CVS News California Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Program News and Analysis for August 2003 In This Edition: C CARB Adopts Amendments to Diesel Fuel Regulations Despite Strenuous Objection From Trucking Industry (page 2) C CARB Adopts Amendment Applying Riding Season Restrictions to Off-Road Motorcycles and ATVs Beginning with the 2003 Model Year (page 16) C CARB and CEC Adopt Joint Agency Report on Reducing California’s Petroleum Dependence (page 19) C Federal Appellate Court Overrules EPA’s Denial of CARB’s Oxygenate Waiver Request (page 29) C CARB Staff Releases “15-Day Notice” of Proposed Final Revisions to ZEV Regulations (page 30) C CARB Holds Another Workshop on Proposed Exhaust and Evaporative Standards for Small Off-Road Engines and Issues Proposed Regulations – Industry Challenges Feasibility of Staff’s Evaporative Emissions Proposal and Raises Safety and Cost Issues (page 35) C CARB Staff Issues Manufacturers Advisory Correspondence Explaining Not-to-Exceed Requirements for 2005–2006 Medium- and Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines (page 42) C CARB Announces Workshop on Amendments to Service Information Rule (page 44) Copyright 2003©, by Sierra Research, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 1801 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, 916-444-6666 August 2003 C CARB Issues Manufacturers Advisory Correspondence on High-Priced Parts Cost Limit for 2004 Model Year, and Warranty Information Related to Vehicles Receiving Partial Zero-Emission Vehicle Credits (page 47) C CARB Holds Another Workshop on Transport Refrigeration Units – Stakeholders Voice Objections to Risk Assessment Methodology and Other Aspects of Program (page 48) C CARB Holds Another Portable Equipment Workgroup Meeting – Staff Presents Draft Fleet-Average Compliance Proposal (page 52) C I/M Review Committee Meets – Votes to Continue Without an Executive Officer (page 55) C Legislative Update (page 65) C Rulemaking Calendar (page 72) CARB Adopts Amendments to Diesel Fuel Regulations At the July 24 Public Meeting of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the Board voted to adopt staff’s proposed amendments to the existing California Diesel fuel regulations. Seven of the eight Board members in attendance* voted in favor of the proposal, while the eighth Board member, Matthew McKinnon, abstained from voting. In all, the Board heard nearly four hours of testimony and discussion before voting on this proposal. The key components of staff’s proposed amendments, which have been detailed in numerous past issues of CVS News (see the May, June, and July 2003 issues for the most recent articles), are (1) a 15 ppmw Diesel fuel sulfur standard, which will be required for both on- and off-road Diesel engines; and (2) a Diesel fuel lubricity standard. In addition, staff proposed several relatively minor changes in a 15-day comment package at the hearing. These changes include (1) a phase-in of the 15-ppm sulfur limit at low throughput facilities; (2) modification of the definition of Diesel fuel; (3) deletion of a * Board members Barbara Riordan and Mark DeSaulnier were not present. Page 2 CVS News August 2003 proposed section related to downstream blending; (4) applicability of new candidate fuel requirements for previously certified Diesel fuel formulations; (5) a new provision that would sunset the proposed 2004 lubricity standard if the ASTM votes to adopt the same standard; and (6) deletion of a proposed amendment to heavy-duty engine test procedures regarding California Diesel test fuel. These changes are discussed in detail below. Some of the most noteworthy comments from stakeholders at the hearing included (1) a well-researched and concise presentation from Stephanie Williams of the California Trucking Association (CTA) outlining the past and predicted effects of CARB Diesel on her industry and requesting that CARB delay adoption of the amendments in order to consider the real impacts of staff’s proposal,* (2) requests from environmental groups that the agency require the use Diesel fuel that meets its standards in marine and rail applications where it is currently not required, and (3) additional requests that the proposed Diesel fuel requirements take effect prior to 2006 in the South Coast Air Basin. Williams’ presentation seemed to have an effect on the Board members, even though they ultimately voted in opposition to her recommendations. Several Board members complimented Williams on a very effective presentation, and McKinnon cited his concern for “the effects on California workers” as his reason for abstaining from the vote. Staff Presentation In his brief opening remarks, Chairman Allen Lloyd emphasized that “we are not opening up the whole Diesel rule,” and that the amendments under consideration mainly pertained to sulfur content. Lloyd then introduced California Assemblyman Manny Diaz (D-San Jose). Diaz, chairman of the Budget Subcommittee on Information Technology and Transportation, said he “wants the Legislature to get more involved in this process.” He said he was trying to identify revenue sources to fund incentives for clean technologies, and invited CARB to join the Legislature at its hearings next fall when this subject would be discussed. Background - Following brief remarks from Executive Officer Catherine Witherspoon, the staff presentation was delivered by Gloria Lindner, who is with the Fuels section of the Criteria Pollutants Branch of CARB’s Stationary Source Division. Lindner began with a general discussion of California’s air quality problem. According to Lindner, the percent of total statewide mobile source PM and NOx emissions attributable to Diesel engines is 72% and 58%, respectively. Further, she said that Diesel PM is responsible for 70% of the calendar year 2000 statewide risk from air toxics emissions. The current California Diesel fuel regulations were first implemented in October 1993, continued Lindner, and were applicable to Diesel sold for both on- and off-road motor vehicle use. The original regulations also allowed for the certification of alternative * At all of the Diesel fuel workshops held this year, a sizeable portion of the meeting discussion was devoted to CTA staff expressing strong objection to staff’s proposal. CTA wants a national fuel standard (which would mean a repeal of the low-aromatic provision that has been part of the Diesel regulations since 1988), and feels that CARB staff reneged on an earlier promise to move toward that goal. CVS News Page 3 August 2003 formulas that maintain equivalent emission benefits. Lindner then presented a table, replicated in Table 1, showing the difference in the current California vs. federal Diesel fuel specifications. Table 1 Comparison of Current California vs. Federal Diesel Specifications Applicability Specifications Sulfur Aromatic Hydrocarbons - Large refiners - Small refiners * California Federal On- and Off-road On-road 500 ppmw 500 ppmw 10 vol. %* 35 vol. % or Cetane No > 40 20 vol. %* or equivalent alternative formulation Lindner then briefly outlined the California Diesel Risk Reduction Plan (DRRP), the goal of which is to reduce Diesel PM emissions and associated health risks by 80% by 2020. In addition to the 15 ppmw sulfur limit for California Diesel, CARB plans to achieve these reductions by establishing more stringent emission standards for new Diesel engines, as well as particulate trap retrofit requirements. Lindner also briefly discussed a South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) rule (Rule 431.2) that requires 15 ppmw sulfur beginning in 2004 for stationary engines and in 2005 for motor vehicles, unless CARB adopts the same sulfur limit. Lindner said the SCAQMD rule states that if CARB adopts the 15 ppmw limit, the implementation date for the 15 ppmw sulfur limit in the South Coast would become aligned with the 2006 implementation date in the CARB rule. (This provision ultimately caused a great deal of discussion, as detailed later in this article.) Staff Proposal - The specific amendments being proposed by staff are outlined below. C Page 4 Proposed Changes to Requirements of the Diesel Fuel Regulations - Reduce the CARB Diesel sulfur limit to 15 ppmw, applicable to on- and off-road Diesel fuel as of June 1, 2006. - Revise the requirements for certification of alternative Diesel formulations. This will provide further assurance that new certified alternative CVS News August 2003 formulations result in equivalent emissions relative to the 10% aromatics standard. C - Revise the sulfur specification for fuel used to certify Diesel engines. - Require a new test method that provides better precision for testing 15 ppm sulfur Diesel. - Clarify the applicability of the Diesel fuel regulations to ensure effective enforcement. Proposed Changes to Increase Flexibility* - C Proposed ATCM for Nonvehicular Diesel Fuel - C Provide an option for complying with the 10% aromatic hydrocarbon standard, which allows refiners to meet a set of specified limits without undergoing testing. The proposed limits are based on the average properties of certified formulations. Lindner said staff feels this is an important provision both because it gives refiners additional flexibility in meeting the aromatics standard, and because it will facilitate the importation of Diesel fuel into the California market. This refers to CARB’s proposal to require that Diesel fuel for stationary sources and other uses meet the same standards as California vehicular Diesel fuel. Lindner said this provision is needed to ensure that emissions reductions required by the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan for stationary engines and other sources are met. Diesel Fuel Lubricity Proposal - Lindner explained that Diesel fuel lubricity refers to the ability of Diesel fuel to provide surface contact lubrication. The current voluntary lubricity standard was recommended by a 1994 Governor’s task force. Staff is concerned, however, that there is currently no formal ASTM** lubricity standard, and that the current levels will not sufficiently protect advanced technology Diesel engine systems. Also, there is concern that the additional refining required to meet the 15 ppmw sulfur limit would reduce the natural fuel lubricity. * During later public testimony, a representative from the Western States Petroleum Association referred to this provision as the “DELs,” an acronym standing for Designated Equivalent (Fuel) Limits. ** As noted in previous articles, CARB has hopes that ASTM will ultimately adopt a lubricity standard, because that would shift responsibility for enforcement of the standard from CARB to the California Department of Weights and Measures. CVS News Page 5 August 2003 - C Staff is proposing a two-phase implementation plan that will apply to all Diesel fuel either sold or supplied in California. The first phase is the immediate adoption of a High Frequency Reciprocating Rig (HFRR) maximum wear scar diameter (WSD) standard of 520 microns, with a 90-day phase-in schedule beginning August 1, 2004.* The second phase would involve conducting a technology assessment by 2005 in order to determine a sufficiently protective standard for the 2006 and later engines designed to operate on 15 ppmw sulfur Diesel fuel. CARB proposes to sunset the lubricity standards if ASTM adopts similar standards. Proposed Revision of Staff Proposal (i.e., 15-day Changes) - As briefly discussed in the introduction to this article, staff proposed a number of minor changes to its proposal. The first is the phase-in of 15 ppmw sulfur limit fuel at low-throughput facilities. Fuel delivered to such facilities prior to July 15, 2006, or delivered directly from a bulk plant prior to September 1, 2006, will be exempt from the new regulations. This new provision will apply to retail outlets and bulk purchaser-consumer facilities, and is consistent with the EPA rule. Lindner said this provision was being added so that low throughput facilities would not be required to drain their tanks, or to take other extraordinary measures to comply with the new regulations beginning on June 1, 2006. - Staff has further modified the definition of Diesel fuel to exclude any product that is more than 50% biodiesel.** - Staff is proposing to delete the previously proposed section for downstream blending. Staff concluded that since Diesel fuel will have to meet the same sulfur standards throughout the distribution system, special downstream provisions did not need to be included in the sulfur regulation. - Regarding the applicability of new candidate fuel requirements to previously certified Diesel fuel formulations, staff has determined that an existing formulation with a candidate fuel that does not meet the new specifications would no longer be effective if all of the following criteria apply: 1. The aromatic hydrocarbon content is more than 3.5 times that of the reference fuel. 2. The sulfur, nitrogen, and polyaromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) contents are greater than that of the reference fuel. * One of staff’s 15-day changes is the sunset of this provision, if ASTM adopts a similar standard. ** This means that biodiesel blends that are 51% or more biodiesel are not subject to the CARB Diesel specification, including the 15 ppm sulfur limit. As was highlighted in testimony from WSPA, exclusion of biodiesel blends of more than 51% could raise emissions-related issues associated with its use. Page 6 CVS News August 2003 3. The cetane number is less than that of the reference fuel. Deactivation of an existing formula that meets the above criteria would be effective 90 days after the effective date of the amendments. C - The addition of a sunset provision for the 2004 lubricity standard, if ASTM votes to adopt a lubricity standard (discussed in greater detail above). - Drop the proposed amendments to the heavy-duty engine test procedures, since the existing California test procedure already specifies an ultra-low sulfur content of 7-15 parts per million for Diesel fuel used in certification testing of 2007 and subsequent model year heavy-duty Diesel engines. Impact of Staff’s Proposal - Lindner reiterated that the most important reason for adopting the 15 ppm sulfur limit for Diesel fuel is that it will enable the use of new technologies that will significantly reduce the emissions of PM, ozone precursors, and toxic air contaminants from Diesel engines. Lindner then listed the following emission reductions, which she said are attributable to the proposed amendments: - Statewide sulfur oxide emissions from all Diesel sources would be reduced by about 90 percent, or 6.4 tons per day, based on calendar year 2000 levels. - Diesel PM emissions would be reduced by about 4% statewide (about 0.6 tons per year in 2010), for engines not equipped with advanced particulate emissions control devices. - NOx emissions from stationary engines not currently using CARB Diesel (about 10% of the stationary engine inventory) will be reduced by 7%, or about 80 tons per year. Lindner said the staff proposal would have no known or additional environmental impacts on surface waters, groundwater, or soil, compared to the current Diesel fuel regulations. She added that the reduction in sulfur emissions would reduce the atmospheric deposition of sulfuric acid and sulfates in water bodies, and that a multimedia environmental impact assessment would be prepared and reviewed by the California Environmental Council prior to final adoption of the regulation. Anticipated Costs - As noted in the July CVS News article on this subject, staff has not included a traditional cost-effective analysis for this proposal because it feels the costs are incurred to enable the application of advanced technology Diesel equipment, and therefore this does not lend itself to a traditional cost-effectiveness analysis. Increased costs to California Diesel consumers were calculated, however, by analyzing responses to surveys submitted to California Diesel refiners, as well as the results of studies conducted by the U.S. EPA and the SCAQMD. This information led staff to estimate that capital costs to refineries would range from $200 to $300 million, and that the estimated cost of CVS News Page 7 August 2003 the lubricity standard would cost refiners between 0.2 and 0.6 cents per gallon. The overall cost of the proposal to California refiners is estimated at between 2 and 3 cents per gallon, which Lindner said is consistent with the SCAQMD estimate of 1 to 3 cents, and with the EPA estimate of 4 to 5 cents per gallon. Lindner added that most of the cost would be incurred regardless of the CARB proposal, because of the low sulfur Diesel regulations that have already been adopted by EPA. In conclusion, Lindner said staff was recommending that the Board approve the proposed amendments, and that the Board also direct staff to conduct a technology review regarding the appropriateness of the proposed lubricity standard, and report back in 2005 with those results. Following Lindner’s presentation, Chairman Lloyd asked staff whether there was an “energy penalty” associated with the delay in implementing a 15 ppm sulfur Diesel requirement in the South Coast air basin. Staff replied that the penalty was “slight, if any.” Board member Joe Calhoun then asked Catherine Witherspoon “where you think you are (regarding) making the stakeholders happy?” Witherspoon replied that the alignment of the federal and state Diesel sulfur standards was not controversial, and that she believed most stakeholders were reasonably happy with the proposal. Public Testimony South Coast Air Quality Management District - Acting Executive Officer Barry Wallerstein said the staff proposal does not adequately address the needs of the South Coast district. Specifically, he said that delaying the implementation of a 15 ppm Diesel sulfur standard by 17 months would cause an increase of 6 tons per day of direct and secondary PM emissions, which would disproportionately affect environmental justice communities. Wallerstein asked that the Board adopt the package, but also direct staff to do “a full analysis and public comment” on this issue within 120 days. Witherspoon replied that staff appreciates that the SCAQMD wants to institute a 15 ppm sulfur limit as soon as possible, but “a bifurcated fuel system in California would be of more concern than the emission increase caused by waiting 17 months.” She also added that “we already did an analysis—we don’t need another 120 days.” Wallerstein countered, saying that “rather than a two-page letter that is three years old, we would like to have a more current analysis.” Chairman Lloyd asked staff how much 15 ppm sulfur Diesel is currently available in the South Coast. Dean Simeroth, Chief of the Criteria Pollutants branch of the Stationary Source Division, said about 10%, but noted that “they do imports, which makes it more complicated.” Board member William Burke then entered the discussion, stating that “41% of the state is choking to death, and I’m not sure it’s good public policy to ignore them just so we can align the state and federal fuel standards.” “Is this environmental justice?” he asked. Witherspoon replied that the best solution would have been to require the whole state to implement the new standard in 2005, but that “there wasn’t enough time to do that.” And, she noted that other areas in the state have the same environmental justice concerns as the South Coast. Page 8 CVS News August 2003 Board member McKinnon asked staff if there were any State Implementation Plan (SIP) issues associated with the 6 tpd increase Wallerstein mentioned. CARB Deputy Executive Officer Lynn Terry answered that the South Coast does not take any SIP credit for the introduction of 15 ppm sulfur Diesel before 2006, so although there are obviously risk reduction issues, there is no SIP issue. CARB Deputy Executive Officer Mike Scheible added that staff has had reservations about the South Coast rule from the beginning, and that “we don’t think it was implementable.” Gordon Shremp, with the California Energy Commission (CEC), added that the CEC feels that bifurcating the state fuel regulations would be problematic for supply, and that “it is unlikely that refiners will comply 17 months early for a market they only partially supply.” Burke persisted, asking if staff had asked refiners whether they would be willing to give up 60% of the California Diesel market rather than comply 17 months early. Shremp noted that 35% of the Diesel supply in the South Coast is imported, and that it would not be 60% of any one refiner’s business. Witherspoon effectively ended the discussion by stating that rather than refiners stepping up to meet the South Coast demand, “this would more likely be forced into a variance situation.” California Trucking Association (CTA) - Stephanie Williams began her presentation by stating that a 2005 ultra-low sulfur Diesel rule in the South Coast, discussed at length just before she began her testimony, would be funded on the backs of California truckers. As noted in the introduction to this article, CTA has voiced strong objection to the Diesel fuel amendments since they were first proposed in calendar year 2000. CTA would like to see a uniform national Diesel fuel standard, which it believes will eliminate the price differential between California Diesel, and Diesel fuel available in the rest of the country. The main points made by Williams against adoption of the staff proposal are summarized below. C CARB’s refusal to comply with the Public Records Act - According to Williams, CTA has submitted numerous requests to CARB for what she referred to as the “secret formulas” used by Diesel producers who utilize the equivalent alternative formulation option. Williams said that it was unfair to withhold this information, and that if it were released, “anyone could make it and the price would come down.” In response, CARB staff attorney Kathleen Walsh said that this information is considered a “trade secret” and is proprietary information protected under state law. Mike Scheible added that what is available are the average fuel properties, rather than the precise formulations “which have been developed at considerable expense.” C CARB exceeded its authority by providing no avenue to repeal the aromatics requirements upon adoption of the Clinton Administration’s super clean Diesel standards. Williams said that if staff would agree to support CTA’s efforts to repeal the 10% aromatics standard, CTA would be willing to support a barrel fee increase that would be used to contribute sufficient moneys to the Carl Moyer Fund to offset emissions increases resulting from an increased Diesel aromatic content. In response, Witherspoon said a relaxation of the aromatics standard would amount to a SIP relaxation, and that “we’re already short on our SIP CVS News Page 9 August 2003 commitment.” However, she did add that if the legislature approved such a scheme, “we would have to consider it.” C Alternative fuel formulation is an underground regulation that impedes interstate commerce. Williams repeated the above argument regarding the unfairness of CARB’s refusal to release the precise formulations for all alternative Diesel fuel formulations. She also said the price differentials now seen between California and its border states will become an even bigger problem once NAFTA is put into practice and Mexican trucks are allowed unrestricted entry into the United States. Board member McKinnon said he shared some of CTA’s concerns regarding the effects of NAFTA, and asked whether Diesel fuel sold on the U.S./Mexico border was produced in the U.S. or in Mexico (with associated non U.S. fuel standards). Dean Simeroth answered that staff is currently researching this question. He acknowledged that some was produced in Mexico, but that “they’re going to have a fuel that is probably between ours and the federal.” C Price spikes are smoothed in CARB’s analysis, eliminating market volatility. Williams said the reason CARB’s analysis shows that there is no significant price increase associated with California Diesel is because CARB compares quarterly averages, rather than weekly averages. And, CARB compares the quarterly California averages to the quarterly averages for the other seven western states in the PADD V region, which includes Alaska and Hawaii. This, said Williams, masks the true volatility of the Diesel market by smoothing the weekly price spikes, and by drawing unfair comparisons with captive fleet markets (i.e., Alaska and Hawaii). She then presented a slide showing the most current Oil Price Information Service (OPIS) weekly average report, which shows the average Diesel prices for the major metropolitan areas in California and the border states. This slide showed that there was a price difference of over 30 cents per gallon in the Las Vegas vs. Los Angeles markets, and similar disparity between other California metro vs. out-of-state metro areas near California’s borders. Williams then explained how this price difference is affecting the population of trucks registered in California. Since 1994, the number of California truck registrations has declined by over 50,000 trucks, which represents over half the total 1994 fleet. During that same period, interstate truck traffic based out of state has also doubled—a phenomenon that Williams said could not be explained by estimated fleet growth alone. According to Williams, there has also been a significant decline in “intrastate” truck registrations (i.e., trucks registered outside of California, but who pay a fee to operate in California for a length of time) since 1994. In fact, she said, only 5.25% of all the big rig trucks operating in California are currently registered in California. She then presented a chart that estimated the loss in funds to the State Highway Account and the Federal Trust Fund due to “truck flight.” Losses in heavy use taxes, state fuel excise taxes, and weight fees add up to an annual loss to the state highway account totaling $3,044,594,300, said Williams. Similar