8 powered cars because they are cleaner and cooler.
9 On an equal energy basis, the EV has to be far
10 more hazardous, because both fuel and oxidizer are stored in
11 close proximity. Even if the battery burns instead of
12 exploding, a battery fire is almost impossible to
13 extinguish. Since gasoline requires outside oxygen to burn,
14 a fire can be smothered by cutting off the air.
15 Let's not get tangled up arguing over trivial
16 matters like range, cost, and customer acceptance when there
17 are fundamental safety issues involved. Nothing will kill
18 electric cars faster than mandating bombs in California
19 garages.
20 Okay. If we rule out storage batteries, is there
21 any other way to get a practical EV?
22 Next slide, please.
23 The only approach I see with much promise is an
24 air-breathing fuel cell. A fuel cell is a battery with a
25 continuous supply of reactants from external sources. The
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
176
1 energy released during a failure is limited by the small
2 amount of reactants present in the fuel cell.
3 The fuel can be carried in a tank and oxygen can
4 be obtained from the air as with an internal combustion
5 engine. Since it's not a heat engine, the efficiency should
6 be much higher. The main problem is that no one yet knows
7 how to build a practical fuel cell running on a practical
8 fuel.
9 A lot of development is necessary, and the current
10 EV mandate is distorting the market by diverting research
11 money from actual researchers to proposal writers seeking
12 grants.
13 I believe any attempt to mandate technology is
14 doomed to failure. Without mandates, the free market will
15 probably provide the first niche market fuel cell vehicles
16 in five to ten years. Any attempt to mandate them would
17 delay or kill legitimate research.
18 Thank you. Any questions?
19 SUPERVISOR RIORDAN: Thank you. Are there any
20 questions, Board members? I don't see any questions, and we
21 thank you, Mr. Ward, for being here.
22 MR. WARD: I think there's a question for me over
23 there.
24 SUPERVISOR RIORDAN: Oh, excuse me. I'm sorry.
25 Supervisor Silva.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
177
1 SUPERVISOR SILVA: Yes. It's nice seeing you up
2 here, Bill.
3 MR. WARD: Thank you.
4 SUPERVISOR SILVA: Did you have a copy of that for
5 the Board?
6 MR. WARD: Yeah. I'm sure I can get one. You can
7 have this one.
8 SUPERVISOR SILVA: If you wouldn't mind. Thank
9 you.
10 MR. WARD: Okay. Any other questions?
11 SUPERVISOR RIORDAN: I don't think there are.
12 Thank you, Mr. Ward, very much.
13 The next speaker is Janet Hathaway, and she's
14 going to be followed by Anthony Trujillo.
15 MS. HATHAWAY: Thank you. I'm happy to be here in
16 front of the Board, and just want to make a brief comment to
17 you here.
18 I'm representing the Natural Resources Defense
19 Council. My name is Janet Hathaway, and I've been involved
20 in this process of workshops and discussions about electric
21 vehicles that you've engaged in this year. And I just
22 wanted to commend you on an outstanding process. This is
23 one of the most contentious and also most innovative
24 programs worldwide to try to deal with a very, very
25 perplexing and difficult problem of how to reduce ozone in
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
178
1 our cities.
2 And you have the most outstanding staff of any
3 agency I've worked with. I just want to tell you that this
4 program is clearly making a big difference. Were it not,
5 you would not have this outpouring of consultants, experts,
6 and people who have every different possible angle on what
7 you could do and should do.
8 You definitely are making a big difference in the
9 technology and what's going to be possible in the automotive
10 industry in the next five to ten years.
11 And apropos of some of the conversations that have
12 been reported on in the media, I want to just congratulate
13 you on finding openings with automobile companies who seem
14 to really want to find some way to make this electric
15 vehicle program work. And that is absolutely a
16 breakthrough. And I just want to thank you all for the
17 efforts that have gone into making those conversations
18 productive.
19 For the Natural Resources Defense Council, it is
20 not our concern that it have to be exactly the form of the
21 regulation that you currently have. Our goal is to get the
22 air quality benefits that you have, and also to ensure that
23 there is a process that enables the public to have its
24 concerns represented.
25 And to date, we've seen nothing but an excellent
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
179
1 process, a revolutionary change in the views of the
2 industry. We're suddenly hearing the industry talking about
3 how they can indeed produce vehicles that will be desired by
4 the public. And that is something that we want to
5 capitalize on and make real.
6 The one caveat I would just put forward, although
7 I'm sure that you have this in mind, is that the year 2003
8 or 2010 is far away, and most of you probably won't still be
9 sitting on this Board, and many of us will have gone on to
10 other assignments, whether we're in the private sector or
11 public.
12 And so, whatever is determined and any agreement
13 that is forged with auto companies, I just hope that what is
14 done will have some kind of enforceability that is outside
15 of the parties to agreements. That's the crucial thing. I
16 know that this program has so many people looking over
17 people's shoulders and trying to get involved in the process
18 that there's a danger, that when you have outsiders
19 involved, they may scuttle things.
20 But, on the other hand, to make it really last
21 through the many years that this program has to be effective
22 if it's going to make the air quality benefits that we all
23 hope it will, it has to stand up and be able to stand the
24 test of time that our laws and regulations have.
25 And that's my only concern here. But thank you
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
180
1 very much for what has gone on. And, really, I wish you the
2 very best in these further discussions. And if there's any
3 way that NRDC can be party, we hope that we can offer you
4 some help in that.
5 Thank you.
6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. Thank you, Ms.
7 Hathaway. Any questions of her? All right. Very good.
8 Mr. Trujillo. Mr. Trujillo is a citizen, followed
9 by Cecile Martin from the California Electric Transportation
10 Coalition.
11 Good afternoon, sir.
12 MR. TRUJILLO: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,
13 members of the Board. My name is Anthony Trujillo. I've
14 25 years of experience in designing motor controls,
15 converters, power supplies, transformers, and things of that
16 nature, all of the thing that go into building electric
17 automobiles.
18 I'm intimately familiar with every bit of the
19 technology from power input, heat transfer, and everything
20 else that's involved in every one of the technologies --
21 semiconductors, power hybrids, and everything else.
22 I'm here to tell you that the idea of an
23 electrical vehicle mandate is stupid, because of the
24 following technical problems. The problems consist
25 primarily of two things -- the battery and power plant,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
181
1 which are very inefficient.
2 All batteries are chemical storage devices as Mr.
3 Ward just said. I don't know about you, but I'm not aware
4 of any research to reduce the work function between the
5 electrolyte and the active plates or to maintain the
6 electrolyte conductivity as a battery discharges.
7 If anyone is aware of this, please let me know.
8 There is no other way, except using higher conductivity
9 metals, to increase the battery efficiency.
10 Battery efficiency is about 55 percent at the
11 eight-hour charging rate and the battery's Achilles' heel,
12 because it's a function of the charging current, as you'll
13 soon see.
14 All batteries contain toxic chemicals as Mr. Ward
15 just pointed out. Special permits are required to transport
16 sodium, lithium, cadmium, potassium, and sulfur. Yet these
17 are proposed for new batteries because they can increase
18 energy density.
19 Why is increased efficiency never mentioned?
20 Because there's no work being done on improving it, it
21 cannot be done. How will emergency public service agencies
22 respond to all of the possible materials? Will electric
23 vehicles get special permits to carry these toxic batteries?
24 Are you going to do that for them?
25 Will emergency public service agencies need to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
182
1 carry a chemical warehouse for every emergency, or are you
2 going to limit the number and type of battery that they can
3 use?
4 At the workshop held on October 11th, battery
5 recharge requirements between 16 and 48 kilowatt hours were
6 given by the manufacturers who spoke. This is a real eye
7 opener, because only modern, single-family homes have 240
8 volt/40 amp service.
9 Under ideal conditions, a hundred percent
10 efficiency, unity power factor, zero line voltage droop,
11 which no one can have, they're capable of a little over 27.5
12 kilowatt hours over an eight-hour charge.
13 A more realistic value would be 24 kilowatt hours.
14 All apartment and condominium dwellers only have 120 volt/20
15 amp service. They only have half of that, 12 kilowatt
16 hours. They are not capable of recharging the minimum 16
17 kilowatt hours that the manufacturers stated was necessary.
18 Extending the battery range is an important topic
19 for battery research. Why? If you double the battery
20 range, that requires at least doubling the energy that the
21 batteries can carry. How are you going to get this if you
22 cannot even charge the existing batteries? What good does
23 it do?
24 What's the purpose of the mandate if you can't do
25 that? The outlet current is the limiting factor. The only
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
183
1 solution is a longer charging time. Nobody can fast-charge
2 at home, because they don't have the capacity. They're
3 limited to that outlet. And that's only in new homes,
4 single-family homes.
5 Fast charging is mentioned as a panacea to reduce
6 waiting time and to simulate refueling at a gas station.
7 Nothing can be further from the truth.
8 Slide, please.
9 Conduction losses are proportional to the square
10 of the current. That's the first thing an engineering
11 student learns, "I squared R."
12 If you double the current, you quadruple the
13 losses. If you cut the charging time from a normal eight
14 hours, which is reasonable, down to a half hour for fast
15 charging, your losses have increased 256 times. What does
16 this do for the system efficiency?
17 If it's already less, the system efficiency from
18 an electric vehicle already less than a gasoline engine,
19 what happens if you try to fast charge? If you want to fast
20 charge even faster, in 15 minutes, it's unbelievable how
21 much power you need. No one can do it except maybe Edison.
