BOARD MEETING 

 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

 AIR RESOURCES BOARD 

 LOS ANGELES AIRPORT MARRIOTT HOTEL 

 SUITES A, B, AND C 

 5855 WEST CENTURY BOULEVARD 

 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 

 THURSDAY, JUNE 21, 2007 

 9:00 A.M. 

 TIFFANY C. KRAFT, CSR, RPR 

 CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER 

 LICENSE NUMBER 12277 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 ii 

 APPEARANCES 

 BOARD MEMBERS 

 Dr. Robert Sawyer, Chairperson 

 Ms. Sandra Berg 

 Ms. Judith Case 

 Ms. Dorene D'Adamo 

 Supervisor Jerry Hill 

 Ms. Lydia Kennard 

 Mrs. Barbara Riordan 

 Dr. Daniel Sperling 

 STAFF 

 Mr. Tom Cackette, Chief Deputy Executive Officer 

 Mr. Tom Jennings, Chief Counsel 

 Mr. Michael Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer 

 Ms. Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer 

 Ms. Kathleen Quetin, Ombudsman 

 Ms. Catherine Witherspoon, Executive Officer 

 Ms. Lori Andreoni, Board Secretary 

 Mr. Alberto Ayala, Manager, Climate Change Mitigation & 

 Emissions Research Section 

 Ms. Deborah Drechsler, Ph.D., Health and Exposure 

 Assessment Branch, Research Division 

 Mr. Craig Duehring, Staff, Mobile Source Control Division 

 Mr. Bob Jenne, Senior Staff Counsel 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 iii 

 APPEARANCES CONTINUED 

 STAFF 

 Dr. Nehzat Motallebi, Staff Air Pollution Specialist, Air 

 Quality and Climate Science Section, Research Division 

 Mr. Michael Roberts, Staff, Research Division 

 Mr. Michael Werst, Staff, Monitoring & Laboratory Division 

 ALSO PRESENT 

 Mr. John Andrew, DWR 

 Mr. Larry Allen, CAPCOA 

 Ms. Martha Arguello, P.S.R. 

 Ms. Cynthia Babich, Del Amo Action Committee 

 Ms. Diane Bailey, NRDC 

 Mr. John Bishop, Traffic Bulldog 

 Mr. John Cabaniss, Association of International Automobile 

 Manufacturers 

 Mr. Darrell Clarke, Sierra Club 

 Mr. Albert Cohen, Southern California Ecumenical Council 

 Mr. Dominic DiMar, Cal Chamber 

 Mr. Steven Douglas, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

 Mr. Joe Gershen, Environmental Entrepreneurs E2 

 Mr. Howard Gollay, Southern California Edison 

 Mr. Philip Huang, Communities for a Better Environment 

 Ms. Bonnie Holmes-Gen, American Lung Association 

 Ms. Laura Hunter, Environmental Health Coalition 

 Mr. Roland Hwang, NRDC 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 iv 

 Mr. Roger Isom, California Cotton Ginners and Growers 

 Association 

 Mr. Thomas Jacob, Du Pont 

 Ms. Angela Johnson-Meszaros, Environmental Justice 

 Advisory Committee, Implementation of Global Warming 

 Solutions Act of AB 32 

 Mr. Bill Karambelas, Fuel Cell Manufacturers 

 Ms. Kristin Kenausis, U.S. Environment Protection Agency, 

 Office of Transportation and Air Quality 

 Mr. Mark Leary, California Integrated Waste Management 

 Board 

 Mr. Bob Lucas, CCEEB 

 Mr. Aaron Lowe, AAIA 

 Mr. Joseph Lyou, California Environmental Rights Alliance 

 Ms. Julia Mather, Friends for a Livable Planet 

 Ms. Julie May, CBE 

 Mr. Jay McKeeman, CIOMA 

 Mr. Rachel McMahon, CEERT 

 Mr. Leo Miras, Environmental Health Coalition 

 Ms. Patricia Monahan, Union of Concerned Scientists 

 Ms. Rachel Oster, Norcal Waste System 

 Ms. Rupal Patel, Communities for Clean Ports 

 Mr. Dave Patterson, Mitsubishi Motors 

 Mr. Norm Plotkin, Plotkin Zins and Associates 

 Mr. Bill Quest, ARPI 

 Ms. Cathy Reheis-Boyd, WSPA 

 Mr. Mike Sandler, Climate Protection Campaign 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 v 

 APPEARANCES CONTINUED 

 ALSO PRESENT 

 Ms. Kathy Seal, Friends for a Livable Planet 

 Ms. Mitzi Shpak, Action Now 

 Mr. Kenneth Smokoska, California Conservation Committee 

 Mr. Jim Stewart, Sierra Club 

 Ms. Robina Suwol, California SAFE Schools 

 Mr. Al Thornton, Cemtura 

 Mr. Virgil Welch, Environmental Defense 

 Ms. Jill Whynot, SC AQMD 

 Ms. Jane Williams, Environmental Justice Advisory 

 Committee 

 Mr. Robert Wyman, California Climate Coalition 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 vi 

 INDEX 

 PAGE 

 Item 7-7-1 

 Chairperson Sawyer 3 

 Executive Officer Witherspoon 3 

 Staff Presentation 4 

 Q&A 10 

 Item 7-7-2 

 Chairperson Sawyer 12 

 Staff Presentation 12 

 Q&A 17 

 Motion 19 

 Vote 19 

 Motion 19 

 Vote 20 

 Item 7-7-3 

 Chairperson Sawyer 21 

 Executive Officer Witherspoon 21 

 Staff Presentation 21 

 Q&A 34 

 Item 7-7-4 

 Chairperson Sawyer 37 

 Executive Officer Witherspoon 38 

 Staff Presentation 39 

 Ms. Johnson-Meszaros 66 

 Q&A 77 

 Mr. Leary 129 

 Ms. Reheis-Boyd 132 

 Mr. Jacob 136 

 Mr. Thornton 138 

 Mr. Quest 142 

 Mr. Plotkin 148 

 Mr. Lowe 150 

 Ms. Oster 152 

 Mr. Wyman 153 

 Mr. DiMare 155 

 Ms. Hunter 157 

 Ms. Monahan 160 

 Mr. Welch 162 

 Dr. Lyou 164 

 Ms. Suwol 167 

 Ms. Babich 168 

 Mr. Gershen 170 

 Mr. Allen 173 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 vii 

 INDEX CONTINUED 

 PAGE 

 Mr. Clarke 180 

 Mr. Lucas 182 

 Ms. Seal 184 

 Ms Arguello 186 

 Ms. Shpak 187 

 Mr. Andrew 188 

 Ms. Williams 190 

 Mr. Hwang 193 

 Ms. Patel 195 

 Mr. Miras 198 

 Ms. Holmes-Gen 200 

 Ms. Whynot 203 

 Ms. Bailey 207 

 Mr. Sandler 210 

 Mr. Smokoska 213 

 Ms. May 215 

 Mr. Huang 218 

 Mr. Karambelas 221 

 Mr. Cohen 224 

 Mr. Stewart 226 

 Ms. McMahon 227 

 Mr. Gollay 230 

 Mr. Fay 232 

 Mr. Frayre 235 

 Mr. Carmona 237 

 Mr. Marquez 238 

 Mr. Barbose 241 

 Mr. Torres 243 

 Mr. Helget 245 

 Mr. Leon 247 

 Mr. Gerard 249 

 Mr. Everts 251 

 Mr. Carmichael 253 

 Mr. Magavern 255 

 Mr. Haller 258 

 Q&A 259 

 Ex Parte 288 

 Motion 292 

 Vote 293 

 Vote 294 

 Vote 295 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 viii 

 INDEX CONTINUED 

 PAGE 

 Item 7-7-5 

 Chairperson Sawyer 296 

 Executive Officer Witherspoon 296 

 Staff Presentation 297 

 Ombudsman Quetin 312 

 Q&A 313 

 Mr. Douglas 315 

 Ms. Kenausis 318 

 Mr. Raney 320 

 Ms. Monahan 330 

 Mr. Cabaniss 331 

 Mr. Patterson 334 

 Motion 339 

 Vote 339 

 Item 7-7-6 

 Chairperson Sawyer 339 

 Executive Officer Witherspoon 339 

 Staff Presentation 340 

 Ombudsman Quetin 355 

 Q&A 357 

 Mr. Isom 359 

 Mr. McKeeman 362 

 Motion 364 

 Vote 365 

 Adjournment 365 

 Reporter's Certificate 366 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 1 

 1 PROCEEDINGS 

 2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Good morning. The 

 3 June 21st, 2007 public meeting of the Air Resources Board 

 4 will come to order. Please rise and join in the Pledge of 

 5 Allegiance. 

 6 (Thereupon the Pledge of Allegiance was 

 7 recited in unison.) 

 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. Will the Clerk 

 9 of the Board please call the roll. 

10 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. Berg? 

11 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Here. 

12 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. D'Adamo? 

13 Dr. Gong? 

14 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Here. 

15 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Supervisor Hill? 

16 SUPERVISOR HILL: Here. 

17 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. Kennard? 

18 Mayor Loveridge? 

19 Mrs. Riordan? 

20 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Here. 

21 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Supervisor Roberts? 

22 Professor Sperling? 

23 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Here. 

24 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Chairman Sawyer? 

25 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Here. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 2 

 1 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Mr. Chairman, we have a 

 2 quorum. 

 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. Yes. 

 4 BOARD MEMBER CASE: If the record could reflect 

 5 Judith Case is also here. 

 6 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Supervisor Case was not 

 7 called, apparently. 

 8 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Sorry. Supervisor Case. 

 9 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Here. 

10 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Thank you. Sorry. 

11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Sorry about that. 

12 I have a few opening remarks. 

13 A closed session appears each month as a standing 

14 item our agenda to receive reports on the various 

15 greenhouse gas lawsuits in which we are litigants. Since 

16 there is nothing to report this month, the closed session 

17 notice for today's meeting is canceled. 

18 Today, we will proceed with Board items listed on 

19 the public agenda, and tomorrow we will resume at 

20 8:30 a.m., to consider the California State Implementation 

21 Plan first, unless some of today's business is carried 

22 over. Anyone who wishes to testify should sign up with 

23 the Board staff at the tables outside the boardroom and 

24 has the option to include his or her name on the speaker 

25 card. Please see Board staff for further instructions. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 3 

 1 Speakers, as usual, the Board will impose a 

 2 three-minute time limit. Please put your testimony into 

 3 your own words. It is easier for the Board to follow if 

 4 you go straight to your main points. You do not need to 

 5 read your written testimony since it will be entered into 

 6 the record. 

 7 For safety reasons, please note the emergency 

 8 exists to the left of the hearing room and to the rear. 

 9 In the event of a fire alarm, we must evacuate this room 

10 immediately. When the all clear signal is given, we will 

11 return to the hearing room and resume the hearing. 

12 Agenda Item 7-7-1, Health Update. Today's 

13 presentation addresses several of the Board's interests: 

14 Ozone, asthmatic children, and the basis of vulnerability 

15 to adverse effects from air pollution. 

16 Ms. Witherspoon, please introduce this item. 

17 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, 

18 Dr. Sawyer, and good morning members of the Board. 

19 The relationship between ozone air pollution and 

20 adverse health effects is well known. In addition, the 

21 literature is clear that there's considerable variability 

22 in the sensitivity between individuals. However, little 

23 is known about the cause of this variability. One area of 

24 active research is investigating genetic contributions to 

25 sensitivity. This morning, staff will present the results 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 4 

 1 of a recent paper that investigated the genetic makeup of 

 2 asthmatic children and how that influences their 

 3 respiratory responses to ozone. 

 4 Dr. Deborah Drechsler from our Health and 

 5 Exposure Assessment Branch will take the staff 

 6 presentation. 

 7 Dr. Drechsler. 

 8 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 

 9 presented as follows.) 

10 MS. DRECHSLER: Thank you, Ms. Witherspoon. Good 

11 morning, Dr. Sawyer and members of the Board. 

12 Staff has often spoken to you about the 

13 considerable body of scientific literature indicating that 

14 ozone exposure can induce adverse health impacts such as 

15 reduced lung function, respiratory symptoms, 

16 hospitalization, and emergency room visits. The staff has 

17 not told you about how the body defends itself from injury 

18 due to air pollution exposure. 

19 The paper we are presenting this morning is by 

20 Romeo, et. al., and is entitled, GSTM one and GSTP one and 

21 Respiratory Health in Asthmatic Children Exposed to Ozone. 

22 It appeared in the European Respiratory Journal in late 

23 2006. The authors are associated with the National 

24 Institute of Public Health in Cuernavaca, Mexico, the 

25 Frederico Gomez Children's Hospital in Mexico City, and 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 5 

 1 the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health 

 2 Sciences. 

 3 The paper describes the results of a study of 

 4 asthmatic children living in Mexico City and the influence 

 5 of differences in two genes that are involved in defending 

 6 the body from ozone induced injury. 

 7 --o0o-- 

 8 MS. DRECHSLER: It is well known that there is 

 9 considerable variability in responsiveness to ozone and 

10 that people with asthma and other lung diseases have 

11 responses that fall into the same range as healthy people. 

12 This being said, people with compromised baseline lung 

13 function, for example, due to asthma or other chronic lung 

14 disease, are at increased risk because their responses to 

15 ozone are superimposed on top of reduced baseline status. 

16 A key unanswered question has been why some people are 

17 more susceptible to adverse responses with environmental 

18 exposures than others. 

19 Research has only recently begun to address this 

20 question. Recent findings from the Children's Health 

21 Study and several other laboratories point to a role for 

22 genetic differences in lung defense mechanisms in 

23 explaining inter-individual differences in susceptibility 

24 to environmental tobacco smoke and frequency of 

25 respiratory illnesses. Several researchers have also 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 6 

 1 begun to investigate the role of genetic difference in 

 2 susceptibility to ozone induced effects. 

 3 --o0o-- 

 4 MS. DRECHSLER: Chemically, ozone is a strong 

 5 oxidant and it reacts with the fluid and cells lining the 

 6 airways causing injury to the lung tissues. One of the 

 7 lung's defense mechanisms involves enzymes that counteract 

 8 the effects of oxidants. Two of these enzymes are 

 9 glutathione estransferase M1, produced by the gene GSTM 

10 one, and glutathione estransferase P1 produced by the gene 

11 GSTP one. Each of these genes has two forms. The more 

12 common form produces active enzymes that counteract 

13 effects of oxidants. But both of the genes have a common 

14 alternate or variant form. The variant type of GSTM one 

15 gene produces an inactive enzyme that has no defensive 

16 properties. The variant type of GSTP one gene produces an 

17 enzyme with less active defense properties. 

18 So we would expect that people who have the 

19 inactive of GSTM one gene or the less active type of the 

20 GSTP one gene would be more susceptible to ozone because 

21 they have less effective defenses again oxidant injury. 

22 --o0o-- 

23 MS. DRECHSLER: The study we are presenting this 

24 morning involved 151 asthmatic children who lived in 

25 Mexico City. Asthma severity ranged from mild to severe, 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 7 

 1 although most of the children fell in the mild to moderate 

 2 range. Each child was tested for type of GSTM one and 

 3 GSTP one and was followed for 12 weeks. The children's 

 4 parents kept a daily diary of respiratory symptoms and 

 5 bronchodilator use and the children performed lung 

 6 function tests twice a week at a clinic. 

 7 --o0o-- 

 8 MS. DRECHSLER: The results showed that for 

 9 children with the active forms of GSTM one and GSTP one, 

10 there were no associations between ambient ozone and 

11 cough, breathing difficulty, or bronchodilator use. This 

12 suggests that people who have the active forms of these 

13 two genes are protected again adverse effects related to 

14 ozone exposure. However, for children with the in active 

15 form of GSTM one, ozone was significantly associated with 

16 breathing difficulty, whether exposure was on the previous 

17 day or was an average of the previous two or six days. 

18 In children with the less active form of 

19 GSTP one, ozone exposure was associated with cough, 

20 difficulty breathing, and bronchodilator use, particularly 

21 when exposure was averaged over several previous days. 

22 --o0o-- 

23 MS. DRECHSLER: As you can see from this figure, 

24 children who had both the inactive form of GSTM one and 

25 the less active form of GSTP one, shown in yellow bar, had 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 8 

 1 the greatest risk of experiencing difficulty breathing 

 2 with ozone exposure compared to children having only the 

 3 inactive form of either gene. 

 4 In addition, as you can see from the slide, risk 

 5 of experiencing breathing difficulty increased as the 

 6 ozone averaging time lengthened from one to two and six 

 7 previous days. 

 8 Also, as you can see in the chart, the trend in 

 9 risk associated with having both alternate gene forms was 

10 greater than that observed for children who had only one 

11 of inactive variant 

12 --o0o-- 

13 MS. DRECHSLER: You may be wondering how many 

14 people have the GSTM one and GSTP one types associated 

15 with greater risk of ozone-related symptoms. This slide 

16 shows the percentage of white and Hispanic children in one 

17 of the children's health study cohorts who had the active 

18 forms of both genes in blue, the inactive form of GSTM one 

19 or the less active form of GSTP one in burgundy, and both 

20 the inactive form and less active form of the other two 

21 genes in yellow. 

22 For comparison, 38 percent of the children in the 

23 study we are presenting today have the inactive form of 

24 GSTM one, while 36 percent have the less active form of 

25 GSTP one and 14 percent had both. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 9 

 1 --o0o-- 

 2 MS. DRECHSLER: These results suggest that 

 3 genetics plays a role in sensitivity to ozone and that 

 4 asthmatics and likely non-asthmatics as well as who have 

 5 genetic variants that provide less effective defenses are 

 6 at increased risk of experiencing adverse effects when 

 7 exposed to ozone. This implies that we may need to 

 8 reconsider how we think about susceptibility to air 

 9 pollution because these results, and those from other 

10 studies, suggest that susceptibility incorporates more 

11 than just baseline health status. For example, whether or 

12 not a person has a chronic health problem such as asthma. 

13 The results discussed today begin to address the 

14 question of how ozone harms human health. The Board is 

15 also concerned with this fundamental question and is 

16 currently funding a controlled human exposure study 

17 investigating the influence of variants in GSTM one and 

18 GSTP one on ozone induced responses of adult asthmatics. 

19 The authors of the paper presented this morning 

20 are continuing to investigate the influence of these 

21 variants, as are other investigators. In addition, 

22 several researchers are beginning to look at the roles of 

23 several other gene variants in susceptibility to ozone 

24 induced health effects. 

25 Thank you for your attention. We would be 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 10 

 1 pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

 2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you, Dr. Drechsler. 

 3 Do Board members have any questions? 

 4 Dr. Gong. 

 5 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Yes, thank you. Very nice 

 6 presentation. 

 7 I am really excited about the genetic 

 8 investigations being undertaken in air pollution research, 

 9 as well as in the rest of medicine. I would just start 

10 that with that. 

11 But I have one specific question. You showed the 

12 slide of the Children's Health Study and the risk levels. 

13 Whites and Hispanics, I believe. Are the risks of the 

14 symptoms and lung function decrements also seen in 

15 non-asthmatic children who have these genetic 

16 polymorphisms? 

17 MS. DRECHSLER: The authors of the Children's 

18 Health Study have not yet published an analysis of the 

19 genetic contribution to air pollution exposure. They did 

20 genotype about 2000 children from one of the cohorts. But 

21 to date, the only papers that have used that information 

22 are related to susceptibility to respiratory infections 

23 and environmental tobacco smoke. 

24 BOARD MEMBER GONG: I think the implication is if 

25 these genetic polymorphisms pertain to asthmatic children, 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 11 

 1 do they also pertain to non-asthmatic children? And 

 2 perhaps that's why we may see symptoms and lung function 

 3 changes, et cetera, in that particular larger group of 

 4 individuals who are exposed. 

 5 And a op-ed comment is that whereas, these 

 6 studies of genetic susceptibility are very important, 

 7 treating and potentially very useful in diagnosis and 

 8 management of asthma and managing ambient air pollution, 

 9 unfortunately we can't -- we can't choose our parents or 

10 our genetics. So it's still very vital and critical for 

11 us as individuals and as groups and organizations to try 

12 to seek to have healthier air as well. Because that's 

13 what they're exposed to. You can have the worst genetic 

14 susceptibilities, but if you're never exposed to the bad 

15 air, you may not express that problem. 

16 But again, we know we have the worst air in the 

17 country. So I'm glad we're moving ahead with both the 

18 genetic and environmental parts of this. 

19 Thank you. 

20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Are there any other comments 

21 from Board members or questions? If not, thank you very 

22 much. 

23 DR. DRECHSLER: Thank you. 

24 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: All right. I have no 

25 witnesses who wish to speak on this item. So we'll go to 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 12 

 1 Agenda Item 7-7-2, consideration of four research 

 2 proposals. 

 3 Staff, please introduce this item. 

 4 MS. DRECHSLER: Good morning, Dr. Sawyer -- you 

 5 meant me, right? 

 6 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Dr. Drechsler. 

 7 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 

 8 presented as follows.) 

 9 MS. DRECHSLER: Yes. Okay. Good morning, Dr. 

10 Sawyer and members of the Board. 

11 We have four research proposals for you to 

12 consider this morning. I will briefly describe the 

13 objective and expected results for each. 

14 Executive Order S-305 requires that the 

15 California Environmental Protection Agency coordinate the 

16 efforts of multiple state agencies. 

17 --o0o-- 

18 MS. DRECHSLER: Coordinate the efforts of 

19 multiple state agencies to produce science reports every 

20 two years on the potential impacts of global warming on 

21 various sectors of the California economy. The Air 

22 Resources Board was assigned to lead the analysis of 

23 public health impacts of climate change. First report 

24 under this executive order was released in 2006 and it 

25 included an analysis of the risk of heat-related deaths in 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 13 

 1 the five most populous areas of California. 

 2 The first project I'm presenting this morning is 

 3 by the same group of investigators who performed the 

 4 analysis for the 2006 report. It will expand on the 

 5 previous analysis, including methodological development 

 6 and extend the analysis to two additional cities. 

 7 The objectives are to estimate potential changes 

 8 in oppressive air mass events through the end of this 

 9 century under several scenarios of climate change. To 

10 translate these changes into potential impacts on 

11 heat-related death in California, stratified by urban 

12 center and age group, and to assess the expected 

13 adaptation potential of the population in each city to 

14 these changing conditions. 

15 The final products of this study will contribute 

16 to the 2008 report to the Governor and will include 

17 estimates of heat-related deaths across California's seven 

18 largest metropolitan areas through the year 2100, both 

19 with and without acclimatization. And estimates of the 

20 number of actual heat warnings that would be called by an 

21 operational heat watch warning system. 

22 --o0o-- 

23 MS. DRECHSLER: The next project, Effective 

24 GSTM one Genotype on Ozone Induced Allergic airway 

25 Inflammation, was originally funded in 2004 and included 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 14 

 1 one experiment designed to investigate three objectives. 

 2 First, whether ozone exposure enhances specific 

 3 lower airway inflammatory responses of asthmatic subjects 

 4 during late phase reactions to inhaled allergen. 

 5 Second, to determine whether the GSTM one variant 

 6 genotype is an important predictor of susceptibility of 

 7 asthmatic subjects to develop enhanced late phase 

 8 reactions to allergen challenge after ozone exposure. 

 9 And third, to determine whether preexposure to 

10 allergen enhances the subsequent inflammatory responses to 

11 ozone exposure. 

12 The UC San Francisco Human Subjects Committee 

13 would not approve the protocol as originally funding 

14 because of the number of bronchoscopies per subject. 

15 Staff proposes to address this issue by splitting the 

16 project into two independent studies, each with a 

17 different group of subjects and augmenting the moneys of 

18 the original contract to maintain the original intent of 

19 the project. 

20 The results of the study will help to better 

21 characterize the susceptibility of asthmatics to ozone 

22 exposure, clarify whether ozone enhances allergen induced 

23 airway inflammation and help to explain the wide 

24 variability in responses of asthmatics to ozone. 

25 --o0o-- 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 15 

 1 MS. DRECHSLER: The second project is 

 2 cardiovascular health effects of fine and ultra fine 

 3 particles during freeway travel. Researchers at the 

 4 University of California, Los Angeles, and Los Amigos 

 5 Research and Education Institute are currently conducting 

 6 a study of fine and ultra fine particle exposure on the 

 7 405 and 710 freeways in Los Angeles. Sixteen healthy 

 8 elderly subjects are undergoing a series of two-hour 

 9 exposures to freeway atmospheres, including particle 

10 filtered freeway air and unfiltered freeway air. 

11 This augmentation will add two subjects to the 

12 existing project. These subjects will undergo the same 

13 exposures as the original group. The project will 

14 potentially provide two kind of important data to ARB. 

15 First, information on the effects of ultra fine 

16 particles on measures of cardiac function such as heart 

17 rate variability and blood markers of systemic 

18 inflammation which are thought to aggravate cardiovascular 

19 disease. And, second, more information about the nature 

20 of pollutant exposure during freeway travel. The addition 

21 of three subjects will increase statistical power and 

22 improve the likelihood of significant findings. 

23 --o0o-- 

24 MS. DRECHSLER: Central to any climate study of 

25 change and identification of greenhouse gas mitigation 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 16 

 1 strategies is the development of an emissions inventory 

 2 that identifies and quantifies the primary anthropogenic 

 3 sources of greenhouse gas emissions. 

 4 On the next study, improving the carbon dioxide 

 5 emission estimates from the combustion of fossil fuels in 

 6 California will address that issue. Fossil fuel 

 7 combustion accounts for 98 percent of gross California 

 8 carbon dioxide emissions. And while carbon dioxide 

 9 emissions are relatively well characterized at the state 

10 level, no estimates exist at the more disaggregated 

11 spatial level. 

12 This study will augment a current ARB research 

13 contract for improving the carbon dioxide emission 

14 estimates by developing a disaggregated estimate of 

15 energy-related carbon dioxide emissions. Better 

16 understanding the carbon dioxide emission inventory, 

17 finding ways of validating the inventory on a 

18 sector-by-sector basis, and providing a validation 

19 approach to the statewide greenhouse gas emission 

20 inventory through disaggregation are important for 

21 building AB 32 greenhouse gas emission inventory baselines 

22 and projections. 

23 This project will provide disaggregated 

24 information on these emissions based on available data 

25 which can then be evaluated using information from local 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 17 

 1 sources. 

 2 --o0o-- 

 3 MS. DRECHSLER: This concludes the presentation. 

 4 We recommend that you approve these research proposals and 

 5 we'll be happy the answer any questions you may have. 

 6 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you, Dr. Drechsler. 

 7 Dr. Gong, do you want to make a statement about 

 8 recusing yourself from one of those items. 

 9 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

10 This is a recusal statement. 

11 I would like to advise the Board that I will 

12 recuse myself from the discussion and consideration of and 

13 the vote on research proposal 2628-256, Cardiovascular 

14 Health Events of Fine and Ultra Fine Particles During 

15 Freeway Travel. I do so because of affiliation with Los 

16 Amigos Research and Education Institute, which will be a 

17 subcontractor on this project if their proposal is 

18 approved by the Board in this resolution. 

19 Thank you. 

20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 

21 Do Board members have any questions? 

22 Dr. Gong. Or comments. 

23 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Just a comment. A general 

24 comment. 

25 I think it was already stated that one of the 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 18 

 1 proposals had the Institutional Review Board actually has 

 2 some hesitation or reluctance to approve one of their 

 3 proposals. And I think, just for the Board's benefit, any 

 4 studies involving human participation, and even animal 

 5 participation, need to go before a research committee, 

 6 peers, at that particulate institution, and I'm glad to 

 7 see that the system works in this regard. And even though 

 8 the IRB there denied it initially, there were ways to 

 9 modify the protocol and bring it forth to fruition, 

10 hopefully. 

11 That's my statement. Thank you. 

12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you, Dr. Gong. 

13 Are there any other comments from Board members. 

14 A reminder to Board members of our policy 

15 concerning ex parte communications. While we may 

16 communicate off the record with with outside persons 

17 regarding Board rulemaking, we must disclose the names of 

18 our contacts and the nature of the contents on the record. 

19 This requirement applies specifically to communications 

20 which take place after the public agenda of the Board 

21 hearing has been published. 

22 Are there any communications that you need to 

23 disclose. 

24 Dr. Gong? 

25 BOARD MEMBER GONG: No. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 19 

 1 BOARD MEMBER BERG: No. 

 2 SUPERVISOR HILL: No. 

 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Supervisor? No. 

 4 SUPERVISOR CASE: No. 

 5 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: No. All right. 

 6 Have all of the members of the Board had an 

 7 opportunity to review the proposals. 

 8 Are there any additional concerns or comments? 

 9 If not, do I have a motion to adopt Resolutions 

10 7-22, 7-23, and 7-30? And then the one which Dr. Gong is 

11 recusing himself from, we'll vote on separately. 

12 SUPERVISOR HILL: I'll move the resolution. 

13 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Second. 

14 SUPERVISOR CASE: Second. 

15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: All in favor, please 

16 indicate by saying Aye. 

17 (Ayes) 

18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Opposed? 

19 (Nays) 

20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: These three resolutions are 

21 carried. 

22 All right. Do I have a motion to adopt 

23 Resolution 7-24? 

24 BOARD MEMBER BERG: So moved. 

25 SUPERVISOR HILL: Second. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 20 

 1 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Second. 

 2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Would the clerk please call 

 3 the roll. 

 4 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. Berg? 

 5 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Aye. 

 6 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Supervisor Case? 

 7 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Aye. 

 8 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. D'Adamo? 

 9 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Aye. 

10 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Supervisor Hill? 

11 SUPERVISOR HILL: Aye. 

12 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. Kennard? 

13 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Aye. 

14 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. Riordan? 

15 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Aye. 

16 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Supervisor Roberts? 

17 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Aye. 

18 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Professor Sperling? 

19 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Aye. 

20 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Chairman Sawyer? 

21 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Aye. 

22 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Motion passes. 

23 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. Since this is 

24 not a regulatory item, it is not necessary to officially 

25 close the record. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 21 

 1 Agenda Item 7-7-3, an informational update on the 

 2 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes, Fourth 

 3 Assessment Report, published last month. It is important 

 4 for the Board to stay current on climate change science so 

 5 we can make the possible decisions. Staff will provide 

 6 the Board with a biannual, with biannual updates on new 

 7 scientific findings. 

 8 Ms. Witherspoon, please introduce this item. 

 9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, 

10 Dr. Sawyer. Today, staff will present an overview on the 

11 physical science of climate change, its impacts, 

12 mitigation efforts, and adaptation opportunities as 

13 summarized in the Fourth Assessment of the 

14 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Dr. Nehzat 

15 Motallebi of the Research Division will give the staff 

16 presentation. 

17 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 

18 presented as follows.) 

19 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MOTALLEBI: Thank 

20 you, Ms. Witherspoon. Good morning, Dr. Sawyer and 

21 members of the Board. 

22 In today's update, we will present key scientific 

23 findings on climate change by science published by the 

24 Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change, or IPCC for 

25 short. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 22 

 1 --o0o-- 

 2 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MOTALLEBI: The 

 3 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established 

 4 in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the 

 5 United Nations Environmental Program in recognition of the 

 6 problem of global warming. Through the IPCC, climate 

 7 experts from around the world synthesize the most recent 

 8 climate science findings every five to seven years. The 

 9 IPCC has issued comprehensive assessments in 1990, 1996, 

10 and 2001; its Fourth Assessment Report is being released 

11 in sections this year. 

12 The IPCC has three working groups that deal with 

13 scientific basis of global warming, its consequences, and 

14 options for slowing the warming trend. For each working 

15 group, the IPCC has released Summary for Policymakers. 

16 The final report that synthesizes the result of 

17 the overall effort will be released at the end of this 

18 year. 

19 --o0o-- 

20 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MOTALLEBI: The 

21 IPCC Fourth assessment reports are the most comprehensive 

22 synthesis of climate change science to date, which 

23 includes the input of more than 1200 leading and 

24 contributing authors, and 2500 scientific expert reviewers 

25 from more than 130 countries. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 23 

 1 The summary for policymakers is written by the 

 2 working group's lead authors reviewed in two stages by 

 3 technical experts, and finally approved by government 

 4 representatives before being released. California climate 

 5 scientists are closely involved in writing the report. 

 6 Several researchers from California institutions and 

 7 National Lab are represented as main authors. 

 8 --o0o-- 

 9 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MOTALLEBI: While 

10 the Fourth Assessment represents worldwide scientific 

11 consensus, it does have some limitation. 

12 For example, the end of 2005 was essentially the 

13 cut-off date for the inclusion of new research. Thus, 

14 important findings published since 2005, such as increased 

15 Greenland ice melt, and the relationship between sea 

16 surface temperature and hurricane intensity, were not 

17 included. One extremely important limitation is that 

18 estimates of sea level rise do not include the full 

19 possible future effects of contributions from melting of 

20 Greenland's ice cap. 

21 Policymakers would like to know the possible 

22 impacts of different scenarios for the next 10 to 

23 20 years. Current global climate models cannot 

24 differentiate impacts over shorter time frames with the 

25 high confidence level that they do have for 50 or hundred 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 24 

 1 year projections. Also an interval of the six years 

 2 between the Assessments is too long for the policymakers 

 3 to be able to benefit from the most current research. 

 4 There is a need for more frequent brief reports on the 

 5 state of the science. 

 6 --o0o-- 

 7 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MOTALLEBI: After 

 8 assessing decades of sophisticated climate data recorded 

 9 everywhere from the depth of the ocean to tens of miles 

10 above the Earth's surface, leading scientists from around 

11 the world have reported major advances in our 

12 understanding of climate change. 

13 The report concludes that it is "unequivocal" 

14 that Earth's climate is warming, and that emissions of 

15 heat-trapping gases from human activities have caused 

16 "most of the observed increase in globally averaged 

17 temperatures since the mid-20th century." 

18 --o0o-- 

19 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MOTALLEBI: This 

20 graph shows carbon dioxide concentrations for the last 

21 10,000 years. For most of this period, carbon dioxide 

22 concentrations stayed well below 300 parts per million 

23 until the significant rise on the right. 

24 If you look at the expanded area in the smaller 

25 graph, the increase corresponds to the period between 1750 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 25 

 1 to the present. In 1750, near the beginning of the in 

 2 Industrial Revolution, atmospheric carbon dioxide was 

 3 about 280 parts per million. 

 4 Levels increased relatively slowly until second 

 5 half of the 20th century when accelerated. The graph 

 6 slows no slow down and most recent data suggests that 

 7 carbon dioxide growth rates emissions have increased since 

 8 the 1990's. Other greenhouse gases such as methane and 

 9 nitrous oxide also show very similar behavior. 

10 --o0o-- 

11 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MOTALLEBI: The 

12 IPCC concludes that it is "unequivocal" that Earth's 

13 climate is warming "as is now evident from observations of 

14 increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, 

15 rising global mean sea level, and widespread melting of 

16 snow and ice. 

17 The information that the temperatures and sea 

18 level have risen not new. What is new is the decease in 

19 uncertainty in their global estimates. The shaded blue 

20 area in these figures are the estimated uncertainty. 

21 Notice how narrow the blue area is and how the warming and 

22 rising sea level trends are clearly much greater than the 

23 uncertainty, particularly for the last 50 years. 

24 --o0o-- 

25 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MOTALLEBI: North 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 26 

 1 America temperature changes for the past hundred years 

 2 show the relative importance of the human-induced effects 

 3 over and above the natural variability. 

 4 The blue region represents the expected 

 5 temperature variation due to natural drivers. The pink 

 6 shaded area shows the climate model results when both 

 7 human-induced warming effects and natural variability are 

 8 included. These combined effects show a substantial match 

 9 with the observed temperature. 

10 --o0o-- 

11 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MOTALLEBI: This 

12 is true for every continent on the earth and for the 

13 global ocean. The ability of the coupled climate model to 

14 simulate the observed temperature evolution on each of the 

15 six continents provides much stronger evidence of human 

16 influence on climate than was available in the Third 

17 Assessment Report. 

18 --o0o-- 

19 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MOTALLEBI: 

20 Additional IPCC findings are on the relationship between 

21 observed climate change and recent observed changes in 

22 natural and human environment. 

23 The statements quoted in this slide are based 

24 largely on the data sets that cover the period since 1970. 

25 The quality of the data sets has improved significantly, 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 27 

 1 and the recent studies have allowed a broader and more 

 2 confident assessment on the relationship between observed 

 3 warming and impacts that were made in the Third 

 4 Assessment. 

 5 A global assessment of data since 1970 has shown 

 6 it is likely that anthropogenic warming has had a distinct 

 7 influence on many physical and biological systems. 

 8 The Fourth Assessment concluded that "there is a 

 9 strong confidence that the recent regional changes in 

10 temperature have had discernable impacts on many physical 

11 and biological systems." 

12 --o0o-- 

13 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MOTALLEBI: Each 

14 of the effects of the human-induced climate change are now 

15 apparent on every continent. 

16 A global synthesis of the studies in this 

17 Assessment strongly demonstrate that the spatial agreement 

18 between regions of significant warming across the globe 

19 and the location of the significant observed changes in 

20 many systems is consistent with warming, but very unlikely 

21 due solely to natural variability of temperatures or 

22 natural variability of the systems. 

23 A few examples include: Effect of the 

24 temperature increases have been documented in heat-related 

25 death in Europe. Increasing avalanches in mountain 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 28 

 1 regions. Amazon suffers from drought. Increased run-off 

 2 and earlier spring peak discharge in many 

 3 glacier-and-snow-fed rivers. Flooding in populated 

 4 mega-delta regions. 

 5 --o0o-- 

 6 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MOTALLEBI: More 

 7 specific information is now available across a wide range 

 8 of the systems and regions concerning the nature of future 

 9 impacts. 

10 Worldwide temperatures have increased about .7 

11 degrees Centigrade since beginning of the Industrial 

12 Revolution. Even if emissions were stopped today, 

13 additional warming is inevitable because of the greenhouse 

14 gases already in the system. Two years ago, the Governor 

15 set a target of an 80 percent reduction below 1990 

16 emission levels by 2050. If adopted worldwide, global 

17 warming would be limited to one or two degrees Centigrade 

18 above 1980 to 1999 levels as shown here. Even this lower 

19 temperature scenario results in some impact from climate 

20 change. For example, hundreds of millions of people are 

21 projected to be exposed to increased water stress, which 

22 will worsen with increasing temperatures. At lower 

23 latitudes, especially dry and tropical regions, crop 

24 productivity is projected to decrease for even a small 

25 local temperature increases, which would increase the risk 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 29 

 1 of hunger. 

 2 The next three slides show more examples of 

 3 global impacts projected for climate changes associated 

 4 with increasing temperature. 

 5 --o0o-- 

 6 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MOTALLEBI: With 

 7 relatively low temperature increase of two to three 

 8 degrees Centigrade, millions more people could experience 

 9 coastal flooding each year. 

10 The IPCC projects North American impacts that are 

11 particularly troubling for California: "Warming in 

12 western mountains is projected to cause decreased 

13 snowpack, more winter flooding, and reduced summer flows, 

14 worsening the already sharp competition for over-allocated 

15 water resources." 

16 --o0o-- 

17 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MOTALLEBI: With a 

18 moderate temperature increase of three to four degrees 

19 Centigrade, substantial melting of the Greenland ice cap, 

20 and possibly the West Antarctic ice sheet, would occur 

21 over centuries to millennia for a global average sea level 

22 rise of four to six meters or more. 

23 --o0o-- 

24 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MOTALLEBI: With a 

25 higher predicted temperature increase of four to five 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 30 

 1 degrees Centigrade which corresponds to the carbon dioxide 

 2 emissions if human beings follow the business-as-usual 

 3 course, continuing to exploit fossil fuel resources 

 4 without reducing carbon emissions, the eventual effects on 

 5 climate and life may be comparable to those at the time of 

 6 the mass species extinctions. 

 7 --o0o-- 

 8 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MOTALLEBI: Most 

 9 of the climate change impacts discussed so far are 

10 preventable with appropriate action. In the U.S., for 

11 example, some cities, such as New York City, Chicago, 

12 St. Louis, have adopted heat emergency action plans that 

13 combine public announcements through the media of 

14 impending high heat with transportation to the cooling 

15 center for the at-risk individuals. 

16 However, adaptation alone is not expected to cope 

17 with all the protected effects of climate change, and 

18 especially not over the long run as most impacts increase 

19 in magnitude. Although many early impacts of climate 

20 change can be effectively addressed through adaptation, 

21 the options for successful adaptions diminish and 

22 associated costs increase with increasing climate change. 

23 And relatively undeveloped countries are not 

24 prepared to handle climate change impacts and will suffer 

25 greatly. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 31 

 1 --o0o-- 

 2 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MOTALLEBI: The 

 3 latest international report on mitigation of the climate 

 4 change was released last month. The message in the report 

 5 is clear: Many options to control greenhouse gas 

 6 emissions are available; however, governments must act 

 7 quickly to slow warming and avoid significant disaster. 

 8 --o0o-- 

 9 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MOTALLEBI: Global 

10 greenhouse gas emissions have grown since pre-industrial 

11 times, with a 70 percent increase between 1970 and 2004. 

12 With current climate change mitigation policies and 

13 related sustainable development practices, global 

14 greenhouse gas emissions will continue to agree over the 

15 next few decades, unless we take immediate actions. 

16 --o0o-- 

17 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MOTALLEBI: This 

18 slide details the costs of the greenhouse gas mitigation, 

19 expressed in terms of reduced global output or global GDP. 

20 Clearly, the costs of mitigation will increase as 

21 stabilization targets are reduced. For example, it has 

22 been estimated that achieving a stabilization level of 445 

23 to 535 ppm CO2-equivalent, which would equate to the 

24 temperature increase of 2 to 2.8 degrees Centigrade, could 

25 reduce product by about three percent in 2030 or about .12 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 32 

 1 percent decrease per year. 

 2 In this report, options with negative cost effect 

 3 are defined as those options whose benefits such as 

 4 reduced energy costs and reduced emissions of the 

 5 pollutants equal or exceed their costs to society. 

 6 --o0o-- 

 7 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MOTALLEBI: The 

 8 most effective policy mix will vary from country to 

 9 country. If integrated with the government policies, 

10 climate change policies can provide to sustainable 

11 development practices in both developed and developing 

12 countries. 

13 The developed world is responsible for majority 

14 of emissions today, while the developing country, "the 

15 major emerging economies," will "represent most of the 

16 growth of emissions in the coming decade or so, and it 

17 underscores the need for collective action." 

18 --o0o-- 

19 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MOTALLEBI: It is 

20 now apparent that the increasing atmospheric concentration 

21 of greenhouse gases, resulting from human activities, is 

22 changing the climate in ways that pose serious risks to 

23 California's health, economy, and environment. 

24 Governor Schwarzenegger's Executive Order of June 

25 2005, called for specific emission reductions and a 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 33 

 1 periodic update on the state of climate change science and 

 2 the emerging understanding of potential impacts on 

 3 climate-sensitive sectors such as the state's water 

 4 supply, public health, agriculture, coastal areas, and 

 5 forestry. The Executive Order also called for the 

 6 California Environmental Protection Agency to prepare 

 7 biennial science reports on the potential impact of 

 8 continued global warming on California. We have given you 

 9 a brochure on the 2006 report, and the next report is due 

10 in late 2008. 

11 --o0o-- 

12 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MOTALLEBI: I 

13 would like to close with the key conclusion of the IPCC 

14 report. The report finds that it is "very likely" that 

15 emissions of the heat-trapping gases from human activities 

16 have caused "most of the observed increases in globally 

17 averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century." 

18 Adaptation will be more challenging in developing 

19 countries than in developed countries, due to constraints 

20 on adaptive capacity. For example, new studies confirm 

21 that Africa is one of the most vulnerable continents to 

22 climate change because of multiple stresses and low 

23 adaptive capacity. Some adaptation to current climate 

24 variability is taking place, however, this may be 

25 insufficient for future changes in climate. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 34 

 1 A wide variety of national policies and 

 2 instruments are available to governments to create the 

 3 incentives for mitigation action. 

 4 --o0o-- 

 5 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MOTALLEBI: This 

 6 concludes my presentation. And we would be happy to 

 7 answer any questions. 

 8 Thank you. 

 9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 

10 Do Board members have any questions? 

11 Ms. D'Adamo. 

12 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: That was a very useful 

13 report. Thank you. And in particular, the, our changing 

14 climate assessing the risks to California. Just wondering 

15 if there are plans to take this to the next step in terms 

16 of economic impacts? 

17 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: Yes. The report 

18 that's due in late 2008 will have, include an economic 

19 assessment of the impacts of climate changes are 

20 unmitigated, so they can be compared to the costs of 

21 mitigation. 

22 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Thank you. 

23 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Are there any other 

24 questions? 

25 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Yes. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 35 

 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Dr. Gong. 

 2 BOARD MEMBER GONG: That was a very sobering 

 3 report. Colorful, but very sobering. And I think the 

 4 data is overwhelming that we have an issue there. A 

 5 global issue. And I was just wondering when is our -- 

 6 does the Board receive periodic reports on global warming 

 7 like this or this is because the IPCC, but updates? 

 8 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: We plan to give 

 9 the Board briefings every six months, so every June and 

10 December. But there's an overwhelming amount of 

11 information that's coming out, so I think we would also 

12 plan to give you quarterly written updates as well. 

13 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Excellent. 

14 Just as a side note, perhaps in future reports 

15 you could add some positive examples of how we've 

16 succeeded. Not necessarily here in California, but maybe 

17 in some small city somewhere in the United States or even 

18 in the world. Just to give us some glimmer, burst of 

19 optimism, because, again, you paint a very sobering 

20 picture, realistic, sobering, whatever you want to call 

21 it, but I'd like the hear some good news. Bring me some 

22 good news. 

23 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: Okay, that's a 

24 good point. We're we actually surveying what's going on 

25 around the world in terms of -- 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 36 

 1 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Excellent. 

 2 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: -- reducing -- 

 3 BOARD MEMBER GONG: It doesn't have to be a long 

 4 litany of examples, but just some glimpses of how other 

 5 people are handling this, how we're saving, you know, the 

 6 situation. Thank you. 

 7 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Just a question. I would 

 8 agree, it's a very sobering in report. In looking at your 

 9 slides, there's one that shows the changes in 

10 heat-trapping gasses that looks for the past 100 years. 

11 And right at the end towards the year 2000, there's just a 

12 huge increase. Is it expected that there's going to 

13 continue to be an exponential increase if something is not 

14 done? When you look at this, it's a fairly level amount 

15 that's rising slowly until you get really close to 2000 

16 and it rises, it just spikes straight up. 

17 STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST MOTALLEBI: If no 

18 action is done, it's expected to rise as drastic as it 

19 shows and it is strongly supported by both observation and 

20 climate model prediction as well, too, unfortunately. 

21 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Thank you. It really is 

22 sobering. 

23 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. Thank you very much. 

24 I have a single witness who wishes to speak. 

25 Rachel McMahon. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 37 

 1 Or maybe it was the wrong item that you signed up 

 2 for, is that -- 

 3 MS. MCMAHON: Wrong item. 

 4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. Fine. Sign up for 

 5 right one. And we'll look forward to hearing from you a 

 6 little bit later in the day. 

 7 Does staff have any further comments? 

 8 Ms. Witherspoon? 

 9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Nothing at this 

10 time. 

11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Since this is not a 

12 regulatory item, it is not necessary to officially close 

13 the record. 

14 Agenda Item 7-7-4, Consideration of Early Action 

15 Measures to Mitigate Climate Change in California. 

16 The Global Warming Solutions Act requires the Air 

17 Resources Board to approve a list of discrete early action 

18 measures which can be adopted as regulations and made 

19 enforceable no later than January 1st, 2010. 

20 At the same time period, the Air Resources Board 

21 must complete its comprehensive strategy for achieving the 

22 2020 greenhouse gas reductions target and to begin 

23 implementation. 

24 Staff has been considering all of the options and 

25 will present its recommendations and analysis today 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 38 

 1 regarding early action measures. 

 2 Immediately following the staff's presentation, 

 3 the Board will hear a 15-minute presentation by Angela 

 4 Johnson-Meszaros, Co-chair of the Global Warming 

 5 Environmental Justice Advisory Committee. This Committee 

 6 was established in statute to advise us on the 

 7 comprehensive scoping plan and other relevant subjects. 

 8 Following Ms. Johnson-Meszaros' presentation, we 

 9 will take Board member questions and then hear witnesses 

10 who have signed up to speak. 

11 Ms. Witherspoon, please introduce this item. 

12 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, 

13 Dr. Sawyer. 

14 As you indicated, the Board must identity a list 

15 of discrete early action greenhouse gas reductions 

16 measures by June 30th, 2007. Once on the list, these 

17 measures need to be developed into regulatory proposals 

18 brought to the Board for adoption approximately by the end 

19 of next year and made enforceable by January 1, 2010. 

20 It is an incredibly tight timetable considering 

21 that most ARB regulations are developed over a period of 

22 three years or more. 

23 The law also requires the Board to find that the 

24 proposed regulations are technologically feasible and cost 

25 effective, prior to their actual adoption, and this 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 39 

 1 mandate includes early action measures. 

 2 It is too early in the process to make that legal 

 3 finding today. So staff is proposing that you, instead, 

 4 make a presumption and hold your actual finding of cost 

 5 effectiveness and technological feasibility in abeyance 

 6 until we return to you with final regulatory language and 

 7 a factual analysis of each rule. 

 8 As you soon see, the staff recommendations are 

 9 much more extensive than the narrow definition of early 

10 actions in the law. As part of the stakeholder process, 

11 we have identified many additional opportunities for 

12 reducing greenhouse gas emissions and believe the Board 

13 should commit to developing these strategies into final 

14 proposals as quickly as possible. 

15 Michael Robert from the Research Division's 

16 Climate Change Mitigation and Science branch will make the 

17 staff presentation. 

18 Michael. 

19 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 

20 presented as follows.) 

21 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ROBERT: Thank you, 

22 Ms. Witherspoon, and good morning, Dr. Sawyer and members 

23 of the Board. 

24 Today, staff is bringing you our recommendations 

25 for discrete early action measures pursuant to the Global 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 40 

 1 Warming Solutions Act of 2006 or Assembly Bill 32. Early 

 2 actions are the first part of a large portfolio of actions 

 3 that are needed to restore California greenhouse gas 

 4 emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. 

 5 --o0o-- 

 6 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ROBERT: In total, we are 

 7 recommending that development of 37 distinct measures be 

 8 initiated to lower greenhouse gas emissions in the near 

 9 term. 

10 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Back one slide, 

11 please. 

12 Back one slide. 

13 Oh, there it is. 

14 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ROBERT: Thank you. 

15 --o0o-- 

16 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ROBERT: Three of these 

17 measures can be adopted in time to meet the AB 32 legal 

18 definition of discrete early actions. Twenty-three of the 

19 measures have clear climate and we plan to implement them 

20 in the 2007 to 2012 time frame. The final set of 11 

21 measures include rulemakings ARB is already pursing for 

22 diesel particulate and ozone control that could have 

23 important climate co-benefits. 

24 Staff estimates that the benefit of these early 

25 actions is at least 33 megatons of carbon dioxide 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 41 

 1 equivalent emission reductions or roughly 20 percent of 

 2 what is needed to meet the AB 32 goal in 2020. In 

 3 addition, our partners on the interagency Climate Action 

 4 Team are pursuing their own early actions which will 

 5 achieve additional greenhouse gas reductions in the near 

 6 term. 

 7 Approving the staff's proposal will put us well 

 8 on a path towards achieving significant early reductions 

 9 while building a solid foundation for the scoping plan and 

10 beyond. 

11 --o0o-- 

12 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ROBERT: To achieve 

13 California's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets, 

14 the Board is empowered to use traditional 

15 performance-based control methods. AB 32 also provides 

16 the flexibility to design, adopt, and implement 

17 market-based compliance mechanisms while the full planning 

18 process is underway. AB 32 recognizes that immediate 

19 progress in reducing emissions can and should be made. 

20 Accordingly, ARB must select a list of discrete early 

21 action greenhouse gas reduction measures by June 30, 2007. 

22 All such measures are to be developed into regulatory 

23 proposals, to be adopted by the Board and made enforceable 

24 by January 1st, 2010. 

25 It should be noted that this schedule is very 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 42 

 1 accelerated compared to most ARB regulations. The staff's 

 2 rule of thumb is that a new regulation takes three years 

 3 from initial idea to Board hearing. Under AB 32, we have 

 4 just 18 months to bring early action rules to the Board. 

 5 As will be discussed, the practicality of being able to 

 6 fully develop a measure into a regulation by January 1st, 

 7 2010 was the primary criterion for determining what went 

 8 on the early action list, with the second most important 

 9 criterion being how much tons we could achieve from each 

10 measure. 