losses in vehicle excise Page 10 CVS News August 2003 taxes and federal fuel excise taxes add up to a total of $1,150,308,300 in lost federal trust funds. Staff did not specifically dispute all of the points made by Williams, but indicated that the total number of trucks registering out of state as a result of the CARB Diesel regulation was far less than Williams claimed. C Emission benefits are overstated and do not incorporate international and interstate increases in vehicle miles traveled and slower fleet turnover. Williams said her members cannot buy new vehicles if they are paying significantly more for fuel, and that this, in addition to the increase in vehicle miles traveled by truckers driving over the borders to get cheaper fuel, is not accounted for in staff’s estimates of various heavy-duty Diesel control programs. In conclusion, Williams urged that adoption of the staff proposal be delayed until CTA’s concerns can be adequately addressed. Following Williams’ presentation, Chairman Lloyd said “I feel for you, Stephanie.” He added that “I’m not sure what happened” (regarding CTA’s claim that CARB “double crossed” it to obtain the association’s support in convincing EPA to adopt a 15 ppm sulfur standard). “I don’t think (it was) anything malicious, but unfortunately we can’t rewrite that,” said Lloyd. He stated staff had spoken to Margo Oge, Director of EPA’s Mobile Sources Division, regarding a national fuel standard that would include a 10% aromatics standard, and that while Oge was receptive, she “didn’t promise anything.” He urged CTA to join with staff in its work on this issue. Williams then asked again if staff would consider CTA’s proposal for a barrel fee increase to fund Carl Moyer programs in exchange for removal of California’s aromatics standard. “Would the Board be willing to consider an alternative that would actually bring in more money to districts that have air pollution problems to clean up the air and put California's trucking industry back on track in lieu of NAFTA?” asked Williams. Lloyd said it was hard to refuse “when you put it that way” and deferred to Witherspoon to explain why this was not possible. Witherspoon explained that the current Diesel regulation is a crucial component in a number of air plans, and that legally staff cannot remove anything from, or substitute anything for, a component in an air plan that has already been approved. Williams persisted in her efforts to get a commitment of some sort from the Board. “So, if we introduce the bill and it passes, we can come back here and repeal the aromatic standard? It’s (the proposed barrel fee funding) a lot more money,” said Williams. At Lloyd’s urging, Witherspoon said that if all the associated attainment commitments were in place, and CTA obtained legislative approval, “then we can talk about it, yes.” Witherspoon expanded on the recent conversations between staff and EPA regarding adopting the California Diesel standards nationwide. She said California Diesel is not as beneficial to the rest of the country because low-sulfur Diesel fuel is not generally required for use in off-road vehicles anywhere except California, and because the number of EGR-equipped vehicles, which are less sensitive to aromatics, in the U.S. fleet are increasing. Witherspoon noted, however, that the Mexican fleet, which is older and therefore includes fewer EGR-equipped vehicles, would probably realize a large benefit CVS News Page 11 August 2003 from California Diesel, “so it might look better to Mexico than it does to the federal government.” University of California - Wayne Miller is part of a panel of four University of California experts asked to review the staff proposal;the other three are Drs. Sawyer, Lucas, and Caretto. Miller said these peer review arrangements are made under the interagency agreement between the University of California and its members. After complimenting staff on its thorough report, Miller said the panel believes that 15 ppm sulfur Diesel is essential to the enablement of new emissions control technology. Miller also said the panel feels the proposal to add an additional compliance option for meeting the aromatics standard “is well founded, as emissions benefits are maintained by allowing more manufacturing flexibility.” In addition, he stated that staff’s current estimate for the emission reduction associated with the staff proposal is reasonable, and that his report would be completed the following week. Board member Hugh Friedman and Chairman Lloyd then asked Miller if he supports the staff’s proposed lubricity standards, which Miller eventually said that he did. Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) - Dave Smith is with BP, but was representing WSPA at this hearing. According to Smith, WSPA generally supports the proposed amendments, and it appreciates staff’s willingness to work with WSPA on these issues. However, he said, WSPA still had three recommendations to present to the Board: 1. WSPA objects to staff’s decision not to regulate Diesel blends that are over 50% biodiesel, because it would allow non-certified fuel to be used in engines that would otherwise use only CARB-certified Diesel. WSPA asked that the issue be brought back to the Board in 6 to 12 months to give staff time to ensure that all biodiesel used in California is regulated consistently with CARB Diesel, and that there is no NOx increase associated with its use. 2. The last two WSPA recommendations are related to the proposed Designated Equivalent Fuel Limits, or DELs, said Smith. The DELs are supposed to provide additional flexibility to refiners and importers; however, Smith said, WSPA feels that in contrast to other recent flexibility proposals by CARB (i.e., CaRFG3), the current staff report contains very few assurances that the increase in flexibility will not result in increased emissions. According to Smith, WSPA wants the parameters of the DELs to be based on real-world averages for each parameter (it particularly objects to the 500 ppm nitrogen standard), which would prevent “environmental backsliding” and provide real flexibility for refiners. 3. Since real-world data regarding the new Diesel formulation do not yet exist, Smith said WSPA would like staff to report back to the Board in one year regarding the emissions impact, sales volumes, number of importers, and number of refiners producing the new fuel—similar to what was done with CaRFG3 regarding the impact of substituting ethanol for MTBE. Page 12 CVS News August 2003 Following Smith’s prepared remarks, Witherspoon responded to WSPA’s first recommendation by stating that biodiesel is currently so expensive that it is being used in very limited quantities. Further, she said, CARB is holding a symposium on alternative Diesel fuels (in Sacramento on August 19–20), which will help staff better understand the properties of and the emissions impacts associated with biodiesel, and other alternative fuels. Following the symposium, Witherspoon said, staff would report back to the Board with a summary of its findings. Board member Friedman asked if this was acceptable to WSPA, and Smith replied yes, but noted that biodiesel is reported to be a new and growing fuel in California, which is why WSPA is addressing this issue now. Smith urged the Board to direct staff to prepare a formal proposal in the future to address the certification of these fuels. Under pressure from Chairman Lloyd, Witherspoon said staff would return to the Board with recommendations, but not a full proposal, by the end of the year. Smith said he was sure WSPA could develop a proposal by the end of the year, which led Lloyd to comment that “any time WSPA comes forward to help us, with a concern about NOx increases, (staff) is going to work with you.” Smith said he was glad to hear that. Regarding WSPA’s second and third recommendations, Witherspoon said staff did not think delaying the DEL provision was a good idea, but that it was “judicious” to do as WSPA requested and prepare a report on the status of the new fuel program after it has been implemented. “You’ll take two out of three?” Lloyd asked Smith. Smith said yes, and that WSPA would continue working with staff to resolve its issues with the parameter limits specified in the DELs. Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA) - Deputy Director Joe Kubsh said MECA supports the proposal, which it feels is essential to ensuring the success of low-emission Diesel technologies. California Independent Oil Marketers Association (CIOMA) - Jay McKeeman began by complimenting Stephanie Williams for “putting the Board on the horns of a dilemma,” which he said is the “tradeoff of having ever increasing and ever different fuel specifications versus the economic impact that brings to the state.” McKeeman said that the California Diesel specifications make it the most expensive Diesel fuel in the continental U.S., and that translates into lost jobs, which, to his mind, is a form of environmental injustice. McKeeman said, however, that CIOMA supports the proposal because of the problems in the South Coast related to the bifurcated gasoline supply (MTBE vs. ethanol). CIOMA supports the swift adoption of a single, statewide Diesel standard. McKeeman said he also supports the enforcement of the lubricity standard at the racks, rather than earlier in the distribution system, so that imports would not be discouraged. McKeeman then thanked staff for the 15-day notice change that allowed a slightly longer transition period for small-volume Diesel marketers. American Lung Association (ALA) - Bonnie Holmes-Gen said ALA supports this rulemaking, but that it would like to see the new Diesel regulations required for marine and rail applications as well. Board member Doreen D’Adamo asked staff to respond to CVS News Page 13 August 2003 Holmes-Gen’s comment regarding marine and rail applicability. Witherspoon said that because CARB Diesel is required for both on-and off-road applications, marine and rail engines that purchase fuel in California would be getting CARB Diesel, unless they are looking for bunker fuel, which is heavier.* She said EPA is currently in the midst of developing a Diesel fuel standard for locomotive and marine vessels, and that it is considering imposing low-sulfur Diesel for off-road applications in 2010. D’Adamo asked if staff could report back to the Board after EPA’s rule has been adopted, which Witherspoon said would likely happen in April 2004. Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (the Alliance) - Automotive Fuels Director Ellen Shapiro said the Alliance wanted to increase light-duty Diesel sales in California, and that lower sulfur fuel is the key to meeting this challenge. Shapiro said the Alliance supports the regulation, particularly the inclusion of off-road vehicles, because “it will eliminate the risk of misfueling.” She also said the Alliance applauds the inclusion of a lubricity standard in staff’s proposal, which she said is very important to the new common-rail systems, although she said the Alliance is concerned that the 520 HFRR standard is not protective enough. Shapiro said the Alliance favors a 460 HFRR standard, and the World Wide Fuel Charter would like to see a 400 HFRR standard. Shapiro said it was important for the industry to know what future limits could be expected as soon as possible, because “production plans for 2006 and 2007 model year vehicles are being set now.” Coalition for Clean Air - Tim Carmichael, also representing the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), said that in general he supports the staff proposal, but that his organizations would also like to see marine and locomotive applications included. Excluding these sources is unfair to truckers, said Carmichael. Carmichael also said he supports statewide implementation of the revised Diesel rule by 2005, that “the suggestion that a variance could cripple the program is laughable,” and that “slowing down to let EPA catch up” is not sound public health policy. He also said that CARB should feel guilty for not doing more when it has had the opportunity. In response Witherspoon said that there is enough 15 ppm fuel to service the vehicles that have already been retrofit, but she reiterated staff’s contention that there is not enough time to transition the entire state to 15 ppm sulfur fuel by 2005. National Biodiesel Board - Graham Noyes said his organization is working with CARB and Southwest Research Institute on a B20 blend (i.e., 20% biodiesel) that is “NOx neutral.” And he questioned why staff would limit the definition of Diesel to blends of less than 50% biodiesel. Dean Simeroth responded, stating that this was done primarily for enforcement purposes, and to be consistent with EPA. He also said staff intends to propose a standard for the over 50% blends of biodiesel. Noyes responded that he looked forward to working with staff on the standard, and noted there is already an ASTM standard (D6751-02) for biodiesel blending stock (i.e., B100). * Despite Witherspoon’s statements, the fact is that the use of CARB Diesel in locomotives and marine vessels of all types is not required. Therefore, even in California, they may use Diesel fuels that meet neither the CARB regulations nor the U.S. EPA regulations for on-road Diesel fuels. Page 14 CVS News August 2003 Union of Concerned Scientists - The final speaker, Patricia Monihan, stated that she was also representing the NRDC. She said that her groups wanted to register their very strong support for the staff proposal, particularly the off-road vehicle applicability. Monihan also urged staff to let the South Coast require 15 ppm sulfur Diesel in 2005, and to include rail and marine in the package. In response, Witherspoon repeated her argument that staff is waiting to see how EPA will act regarding a marine and rail regulation, and noted that “we do already have a memorandum of understanding with rail operations in Southern California that (says) whatever CARB Diesel is, they will be using it—so as we go to low sulfur, so will they.” Board member D’Adamo asked how quickly staff could develop a fuel standard for marine and rail, to which Witherspoon replied one year. Board member Hugh Friedman said he was not comfortable simply waiting to see what EPA would do, and said he supported the idea of having staff report back on the feasibility of adopting a standard for marine and rail. Witherspoon said the idea had been investigated by the previous Executive Officer, Mike Kenny, and it was found that there were enormous complexities involved, in part because both trains and marine vessels have the ability to fuel out of state and carry fuel long distances. Deputy Executive Officer Mike Scheible noted that “we’re not saying it can't be done, just that it is a sizable difficult undertaking. And if we’re trying to do it quickly, it may not work at all.” A discussion then ensued regarding whether a marine component could be added to the existing rail Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in the South Coast Air Basin. Ultimately, Witherspoon said there were problems with both rail and marine vessels refueling just before entering California and eliminating the purchase of California Diesel, and for this reason, staff feels it would be far more effective to wait for the adoption of a national standard. At this point, Monihan noted that this was exactly the argument CTA was making, so if CARB was prepared to impose this set of circumstances on the trucking industry, it was unfair not to impose it also on the rail and marine industries. She said she recognized that this was a complex issue, but that moving forward would put pressure on EPA “to do the right thing and to require 15 ppm for these sources as well.” Lloyd then asked staff to come back to the next Board meeting “with some options.” Witherspoon said the September agenda was already full, and asked if October was soon enough. Lloyd indicated he was not willing to defer the date and said that “we may have to clear up the agenda.” The discussion ended without a firm commitment from staff regarding a date for its report to the Board on what it would take to develop a fuel standard for rail and marine applications. Board member McKinnon then began a discussion on his concern for the effects this proposal would have on California workers, and indicated he was not willing to support it. Chairman Lloyd said he felt the Board had to move ahead, even though there were some concerns. Board member Ron Roberts said he felt the most compelling testimony was from Stephanie Williams, and that he is very concerned about the loss in truck registrations in California. He said that he had to leave before the vote was to be taken, but indicated that he would not support the proposal. Chairman Lloyd also complimented Williams on her presentation, as did Board member Burke, who said he did not feel that staff was “respectful enough of Stephanie’s numbers vs. their numbers.” CVS News Page 15 August 2003 Burke indicated that he was going to vote in favor of the proposal, but that he had concerns about marine, rail, and truck issues. This is “definitely not a perfect solution,” said Burke. Following Board member McKinnon’s disclosure that he had one brief ex parte communication with Ed Manning of Conoco, the Board members present voted to adopt the proposal, with the exception of McKinnon, who abstained. Analysis As expected, this hearing was contentious given CTA’s objections to the staff proposal. The adoption of the staff proposal was virtually assured prior to the hearing, even with CTA’s constant and vocal objections. The discussion of the possible development of California Diesel fuel specifications for rail and marine applications was interesting for several reasons, notably the one presented by Patricia Monihan—that staff is using CTA’s objections to the California Diesel standard as one of its chief reasons for not developing a California Diesel fuel specification for rail and marine applications. In the upcoming discussions on this subject, which will possibly take place at either the September or October Board meeting, we expect the environmental community to exploit this apparent disconnect in CARB’s philosophy in support of the development of a California Diesel fuel specification for rail and marine applications. At least with respect to locomotives, however, CARB staff is also correct in that—given their ability to travel long distances and the higher price of California fuel—it is unlikely that a California Diesel fuel standard would result in the use of CARB Diesel in that application. Marine vessels may be another issue, however, as one would expect that many of the vessels that purchase Diesel in California are likely to be tied to a California port and would end up operating on CARB Diesel if a standard were put into place. CARB could clearly adopt such a regulation and claim it is part of measure Marine-2 in the current draft of the California State Implementation Plan for Ozone. CARB Adopts Amendment Applying Riding Season Restrictions to Off-Road Motorcycles and ATVs Beginning with the 2003 Model Year At its July 24, 2003 hearing, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) unanimously voted to adopt an amendment to the Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles and Engines regulations that changed the effective date of the regulation for motorcycles and allterrain vehicles (ATVs) from vehicles produced on or after January 1, 1997, to vehicles of the 2003 and later model years. This amendment effectively “grandfathers” all nonemissions-compliant 2002 and earlier motorcycles and ATVs (primarily those with twocycle engines) to “green tag” license status, thus allowing all 2002 and older motorcycles and ATVs unrestricted riding seasons in the future. Page 16 CVS News August 2003 Background In 1994, CARB approved regulations, directed primarily at motorcycles and ATVs, to control emissions from off-highway recreational vehicles (OHRVs). These regulations were to apply to all OHRVs manufactured after January 1, 1997. Although the regulations allowed the sale of non-certified, “competition” motorcycles, those regulations effectively limited the use of competition motorcycles to closed-course events by allowing only certified vehicles to obtain the necessary identification plate (i.e., Green Sticker) for off-highway vehicle (OHV) recreational use. Recreational riders proved unwilling to purchase competition motorcycles, which could not legally be used for off-highway recreational riding. This, coupled with the lack of certified product available to the recreational rider, significantly reduced new off-road motorcycle sales in the state and became an economic hardship for dealers. In December 1998, in a rare retreat from an adopted regulation (albeit under the threat of potential legislation that would kill the agency’s program*), CARB, working with the state Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), the state Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR), the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and a number of industry associations and manufacturers, adopted changes** to the 1994 regulations that would allow recreational use of non-certified offhighway motorcycles and recreational vehicles in areas and during seasons in which their impact on ozone nonattainment would be minimal. (No changes to the emission standards were adopted, however.) Under the amended regulation, there was to be a two-tier registration procedure in which certified vehicles would continue to receive an OHV Green Sticker from the DMV, allowing the rider unrestricted, year-round usage. Non-certified vehicles would receive an OHV Red Sticker, designating them as “limited-use” vehicles. Red Sticker vehicles could be used for noncompetitive recreational riding in areas and during periods of the year when violations of air quality standards were unlikely to occur. Enforcement of the use requirements was to continue to be the responsibility of OHV area land managers, which were already enforcing the Green Sticker requirement (DPR, BLM, and USFS). An analysis of CARB’s changes appearing in the January 1999 issue of CVS News correctly predicted that “enforcement of the green/red sticker requirements will be spotty at best and the overall result will be that non-complying motorcycles are used throughout the year in all areas of the state—just as they were prior to the implementation of the CARB regulations.” Aiding the ultimate accuracy of this prediction was the California DMV, which has responsibility for issuing the Green or Red license tags. Inconsistency in the registration procedures used by DMV between 1999 and early 2002 resulted in * The California Motorcycle Dealers Association sponsored SB 1726 (Johannessen), containing a provision to prohibit CARB from adopting regulations for two-stroke off-road motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles. Although the bill failed to pass in the Senate Transportation Committee, it likely helped push CARB staff forward in proposing the revisions adopted in 1998. ** This amendment was described in detail in the November 1998 and January 1999 issues of CVS News. CVS News Page 17 August 2003 what CARB staff is referring to as “public confusion” due to numerous instances of nonemissions-compliant OHVs receiving Green tags and emissions-compliant OHVs receiving Red tags. As a result, it was impossible to equitably enforce the modified regulations as written, and all OHVs have enjoyed uninterrupted year-round usage. Staff Proposal The staff proposal, presented by James Ryden, Chief of CARB’s Enforcement Division, was made well after 5:00 pm on the day of the meeting. As a result, Ryden said he would keep his presentation brief and not review all the background issues pertaining to the proposed amendment. He referred the Board to the written staff report and briefly stated that the DMV-related registration inconsistencies (that had given rise to the inability to enforce the 1998 regulations) had been resolved, and an equitable enforcement solution was being proposed by staff. Ryden stated that the proposed amendment would “bring the regulations in line with reality.” The proposed amendment stated that seasonal area restrictions would apply only to “Model year 2003 and later” off highway motorcycles and ATVs registered with a Red Sticker license tag. Ryder stated that DMV has demonstrated that its new automated (VIN-based) registration system is now fully capable of handling the two tiers of registration on 2003 and later motorcycles and ATVs. As part of the implementation of this amendment, Ryder also stated that DMV would, upon the next renewal date, provide Green sticker license tags to all 2002 and earlier OHVs regardless of emissions compliance status. Discussion Due to the lateness of the hour, and the absence of comments from Board members, CARB Chairman Alan Lloyd called for testimony from the public. The only person who spoke was John Paliwoda, Chairman of the California Motorcycle Dealers Association. He stated that while he supported the amendment in principle, his group felt that the model year implementation date should be 2005, not 2003. His reason for suggesting this change was that most 2003 models and some 2004 models have already been sold, and the owners could be negatively impacted by such a change. Lloyd asked for a staff response to this comment. Tom Cackette, CARB’s Deputy Executive Officer, stated that the reasons for a delay in enforcement (insufficient inventories of emissions-compliant OHVs and a registration process that produced inconsistent applications of the license tags) no longer existed. According to Cackette, DMV has been accurately registering OHVs since 2002. Thus, 2003 or newer OHVs already possess the proper registration tag. He concluded his response by stating there was no viable reason for any further delays in the enforcement of the riding season restrictions on non-emissions-compliant vehicles. Page 18 CVS News August 2003 Analysis The need for CARB to take this action raises