22 Fast charging is anathema to system efficiency.
23 Yet it is a common theme. But fast charging and high
24 efficiency are mutually exclusive. You can have one or the
25 other, but not both.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
184
1 And that's a fundamental physical law. Nobody can
2 violate that.
3 I've heard people mention that electric vehicles
4 don't require any maintenance. I don't know about you, but
5 I think replacing the batteries, the battery pack, every
6 year or two at a 10 or $15,000 cost is a lot of maintenance.
7 The power plant is the other weak link in the
8 system.
9 The power plants are the most efficient link in
10 the electric vehicle system. The thermal efficiency of
11 power plants is about 35 percent, much worse than a battery.
12 Much more efficient ones could be built, but the
13 attraction of electric vehicles is that new construction is
14 not necessary, because electric vehicles can be recharged at
15 night. That's a Catch 22. Retaining low-power efficiency
16 power plants and buying RECLAIM credits to operate a system
17 which is less efficient than an existing one, which is the
18 gasoline driven vehicles, is irrational, because air
19 pollution will increase with electrical vehicles, not
20 decrease. More fuel must be burned to do the same amount of
21 work.
22 With fast charging, pollution will get worse even
23 after new plants are built, which are much more efficient.
24 Basic chemistry teaches us that oxides of nitrogen are
25 generated at high combustion temperatures, and they are
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
185
1 difficult to remove in excess air. Are you aware of any
2 power plants which don't operate this way that burn fossil
3 fuel? I don't know of any.
4 The only ones I know that don't do that are those
5 that are nuclear fueled or hydroelectric. But every fossil
6 fuel burning plant operates at a high temperature, has a
7 high stackings on its temperatures, and burns excess air.
8 All fossil fuels also release carbon dioxide,
9 which is a global greenhouse pollutant. Burning more fuel
10 than is necessary, especially if you try to fast charge,
11 will harm the environment globally, even as it will increase
12 local pollution.
13 This is the case at Four Corners and Pekin
14 (phonetic) plants, which burn coal, since they're less
15 efficient and also burn coal. Coal-burning plants also emit
16 sulfur dioxide.
17 I expect an answer to each of these valid
18 technical objections before the EV mandate goes forward.
19 Are there any questions?
20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Any questions of Mr. Trujillo?
21 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman?
22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yes, Supervisor Roberts.
23 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Mr. Trujillo, would you go
24 back over with me the time you said that it's going to take
25 to recharge a battery in a house?
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
186
1 MR. TRUJILLO: The available time is only about
2 eight hours. You have from about ten o'clock at night to
3 about six o'clock in the morning. This is the minimum
4 demand time for the power utilities. Prior to that time,
5 the utilities don't want you to charge --
6 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Did you say it was going to
7 take you longer to charge it than that, though?
8 MR. TRUJILLO: If you have a longer range, if you
9 have to recharge more energy, it must take more time,
10 because you don't have the current capacity.
11 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: What kind of time limit is it
12 going to take you now?
13 MR. TRUJILLO: Well, it depends on the range.
14 Now, I don't know exactly what they are. The numbers that I
15 got on the range was that the -- what the auto manufacturers
16 gave at the last workshop that I went to, which was October
17 11th. They have the ranges for the vehicles that they have.
18 I'm just using their numbers.
19 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: And how long would that take
20 to charge?
21 MR. TRUJILLO: Well, it depends on what you have
22 available. If you live in an apartment or a condominium,
23 you cannot do it if you take all eight hours.
24 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Okay.
25 MR. TRUJILLO: It cannot be done, because you
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
187
1 don't have the capacity.
2 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: If you live in a single-
3 family house.
4 MR. TRUJILLO: If you live in a single-family
5 house, you can do it, but you can only do it the minimum,
6 because --
7 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: How long will it take in a
8 single-family house?
9 MR. TRUJILLO: In a single-family home, it will
10 take 16, 24, it's about six hours.
11 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: About six hours?
12 MR. TRUJILLO: For the minimum. But for the
13 midrange or the maximum, there's no way that you can do it.
14 And if you extend the range and double the energy
15 requirements, nobody can do it.
16 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Well, Mr. Chairman, somehow
17 I'm breaking the laws of physics, I think, because I've been
18 using a car now, as you know, for about a week.
19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Right.
20 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: and it hasn't taken me six
21 hours yet.
22 MR. TRUJILLO: Well, you -- I don't know --
23 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: And, in fact, not even
24 anything close to six hours.
25 MR. TRUJILLO: It depends on how far --
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
188
1 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: I'm sure that his charts are
2 accurate and everything, but I'll just tell you, somehow, in
3 the real world that's --
4 MR. TRUJILLO: (Interjecting) Not at all. It
5 depends on how far you drive and how much use you put on the
6 car.
7 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: I understand.
8 MR. TRUJILLO: If you use it more, then you have
9 to replace more --
10 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Believe me, I'm running the
11 battery down virtually all the way, and your numbers are not
12 close.
13 MR. TRUJILLO: Well, they're --
14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Supervisor Roberts has the GM
15 Impact, I think, in the preview program, he's been driving
16 for the last week.
17 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: That's correct.
18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: So we have some personal
19 experience, realtime personal experience.
20 Mr. Trujillo, thank you for the time and attention
21 you put into this. I appreciate you coming as a citizen and
22 sharing your perspectives with us. I appreciated your chart
23 as well.
24 Thank you.
25 MR. LAGARIAS: Mr. Chairman.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
189
1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yes.
2 MR. LAGARIAS: Mr. Trujillo?
3 MR. TRUJILLO: Yes.
4 MR. LAGARIAS: I want to tell you, many of your
5 comments are indeed sound, and they are issues, and they are
6 being addressed. The limitations, I think, may not be as
7 extensive as you think. But, certainly, the issues that you
8 brought up are those that require attention.
9 MR. TRUJILLO: Well,l the number of requirements
10 came from the automobile manufacturers, not from me. I just
11 used them.
12 MR. LAGARIAS: Yes. And, as you are aware, we are
13 addressing them.
14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay? Thank you, sir.
15 MR. TRUJILLO: Thank you.
16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Cecile Martin, California
17 Electric Transportation Coalition, followed by Jerry Mader,
18 Advanced Battery Task Force, followed by Bill Van Amburg,
19 CALSTART.
20 MS. MARTIN: Good afternoon, Chairman Dunlap and
21 members of the Board. I want to thank you for this
22 opportunity to speak with you today concerning the zero-
23 emission vehicle mandate.
24 I would also like to commend the leadership and
25 success of this Board for this rule and many previously, and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
190
1 note that through three successive Chairs, we have seen
2 great leadership, I think, on this very visionary and
3 necessary zero-emission vehicle program.
4 We also would like to commend Chairman Dunlap for
5 showing leadership and bringing all parties to the table to
6 discuss what we need to do from here.
7 I represent the California Electric Transportation
8 Coalition, which is a nonprofit business association. Our
9 founding members and the members of our Board of Directors
10 are the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power, the Pacific
11 Gas & Electric Company, Sacramento Municipal Utility
12 District, San Diego Gas and Electric Company, and Southern
13 California Edison Company.
14 We also have other industry members, including
15 Westinghouse and the Advanced Battery Task Force.
16 We have participated in all of the staff workshops
17 as well as previously on this issue for a period of about
18 four years now.
19 I'm trying to resist the temptation to address
20 several of the misstatements that have been made to the
21 Board today, but I'm going to place my trust in the Board.
22 I know several Board members have sat through these very
23 long workshops. It's been a lot of work to do so, and I
24 know not necessarily something you were tasked with you.
25 And I know, also, that the staff is giving you good
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
191
1 summaries with a lot of documentation. I trust that you
2 will be able to sort issues out.
3 However, I just -- I want to take just two points.
4 One of them is -- we took the opportunity in the workshop to
5 present cost data that we felt said significant things about
6 the zero-emission vehicle regulation. And the particular
7 report was produced by Jane Hall of the Institute of
8 Environmental and Economic Studies at California State,
9 Fullerton.
10 Just a couple of the points that that report made
11 were that our State economy is better with the requirement
12 than without, and even a worst-case scenario in terms of
13 vehicle costs shows an increase in California's personal
14 income.
15 The other point that I think is important is that,
16 while other measures could, in the short term, offset some
17 of the tons that we would get from zero-emission vehicles,
18 there's no substitute cost-effective measure that is good
19 for the long-term benefits other than zero-emission
20 vehicles.
21 Our comments today will address the staff's
22 comments at the end of their presentation today, and that
23 was they asked the question -- how to make the mandate more
24 responsive to the issues that we've all discussed during the
25 long series of workshops.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
192
1 And so, we want to ask the Board and staff to
2 consider some things that we have considered while working
3 with industry for the last several years. We believe that
4 whatever mechanism is in place is put in place to provide
5 flexibility and to allow the market to work must be an
6 enforceable measure.
7 Right now, as you know, the market has nothing to
8 drive. We believe from market research that Californians
9 want zero-emission vehicles. They've shown they want
10 electric vehicles. But we've nothing to drive. The market
11 cannot work without an electric car.
12 Whatever numbers are put in place, we ask that the
13 Board and the staff take into consideration that air
14 quality, industry, and investor plans have been made already
15 in relation to the two percent, five percent, and ten
16 percent numbers.
