South Coast Air Quality Management District
South Coast Air Quality Management DistrictSUMMARY MINUTES OF THE
SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2000
Notice having been duly given, the regular meeting of the South Coast Air Quality Management District Board was held at District Headquarters, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. Members present:
William A. Burke, Ed.D., Chairman
Speaker of the Assembly AppointeeCouncilmember Norma J. Glover, Vice Chairman
Cities of Orange CountySupervisor Michael D. Antonovich (arrived at 9:30 a.m.)
County of Los AngelesCouncilmember Hal Bernson (left at approximately 1:00 p.m.)
Cities of Los Angeles County - Western RegionMs. Jane W. Carney
Senate Rules Committee AppointeeSupervisor Cynthia P. Coad, Ed.D.
County of OrangeCouncilmember Beatrice J. S. LaPisto-Kirtley
Cities of Los Angeles County - Eastern RegionMayor Ronald O. Loveridge (left at approximately 1:00 p.m.)
Cities of Riverside CountySupervisor Jon D. Mikels
County of San BernardinoMayor Pro Tem Leonard Paulitz
Cities of San Bernardino CountyCynthia Verdugo-Peralta
Governor�s AppointeeSupervisor S. Roy Wilson, Ed.D.
County of Riverside
Chairman Burke called the meeting to order at 9:15 a.m.
Chairman Burke presented an
award to Mr. Greenwald in recognition of 20 years of dedicated service to
the AQMD.
Barry R. Wallerstein, D. Env., Executive Officer. Commented that for the last two years AQMD has provided partnership grants to local high schools to encourage student-developed air quality projects. Eight schools completed student-built solar bicycles and electric vehicle projects and competed at the Irwindale Speedway in June 2000, with the girls bike team from South El Monte setting a national record. Several of the vehicles were on display in the lobby at AQMD headquarters. As a token of their appreciation to the AQMD, Mr. Bob Franz, a teacher at Los Altos High School, along with students from Los Altos and Centennial High School, presented to the Board, on behalf of Innovative Schools Advancing Air Quality (ISAAQ), a plaque commemorating the inaugural year of ISAAQ and the 150 students involved.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(B) Amend Rule 1102 - Petroleum Solvent Dry Cleaners
Agenda Items No. 7 and No. 22 were held for discussion.
ON MOTION OF MS. GLOVER, SECONDED BY MS. CARNEY, THE BOARD APPROVED AGENDA ITEMS 1 THROUGH 6, 8 THROUGH 21, AND 23 THROUGH 28, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Burke, Carney, Coad, Glover, Loveridge, Mikels, Paulitz, Verdugo-Peralta, and Wilson.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: Bernson and LaPisto-Kirtley.
ABSENT: Antonovich.
7. Execute Contract for AQIP Proposal Received During Second Quarter of 2000
In response to Mr. Paulitz, Dr. Wallerstein clarified that the recommended funding was for the use of ERCs that had been generated from the curtailment of stationary source emissions under NSR.
22. Final Report of Councils of Governments for Work Performed Under
Memorandum of
Understanding for AB 2766 Subvention Fund
Outreach to Local Jurisdictions
Mr. Paulitz inquired, since the pilot program was successful, if the COGs and AQMD planned to continue providing outreach assistance to help local jurisdictions understand their obligations under AB 2766. He expressed his belief that ARB should provide stricter rules in order to alleviate their concern that local jurisdictions are not using the funds properly. Further, he suggested, since AQMD now has the clean vehicle fleet rules in effect, that the local jurisdictions be encouraged to utilize their AB 2766 funds for either infrastructure or vehicles.
Ms. Lupe Valdez, DEO of Public Affairs & Transportation Programs, responded that staff intends to bring an updated RFP back to the Board at its December 2000 or January 2001 meeting. Dr. Wallerstein noted that as part of staff�s discussions with the COGs on the scope of work, emphasis will be placed on helping with implementation of the clean vehicle fleet rules.
MR. PAULITZ MOVED TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE FINAL REPORT OF THE COGs FOR WORK PERFORMED UNDER THE MOU FOR AB 2766 SUBVENTION FUND OUTREACH TO LOCAL JURISDICTIONS, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION WAS DULY SECONDED.