11 It should also be noted AB 32 establishes several 

12 criteria for every greenhouse gas regulation adopted by 

13 the Board, including early action measures. Like all 

14 other rules, they must be technologically feasible and 

15 cost-effective. In addition, greenhouse gas reduction 

16 measures must not interfere with public health protection 

17 in any way, in terms of increasing criteria pollutant 

18 emissions or toxic air contaminants. There are also 

19 environmental justice criteria in the law with respect to 

20 avoiding disproportionate impacts. 

21 --o0o-- 

22 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ROBERT: The path to 

23 today's Board hearing started right after AB 32 became 

24 law. At the first public workshop in January, staff 

25 discussed the process for identifying and selecting early 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 43 

 1 actions. In March, we held an international symposium to 

 2 explore near-term solutions that have worked elsewhere in 

 3 the world. In April, a brief staff report summarized all 

 4 the information received to date. A second public 

 5 workshop was held on April 23rd. At that time, we 

 6 identified 36 measures for further ARB development and 

 7 referred many more to our sister agencies for evaluation. 

 8 As requested, we have also posted all stakeholder comments 

 9 received by staff on our website. 

10 While ARB was conducting the process outlined on 

11 this slide, the interagency Climate Action Team released 

12 its own companion report on early actions to be undertaken 

13 by other state agencies. The Climate Action Team will be 

14 discussing that report at a public workshop next Monday in 

15 Sacramento. 

16 --o0o-- 

17 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ROBERT: AB 32 creates a 

18 comprehensive, multi-year program to reduce greenhouse gas 

19 emissions in California, with the overall goal of 

20 restoring emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. The 

21 next few slides illustrate where early action measures fit 

22 into the overall timetable. 

23 By the end of this year, 2007, ARB must confirm 

24 the statewide 1990 emissions inventory, thereby locking in 

25 the 2020 target. Also this year, ARB must adopt mandatory 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 44 

 1 emission reporting regulations. Both of those items will 

 2 be before the Board at its December meeting. Concurrently 

 3 we will need to hire and organization the more than 100 

 4 staff we will need to complete the new workload that is 

 5 mandated by AB 32. 

 6 --o0o-- 

 7 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ROBERT: Next year, staff 

 8 will bring you the regulatory measures to implement 

 9 whatever discrete early action measures you decide upon 

10 today. For example, we are planning to have the Low 

11 Carbon Fuel Standard to you for adoption at the December 

12 meeting. 

13 Next year, we will also have to complete a 

14 comprehensive planning effort that will identity the 

15 measures and policies needed to achieve the reductions 

16 necessary to reach the 2020 target. Staff will be 

17 publishing a draft scoping plan in June of next year, and 

18 the Board consideration on that item will occur in 

19 November. The scoping plan will address the AB 32 program 

20 design, include the impacts of all early action measures, 

21 define the role of every strategy that isn't an early 

22 action measure, determine the mix of additional 

23 performance-based greenhouse gas regulations and 

24 market-based measures, and reflect the emissions 

25 reductions other agencies can be expected to provide. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 45 

 1 --o0o-- 

 2 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ROBERT: 2009 is a rule 

 3 making year for whatever you adopt in the scoping plan. 

 4 We'll get started immediately in turning those strategies 

 5 into enforceable measures. 

 6 If a market-based program is included, we will 

 7 also need to create a regulatory structure to ensure that 

 8 all of the AB 32 criteria for a market-based approach are 

 9 met. 

10 --o0o-- 

11 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ROBERT: In 2010, early 

12 action measures must kick-in as a legally required. 2010 

13 will also be a rulemaking year as we keep acting to 

14 implement the scoping plan. 

15 --o0o-- 

16 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ROBERT: By 2011, the law 

17 envisions that we will have completed most of our major 

18 rulemaking to achieve the 2020 emissions reduction target. 

19 However, ARB is not prohibited from adopting additional 

20 rules beyond that date. 

21 --o0o-- 

22 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ROBERT: By 2012, we're 

23 fully launched and begin the count-down process towards 

24 achieving almost 30 percent reductions by 2020. Although 

25 the law does not specify any review after this point, 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 46 

 1 we're thinking about an annual report and triennial 

 2 reviews of the overall plan implementation to make sure we 

 3 and other agencies are on track. 

 4 --o0o-- 

 5 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ROBERT: The countdown 

 6 continues through 2020 and we start thinking about what 

 7 comes next, in order to meet the Governor's ambitious 

 8 target of an 80 percent greenhouse gas reduction by 2050 

 9 -- which is also where the international scientific 

10 community is telling us we need to be. 

11 --o0o-- 

12 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ROBERT: Staff established 

13 a transparent process for identifying and selecting early 

14 action measures, with an ample opportunity for public 

15 discussion and input. All input, including oral comments 

16 made at public meeting, electronic mail, and formal 

17 written comments, were considered. The stakeholder input 

18 received was very valuable and many of the suggestions 

19 were added to our proposed early action plan. In many 

20 instances, ARB received suggestions for actions outside of 

21 our purview, which we turned over to the Climate Action 

22 Team for consideration. Many of those suggestions are 

23 contained in the CAT's early actions report which will be 

24 workshopped next Monday in Sacramento. 

25 Although we got more than 100 suggestions, only a 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 47 

 1 few met the stringent legal criteria of a discrete early 

 2 action as set forth in AB 32. But that doesn't mean they 

 3 weren't good ideas or that we don't need them eventually 

 4 to meet the 2020 goal. For that reason, we decided to 

 5 pursue early action measures under a three-tiered a 

 6 approach. 

 7 Group One is the list of discrete early actions 

 8 that staff is confident we can complete and turn into 

 9 regulatory form before the January 2010 deadline for 

10 enforceability. 

11 Group Two are regulations that will take a little 

12 more time to complete, but which are appropriate to launch 

13 now. Group Two also contains non-regulatory measures, 

14 such as emission calculation protocols, that we asked to 

15 finish quickly as, quote/unquote, "early action measures." 

16 Group Three are the diesel and ozone controls 

17 that ARB is already committed to and is pursuing on an 

18 expedited rulemaking schedule. These measures have some 

19 climate co-benefits. Many stakeholders were concerned 

20 that these rulemaking efforts would be suspended or 

21 delayed by our new climate responsibilities, which is 

22 absolutely not the case. For that reason, we decided to 

23 highlight the diesel and ozone rules that could have 

24 important climate co-benefits as part of our overall early 

25 action plan. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 48 

 1 The next step several slides will take us through 

 2 the Group One, Group Two, and Group Three measures in more 

 3 detail. 

 4 --o0o-- 

 5 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ROBERT: Staff is 

 6 proposing three strategies in Group One that can be 

 7 adopted in time to meet statutory criteria of discrete 

 8 early action greenhouse gas reduction measures in the 

 9 Health and Safety Code. These include the Governor's Low 

10 Carbon Fuel Standard, mitigation of refrigerant losses 

11 from motor vehicle air conditioning servicing by the 

12 non-professional do-it-yourselfer, and increased methane 

13 capture from existing landfill. We estimate that these 

14 measures will yield on the order of 13 to 26 megatons of 

15 CO2 equivalent greenhouse gas emission reductions by 2020. 

16 If you approve this list today, each of these 

17 measures will be pursued as regulatory proposals that 

18 would come before you in 2009. Also, staff will conduct 

19 in-depth evaluations of the technological feasibility and 

20 cost-effectiveness as required by law. 

21 Let us expand on these measures briefly. 

22 --o0o-- 

23 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ROBERT: The Low Carbon 

24 Fuel Standard will require fuel providers to ensure that 

25 the mix of fuels they sell meet, on average, a declining 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 49 

 1 standard for greenhouse gas emissions. 

 2 Transportation accounts for over 40 percent of 

 3 the greenhouse gas emissions in California. Therefore, 

 4 reductions of emissions from this source are vital. 

 5 This is the single biggest stand-alone measure 

 6 after the motor vehicle greenhouse gas standards the Board 

 7 has already adopted. 

 8 The Low Carbon Fuel Standard goal is to reduce 

 9 the carbon intensity of California's passenger vehicle 

10 fuels by at least ten percent by 2020, cutting CO2 

11 equivalent greenhouse gas emissions by 10 to 20 megatons. 

12 That is equivalent to removing three million cars from the 

13 road. 

14 --o0o-- 

15 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ROBERT: The second 

16 discrete early action would restrict the use of high 

17 global warming potential refrigerant available for retail 

18 purchase for recharging leaky automotive air conditioning 

19 system. This strategy is taken directly from the set of 

20 strategies developed originally by ARB for the Climate 

21 Action Team report of March 2006. The proposed strategy 

22 is similar to a ban of smaller refrigerants cans that has 

23 been in existence in the state of Wisconsin for years. 

24 Unfortunately many non-functioning auto air conditioning 

25 systems have failed because they leak. Consumer efforts 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 50 

 1 to recharge these systems do not fix these leaks, but do 

 2 result in excess emissions. 

 3 Hydrofluorocarbons or HFCs are a class of 

 4 compounds that include ten individual substances. They 

 5 are used as substitutes for chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs, 

 6 which were identified as ozone depleting substances under 

 7 the Montreal Protocol. Major applications of HFCs are in 

 8 refrigeration, air conditioning, foams, solvents, aerosol 

 9 propellants, and fire protection which will be addressed 

10 in other measures I will discuss. HFCs are very potent 

11 greenhouse gases. Specifically, HFC-134a, the refrigerant 

12 used nearly universally in motor vehicle air conditioning 

13 systems, has a global warming potential of 1300 relative 

14 to CO2, the most abundant greenhouse gas. The climate at 

15 impact of refrigerants sold in small cans is not trivial. 

16 A typical California passenger car traveling from 

17 Sacramento to Los Angeles and back to Sacramento emits 

18 less greenhouse gas emissions during that trip than the 

19 equivalent contents of one single 12 ounce can of HFC-134a 

20 as the one pictured here. 

21 The threat on the climate posed by HFCs, the fact 

22 that superior vehicle air conditioning technology is 

23 emerging, and that feasible mitigation option exist are 

24 the reasons for the complete ban of the HFC-134a in 

25 vehicle air conditioners recently instituted in Europe 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 51 

 1 starting in 2011. ARB staff are following those 

 2 developments very closely to inform our own mitigation 

 3 strategy development. 

 4 This discrete early action is not a stand-alone 

 5 mitigation effort. It is one of the five HFC reduction 

 6 measures identified originally in the Climate Action Team 

 7 Plan. All strategies will be pursued. In addition, 

 8 realizing that HFC-134a used in cans for vehicle air 

 9 conditioners is not the only burden on the environment. 

10 The impacts from other consumer applications and products 

11 such as silly string or dusters are also under evaluation 

12 by ARB staff as part of the Group Two strategies. 

13 --o0o-- 

14 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ROBERT: Two groups have 

15 proposed alternative approaches to staff's proposed ban on 

16 do-it-yourself repairs. The first alternative proposal 

17 came from the Aftermarket Refrigerant Products Institute, 

18 which opposes staff's proposal and suggests that we pursue 

19 self-sealing valves and a new deposit and return program 

20 instead. 

21 The Environmental Justice Committee is concerned 

22 about taking away low-cost self repair options for lower 

23 income citizens. They propose that leak testing be added 

24 to the Smog Check program instead, where low income people 

25 can take advantage of subsidized repairs. We think that 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 52 

 1 approach has merit and are looking at smog check 

 2 improvements within our Group Two strategy. However, this 

 3 approach would not qualify for an early action status 

 4 because state legislation and changes to the Bureau of 

 5 Automotive Repair's program would be required. 

 6 Staff is examining this alternative and is 

 7 continuing discussions with the industry, the U.S. EPA, 

 8 and other stakeholders. However, we acknowledge the 

 9 proactive approach of the industry for proposing what 

10 appears to be a sensible approach that preserves much of 

11 the benefit of the original measure proposed by staff. 

12 --o0o-- 

13 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ROBERT: The third 

14 discrete early action would set statewide standards for 

15 the installation and performance of active gas 

16 collection/controls systems at municipal solid waste 

17 landfills. 

18 Biological decomposition of organic waste in 

19 landfills leads to the production of gases, consisting 

20 mainly of carbon dioxide, methane, and trace amounts of 

21 non-methane organic compounds. Methane is a potent 

22 greenhouse gas having approximately 21 times the global 

23 warming potential of carbon dioxide. Non-methane organic 

24 compounds are precursors to ozone formation, can be toxic, 

25 and some are odorous. In some instances, the gas may 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 53 

 1 migrate laterally underground and accumulate in nearby 

 2 structures on or near the landfill, posing as a potential 

 3 fire or explosive hazard. If uncontrolled or inadequately 

 4 controlled, landfill gas eventually migrates to the 

 5 surface where it could an order or problem or adversely 

 6 impact air quality. 

 7 Landfills are regulated by local air district 

 8 rules who impose Federal New Source Performance Standards 

 9 and Emission Guidelines and the National Emission 

10 Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. Federal 

11 regulations require emission controls for larger 

12 landfills. However, there are no consistent statewide 

13 standards for smaller and other uncontrolled landfills. 

14 Approximately 40 landfills are identified by the 

15 Waste Board as not having emissions controls. The 

16 requirement for installing emission control systems at 

17 uncontrolled landfills, and the improvement of collection 

18 efficiencies at controlled landfills, is being considered 

19 for a discrete early action resulting in total reductions 

20 on the order of two to four megatons by 2020. In 

21 developing the control measures, ARB will work closely 

22 with the Waste Board staff who is developing a guidance 

23 document for all landfill operators and regulators that 

24 will recommend technologies and best management practices 

25 for improving landfill design, construction, operation, 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 54 

 1 and closure for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas 

 2 emissions. 

 3 --o0o-- 

 4 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ROBERT: Staff is 

 5 proposing to initiate work on 23 additional greenhouse gas 

 6 emission reduction measures, with Board hearings and 

 7 rulemakings to occur as soon as possible where applicable 

 8 as illustrated in the next few slides. 

 9 These measures were drawn from various sources 

10 including the March 2006 Climate Action Team Report and 

11 stakeholder input. This group also includes strategies 

12 ARB staff has recently identified such -- as cooler 

13 automobile paints, standards for medium duty vehicles, 

14 tire inflation requirements -- that could be developed 

15 relatively quickly and produce significant greenhouse gas 

16 reductions. 

17 Group Two measures are expected to yield on the 

18 order of 20 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent of 

19 reductions by 2020, with reductions for several measures 

20 still to be quantified. 

21 As we mentioned previously, Group Two early 

22 actions are commitments of equal merit as those in Group 

23 One and that will yield real greenhouse gas reductions. 

24 They are not included in Group One for one of two reasons. 

25 Some are not regulations but will be implemented as 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 55 

 1 guidance or protocols. Others will likely be regulations, 

 2 but staff does not believe we can deliver them as 

 3 enforceable regulations by January 1st, 2010. 

 4 --o0o-- 

 5 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ROBERT: This slide 

 6 illustrates our early action work plan for 2008. We are 

 7 spending much effort on protocol development so that local 

 8 governments, small businesses, and the agricultural 

 9 community can take effective early steps that reduce 

10 greenhouse gases and that have more confidence about what 

11 those strategies will provide in the way of total 

12 reductions. We're also working on a major truck rule to 

13 reduce diesel particulate and ozone precursors, and will 

14 consider requirements related to greenhouse gases at the 

15 same time. We're referring to these measures as "smart 

16 way" improvements for convenience, since that's the name 

17 U.S. EPA has already given to truck efficiency measures. 

18 Next year, we will also expect to bring our port 

19 electrification strategy to the Board, which we expect to 

20 be a combination of regulatory and incentive measures. 

21 Just to remind the Board of what I've already 

22 discussed, during 2008, newly hired or redirected staff 

23 must also complete all of the Group One early action 

24 measures while concurrently completing the comprehensive 

25 scoping plan indicating how the 2020 target will be 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 56 

 1 achieved. 

 2 --o0o-- 

 3 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ROBERT: In 2009, staff is 

 4 proposing to bring you four separate regulations for the 

 5 categories identified on the slide. We're still not 

 6 entirely sure what form the tire inflation program will 

 7 take. There are lots of public education programs out 

 8 there, but we would look to take them up a notch and 

 9 consider regulatory alternative. However, we're having a 

10 significant difficulty figuring out how to enforce a more 

11 mandatory approach. 

12 In 2009, staff will also start working on the 

13 implementation of additional regulations and market 

14 measures approved by the Board in the preceding year. 

15 --o0o-- 

16 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ROBERT: In 2010, we have 

17 more regulations planned, plus continued work on 

18 implementing the scoping plan. 

19 --o0o-- 

20 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ROBERT: In 2011, we're 

21 bringing you two specialty regulations, that we're just 

22 starting to conduct the research on today. Specifically, 

23 controls to reduce HFCs during foam production, 

24 installation, lifetime, and end-of-life. Also, 

25 alternative chemicals for fire suppression which have 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 57 

 1 lower global warming potentials. 

 2 2011 is also when the ARB is required to complete 

 3 all of their major rulemaking necessary to implement the 

 4 comprehensive scoping plan you will adopt at the end of 

 5 next year. 

 6 --o0o-- 

 7 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ROBERT: 2012 is our 

 8 target date for updating the greenhouse gas standards for 

 9 motor vehicles to achieve an additional four million 

10 metric tons of greenhouse gas reductions by 2020. As you 

11 may recall, the existing regulation takes effect in the 

12 2009 model year and has a step function in 2012. The new 

13 regulation would kick into for 12016 and beyond, giving 

14 manufacturers sufficient lead time to make whatever 

15 additional changes are required. 

16 In 2012, all other major greenhouse gas reduction 

17 rules will be operational and staff will be in a 

18 preliminary enforcement mode. 

19 --o0o-- 

20 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ROBERT: There are five 

21 measures in Group Two for which the hearing date is still 

22 to be determined. 

23 For stationary agricultural engines, the issue is 

24 what more we can do to promote electrification through the 

25 Public Utilities Commission and other utility tee 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 58 

 1 rate structures. 

 2 Sulfur hexafluoride use is being reduced, so 

 3 we're not sure whether an ARB regulation will be needed. 

 4 TRU stands for transportation refrigeration 

 5 units, also known as "refers," which the Board has already 

 6 regulated. Electrification requirements could be added to 

 7 the strengthen that regulation. We're evaluating how 

 8 costly this might be and when that might be most 

 9 appropriate to do. We don't want to disrupt the 

10 compliance efforts industry is already taking to meet our 

11 standards. 

12 Truck stop electrification is an incentive-based 

13 program so we're evaluating how much we need and when to 

14 pursue that funding. 

15 Finally, smog check improvement are also a 

16 possibility. However, we have very little control over 

17 when they are actually implemented by the Bureau of 

18 Automotive Repair. Close coordination with the BAR will 

19 be necessary. 

20 --o0o-- 

21 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ROBERT: Our Group Three 

22 strategies include all of the diesel particulate and ozone 

23 precursor rules this Board has already committed to. You 

24 will be evaluating these tomorrow when you take up ARB's 

25 proposed statewide strategy for inclusion in the federally 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 59 

 1 required State Implementation Plan. There is 

 2 extraordinary concern that these measures will somehow be 

 3 delayed or derailed by ARB's new climate change 

 4 responsibilities. We included Group Three to underscore 

 5 that that is absolutely not the case and to reflect the 

 6 fact that reducing diesel PM will help meet our climate 

 7 protection goals. Staff remains fully committed to 

 8 accomplishing these measures. 

 9 Although not on this slide, the implementation of 

10 the one billion dollar bond to reduce Goods Movement 

11 related emission is another key part of ARB's diesel clean 

12 up strategy and will be discussed in greater detail at 

13 tomorrow's meeting. 

14 --o0o-- 

15 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ROBERT: The 37 early 

16 action measures proposed by ARB staff are categorized into 

17 three separate groups. Together we expect these measures 

18 will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 33 

19 megatons of CO2 equivalents annually by 2020. 

20 It is important to recognize that many other 

21 significant greenhouse gas emissions reductions are 

22 already in the pipeline. Existing ARB regulations, 

23 namely, the AB 1493 vehicle climate change standards, will 

24 contribute an additional 30 megatons of reductions. The 

25 diesel risk reduction measure co-benefits remain to be 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 60 

 1 determined and are not included in this 30 million tons. 

 2 Regarding the latter, the greatest greenhouse gas 

 3 reductions are expected to come from ARB's anti-idling 

 4 controls and from port electrification. 

 5 Group One includes three measures that meet the 

 6 narrow stringent criteria for discrete early actions. 

 7 These will yield reductions on the order of to 10 to 20 

 8 megatons or the approximately 10 percent of the overall 

 9 2020 reduction target. Group Two are 23 additional 

10 greenhouse gas reduction strategies that will result in 

11 reductions on the order of 20 megatons of CO2 equivalents 

12 or approximately 12 percent of what may be needed by 2020. 

13 Group Three are existing measures from our diesel control 

14 and fuels programs. However, we still need to determine 

15 to climate co-benefits from reducing diesel particulate 

16 matter, ozone precursors, and other criteria pollutants. 

17 Together, ARB's existing regulations and our new 

18 proposed early actions add up to our lower estimate of 63 

19 megatons of CO2 equivalent reductions. 

20 All identified early actions are commitments that 

21 ARB will pursue in the next few years. 

22 The early actions report also acknowledges the 

23 importance of voluntary action and education efforts in 

24 the overall climate protection program. Staff is planning 

25 to expand our analysis and efforts in these areas in the 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 61 

 1 near future. The remaining reductions needed to close the 

 2 gap for meeting the 2020 target will come from the other 

 3 efforts. 

 4 Now I will turn to outstanding issues related to 

 5 staff's proposal. 

 6 --o0o-- 

 7 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ROBERT: Several 

 8 stakeholders felt that staff should have identified more 

 9 than three discrete early action strategies. As I have 

10 already described, AB 32 requires that each discrete early 

11 action be regulatory in nature, be enforceable by 

12 January 1, 2010, and be both technologically feasible and 

13 cost-effective. There's no getting around the practical 

14 fact that it takes time and tremendous staff effort to 

15 work through regulatory issues and get the language just 

16 right. That practical consideration is what drove us to 

17 constrain the list of items in Group One to just three 

18 measures. However, I want to stress that staff is 

19 avoiding hard work. We put the biggest, hardest, most 

20 time-consuming rulemaking in Group One, the Low Carbon 

21 Fuel Standard. So even though our list is short, it is 

22 extremely ambitious. 

23 --o0o-- 

24 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ROBERT: Several 

25 stakeholders asked about the definition of 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 62 

 1 cost-effectiveness and are concerned that we had not 

 2 offered a legal definition as part of this action. 

 3 Although everyone agrees that cost-effectiveness means 

 4 dollars per ton, certain stakeholders feel there is an 

 5 upper limit that should be defined at this time. 

 6 As part of the rule development process, staff 

 7 will work with stakeholders to establish a robust 

 8 definition. As we developed a scoping plan, we will also 

 9 develop a method of judging relative cost-effectiveness. 

10 However, at this early stage in the process, more time is 

11 needed to complete a full cost-benefit analysis for each 

12 proposed measure. Thus, we must operate on a presumption 

13 that the proposed early actions will meet the 

14 technologically feasible and cost-effectiveness criteria. 

15 In the event that it's found later that a measure cannot 

16 be designed in a way that meets all legal requirements, it 

17 would be removed from the list. 

18 --o0o-- 

19 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ROBERT: Some stakeholders 

20 felt that specific early action measures are not 

21 cost-effective and should be removed from consideration 

22 for that reason. In particular, the proposed ban on HFC 

23 do-it-yourselfer cans and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard 

24 were mentioned in this vein. 

25 Cost-effectiveness is a legal requirement for any 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 63 

 1 regulation adopted by this Board. However, it is not a 

 2 prerequisite to make such a determination for simply 

 3 listing an early action measure. If, at the time of 

 4 rulemaking, staff concludes that an early action measure 

 5 cannot be developed in a cost-effective form for a 

 6 particular source category strategy, we will recommend 

 7 instead that the proposed early action measure be deleted 

 8 from the list. 

 9 --o0o-- 

10 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ROBERT: The AB 32 

11 Environmental Justice Advisory Committee has several 

12 concerns about the proposed early action measures, 

13 including what has been proposed by staff and what has 

14 been omitted from the list. The EJ Committee's 

15 presentation will follow staff's presentation, so I will 

16 not speak for them now. However, I will have highlight 

17 two specific concerns that the EJ Committee raised about 

18 the rules we are proposing for your consideration. 

19 First, that the proposed ban on do-it-yourself 

20 HFC cans for vehicle air conditioning systems is 

21 economically regressive and will hurt poor people the 

22 most. Staff is not convinced that is the case, but is 

23 taking the Committee's concerns seriously and trying to 

24 clarify the socio-economic status of person affected by 

25 the proposed rule. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 64 

 1 The second major concern has to do with the food 

 2 versus fuel debate that has sprung up across the nation 

 3 and world as more areas seek to use biofuels for 

 4 transportation. There are legitimate concerns regarding 

 5 potential effect of California low carbon fuel standard. 

 6 This issue will be evaluated and discussed in detail 

 7 during the rulemaking for low carbon fuels. However, 

 8 staff does not believe it warrants deletion as an early 

 9 action measure. 

10 --o0o-- 

11 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ROBERT: In conclusion, 

12 based on the staff's consideration of requirements, 

13 initial investigation of feasibility, and consideration of 

14 practical opportunities and constraints in administrative 

15 capacity, ARB staff recommends that the Board approve the 

16 staff proposal. This includes commitments to develop the 

17 list of discrete early action measures in Group One and 

18 the additional measures recommended by staff in Group Two 

19 and Three. We further recommend that you direct staff to 

20 develop regulations to implement these measures in 

21 accordance with the timelines identified in this 

22 presentation. 

23 --o0o-- 

24 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ROBERT: The ARB is still 

25 near the beginning of the early action process with 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 65 

 1 considerable work ahead to develop full proposals. Upon 

 2 the ARB adoption of a Board resolution, staff will begin 

 3 the regulatory development of the three discrete early 

 4 actions as well as continue to develop and implement the 

 5 additional Group Two and Three greenhouse gas reduction 

 6 measures. 

 7 To keep the Board fully apprised of these 

 8 efforts, staff proposes to provide regular updates every 

 9 six months. 

10 The early actions proposed today do not exhaust 

11 all possible ways of stimulating efforts by companies, 

12 municipalities, and individuals to reduce greenhouse gas 

13 emissions prior to implementation of the overall scoping 

14 plan for AB 32. Staff stands prepared to broaden or 

15 modify the scope if supported by the full analysis of each 

16 measure. 

17 That concludes the staff's presentation. Thank 

18 you for your attention. And we would be happy to answer 

19 any questions that you may have. 

20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you, Dr. Robert. 

21 I think what we'll do is to take the statement 

22 from the Environmental Justice Committee first, and then 

23 come back to both the staff and the Environmental Justice 

24 Committee for the question period. 

25 Before Ms. Johnson-Meszaros begins her 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 66 

 1 presentation, I want the thank the considerable -- the 

 2 Committee for its considerable effort that is put into 

 3 developing these recommendations on this matter. Thank 

 4 you for being here today. And for contributing to our 

 5 AB 32 implementation process. 

 6 Ms. Johnson-Meszaros. 

 7 MS. JOHNSON-MESZAROS: Good morning, Dr. Sawyer, 

 8 members of the Board. 

 9 I have a presentation, a PowerPoint version of 

10 this presentation, which I'm hoping can be projected. 

11 That would be it. 

12 --o0o-- 

13 MS. JOHNSON-MESZAROS: I'm Angela 

14 Johnson-Meszaros, I'm the co-chair of the Environmental 

15 Justice Advisory Committee on the Implementation of Global 

16 Warming Solutions Act of AB 32. 

17 --o0o-- 

18 MS. JOHNSON-MESZAROS: I just wanted to quickly 

19 outline the responsibility of this Committee which was 

20 created in the statute. Which is basically to advise the 

21 ARB in developing the scoping plan and any other pertinent 

22 matter in implementing this division and we believe that 

23 this vote that you are taking today is certainly a 

24 pertinent matter. 

25 --o0o-- 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 67 

 1 MS. JOHNSON-MESZAROS: At our first Committee 

 2 meeting, we adopted a Mission Statement and just to 

 3 highlight, through our advice, we are seeking to provide 

 4 helpful and workable recommendations on how best to ensure 

 5 and encourage public engagement in the implementation of 

 6 the Act and how best to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, 

 7 while maximizing the overall societal benefits, including 

 8 reductions in other air pollutants, diversification of 

 9 energy sources, and other benefits to the economy, the 

10 environment, and public health. 

11 --o0o-- 

12 MS. JOHNSON-MESZAROS: I also wanted to make sure 

13 that I acknowledged my co-Committee members who have all 

14 been working quite diligently as we have been undertaking 

15 our responsibilities under the Act. And to hopefully 

16 impress upon the Board the vast resources that are 

17 available on this Committee. We are 21 people from around 

18 the state representing 18 different organizations with a 

19 wide range of experience and expertise, not just in the 

20 environmental justice issues, generally, but also specific 

21 areas of expertise and extensive education and background 

22 which allows us to bring, we think, a lot to this 

23 conversation about how California is going to implement 

24 AB 32. 

25 --o0o-- 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 68 

 1 MS. JOHNSON-MESZAROS: Also, I just want to take 

 2 a second to frame, and actually I couldn't frame better 

 3 than the presentation you heard this morning about the 

 4 impacts of global warming, but in particular, I wanted to 

 5 focuses on these words that were from the staff at their 

 6 January 2nd meeting about early action measures: 

 7 California in its longstanding tradition of environmental 

 8 stewardship has positioned itself at the forefront of 

 9 climate protection efforts. 

10 And we agree that that's completely the case and 

11 we know that there are people, not just around the state 

12 and not just around the country, but around the world who 

13 are looking to see what this Board decides today as an 

14 indicator of our commitment as we move forward to address 

15 climate change issues. 

16 --o0o-- 

17 MS. JOHNSON-MESZAROS: So with that, I wanted to 

18 outline the Committee's work on this issue. 

19 We reviewed the staff's early action report which 

20 contained a hundred measures. We reviewed all the letters 

21 that we could get from staff regarding -- that were 

22 submitted to the staff suggesting early action measures. 

23 We engaged in approximately 12 hours of public dialogue at 

24 three separate Committee meetings. And we developed 

25 reasonable statutorily-based criteria and applied them to 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 69 

 1 each of the suggested measures that are outlined in the 

 2 staff's report. 

 3 --o0o-- 

 4 MS. JOHNSON-MESZAROS: Our criteria that we 

 5 developed and applied is, most importantly, is the measure 

 6 technologically feasible? Secondly, does the measure 

 7 cause increases in criteria or air toxic emissions, often 

 8 called backsliding. Third, are there co-pollutant 

 9 reduction benefits from the measure, which of course is 

10 something that's critically important, not just in meeting 

11 the requirements of AB 32, but also in protecting and 

12 enhancing health that are impacted by pollution? And 

13 fourth, does the measure have disproportionate positive or 

14 negative impacts on communities already facing 

15 unacceptably high environmental burdens? 

16 --o0o-- 

17 MS. JOHNSON-MESZAROS: After applying -- after 

18 developing and applying those criteria, the Committee 

19 recommended only about 30 percent of the overall list for 

20 inclusion in the early action list. 

21 We thought that it is better to start with a more 

22 robust list, as was just outlined in staff's presentation, 

23 which allows for a refinement of particular rules through 

24 the process, for things like the application of the 

25 cost-effectiveness standard and unforeseen rule 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 70 

 1 development issues. Because overall we think that the 

 2 worst possible outcome would be unnecessary delay in 

 3 achieving reductions. 

 4 --o0o-- 

 5 MS. JOHNSON-MESZAROS: We took note of the fact 

 6 that in the staff's report, they said: Staff anticipates 

 7 bringing these measures to the Board with, the Group Two 

 8 measures, to the Board for adoption within the next three 

 9 years. Some may begin implementation of the rules prior 

10 to January 2010. But many may not. The bulk of our 

11 recommendations are from the Group Two strategies, and we 

12 wondered why not add them to the early action list. 

13 --o0o-- 

14 MS. JOHNSON-MESZAROS: I also should note that 

15 the Committee recommended removal from the early action 

16 list for two particular items as staff has flagged for you 

17 already. 

18 --o0o-- 

19 MS. JOHNSON-MESZAROS: The Low Carbon Fuel 

20 Standard, I think of this as being the putting all of our 

21 eggs in one basket standard. 

22 --o0o-- 

23 MS. JOHNSON-MESZAROS: The Committee support the 

24 reductions of carbon content in transportation fuels and 

25 we should be clear and upfront about that. We simply 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 71 

 1 don't recommend it as an early action measure. 

 2 --o0o-- 

 3 MS. JOHNSON-MESZAROS: The early action measure 

 4 that's proposed is a carbon-intensity standard. 

 5 --o0o-- 

 6 MS. JOHNSON-MESZAROS: It's our understanding 

 7 from the report that was done by Dr. Sperling, one of your 

 8 co-members, and Dr. Farrel at U.C. Berkeley, that with an 

 9 intensity standard, what we can anticipate happening is a 

10 ten percent reduction in carbon intensity will result in 

11 an increase of 13 percent in absolute emissions from 

12 transportation fuel usage. Using an intensity standard, 

13 one would need to have something in the order of a 31 

14 percent intensity reduction as compared to the ten percent 

15 intensity reduction that's being recommended now. Part of 

16 that is because of the technological feasibility of having 

17 such an extensive reduction in the -- in carbon from 

18 carbon fuels. 

19 --o0o-- 

20 MS. JOHNSON-MESZAROS: So what does that mean? 

21 That means that the ten to 20 tons that is outlined in the 

22 report doesn't result in reductions below the 1990 levels, 

23 and, in fact, in 2010, emissions from fuels will be higher 

24 than they are now. We support technologically enforcing 

25 rules. However, this early action mix is too risky. We 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 72 

 1 support a wider range of measures that gets 

 2 health-enhancing reductions in communities right now. 

 3 --o0o-- 

 4 MS. JOHNSON-MESZAROS: What are some of the 

 5 possible risks of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard? The UN 

 6 has found in its first major report looking at this issue, 

 7 that while it does hold promise for quite a bit of 

 8 reductions, changes in the carbon content of soil and 

 9 carbon stocks for forests might undercut some or all of 

10 the benefits of the greenhouse gas reductions. 

11 The report that was completed by U.C. Berkeley 

12 and U.C. Davis acknowledged that it hadn't looked yet at 

13 the environmental impacts of a Low Carbon Fuel Standard. 

14 --o0o-- 

15 MS. JOHNSON-MESZAROS: One of the other possible 

16 risks of a low carbon fuel standard, the negative impacts 

17 on food prices. This is an article that was published in 

18 the MIT's Technology Review which talks about how the food 

19 prices are rising, both in the United States and around 

20 the world, and right now, they're saying there's over a 

21 hundred different ethanol plants under construction. We 

22 believe that ethanol in the short term is going to be the 

23 path for low carbon fuels reductions, and we believe it's 

24 problematic. 

25 --o0o-- 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 73 

 1 MS. JOHNSON-MESZAROS: Another possible risk is 

 2 the impacts on social order. The Washington Post reported 

 3 that there had been essentially food riots in Mexico 

 4 because of the increased costs of corn resulting in 

 5 increased costs of tortilla, which is, of course, a staple 

 6 in the diet there. 

 7 --o0o-- 

 8 MS. JOHNSON-MESZAROS: Another possible issue is 

 9 impacts around public health, and many of you are familiar 

10 with the Jacobsen study from U.C. Stanford, indicating 

11 that a high blend of ethanol poses equal or greater risk 

12 to public health than gasoline, which already causes 

13 significant health damage. 

14 --o0o-- 

15 MS. JOHNSON-MESZAROS: So as a summary, we 

16 believe that Low Carbon Fuel Standards is an important 

17 area for carbon reductions. But we also believe early 

18 action measures must be technologically feasible and not 

19 cause backsliding, and currently available fuels do not 

20 seem to meet this test. And early action measures must 

21 avoid disproportionate negative impacts on low income 

22 communities and communities of color. We believe that 

23 disruptions in food, an increase in food prices, 

24 backsliding in criteria pollutants and in toxics will have 

25 such impacts and the currently fuel mix do not meet the 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 74 

 1 standard. 

 2 --o0o-- 

 3 MS. JOHNSON-MESZAROS: The second measure is the 

 4 reduction of HFCs from the non-professional servicing of 

 5 cars. 

 6 --o0o-- 

 7 MS. JOHNSON-MESZAROS: The Committee supports 

 8 reduction in HFCs. We recommend -- we understand that 

 9 it's an important greenhouse gas and it ought to be 

10 addressed. 

11 --o0o-- 

12 MS. JOHNSON-MESZAROS: We simply don't believe 

13 that the regulation proposed by staff meets the 

14 requirements in AB 32. 

15 --o0o-- 

16 MS. JOHNSON-MESZAROS: It's the only measure, as 

17 staff indicated before, in a suite of possible measures 

18 that had already been identified targeting HFC reductions. 

19 What that means is the standard that's being proposed for 

20 early action takes on a very regressive component. 

21 --o0o-- 

22 MS. JOHNSON-MESZAROS: And that we believe, and I 

23 understand that staff defers with this, low income people 

24 of color and -- are disproportionally likely to rely upon 

25 home-based auto repair and stop-gap repair options, such 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 75 

 1 as using these small cans of HFC-134 to fill air 

 2 conditioning. 

 3 --o0o-- 

 4 MS. JOHNSON-MESZAROS: So instead of the small 

 5 can ban, the Committee is recommending that ARB undertake 

 6 a broader review of all possible HFC reductions, including 

 7 the evacuation of refrigerants from decommissioned and 

 8 stored cargo containers, and evacuations of HFCs from cars 

 9 prior to scrappage. And we just note that there are 33 

10 million cars registered in California. At some point, I 

11 suspect some large number of those cars will end up being 

12 decommissioned and scrapped, with an average of about two 

13 pounds of HFCs in a fully charged air conditioner, and we 

14 believe there are substantial reductions that are possible 

15 from such a measure. 

16 --o0o-- 

17 MS. JOHNSON-MESZAROS: In summary, we recommend 

18 that the Committee vote to do four things. 

19 First, reduce HFCs without causing negative 

20 disproportionate impacts on low income communities and 

21 communities of color. 

22 Continue the work on developing a Low Carbon Fuel 

23 Standard for implementation after the early action period. 

24 Fourth, replace the low carbon fuel measure and 

25 the resources needed for its accelerated implementation 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 76 

 1 with measures having the highest co-benefit reductions. 

 2 We think this would include ports issues, refinery issues, 

 3 cement measures, and actually I left off, reductions in 

 4 the energy sector. 

 5 And at the very minimum, add to the list those 

 6 items which staff indicated could be done by 2010. So 

 7 that those reductions aren't lost. 

 8 --o0o-- 

 9 MS. JOHNSON-MESZAROS: So my mother taught me a 

10 lot of very useful things, and I think this is a time to 

11 remind people that doing anything is not the same thing as 

12 doing something. And we hope that you will be able to 

13 adopt a broader range of early action measures. 

14 Thank you. 

15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you, 

16 Ms. Johnson-Meszaros -- 

17 (Applause.) 

18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: -- for a presentation which 

19 I personally found to be particularly clear, succinct, and 

20 forceful. 

21 MS. JOHNSON-MESZAROS: Should I stay? 

22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Yes, please stay because 

23 we're going to take questions of the staff and of you at 

24 the same time from the Board members. 

25 All right. I would like to ask the first round 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 77 

 1 of questions because I know that we are -- have been 

 2 criticized for not having more items on the list. And I 

 3 want to understand a little bit more about resource 

 4 limitations on dealing with putting places in measure. 

 5 First, the available time and then the available 

 6 staff. This is roughly the first of July, and these 

 7 measures are to be in place by 2010. I count that as 

 8 being 30 months. But you speak of 18 months as the time 

 9 in which it has to be done. Would you explain where the 

10 18 months comes from and what happens in that other 12 

11 months, and if anything can be done to accelerate that? 

12 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yes, Dr. Sawyer. 

13 We count backward from the day that the regulations are 

14 approved by the Office of Administrative Law and become 

15 legally effective. So after this Board hears regulations, 

16 we go through an intensive processing step with the Office 

17 of Administrative Law, where we complete the CEQA record 

18 for the entire rulemaking. We prepare a written document 

19 responding to every comment raised and the answer thereto. 

20 There are interim steps with the Office of Administrative 

21 Law, at times, if they think that our answers are not 

22 complete or compelling and ask us is there more data that 

23 can be brought to bear. 

24 At sometimes we also have an additional process 

25 with stakeholders, which you know as the 15-day change 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 78 

 1 process. It doesn't actually take 15 days. Months pass 

 2 after rulemaking as we write new regulatory language to 

 3 accomplish the 15-day change. The 15 days is how long the 

 4 stakeholders get to read it. And, then, we go and 

 5 complete the rulemaking, once again, processing through 

 6 OAL. 

 7 So through years of experience, we've learned to 

 8 give ourselves roughly 12 months after rulemaking to 

 9 finish the final posting of the rule. When there are very 

10 few issues, when we are well prepared in advance, we can 

11 shrink the OAL review process to as few as six months, 

12 perhaps eight months. But we're in dangerous territory 

13 then to meet the legal deadline that they be fully 

14 approved by OAL, posted in the Code of California 

15 Regulations and legally enforceable. 

16 So our aim is to bring you all discrete early 

17 action measures by the end of next year so we have that 

18 year for processing. We could go as late as February of 

19 '09, and have ten months or so. But we wouldn't want to 

20 push it much father than that for Group One measures. 

21 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: And the other question has 

22 to do with available staff. I know that we've been 

23 promised considerable number of new staff and we certainly 

24 appreciate that. But what is our current authority to 

25 hire, and how many new people have we hired to work on 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 79 

 1 AB 32 issues at this time? 

 2 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We don't have 

 3 really legal authority to hire. What we have is the 

 4 ability to put people in what's our blanket, unallocated 

 5 positions, unallocated costs, with the expectation that 

 6 come July, there will be a state budget. We've sought 120 

 7 new positions, granted to us quarterly, so that we can do 

 8 hires of 30, 30, 30; is that right? It is. Because, once 

 9 we're given a position, if it's not filled in six months, 

10 it's taken away from us. And we can't higher 120 people 

11 at once. 

12 So we're staggering the hires over the next year, 

13 and we have hired approximately 20 or so people so far. 

14 We've had mostly internal reassignment as our experienced 

15 managers have moved into climate work and we've hired 

16 behind them in our conventional pollution control. 

17 The one difficulty we have is, even with new 

18 hires, we won't have experienced regulatory staff on day 

19 one, so we have to use our experienced managers to develop 

20 these regulations and train up the new people to take on 

21 toxics control, to take on diesel control, to take on smog 

22 check. And we are trying to attract managers, but our pay 

23 scales don't match as well any longer with other state 

24 agencies, so we have problems with laterals, where other 

25 agency staff have to demote to come work for us and not 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 80 

 1 everyone's willing to do that. 

 2 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: I also want 

 3 to add that, over the last couple of years, we've really 

 4 loaded up the rulemaking process. We're doing the most 

 5 difficult diesel control measures as the Board last month 

 6 and will see next month with a construction rule and the 

 7 other rules that are coming forth. 

 8 Last year, we did the ports goods movement plan 

 9 and we put numerous rulemakings in there that are 

10 reflected in the proposed plan here. 

11 So the availability to shift staff from one 

12 rulemaking to another isn't there unless we're willing to 

13 sacrifice the timeliness of those basic programs. And I 

14 think we've clearly decided through all of those efforts 

15 that public health and protecting communities demands that 

16 we continue and do those as quick as possible. 

17 So staff is working extremely hard and we are 

18 stretched to our limits. And the AB 32 process will 

19 stretch those limits further. Help is on the way, but 

20 it's not going to arrive in time so that we can reload the 

21 rulemaking process with, you know, complicated new 

22 measures in large numbers. 

23 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. I would also 

24 notice that apparently the web cast has not been going 

25 out. Does that continue to be the case? 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 81 

 1 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Yes. 

 2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Are we getting an audio out 

 3 or nothing? 

 4 SECRETARY ANDREONI: It's starting to work right 

 5 now, Chairman. 

 6 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. Well, then to the 

 7 people who have been waiting for the web cast, I apologize 

 8 that the first hour and 45 minutes was not operating 

 9 correctly. And I hope that it will remain on for the rest 

10 of the next -- of this day and tomorrow. 

11 Questions, comments from Board members. 

12 Ms. D'Adamo. 

13 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I'd like to compliment 

14 staff on its recommendations. I think that we need to be 

15 very committed. We need to move quickly. But we also, at 

16 the same time, need to be measured in how we move forward, 

17 and I really appreciate staff laying out the different 

18 groups and the timelines. 

19 And just sort of in follow-up to the previous 

20 discussion about staff resources, I, looking at slide 19, 

21 Group Two, Strategies for the Board Hearing and Board 

22 Hearings in 2008, I guess, initially, when I saw these 

23 different groupings, I understood that the groupings were 

24 in order of some type of time frame, but it actually 

25 appears that there's overlapping time frames within 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 82 

 1 groups. And, in fact, early action measures are going to 

 2 be adopted, the proposal is to adopt them in December, but 

 3 we would be moving forward on some of the Group Two items 

 4 prior to that. Could you explain how that fits in with 

 5 timeline with Group One? 

 6 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: You're correct 

 7 that they're overlapping. All of those July items are 

 8 non-regulatory. So they couldn't be in Group One even if 

 9 we wanted to put them there because there are not 

10 regulations. But they are very strongly desired by the 

11 affected stakeholders and so we have given them high 

12 priority. We do have a running start on most of them 

13 because the California Climate Action Registry has 

14 innovated these protocols and adapted some of them to the 

15 California situation. But we have to go through an 

16 additional public process of workshops in bringing them to 

17 your -- to you for final approve. And so we've scheduled 

18 that for July. And if we can get them here any sooner, we 

19 will. So that's why the July or earlier. 

20 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: So they're not regulatory, 

21 I see protocol under most of them. But are these watered 

22 down versions of what the Environmental Justice advocates 

23 are pushing for or were they actually pushing for 

24 protocols and other items that are non-regulatory in 

25 nature? 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 83 

 1 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: I don't remember 

 2 protocols being on the Environmental Justice Committee 

 3 list. They do have methane digesters on their list, but 

 4 their concern is not the protocol for how much methane is 

 5 controlled by a digester. They're concerned about what 

 6 the concurrent criteria pollutant emissions might be. And 

 7 so they have asked us not to issue a methane digester 

 8 protocol until such time as we have guidance on what would 

 9 constitute fact for those facilities because the protocol 

10 itself could encourage the deployment of the more 

11 digesters and potentially more emissions, is the concerns. 

12 So we have tasked the stationary source division with 

13 doing that work. 

14 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Johnson-Meszaros, do you 

15 want to comment on that? 

16 MS. JOHNSON-MESZAROS: We do support the protocol 

17 development that's been outlined, but we agree that it 

18 doesn't qualify as an early action because of the fact 

19 that it's not regulatory. So we definitely agree with 

20 that and we believe there's a large role for education and 

21 other kinds of efforts like that. 

22 On the methane digester, if I understand 

23 correctly with what Ms. Witherspoon just said, I don't 

24 believe that our Committee forwarded such concerns and I 

25 don't believe that we asked that that not be on -- not be 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 84 

 1 developed. We do believe that through the rulemaking 

 2 process, there has to be concern -- there has to be 

 3 attention paid to possible backsliding. We believe that 

 4 that can be developed and addressed in the rulemaking 

 5 process. 

 6 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: And just in follow-up, I 

 7 happen to know a bit about methane digesters and I do 

 8 think that we need to protocol, and it's just not ready 

 9 for full development in terms of a regulation. So just as 

10 an example, I think that points to our need to really get 

11 it right before we commit to adopting a regulation. So I 

12 think that this is probably a good approach. 

13 And, then, another question, on Group Three, 

14 again these items, some of them actually go before early 

15 action. And most of them, I suspect, are -- would be 

16 included in the SIP and would be enforceable through other 

17 mechanisms as well; correct? 

18 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: That is correct. 

19 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: And, then, the last 

20 question which is really more of a comment on the Low 

21 Carbon Fuel Standard, just would like to encourage staff, 

22 I support its inclusion as an early action item. But I do 

23 agree with some of the comments that I've received in 

24 separate discussions and the one Ms. Johnson raised 

25 regarding sustainability and think that we definitely need 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 85 

 1 to incorporate that into our evaluation and I know 

 2 Professor Sperling is looking closely at that as well. 

 3 Thank you. 

 4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Supervisor. 

 5 SUPERVISOR HILL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 6 Also kudos to the staff for an outstanding effort 

 7 and a tremendous amount of work over the last year in 

 8 putting together an outline in the different groups. 

 9 You know, however, looking at it, is somewhat of 

10 a disappointment in the fact that we are not including 

11 more items in the early action. And I know there's, the 

12 staff is looking at that, and I guess it's some 

13 clarification that I'm looking for. 

14 In listening to the presentation, we talked about 

15 the issues of, you know, the fact that we're hiring a 

16 hundred employees and the staff restrictions, some of them 

17 are not regulatory, and those issues were raised. But 

18 what were the criteria used to limit? I mean was it just 

19 the staff or in some of the regulations or the regulatory 

20 items or are there other items or reasons that the items 

21 were not included in Group One, rather than Group Two or 

22 Three? Besides the staff resource limitations that we 

23 had. 

24 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Well, the 

25 primary criteria were, one, we thought that the concept 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 86 

 1 could produce emission reductions, and do so in a pretty 

 2 substantial way. 

 3 Two, we understood it well enough to be, so that 

 4 we thought there was a clear route, at least a concept of 

 5 the regulation and how it might work. The details may 

 6 take forever, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. The details 

 7 are going to be the devil in that process and will take 

 8 tremendous amounts of time. 

 9 Number three, was that it stood on its own. So 

10 things that controlled carbon intensity of fuel or methane 

11 or refrigerants were attractive because those aren't good 

12 candidates, they're performance-based standards. 

13 And four, it didn't conflict with work going on 

14 in other sectors. So there are lots of ideas but what we 

15 do with electricity and what we do with refineries and 

16 what we do with oil production types of sources. And 

17 we're going to evaluate those as we figure out the scoping 

18 plan, and in that process, decide what's a 

19 performance-basis measure versus what's a candidate for 

20 our market system where we limit overall emissions. 

21 And we didn't have good ideas and couldn't tell 

22 you, for example, that for refineries, it's how big the 

23 reducing flaring or controlling methane leaks. We know 

24 they're not the major source. So those things seem to be 

25 deferred. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 87 

 1 And after you got to just the first through 

 2 measures, the amount of resources and the time it took was 

 3 all we could obligate ourselves to. We weren't satisfied 

 4 with that, either. So we vastly expanded the concept of 

 5 saying we're doing early action under the law, then early 

 6 action plus. And I think when you look at many of the 

 7 recommendations we've got from the EJ Committees and from 

 8 many others, there's a great deal of overlap there. And 

 9 it's really what's the time commitment and the legal 

10 vulnerability we're under? We're going to produce all of 

11 these things as fast and well as we can. And some of them 

12 that aren't expressed in this list will be done as part of 

13 the scoping plan. And with other agencies. 

14 SUPERVISOR HILL: And I noticed in the CAPCOA 

15 letter that was sent on May 14th outlines a number of 

16 issues, you know, prioritizing the SIP rulemaking, review 

17 existing rules for those benefits that can be derived from 

18 all feasible measures. And I thought the leverage of CEQA 

19 mitigations is something that, you know, I don't know if 

20 those can be included, but those are items that I think 

21 can capture a lot of emission reductions, as well as the 

22 voluntary reductions. You know, in San Mateo, or in the 

23 Silicon Valley, they've done tremendous things working 

24 with SYSCO and a lot of the companies that have reduced a 

25 tremendous amount of CO2 emissions over the last five 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 88 

 1 years. And, you know, I have hope, and I don't know how 

 2 those types of recommendations can be included as we move 

 3 forward as early as possible, because what I'd hate to see 

 4 happen is, as we saw the wonderful presentation on global 

 5 warming and the real sad situation that we find ourselves 

 6 in, I'd hate to see us at 2030, saying we didn't have the 

 7 resources back in 2007 to put towards this effort and 

 8 we're still going in the wrong direction. 

 9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: With respect to 

10 the letter from CAPCOA, we are relying on air districts, 

11 and the Bay Area Area District is a leader in this 

12 respect, to look back at the stationary source rules they 

13 have adopted and where they might embellish them to 

14 accomplish greenhouse gas reductions, and that would be a 

15 huge time saver from -- for us, if they do that. We can, 

16 then, convert it into regulations using the power that we 

17 have or air districts can do it themselves. 