a range of issues, not the least of which is the impact of allowing six additional model years of noncompliant motorcycles and ATVs to operate without restriction in areas of the state with air quality problems. It also undoubtedly creates an emission reduction shortfall in the 1994 California Ozone Attainment Plan that has probably not been identified in the current round of air quality planning. Perhaps more importantly, the question also remains as to whether the state and federal governmental agencies that manage these off-road recreational areas (the DPR, BLM, and USFS) will secure adequate resources to achieve effective enforcement. Finally, it should be noted that when CARB changed the 1994 emission reduction regulations in 1998, it did so in part as an attempt to mitigate the negative economic impact the regulations were having on motorcycle and ATV dealers. Had the DMV’s inability to deal with the registration requirements of those regulations been fully investigated prior to adoption, an unnecessarily long and painful period for many dealers could have been avoided. CARB and CEC Adopt Joint Agency Report on California Petroleum Dependence Reduction On July 23 and 24, in separate venues, both the California Energy Commission (CEC) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) voted to approve the goals and recommendations contained in the report entitled “Reducing California’s Petroleum Dependence.” As discussed below, the report was developed as a result of legislative directives included in Assembly Bill (AB) 2076. The CEC and CARB conducted their hearings at their respective Sacramento headquarters. Representatives from both agencies, as well as a number of stakeholders, spoke on the draft staff report at a June 6 joint hearing, which was to have been the last opportunity for public comment. (Please see the July 2003 issue of CVS News for details.) However, at the June 6 CEC hearing, it was announced that publication of the final report would be delayed in order to allow both agencies additional time to consider and respond to comments, an action that delayed a vote for both agencies on the official adoption of the report by one month (i.e., to the July 23 and July 24 hearings). There was a considerable amount of public comment on this report, particularly at the CEC hearing on July 23. The majority of the comments were from stakeholders interested in specific issues or in promoting products that they felt were not fairly represented in the report. The general response from members of both boards was to remind stakeholders that the report was not intended to exclude any technologies from consideration, but rather to show that a reduction in petroleum consumption can be achieved through a mix of technological options. Both agencies emphasized that they will continue to investigate all of the different technologies that may help reduce petroleum demand. CVS News Page 19 August 2003 Background As we reported in the June and July issues of CVS News, the report on reducing California’s petroleum dependence was prepared by CARB and CEC staff personnel and consultants to fulfill the requirements of AB 2076, passed in 2000. This bill directed CARB and CEC to develop and adopt recommendations for the Governor and Legislature on a California strategy to reduce petroleum dependence. The statute requires that the strategy include goals for reducing the rate of growth in demand for petroleum fuels, and that it consider options such as increasing transportation energy efficiency and using non-petroleum fuels, alternative-fuel vehicles, and hybrid electric vehicles. The staffs went further than simply finding a strategy for reducing the demand growth rate, however. The report’s primary recommendation is that the state government adopt the goal of reducing, by 2020, demand for gasoline and Diesel fuel used in on-road vehicles to 15% below the 2003 demand level, and maintaining that demand level for as long as possible. The means for achieving that goal presented in the report include a large market penetration for Fischer-Tropsch (FT) Diesel fuel (produced from natural gas), a 40 mpg corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standard for light-duty vehicles,* and the introduction of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and the eventual ramp-up of their market share to 20% by 2030. July 23 CEC Hearing Feasibility of a Strategic Fuel Reserve in California - The July 23 hearing was chaired by CEC Chairman William Keese. Item 12 on the Commission’s agenda was consideration of a CEC report entitled “Feasibility of a Strategic Fuel Reserve in California,” which evaluated the development and operation of such a fuel reserve in order to protect California consumers from short-term price increases caused by supply disruptions. This report was also required by AB 2076. Leigh Stamets of the CEC reported that staff does not recommend the development of a strategic fuel reserve in California, but does recommend that (1) the Commission “should undertake a comprehensive evaluation of California’s future petroleum product import needs” and (2) “the Governor and Legislature should identify a state licensing authority for petroleum storage infrastructure and related facilities.” The only testimony on this item was heard from K.C. Bishop of ChevronTexaco Corporation, who spoke on behalf of the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA). Bishop stated that WSPA agrees with the report’s findings that governmental intervention could harm the marketplace. He said further that WSPA “applauds your willingness to reach this conclusion independently.” According to Bishop, WSPA has some questions about how staff’s recommended state licensing authority to regulate petroleum storage would work, but that overall, WSPA considers the report very well * Currently, the CAFE standards are 27.5 mpg for passenger cars, and 20.7 mpg for light-trucks and SUVs. Page 20 CVS News August 2003 done. A brief discussion among the commissioners followed Bishop’s comments, after which the report was unanimously approved. Reducing California’s Petroleum Dependence - Item 13 on the CEC agenda was the consideration of the more substantive report required by AB 2076, titled “Reducing California’s Petroleum Dependence.” The item was presented to the commissioners by Dan Fong, CEC’s lead technical staff for the report. Fong presented material that was similar to that shown at the June 6 hearing, but placed an additional emphasis on the “extensive public process” that staff* employed in developing the report. Following an overview of the presentation, Fong reviewed staff’s recommendations and methodology. As previously stated, the report recommends the following: C Adopting a statewide goal to reduce onroad gasoline and Diesel demand to 15% of 2003 levels, by 2002; C Pushing for the establishment of new federal CAFE standards that would double the current fuel economy of new cars and trucks; and C Establishing a goal to increase the use of non-petroleum fuels to 20% of total on-road fuel consumption by 2020, and to 30% by 2030.** In 2020, this goal equates to approximately 15% non-petroleum fuel in fuel blends (i.e., ethanol in conventional gasoline and Fischer-Tropsch fuel in Diesel), plus 5% nonpetroleum fuel such as hydrogen used in hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. In 2030, the 30% goal equates to approximately 13% in petroleum fuel blends and 17% non-petroleum fuel. Fong said staff believes these goals are appropriately flexible, but noted that if the federal government fails to double the current CAFE standards, the first goal “would need to be revisited.” Fong also emphasized that nonpetroleum replacement fuels that staff specifically identified in the report should not be viewed as the only replacement fuels that could be used to achieve the 20% and 30% reductions in petroleum demand targeted for 2020 and 2030, respectively. Fong said that a mix of fuels would likely be needed, and that “we are not necessarily picking winners . . . just identifying fuels that we think would have a chance to be widely accepted in the marketplace.” Edits to the report that were added as a result of comments received after the June 6 meeting include clarification that staff does not recommend that any new taxes or fees be levied to fund the recommendations in the report. Footnotes were also added to clarify cost issues related to Fischer-Tropsch Diesel fuel, and to simplify or clarify several * The use of the term “staff” in this article refers to the team of CEC and CARB staff members who were involved in crafting this report. ** The 30% goal in 2030 was added after the June 6 meeting, in response to comments from stakeholders. CVS News Page 21 August 2003 figures. In addition, a discussion on the use of ethanol, natural gas, and grid-connected hybrid vehicles was added. Fong then discussed the methodology staff used to develop its portfolio of recommended technologies, which has been discussed in detail in previous CVS News articles on this subject. In summary, Fong stated that staff recommended those strategies it felt were practical, and that were determined to have a positive net societal benefit. Regarding the goal of a reduced petroleum demand, Fong showed that improving the fuel efficiency of new light-duty cars and trucks would have the greatest effect. Other options to reduce fuel consumption by on-road vehicles included improvements in the fuel economy of medium- and heavy-duty trucks, more fuel-efficient replacement tires (i.e., with lower rolling resistance), improved vehicle maintenance, and increased governmental purchase of fuel-efficient vehicles. Regarding the goal of increased non-petroleum fuel use, staff evaluated the following non-petroleum fuel options, nearly all of which were found to have met the “net positive societal benefit” criteria noted above: C C C C C C Natural gas used in gasoline and Diesel-like engines; Ethanol blends (e.g., 10% with gasoline); Liquified petroleum gas (LPG); Non-petroleum derived Diesel fuels (i.e., Fischer-Tropsch and biodiesel); Electric vehicles; and Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Based on this analysis, staff chose a final list of recommended options that could be implemented in the near-, mid-, and long-term timeframes: C Near-Term Options (could be fully implemented by 2010) - C Mid-Term Options (could be fully implemented in the 2010 to 2020 timeframe) - C Double the fuel efficiency of current model light-duty vehicles to 40 mpg by adopting new CAFE standards at the federal level. Use natural gas-derived Fischer-Tropsch fuel as a 33% blending agent in Diesel. Long-Term Options (could be fully implemented in the 2020 to 2030 timeframe) - Page 22 Use more fuel efficient replacement tires and properly inflate tires. Improve fuel economy in government fleets by purchasing more fuel efficient vehicles. Improve private vehicle maintenance to improve fuel economy. Introduce hydrogen fuel cell light-duty vehicles in 2012, increasing to 10% of new vehicle sales by 2020, and 20% by 2030. CVS News August 2003 Following Fong’s remarks, Eileen Tutt made a presentation on behalf of CARB Deputy Executive Director Tom Cackette, reading his comments into the official record. Tutt said CEC and CARB staff, as well as CEC Commissioners Boyd and Geesman and CARB Chairman Lloyd, worked closely on this report for nearly three years, and that it is based on sound technical analysis. From an environmental perspective, Tutt said, it is imperative that California reduce its dependence on petroleum, in order to reduce the associated criteria and toxic emissions associated with its use. Upstream (e.g., petroleum refinery) emissions are of particular concern, due to the disproportionate effects they have on nearby low-income and minority communities. Tutt also noted that a reduction in petroleum usage is important in limiting climate change phenomena, which threaten California’s air quality, agricultural industry, and abundant natural resources. Following Tutt’s remarks, Commissioner Pernell asked staff whether any alternative fuels were being specifically excluded from consideration. Fong replied that alternative fuels are a dynamic field at the moment, and that staff is not ruling out any current technologies, nor any technologies that may be developed in the future. Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) - K.C. Bishop returned to the podium to speak on behalf of WSPA. Bishop said his organization feels that the findings in this report are diametrically opposed to those in the Strategic Fuel Reserve (SFR) report heard earlier. “The SFR report says that a government mandated approach will not work, and this one says that is what we will do,” said Bishop. He continued, stating that California refineries are the cleanest in the world and that their emissions will continue to decline as technology develops. Bishop also said WSPA does not feel that staff has done a complete economic analysis, because it did not examine the benefit to consumers that results from “the convenience of being able to move around, wherever and whenever they want to.” Bishop said WSPA recommended delaying the approval of this report, and allowing the market to determine the most effective nonpetroleum technologies. In reply to Bishop, Commissioner Keese proffered what would become a familiar argument by the end of the hearing—that the Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR)* (of which Keese apparently considers the Petroleum Dependence report to be a component) is a “living document” that will provide a forum for stakeholders to discuss future concerns regarding the recommendations in the report. AB 2076 requires us to provide this report to the legislature, said Keese, and the forum for discussing its contents now moves to the legislature. In conclusion, Keese said he looked forward to industry’s recommendations for “other ways to reduce petroleum dependence.” At this point, Commissioner Pernell added that “I’m not sure we should sit back and see which way the market is going” considering that “the electricity market didn’t react very well to that strategy.” He then asked Bishop whether he agreed that California should * On its website, the CEC notes that “The Energy Commission is preparing an integrated energy policy report and recommendations on the most current and pressing energy trends and issues of concern to California. Senate Bill 1389 (Bowen and Sher) requires that the Energy Commission adopt and transmit to the Governor and Legislature a report of findings by November 2003.” CVS News Page 23 August 2003 become less dependent on foreign oil. Bishop said he does not believe “that any of us think California really has the ability to change the defense of the Middle East, or what OPEC does,” and noted that a number of WSPA members are active in developing LPG and CNG. Bishop concluded his remarks by stating that WSPA feels the Commission would best serve California by providing a diversity of energy resources. California Natural Gas Vehicle Partnership - Chairman Norma Glover said her organization is a consortium of 38 public and private partners that works to promote acceptance and awareness of natural gas vehicles. She said the Partnership supports the staff report recommendations, and would like to emphasize the importance of proceeding toward its goals immediately, rather than relying on changes to the federal CAFE standards. California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition - President Mike Eaves explained that his organization is a trade group representing natural gas engine and vehicle manufacturers, and fuel providers. He praised staff for a very comprehensive report, and said that while he does not agree with all aspects of the report, he does support its overall goals and recommendations. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) - Executive Deputy Directory Chung Liu said he recommends including language that will push the federal government toward raising CAFE standards. Liu said including language stating the goals will be reassessed if the federal government fails to do so, “shows a retreat before you have even started.” He recommended dropping that language from the report. Liu also commented that classifying CNG and LNG as mid-term, rather than short-term, strategies “does these technologies an injustice.” Stop Hidden Gas Taxes Coalition - Audrie Krause said she represents a coalition of businesses, consumers, and taxpayers who support energy conservation but are concerned that staff’s recommendations will result in increased gasoline taxes. Commissioner Keese asked if she had read the language that had been added, stating that “we do not recommend an increase in taxes or fees.” Krause said this did not adequately address her group’s concerns, and that the recommended reductions in petroleum would lead to higher taxes regardless of the additional language. Keese said that would happen “only if the legislature ignores our recommendations not to raise taxes or fees.” Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies - V. John White said he supports the recommendations in the report, but was struck by the comments regarding price volatility. The clear lesson of the recent electrical crisis is that lower demand helps stabilize prices, said White. He also said that California’s petroleum demand is putting an unfair burden on the rest of the world, and that we should address this problem aggressively. He noted that California has set aggressive standards in the past, which have not always been met. “But,” continued White, “we would have made less progress without those goals.” Page 24 CVS News August 2003 The SAER Group, Strategic Analysis Experience Results - Ted Gibson said he was retained by WSPA to comment on the report. First, he said, he did not think the report adequately developed a rationale for a goal of a 15% reduction in petroleum use, but after hearing the proceeding presentations and discussions he believes that goal must have been established “mainly on environmental grounds.” He also said he was very disappointed that the committee rejected price (i.e., fuel tax increases) as a mechanism to decrease petroleum use—a strategy that he said would be the most efficient and cost effective method of achieving the desired goals. At this point Commissioner Keese asked Gibson if he was actually representing WSPA in this opinion. Gibson said he represented WSPA “in a sense” but that while he had sent WSPA a copy of his comments, he hadn’t asked if the association supports fuel tax increases as a way to reduce petroleum demand. According to Gibson, higher prices would lead consumers to demand more fuel efficient cars, which would be a more efficient way to address the problem. He also pointed out the irony in the fact that California is currently seeking relief from the ethanol requirement in reformulated gasoline, while at the same time advocating its use in this report. Following Gibson’s remarks, K.C. Bishop of WSPA clarified that while his organization would never tell a noted economist like Ted Gibson what to say, his remarks were really intended to illustrate that the hidden costs in imposing regulations like those recommended in the report should be addressed. National Biodiesel Board - Graham Noyes spoke on behalf of both the biodiesel industry and World Energy, an alternative fuel supplier. He said that while his industry supports the underlying effort, he took exception to the negative “net societal benefit” rating that staff gave to biodiesel. In his lengthy testimony, he said he disagreed with the way staff had interpreted the directives of AB 2076, and urged staff to revisit the assumptions that led to the negative assessment of biodiesel. Keese reminded Noyes that this report would become “a living document” and assured him that his concerns could be addressed later in the process. CEC staff member Dan Fong reminded Noyes that fuels not specifically mentioned in the report are not being excluded from the process. Biodiesel Control Board - President Russell Teal made comments consistent with those of Graham Noyes, adding that there is now a plant in Coachella, California producing six million gallons of biodiesel per year, and that future expansion plans call for production of 60 million gallons per year in California. Green Car Institute - Board member Michael Coates said his organization is a nonprofit research group working in the environmental automotive field. He said his review of the report found that petroleum reduction in California is already underway, and that state intervention may be premature because it is the state emission standards that are driving the current trend in increased vehicle fuel efficiency. He said his conclusion is that “the state can declare victory and move on.” In response, Commissioner Boyd said that there had been a lot of “nudging” by the state to get the market to this point, and that while he appreciated Coates’ optimism, he felt the state still had an important role to play in the process. CVS News Page 25 August 2003 Drive 55 Conservation Project - Tim Castleman said he objects to the report’s near total omission of the role that fuel conservation associated with lower speed limits could play in furthering the petroleum reduction goal. He also objected to the recommendation of natural gas as a petroleum alternative, given the current nationwide shortage, and the failure to include public transportation as a control measure. Following Castleman’s comments, Dan Fong said staff did consider a return to the 55 mph speed limit as an option, but that the associated reductions were not as great as Castleman claimed. Fong said this, combined with comments from the California Highway Patrol that indicated “complex issues” would have to be addressed if the speed limit were lowered to 55 mph, led staff to exclude it from its list of recommendations. Diesel Technology Forum - Pam Jones said her organization is pleased to see that clean Diesel is shown in the report to have a positive net societal benefit, but that it also believes light-duty Diesel vehicles, which were not included, could be part of the solution. She claims the inherent 30% increased efficiency of the fuel would allow Diesel to be a cost-effective solution. Jones went on to say that 40% of the vehicles in Europe are Diesel-powered, and cited a report by the economic consulting firm M-Cubed that claims a 25% penetration rate by Diesel-powered vehicles in California would result in a fuel consumption savings of 530 million gallons per year. Union of Concerned Scientists - Senior Analyst Patricia Monahan said her organization strongly supports the goals of this report. She said there are ways the report could be improved, and there are concerns about Fischer-Tropsch and biodiesel, but in general it is a very positive step forward for California. Dennis O’Leary, Physicist - Dr. O’Leary believes that our addiction to fossil fuels and nuclear energy can be overcome with an “Apollo program” to develop clean energy. Such a program would include technologies like low-energy nuclear reaction technology (i.e., cold fusion), advanced hydrogen technologies, and zero point energy. Public demonstrations of these technologies are not available yet, said O’Leary, but will be soon, if additional research funding is made available. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) - Roland Hwang said he does not agree with everything in the report, but that “overall it does a great job.” Hwang strongly recommended adoption of the report, and said he believes that a 15% reduction in petroleum demand means California can eliminate imported fuel by 2011. International Truck and Engine Corporation - California Public Policy Program Director Gretchen Knudsen said she believes that the role of light-duty Diesels has been insufficiently addressed in this report, and noted that Diesel technology has made great strides in recent years. American Lung Association (ALA) - Bonnie Holmes-Gen said the ALA strongly supports the adoption of this report and its recommendations, and that its goals are essential to improving air quality and public health in California. Page 26 CVS News August 2003 Department of Food and Agriculture - California Secretary William Lyons Jr. submitted a letter that was read into the record by a CEC staff member. Lyons said he was supportive of the overall report, but was concerned that the strategies outlined would not be adequate to meet the 15% reduction. He also noted that the expanded use of renewable fuels offers a viable near-term control measure, and should have been included in the report. Following the formal testimony, Commissioner Boyd spoke at some length, thanking the CARB and CEC staff members who worked on this report, and noting that the “portfolio approach” used in this report has become the accepted method of approaching supply issues in all energy arenas in California. He also mentioned that the IPER (discussed above) “affords an opportunity for almost continuous dialogue on energy issues, including this one.” At the end of his remarks, Boyd motioned for a vote on the approval of the report, which was subsequently approved unanimously. July 24 CARB Hearing Opening remarks at the CARB hearing on this item by Chairman Alan Lloyd and Executive Officer Catherine Witherspoon were brief, and the staff presentation was handled by Eileen Tutt of the Mobile Source Control Division. The staff presentation, as well as a substantial portion of the testimony, was essentially a repeat of what was heard at the CEC hearing the day before, and will therefore not be specifically reviewed here. Comments that differ from, or expand upon, the July 23 discussions are included below. Following Tutt’s presentation, Chairman Lloyd asked staff “how long are we giving Congress to double the CAFE standards?” Dan Fong of the CEC replied that the recommendation is to adopt the new standard in 2005, with a three-year phase-in, which means it would be fully implemented by 2008. Testimony repetitive of that heard at the CEC hearing was presented by the following stakeholders: C Audrie Krause with the Stop Hidden Gas Taxes Coalition; C Gretchen Knudsen, California Public Policy Program Director for International Truck and Engine Corporation; C Pam Jones, with the Diesel Fuel Technology Forum; and C Tim Castleman with the Drive 55 Conservation Project. Testimony not heard on July 23 is summarized below. CVS News Page 27 August 2003 National Biodiesel Board - Graham Noyes repeated the claim made at the CEC hearing that biodiesel was improperly assigned an overall negative benefit rating by staff, and that this finding contradicted EPA and “industry” findings, including those shown in a comprehensive U.S. EPA report. Noyes claimed that biodiesel would provide excellent benefits in the fight against global warming, and disputed staff’s finding that biodiesel fuels resulted in increased criteria pollutants. He also said his organization objected to the report’s emphasis on Fischer-Tropsch as a midterm option, and asked that biodiesel be included in the report as a viable non-petroleum option. He noted that biodiesel has been used successfully by the U.S. Marines at several California bases, and had been instrumental in reducing fuel use by 20%. Tom Cackette, Chief Deputy Executive Officer of CARB, responded by stating that although it is not mentioned in the report, staff had evaluated biodiesel, and had found its performance comparable to other natural gas fuels (from an emissions standpoint). However, staff ultimately chose Fischer-Tropsch as its key mid-term recommendation “because it performed much better than any of the others from a net societal cost benefit standpoint.” Cackette then repeated the refrain heard so often the day before: this report was not pointing to one specific “fuel of the future” but was attempting to identify the three or four options that would be the most effective in reducing petroleum dependency. And, he acknowledged, “other fuels may turn out to be the winners or may play a smaller or larger (future) role compared to the ones we picked.” California Motorcycle Dealers Association - Chairman John Paliwoda stated that the use of motorcycles as an alternative solution was not mentioned in the report. He claimed that since the average motorcycle achieves 70 miles per gallon, consideration should be given to including their usage as a viable strategy. Following this relatively brief round of testimony, the Board unanimously voted to approve the Staff Summary Report on AB 2076. Analysis As we have stated before, in some ways the AB 2076 process represents just the latest installment in politically correct government actions to promote alternative fuels. As also mentioned previously, the first major effort by California to force the use of alternative fuels came in the late 1980s and early 1990s when CARB and the CEC were promoting the use of fuels such as M85 as a panacea for the state’s air quality problems. That effort failed when it became clear that emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles could be reduced to levels as low as or lower than those of alternatively fueled vehicles and that the alternative fuels all faced severe economic or practicality problems. Now, the rationale for California’s promotion of alternative fuels is that the state has become too dependent on petroleum and that dependency could lead to serious economic consequences in the future. In addition, the staffs of the CEC and CARB seem to believe that reductions in petroleum use in California will somehow mitigate perceived adverse impacts they associate with emissions of greenhouse gases. Page 28 CVS News August 2003 Obviously, the AB 2076 report will be used by CARB as a justification for the adoption of regulations to reduce greenhouse gases pursuant to AB 1493 (please see the April 2003 issue of CVS News for a summary of the events at CARB’s Symposium on Vehicle Technologies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions). What remains to be seen is what, if any, additional action the California Legislature will take in this area, and how a state that faces serious financial difficulties will find the money required to subsidize what are at present, and what appear to be for the foreseeable future, non-economical alternatives to petroleum fuels. Federal Appellate Court Overrules EPA Denial of CARB Oxygenate Waiver Request In a ruling issued on July 17, 2003, two judges on a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco determined that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) “abused its discretion” in denying California’s request for a waiver of federal Clean Air Act provisions requiring two percent oxygenate in gasoline sold in ozone and particulate matter (PM) nonattainment areas in the state. The litigation stems from action taken by Governor Davis early in 1999 to ban MTBE as a gasoline additive in California due to concerns about water and soil contamination. The MTBE ban opened the door for ethanol as a substitute for meeting the federal oxygenate requirements. However, California determined that ethanol would adversely affect its efforts to reduce ozone and PM levels and that reformulated gasoline (RFG3), without a mandatory oxygen content, would better serve its air emission reduction objectives. In April 1999, Davis formally requested EPA to waive the oxygenate requirements. On June 12, 2001, EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman denied California’s waiver request. EPA agreed with California that granting the waiver would reduce NOx emissions, but denied the waiver because of its determination that granting the waiver would result in higher CO emissions and because the impact on VOC emissions was “uncertain.” Because EPA regarded the adverse or uncertain impacts on CO and VOC emissions as sufficient for denial, EPA concluded that it did not have to address California’s claim that the waiver was also needed to prevent interference with its efforts to achieve PM reductions. As allowed under the Clean Air Act, California appealed directly to the Ninth Circuit. Although the Court ended up ruling against EPA on one claim, it actually sustained EPA’s decision on all other points. The Court agreed that EPA properly required California to “clearly demonstrate” that a waiver was necessary, and that California did not in fact clearly demonstrate that a waiver was necessary. In support of the latter finding, the Court reviewed and accepted EPA’s scientific findings, and rejected California’s evidence, on issues relating to modeling, commingling of fuels, and the effect of “RVP boost.” In accepting EPA’s findings, the Court emphasized that they CVS News Page 29 August 2003 were rational and supported by evidence, and that EPA’s expertise was entitled to considerable deference. The court also ruled that EPA did not commit error by refusing to conduct a formal rulemaking and not accepting California’s request for an “exemption” from the oxygen requirement, and that California had legal standing to file its appeal. All three judges agreed on these points. The basis for the reversal, and for dissent by one judge, was EPA’s refusal to evaluate the effect that an oxygen waiver would have on California’s efforts to comply with federal PM standards. Two judges agreed that this was reversible error, while the dissenting judge took the view that EPA did not commit error in refusing to consider PM-related issues. Thus, by a 2-1 vote California’s waiver request was sent back to EPA for reconsideration on the narrow question of whether California is entitled to a waiver in order to reduce PM emissions. Analysis While California technically “won” its appeal and its waiver request is going back to EPA, it was a slim victory. To satisfy the Court of Appeals ruling, EPA has only to address the PM issue. Once that is done, its decision will be entitled to great deference and will not likely be overturned. Of course, we cannot predict how EPA will decide the PM issue, but we believe it is likely that a waiver will be denied on that basis. As always, the issue of using ethanol in gasoline has to be viewed in the light of farm-state politics, and with a presidential election approaching in 2004, we don’t envision the Bush administration taking any action that would reduce demand for ethanol as a fuel additive. “15-Day Notice” of Proposed Final Revisions to ZEV Regulations In a notice published on the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) website* on July 29, 2003, and signed by Robert H. Cross, Chief of the Mobile Source Control Division, CARB staff announced its proposed final changes to the agency’s ZeroEmission Vehicle (ZEV) regulations (13 CCR sec. 1962, and other related sections). The final day for public comment was set for August 25 to allow at least 15 days from the actual mail-out date set for August 8, 2003. The proposed regulatory text referenced in the notice includes changes to the ZEV regulations approved by the Board at a public hearing conducted on March 27–28 and April 24, 2003, consisting of revisions recommended in the original staff report released on January 10, 2003; revisions in a supplemental staff report issued on March 5, 2003 (the so-called “alternative compliance” path based on fuel cell vehicles [FCVs]); and * http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/zev2003/15day.htm Page 30 CVS News August 2003 revisions directed by the Board at the public hearing. Please refer to the February, March, April, and May editions of CVS News for reports on the staff proposals and the public hearing. The 15-day notice also incorporates some revisions developed by staff subsequent to the Board hearing. These revisions are highlighted separately below and are marked in the revised regulatory text with a “post-hearing modification” notation. The principal features of the proposed final ZEV regulations that resulted from the staff proposals and the public hearing (as listed in Attachment D to the Board resolution) are listed below. C Postpone the effective date of the regulations two model years (MYs), to begin with the 2005 MY. C Exclude ZEVs produced to meet the regulations from the California sales base that determines the number of ZEVs to be produced. C Define “primary requirements” for large-volume manufacturers (LVMs) as a fraction of the overall 10% ZEV requirement, to consist of 20% ZEVs, 20% Advanced Technology Partial Zero Emission Vehicles (AT PZEVs), and 60% PZEVs, with the number of PZEVs not to exceed 6% of the manufacturer’s California sales base as the ZEV requirement ramps up from 10% to 16% in future years. C Establish new elective “alternative requirements” for LVMs allowing them to market or obtain credits from “Type III” ZEVs over the 2005–2008 MYs sufficient to achieve a cumulative percentage ZEV requirement of 1.09% of their California sales base over the period 1997–2001; Type III ZEVs are FCVs with a range of 100 miles or more and fast refueling. This requirement is intended to require all LVMs together to produce about 250 FCVs by the end of the 2008 MY (or submit equivalent credits). As directed by the Board after its public hearing, a provision has been included to allow one-half of the 1.09% requirement to be met with non-fuel cell “Type I” or “Type II” battery-powered ZEVs, which will count for 1/20 and 1/10 of a Type III ZEV, respectively. C Add new provisions for ramping up the number of FCVs to be produced (or equivalent credits to be submitted) under the alternative approach in the 2009 and later MYs, with the targets being 2,500 more for the period 2009–2011, 25,000 more for 2012–2014, and 50,000 more for 2015–2017. The alternative approach “sunsets” after the 2017 MY. There are provisions addressing how a LVM must elect either the primary or alternative requirements for each MY, how to switch between the two approaches, and what happens in the event of noncompliance (if a LVM elects the alternative requirements and fails to meet them, then the primary requirements become the basis for any noncompliance). C Allow excess PZEV credits for 2003–2004 MY vehicles to be counted as AT PZEV credits in the 2005–2006 MYs. CVS News Page 31 August 2003 Page 32 C Shorten the warranty period for a PZEV traction power storage device (battery, ultracapacitor, etc.) from 15 to 10 years. C Shorten the range requirements and increase the ZEV credits for PZEVs with zero-VMT capabilities (i.e., for plug-in/grid-connect hybrid vehicles). Clarify that PZEVs eligible for advanced componentry credits cannot also earn zeroVMT credits. C Delete provisions defining PZEVs as eligible for advanced componentry credits in terms of their battery power capabilities. This was done to accommodate a court judgment obtained by manufacturers last year finding that such requirements are an illegal fuel economy requirement, preempted by federal fuel economy laws. C A specific “severability” clause is added to the PZEV allowance portion of the regulation, so that the remainder of the regulation is not invalidated if the new provisions are also found to be illegal. C Delete the CO reduction method, the alternative efficiency method, and the alternative percent peak power method for determining additional PZEV and AT PZEV allowances. This too is done to eliminate any illegal fuel-economyrelated provisions. Delete the AT PZEV and ZEV high efficiency multipliers, for the same reason. C Cap the maximum value of any allowances for 2012 and later MY AT PZEVs, when added to its baseline value, at 3.0; and, for any MY, provide that the maximum allowances for an AT PZEV cannot exceed the credits earned by a Type III ZEV of the same MY. C Raise the “introduction phase-in multiplier” for 2008–2011 MY AT PZEVs with zero-VMT capability, to encourage plug-in/grid connect hybrids. C Confirm that any ZEV multiplier credits earned on the basis of fuel economy criteria under the prior 1999 version of the regulations can be retained, despite the litigation declaring those criteria illegal. C Continue the ZEV credit multiplier for “early phase-in” 2001–2002 MY ZEVs, but implement a requirement that such vehicles be “placed in service” by September 15, 2003; delete early phase-in multipliers for 2003–2005 MY ZEVs and the ZEV discount multiplier for neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs). C Limit the ZEV “extended range” multiplier (including fast refueling) to the 2001–2002 MYs. C Define five new ZEV categories, ranging from NEVs to Type III ZEVs, and assign ZEV credits based on category and MY. Type III ZEVs (FCVs) earn 40 CVS News August 2003 C credits thru the 2008 MY, four in MYs 2009–2011, and three for the 2012 and later MYs. Add a new 1.5 multiplier for 2003–2011 MY Type I and Type II ZEVs sold to motorists or leased for three years with an option to re-lease. Implement an “extended service” multiplier for 2001–2004 MY ZEVs (other than NEVs) with a zero-VMT range of more than 10 miles, for each year they remain registered after the first three years of service, subject to a “sunset” after 2011. This is to prevent the extended battery warranty requirement from becoming an impediment to placement of battery-powered ZEVs. C Limit the use of NEV credits that can be used to meet ZEV and AT PZEV category requirements to specified fractions in 2006 and in 2007 and later. C Confirm that ZEV credits are transferable among manufacturers and other third parties. C Make conforming changes to applicable definitions in sec. 1962 and in 13 CCR sec. 1900(b). We have identified the following revisions as staff-originated revisions, included as a result of off-the-record decisions made by staff after the close of public hearing. As discussed below, the CARB staff has limited authority to make post-hoc revisions without going back to the Board for approval. C Minor, technical edits in several places to assure consistency with the basic approach of re-starting the ZEV mandate in the 2005 MY. C Editorial and organizational changes to the alternative requirements and related sections. C Deletion of a change listed in Attachment D to the Board resolution to allow credits earned by extended in-use Type I and Type II ZEVs in 2003 and later at a credit ratio of 33 to 1 towards satisfaction of one-half of the minimum floor requirement that could be met with Type I and Type II ZEVs. The staff commentary says the change was never proposed by staff, and that deletion is consistent with the Board’s intent to encourage battery vehicles because other provisions in the revisions provide sufficient additional incentives for battery ZEVs. C Carry-over of excess ZEV credits is allowed from one period to another under the alternative requirements, provided the credit values are based on the MY in which they are used. C Change the definitions of intermediate- and small-volume manufacturers such that vehicles made by one manufacturer but marketed under the nameplate of another manufacturer count toward the marketing manufacturer’s ZEV baseline. CVS News Page 33 August 2003 C Define five new categories of PZEVs (Types A thru E) eligible for additional PZEV or AT PZEV allowances, and state what the allowances will be (ranging from 0.1 to 0.35, depending on the category and model year). In making these changes the staff states that they are intended to give credits to “high voltage/high power” hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) (dubbed Type B HEVs) and to increase allowances for a subset of low voltage HEVs with increased power characteristics (dubbed Type C HEVs). The staff specifically asks for comment on these changes (see sec. 1962(c)(4)(B)(1) thru (6)). C Cap the combined AT PZEV allowance in a given MY (including the baseline PZEV allowance) such that it may not exceed the ZEV credits for a Type III ZEV placed in service in the same model year. The stated rationale is that technologies with direct emissions should not earn greater credit than the highest scoring ZEV. C Through the 2011 MY, allow FCVs placed in service in other states that have adopted the California ZEV program under sec. 177 of the federal Clean Air Act to earn ZEV credits as if they were sold in California and, vice versa, allow California-placed FCVs to earn credits in such other states. Although this provision was in the material considered by the Board, the staff has made changes to assure that credit recognition works in both directions, i.e., in Sec. 177 states and also in California. Analysis Once again, CARB staff has engaged in the practice, of dubious legality, of adding regulatory changes not addressed in the Board’s public hearing. Perhaps the most important of these post-hearing changes is the revised table, and associated text, setting up the five new HEV categories and stating what allowances they qualify for. As we have stated previously, this set of revisions to the ZEV regulations signals the end of the battery electric vehicle technology approach that was the basis for the ZEV mandate since 1990. The Board made some concessions to continue incentives for battery ZEVs, but they are essentially symbolic. Through the “alternative requirements,” the Board has chosen a new technology “winner”—FCVs. In so doing it has ignored the high costs of fuel cells, the even higher cost of the hydrogen refueling infrastructure needed to support FCVs, the minuscule air quality benefits compared to low-emission conventional vehicles, and the poor cost-effectiveness of the entire scheme. The ZEV regulations remain a recipe for disaster. It will be interesting to see what transpires as the 2009 MY approaches, which is when the ramp-up in the ZEV percentage begins, the number of required FCVs starts to increase, and prior credits and credit allowances and multipliers are all but gone. Page 34 CVS News August 2003 CARB Holds Small Engine Workshop On July 2, the staff of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) held the latest in a series of workshops related to the development of new exhaust and evaporative emission standards for spark-ignited small-off road engines (25 horsepower or less) at the offices of the Monitoring and Laboratory Division in Sacramento. Previous workshops were held in November 2000 as well as in April and November 2002 (See the December 2000, May 2002, and December 2002 issues of CVS News) and draft regulations were released earlier this year (see the May 2003 issue of CVS News). As is discussed below, the workshop was a relatively contentious affair and there are obviously serious disagreements between CARB staff and industry on the feasibility and cost of the staff’s proposal, with a number of the feasibility issues being related to product safety. Despite CARB staff’s previous indications that it would consider the input provided by industry at the workshop when finalizing its regulatory proposal, the proposal released on August 8 differs only in minor ways from that discussed at the workshop. As a result, it appears that most of the major issues remain unresolved and that the Board hearing on the proposal, currently scheduled to be held at the South Coast Air Quality Management District offices in Diamond Bar on September 24–25, may be contentious. It should also be noted that the CARB Board will be considering approval of the latest South Coast Air Quality Plan at the same hearing and that the proposed small engine regulations are included as one of the measures that CARB is committing itself to adopt. Staff Proposal, Workshop Presentations, and Discussion This section summarizes the proceedings of the July 2 workshop and the staff’s August 8 regulatory proposal. Exhaust emissions standards are discussed first, followed by the evaporative emission standards and other issues. The staff of the Monitoring and Laboratory Division (MLD), which is responsible for the evaporative emissions control portion of the proposed regulations, was represented at the workshop by the Division’s Chief, Bill Loscutoff; Manjit Ahuja, Chief of the Stationary Source Testing Branch; Pat Bennett, Manager of the Engineering Development and Testing Section; and Jim Watson of Bennett’s staff. The Mobile Source Control Division (MSCD), responsible for the exhaust emissions portion of the regulation, participated by video conference due to travel limitations imposed by California’s budget crisis. MSCD was represented by its Division Chief, Bob Cross; Mike Carter, Chief of the Emissions Research and Regulatory Development Branch; Jackie Lourenco, Manager of the OffRoad Controls Section; and David Salardino of her staff. Also participating in the workshop by video conference were Mark Carlock, Chief of the Mobile Source Analysis Branch of the Planning and Technical Support Division (PTSD); Archana Agrawal, Manager of the Off-Road Modeling and Assessment Section; and Walter Wong of Agrawal’s staff. PTSD staff are responsible for estimating the emission inventory for the engines and equipment that are the subject of the proposed regulation, as well as the emission benefits associated with staff’s proposal. Finally, both CARB Chief Deputy CVS News Page 35 August 2003 Executive Office Tom Cackette and CARB Chair Alan Lloyd were present for part of the workshop. CARB Exhaust Emissions Proposal - Following introductions, led by Pat Bennett, David Salardino made the staff presentation on CARB’s exhaust emissions proposal. He began by outlining his presentation and pointing out that small engines were responsible for 165 tons per day of exhaust HC and NOx emissions statewide in 2000 and, despite several rounds of regulations by CARB and the U.S. EPA, that value would fall only to 97 tons per day by 2020. Despite considerable discussion related to the small engine inventory later in the workshop, these same values are presented in the staff report supporting the regulatory proposal. Having established, at least to staff’s satisfaction, the need for more stringent exhaust emission standards, Salardino explained staff’s objectives with respect to the exhaust emissions portion of the regulatory proposal. According to Salardino, the first objective is to align CARB’s standards for handheld equipment engines (e.g., string trimmer and chainsaw engines) with EPA regulations that take effect with the 2005 model year. He added that another goal is to better align CARB and U.S. EPA test procedures for small engines. The main purpose, however, is to adopt catalyst-forcing exhaust emission standards for non-handheld engines (e.g., lawn mower engines) and to establish optional “low-emission” standards. Salardino then indicated that staff’s proposed exhaust HC+NOx standards for the 2006 model year for non-handheld engines are 8.0 g/kW-hr for engines greater than 80 but less than 225 cubic centimeters (>80 < 225 cc) in displacement and 6.0 g/kW-hr for engines of 225 cc or more in displacement (recognizing the 25 horsepower limit on the category). The numerical values of the standards remain unchanged in the August 8 regulatory proposal, but the proposed implementation date has been delayed until 2007 for engines in the > 80 < 225 cc category and until 2008 for engines greater than 225 cc. According to Salardino, the proposed standards were established by CARB staff based on the assumption that a 50% reduction in exhaust HC+NOx emissions could be achieved using catalysts. To support this assumption, CARB has contracted with Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) to conduct an emissions testing program intended to demonstrate the technical feasibility of achieving the proposed emission standards. Salardino then presented a number of slides summarizing the emission results from the SwRI test program, along with observed muffler surface and muffler out exhaust gas temperatures. During this series of slides, which Salardino stated demonstrated that the standards could be met without safety issues, he also pointed out that the project was not intended to develop production catalyst and exhaust systems and that staff expected manufacturers to do the additional work necessary to arrive at production systems. Salardino presented the staff’s emission estimates of the 2010 statewide emission benefits of the regulations, which were 9.0 tons per day of HC+NOx emissions from nonhandheld equipment and 3.5 tons per day from handheld equipment. He also said that staff expected that the cost of complying with the proposed exhaust emission standards for handheld equipment would be zero since CARB was simply aligning its standards Page 36 CVS News August 2003 with those of the U.S. EPA.