(Mr. Antonovich arrived at 9:30 a.m.)
MS. LaPISTO-KIRTLEY MOVED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION TO INCLUDE THAT THE AQMD MAKE A POLICY RECOMMENDATION TO LOCAL JURISDICTIONS THAT THE BEST USE OF AB 2766 FUNDS ARE ON ITEMS WITH DIRECT EMISSION REDUCTIONS, SUCH AS VEHICLES AND INFRASTRUCTURE. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. LOVERIDGE, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
THE MOTION BY MR. PAULITZ, DULY SECONDED, TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE FINAL REPORT OF THE COGs FOR WORK PERFORMED UNDER THE MOU FOR AB 2766 SUBVENTION FUND OUTREACH TO LOCAL JURISDICTIONS, AMENDED AS SET FORTH ABOVE, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BOARD CALENDAR
MS. LaPISTO-KIRTLEY MOVED TO RECEIVE AND FILE AGENDA ITEMS 30 THROUGH 34 AND ADOPT THE FOLLOWING POSITIONS ON LEGISLATION, AS RECOMMENDED:
HR 1303 (Camp/Price) � Dry Cleaning Environmental
Tax Credit Act of 1999 SUPPORT and AMEND
Proposition 37 � Two-Thirds Vote Preservation Act of 2000 OPPOSE
THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MS. GLOVER AND PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Antonovich, Bernson, Burke, Carney, Coad, Glover, LaPisto-Kirtley, Loveridge, Mikels (except portion of Item No. 31 relating to Proposition 37), Paulitz, Verdugo-Peralta, and Wilson.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: Mikels (portion of Item No. 31 relating to Proposition 37 only).
ON MOTION OF MS. CARNEY, SECONDED BY MS. GLOVER, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED, THE BOARD RECEIVED AND FILED AGENDA ITEM NO. 35 AS RECOMMENDED.
Dr. Wallerstein commented that as a follow-up to Rule 1191 adoption, staff was directed to report back to the Board within 120 days regarding technology assessment and emissions data. The South Coast Clean Air Partnership (SCCAP), which made the original request to have the study conducted, reviewed the draft report and requested that staff work with them during the next 30 days to include more information in the report. Staff, therefore, recommended that the item be continued to the Board's November 17, 2000 meeting.
Referring to the table on Page 7 of the report, with regard to the CO emissions from CNG-powered engines, Mr. Mikels requested that staff include in the November 17 report a more detailed explanation of the tradeoffs between CO and oxides of nitrogen.
Mr. Dave Smith of BP/ARCO addressed the Board to express support for staff�s recommendation for a 30-day delay.
Agenda Item No. 36 was continued to the November 17, 2000 board meeting at the Chairman�s direction.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Dr. Anupom Ganguli, Planning & Rules Manager, gave the staff report, and noted that copies of an errata sheet containing the following revisions by staff to Agenda Item No. 37 had been distributed to Board members and made available to the public:
- The third paragraph on page 12 of the resolution was revised to insert at the end of the paragraph, "except for proposed amendments to paragraph (b)(2) of Rule 1303 which shall be continued to February 2001;"
- Proposed Amended Rule 1306(d)(3)(C) was revised to read, "This provision is applicable only to relocations on or after
September 15, 2000October 20, 2000."The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard testimony from the following individuals:
TODD CAMPBELL, Coalition for Clean Air and Natural Resources Defense Council
LEE WALLACE, Sempra Energy/Southern California Gas Company
GREG ADAMS, Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
*GREG DANENHAUER, Parker Boiler Company
CURTIS COLEMAN, Attorney on behalf of CMTA Southern California Air Quality Alliance
*JOHN BILLHEIMER, Environmental Reality
*Submitted Written CommentsMr. Campbell expressed concern from the environmental community that switching standards from LAER to BACT for small businesses could impact the advancement of technologies for such applications and create backsliding on emission reductions in the basin. He expressed the Coalition and NRDC's opposition to removing any relocation or adopting any relocation amendments not requiring small businesses once they relocate to go through NSR, because of the potential for environmental justice issues if a small business moves into a community and no review is required.