18 On CEQA mitigation, there is a very lively dialog 

19 going on right now. The attorney general has brought suit 

20 against various jurisdictions in California for failure to 

21 consider greenhouse gases in 30 year general plans, for 

22 example. However, no one has a theory of the threshold of 

23 significance for greenhouse gas control, what constitutes 

24 appropriate mitigation, whether we should be handling this 

25 as a planning responsibility or project by project. And 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 89 

 1 we have a lot of concerns about where it's headed, and so 

 2 does the Governor's office. And, in fact, we have a 

 3 meeting with the attorney general on Monday to talk 

 4 through all of that. So we haven't haven't ignored these 

 5 proposals. 

 6 The one thing I do find very ironic and 

 7 concerning is that ARB was given the responsibility to 

 8 implement AB 32 because of our reputation for excellence. 

 9 And yet we're being asked to do things differently than we 

10 have done for the last 30 years. And I would hate to see 

11 us, in haste, put together ill-considered, legally 

12 vulnerable regulations with a great amount of discord from 

13 the stakeholder community. We have to work it through, so 

14 that they can endure, and so, unlike all of our other 

15 regs, except motor vehicle, we want them to inspire other 

16 states and nations to copy us, so they need to be clean. 

17 And appealing. And easy to implement. Because if the 

18 other nations don't follow us, we haven't saved the plant. 

19 So that's another one for our objectives. 

20 SUPERVISOR HILL: All right. Thank you. 

21 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Let me note that our web 

22 cast apparently is not up, as I've announced. But 

23 everything has been recorded. And will be available at a 

24 later time. I realize that that's a disappointment to the 

25 people who like to watch the web cast while we're going 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 90 

 1 on. 

 2 Is there any way to -- is there a message on the 

 3 site saying that it's down so that they know what's going 

 4 on. 

 5 Professor Sperling. 

 6 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Yes. You know, first, 

 7 I'd like to start by kind of taking the big picture here, 

 8 you know, responding to this question about how fast are 

 9 we moving and where we're going. 

10 Many of us are inpatient, you know. We'd like to 

11 see a lot of progress. And I have been one of those that 

12 have been impatient in terms of getting more items on the 

13 early action list and getting going. But it is also true 

14 that, as Ms. Witherspoon just said, you know, we got to 

15 make sure we do this right. And I'm, I have to say, I'm 

16 reassured that we are, that the ARB, the staff is gearing 

17 up. It is taking on, it is being trans -- the agency is 

18 being transformed, just like much of what our economy is 

19 going to be transformed over the next ten, 20, 30 years. 

20 And we need to make sure we do do it right. 

21 You know, we've had a bad experience in 

22 California a few years ago with the electricity 

23 deregulation. We want to make sure we do get it right 

24 this way. But, you know, on the other hand, we do need to 

25 push forward aggressively. There is a lot to do. And I 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 91 

 1 would like to just leave it, that one comment, I have some 

 2 other comments, but for this one comment is that, you 

 3 know, what we need to do is support the staff, work with 

 4 the staff, and that means, "we," I mean all of the 

 5 interest groups, stakeholders, all the people of 

 6 California because this is very hard. 

 7 And the second point that that leads to is that 

 8 this really is a team effort, here. This is not, you 

 9 know, you can't just say ARB has to do it. There's other 

10 agencies that have to do it. There's other stakeholders. 

11 And in the end, it's us as individuals. We have to 

12 recognize that the world is changing. And I mean that in 

13 several different levels. And we do need to be thinking 

14 about how do we -- how can we be more energy efficient, 

15 how can we use, adopt practices that are generating less 

16 carbon and less fluorocarbons and other greenhouse gases? 

17 And so, I mean, this is something that we're all 

18 in together here. And I think we need to understand that 

19 and proceed in that way. 

20 Now, let me address specifically the Low Carbon 

21 Fuel Standard since that's something I've devoted much of 

22 my life to over the last six months, is trying to help 

23 come up with recommendations on how to make that work. 

24 And, you know, out of it has come several lessons, and 

25 that is that when we try to do something different that 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 92 

 1 we've never done before, there's a lot of new inventing 

 2 that happens and there's a lot of concerns that none of us 

 3 can understand fully. So we've, the group of about 20 

 4 researchers that I've been working with from U.C., we've 

 5 been meeting with all the stakeholders. We've had long, 

 6 long meetings with the environmental groups, with the oil 

 7 companies, with the electric utilities. And spent a lot 

 8 of time trying to understand how can we do this in a way 

 9 that is cost-effective, that is effective? 

10 And, but it's something that we need to 

11 understand. This is a broad comment for all of what we're 

12 doing is, we need to be encouraging innovation. And 

13 really, we're in this for the long haul. And so I think 

14 we need to be careful about this cost-effectiveness 

15 argument, because what's cost-effective today is not 

16 what's cost-effective in five years or ten years. And 

17 that's what we need to be thinking about. How do we spur 

18 innovation? And it's innovation by individuals, by 

19 companies, by agencies and how to do that. 

20 So with the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, we've come 

21 up, I think, with an idea here, we, broadly speaking, 

22 which is a broad, durable framework for moving towards a 

23 low carbon future. It's not perfect. In theory, you 

24 know, I've got some economists on our staff, they're 

25 telling us, you know, there's theoretically better ways to 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 93 

 1 do it. But in practice, I've been convinced it's the most 

 2 effective strategy that we can use to get major reductions 

 3 in carbon in the transportation sector. 

 4 Now, you know, to specifically respond to some of 

 5 the concerns from the Environmental Justice Committee, you 

 6 know, we do want to do it in a way that's sustainable. We 

 7 don't want, you know, backsliding on air pollution or 

 8 other environmental impacts. That's certainly not the 

 9 effect. But it can be designed, and the recommendations 

10 that our team has come up with are structured in such a 

11 way that there should be essentially no -- none of this -- 

12 there wouldn't be any backsliding. To take the air 

13 pollution, in fact, with the air pollution there will be 

14 benefits because the point of it is to switch to electric 

15 options and other low carbon and low polluting options. 

16 So to the extent it's effective, it's actually going to 

17 reduce air -- conventional air pollution and local air 

18 pollution, because even where you have more electricity 

19 used, most of it is in relatively remote areas. And 

20 you're taking away the pollution from the diesel vehicles 

21 and the gasoline vehicles that are close to where people 

22 live. So the exposure should go down. 

23 And there should be little or no effect on food 

24 because the way it will be structured is there's a carbon 

25 metric, the whole point of this is reducing carbon. And 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 94 

 1 the one food concern we have is with corn ethanol and 

 2 almost no one I know in California -- well, I shouldn't -- 

 3 that's overstating it. Most of us are skeptical of corn 

 4 ethanol. And, in fact, the way the carbon metric is setup 

 5 is that corn ethanol only has a very small benefit in 

 6 terms of greenhouse gases. So there will be very little 

 7 incentive to use corn ethanol through the Low Carbon Fuel 

 8 Standard and, therefore, almost no effect on food. 

 9 And the focus of it is the energy options that 

10 provide large reduction, the cellulosic options, which is 

11 not food, and, in fact, a lot of waste materials and other 

12 options, but not on food. 

13 So there -- you know, it's legitimate to raise 

14 these questions, but I think in the end they are very 

15 minor considerations and that the overall benefit of this 

16 is so huge and it's so important to the future of 

17 California and the world. And I note that the European 

18 Union is adopting something very similar to this. We're 

19 working closely with them. We're working in Washington, 

20 helping them build in carbon metrics into all of their 

21 programs. 

22 So, you know, just to summarize, this is 

23 something that is very important. It's one of those rare 

24 times where we come up with an idea that really is broad 

25 and durable and really can have a revolutionary affect on 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 95 

 1 how we deal with our transportation sector. And the 

 2 co-benefits here are huge. And it's not just, it reduces 

 3 air pollution, conventional air pollution, local air 

 4 pollution, and it reduces oil imports. And oil 

 5 consumption in the world, which will lead to all kind of 

 6 other benefits. 

 7 So if there was ever a good idea, and that I've 

 8 come across, you know, this is it. 

 9 Sorry for talking so much. 

10 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 

11 Ms. Kennard. 

12 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Thank you, Dr. Sawyer. 

13 I actually have a very simple process question. 

14 And the first one is to Ms. Johnson-Meszaros. 

15 In your presentation, you alluded to some 

16 alternatives to the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Of course, 

17 you weren't very specific for good reason of time. But I 

18 wanted to make sure that each of those initiatives that 

19 the EJ Committee proposed were, in fact, in your mind, 

20 adequately analyzed by staff. 

21 MS. JOHNSON-MESZAROS: For the Low Carbon Fuel 

22 Standard? 

23 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: The alternatives to -- you 

24 alluded to some, some alternatives to those. 

25 MS. JOHNSON-MESZAROS: I think that we alluded to 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 96 

 1 alternatives for HFC reductions and not for the Low Carbon 

 2 Fuel Standard. Our recommendation on the Low Carbon Fuel 

 3 Standard is that it move forward because we agree, that 

 4 it's a good idea and it's got a lot of possible benefits, 

 5 if done correctly. But we don't have an alternative to 

 6 that. 

 7 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: I apologize. On your 

 8 slide, on your slide, it recommends four things. Your 

 9 third bullet is to replace the Low Carbon Fuel Standard -- 

10 MS. JOHNSON-MESZAROS: Oh, yes. 

11 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: -- with, with 

12 alternatives. And, perhaps, I'm confused. 

13 MS. JOHNSON-MESZAROS: I'm sorry. So what we're 

14 recommending is, we recommended a series of possible 

15 actions that we've taken from the staff's report, the 

16 things that are outlined in Group Two. And so essentially 

17 what we're recommending is that for the effort that would 

18 be spent on the compressed time frame for developing the 

19 Low Carbon Fuel Standard, that the staff go back and 

20 prioritize those measures that are in the Group Two table, 

21 that have also co-pollutant reduction benefits, and we 

22 think the highest candidates for those would be those 

23 measures that impact the ports, the refineries, the cement 

24 industry, and the energy infrastructure. And to move 

25 those items onto, onto the early action list. That way, 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 97 

 1 you'd be able to get reductions -- you assure reductions 

 2 in the early action process. And also combined with the 

 3 idea of having the broader list, the more robust list, 

 4 will allow development of measures, and if some have to 

 5 moved off the list because they don't meet the 

 6 cost-effectiveness standard or run into other problems at 

 7 the end of the early action period, you will be working on 

 8 a sufficient mix of things that are fully developed, 

 9 things that you can do in partnership with others, things 

10 that have high reduction potential, that at the end of the 

11 period, you actually have reductions that will be 

12 implemented. 

13 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Thank you. 

14 And so my second question is to staff as to 

15 whether or not these recommendations were clearly 

16 identified enough for you to evaluate their feasibility? 

17 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yes, they were. 

18 And at any time that the Board wishes, we can go through 

19 the specific 34 measures that came to us from the 

20 Environmental Justice Committee and talk about our review 

21 of each one. 

22 But just on this point of replacing Low Carbon 

23 Fuel Standard with essentially measures that are more 

24 oriented to diesel control and criteria pollutant control, 

25 they don't come close and the kinds of tonnages we're 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 98 

 1 after, the estimated benefit from low carbon fuel is ten 

 2 to 20 million metric tons. Of the alternatives 

 3 recommended here, the only one we were able to quantify is 

 4 port electrification and that's half a ton. 

 5 So we don't have an estimate for refinery or the 

 6 cement measures, which are essentially energy efficiency 

 7 at cement plants. And they would have something on that 

 8 order, but we don't know exactly, they would not approach 

 9 ten to 20 million metric tons. 

10 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Thank you very much. 

11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Mrs. Riordan. 

12 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Yes. Both presentations 

13 were excellent. Appreciated the Committee very much. 

14 Let me ask a question, and I think it was said, 

15 and I'm not sure that I heard the exact on landfill 

16 methane capture. Of the landfills that California has, 

17 how many are, at this point, just really unregulated. 

18 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: By number, 

19 it's a minority. By size of waste in them, it's a very, 

20 very small minority, in terms of ones that do not have to 

21 have collection systems in place. 

22 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Okay. 

23 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: But our 

24 measure is looking at two things. One is seeing whether 

25 or not, with the global warming concern, it makes sense to 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 99 

 1 say no, those smaller landfills that didn't seem to pose a 

 2 threat before, have cost-effective emission reductions. 

 3 And, second, when you look at the, one, the 

 4 existing inventory comes mostly from controlled landfills 

 5 and the number is quite large, so our -- and the 

 6 differences in the estimates from the landfills varies 

 7 tremendously from area to area. 

 8 So it looks to us like there is a likely case 

 9 where we will go in and find a number of things. One is 

10 we will improve the emission estimate. And, two, we will 

11 likely find ways of reducing emissions at the existing 

12 landfills and doing that fairly quickly. 

13 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Okay. 

14 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Ms. Riordan, the 

15 Executive Director of the California Integrated Waste 

16 Management Board is here today. He's the first speaker on 

17 the witness list. 

18 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Oh, oh, I didn't look at 

19 the list. 

20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: And I'm sure 

21 he'll be happy to elaborate on what Mr. Scheible just 

22 said. 

23 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Okay. 

24 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: And it's very 

25 much a partnership with them, and what we have now under 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 100 

 1 AB 32 is some authority that we can use, together with 

 2 their authority to, we believe, more effectively control 

 3 methane from landfills. 

 4 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Well, as Dr. Sperling 

 5 said, in the category of the low carbon fuels and 

 6 co-benefits that may come. And I see the same thing with 

 7 working with our landfills because I think the use of 

 8 methane gas could be, you know, something that we would 

 9 like to explore opportunities. There's, in my mind, some 

10 real opportunities for that, that may be not known today, 

11 but as we look at it in the future, it could be very, very 

12 helpful. 

13 I would also like to encourage staff, when I 

14 looked at your protocols, the forestry protocol is one the 

15 Registry looked at and it's pretty well along. You might 

16 want to bring that on early so we all get some practice at 

17 how to deal with a protocol and how the Board would 

18 respond and the stakeholders. And I think it would be a 

19 good example to work with because it's pretty well sorted 

20 out, in my mind, at this point in time. And so give it a 

21 try. 

22 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: That was actually 

23 our favorite one along with methane digesters and we 

24 wanted to bring it to you before the end of this year. 

25 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Great. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 101 

 1 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Other issues have 

 2 arisen since then. And so the initial step on the 

 3 forestry protocol is a full-day symposium in November, at 

 4 which time everyone will become educated about what's in 

 5 the protocol and what are the issues about it. And then 

 6 we'll bring it to the Board. 

 7 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Great. 

 8 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: And all of the 

 9 stakeholders are very glad that we're doing that process 

10 first. 

11 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Right. Because that would 

12 be a a good example and one to really work on as a -- 

13 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We agree. 

14 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: -- kind of a first, first 

15 out of the box. 

16 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Supervisor Case. 

17 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Yes. I, too, would like to 

18 say that the presentations were very thorough and helpful. 

19 I really appreciate all the work that you've done going 

20 forward. And I also would like to say thank you to the 

21 Environmental Justice Advisory Committee for all the hard 

22 work you've done in tracking this. 

23 I really appreciated your PowerPoint that you 

24 gave for us to take a look at what were the concerns of 

25 your Committee and how we can move forward. When I read 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 102 

 1 the proposals for items to be included, I was also struck 

 2 with all the eggs in one basket phenomenon, that it did 

 3 seem we had 20 million metric equivalents in that one 

 4 basket and one here, and the numbers were smaller for the 

 5 other two proposals. 

 6 So that being said, I'd kind of like to hear a 

 7 staff reaction. Is it because you see it as something 

 8 that the further you get into it, the broader the 

 9 implications and the potential benefits to doing it? And 

10 I also understand there's huge co-benefit potential with 

11 that, and as a resident of San Joaquin Valley, we're 

12 looking for every opportunity we can with the problems 

13 with air pollution in the region. 

14 But, I guess, just in terms of a response, 

15 because I think what the Committee brought forward really 

16 some reasonableness to it. 

17 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Supervisor Case, 

18 one of the things we didn't present to you today is what 

19 the other Climate Action Team members are doing. And so 

20 for the Air Resources Board alone, our two largest levers 

21 are cars, which we've already regulated, and fuels, which 

22 we're proposing to regulate. And then there's a galaxy of 

23 refrigerant related measures where the next biggest set of 

24 tons are, commercial refrigeration is the next one down 

25 the list. And every thing else, as you've pointed out, is 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 103 

 1 small. 

 2 With our sister agencies, the energy measures are 

 3 the most powerful and there's 40-odd tons associated with 

 4 those. With forestry, if we can improve sequestration, 

 5 there's 20 to 30 tons there. With better land use and 

 6 reduced vehicle travel, there's another 15, 20 tons there. 

 7 That's something that business, transportation, and 

 8 housing and Caltrans are working on, and, yesterday, I was 

 9 at a workshop they held with metropolitan planning 

10 agencies to talk through those possibilities. You know, 

11 how we lay out communities such that people don't have to 

12 drive as much. Because if you think about all of it, we 

13 need to use 25 percent less electricity, 25 percent less 

14 fuel, 25 percent less water, where water needs to be 

15 pumped and consumes electricity. Those are sort of the 

16 main objectives of this climate change work. And it's in 

17 every place you can imagine. 

18 So we don't have an empty basket. We have a lot 

19 of partners working with us, and one correction to staff 

20 presentation, the public workshop in Sacramento is 

21 actually next Tuesday, not Monday. And we'll be there 

22 with our partners going through all of their strategies as 

23 well. 

24 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Well, the other item that is 

25 in a lot of the comments that were made, in writing, was 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 104 

 1 in regards to the refrigerants, looking at alternative 

 2 strategies potentially. Will we be getting move 

 3 information on that as we move forward? 

 4 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yes, you will. 

 5 In the staff presentation, we noted that both the industry 

 6 and the Environmental Justice Committee propose 

 7 alternatives to the ban that we were recommending. And so 

 8 we're not taking 134a in existing cars off the list. But 

 9 we're leaving open what kind of regulation we'll bring 

10 back to you next fall. 

11 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Okay. And then the last 

12 comment, I think it's been said by several over Board 

13 members in terms of looking at, out of the other items, 

14 the forestry protocol adoption appears to be close, that 

15 those items might actually be moving forward in terms of 

16 meeting some of the same deadlines or very close to the 

17 same deadlines, if it's possible to be able to make those, 

18 so we get everything included we possibly can. 

19 Thank you, Dr. Sawyer. 

20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Supervisor Hill. 

21 SUPERVISOR HILL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

22 Again, thank you to the Environmental Justice 

23 Advisory Committee for the suggestions, and especially the 

24 discrete early action measures that were suggested by the 

25 Committee. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 105 

 1 As we did last week in Fresno with the 

 2 San Joaquin SIP, it was kind of a nice exercise and effort 

 3 to, for the staff to, may be during the testimony, to go 

 4 through the 34 items that they have listed and, perhaps 

 5 briefly, give us an explanation or a status of where these 

 6 will fall into, either early action or early action plus 

 7 as we move forward. I think that would be very helpful 

 8 for us to see exactly how they fit it into the program. 

 9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We would like to 

10 do that now, and if we could bring those slides up, 

11 Mr. Scheible is going to work through the 34 proposals. 

12 SUPERVISOR HILL: You're one step ahead of me, as 

13 always. 

14 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: You know, I think we're 

15 reaching the point where we really need to take a break. 

16 And so why don't we take a ten-minute break now, then 

17 we'll come back and deal with the 34 items. Thank you. 

18 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) 

19 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Mr. Scheible, we'll resume 

20 with your presentation. 

21 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Okay. Thank 

22 you. If you start the three-minute clock now, I'll try to 

23 do this expeditiously, with the caveat that I'm not going 

24 to do justice to, obviously, to all of the proposals 

25 because the amount of time doesn't allow it. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 106 

 1 And I'm also working off the list that says, "ARB 

 2 Discrete Early Action Measures as Proposed by the 

 3 Environmental Justice Advisory Committee," by number. 

 4 So the first one's easy, Landfill Methane 

 5 Capture. We both agree that should be an early action 

 6 measure. 

 7 --o0o-- 

 8 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Number two is 

 9 additional reductions in HFC emissions from various 

10 aspects of refrigeration. We intend to go through the 

11 entire list of areas where refrigerants are leaking out. 

12 We just couldn't see doing all of that in time for early 

13 action. 

14 --o0o-- 

15 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Manure 

16 management is on our list as a level two. 

17 --o0o-- 

18 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Reducing 

19 venting and leaks from oil and gas systems. The Public 

20 Utilities Commission has an open proceeding looking at the 

21 nature gas sector and that's going to be a major aspect of 

22 their rulemaking. We are fully participating in terms of 

23 reducing leaks with the delivery of natural gas on the oil 

24 systems for production activity. The oil production 

25 sector is a major sector we're going to look at as we're 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 107 

 1 doing the scoping plan to try to determine what we can do 

 2 with performance-based measures and what we can do with a 

 3 possible market system. 

 4 I'm going to ask Tom to address number five and 

 5 six, heavy-duty vehicle emission efficiency and cool 

 6 automotive paints. 

 7 --o0o-- 

 8 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: On 

 9 improving proving the efficiency of heavy-duty on-road 

10 trucks, we are looking at that as part of the retrofit 

11 rule. And so we will be, hopefully, coming and proposing 

12 something to you next, mid-next year. And it's not on the 

13 early action list because we're not clear at this point 

14 whether it would be a regulatory thing or whether we could 

15 also -- we're also looking at financial incentives. 

16 --o0o-- 

17 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: On cool 

18 automobile paints, we've done quite a bit of work. We 

19 have a staff person working on that already. But as we've 

20 worked on it, we found that there may be more 

21 opportunities to get larger reductions by using better 

22 glass in cars and also by downsizing the air conditioner. 

23 So we may have more opportunity there, but those do have a 

24 little bit of complexity which make them somewhat unlikely 

25 to be done by the -- 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 108 

 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Would you say a little bit 

 2 more about how that particular one is better handled 

 3 independent of what we're doing under PAVLY. 

 4 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Well, 

 5 when we first, Commissioner Rosenfeld at the Energy 

 6 Commission is an advocate of cool everything, and he's 

 7 done a tremendous amount of work on this pioneering work. 

 8 And so when we first came to our attention, it was to be 

 9 able to use a different kind of paint that basically 

10 results in less heat gain inside the car. And that's what 

11 we started working on. 

12 And so that looked like simple, straightforward, 

13 no need to integrate it with any other kind of rule. 

14 Could be done as a stand-up regulation. But as we got 

15 into it, we identified other opportunities as well. It 

16 doesn't really -- it could be included in a PAVLY-type 

17 thing, but it also, I think, merits stand-alone 

18 regulation. There's not an obvious synergy of putting 

19 them together. 

20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: And this is existing 

21 technology for which the scientific understanding is 

22 sound? 

23 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Yes. 

24 We did due diligence on it, which is why it was on the 

25 table two, because we haven't done that yet. And for the 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 109 

 1 paint alone, it, we seem to think we have almost all of 

 2 the information that we need to move forward. 

 3 But on the glass, you know, sort of the kind of 

 4 high tech glass you have in your houses can be used on 

 5 cars and we're looking at how the lower heat load would 

 6 allow the air conditioner be smaller which gives you more 

 7 CO2 reductions from the actual operation of the air 

 8 conditioner. That interaction, I think, is a little bit 

 9 more complicated, less available information, and would 

10 take more data gathering, therefore, we think we won't be 

11 able to do it into 2009. 

12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: On the other hand, I believe 

13 that there are companies marketing low transivity glass 

14 for motor vehicles to the auto industry right now. 

15 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Yes. 

16 In fact, it's used on some cars, PBG is doing it. It's 

17 really the, I think the biggest piece is trying to figure 

18 out how it all interacts with the amount of cooling needed 

19 for the cars, to make sure what we do wouldn't end up with 

20 cars that don't satisfy the customers because they're too 

21 hot. 

22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Sure. So are there gains 

23 independent of downsizing the air conditioning system? I 

24 assume the air conditioning system would work less if you 

25 had such paint and glazing on automobiles. Even if it 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 110 

 1 weren't downsized. 

 2 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Yes. 

 3 It would work less, which is where you get -- where we've 

 4 calculated the initial, from the paint, the initial one to 

 5 two megatons in reduction is just from not turning it on 

 6 because the car never got hot enough with this cool paint. 

 7 But if you can downsize it, then you can make the air 

 8 conditioner work more efficiently, because you really want 

 9 it to work almost all the time when it is needed and 

10 that's where you can gain some additional efficiency 

11 gains. 

12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: And cool paints, is that a 

13 technology which limits the consumer's choice of color. 

14 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: No, 

15 there's cool black and there's cool white, so it's 

16 everything in between. 

17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 

18 --o0o-- 

19 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Okay. Number 

20 seven was port electrification. We're actually working on 

21 that on three fronts. One, we're working with the ports 

22 of L.A. and Long Beach in their extensive effort to put 

23 that into their lease agreements and to provide for that 

24 through their tariffs. 

25 Second, we think that's a candidate, attractive 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 111 

 1 candidate for bond funding as we go ahead for other ports 

 2 in other areas and also in the port of L.A. 

 3 And, third, in all likelihood, we will bring you 

 4 a regulatory proposal that says if these facilities exist 

 5 and you have a ship that otherwise comes frequently, 

 6 you're going to be obligated to do it. It's not 

 7 attractive as early action because it's probably going to 

 8 not be cost-effective as a CO2 emission reduction measure, 

 9 but we'll have great co-benefits once we do it for NOx and 

10 smog and PM reductions. 

11 --o0o-- 

12 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Truck stop 

13 electrification -- no, wait a minute. Excuse me. 

14 Number eight, is transportation refrigeration 

15 electric standby. We investigated that when we did the 

16 rulemaking for the TRU rules, and we'll look at it again 

17 in light of global warming. It was, again, a costly 

18 proposition because of, it's very expensive to install the 

19 electrical power. If you a unit and it can be hooked in, 

20 it ought to be. So we'll have to look at that one more 

21 time. 

22 Also, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard may provide 

23 some additional incentive because if you switch to 

24 electricity rather than diesel fuel, you would be 

25 generating credits under the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 112 

 1 --o0o-- 

 2 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Truck stop 

 3 electrification, largely that's been -- emission 

 4 reductions have been accomplishing because the Board 

 5 requires, starting next year, that overnight trucks do not 

 6 use their main engines unless they meet stringent emission 

 7 control criteria. 

 8 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We're also 

 9 working with Board Member Dee Dee D'Adamo to accomplish 

10 more incentive funding for the installation of electrified 

11 truck stops so that truckers have access to these. 

12 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Thank you. 

13 I've got to say, to implement that rule, we'll look at how 

14 to do electrification and other options. 

15 --o0o-- 

16 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Tire 

17 inflation programs is on the list of, in our Group Two 

18 measures and we're trying to figure out the right mix of 

19 public information requirements that that information be 

20 presented at the pumps or some sort of compulsory program 

21 that when your car gets serviced, the tires, and the car 

22 leaves, we know the tires are inflated. 

23 Tom, could you address number 11 and 12. I think 

24 both of them are ongoing as part of our efforts. 

25 --o0o-- 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 113 

 1 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Right. 

 2 We already, for low GWP refrigerants in motor vehicles, we 

 3 already have credits built into the Pavley program. So 

 4 right now, it serves as an alternative to reducing CO2 

 5 from the tailpipe. But as we go to Pavley Two, which is 

 6 going to be in the, something in the 2010 time frame, 

 7 we'll look at whether these refrigerants should just be 

 8 mandated. And there's a lot of development of new 

 9 refrigerants going on, so it's worthy to take the time to 

10 see what actually is coming out in the marketplace. 

11 --o0o-- 

12 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: And on 

13 the leak tightness, sort of an air conditioning check for, 

14 to be performed during smog check, that -- we don't really 

15 have good instrumentation yet to do that or not 

16 well-proven instrumentation. So there's a little bit of 

17 development time there. And, quite frankly, that 

18 department does regulations on a different schedule than 

19 we do, that doesn't suggest that early action is possible. 

20 --o0o-- 

21 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: On the waffle 

22 mat system for concrete slab foundations, that's a new 

23 idea, sounds to me like something we should put in to our 

24 local government development protocol, because as 

25 development goes ahead, that might be a way of saving the 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 114 

 1 amount of concrete used and have other benefits. So we'll 

 2 be looking at many ideas like that. 

 3 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: And the 

 4 California Building Industry Coalition Pollution 

 5 Association, is working on an analysis of the carbon 

 6 footprint of new housing, and they're coming to see us in 

 7 the next two weeks. And so we're going to add to this to 

 8 their list of investigations, the concrete system under 

 9 the house. 

10 --o0o-- 

11 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Number 14 is 

12 demonstrate use of shore side generators to bridge 

13 electrical hookups. These would be for ships that call 

14 infrequently and would be a lower cost way of providing 

15 shore power. We're participating in a project to figure 

16 out how much that costs demonstrate the technology and it 

17 will likely be incorporated as part of our effort in the 

18 rulemaking for port electrification. 

19 --o0o-- 

20 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Green ship 

21 incentive program is something where we've put forth what 

22 we think the future ships should look like in goods 

23 movement plans, so we'll handle it under there. 

24 --o0o-- 

25 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Anti-idling 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 115 

 1 requirement for cargo handling equipment at ports. This 

 2 would be a very small measure, but it may make sense so 

 3 we'll to look at it as part of our ongoing diesel 

 4 reduction plan. 

 5 --o0o-- 

 6 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: And the same 

 7 thing requiring electrification of construction equipment 

 8 at urban sites. I think that will be covered in some 

 9 extent under the construction rule as a credit. And, 

10 also, again, it's a candidate for the Low Carbon Fuel 

11 Standard, in that we will be, in that effort, encouraging 

12 the use of lower carbon fuels and electricity as a great 

13 option in the heavy-duty arena. 

14 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: You 

15 skipped 17. 

16 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: I skipped 17. 

17 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: You 

18 want me to do that one? 

19 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Sure. 

20 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: On 17, 

21 it's electrification of airport ground support equipment, 

22 like baggage tugs and push back equipment. And right now, 

23 because of an earlier MOU and then ultimately a 

24 regulation, we're already at 35 percent in the Los Angeles 

25 area, at least of equipment is now electrified. And 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 116 

 1 there's an upper limit because the electrification just is 

 2 not, doesn't serve the duty cycle for some of the types of 

 3 equipment that's being used. So while there might be some 

 4 more that can be done to push there, I don't -- that 

 5 wasn't one that came real high on our priority list. 

 6 --o0o-- 

 7 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Number 19, 

 8 Tom. 

 9 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Oh, 

10 missed that one. Didn't have that one marked. 

11 --o0o-- 

12 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: We're 

13 looking at the issue of whether a CO2 standard for what 

14 medium-duty trucks, it's like the delivery truck category, 

15 FedEx-type trucks in, of that size, urban trucks, whether 

16 or not we could require hydroelectric technology which 

17 would typically give you 25 or greater percent reduction 

18 in CO2. 

19 Right now, the technology in that sector is just 

20 emerging. Unlike in cars where it's commercial. And 

21 we're having to look at the costs, which are very high 

22 right now, and how quickly they'll come down. And so our 

23 assessment, that we couldn't really come up with the good 

24 information and there's not enough time to allow the 

25 technology to drop in costs within the sort of 18-month 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 117 

 1 period that we've been talking about for early action. 

 2 But we will pursue this one, one way or the other. 

 3 --o0o-- 

 4 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Okay. Number 

 5 20 and 21 both effect the cement industry. 

 6 That is, again, another major sector in terms of 

 7 the industrial sector that contributes global warming 

 8 gases in California. So we're going to be looking at that 

 9 as we develop the scoping plan to say what are the 

10 opportunities, what are the best performers, where can 

11 emissions be accomplished, and what should be done to 

12 performance standards versus what should be done by 

13 placing a cap on the emissions from the industry. 

14 --o0o-- 

15 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Number 22 is 

16 a similar measure in terms of energy saving measures for 

17 power plants. That, and I'll mention later on several 

18 other measures, are all in our effort with the California 

19 Energy Commission and the Public Utility Commission to 

20 design a system of saying what is the performance that can 

21 be expected and emission reductions that can be had out of 

22 the utility sector and the electric generation. 

23 So we're very reluctant to take one-on-one 

24 proposals forth because that has to be treated as a system 

25 where we do energy efficiency, renewable portfolio, back 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 118 

 1 out use of coal resources, and keep the lights on all at 

 2 the same time. And upgrading power plants and things like 

 3 that will be a primary consideration in how emissions 

 4 could be reduced and system reliability could be improved. 

 5 --o0o-- 

 6 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Number 24 is 

 7 accelerate the replacement of cargo handling equipment at 

 8 the ports. We would have to revisit our rule to do that. 

 9 But quite frankly, the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach 

10 are working very hard to do that as part of their lease 

11 agreement. So we'll work on that effort with them. 

12 --o0o-- 

13 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Number 25, 

14 enclose dairy barns to capture methane. We think that 

15 that's probably a pretty small measure because the vast 

16 majority of dairy cattle are not in enclosed facilities 

17 anymore. They're in large, large feed operations, so, and 

18 we're going to look at the methane manure management and 

19 then methane digesters. So that whole industry is being 

20 covered through other efforts. 

21 --o0o-- 

22 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Adopt South 

23 Coast and San Joaquin rules on enclosed compacting, 

24 composting facilities. We'll have to work with those 

25 districts and do a cost assessment to see whether or not 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 119 

 1 those rules could pass as a CO2 reduction measure or 

 2 methane reduction measure. 

 3 We can probably incorporate some of that effort, 

 4 it's a landfill measure, but I don't think we can commit 

 5 to doing it as a regulation until we learn more. 

 6 --o0o-- 

 7 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Number 27, 

 8 the phase out of older power plants. And, again, that's 

 9 in the electricity sector work that we're doing with the 

10 PUC and the CEC. 

11 --o0o-- 

12 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: The same is 

13 true of number 28. And I just need to note that there 

14 really isn't any base load generation being done with oil 

15 in California. The plants that have the capability of 

16 using oil, use it only when natural gas is curtailed and 

17 it's a very, very small percentage of their operation and 

18 not something we can take on without severely impacting 

19 reliability when we have cold spells and those types of 

20 instances. But I think as a goal, we would agree that we 

21 need to get the cleaner fuel substituted for those plants. 

22 --o0o-- 

23 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Number 29 

24 affects refineries and we're working at that in the 

25 refining sector as we put together the scoping plan. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 120 

 1 --o0o-- 

 2 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: The same with 

 3 number 30. 

 4 --o0o-- 

 5 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Number 31 is 

 6 the same industry sector. So that will be looked at 

 7 comprehensively. 

 8 --o0o-- 

 9 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: And number 32 

10 is the same. 

11 --o0o-- 

12 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Thirty-three 

13 looks at oil production sites. And that, as I said 

14 before, is a major source to, the fifth major source 

15 category and we will be looking at oil production 

16 holistically so say what can we do, are there ways we can 

17 more efficiently inject steam into wells and lower CO2 

18 emission reductions and what's the right mix of 

19 performance standards versus a cap on the sector. 

20 --o0o-- 

21 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: And number 34 

22 is the same one. 

23 So again, I apologize, I really can't, in the 

24 time, do justice to all of those, but I think, as you can 

25 see, all of the ideas are in our process in one way or the 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 121 

 1 other. And most of them are in it so that we can be 

 2 pretty definitive by the end of next year in telling you 

 3 the type of approach we intend to take, if we find there 

 4 are substantial emission reductions and opportunities to 

 5 proceed. 

 6 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 

 7 I must say that I'm struck by the number of items 

 8 on this list and the potential of most of them to provide 

 9 substantial reductions. 

10 Many of them involve electrification. And I 

11 think those that involve electrification immediately bring 

12 up the issue of co-benefits and how we deal with that. 

13 Since there is no price at the present time on CO2, but we 

14 do have guidelines for NOx, for example, the number of 

15 dollars per ton that we think are reasonable for making 

16 the cost -- for making effectiveness assessments, how are 

17 we going to resolve this issue of co-benefits, and it 

18 seems like we should count the benefits of both, for the 

19 cost-effective -- in working out the cost-effectiveness, 

20 that we shouldn't have to meet cost-effective standards 

21 alone for CO2 or NOx, for example. 

22 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Well, I think 

23 we agree. And it may well turn out that the, even if you 

24 assign no benefits to CO2s, many of these measures would 

25 be carried by their benefits for smog reduction or diesel 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 122 

 1 exhaust reduction. It's just a new criteria that we have 

 2 to apply. If something didn't quite make it for the smog 

 3 controls or it could be done a little bit more, in light 

 4 of the global warming controls, that would be a new effort 

 5 we'd have to do in the policies the Board would have to 

 6 make in terms of determining what's -- how to split those 

 7 benefits. 

 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: And you'll be bringing that 

 9 to us, I suspect. 

10 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Yes. We'll 

11 be looking for your advise on that. 

12 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Chairman, can I add to 

13 that. 

14 CHAIRMAN SAWYER: Sure. 

15 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: I think this question is 

16 so central to this whole initiative. You know, I think 

17 you bring up one point and I want to add another that I 

18 referred to a bit before is, we need to think about this 

19 concept of cost-effectiveness much more broadly and much 

20 more fundamentally than we have before, because there's 

21 two parts there. 

22 One is, you know, what you're talking about, 

23 Mike, and that is that there are these strong, large 

24 co-benefits. And it's not, there's conventional, you 

25 know, there's criteria pollutants in transportation. You 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 123 

 1 know, there's congestion. You know, the reason why we're 

 2 going to have to demand management and reduce vehicle 

 3 miles traveled in transportation is going to be as much or 

 4 more so because of these congestion externalities that 

 5 we've been measuring for years. And, you know, now 

 6 they're starting to use pricing and other mechanisms to 

 7 internalize those externalities. 

 8 So somehow, I think we've got to sit down and 

 9 think through this whole concept of cost-effectiveness, 

10 not only in terms of these, you know, we'll call them 

11 co-benefits for now. You know, all of these externalities 

12 that have not been internalized into the market. And 

13 energy security is part of it, of course, also. 

14 But also this idea of innovation. We've got to 

15 bring that in here because we're talking, in many of these 

16 technologies and many of these practices, doing it very 

17 differently. And we need new practices, new innovations, 

18 new technologies, and ways of doing things. And we can't, 

19 you know, if you tried to analyze what are those costs 

20 today, you'll come up with a very high number. If you say 

21 what will be those costs after we learn by doing and 

22 create the institutional ways of handling it as industry 

23 invests in them, those costs are going to come down. You 

24 know, we've seen with air pollution in vehicles, you know, 

25 now we're spending the same amount for air pollution in 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 124 

 1 our vehicles today as we did 25 years ago, even though the 

 2 vehicles are, you know, 80 percent cleaner, 80, 90 percent 

 3 cleaner than they were because of innovation. 

 4 And so somehow, we've got to figure out a better 

 5 way. And I think that something -- it's going to be hard, 

 6 but I think we need a new framework to use in 

 7 understanding and analyzing this concept of 

 8 cost-effectiveness. And I don't have an answer. But I 

 9 know the question. 

10 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: SUPERVISOR Hill. 

11 SUPERVISOR HILL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My 

12 thanks very much for the analysis of these. 

13 I had a quick question for Tom and, then, if it 

14 would be possible for Ms. Johnson to kind of briefly 

15 respond to these, to the analysis we just heard, I would 

16 appreciate it. 

17 Tom, you mentioned under item number 17, the 

18 electrification of airport ground support equipment, and 

19 you talked specifically of the MOU against with LAX. Are 

20 there other MOUs, other airports around the state, that 

21 apply to that or what are we doing with those airports? 

22 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: No, it 

23 was an MOU that applied to the airports of the Los Angeles 

24 area. It's actually no longer in effect because the other 

25 party walked away from it and then we recaptured the 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 125 

 1 benefit through a regulation, the Board adopted a year and 

 2 a half ago or so. And so it is in place. But we were 

 3 able to look at what had happened while the MOU was in 

 4 place and it was, they had exceeded the original target of 

 5 30 percent. And we didn't see why it wouldn't continue to 

 6 increase once the infrastructure is in, up to some level 

 7 that would match where the electricity can do the job and 

 8 where it can't. 

 9 SUPERVISOR HILL: Right. Is that something that 

10 can be implemented elsewhere, at other airports. Who 

11 would require that? 

12 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Yeah, 

13 right now, that's not required -- well, yeah, it is, it's 

14 not required elsewhere. And, but if you look at 

15 Sacramento, for example, next time up you'll see that they 

16 use a large fraction of electric, and you really notice it 

17 at Burbank here, too, where you're close to the airplanes, 

18 you can see it. So it's starting to happen on its own. 

19 SUPERVISOR HILL: And is that something that 

20 could be -- the local districts could work with those 

21 airports? 

22 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Yes. 

23 SUPERVISOR HILL: That would -- great. Thank you 

24 for that. 

25 And if Ms. Johnson could respond, I would 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 126 

 1 appreciate it. 

 2 MS. JOHNSON-MESZAROS: Thank you very much. It's 

 3 a lot of points and, frankly, for better or for worse, I 

 4 could go on for hours about this issue. And I'm going to 

 5 try not to. But I do want to raise some overall comments. 

 6 The first one is the issue around 

 7 cost-effectiveness. And I couldn't support more the 

 8 comments of Dr. Sperling on this and having to think about 

 9 the new criteria for cost-effectiveness. Not only for the 

10 CO reductions, the criteria pollutants, the toxics 

11 reductions, but also direct -- included in the statute, 

12 and I think that something that this agency is 

13 particularly interested in is the cost for health impacts, 

14 of not engaging in these reductions. And that should be 

15 part, and I think AB 32 calls for that to be part, of the 

16 cost-effectiveness criteria. The avoided health costs 

17 brought about by the reductions. 

18 I also thought it was interesting, on some of 

19 these I just want to highlight some of the comments from 

20 the staff and point out things that I thought were 

21 particularly interesting. 

22 The first one is on the cool paint item. As I 

23 understood the comments about cool paints, what he said 

24 was, we could implement the cool paints regulations now. 

25 But there are other regulations that we can implement or a 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 127 

 1 package of measures that we can implement that would even 

 2 take us further. And it seems to me that when we 

 3 analogize that to the HFC plan that the staff has put 

 4 forward, which is there's a package of HFC reductions that 

 5 could move forward but we're pulling out this one that's 

 6 going to have this unfortunate disproportionate impact, 

 7 and moving that forward because we're already there on 

 8 that one. 

 9 It's problematic. And the question is how are we 

10 going to have parity across the field of things that move 

11 forward, and I think that's an example of our basic point, 

12 which is, there are opportunities for this Board to make 

13 decisions that are going to -- that meet the criteria of 

14 the bill such that they don't negatively 

15 disproportionately impact communities of color and low 

16 income communities. And that cool paints measure is an 

17 example of how that can happen and a lack of parity across 

18 decision-making about what moves forward. 

19 I also, as I understood the comments of the 

20 staff, there were several measures that seemed to be on 

21 the Group Two list, which is, we pulled our 

22 recommendations from, that they seem to be saying, could 

23 in fact be done before this 2010 timeline. And so that 

24 just takes us back to the point that we raised before 

25 which is, if they're moving forward with them and there's 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 128 

 1 a high likelihood that it can happen, and the staff is 

 2 taking the position that we should assume for these 

 3 purposes of putting something on the list that it's going 

 4 to meet the cost-effectiveness standard, then why not add 

 5 these items to the early action list? If you do that, you 

 6 can ensure or better ensure that you're going to be able 

 7 to get adequate resources in your budget, that there will 

 8 be adequate attention and focus to those these issues, and 

 9 to the extent that the measures that we have outlined in 

10 our recommendations have the co-pollutant reduction 

11 benefits, you can also ensure that you're cleaning up the 

12 air and keeping ARB on track with its overall mission. 

13 The final thing that I wanted to note is, there 

14 is an opportunity which lies before this Board and before 

15 this agency right now to really think about, as we think 

16 about how we move technology, as we think about how we're 

17 going to move forward, to really think about how we're 

18 going to move a regulatory package and an approach to 

19 addressing in a comprehensive way climate change issues 

20 and air quality issues. And frankly, based on the 

21 conversation that we're having right now, it seems that 

22 what's being proposed is a method forward that looks very 

23 much like the method that they've already used. You know, 

24 Ms. Witherspoon said in her comments, we've been doing 

25 this now for 30 years and they're asking us, ironically, 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 129 

 1 to change the way we've done it before. And, in fact, 

 2 that's exactly what we're doing. We're asking them to 

 3 changed the way that they've done it before. And, yes, it 

 4 makes people move outside their comfort zone. And, yes, 

 5 it does mean that you have to be on the cutting edge and 

 6 to be on the cutting edge, you have to be prepared to have 

 7 a reasonable mixture of risk. And the currently proposed 

 8 list, I believe, doesn't have the appropriate mixture of 

 9 risk that's required to move the state, the country, and 

10 the world into the new realities of carbon change and 

11 carbon impacts. And what we are urging this Board to do 

12 is to seriously consider that and to help to move this 

13 agency forward in being a leader that we know ARB has been 

14 in the past and ought to be in the future on these issues. 

15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 

16 Okay. 

17 (Applause.). 

18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Let's begin the public 

19 testimony at this time, and we will be enforcing our usual 

20 three-minute rule. The first three speakers are Mark 

21 Leary, Cathy Reheis-Boyd, and Thomas Jacob. 

22 Mr. Leary. 

23 MR. LEARY: Good morning, or good afternoon, 

24 Dr. Sawyer and members. My name is Mark Leary, I'm the 

25 Executive Director of the California Integrated Waste 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 130 

 1 Management Board. And on behalf of our Chair, Margo 

 2 Read-Brown, and the rest of the members of the Board, we 

 3 are in support of the adoption of the proposed early 

 4 action measures as staff have outlined them for you. 

 5 And I'd like to offer that this support comes 

 6 with a commitment. The commitment is that as a state 

 7 organization charged with the responsibility of ensuring 

 8 the safe management of solid waste in the state of 

 9 California, we work commit to work collaboratively with 

10 you, the Board, Air Resources Board, and your staff as we 

11 move forward to implement AB 32. 

12 The inclusion of the landfill methane capture, we 

13 believe, is an appropriate early action measure. It's 

14 supported by science and it's supported by the data that 

15 exists today. 

16 In response to Member Riordan's questions or 

17 issues and excitement, it sounded like a little bit, in 

18 regards to landfill gas, let me put a little context or a 

19 a few parameters around it. 

20 The -- there are 51 landfills in this state that 

21 exceed five million tons in place. The largest of which, 

22 of course, is the Puente Hills landfill, which is over a 

23 hundred million tons of solid waste disposed in place. 

24 That constitutes about, together those 51 landfills, 

25 constitute about 76 percent of the total waste in place in 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 131 

 1 the state. Every single one of those landfills has a 

 2 methane capture system in place. 

 3 The landfills that currently do not are quite 

 4 small, as Mr. Scheible attested earlier. They generally 

 5 are -- they'll are, in fact, less than 500,000 tons in 

 6 place. Very much smaller than the 51 that I've just 

 7 characterized. So we think -- but what we do believe 

 8 there's an opportunity to effect landfill methane capture 

 9 in those landfills and that's exactly what this item is 

10 about. 

11 The rest of the landfills and the component of 

12 this capture that the staff have offered to you, there's 

13 an analysis of effectiveness that needs to be addressed. 

14 And we think that -- and we will work collaboratively to 

15 address that effectiveness issue at these landfill, that 

16 in fact, currently have a system in place, but the 

17 measurement quantification of that effectiveness needs to 

18 be realized. 

19 And then in regards to the opportunities for 

20 landfill gas, further on in the implementation of 32, I 

21 imagine we'll be having some conversations about landfill 

22 gas to energy. That same Puente Hills facility also has 

23 the largest landfill gas to electricity production 

24 operation anywhere in the world, about 58 megawatts are 

25 being produced from landfill gas at Puente Hills. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 132 

 1 But there are other exciting projects, and, in 

 2 fact, the Air Board and the Integrated Waste Management 

 3 Board have together supported three projects in the state 

 4 that look to convert landfill gas to liquid nitrogen -- 

 5 liquid natural gas, excuse me -- at a rate that, when in 

 6 operation, will exceed 40,000 gallons per day. 

 7 So I think I share Member Riordan's excitement 

 8 about the opportunity, the win-win scenario of landfill 

 9 gas to liquefied natural gas is a natural, and we look 

10 forward to working with your staff. Together we're going 

11 to be addressing as aggressively as possible how the 

12 management of solid waste in this state can affect 

13 greenhouse gas reductions and we look forward to working 

14 with your staff. 

15 Thank you. 

16 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much, Mr. 

17 Leary. And I certainly appreciate your being here and we 

18 look forward to working with the Integrated Waste 

19 Management Board using your expertise and our authority 

20 under AB 32 to make some real gains in this area. 

21 MR. LEARY: Happy to do it, Dr. Sawyer. 

22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Reheis-Boyd, please. 

23 MS. REHEIS-BOYD: Good afternoon, Chairman, 

24 members of the Board. Oh, I guess I'm done. 

25 My name is Cathy Reheis-Boyd, and I'm the Chief 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 133 

 1 Operating Officer of the Western States Petroleum 

 2 Association, and we represent clients that produce and 

 3 transport, refine and market petroleum and petroleum 

 4 products not only in California but the other five western 

 5 states. 

 6 After hearing that excellent presentation from 

 7 the Environmental Justice Community, perhaps I should ask 

 8 you not to list this as a discrete early action. 

 9 Certainly, I'm here to talk about the Low Carbon Fuel 

10 Standard and it's nice to be with you again after spending 

11 an entire day with you in Fresno last week. I do 

12 appreciate the opportunity to comment. 

13 As we all know, the decision today to list the 

14 Governor's Low Carbon Fuel Standard as a discrete early 

15 action to AB 32 is a really significant one. As I've said 

16 in the past, they sort of marry up today and become part 

17 of the state's program, if you take that action. 

18 As we plan the state's future transportation fuel 

19 portfolio, we have to get this right. There's too much at 

20 stake to not get it right. And we can't afford to get it 

21 wrong. And of course, the California consumer will really 

22 be the judge of how we do, since they demand reliable, 

23 affordable, clean fuel every day, everywhere. And from 

24 the legal perspective we appreciate the very limited scope 

25 of the Board's decision to list the Low Carbon Fuel 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 134 

 1 Standard as a discrete early action candidate today. You 

 2 have appropriately deferred your formal findings and 

 3 decision on all the details of the low carbon program to 

 4 your formal rulemaking process. During the next 18 

 5 months, we look forward to continuing to work with you and 

 6 your staff, the CEC, and all interested parties to build a 

 7 solid record that can support a technologically feasible 

 8 and cost-effective Low Carbon Fuel Standard rule. 

 9 Linkage to the CEC's AB 1007 transportation plan 

10 is very important. As is linking it to part one of the 

11 Technical Analysis that the U.C. professors have done and 

12 certainly, hopefully, to be released soon, Dr. Sperling, 

13 part two, policy analysis. Both of those we viewed as 

14 very critical elements to the Low Carbon Fuel Standard 

15 success. 

16 We all know there's lots of uncertainties 

17 underlining this standard. And that they could pose 

18 really significant risks, not only to the refiners, but to 

19 the state's fuel consumers. And this won't be easy. It's 

20 going to take a lot of innovation, as was mentioned, 

21 creative thought, continued dialog and rigorous analysis 

22 to really achieve what we need to do here. These are 

23 aggressive timelines and they're truncated, as was stated 

24 by staff. But we're continued to work with you, committed 

25 to work with you on this process and I have two 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 135 

 1 recommendations that I think would help in this process 

 2 going forward. I've talked about these at your workshops 

 3 and I've certainly submitted them in comments to you all 

 4 and the staff. 

 5 First, given the uncertainties with the modeling 

 6 tools, we really think it's important as we look at how we 

 7 compare greenhouse gas emissions from gasoline and diesel 

 8 compared to other transportation fuel options, that we do 

 9 this in a collaborative process. And by a collaborative 

10 process, I mean getting the best and brightest minds 

11 together that we can work on this as we go forward. 

12 That's really, really important that we have the necessary 

13 tools in place to make this happen. 

14 The second recommendation is that we consider 

15 milestones, because you have to review your progress 

16 against planning. 

17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I must ask you to conclude, 

18 please. 

19 MS. REHEIS-BOYD: And that would be very, very 

20 important as we go forward, that we have that process for 

21 review. 