* With respect to non-handheld engines, Salardino stated that staff expects the cost of compliance to range from $26–$32 per unit for engines in the greater than > 80 < 225 cc range and between $45–$66 per unit for the larger engines. Somewhat revised estimates of $16–$22 and $47–$74 dollars per unit for the two engine size classes, respectively, were published in the August 8 staff report. While no cost-effectiveness calculations regarding the proposed exhaust emission standards were presented by Salardino at the workshop, the staff report contains estimates for a limited number of equipment types. For engines in the >80 < 225 cc range, cost effectiveness was evaluated for walk-behind lawn mowers and a portable generator. For the mower, the cost-effectiveness of the exhaust standard was reported to be between about $10,000–$14,000 per ton of HC and NOx emissions eliminated; for the generator, the values were $580–$820 per ton of emissions eliminated. For the larger engines, cost-effectiveness was evaluated for a riding lawn mower, where the values ranged from about $11,000–$18,000 per ton of emissions eliminated, and commercial turf equipment, where the values ranged from only $340–$520 per ton of emissions eliminated. Despite the large variation in cost-effectiveness and the evaluation of only two different types of equipment in each engine size category (out of at least dozens, if not hundreds, of different types of equipment in this category), the staff report concludes the proposed exhaust emission standards are cost-effective. Salardino concluded his presentation by discussing additional aspects of the regulatory proposal, including optional voluntary emissions standards (which CARB calls the “Blue Sky Series”) that would be set at 50% of the new emissions standards and that could presumably be used to produce engines eligible for use in mobile source emission reduction credit programs. Industry Response to the Proposed Exhaust Emission Standards - Following Salardino’s presentation, there were a number of presentations made by representatives of Briggs and Stratton, the Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA), and the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI). These presentations focused on issues related to the SwRI test program and the use of catalysts on handheld and non-handheld engines. First and foremost of the issues was the use of large (volumes were on the order of the volume displaced by the engines) three-way catalysts with secondary air injection. The industry speakers agreed that these systems could reduce emissions under the laboratory conditions at SwRI, but pointed out that in assessing their feasibility for in-use engines, CARB had completely ignored issues related to the practical production of such systems. It was also asserted that due to problems with the location of temperature probes, the temperature data collected by SwRI did not reflect the true peak temperatures being experienced. * This is not the first time that CARB staff has highlighted the emission reductions associated with the adoption of regulations that already apply in California due to federal action and then ignored the cost by asserting that there are no costs associated with CARB’s action since compliance with federal standards is already required. CVS News Page 37 August 2003 With respect to practicality, several speakers pointed out that even when existing exhaust systems had been used at SwRI, all of the sound muffling materials had been removed in order to provide sufficient space for the catalyst. Given this, they claimed that exhaust system sizes would have to be increased greatly to provide additional space for materials needed for noise control, which in turn presented issues about placement of exhaust systems and equipment redesign since in many cases there isn’t space for larger mufflers, particularly given that many equipment producers do not make the engines that are incorporated into their products. In other cases, it was pointed out that catalysts on the SwRI test engines were placed much further away from the engine than could be tolerated in practice. Data were also presented showing that peak exhaust system and exhaust gas temperatures would be much higher than indicated by the SwRI data, which in turn raised such issues as the need for different exhaust system materials, additional head shielding, larger cooling fans and therefore higher output engines, and a variety of safety concerns. The potential for catastrophic heat releases that could melt catalysts, damage engines, and/or start fires due to the use of secondary air injection and rich exhaust gases from misfire or fuel system problems was also discussed. Also, a representative of the State Fire Marshall’s office raised concerns regarding high exhaust temperatures and product safety. CARB staff’s response to the concerns raised by industry at the workshop was quite confrontational. Although agreeing to review industry’s concerns with the SwRI temperature data, staff stuck with its position that the application of catalysts capable of achieving a 50% reduction in HC+NOx had been demonstrated convincingly by the SwRI test program and that it did not expect manufacturers to experience any significant problems in developing production systems. The August 8 staff report echoes the same sentiments and, while acknowledging that heat management issues are real, simply states that they have been dealt with in other applications and that engine and equipment manufacturers face no real difficulties in handling for small engines. CARB Evaporative Emissions Proposal - Pat Bennett presented the staff’s regulatory proposal for reducing evaporative emissions from small engines. After outlining his presentation, Bennett began by noting that evaporative emissions from small engines will account for 41 tons per day of HC emissions statewide in 2000 and that in the absence of CARB action, that value will increase to 51 tons per day by 2020. Once again, although there was a considerable amount of discussion related to the emissions inventory at the workshop, these values appear in the August 8 staff report. Bennett described staff’s latest proposal regarding evaporative emissions, which was released on November 13, 2002, and areas where staff was still contemplating the need for additional changes based on input from industry. As Bennett explained, that proposal featured a fuel tank permeation standard of 1.0 grams per square meter of tank surface area per day that would apply beginning with the 2006 model year, but staff was considering whether to increase the standard to 2.0 grams per day. This permeation standard would have applied to all equipment using small engines, but staff will likely limit it to apply only to engines displacing 80 cc or less. Testing would be performed Page 38 CVS News August 2003 using a gravimetric procedure developed by CARB staff (TP-901). Further, staff has indicated that there will be an exemption for equipment in this category that uses “structurally integrated nylon tanks.” Tanks of this type are common on chainsaws and other types of equipment. The August 8 staff proposal reflects exactly what Bennett discussed at the workshop with respect to fuel permeation standards; however, the proposed implementation date of the permeation standards has been delayed one year to the 2007 model year. For equipment with engines in the greater than 80 and less than 225 cc displacement range, staff is proposing a 1.0 gram per day diurnal emission standard based on real-time SHED (Sealed Housing for Evaporative Determinations) testing conducted from 65º to 105ºF (TP-902). As Bennett explained, however, the 1.0 gram standard may apply only to walk-behind lawnmowers beginning in 2006 and a modified standard* that would allow equipment with larger tanks to have somewhat higher evaporative emissions would apply to the rest of this category beginning with the 2007 model year (instead of a previously proposed 2 gram per day diurnal limit). This same new standard, which varies with fuel tank size, would also apply to equipment with engines over 225 cc in displacement, instead of the previously proposed 2 gram standard, beginning with the 2008 model year. Finally, a design-based standard would apply to “small volume” equipment for which fewer than 400 units per year are sold in California. Once again, the staff’s latest regulatory proposal released on August 8 differs little in form from the proposal discussed at the workshop. The implementation date for the walk-behind mower standard has been delayed until 2007, however, and staff has returned to the 2.0 gram per day standard for equipment with engines over 225 cc in displacement. As with exhaust emissions, manufacturers are also given the option of certifying to lower standards set at one-half the values listed above. Although not discussed by Bennett at the workshop, CARB staff believes that the proposed permeation standard for handheld equipment and the reductions in permeation emissions required for compliance with the proposed diurnal emission standards can be achieved using a number of technologies, including barrier surface treatments such as resins, fluorination, or sulfonation, as well as through the use of multi-layer co-extruded materials. According to staff, the additional control of diurnal emissions required for non-handheld equipment can be achieved via pressurized fuel tanks or the use of carbon canisters. In addition to the standards, Bennett explained that CARB staff is not proposing to perform any in-use testing and that there will be a phase-in of compliance margins for testing performed on new equipment to help account for variability in the production of small engine fuel tanks and other components. This phase-in would place the 95% confidence limit for the compliance criteria at 1.5 times the standard for the first model year, when equipment is required to meet an evaporative emissions standard; 1.3 times the standard for the second model year; and then 1.1 times the standard for the third and * The standard in terms of grams per day of allowable diurnal emissions would be computed by multiplying the tank volume in liters by 0.21 and then adding that value to 0.95. CVS News Page 39 August 2003 subsequent years. These provisions also remain unchanged in the August 8 version of the proposed regulations. Also not discussed by Bennett was the cost of complying with the proposed evaporative emission standards. The August 8 staff report estimates the cost of compliance with the handheld permeation standards to be between $2 and $5 per unit. For equipment with engines in the >80 < 225 cc range, staff’s cost estimates are based on the use of a sealed fuel tank to control diurnal emissions and range from $22–$30 per unit. For equipment that uses larger engines, the staff report assumes that carbon canisters will be used and estimates the cost will range from $24–$105 per unit. Cost-effectiveness ratios for the evaporative emission component of the proposed regulations range from $320 to about $12,500 per ton of HC emissions eliminated. Industry Response to the Proposed Evaporative Emission Standards - As was the case with the proposed exhaust emission standards, the staff’s evaporative emissions proposal was the subject of a number of industry presentations and a considerable amount of criticism. One of the first issues raised was whether the fuel to be used in permeation and diurnal emissions testing would contain ethanol. A number of presenters indicated that if the test fuel were to contain ethanol, the proposed standards would have to be increased significantly. In particular, Harold Haskew, representing Briggs and Stratton, presented test data generated by CARB staff that showed permeation and diurnal emissions to be about 50% higher from existing fuel tanks and equipment when ethanolcontaining fuel was used. Despite the addition of MTBE to gasoline in California being banned prior to the implementation date for the staff’s proposed standards, several CARB staff members reassured the industry representatives that the current CARB certification test fuel, which contains MTBE, would be the test fuel for their products.* Also addressed by Haskew was the lack of any test data generated by CARB showing that it was technically feasible for non-handheld engines to meet the evaporative emission standards that were being proposed. There were also a number of industry comments regarding the stringency of the proposed permeation standards and the lack of demonstrated technologies, other than metal fuel tanks and fuel lines, that would allow compliance. Much of the general discussion at the workshop focused on the issue of CARB requiring actual evaporative emissions testing of small engines, rather than simply proposing a design-based standard where manufacturers could choose from a list of materials and products that CARB had determined would have low permeation emissions. The U.S. EPA’s recent adoption of a design-based approach to the control of permeation emissions from off-road motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles was also stressed. In addition, industry representatives pointed out that the sheer numbers of different tank sizes and volumes made testing completely impractical unless CARB was willing to wait years for * Unless existing federal law is changed or California ultimately receives a waiver from federal requirements that mandate the use of oxygenates in gasoline in much of the state, most gasoline sold in California will contain ethanol in 2004 and later years. It is not at all clear that a control program that is based on the use of an MTBE-containing fuel will be effective in reducing permeation emissions in-use when the equipment is used with ethanol-containing fuels. Page 40 CVS News August 2003 full compliance. CARB staff’s primary objection to the design-based approach was its belief that it could impair the effectiveness of the requirement by not ensuring proper emissions performance. Industry presentations were particularly critical of CARB staff’s assertion that the proposed diurnal emission standards could be met by sealing the fuel tank such that it becomes a pressure vessel. There were numerous photographs and videos presented showing irreversible tank deformation resulting from pressurization as well as fuel sprays that could result from tank failures. Other issues raised by industry included problems with material durability due to pressure cycling and problems with the performance of pressure relief valves. CARB staff’s primary response to these criticisms was that manufacturers were not being forced to use pressurized systems and that there were alternatives, including the use of automotive-style evaporative emissions canisters containing activated carbon. Other Issues Raised By Industry - In addition to comments directed specifically towards the proposed exhaust and evaporative emissions standards, there were a number of other issues raised by industry. The most frequently heard issue was that of needing more lead time. According to the workshop participants, the structure of the industry has most companies buying their engines from a few companies and then integrating those engines into equipment they design. Therefore, equipment manufacturers have to use what is available from engine manufacturers and changes in the size of the engine package, need for cooling air, muffler configuration, or heat load may require expensive and extensive redesign of equipment as well as testing to ensure durability and safety. Similarly, lead time was also a major issue with respect to compliance with evaporative emission requirements. Here, industry representatives stated that fuel tanks are again produced by only a few manufacturers, are usually plastic, and are specially shaped to fit into the available space on a piece of equipment. As a result, changes to either the size or shape of the tank, such as what might be required in order to use a material that could not be formed to a special shape (e.g., a metal fuel tank), could require equipment redesign. It was also stressed that even a switch in tank materials requires considerable lead time because of the need to test the new tank to ensure adequate durability and product safety. One major engine manufacturer indicated that if CARB moved forward with the proposed evaporative emissions regulations without providing substantially more lead time, it would be forced to drastically curtail its product offerings in the state for a number of years. Other issues discussed at the workshop included problems with the baseline emission inventory, emission reduction estimates, cost estimates, and cost-effectiveness estimates of the proposed regulations developed by CARB staff. The workshop closed with CARB staff obviously realizing that there were a number of difficult issues associated with the current regulatory proposal and the industry asking CARB staff to delay presentation of the proposed regulations to the Board in order to provide enough time to reach an alternative acceptable to both sides. While CARB staff CVS News Page 41 August 2003 indicated that there would be no delay in taking the regulations to the Board, it did make it clear that it would be very willing to entertain an alternative proposal from industry. Analysis As noted above, the proposed small engine regulations will be presented to the Board at the same hearing at which the latest South Coast Air Quality Plan for coming into compliance with the federal ozone standards is considered. With the small engine regulations being one of the measures the State is committing to adopt as part of that plan, there is no doubt that the Board members will be anxious to adopt them in some form to show the State’s commitment to clean air. Given this, the question becomes one of whether CARB staff and industry can reach an agreement on a set of regulations that achieve the emission reductions staff needs to show, while at the same time satisfying industry concerns regarding the current proposal. Clearly, the Board will want to adopt a regulation that strengthens staff’s position. It is unlikely, however, that the Board is going to want to witness a highly contentious hearing in which manufacturers and perhaps even fire fighters raise serious questions regarding product safety and at which manufacturers state that their product offerings in California will be drastically reduced. The hearing on this item has the potential to become a huge battle between staff and the affected industry unless staff and industry can come to an agreement that both can live with. Manufacturers Advisory Correspondence Issued to Explain NTE Requirements for 2005–2006 Medium- and Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines On July 15, 2003, CARB’s Mobile Source Operations Division issued Manufacturers Advisory Correspondence (MAC) 2003-02 to provide guidance on meeting applicable not-to-exceed (NTE) requirements for certification of 2005–2006 model year (MY) medium- and heavy-duty Diesel engines. Its primary purpose is to promote consistency with EPA’s approach to implementing NTE requirements, and to provide greater flexibility for manufacturers. The MAC states that it was issued at the request of the Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA). While not mentioned, we believe the MAC implements the terms of a recent litigation settlement agreement between CARB and engine manufacturers under which CARB agreed that engines that meet federal standards will be presumed to meet California standards. Using the European steady-state test cycle, the NTE requirements impose emission caps on engines when they are operated outside the conditions encountered during the federal test procedures (FTP). The need for MAC 2003-02 arises from CARB’s adoption of Page 42 CVS News August 2003 regulations imposing NTE requirements for the 2005–2006 MYs, whereas EPA’s NTE regulations begin with the 2007 MY. According to the MAC, CARB’s 2005 and later NTE requirements are “similar” but “not identical” to EPA’s requirements for 2007 and later. Further, CARB’s 2005–2006 MY NTE requirements differ somewhat from its requirements for 2007 and later MY engines. In particular, for 2005–2006 MY engines, CARB has no specific flexibility provisions, and can grant a “deficiency” only if a manufacturer can show that a requirement is infeasible or unreasonable. EPA has also issued guidance for applying NTE requirements in 2005–2006 as a “screening tool.” With MAC 2003-02, CARB staff is issuing clarifying criteria that it will use during the certification process for 2005–2006 MY medium- and heavy-duty Diesel engines, and expressly states its intention of “harmonizing” with the EPA certification process. Applications for Certification - Under its 2005–2006 guidance, EPA is not requiring exhaust emissions test data showing compliance with NTE requirements, but does ask for a “voluntary” compliance statement. In MAC 2003-02, CARB staff states that it will not require test data, but will require a statement of compliance. Sample wording for the statement is included in the MAC. While test data are not required by CARB, the MAC makes it clear that there must be some kind of “reasonable basis” underlying the compliance statement, such as a “robust emissions map” or a “technical analysis relying on good engineering judgment,” which must be furnished to CARB staff on request. Flexibility Policy - Since both the CARB and EPA regulations for 2007 and later provide for greater “flexibility” in certain cases, MAC 2003-02 announces CARB’s policy of allowing such provisions to apply to 2005–2006 MY CARB certification. CARB will allow manufacturers to exclude specified operating points from the NTE control area, to limit NTE testing in a single defined region of speeds and loads (if the defined region accounts for less than 5% of all in-use operation and the region comprises a reasonable geometric shape), and to exclude EGR operation under cold operating conditions. Manufacturers must provide CARB with all data necessary for evaluation of any compliance flexibility request at least 60 days before certification. In considerable detail, the MAC lays out the data and engineering analyses requirements and conditions for approval of a flexibility request. Also, as requested by EMA, CARB will accept EPAapproved auxiliary emission control devices (AECDs) that are within the scope of the FTP engine operation, but is apparently reserving its right to evaluate them under CARB’s “deficiency” criteria. The MAC confirms that it is CARB’s policy that “an approved AECD is not considered a defeat device.” The staff also commits to providing an initial response to an NTE flexibility request within 60 days, and a final decision within six months prior to production, but asks for early consultation. In justifying the policies announced in the MAC, staff states that it is recognizing the EPA flexibility provisions under authority of the NTE deficiency provision in its current regulations, but then states that the carryover restrictions and the infeasibility/ unreasonableness test that ordinarily govern the granting of deficiencies do not apply. While not internally consistent, this justification is apparently given to provide at least a semblance of regulatory authority for the MAC. CVS News Page 43 August 2003 Analysis In general, this MAC helps manufacturers by providing greater flexibility and consistency with EPA requirements. However, MAC 2003-02 is a classic case of the CARB staff’s modifying its regulations by administrative fiat. While such “informal rulemaking” is not legally permissible, even if it is to implement a court-approved settlement agreement, CARB staff is no doubt expecting that this MAC will be sufficiently helpful to manufacturers that no legal challenge will be brought. CARB Announces Workshop on Amendments to Service Information Rule On July 7, 2003, staff of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) issued Mail-Out #MSO 2003-03, containing notice of a public workshop on August 14, 2003, to discuss existing issues and the staff’s preliminary proposed amendments to the California Motor Vehicle Service Information Regulations. The mail-out states it was issued in part because of a Board hearing scheduled for December 11, 2003, where staff will provide an update on the effectiveness of the service information rule. However, it also indicates that CARB staff is proposing several amendments to this regulation addressing the following matters that will also be discussed at the workshop: C “Harmonizing” the California regulations with amendments recently adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), including improved service information availability via the Internet; and C Applying the provisions of the Service Information regulations to all heavy-duty vehicles (i.e., vehicles with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating [GVWR] of 14,000 pounds or more). Background On December 13, 2001, CARB approved regulations pursuant to Senate Bill 1146 (Chapter 1077, Statutes of 2000), which required motor vehicle manufacturers to make available for purchase emissions-related service information, as well as information that will ensure wide availability of diagnostic scan tools and reprogramming equipment. As reported in CVS News articles in 2001 (in the April, May, August, and November issues), and in January 2002, the regulations are intended to allow independent vehicle repair shops access to the information needed to properly diagnose and repair newer vehicles equipped with computerized engine control systems. The regulations were developed by CARB staff for the stated purposes of preventing unnecessary pollution and assuring and stimulating competition in the motor vehicle service and repair industry. Page 44 CVS News August 2003 As indicated in the mail-out, the regulations address service information in three ways: 1. Motor vehicle manufacturers are required to make available all emission-related diagnostic and service literature (e.g., service manuals, technical service bulletins, initialization information and training materials) in an easily accessible format at reasonable costs. Access to most of this information over the Internet is specifically required. 