Representatives from the regulated community commented that the staff proposal to require BACT rather than LAER for minor sources would: (i) provide more flexibility and allow for cost considerations; and (ii) hasten the reduction of air pollution because the current requirements act as a disincentive for facilities to replace older equipment with newer, lower-emitting equipment since the new equipment would have to meet LAER standards which, in many situations, is economically infeasible for minor sources.
In addition, Mr. Danenhauer commented on the need for a stable NOx level for boilers for safety purposes, and Mr. Billheimer suggested that AQMD consider extending the principle of major source/minor source bifurcation to Rule 209 (Permit Transfer and Voiding).
There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed.
ON MOTION OF MS. GLOVER, DULY SECONDED AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED, THE BOARD ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 00-28, AMENDING RULES 1302, 1303, 1306 AND 2000, APPROVING THE BACT GUIDELINES PARTS C AND D, AND CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS:
- The third paragraph on page 12 of the resolution was revised to insert at the end of the paragraph, "except for proposed amendments to paragraph (b)(2) of Rule 1303 which shall be continued to February 2001;"
- Proposed Amended Rule 1306(d)(3)( C) was revised to read, "This provision is applicable only to relocations on or after
September 15, 2000October 20, 2000."
Henry Hogo, Planning & Rules Manager, gave the staff report. Copies of proposed revisions to the adoption resolution and to PR 1196 were distributed to Board members and made available to the public. The proposed revisions to the resolution would add language directing staff to: (i) provide a status report on implementation of Rule 1196 to the Board within six months; (ii) convene a working group to consider inter-regional competitiveness issues pertaining to private sector petroleum/fuel delivery trucks; (iii) convene a public meeting within 120 days to discuss the assumptions used in the risk-weighted emission calculations for heavy-duty gasoline engines; and (iv) conduct a survey, to be completed no later than six months prior to Rule 1196 implementation, of historical local jurisdiction public service contracting activities and potential future public service contracting levels. In addition, staff proposed revisions to subparagraphs (f)(6), (f)(8)(a), (f)(8)(b), and (f)(9) of the rule for clarification purposes.
The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard testimony from the following individuals:
JOHN CLARK, Metropolitan Water District
*PAT CULLEN, California Independent Oil Marketers Association (CIOMA)
*DEE ALLEN, City of Los Angeles
LEE WALLACE, Sempra Energy/Southern California Gas Company
LINDA WAADE, Natural Resources Defense Council
TODD CAMPBELL, Coalition for Clean Air
GLADYS MEADE, American Lung Association
DON BLOSE, American Lung Association of the Inland Counties
ROBERT H. SULNICK, South Coast Clean Air Partnership (SCCAP)
BILL QUINN, California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance (CCEEB)
*DEBORAH KURILCHYK, Southern California Edison
JAMES O'NEILL, Pickens Fuel Corp.
GREG ADAMS, Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
*Submitted Written CommentsThe key points raised during public testimony were as follows:
- With respect to the proposal to consider expanding PR 1196 to include private sector fleets, there is no rationale provided as the basis for including private fleets, nor is there any economic or environmental justification to do so.
- Requested that the Board accept the first proposed revisions by staff regarding a status report on Rule 1196 and other fleet rules to the Board within six months, which would include examination of possible expansion of the rule to other fleets; and requested that the paragraph in the proposed resolution for PR 1196 be amended to delete the paragraph in the resolution directing staff to provide to the Board at its November 17, 2000 meeting a schedule for either amendment proposals to Rule 1196 or new rule proposals that would expand Rule 1196 implementation to private utilities and fuel providers.
- Los Angeles City Council, because of concern that PR 1196, in combination with the previously adopted fleet rules, would create a substantial financial burden on the City of Los Angeles requested that: (i) AQMD and CARB work with the City to identify and secure additional funding sources and investigate their ability to collect regional fees that could be used to help offset the costs of compliance with the rules; and (ii) a report be prepared on whether such authority exists and, if so, how it could be exercised for this purpose.