22 So I'd like to just commend the Board on, and 

23 staff, on their continued work. We hope you consider the 

24 collaboration. We hope the CARB can host the first 

25 stakeholder meeting and perhaps have Professor Sperling be 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 136 

 1 a liaison from the Board to that process given the linkage 

 2 to the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, and we look forward to 

 3 working with you on that idea. 

 4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 

 5 Mr. Jacob, and then we will have Al Thornton, 

 6 Norm Plotkin, and Aaron Lowe. 

 7 MR. JACOB: Thank you, Chair. I'm Tom Jacob with 

 8 the Du Pont Company. We've submitted written comments to 

 9 you. I'd like to amplify on just a couple of those. 

10 First, we urge you to resist the temptation to 

11 accelerate more and more items into being handled through 

12 regulation. We've been deeply involved and deeply 

13 committed on the climate change frontier since we first 

14 started our systematic reductions in 1991. We are strong 

15 believers that this is a very long-term challenge that we 

16 face. It's a challenge that's going to continue to get 

17 deeper and deeper. And we believe that, ultimately, we 

18 are going to need market-based solutions, emissions 

19 trading in order to ensure that we're using limited 

20 capital in the most effective and efficient way to secure 

21 reductions. And we think we need to accelerate the path 

22 toward market measures, and so we would urge you to use 

23 caution in terms of the range of ideas that, or notions 

24 that you pull together under a regulatory initiative that 

25 could be handled through the marketplace. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 137 

 1 We think you should give explicit attention to 

 2 crediting early action. It is going to be a while before 

 3 this is all up and running. We think it's important to 

 4 stimulate early action and we think that requires some 

 5 formal acknowledgement and crediting process. 

 6 With respect to the specific items, we do support 

 7 the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. We think the approach 

 8 that's being taken there is the correct approach. We're 

 9 very involved with the alternative fuels. But we believe 

10 that we are just at the beginning of this process. It's 

11 premature to lock in on any fuel type. And we think the 

12 life cycle approach has gotten a great infusion of energy 

13 and intellectual power through the work of the U.C. 

14 report. We commend that. But by the same token, we think 

15 with respect to the life cycle, it's integral but we want 

16 to make sure that it becomes workable, it gets translated 

17 into a workable process, so that it doesn't end up 

18 inhibiting the entry into the market of alternative fuels. 

19 And finally, just a brief comment on the fire 

20 suppression, Group Two item. We think this is premature 

21 at best. This is an area where the industry has actually 

22 made some extraordinary progress through their voluntary 

23 codes. We think the range of options at this point is 

24 limited, both in number and use. And in our discussions 

25 with staff, it's evident that this hasn't been yet 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 138 

 1 thoroughly explored. It may be appropriate for future 

 2 analysis, but we think without prejudging the expected 

 3 outcomes in terms of regulation or extension of the 

 4 voluntary program and so forth. 

 5 And if it moves forward, we would urge that it be 

 6 reframed as opportunities for further greenhouse gas 

 7 reductions from fire protection systems. 

 8 Thank you. 

 9 SUPERVISOR HILL: Mr. Chair, could I ask -- 

10 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 

11 Yes. 

12 SUPERVISOR HILL: -- the witness a question. 

13 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Supervisor Hill. 

14 SUPERVISOR HILL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

15 Mr. Jacob, it's my understanding that Du Pont is 

16 one of the largest manufacturers of automobile paints, 

17 coatings. Are you working on a cool automobile paint. 

18 MR. JACOB: I can't say that. I'm not aware of 

19 that. Although, I would be, frankly, surprised if we 

20 aren't, in our research. In our research areas. 

21 SUPERVISOR HILL: Okay. Thank you. 

22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 

23 Mr. Thornton. 

24 MR. THORNTON: Good afternoon, Dr. Sawyer, fellow 

25 Board members. I'd like to restrict my comments following 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 139 

 1 Mr. Jacob's specifically to the fire suppression, the 

 2 inclusion of fire suppression in Group Two for additional 

 3 greenhouse gas reduction measures. 

 4 The fire suppression community represents 

 5 manufacturers, local installation and service providers, 

 6 and end users and has actively pursued responsible 

 7 environmental policies since the initiation of the 

 8 protection of the ozone layer for replacement halons. 

 9 In response to this global environmental crisis, 

10 the community came back to the industry very quickly 

11 developing safe, effective fire suppression technologies 

12 to replace the wide and varied applications protected 

13 previously by halon systems. HFC agents are an integral 

14 in that protection technology. At present, there are no 

15 safer, more cost-effective replacements for HFCs for many 

16 of these fire protection applications. HFCs today are 

17 only used where a risk assessment by a qualified fire 

18 protection engineer concludes that they are the best 

19 solution for protecting lives and property. 

20 I find it's often easier in some of these 

21 technical discussions to put them in terms of realistic 

22 practice. Several years ago, there was a woman in an MRI 

23 examination in a New York City hospital when the building 

24 alarm went off, or what was believed to be the building 

25 alarm system went off. The technicians running equipment 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 140 

 1 assumed it was the building fire alarm and didn't respond. 

 2 It turns out the MRI equipment was actually on fire. We 

 3 happen to have an HFC fire suppression system in that 

 4 enclosure that discharged, the technicians realized that 

 5 there was a problem and got the woman out of the 

 6 equipment, unharmed, startled a bit and probably a little 

 7 worse for wear, but nonetheless, she was fine. 

 8 In counter to that, in the same eastern city not 

 9 too far away, there was another woman working in a bank 

10 vault late on a Thursday evening when the automatic vault 

11 door closed on a timer. The woman was a typical bank 

12 employee and she dialed up on the phone to get somebody to 

13 open up and let her out. Nobody responded. So being late 

14 in the evening, she pulled the fire alarm or what she 

15 thought was the fire alarm. It turned out it was a manual 

16 release for a CO2 system and it killed her. 

17 The back end of that horrible story is that there 

18 used to be a halon system in that vault that was pulled 

19 out and replaced due to the elimination halon as a fire 

20 suppression agent, and was mistakenly replaced with carbon 

21 dioxide. If it had remained a halon system, she would 

22 still be alive. 

23 I offer those as tragic examples of a little bit 

24 about what we in the fire industry deal with on a regular 

25 basis. These are highly technical applications that 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 141 

 1 require tools and HFCs are a valuable tool for the 

 2 protection of life and property. 

 3 Thank you for your consideration. 

 4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. And I think 

 5 that's, you know, certainly instructions which the Board 

 6 would carry to the staff that unintended consequences are 

 7 something, as always, which we really want to avoid and 

 8 issues of safety are what come to the top of the list, I 

 9 think, of things to be considered. 

10 All right. Mr. Lowe. And then we will have Bill 

11 Quest, Rachel Oster, and Robert Wyman. 

12 MR. LOWE: What happened to Mr. Plotkin? 

13 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Oh, excuse me. 

14 MR. LOWE: Could I -- 

15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Are you Mr. Plotkin? 

16 MR. LOWE: No, I'm Mr. Lowe. 

17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. Well, why don't you 

18 go ahead. 

19 MR. LOWE: We'd like to ask Mr. Quest to start 

20 out and then Mr. Plotkin, and then myself, if that's all 

21 right with the Board. 

22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Oh, if -- you want to change 

23 the order -- 

24 MR. LOWE: Yeah. 

25 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: -- because, certainly, 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 142 

 1 that's fine. 

 2 MR. LOWE: Okay. Thank you. 

 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: You know if there are 

 4 similar circumstances where people have testimony that is 

 5 in a logical order or builds one upon the other, talk to 

 6 the clerk about doing that and generally we can 

 7 accommodate it. 

 8 MR. QUEST: Thank you very much. 

 9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: So this is Mr. Quest. 

10 MR. QUEST: Thank you, Dr. Sawyer. My name is 

11 Bill Quest and I represent ARPI, which is the Automotive 

12 Refrigerant Packagers Institute. 

13 Permit me to begin by thanking the CARB staff for 

14 its consideration of our proposed alternative that we 

15 believe is equally effective to banning the sale of small 

16 cans of R-134a refrigerant. We've been working with the 

17 CARB staff for sometime. During that time we've shown 

18 them surveys from a major independent research firm that 

19 is, firm that is disputing and correcting some of the 

20 information that was given to them by the automotive 

21 service industry. This industry which is made up of car 

22 dealers and garages will receive a windfall profit of 

23 almost 200 million dollars a year if motorists are 

24 prevented from working on their own car's air conditioning 

25 and forced to go to a car dealer or a garage. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 143 

 1 In working with the CARB staff, we've been able 

 2 to change the installation instructions on the small cans 

 3 of refrigerant that enable the do-it-yourselfer to leave 

 4 no greater percentage of residue in the can than is left 

 5 by the sonar, by the professional mechanic. We're 

 6 currently working on adding point of sale information on 

 7 major retailers in California to encourage more 

 8 responsible use of refrigerant, including reducing the 

 9 small refrigerant that's lost during charging. 

10 Banning the sale of 134 in small cans and thus 

11 preventing owners from working on their own cars should be 

12 removed from the discrete early action list because, 

13 first, as I said before, the ban disproportionately 

14 affects low income citizens. Ben is a California 

15 resident, who earns 28,000 dollars a year. He keeps his 

16 car air conditioning by adding 134a himself. He can buy a 

17 can of refrigerant at Auto Zone for $10. If you impose a 

18 ban on the sale of our R-134a, he must go to a garage or a 

19 car dealer and pay $150 for the same of amount of 

20 refrigerant or he must go without air conditioning and 

21 just sweat it out during the summer. 

22 Because it costs so much to go to the car dealer 

23 or the garage, prohibiting do-it-yourselfers from adding 

24 refrigerant cannot ever be cost-effective. The cost per 

25 metric ton of CO2 equivalent avoided will range from 400 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 144 

 1 to $4,000, depending on whose numbers you use. This is 

 2 far greater than the 20 to $40 used in Europe to value 

 3 carbon credits offset. 

 4 Third, any global warming saving is minuscule. 

 5 The total amount of 134a refrigerant used by 

 6 do-it-yourselfers in the state of California is slightly 

 7 over one-half million metric tons of CO2 equivalent 

 8 annually. When the targeted of AB 32 goal is to save 147 

 9 million metric tons, how does it become significant to 

10 warrant regulation when the total amount used, not saved, 

11 is less than one-half of one percent of the total target? 

12 It's also impossible to meet the one to two million 

13 targeted goal since there is less than one million pounds 

14 sold annually. 

15 The ultimate solution will be to rereplace 134a 

16 in all new vehicles with the new low GWP refrigerants 

17 which are currently being tested and which will be 

18 mandated in the European Commission. I won't go in that. 

19 Our suggestion and alternative proposal to the 

20 CARB staff -- 

21 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Would you please conclude. 

22 MR. QUEST: Yeah. I'll just give you -- the 

23 quick alternative proposal is, that we have a couple with 

24 the leak checks, the alternative proposal is, after 

25 January 1st, 2010, all cans of R-134a manufactured by the 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 145 

 1 CARB -- for sale in the state of California used in motor 

 2 vehicle air conditioners shall be fitted with self-sealing 

 3 to prevent accidental release of R-134a. This will be 

 4 followed by a program to collect the cans after use and 

 5 recovering remaining on r-134a. 

 6 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 

 7 And we certainly appreciate your industry working 

 8 with our staff to consider alternatives. 

 9 It seems to me the big problem in this area is 

10 that the air conditioning systems leak. And I have a 

11 vehicle like that. And my policy for a while was to take 

12 it in when it started to get hot, get it recharged and, if 

13 I was lucky, by the end of the summer, it was still 

14 working. Then I'd do the same thing next year. I do not 

15 do it myself, but it's the same problem, and it's not 

16 getting the leaking fixed. My solution is to go without 

17 the air conditioner right now. 

18 But could staff or you say how one really 

19 addresses the leaking air conditioner problems? That's 

20 why the people are recharging their air conditioners, is 

21 that there's a leak in it. 

22 MR. QUEST: I can address a little bit or maybe 

23 you all want to. 

24 Our survey showed that three-fourths of the 

25 do-it-yourselfers have only, they've either put one or two 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 146 

 1 cans into their vehicle over the life of the vehicle. So 

 2 it's not as though you have people that are putting a can 

 3 in this week, another can in next week, another can in the 

 4 next week. 

 5 Now, air conditioning start to leak. I mean, by 

 6 nature, the vibration causes air conditioners to leak. 

 7 There is a question that everyone has to make a decision 

 8 as to whether it's more feasible to put, to add 

 9 refrigerant or to have the service repaired or have it 

10 repaired. And the repairs are made both by 

11 do-it-yourselfers as well as the professional mechanic. 

12 And we are selling, currently selling a number of leak 

13 repair products, that are chemical products, that are used 

14 when adding 134a. 

15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Dr. Ayala. 

16 DR. AYALA: This is Alberto Ayala with the Air 

17 Research Division. 

18 We have an indication based on studies that we've 

19 been following that mobile air conditioning systems are 

20 becoming better and better in terms of controlling 

21 unintended releases. Certainly the older the vehicle, the 

22 less control they have. And we need to acknowledge that 

23 the newer systems in newer vehicles are getting much 

24 tighter. 

25 So that is a factor that we need -- that we do 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 147 

 1 realize and we will consider closely. But the issue of 

 2 recurring recharging, leaking, recharging, is something 

 3 that we fully acknowledge in the brief staff analysis that 

 4 we included, both in the Climate Action Team report and 

 5 the AB 1493 discussions as well as in the early actions 

 6 report and it's something that we intend to look at very 

 7 closely. 

 8 It's instructive to consider that, for instance, 

 9 the state of Wisconsin does have a requirement that you 

10 cannot recharge a system without fixing the leak. So 

11 we're looking at those approaches in terms of how we can 

12 implement those strategies in the our state. So we do 

13 fully recognize that a continuing leaky system without 

14 getting proper repair is going to be a concern. 

15 But the can itself, it's a one-way system, once 

16 you puncture the can, the greenhouse gas is bound the 

17 enter the environment. And we fully acknowledge that the 

18 alternative proposal that the industry has put on the 

19 table does have a lot of merit. 

20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 

21 The next speaker now is Mr. Plotkin. 

22 BOARD MEMBER CASE: And Mr. Chairman, while the 

23 next speaker is coming up, relative to this same issue 

24 about repairing the leak that's occurring or requiring 

25 these cans, there was also written documentation from an 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 148 

 1 assembly member in my area, Juan Arambula, with a 

 2 suggestion we add money to the incentive programs to 

 3 change out some of these old vehicles. It would address 

 4 the Environmental Justice issues because these are older 

 5 vehicles, and it also brings in some of those areas 

 6 pollutants that we're trying to reduce that create ozone 

 7 and that might be another alternative to be looked at. 

 8 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We're definitely 

 9 looking at that. And that's what takes legislation. And 

10 we got letters from many members, and so perhaps one of 

11 them would author the bill that added leak detection to 

12 smog check, that added a subsidy repair for that specific 

13 repair, it's not authorized right now. And that would be 

14 the longer term solution for the old cars. But probably 

15 in the meantime, we'll either go with the staff proposal 

16 or with the industry alternative of the self-sealing 

17 valves plus recycling. And we'll bring that part back to 

18 you next fall. That's why we're not taking it off the 

19 early action list entirely. 

20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Mr. Plotkin. 

21 MR. PLOTKIN: Thank you, Dr. Sawyer, Honorable 

22 Board members. Norman Plotkin representing the California 

23 Automotive Wholesalers Association and the Automotive 

24 Aftermarket Industry Association. 

25 As you've heard, the industry is working with 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 149 

 1 CARB staff and we've worked with them for the last year 

 2 and appreciate their willingness to sit down and meet with 

 3 us on numerous occasions toward a real mitigation plan 

 4 that does not hurt the most vulnerable people in our 

 5 society. But industry's is not just the only voice you're 

 6 hearing now. We've been joined by a chorus and the 

 7 refrain is that if there are two mitigation plans, and one 

 8 hurts people and one does not, please choose the 

 9 mitigation plan that doesn't hurt people. 

10 And Mr. Quest wasn't able to elaborate fully on 

11 the alternative, but let me just reiterate that it's a 

12 self-sealing can top coupled with a recycling program. 

13 The recycling program gets to the residual amount left in 

14 the can, that the concern is that it's then just discarded 

15 and it openly vents. 

16 We fully support the leak test as being part of 

17 the biannual smog check and we will help you work on that. 

18 That's the way to ensure that there's not this leak/refill 

19 continuum. 

20 But as we've attempted to gather support, in this 

21 process, we've established point of sale displays in 

22 retail automobile parts establishments and we've collected 

23 thousands of letters is from individuals, people like 

24 Valentine Herrera or Jesus Hernandez in Indio, Miguel 

25 Venagas and Kate Berlin in Citrus Heights, Carol Souza 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 150 

 1 from Paradise. Yes, even in Paradise, you need air 

 2 conditioning. Monica Aguilar, Juan Costellanos from 

 3 Fresno. In addition, we've been able to get letters from 

 4 87 legislators supporting the notion that if there's an 

 5 alternative mitigation plan that doesn't have a negative 

 6 health and safety impact on the citizens of California, 

 7 please choose that mitigation plan. 

 8 And, finally, you've heard from the Environmental 

 9 Justice Advisory Committee who believe this, the can ban, 

10 to be a regressive approach to climate control. 

11 So, I just want to leave you with the prospect, 

12 we've been responsible and we've come to the table and 

13 we've worked diligently with your staff to propose an 

14 alternative to the can ban. And it's real mitigation and 

15 we want to roll up our sleeves and begin to develop this 

16 recycling program. But, for the time being, when faced 

17 with a ban of the product, we have to dedicate resources 

18 to opposing that ban. Please let us work with you on the 

19 recycling program, a real mitigation program that doesn't 

20 hurt people. 

21 Thank you. 

22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. Mr. Lowe. 

23 MR. LOWE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of 

24 the Board. 

25 I don't want to repeat what the last two speakers 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 151 

 1 have said. I just want to say, I'm with the Automotive 

 2 Aftermarket Industry Association. Again, my name is Aaron 

 3 Lowe. 

 4 We represent retailers and manufacturers of the 

 5 product. We're committed to educating consumers on the 

 6 proper use of the refrigerant and we really appreciate the 

 7 work with the Board staff on making that a reality. We're 

 8 also working closely with the Environmental Protection 

 9 Agency on this same action, so that we have a nationwide 

10 impact. 

11 I just want to say that establishing a recycling 

12 program, unlike a can ban, would make sure that California 

13 would actually have an imprint on a national program to 

14 reduce unnecessary emissions of these -- well, 134a. 

15 Unlike a can ban which would only effect the state of 

16 California, we are working with the state to develop an 

17 infrastructure which could have an impact on nationwide 

18 sales -- a nationwide program. 

19 So what we're asking for is that the can ban not 

20 be part of this program and that we move forward with 

21 staff to work on establishing the recycling program. And 

22 that those reductions, we think, will be the same. We're 

23 also, strongly support the smog check including a leak 

24 check which will actually take care of both the 

25 professional and the do-it-yourselfer, which, as you've 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 152 

 1 mentioned, is the big problem here. 

 2 So thank you very much and we hope the Board will 

 3 take that action. 

 4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 

 5 Ms. Oster. 

 6 MS. OSTER: Good afternoon, Dr. Sawyer and Board 

 7 members. My name is Rachel Oster and I'm here 

 8 representing Norcal Waste Systems and also the Solid Waste 

 9 Industry for Climate Solutions. 

10 Like Director Leary, industry agrees that there 

11 should landfill gas controls on methane emitting 

12 landfills. However, I want to reiterate the fact that 

13 only 40 out of the 200-plus methane emitting landfills in 

14 California do not have currently have landfill gas control 

15 systems in place. And actually, the 40 make up about 10 

16 percent of the waste in place in California. 

17 Most of the 40 landfills are too small to support 

18 landfill gas control systems. When you put a system in 

19 place in one of these landfills, it can put the aerobic 

20 nature of the landfill at risk posing a threat to public 

21 health and the environment. Therefore, we do uphold that 

22 it is not technologically feasible for these controls to 

23 be implemented on the small landfills that don't support 

24 these systems. 

25 Like Director Leary, we would like to encourage 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 153 

 1 staff to be sure of the effectiveness of these measures in 

 2 meeting the goals of early action, which is having it be 

 3 technologically feasible and cost-effective. And reducing 

 4 greenhouse gases. 

 5 Thank you. 

 6 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 

 7 Mr. Wyman. And then we'll have Dominic DiMare, 

 8 Laura Hunter, and Patricia Monahan. 

 9 MR. WYMAN: Good afternoon, Dr. Sawyer, members 

10 of the Board. My name is Bob Wyman. I'm an attorney at 

11 Latham and Watkins in Los Angeles, and I'm here this 

12 afternoon to speak on behalf of the California Climate 

13 Coalition which is a coalition of electricity providers, 

14 fuel providers, motor vehicle manufacturers, aerospace 

15 companies, for about half the membership, and then the 

16 other half of the membership are new clean energy 

17 technology ventures. 

18 In addition to considering discrete early action 

19 measures as you are today, we believe that to meet the 

20 short and long term objectives of AB 32, it will be 

21 vitally important to consider structural changes, 

22 structural approaches that can send an early and 

23 significant signal to the market to stimulate new energy 

24 and transportation technology investment. We're working 

25 on a proposal which, while I'd very much hoped I could 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 154 

 1 have shared with you today, unfortunately, you'll have to 

 2 wait a couple weeks for it. But in a couple of weeks 

 3 we'll be able to share with you a proposal which we're 

 4 calling the California First Rapid Deployment Proposal, 

 5 which will be designed to stimulate rapid investment at a 

 6 large scale in new clean energy and transportation 

 7 technologies here in California and in the area serving 

 8 California's interests. 

 9 The idea is that by doing this, there will be a 

10 way to get, not only the start this soon, but to gain 

11 comfort with the market so when the Board is ready in 2012 

12 to credit a market program, you'll do it within the 

13 context of having first invested in California. 

14 So I guess I'll just give you one kind of preview 

15 of the concept. Which is an idea that would bring forward 

16 a percentage of the emission caps as allowances that would 

17 be distributed to new energy and transportation technology 

18 investors. And we'll put this in some detail and share it 

19 with you in the next week to two. I apologize for not 

20 doing it today. We did our best, but as you've faced some 

21 challenges so did we. And hopefully in a couple weeks 

22 we'll have it out to you and other stakeholders who might 

23 be interested. 

24 Thanks very much. 

25 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 155 

 1 Mr. DiMare. 

 2 MR. DIMARE: Good afternoon, Dr. Sawyer and Board 

 3 members. My name is Dominic DiMare. I am with California 

 4 Chamber of Commerce. I'm also here representing the AB 32 

 5 Implementation Group, yet another coalition of businesses 

 6 and industry here in California focusing on making sure 

 7 that implementation of AB 32 is done in an effective 

 8 manner that has the least negative effect on the economy 

 9 and the most positive effect on the recent greenhouse gas 

10 emissions in California. 

11 I, too, like many others would like to compliment 

12 staff. They have been extremely helpful in this 

13 undertaking which is, I don't know that people appreciate 

14 how large an undertaking it is, to regulate greenhouse gas 

15 emissions and meet the very ambitious goal of AB 32. And, 

16 in fact, they've been so helpful that they recommended I 

17 add the following statement which is: Never have I met a 

18 more professional staff. In government. 

19 So, but it's true. They've are, they've been 

20 very, very helpful and they've been very open and 

21 receptive to a lot of the suggestions that we've made. 

22 Point number one that I'd like to make 

23 is, the recognition of voluntary early emission 

24 reductions, we believe, is a critical and essential part 

25 to the overall regulatory framework. We know that there 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 156 

 1 are emissions reductions that can be had now, that don't 

 2 necessarily fall into the command and control structure or 

 3 the market structure that is being contemplated and will 

 4 be debated in the future, and that there are industries 

 5 and businesses that want to make those reductions now. 

 6 But also would like to ensure that there is some 

 7 recognition of those early actions on their behalf. And 

 8 so we support whatever -- well, we support the comments 

 9 made in the staff report about early actions and voluntary 

10 early actions, and we endorse those and we will look 

11 forward to working with staff to bring those to fruition. 

12 The second issue is the economic analysis aspect 

13 of this. I think that this is a unique opportunity for 

14 the Board and staff, and for the state in general, with a 

15 limited number, and I know you've received some criticism 

16 about the limited number of proposals on the table today, 

17 but it offers an opportunity for us to build a template or 

18 a framework for economic analysis in the future that can 

19 be applied to the more broad and numerous regulatory 

20 proposals that will be coming down the pike in the future. 

21 And we, to that end, have supported your budget 

22 requests in the Legislature for more staff and we are 

23 particularly interested in seeing some analysts on the 

24 economic side being added to the ARB staff to complete 

25 this task. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 157 

 1 And then, Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Like WSPA, 

 2 we have numerous concerns, and I will just echo what 

 3 Ms. Reheis-Boyd says. You know, a fuel standard must be 

 4 based on sound scientific foundation. And this is a very 

 5 dramatic change in how we do fuel policy here in 

 6 California. And going into the future we should ensure 

 7 that we have done all that we can in research to make sure 

 8 that it is a durable framework, as Dr. Sperling has said, 

 9 in the future. 

10 In conclusion, we would just say that a lot of 

11 uncertainty still surrounds climate change in the 

12 regulatory proposals on the table today and in the future. 

13 We would support enhanced budgetary allocations for the 

14 ARB for enhanced economic and other research to make sure 

15 that these are great and durable regulatory proposals that 

16 will last and accomplish their economic goal, the economic 

17 and environmental goals. 

18 And so with that, I will conclude my remarks. 

19 Thank you. 

20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 

21 Just a few words on our three-minute time limit. 

22 When the red light comes on, if you could just say "in 

23 conclusion," and then in a few seconds conclude. It saves 

24 me the embarrassment of interrupting you. 

25 Ms. Hunter. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 158 

 1 MS. HUNTER: Yes. Good morning. My name is 

 2 Laura Hunter and I'm with the San Diego Environmental 

 3 Health Coalition and I see you all have your red packet, 

 4 so that's good. I also serve as an alternate on the AB 32 

 5 Environmental Justice Advisory Committee, and as a member 

 6 of that Committee, we have a very keen interest in the 

 7 early action measures that you are discussing today. We 

 8 think they can provide a great promise to help alleviate 

 9 some of the worst sources of pollution in our 

10 neighborhoods and they're part of sending that early and 

11 significant signal that I think we need to send to the 

12 state and the world, that our state is going to get 

13 serious about addressing these issues. 

14 The specific early actions I would like the speak 

15 directly to are 27 and 28 on the have EJ Committee's list 

16 related to the aging power plants, and that's a specific 

17 area I want to talk a little bit more about. 

18 These two actions recommend that you take early 

19 action to phase out the aging power plants by 2010 and to 

20 prohibit the fuel burning capacity by these facilities. 

21 These aging power plants and their dual fuel capacity are 

22 really ripe for a regulatory action from you to reduce the 

23 greenhouse gas emissions that they contribute and to 

24 improve community health. 

25 Quick phase-out of these plans will yield big 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 159 

 1 benefits, especially if we replace them with lower 

 2 polluting energy generation. According to the CEC, aging 

 3 power plant emissions, and in this case, aging power 

 4 plants are defined as plants that were constructed prior 

 5 to 1980. So there is a section of -- a sector of them. 

 6 But they constitute 22 million tons of CO2 or six percent 

 7 of the state's global climate change emissions as a group. 

 8 In our case, in San Diego, the South Bay power 

 9 plant is one such facility that really needs to be phased 

10 out quickly. The South Bay power plant has heat rates as 

11 high as 12,000 BTUs, and in your packet you'll see a 

12 comparison of that plant versus other types of energy. 

13 And the downwind community suffering the impacts is 77 

14 percent Latino, with 21 percent of the residents living 

15 closest to plant live below the federal poverty level. 

16 There -- we have had extenuous efforts to try to 

17 get rid of this plant. Chula Vista Mayor Cheryl Cox and 

18 Council Member Steve Castenada from Chula Vista have led 

19 the effort to try to get rid of the plant, and the problem 

20 is, even as we have added energy -- new energy generation 

21 in the region, their RMR is not being removed from these 

22 old plants, so we're very concerned that even though we're 

23 bringing new generation on-line, we will keep these 

24 things -- well, it's kind of a security blanket. 

25 I'm going to bet my red light and I want to be 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 160 

 1 respectful of your time, but I want to stress that it will 

 2 be very important and it's very doable for you to say, 

 3 "Time is up for these old power plants, they've served us 

 4 well, but they're time is up." And I think that you 

 5 really can go a long way to moving us in this direction. 

 6 And to speak to Dr. Gong's comments earlier, I 

 7 think in the efforts of climate change, this is a place 

 8 where we need to make our own good news. So, hopefully, 

 9 we will have good news in short order, but we need to make 

10 the good news in the future. 

11 So thank you for your attention to this and I 

12 hope you would support, especially 27, 28. 

13 Thank you. 

14 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 

15 Ms. Monahan. And then we'll have Virgil Welch, 

16 Joseph Lyou, and Robina Suwol. And following Robina 

17 Suwol, we will have our lunch break. 

18 MS. MONAHAN: Thank you, Chairman Sawyer and 

19 other members of the Board, CARB staff. I appreciate the 

20 opportunity to testify in front of you today. 

21 My name is Patricia Monahan, I'm the director of 

22 the California Office, and I'd like to comment on two 

23 areas. First, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, and, second, 

24 the heavy-duty vehicle efficiency measures. 

25 UCS strongly supports the Low Carbon Fuel 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 161 

 1 Standard. It's groundbreaking policy that can help 

 2 protect against the entry into California's market of high 

 3 carbon fuels like liquid coal. Today, on the floor of the 

 4 U.S. Senate, they're debating the energy bill and there's 

 5 a lot of pressure to, from coal states to bring liquid 

 6 coal into California which can double the greenhouse gas 

 7 per gallon emission. So we want to make sure that doesn't 

 8 happen. 

 9 That said, we urge the Board to direct the staff 

10 to include appropriate safeguards for air quality and 

11 environmental protection. We're concerned that without 

12 appropriate environmental safeguards, we could see a loss 

13 of bio diversity. We could see water scarcity. We could 

14 see land conversions. And we could also see a dramatic 

15 increase in food prices. So we think this is an 

16 opportunity for the Board to direct the staff to go beyond 

17 what the Governor has called for and to really look at the 

18 sustainable development of transportation fuels. 

19 In addition, we ask that the Board direct the 

20 staff to ensure that there's no harmful impacts on air 

21 quality, which there can be from certain transportation 

22 fuels. 

23 The second issue I want to discuss is the 

24 heavy-duty vehicle efficiency measures. We're glad that 

25 they're part of the Group Two. We're glad to see that 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 162 

 1 CARB is going to consider in the development of the air 

 2 quality regulation, a concern for global warming 

 3 pollution. But we want to make sure that this really 

 4 happens in a directed way. 

 5 We would like the Board to direct the staff to 

 6 elevate these to Group One measures. We think that there 

 7 is significant data available right now, the Smart Way 

 8 program by the U.S. EPA has evaluated various technologies 

 9 such as aerodynamic improvements, like size skirts on 

10 heavy-duty trucks. Single-wide tires, automated tire 

11 inflation and low viscosity lubricants that can, together, 

12 reduce global warming pollution by ten percent. 

13 These improvements will reduce fuel consumption 

14 and save truckers money. Improving the overall 

15 cost-effectiveness of the rule. We call these win-win-win 

16 strategies. It's a win for the trucker, it's a win for 

17 the public, and it's a win for CARB as it tries to 

18 implement the mandates under AB 32. 

19 Again, we thank you for this opportunity. We 

20 look forward to working with the dedicated CARB staff on 

21 the development of these regulations. 

22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 

23 Mr. Welch. 

24 MR. WELCH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. 

25 My name is Virgil Welch, I'm an attorney with the 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 163 

 1 Environmental Defense in Sacramento. 

 2 I'd like to just start by recognizing the effort 

 3 that both the Board and the staff have put into this 

 4 process, not just in terms of early action, but also in 

 5 terms of AB 32 implementation, in general. And if we are, 

 6 in fact, going to reach the goals that we've set out in 

 7 AB 32, this kind of effort, this kind of education is 

 8 going to have to continue, which we believe it will. So 

 9 thank you very much for that. 

10 Environmental Defense has submitted fairly 

11 detailed comments to both the Climate Action Team and to 

12 this Board. So rather than go over again what those 

13 detailed comments are, I would just like to highlight a 

14 couple of basic point which we would like you to consider 

15 today and as we move ahead in future. 

16 The first is that we do, Environmental Defense, 

17 support the three tier one recommendations for inclusion 

18 as early action measures, particularly the Low Carbon Fuel 

19 Standard. 

20 And the second is an issue that's been brought up 

21 a fair amount this morning already. And that is we 

22 believe it's quite important to recognize and reward 

23 voluntary early action. Because of the magnitude of the 

24 challenge we face in terms of global warming, we need 

25 action, we need it now, and recognizing early actions is 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 164 

 1 the key way to do that. 

 2 The third point that I would like to raise is 

 3 that there are some items on tier two, and perhaps even 

 4 tier three, that we would urge this Board consider to move 

 5 up to tier one. This previous speaker mentioned one of 

 6 those. I would just highlight that those that have 

 7 co-benefits in terms of air quality, things like port 

 8 electrification or truck stop electrification, we believe 

 9 should be considered. And if not moved into tier one, we 

10 believe that those items that now are sort of tier two or 

11 tier three, we would like the see more definitive time 

12 frames, milestones, connected to those so that as we move 

13 through this process we do have a better understanding 

14 about just when we are going to achieve those types of 

15 reductions. Based on some of the comments this morning 

16 from the staff, I believe we're well on our way in that 

17 regard. 

18 So again, thank you for your efforts here and we 

19 look forward to working with you throughout the process. 

20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. Thank you very 

21 much. 

22 Dr. Lyou. 

23 DR. LYOU: Yes, thank you. I was not quite sure 

24 when I went. 

25 Chairman Sawyer, members of the Board, my name is 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 165 

 1 Joe Lyou, I'm the Executive Director of the California 

 2 Environmental Rights Alliance. Thank you for allowing me 

 3 to address you here today. 

 4 I'd like to voice my support of the Environmental 

 5 Justice recommendations that you heard today and give you 

 6 the caveat, of course, that Angela Johnson-Meszaros is my 

 7 colleague and we work for the same organization. So I 

 8 like the praise that you give her, if you give her too 

 9 much, we have to pay her more, so keep it to a minimum. 

10 I'm really here to talk about one measure in 

11 particular and that's the ground service equipment at the 

12 airports. I've been a member of coalition that negotiated 

13 community benefits agreement with Los Angeles World 

14 Airports a few years ago, and we have successfully 

15 negotiated into that agreement bringing all the tenants at 

16 LAX up to the MOU standard. And that was before the MOU 

17 was basically dismantled by the exiting of certain 

18 airlines. 

19 The construction and off-road equipment 

20 regulation that you're considering does not require 

21 electrification of the ground service equipment that was 

22 required by the MOU. And it was very disappointing during 

23 the regulatory process that staff would not incorporate 

24 that into the regulation. And they, I mean, fairly, I 

25 mean, to them, said there are higher priorities that get 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 166 

 1 them more diesel emission reductions through other 

 2 measures of the off-road rule. 

 3 But you can and should require electrification of 

 4 ground service equipment. There are imitations on what 

 5 you can do, but your staff has a good idea of what those 

 6 limitations are. To allow the airlines to voluntarily, 

 7 over time add electrical equipment to the ground service 

 8 equipment is not going to guarantee you any of those 

 9 benefits. Neither the diesel emission benefits nor the 

10 greenhouse gas emissions benefits. So I'd like you to 

11 focus on that. 

12 Secondly, gate electrification is another option 

13 at airports, as at least one of your members knows for 

14 sure. And that, you know, we also negotiated the use of 

15 the best available control technology on construction 

16 equipment during the modernization of LAX. And that has 

17 proved to be a very effective part of our agreement in 

18 terms of reducing diesel emissions and greenhouse gas 

19 emissions. 

20 So please focus on those things that can and 

21 should be done in the near term, including the ground 

22 service equipment electrification, the gate 

23 electrification, and doing more of that construction rule 

24 with regards to diesel filter traps and electrifying the 

25 urban construction equipment. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 167 

 1 Thank you. 

 2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 

 3 Ms. Suwol. And then we will take one additional 

 4 speaker before the lunch break, Cynthia Babich. 

 5 MS. SUWOL: Thank you so much. Thank you, 

 6 Chairman Sawyer and Honorable Board. 

 7 My name is Robina Suwol, I'm the Executive 

 8 Director of California SAFE Schools, a children's 

 9 environmental health organization. 

10 And I'm testifying today to request that the 

11 Board do something now to stop this international crisis. 

12 It's especially impacting the health of our most 

13 vulnerable, our children. And environmental justice 

14 communities. 

15 I know that earlier in the hearing one of the 

16 honorable Board members said that we need some good news. 

17 And there is good news. You have a number of action 

18 measures that have been provided to you that will reduce 

19 greenhouse gases and criteria pollutants. And the 

20 greatest news, actually, of all is that the ability to do 

21 so is in your hands. So please prioritize these measures 

22 for early actions. We can't wait for the magic of the 

23 market. 

24 So thank you so very much for your time and for 

25 working cooperatively with the Environmental Justice 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 168 

 1 Committee. 

 2 Thank you. 

 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 

 4 Cynthia Babich. 

 5 MS. BABICH: Thank you so much fitting me in 

 6 before lunch. I am Cynthia Babich and I'm the Director of 

 7 the Del Amo Action Committee. We're a grassroots 

 8 environmental justice community, and as such, I have 

 9 responsibilities this afternoon as a caregiver for my 

10 mother, so I appreciate you fitting me in because I won't 

11 be here this afternoon. 

12 I just really want to say that this is a very 

13 important issue. You have a number of our colleagues in 

14 the Environmental Justice Advisory Committee who don't 

15 necessarily have the resources at the disposal of some of 

16 the agencies who seem to have staff constraints, which I 

17 find it a little bit irritating because most of us have to 

18 do fundraisers, and for us to tell a funder that we're 

19 going to put a 12-month buffer on something just simply 

20 wouldn't do. So as a community who has two Superfund 

21 sites, we have several Brownfield sites. We have the 

22 Exxon-Mobil refinery which is continually being fined. We 

23 have pure benzene floating on our ground water. We are a 

24 community that's very much impacted. And the ARB in step 

25 with its mission to protect public health and in 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 169 

 1 collaboration and culmination with the measures to reduce 

 2 global warming, needs to do more than that's proposed to 

 3 them by early action measures. 

 4 Our communities already suffer disproportionately 

 5 from air toxics from the refineries, ports, cement, and 

 6 energy producing industries who can do much more now to 

 7 lower its greenhouse emissions, thus reducing the burdens 

 8 on the lungs of our already compromised children. 

 9 We are in strong support of the recommendations 

10 for more measures to be added to the action list as 

11 outlined by the AB 32 formed Environmental Justice 

12 Advisory Group on global warming. Please listen to their 

13 recommendations carefully and implement their additions. 

14 We support real reductions now, not later. 

15 Many of the members that you have in front of you 

16 that represent our communities and do have a seat at the 

17 table have just a wide range of expertise. And we really 

18 deal with no-nonsense real things that we can do today 

19 because certainly if our representatives were to put 

20 something forward that was unreasonable, it would not fly 

21 with our communities first. So, as you see them before 

22 you, remember there's a long list of people like me who 

23 just are trying to get along in our little communities and 

24 just make things a little bit better and take care of our 

25 parents and our own business, that you have us behind 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 170 

 1 them. 

 2 So good luck today and this afternoon. I have a 

 3 lot of faith in this system, obviously. I'm still trying 

 4 to come to the table. And that you'll do the right thing. 

 5 Thank you so much, again, for allowing me to 

 6 sneak in before your lunch. 

 7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 

 8 At this time, we will take a lunch break. And we 

 9 will start at 2:00 o'clock this afternoon in recognition 

10 that some of you have to eat at local restaurants, in 

11 order to get back. I think that will give us time. 

12 Thank you. 

13 (Thereupon, a lunch recess was taken.) 

14 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: The Air Resources Board has 

15 now reconvened, and we'll continue with the public 

16 testimony on the early actions to mitigate climate change. 

17 The first three speakers are Joe Gershen, Larry 

18 Allen, and Darrell Clarke. 

19 MR. GERSHEN: Thank you for the opportunity. I'm 

20 Joe Gershen, I'm representing Environmental Entrepreneurs 

21 also known as E2. 

22 Environmental Entrepreneurs is a national 

23 community of business professionals that support a clean 

24 energy policies that are good for the environment and good 

25 for the economy. We have over 500 business leaders in 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 171 

 1 California that participate this this effort. E2 strongly 

 2 supports CARB adoption of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard as 

 3 an early action measure which CARB estimates will provide 

 4 ten to 20 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent 

 5 reductions by 2020. 

 6 The renewable fuel industry in California is 

 7 looking for a clear signal there will be regulatory 

 8 certainties supporting the creation of a low carbon fuel 

 9 market, prompt adoption of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard 

10 will send that signal. 

11 Supporting this industry will help create jobs, 

12 stimulate innovation and investment, encourage competition 

13 and create fuel diversity to name only a few of the 

14 economic benefits. Petroleum prices are at near-record 

15 levels and are likely to continue climbing. 

16 California's low carbon commitment is critical, 

17 not only to achieving the state's greenhouse gas reduction 

18 targets, but also to protecting California consumers from 

19 financial risk. We are aware of some controversy 

20 surrounding biofuels industry and I am here to tell you 

21 that we can move forward responsibly, sustainably, and 

22 without backsliding on air quality. Many biofuel 

23 companies have developed as a result of a strong 

24 environmental ethic. There are many feedstock options 

25 being developed for biodiesel and ethanol. Algae, mustard 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 172 

 1 seed and totropha, to name a few, can be used for 

 2 biodiesel instead of soy and canola and cellusocic 

 3 technologies will offer staggering ethanol yields from 

 4 recycled biomass as compared to corn. 

 5 We are in the midst of a paradigm shift away from 

 6 traditional carbon fuels and toward low carbon renewable 

 7 energy. My company, Tularian Biodiesel, has a commitment 

 8 to sustainability. Our model is to use local and 

 9 domestically available feedstock for regional biodiesel 

10 production and consumption whenever possible in order to 

11 maximize carbon reduction and energy conservation. Our 

12 feedstock of choice is recycled cooking oil and other 

13 second use fats and oil. 

14 In addition to this, we are managing an 

15 innovative demonstration project funded by South Coast 

16 AQMD that CARB is participating in along with the National 

17 Renewable Energy Lab, California Energy Commission, and 

18 City of Santa Monica. We have been testing biodiesel with 

19 SCR technology to reduce NOx emissions and have been 

20 getting spectacular results. Our final report should be 

21 published later this summer. 

22 Our regional business development strategy is an 

23 integral part of a broader philosophy of sustainability. 

24 Developing community, municipal, and regional business, 

25 agriculture, and infrastructure to support the 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 173 

 1 implementation of low carbon fuels will provide jobs, tax 

 2 revenues, good environmental public policy. It will also 

 3 promote the use of renewable low emission fuels reducing 

 4 air pollution while helping to establish a sustainable 

 5 energy future. 

 6 The Low Carbon Fuel Standards will give the 

 7 agricultural, energy, and auto industries incentives now 

 8 to start lowering the carbon intensity of today's fuels 

 9 and to begin developing the next generation of truly low 

10 carbon fuels and vehicles. This will for the first time 

11 create a viable alternative to petroleum. 

12 Thank you. 

13 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 

14 Mr. Allen. 

15 MR. ALLEN: I'm Larry Allen, I'm the Air 

16 Pollution Control Officer for San Luis Obispo County and 

17 the current President of the California Air Pollution 

18 Control Officers Association. CAPCOA strongly supports 

19 the three Group One measures that are proposed by staff as 

20 appropriate for adoption and implementation within the 

21 specified time frames. In our May 14th letter to staff, 

22 we also recommended that ARB consider moving some of the 

23 Group Two measures onto the Group One list. In 

24 particular, we believe that the substantial reduction 

25 potential in the commercial refrigeration and heavy-duty 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 174 

 1 vehicle categories warrants consideration in the Group One 

 2 status. 

 3 As mentioned by Supervisor Hill this morning, our 

 4 letter also recommended five additional early action 

 5 measures that are not included in the staff proposal. We 

 6 believe those measures can be accomplished within AB 32 

 7 time frames and that they meet the primary screening 

 8 criteria. 

 9 The first recommendation is to prioritize SIP 

10 rulemaking based on criteria pollutant productions, public 

11 health protection, and greenhouse gas reduction potential, 

12 and that rules that rank high in all three areas should be 

13 given higher priority in the rulemaking calendar. 

14 Second, to perform a review of existing state and 

15 local similar to an all feasible measures review to 

16 identity existing regulations that can or already provide 

17 significant reductions in greenhouse gases. For example, 

18 existing inspection of maintenance rules for petroleum 

19 processing and transport facilities can achieve up to 80 

20 percent reduction in fugitive hydrocarbon emissions by 

21 requiring regular testing and inspection of valves and 

22 flanges to detect and repair leaks. However, those regs 

23 are designed specifically to reduce volatile organic 

24 compounds as ozone precursors and so that natural gas 

25 processing facilities are exempt from those regulations 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 175 

 1 because methane is not identified as an precursor would be 

 2 very easy to adapt existing I and M to those facilities. 

 3 And the resulting methane reductions could be significant. 

 4 Third recommendation is to minimize the impacts 

 5 of new stationary sources by working with districts to 

 6 develop a coordinated approach reviewing greenhouse gas 

 7 emissions from significant stationary sources. And a good 

 8 example is that an ethanol plant in northern Santa Barbara 

 9 County, that would produce 113 million gallons of ethanol 

10 with 1.2 million tons per year of corn, and it would 

11 result in 550,000 tons of carbon dioxide. Now they 

12 originally proposed to include a carbon dioxide capture 

13 and liquefaction facility, but that was taken out of the 

14 design because there's no market. So we need some 

15 guidance on how to handle greenhouse gas emissions from 

16 those sources. 

17 Fourth recommendation is to leverage CEQA 

18 mitigations by working with local districts to coordinate 

19 how we review greenhouse gases under CEQA and capture the 

20 reductions that result from that mitigation. 

21 And the fifth one is for the Air Resources Board 

22 to work with local districts to establish mechanisms to 

23 promote and track voluntary greenhouse gas reductions. 

24 In conclusion, CAPCOA believes that these 

25 measures can be easily implemented to achieve significant 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 176 

 1 early greenhouse gas reductions. Although we've yet to be 

 2 asked for our input and have been told that we don't have 

 3 a role to play in AB 32 implementation, we do believe that 

 4 the extensive on-the-ground expertise and resources of the 

 5 air districts is a valuable and essential assets that can 

 6 be used by the state to ensure successful implementation 

 7 of this program. And we do stand ready to help in that. 

 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 

 9 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Mr. Chairman. 

10 Go ahead, sorry, I didn't realize you had been 

11 called on. I'll wait. 

12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Mrs. Riordan. 

13 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Just a quick comment. You 

14 certainly are going to be partners with us in the long 

15 haul for implementation. And I'm sure that we will seek a 

16 lot of input from you. This is a very helpful document. 

17 And I think we have some real interest, particularly in 

18 your last recommendation, or at least I do, for looking at 

19 those voluntary reductions. Because I think people are 

20 interested in doing things, both as an industry but also 

21 as individuals, and they are going to look to the local 

22 air districts for guidance. They're not necessarily going 

23 the call Sacramento every time they want to know 

24 something. They're going the call their local districts. 

25 So I think you're a real integral part of this whole 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 177 

 1 program. 

 2 And I would ask the staff if they have any 

 3 comments on the other recommendations. I just feel pretty 

 4 strongly about the last one that I think is something we 

 5 really have to seize the opportunity there. But there may 

 6 be some staff responses that you'd like to make, 

 7 Ms. Witherspoon, or any other staff member. 

 8 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: I'll just run 

 9 through them quickly. 

10 On the prioritization of SIP rulemaking, we agree 

11 and we think you'll see tomorrow that we've already done 

12 that, and our goods movement action plan, likewise, where 

13 there are co-benefits for greenhouse gas reduction. 

14 On the review of the exiting rules, we hadn't the 

15 thought of doing this on the stationary source rules, but 

16 as I indicated earlier, the Bay Area District was first 

17 out the shoot with a top to bottom analysis of their 

18 rules. And how they could go back and capture more 

19 greenhouse gas reductions. And so we'll certainly consult 

20 with them first and look at ways of generalizing some of 

21 their discoveries. 

22 On minimizing the impacts of new stationary 

23 sources, we had been asked early in the process to develop 

24 BACT guidelines for greenhouse gas control and decided 

25 that was way beyond our capabilities because we were doing 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 178 

 1 sector specific analyses on what individual facilities 

 2 could bear and needed to get that done as part of the 

 3 scoping plan. And it's not so easy, not so clear what 

 4 BACT is for the lowest possible CO2 and other gas 

 5 emissions. 

 6 And I think that we need to spend some time 

 7 talking through the options with CAPCOA. 

 8 On CEQA mitigations, I spoke earlier about the 

 9 principle problem that there's no threshold of 

10 significance that triggers CEQA. The South Coast AQMD 

11 intends to define one for its own purposes, and in the 

12 absence of state guidance, it's on the shoulders of the 

13 lead agency to make the call. And so they're going to 

14 propose one and we've already talked to the South Coast 

15 about when they have their theory together of working 

16 closely and seeing if it makes sense for a statewide 

17 threshold. 

18 And then on capturing voluntary reductions, 

19 that's exactly why we're working so hard on protocols. 

20 And what I get out of this recommendation is also the 

21 tracking notion, so that once we've incented local 

22 governments to do good things, we capture the success of 

23 that and how many tons are being amassed around the state 

24 and can take credit for it in our overall reduction plan. 

25 And any help we could get from districts in compiling that 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 179 

 1 information would be enormously helpful. 

 2 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you. 

 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. D'Adamo. 

 4 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: That was my question. 

 5 Thank you. 

 6 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. Good. 

 7 MR. ALLEN: If I could make one more point 

 8 related to that, and that is that we are already involved. 

 9 We have local jurisdictions asking us how to do climate 

10 change analysis, what the significance thresholds are. 

11 And we have to come up with something and our Climate 

12 Protection Committee is working on that right now. It 

13 would be far better to have state input helping us with 

14 that so we're consistent. 

15 And the same with new source review. The state 

16 attorney general just wrote a letter on a refinery permit 

17 at the Bay Area asking about the greenhouse gas emissions 

18 for that modification. They are going to have to deal 

19 with that through CEQA. 

20 So these are, I think, large issues for us to be 

21 working with. And in the absence of guidance, we're out 

22 there on our own. 

23 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We agree, they're 

24 huge issues. And we have been meeting regularly with the 

25 Office of Planning and Research and the Department of 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 180 

 1 Resources which has lead in state government for giving 

 2 CEQA guidance. And, although there has been a great deal 

 3 of conversation, there has not yet emerged a compelling 

 4 theory that everyone can agree with, this is what the 

 5 definition of "significant" should be. The attorney 

 6 general has entered the field, has brought suit, but it 

 7 also has not articulated a theory of significance. And so 

 8 conversations have now been brought in to include the 

 9 attorney general in the state level conversation. 

10 And in the meantime, as unfortunate as it is, 

11 local lead agencies have to exercise their own judgment 

12 and decide what to do until the legal pathway is clear. 

13 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 

14 Mr. Clarke. And then we will have Bob Lucas, 

15 Kathy Seal, and Julia Maher. 

16 MR. CLARKE: Thank you very much. I'm Darrell 

17 Clarke representing the Sierra Club. I'm a member of the 

18 Angeles Chapter's Executive Committee representing 50,000 

19 members in Los Angeles and Orange County. 

20 These early action measures are very important, 

21 but I would encourage you to adopt more than just three, 

22 to moves others up from the chart two, chart three, and 

23 perhaps a way to consider the urgency here: Pearl Harbor 

24 has just been attacked. What is our mobilization plan 

25 now? In global warming terms, we've got ten years to make 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 181 

 1 a big difference. What is our mobilization plan now? 

 2 I'd like to mention three points. Thank you, 

 3 Dr. Sperling, concerning the considerations on the Low 

 4 Carbon Fuel Standard and helping me understand that 

 5 better. A lot of us talk about serious concerns about 

 6 corn ethanol, the taking as much fossil fuel to produce it 

 7 as you get out the other end, or biodiesel, if it comes 

 8 from clearing rain forest to plant palm oil plantations is 

 9 providing us no benefit at all on CO2 emissions. 