2. Motor vehicle manufacturers must make available for purchase the same diagnostic tools that franchised dealerships have access to. Further, specific information that can be used to design and market comparable aftermarket service and reprogramming equipment must be provided. 3. Motor vehicle manufacturers must make available basic OBDII system design information to help service technicians understand OBDII system operation, and better ensure that aftermarket parts manufacturers will be able to produce emissions-related replacement parts that are OBDII compatible and effective in controlling emissions. Proposed Amendments The amendments being proposed by staff to harmonize the California regulations with those of the U.S. EPA do not appear to be particularly controversial. Those that appear most significant are listed below. 1. Approved channels for distribution of repair information shall include “intermediary information repositories.” 2. Vehicle manufacturers must include information on monitor-specific enabling drive cycle information for “all major OBD monitors,” specifically including those for the catalyst, catalyst heater, oxygen sensor and heater, evaporative system, EGR, secondary air, and air conditioning system. Applicable monitors for Diesel-powered vehicles are also listed. 3. The date by which vehicle manufacturers must make service information available for vehicle models introduced on or before October 1, 2002 will change to 180 days after October 1, 2002 (i.e., an implementation date of March 30, 2003). Availability of service information for vehicles produced after October 1, 2002 remains as (a) no later than 180 days after date of “introduction into commerce”* or (b) when that information is made available to franchised dealers, whichever occurs first. * As the phrase “introduction into commerce” is part of the amendment, its interpretation could be the subject of some discussion at the workshop. CVS News Page 45 August 2003 4. Several detail changes to the type of information that must appear on the vehicle manufacturer’s Internet website, including the necessity to immediately notify the CARB Executive Officer in the event that postings for “emergency maintenance” are made. The proposed amendment adding heavy-duty vehicles as an applicable vehicle type under this regulation is being made, according to the mail-out, because staff is intending to propose this fall that OBD requirements apply to vehicles with a GVWR of 14,000 pounds or more beginning with the 2007 model year. Thus, should that proposal be adopted, service information requirements for such vehicles will also be required. Analysis As reported in the previous CVS News articles on this subject, and reiterated below, there were two contentious issues that have yet to be fully resolved and are likely to be the subject of more debate than the amendments themselves: passive anti-theft systems known as “immobilizers,” and the handling of information considered to be trade secrets. Under the original staff proposal of 2001, manufacturers, under specific circumstances, would be required to provide to the aftermarket industry the initialization procedures used by their dealerships for vehicles equipped with integrated anti-theft systems (which are typically referred to as “immobilizers”). A manufacturer would be required to provide such procedures when necessary for installation of onboard computers, or repair or replacement of other emission-related parts. It was acknowledged that manufacturers using immobilizers, as well as law enforcement agencies, have expressed concern about theft—if knowledge about initializing immobilizers (including codes) becomes widespread, then the chances increase that the information will fall into the wrong hands. More specifically, remanufacturers of on-board computers claimed they need this information in order to enable bench testing of immobilizer-equipped computers. The regulation ultimately adopted by the Board in 2001 did not contain the informationaccess requirements sought by the remanufacturers. However, when adopting the regulation the Board required staff to submit (at an unspecified time) a further report on immobilizer security. This led to discussions among vehicle manufacturers, remanufacturers, and CARB staff that resulted in several proposed solutions, including a “self-test” feature in computers produced for the 2004 and later model years. No good solution has yet been identified, however, for in-use vehicles. The mail-out indicated that staff does not plan to propose additional requirements for access to immobilizer information, although it does hope that significant progress can be made cooperatively by the vehicle manufacturers and the computer remanufacturers. Extended discussion on this matter is likely to occur at the workshop. Regarding trade secrets, the regulation allows vehicle manufacturers the latitude to organize the information they release in such a way that is not necessary for them to Page 46 CVS News August 2003 divulge specific algorithms, codes, or calibration data considered to be a trade secret. Just what constitutes a “trade secret” and how the law (both federal and state) protects those secrets was the subject of considerable debate prior to and during the December 2001 Board hearing. The constitutionality of this provision was even raised.* While this issue is not mentioned in the CARB mail-out, it is entirely likely it will also be raised at the workshop. CARB Issues 2004 Parts Cost Limit, and Guidance on PZEV Warranty Requirements Under current warranty requirements, vehicle manufacturers are required to warrant high-priced emission-related parts for a period of seven years or 70,000 miles. CARB is required to periodically revise the original $300 replacement-cost level of these parts to keep pace with the Consumer Price Index (CPI). In accordance with this, on July 24 CARB issued Manufacturers Advisory Correspondence (MAC) 2003-03, which identifies the cost limit for high-priced warranted parts for model year 2004, as well as the highest-cost metropolitan area for use in calculating labor costs. As reported in MAC 2003-03, the cost limit applicable to all 2004 model year passenger cars, light-duty trucks, medium-duty vehicles, medium-duty engines, and off-road large spark-ignition engines is $460. (This is a $10 increase over the value that applied to the 2003 model year vehicles, the same level of increase that applied last year.) The MAC also once again identifies San Francisco as being the highest-cost metropolitan area of California, which is the same as in previous years. In determining the total replacement cost of a warranted part, manufacturers are to base their labor rate on their rate in that area (or a comparable alternative area if the manufacturer has no dealerships in that area). As in the past, the MAC reminds manufacturers that they must submit documentation to CARB identifying their high-priced warranty parts list for 2004 model year certification. To determine whether costs have been adjusted to escape the longer warranty period, this listing should include all emission-related parts whose replacement would cost more than $360 (the calculated limit minus $100). The documentation should include estimated retail parts costs, labor rates in dollars per hour, and the labor hours necessary to replace the parts (including standard diagnosis). The MAC notes that manufacturers may include emission-related parts on the list without having to submit the required documentation if the parts have been identified as being consistently above the cost limit. Such parts will remain on the high-cost list until future documentation is submitted showing that the cost has dropped below the identified cost limit. Also included in the MAC is information pertaining to warranty requirements for vehicles for which manufacturers are requesting credit allowances as Partial Zero * See the January 2001 issue of CVS News for details on this subject. CVS News Page 47 August 2003 Emission Vehicles (PZEVs). Those vehicles are required to have defects and performance warranty coverage for 15 years or 150,000 miles, whichever occurs first. The MAC notes that under the amendments adopted by CARB at the April 2003 hearing on the ZEV program, hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) with warranty coverage less than 15 years for the traction battery may, at the manufacturer’s request, be granted conditional certification and PZEV credit allowances. Because these amendments* have not yet received final approval from the Office of Administration Law, the MAC goes on to state that if the amendments are not formally adopted, any PZEV credit allowances granted under this conditional certification would be null and void. Other information in the MAC related to PZEVs pertains to Emission Warranty Information Reports (EWIR) and Field Information Reports (FIR). Manufacturers are currently required to submit these reports for model year 1990 and later vehicles throughout the warranty period, not to exceed the vehicle’s useful life. (MAC 94-06, issued in August 1994, addressed these overall reporting requirements.) MAC 2003-03 states that for vehicles receiving PZEV credit allowances, these reports must be updated for 12 years from the calendar year after the PZEV’s model year designation (e.g., reports for 2003 model year PZEVs must be submitted for 12 years after January 1, 2004; the last EWIR would provide information through the fourth quarter of 2015). After that, no further reporting will be necessary unless CARB requests it. CARB Holds Another TRU Workshop On July 22, staff of the Stationary Source Division (SSD) of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) held another in a series of workgroup meetings, this time via conference call, on an Air Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) to reduce emissions of particulate matter (PM) from transport refrigeration units (TRUs). TRUs are one of many categories of Diesel-powered equipment that have been or will be regulated under the state’s Diesel Risk Reduction Plan (DRRP), which CARB developed after determining that Diesel PM is a toxic air contaminant. CARB’s current proposal includes reducing TRU engine emissions through new engine standards, retrofits, and reduced usage at places where they are found in large numbers, such as food distribution centers. As at past meetings (please see the April and July 2003 issues of CVS News for a discussion of staff’s 2003 activities on this topic), staff presented further revisions to the TRU emission inventory, reviewed past activities, and presented a revised TRU ATCM. The current ATCM proposal harmonizes new Diesel TRU engine standards with EPA’s Tier 4 nonroad Diesel engine standards, shown below in Table 2, which were proposed in May 2003. * to 13 CCR 1962(c) Page 48 CVS News August 2003 Table 2 EPA’s Tier 4 Nonroad CI Engine PM Standards (g/bhp-hr) Model Year Engine Power Rating 2008 hp < 25 25 > hp < 75 2013 0.30 PM 0.22 PM 0.02 PM The CARB proposal also includes provisions that would mandate either the replacement or retrofit of a TRU after approximately seven years of service, despite the engine having met all applicable standards at the time it was certified and sold in California. (CARB staff refers to this as a “retrofit” requirement even though it can in some cases be complied with by purchasing a new engine.) Staff plans to hold the next public workshop on August 26, and the proposed ATCM is scheduled for presentation to the Board at the October 2003 hearing. Workshop Presentations and Discussion CARB was again represented by Tony Andreoni, Manager of the Process Evaluation Section (PES) of SSD’s Emission Assessment Branch, and by Rod Hill, also with the PES. The workshop began with an overview by Rod Hill of the proposed regulation and a summary of the changes made to the proposed language after the last workshop on June 5. Hill briefly outlined the following changes: C CVS News Regarding the “in-use” language: - Removal of the “low-use” exemption. Hill said this was a potential cause for enforcement headaches because it created opportunities for cheating. - Enhanced operator accountability. More focus was put on “operators” rather than “lessors/owners” as it was in the previous iteration. - Low-Emission TRU (LETRU) early compliance, and delayed Ultra-Low Emission TRU (ULETRU) compliance. - CARB identification numbers. Staff said this number would indicate the level of compliance achieved, and would be painted on either the chassis or chassis housing. The ID numbers would be “no cost to the operator,” said Hill, and are intended to help with compliance, which would be done primarily during regular roadside inspections. Page 49 August 2003 C Regarding facility requirements: - Simplified recordkeeping. Staff said it has simplified the recordkeeping requirements that stakeholders previously objected to as being overly burdensome. TRU Inventory - This portion of the discussion was led by Sandee Kidd of CARB’s Planning and Technical Support Division (PTSD), with assistance from Archana Agrawal, Manager of PTSD’s Offroad Modeling and Assessment section. Kidd said the following revisions had been made to the inventory since the June 5 workshop: C Analyzed additional sales data supplied by manufacturers; C Revised population of TRUs; and C Revised growth factors by horsepower groups. Tables 3, 4, and 5 below show the results of these changes. Several stakeholders were particularly interested in the revised growth factors, which Agrawal said were based on actual 1992 through 2002 sales data. One stakeholder complained that they are significantly lower than the previous growth factors, which will make a huge difference over time in the assumed penetration of newer low emission engines into the fleet. Agrawal promised to “revisit” this calculation with that in mind. Table 3 Revised CY 2000 TRU Emissions Inventory (tons per day) Rated Power PM (old) PM (new) NOx (old) NOx (new) < 15 hp 0.10 0.6 1.37 0.84 15-25 hp 0.07 0.04 0.79 0.44 25-50 hp (California) 1.94 1.82 13.66 12.67 25-50 hp (Out of State) 0.64 0.60 4.51 4.18 25-50 hp (Rail) 0.13 0.13 0.92 0.93 > 50 hp NA NA NA NA TOTALS 2.65 2.60 21.25 19.06 Page 50 CVS News August 2003 Table 4 Statewide CY 2000 TRU Population Horsepower Group Old Population Estimate New Population Estimate < 15 hp (California) 7,623 4,623 15-25 hp (California) 3,497 1,946 25-50 hp (California) 24,925 22,772 25-50 hp (Out-of-State) 8,225 7,515 25-50 hp (Rail) 1,678 1,678 > 50 hp 0 0 Total 46,007 38,535 Table 5 Yearly Growth Factors for TRUs for Calendar Years 2003 and Later HP Growth Factor (%) < 15 4.58 15 - 25 3.04 25 - 50 5.20 Risk Discussion - Renee Coad, of Andreoni’s staff, presented the updates to staff’s ATCM development. She discussed the Health Risk assessment and dispersion modeling used in the development of the emission factors, which she said followed OEHHA* Risk Assessment guidelines. There was a fair amount of discussion between the stakeholders and staff regarding some of the assumptions used in the risk assessment calculations, particularly regarding modeling TRUs as area rather than point sources, modeling a 70-year risk for equipment with a 20-year lifetime, and assuming that the average TRU operates 300 hours per week. Several stakeholders seemed very concerned about staff’s methodology, and told staff that they thought this would become a very big issue. Coad then presented a graphic showing the cancer risk associated with five TRUs, with PM emission factors ranging from 0.02 to 1.0 g/hp hr. At a distance of 100 meters from the TRU “area source,” staff’s figure shows that the cancer risk from the highest-emitting engine is 400 in a million, and 10 in a million from the lowest-emitting engine. * Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment CVS News Page 51 August 2003 Cost Discussion - John Manji, also of the Stationary Source Division, discussed the costs that staff had considered in developing this regulation. Manji said the current draft cost assessment is between $3 and $129 per pound of Diesel PM removed. The lower cost estimates include strategies such as the use of fuel-borne catalysts, Diesel oxidation catalysts, and Fischer-Tropsch Diesel blends; the higher cost estimates generally include engine replacements and repowers. Costs related to enforcement of the new regulation were considered, as well as costs to operators and facilities, said Manji. He said staff is still considering an exemption for facilities with fewer than 20 employees or 20 doors, and that the cost effectiveness estimates would improve once these smaller facilities were removed from the cost calculations. Other than asking why staff used the number of doors as a criteria for exemption (which staff said was based on its personal observations of TRU facilities), there was relatively little discussion on this topic. Following an announcement that the next workshop would be held on August 26, the call was concluded. Analysis It appears that staff has at least partially addressed stakeholder’s concerns regarding the costly and burdensome recordkeeping requirements, but the provisions requiring retrofit or replacement of in-use engines after just seven years of service are unprecedented. Given these questions, stakeholder concerns regarding staff’s risk assessment methodology, and the general complexity of the regulatory scheme that staff has concocted, staff’s hope that this item can be presented to the Board at the October hearing may be overly optimistic. CARB Holds Portable Engine Equipment Workgroup Meeting On July 30, in Sacramento, the staff of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) held another meeting of the Portable Engine Workgroup.* Previous 2003 meetings on this item were held in January, March, May, and June (please see the February and July 2003 issues of CVS News for details). Staff plans to continue holding monthly meetings on this topic, with the next scheduled for September 12 in Sacramento. In addition, this item is still tentatively scheduled for presentation to the Board at the December 2003 hearing. The staff members who conducted the July 30 meeting, as well as the previous meetings, are Mike Tollstrup, Chief of the Project Assessment Branch of the Stationary Source Division (SSD), with assistance from Mike Waugh, Manager of the Program * Sierra did not attend this meeting in person; this article is based on conversations with CARB staff subsequent to the workshop. Page 52 CVS News August 2003 Assistance Section of the SSD, Grant Chin of his staff, and Todd Wong, Manager of the Technology Assessment Section of the SSD. The two main topics of discussion at these meetings continue to be (1) regulatory approaches to be used in developing the Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) for portable Diesel-fueled engines; and (2) proposed revisions to the Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) regulation. According to staff, participation in the revised PERP will remain voluntary. However, the ATCM that staff intends to promulgate, which it now appears will be a fleet emission based program, will require the same Diesel emission controls regardless of whether the equipment is being regulated by an air district or the PERP. The fleet-average approach will require that the calculated average annual emissions* from all engines within a given fleet meet a certain standard, and will theoretically allow operators more flexibility than the previously proposed risk-based approach; the risk-based approach limited each engine to a given number of hours of operation per project, and was significantly more restrictive for older, higher emitting engines. At previous workshops, stakeholders have expressed serious reservations about the riskbased approach to the ATCM question, chiefly because it would have required restricted operating time and burdensome paperwork requirements for engines certified to current PM standards. Much of the discussion at both the May and June meetings was related to the practical problems associated with the implementation of that proposal, and by the end of the June 5 meeting, stakeholders appeared ready to consider switching to a fleetaverage approach to PM control—a strategy that was apparently rejected earlier in this process. ATCM Development - At the July 30 workshop, staff unveiled a draft weighted fleetaverage emission approach, which staff said was well received by stakeholders. The weighted fleet-average emission factors are based on hours of operation, engine horsepower, and emission standards for each engine included in a given project. Fleet emission standards are being developed with an emphasis on replacement of current engines with either Tier II or Tier III engines. The draft fleet PM emission target goals being proposed by staff, which differ depending on whether an engine is already part of the PERP program,** are listed below. * An example of staff’s suggested calculation methodology is available on the CARB website at http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/portdiesel/073003/fleetexample.pdf. ** In order to offset some of the cost burden for operators whose engines have not been previously regulated by either CARB or a district (e.g., engines below the minimum regulatory horsepower threshold for a given district), CARB is allowing what amounts to a slightly longer compliance schedule. CVS News Page 53 August 2003 C PERP Registered or District Permitted Engines Calendar Year 2008: 2010: 2015: C $176 hp 0.28 g/hp-hr 0.21 g/hp-hr 0.08 g/hp-hr Engines Previously Exempted from District Permits Calendar Year 2008: 2010: 2015: C < 176 hp 0.5 g/hp-hr 0.4 g/hp-hr 0.2 g/hp-hr < 176 hp 0.6 g/hp-hr 0.5 g/hp-hr 0.2 g/hp-hr $176 hp 0.34 g/hp-hr 0.28 g/hp-hr 0.08 g/hp-hr Engines Without Valid State Registration or District Permit Calendar Year 2008: 2010: 2015: < 176 hp 0.5 g/hp-hr 0.4 g/hp-hr 0.2 g/hp-hr $176 hp 0.28 g/hp-hr 0.21 g/hp-hr 0.08 g/hp-hr Staff said that it has not yet discussed this new strategy with its upper management, but it is confident the general approach will be acceptable. According to staff, the ultimate goal of the program has always been either the purchase of Tier IV certified engines, or retrofit with Level 3* verified technologies by 2020, and that the hourly limit vs. the fleetaverage compliance strategies simply represent different paths toward that goal. Proposed Revisions to PERP - One of the major sticking points for stakeholders regarding the proposed changes to the PERP is that large generators used in certain applications, which are already part of the PERP, will no longer be eligible to participate in the program.** Staff has proposed excluding these generators from the PERP at the request of some local air quality districts that are concerned that the PERP program is being used to circumvent stationary source regulations. Staff says it is trying to revise the proposed language changes to accommodate the concerns of both the equipment operators and district enforcement personnel. * Level 3 verification is for those technologies that achieve at least an 85% reduction in particulate matter or less than 0.01 g/bhp-hr emission level. ** The May 9 handout states that “generators used to power production back into the grid,” and “generators used to provide primary or backup power to a stationary source or stationary equipment, except for purposes of maintenance and/or repair operations, and essential public services,” will not be eligible for registration in the PERP. Page 54 CVS News August 2003 Analysis It appears that a fleet-average emission strategy is less objectionable to stakeholders than the previous approach. Assuming that details regarding emission factors and program participation can be resolved at the next two or three monthly meetings, it appears staff may indeed be ready to present this item to the Board for consideration at the December 2003 hearing, as scheduled. I/M Review Committee Meets On July 22, the Inspection and Maintenance Review Committee (IMRC) met in Emeryville for its eighth meeting under the chairmanship of Victor Weisser. In addition to Weisser, all eight members of the Committee were present at the beginning of the meeting, although Robert Pearman had to leave for a portion of the meeting. Also attending the meeting were representatives of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR), and about 10 members of the public, including representatives of the test-and-repair (T&R) and test-only (T/O) industries, and the Association of California Car Clubs. The agenda for this meeting called for reports from CARB and BAR on the Voluntary Accelerated Vehicle Retirement (VAVR, or “scrappage”) program, an update on BAR’s Consumer Assistance Program (CAP), an explanation of the market for mobile source pollution credits and how they are determined, and a presentation on the joint CARB/BAR Smog Check program evaluation report to the Legislature and the IMRC. As explained below, while these reports and presentations were given, the most significant part of the meeting was devoted to a discussion about the future of the Committee, as a result of the lack of approval of the Committee’s selection of an Executive Officer. Therefore, the following report on this meeting is given in the order of the subject’s relative importance to the Committee and its potential impact on the state’s I/M program, rather than in the actual order in which the subjects were discussed during the meeting. Background Among the duties assigned to the IMRC is the statutory requirement* to prepare or review several periodic technical reports to the Governor and Legislature that are intended to evaluate the effectiveness of the state’s vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program. These reporting responsibilities include the following specific tasks: * Under Section 44021 of the California Health and Safety Code CVS News Page 55 August 2003 C Prepare a report at least once every 12 months on the “performance” of the state’s I/M program. This report is specifically required to quantify both the reduction in emissions and the improvement in air quality attributable to the I/M program. C Prepare a report at least once every 12 months recommending improvements to the I/M program. C Receive and review the triennial Smog Check program evaluation report by CARB and BAR to the Committee.* This task includes a review of (1) the comparison between the actual emission reductions achieved by the state’s Smog Check program to those required under the State Implementation Plan (SIP), and (2) recommendations made by CARB and BAR to improve the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the program, including those addressing any discrepancies between achieved emission reductions and those called for in the SIP. This report was due to the Committee on January 1, 2003. C Receive and review a report prepared by CARB and BAR complying with Assembly Bill 1492 (Chapter 803, Statutes of 1997). This legislation called for CARB and BAR to “design a new proposed program to replace the existing vehicle inspection and maintenance program” and submit a report on the new program to the Legislature by January 1, 2003. The bill further called for the IMRC to review the program and submit a plan for the new program not later than July 1, 2003. The individuals who make up the IMRC are intended to come from a range of backgrounds that allow them to have a good overall perspective of the Smog Check program and the issues it faces. However, it is recognized that the members may not possess the specific skills and technical expertise needed to compile and analyze the data required for the preparation or review of these reports. For that reason, the California Health and Safety Code provides that CARB and BAR shall provide the Committee with any necessary technical and clerical support in its evaluation and study. During the tenure of previous IMRCs, this support typically has taken the form of an Executive Officer position along with at least one full-time staff assistant.** At the January 2003 IMRC meeting, Kathleen Hamilton, Director of the California Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA, the department under which BAR functions), explained that the Executive Officer position is one that requires the approval of (i.e., appointment by) the Governor’s office. As a result, Weisser indicated to the Committee at that time that it could take as much as six months to recruit and secure approval for this position. It was clear to all members that filling this position is essential in order for * Typically this is the same report that CARB and BAR prepare for the State Legislature. ** BAR is currently “loaning” two of its staff to the Committee on an as-needed basis to provide the Committee with essential clerical and organizational support. Page 56 CVS News August 2003 the Committee to complete its statutory reporting obligations. Following the January 2003 meeting, the Committee began the recruitment process to hire an Executive Officer. At the Committee’s May 2003 meeting, Weisser announced that the Committee’s selection process was complete, and a qualified candidate had been submitted to the Governor’s office for approval.* The name of the candidate was not released. During the June 2003 IMRC meeting (as outlined in the July issue of CVS News), Weisser reported that the Governor’s office told him the appointment of an Executive Officer was being held up “for budgetary reasons.” He also said there was also an indication from the Governor’s office that there was some question as to whether funding for the IMRC could continue, given the state’s current budget shortfall. However, Weisser added that Hamilton had assured him that funding for the monthly meetings and related expenses were “solid” and would continue as before. Weisser concluded his remarks by stating that trying to operate the IMRC without an Executive Officer was like “working with one arm tied behind your back.” Status Report on Appointment of an Executive Officer At the July meeting, Weisser reported that the appointment of the candidate it selected for the position of Executive Officer is “caught in the net of the state’s budget impasse,”** and the Committee’s efforts to secure this appointment are currently stymied. He further indicated that once a budget was approved, it could reopen the door for this appointment. However, as it is likely that some type of state hiring freeze will be part of any budget compromise, he is not optimistic that the appointment would be made anytime soon. Weisser also stated that it was clear to him that the IMRC needed the support that would be provided by an Executive Officer in order to comply with its statutory reporting and review requirements, and that it would not be possible for the Committee to meet those requirements absent this position. Weisser reminded the Committee of a comment he had made at an earlier meeting in which he stated he would resign if the Committee could not complete its statutory charges on time. Following his report, Weisser asked the members to indicate what each of them thought would be the best course for the Committee to follow, given the assumption that the approval of an Executive Officer would not occur anytime soon. He suggested they consider at least one of the two following alternatives: C * Do not hold any further meetings, or As reported in the June Issue of CVS News. ** At the time of the July meeting, a state budget—required by state law to be in place by July 1—had not been adopted by the Legislature or signed by the Governor. CVS News Page 57 August 2003 C Meet as they have been doing over their first eight months, in order to become better informed about the program and to take actions that do not require indepth technical analysis. Discussion Richard Scaggs was the first to speak to this issue and stated unequivocally that the Committee should continue to meet. Scaggs indicated that keeping up with developments that relate to the I/M program was essential, and, should the meetings stop, it would be very difficult and time consuming to get back up to speed. Sheldon Kamieniecki said he agreed with Scaggs, but thought the Committee should cancel its August meeting [only] and communicate via email in order to set priorities for the items appearing on the Committee’s Focus and Priorities List.* Judith Lamare supported the comments made by Scaggs and Kamieniecki, and made a motion to cancel the August 2003 meeting. Bruce Hotchkiss, however, wanted to continue with the meetings and would be very reluctant to “give up.” Robert Pearman stated that he agrees with the other members who felt the Committee had made significant progress on several important issues, and it would be extremely valuable to continue with the meetings. However, he did add that a letter from the Committee should be written to the Legislature and Governor stating that the Committee cannot comply with its statutory reporting and review obligations so long as it does not have the staff needed to accomplish these tasks (i.e., no Executive Officer means no reports from the Committee). Committee Action Following this discussion, the Committee voted unanimously to continue with its meetings as proposed by Weisser, and to write a letter to the Governor and Legislature as suggested by Pearman. A second vote was then taken on Lamare’s motion to cancel the August meeting. Following a vote (3 to 3, with Hotchkiss abstaining), Weisser cast the deciding vote in favor of cancelling the August meeting. In order to show a unanimous vote for the record, the three members who voted against the motion then changed their votes to show support. Smog Check Program Evaluation Report Background - As mentioned above, CARB, in cooperation with BAR, is statutorily required to provide (1) a periodic Smog Check program evaluation report to the * A list of 48 tasks or potential issues for Committee action (including those required by statute) identified during this Committee’s first three meetings. The February 2003 IMRC meeting was the last time this list of items was discussed or reviewed. Page 58 CVS News August 2003 Legislature and the IMRC, and (2) a proposal for a new inspection and maintenance (I/M) program to be implemented by January 1, 2005. Both reports were due on January 1, 2003, but have yet to be released by CARB or BAR. The IMRC is required to review both reports in a timely manner, and is further required to submit its own plan for a new I/M program to the Legislature no later than July 1, 2003. However, the Committee has been unable to begin the review process or develop its own plans for a new program because the two reports have not been submitted to the Committee yet, and the appointment of an Executive Officer had not occurred. During several past IMRC meetings, CARB and BAR staff members have cited a range of Smog Check program data in support of their position on various program elements, primarily those related to the supposed benefits derived from vehicles being directed to test-only stations for their biennial inspections. However, it was properly noted by Dennis DeCota at the Committee’s May 2003 meeting,* that the data being presented had been developed for the CARB/BAR 2000 Program Evaluation Report from data accumulated in 1998 and 1999. During the course of questioning by the Committee during that meeting, David Amlin of BAR indicated more recent data would be included in the joint report to the Legislature and the IMRC, and that report was expected to be released in July. As it was rightly felt that the 1998–99 data were no longer representative of today’s Smog Check Program, the Committee has been anxiously awaiting the release of the 2003 report so it could better judge current issues in the light of more recent data. Furthermore, in a letter dated March 26 and addressed jointly to CARB and BAR, John Burton, President pro-tem of the state Senate, blasted the two agencies not only for failing to meet the statutorily required release dates but also for waiting until March 14 to inform the Legislature the reports would be delayed. Based on the urgency of getting underway on the reports, and Amlin’s assurance that the CARB/BAR reports were scheduled for release in July, Weisser invited CARB/BAR to make a presentation on the report at the July meeting. BAR Presentation - Much to Weisser’s and the Committee’s dismay, Amlin began his presentation by stating the joint report has still not been finalized and characterized his presentation as a preview of the still-unfinished study and report. Amlin also commented that his department had been negatively impacted by state budgetary cutbacks, including some individuals that have been working on the report. Since the report has not been finalized, Amlin was unable to present any specific program data or conclusions. Instead, his presentation focused primarily on the methodology used to collect and analyze the data. Thus, the Committee was no closer to receiving the latest program data than it was two months before. Amlin indicated it would be about another two months (sometime in September) before the report would be released. * As reported in the June 2003 issue of CVS News. CVS News Page 59 August 2003 Committee Comments - During the subsequent discussion period, Weisser expressed his surprise and concern that the report was still not available. He and other committee members then asked a range of questions about specific elements of the upcoming report. Amlin’s responses to those questions indicated he was either unable or unwilling to disclose specific data, results, or conclusions that were (or perhaps were not) to be included in the report until such time as the report was released. Included in this range of questions were the following: Page 60 C Weisser and Kamieniecki asked about the status of the RFP for the pilot Remote Sensing Device (RSD) study. Amlin replied that there were some “technical issues” with the contract that had to be resolved before it could be finalized. Amlin declined to indicate the successful bidder, but did state there had been only one bidder. C Covell and DeCota asked if the report would clarify the number of vehicles that are being directed to test-only stations for their biennial inspections. This is a particularly troubling subject for the Committee because it is probably the most volatile issue discussed during IMRC meetings. DeCota was very pointed in his remarks when he correctly stated that the inspection industries have a right to know what BAR considers to be the “testable fleet” upon which the 36% directed rate is based (i.e., what value is BAR using as a denominator in the calculation of the fraction of vehicles being directed to test-only stations—is it the entire fleet, the entire testable fleet, the entire fleet in the enhanced area, only the model years that are required to be inspected in the enhanced area, or some other nebulous number). Amlin reminded the Committee that a significant fraction of the vehicles that go to test-only do so voluntarily. However, he did offer to research and clarify this question for the Committee. C Pearman asked how station and technician performance was being evaluated. Amlin replied by saying this subject was still being studied. C Pearman expressed concern that there was only a single bidder for the pilot RSD program. He questioned the potential accuracy of the results and if they could be influenced by possible prejudices of a single contractor. Amlin replied that the manner in which the RFP was structured precluded the possibility that data could be biased by a contractor. He also indicated that the single bidder was actually made up of several separate companies who would be working under a master contract. As such, Amlin indicated it was felt that the checks and balances between those entities would further assure accurate and unbiased results. C Covell expressed his hope that the pilot RSD project would definitively determine the role of remote sensing in future I/M programs. Amlin indicated this was the purpose of the study, and every conceivable use that remote sensing could possibly play in I/M programs will be addressed. CVS News August 2003 Public Comment - Weisser indicated that scheduling restrictions on the use of the meeting room were such that there was little time left for public comment. As a result, he asked those persons who wanted to address the Committee to keep their remarks brief and to the point, and said that the Committee would record their questions and comments for possible responses at its next meeting. Chris Ervine, Owner of a Test and Repair CAP Station in Stockton - Ervine, who indicated he represents a coalition of test and repair station owners in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley area, added his strong concerns about the 36% rate of vehicles being referred to test-only, particularly in light of his understanding of the law that the Health and Safety Code calls for only 15% of the fleet to be referred to test-only. He stated that his experience indicated 50% to 60% of the testable fleet was being referred to test-only. Ervine also commented that his experience as a CAP station owner contradicted what Michael Lafferty, Manager of the CAP program, had stated during his presentation on the CAP program at the June IMRC meeting. Ervine said that while Lafferty had stated the CAP program made every effort to repair cars to lowest emissions level possible (not just the minimum needed to get vehicles to pass the test), his experience indicated just the opposite—that CAP would not authorize repairs beyond what was needed to pass the test. Randall Ward, Executive Director of the California Emissions Testing Industries Association (an association representing the test-only industry) - Ward reminded Amlin and the Committee that there should be a period of time allowed for public comment on the program evaluation report, as had occurred when the 2000 report was released. Charlie Peters, Clean Air Performance Professionals - Peters posed the following questions on the data collection and analysis methods that are expected to appear in the CARB/BAR report: C Does the Acceleration Simulation Mode (ASM) test procedure used for the random roadside inspections constitute an adequate evaluation of fleet emissions levels, or should some version of the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) be employed? and C Are vehicles tested at the random roadside inspections that have emission levels exceeding the applicable cutpoints required to make repairs and be retested? Len Trimlett - Trimlett asserted strongly that at least 50% of the testable fleet is being directed to test-only, not the 36% indicated by BAR. Other Committee Business As indicated above, the agenda for this meeting called for presentations of reports by CARB and BAR on three additional subjects. However, none of these presentations or reports seemed to provide the type of information the Committee was seeking. This CVS News Page 61 August 2003 resulted in a disconnected discussion by the Committee and members of the public, something that had been avoided by Weisser during previous IMRC meetings under his chairmanship. Presentation by CARB on the VAVR Program - Edie Chang, who handles Federal Liaison for CARB, indicated she was making this presentation on behalf of the person originally scheduled to do so, who was ill. In a briskly paced presentation, she outlined a number of the basic concepts of the program: C Recognizes that older vehicles are a significant contributor to air quality problems, C Provides monetary incentives to retire such vehicles from the fleet, and C Assumes the retired vehicles are replaced by newer and cleaner models, thereby creating fleet turnover that improves air quality. Chang explained there were two programs in the California: one is currently operated by CARB (in concert with several local air districts), and the other is a BAR program that is currently suspended due to lack of funding. She explained that until February 2002, there were a number of significant differences in the two programs. Until that time, the CARB program had more stringent eligibility requirements, the scrapped vehicle was required to have a current smog certificate, the owner was paid between $400 and $500 for the vehicle, and none of the parts could be resold. Conversely, the BAR program was intended for vehicles that had failed Smog Check, required less of the vehicle to be present or in operating condition, and paid the owner $1,000.* In February 2002, CARB modified its scrappage program to “harmonize” with the BAR program, which at that time appeared to be more attractive to potential participants. However, the CARB program still required a longer registration period than the BAR program, the vehicle needed to operate in reverse gear, and some non-emission or drivetrain related parts could be recovered and resold. According to a table presented by Chang, the number of vehicles retired under the CARB program dropped from 6,901 in the year 2000 to 4,028 in 2002,** whereas the BAR program retired about 34,000 vehicles from July 2000 to January 2002. While it is clear the data appeared to show that the BAR program retired far more vehicles than the CARB program, it was impossible to draw a direct comparison between the two programs because the data did not cover the same period of time. * A complete listing of the differences in the two programs appeared in the February 2002 issue of CVS News. ** No data for vehicle retirement under the CARB program were given for 2001. Page 62 CVS News August 2003 Chang also presented a table that attempted to illustrate the emissions reduction benefits from the scrappage program. Those data appeared incomplete, however, and were confusing to the Committee. Presentation by CARB on Mobile Source Emission Reduction Credits - Beverly Werner, a manager in the Regulatory Assistance Section of CARB’s Stationary Source Division, made this presentation. She began by asking a rhetorical question about why someone from the Stationary Source Division was giving a presentation on a mobile source matter. Her answer was that stationary sources can use emission reduction credits from mobile sources as well as from stationary sources, and that the value of the mobile source credits is driven by needs in the stationary source market. Unfortunately, her presentation was rather disjointed and addressed too many stationary source matters that did not appear to respond to the Committee’s need to determine how mobile source credits are calculated and applied, and how their value can be estimated. Update by BAR on Consumer Assistance Program - Michael Lafferty, Manager of the CAP program, made a very brief report to the Committee in which he indicated he had provided the Committee with the following items that had been requested at the June IMRC meeting: samples of program outreach materials, a scatter chart of vehicles repaired under the CAP program by model year, and a schedule of the average repair costs of those vehicles. Discussion by Committee Following the conclusion of the two presentations and the update on CAP, it was clear the Committee and members of the public were struggling to make some sense of what they were hearing. Weisser stated that he was frustrated that the presentations failed to match his expectations, and indicated they appeared to be far too general in nature and did not contain the type of data that could be used to evaluate the benefits of the subjects being presented. As a result, Weisser stated that the Committee needed more factual data on the VAVR and CAP programs, and a better explanation on how mobile source emission reduction credits were calculated and applied. Thus, he recommended that the following courses of action be taken before the next IMRC meeting in September: C BAR and CARB need to do “more homework” in order to provide the Committee with useful data and information, C Lynn Forsyth (a Contract Analyst on periodic loan from BAR to provide organizational and clerical support to the Committee) should compile a list of the questions the Committee and the public asked following the three presentations and report made at the meeting, CVS News Page 63 August 2003 C Weisser and one other member of the Committee (to be named) should review and organize the list of questions with the goal of extracting those that call for responses from CARB or BAR, and C Weisser should be responsible for meeting with CARB and BAR to review the questions that call for a response, and map out exactly what it is the Committee wants to hear on these matters. A motion to take these actions was unanimously approved. Analysis Given the Governor’s unwillingness to appoint the staff needed by the IMRC to complete its statutory requirements, the Committee appears to have reached an equitable compromise to continue meeting, albeit on a somewhat limited basis. Disbanding the Committee would potentially reduce the chances that constructive program changes might be made. Based on the first seven months under Weisser’s lead, this Committee has been far more effective than its immediate predecessor in addressing and taking appropriate action on real issues facing the program. It could prove useful to have the Committee supporting legislative changes that will improve the effectiveness of the program in the future. Moreover, with the statutorily mandated date for a new I/M program only 18 months away, and a proposal from the IMRC for such a new program being a required element of that same law, it would appear likely that the Governor will have to relent on his blockage of the appointment of an Executive Officer sometime in the not too distant future. The failure of CARB and BAR to have the program evaluation report completed by this meeting not only was disconcerting for the Committee but also exacerbated the issue over the fraction of vehicles being directed to test-only stations. Clearly, Weisser was expecting the report to include data that could be used to resolve this question. It is now clear that the fraction of the fleet being directed to test-only has the potential for growing into a significant issue. With prior testimony from numerous test-and-repair station owners strongly stating substantial loss in test volumes, and with member DeCota representing a sizable group of those station owners, this is an issue that is not going to go away. The drop in test volume for test-and-repair stations is a serious economic issue to station owners who need to recover the significant investments they made to purchase test equipment. It is also an issue facing station owners in the Bay Area who are trying to decide if it makes sense for them to invest in enhanced inspection equipment. Page 64 CVS News August 2003 Legislation Update There is very little legislative action to report, as the Legislature has been focused on adopting a state budget and several bills are now being held over as two-year bills. Action in the past few weeks was limited primarily to two bills: SB 656, which addresses measures to reduce particulate matter emissions, passed out of the Assembly Appropriations Committee and is now being read on the Assembly floor; and the author of AB 1390, which proposes tax credits for fuel efficient vehicles, amended the definition of vehicles that would qualify for the credit. Now being held over as two-year bills are AB 1394 (proposing to expand the Moyer NOx reduction program to include particulate matter reduction projects), and both of the bills that had proposed a fee on refineries to pay for various measures: AB 1500 (the Petroleum Pollution Cleanup and Prevention Act), and SB 981 (the Children’s Health and Petroleum Pollution Remediation Act). Details on the above bills, as well as the others we are following, are provided in the summaries below. Italicized bill numbers denote a bill that was amended since our last summary; bills in brackets [ ] will be dropping from our coverage after this month. Following the summaries is a quick guide to the status of each bill. AB 740 (Pavley) - This bill is titled the Clean Air, Clean Water, and Coastal Protection Act of 2004. If enacted, it would place a $2.9 billion bond act on the state ballot to finance programs in the areas of air and water quality, and coastal protection. If the proposed bond act were then approved by the voters, $200 million would be made available to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for the existing Carl Moyer NOx reduction program, and $100 million would go to CARB to provide grants to replace older schoolbuses. Another $100 million would be available for appropriation to CARB for grants and loans to reduce air pollution from agricultural sources, including replacement of engines and equipment, and support for equipment that would reduce agricultural burning and reduce air pollution (e.g., tillage or fertilizing practices). The largest outlay under the air quality section of the bill would go for incentives for the early establishment of a hydrogen fuel infrastructure, for which $500 million would be appropriated. CARB, in consultation with the California Energy Commission (CEC) and various stakeholders, would be required to prepare a report to the Legislature outlining a plan to use the authorized funds to “encourage the earliest practical, cost effective, large scale inclusion of hydrogen fueled vehicles into the California vehicle market” and for “projects that may be needed to promote the early commercial introduction of hydrogen fueled vehicles in California.” The bill specifies that the plan should consider funding subsequent infrastructure development through revenue bonds financed by a tax on hydrogen. No money would be appropriated under this section until the required plan had been submitted to the Legislature. The remaining monies would go for projects related to water quality ($500 million), watershed management ($500 million), river parkway projects ($300 million), and CVS News Page 65 August 2003 protection of marine resources ($700 million). The bill includes an urgency statute so that it would take effect immediately if approved. The bill is currently on suspense in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. AB 1390 (Ridley-Thomas) - Under this bill, sponsored by the International Truck and Engine Corporation, a new section would be added to the tax code that would grant a tax credit for the purchase of a new “fuel efficient vehicle.” The proposed tax credit is 20 percent of the purchase cost, with a cap of $2,000. To address budget concerns, the bill specifies that the credit would be allowable only for years in which the Department of Finance projects that state revenues will exceed expenditures, and includes several criteria for the Department to consider in makings its projections. (Providing large tax subsidies for the purchase of vehicles with higher fuel economy may be in conflict with federal law preempting states from adopting standards relating to fuel economy.) The credit would apply to new vehicles purchased beginning or after January 1, 2004, and before January 1, 2008. The previous version of the bill specified that to qualify as a “fuel efficient vehicle” and be eligible for the credit, the vehicle must operate on a nonpetroleum-based alternative fuel (e.g., electricity, ethanol, LPG) or have a fuel economy rating at least 35 percent higher than the average fuel economy rating (miles per gallon) for that particular CALCARS* vehicle class (vehicles with a combined fuel economy of less than 21 miles per gallon would not qualify), when compared to the 2003 model year vehicle in the same CALCARS class. The author amended this in July, however, deleting the reference to alternative-fuel vehicles, deleting the specification for comparison with the 2003 model year for comparison, and specifically including vehicles “whose fuel economy is calculated in kilowatt-hours per 100 miles” (i.e., electric vehicles). In deleting the 2003 model year comparison, the author also reinstated a previous requirement that the California Energy Commission annually calculate the average combined fuel economy for each CALCARS class. The bill continues to specify that the CEC calculate the combined fuel economy for a qualifying vehicle based on an assumed split of 55% city mileage and 45% highway mileage. Another requirement for eligibility is that the vehicle must have been continuously registered in California (from the date of purchase to the last date of the taxable year) to the taxpayer claiming the credit. The amount of credit would be reduced by the corresponding amount of any other incentive rebates or credits provided by CARB or other state or local agencies for the purchase of fuel-efficient vehicles, and the length of time over which the credit could be carried forward to another tax year would be limited to the next year and five succeeding years. The bill is being held under submission in the Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation. * CALCARS refers to the predictive model (California Conventional and Alternative Fuel Response Simulator) used by the California Energy Commission to forecast the penetration and use of conventional and alternative-fuel vehicles. Page 66 CVS News August 2003 [AB 1394 (Levine) - This bill contains several statements of legislative findings regarding Diesel particulate matter (PM) emissions, particularly from older vehicles, with the conclusion that it is in the public interest to replace older, higher-polluting heavyduty Diesel (HDD) trucks with newer, lower-emission vehicles. In accordance with that, the bill would expand the Carl Moyer NOx reduction program to include projects that reduce PM emissions. Under the bill, by July 1, 2004, CARB would be required to assess HDD retirement programs, and revise the Moyer program guidelines by January 1, 2005, to include PM emission reduction projects. The bill specifies that for projects to be eligible, the local air district in which the project would be located must have identified areas (both geographic areas and industrial sectors) within the district where retirement programs offered the greatest emission-reduction potential, conducted outreach efforts to vehicle owners and potential purchasers, and have established a broker (either the district itself, or a separate authorized entity) to receive donated vehicles and facilitate transactions. The bill would require CARB to set the cost-effectiveness criterion for the projects (NOx reduction projects must meet a cost-effectiveness standard of at least $12,000 per ton of NOx reduced). The bill had been scheduled to be heard in the Senate Transportation Committee in early July, but that hearing was cancelled. It is now being held over as a two-year bill.] [AB 1500 (Diaz) - Sponsored by the Sierra Club and Environment California (formerly the environmental branch of CalPIRG, the California Public Interest Research Group, a Nader organization), this bill would be known as the Petroleum Pollution Cleanup and Prevention Act. Under this bill, a fee of $1 per barrel of crude oil received at a refinery in California would be imposed, and the California Energy Commission (CEC) would be required to determine the amount of crude oil refined into petroleum products other than Diesel fuel and the amount refined into Diesel. Funds based on the amount refined into Diesel would be allocated to Diesel emission reduction programs, including the Carl Moyer program and CARB’s Lower-Emission Schoolbus program. Based on the amount refined into non-Diesel products, the monies would fund two accounts to be created by the bill: the Petroleum Pollution Remediation Account, which would receive 15% of the non-Diesel funds; and the Petroleum Pollution Prevention and Clean Transportation Account, which would receive the remaining 85%. The Remediation Account would support activities related to remediation of soil and water contamination. Funds in the Prevention and Clean Transportation Account would be divided into two allocations: 10% would go to the CEC for incentives for low-emission and alternative-fuel vehicles; fuels research and development; and infrastructure development for alternative-fueled vehicles, particularly, as specified in the bill, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. The other 90% of the funds would go to the California Department of Transportation for a variety of projects related to such things as greenhouse gas reduction, improved access to public transit, and land use planning projects that discourage sprawl. The bill is now being held in the Assembly Transportation Committee as a two-year bill.] CVS News Page 67 August 2003 SB 656 (Sher) - This bill is focused on reducing particulate matter (PM) emissions from stationary, area, and mobile sources. Regarding mobile sources, the bill acknowledges that CARB has already adopted a Diesel risk reduction plan to reduce Diesel PM, but states that it is necessary to ensure prompt implementation of the plan. CARB, in conjunction with the local air districts, would be required by January 1, 2005, to prepare and adopt a list of all “readily available, feasible and cost-effective measures” for reducing PM10 and PM2.5 from Diesel engines used in stationary and mobile applications. These should include measures to retrofit and replace heavy-duty engines, provide incentives in local government solicitations for use of lower-emitting heavy-duty vehicles and equipment, establish heavy-duty vehicle idling restrictions, use ultra lowsulfur Diesel fuel, and provide incentives (and requirements, to the extent authorized by law) for fleet turnover or the “pull-ahead” of new technology. By July 31, 2005, CARB and the local districts would be required to adopt an implementation schedule for the measures on the list that fall under their purview. (A similar requirement would apply to stationary and area sources.) The bill specifies that adoption and implementation should be prioritized based on the cost-effectiveness of the measure and its effect on public health, air quality, and emission reductions, and that there should be integration with the federal planning process for attainment of the PM air quality standard to the extent that it does not delay implementation. Also, the schedule adopted by a local air district should not include any control measure that has already been adopted by the district or is scheduled for adoption within one year of the otherwise proposed implementation date, is substantially similar (as determined by CARB) to a proposed control measure, or for which the district has determined that is an alternate measure that will achieve an equivalent or greater emission reduction and is readily available, feasible, and cost-effective. In the latter case, the district would then be required to adopt that measure. A further provision would allow districts to exempt a stationary source from a control measure if the district determined that the source was already pursuing all “readily available, feasible and cost effective” PM emission reductions via either a market-based incentive program, or an emission reduction credit program (in accordance with present requirements for those programs). The bill passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee without amendment and is now being read on the Assembly floor. SB 701 (Florez) - This bill proposes a $4.55 billion California Clean Air Bond Act for the March 2004 election. If enacted by the voters, the bulk ($3.9 billion) of the funds would go to CARB, in accordance with the specified distribution outlined below. Page 68 C $400 million to the Carl Moyer program to reduce NOx emissions C $600 million to the Carl Moyer program specifically to offset NOx emissions from farm equipment (included in this language is the provision that engines powering farm equipment vehicles of any weight may be eligible, and that the cost-effectiveness criteria otherwise specified in the Moyer program would not apply) CVS News August 2003 C $500 million for the purchase of low, ultra-low, and zero emission vehicles in areas with the most severe air pollution impacts, as well as for the development and purchase of propane motor fuel technology C $500 million for programs related to agricultural waste (e.g., agricultural waste chipping) C $400 million to grants to local air districts or other agencies for technologies and conservation management plans focused on improving air quality, environmental protection, and agricultural production C $300 million to local air districts for emissions monitoring and heath and environmental assessment C $500 million for asthma-related projects C $300 million for bus retrofit and fuel projects, including engine retrofit or replacement programs for schoolbuses and transit buses, and refueling infrastructure projects C $400 million for CARB’s Innovative Clean Air Technology Program Of the remaining funds, $400 million would go to the Department of Agriculture for programs related to animal operations, and $250 million would go to the Department of Conservation for allocation to the California Farmland Conservancy Program and/or the Williamson Act. The bill passed the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality in early July and was referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee. SB 708 (Florez) - This bill addresses vehicles cited for excessive smoke emissions, proposing to increase the fines for second and subsequent violations (from the current range of $100–$250 to $135–$285), and allow low-income owners of smoking vehicles to participate in the current repair assistance program available for vehicles that fail a Smog Check inspection. (These vehicle owners would be eligible for participation only if their vehicle failed a Smog Check inspection after receiving a smoking-vehicle notice.) In addition, the bill would allow counties to establish combined sobriety and vehicle smoke inspection checkpoints, and would designate a portion of the fines revenue to the counties. The bill is currently in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. SB 709 (Florez) - This bill would authorize the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) to adopt a variety of vehicle and fuels-related programs, and to require the District to impose fees on area-wide or indirect emissions sources to cover the cost of programs related to those sources. It also would authorize the District CVS News Page 69 August 2003 to impose a one-dollar vehicle registration fee to fund vehicle emission reduction programs (including subsidies for vehicle purchases), and grant the District the discretion to exempt zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) or partial zero emission vehicles (PZEVs) from the fee. The bill grants the SJVUAPCD the authority to adopt rules and regulations for vehicle and/or fuel-related programs that promote the use of cleaner-burning alternative fuels, and encourage and facilitate commuter reducer programs, and require employers with at least 100 employees to establish such a program. In addition, the District would be authorized to impose requirements for best available control technology and best available retrofit control technology, and would be required to expand its small business office to provide information and assistance to businesses and farmers. The District would also be required to establish an expedited permit review process for facilities and projects related to electric or other clean-fuel vehicle technologies. The bill defines “clean fuels” as those designated by CARB for use in ZEVs or PZEVs, including electricity, hydrogen, liquefied petroleum gas, methanol, and natural gas. The bill passed the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources in June, and is now in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. [SB 981 (Soto and Romero) - This bill, titled the Children’s Health and Petroleum Pollution Remediation Act, proposes a fee of 30 cents ($0.30) per barrel of crude oil received at a California refinery for the production of gasoline and Diesel fuel. The money would be deposited into a trust fund to be allocated to participating local air districts based on their share of the state emissions inventory, which is to be determined by CARB and reported to the State Controller. The bill specifies, however, that there should be a minimum district allocation of $250,000. Each district receiving funds would be required to develop and adopt programs to “mitigate or prevent the relative harm caused by diesel and gasoline fuel in that district” that the “district determines have a clear nexus with the relative public health harm caused by the refining and combustion of gasoline and diesel fuels” within the district’s jurisdiction. Projects could include those authorized under the Moyer program, as well as those established under a competitive grant program to fund the intervention, treatment, prevention, and education of sensitive populations with health maladies resulting from exposure to petroleumrelated emissions. Some of the organizations eligible for grants, as specified in the bill, include mobile asthma clinics and asthma research organizations; organizations examining the relationship between air pollution and cancer; organizations dedicated to the treatment, education, or prevention of the impacts of air pollution on the health and welfare of communities; and organizations researching the health effects of air pollution from oil refining and vehicle emissions. The district must also determine that the organization provides health services to children and other sensitive populations for health problems created by exposure to emissions from the refining and combustion of gasoline and Diesel fuel. Page 70 CVS News August 2003 Each district would be required to set funding priorities that take into consideration the project’s cost-effectiveness, the use of new emission reduction control technologies in conjunction with traditional fuels (e.g., retrofits), effects of public health and ambient air quality, and other factors the district determines to be relevant. The bill also imposes several requirements specifically on the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD), the Bay Area AQMD, the Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD, the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD), and the San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD. Prior to adopting any program or spending any funds, these districts would be required to adopt an expenditure plan that includes the expected costs and the qualitative and quantitative benefits of each project, and determine that the projects do not duplicate existing or past programs funded by CARB, the California Energy Commission, or the State Department of Health Services. They would also be required to hold at least one public hearing, identify potential sources of matching funds, establish an advisory group, and prepare an annual report on the program. The bill is currently being held in the Senate Committee on Revenue and Taxation as a two-year bill.] Quick Legislative Reference Guide Bill Subject Status AB 740 Clean Air, Clean Water, and Coastal Protection Act Assy. Appropriations AB 1390 Tax credit for fuel-efficient vehicles Assy. Rev. & Tax. AB 1394 Expand Moyer program to include PM emission reduction projects Two-year bill AB 1500 Petroleum Pollution Cleanup and Prevention Act ($1.00/barrel fee) Two-year bill SB 656 List and implementation of PM emission reduction measures for stationary, area, and mobile sources Assy. floor SB 701 California Clean Air Bond Act Sen. Appropriations SB 708 Increase fines for smoking vehicles Assy. Appropriations SB 709 Grant San Joaquin Valley UAPCD authority for emissions reductions programs and $1 vehicle registration fee Assy. Appropriations SB 981 Children’s Health and Petroleum Pollution Remediation Act ($0.30/barrel fee) Two-year bill CVS News Page 71 August 2003 Rulemaking Calendar Update There is no Board hearing scheduled for August. The tentative agenda for September includes the Air Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) for solid waste collection vehicles, as well as standards for Small Off-Road Engines (SORE). The most recent SORE workshop and the recently released staff document for the hearing are covered elsewhere in this issue. In early August, CARB released its supplemental staff report for the solid waste collection vehicle item, which will be covered in the September issue of CVS News. CARB recently issued a revised scheduled for its upcoming series of workshops related to development of a climate change regulation implementing the requirements of AB 1493. The workshop to discuss Standards and Economics remains set for September 18 in Sacramento, but the discussion of the inventory has been bumped from that workshop (which was previously to run for two days, Sept. 18 and 19) and will now be included in a two-part workshop that will also cover vehicle technology. The vehicle technology workshop that was previously scheduled for October 15 has now been delayed to a date yet to be determined. The remaining workshop, on alternative compliance, has been delayed by two weeks, from October 2 to the date of October 14. As we noted last month, there will be a workshop in El Monte on August 14 to discuss proposed amendments to the vehicle service information rule (covered elsewhere in this issue), and staff had hoped to coordinate this with a workshop on On-Board Diagnostics (OBD) for heavy-duty vehicles. Subsequent to our publication last month, staff did issue a notice for a workshop on August 13. That, however, was later postponed to September, with a specific date not yet set. Staff did release the draft staff report and regulation, which will be covered in our next issue. Also in August will be a meeting of the Zero Emission Vehicle Stakeholder Outreach group and the next in the series of workshops on Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs), as well as a symposium sponsored jointly by CARB and the California Energy Commission to discuss the benefits of and issues related to alternative Diesel fuels. A workshop has yet to be scheduled to discuss the proposed ATCM for fuel delivery tanker trucks, but CARB continues to hope that it can make a November Board hearing. The next meeting of the Portable Equipment workgroup has now been scheduled for September 12. Although a date has not been set yet, staff also hopes to hold the next workshop on the aboveground storage tank (AST) enhanced vapor recovery program in early to mid-September. A revised draft certification procedure has now been made available, and will be summarized in next month’s issue. At this point, staff does not expect to hold any further workshops on its heavy-duty Diesel software upgrade proposal before the final staff report is released in September and the item goes to the Board in October. Similarly, regarding the heavy-duty Diesel truck idling regulation, staff does not expect to schedule another workshop between now and the Board hearing, believing that the final staff report (which will include revised Page 72 CVS News August 2003 benefit calculations) should address the concerns raised at the last workshop and in subsequent written comments. At this point, the item is still scheduled for the November Board hearing, but staffing concerns may result in this being delayed a bit. Consideration of rescinding or amending the Clean Fuels program (under which alternative-fuel refueling stations are to be required once the anticipated number of alternative-fuel vehicles reaches a certain number) has been “put on the back burner” for this year and is not expected to be considered until next year. Also, the heavy-duty Diesel in-use compliance regulation is now not expected to go to the Board until early 2005, so we are dropping both of these from our calendar for the time being, until there is more activity. The following table summarizes the status of the current rulemaking items. Those not discussed above remain on schedule or uncertain at this time. CARB Rulemaking Calendar Projected by Sierra Research Status as of August 2003 Next Action Date of Next Action Projected Hearing Date Model Year or Date of Implementation Amend Vehicle Service Information Rule Workshop August 14 December ? ATCM for Transport Refrig. Units Workshop August 26 October 2004-2009 Portable Equipment Regs Workshop Sept. 12 December 2006-2020 AB 1493 Implementation Subject Workshop Sept. 18 September 2004 2009 ATCM for HDD Solid Waste Collection Vehicles Board Hearing Sept. 25 September 2004-2009 SORE Standards Board Hearing Sept. 25 September 2005-2008 Heavy-Duty OBD Workshop September ? 2007 Adopt certific. & test procedures for AST vapor recovery systems Workshop early to midSeptember December 2006 Fuel cargo tank transfer regulation Workshop September 2005 2006 Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Software Upgrade Board Hearing October October 1993-1998 Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck Idling Reduction Board Hearing November November 2007 ATCM for On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Fueled Public Fleets Workshop? ? November 2005-2011 ATCM for Fuel Delivery Tanker Trucks Workshop ? November ? CVS News Page 73 August 2003 Next Month: Page 74 C CARB/CEC Symposium on Alternative Diesel Fuels C ZEV Stakeholder Outreach Meeting C CARB Workshop on Service Information Rule C CARB Workshop on Transport Refrigeration Units CVS News
© Copyright 2024