- The adoption resolution for Rule 1191 included direction to staff to report back to the Board by December 2000 on the possibility of trading purchase requirements among the various categories of vehicles�light duty, medium duty, and heavy duty. Urged the Board to consider adoption of a trading mechanism, if the report concludes it would be feasible, because it could be an important way to provide flexibility in the implementation of AQMD's fleet rules.
- The environmental representatives recommended that the proposed rule be strengthened in three respects. (i) opposed the proposed rule's exemption for fleets for which there is no available infrastructure within five miles, and urged the Board, at a minimum, to include a sunset provision which would end the exemption by July 2004; (ii) public fleets should not be allowed to convert their polluting diesel vehicles to polluting gasoline powered vehicles; and (iii) urged the Board to adopt resolution language directing staff to return to the Board with proposed amendment to the rule to regulate government contractors and other private fleets, and to develop reporting requirements to ensure the public fleets are not avoiding compliance with the rule via contracts.
- PR 1196 should be fuel neutral, which would include low-sulfur diesel as it now includes equivalent gasoline-fueled vehicles.
With regard to expansion of AQMD fleet rules to the private sector, Dr. Wallerstein responded that the City of Los Angeles requested that AQMD move forward in certain private sector fleets, and language to that effect was included in the resolution. However, based on discussion with the California Trucking Association, staff revised the resolution language, as noted above, to add a provision that the Board direct staff to convene a working group to discuss private sector petroleum/fuel delivery trucks and report back to the Board on the results of such discussions prior to initiating any amendments to Rule 1196 or creation of a new rule that would include such vehicles. As part of the monthly rule forecast report in November 2000, staff will schedule a proposal for Board consideration in 2001. Staff believes the first step, should the Board adopt PR 1196, as well as PR 1194 (Agenda Item No. 39), is for staff to complete PR 1195, related to school buses. Staff does not foresee bringing any further fleet rules to the Board for adoption within the next few months, and would recommend that the Board hold a study session to analyze what further work needs to be done, in consideration of the agency's resources, and what the pace of that work should be.
Mr. Broadbent responded that the revisions proposed by staff would address the points raised by the environmental groups. Staff conducted the analysis relative to gasoline vehicles, and found that with respect to toxicity, as well as PM, NOx, and other pollutants, they are equivalent to natural gas, propane, and other types of alternative-fueled vehicles. Therefore, the staff proposal includes gasoline as an option for local cities, counties and other government agencies as they procure vehicles. The environmental community requested more detail on the analysis, which staff will bring back to the Board in 120 days.
Regarding the contractors, staff's proposed revisions to PR 1196 includes a resolution for staff to monitor public service contracting activities, potential future public service and contracting levels as part of this effort, and then report its findings to the Board and make recommendations. Those recommendations would include whether or not staff would recommend to the Board to expand the rules to cover those services. With respect to the issue on lack of fueling infrastructure within five miles of the facility, staff did not sunset that exemption in its proposal. Fleet vehicles are often ordered one or two vehicles at a time and staff did not believe it would be practical to set a specific timeframe or cutoff date; but would rather monitor the situation as the infrastructure matures in the basin.
Dr. Wallerstein noted that as a result of the adoption of Rules 1192 and 1193, more than 20 stations will be implemented in the short term. Staff intends to come back to the Board once there is sufficient momentum that the provision is not needed and request its removal from the rule. In the event the Board wanted to include a sunset provision at this time, staff suggested the addition of the following language to subparagraph (d)(4) of PR 1196: "The provisions of this section shall not apply to subparagraph (e)(1)(D) after June 30, 2004."
During Board discussion, Mr. Paulitz and Chairman Burke expressed their belief that unless there was a sunset date on the five-mile exemption for fueling infrastructure, there will be no incentive for certain jurisdictions to install the fueling stations. With regard to making PR 1196 fuel-neutral, Ms. LaPisto-Kirtley commented that in order for low-sulfur fuel to be a viable alternative, it needs to be used statewide and nationwide, and she hoped that SCCAP is lobbying heavily to make sure that happens soon.