10 On the other hand, electric vehicles offer a lot 

11 of promise with plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles, and 

12 it leads me to a question of this Board. On the one hand, 

13 there's the -- what was the zero emission vehicle mandate, 

14 which I understand is being reassessed this year, and then 

15 there's the AB 32 mandate. These can come together around 

16 this very important mid-term program towards electric 

17 vehicles that can use sustainably generated electricity. 

18 And I'm not sure how we bring those two halves together 

19 under the ARB. But it seems a great opportunity this 

20 year. 

21 Second, there's a big elephant in the room that 

22 I'm not sure who has jurisdiction for. But you as the 

23 lead agency. There are approximately 9,000 megawatts of 

24 new fossil fueled electricity power in the planning 

25 process in California. Who has jurisdiction over the 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 182 

 1 greenhouse gas emissions that those would produce? 

 2 And number three, about it of good news for 

 3 Dr. Gong, that over 90 California cities have signed on to 

 4 the Governor's Climate Protection Agreement, what the 

 5 Sierra Club calls "Cool Cities," which provides great 

 6 opportunity. Once these cities have signed on, what can 

 7 the ARB or other state agencies do to help these cities 

 8 get into their planning of the next steps to reduce the 

 9 greenhouse gas emissions? 

10 So thank you very much. I look forward to much 

11 progress going forward. 

12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 

13 Mr. Lucas. 

14 MR. LUCAS: Thank you. Good afternoon. My name 

15 is Bob Lucas. I'm here today representing the California 

16 Council for Environmental Balance, otherwise known as 

17 CCEEB. And we do support the staff recommended action for 

18 you today to implement this portion of AB 32. 

19 That said, I would like to echo some of the 

20 cautionary statements that were made earlier in the day 

21 with regard to being prudent and somewhat cautious in 

22 order to be sure that we get this right. 

23 As referring back to the comments we submitted on 

24 May 17th, you see that we do have some concerns with 

25 regard to cost-effectiveness and technological feasibility 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 183 

 1 and some of the proposals before you today. And we would 

 2 concur that these are very important points to rationalize 

 3 and we'd suggest that a first order of business as the 

 4 staff beginning the rulemaking process, is to adopt 

 5 criteria that would demonstrate what cost-effectiveness 

 6 and technological feasibility actually means. In however 

 7 broad or narrow we want to look at it, we think that we 

 8 ought to establish that criteria sooner rather than later. 

 9 In the absence of it, frankly, we run the risk of adopting 

10 regulations that might cause leakage. 

11 With regard to voluntary early action, we think 

12 that this is another very important point and we, frankly, 

13 were pleased to see the staff report dealing with this and 

14 recognizing this point. We're encouraged that they're 

15 looking for -- they understand a need for a programmatic 

16 element to quantify and document sector specific and 

17 project specific protocols for voluntary early actions. 

18 Until this is determined, we'd like to suggest a 

19 slightly different approach. And this would be a process 

20 that would allow early consideration by CARB on a 

21 case-by-case basis of a wide array of projects that 

22 companies might want to voluntarily undertake. And we 

23 suggest this as an encouragement for companies to take 

24 voluntary early actions and to provide opportunities for 

25 CARB and stakeholders to learn from these projects prior 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 184 

 1 to the formalities of a final rules stages. In other 

 2 words, try to accelerate that if we can. 

 3 Our concluding comment is that we believe that 

 4 it's important to consider AB 32 as a bridge to future 

 5 regional, national, and international programs. And to do 

 6 that, we think that it's -- and for that reason, we think 

 7 that the actions taken to implement the program need to 

 8 address issues in a manner that prevents leakage through 

 9 cost-effective and technologically feasible implementation 

10 requirements as well as through a robust market, an offset 

11 program that's attractive to functional entities in 

12 California, other states, and in the nation. 

13 Frankly, CCEEB believes that a market program 

14 will do a better job at finding the most cost-effective 

15 and technologically feasible way of accommodating or 

16 accomplishing greenhouse gas emission reductions than 

17 through extended rulemaking. And as potential rules are 

18 considered through Groups two or three, we would hope 

19 you'd take this into consideration and consider the 

20 functionality of these rules, or how these rules might 

21 affect the functionality of the program. 

22 Thank you very much. 

23 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 

24 Ms. Seal. 

25 MS. SEAL: Hello, my name is Kathy Seal, I'm with 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 185 

 1 Friends 4 A Livable Planet. We're a local grassroots 

 2 group of ordinary people who just want to do something 

 3 about global warming. 

 4 As summarized here this morning, the IPCC report 

 5 is truly alarming. Yet, and I say this with all due 

 6 respect to the hard work and good faith of the staff, the 

 7 three recommendations for today are puny. I know these 

 8 issues are complex and I know they're difficult. But 

 9 we're facing catastrophe. Just to cite one statistic, the 

10 Sierra snowpack may drop by at least 29 percent in the 

11 next few years. And as much as 70 percent. What does 

12 that mean for water in Southern California? That means 

13 really economic catastrophe for farms, for drinking water 

14 for everyone. 

15 So my message to you today is please do more and 

16 do it immediately. Our future is in your hands. 

17 One thing you might do is reinstate as the 

18 previous speaker mentioned, the zero emission vehicle 

19 requirement mandate for electric cars and plug-in hybrids, 

20 which is in your purview. 

21 You must do more and do it now and do this for 

22 our children and for our grandchildren and their children. 

23 This is urgent. Please, move up more actions into the 

24 list of immediate early actions today. 

25 Thank you. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 186 

 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 

 2 Ms. Maher. 

 3 The next three speaks are Martha Arguello, Mitzi 

 4 Shpak, and John Andrew. 

 5 Ms Arguello. 

 6 MS. ARGUELLO: Good afternoon. My name is Martha 

 7 Adena Arguello and I am the Director of Health and 

 8 Environment Programs with Physicians for Social 

 9 Responsibility and also a member of the Environmental 

10 Justice Advisory Committee. 

11 So what we saw today in the research project is 

12 that the time for half measures has passed. Existing 

13 market-based measures seem to be failing to deliver on the 

14 promise of reductions in carbon emissions or in any other 

15 air pollutants. The impacts of climate change will be 

16 felt most strongly in low income communities of color 

17 throughout California and the world. As a committee, we 

18 are committed to ensuring that our policies do not do the 

19 same to these communities. 

20 The early action measures that we adopt in 

21 California must be more diverse and robust than the three 

22 that have been presented by staff. We look forward to 

23 working with you and the staff, the Board and the staff, 

24 to come up with truly robust and effective early action 

25 measures that get us where we need to be. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 187 

 1 Also, we must not forget that command and control 

 2 measures work and we need to be braver in pushing more of 

 3 those kinds of measures. At the end of the day, 

 4 market-based mechanisms are designed to reduce the cost of 

 5 compliance, which is not the same thing as reducing 

 6 emissions. 

 7 Thank you. 

 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 

 9 Ms. Shpak. And then we will have -- excuse me. 

10 Then we will have John Andrew, Jane Williams and Roland 

11 Hwang. 

12 MS. SHPAK: Dr. Sawyer, the Board, my name is 

13 Mitzi Shpak. I'm with Action Now, I'm Executive Director. 

14 It's a small community-based environmental justice 

15 organization in Los Angeles. I'm also a biotechnologist 

16 on staff at Cal Tech. 

17 I'm here to encourage this Board to adopt the 

18 early action measures as recommended by the Global Warming 

19 Environmental Justice Committee. The Committee's 

20 recommendations include several technically and 

21 sociologically feasible measures that would have 

22 meaningful effects in a relatively rapid time frame. The 

23 effects of climate change are real. To counter these 

24 effects, we need the adopt practices that are truly 

25 effective and yield meaningful results. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 188 

 1 Climate change is not a game or an administrative 

 2 exercise. Climate change has real measurable effects on 

 3 the planet and to prevent the most damaging of these we 

 4 need to take action now. The Global Warming Environmental 

 5 Justice Committee recommendations we believe to be the 

 6 best options for early actions. 

 7 And on a side note, because cost-effectiveness 

 8 came up so many times, I'd like to remind the Committee 

 9 that there is no cap on the cost of global warming. Its 

10 potential costs dwarf any short term costs of making what 

11 are common sense changes to ensure our survival. 

12 Thank you. 

13 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 

14 Mr. Andrew. 

15 MR. ANDREW: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Board 

16 members. I'm John Andrew, I'm the Executive Manager for 

17 Climate Change at the Department of Water Resources. 

18 As a sister or a brother agency of the ARB and 

19 the Governor's Climate Action Team, it's my pleasure to 

20 submit a letter from our director, Lester Snow, in support 

21 of these proceedings today. And I'd like to quickly 

22 summarize that letter at this time. 

23 As you know, in addition to early actions, AB 32 

24 requires state agencies to reduce their greenhouse gas 

25 emissions and I'm happy to report the DWR is already on 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 189 

 1 its way to doing so. For example, we have joined the 

 2 California Climate Action Registry, and as part of that 

 3 process, are calculating our carbon footprint for the 

 4 department and, specifically, the state water project. We 

 5 are evaluating the power portfolio for the state water 

 6 project, in particular; 60 percent of which is already 

 7 from clean hydroelectricity. 

 8 That being said, there is a small portion of that 

 9 power portfolio that is derived from coal from a plant in 

10 Nevada. But I'm happy to say that we have decided as part 

11 of our process in looking at the power portfolio, that we 

12 will not review our contract for that power when it 

13 expires in 2013. 

14 And also as part of the process of looking at our 

15 power portfolio, we are voluntarily developing a renewable 

16 portfolio standard for the state water project. 

17 Beyond the Department of Water Resources, we are 

18 also looking to the rest of the California water 

19 management community and we plan to accelerate our 

20 investments in water use efficiency and target those 

21 investments to those measures that also have co-benefits 

22 with energy efficiency and thereby reduce greenhouse gas 

23 emissions. Further, we are already working with local 

24 agencies through our grant making through Proposition 50 

25 and Proposition 84 to help incorporate climate change 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 190 

 1 considerations at the local and regional planning levels. 

 2 We appreciate the leadership demonstrated by CARB 

 3 this issue and look forward to continuing to work with 

 4 both you and the other members of the Governor's Climate 

 5 Action Team as we combat climate change in California. 

 6 Thank you for the opportunity to comment today. 

 7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 

 8 Ms. Williams. 

 9 MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Chairman Sawyer, 

10 members of the Board. I'm Jane Williams, I am also the 

11 other co-chair of the Environmental Justice Advisory 

12 Committee. I spoke to some of you on the phone. Thank 

13 you so much, Board members, for taking time to meet with 

14 myself and some of the Committee members. 

15 A number of issues I want to cover very quickly. 

16 One, I wanted to bring to your attention that there has 

17 been a letter, hopefully, it's in your packet from 

18 environmental justice organizations, actually, across the 

19 country who are looking to California to show leadership 

20 on taking actions today to get us on the road to doing 

21 things that we can do now to get real reductions here in 

22 California. These organizations are looking at the 

23 environmental justice movement in California and this 

24 Board's actions as a litmus test on what kind of political 

25 will exists to take actions and not wait for the magic of 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 191 

 1 the market or the magic of some sort of action that's 

 2 going to happen a long time in the future. 

 3 A couple other things I wanted the mention. One, 

 4 on the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. As you know, the 

 5 Environmental Justice Advisory Committee was very 

 6 concerned about the ethanol path, the corn ethanol path in 

 7 the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, because of backsliding on 

 8 existing area quality standards and on food security 

 9 issues, quite frankly. So I'm wondering if this Board, 

10 and, again, I want to reiterate that we didn't say that a 

11 Low Carbon Fuel Standard wasn't a good idea. We were very 

12 concerned about the current path of Low Carbon Fuel 

13 Standard, which is an ethanol path. There's a hundred 

14 ethanol plants being constructed right now across this 

15 country. There are tremendous incentives and subsidies in 

16 the 2005 energy bill. There is a political juggernaut for 

17 corn-based ethanol in this country. 

18 And so I'm wondering if the Board might like to 

19 take this opportunity, before your staff marches down a 

20 regulatory path on the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, to give 

21 them some direction on what they think that standard 

22 should look like. Should it be a standard that includes 

23 and embraces corn-based ethanol, which we feel, the 

24 Environmental Justice Advisory Committee, is not going to 

25 be the compliance with the underpinnings, the statutory 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 192 

 1 underpinnings, especially against backsliding and 

 2 disproportionate impact that are in the bill. So I just 

 3 want to call that to your attention and see if you might 

 4 be interested in giving your staff some direction. So 

 5 that we're not back here in two or three years with a Low 

 6 Carbon Fuel Standard that is not going to meet the 

 7 requirements of the law and also is going to be very, very 

 8 politically controversial. 

 9 The last thing I wanted to bring to your 

10 attention is that, I'm sure many of you know what's going 

11 on in Darfur. There's 200,000 people that have died in 

12 Darfur in the last two years. That is a climate change 

13 catastrophe. The problems in Darfur are absolutely, 

14 positively caused from drought, that is caused from global 

15 warming. I'm not sure that you had the chance to read the 

16 statement that was released by the United Nations 

17 yesterday, but the head of the U.N. released an urgent 

18 plea to leaders of the world, especially people like you 

19 who are making decisions on global climate change. 

20 They estimate 200 million people will be climate 

21 change refugees in the next 15 years. 

22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Would you please conclude. 

23 MS. WILLIAMS: In conclusion, so your actions 

24 today are being watched by the world, and that is the 

25 reason why. Literally, because people's lives are 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 193 

 1 depending on the path that we take. 

 2 Thank you so much. 

 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 

 4 Mr. Hwang. And then we'll have Rupal Patel, Leo 

 5 Miras, and Bonnie Holmes-Gen. 

 6 MR. HWANG: Good afternoon, Chairman Sawyer and 

 7 members of the Board. My name is Roland Hwang, I'm the 

 8 Vehicle Policy Director with the Natural Resources Defense 

 9 Council. NRDC would like to weigh in on support for the 

10 adoption today for the Group One measures. But very 

11 clearly, also, want to encourage inclusion of three very 

12 specific measures on heavy-duty trucks, cement, and ports, 

13 which my colleague, Diane Bailey, who I believe will be 

14 speaking a few speakers later, will get into more detail. 

15 So we support Group One. But we do want to also weigh in 

16 in support with many other groups here that we need to 

17 include more measures. 

18 I think a lot what we hear today on the Low 

19 Carbon Fuel Standard, I'd like to talk about that a little 

20 bit, is a balancing act which the Board has to consider. 

21 On one hand, there's an urgency to solve global warming 

22 and a move to low carbon fuels that are sustainable. On 

23 the other hand, we have to do this in a prudent manner to 

24 make sure there's not inadvertent consequences. 

25 I would like to put my thumb on the scale for the 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 194 

 1 urgency side of this equation. Not to say that we 

 2 shouldn't do this correctly. I believe we have time to do 

 3 it correctly. But there is an urgency and in our 

 4 comments, and we just released a report called "Driving It 

 5 Home," I believe it should be in your packet, where we 

 6 just released a report talking about the dangers of where 

 7 we're headed with liquid fuels, which coal liquids, oil 

 8 shale, all have huge impacts on lands and on communities 

 9 and, of course, on global warming. Coal liquids is a 

10 subject of discussion of massive federal subsidies in 

11 Washington now and could double greenhouse gases. 

12 So we believe it is critical to send a signal to 

13 the marketplace now, in order to discourage, to slow down 

14 these investments. Without a Low Carbon Fuel Standard, 

15 without moving towards solutions on global warming, we'll 

16 be ending up filling up in ten, 20 years or sooner with 

17 high carbon fuels made from coal liquids. So we're very 

18 concerned about that. 

19 We do want to have three specific recommendations 

20 to the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. The world is watching. 

21 We want to have this done right. The first one is very 

22 critical one, I'm sure there's no backsliding in air 

23 quality and we do want to make sure there is proper 

24 incentives for the cleanest, for example, renewable 

25 electricity powering plug-in hybrids, that's a very clean 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 195 

 1 pathway. Sure -- and ensure no backsliding in air 

 2 quality. 

 3 Second, we do believe that the Air Resources 

 4 Board should evaluate and address any kind of a potential 

 5 for adverse impacts on environmental justice on local 

 6 communities and address environmental justice impacts. 

 7 Finally, we believe that it's very critical in 

 8 terms of getting the measurement right, so we do support 

 9 inclusion, when we're measuring the greenhouse gases, the 

10 impacts on land conversion and also fertilizers. 

11 We will support -- and I realize my time is up, 

12 Chairman Sawyer, so I'm almost done. And NRDC will be 

13 happy to participate in whatever process the Air Board 

14 staff believes is appropriate in order to come up with the 

15 right measurement for a full fuel cycle greenhouse gas 

16 emissions. 

17 Thank you for your attention. 

18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. And we look 

19 forward to working with the UCS on the technical details. 

20 MR. HWANG: NRDC. 

21 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: NRDC. Excuse me. One job 

22 back. 

23 MS. PATEL: Good afternoon. My name is Rupal 

24 Patel, and I represent an organization called Communities 

25 for Clean Ports. It's a non-profit/profit public 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 196 

 1 education campaign based in Los Angeles. 

 2 First, I'd just like to say that since the 

 3 beginning of this process, our biggest fear has been that 

 4 the ARB staff is overly relying on the Clean Air Action 

 5 Plan sponsored by the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach 

 6 to reduce port pollution impacts. And for two specific 

 7 reasons. 

 8 One is that the Clean Air Action Plan is a 

 9 five-year commitment, merely a set of promises by the 

10 ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, and at any point, 

11 they could, you know, decide to retract the environmental 

12 standards that they push in the lease agreements and then 

13 we're kind of left at the same place that we are right 

14 now. 

15 The second reason is that there are over ten 

16 other ports that operate along the coast of the state. 

17 And so, you know, state standards and state regulations on 

18 the port industries are absolutely critical in reducing 

19 port pollution. 

20 And as outlined in the Air Resources Board 

21 Emissions Reductions Plan for Ports and Goods Movement, 

22 pollution from port-related industries is responsible for 

23 a host of costly ills in California. 2,400 annual 

24 premature deaths, 75 percent of all diesel particulate 

25 matter, and 30 percent of all NOx, and billions in health 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 197 

 1 costs. Goods movement is a profitable industry. A 300 

 2 billion dollar per year business at the Los Angeles ports 

 3 alone, and viable, cost-effective, clean technologies and 

 4 alternative fuels exist today to cleanup the industry. 

 5 So Communities for Clean Ports advocates for the 

 6 strongest most aggressive regulatory measures and industry 

 7 practices to end port pollution poisoning throughout the 

 8 state. 

 9 To that end I'd like to submit to you a petition 

10 signed by nearly 5,000 Californians. The petition read in 

11 part: I urge you to reverse your decision to leave goods 

12 movement pollution reduction strategies out of your early 

13 action measures for addressing global warming. By 

14 limiting PM and NOx pollution as part of your early action 

15 measures, the Air Resources Board can act aggressively to 

16 improve air quality and reduce greenhouse gases. 

17 Specifically, I believe CARB should include the following 

18 early action measures. Require the cleanest available 

19 heavy-duty trucks. Require the cleanest available 

20 cargo-handling equipment, and require oceangoing vessels 

21 to use cleaner shore-based electrical power. As the 

22 state's chief air quality regulator, the Air Resources 

23 Board is responsible for protecting the health of millions 

24 of Californians, residents suffering from goods movement 

25 related pollution, and for upholding Governor 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 198 

 1 Schwarzenegger's promise to fight global warming. So it 

 2 is vital that you use all your resources at your disposal 

 3 to aggressively limit deadly goods movement pollution 

 4 emissions. Especially since trade is protected to triple 

 5 or quadruple over the next decade or so. 

 6 In closing, on behalf of Communities for Clean 

 7 Ports and nearly 5,000 people who have signed this 

 8 petition, I urge you to include aggressive regulations on 

 9 goods movement in your early action measures for AB 32. 

10 Thank you. 

11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 

12 Mr. Miras. 

13 MR. MIRAS: Good afternoon. My name is Leo Miras 

14 with the Environmental Health Coalition. I'm here today 

15 in support -- to speak in support of AB 32 Environmental 

16 Justice Advisory Committee's early action proposals number 

17 27 and 28. That's the promulgation of rules covering 

18 aging power plants for the purposes of their phase-out. 

19 And we believe that it is both necessary and a viable 

20 measure for the elimination of adverse emission impacts. 

21 You heard my colleague, Laura Hunter, speak about 

22 this earlier. 

23 What I want to to deal with specifically is 

24 something staff commented in introducing these two points, 

25 was that they didn't want to interfere with the work that 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 199 

 1 ARB is doing with the CEC and the PUC in regulating these 

 2 old power plants in regards to their greenhouse gas 

 3 emissions. And what that's based is from SB 1368 which 

 4 was the companion legislation, AB 32. And what that does 

 5 is, it just prohibits long-term financial commitments 

 6 between utilities and base load generators that don't 

 7 comply with this emission standard that the CEC and the 

 8 PUC, with ARB's consultation, with that -- if they don't 

 9 meet that standard, then that's when this law kicks in.. 

10 We think that for communities that are suffering 

11 in the shadow of these old power plants that are highly 

12 inefficient and highly polluting, that ARB needs to take a 

13 front seat in terms of driving this phase-out and in terms 

14 of getting rid of these old power plants. And also, the 

15 other problem with 1368, it only deals with long-term 

16 financial agreements, no short-term contract -- I mean 

17 short-term contracts don't fall into their purview, so you 

18 can have old power plants being run in perpetuity with 

19 short-term contracts and short-term leases. 

20 And also, it's a regulatory bill. It deals with, 

21 sorry, with the utility regulation. So you're not 

22 focusing on the air pollution impacts that we feel would 

23 be dealt with if ARB put its resources, and this broad 

24 AB 32 mandate, that we think we can start reducing 

25 greenhouse gas emissions in a very, very effective way as 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 200 

 1 well as provide these long-suffering communities some 

 2 relief. 

 3 So in closing, I just wanted to say, to look at 

 4 the proposal and to accept it. And that's it. 

 5 Thank you very much. 

 6 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 

 7 Ms. Holmes-Gen. And then we'll have Jill Whynot, 

 8 Diane Bailey, and Mike Sandler. 

 9 MS. HOLMES-GEN: Good afternoon, Chairman Sawyer, 

10 members of the Board, Bonnie Holmes-Gen with the American 

11 Lung Association of California. The American Lung 

12 Association is working very hard to reduce greenhouse gas 

13 emissions and implement AB 32 because of the impacts of 

14 global warming on increasing smog and soot emissions in 

15 those serious public health impacts that would result. 

16 We believe the list of early action measures is 

17 extremely important and significant. That's why we're 

18 here today. With this list, you are setting early 

19 regulatory priorities for the global warming programs at 

20 the state. And you are affirming the importance of 

21 regulatory mechanisms as a key and central part of AB 32 

22 implementation. And you have the opportunity today to 

23 ensure that the measures with important criteria pollutant 

24 co-benefits, such as diesel control measures, are on the 

25 top priority the category one list. And that's one of our 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 201 

 1 key asks. In this way, the early action list can have a 

 2 more immediate health impact on the communities throughout 

 3 the state and can set an important model for other states 

 4 and countries to follow. 

 5 We believe that given the public health epidemic 

 6 of air pollution, the high numbers of premature deaths, 

 7 asthma attacks, hospitalizations, and lung damage that's 

 8 occurring, especially in children, that's extremely 

 9 important to make simultaneous progress on both the 

10 criteria pollutant programs and the greenhouse gas 

11 programs simultaneously. And those can be blended 

12 together in this early action list. 

13 With this in mind, we are supporting the measures 

14 that are currently on your early action list and we are 

15 urging you to expand the list and to include a more robust 

16 list of measures. Specifically, we have asked to include 

17 the heavy-duty truck emission reduction measures on the 

18 Group One list, and you've heard some comments about that. 

19 Those are the smart way improvements. We are urging you 

20 to move up port electrification and other port diesel 

21 reduction measures to Group One list to ensure that 

22 communities near the ports benefit from the earliest 

23 possible emission reduction benefits, and to add a measure 

24 for anti-idling enforcement into the Group Two 

25 implementation to increase enforcement staff and ensure 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 202 

 1 stronger compliance among the 500,000 or more on-road 

 2 trucks and the hundreds of thousands of off-road vehicles. 

 3 This can be done through, again, increasing staff, 

 4 designing enforcement programs to include better outreach, 

 5 and coordination with local air districts. And better 

 6 outreach to the regulated community, to get more 

 7 consistent and widespread compliance with diesel measures. 

 8 We think this is an obvious measure that should be very 

 9 high on your list. 

10 We are also supporting, in conclusion, we are 

11 also supporting the Low Carbon Fuel Standard as a key 

12 mechanism to promote transition to cleaner alternative 

13 fuels. However, we do believe that environmental 

14 safeguards are needed, especially air quality safeguards 

15 to protect against backsliding on our quality commitments 

16 and safeguards to ensure that fuel are produced 

17 sustainably. 

18 And even -- I appreciate the comments of 

19 Professor Sperling, but still do believe that there are 

20 safeguards that need to be written into the regulatory 

21 process. And we would be happy to help you with that. 

22 Thank you very much for the time to comment and 

23 we have also submitted written comments along with a group 

24 of environmental organizations. 

25 Thank you. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 203 

 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 

 2 Ms. Whynot. 

 3 MS. WHYNOT: Thank you. Good afternoon, 

 4 Dr. Sawyer and members of the Board. My name is Jill 

 5 Whynot with the staff at South Coast Air Quality 

 6 Management District. 

 7 First, we'd like to say thank you very much for 

 8 the opportunity to testify on very a important statewide 

 9 effort. And I have just a few slides to emphasize our 

10 comments today. 

11 --o0o-- 

12 MS. WHYNOT: Next slide, please. 

13 --o0o-- 

14 MS. WHYNOT: First, we urge you to strengthen the 

15 early action measures. We have some specific suggestions 

16 for additional measures that will not only reduce 

17 significant amounts of greenhouse gas, but maximize the 

18 co-benefits that are needed for the State Implementation 

19 Plan. Also, we concur with CAPCOA that it's really 

20 important to prioritize the existing SIP strategies so 

21 that when you can get greenhouse gas, toxics, criteria 

22 pollutants, those strategies should move up the list and 

23 be done first. 

24 Also, we also believe that existing local air 

25 districts can offer quite a bit. We can evaluate existing 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 204 

 1 rules and where we identity gaps, where one district may 

 2 have a program that would be of value statewide, we can 

 3 fill those gaps, especially for stationary sources through 

 4 our rulemaking efforts. 

 5 And I'd also like to echo for the CAPCOA 

 6 comments, the best time for a new project to cost 

 7 effectively reduce its impacts on criteria, toxics, 

 8 greenhouse gases, is in the design phase. So we really do 

 9 we need to work on a CEQA and a new resource review type 

10 process so that we can make sure that projects that are 

11 being built in the next few years start off on the right 

12 foot. 

13 Next slide, please. 

14 --o0o-- 

15 MS. WHYNOT: We also urge CARB to take advantage 

16 of the partnerships that we're offering. Local air 

17 districts, in addition to adopting the rules, are engaging 

18 through CAPCOA, we'd like the work with ARB on developing 

19 the CEQA, not only thresholds, but also compiling 

20 mitigation measures because this's very important. You 

21 get a project and you can come up with a list of suggested 

22 mitigations, you can take care of a lot of the impacts 

23 that that project might bring. And also we want to work 

24 with CARB and others on a new resource review type 

25 process. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 205 

 1 Next slide, please. 

 2 --o0o-- 

 3 MS. WHYNOT: Here's some specific suggestions 

 4 where we think that the staff proposal could be 

 5 strengthened. We have two specific additions to the early 

 6 action measures. 

 7 The first is to accelerate the use of hybrid 

 8 technologies. This is well-known, generally accepted 

 9 technologies and we think through incentives and 

10 regulations that the turnover rate and the use of these 

11 vehicles could be accelerated. 

12 The second has to deal with the heat content or 

13 the WOBBE index of natural gas. We have a measure in our 

14 plan that would limit that to an index of about 1360. Gas 

15 coming into the state can go up to 1380. And this can 

16 have a difference in the amount of CO2 two emissions that 

17 the state could see. It's a pretty small percentage 

18 increase in your carbon. If you go from 1360 to 1380, but 

19 because of the vast quantities that are used throughout 

20 the state, that could be a significant amount of CO2 that 

21 we could avoid. 

22 And in addition, increasing the hot gas use also 

23 increases your NOx emissions for many different types of 

24 combustion. So you'd get a double benefit there. 

25 Next slide, please. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 206 

 1 --o0o-- 

 2 MS. WHYNOT: We also think that for the Group Two 

 3 measures which are the ones that are either underway or to 

 4 be initiated in 2007 to 2009 time frame, we'd like to see 

 5 very specific dates for adoption and implementation. That 

 6 will help in the planning efforts, make sure that we get 

 7 to where we're trying to get. And then also there are 

 8 four specific measures listed on this slide that we think 

 9 it's feasible and would be a great thing if those can be 

10 moved to be adopted by 2009. So move that up. 

11 Next slide, please. 

12 --o0o-- 

13 MS. WHYNOT: There are also three specific 

14 measures that we're recommending. These are from our 2007 

15 Air Quality Management Plan and we think that these should 

16 be added to Group Three as SIP measures that would have 

17 significant co-benefits. Not only greenhouse gases, 

18 others. 

19 --o0o-- 

20 MS. WHYNOT: And the last slide, in conclusion, 

21 we think that there's a great opportunity here to set some 

22 leadership and to do some great things for the state's 

23 path to reduce the greenhouse gases. I have a blue 

24 handout here that summarizes the specific suggestions that 

25 we're recommending be changed: That we work to help 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 207 

 1 prioritize SIP measures. Local districts, including the 

 2 South Coast, are very willing and have a lot to offer in a 

 3 partnership with CARB. 

 4 And then finally, the handout that I have here 

 5 said that we believe that you should consider the 

 6 suggestions of the Environmental Justice Advisory 

 7 Committee and other stakeholders. A lot of great thought 

 8 has gone into those efforts. And while we don't agree 

 9 with everything on their list, we think there's a lot of 

10 things that have merit and should be considered. 

11 Thank you very much. 

12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 

13 Ms. Bailey. 

14 MS. BAILEY: Good afternoon, Chairman Sawyer, 

15 members of the Board and staff. And thank you for the 

16 opportunity to comment here today. 

17 My name is Diane Bailey, I'm a scientist with the 

18 Natural Resources Defense Council. And I'm here today in 

19 strong support of the staff proposal for early action 

20 measures to reduce greenhouse gases as my colleague, 

21 Roland Hwang, has described to you. 

22 I also want to urge you to adopt several more 

23 early action measures that would be relatively simple to 

24 develop and would add substantial greenhouse gas 

25 reductions to the current list. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 208 

 1 As the world watches, I hope that this agency 

 2 will live up to its venerable reputation by taking on its 

 3 AB 32 obligations to reduce global warming pollutants in a 

 4 strong ambitious manner. 

 5 We recommend three measures that are particularly 

 6 suitable for addition to the early action list and these 

 7 include heavy-duty truck efficiency, cement industry 

 8 energy efficiency, and port electrification, which you've 

 9 already heard a lot about today. Together, these measures 

10 can provide more than four million tons of greenhouse gas 

11 reductions, in addition to the staff proposed list. 

12 We have provided very detailed comments on these 

13 measures in writing and I just want to highlight a few 

14 more points here today. 

15 First, I want to highlight that the measures that 

16 we're proposing offer a key opportunity to leverage 

17 greenhouse gas reductions with other toxic emissions such 

18 as mercury and diesel soot. These measures would rely on 

19 existing programs developed by U.S. EPA and other agencies 

20 and, therefore, would not require significant staff time 

21 compared to other measures. For example, the heavy-duty 

22 truck efficiency measure that we propose for early action 

23 would piggyback onto the existing heavy-duty truck diesel 

24 rule development and incorporate the elements of EPA Smart 

25 Way program that you've already heard about. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 209 

 1 The elements of Smart Way could be incorporated 

 2 in a similar fashion as the particulate matter and the NOx 

 3 retrofits would be required. And as my colleague, Patty 

 4 Monahan with UCS already to you, some of these measures, 

 5 including improved aerodynamics, automatic tire inflation, 

 6 and single-wide tires, could not reduce NOx emissions 

 7 further, but reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to ten 

 8 percent. 

 9 Many of these measures also pay for themselves 

10 quickly through fuel savings, making them highly 

11 cost-effective. 

12 We believe that all current and future diesel 

13 rulemakings offer good opportunity to obtain further 

14 greenhouse gas reductions, in addition to diesel PM and 

15 NOx reductions. Together with the diesel truck rule, the 

16 port electrification rule will help address the poor air 

17 quality that many environmental justice communities face 

18 throughout California, as you've heard here today. These 

19 environmental justice benefits, in addition to the 

20 significant greenhouse gas reductions, should elevate the 

21 priority of these rules early action status. 

22 I also want to take a moment to highlight the 

23 cement industry as a very important industry to deal with. 

24 I was a little bit concerned that the cement industry was 

25 not mentioned as a Group Two item in the staff 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 210 

 1 presentation. And I'm concluding right now. And we 

 2 really hope that this agency can work hard to develop a 

 3 comprehensive set of cement industry measures, treating 

 4 the cement industry as miniature power plants, as they 

 5 are. 

 6 And we urge you to adopt these measures that I've 

 7 described here today in addition to the staff proposed 

 8 list. And look forward to working with staff on these 

 9 measures. 

10 Thank you so much. 

11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 

12 Mr. Sandler. And then we'll have Kenneth 

13 Smokoska, Julia May, and Philip Huang. 

14 MR. SANDLER: Thank you, Dr. Sawyer and members 

15 of the Board. My name is Mike Sandler. I'm with the 

16 Climate Protection Campaign. For the past six years, 

17 we've worked with several local jurisdictions to quantify 

18 and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and develop 

19 local climate action plans. I've also worked with the Bay 

20 Area Air Quality Management District in the development of 

21 their climate protection program and I wanted to just 

22 acknowledge and appreciate CAPCOA's recent work on climate 

23 protection. 

24 I've been following the AB 32 process and I hope 

25 to convince you in the next three minutes to adopt an 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 211 

 1 early action measure which will help accomplish all the 

 2 other early action measures. I'm writing to -- or I 

 3 wrote, and I submitted written comments to encourage CARB 

 4 to consider an early action measure, a carbon permit fee. 

 5 The fee would phase in beginning in 2008, and the question 

 6 is how much should the fee be? Right now, carbon is zero 

 7 dollars per ton in California. That's the status quo and 

 8 the IPCC has said that's not acceptable anymore. So the 

 9 question is, how much should a fee be to raise funds to 

10 help the Air Resources Board pay for some of its projects 

11 and other early action measures. 

12 I suggested between five or $10 a ton. Perhaps 

13 some of you on the Board might say $1 a ton to start. But 

14 zero dollars a ton is no longer acceptable. 

15 The early announcement of a carbon fee will lower 

16 carbon emissions through millions discrete acts taken by 

17 millions of individuals and businesses throughout the 

18 state motivated to avoid upcoming costs. So the very 

19 announcement of a fee will have an impact right a way as 

20 an early action measure. The fee is not a substitute for 

21 regulatory activities. It's should just be alongside all 

22 of those. 

23 A carbon permit fee would help fund many of the 

24 immediate activities that CARB is planning to implement. 

25 Early aspects of the program could be paid for immediately 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 212 

 1 by borrowing against future funds anticipated by the fee. 

 2 We don't want to AB 32 to be an unfunded mandate 

 3 into the foreseeable future. 

 4 The fee can be implemented efficiently and 

 5 rapidly on two major sectors which release carbon 

 6 emissions. Transportation fuels and electricity. 

 7 Regarding who pays the fee, the Climate Protection 

 8 Campaign has advocated an upstream system for the overall 

 9 cap option system, since upstream is the most 

10 comprehensive and easiest to implement. And we've 

11 submitted comments to that effect to the Market Advisory 

12 Committee. 

13 The Market Advisory Committee draft report 

14 estimates there are 50 companies that would be affected. 

15 So you could probably hire a couple of staff on ARB to 

16 find out how much that would be for each of those 50 

17 companies and implement this relatively quickly. 

18 Creating a carbon fund, which is also sometimes 

19 called a "sky trust" with an estimated two to three 

20 billion dollars from carbon fees would have an enormous 

21 impact on the effectiveness of a carbon reduction program. 

22 So I hope that you will consider this as early 

23 action measure. 

24 Thank you. 

25 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 213 

 1 Mr. Smokoska. 

 2 MR. SMOKOSKA: That's pretty close. Good 

 3 afternoon, Dr. Sawyer, members of the Board. My name is 

 4 Kenneth Smokoska, I'm chair of the Sierra Club of 

 5 California's Energy Climate Change Committee representing 

 6 almost 250,000 members. And if you thought the Governor's 

 7 passage of AB 32 was big California energy environmental 

 8 news, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted eleven 

 9 to zero this week to implement Community Choice Energy 

10 Implementation Plan. That's going to be a 50 percent 

11 renewable energy plan built out in the confines of the Bay 

12 Area by 2017. 

13 So when you look at the stakeholder suggestions 

14 that weren't included in the early adoption measures, 

15 you've got B 23 which would incentivize Community Choice 

16 Aggregation Plans with a high RPS content. Why not an 

17 early action measure? You know with a carbon tax or a cap 

18 N option, that would be a very good mechanism. 

19 B 38. The greenhouse gases in the general plans 

20 and CEQA, the attorney general's already filed comments 

21 regarding the San Diego and San Bernardino General Plans. 

22 The Orange County Transportation Plan, I heard earlier a 

23 stationary source for a refinery. The local districts are 

24 not being utilized nor consulted and they need some 

25 guidance and it's sorely lacking. You've got A 22 which 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 214 

 1 is adopt a regulation to take advantage of emerging hybrid 

 2 electric technology for medium-duty trucks. Why not all 

 3 vehicles, and also expand to reinstate the ZEV mandate 

 4 with a partial hybrid electric vehicle early adoption 

 5 measure, as long as renewable energy is utilized. 

 6 When you look at section 38560.5: The 

 7 regulations adopted by the Board shall achieve maximum 

 8 technology feasible and cost effective reductions. 

 9 The San Francisco Implementation Plan by the 

10 energy service providers have said that it would be a meet 

11 or beat PG&E rates. So you have a huge early adoption 

12 measure to be focusing on. 

13 Then when you look at section 38561: The State 

14 Board shall consider all relevant information pertaining 

15 to greenhouse gas emission reduction programs in other 

16 localities. 

17 Sonoma County should have an implementation plan 

18 out which would be a 30 percent reduction of 1990 levels 

19 by 2025, out by September. 

20 And available time and available staff should be 

21 put towards the providing assistance to help accelerate 

22 these programs. Many counties have aggressive programs in 

23 the works and then we have a sense of urgency, so we 

24 should get all these regulatory agencies working together 

25 and get on these plans. Because it's not business as 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 215 

 1 usual. 

 2 The California IOU's have over 9,000 natural gas 

 3 power plants, some scheduled to where they're in their the 

 4 long-term procurement. There's multiple L and G 

 5 terminals. The State Coastal Commission and State Lands 

 6 Commission just recently turned down BHP in Ventura County 

 7 because of the 25 million tons of greenhouse gases just 

 8 with that one terminal. 

 9 Thank you for your consideration. 

10 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 

11 Ms. May. 

12 MS. MAY: I have a PowerPoint presentation. 

13 Sorry, that's not mine. Julia May. And I'm hoping you 

14 have the copies of the right one as well. Communities for 

15 a Better Environment. CBE. That's it. Thank you. 

16 --o0o-- 

17 MS. MAY: Okay. I'm Julia May from Communities 

18 for a Better Environment. I'm a senior scientist. I want 

19 to direct your attention to the largest California 

20 industrial source that's entirely missing from the 

21 greenhouse -- from the early action items. 

22 And the second slide, you see that the -- next 

23 slide please. 

24 --o0o-- 

25 MS. MAY: The California Public Utilities 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 216 

 1 Commission found that industrial facilities make up about 

 2 23 percent of the state's total, 40 percent of that is oil 

 3 refineries. That means refineries are about 10 percent of 

 4 the state's greenhouse gases. The same as in-state power 

 5 plants. That has -- that's a fact that most people 

 6 haven't focused on anywhere. It's a big source. 

 7 Unfortunately -- next slide, please. 

 8 --o0o-- 

 9 MS. MAY: -- it's getting bigger. Oil refineries 

10 have been and are continuing to accelerate their switch to 

11 dirty crude. Even before we get the Canadian tar sand, 

12 this is already happening in the state. That means more 

13 dirty crude in, more carbon, more sulfur, more heavy 

14 metals. We got less sulfur going out of the refineries 

15 because of our important California fuel standards. That 

16 means more carbon, more SOx, deadly H2S gas inside the 

17 refinery, more risk of upset for neighbors. This is an 

18 environmental justice hazard to community. It also means 

19 a lot more CO2. We've got more energy intensive cracking, 

20 coking, hydrogen plants, hydrotreating sulphur recovery 

21 going on. 

22 Next slide, please. 

23 --o0o-- 

24 MS. MAY: I just want to let you know that 

25 they're building in an infrastructure that's going to last 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 217 

 1 for the next several decades. Right now, it's becoming 

 2 much more carbon intensive. Conoco-Phillips got 

 3 mentioned. We've getting a case on that, and the AG's 

 4 office is filing on that. One and a quarter million 

 5 metric tons per year of CO2 from that one plant. All the 

 6 plants I could come up, not a comprehensive list, are 

 7 almost 6 billion metric tons of new CO2. This is wiping 

 8 out a lot of the early action items that you guys are 

 9 trying to do. It's actually going backwards. And the oil 

10 refineries are building this in for decades. 

11 Next slide, please. 

12 --o0o-- 

13 MS. MAY: We're asking that you add an early 

14 action item that would require a ground up energy audit 

15 for oil refineries. The items are already identified, 

16 they're not rocket science, they're not technology 

17 forcing. We've got a lot of issues identified by the 

18 Lawrence Berkeley Labs, we've identified some. The air 

19 districts have identified a lot. 

20 If you require that they start doing the energy 

21 audit now, this will be effective. 

22 Please, on next slide 'cause I'm going to run out 

23 of time. 

24 --o0o-- 

25 MS. MAY: We need to remove the methane 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 218 

 1 exemptions in the VOC regs for refineries. When we did 

 2 audit on flares in the Bay Area and South Coast, we found, 

 3 at first they thought that emissions were 0.1 tons per 

 4 day. When they audited, they found many tons per day of 

 5 VOCs. The audit itself can identity the gaps at each 

 6 refinery. Then it's easy to identity the ways to clean 

 7 this up. The pollution prevention measures that clean up 

 8 the CO2, and in conclusion, these also clean up the smog, 

 9 the toxics, the risk of upset the neighbors face. It's 

10 the same thing that we need to do anyway in the 

11 neighborhoods to protect the public health and we need to 

12 do it right now because it's going to get a lot worse for 

13 the refineries. 

14 If you've got any questions. 

15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 

16 MS. MAY: Thank you very much. 

17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Mr. Huang. And then we'll 

18 have Joseph Bishop, Bill Karambelas, and Albert Cohen. 

19 MR. HUANG: Good afternoon, Dr. Sawyer, members 

20 of the Board. I'd just like to follow-up on my colleague 

21 Julia May's comment. Also with Communities for a Better 

22 Environment, a nonprofit, community-based organization 

23 combining science, legal advocacy, and community 

24 organizing. And you'll from all our aspects today. 

25 The gravity of the IPCC report's conclusions 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 219 

 1 should be matched by the boldness and breadth of the 

 2 measures that your agency adopts today. ARB's mission is 

 3 to protect public health. Therefore, we think ARB should 

 4 kill two birds with one stone. It should endorse a broad 

 5 slate of measures that would reduce both greenhouse gases 

 6 and traditional pollutants, such as smog forming 

 7 chemicals, particulate matter, and toxics. And you've 

 8 already heard sort of what our measures that CBE has 

 9 recommended and that were endorsed by the Environmental 

10 Justice Advisory Committee through a long process. They 

11 didn't just rubber stamp, they really asked us question. 

12 And it's a light blue paper that's may be attached to the 

13 end of the PowerPoint. 

14 You know, require recycling of waste gases at 

15 refineries, eliminate the methane exemptions to 

16 refineries, implement energy efficiencies measures. 

17 Including an energy audit. Energy audit is something you 

18 can start right now. It doesn't have to wait until 2010 

19 scoping plan, et cetera. 

20 We believe that staff's characterization of the 

21 law is somewhat inaccurate. AB 32 implementation should 

22 compliment efforts at achieving air quality standards, 

23 that's what it says in the law. That means more than just 

24 avoiding negative impacts. It means affirmatively acting 

25 and complimenting what we're trying to do to reduce 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 220 

 1 criteria pollutants and inter-air toxics. And that's why, 

 2 you know, we support the rest of the EJAC recommendations. 

 3 The one's that the environmental groups endorsed about 

 4 ports and, you know, diesel. 

 5 Furthermore, these early action measures that, 

 6 including ours, reduce local pollution that protects the 

 7 health of the state's most vulnerable residents, the ones 

 8 who live in refinery communities around ports. We 

 9 shouldn't pass up this opportunity. An ounce of pollution 

10 prevention is worth a pound of cure. Reducing measures 

11 today means that we avoid -- we help avoid the kicking in 

12 the negative feedback loop that the IPCC presenter talked 

13 with the melting ice sheets. Greenhouse gas causes heat. 

14 The heat melts the ice. The ice release more greenhouse 

15 gases. That's not industrial pollution, that's, you know, 

16 greenhouse gases causing more greenhouse gases. And, so, 

17 therefore, reducing carbon and other greenhouse gases 

18 today is so much more effective, cost-effective than 

19 reducing them later. 

20 And furthermore, you know, as the staff report 

21 indicates, you know, conventional pollutants such as 

22 particulate matter and other things, have short-term 

23 carbon impact. So if we reduce them now, that would 

24 reduces carbon now as well. 

25 So in conclusion, I'd just like to say please act 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 221 

 1 early and often on the early action measures and protect 

 2 the public health of our state's most vulnerable 

 3 residents. 

 4 Thank you 

 5 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 

 6 Mr. Bishop. 

 7 All right. Mr. Karambelas. Mr. Bishop? No. 

 8 Mr. Cohen? 

 9 MR. KARAMBELAS: I'm Bill Karambelas. 

10 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Oh, okay, fine. Thank you. 

11 MR. KARAMBELAS: And I have a presentation. 

12 --o0o-- 

13 MR. KARAMBELAS: Okay. Very good. 

14 Yes. My name is Bill Karambelas. I'm 

15 Vice-president with Fuel Cell Energy. I'm also 

16 representing the large stationary manufacturers of fuel 

17 cells today. And this presentation is put together by the 

18 National Fuel Cell Research Center, which is based down at 

19 U.C. Irvine and is funded by the Department of Energy and 

20 headed by Dr. Scott Samuelson. 

21 Next slide, please. 

22 --o0o-- 

23 MR. KARAMBELAS: Just a quick overview on fuel 

24 cells. It's electricity generated by electrochemical 

25 reaction, not by combustion. This leads to much higher 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 222 

 1 electrical efficiency than traditional generation and much 

 2 lower emissions. Thirty percent of the installed base in 

 3 California today run on renewable or digester gas or 

 4 methane gas. Sixty percent installed capture waste heat 

 5 through co-generation or combined heat and power. As an 

 6 emerging technology today, the 18 megawatts of installed 

 7 fuel cell capacity could easily exceed 3200 megawatts by 

 8 2020 with a long term balance portfolio of incentives. 

 9 These include mandated CHP or a combined heat and power 

10 portfolio requirements. Continued upfront capacity-based 

11 incentives coupled with performance-based incentives. And 

12 the removal of utility barriers. There's an asterisk on 

13 this presentation, which I believe all the Board members 

14 have, and it will highlight as California Energy 

15 Commission Report from November 2005. In section H, 

16 there's a very extensive of barriers. 

17 Next slide, please. 

18 --o0o-- 

19 MR. KARAMBELAS: In the interest of time, I'll 

20 draw your eye to the right side of this graph. This is 

21 the annual emissions reduced per one megawatt capacity of 

22 fuel cells versus California natural gas-fired power 

23 plant. As you can see, one of the -- two of the wonderful 

24 technologies that the state's embraced are wind and solar. 

25 Although, they take no fuel and have incredible benefits 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 223 

 1 for the state, they're intermittent in nature. The sun 

 2 shines when it shines, the wind blows when it blows. The 

 3 fuel cells are a base-loaded or a 24/7 technology. 

 4 Therefore, we run continuously. 

 5 So if you look on the right-hand side and all 

 6 criteria pollutants and CO2, you can see that fuel cells 

 7 actually outshine wind and solar, and in some cases with 

 8 both of them combined, is the case, CO. 

 9 Next slide. 

10 --o0o-- 

11 MR. KARAMBELAS: We have a view in 2020, that we 

12 can put 3,200 megawatts of fuel cells in place here in 

13 California. That would reduce 4.4 metric tons of CO2. 

14 Natural gas savings of about 674 million MMBTUs or enough 

15 to power about 11. 4 million homes. We believe strongly 

16 that fuel cells are a necessary contribution to enable 

17 California to achieve its AB 32 goals. 

18 Next slide. 

19 --o0o-- 

20 MR. KARAMBELAS: Today, fuel cells are creating 

21 6.6 to 19.6 cents per kilowatt hour of value to California 

22 ratepayers. 

23 And the final slide, if I could have one more 

24 moment in conclusion. 

25 --o0o-- 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 224 

 1 MR. KARAMBELAS: -- is our waterfall or value 

 2 build up of fuel cells in California. And we have 

 3 extensive background on these numbers and be happy to 

 4 forward it to you. It's basically the same folks who put 

 5 together the California Solar Initiative numbers. 

 6 Thank you. 

 7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 

 8 Mr. Cohen. And then we'll have Jim Stewart, 

 9 Rachel McMahon, and Howard Gollay. 

10 MR. COHEN: My name is Albert Cohen. I'm 

11 Director of the Southern California Ecumenical Council, 

12 which is a church council comprised of 18 denominations 

13 and representing thousands of congregations in this state. 

14 We've been active in environmental affairs since 1972. 

15 I want to talk about time. 

16 Friends, there is an emergency here. The red 

17 light is on for the petroleum civilization. What we have 

18 here today is in conclusion. That's where we are in terms 

19 of the pressure that's on us, because this is a biological 

20 situation we're in. We've heard a lot about chemistry. 

21 We've heard a lot about physics today. But it is biology 

22 that is the point. 

23 The Earth is a living, breathing organism which 

24 is ill. It takes time to get sick and it takes time to 

25 get well. Some people would say we've got a terminal 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 225 

 1 illness here. Hopefully, it's not going to be that. But 

 2 it will only not be a terminal case, if we are active now. 

 3 I mean, what we're talking about that should 

 4 happen in 2010, what should happen in 2020, needs to 

 5 happen immediately. 

 6 We agree with Dr. Sperling that money is not the 

 7 issue. We're not talking about cost-effectiveness here. 

 8 We're talking about Hurricane Katrina. We're talking 

 9 about pouring millions of dollars into solving this 

10 problem now. 

11 The staff. The staff should be doubled. The 

12 staff should be tripled. There should be no question 

13 about having enough people to do the job. When we look 

14 back -- I remember in 1970, how far the year 2000 seemed 

15 to be. Well, the year 2000 came in a big hurry, and the 

16 year 2050 is going to come in a big hurry, and if we 

17 haven't acted now, it's going to be too late, folks. It's 

18 going to be over. 

19 We at least owe that to our children and our 

20 grandchildren, that they would have an opportunity to live 

21 on this planet. 

22 The IPCC, the Stern report, all of these 

23 scientific reports indicate that there is a crisis. So 

24 I'm asking you to demonstrate courageous leadership at 

25 this point. You have the opportunity. Be bold. And 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 226 

 1 produce some public policy which is going the solve this 

 2 problem now. 

 3 Thank you for listening. 

 4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 

 5 Mr. Stewart. 

 6 MR. STEWART: I'm Jim Stewart, the Chair of the 

 7 Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club's Global Warming 

 8 Committee. And I want to substantiate. I have a Ph.D. in 

 9 physics. I know, and I really sympathize with the people 

10 that have presented the IPCC report as, you know, data as 

11 of 2005, which, of course, is totally inadequate. 

12 --o0o-- 

13 MR. STEWART: And so this is the slide that the 

14 IPCC reported. Right? The worst possible scenario that 

15 they considered was the red line up at the top. 