17 And for the utility industry, there is a minimum
18 threshold that is needed to justify utility programs and
19 investment. Automakers and industry are not the only entity
20 that need to make a business case for electric vehicles.
21 There's also a minimum threshold for the
22 continuation of work in progress by component and battery
23 manufacturers who will be suppliers to the automakers. In
24 most cases, these companies are not the traditional
25 suppliers. They are the new companies or small programs in
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
193
1 very large companies.
2 A delay in reaching significant numbers of
3 vehicles threatens their very existence and so threatens our
4 opportunities for a successful market launch.
5 We also believe there's a minimum threshold for
6 vehicles to be priced for commercial viability. While we
7 need to keep developing and demonstrating vehicle and
8 battery advancements, we will need significant numbers of
9 vehicles to reach the consumer market.
10 As we have learned over the past five years,
11 demonstration vehicles carry a high price. And because they
12 are usually returned to their manufacturer, they provide
13 only very short-term emissions benefits. We need a
14 commercially priced, commercial viable electric vehicle.
15 We'd also like to encourage the Board and the
16 staff to consider opportunities to reward manufacturers, to
17 offer some sort of a regulatory incentive to manufacturers
18 who actually sell vehicles in order to encourage the kind of
19 marketing and pricing strategies that the conventional
20 vehicles have been benefiting from all these years.
21 We don't want to see any loss of tons either in
22 the short term or the long term. And we don't want to see
23 any shifting in the responsibility for those tons. That's
24 of concern to us as stationary sources who have taken time,
25 and money, and planning to reduce emissions very
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
194
1 dramatically throughout the State.
2 California, due to air quality regulations as well
3 as to some innovative technology forcing programs for
4 generating fuel, such as solar, wind, geothermal, has the
5 cleanest power plant -- lowest power plant emissions in the
6 nation, the cleanest generating system in the nation.
7 We would also like to reemphasize a theme that
8 General Motors introduced into the recent series of zero-
9 emission vehicle workshops. Not to single out a particular
10 company, but I think this is something that has been a
11 resounding theme through the workshops, and it certainly is
12 something that we wholeheartedly support. They called for a
13 partnership of automakers, utilities, and government working
14 together to create a successful program.
15 We'd like to see the program be successful from
16 an automaker perspective, and also a program that improves
17 the health of Californians. And to pick up on a theme that
18 I think was introduced earlier today, I'd like to turn that
19 rope into a lasso and harness the creative and cooperative
20 energy that California has to offer for our clean air
21 future.
22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Ms. Martin, I
23 appreciate your comments. Any questions? Very good.
24 Mr. Mader, Advanced Battery Task Force.
25 Sir, hold off for a moment. Our long-suffering
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
195
1 court reporter needs a moment. The entire year I've been
2 Chair, she's asked for a break I think once.
3 (Thereupon, there was a brief pause in
4 the proceedings to allow the reporter to
5 replenish her stenographic paper.)
6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: As a reminder to the remaining
7 speakers, of which there are about seven, I asked at the
8 outset if we could limit for five minutes or less. A lot's
9 been said. Please try not to be redundant. If we could
10 wind up, I'm going to lose one or two of my Board members to
11 travel that cannot be changed.
12 So, please be respectful of that.
13 Mr. Mader.
14 MR. MADER: My name's Jerry Mader. I'm pleased to
15 be here today. I represent a group called the Advanced
16 Battery Task Force, and we're members of the Cal-ETC.
17 And the Task Force is comprised of several
18 companies that are developing advanced battery technologies;
19 namely, sodium sulfur, sodium chloride, zinc bromine, and
20 zinc air.
21 Now, these -- kind of in the order of magnitude,
22 these technologies will cost these manufacturers somewhere
23 in the range of 200 to $250 million to develop. And they're
24 putting -- those are private companies putting private money
25 into these developments. They're not government and they're
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
196
1 not subsidized.
2 They also are very interested in when these --
3 when the vehicles become commercial, of siting plants in
4 California, and that's going to be investment money in the
5 economy of California.
6 And I want to just briefly -- I won't be more than
7 five minutes, and I want to congratulate the Chairman and
8 the staff on the process of the last several months. I
9 really believe that, when the idea of the first -- these
10 rounds of forums were presented, and when I went to the
11 first meeting, I thought, well, this might become a waste of
12 time. But after -- I've sat through many of those, and what
13 I've seen come out of it, I think it was very useful, very
14 useful for the debate, very helpful for the Board and the
15 staff to hear from all the parties. And I applaud that open
16 process.
17 One thing, there's been a lot of debate that came
18 out of these meetings, and we've even saw in the summary
19 people on one side or the other on the costs and benefits of
20 electric vehicles. I think there is one nondebatable issue
21 that came out of those forums, and that is that the mandate,
22 as it was identified and defined in 1990, has done a
23 tremendous service to the development of electric vehicles.
24 I don't think you'd even get any of the automakers
25 to disagree that there's been tremendous progress because of
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
197
1 the mandate. And from a battery development standpoint, I
2 would say that we would want to keep in place the mandate or
3 anything else you do that is going to assure that there's a
4 market that's going to be established.
5 I want to just mention a concern that I have as I
6 think about this today. In 1990, the mandate was put in
7 place to really handle emissions problems. And in 1995,
8 California has gone through some difficult economic times,
9 and between then and now, the electric vehicle is being seen
10 by some as an economic development, a boon potentially and a
11 jobs issue.
12 And I would like to see some emphasis being put on
13 this from other agencies in the State. If we look at what
14 it's going to take to successfully introduce electric cars,
15 we have the issue of infrastructure, both recharge
16 infrastructure and vehicle infrastructure. Market
17 development strategies, you start with a few thousand units,
18 but we want to obviously get to -- get in the millions of
19 units before the year 2010. And then, we're going to
20 require and I think need some advanced technology
21 demonstrations, both for batteries and other technologies.
22 And, to me, that says that this -- the mission of
23 electric vehicle introduction is somewhat broader than just
24 the Air Resources Board and this mandate. And, you know,
25 just off the top of my head, I can think of the focus of
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
198
1 other agencies like the Energy Commission, the Caltrans,
2 Trade and Commerce, the PUC, air quality districts trying to
3 bring together and bring to bear, you know, resources that
4 they have available so that this transition of launching
5 electric vehicles can be more easily take place, and that we
6 can increase the probability of success.
7 And in talking to auto companies kind of off the
8 record, I believe there are auto companies who are
9 interesting in making a business out of electric vehicles.
10 I think they're making some of their ideas known. And I
11 really believe they've been consistent over the last few
12 years in saying they need assistance in the early years to
13 make this a viable business prospect for them.
14 So, I just want to encourage Chairman Dunlap and
15 the Board to think of a vision beyond your own purview and
16 say how can we evaluate this issue and get more involvement
17 in a coordinated way, so that we make sure we have success
18 in 1998 and beyond.
19 Thank you.
20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Mr. Mader. Any
21 questions? Yes, Dr. Boston.
22 DR. BOSTON: Mr. Mader?
23 MR. MADER: Yes, sir.
24 DR. BOSTON: We've had a lot of questions from
25 people asking about the lead pollution coming from lead-acid
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
199
1 batteries, if that's the first battery to be used, and how
2 the environment will be influenced by the lead that's
3 produced. Can you give a brief summary on what happens to
4 those lead batteries and what do you do with the lead from
5 the old batteries? Is it dumped on the roadside, or what do
6 you do with it?
7 MR. MADER: Well, I know there's a lead-acid
8 manufacturer here today that will probably be speaking, but,
9 you know, the lead-acid battery system, most of the lead is
10 reclaimed. And there's a business reclamation process for
11 that. And there are a couple of very large reclamation
12 sites. I know there's one in Texas and one here in
13 California. And they're under environmental regulation like
14 every other industry. So, they have to make sure that
15 they're not dumping pollution out. And so, that's tightly
16 regulated. But it's a business to extract out of the lead-
17 acid batteries and get it back into the new batteries.
18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Gene, just from my experience at
19 the South Coast Air District and the Department of Toxic
20 Substances Control, they're a very high profile process, and
21 people watch them very closely.
22 MR. MADER: You know, there's millions of
23 batteries recycled every year, so I don't think that's an
24 issue.
25 And all advanced batteries are also working, as
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
200
1 part of their development, is to work on a whole system of
2 reclamation. That's a requirement. It's even a requirement
3 by the U.S. ABC.
4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Supervisor Vagim.
5 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: In that same vein, if indeed
6 there is a newer type of battery or batteries that get
7 beyond lead-acid, is there going to still be a demand for
8 reclamation of lead-acid batteries?
9 MR. MADER: Well, I think the lead-acid -- my own
10 opinion is, I think the lead-acid battery will always find a
11 niche, not only starting and lighting, but I think also in
12 automotive applications in the electric car.
13 I think there will be other advanced batteries
14 that will overtake a large proportion of the market, but if
15 you can produce -- if the lead-acid battery is reliable and
16 cost-effective, even if it doesn't provide as much range,
17 people will buy it and use it. It'll be a cost issue. And
18 I think the market will define that.
19 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: So, you see a niche for lead-
20 acid way beyond then the early years.
21 MR. MADER: Yes. The analogy I like to use is
22 very similar to the aircraft industry. When the jet engines
23 came in place, they overcame a lot of prop planes, but you
24 still see a lot of people who want a short-range prop plane.
25 They buy them for personal use, and you still see them used
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
201
1 by private industry.