There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed.
Written Comments Submitted by:
Dick Ackerman, Assemblyman, 72nd District, Assembly California Legislature
Betty Putnam, Mayor, City of Santa Fe Springs
Jim McCaslin, MacValley Oil Company
Michael J. Downs, Downs Oil Co., Inc.
John H. Helms, Helms Petroleum Product Company
Walter Burnett, NAFA Pacific Southwest Chapter
John W. Butler, Butler Oil Co.
Warren J. Slodowske, International Truck and Engine Corporation
Barbara Morel, concerned citizen
Thelma Yoosephiance, IMPCO Technologies, Inc.Mr. Bernson expressed support for including the language requested by the City of Los Angeles; including a sunset clause for the five-mile exemption for refueling stations; and expanding the rule to include the private sector fleets. Mr. Mikels suggested that the request by the City of Los Angeles for AQMD staff to work with them to secure and identify additional funding sources not be limited solely to Los Angeles, but be expanded to include other affected parties as well.
With respect to the government contracting issue, Ms. Carney and Dr. Wilson expressed belief that monitoring the situation was not sufficient and that the rule should be expanded to include government contractors.
District Counsel Barbara Baird recommended, since expanding the rule to government contractors would constitute a significant change to the staff proposal, that the Board either carry that issue over to a subsequent Board meeting or have staff come back to the Board at a later date with an amendment to address the issue, if deemed appropriate to do so.
ON MOTION OF MR. BERNSON, SECONDED BY MS. GLOVER, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, THE BOARD:
1) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 00-39, ADOPTING RULE 1196 AND APPROVING THE FINDING THAT THE POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM ADOPTING RULE 1196 ARE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PREVIOUSLY PREPARED AND CERTIFIED PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED FLEET VEHICLE RULES AND RELATED RULE AMENDMENTS AND THAT NO NEW ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT IS REQUIRED, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, WITH THE MODIFICATIONS TO THE ADOPTION RESOLUTION AND RULE 1196 AS SET FORTH IN THE PROPOSED REVISIONS TO AGENDA ITEM NO. 38 AND THE FOLLOWING:
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Governing Board does hereby direct staff to work with the City of Los Angeles and other parties affected by Rule 1196 to identify and secure additional funding sources. In addition, staff shall work with CARB to investigate the authority to collect regional fees, such as the automobile registration surcharge fee, that could be used to help offset the costs of compliance with Rule 1196 and other fleet vehicle rules. A report shall be prepared on whether such authority exists and, if so, how it could be exercised for this purpose."Addition of the following paragraph to the Adoption Resolution:
Addition of the following language to Rule 1196 (d)(4):
"The provisions of this section shall not apply to subparagraph (e)(1)(D) after June 30, 2004."
2) DIRECTED STAFF TO BRING BACK TO THE BOARD AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME A REPORT ON STAFF'S ANALYSIS OF LOCAL JURISDICTION PUBLIC SERVICE CONTRACTING ACTIVITIES AND A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO RULE 1196 TO ADDRESS THOSE ACTIVITIES.
Jack Broadbent, DEO/Planning, Rule Development, and Area Sources, gave the staff report. Copies of the following proposed revisions to PAR 1194 were distributed to Board members and made available to the public:
(d)(6)
Beginning July 1, 2001Prior to January 1, 2002, airport fleet operators voluntarily purchasing a vehicle meeting requirements of paragraph (d)(4) after the date of adoption of this rule may apply for funding to offset the purchase cost, less $10,000, in accordance with paragraph (e)(3).(e)(3)( C) Notwithstanding the provisions in paragraphs (e)(3)(A) or (e)(3)(B), the airport fleet operator shall be responsible to pay for the cost of converting the new rule compliant vehicle to meet applicable taxicab vehicle specifications and all other incidental costs including but not limited to, sales tax on the $10,000 provided by the airport fleet operator, license, and registration fees.