16 --o0o-- 

17 MR. STEWART: And the optimistics ones were the 

18 ones where we could get 450 stabilization at the bottom 

19 green line or something there in the middle a little bit. 

20 But let's look at the latest data. 

21 The next slide, please. 

22 --o0o-- 

23 MR. STEWART: The next slide shows that the 

24 actually data, and the most reliable data is in the white 

25 circles because the black circles don't include the recent 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 227 

 1 results from China, which I can talk about in a minute. 

 2 Look at those white circles. They're above the red line. 

 3 They're above the worst possible scenario that was 

 4 considered by the IPCC. 

 5 Folks, this is a planetary emergency. I like 

 6 what Supervisor Hill said. We're going to let a little 

 7 staff shortage or a little pressure on the staff here to 

 8 avoid action on a planetary emergency like that? I sure 

 9 as heck hope not. 

10 I want to say that you guys have the obligation 

11 to the world to set these early action measures to be the 

12 most emphatic you can get them. It's your opportunity to 

13 shape history for this planet. And I hope that you're 

14 going to propose some amendments to boost up, like the 

15 Environmental Justice Coalition said, there's a lot of 

16 those measures that need to be in the early action. 

17 You need to take responsibility for this, and all 

18 of us, all of the six and a half billion people on this 

19 planet, are looking at that curve and saying this is your 

20 time to stand up and be counted. 

21 Thank you. 

22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 

23 Mr. McMahon. Excuse me. Ms. McMahon. 

24 MS. MCMAHON: Good afternoon. My name is Rachel 

25 McMahon and I represent the Center for Energy Efficiency 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 228 

 1 and Renewable Technologies. Our organization is a 

 2 consortium of environmental groups and renewable energy 

 3 technology companies. 

 4 Now, we've made recommendations to the Climate 

 5 Action Team and are working with the CEC and PUC on energy 

 6 issues. But I did want to take the opportunity today to 

 7 say a few words about our energy system, because 

 8 eventually the question of how to address our energy 

 9 system from a climate perspective will come to this body. 

10 Greenhouse gas emissions from our electric sector 

11 have been increasing far more than any other sector 

12 including transportation. We have a renewable energy law 

13 and policy, energy efficiency targets and policies, a 

14 California solar initiative, and now a new global warming 

15 law. Yet at the same time, renewable energy development 

16 lags in the state. There are barriers to deployment of 

17 ultra clean distributed generation such as solar and fuel 

18 cells and solar thermal technologies. And thousands of 

19 megawatts of new gas fired peaking and base load power 

20 plants are being approved in communities throughout the 

21 state. 

22 Achieving our climate goals in the energy sector 

23 for 2020 and beyond will require that our energy system 

24 will be a lot cleaner and more efficient and a lot 

25 different than it is today, and this requires integrated 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 229 

 1 resource planning. Across all energy agencies and all 

 2 utilities. 

 3 We must develop our wealth of renewable energy 

 4 resources and transmission to access them. Developing 

 5 these resources means clean jobs, natural homegrown 

 6 industry and economic benefits that will accrue directly 

 7 to the state. We also need greater investments in energy 

 8 efficiency and ultra clean distributed generation. We 

 9 need to force technology innovation. But these changes 

10 will not be easy or quick. They require planning, long 

11 term investment and sustained orderly development, much 

12 like infrastructure projects such as highways, levies, and 

13 dams. They cannot be approached as a single regulation, 

14 and as Dr. Sperling said earlier, it is important to get 

15 it right. We believe that government does have a strong 

16 role to play in deciding the future of our energy system 

17 for the state and the citizens. Neither business as usual 

18 nor solely in invisible hand of the market can do this for 

19 us. 

20 We further urge that CARB move electrification of 

21 the ports, as many other folks here have commented today, 

22 with clean renewable power and fuel cells. And combined 

23 heat and power and co-generation units to a discrete early 

24 action measure. The times is now to get the planning 

25 started. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 230 

 1 This concludes my comments. Thank you. 

 2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 

 3 Mr. Gollay. And then we'll have Kevin Fay, 

 4 Ricardo Frayre, and Juan Carmona. 

 5 MR. GOLLAY: Good afternoon, Dr. Sawyer, the 

 6 Board, and the staff. First of all, I am Howard Gollay, 

 7 Manager of Corporate Environmental Policy for Southern 

 8 California Edison. 

 9 The first thing I want to tell you is that we 

10 really appreciate and recognize the importance that the 

11 CARB Board, the staff, the Market Advisory Committee, the 

12 EJ Advisory Committee, and all the stakeholders are 

13 placing in this very important challenge that we all face. 

14 I'd just would like to make three points. 

15 The first point that is we support the Low Carbon 

16 Fuel Standard as an early action. 

17 The second point is that I recognize you've heard 

18 a lot of differing opinions on this, but for Tiers Two and 

19 Three or Groups Two and Three, we do recommend a caution 

20 be placed in that we do need to look at a 

21 cost-effectiveness. I agree with what Bob Lucas of CCEEB 

22 said in terms of developing criteria for what is defined 

23 as cost-effectiveness. And we also have to look seriously 

24 at the, how the different items would fare better under a 

25 market-based program in terms of offsets or as a mandatory 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 231 

 1 program. And so these various initiatives are being 

 2 looked at Groups Two and Three as well as others. You 

 3 need to make the decision whether they'd better under a 

 4 market-based program or a mandatory program. 

 5 Finally, I was taken in by the comments of 

 6 Dr. Sperling about spurring -- sparking innovation. And 

 7 one way to spark innovation is through encouraging 

 8 companies to take voluntary early actions. Companies 

 9 would like to try -- would like to do that. To do that 

10 they will need some type of incentives, they'll need some 

11 type of promise or credit for early actions that are 

12 taken. 

13 And this start has been echoed by other 

14 businesses today, as you know, as well as by the 

15 Environmental Defense. The -- so I would suggest that the 

16 implementation details of how you conduct a voluntary 

17 program needs to be worked out as soon as possible. 

18 As Bob Lucas had mentioned, we suggest as well, 

19 that CARB consider to do voluntary programs on a 

20 case-by-case basis so that a company -- so that it 

21 provides opportunities for companies to take actions and 

22 we can all learn from the experience before a firm 

23 regulatory action or mandate is in place concerning those 

24 various actions. 

25 Along those lines, I say this, recognizing the 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 232 

 1 resource constraints that we all face, is I would ask the 

 2 CARB Board to direct the staff to look also strongly at 

 3 this issue and to come up with a recommended path toward 

 4 voluntary early actions. Everyone talks about voluntary 

 5 early actions. Let's talk about globally. It's hard -- 

 6 it's a challenge to operationalize, we're willing to help 

 7 to operationalize, others stakeholders are willing to help 

 8 as well. But let's try to make the effort. And this way, 

 9 California can lead. 

10 Thank you. 

11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 

12 Mr. Fay. 

13 MR. FAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the 

14 Board. I represent the International Climate Change 

15 Partnership, a coalition of manufacturers and trade 

16 associations committed to responsible participation at the 

17 state, federal, and international level on climate policy. 

18 We're here today generally supportive of the 

19 three early action strategies that have been proposed. We 

20 are a little bit concerned, however, and do not support 

21 the immediate expansion of the Group One list. We believe 

22 that many of the Group Two measures are not yet ripe. 

23 Because of lack of data availability or that more 

24 cost-effective approaches may be available through 

25 market-based mechanisms, including the work being done by 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 233 

 1 the Market Advisory Committee. 

 2 We believe that the Air Resources Board should 

 3 focus on development of emission reduction strategies that 

 4 do not rely solely on technology bans. Climate change 

 5 policy globally has favored market-based emission 

 6 reduction strategies and programs rather than technology 

 7 bans and we note that many of the proposed strategies are 

 8 performance-based. But some are not. 

 9 We're also are questioning the official status of 

10 the Group Two strategies. Information presented by the 

11 staff today contains a timetable that was not previously 

12 available publicly. And if today's actions beyond the 

13 Group One items is considered a commitment to a firm 

14 regulatory agenda, we're concerned that the schedule laid 

15 out needs these further discussion. 

16 With respect to the HFC can strategy, previously 

17 adopted federal ozone regulations limited sale of these of 

18 these cans to certified technicians. Our reading of the 

19 Federal Clean Air Act agreed to by the EPA General Counsel 

20 prohibits the vending of HTFCs during service of AC and 

21 refrigeration equipment. We are proposing -- EPA 

22 considers that currently, however, to be self-enforcing. 

23 We're prepared to work with ARB staff and federal EPA for 

24 more effective enforcement this federal law. We are 

25 sympathetic to the economic concerns expressed by the EJ 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 234 

 1 Committee, but we also believe that a distinction must be 

 2 drawn between repair of motor vehicle air conditioning 

 3 systems and simply refilling. Federal regulations 

 4 prohibit the refilling of leaky systems without also 

 5 repairing them. Those regs, however, have not yet been 

 6 extended to HFC auto AC service repair. We're committed 

 7 to working with the staff and the industry on that. 

 8 Finally, AB 32 requires the state to return its 

 9 emissions to 1990 baseline levels. And we're curious as 

10 to when that baseline will be established. As it will 

11 clearly impact the contribution of some of these proposed 

12 strategies as well as the issue of credit for early 

13 action, which we support. As an example, the high GWP 

14 gases were covered under ozone protection regs at that 

15 time, but care needs to be taken to have an accurate 

16 baseline consistent with ozone protection regs and climate 

17 change and the climate change regimes. 

18 So we encourage the work that's going to be done 

19 on the baseline to be done in an expeditious manner so 

20 that industry participants understand where they stand. 

21 And on all of these matters, we're prepared to 

22 work in a cooperative way with the Air Resources Board and 

23 the staff. 

24 Thank you for your time. 

25 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 235 

 1 Mr. Frayre. 

 2 MR. FRAYRE: Good afternoon, Dr. Sawyer and 

 3 members of the Board. I am a private citizen. My name is 

 4 Ricardo Frayre, and I live nearby. I live in the area, by 

 5 the way, I see the airplanes fly over me and I see the 

 6 pollution that they leave in their trails, in the tracks. 

 7 And I have been working for the space program for 

 8 the last 17 years, on and off. Continuously for about 13. 

 9 Doing earth science from space. I've been a contractor 

10 and I have focused especially on ocean surface height and 

11 I was able to see firsthand the effect of the melting of 

12 the ocean ice, I mean, I'm sorry, well, the ocean ice and 

13 the polar ice. So we concluded that we have about an 

14 increase of three millimeters per year of ocean height 

15 and, unfortunately, it's accelerating. 

16 I did science analysis. I did flight control 

17 operations of space-based observatories. And in the last 

18 four years, I've been working on and off on the space 

19 program because of funding. Now, I'm translating some 

20 books and I'm doing some work on the possibility of 

21 extending the range of electric vehicles. 

22 Okay. My purpose here is the deep concern I have 

23 for the face of the earth and I am here to encourage you 

24 to take faster, stronger actions to seek an increase in 

25 funding, be it from general funds, from the federal 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 236 

 1 government, through fees. We need to emphasize public 

 2 education and support. I want to encourage you to 

 3 overcome resistance to regulations due to economic 

 4 considerations. 

 5 We are facing the dilemma that you may call the 

 6 pay now or pay later. So we need to overcome that 

 7 resistance to, well, you take convenience into the money 

 8 issues, because the price we pay later may be by a factor, 

 9 increased by a factor of 100 to infinity. Okay. 

10 I know many of us resist the so-called nano 

11 state. We don't want too many regulations, we don't too 

12 restrictions on our freedoms. I can tell you, personally, 

13 I'm alive because of those of constrictions, those law, be 

14 it the helmet law, the motorcycle helmet law, and the seat 

15 belts. Those saved my life. Now I'm grateful. I used to 

16 be very, very angry at it. But I'm very grateful now. 

17 Anyway, about a year ago, I was looking at some 

18 ocean data and I was shaking in front of my monitor at 

19 what I was seeing. I have 20 seconds more? 

20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ten seconds 

21 MR. FRAYRE: Okay. All right. I found out 

22 through called the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment 

23 that the perennial ice sheet on the ice caps is melting in 

24 the northern part, is melting at a rapid rate. It's going 

25 to melt completely in seven years. Okay. So I really 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 237 

 1 wanted to bring that into light to everybody I know, but 

 2 this very little concern. So I really beg you to focus on 

 3 that issue, that we may not have ten years like something 

 4 said. We may have less than that. 

 5 And I thank you very much for your time. 

 6 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 

 7 Mr. Carmona. And then we'll have Jesse Marquez, 

 8 Jason Barbose, and Jesus Torres. 

 9 Mr. Carmona. 

10 MR. CARMONA: First of all, I'd like to thank you 

11 guys for allowing me to speak here in front of all of you. 

12 And I'm here to show my support for all the 

13 recommendations made by the Environmental Justice Advisory 

14 Committee. I strongly believe that in order for this 

15 planet to keep on existing and for us humans to keep on 

16 existing is to strongly take these new recommendations 

17 made by the Environmental Justice Advisory Committee so 

18 that we can all successfully be able to keep on living, 

19 keep on striving to do the best we can to change the 

20 planet, and the way we are are heading right now is not 

21 right way. 

22 So three measures that you guys have right now, I 

23 don't think is at all adequate. We need more measures in 

24 the, you know what I'm talking about. Sorry about that. 

25 But I'm just speaking from my heart and I know 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 238 

 1 that you guys have been here sitting all day long, 

 2 probably tired, wanting some more coffee. Coffee. 

 3 sipping on it. 

 4 And I strongly urge to you take all 34 

 5 recommendations made by the Advisory Committee. 

 6 Thank you. 

 7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 

 8 Mr. Marquez. 

 9 MR. MARQUEZ: Good afternoon, Chairman Sawyer and 

10 members of the Board. My name is Jesse Marquez. I'm 

11 Executive Director of the Coalition for a Safe 

12 Environment. We're headquartered in Wilmington, in Los 

13 Angeles Harbor and we have members in 25 cities. I also 

14 sit as an alternate on the Global Warming Advisory 

15 Committee. 

16 I want to begin first by saying that you have a 

17 huge responsibility before you. The California residents 

18 and public asked for this law to be put forward. They 

19 asked the Legislators to pass this law and to move it 

20 forward. They are not asking you now to choose the 

21 minimum to get by. The public wants the maximum things 

22 that can be developed and implemented and adopted. That's 

23 what we are looking forward to. 

24 Thirty-four recommendations have been made to 

25 you. All 34 of the Environmental Justice Advisory 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 239 

 1 Committee recommendations meet the legal requirement. We, 

 2 the public, do not want to see them or see any of you to 

 3 pick and choose what you think sound good, look good or 

 4 what the staff might think sound good or look good. All 

 5 34 do meet the criteria and should all be considered and 

 6 adopted. 

 7 I do want to point out a few details. During the 

 8 staff presentation, item number one regarding the improved 

 9 landfill methane capture. We also added to that. In the 

10 case right now, I can take you to Wilmington, to any one 

11 of the landfills that have a methane capture system in 

12 place, every one of them is leaking. There's one, I know 

13 for a fact, that you can go by any day of the week because 

14 I've been there about seven, eight times the last 

15 nine months, it has been leaking methane every single day. 

16 Why? There is no program in place that's monitoring and 

17 inspecting the pipes to make sure they are not leaking. 

18 Pipes are broken. Pipes are cracked. Seals have broken. 

19 And it is leaking. I know for a fact at this one location 

20 for a minimum of seven weeks the flare unit wasn't even 

21 working. 

22 So we need to fix the holes, plug the holes. 

23 There are hundreds of tons being released there alone. 

24 Another area, in number two, we talk about the HFCs. You 

25 see where it mentions about the containers. Okay. What 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 240 

 1 you don't know is that each shipping container holds 30 

 2 pounds of freon. You might think in talking with port 

 3 officials that, yes, the empties do go back. But we have 

 4 a problem. Only about 25 percent of the empties go back. 

 5 But prior to recently shipping them back, we have millions 

 6 of them here in California and approximately five percent 

 7 of them are refrigeration units that go to what we call 

 8 our container graveyards. None of this freon is 

 9 evacuated. I talked to a friend of mine who is a 

10 refrigeration mechanic and he was the one that told me 

11 they take 30 pounds, they are not evacuated, and basically 

12 after 12 months it all leaks out. 

13 He also pointed out one other thing. The big rig 

14 trucks take 12 pounds of freon. After two years, they 

15 leak every single month and have to be refilled every 

16 single month. 

17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I must ask you to conclude, 

18 please. 

19 MR. MARQUEZ: So in conclusion, I did pass out 

20 two handouts. One was a map, a little color map, that 

21 shows you all the toxic facilities in Wilmington, which is 

22 only four miles square. Over 80 percent of them are air 

23 polluting types as well as global warming gas types. The 

24 other one is a chart of refineries put out by the AQMD. 

25 And as you can see, it lists all the different pollutants 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 241 

 1 that come out and it shows your reactive organic compounds 

 2 at about 2,800. But when we talk about the co-benefits, 

 3 well, the co-benefits would be another 18,000 tons a year 

 4 of all the other pollutants. 

 5 So I ask you and encourage you to do adopt all 34 

 6 of the EJ recommendations. 

 7 Thank you. 

 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 

 9 Mr. Barbose. 

10 MR. BARBOSE: My name is Jason Barbose, and I'm 

11 an advocate on global warming at Environment California 

12 Research and Policy Center, which is a statewide 

13 citizen-based environmental advocacy organization, 

14 represents about 70,000 Californians. 

15 And thank you, of course, for giving me the 

16 opportunity today to speak on this matter. We're speaking 

17 in support of the proposed three measures. But more 

18 importantly, in support of adding additional measures to 

19 the early action list. 

20 And my main reason for that, or the main point is 

21 relatively simple, which is that science and common sense 

22 really tells us we need to act quickly, of course, to 

23 reduce in real ways, with real reductions, global warming 

24 pollution as soon as possible. And, you know, in adopting 

25 the Global Warming Solutions Act last year, the 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 242 

 1 Legislature recognized this as well. And that's why they 

 2 knew we needed a two-prong strategy that, yes, of course, 

 3 on the one hand, created a plan for meeting the 2020 

 4 target, but at the same time put in place as many real 

 5 reductions as soon as possible. And it is this early 

 6 action provision that you're deciding today that embodies 

 7 that concept. 

 8 And unfortunately, the original staff proposal 

 9 does not go far enough. As it stands, of course, the 

10 three measures proposed to fulfill the early action 

11 requirement of AB 32, it would only result in eight 

12 percent of the total emission reduction necessary by 2020. 

13 And so we urge the Board to adopt additional early action 

14 measures beyond the three that CARB staff originally 

15 proposed in order to front load more of the reductions 

16 needed by 2020 and implement AB 32 as the Legislature 

17 envisioned. 

18 And another good reason that provides context and 

19 really underscores the need for this Board to do more 

20 today, is the fact that more than any other state, and I 

21 think it's been noted, California is in a position to pave 

22 the way for action on global warming. One thing that 

23 probably hasn't been mentioned today is that in Trenton, 

24 New Jersey, today, that state is becoming just a second to 

25 establish a mandatory statewide cap on global warming 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 243 

 1 pollution, which is great news. But you can bet that New 

 2 Jersey, and other states, will be looking to California, 

 3 will be looking to the Air Board to see where to go from 

 4 here. 

 5 And as has been mentioned many times, ARB staff 

 6 included 23 items on the Group Two list of their staff 

 7 report, most of which are discrete measures eligible to be 

 8 added to Group One. In addition, the Environmental 

 9 Justice Committee has proposed 34 measures. There are 

10 many worthy measures among these, as have been spoken to 

11 today, the heavy-duty truck efficiency improvements, those 

12 are the Smart Way technologies, port electrification, 

13 truck stop electrification, cement manufacturing, 

14 greenhouse gas requirement, and so on. In general, we are 

15 supportive prioritizing measures with co-benefits in 

16 reducing toxic and criteria air pollutants. 

17 And so in conclusion, solving global warming, 

18 it's an immense challenge, but it can definitely be done 

19 if we use all of the tools we have at our disposal. On 

20 behalf of Environment California, thank you for 

21 consideration of additional measures today. 

22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 

23 Mr. Torres. And then we'll have Chuck Helget, 

24 Ray Leon, and Jack Gerard. 

25 MR. TORRES: Good afternoon, members of the 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 244 

 1 Board. My name is Jesus Torres, I'm a community organizer 

 2 with Communities for a Better Environment. I'm also a 

 3 member of the community of Wilmington. 

 4 I'm here representing thousands of community 

 5 members that are not able to make it here, so I'm here on 

 6 their behalf. 

 7 We think the ARB should endorse measures that 

 8 will reduce both greenhouse gases and traditional 

 9 pollutants, such as smog forming chemical, particulate 

10 matter, and toxics. Coming from Wilmington, where we have 

11 four major oil refineries and numerous of other sources of 

12 pollution that include the ports of Los Angeles and Long 

13 Beach, we see the importance of pollution prevention for 

14 greenhouse gases. Doing so will help reduce criteria 

15 pollutants and toxics in the most vulnerable communities 

16 that live on the fence line to some of the worst polluters 

17 in the state. 

18 These measures are technically achievable and 

19 they are cost-effective. Greenhouse gases accumulate in 

20 the atmospheres so reducing them early is better than 

21 reducing them later. We would like for to you add the 

22 Environmental Justice's group proposal to add refineries 

23 to the early action measures. 

24 Lastly, I want to make a comment about the public 

25 participation. The last 13 Environmental Justice 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 245 

 1 recommendations were not formerly evaluated by staff until 

 2 today. Even though most of them were proposed in oral and 

 3 written comments in the spring. Please direct staff to 

 4 evaluate their effectiveness and place in Group One or 

 5 Two. 

 6 Finally, given the concerns about the Low Carbon 

 7 Fuel Standard, please consider raising the standard 15 to 

 8 100 percent. 

 9 Thank you. 

10 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 

11 Mr. Helget. 

12 MR. HELGET: Chair Sawyer, members of the Board. 

13 My name is Chuck Helget and I represent Allied Waste 

14 Industries. Allied Waste Industries operates landfills, 

15 hauling companies, collection companies, transfer, and 

16 processing operations, recycling and composting in 

17 California. Allied is generally supportive of the 

18 landfill-related discrete early action items, contained in 

19 the proposed early action report. 

20 We recognize that more effort and investment is 

21 needed to ensure that the state will reduce greenhouse gas 

22 emissions and we also recognize that more may be required 

23 from the solid waste industry, specifically to reduce even 

24 more methane emissions from landfills. We are prepared to 

25 work with you and your staff on these proposed early 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 246 

 1 action measures to ensure that the Board has accurate 

 2 information on which to base their early actions. And the 

 3 early action regulations that follow. 

 4 As you move forward, though, we ask that you keep 

 5 in mind the following points. California landfills are 

 6 already recovering and destroying methane at a generally 

 7 realized capture efficiency rate between 80 to 95 percent. 

 8 In fact, the L.A. Sanitation District's reports to the 

 9 South Coast Air Quality Management District indicate a 

10 capture efficiency exceeding 96 percent. Increasing that 

11 capture efficiency rate significantly may very well be 

12 technologically difficult and certainly expensive. 

13 Further, increasing landfill gas collection 

14 efficiency may be, may also increase impurities in 

15 landfill gas. Those increased impurities will increase 

16 the costs for and reduce the efficiency of landfill gas to 

17 energy projects. 

18 Finally, while there are around 40 landfills in 

19 California, without active landfill gas controls, most of 

20 these landfills are very small rural landfills. They most 

21 certainly are regulated and they may not be producing 

22 enough methane to pose a health and safety risk. Many of 

23 these are not producing enough methane to make landfill 

24 gas collection either technologically feasible or cost 

25 effective. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 247 

 1 Again, we look forward to working with you and 

 2 your staff on these items, and thank you for this 

 3 opportunity to comment today. 

 4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 

 5 Mr. Leon. 

 6 MR. LEON: You got that one right. Leon. 

 7 A pleasure to be here. Good afternoon. And to 

 8 think I was rushing from the San Joaquin Valley to be here 

 9 to not miss this item. Wow. Lucky I didn't get a ticket. 

10 I don't like those stagnant parking lots you guys got on 

11 the freeway, either. 

12 But anyhow, my name is Ray Leon. I'm with the 

13 Latino Issues Forum. It's a public policy and advocacy 

14 institute statewide. I am based in the San Joaquin Valley 

15 regional office in Fresno. And we focus on the 

16 advancement of the quality of life of low income Latinos 

17 and farm workers, throughout the state of California. But 

18 as a Latino issues forum, we strongly support the 

19 recommendations of the Global Warming Environmental 

20 Justice Advisory Committee on proposed early actions to 

21 mitigate climate change and urge CARB to adopt these 

22 strategies as they are important technologically feasible 

23 measures that will significantly and immediately reduce 

24 California's overall global warming impact. 

25 Having shared that, I would like to speak on the 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 248 

 1 methane digester protocol which is one of the early action 

 2 measures within the agriculture sector. Of course, as 

 3 many of you are aware, we, in the San Joaquin Valley, 

 4 particularly in the southern part, we are becoming home to 

 5 many mega-dairies, and it's creating a lot of conflict and 

 6 respect to families, residents don't want to live near a 

 7 mega-dairy. But this measure will successfully reduce 

 8 greenhouse gases and also other toxins that are impacting 

 9 the public health of Valley resident on a daily basis and 

10 creating just huge problems that many people cannot 

11 afford, either with their health or with their pocket. 

12 The wonderful fact of this measure is that it is 

13 an existing method being implemented in the Valley, but 

14 it's not enough. Only few dairies have this. Currently, 

15 a company in the Valley has innovatively implemented this 

16 method and has not only been successful in capturing bio 

17 gas, but has also created energy with this fuel which 

18 could have otherwise been pollution impacting air quality, 

19 creating global warming, and consequently the public 

20 health. 

21 Perhaps you can call this, these livestock 

22 plants, potentially. Bioenergy plants. But regardless of 

23 what you call it, it works. And it exists, and it is 

24 implemented in two few dairies today. We need this at all 

25 dairies and other livestock operations. We need the ARB 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 249 

 1 to create the demand of this solution through enforceable 

 2 measures, not voluntary measures. This will also enable 

 3 the advancement of the necessary technology and 

 4 methodologies that will reduce needed tonnage of emissions 

 5 in the Valley and for our state. 

 6 It is being done. It works. Let's expand it 

 7 throughout the Valley. The livestock operations industry. 

 8 And let me briefly share, in conclusion, that 

 9 also to highlight the electrification of truck stops 

10 throughout the Valley. That is one of the pollutants that 

11 is huge challenge. Judy Case could testify to that. 

12 But to conclude, to close, let me just share that 

13 while necessity is the mother of invention, strong 

14 enforceable measures are the parents of innovative 

15 solutions. So you have a big responsibility on your 

16 hands, but let's not work with our hands, let's work with 

17 our heart and let's be strong on this. 

18 Thank you. 

19 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 

20 Mr. Gerard. And then we'll have Conner Everts, 

21 Tim Carmichael, and Bill Magavern. 

22 MR. GERARD: I'd like to acknowledge Dr. Sawyer 

23 and the Board. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to 

24 speak. My name is Jack Gerard, I'm the general manager of 

25 a local fire protection company here in Brea, California. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 250 

 1 My company protects critical facilities for information 

 2 technology, for data centers, telecommunications, and 

 3 including telecommunication facilities that house 911 and 

 4 DOD operations. 

 5 As partners, in the life safety and emissions 

 6 reduction, our industry has been voluntarily regulating 

 7 itself for years. We've established a voluntary code of 

 8 practices for the reduction of emissions. We use HFCs in 

 9 fixed containers, which are controlled by engineer 

10 detection and control systems, safeguards are put into 

11 place so that one action can't create a false discharge of 

12 the system. We don't have the same leak detection issues 

13 you might find in moving machinery. Our cylinders are 

14 stationary mounted to the wall with no moving parts. HFCs 

15 which are used for suppressing fires are virtually 

16 non-emissive. 

17 There was, in Group Two, a stakeholders 

18 suggestions A 3, it was suggested that HFCs for fire 

19 suppression be included into the early regulations. 

20 Neither the Kyoto protocol or the F gas 

21 regulations limit, impose limits on the use of HFCs for 

22 suppressing fires. I am concerned that our competitors 

23 may use this as a market, to gain market advantage and 

24 I've already reportedly heard that they're pointing to 

25 this Committee and saying this is the beginning of the end 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 251 

 1 of our fire protection practice. 

 2 We suggest that this Committee encourage more 

 3 industries to voluntarily self-regulate and that credits 

 4 are used for early action. If you are going to add 

 5 regulation to our industry, as, you know, having been in 

 6 this industry for 23 years, I would suggest regulating 

 7 service and handling practice of the containers, rather 

 8 than banning the practice all together. And I'm confident 

 9 that if you use data gathering of non-emergency emissions 

10 on clean agents that are used for fire suppression, you 

11 could find that it is not emissive. 

12 Thank you. 

13 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 

14 Mr. Everts. 

15 MR. EVERTS: Thank you very much. My name is 

16 Conner Everts. I'm representing the Desal Response Group. 

17 I want to thank you for coming to Los Angeles. I don't 

18 think there's more appropriate place for the discussion 

19 we're having today from the harbors to being under the 

20 flight pattern of LAX to the number of environmental 

21 justice groups and community groups who have stepped 

22 forward. And I hope you understand the value of their 

23 work and adopt the recommendations from the stakeholder 

24 group. 

25 My background is really on water issues. For 30 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 252 

 1 years, I've done demand side and environmental water 

 2 policy work. And I've kind of been brought to this issue 

 3 because we no longer have those lines that we stand 

 4 behind. We have to come together on these issues. 

 5 I think you have a great opportunity here. And I 

 6 hope you will take it, today, because you have the 

 7 combination of public awareness, political support, even 

 8 community level support and involvement, and much of 

 9 industry is behind you and much more will come. But you 

10 have to make the strong regulations that make that happen. 

11 As we've seen in the water world, the only time we've had 

12 real advancement in pushing conservation is when there 

13 have been strong standards. 

14 We're now standing at the floor and we have to 

15 look at the ceiling of what we can do, and very directly, 

16 the ceiling in terms of the impact of what's happening. 

17 We are suffering under a perfect drought here in Southern 

18 California. We've had our driest winter on record. We 

19 have -- the areas where we get our water from in Northern 

20 California, Colorado, remain dry, and, yet, through the 

21 very basic water reclamation conservation, we have not had 

22 any restrictions. Yet, we can go much further. 

23 Nineteen percent of the energy usage, electrical 

24 energy usage in the state is due to water. I'm glad DWR 

25 was here today, the Department of Water Resources, and 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 253 

 1 made comments, but we need to do much more. 

 2 We need not to look for dams and reservoirs and 

 3 pumping, but we need to look at the demand side programs. 

 4 I specifically work on ocean water desalination. The 

 5 proposals include these antiquated dinosaurs of power 

 6 plants that have been talked about. I'd like to 

 7 reiterate. We have an opportunity here to close those 

 8 down, move to greater efficiency, and deal with what is a 

 9 global crisis. 

10 And I hope you take that opportunity today. 

11 Thank you very much. 

12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 

13 Mr. Carmichael. 

14 MR. CARMICHAEL: Good afternoon, members of the 

15 Board. Tim Carmichael of the Coalition for Clean Air. 

16 For me, your deliberation today comes down to 

17 whether or not you believe that global warming is a 

18 crisis. And I presume you do. I presume that because 

19 most Californians do, especially those that are informed 

20 on the facts. The Governor does. And yet, the proposal 

21 before you is not reflective of a sense of urgency or a 

22 crisis. 

23 I was thinking about this all day long. Think 

24 about, people are going to read the L.A. Times tomorrow or 

25 hear about this in the news. They've been watching the 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 254 

 1 Governor and many others, Al Gore and others, Tony Blair, 

 2 around the world, talk about this crisis, crisis, crisis. 

 3 They been told that the Air Resources Board is the world's 

 4 preeminent air agency, the leader, the best team that 

 5 we've got. And the best we can do is three early action 

 6 items. It just doesn't add up. And, you know, in fact, 

 7 I'm reflecting on Ms. Riordan's point earlier about 

 8 volunteer measures and how important it's going to be for 

 9 business and individuals to take voluntary action on this 

10 issue. 

11 What's the motivation for them? What's the 

12 message or the signal that this Board sends or this agency 

13 sends if the best we can do is three early action measures 

14 in the next couple of years? Why would they invest their 

15 own money? Why would they change their habits? It runs 

16 completely counterintuitive to what the rest of the world 

17 is saying we need to do and the sense of urgency that I 

18 personally and many, many people feel in this state. 

19 I urge you as you think about this, you need to 

20 strengthen this proposal. You need to add more early 

21 measures, or it just, it really will send a terrible 

22 message to people all over the state, committed to doing 

23 more on this and wanting to do more, but not, simply not 

24 being able to comprehend that this agency is only able to 

25 come up with three early action measures. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 255 

 1 The couple of things I just want to add to that. 

 2 I really felt that the the staff's response to the 

 3 Environmental Justice list was disingenuous in a couple of 

 4 ways. The presentation from staff was, it takes three 

 5 years for this agency to develop measures, from scratch. 

 6 Fair enough. But there's nothing before you, nothing on 

 7 any of those lists that are truly from scratch measures. 

 8 All of these have been talked about. None of them are 

 9 truly new. And in fact, when this agency wants to move on 

10 something, it moves on it. And it can get something done 

11 in three or four months. We've seen it done. And so that 

12 doesn't add up. 

13 The other thing that didn't add up was the 

14 cost-effectiveness, in my opinion, excuse. The fact that 

15 this agency hasn't yet defined cost-effectiveness cannot 

16 be used as an excuse for not moving ahead with something 

17 you're not sure whether it's cost-effective. 

18 Thank you. 

19 With that I urge you to either put on hold this 

20 proposal or significantly strengthen it. 

21 Thank you. 

22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 

23 Mr. Magavern. And then we'll have Bill Haller. 

24 MR. MAGAVERN: Good afternoon, Chairman Sawyer 

25 and Board members. I'm Bill Magavern with Sierra Club, 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 256 

 1 California. 

 2 No environmental issue is more important to 

 3 California than the successful implementation of our 

 4 Global Warming Solutions Act. A law that we strongly 

 5 supported when it was passed last year. 

 6 As you know, a successful implementation will 

 7 require a mix of strong regulatory standards, incentives, 

 8 and possibly other market mechanisms. This is going to be 

 9 a long-term process. But these measures that you are 

10 going to list today are the only ones that will be slated 

11 for adoption during the first three years of the existence 

12 of this law. This is the first major statutory milestone 

13 for AB 32 implementation. So this is a defining moment in 

14 the beginning of this very important process. 

15 And the Legislature that passed this law just 

16 last year is watching closely to see how you implement it. 

17 I was a witness at the Senate oversight hearing. I've 

18 talked with other legislative leaders. I know you have a 

19 letter from some of the leading senators so you know that 

20 they really want to see a longer early action list. And 

21 in the budget that they're considering right now, they 

22 have, in fact, offered you additional resources for early 

23 action measures. 

24 We would like to see a much longer list, but I 

25 know your resources are limited so I will focus on a 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 257 

 1 handful that we're asking you to put on the list today. 

 2 The heavy-duty truck emissions, port 

 3 electrification, and energy efficiency standards for 

 4 cement manufacturing, all will have not only significant 

 5 greenhouse gas benefits, but also help to clean our air of 

 6 the emissions that are causing smog and air toxics. 

 7 The cement plants are the biggest sources of 

 8 airborne mercury in the state of California. And I'm 

 9 concerned that one of the objections I hear to putting the 

10 cement efficiency measures on the early action list is 

11 well, cement would be a good candidate for a potential 

12 market mechanism, meaning a trading program to come later. 

13 And I don't think it's a question of either/or. You can 

14 have a strong performance standard. You should have a 

15 strong performance standard. That will only benefit both 

16 the environment and the economy of the state, and 

17 certainly doesn't preclude you from including that into a 

18 future market program. 

19 I also think we've heard that it would not be 

20 difficult to add the cool paints for motor vehicles to the 

21 list and I would urge you to adopt that today. 

22 I want to thank the staffs of both the Air Board 

23 and the Waste Board for adding the landfill methane 

24 emissions to the list. And also to emphasize something 

25 that you've heard which is just because 94 percent of the 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 258 

 1 waste is at landfills that have methane capture, doesn't 

 2 mean that 94 percent of the methane is being captured. So 

 3 it's important that that measure address increasing the 

 4 capture rate. 

 5 And in conclusion, I want to end with a phrase 

 6 that I'm told was popular on college campuses at a time 

 7 when I was still in grade school: The whole world is 

 8 watching. 

 9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 

10 Mr. Haller. 

11 MR. HALLER: Mr. Chair, Honorable Board members. 

12 My name is Bill Haller, I'm a volunteer with the Sierra 

13 Club and I serve as co-chair of Sierra Club California Air 

14 Quality Committee. After my last public comment in front 

15 of this Board in San Diego, I booed, grabbed and cussed at 

16 and that was just by the construction industry grandmother 

17 who was upset that she only made a million dollar profit. 

18 Today, with any luck, I'll get through my 

19 testimony. I'm here in support of your current early 

20 action plan. But more so, in support of bolder action 

21 now. We Californians need to lead the world. Not only in 

22 our commitment and our resolve to reduce global warming, 

23 but in our results. 

24 With that in mind, I implore you to please, 

25 please make the bigger moves now. Specifically, reduction 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 259 

 1 of diesel emissions from heavy-duty trucks. Require ports 

 2 to provide shoreside electrification of vessels, and 

 3 require cement factories to use energy more efficiently. 

 4 If the three early action measures currently 

 5 being considered were a baseball team, would we have a 

 6 shot at the World Series? Maybe a good game of over the 

 7 line. But at best, we've had a pitcher, a catcher, and a 

 8 first baseman. And in order to put a winning team on the 

 9 early action field , we need some strong players, like a 

10 heavy hitter, I'd take the cement industry. Someone to 

11 roll in the out field, I'd take the diesel trucks. And 

12 someone good around the base pads, well, that would be 

13 electrified ports. And the California Chamber of 

14 Commerce, well they can volunteer to sell popcorn. 

15 We support your current plan. We're the fans in 

16 the stadium that are cheering you on. But it is important 

17 to us that you put a few superstars out on that early 

18 action field. 

19 Thank you. 

20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 

21 That concludes the public testimony part. 

22 Ms. Witherspoon, does staff have any further comments? 

23 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yes, we do. We 

24 need to respond to this assertion over and over again that 

25 we have only three early actions. We have three dozen. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 260 

 1 And I just want to repeat, for the benefit of the 

 2 audience and the Board, the rulemaking calendar between 

 3 now and 2012, starting with next month, which has the 

 4 off-road, heavy-duty diesel rule that you began your 

 5 hearing on, in May. 

 6 In September, we're bringing to you commercial 

 7 harbor craft. 

 8 In October, we're bringing to you architectural 

 9 coatings, and the 200 million on school buses, and the 

10 guidelines for implementing the one billion dollars bond. 

11 In November -- this is all 2007 -- we are 

12 bringing to you the proposed strategy for cold ironing or 

13 port electrification, which will be implemented in several 

14 steps over the next year or so. The proposed regulations 

15 for port drayage trucks. 

16 And in December, we have an update of the zero 

17 emission vehicle regulation. You heard proposals today to 

18 go back to ZEVs and plug-ins and hybrids. 

19 We have the proposed regulations for cleaner 

20 fuels and oceangoing main vessels. 

21 We have the 2020 greenhouse gas emission limit 

22 and mandatory reporting. And if Laurie would bring the 

23 slides up from the staff presentation starting on slide 

24 19. 

25 Slide 19, please. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 261 

 1 In any event, while she's looking for it, next 

 2 year is the on-road truck rule, which will include as many 

 3 of the Smart Way truck provisions as we can accomplish 

 4 within the sticker shock of that rule to truck owners. 

 5 And completion of port electrification. 

 6 Next slide. 

 7 --o0o-- 

 8 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Plus the three 

 9 discrete early action measures that we propose in Group 

10 One. There's four more regulations in 2009. There's four 

11 in 2010. There's two in 2011. And as this process is 

12 going on, you will have decided at the end of next year, 

13 what the approach shall be for the heavy industrial 

14 sources, for the power plants, for the refineries, for the 

15 cement plants, for oil and gas operation, and we will 

16 carry those forward immediately after your decision. 

17 So if the newspapers print tomorrow the Air 

18 Resources Board only endorsed three measures, they will 

19 have entirely mischaracterized the nature of this 

20 proceeding today. 

21 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 

22 I would like to make some observations. 

23 First of all, I don't think it's lost upon any of 

24 the Board members how important our action of today is, as 

25 this is the first official act of this Board in 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 262 

 1 implementing AB 32. 

 2 I'm impressed by what was brought to us today by 

 3 the environmental community, especially their list of 34 

 4 items. It, indeed, captures a richness of opportunities, 

 5 which I'm sure we'll be making use of many of them as we 

 6 move ahead in this program. 

 7 We heard the mention of the, of urgency and the 

 8 sense of urgency. This is something I share completely. 

 9 And I'm reminded by a story attributed to John F. Kennedy 

10 when he was asking his gardener to do so -- to plant some 

11 new trees in his garden and the gardener came to him and 

12 said: Well, sir, you picked out an oak tree and it's 

13 going to take a hundred years for it to grow into a proper 

14 tree. And Kennedy's response, I think you've probably 

15 heard this before, was: Do it today. 

16 And that's the kind of urgency which I think we 

17 need to be mindful of. 

18 I am in the going to be around to see the worst 

19 possible consequences of climate change. Nor am I likely 

20 to be here to see the benefits of the programs which we 

21 adopt today, because these are long-term measures which 

22 we're getting started, it will take a long time to phase 

23 them in and for them to have their effects. 

24 It really is a grandchildren thing that we're 

25 working on and that is certainly my motivation. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 263 

 1 I know our staff is taxed to the limit because I 

 2 work with them every day. I tell them every day that our 

 3 job is to protect the health of the people of California. 

 4 As number one. And they're doing a good job of that. On 

 5 top of that, they've taken on all the climate change 

 6 responsibilities. 

 7 And I thank you every bit. But we are a can-do 

 8 agency. We have a reputation for doing things. And I am 

 9 not afraid to ask you to do some more. 

10 You know, I could pick a dozen items from the 

11 list of 34 to ask you to work on today. But I'm going 

12 make a symbolic gesture because I believe that symbolism 

13 is important in what we do. I want to ask my Board 

14 members to add a fourth item, and I want it to be the cool 

15 automobile paints and I'd add glazing to that as well. 

16 It's symbolic in two ways. One is, I want to honor my 

17 colleague and fellow Berkeley Professor and Energy 

18 Commissioner, Art Rosenfeld. This is his idea. And he is 

19 the one who has brought this forward and has promoted the 

20 science which makes this a sound, firm, technically 

21 feasible option. 

22 I also want to make a second symbolic gesture. 

23 And that is to state firmly the independence of this Board 

24 in meeting its responsibility to the people of California. 

25 Professor Sperling. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 264 

 1 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Okay. I'll take that a 

 2 little further. 

 3 I do think that there are a few of these measures 

 4 that were just described as were going to be done any way. 

 5 And if we can put them, you know, identity them as early 

 6 action items, as clear, you know, in Category One, with 

 7 the understanding that they are going through a review 

 8 process. You know, some of these options such as, some of 

 9 the heavy-duty options, you know, I think we're already 

10 talking about taking action on some of those in any case. 

11 The actions on the port, especially the port 

12 activities. And I've not been so closely engaged with 

13 them, but as Tim Carmichael pointed out, there's been a 

14 lot of effort put into a lot of these plans and proposals, 

15 there's a lot of organizations involved. It seems like 

16 there ought to be something there that we can move on 

17 fairly quickly, that we can contribute to and support, 

18 that our initiative's already going on, some of the short 

19 power ideas. 

20 And I do think that this idea of voluntary, that, 

21 you know, voluntary approach. I do, you know, I guess 

22 Mrs. Riordan referred to it; others have. To me, this is 

23 something that all of us have to commit to. This whole 

24 climate change initiative. And so I'm not sure exactly 

25 what it means, I have to say, in terms of putting in 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 265 

 1 place, you know, the protocol for a voluntary program, but 

 2 it seems like that is something that we can put in place. 

 3 Perhaps, we can do it with third party audits. You know, 

 4 there is a question about data and verification. But, 

 5 perhaps, if companies use third party audits to validate 

 6 those claims, and those can be used in the future as 

 7 credit towards whatever caps or other programs are put in 

 8 place, that would be something that can motivate and 

 9 action. 

10 And I want this idea of this cement, I've been, 

11 you know, I've, you know, it's kind of new to me. I don't 

12 know the cement industry very well. But I do know it's a 

13 huge source of CO2 worldwide as well as in California. 

14 And if we can put together, you know, we're probably not 

15 prepared to move that all the way into the first group, 

16 but at least into the second group with something that we 

17 would start pursuing right away, with the idea, I believe 

18 this is what Tim Carmichael mentioned also, the idea that 

19 these, an efficiency measure is something that is 

20 compatible with whatever larger program will be created 

21 later. That, in fact, as I've learned from the Low Carbon 

22 Fuel Standard is, we're going to need a mixture of 

23 policies. The Low Carbon Fuel Standard is a framework, 

24 but there's other things it's going -- it's to be, for 

25 instance, interfacing with caps on the oil refineries. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 266 

 1 There's all this discussion about oil refineries. Well, 

 2 you know, we're all, the Board is certainly committed to 

 3 putting a cap on the oil refineries. I know that's in the 

 4 plans. But the Low Carbon Fuel Standard interfaces with 

 5 that in some complicated way. And that we're going to 

 6 have to figure out. But it does create a performance 

 7 metric that we'll be integrating with some of these 

 8 broader caps in the future. And so the more we can put 

 9 some of these in place, I think the better. 

10 And I do appreciate the burden on the staff. 

11 What worries me, though, kind of the flip side of that, 

12 is, you know, in two years, we're going to be talking 

13 about, perhaps, hundreds of measures. It could be, if we 

14 are not smart about -- you know, actually it'll have to be 

15 less. But it could be hundreds. And if we don't get 

16 start -- if we don't start a trajectory, you know, where 

17 it seems perhaps difficult, you know, it's going to be 

18 really difficult in the future. There's a learning 

19 process for us and the staff and everyone involved. 

20 So I guess, in the end, you know, there's a few 

21 of those that stand out. You know, Professor Sawyer 

22 mentioned with the smart paint. The paint idea. I think 

23 we need to do something in the heavy-duty diesel area. I 

24 think we need to do something, especially, at least 

25 related to the ports. I think we should do something with 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 267 

 1 voluntary program. And, perhaps, there's something, some 

 2 efficiency measure that can be worked into the cement 

 3 industry. 

 4 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: I'd like to 

 5 just raise a quick caution on cement. I don't -- we -- 

 6 that's going to be one of the more difficult areas that we 

 7 tackle, the potential for leakage is quite severe because 

 8 cement can easily be imported to California. 

 9 The second thing is, I think the efficiency, it 

10 may largely be a factor of fuel choice. But the cement 

11 kilns have been designed to use the fuel that they 

12 currently use. It is not just a simple switch with modest 

13 cost impacts. I think it's going to be a major, major 

14 issue on the industry. We're certainly going to look into 

15 it thoroughly and try to figure out all the options. 

16 I'd be very reluctant to advise you to move it up 

17 beyond that, let's look at that as quickly as possible and 

18 figure out what the options are. From what we know today, 

19 they're not going -- it's not going to be an easy, 

20 straight regulations. 

21 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Yeah. It is a major 

22 source, so I can -- I would defer to others. But, you 

23 know, when we put things, when we decide that we're going 

24 to look at items, we're not saying, I mean we're saying 

25 that we are going to submit it to further scrutiny in 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 268 

 1 terms of, if, if indeed this is true that there's going to 

 2 be this leakage and it just doesn't make sense, you know, 

 3 I think that's still something that we would be respectful 

 4 of and take into consideration. 

 5 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Dr. Sperling, 

 6 just a quick comment, too, on voluntary measures. 

 7 We have recommended all the protocols you saw for 

 8 2005 for forestry, for digesters, for small businesses, 

 9 for local government, and I've forgotten a fifth, but one 

10 of the things our legal staff has apprised of us of, is 

11 that we cannot make any promises to anyone about how 

12 voluntary credits might be considered in a future 

13 regulation until that regulation is, in fact, before you 

14 and designed. 

15 And so, what the best we can do is help people 

16 quantify their efforts and keep our mind open to how we 

17 would carry those forward. But we can't give the firm 

18 promises that industry is looking for. So we need to move 

19 as quickly as we can into the regulations, the cap and 

20 trade systems, whatever it may be, that give those actual 

21 value. 

22 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Can we say it's our 

23 intent? Because we know what kind of rules, based, you 

24 know, in a general sense, we're going to be adopting. 

25 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: I'll ask 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 269 

 1 Mr. Jenne to comment on that, because we've had many 

 2 internal discussions. 

 3 CHIEF COUNSEL JENNE: Well, we can say it's our 

 4 intent based on staff's current thinking. But that could 

 5 change; it's ultimately your decision. So we don't want 

 6 to send signals that this is how it's going to be and then 

 7 after it's, more study has taken place and you've heard 

 8 witnesses, you decide to do something different. So there 

 9 is a limit to what we feel it's appropriate to promise. 

10 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Can you lay out just a 

11 scenario where we wouldn't, I mean, given that we're 

12 looking at economy-wide reductions, and if there are going 

13 to be entities that start reducing greenhouse gases now, 

14 it's hard for me to imagine a scenario, you know, may be 

15 I'm not very creative. 

16 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Well, I think 

17 there's two instances. We've told various groups that are 

18 considering doing things that reduce their emissions, that 

19 we, it's hard for us to conceive of how that would 

20 adversely effect them when it actually comes time to 

21 complying with regulations. That those things that 

22 they've done will help them comply with future regulations 

23 because their emissions are lower. We don't want to 

24 process that gives allocations out based on high 

25 historical emissions and somehow punishes people who have 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 270 

 1 done emissions reductions. If we go to an allocation 

 2 process based on performance or based on auctioning, it 

 3 will surely be rewarded. 

 4 The much harder case is people come in and they 

 5 say, I'm going do something today and over the next three 

 6 years that's going to reduce emissions. I want credit 

 7 that carries over, that I can bank against a future 

 8 reductions. And that, until we design the emission, an 

 9 emission trading system and decide that, one, that it's 

10 appropriate for incorporation in the program, and, two, 

11 figure out how it works, we really can't make any sort of 

12 assurance along those lines. 

13 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: The other 

14 difficulty is that we're crediting against business as 

15 usual and that's a moving target. So the first innovator 

16 might qualify for credit, but then it quickly becomes an 

17 industry standard, and so we have to figure out for how 

18 long credits might be viable and when it is now the new 

19 operating practice across an entire industry. 

20 So it's quite tricky. And we wish to be as 

21 encouraging as possible. I tell everyone, go out and 

22 inventory your emissions. Go out and reduce them. We're 

23 going to try and use benchmarks. Good actions will be 

24 rewarded. But that's as specific as staff is willing to 

25 be. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 271 

 1 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: I'll -- come back -- come 

 2 back to me later. 

 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Riordan. 

 4 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Yes. Just some thoughts 

 5 that come to my head immediately. 

 6 One is, I'm mindful of our workload. And the 

 7 tasks that are before us. Because I think Ms. Witherspoon 

 8 characterized what probably should have been on a much 

 9 bigger page attached to this document that we have before 

10 us, all the other things we're doing. And you went 

11 through those very clearly. And I think it's very 

12 important to stress what is on our table, that will be 

13 before this Board in the coming year. In fact, the coming 

14 six months, the table is loaded. 

15 So we're doing far more than just looking at 

16 three action items that are before us in this early 

17 category. 

18 I would caution my colleagues into moving too far 

19 forward beyond the three that I see before us because I 

20 think those are three major items. And I do not want to 

21 raise expectations too high, that we can accomplish all 

22 the other things that we would all like the do. And each 

23 one of us, I'm sure, sitting here, has an item or items, 

24 as I hear it, that we would like to have. But I think we 

25 have to be realistic about what kind of toll it's going to 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 272 

 1 take on our staff and the programs that are before us, 

 2 before we make that next leap. 

 3 Now, having said that, I'm wondering if we could 

 4 adopt the early action items and leave open Table Two and 

 5 Three to come back to at some time when it's an 

 6 appropriate time. And I, right now, am just thinking as 

 7 I'm talking. Not necessarily make us a commitment of 

 8 moving anything forward at this point in time into that 

 9 early number, but maybe there's a point in time where 

10 staff can come back and say, we're ready to tackle one, 

11 two or three more. What, Board members, do you think we 

12 should work on next? I just think this is too early in 

13 the process to, perhaps, enlarge that early action item 

14 area. 