2 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Thank you.
3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. Mr. Van Amburg,
4 followed by Michael Semmens from Electrosource, Mike Wirsch,
5 Anita Mangels, Bonnie Holmes, and Robert Efrus. And that is
6 all of the speakers. So, please line up. We need to do the
7 two-minute drill. Not two minutes, but we need to do it
8 quickly.
9 (Laughter.)
10 MR. VAN AMBURG: I understand. We're approaching
11 another workshop here, I'm afraid.
12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Good to see you.
13 MR. VAN AMBURG: Mr. Chairman, good to see you,
14 members of the Board. It's not -- is it Chairman Czar or
15 Mr. Czar? I was a little unclear earlier.
16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Just Chairman.
17 (Laughter.)
18 MR. VAN AMBURG: Okay. Thank you for allowing us
19 to speak today. It's been a long process. And I think from
20 CALSTART's perspective, we want to commend your staff.
21 They've sat through an awful lot of these hearings. They've
22 heard from everybody, and they've kept an open-door policy
23 to make sure all opinions have been heard.
24 They've probably sat through a lot more than I
25 myself would have been willing to sit through. And I think
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
202
1 they should be commended for that.
2 It feels like it's been more than six months. It
3 feels like this has been more than six years during these
4 workshops, but I think they've been valuable to get out
5 information.
6 I wanted to share just a couple new things.
7 Number one, last Friday, we opened an advanced
8 transportation business incubator at Alameda Naval Air
9 Station. It's the first civilian reuse of Alameda Naval Air
10 Station. It's at Hangar 20 there. They will now be
11 manufacturing electric vehicle chassis and vehicles,
12 maintaining vehicles that are being used in the station car
13 program in the Bay Area developing new technologies, and
14 some such.
15 So, we're very excited about that, and I wanted to
16 share that news with you. They will be maintaining an
17 electric car that will be built in California for a
18 projected price of $10,000, a small two-person commuter car
19 that's rapidly coming to market, and will be built in
20 California.
21 Mainly, I wanted to share something that, Mr.
22 Chairman, you had requested from us. I shared with staff
23 what we call an Advanced Transportation Yellow Pages, and I
24 don't know where we got that term; it just came to us one
25 day.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
203
1 (Laughter.)
2 MR. VAN AMBURG: It was a listing of our 160-plus
3 participants in CALSTART. But we've broadened it to give
4 you an idea of what's going on in this industry. So, we
5 tried to get not just CALSTART's participant base, but the
6 much broader industry base. There are over 450 companies
7 working on technologies around the country represented here.
8 And we share it with you as a resource guide to partly, to a
9 great extent, what you have driven forward in the last five
10 years. Over 300 of those companies are in California, and I
11 think you should be proud of that. We certainly are. It
12 shows an industry coming to bear in the State of California,
13 and I welcome you to look through it.
14 I also would like you to keep in mind -- I think
15 lots of people are talking about flexibility. I think
16 you've created one of the most flexible regulations probably
17 that has ever been put forward. You've put all types of
18 options into the ZEV regulation.
19 However, as you look for additional flexibility
20 that could be put into this, I think -- keep in mind that
21 it's crucial to keep in mind this new industry you've also
22 helped to create, that there is a responsibility here in
23 terms of investment dollars that have been channelled to
24 bear, knowing what was going to be required, knowing the
25 tough goals California had set, companies have come forward.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
204
1 You must be careful when you change rules, or
2 tweak, or try to change things. You ought to look for more
3 flexibility. But be aware that you have -- you will not
4 affect the base of companies that wasn't in existence or
5 weren't applying their talents to this field just a few
6 short years ago.
7 And I'd like the Board to please consider that.
8 You have created basically, in essence, what you wanted to
9 create -- a support base for going beyond two percent, five
10 percent, or ten percent up to those numbers that will be
11 meaningful in terms of electric vehicle and clean fuel
12 vehicle implementation. And you want to be careful, as you
13 look at options, that you keep that in mind. Because small
14 changes can make large impacts on investments and strategies
15 that businesses have.
16 Thank you.
17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. Thank you very much,
18 Mr. Van Amburg.
19 Mr. Semmens.
20 MR. SEMMENS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of
21 the Board.
22 Thank you for the opportunity of visiting with you
23 today. I do not have a prepared presentation. I did not
24 plan to attend this meeting. I was in town evaluating a
25 potential site to locate a manufacturing plant for the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
205
1 Horizon battery.
2 And when the meeting was going on, there was a
3 little discussion addressing our product and the products of
4 my competitors and colleagues. I thought it would be useful
5 to share some of my opinions with you.
6 In the way of background, I'm President and CEO of
7 Electrosource, Incorporated. We have developed an advanced
8 battery. It happens to be lead-acid, but it is, in my
9 opinion, the most creative battery in existence in the world
10 today.
11 We participated in your Battery Panel, so I won't
12 go through all the technical detail. But suffice it to say,
13 we have a battery that's been proven and tested by National
14 Lab, and it works, and it works in electric vehicles today,
15 and it's ideal for hybrids and other low-emission vehicles
16 as well.
17 We have invested nearly $45 million in the
18 development of the technology and bringing a manufacturing
19 plant, which is in operation today, to a state of readiness,
20 so we would be prepared to provide batteries to support the
21 1998 mandate, and we are prepared at this time to do so.
22 I would also like to add that not one penny of
23 that $45 million comes from any government funding, but is
24 entirely private.
25 We intend to go on with the market as this
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
206
1 technology is useful in portable power utility applications,
2 and starting applications as well. And here, I would not
3 only like to compliment you on your courage to tackle the
4 very important job, the very tough job of the environmental
5 question in California, but I'd like to compliment you on
6 catalyzing a new industry -- first in California, and in
7 other parts of this nation, and no doubt the world -- the
8 industry of new energy and transportation technology. I
9 think it's outstanding, and I think Electrosource is proud
10 to be part of it.
11 I'd like to also point out that our battery is 97
12 percent recyclable. We use reprocessed lead. Our most
13 expensive piece of equipment is environmental equipment. We
14 meet and exceed all California standards on the environment.
15 It would be nonsensical to produce a plant that did not
16 comply with the environment when we're trying to solve an
17 environmental problem. We have done so. And I extend an
18 invitation to you, sir, and the members of the Board, and
19 the staff to visit our plant so they can kick the tires and
20 see for themselves. There's no arm waving. We've done it.
21 It's there for you to see.
22 The range of his battery is sufficient to exceed a
23 hundred miles, and we have done so inside cars, in Geo Metro
24 and others.
25 But it's important also to realize that the system
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
207
1 efficiency within an automobile is critically important.
2 Here, the cooperation with the automotive companies and the
3 suppliers of the automotive platform, with the energy
4 suppliers, and others is critically important, and I applaud
5 your efforts in this area as well, and we look forward to
6 supporting it as well.
7 As we all know, the mileage on the normal
8 automobile can vary drastically. We've probably driven cars
9 that range from a few miles to many miles. So will it be
10 with electric vehicles, and we're only in the very early
11 stages of solving some of those problems, and they will be
12 solved.
13 I would just like to say that Electrosource
14 supports your effort. We're dedicated to supporting the
15 requirements of the mandate and the cooperation.
16 And I, once again, sir, would like to invite
17 anyone to visit our facilities and discuss this matter in
18 more detail.
19 Thank you.
20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. Very good, Mr.
21 Semmens. No questions.
22 Mike Wirsch from SMUD, followed by Anita Mangels
23 and Bonnie Holmes.
24 MR. WIRSCH: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members
25 of the Board. I have a very short comment here as a
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
208
1 representative of the Sacramento Municipal Utility District.
2 I manage the Electric Transportation Department for the
3 district.
4 My main point here is that the Sacramento District
5 and the other utilities in California are working
6 proactively with automakers and other members of the
7 industry to develop a practical approach to this new market
8 for this important development.
9 Sacramento Municipal Utility District has a large-
10 scale technology testing program. We've tested a number of
11 vehicles and are operating them currently in our fleets.
12 We have a number of demonstration programs where
13 we're showing people in the fleets and members of the public
14 how the vehicles work and how they'll operate in practical
15 use. We have installed a substantial number of public
16 charging stations in advance of the market in order to allow
17 folks to understand how these things are going to work and
18 to show the automakers, as well, that we're committed to
19 providing sufficient infrastructure to fuel these new
20 vehicles.
21 The district is also offering very low offpeak
22 charging rates so that we can promote the use of our
23 existing resources and use excess capacity we have offpeak.
24 I just want to assure the Board that we're
25 committed to helping make a success of this market. And
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
209
1 when vehicles are made available, we'll be there to fuel
2 them.
3 Any questions?
4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. Very good. Ms.
5 Mangels, followed by Bonnie Holmes and Robert Efrus.
6 MS. MANGELS: Thank you, Chairman Dunlap, members
7 of the Board.
8 My name is Anita Mangels. I'm Executive Director
9 of Californians Against Hidden Taxes. We are a coalition
10 representing the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association,
11 National Federation of Independent Business, California
12 Manufacturers Association, Western States Petroleum
13 Association, the California Business Alliance, the
14 California Farm Bureau Federation, and many other
15 businesses, organizations, and individuals.