The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard testimony from the following individuals:
ROBERT H. SULNICK, South Coast Clean Air Partnership
1) Expressed SCCAP's understanding that Rule 1194 would include any ULEV vehicle, which would include gasoline, diesel hybrid, or low-sulfur diesel; and commented that SCCAP would support that proposal. If that is inaccurate, however, suggested that PAR 1194 include any technology that would meet the ULEV standard, irrespective of the type of fuel being used.
2) Expressed SCCAP's belief that AQMD's jurisdiction applies to fleets with 15 or more vehicles, and does not apply to single-owner/small business people that join associations of 15 or more.
Noting that this issue only arises in connection with the LAX airport where the taxicabs are organized into associations and cooperatives, District Counsel Barbara Baird responded that there are two statutes in the Health & Safety Code relating to AQMD's authority in this regard. One section of the code authorizes AQMD to regulate fleets which consist of 15 or more vehicles owned or leased by one individual entity. There is another section, 40919, which authorizes AQMD to adopt measures requiring a significant number of low-emission vehicles by operators of motor vehicle fleets. It is staff's opinion, and concurred with by the CARB, that Section 40919 also authorizes the AQMD to adopt regulations for fleets, and it does not require common ownership; it only requires common operatorship. The City of Los Angeles, in both its RFP for the taxicab services and in its regulations defines the association and cooperatives as "operating fleets," and there are various requirements in the city ordinances which impose requirements that assure that this does operate as a fleet.
TODD CAMPBELL, Coalition for Clean Air
LINDA WAADE, Natural Resources Defense CouncilCommented that diesel engine ULEV standards are set at higher emissions than ULEV standards for gasoline engines, and suggested, in order to be consistent with the other fleet rules, that the standards for the taxicabs be equivalent to a gasoline or alternative-fueled ULEV.
ANDREW LITTLEFAIR, Pickens Fuel Corp.
The owner of two natural gas fueling stations at LAX and one at Palm Springs Airport, commented that as a fuel incentive to those affected by Rule 1194, Pickens has offered to sell natural gas at prices about 25 cents per gallon less than gasoline, with a rebate of up to 28 cents per gallon to the taxicab owner, which Ford will recognize as money that can go to offset the vehicle price.
LEE WALLACE, Sempra Energy
Commented that Sempra Energy will continue to seek available funding, not only for this rule but for the other fleet rules that have been adopted, as well as for consideration of the school bus rule which is under development.
CLARKE COOPER, Bob Wondries Ford
Suggested that the Board consider directing staff to determine if there is a mechanism by which Rule 1194 could be retroactively applied to those companies in the basin that have already acquired CNG vehicles.
Dr. Wallerstein responded that staff will make every effort to have funds available for those vehicles purchased after adoption of PAR 1194; however, staff does not believe it would be feasible to make funds available retroactively for all the alternative-fueled vehicles purchased before adoption of the rule. He noted that companies made business decisions in hopes of gaining an advantage over the competition by offering alternative-fueled vehicles.
MS. B.J. KIRWAN, Attorney, on behalf Taxi Franchises, Co-ops and Associations
REZA NASROLLAHY, United Independent Taxi Drivers
AHMED NETTABAI, Independent Taxi Owner Association
ANTHONY PALMERI, Taxi Systems, Inc.Commented that while they disagree with AQMD as to its legal authority to impose fleet regulations on the taxicabs, they decided to work out a compromise with AQMD on a rule that is feasible for the taxicabs in this basin.
There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed.
Written Comments Submitted by:
James W. Embree, Geomatrix Consultants, Inc.
Patrick J. Kudell and Enrique Chiock, American Lung AssociationMs. Carney raised the question of what remedy the AQMD would have if someone decided not to comply with the requirement in Rule 1194 that a vehicle which AQMD assists in funding be used within the district for a three-year period. Ms. LaPisto-Kirtley suggested that the vehicle owners be required to sign a binding agreement or lien to ensure that the taxicab is used within the district.
For clarification, and in response to Ms. LaPisto-Kirtley, staff suggested that the words "alternative fueled" be inserted in subparagraphs (e)(3) and (d)(6) of PAR 1194.