15 And that's just my personal viewpoint. 

16 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Supervisor Hill. 

18 SUPERVISOR HILL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

19 I -- after listening to the tremendous testimony 

20 from the environmental community and everyone that's here, 

21 and especially, I referenced it earlier, the presentation 

22 on global change and global climate change and where we 

23 are and where we're going, I guess there's a lot of 

24 anticipation and I feel that excitement since the passage 

25 of AB 32 and over this last year in looking at, and I 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 273 

 1 think what that anticipation is, that we're beginning a 

 2 process that's going to save our planet. I mean without 

 3 being too melodramatic. 

 4 But I think that's what we're doing. And that's 

 5 what we have to look at today. 

 6 And for that reason, I don't think it's 

 7 inappropriate for us to move rapidly to adopt more of 

 8 those urgent items that are necessary. I think, I 

 9 appreciate Dr. Sawyer's comments and his suggestion for 

10 automotive paint, and I think that is a good idea. And I 

11 would support that as an early action item. 

12 Professor Sperling, I think you were reading my 

13 notes here, and I appreciate that because you said it much 

14 more eloquently than I could have said it. But I do like 

15 the suggestions of his. 

16 And I think the cement plant deserves the -- 

17 cement plant electrification, and is an important 

18 consideration and one that we have to go forward with. I 

19 think we're at a point where we can look at it seriously 

20 and those efficiency requirements that could come from 

21 moving forward with early action items. 

22 I see that it's a couple years down the road, but 

23 I think that we can address those at this point and move 

24 forward with them. And I'd like to see that as well. 

25 Certainly, the idea of the heavy-duty emission 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 274 

 1 reductions and the need for that, we're looking at in the 

 2 future, but there's no reason why, I feel, we can't bring 

 3 those forward as an early action item and take that step 

 4 and make that commitment. And if the resources aren't 

 5 there within staff, then we go to the Legislature and ask 

 6 for more to make this happen. I think that's our 

 7 obligation and that's our responsibility. 

 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. D'Adamo. 

 9 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Well, I think I said when 

10 with got started, I made some opening comments that it's 

11 important that we do this right. And I think without a 

12 doubt there's a lot more that could be done, but we are 

13 under a legislative mandate on early action items, that 

14 they meet a specific criteria, and that we meet those 

15 action items within a time certain. 

16 I would liken this to the SIP process. We're 

17 going to take an action today and although it's not 

18 federally enforceable, like in a SIP, we have a legal duty 

19 to the State Legislature and a morale obligation to know 

20 what we're doing before we make a commitment. And so I 

21 can see both sides here. I think that we ought to go 

22 further. However, I feel that in order to be responsible 

23 as to what we think we can accomplish, we need to stick 

24 with those three items. 

25 What I would suggest is akin to, I think, where 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 275 

 1 Ms. Riordan was heading, that we ask staff to reevaluate 

 2 the list of Group Two, Group Three, go back and look at 

 3 the list that the environmentalists, that the 

 4 Environmental Justice community provided to us, and in a 

 5 very short order, see if there are one or two items, 

 6 perhaps, like the paint item, that would bubble up to the 

 7 top that we could either add to the list at a later time 

 8 or in an expedited time fashion, even if we miss that 2010 

 9 enforceability date. 

10 So that would be my recommendation, that we stick 

11 with this. We get serious about those three items. And 

12 those three items alone are going to take a great deal of 

13 staff's time. And I would agree with the list that 

14 Ms. Witherspoon went over. It's not just these three 

15 items. There's a lot of co-benefits that we're looking at 

16 on this calendar that we're up against within the next two 

17 years. 

18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Berg. 

19 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Mr. Chairman, I am really 

20 struggling actually over our item before us today because 

21 I do feel a tremendous sense of urgency. But it's 

22 interesting, I've gone through all of the written 

23 communication, and out of the seven legislative people 

24 that have written, members that have written us, every one 

25 of them were concerned about us banning the refrigerant 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 276 

 1 and its impact on the lower income community. And so I 

 2 think that the balancing act here is critical. I think 

 3 that the more foundation that we can lay so that we can 

 4 continue to build is very important. Things like the 

 5 early action credit that do allow people to do things on, 

 6 ahead of time, are very critical. 

 7 I would like to also state for the record that I 

 8 will be abstaining from any discussion on the cool 

 9 automotive paint, as my company, Ellis Paint Company, does 

10 make automotive refinish products. And so I would like 

11 that to go onto the record, Mr. Chairman. 

12 I would support the current three measures before 

13 us with the understanding that we are going to work with 

14 industry on the refrigerants to come up with a solution 

15 other than banning, and only banning, if we feel that that 

16 is ultimately our only choice. 

17 And, also, I would like to encourage any work we 

18 can do on early action credit. And then I also would 

19 support the current regulations that we are, in front of 

20 us, and how we can piggyback CO2 credit emission 

21 reductions within those pending regulations. I would also 

22 be in favor of that. 

23 I am very troubled that we have regulations in 

24 front of us that are very, very difficult. We're going to 

25 be talking about some very strongly economic impacts and 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 277 

 1 this ramping up is going to have some cost associated that 

 2 I just want to make sure that as we look at this and pass 

 3 these things, that we understand the consequences. And I 

 4 am really mindful and concerned of looking good on paper 

 5 versus what we can get accomplished and make sure that we 

 6 get the reductions that we say that we can. 

 7 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Supervisor Case. 

 9 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

10 In listening to the conversation and the 

11 testimony we've heard today and the conversation among 

12 colleagues, this is a big tough issue and I won't say I 

13 was one of the earliest ones with agreement of global 

14 warming, but maybe like a reformed smoker, I now hear the 

15 concern and the level of concern for the urgency in it. 

16 And I would agree with you, Mr. Chairman, I'm a bit 

17 concerned. Though, I realize there are three early action 

18 items that actually translate to 36 or so items, I also 

19 read in the staff report that there are, maybe a couple of 

20 items that are there, you're just concerned about barely 

21 missing the 2010 deadline. And is there an opportunity to 

22 really commit to saying, no, if we really focus, maybe 

23 there's one or two more that are there. 

24 Because I think sending the message that we hear 

25 the urgency loud and clear, that we want to commit to the 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 278 

 1 greatest amount of reductions at the earliest possible 

 2 date, that still be mindful each and every one of these is 

 3 very complex matter. Nothing is simple. 

 4 I heard the comment about cool communities. It 

 5 sounds simple. I won't necessarily say I believe it is 

 6 because I know what you deal with is very complicated. 

 7 And there's many different viewpoints and many different 

 8 ways of handling an issue. I also heard, there were a 

 9 couple that are already scheduled before this Board within 

10 the next 12 months or so, that can have such impacts. I 

11 picked out the forestry protocol, I heard in testimony. 

12 The port electrification, I heard in testimony. One 

13 important for the San Joaquin Valley is finding some way 

14 to fund resources, infrastructure, truck stops, so trucks 

15 don't idle their engine just to keep the occupant 

16 comfortable. I think there are some opportunities there 

17 in the San Joaquin Valley. We have such a huge trucks 

18 that travel our freeways. Ninety-nine, the last I heard, 

19 is running in the neighborhood of 25 to 35 percent diesel 

20 trucks on that highway. And it goes right down the spine 

21 of the state. 

22 I don't know what these items could be. But my 

23 sense, with the sense of urgency, is that we look for 

24 somewhat of a broader definition. I don't know if that's 

25 something that our staff could say these couple of things, 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 279 

 1 we think we're close to the cusp, so if we add it, it does 

 2 send a very different message back to the public and, 

 3 though, I don't agree with characterizing it as there's 

 4 only three out there, I think these are tremendous efforts 

 5 that will be done on the part of the staff and I 

 6 certainly, in my short tenure on this Board, have been 

 7 hugely impressed, both with the commitment and the 

 8 expertise on the part of the staff, and the commitment and 

 9 the expertise on the part of this Board to deal with it. 

10 But I still have a sense that a stronger statement does 

11 need to be made. And I'm looking for what those might be. 

12 I heard the suggestions, but I think there are 

13 many here in this room that know much more than I as to 

14 what would be appropriate. 

15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Kennard. 

16 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Thank you, Chairman 

17 Sawyer. 

18 Last week, I was a lone vote against the 

19 San Joaquin SIP because I felt that the district, in 

20 particular, not the CARB staff, had not adequately 

21 addressed the community's concerns and hadn't pushed far 

22 enough, hadn't raised the expectations, and we're asking 

23 the community to defer in many regards some of initiatives 

24 out to 2023. 

25 Today, I feel very differently. I feel that the 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 280 

 1 staff has adequately and very fully looked at all of the 

 2 initiatives recommended by many, many stakeholders. And 

 3 really worked hard to put forth those that were doable and 

 4 reasonable within the time frames that we have. 

 5 So with that, I will move the original 

 6 resolution. 

 7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Do I have a second? 

 8 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Second. 

 9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: We may continue to discuss 

10 this. 

11 Dr. Gong. 

12 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Just a brief comment. I've 

13 listened to the discussion. I think it was quite 

14 enlightening. My conclusion is I support the staff's 

15 early measures. 

16 But how I came to that may be another story. 

17 When I first started looking at this issue, I also felt 

18 that there were only three, because that's sort of what it 

19 looked like in the advertisement, so this speak. But I'm 

20 glad staff and Katherine Witherspoon have illuminated that 

21 and I see the advantages and also what the schedule is 

22 like. Which scares the heck out of me, to be honest with 

23 you. That's going to be a lot of work for all of us, I 

24 can see that right now. 

25 I think the s wisdom of my colleagues on the 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 281 

 1 Board is outstanding. I'm learning from them a great deal 

 2 about policy decision-making and policymaking. I hope 

 3 that perhaps the recommendations of the Environmental 

 4 Justice Advisory Committee will not go unheeded, but 

 5 certainly be looked at, and referenced to, and discussed 

 6 with the same Advisory Committee by staff as we go along 

 7 with this. I assume that that Committee will still 

 8 continue or is -- as we go along this pathway. So there 

 9 should be further discussion interaction. 

10 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Well, the 

11 Environmental Justice Committee will be with us through 

12 the scoping plan and through every regulation thereafter. 

13 There is no sunset date on their participation. 

14 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Great. Okay. So I applaud 

15 that. I hope there there's more interaction. So we can 

16 come to some better understanding, because, again, in the 

17 beginning, it looked like three versus 34 recommendations. 

18 Which, I think, in the intermediate analysis, it's not 

19 true. 

20 I also appreciate the statement that we should be 

21 prudent in what we decide because what we decide we'll be 

22 committed to. If we decide to take on too much, we may 

23 actually stumble and we'll show up in the L.A. Times, 

24 again. Okay? 

25 And I always fall back on my own medical training 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 282 

 1 and experiences. As you know, in Los Angeles County, 

 2 we're having a medical health care upheaval and we're 

 3 probably going to see a huge transition of hundreds or 

 4 thousands of patients from one hospital to a network of 

 5 hospitals. And that's scares the heck out of me as well. 

 6 But I know for a fact that we can only deal with several 

 7 patients at a time. We can't take on the whole universe 

 8 of patients that may be coming to our doorstep. We're 

 9 going to have to prudently, wisely try to triage and do 

10 the best we can in terms of how to handle the situation. 

11 Even though it may be life and death. A crisis. Just 

12 like the planet is in today. 

13 But I think we should not panic and just sort of 

14 step back a little bit, make sure we know what we're 

15 trying to do the best we can, as humanly possible. And I 

16 think staff has put a lot of thought and effort into this. 

17 They are being burdened. Hopefully, we can get more staff 

18 to help share the burden. And provide more information, 

19 look at these different issues that we've talked about. 

20 Thank you. 

21 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. D'Adamo. 

22 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I'd like to see if 

23 Ms. Kennard would be willing to accept one change that I 

24 think would reflect the sentiment of many Board members 

25 and that is, right now, the resolution does require staff 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 283 

 1 to conduct further analysis of Group Two and Group Three 

 2 measures. What I would suggest is that we include the 

 3 list provided to us by the Environmental Justice Committee 

 4 and that staff report back within six months, would be my 

 5 recommendation, but I'd be open to anything further from 

 6 staff on that. 

 7 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: That's fine. 

 8 We'll be happy to do that. 

 9 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: And I'm certainly fine 

10 with modifying my motion to that effect. 

11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. The motion is then 

12 modified as proposed by Ms. D'Adamo and accepted by 

13 Ms. Kennard. 

14 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Dr. Sawyer, if I might ask. 

15 In the process as the AB 32 legislation requires this 

16 Board to determine early discrete actions by the end of 

17 this month. How does reevaluating and revisiting that, is 

18 it like adding a new rule into a SIP? What's the process? 

19 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: There's no 

20 prohibition on adding measures. The requirement is that 

21 you have a list by June 30th, and you turn that list into 

22 regulations, unless for some reason, they prove not to be 

23 cost-effective and technologically feasible. So what you 

24 do adopt today we'll move straight in rulemaking on, but 

25 you can add other measures to the list at any time. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 284 

 1 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Is there any requirement if 

 2 other measures are added, say, in six months, that they 

 3 have a timeline at which, or is it that these would have 

 4 to be regulatory, that get on the list today? 

 5 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We would have the 

 6 same January 1st, 2010 enforceability date. So we'd 

 7 really have to hightail it. 

 8 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Thank you. 

 9 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: I think the 

10 intent of the law with early action was to make sure that 

11 we didn't not take actions while we're in the planning 

12 period. So we clearly are meeting the requirements of the 

13 law by identifying several measures. And it's completely 

14 consistent with the law if we bring you a -- if we find 

15 additional things we can bring you in that intervening 

16 time, to do so. So there's no -- I don't see any legal 

17 problem or intent problem. 

18 CHIEF COUNSEL JENNINGS: Yeah. I would concur 

19 with that. There is a provision in AB 32 which 

20 specifically says that it doesn't preclude other actions 

21 taken before the 2010 time frame. And whether or not 

22 the -- an additional item's added to the list, the Board 

23 certainly has the authority to direct staff to take the 

24 actions necessary to have it adopted and enforceable by 

25 January 2010. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 285 

 1 Dr. Sawyer, I don't know how close you are to 

 2 voting on the resolution, but there are two items, one a 

 3 Table Two item and one a Table Three item, that individual 

 4 Board members are going to recuse themselves on because of 

 5 potential conflicts. One of those is the cool automobile 

 6 paints that Ms. Berg referred to. And the other is items 

 7 3-4, off-road equipment, diesel equipment, including 

 8 airport ground equipment, ground support equipment. 

 9 So I would recommend that the initial vote on the 

10 resolution omit those two items as being parts of Group 

11 Two and Group Three, and then have individual votes on the 

12 other two items, so that the people who need to recuse 

13 themselves will clearly not participate on that. 

14 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Fine. Thank you. We'll 

15 follow that procedure when we vote. 

16 Are there anymore comments? Supervisor Hill. 

17 SUPERVISOR HILL: Question. Thank you, Doctor. 

18 So what I just heard, it sounds like, if we were 

19 to go forward with the cool automotive paint issue, if we 

20 were to go forward with the heavy-duty emissions rule, and 

21 causing that as an early action item, and if we were to go 

22 forward with the cement manufacturing efficiency 

23 requirements as an early action item, if they were were to 

24 be found to be, during the process, if they were 

25 cost-inefficient or ineffective, cost-effective, not 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 286 

 1 effective, or inefficient, infeasible, then we could drop 

 2 them? 

 3 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: That's correct. 

 4 There's a clause in your resolution that makes clear the 

 5 Board has this authority to delete items from the list 

 6 that are found not to be technologically feasible or 

 7 cost-effective. So you're not tying your hands 

 8 absolutely. You're making a presumption today that we 

 9 will be able to develop such measures, but if we can't, 

10 they'll come off the list. 

11 SUPERVISOR HILL: So would you say, if they're 

12 cost-effective -- 

13 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Right. Or not -- 

14 SUPERVISOR HILL: -- or if they're infeasible -- 

15 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Right. 

16 SUPERVISOR HILL: -- once it goes forward, we 

17 could drop them. To me that strengthen is the argument of 

18 adding these two at this point to see where they go. 

19 Thank you. 

20 BOARD MEMBER CASE: And Dr. Sawyer, just one 

21 other request of staff. When you come back in six months, 

22 could that include some response to the additional 

23 recommendations -- the five recommendations from CAPCOA? 

24 They presented these as fairly resource limited in terms 

25 of the time of ARB staff, but potential opportunities for 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 287 

 1 reductions. 

 2 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: I think that's a 

 3 great idea and it would give us time to sit down with 

 4 CAPCOA and talk our way through them. 

 5 BOARD MEMBER CASE: That would be good. Thank 

 6 you. 

 7 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Then we should also add South 

 8 Coast Air Quality's list as well on, that way those are 

 9 the two extreme non-attainment areas. So I would 

10 recommend that. 

11 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Okey-dokey. 

12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Well, I think the point is, 

13 we've heard a lot of richness of suggestions today and we 

14 certainly deserve to hear back from the staff on these 

15 measures that have been proposed. 

16 Are we ready to vote? 

17 BOARD MEMBER BERG: I just have one clarification 

18 on the -- 

19 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Oh, excuse me. Of course. 

20 BOARD MEMBER BERG: I want to make sure that 

21 under the restriction on the high global warming potential 

22 refrigerant, that we understand that you have the latitude 

23 of bringing back of, we want to address those emissions, 

24 but we're not saying banned unless that's what the 

25 recommendation is. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 288 

 1 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: That was our 

 2 recommendation, and, yes, that's our understanding. 

 3 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you very much. 

 4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: We need to take our ex parte 

 5 statements starting with Dr. Gong. 

 6 BOARD MEMBER GONG: I spoke with Joe Lyou of the 

 7 California Rights Alliance on June 20. Our discussion 

 8 reflected the recommendations of the EJ Advisory Committee 

 9 which was reported today by Angela. And that's all. 

10 BOARD MEMBER BERG: I had two conference calls, 

11 both on June 18th. One with Wendy James of a Better World 

12 Group; Bonnie Holmes-Gen; Bill Magavern from Sierra Club 

13 of California; Jason Barbose from Environmental 

14 California; and Luke Tonachel from NRDC, and Bonnie 

15 Holmes-Gen, of course, from the American Lung Association. 

16 The second conference call was with the members 

17 from the Environmental Justice Advocacy Committee. And 

18 they included Martha Dina Arguello, the Physicians for 

19 Social Responsibility, Los Angeles; Jose Carmona, Center 

20 for Efficient -- Energy Efficient and Renewable 

21 Technology; Philip Huang, Communities for Better 

22 Environment; Angela Johnson, California Environmental 

23 Rights Alliance; and Jane Williams, California Communities 

24 Against Toxics. 

25 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: On April 25th, I met in 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 289 

 1 Sacramento at ARB offices with Bonnie Holmes-Gen, American 

 2 Lung Association; Bill Magavern, Sierra Club; Karen 

 3 Douglas, Environmental Defense; Erin Rogers, Union of 

 4 Concerned Scientists; Jason Barbose, Environmental 

 5 California; and Wendy James, Better World Group. 

 6 On June 18th, I participated in a conference call 

 7 with members of the Environmental Justice Advisory 

 8 Committee, Jose Carmona, Center for Energy Efficiency and 

 9 Renewable Technology; Angela Johnson-Meszaros, California 

10 Environmental Rights Alliance; Jane Williams, California 

11 Communities Against Toxics. 

12 On June 18th, I spoke over the telephone with 

13 Joshua Stark, National Parks Conservation Association. 

14 And then today I had a brief discussion with the 

15 Roland Huang with the NRDC. 

16 All OF those discussions mirrored the testimony 

17 that the individuals provided today. 

18 SUPERVISOR HILL: Mr. Chair, on May 1st, there 

19 was a meeting in my Redwood City office and a conference 

20 call at the same time with Derva Wang, NRDC; Linda Weiner, 

21 American Lung Association; Bill Magavern, Sierra Club; 

22 Wendy James; Dan Calb, Union of Concerned Scientists; and 

23 Jason Barbose. 

24 And their testimony today referenced and mirrored 

25 they comments on that meeting. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 290 

 1 June 13, call with Western States Petroleum 

 2 Association, Cathy Reheis-Boyd and Gina Grey. 

 3 On June 19th, conference call with members of the 

 4 Environmental Justice Advisory Committee. Participants 

 5 were Jose Carmona, Center for Energy Efficiency and 

 6 Renewable technology; Angela Johnson-Meszaros, California 

 7 Environmental Rights Alliance; Jane Williams, California 

 8 Communities Against Toxics; and Philip Huang, Communities 

 9 for a Better Environment. And their discussion and 

10 conversation were related to the testimony today. 

11 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: I have no ex parte 

12 communications. 

13 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: On the 7th of June, I met 

14 with Bonnie Holmes-Gen of the American Lung Association; 

15 Karen Douglas of Environmental Defense; Scott Smithline, 

16 Californians Against Waste; Diane Bailey, Natural 

17 Resources Defense Council; Don Anair, Union of Concerned 

18 Scientists. 

19 And the in the same discussion by phone with 

20 Wendy James of the Global Warming Action Coalition and 

21 Deborah Wong of the Natural Resources Defense Council. 

22 And what they testified to today was similar to 

23 what we discussed. 

24 On the 12th of June, I met with Bill Magavern of 

25 the Sierra Club of California, and what we discussed 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 291 

 1 reflected what he said here today. 

 2 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I received a call on 

 3 June 11th from Cathy Reheis-Boyd and Gina Grey of Western 

 4 States Petroleum Association. That conversation mirrored 

 5 Cathy Reheis-Boyd's testimony today. 

 6 I received a call on June 21st Fred Aguirre 

 7 expressing concern about the cool automotive paint item. 

 8 Those are all that I've received. 

 9 BOARD MEMBER CASE: I have none. 

10 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: On May 14th, I met in 

11 Davis, actually some were on the phone call, some were 

12 present. Bonnie Holmes-Gen from American Lung; Karen 

13 Douglas, Environmental Defense; Jamie Knapp; Luke 

14 Tonachel, NRDC; Kate Hoerner, Danielle Fugere, Bluewater; 

15 Patricia Monahan, USC; Jason Barbose, Environment 

16 California; John Shears, CEERT; Wendy James, Better World 

17 Group. 

18 May 30th, had a conference call with 

19 representatives from Sempra on a project and an initiative 

20 to exam opportunities to integrate energy efficiency into 

21 AB 32. And we just only generally discussed the early 

22 action items. 

23 June 5th, telephone call with K. C. Bishop of 

24 Chevron. 

25 June 8th, call with the Western States Petroleum 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 292 

 1 Association with Cathy Reheis-Boyd; David Ligh, Exxon 

 2 Mobil; Jim Uihlein, Chevron; Elroy Garcia, KP Advocates; 

 3 and Scott Folwarkow from Valero. 

 4 June 13th, a conference call with Wendy James; 

 5 Bonnie Holmes-Gen, American Lung; Derva Wang, NRDC; Tom 

 6 O'Connor, Environmental Defense. 

 7 And then June 19th, a conference call with the 

 8 Environmental Justice Advisory Committee, Jose Carmona, 

 9 Philip Huang, Angela Johnson-Meszaros, and Jane Williams. 

10 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. Are we ready to vote? 

11 CHIEF COUNSEL JENNINGS: Chairman Sawyer, would 

12 it be useful for me to just summarize? 

13 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Yeah, remind us what we're 

14 voting on the first time, because that'll be the main 

15 motion. 

16 CHIEF COUNSEL JENNINGS: Okay. You're going to 

17 be voting on the resolution, as proposed, with the change 

18 of directing the staff to report to the Board within 

19 six months with a fuller evaluation of the recommendations 

20 made by the Environmental Justice Committee, made by 

21 CAPCOA, and made by the South Coast District. 

22 Also you are going to not be voting at this time 

23 on inclusion of cool paints on Group Two and the off-road 

24 diesel equipment in Group Three. You're going to vote on 

25 those separately afterwards. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 293 

 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Would the clerk please call 

 2 the roll. 

 3 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. Berg? 

 4 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Aye. 

 5 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Supervisor Case? 

 6 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Aye. 

 7 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. D'Adamo? 

 8 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Aye. 

 9 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Dr. Gong? 

10 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Aye. 

11 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Supervisor Hill? 

12 SUPERVISOR HILL: No. 

13 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. Kennard? 

14 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Aye. 

15 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. Riordan? 

16 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Aye. 

17 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Professor Sperling? 

18 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: No. 

19 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Chairman Sawyer? 

20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: No. 

21 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Motion passes six to three. 

22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: And now we need to clean up 

23 those other two issues? 

24 CHIEF COUNSEL JENNINGS: Yes. I suggest, now you 

25 should have a vote on whether the cool automotive paints 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 294 

 1 item, 2-15, should be included in Group Two. 

 2 And my understanding is Ms. Berg is going to 

 3 recuse herself from that vote. 

 4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Would the clerk please call 

 5 the roll. 

 6 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Supervisor Case? 

 7 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Aye. 

 8 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. D'Adamo? 

 9 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Aye. 

10 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Dr. Gong? 

11 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Aye. 

12 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Supervisor Hill? 

13 SUPERVISOR HILL: No. 

14 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. Kennard? 

15 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Aye. 

16 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. Riordan? 

17 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Aye. 

18 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Professor Sperling? 

19 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Aye. 

20 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Chairman Sawyer? 

21 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Aye. 

22 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Motion passes seven to one. 

23 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: And once again -- 

24 CHIEF COUNSEL JENNINGS: Yes. The final vote 

25 will be whether item 3-4, off-road diesel equipment, 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 295 

 1 should be added to the Group Three. And on this item I 

 2 understand that Ms. Kennard is going to recuse herself 

 3 from the vote. 

 4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Would the clerk please call 

 5 the roll. 

 6 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. Berg? 

 7 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Aye. 

 8 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Supervisor Case? 

 9 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Aye. 

10 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. D'Adamo? 

11 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Aye. 

12 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Dr. Gong? 

13 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Aye. 

14 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Supervisor Hill? 

15 SUPERVISOR HILL: No. 

16 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Excuse me. 

17 SUPERVISOR HILL: No. 

18 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. Riordan? 

19 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Aye. 

20 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Professor Sperling? 

21 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Aye. 

22 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Chairman Sawyer? 

23 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Aye. 

24 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Motion passes seven to one. 

25 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Fine. Thank you very much. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 296 

 1 I want to thank everybody who was here today to testify. 

 2 We're going to be working with you on these issues over 

 3 the next years. And we certainly appreciate your support. 

 4 We will take a ten-minute break at this time and 

 5 our intention is to deal with the next two items on the 

 6 Board agenda today. 

 7 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) 

 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Agenda Item 7-7-5, a 

 9 Consideration of Proposed Amendments to the Emission 

10 Control and Smog Index Label Regulations for Motor 

11 Vehicles. 

12 The Air Resources Board has required air 

13 pollution labels on new cars since 1998. New law requires 

14 the Air Resources Board to add a global warming index as 

15 well. 

16 Ms. Witherspoon, please introduce this item. 

17 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, 

18 Dr. Sawyer. 

19 California citizens purchase approximately two 

20 million new vehicles a year. ARB requires smog index 

21 labels to help consumers find the most environmentally 

22 beneficial products. Last year, the Legislature directed 

23 that we begin labeling cars for greenhouse gas emissions 

24 as well. Focus groups and market research indicate that 

25 many consumers do not fully understand the environmental 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 297 

 1 characteristics of new cars. The same studies indicate 

 2 that California's current labels should be improved for 

 3 readability and consistency. The proposed rule adds a 

 4 greenhouse gas index to new vehicle labels and enhance the 

 5 label's appearance and usefulness overall. 

 6 For both smog and global warming, staff is 

 7 proposing a simple scale from one to ten, where one 

 8 represents the dirtiest vehicle and ten is the cleanest. 

 9 Craig Duehring of the Mobile Source Control Division will 

10 make the staff presentation. 

11 Craig. 

12 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 

13 presented as follows.) 

14 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER DUEHRING: Thank you, 

15 Ms. Witherspoon, and good afternoon, Chairman Sawyer, 

16 members of the Board. Ladies and gentlemen. 

17 Do we have the presentation available. 

18 We are here today to discuss staff's proposed 

19 amendments to the Smog Index Label regulations that would 

20 modify the current label's appearance and add a global 

21 warming index. These proposed regulatory actions are 

22 presented today as a result of California statute adopted 

23 pursuant the Assembly Bill 1229. 

24 --o0o-- 

25 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER DUEHRING: I begin with a 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 298 

 1 brief overview of the materials being presented. First, I 

 2 will provide a summary of the Assembly Bill, then discuss 

 3 the current Smog Index Label regulations and show the 

 4 Board actual samples found on vehicles today. I will next 

 5 present the proposed new Environmental Performance Label 

 6 which modifies the content and appearance of the current 

 7 Smog Index Label and adds a global warming index. 

 8 Additionally, I will discuss the economic impacts and 

 9 outstanding issues surrounding adoption and implementation 

10 of these regulations. And will end with a brief summary 

11 and recommendation. 

12 --o0o-- 

13 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER DUEHRING: On October 6th, 

14 2005, Assembly Bill 1229 was signed into law, directing 

15 the Air Resources Board to review and revise the existing 

16 Smog Index and to add a global warming index by July 1, 

17 2007. 

18 Specifically, the bill requires the label to be 

19 in effect for 2009 and subsequent model year new motor 

20 vehicles. And just like the current Smog Index, is 

21 required for all passenger cars and light-duty trucks with 

22 a gross vehicle weight of up to 8500 pounds. In addition, 

23 this bill adds medium-duty passenger vehicles less than 

24 10,000 pounds to labeling requirements. 

25 The bill also requires to label to include 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 299 

 1 projected lowest and average vehicle emission reference 

 2 points, use at least one color ink in addition to black, 

 3 and provide a brief explanation of the indices. The label 

 4 must include a statement that identifies the use of motor 

 5 vehicles as a primary cause of global warming and how 

 6 emissions from motor vehicles may be reduced. And 

 7 finally, the global warming index must account for 

 8 upstream emissions. 

 9 --o0o-- 

10 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER DUEHRING: The current 

11 Smog Index Label has been required on new vehicles sold in 

12 California since the 1998 model year. In addition to 

13 California, this label is appearing on new vehicles sold 

14 in other states that have adopted California's 

15 certification standards. 

16 The label provides customers -- the label 

17 provides consumers with an indication of a new light-duty 

18 vehicle's relative contribution to smog formation based on 

19 exhaust non-methane organic gas, NMOG, oxides of nitrogen, 

20 NOx, and evaporative hydrocarbon, HC, emissions. The 

21 current Smog Index uses a relative ratio to compare the 

22 vehicle being labeled to a base vehicle as determined by 

23 the Air Board. This Smog Index ratio is then displayed 

24 graphically on a label, usually as a number less than one, 

25 along with the Smog Index ratio of an average new vehicle 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 300 

 1 for the same model year as the vehicle being sold. 

 2 This slide shows a sample Smog Index Label as 

 3 originally recommended by the ARB. Existing regulations, 

 4 however, have allowed the manufacturers to vary the size 

 5 and graphical representation of the Smog Index. Some 

 6 vehicle manufacturers have even incorporated the Smog 

 7 Index information into the new vehicle's Monroney sticker 

 8 that includes the vehicle's features, pricing, U.S. EPA 

 9 fuel economy, and other information. Today, many vehicle 

10 manufacturers have their own graphical representation of 

11 the scale, some similar to the one shown, some showing two 

12 scales, and some extending the length of the scale to span 

13 from zero to three. As the length of the scale increases, 

14 the ability to differentiate smog indices tends to 

15 diminish. 

16 --o0o-- 

17 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER DUEHRING: The next two 

18 slides contain some pictures of actual 2007 Smog Index 

19 Labels in use today. Today's Smog Index Labels show 

20 inconsistent label design and presentation by auto 

21 manufacturers. As you can see, manufacturers have 

22 developed unique graphical presentations of the smog 

23 emissions information. The two labels in this slide are 

24 actually displaying the same information. In this case, 

25 the Smog Index of both vehicles is .39, yet the consumer 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 301 

 1 seize two different presentation. 

 2 --o0o-- 

 3 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER DUEHRING: In this slide, 

 4 the two labels again use a unique presentation to display 

 5 similar smog emissions information. The top label 

 6 displays a Smog Index value of .5 on a scale from one to 

 7 two and the bottom label displays a Smog Index value of 

 8 .49 on a scale from one to three. The emissions from the 

 9 two vehicles are nearly the same. However, the value of 

10 on an extended scale can easily be interpreted as being 

11 significantly cleaner. The many variations of labels from 

12 one manufacturer to the next make it harder for the 

13 customer to compare vehicles. For these reasons, staff 

14 proposes prescriptive label requirements to standardize 

15 content and presentation of the label. 

16 --o0o-- 

17 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER DUEHRING: Staff is 

18 proposing to modify the graphics and content of the Smog 

19 Index Label to increase customer awareness and 

20 understanding. Staff proposes using a simple scale of one 

21 to ten where one represents the dirtiest vehicle available 

22 and ten, the cleanest. This is opposite of the current 

23 scale, where zero is the cleanest. Staff proposes using 

24 this new scale for two reasons. First, consumer focus 

25 group research indicates more consumers understand ten is 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 302 

 1 well performing and one is poor performing. Second, the 

 2 U.S. EPA has a popular website that uses simple one to ten 

 3 scales for both air pollution and greenhouse gas ratings 

 4 of new vehicles where one represents the worst and ten the 

 5 best. 

 6 Staff also proposes adding a Global Warming Index 

 7 to the label using a similar one to ten scoring system. 

 8 This scoring system will assign scores based on the 

 9 greenhouse gas certifications required under the motor 

10 vehicle greenhouse gas regulation, contained in section 

11 1961.1, Title 13, of the California Code of Regulations, 

12 better known as the Pavely Bill, set to take effect for 

13 the 2009 model year. 

14 --o0o-- 

15 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER DUEHRING: Staff also 

16 proposes prescriptive regulations for the new label to 

17 establish presentation consistency from one manufacturer 

18 to the next. These proposed regulations require the use 

19 of a consistent green border and a six by four inch label 

20 size to aid in consumer recognition. In addition, the 

21 label informs the consumer of how a specific vehicle 

22 compares to the average and the cleanest available on the 

23 market. 

24 Due to lead time requirements for manufacturers 

25 to implement the new regulations, staff recommends 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 303 

 1 establishing an effective start date of October 1, 2008. 

 2 Staff also recommends allowing manufacturers to install 

 3 the new label prior to October 1, 2008, if the 

 4 manufacturer so chooses. 

 5 --o0o-- 

 6 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER DUEHRING: This slide 

 7 shows a picture of a proposed Environmental Performance 

 8 Label. It identifies a vehicle's global warming score on 

 9 the left and the smog score on the right. As you can see, 

10 these scales establish a relationship between a specific 

11 vehicle, the average vehicle, and the cleanest vehicle. 

12 The label presentation is the result of prior U.S. EPA 

13 market research and recent California focus group studies 

14 using to aid with label design and foster understanding. 

15 Some of the key findings of the focus groups 

16 highlighted label size, label color, and scale 

17 presentation. Consumers preferred the proposed minimum 

18 label size of six inches wide by four inches tall and 

19 mentioned that smaller labels may not get noticed and 

20 therefore may not get read. Consumers liked the green 

21 border of the proposed emissions label. They felt green 

22 represents the environment, conservation, and they felt 

23 green catches the eye. And consumers preferred solid 

24 black blocks to either a solid black bar or a gradient 

25 over the the entire scale. The blocks were more 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 304 

 1 definitive and gave another counting mechanism. 

 2 Staff used this information from these focus 

 3 groups and other stakeholder input to develop the proposed 

 4 design you see today. The new label also encourages the 

 5 consumer to visit theCalifornia Drive Clean website in 

 6 order to obtain more information. 

 7 --o0o-- 

 8 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER DUEHRING: Staff is 

 9 proposing a Smog Index scoring system that is based on 

10 emissions certification levels from both the California 

11 LEV II and the U.S. EPA regulations. Doing so will allow 

12 for a scoring system that could be used by both ARB and 

13 U.S. EPA. This table shows the California and Federal 

14 emissions certification levels that will apply to the 

15 affected 2009 model year vehicles. 

16 As seen in this table, these certification levels 

17 line up quite nicely and are listed here by the California 

18 terminology and by the federal "bin levels." In addition, 

19 this table identifies the tailpipe emission standard for 

20 NMOG and NOx and the proposed smog score. While the 

21 Partial Zero emission vehicle or PZEV, the Super Ultra Low 

22 Emission Vehicle or SULEV, and the Federal Bin 2 vehicles 

23 are certified to the same exhaust emission standard, PZEV 

24 certified vehicles receive a higher score due to their 

25 zero evaporative emissions and extended 150,000 mile 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 305 

 1 emission warranty. Therefore, the PZEV certification 

 2 level was assigned a score of nine and the SULEV and Bin 2 

 3 certification was assigned a score of eight. 

 4 This smog scoring system represents all vehicles 

 5 from the dirtiest to the cleanest. Vehicles with the 

 6 score of one, two or three are typically medium-duty 

 7 passenger vehicles such as large sport utilities or eight 

 8 to 12 passenger vans. Vehicles with a score of ten 

 9 represents zero emission vehicles such as Battery Electric 

10 or Fuel Cell Vehicles. All remaining passenger cars and 

11 light-duty trucks will receive a score from four to nine 

12 based on their certification level. The table also 

13 includes some typical vehicles that currently certify to 

14 these levels. 

15 For vehicles capable of operating on more than 

16 one fuel, the scores displayed on the label will be based 

17 on only the highest emitting fuel. The label will direct 

18 consumers to visit ARB's Drive Clean website to find 

19 information on alternative fuel vehicles and the potential 

20 environmental improvements of using alternative fuels. 

21 --o0o-- 

22 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER DUEHRING: Staff is 

23 proposing a Global Warming Index that is based on 

24 emissions certification data from ARB's Motor Vehicle 

25 Greenhouse Gas regulation. This regulation establishes a 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 306 

 1 carbon dioxide or CO2 equivalent value that uses three 

 2 greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and 

 3 methane, based on their relative contribution to global 

 4 warming. It also includes credits for indirect and direct 

 5 use of air conditioning systems and adjusts for upstream 

 6 emissions. 

 7 Staff performed a statistical analysis on the CO2 

 8 data available from the model year 2007 California 

 9 certifications. The statistical average of 360 grams per 

10 mile CO2 set at five on the scale. Because there are no 

11 certification bins from which a global warming scoring 

12 system could be determined, staff used a statistical 

13 analysis to develop a scoring system based on a normal 

14 distribution of scores. 

15 --o0o-- 

16 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER DUEHRING: This table 

17 shows the scoring criteria based on the CO2 equivalent 

18 criteria values -- this table shows the scoring criteria 

19 based on the CO2 equivalent certification values and a 

20 list of typical vehicles those values would represent. 

21 Vehicles with a score of one represent the large, larger 

22 medium-duty passenger vehicles, such as Ford' E-25- 

23 Econoline and Expedition. Vehicles with a score of ten 

24 are typically hybrid passenger vehicles, such as the 

25 Toyota Prius and the Honda Civic Hybrid. Average vehicles 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 307 

 1 obtaining a score of five are typically mid-to-large size 

 2 passenger cars and small light-duty trucks, such as the 

 3 Ford Mustang and Crown Victoria, Toyota Four Runner, and 

 4 Honda Odyssey van. 

 5 --o0o-- 

 6 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER DUEHRING: ARB's Motor 

 7 Vehicle Greenhouse Gas regulation requires vehicle 

 8 manufacturers to decrease the fleet average CO2 equivalent 

 9 emissions incrementally from 2009 to 2016 after which the 

10 fleet average CO2 equivalent emissions remains constant. 

11 Staff looked these incremental adjustments and 

12 determined that by the 2012 model year, vehicles will have 

13 reduced their emissions by 20 percent over 2009 levels. 

14 This scenario is similar to what's known in academia as 

15 grade creep where over time the distribution of grades 

16 range only from A to C in lieu of A to F. Because of 

17 this, the average score of five must be adjusted 

18 periodically. This would also be an appropriate time to 

19 evaluate the need for modifying the indices or label 

20 provisions to reflect potentially increasing use of 

21 alternative fuels in California. 

22 For these reasons, staff will monitor the vehicle 

23 certification distribution and will return to the Board 

24 periodically with recommended adjustments. 

25 --o0o-- 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 308 

 1 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER DUEHRING: There are two 

 2 economic considerations from these proposed regulatory 

 3 amendments. First is the cost of increasing the label 

 4 size and the second is the cost of producing larger labels 

 5 -- excuse me -- producing color labels. Staff found these 

 6 costs to be minor. 

 7 Staff looked at the environmental benefits of 

 8 this regulation and expects that the proposed label will 

 9 affect the purchasing choices of some vehicle buyers; 

10 however, the degree to which this occurs is not known. 

11 Over time, staff expects that increased awareness of the 

12 benefits of purchasing a vehicle with low global warming 

13 and smog emissions will result in market pressure to 

14 increase the number of models available with low 

15 emissions. The increased consumer awareness of vehicle 

16 emissions may also encourage the purchase of other green 

17 products. 

18 --o0o-- 

19 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER DUEHRING: The following 

20 is a review of the outstanding issue raised by various 

21 stakeholders. 

22 First, some vehicle manufacturers stressed 

23 concern with the lead time required to implement new label 

24 improvements. They indicated it would not be possible to 

25 produce a new -- it would not be possible to produce new 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 309 

 1 labels for all 2009 model year vehicles as required by 

 2 statute. Staff solicited feedback from the vehicle 

 3 manufacturers on lead time constraints for producing new 

 4 labels. Staff reviewed this feedback and recommends an 

 5 implementation start date of October 1, 2008 to balance 

 6 lead time issues and statutory requirements. 

 7 The second concern is that increasing the label 

 8 size of the label from what they currently produce, which 

 9 is on average a two and a half by four and a half inch 

10 label to the proposed four by six inch label may, one, 

11 impact the placement of the label, and, two, create 

12 visibility problems for consumers wanting to test drive 

13 the vehicle. 

14 Some vehicle manufacturers use a separate Smog 

15 Index Label for placement flexibility, while others 

16 combine the Smog Index with other labels including the new 

17 vehicle Monroney sticker which includes the vehicle's 

18 features, pricing, fuel economy, and other information. 

19 By placing the California Smog Index information 

20 onto the federally mandated Monroney sticker, 

21 manufacturers indicate the Smog Index is now appearing in 

22 all 50 states. Unfortunately, the Monroney sticker 

23 already contains a tremendous amount of consumer 

24 information and space is limited. 

25 To evaluate this issue, staff presented samples 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 310 

 1 of various sized labels to consumer focus groups held in 

 2 March of 2007. These focus groups preferred the label 

 3 size of four by six inches and did not recommend reducing 

 4 the label size in order to place the label on the Monroney 

 5 sticker. Staff concluded that maintaining a consistent 

 6 look at a minimum label size of four by six inches is 

 7 required for consumer awareness and readability. 

 8 The second issue related to increasing the label 

 9 size is the potential to obstruct vision during consumer 

10 test drives. The concern is focused on vehicles without 

11 rear side windows such as two-seater sports cars and 

12 convertibles. Some vehicle manufacturers requested staff 

13 allow the use of smaller labels on such vehicles. Staff 

14 does not recommend reducing the size of the label in such 

15 cases because placement of the label is not restricted to 

16 side windows only. Like the current Smog Index Label, the 

17 proposed four by six inch label, which is expanding by 

18 only an inch or two over the existing label, may also be 

19 placed on the windshield if there is no space available on 

20 the side windows. Staff determined there is sufficient 

21 side window and/or front windshield area to place the 

22 label without interfering with the driver's view. 

23 The final concern is that in 2009, California and 

24 U.S. EPA scores may not be harmonized. Currently, the 

25 U.S. EPA does not require an emissions label to be placed 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 311 

 1 on each vehicle at the point of sale. The California 

 2 label will be the only required label displaying emission 

 3 scores; therefore, label harmonization is not critical. 

 4 The only place of potential non-conformity is with the 

 5 U.S. EPA website and the California label. This was 

 6 avoidable because the U.S. EPA uses fuel economy data to 

 7 score vehicles and ARB use three greenhouse gases and 

 8 provides adjustments for air conditioners and upstream 

 9 emissions to score vehicles. California also has a unique 

10 PZEV smog certification level creating the need for a 

11 special California smog scale that varies slightly from 

12 the Federal scale. These scoring differences are 

13 projected to be minor and staff continues to work with the 

14 U.S. EPA in hopes to ultimately harmonize on one scoring 

15 methodology. 

16 --o0o-- 

17 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER DUEHRING: In response to 

18 comments, some of which may be reiterated here today, 

19 staff has made changes to the initial proposal. Those 

20 changes are included in the proposed resolution with 

21 15-day modification. The changes include minor formatting 

22 and text modification, adding a dimensional tolerance to 

23 the graphics, and clarification of the work truck 

24 exemption from the global warming score. 

25 --o0o-- 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 312 

 1 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER DUEHRING: In summary, 

 2 staff is proposing three simple amendments. They are. 

 3 1. Revise the existing Smog Index in both 

 4 content and presentation; 

 5 2. Add a Global Warming Index to the label and 

 6 present both indices using simple one to ten scales; and 

 7 3. Adopt a consistent labeling format for 

 8 consumer awareness and understanding. 

 9 In conclusion, staff recommends that you consider 

10 adopting staff's proposal as presented today. 

11 This concludes staff's presentation. 

12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 

13 Madam Ombudsman, please describe the public 

14 participation that occurred while this item was being 

15 developed and report any concerns or comments you may have 

16 to the Board. 

17 OMBUDSMAN QUETIN: Dr. Sawyer and members of the 

18 Board. This proposed regulation has been developed with 

19 input from the representatives of the Alliance of 

20 Automobile Manufacturers, Environment and Energy 

21 Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, 

22 Natural Resources Defense Council, Union of Concerned 

23 Scientists, and the U.S. EPA. Staff began their efforts 

24 to develop this rule in November 2006. They held two 

25 workshops in Sacramento on February 15th and February 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 313 

 1 16th, 2007, with an average have 10 to 15 people attending 

 2 each. Staff also held ten industry and environmental 

 3 meetings and approximately 50 telephone conversations with 

 4 stakeholders. The staff report was released for public 

 5 comment on May 1st, 2007 and was noticed on the ARB 

 6 website. An Internet message was sent to the 7,760 

 7 subscribers to the list serves for this item. The notice 

 8 for the Board hearing was posted a few days later, on 

 9 May 4th, 2007. 

10 As mentioned by staff, issues remain with 

11 automakers, including, but not limited to, a desire for a 

12 longer lead time for implementation, and also they request 

13 that the label be smaller. 

14 That concludes my comments. 

15 Thank you. 

16 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 

17 Let me comment on a couple of things. One is the 

18 difference with the EPA reporting is unfortunate, but, 

19 clearly, we need to work with EPA to adopt our approach, 

20 which is clearly the scientifically correct one. 

21 And also, I am particularly sensitive to grade 

22 creep. But, I think the, you know, I should live to see 

23 the day when the lowest grade of a car is eight and I 

24 think we should all be working toward that end. 

25 Do Board members have any questions? 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 314 

 1 Ms. D'Adamo. 

 2 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I think this is terrific. 

 3 So I compliment the staff. Just wondering about our 

 4 website. Will this information be posted on the website? 

 5 I see heads nodding. What about a comprehensive chart 

 6 that has, so if I -- let's say I don't know what kind of 

 7 car I want, but I know I want nine or above. Can I look 

 8 up nine and see the entire list on the website. 

 9 SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY BRANCH 

10 CHIEF BEVAN: We're still in the process of developing 

11 exactly what that information would look like. I think 

12 that's an excellent idea. 

13 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Okay. 

14 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Dr. Gong. 

15 BOARD MEMBER GONG: We discussed this in a 

16 briefing, but I was wondering about used car. Say, in the 

17 year 2010. If I want to find out what my ratings were on 

18 a possible car I wanted to buy that was used, would there 

19 be such information, would this tag follow the car or it 

20 would be lost forever after it's sold? 

21 SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY BRANCH 

22 CHIEF BEVAN: The website could have information for model 

23 year 2009 and beyond. For cars that are older than that, 

24 we can have information on the site that can help them 

25 translate because CARB, at least for the Smog Index score, 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 315 

 1 especially, a ULEV, a SULEV, translate that to a specific, 

 2 you know, to the number score. So we can help them with 

 3 that. And access to what the vehicle, like a, let's say a 

 4 Honda Accord from the year 2000, I believe we do list 

 5 those used vehicle certification standards on our website 

 6 already. 

 7 BOARD MEMBER GONG: So a consumer can just look 

 8 at the website, ARB website, and find that information, 

 9 perhaps. Okay, 

10 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: The first three witnesses 

11 signed up to speak are Steven Douglas, Kristin Kenausis, 

12 and Dave Raney. 

13 Mr. Douglas. 

14 MR. DOUGLAS: Thank you, Dr. Sawyer and members 

15 of the Board. I'm Steven Douglas, the Director of 

16 Environmental Affairs for the Alliance of Automobile 

17 Manufacturers. 

18 And first, I'd like to thank the staff. They've 

19 worked very hard, we've worked very closely with them. 

20 And we've resolved most of the issues that we have. So 

21 I'll just touch on two of those which have been 

22 highlighted already. Those being lead time and label 

23 size. 

24 For the lead time, we do appreciate the staff has 

25 provided us to October the 1st of 2008. That gives us 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 316 

 1 time to test out labels on 2009 model year cars. And, 

 2 however, we've, we still recommend an additional three 

 3 months to January the 1st to allow for a smoother and more 

 4 cost-effective implementation. So that is our 

 5 recommendation on lead time. 

 6 For label size, we believe that, as has been 

 7 pointed out, that the label is too large, that a four by 

 8 six is too large, and the concern is the visibility when 

 9 doing test drives. There is a number of federal and state 

10 requirements and the number of different labels that 

11 manufacturers must put on the vehicle and that does reduce 

12 visibility. We've recommended a three by five inch size. 

13 However, we could also support Honda's recommendation. I 

14 looked at their comments and it was two and a half by four 

15 and a half inches. 

16 If this was either allowed or if it was mandated 

17 for both -- if the label is placed on the Monroney label 

18 or if it's a separate label, and we base this 

19 recommendation of consistency for three reasons. 

20 First, it would provide consistency in both the 

21 content of the label as well as the size, but regardless 

22 of where it's placed. 

23 Second, we believe that a separate label is as 

24 visible, if not more so, than one that's incorporated into 

25 an existing Monroney label. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 317 

 1 And finally, if visibility is concern, and we 

 2 certainly believe it is, then it would make little sense 

 3 to -- to -- for a separate label to require a larger one 

 4 than one that's incorporated in the Monroney label. 

 5 So that concludes my comments. We -- again, we 

 6 appreciate the staff's work on this. And just to 

 7 summarize, we ask for an additional three months of lead 

 8 time. And we ask for a consistent label size and that 

 9 label size being smaller, either three by five or, as 

10 Honda recommends, 2.5 by 4.5. 

11 Thank you. 

12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I have a question about the 

13 Monroney label. And its size. Is that determined by the 

14 number of accessories that the vehicles come with or is 

15 there fixed size? 

16 MR. DOUGLAS: You know, I think that would have 

17 to be answered by some of the manufacturers. I know, 

18 obviously, the more accessories and the more options they 

19 have, the fuller it gets. So if you have a Monroney 

20 label, or vehicle with a lot of options, you don't have a 

21 lost extra space to put a label on. But I'd turn that one 

22 over to, perhaps, Honda. 

23 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: And am I correct that those 

24 are always placed on the driver's side in the rear window 

25 or are they sometimes on the driver's side driver window? 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 318 

 1 MR. DOUGLAS: As far as I know, they're always 

 2 placed in the rear window. But that's an option. It 

 3 varies by vehicle. 

 4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: And if it has a small rear 

 5 window, the label has to be smaller to fit in it, is that 

 6 how it's accommodated? 

 7 MR. DOUGLAS: You know, again, I'd have to turn 

 8 that to the manufacturers to look at that. 

 9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. Well, maybe we'll get 

10 an answer to that from some of the other following 

11 speakers. 

12 Are there any other questions. 

13 Dr. Gong. 

14 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Who's Monroney? Please. 