16 I'd like to commend Ms. DeWitt on her synopsis of
17 the last workshop. I've attended all of the workshops on
18 behalf of our coalition. I would like to note, though, that
19 it's been my observation that in Mr. Cross' report last time
20 in October and in Ms. DeWitt's report, not once was it
21 mentioned that there has been substantial presence of
22 taxpayer groups and individual tax activists raising some
23 real concerns.
24 So, with your permission, I would very much like
25 to go through those to guarantee that you firsthand have a
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
210
1 clear picture of where the people who are going to pay the
2 bills for this mandate are coming from.
3 We have some serious questions about the overall
4 impact of the ZEV mandate. First and foremost is the
5 question, how much will this unfunded mandate cost? As you
6 heard from Tom Austin, Sierra Research has estimated $20
7 billion in taxes, utility rate increases, and other hidden
8 costs over the next 15 years.
9 We believe that to be a conservative projection
10 based on the fact that it primarily doesn't take into
11 consideration any of the public infrastructure cost to
12 support the introduction of EVs. And that's going to be an
13 enormous cost borne by the taxpayers. I think Mr. Austin
14 also mentioned some other contributing factors, which prove
15 this to be a conservative estimate.
16 Who will pay the cost? Apparently everybody but
17 the people who should; i.e. the shareholders of the investor
18 owned companies and utility monopolies who will repeat huge
19 profits if the EV industry is successful.
20 The people who will pay are the ones who will
21 benefit the least. Taxpayers will pay through tax credits,
22 purchase incentives, or rebates, municipal fleet purchases,
23 and public infrastructure.
24 Utility customers will pay through higher rates,
25 which will subsidize everything from research and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
211
1 development to slick public relations campaigns to launch
2 utility companies' forays into the electric car business.
3 And consumers will pay through surcharges as high
4 as $2,000 each on the price of conventional cars, which will
5 serve to absorb manufacturers' losses on selling electric
6 cars at artificially low prices as well as higher prices for
7 goods and services passed along to the end user by private
8 businesses who are coerced into purchasing EVs for their
9 vehicle fleets.
10 We have heard testimony at these other public
11 workshops from those folks, and that's all a matter of
12 record.
13 What will we get for our money? According to
14 CARB's own calculations, virtually nothing. In a letter
15 dated August 4th, 1995, CARB staff estimated that in 2010,
16 the final year of the mandate, EV-related reductions of
17 emissions of the primary ingredients of smog, organic gases
18 or NMOG, or nitrous oxide, or NOx, will amount to less than
19 one percent of the total reductions required in the South
20 Coast Air Basin by CARB State implementation plan, or SIP.
21 May I have the first slide, please?
22 The first slide indicates the required reductions
23 in NMOG under the SIP. And, again, this number comes from
24 CARB's own report of 1994, November. 1194 tons per day in
25 required reductions in the year 2010. Over on the right-
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
212
1 hand side, where you can barely see it, are reductions
2 realized by the EV mandate, 4.1 tons.
3 Second slide, please. I'm waiting for the second
4 slide. There we go.
5 The second slide indicates the required reductions
6 in NOx under the SIP. That's 808 tons per day. Reductions
7 realized by the EV mandate, only 8.6 tons.
8 So, of the aggregate required reduction in NOx and
9 NMOG of 2,002 tons per day, the EV mandate will achieve only
10 12.7 tons per day in the year 2010, or less than one percent
11 of the necessary amount.
12 This figure that I'm using is pretty much
13 consistent with the number that staff introduced earlier of
14 14 tons per day. I believe the differential is in the
15 marketing cost, which we did not factor in. However, at a
16 rate of 14 tons per day, you would still be looking at only
17 about 2 percent reduction.
18 I think last week in the Sacramento Bee, CARB
19 staff estimated optimistically that you would get less than
20 1.5 percent in emissions reductions from full implementation
21 of the mandate in the year 2010.
22 In the year 2010, this calculation assumes there
23 will be 724,000 EVs operating in the South Coast Air Basin
24 alone. That bears repeating. In the 13th year of the
25 mandate, with almost three-quarters of a million electric
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
213
1 cars on the road in the South Coast Air Basin, we will enjoy
2 less than one percent or, most optimistically, maybe two
3 percent of the air pollution relief that the Air Resources
4 Board itself has declared necessary.
5 Now, a spokesman of CARB told the Sacramento Bee
6 last week that he thought one percent was actually pretty
7 good. With all due respect, we strongly disagree. One
8 percent is not pretty good, and it's certainly not worthy of
9 the expenditure of billions of taxpayer dollars that could
10 well be put to use to fund essential services such as police
11 and fire protection, health care, and education.
12 Now, if we accept the fact that CARB has given a
13 number of one to two percent, how cost-effective will that
14 relief be? The next slide, if I might have it, please,
15 compares the cost-effectiveness of various mobile source
16 measures in terms of cost per ton of emissions reduction.
17 As you can see -- I think on the larger screen
18 it's more legible -- that enhanced inspection and
19 maintenance, or basically your smog check programs, cost
20 about $1500 a ton.
21 On-board diagnostics, which are computer
22 technologies built into new cars to alert the driver to any
23 smog-related maintenance problems, cost about $1720 per ton.
24 Scrappage, programs to remove older, higher-
25 polluting cars from the road, runs about $4,000 per ton.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
214
1 And reformulated gasoline, the cleaner burning
2 fuel which will be introduced early in 1996, will cost about
3 $8,000 per ton.
4 Now, we come to the cost of EVs. Sierra Research
5 has estimated that emissions reductions from EVs will cost a
6 staggering $227,000 per ton rounded. That's more than 25
7 times more than the closest alternative method. There are
8 other studies, I believe in 1994, again in November, the
9 State Implementation Plan Economic Analysis that was
10 prepared for CARb, came up with something in the area of
11 about $140,000 per ton. And that was based on a higher
12 percentage of EVs being in the market than what this
13 estimate assumes.
14 So, again, I think it's a realistic assessment.
15 And these enormous costs are rationalized by EV proponents
16 in the name of the environment. We've heard a lot of talk
17 today about air quality challenges facing California,
18 particularly in the L.A. Basin. We don't dispute that those
19 challenges exist.
20 Smog and its impact on the quality of life is a
21 real problem, and it deserves a real solution. But based on
22 your own staff calculations, the mandate is clearly not a
23 viable solution. Based on these calculations, the EV
24 mandate is the least cost-effective means of reducing motor
25 vehicle emissions.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
215
1 We all want cleaner air, and we can have it, but
2 not through mandated electric vehicles which will cost
3 taxpayers billions of dollars and achieve less than one
4 percent or less than one or two percent of the required air
5 quality benefits.
6 It's important to note as well that air quality
7 has been steadily improving already, most notably in the
8 last decade. Many of the measures which will be implemented
9 in the next few years, such as enhanced inspection and
10 maintenance, vehicle scrappage, and reformulated gasoline,
11 will lead to even greater improvements.
12 By comparison, the electric vehicle mandate will
13 contribute virtually nothing towards advancing these
14 charges. For these reasons, we urge you to abandon this
15 costly EV experiment and allow the private sector to
16 identify and develop clean air technologies, such as the
17 alternatives just described, at prices consumers can afford
18 that will deliver real value for the money.
19 I'd also like to mention that, because of the --
20 shall I say the omissions in some portions of the staff
21 report, we've prepared an analysis of testimony that we
22 thought was important that the individual Board members may
23 like to see. I've mailed that to you, and I've also brought
24 another copy with me today to put into the record so that
25 you can compare it with other information that you got.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
216
1 And we very much appreciate the availability of
2 time to speak today.
3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. Any questions? Very
4 good.
5 MS. MANGELS: Thank you.
6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Ms. Holmes? Bonnie Holmes from
7 the Sierra Club. Good afternoon.
8 MS. HOLMES: Good afternoon.
9 I'm Bonnie Holmes, representing Sierra Club
10 California, and I'm here to present to you the overwhelming
11 support of the Sierra Club members on behalf of the zero-
12 emission vehicle requirement. And I have boiled my
13 testimony down to three points, but I feel the need to
14 expand it to five points after the last testimony, although
15 I will be brief.
16 First of all, I'd like to make the point and
17 emphasize the critical need of the ZEV mandate to resolve
18 our in-use emissions problem. I know you're aware of that,
19 and the tremendous fraction of our emissions inventory that
20 comes from in-use vehicle emissions.
21 But I think it's important to remember that the
22 auto industry has never been willing to guarantee the
23 emissions performance of cars beyond a limited warranty
24 period. And, therefore, there are huge consumer costs for
25 the inspection and repair in keeping up the vehicle to try
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
217
1 and keep the in-use emissions at the certified level.
2 Therefore, we are extremely concerned about the
3 consumer being saddled with the responsibility, the cost,
4 the burden of the inspection, repair, and maintenance costs.
5 And those, of course, increase as the vehicles get older and
6 pass on to second and third owners.
7 And much of this burden for the inspection and
8 repair costs unfortunately falls disproportionately on low-
9 income people. I think we need to remember that, also.
10 Our concern is that once the so-called gross
11 emitters are identified and repaired, even after that point,
12 cars don't stay clean. So, we have to remember the
13 shortcomings of attempts to scrap vehicles to solve our in-
14 use emissions vehicle problem, and the failures of the
15 emission -- the inspection and maintenance program, even
16 though it is a critical component, but it certainly does not
17 resolve our need to look beyond emissions reductions through
18 inspection and repair, and move on to new technologies.
19 The ZEV requirement constitutes an unconditional
20 lifetime warranty that the tailpipe and evaporative
21 emissions remain at zero for however long the car is on the
22 road.
23 And we believe this is critical to moving beyond
24 our in-use emissions vehicle problem and truly resolving our
25 air quality problem in the next century.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
218
1 Second of all, I'd like to remind the Board of the
2 truly high comparative costs of staying with the gasoline
3 vehicle. We have participated in workshops that you've
4 presented, mostly recently at a cost/benefit workshop in
5 L.A.
6 And I'd like to emphasize the theme of our
7 testimony at the workshop, which is that we have not fully
8 considered the true life cycle cost of the pollution
9 emissions from gasoline vehicles, and the petroleum
10 production, refining, and distribution infrastructure.
11 We believe that currently the numbers show that
12 electric vehicles are cost-effective now and for 1998, and
13 2000, and beyond.
14 However, the electric vehicle can be shown to be
15 even more cost-effective when we take into account the true
16 life cycle analysis. And this means considering the cost
17 not only of the air quality impacts and the health impacts.
18 We've already talked about the $10 billion number about the
19 costs of air pollution, but also the health and safety
20 impacts, the impacts -- the safety impacts of handling
21 gasoline, accidental ingestion, burns, explosions from
22 gasoline, the costs of refinery accidents, which we've had
23 several in the Bay Area in the past year; oil pipeline
24 accidents, hazardous waste, and toxic emissions among
25 others.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
219
1 A true estimate of life cycle costs, again, we
2 believe shows the electric vehicle to be far more cost-
3 effective than the gasoline counterpart.
4 Third, I'd like to just comment that the public
5 does subsidize the oil industry, and we must remember that
6 the oil companies currently are receiving $400 million in
7 subsidies through tax credits that result from SB 671 in
8 1993, an it authorized a 6 percent manufacturer's investment
9 tax credit for reformulated gasoline.
10 Additional subsidies include government funding to
11 mitigate environmental costs, controlling use through air
12 quality mitigation, hazardous material cleanup. And this is
13 in addition to a huge number of Federal tax subsidies
14 through appropriations for oil research and development,
15 other tariffs, import quotas, license fees, and other types
16 of subsidies.
17 So, I do want to make the point that the public is
18 subsidizing the oil industry, and we cannot discount that
19 huge cost.
20 Finally, I would just like to comment, since there
21 has been such tremendous discussion about the safety of
22 electric vehicles, I was in Los Angeles a couple weeks ago,
23 and had the opportunity to talk to a fire marshal of a city
24 in Los Angeles County. And I commented to him about some of
25 the testimony that had been given on the safety issue and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
220
1 mentioned some of the concerns that had been raised by the
2 oil industry.
3 And he kind of smiled and shook his head, and he
4 said, "You know, high-rise buildings have whole rooms full
5 of batteries. So, it's really unrealistic to make the
6 argument that we're increasing a safety risk, explosion risk
7 through introduction of electric vehicles.
8 As your staff has stated, we are in the zero-
9 emission vehicle program for the long term. This program
10 will serve as the basis of substantial emissions reductions
11 through the next century.
12 We urge you to stay the course with the two
13 percent requirement, not to settle for anything less, and
14 certainly not to settle for any of the inferior alternatives
15 that have been presented to you, including vehicle
16 scrappage.
17 Thank you for your time.
18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Bonnie. Any
19 questions? Very good.
20 And our last witness, Robert Efrus, Advanced Lead-
21 Acid Battery Consortium.
22 MR. EFRUS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The hour is
23 late, and I promise to be brief.
24 I'm Robert Efrus, representing the Advanced Lead-
25 Acid Battery Consortium. And it is indeed fitting that
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
221
1 ALABC is batting cleanup today, because -- for without the
2 mandates, ALABC would have never come into being. And we
3 have appreciated the opportunity to work with CARB and your
4 staff regarding the mandates.
5 You are to be applauded for your efforts to gain a
6 comprehensive and accurate understanding of the involved
7 issues so that CARB may move forward in a well-planned and
8 deliberate manner.
9 It appears to us, however, that there are
10 significant misconceptions regarding the status of the
11 technology, particularly battery technology. The Advanced
12 Lead-Acid Battery Consortium is a global consortium
13 representing 90 percent of the world's lead-acid battery
14 industry. Dramatic improvements to the lead-acid battery
15 have been made by ALABC members over the past few years.
16 These improvements would have not been possible without the
17 mandate.
18 These improvements have significantly increased
19 the technical and commercial viability of EVs, and include
20 range extension, rapid recharging, and increase of cycle
21 life. Expected improvements by 1998, will continue to build
22 on this progress and will enable lead-acid powered EVs to
23 support daily commuting requirements of 100-plus miles, will
24 provide for recharging in a few minutes, and will have
25 batteries last at least 36 months. These facts have been
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
222
1 communicated to CARB and its staff.
2 Importantly, the energy costs are at least
3 comparable and probably significantly better than those of
4 internal combustion engines. Opponents of the mandates have
5 repeatedly pointed to the state of battery technology as the
6 primary impediment to the successful implementation of the
7 1998 mandates.
8 The fact is that, by 1998, ALABC realistically
9 projects that EVs powered by advanced lead-acid batteries,
10 as was discussed earlier by my colleague from Electrosource,
11 will satisfy the range requirements of the majority of daily
12 commuters at a cost comparable with those of operating and
13 maintaining a car with an internal combustion engine.
14 Existing and commercially available lead-acid
15 batteries are capable of daily commuting ranges of 75 miles,
16 recharging times of a few minutes, and cycle life in excess
17 of 500 cycles, approximately three years.
18 Most importantly, the fuel cost per mile of
19 running an EV powered with lead-acid battery has already
20 dropped by an order of magnitude during the course of
21 ALABC's program. By 1998, the projected cost will drop
22 further to 5 cents per mile and, thus, will be comparable
23 with the cost of fueling conventional IC engines.
24 The range of lead-acid powered EVs is less than
25 half of an internal combustion automobile with a full tank
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
223
1 of gas. By 1998, however, lead-acid powered EVs will be
2 more than adequate for those drivers whose daily commutes
3 are less than a total of a hundred miles.
4 Further, the refueling necessary to drive a lead-
5 acid powered EV beyond a single charge range can now be
6 accomplished in a very short time with virtually no
7 inconvenience to the driver.
8 The infrastructure for the manufacture of lead-
9 acid batteries is in place now, and the industry already
10 recycles some 97 percent of its product.
11 ALABC takes strong exception to any suggestion
12 that advanced batteries will not be available by 1998.
13 ALABC welcomes the opportunity to support this position by
14 working with the automakers in test fleet evaluation of EVs
15 prior to the mandates.
16 ALABC member companies are committed to putting
17 into production by 1998 the advanced lead-acid batteries
18 that will cost-effectively satisfy the midterm performance
19 criteria and all of the daily driving needs of U.S.
20 commuters.
21 In order for such pilot production to take place,
22 however, CARB must maintain the market momentum generated by
23 the 1998 mandates.
24 Thank you.
25 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you very much.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
224
1 No questions? All right. That concludes the
2 witnesses that have signed up.
3 I'm not going to ask if there's anyone else that
4 wishes to speak.
5 (Laughter.)
6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: I will ask staff, though, to
7 briefly summarize -- is it 100 letters that we received? Is
8 that correct? What was the number?
9 MS. GRANDCHAMP: 107.
10 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: 107 written pieces of
11 correspondence. I would appreciate kind of a theming -- is
12 that right, thematic? -- of those 107 letters, whoever's
13 going to summarize.
14 MR. CACKETTE: I skipped through them. I think a
15 105 of them said, "Stay the course," and two of them said,
16 "Don't."
17 (Laughter.)
18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: I'm sure that's a fair
19 assessment, Mr. Cackette.
20 Mr. Boyd, do you have anything else to add?
21 MR. BOYD: Well, very quickly, Mr. Chairman, thank
22 you.
23 First, I'd just like to say that, in spite of the
24 long and many hours, the staff is grateful to all the
25 individuals who've attended and who have spoken at the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
225
1 forums, the workshops, and the Board meetings on this
2 subject.
3 Frankly, I believe we all, staff and audience,
4 have learned a lot as a result of all these meetings.
5 Secondly, I'd like to make quick reference to the
6 SIP, which is our roadmap into the Twenty-First Century,
7 quickly frankly, submitted in November of last year. It has
8 a lot of assumptions and presumptions that help frame the
9 context in which we're operating and make this task today
10 seem a little less minuscule as has been perhaps implied or
11 inferred.
12 In reference to vehicle scrappage, vehicle
13 scrappage will be implemented per the SIP in numbers that
14 are orders of magnitude greater than the numbers that were
15 being thought about when we entered the year 1994. So, I
16 think the benefit of that program has been recognized. The
17 benefit of that program has been presumed in the SIP, and
18 we're only -- we're hopeful and expectant that we will get
19 the benefits that we hope from that program.
20 This reminds me of figures we hear constantly.
21 I've been hearing them for years. 10 percent of the cars
22 being X-percent of the air pollution problem, fill in the
23 blank. I'd just like again to repeat it for the record, not
24 so much for the Board; you've heard me before, but to the
25 audience.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
226
1 It's 10 percent of the vehicles, older vehicles,
2 are responsible for 35 or 40 percent of the mobile source
3 emissions' problem that we have in this State, which is why
4 the SIP that you passed recognizes the need to deal with
5 this.
6 The SIP also presumes that the auto industry,
7 through strategy M2 that you may recall, will be called upon
8 for another 25 tons of emissions reductions on into the
9 future from advanced technology measures that are as yet
10 undefined. This is beyond the LEV/ZEV program that has
11 already been presumed in the baseline.
12 The SIP has an undefined black box, or shortfall,
13 in the South Coast Air Basin. At least 28 tons of that
14 black box are allocated to the mobile source sector and has
15 to be realized somehow.
16 So, 14 tons is a big number in the business that
17 we've been in for many, many years together.
18 Let me just say that I think we all know
19 California is seeking to regain or hold onto its identity as
20 the Golden State. Its historical concern for the quality of
21 life, which we knows includes protecting its public health,
22 its environmental integrity, its economy, and its basic
23 infrastructure, frankly, has sustained it as the Golden
24 State. And this historical concern has always spawned
25 innovation, creativity, and resultant progress.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
227
1 I think, historically, the ARB's goal has been to
2 protect and improve the public's health, and we have
3 constantly worked within the long-term goals that I've
4 indicated, and the long-held facts of those goals -- the
5 LEV/ZEV/clean fuels program, our contribution by this
6 organization to this effort, I believe the forums. The
7 Battery Panel's work has shown that to be a positive
8 contribution.
9 Your staff has no desire or intention to spend or
10 to squander the reputation of the Air Resources Board for
11 sound technical work and leadership in air pollution
12 emissions control arena. The recommendations that we bring
13 to the Board -- that we do, that we will -- will always
14 recognize technical feasibility and, as always, are brought
15 forward in the context of the principles and the need of
16 California for a healthy economy as well as a healthy
17 environment.
18 So, we've learned a lot from the forums and the
19 workshops, and we're prepared to follow the Board's guidance
20 on where we go in the future.
21 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Mr. Boyd. And thanks
23 as well to your team for the summary on the workshops, the
24 forums, and summarizing the Battery Panel's work. An awful
25 lot of effort went into this process. The forums and the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
228
1 advice of the independent Battery Panel have provided a
2 wealth of new information for consideration by the Board.
3 The participation of many of my colleagues on the
4 Board has also been invaluable and most appreciated by the
5 Chair. The ZEV program, which began, of course, in the
6 Deukmejian administration, was born of great expectations.
7 The realization of its purpose has far-reaching, positive
8 implications for public health and the California economy as
9 we've heard today.
10 For these reasons, we cannot abandon its
11 principles. It is clear that the existing program has taken
12 us far, but we haven't reached the end of the journey. At
13 this juncture, we need to check to be sure we're on the path
14 that leads to the light at the end of the tunnel.
15 Over the past few weeks, the Board's technical
16 staff and I have had an opportunity to meet with many of the
17 stakeholders, including environmental groups, utilities,
18 automobile manufacturers, and, of course, business groups.
19 I have been impressed with their depth of interest and their
20 concern that the ZEV program be successfully implemented.
21 Through this process, I solicited input from these
22 stakeholders on how we might best proceed. We received from
23 many of these groups proposals to modify the policy to
24 ensure its success. While some found the existing program
25 and time lines achievable, others suggested a market-driven
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
229
1 program based on emission reductions or a more flexible
2 introduction in the market launch of the ZEVs.
3 Although the initial proposal of the automobile
4 manufacturing industry was unacceptable, subsequent
5 proposals from the industry and others and proposals
6 developed by the ARB staff appear to have some promise.
7 In evaluating the program, in light of these
8 suggestions, I have relied on several principles to guide my
9 thinking. First, the Board is categorically committed to
10 achieving the emission reductions in the current rule and
11 SIP; no change should give up even a pound of emission
12 reductions.
13 Second, the Battery Panel we commissioned has
14 identified the steps that must be taken to realize high-
15 performing, long-range vehicles. And I think it would be
16 wise to heed the Panel's advice.
17 Third, Governor Wilson, in his letter to me last
18 summer -- and Secretary Strock, in a speech made earlier
19 this week -- identified the need for flexibility and the
20 maximum use of market forces in achieving environmental
21 standards.
22 Finally, I am very mindful of the significant
23 investment of resources that members of California's
24 business community have put forth as a result of the ZEV
25 program. The fact that the ZEV program has brought so many
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
230
1 companies and industries together in a common cause is an
2 example of the best of what makes up California.
3 After extensive consultation with the Board's
4 technical staff, our conclusion is the ZEV program has had
5 demonstrable achievements in inspiring and creating the
6 conditions for advanced transportation technology.
7 As the Battery Panel pointed out, the ZEV program
8 has resulted in significant investment in and development of
9 vehicle and battery technology over the past five years.
10 The technological progress achieved would not have been made
11 in its absence. But some of the suggestions for change may
12 contribute to the program's future success without
13 deflecting us from the goal this Board established in 1990.
14 And I believe we need to seriously consider them.
15 Let me share again my thinking on this point.
16 Confidential information provided by individual vehicle
17 manufacturers indicates that several companies will offer
18 ZEVs for sale beginning in late 1996 and '97, and the
19 industry will have the capacity to collectively produce up
20 to 14,000 vehicles annually by 1998.
21 As we heard in the marketing forum, demand for
22 these vehicles is uncertain. It does us little good unless
23 these vehicles are sold and are being operated on the
24 roadways in our State, substituting, of course, for
25 higher-emission vehicles.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
231
1 A market-based approach which would provide more
2 flexibility than the current two percent production
3 requirement will therefore be beneficial during the first
4 few years of the program.
5 If the Board were to ignore the recommendations of
6 the Battery Panel and insist on the implementation of the
7 program which requires 20,000 electric or ZEV vehicles to be
8 produced for sale in 1998, the State may well be
9 jeopardizing all of the progress to date.
10 There's no doubt that the industry would, under
11 these circumstances, have to rely on a product that would
12 not appeal to many consumers and could lead to a negative
13 backlash as consumers become increasingly dissatisfied and
14 reject some of the capabilities of these new vehicles.
15 The State's compelling interest is to provide for
16 a program that will lead to clean air and meet the stringent
17 and very demanding requirements of both the Federal and
18 State clean air laws.
19 There is no question that the ZEV, a ZEV that will
20 be purchased and driven by consumers, is integral to our
21 program. Supporting investment in pilot production of
22 advanced batteries was one of the recommendations of the
23 Battery Panel. This can be accomplished by an evaluation of
24 these advanced batteries in several thousand vehicles.
25 The Panel concluded that this is an essential step
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
232
1 to reaching full commercial battery production. The ZEV
2 program should be modified to provide for such a program
3 beginning in 1998. I reiterate that we must achieve the
4 emission reductions set forth in the SIP. And by all
5 assessments, this will require the widespread introduction
6 of zero-emitting vehicles.
7 Modification along these lines discussed will
8 ultimately strengthen the ZEV program, contribute to its
9 success, and help assure we meet our clean air goals.
10 Taking these steps will result in a new
11 partnership which will assure all interested parties are
12 working together to make this program succeed.
13 With the support of my colleagues, I would like to
14 direct the staff to develop and bring to the Board proposals
15 for final action no later than March of 1996, and to also
16 provide us with a status report on progress at the December
17 Board meeting.
18 The proposal should be consistent with the
19 modification of the requirement for 1998, and the
20 substitution of a program that provides a realistic
21 introduction of a significant number of high-quality
22 vehicles in the first year.
23 I would like the staff to engage all the
24 stakeholders in this regulatory process. I have very much
25 appreciated how people have come to the table, particularly
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
233
1 in the last several weeks, but throughout the last six
2 months, to communicate openly in a way that moved the debate
3 or the dialogue forward. I appreciate that very much. And
4 I think we all can build upon that.
5 And, at this point, I would entertain some staff
6 and Board member discussion and, of course, concurrence.
7 MR. LAGARIAS: Mr. Chairman?
8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Mr. Lagarias.
9 MR. LAGARIAS: Mr. Chairman, I support your
10 proposed program, especially the first part, which requires
11 that whatever actions are taken, that we get emission
12 reductions equivalent to the ZEV program from the motor
13 vehicle segment.
14 And I understand that there are sources that we
15 have not identified. I think the discussions have been
16 colored in large part by doomsday projections -- people
17 talking about by the year 2010, we will have 1.1 million
18 electric vehicles on the road, having a range of -- if we
19 take today's numbers -- of 50 to 80 miles per charge. They
20 will be lead acid batteries, and they will cost $14,000 more
21 than present cars.
22 Does anybody in this room think that that would
23 ever occur? We certainly wouldn't support that. And we've
24 had our technology reviews periodically, after passing the
25 regulation, just to see where the technology was going.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
234
1 Dr. Boston and I were on that Board that passed
2 the clean car/clean fuel regulation, and it was primarily
3 directed at the health-related issues. We didn't realize we
4 were setting such an economic engine that now is going
5 faster than we had predicted.
6 But our technology review that you set up has
7 shown that, for '98, other than lead acid batteries, no
8 advanced battery is available and would have to go through
9 pilot plant production before the advanced batteries could
10 even be evaluated.
11 So, we need time to find out how these advanced
12 batteries are going to work out, which we don't have as yet.
13 We don't have the infrastructure answers that have been
14 coming up that we never envisioned -- the fast-charging
15 requirements, the load distributions. And I think that a
16 pilot program would help us get some of these issues
17 addressed. We don't know what the niche market is for
18 electric vehicles. We talk about commuters, but we haven't
19 seen that yet. And I think we have to get some cars on the
20 road to find out how people are using them, where they're
21 going to use them, and what innovative ways they will find
22 for electric vehicles.
23 And I think the program has to be defined in that
24 regard.
25 And in the case of electric vehicles, we've been
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
235
1 talking about putting them on the IC engine frame. And I
2 don't know that that's right. The electric vehicle has a
3 special -- it's different from the IC engine. Weight is
4 much more important. And issues that can be ignored on the
5 conventional car are very important to electric vehicles.
6 These include aerodynamics, construction materials, brake
7 energy regulation. These are all important that were not of
8 concern to the conventional engine.
9 And finally, whatever programs that we can work
10 out must be designed to succeed, not designed so that they
11 can show they won't work.
12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Mr. Lagarias. Ms.
13 Edgerton.
14 MS. EDGERTON: I'd like to agree with Mr. Lagarias
15 on his point about the high-efficiency vehicle and some of
16 the differences that need to be worked on and must be worked
17 on to have a successful electric vehicle, such as
18 aerodynamic design and brake -- regenerated braking, et
19 cetera.
20 In addition to that -- and I think that we must
21 take that into account in our -- as the staff looks at this
22 issue -- as to whether we can provide more guidance one way
23 or another on that aspect of the effort.
24 I also would like to emphasize a couple points
25 that Secretary Strock made. Incidentally, historically,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
236
1 Secretary Strock has had an important role -- those of you
2 on staff who are familiar with working with him very hard
3 and tirelessly in 1991 to get the waiver from Bill Riley in
4 early '92, so that our LEV/ZEV program could go forward --
5 the two points that he made that have not perhaps been made
6 yet were that, to the extent that automakers propose an
7 interim alternative compliance option for the regulations,
8 they must provide a clean air -- technology-based clean air
9 premium of pollution reductions significantly greater than
10 those provided by the current regulation.
11 This would represent, in essence, a risk premium
12 for the State, whose SIP would be, in that period, less
13 certain of Federal Government approval.
14 Also, the automakers should provide clear,
15 enforceable commitments for accelerated research,
16 development, testing, and commercialization of zero-emission
17 vehicles beginning immediately.
18 Again, echoing Chairman Dunlap's insistence that
19 whatever is considered be consistent with the commitment of
20 California companies -- and other companies which are not in
21 California, such as Mr. Semmens' Electrosource, which we
22 hope will be in California. We recognize the significant
23 investment, and I appreciate Mr. Simmons pointed to his own
24 private investment on his behalf -- on their behalf. And I
25 mention that I happen to know that he's a conservative
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
237
1 Republican.
2 (Laughter.)
3 MS. EDGERTON: And I think that this is
4 tremendously important, and we must be mindful of that
5 investment. All environmental regulation, and this one in
6 particular, requires consistency.
7 And finally, Mr. Strock, Secretary Strock,
8 indicated that, in terms of the SIP, care must taken to
9 assure that the higher pricing of new vehicles, including
10 ZEVs, does not inadvertently lead to older, more polluting
11 vehicles remaining on the road for reasons of consumer cost.
12 That's a tall order. I'm not quite sure. I mean
13 there's a lot of variables in that, but I think that's one
14 of the ones which is -- has been brought up in the workshops
15 and which is very important.
16 Thank you.
17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Mr. Calhoun.
18 MR. CALHOUN: Mr. Chairman, I've attended all the
19 workshops. And I'm convinced that what we have on our hands
20 is a program that is headed for a train crash.
21 And I'm convinced that we need to make some
22 changes to the program. And there's several reasons for it.
23 I've followed this Board's actions since it was first
24 created in 1968. I'll go back and review a little history
25 here if you can bear with me for a couple of minutes.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
238
1 I was one of the staff members and presented many
2 proposed regulations to this Board, and one of which was a
3 retrofit program that -- then I left. Someone else had to
4 carry on the responsibility for implementing that. And it
5 turned out we didn't do our homework as well as we should
6 have, and we put those vehicles on the road. And it was a
7 disaster.
8 And the Legislature pulled the plug on it. That's
9 one particular incident that I have in mind.
10 I want to tell you about another incident where we
11 had a successful program that was introduced, and that was
12 the case of the catalytic converter. Before any vehicles
13 were sold in this State that were equipped with catalytic
14 converters, there were a number that were really tested very
15 thoroughly here in the State.
16 General Motors entered into an agreement with the
17 State of California for a minimum of a hundred vehicles that
18 had catalysts on them. They were with, I think, the
19 Department of Water Resources.
20 The Air Resources Board had a staff person that
21 followed this. The Division of Highways or the Water
22 Resources had a staff person that followed it, so did
23 General Motors. And they tracked those vehicles throughout
24 the several years. And any difficulties that they
25 encountered, they were later fixed; so that, when the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
239
1 catalyst was finally introduced on the '75 model car, it has
2 been one of the most successful automotive emissions program
3 that we've ever had.
4 And I think, in order to be assured that we have
5 some type of a successful program, we need to crawl before
6 we walk. And I'm very, very concerned that the way things
7 are present in the program, that if we just go ahead with
8 this business of forcing the introduction of 2 percent of
9 the vehicles and just turn them loose in the hands of the
10 public, that we're going to really, really have this sort of
11 a disaster. And I don't want to be a part of it, really.
12 I think that I'm mostly more interested in having
13 a program that's going to be a success, and I think the way
14 to do that is to have some type of incremental improvement;
15 let the system evolve.
16 You start with a small program, and then learn
17 from your mistakes, and then you can sort of ramp the system
18 up, and that can occur over a period of years. That's the
19 way the vehicle manufacturers -- they know more about how to
20 introduce a new product than we do. And I think we ought to
21 listen to any input that we get from them.
22 But I don't think we have to sacrifice air
23 quality. And I think that's what I heard the Chairman
24 saying, and I don't think we ought to back away from that.
25 I think there are ways of meeting the air quality
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
240
1 requirements, but I also think that this program requires
2 some modification. And I'm willing to support that. Thank
3 you.
4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. Any other comments?
5 Supervisor Vagim.
6 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Mr. Chairman, thank you.
7 It will be of extreme interest, I'm sure, to
8 everyone what the staff comes back with per your direction.
9 But no matter what we do and what we have talked
10 about today, primarily the last many conversations and
11 discussions have been on the -- just how well the battery
12 technology is -- I think the staff's focus is, it's the
13 battery, stupid; it's the battery, stupid.
14 And it shall remain that way. The fact that the
15 motor and the regulator are here, I think we all have seen
16 that.
17 But I think, Mr. Chairman, there are other issues
18 that we shouldn't forget about no matter what numbers of
19 EVs, or ZEVs, are produced. And that is, if it is going to
20 be a battery car, what assurances are we going to have that
21 the battery's going to come back? Is it going to be like
22 the tires of today, where you pay a deposit but you have
23 somebody else pick them up, and they end up along the
24 roadsides of our counties?
25 Is there going to be such that the battery has got
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
241
1 such a high cost value, because of the deposit and return,
2 they're starting to be stolen out of cars? Now, you have a
3 creation of an automatic market effect.
4 These are questions that are begging to be
5 answered. I don't think we should give up on that. There
6 are other agencies in this State that need to be dealing
7 with those on a parallel track.
8 What's going to happen with the energy tax credit
9 or energy tax shift? Where's it going to go? The sales
10 tax, where's it going to go?
11 Where's the road tax? Who's going to pick that
12 up? So far, those discussions haven't really even hit the
13 ground yet. And, of course, who will pay for the
14 infrastructure costs?
15 All those issues need to be done parallel. I
16 don't think we should stop discussing them. I think the
17 State needs to move along with them, because they have
18 nothing really to do with the technological issues that are
19 here today. They have a lot to do with the societal issues
20 that need to be dealt with. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Good point. Thank you.
22 Okay. Yes, Ms. Edgerton.
23 MS. EDGERTON: I think it is, maybe it is -- it is
24 certainly the battery. But I don't think -- but, for me,
25 it's more than the battery. It's putting the battery in a
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
242
1 car that is really efficient, using all the technologies,
2 including light-weight materials, et cetera, and design that
3 Mr. Lagarias brought up. Forgive my lawyerly trying to
4 define the problem a little broader than that or the
5 opportunity a little broader (sic).
6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. With that, Mr. Boyd,
7 Mr. Cackette, you have the direction, the sense, the will of
8 the Board at this point.
9 I'd like to see you move forward and hit those
10 target dates. Jim?
11 MR. BOYD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Anything else, Mr. Boyd,
13 that needs to come before the Board?
14 MR. BOYD: No, we have no further business for
15 today's meeting.
16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. With that, the November
17 meeting of the Air Resources Board stands adjourned.
18 (Thereupon, the meeting was adjourned
19 at 4:45 p.m.)
20
21
22
23
24
25
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
243
1 CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER
2
3
4 I, Nadine J. Parks, a shorthand reporter of the
5 State of California, do hereby certify that I am a
6 disinterested person herein; that the foregoing meeting was
7 reported by me in shorthand writing, and thereafter
8 transcribed into typewriting.
9 I further certify that I am not of counsel or
10 attorney for any of the parties to said meeting, nor am I
11 interested in the outcome of said meeting.
12 In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand
13 this 27th day of November , 1995.
14
15
16 Nadine J. Parks
17 Shorthand Reporter
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345