DR. WILSON MOVED TO:
1) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 00-30, AMENDING RULE 1194 AND APPROVING THE FINDING THAT THE POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM ADOPTING RULE 1194 ARE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PREVIOUSLY PREPARED AND CERTIFIED PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED FLEET VEHICLE RULES AND RELATED RULE AMENDMENTS AND THAT NO NEW ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT IS REQUIRED, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS TO THE RULE:
(d)(6)
Beginning July 1, 2001Prior to January 1, 2002, airport fleet operators voluntarily purchasingaan alternative-fueled vehicle meeting requirements of paragraph (d)(4) after the date of adoption of this rule may apply for funding to offset the purchase cost, less $10,000, in accordance with paragraph (e)(3).(e)(3) An airport fleet operator who provides taxicab pickup services at commercial airport terminals may purchase a light- or medium-duty vehicle that is not certified by CARB as ULEV or cleaner if the SCAQMD or its designated agent has not provided sufficient funding to fully offset the purchase cost of
aan alternative-fueled vehicle that complies with paragraph (d)(4) less $10,000 (paid by or no the behalf of the airport fleet operator):(e)(3)( C) Notwithstanding the provisions in paragraphs (e)(3)(A) or (e)(3)(B), the airport fleet operator shall be responsible to pay for the cost of converting the new rule compliant vehicle to meet applicable taxicab vehicle specifications and all other incidental costs including but not limited to, sales tax on the $10,000 provided by the airport fleet operator, license, and registration fees.
2) DIRECT STAFF TO DEVELOP A BINDING CONTRACT REQUIRING VEHICLES ACQUIRED PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (d)(4) OF RULE 1194 TO BE OPERATED WITHIN THE SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FOR A MINIMUM OF THREE YEARS, IF FUNDING TO OFFSET THE PURCHASE COST, LESS $10,000 IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH (e)(3) WAS MADE AVAILABLE.
THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. PAULITZ, AND CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYE: Antonovich, Bernson, Carney, Coad, Glover, LaPisto-Kirtley, Loveridge, Mikels, Paulitz, Verdugo-Peralta, and Wilson.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: Burke.
Carol Coy, DEO/Engineering & Compliance, gave the staff report. The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard testimony from the following individuals:
JEFF JOHNSON, Attorney on behalf of Kaiser Chemical & Aluminum, Pacific Tube Company, Vista Metals Corp., and Scope Products
Disagreed with the recommendation by staff that the Board can make the findings required by H&S Code Section 39616; in particular, the finding that the cost of the RECLAIM program is now cheaper than command-and-control. The $15,000-per-ton cost of RTC credits has been exceeded for more than 16 months, actually initiating the backstop programs. Secondly, costs are approaching the $25,000/ton limit set by the Board in 1993 for calling the program into question altogether. That price raises questions that the actual cost of the RECLAIM program far exceeds command and control because that price was set with the assumption that all sources could install BACT at that point. Suggested that the Board: (i) hold off on ratifying the findings until it gets the legal facts that actually support making the findings; and (ii) appoint an advisory committee to make recommendations within 90 days to solve the problem. (Submitted Written Comments.)
TONY ENDRES, Energy Services Corporation
Suggested that companies that are already at BACT be allowed to either opt out of RECLAIM or achieve compliance by some other method that will not destroy companies. (Submitted Written Comments)
(Mr. Bernson and Mr. Loveridge left at approximately 1:00 p.m.)
There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed.
Ms. Coy responded that staff intends to conduct public consultation meetings to discuss the various options on bifurcating or otherwise handling the RTC issues. Since the current average cost of NOx has exceeded the $15,000/ton backstop measure, staff believes it is necessary to reassess the program adjustments. Staff intends to return to the Board at its December 2000 meeting with a list of options for the Board to consider with respect to backstop measures and rulemaking.
Mr. Mikels commented that given the current information, it would be difficult for him to make the finding that RECLAIM achieves equivalent or greater emission reductions at equivalent or less cost than the subsumed rules and control measures. In addition, with no ASCs yet converted to be used as RTCs, and MSERCs that have been converted to RTCs but no final approval from EPA, he would have a difficult time making the finding that RECLAIM allows the use of emission reductions from other sources such as mobile and area sources.