15 MR. DOUGLAS: Monroney actually was a U.S. 

16 legislator and he, I think it was the Monroney Act back in 

17 the '40's or '50's, there was no, there was regulation at 

18 the dealership on pricing or features on the vehicles. So 

19 they were selling vehicles at tremendous profits. So he 

20 came up with an act to say, okay, all labels have to have 

21 a manufacturer's suggested retail price. 

22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: These are put on at the 

23 assembly line? 

24 MR. DOUGLAS: They're put on by the manufacturers 

25 after the vehicle is assembled prior to shipment. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 319 

 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: We're all learning 

 2 something. Thank you very much. 

 3 Ms. Kenausis. 

 4 MS. KENAUSIS: Thank you, Dr. Sawyer and the 

 5 Board. My name is Kristin Kenausis. I work for the U.S. 

 6 Environment Protection Agency for the Office of 

 7 Transportation and Air Quality. 

 8 I'm going the reiterate a lot of what Craig 

 9 Duehring said. 

10 Several years ago, the EPA launched our 

11 environmental scoring system for light-duty vehicles. It 

12 very much mimics what is being proposed today in your 

13 amendment. We have been working very closely with ARB. 

14 We will continue to work with ARB because our hope is that 

15 down the road, we can come up with one scoring system that 

16 will work federally, in all states. But as he articulated 

17 so well, there are a couple issues with different data 

18 sets that we think we see a future in harmonizing. It's 

19 just going to take a little longer. 

20 We are here today to show our support. We think 

21 we have the same goal, which is ultimately to provide 

22 consumers with easily accessible environmental information 

23 about their vehicles. And that's really it. 

24 Thank you for letting me speak. 

25 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 320 

 1 Mr. Raney. And then we'll have Patricia Monzlan 

 2 and John Cabaniss. 

 3 MR. RANEY: Thank you, Dr. Sawyer and members of 

 4 the Board. I brought some handouts for you that, 

 5 hopefully, will support our statement, visuals. Picture 

 6 tells a thousand words, sometimes. 

 7 While they're being handed out I can try to 

 8 answer some of your questions, Dr. Sawyer, about the size 

 9 of the label and where they're applied. The Monroney 

10 label size that is currently used is pretty much governed 

11 by the printer technology. It's standardized across the 

12 industry and the printers at the distribution points, not 

13 necessarily the factories. I don't know for sure, but I 

14 don't believe that any manufacturer's applying a Monroney 

15 label actually at the factory, it's happening at the 

16 distribution point which is where the printers are. So 

17 that's governing the size of paper that you have in front 

18 of you. 

19 I think that's all the questions that you had. 

20 But I'll be happy to. 

21 Placement. Oh, yes. In fact, we have a case in 

22 our own particular model line where we have a two-seat 

23 sports car, the S-2000, and because of the prohibitions 

24 from putting it on the driver door window, it actually 

25 does go on the windscreen now, the front windshield. So 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 321 

 1 we're very careful of putting it up in the upper 

 2 right-hand corner to try to avoid any problems with demo 

 3 drives and any impact on safety and visibility. But it is 

 4 a challenge for spacing. 

 5 What you have in front of you is the gist of my 

 6 statement and it's the focus of my statement. Honda does 

 7 not appear before you folks very much. When we do appear 

 8 before you, I hope you've recognized that it's something 

 9 that's important to us. We do try to come to you with 

10 very constructive positions and alternatives and we do try 

11 to present an air of cooperation. 

12 What we are bringing to you today, I would hope 

13 you would recognize, is very important to us. We spend an 

14 enormous amount of research and development money and 

15 actually bring it to our products towards improving the 

16 fuel efficiency of our fleet and individual models. 

17 Getting fuel economy, fuel efficiency information to the 

18 consumer is something we spend a lot of time on. We spend 

19 a lot of time in our product planning and documentation in 

20 our sales brochures. So I would hope you would recognize 

21 that we don't take this issue lightly. We believe that 

22 getting information out to the consumer is very important, 

23 which is why we're very supportive of what the staff is 

24 doing here. They've done a tremendous job of working with 

25 the complex nature of consumer information, and I think 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 322 

 1 the overall thrust is a good one. 

 2 But the main challenge that we have, and that's 

 3 what I'm going to address now, is that the size of the 

 4 label inherently prohibits us from putting this label on 

 5 the Monroney label. And we happen to believe that that is 

 6 the most important point. It is the one point that a 

 7 consumer goes to when first enters a showroom, he wants to 

 8 know what the price of the car is and what that price 

 9 brings. So we believe that it's important to try to 

10 capture that moment when the individual buyer is looking 

11 at the vehicle for the first time. And we believe that 

12 that will be captured, that the fuel efficiency 

13 information, greenhouse gas information, would be captured 

14 at that the moment if, indeed, this information is on the 

15 label itself. 

16 What you have in front of you, the staff saw for 

17 the first time last week. This is the first time you've 

18 seen this. And I took this to our graphic design team, 

19 our product planning people, and our sales people, and I 

20 was able to squeeze every last inch of, millimeter of 

21 space out of this Monroney label that I can. As you can 

22 imagine, it's very important geography. 

23 So the way we came up with two and a half by four 

24 and a half inches, this is the maximum amount that I can 

25 get with all the other information that's required. You 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 323 

 1 have a slide there in front of you that depicts really 

 2 what governs that. The fuel economy label mandated by EPA 

 3 is governed by regulation. And the Cars for Stars 

 4 information, the safety and crash test information is 

 5 governed by regulation, Congressional mandate. The 

 6 Domestic Parts Content information is governed by the font 

 7 size. So we're a bit it challenged there. So there's not 

 8 much space left and that's where we ended up with a two 

 9 and a half by four and a half number. 

10 There was mentioned earlier that this would go in 

11 all 50 states. Fifty state models. From our perspective, 

12 we've been doing that with the Smog Index Label. But if 

13 you allow us to do this, we would continue to do that in 

14 all 50 states. That would not be the case if we had to go 

15 to a separate label. It would only be for California. So 

16 I think you would lose something there. 

17 I have had some conversations with staff after we 

18 submitted this and there's been some concerns that the 

19 document that you have in front of you, the font size may 

20 be a bit small. And as early as this morning, I talked to 

21 our graphic design team again, and they can go as far as 

22 nine point, maybe even ten. Nine point size is reference 

23 to nine point size is what you see in the vehicle 

24 specifications section right now. So we can go to that 

25 size. And still keep within the two and a half and four 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 324 

 1 and a half inch boundaries. 

 2 So what we would propose to you is to give us an 

 3 option. If manufacturers still wanted to go to a separate 

 4 label, I'm not going to debate four by six or three by 

 5 five. I have a point about that, though. But my main 

 6 point is to give us the option to continue to use the 

 7 Monroney label, which we strongly believe is important for 

 8 consumer. 

 9 On the three by five point, I would draw your 

10 attention -- and I'm sorry, I'm running over here -- but I 

11 would draw your attention to the one slide that we have in 

12 front of you on the Acura TL. It's, I think, two slides 

13 from the end in your handout. The photograph of an actual 

14 application. We applied the existing Monroney label, 

15 well, actually the modified one with our two and a half by 

16 four and a half inch size. We applied that to the rear 

17 left-side door and also put the four by six label on it. 

18 And can you see they don't fit. We would be forced to 

19 move the four by six label to the front windshield in this 

20 case. Which I, inarguably, the Acura TL is not a small 

21 sedan. It's a medium size car. So I think you'll see 

22 this in many different cases. And I don't want to be 

23 critical of staff, but I think this is important and our 

24 product planning team reinforced this when I asked them 

25 about focus groups. It's absolutely imperative when you 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 325 

 1 do a focus group to show the feature you're trying to get 

 2 a reaction from, show it on the car. And as far as I 

 3 understand, the focus groups did not have that 

 4 opportunity, the labels were never placed on a car, they 

 5 were given paragraphs, but not shown the labels on a 

 6 vehicles itself. And this is what we ran into when we 

 7 actually tried to show why this would work in the real 

 8 world. 

 9 If you reduce the separate label or the label 

10 itself down to three by five, you might be able to fit 

11 that on the TL. We did not try that. If you had to go to 

12 a separate label. 

13 Anyway, that concludes my testimony. Be happy to 

14 answer any questions about how the industry applies these 

15 things and develops them. 

16 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: What is your reasoning on 

17 putting it on 50 state cars? 

18 MR. RANEY: Well, it's easy to program. Once we 

19 design the graphic, graphically design the Monroney label, 

20 it's much easier to have it for all 50 states than to have 

21 a separate Monroney label for individual states. 

22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: And would that carry the Air 

23 Resources Board name on it as well? 

24 MR. RANEY: Yes, it would. 

25 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Staff. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 326 

 1 MR. RANEY: We'd like -- we might ask for a 

 2 royalty on that, but I -- 

 3 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: You 

 4 might charge for a placement fee, too. 

 5 Yeah, I think our view on this is despite the 

 6 response of the focus groups which I think we value a lot 

 7 because it's the people that actually look at and they 

 8 like the bigger label, that at least this design seems to 

 9 be exceptionally well done, in my viewpoint. The colors 

10 really cause, I think, help overcome the size. I mean you 

11 look at this, you do tend to look at these giant MPG 

12 numbers up on the right-hand side and you see a little 

13 tiny six and a seven down there, and what, I guess, we 

14 would suggest that if you want to provide this 

15 alternative, that we, as part of the 15 days, that we go 

16 back and spec the font sizes for the various pieces and 

17 make sure that the relevant stuff pops out as good as 

18 possible. Because this is behind a window, it's on the 

19 inside. So you get glare and other things that make 

20 reading these white on green through a piece of tinted 

21 glass a little more difficult. So we want, I think, the 

22 numbers, my view, is that seven and six ought to be a lot 

23 bigger than that, than it is on this. 

24 But we could work, try to work out something like 

25 that, if it's the Board's desire to provide this option. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 327 

 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Riordan. 

 2 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I would 

 3 absolutely want you to increase the font because I think 

 4 that's just too small. I'm sorry. But I'm visually 

 5 challenged. Not at a distance, but close up, and so I 

 6 really think that would be helpful. 

 7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: What do you do with dark 

 8 tint windows? 

 9 MR. RANEY: The photographs that you see are 

10 tinted windows. And -- 

11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Very dark or the darkest you 

12 make? 

13 MR. RANEY: Well, it is a challenge, if anybody 

14 was to ever be forced to go to the windscreen and they 

15 were concerned about visibility and they try to go into 

16 the band at the top of the windscreen, that's prohibitive. 

17 You couldn't see it. But we did apply an option with the 

18 green background instead of the white that you see here, 

19 and it was problematic. But the white contrast out in the 

20 open or even in a showroom, it is quite noticeable. 

21 BOARD MEMBER CASE: Mr. Chairman, just a comment. 

22 I think it's a terrific idea. Seeing it on the 

23 windshield, I think,would catch people's attention. There 

24 does appear to be space for increasing the size of the 

25 font. I think having it on every car by your manufacturer 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 328 

 1 across the United States and you can do it in other 

 2 locations, I think would be a real point in leading the 

 3 way as to this agency's effort to really create cleaner 

 4 air and also to acknowledge good choices. 

 5 Is there any legal issues with that, since, at 

 6 times, we have items that this moves forward and gets 

 7 challenged or needs a comment back from EPA, is there any 

 8 problem potential there that we're kind of asking for a 

 9 change to the Monroney label, that's actually a federal 

10 label as I understand it? 

11 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: No, I 

12 don't think there is in this case, because if there was, I 

13 think Honda would have already told us that they can't, 

14 you know, there's some limitation on the label. So 

15 they've worked, apparently worked it out within, as you 

16 see on that one chart, where the other pieces are fixed by 

17 law, there this much room left. And in terms of making 

18 changes on the Board, that's, you know, you're, as long as 

19 it's within the notice, you're welcome to make changes and 

20 that's what we do in this, quote, 15-day changes, we'd go 

21 back and put in the actual details of the font size needs 

22 to be ten or 12 or whatever for this part, and then we'd 

23 mail it out to the stakeholders again who get to comment 

24 one more time. And assuming that it doesn't deviate a lot 

25 from your general direction, then we would just go ahead 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 329 

 1 and make those final changes. If it deviated a lot, we'd 

 2 bring it back to you. 

 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Can I assume that we cannot 

 4 mandate that they put it on cars sold outside of 

 5 California. That would be their choice. 

 6 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: That's correct. 

 7 Though, Honda, as a policy choice, makes all their cars 50 

 8 state cars. So it makes sense the label would be a 50 

 9 state label. 

10 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Supervisor Hill. 

11 SUPERVISOR HILL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just 

12 think this is quite compelling and I appreciate the 

13 flexibility of staff in looking at that and taking that 

14 back for furthers changes. 

15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: All right. It sounds like 

16 we think it's a good idea to allow the flexibility with 

17 some appropriate modifications to what Honda has proposed. 

18 And, therefore, you'd deal within the 15-day. 

19 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Slight challenge. 

20 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Right. 

21 Actually, I never get too many chances to compliment car 

22 companies, but I also wanted to thank them for the fact 

23 that they have had these sort of semi-permanent labels on 

24 the back quarter-window which, if you look at this 

25 picture, you can kind of see a vague little square in 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 330 

 1 there that used the California LEV Brothers language on 

 2 them. And they've done that, you know, it says: LEV, 

 3 ULEV, PZEV, et cetera. And those things stay on cars. 

 4 Nobody ever takes those off. So it's been, you know, I've 

 5 always been impressed that they've gone ahead and done 

 6 that. I think it helps benefit the program. 

 7 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Oh, it does, 

 8 yeah. Absolutely. 

 9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 

10 MR. RANEY: Thank you very much. 

11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Monzlan. 

12 MS. MONAHAN: Thank you. It's Patricia Monahan. 

13 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Oh, excuse me. 

14 MS. MONAHAN: And apparently from -- I obviously 

15 would receive a poor grade for handwriting. 

16 Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on 

17 the revised emission control and Smog Index labels. USC 

18 would like to commend staff for producing a label design 

19 that is clear and easy to understand. And which we hope 

20 will help the consumer make smart vehicle choices. 

21 We hope this program will impact consumer choice 

22 and manufacturer in the same way that the Energy Star 

23 program has helped consumers make better choices around 

24 home products. 

25 USC strongly supports the size of the label 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 331 

 1 because it will be easily seen and recognized by the 

 2 consumer. We haven't had the benefit of seeing the 

 3 proposal that Honda has made, but it's reassuring to hear 

 4 that you all think that it's equally visible. 

 5 We expect to see a reduction in smog and global 

 6 warming pollution from vehicles in the next few years 

 7 because of the implementation of various regulations and 

 8 we're glad to hear that CARB will be revising the -- or 

 9 evaluating on a periodic basis to make sure there's no 

10 grade inflation. 

11 So we just would like to strongly support the 

12 Board's approval of this design and thank staff for 

13 developing such a careful and thoughtful proposal. 

14 Oh, and I'd like to say, my name is Patricia 

15 Monahan, I'm speaking on behalf of the Union of Concerned 

16 Scientists and the Natural Resources Defense Council. 

17 Thank you. 

18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Mr. Cabaniss. And then 

19 we'll have David Paterson. 

20 MR. CABANISS: Hi, I'm John Cabaniss, Association 

21 of International Automobile Manufacturers. AIM supports 

22 CARB's proposal to improve information for consumers to 

23 weigh in choosing among new vehicles. We also believe 

24 it's important to provide consumers clear and accurate 

25 information. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 332 

 1 We have two suggestions for -- well, actually two 

 2 reasons to, for a suggestion to improve the program. And 

 3 the reasons underlying this are to provide administrative 

 4 simplicity and to provide the best information for 

 5 consumers. Specifically, we request that manufacturers be 

 6 allowed the option to have the one to ten greenhouse gas 

 7 ratings based on EPA's fuel economy label values that are 

 8 developed through the vehicle certification program. 

 9 There are a number of advantages to this option. 

10 It's administratively simple for both manufacturers and 

11 CARB because it's based on current certification 

12 procedures. This option also yields the most accurate 

13 greenhouse gas emissions information to consumers because 

14 EPA has recently adopted a five-cycle methodology for 

15 calculating these label values. This five-cycle testing 

16 ensures that these labels are much closer correlated to 

17 real world driving patterns than the more limited 

18 certification data that's used in the 1493 regulation. 

19 The five-cycle testing includes cold temperature 

20 operation, air conditioning usage, and higher speed 

21 driving. None of these are reflected in the 1493 

22 methodology. The inclusion of air conditioning usage is 

23 particularly important since nearly all new vehicles today 

24 have air conditioning and it's recognized, of course, that 

25 air conditioning usage is an important factor affecting 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 333 

 1 greenhouse gas emissions. 

 2 Our proposed option would also ensure 

 3 harmonization now between CARB's labeling and EPA's 

 4 labeling and websites. And EPA's websites are visited by 

 5 millions of consumers each year and we believe that it's, 

 6 you know, it would be a bad idea to have conflicting 

 7 information for consumers to confuse them rather than help 

 8 them. 

 9 Finally, our option is based on EPA's current 

10 regulation which is in effect today. While CARB's 

11 proposal is based, at least in part, in the 1493 

12 regulations which remain under review, this, our option 

13 would ensure that the labeling program could move forward 

14 on the proposed schedule without any delay. 

15 In summary, our proposal is, would benefit the 

16 automakers, CARB, and consumers, so we respectfully 

17 request that. 

18 In conclusion, I just simply point out that we 

19 would like for you to adopt our option for the first three 

20 years of the program. During that time we would work with 

21 staff to evaluate the option so that you can determine 

22 whether or not the flexibility should be allowed to 

23 continue, and that would also give us a chance to work 

24 with ARB and EPA on longer term harmonization. 

25 Thank you. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 334 

 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 

 2 Staff want to comment on Mr. Cabaniss's? 

 3 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Yes. I 

 4 think we do not believe it's a good idea to use the EPA 

 5 fuel economy labels. We have been arguing ad nauseam in 

 6 court and everywhere else that greenhouse gases are not 

 7 identical to fuel economy and we give a number of 

 8 different examples about how we have many different gases 

 9 we use. And maybe the clearest example would be that if 

10 some were to certify an E 85 dedicated vehicle, one that 

11 runs on ethanol. Its fuel economy values would go in the 

12 opposite direction of CO2, it would be lower and yet it 

13 would have better CO2. And then that example, it just 

14 wouldn't provide the right consumer information. 

15 So we think sticking with the regulations that 

16 you adopted under the 1493 is the best way of proceeding. 

17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 

18 Thank you, John. 

19 Mr. Patterson. 

20 MR. PATTERSON: Good afternoon. My name is Dave 

21 Patterson from Mitsubishi Motors. While I agree with many 

22 of the things that Mr. Raney was talking about here, I 

23 want to caution the Board that for our manufacturer, we 

24 cannot fit even the smaller size on our Monroney label. 

25 As you know, from Mr. Raney's presentation, there's many 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 335 

 1 regulatory requirements and there's also internal 

 2 corporate requirements of what logos need to be on the 

 3 Monroney label. I only know this information as we went 

 4 through this with the recent change to the CAFE 

 5 requirement label for the EPA. And I know that the real 

 6 estate on the Monroney label is very valuable. And we 

 7 don't have enough to put a new Smog Index Label onto our 

 8 Monroney label. I talked to a couple of other 

 9 manufacturers just now, before I came up here, and there's 

10 other manufacturers in the same situation. 

11 We do like this as an option. If Honda's able to 

12 do this, I think it can be effective. We would like to 

13 have the option to have a similar size label that we are 

14 able to attach. The six by four label is a large label to 

15 try the attach to the side of a car, in the limited window 

16 space that there's available. So a smaller label as we, 

17 as the Alliance has put forth in their proposal, three by 

18 five or somewhere around there, we would appreciate that. 

19 Thank you. 

20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: My own feeling is that it 

21 should be either the four by six or something like the 

22 Honda label. Putting on the Monroney label certainly 

23 attracts the eye in a reasonable way. And if that's not 

24 possible, then I think a four by six label is appropriate. 

25 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WITHERSPOON: I agree. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 336 

 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Is that consistent with 

 2 staff's thinking? 

 3 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Yeah, 

 4 we believe that it needs to be bigger if it's going to be 

 5 by itself. 

 6 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WITHERSPOON: Right. 

 7 Absolutely. 

 8 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Just one little comment 

 9 that, you know, if any other company had come up 

10 proposing, you know, this other change, I would have been 

11 more skeptical. But Honda is the company that benefits 

12 the most from displaying this information. And so if it 

13 sees that as a preferable option, then that, to me, is 

14 pretty compelling. So I'm ready to make a motion if we're 

15 ready to -- 

16 MR. CABANISS: Dr. Sawyer. 

17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Yes. 

18 MR. CABANISS: Could I make just one additional 

19 remark? 

20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. Certainly, John. 

21 MR. CABANISS: And this has to do with the label 

22 size. I don't know what other manufacturers are going to 

23 do with regard to the U.S., total U.S. sales, but, and I 

24 don't know having the information today about which ones 

25 currently have it on the Monroney and which ones don't. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 337 

 1 But just as a piece of information for you, we've surveyed 

 2 our members not too awfully long ago and 98 percent of the 

 3 vehicles manufactured by AIM member companies are 50 state 

 4 cars. So, you know, Honda's 50 percent -- excuse me, a 

 5 hundred percent. There's several, many others that are a 

 6 hundred percent. There are a few that aren't. But all 

 7 together our members, like I said, are 98 percent of their 

 8 production 50 state cars. So it could be that others may 

 9 be willing to follow Honda's path as far as posting the 

10 label nationwide. 

11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. We need to take our 

12 ex parte comments. 

13 Dr. Gong. 

14 BOARD MEMBER GONG: No. 

15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: No. No. No. No. 

16 I spoke this afternoon with David Raney and what 

17 we discussed was similar to what he presented today. 

18 BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: I spoke yesterday with 

19 David Raney about this exact item. 

20 CHIEF COUNSEL JENNINGS: Dr. Sawyer, I think it 

21 would also be important at this time to announce closure 

22 of the record with it being reopened, previous page. 

23 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Yep. Got it. 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 
 338 

 1 availability is issued. Written or oral comments received 

 2 after this hearing date but before the 15-day notice is 

 3 issued will not be accepted as part of the official record 

 4 on this agenda item. When the record is reopened for a 

 5 15-day comment period, the public may submit written 

 6 comments on the proposed changes which will be considered 

 7 and responded to in the final statement of reasons for the 

 8 regulation. 

 9 Board has before it Resolution 7-26. Do I have a 

10 motion to adopt. 

11 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: So moved. 

12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: And a second? 

13 SUPERVISOR HILL: Second. 

14 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: All those in favor. 

15 CHIEF COUNSEL JENNINGS: Just a second, Doctor. 

16 My understanding is that the intent of the Board be that 

17 it adopt it with the modifications and the additional 

18 modification discussed, proposed by Honda, which might be 

19 characterized as with an additional modification allowing 

20 the use of the label as part of the Monroney label as long 

21 as it is at least two and a half by four and a half inches 

22 in a contrasting color and in a minimum font size to make 

23 it sufficiently noticeable and legible. 

24 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I think I captured -- 

25 although I think the alternative color is green, right? 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 339 

 1 CHIEF COUNSEL JENNINGS: Yeah. I guess that's 

 2 automatic, the blue and the green. 

 3 SUPERVISOR HILL: And then that also -- isn't the 

 4 issue, if it does not go on the Monroney, then it has to 

 5 be the larger size elsewhere? 

 6 CHIEF COUNSEL JENNINGS: Exactly. That would 

 7 remain the case. 

 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. Thank you for putting 

 9 that on the record. 

10 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: So moved with the 

11 modification. 

12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: With the modification. 

13 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Second. 

14 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: All those in favor, please 

15 indicate by saying aye. 

16 (Ayes) 

17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Opposed? Carried. 

18 Thank you very much. 

19 Agenda Item 7-7-6, proposed regulations for 

20 certifying and testing of gasoline vapor recovery systems 

21 used on aboveground storage tanks. 

22 Ms. Witherspoon, please introduce this item. 

23 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, Dr. 

24 Sawyer. 

25 In 2000, ARB approved enhanced vapor recovery 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 340 

 1 regulations for gasoline dispensers that underground 

 2 storage tanks. Aboveground gasoline storage tanks such as 

 3 are in use throughout the Central Valley for agricultural 

 4 operations were not addressed at that time. The proposed 

 5 regulation establishes certification requirements, testing 

 6 procedures, and performance standards for gasoline 

 7 dispensing facilities with aboveground storage tanks. 

 8 Michael Werst of the Monitoring and Laboratory Division 

 9 will make the staff presentation. 

10 Michael. 

11 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 

12 presented as follows.) 

13 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST WERST: Thank you, 

14 Ms. Witherspoon. Good morning -- or I'm sorry -- good 

15 afternoon, Chairman Sawyer and members of the Board. 

16 Today, I will present for the Board's 

17 consideration a proposal to amend regulations for the 

18 certification and testing of gasoline vapor recovery 

19 systems using aboveground storage tanks. 

20 In 2000, the Board approved enhanced vapor 

21 recovery performance standards for underground storage 

22 tanks. 

23 Staff is proposing to adopt enhanced vapor 

24 recovery performance standards to control transfer losses 

25 from aboveground storage tanks and adding standing loss 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 341 

 1 controls unique to these tanks. 

 2 --o0o-- 

 3 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST WERST: To summarize the 

 4 proposed regulation, I will describe some background and 

 5 the reasons why this rulemaking is necessary and present 

 6 the proposal's objectives. I will touch on the roles and 

 7 responsibilities of the Board and Districts with regard to 

 8 vapor recovery and discuss Air Resources Board's field 

 9 study. 

10 Next, I will describe the technical proposal and 

11 talk about the environmental and economic impacts of the 

12 proposal. 

13 Finally, I will briefly discuss the public 

14 outreach and close with staff's conclusion and 

15 recommendations. 

16 --o0o-- 

17 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST WERST: First, I will 

18 provide some background information. 

19 I am not going to get into a technical 

20 description of aboveground storage tanks. 

21 For the purposes of this regulation, the tanks 

22 illustrated here represent aboveground storage tanks used 

23 for the storage of gasoline. They are above and below 

24 grade tanks intended for fixed installations that are not 

25 backfilled, as opposed to underground storage tanks that 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 342 

 1 are below grade and backfilled. 

 2 Aboveground storage tanks can be either single 

 3 wall, double wall or protected tanks, the latter of which 

 4 has insulating qualities. 

 5 --o0o-- 

 6 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST WERST: For an 

 7 aboveground storage tank there are two types of emissions, 

 8 standing losses and transfer losses. I will describe the 

 9 difference in this and the next two slides. 

10 As the sun rises, the fuel temperature increases 

11 inside the tank in relation to the ambient temperature. 

12 When the temperature increases, the fuel inside the tank 

13 evaporates, which in turn increases the pressure within 

14 the tank. 

15 Standing loss emissions occur when the evaporated 

16 gasoline is vented to the atmosphere either through leaks 

17 in the system or when the pressure limits of the pressure 

18 vacuum relief valve are exceeded. 

19 It is important to note that the standing loss 

20 emissions are a function of the diurnal evaporation of 

21 gasoline which is effected by the daily temperature cycle. 

22 As the sun sets, the tank temperature lowers and emissions 

23 decrease as air enters the tanks, completing the diurnal 

24 cycle. The cycle is repeated the following day. 

25 --o0o-- 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 343 

 1 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST WERST: Now I will 

 2 discuss transfer losses which are associated with the 

 3 transfer of gasoline to and from aboveground storage 

 4 tanks. 

 5 The control of vapor during the transfer of 

 6 gasoline to the aboveground storage tank is called Phase 

 7 I. As shown by this slide, a Phase I vapor recovery 

 8 system returns vapors from the aboveground storage tank to 

 9 the cargo tank truck during deliveries, and eventually to 

10 the gasoline terminal. 

11 --o0o-- 

12 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST WERST: Likewise, the 

13 control of transfer emissions associated with the transfer 

14 of gasoline from an aboveground storage tank to a motor 

15 vehicle is called Phase II. Most of the public is 

16 familiar with Phase II which includes the nozzle and 

17 dispenser. A Phase II vapor recovery system routes the 

18 vapors displaced from fueling motor vehicles back into the 

19 aboveground storage tanks. 

20 --o0o-- 

21 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST WERST: The tank 

22 population is approximately 9,600 aboveground storage 

23 tanks in California. About two-thirds of aboveground 

24 storage tanks are associated with agricultural operation. 

25 Of these agricultural tanks, about two-thirds are located 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 344 

 1 in the San Joaquin and Sacramento valleys. The remainder 

 2 of these tanks are operated in marinas, fleet operations, 

 3 municipalities such as state, county, and local agencies, 

 4 and service stations. 

 5 Typical aboveground storage tanks range in size 

 6 between 250 and 12,000 gallons. These aboveground storage 

 7 tanks are both single wall and protected tanks. 

 8 --o0o-- 

 9 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST WERST: Statewide, these 

10 tank distribute approximately 3.31 tons per day of 

11 reactive organic gases from storage and transfer losses of 

12 gasoline which is equivalent to 1000 gallons of gasoline 

13 per day. 

14 About 2.95 tons per day of reactive organic gas 

15 emissions are from standing losses and the remaining .36 

16 tons per day are from transfer losses. 

17 Statewide summertime emissions are approximately 

18 4.92 tons per day due to higher temperatures. 

19 --o0o-- 

20 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST WERST: Now I'd like the 

21 present the objectives of the proposal. 

22 The primary objective is to control standing loss 

23 emissions which comprise about 90 percent of the total 

24 emissions from aboveground storage tanks. It is an 

25 emission category that is not specifically controlled by 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 345 

 1 the current regulations. 

 2 A second objective is to control Phase I and 

 3 Phase II transfer losses which comprise about ten percent 

 4 of the total emissions by making the aboveground storage 

 5 tank vapor recovery program consistent with the enhanced 

 6 vapor recovery underground storage tank program. 

 7 As mentioned earlier, in 2000 the Board approved 

 8 regulations that established new vapor recovery 

 9 performance standards for underground storage tanks. 

10 These underground storage tank requirements did not apply 

11 to aboveground storage tanks. 

12 In addition, I will mention later that the 

13 proposal will increase the reliability of certain Phase I 

14 components. 

15 --o0o-- 

16 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST WERST: I'd now like to 

17 explain the roles of the Air Resources Board and districts 

18 in the control of emissions from the storage and transfer 

19 of gasoline. 

20 The vapor recovery program relies on a 

21 partnership between ARB and the districts. State law 

22 requires the Board to adopt procedures and performance 

23 standards for controlling gasoline emissions during 

24 gasoline marketing operations, including transfer and 

25 storage operations, to achieve and maintain ambient air 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 346 

 1 quality standards. It also thousands the Board to certify 

 2 vapor recovery systems. Only those systems certified by 

 3 the Air Resources Board can be sold, offered for sale, or 

 4 installed in California. 

 5 --o0o-- 

 6 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST WERST: Districts have 

 7 the primary responsibility of regulating emissions from 

 8 stationary sources such as gas stations. To this end, 

 9 districts have adopted rules that require gasoline storage 

10 and transfer operations, including those using aboveground 

11 storage tanks, to be equipped with vapor recovery systems 

12 certified by ARB. 

13 State law requires districts to use ARB test 

14 procedures to determine compliance with performance 

15 standards and specifications. Currently, districts 

16 require vapor recovery systems to control transfer 

17 emissions such as Phase I and Phase II. 

18 The proposal enables districts to require 

19 standing loss control by itself or with Phase I and/or 

20 Phase II vapor recovery, thereby achieving additional 

21 emission reductions. 

22 --o0o-- 

23 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST WERST: At this point, I 

24 am going to switch from ARB and district roles to discuss 

25 the technical basis for this proposal. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 347 

 1 The primary focus of the proposal is to control 

 2 emissions associated with standing losses. As stated 

 3 earlier, standing loss emissions represent about 90 

 4 percent of the total emissions from aboveground storage 

 5 tanks due to diurnal evaporation of gasoline. 

 6 ARB staff conducted a field study in 2005 to 

 7 measure emissions from uncontrolled tanks between 350 and 

 8 1000 gallons and evaluate a number of standing loss 

 9 control technologies. The site was located in western 

10 Fresno County and evaluated pressure/vacuum relief valves 

11 technology such as: 

12 --o0o-- 

13 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST WERST: Carbon based 

14 processors. 

15 --o0o-- 

16 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST WERST: Shade 

17 structures. 

18 --o0o-- 

19 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST WERST: White paint. 

20 --o0o-- 

21 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST WERST: And spray-on 

22 polyurethane foam insulation. 

23 I would like the take this opportunity to 

24 recognize the California Independent Oil Marketers 

25 Association and agricultural industry for providing the 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 348 

 1 aboveground storage tanks and facilities necessary to 

 2 conducted the study. 

 3 --o0o-- 

 4 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST WERST: The results of 

 5 the field study are graphically displayed in this chart 

 6 and show the average percent emission reductions using 

 7 different standing loss control technology configurations 

 8 as compared to uncontrolled aboveground storage tanks. 

 9 The three control technologies reducing emission 

10 in the order of 65 to 67 percent are carbon canister, P/V 

11 valve plus paint, P/V valve plus paint plus shade. 

12 The P/V valve and insulation combination 

13 demonstrated the greatest emission reduction at 97 

14 percent. 

15 The results of the field study led us to 

16 establish the recommended control levels for our proposal. 

17 The yellow line on the graph represents the recommended 60 

18 percent control level for technologies used to retrofit 

19 existing tanks. As you can see, five demonstrated 

20 technology combinations are effective in meeting this 

21 in-use requirement. The red line shows the recommended 90 

22 percent control level for new tanks. 

23 --o0o-- 

24 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST WERST: This table shows 

25 the specific performance standards proposed in the 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 349 

 1 regulation in terms of emission factors or pounds per 1000 

 2 gallon gasoline ullage per day for new or existing tanks. 

 3 For informational purposes, the table also shows 

 4 emission reductions by percent as well. 

 5 --o0o-- 

 6 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST WERST: This slide shows 

 7 an example of a single wall tank that is upgraded to the 

 8 60 percent control level. As you see here, the tank is 

 9 retrofitted with a pressure/vacuum relief valve. 

10 Additionally, the tank is painted white in accordance to 

11 the manufacturer's recommendations with an ARB certified 

12 paint. The tank now meets the minimum retrofit 

13 requirement. 

14 For new tanks the control level is 90 percent. 

15 This level can be achieved with a P/V valve and either 

16 insulation or a protected tank. 

17 --o0o-- 

18 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST WERST: At the 

19 suggestion of stakeholders, the proposal includes optional 

20 standards for existing aboveground storage tanks. This 

21 offers existing aboveground storage tank owners 

22 opportunities to earn emission credits when the controls 

23 exceed the minimum retrofit requirements. Applicants will 

24 request certification of standing loss control levels that 

25 exceed the minimum retrofit requirement of 60 percent. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 350 

 1 Equipment will be evaluated by ARB and will be certified 

 2 at the 76 and 90 percent levels in addition to the 60 

 3 percent level. While these technologies will be more 

 4 costly, some of those costs will be recovered through fuel 

 5 savings. 

 6 --o0o-- 

 7 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST WERST: Now I will 

 8 discuss controls for Phase I transfer losses. 

 9 Phase I vapor recovery systems used with 

10 aboveground storage tanks are currently required to be 90 

11 percent efficient. The adoption of the proposed 

12 regulation will increase the aboveground storage tank 

13 Phase I transfer efficiency to 98 percent to make it 

14 consistent with the Phase I enhanced vapor recovery 

15 systems used with underground storage tanks. 

16 The establishment of stricter performance 

17 standards and longer periods of certification testing will 

18 also lead to more reliable Phase I vapor recovery 

19 equipment such as emergency vents, tank gauges, and 

20 adapters. 

21 CAPCOA point out these that components are more 

22 prone to failure. It is expected that many commercially 

23 available Phase I components currently certified under the 

24 enhanced vapor recovery underground storage tank program 

25 will meet the proposed standards. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 351 

 1 --o0o-- 

 2 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST WERST: Phase II vapor 

 3 recovery systems for aboveground storage tanks are 

 4 currently required to be 90 percent efficient. The 

 5 adoption of the proposed regulation will increase the 

 6 aboveground storage tank Phase II transfer efficiency to 

 7 95 percent to make it consistent with Phase II enhanced 

 8 vapor recovery systems used with underground storage 

 9 tanks. 

10 It is expected that many commercially available 

11 Phase II components currently certified under the enhanced 

12 vapor recovery underground storage tank program will meet 

13 the proposed standards. 

14 --o0o-- 

15 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST WERST: The proposed 

16 effective date of the regulation is January 1, 2009 to 

17 allow sufficient time to certify enhanced vapor recovery 

18 systems. 

19 Existing tanks will have until January 1st, 2013, 

20 or four years after the proposed effective date, to comply 

21 as required by state law. 

22 All the performance stands are and effective 

23 dates can be found in the proposed certification 

24 procedure, CP-206. 

25 --o0o-- 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 352 

 1 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST WERST: The 

 2 environmental impacts presented for are based on applying 

 3 standing loss controls to all tanks. 

 4 Upon full implementation of the proposed 

 5 regulation by January 1, 2013, the estimated annual 

 6 emission reductions associated with staff's proposal will 

 7 be about two tons per day of reactive organic gases. To 

 8 achieve these reductions, districts will need to amend 

 9 existing rules to require existing exempt facilities to be 

10 subject to at least standing loss control. 

11 When districts amend their rules to require EVR 

12 certified P/V valves and paint, standing loss emissions 

13 will be reduced up to 1.8 tons per day. 

14 Note that the emission reductions achievable in 

15 July are up to 2.94 tons per day due to higher 

16 temperatures in summer. 

17 --o0o-- 

18 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST WERST: The incremental 

19 or initial cost for retrofitting existing tanks is 

20 dependent on the district rules and summarized for 

21 protected and single wall tanks in this table. 

22 The incremental cost of Phase I and Phase II 

23 upgrades represent the difference in cost between meeting 

24 proposed requirements and current requirements. 

25 District rules currently require Phase I and 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 353 

 1 Phase II controls for nearly one-third of the total tanks 

 2 in California. We anticipate that districts will amend 

 3 their rules to require standing loss controls for all or a 

 4 majority of tanks. 

 5 Additionally, if districts find that transfer 

 6 emissions are not significant, they may choose to modify 

 7 their rules to require standing controls instead of 

 8 Phase I vapor recovery. 

 9 Both of these district rule changes will achieve 

10 substantial emission reductions at lower cost. 

11 --o0o-- 

12 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST WERST: The 

13 cost-effectiveness has been revised from $1.87 in the 

14 staff report to $2.17 to correctly reflect the number of 

15 tanks subject to the proposed controls. Although the 

16 revision increase the cost-effectiveness slightly, the 

17 proposal is still cost effective. 

18 Upon full implementation by the Board and 

19 districts of the proposed regulation, the cost 

20 effectiveness for all California aboveground storage tanks 

21 is approximately $2.17 per pound of reactive organic gases 

22 emissions reduced. 

23 This is based on annual emission reductions and 

24 has been adjusted to include standing loss controls for 

25 the majority of tanks. Including the cost savings from 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 354 

 1 gasoline, approximately 40 cents per pound based on $2.50 

 2 per gallons, the net cost-effectiveness of the proposed 

 3 regulations is $1.77 per pound on an annual basis. For 

 4 July, the net cost-effectiveness will be approximately 

 5 $1.01 per pound including the 40 cents per found in 

 6 gasoline savings. 

 7 --o0o-- 

 8 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST WERST: Finally, staff 

 9 conducted extensive public outreach to encourage 

10 participation from stakeholders as shown here. The 

11 Ombudsman will detail the public outreach associated with 

12 the proposed regulation at the conclusion of this 

13 presentation. 

14 --o0o-- 

15 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST WERST: In conclusion, 

16 staff's proposal was developed with extensive public 

17 outreach. The proposal reduces almost two tons per day of 

18 reactive organic gas emissions with a cost-effectiveness 

19 of $1.77 per pound. 

20 The proposed regulation is achievable using 

21 current vapor recovery control technologies and 

22 incorporating new technologies that can control standing 

23 loss emissions and will help make progress toward 

24 achieving California's state and federal ozone ambient air 

25 quality standard. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 355 

 1 Staff is proposing minor technical changes to the 

 2 certification and test procedures that would reopen the 

 3 public comment period for 15 days. These minor changes 

 4 shown in attachment C of the resolution would correct 

 5 drafting errors and make the proposed aboveground storage 

 6 tank certification and test procedures consistent with 

 7 existing vapor recovery regulation. 

 8 In addition, this morning, staff met with 

 9 representatives from the Steel Tank Institute to discuss 

10 their comments. As a result, staff agrees to clarify the 

11 testing protocols. This will be included as part of the 

12 15-day changes. These changes are reflected in the 

13 resolution and Attachment C. 

14 Staff recommends that the Board approve the 

15 proposed regulation with 15-day changes. 

16 Thank you. And that concludes this presentation. 

17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you, Mr. Werst. 

18 Madam Ombudsman, please describe the public 

19 participation that occurred while this item was being 

20 developed and report any concerns or comments you may have 

21 to the Board. 

22 OMBUDSMAN QUETIN: Thank you. Dr. Sawyer, and 

23 members of the Board. This proposed regulation has been 

24 developed with input from the representatives from the Air 

25 Pollution Control Districts, the farming, dairy, 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 356 

 1 automotive and petroleum industries, manufacturers of 

 2 vapor recovery equipment, as well as manufacturers and 

 3 distributors of aboveground storage tanks. 

 4 Staff began their efforts to develop this 

 5 regulation in June 2001. They held a total of ten public 

 6 workshops from June 2001 through December 2006, nine of 

 7 which were held in Sacramento. The tenth workshop was 

 8 held in Fresno. On average, about 50 stakeholders 

 9 attended these workshops. 

10 In addition to the workshops mentioned, staff 

11 gave quarterly updates to CAPCOA on the progress in 

12 developing the aboveground storage tank certification 

13 procedure. Staff also provided information and updates on 

14 the proposal to the ARB Agricultural Advisory Committee 

15 for Air Quality. This group consist of over 50 

16 representatives of farm bureaus, commissions, and 

17 associations as well as government agencies. Staff also 

18 held four workgroup meetings in Fresno to facilitate 

19 participation from agricultural stakeholders. 

20 On August 16th, 2006, staff met with other 

21 stakeholders in various agricultural groups and 

22 associations to discuss the proposal, and also with the 

23 Steel Tank Institute to specifically discuss testing 

24 conducted for the proposed regulation as well as the cost 

25 analysis. 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 357 

 1 Both the staff report and the Board hearing 

 2 notice were released for public comment on May 4th, 2007. 

 3 Notices of the staff report were posted to the ARB 

 4 website. Hard copies were mailed to stakeholders. And an 

 5 Internet message was sent to the over 2000 subscribers of 

 6 our list serve. 

 7 Thank you. That concludes my comments. 

 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 

 9 Early in my term as Board Chair, I had the 

10 opportunity to visit the test site where much of the work 

11 was done. And I want to compliment Mr. Ahuja and 

12 his staff for the way they developed this measure and how, 

13 and for the affected farming community, primarily that 

14 they were dealing with. I think that both we and they 

15 learned a better way to do it in the process of testing. 

16 And that should be model for how we develop new 

17 regulations. 

18 Do any Board members have questions? 

19 Ms. D'Adamo. 

20 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Well, just a comment. I 

21 want to ditto what you just said, Mr. Chairman. And also 

22 want to compliment staff for the extensive outreach on 

23 this. And also the agricultural community represented by 

24 Roger Isom here today. 

25 I first heard about this, it's at least three 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 358 

 1 years ago, and there were a lot of concerns about cost and 

 2 implementation and I think now with the agricultural 

 3 community on-board here, we're going to see implementation 

 4 much sooner because they understand the program. They've 

 5 embraced it. So thank you very much for all of your 

 6 efforts. 

 7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Berg. 

 8 BOARD MEMBER BERG: I just had one question on 

 9 the tank certification itself. Do these tanks have to be 

10 certified from time to time for tank integrity. 

11 STATIONARY SOURCE TESTING BRANCH CHIEF AHUJA: 

12 Initially, before seeking certification they have to 

13 submit an application and go through a testing procedure. 

14 After that, if there is no issue there, then they get 

15 automatically renewed after four years. However, if the 

16 issues come up, then we have to investigate issues, and 

17 obviously if there are issues, they will not be, then it 

18 will not renewed, the certification would not be reviewed. 

19 BOARD MEMBER BERG: And that certification is 

20 with us. Is there any other agencies that certify because 

21 this is hazardous materials, aren't these class one 

22 flammables. 

23 STATIONARY SOURCE TESTING BRANCH CHIEF AHUJA: We 

24 have -- before it -- no. Let me back up. 

25 Before an application is submitted, the applicant 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 359 

 1 has to work with other agencies, you're right. Including 

 2 the fire marshal, the water agencies, you know, the Water 

 3 Board, et cetera, to make sure that they are in compliance 

 4 with their respective regulations from other agencies, 

 5 that's correct. 

 6 BOARD MEMBER BERG: We would just want to make 

 7 sure that if we're recommending somebody put foam on a 

 8 tank, that they don't have to do certification every so 

 9 many years to guarantee the integrity of the tank. 

10 Because one of the mechanisms that you use to measure that 

11 integrity is to do a reading of the tank wall. And if you 

12 put a permanent foam around that, then you're not going to 

13 be able to get that reading in the same way. So it just 

14 might be something we want to make sure that we're not 

15 misleading people down the road and creating a problem 

16 later on for them. 

17 Thank you. 

18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: We have two speakers on this 

19 issue. Roger Isom and Jay McKeeman. 

20 Mr. Isom. 

21 MR. ISOM: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of 

22 the Board. For the record, I'm Roger Isom with California 

23 Cotton Ginners and Growers Association. 

24 Really, the only reason I'm here is to show the 

25 staff the same respect that they did in working with the 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 360 

 1 ag industry. You've already mentioned that you visited 

 2 the site. 

 3 We started this process about two years ago when 

 4 the ARB staff came to us and said that, hey, we're going 

 5 to start regulating your farm tanks. 

 6 And our first response was we don't believe your 

 7 science, we don't believe there are that many emissions 

 8 out there that you say there are. And so they set up a 

 9 testing site there in Firebaugh. And they did the 

10 testing, and lo and behold, the emissions were 60 percent 

11 higher than what they originally said they were. 

12 And so, anyway, be careful what you ask for. You 

13 might just get it. 

14 But at least the key there is that the testing 

15 was done on actual farm tanks at a farm location, and we 

16 were out there and witnessed it. We actually brought our 

17 members out to the site so that they could see it, and you 

18 know, whatever the results are, so be it. 

19 The second step was once we recognized that the 

20 emissions were there, we sat down with ARB, listed all the 

21 controls and tested those controls out there again in that 

22 same site under farming conditions so that we could see as 

23 well as the ARB staff what worked and what didn't work and 

24 what was cost-effective and what was not. 

25 And so after a year-long testing program, we came 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 361 

 1 to this consensus as to what would work and we just want 

 2 to say thank to you the staff. 

 3 Our only concerns now, and the amendments that 

 4 have been made to the resolution are that we continue this 

 5 relationship going forward with the certification. Right 

 6 now, the way the certification process would work is that 

 7 it would be incumbent upon either the paint manufacturers 

 8 or suppliers or the foam manufacturers to go out there and 

 9 do the certification. And quite honestly, if there's not 

10 very many tanks out there, they're not going to waste 

11 their time to do it. 

12 We have asked the staff that we don't want to 

13 wait till 2013. That we would like use to same site, same 

14 location, same tanks, and actually start putting all of 

15 the combinations together. One thing you have to 

16 understand is that each paint and each P/V valve 

17 combination has to be tested. So we want to do that. We 

18 can do it all in one location. ARB staff can visit one 

19 site, and we can have ten different paints, we can have 

20 three different P/V combinations, we can have the foam 

21 manufacturers do the same thing, and do it all at one 

22 location. And, again, we can bring our members out there 

23 so that they can see it done. We can start this summer, 

24 even before this rule has gone to OAL for final approval, 

25 start that process now. The extra controls that the 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 362 

 1 farmers want to do that to get emission reduction credits, 

 2 we can start on that now, which would help especially in 

 3 the San Joaquin Valley where we need to do stuff a lot 

 4 faster and a lot more than what we're doing at this 

 5 point. 

 6 So, again, just want to thank the ARB staff urge 

 7 them to urge the Board to consider that, to push that 

 8 certification process and to work with the ag community. 

 9 Thank you. 

10 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Mr. Ahuja. 

11 STATIONARY SOURCE TESTING BRANCH CHIEF AHUJA: In 

12 fact, I have already mentioned to Mr. Isom that we will 

13 continue to work in the same spirit that we have worked so 

14 far, in a very cooperative manner. We have already set up 

15 a tentative date, July 9, to meet with them and sort out 

16 for the testing to start this summer. Long before for the 

17 reg has already been approved by the Board and offered by 

18 the agencies, in anticipation of working cooperatively 

19 with them. 

20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 

21 Mr. McKeeman. 

22 MR. MCKEEMAN: Good evening. I'm going to keep 

23 my comments very short. 

24 Following along with what Roger says, we've 

25 developed an excellent working relationship with CARB 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 363 

 1 staff on, number one, cost-effective solutions: White 

 2 paint, commonly available, P/V valves, the ability for our 

 3 association and Roger's association to go out there and 

 4 certify that kind of technology. That's a win-win 

 5 situation where you get the regulated community and the 

 6 regulators together on the same page and the ability to 

 7 really fast track improvement to emission control. 

 8 So we want to thank the staff. 

 9 Just as a little bit of history, when we first 

10 got engaged in this regulation in 2001, in essence, a 

11 regulation was being developed that would have put all the 

12 controls that were on underground storage tanks on 

13 aboveground storage tanks. So we've come a long way in 

14 terms of figuring out the right way to do this. 

15 There are some technical comments that I have, 

16 but we've been discussing those issues with staff today 

17 and we feel very comfortable that we have a good 

18 relationship and that we can get these issues worked out 

19 as we go down the line. 

20 So again, thanks very much to staff. And we 

21 certainly urge approval of the proposal before you today. 

22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. That concludes 

23 the public testimony. 

24 Ms. Witherspoon, does staff have any further 

25 comments? 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 364 

 1 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Nothing further. 

 2 But thank both the witnesses for coming today and bearing 

 3 through a very long day, just so they could testify on 

 4 this item. 

 5 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Yes. Thank you both very 

 6 much. 

 7 I will now close the record on this agenda item. 

 8 However, the record will be reopened when the 15-day 

 9 notice of public availability is issued. Written or oral 

10 comments received after this hearing date but before the 

11 15-day notice is issued will not be accepted as part of 

12 the official record on this agenda item. 

13 When the record is reopened for a 15-day comment 

14 period, the public may submit written comments on the 

15 proposed changes which will be considered and responded to 

16 in the final statement of reasons for the regulation. 

17 Are there any ex partes comments, communications 

18 that need, the Board members need to disclose? No. No. 

19 No. None. 

20 We have before us resolution 7-27. Do I have a 

21 motion to adopt? 

22 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I would move that, 

23 Mr. Chairman and then please add to that attachment C; is 

24 that correct? I have an attachment C here. 

25 CHAIRMAN SAWYER: Mr. Jennings? 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 365 

 1 CHIEF COUNSEL JENNINGS: Yes. Attachment C 

 2 contains the proposed 15-day modification. 

 3 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: So motion includes both. 

 4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you for noticing that. 

 5 Do I have a second? 

 6 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Second. 

 7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: All those in favor indicate 

 8 by saying Aye. 

 9 (Ayes) 

10 CHAIRPERSON SAYWER: Opposed? Motion is carried. 

11 This has been a very long day. I want to thank 

12 the staff and the Board members for being so patient and 

13 professional today. 

14 Get a good night's sleep and we'll deal with 

15 tomorrow, tomorrow. 

16 We're adjourned. 

17 (Thereupon the California Air Resources Board 

18 adjourned at 6:44 p.m.) 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 
 366 

 1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 

 2 I, TIFFANY C. KRAFT, a Certified Shorthand 

 3 Reporter of the State of California, and Registered 

 4 Professional Reporter, do hereby certify: 

 5 That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 

 6 foregoing hearing was reported in shorthand by me, 

 7 Tiffany C. Kraft, a Certified Shorthand Reporter of the 

 8 State of California, and thereafter transcribed into 

 9 typewriting. 

10 I further certify that I am not of counsel or 

11 attorney for any of the parties to said hearing nor in any 

12 way interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 

14 this 6th day of July, 2007. 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 TIFFANY C. KRAFT, CSR, RPR 

24 Certified Shorthand Reporter 

25 License No. 12277 

 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345