Ms. Baird clarified that the distinction between mobile source and area source credits is that the area source credit program allows AQMD to send a particular batch of credits to EPA, and EPA can allow use of that particular batch of credits--which it has--but EPA has not approved the entire rule as part of the SIP. The Health & Safety Code Section 40440.1 refers to a market-based incentive program that allows for trading of emissions trading units, which the RECLAIM program does.
In response to Mr. Mikels' question as to what would happen if the Board did not ratify the findings, Dr. Wallerstein responded that the Health & Safety Code would infer that the AQMD is unable to fulfill the number of tons committed through the RECLAIM program to the AQMP, therefore necessitating a revision to the AQMP. Staff does not believe the RECLAIM program is at a point where it is not meeting the AQMP obligation, and believes the type of fine tuning or adjustment that the Board may seek to address the issues raised can be accomplished within the RECLAIM rule without necessitating an AQMP revision.
MS. GLOVER MOVED TO APPROVE THE REPORT ON REVIEW OF RECLAIM FINDINGS; ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 00-31, RATIFYING THE FINDINGS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 39616(c)(1), (2), (5), and (6) and Section 40440.1; AND DIRECT STAFF TO form an advisory committee including INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES RAISED DURING the PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION WAS DULY SECONDED, AND CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Antonovich, Burke, Carney, Coad, Glover, LaPisto-Kirtley, Paulitz, Verdugo-Peralta, and Wilson.
NOES: Mikels.
ABSENT: Bernson and Loveridge.
Mr. Broadbent stated that staff recommended that the Board continue this item for 90 days.
ON A MOTION DULY MADE AND SECONDED, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent: Bernson and Loveridge), THE BOARD CONTINUED THE PUBLIC HEARING ON RULE 1610 TO THE JANUARY 19, 2001 BOARD MEETING.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - (Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items, Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.3)
There was no public comment on non-agenda items.
CLOSED SESSION
The Board recessed to closed session at 1:05 p.m., pursuant to Government Code Sections:
- 54956.9(a), to confer with counsel regarding pending litigation which has been initiated formally and to which the District is a party--the actions are Communities for a Better Environment v. Cenco Refining Company, et al., United States District Court Case No. 00-05665 (AJWx); Engine Manufacturers Association v. SCAQMD, United States District Court Case No. 00-09065 FMC (BQRx); and SCAQMD v. USEPA, et al., United States District Court Case No. SACV 98-9789 (HLH); and
- 54956.8, to provide direction to its negotiator regarding the price and terms for a lease of real property. The property is a portion of the District Headquarters building at 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. The negotiator is Sylvia Oroz. The party to the negotiation is the Diamond Bar Chamber of Commerce.
ADJOURNMENT
Following closed session, District Counsel Barbara Baird announced that a written report of action taken by the Board in closed session would be available for public inspection in the Clerk of the Board�s Office; and the meeting was adjourned at 1:20 p.m.
The foregoing is a true statement of the proceedings held by the South Coast Air Quality Management District Board on October 20, 2000.
Respectfully Submitted,
SAUNDRA McDANIEL
Senior Deputy Clerk
Date Minutes Approved: ________________________
____________________________________________
William A. Burke, Ed.D., Chairman
ACRONYMS
AB = Assembly Bill
AQIP = Air Quality Investment Program
AQMP = Air Quality Management Plan
ASC = Area Source Credit
BACT = Best Available Control Technology
CARB = California Air Resources Board
CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act
CNG = Compressed Natural Gas
CO = Carbon Monoxide
COG = Council of Governments
DEO = Deputy Executive Officer
EPA = Environmental Protection Agency
ERC = Emission Reduction Credit
FY = Fiscal Year
LAER = Lowest Achievable Emission Rate
MSERC = Mobile Source Emission Reduction Credit
NSR = New Source Review
PAMS = Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Station
PAR = Proposed Amended Rule
PR = Proposed Rule
RFP = Request for Proposals
RFQ = Request for Quotations
RTC = RECLAIM Trading Credit
SIP = State Implementation Plan
ULEV = Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle